Eigth and State

^---- I was surprised to learn that even in the glory days of railroads, trucks were an integral part of the transportation network, often delivering freight over city streets between two different railroads.

As I like to say, throughout history some things get better, and some get worse. As a result of freeways, we have access to markets all over the world. What did you eat for dinner today? You might have had beef from Texas, potatos from Idaho, Oranges from Florida, tomatoes from California, seafood from Maine, or Pineapple from Hawaii. Every one of those items probably came by freeway for at least part of the journey. What's the downside of freeways? They consume a lot of land and resources, are noisy, create barriers though neighborhoods, and kill 40,000 people in this country every year! It is more difficult and more dangerous to walk around in neighborhoods than it used to be. So, what's the net effect, good or bad? Some places have done well due to increased access to markets. Some places, particularly urban areas bisected by freeways, have declined due to reduced access to markets.

^----- Talk about Peak Oil, and people will think you are a conspiracy theorist or a nut. But talk about gas prices and you will get their attention.

Cincinnati was the fastest growing city in the nation in 1840, with population doubling every 10 years. The Great Lakes cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit had their day in the 1920's. Today, it's the southern cities of Miami, Tampa, Houston, and Phoenix that are growing. Without going into reasons, suffice it to say that nothing can grow forever in a finite world. The southern cities haven't reached their saturation point yet. The U.S. Census projects that California, Texas, and Florida will each increase by 12 million in population in 25 years. They also project that Ohio will peak in 2018.

Awesome photos. Thanks for posting.

^Excellent post, KJP. I share your views on the "ring of despair." "Where does the price of gasoline fit into this scenario?" Kunstler and others are predicting an end of suburbia. I agree that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable in the long run without oil. But what can we expect to see in the short term, say, the next 30 years? I am led to believe that when KJP's "ring of despair" reaches the 1960's and 1970's subdivisions, we are going to see deterioration on a major scale. Look at either a chart of new home sales per year, or a map showing development by year and you will see that the 1960's and 1970's were the boom years of suburbia. I don't know why that the 1950's homes are called the baby boomer homes; actually, the baby boomers left their parents' houses in the 1960's and 1970's and bought their own houses. The retirement and then death of the baby boomers is going to hit us hard all the way around. So, back to oil: In 1955, young families could afford a new house, two new cars, and 3 or 4 kids. Nowadays, slightly older families are still buying the new house and two new cars, but they aren't having as many kids. They say that it costs $100,000 to $300,000 to raise a child these days. Split over 18 years, that's about $5,000 to $15,000 a year. So, which would you rather have, a kid or a car? Despite what people say about having kids, the fact is that car ownership per capita is still rising while the birth rate is dropping. In the face of higher oil costs, people apparently are choosing to maintain their present lifestyle, except have fewer children. Fewer children this year means fewer families 20 years from now. And so, the population is about to start dropping. There were fewer children born this year than last year, with no signs of that trend reversing. In fact, the only reason our population is growing at all is because our death rate is low: old people are getting older instead of dying. This won't last forever, of course. The U.S. Census is projecting a peak in Ohio population in 2018, a fact that I keep mentioning on this board but no one seems to believe it. The other conclusion is that while family size is shrinking, the number of people per house is shrinking. If your community had 10,000 houses with an average of 5 people per house in 1955, and you still have 10,000 houses but with an average of 4 people per house in 1995, you lost 10,000 people, or 20% of your population, in 40 years. Did the local grocery store lose 20% of it's business? How about the local roller rink or movie theater? As for commuting to the city, remember that businesses are moving out as well. So, in the face of declining oil supplies, people can still commute to work from the exurbs. Instead of driving downtown, they are driving to the outer ring. I honestly can't predict how all of this will turn out, but I expect big changes!

I hate to break it to you folks, but I think you ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until 2030..... :-o

I would also add that the name "Over the Rhine" refers to the north and east side of the former Miami and Erie Canal, which was locally known as "the Rhine." The canal has been replaced by Central Parkway, which is still considered the border of the Over the Rhine neighborhood.

Just one note about the big yard comment: It seems that suburbanites want new houses, as opposed to pre-owned ones. This is similar to the want of new cars, new clothes, etc. In all fairness, new homes generally are better insulated, have more parking space or garage space, are laid out inside for entertainment centers, refrigerators, computers, and have many other advantages that older houses do not have. In general, the new houses are found in the suburbs, and they also come with yards. Yes, there are new houses in the city, but they are few. Could it be that the new construction is just as important or more so than lot size?

"If you want to make enemies, try to change something." - Woodrow Wilson

Please allow me to be bold here. I just got back from a suburban shopping area. Unfortunately, it is a sea of parking lots and I spent a lot of time sitting in traffic. I made two stops: a gym and a furniture store. The suburban shopping area is doing well. There is lots of traffic everywhere, the stores are all occupied, and people seem to be happy generally. There is all kinds of activity going on, from retail to fast food to mid-price restaurants and just about anything else you can think of. Why can't downtown be like that? Or, conversly, what is it about the suburbs that the urbanists on this board hate so much? This is a simplification, but it is all about the cars. Downtown simply doesn't have the parking to compete with the suburbs. Once upon a time, people lived downtown, and walked. In another era, they rode the streetcar. Nowadays, people can't even get out of their own subdivisions without driving. There are a few reasons why downtowns survive at all: 1. Pure momentum. Some businesses never left, in particular government offices, which in turn retained the law offices and banks. 2. The streetcar system survived, albeit on a smaller scale with a government subsidy and in the form of busses, making it practical for at least some people to follow the old streetcar model. 3. Large companies that want a large office building find a solution in the skyscraper, which can only be built downtown, in part due to available fire protection, and also to be included in postcard views. Other than those general reasons, there really is no reason for anyone to go downtown in the automobile age. Planners have tried to "attract" more people downtown by building convention centers, stadiums, etc., but the required parking only transformed part of downtown into suburbia. I went to Wal-mart one night (I know, I know, but it was the only thing open at 11:00 p.m.!) and marvelled at how many people there were. If only downtown businesses had that much vitality! In my humble opinion, festivals, upscale shopping, art musuems, and so on have their place downtown, and the architecture is an attraction too. But, how can I say this without offending people? What downtown needs is a Wal-mart, fast-food, residences, a grocery store, hardware store, movie theatres, lots of housing, good schools, and every thing else that is found in the suburbs, and it all needs to be accessible without cars. Is that possible? I don't know. But what I DON'T see downtown needing is more museums, upscale shopping, convention centers, theatres, etc. Downtown already has those things, and they are not working. I don't like the downtown vs. the suburbs mentality. The bottom line is that people go where the transportation is. If people have to drive just to get out of their own subdivision, then they are going to need a place to park at the other end. It's all about the cars. Downtown already has a lot of parking. Adding more parking to downtown will just make it more suburban. I don't know if there is a solution. That said, downtowns are not as bad as they are made out to be, and the suburbs aren't that bad either. It's just frustrating to be sitting in traffic surrounded by a sea of parking lots when I would rather be window-shopping downtown on my way home from work. Walking cities are more comfortable and interesting than driving cities. Sorry about the rant. Thanks for reading.

It seems that in the age of coal smoke, hospitals tried to locate away from core areas to get away from air pollution. Cincinnati used to have a major hospital downtown, next to the present Music Hall. Then again, Cincinnati used to have almost everything downtown.

Rob is right about "CUT": it stands for Cincinnati Union Terminal. I am not familiar with that particular sign but it matches the style of other infrastructure related to the CUT and probably directs train engineers to the right track in an area that is congested with confusing trackwork.

It is the remnants of a railroad station on the Little Miami Railroad. The Little Miami Railroad was Cincinnati's first railroad. It ran from a station near present Bicentennial Park along the Ohio River to the confluence with the Little Miami River. It then turned north along the Little Miami until it finally left the Little Miami River Valley and headed to Xenia. It was built around 1839. It eventually became part of the Pennsylvania (PRR) system. Between Bicentennial Park and Mariemont it is still in operation, but is lightly used. Between Mariemont and Milford (roughly) it is abandoned. Between Milford and Xenia it has been converted into a bicycle path, also known as the Loveland Bike Path. Due to the grades, the station at Torrence was a little unusual. There was a bridge connecting the main building on the downhill side of the tracks to the street on the uphill side. There is more info including photos on Jeff Jakucyk's site: http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/index.html#0.html

Remember John Kerrys campaign speech? "20% of all manfacturing jobs lost were in Ohio." Ohio lost the most jobs because Ohio had the most jobs. Actually, I think that particular line hurt him here. No one wants to hear bad news, and he didn't offer any alternatives.

Have never heard of them. It looks like they offer two books and a set of maps for sale.

I didn't know there were two John Cleves Symmes. One, the judge, was the purchaser of the Land between the Miamis, also known as the Symmes Purchase. The other, his nephew, was the hollow earth guy. I learned something new today. Thanks!

Urban renewal of the 1920's usually resulted in something BIGGER than what was there before, and often had a rail component. Urban renewal of the 1940's and 1950's usually resulted in something with similar or even less density, usually with lots of space for automobiles. For another perspective, read "The Railroad and the City" by Carl Condit. He describes at length the railroad situation in Cincinnati prior to the construction of Cincinnati Union Terminal. There were 7 railroad stations. He argues that the 7 stations were easier to use than the Cincinnati Union Terminal that replaced them.

Numerous surveys have revealed that the lack of parking is the number one reason why people don't shop downtown. Crime, or the perception thereof, is second. People view their cars as a door-to-door service. If they can't park within sight of the door, they will go somewhere else where they can. It's strange, but true.

"Unfortunately there does seem to be a huge disconnect between the surburbs and the city there.." There is a whole generation that has never been to the core city. Sure, they have been to a Reds game, or to the Museum Center, or the zoo, and driven by on I-75 countless times, but other than that have never had a reason to go to the city. They grew up in the suburbs, shop in the suburbs, and work in the suburbs. If they can't drive there and find a parking space, they won't go there. "Are the suburbanites uneasy because of a real violent crime problem, or just because the majority of the faces they see are black?" Both. However, while there are some racial and crime issues, in my opinion the biggest issue is transportation. Suburbanites want to drive, not walk. "I never felt like someone was going to carjack me..." I did. I had a guy on Vine Street stick his head and arms in my car window. I started rolling the window up and was about to drive into cross-traffic and take my chances. Fortunately, he backed out. It was scary. I don't have a nice way to say it - there are some crazy people there.

Excellent map. Thanks for posting. It would be interesting to compare with previous years. It should also be noted that the measurement is housing units, not population. Abandoned houses count. Buildings other than houses don't count at all. So, highway-related sprawl, with fast food, gas stations, and so on, does not show up as well as in other images.

I've paid attention to bus operators and they seem to do the job effectively. I see them pushing a lever on the farebox; I assume that is a counter. That said, I've seen people cheat by sneaking in the back door at crowded bus stops. They neither paid nor were counted.

"Schock said the cost per square foot to renovate would be higher than building a new building per square foot" But would the quality of the new building be the same? I hope he is not comparing a typical office building to a courthouse.

Is this a surprise? Like the table shows, the reserve numbers have been suspect for years. I think the experts have already taken this into account when forecasting the peak date. The actual peak date is just a mathematical curiosity, anyway. We probably won't know for sure that it happened until 10 years later. One expert is sticking to his estimate that oil production peaked in 2005. Still interesting, though.

I have the poster size version of that map. It was originally published around 1920. Notice that all of Ohio was laid out in some version of a rectangular, checkerboard pattern except the Virginia Military District.