It's generally assumed that you can predict where a neighborhood will make great progress based on the number of gay people moving in, but is it as much of an indicator as many urban thinkers would expect? The 2005-2009 census map for % of same-sex couples in Columbus alone revealed some surprising numbers. A census tract comprising the majority of Italian Village is at 8%, which is a given since the Short North is right there.

 

 

What's surprising is that Victorian Village, Harrison West, Dennison Place, and the Peach District was much lower with 1/3 of the tracts there at 2% and the rest at 3%. Contrast that to the Near South between I-70 & Thurman and Parsons & Lockbourne where half of that area shows almost double their numbers at 5%.

 

 

Can't say I'm that surprised since there are plenty of gorgeous brick homes and they're much cheaper than OTE, but the commercial streets are still 100% hood, ie little to no improvement for the casual observer compared to Merion Village which is 6% on average just southwest of here where great strides have been made in revitalization. The central part of the Hilltop is another surprise, as is a random high percentage over in a small part of the Far East side (why anyone regardless of sexual orientation would want to live there is a head scratcher, and I say that as someone who lived there for a good chunk of my childhood and would never ever return, just yuck). The correlation between a high gay population and urban revitalization doesn't seem to be so cut and dry with the stagnant or declining nature of some of these areas. Of course, this could be due to these higher concentrations being a recent phenomenon needing more time before significant changes take place.

 

 

In Cincinnati, the southwest quarter of OTR is at 5%, while same-sex couples in  the area east of Sycamore and north of E Liberty (Mt. Auburn?) is at a whopping 9%. My impression is that Mt Auburn wasn't in great shape, but I wonder if that's changing. The up and coming neighborhood of Northside has the highest number in its eastern half at 4%, while the East End is at 5%.

 

 

Cleveland has a few dense pockets in the east side of the city: two with 4% and 5% in Glenville (of all places) off of MLK Jr Blvd and a part of South Broadway at 5%. The west side definitely has more: a section of Ohio City at 4%, Edgewater at 5%, and the southeast corner of Clark-Fulton, though only out of a total of 203 households those with same-sex couples make up 11%, which is way above average. Neighborhoods I thought would have shown the highest concentrations, such as Tremont and Cleveland Heights, did not.

 

With this information it'll be interesting to see what the effects might be on some of these neighborhoods, if there are any, and if they will correlate with these dense population clusters.

That part of Mount Auburn you are referring to is Prospect Hill area and it is quite gentrified.  So that is no surprise.  This is all very interesting though.  Thanks for this post. 

The Gay/Bohemian index is one of Richard Florida's indicators for harnessing the creative class, which is, in essence, the presence of a gentrified city, so there is definitely literature to back up the connection beteen the LGBT communities and urban revitalization.

Interesting map.  Do I see some kind of mecca in/near Tremont ;)

Interesting map.  Do I see some kind of mecca in/near Tremont ;)

 

I thought the same thing for a moment but upon close inspection it seems that dark splotch is the census tract down around and including MetroHealth MC.  All of Tremont's tracts list as 0%.

Interesting map.  Do I see some kind of mecca in/near Tremont ;)

 

I thought we had established that is determined by the number of amenities.

There is a high correlation between the densest populated areas and gay-oriented businesses; the latter hints at the former, hence why those amenities are located in neighborhoods like Northside and not random places like West Chester.