I've been exploring the 2004 census estimates and they are very interesting to say the least. A lot of changes are going on in Ohio. What struck me as most interesting was how quickly the demographics of our cities are changing (basically, fewer white folks):

 

Columbus

Population: 700,874

White: 63.7%

Black: 28.3%

Asian: 4.3%

Other Race: 1.5%

Two or more races: 1.8%

Hispanic/Latino: 3.3%

 

Cleveland

Population: 417,872

White: 37.6%

Black: 55.1%

Asian: 1.2%

Other Race: 4.8%

Two or more races: 1.2%

Hispanic/Latino: 7.7%

 

Toledo

Population: 305,652

White: 67.3%

Black: 24.6%

Asian: 1.5%

Other Race: 3.5%

Two or more races: 3.0%

Hispanic/Latino: 6.8%

 

Cincinnati

Population: 289,628

White: 53.3%

Black: 41.4%

Asian: 1.9%

Other Race: 0.2%

Two or more races: 2.9%

Hispanic/Latino: 1.4%

 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US39&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US39%7C16000US3921000&_street=&_county=Dayton&_cityTown=Dayton&_state=04000US39&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

 

 

 

wow Columbus is quite the white mecca too...

 

Pitts and Cincy under 300k??  thats depressing

I agree that less people generally live in condos than in houses, but when you build new 10-story apartment and condo buildings on a previously empty lot, how does that thin-out the population?  I think the Census, like everything else in the government, is tragically influenced by politics.  Namely, the "American Dream" line of BS. 

Okay, I stand corrected.  Temporary brain fart. 

 

Now I'll shamefully delete my posts, although I still don't trust the Census numbers.

Cincinnati dropped from 331,285 to 289,628 in four years?  13% decline, in four years?  That seems insanely high...I mean, I know we're hemorrhaging people, but wow, if those estimates are right, that's just insane...

Something has gone terribly wrong when a metro area of over 2million has a city population of 289k people in 78 miles squared...that just doesn't make any damn sense. We have all this new development going on in the city. Pretty soon West Chester wil annex us.

Cincinnati dropped from 331,285 to 289,628 in four years?  13% decline, in four years?  That seems insanely high...I mean, I know we're hemorrhaging people, but wow, if those estimates are right, that's just insane...

And hasn't real estate shot up 20 something percent in the last like 5 years? How does real estate go up so much when you supposedly have everyone selling and no one buying? Makes no damn sense.

How does real estate go up so much when you supposedly have everyone selling and no one buying? Makes no damn sense.

 

Exactly, which is why I don't believe DC lost 54,000 people in 4 years, or any of the other numbers for that matter.

If those population figures are right (and I have no reason to belive they arent) Toledo would be the only city (pending Dayton and Akron of course) to have gained in population. I was certain Toledo would drop below 300k but going by memory alone I think that its population was 304k range now its well over 305k. I may be wrong, Ill have to check.

It shows Cincinnati going from 17,917 vacant units to 27,380 vacant units.  10K new abandoned/vacant units in the city?  Where the hell are they all?  You'd think that would be noticed...I can't say there aren't that many new abandoned units (and vacant units in larger buildings would be far less noticeable), don't have numbers, but it sure seems high.

What is the occupancy rate of City West, and those new condos they built downtown? Maybe the population loss came from tearing down WestEnd, English woods and those projects in Bond Hill where they're replacing it with "Daybreak"(...into yo house)

For some reason, the 2004 numbers do not include this:

Note: The 2004 American Community Survey universe is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters.

 

For 2000, Cincinnati had 13,436 in this category.  This would explain some discrepancies for the different cities, but it does seem low.  I thought the 2004 estimate was 314K.

Once again these census numbers are total crap!!!!!  I dont believe anyone, in their right mind, would venture to say that Toledo is a larger city than Cincy, or how about the booming metropolis of Louisville :wink:.  Sure these are the actualy numbers but lets be honest here.....there is no way in hell, even with pop loss, that cities like Toledo, Louisville, Dayton, Charlotte, Akron, or even Indy are even close to the size of Cincinnati.

 

Other cities just get creative in their politics in order to save face.  Hell if Cincy were to annex to the size of Columbus our population would be well over 1 million.  The metropolitan area is not shrinking...it is growing steadily but these census numbers are looked at as the end all be all of statistics.  What they do is make cities look like crap and celebrate the sprawling townships that are able to grow their boundaries without much opposition.

 

The cities in Ohio that do look healthy, in the eyes of the fed govt and nation, like Columbus and Toledo are only growing through their own suburban sprawl within their city boundaries.  Well done....you should all be proud that you are fostering/encouring sprawl within your city.  In the mean time Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh (and the likes) will continue to do things the hard way and fight sprawl and celebrate our urban forms!!!!!

Cleveland's population may be dropping, but the average income of the city is rising (not sure what the exact data is) signifying that the people moving into city neighborhoods (Tremont, Ohio City, North Collinwood, Little Italy, etc.) are of higher economic status than those who are moving out of the city to inner ring suburbs. 

Just another way to look at it.

Don't forget, though, that Census data is used to allocate federal funding, and the areas that receive a greater share of the funding are the ones that are "growing".  Given the current Administration, and how they've twisted everything from WMDs to EPA reports, don't be surprised if these stats are purposefully twisted in order to serve the exurban Republican constituencies.

^ :roll:

this is an estimate...i do not believe it. 

 

especially when i was on a plane and over heard that cleveland grew 5%.

 

Also, when cleveland did it own count of the population it said the city had some 650k(IIRC), especially after all the good news about the city by trusted sources like the economist. 

 

Something is very very wrong, but cleveland & cuyahogo county need fight to make sure the census has the correct information so we can get more federal money.

well yea but cincy's urban core is MUCH larger than Toldeo's so while the cities have the same size square mileage wise, the 78 square miles of cincy is overall urban while toledos includes some suburban type 'hoods.  so, yea, there is a BIG difference.

It's so obvious this is turning into a "which city is thriving and growing more" thread to ultimately try to prove which city is better. If living in a highly populated area is important to you then move to Chicago or New York where they'd tell those 15k people to not let the door hit their ass on the way out. It doesn't seem like they have anything concrete to base their estimates from on the website so why would they be allowed to allocate funding according to "estimates" that's lame. Hey I estimate that I only made 600 dollars last year so I'd like to pay taxes on that. No you need official proof i.e. W-2. They should do the census atleast every 5 years instead of 10.

Well, I'm definitely not ready to throw these figures away - I mean, these folks are professionals, and their numbers are a lot more reliable than my impressions...

 

That said, some of the numbers are so surprising that it does make me doubt them...

 

And yeah, the city-to-city comparisons are helpful if you're looking for understanding, but utterly useless if you're looking to prove which is better.  We all know that's what professional sports teams are for.

I don't believe that population dropped that fast in Cleveland.  12.6% in 4 years strains credibility to me.  There certainly are a lot of vacant units, but there hasn't been the kind of increase in their numbers that would be required to create that amount of population drop, even when factoring declining household size.  The census has a history of being unkind to central cities, anyway.

Those photos of Toledo are gorgeous and sad.

 

On the topic of population decline and estimates. Are federal dollars allocated based on the ACS estimates? I thought the decennial census was the only onethat mattered.

 

From the perpective of Cincinnati, the thing that's most troubling is the alarming increase in vacant units. If 10k is close to right, that's bad, bad news. I think the nature of this forum (and it's not unique to UO) is enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm, whether it's about new projects or recent construction, blinds us to the slow leak from our communities. Certainly, the places I usually go seem as healthy as I can remember. But that's not the whole picture. Having said that, I really want to believe that the upper bound of this estimate is more accurate, so 303k.

 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-ds_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_&-tree_id=304&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US3915000&-format=&-_lang=en

I love how DaninDC is quick to yell conspiracy on census figures but calls 9-11 doubters or conspiricist's idiots.

I love how DaninDC is quick to yell conspiracy on census figures but calls 9-11 doubters or conspiricist's idiots.

 

Because I was there during 9/11 and actually understand the science behind the building destruction and collapse that ensued. 

 

The U.S. Census has had their techniques questioned for years.  Perhaps if their methodology wasn't so questionable, these estimates might not seem so suspicious.  It's not as if they went and knocked on every door, you know.... 

 

http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2004_su_meth.html

Basically they take population from 2000, add the number of units from new construction, and subtract the number of units that were demolished...

 

What if there's an overall higher occupancy rate for housing stock in the city in general? What about rehabs? It seems like they could get a more accurate understanding of population increase/decrease by getting information from energy companies like Duke since they supply energy to every household in the area. I don't know.

Basically they take population from 2000, add the number of units from new construction, and subtract the number of units that were demolished...

 

It's even worse than that.  They take estimates of new housing units and estimates of housing units lost to estimate changes in population.  If the initial estimates are the slightest bit off, the error will be compounded dramatically.

 

Now then, let me ask which is easier to see being built:  a greenfield subdivision or a renovated apartment building? 

 

It's a very half-assed methodology with a lot of room for error (which again, will be compounded).  I just don't see how my gentrification could possibly be spreading across my city if we lost 10% of our population in only 4 years.  Something tells me that real estate would have seriously dropped off in that time....

I love how DaninDC is quick to yell conspiracy on census figures but calls 9-11 doubters or conspiricist's idiots.

 

:laugh:  :-D

I need charts!

I confess to only skimming this thread, but my stats nerd radar went off.  How exactly does this American Community Survey work?  It's not the usually cited estimate... the ordinary 2004 estimates are:

 

Columbus 730,008

Cleveland 458,684

Cincinnati 314,154

Toledo 304,973

Akron 212,179

Dayton 160,293

 

(Those estimates don't include any demographic information, of course.)

In ways i can believe the Cincinnati numbers and other ways i don't. I myself don't live in the city limits, butas you come into the city limits on Montgomery rd from Silverton. You can find at least 2 -3 dozen apartment for rent signs or houses for sale signs in the area. I have never seen this many ever before.

I can't believe that these numbers could be true.  Almost every city in the U.S. is shrinking according to the estimates.

 

Here are a few of the cities outside of Ohio that I searched:  Seattle (-5,000), Portland, OR (-5,000), San Francisco (-50,000), Milwauke (-50,000), Chicago (-175,000), Denver (-10,000), Miami (-40,000) down to 320,000!, Atlanta (-70,000) down to 350,000!, Nashville (-10,000), Boston (-50,000), NYC (-20,000),  Philadelphia (-100,000), Baltimore (-50,000), Washington D.C. (-60,000), Detroit (-100,000), Houston (-8,000).

 

Charlotte (+40,000), Dallas(+5,000), San Diego (+15,000), LA (+50,000), Phoenix(+10,000), and Las Vegas (+60,000) were the only growing large cities I found, and even those aren't growing very fast according to these estimates.

I can't believe that these numbers could be true.  Almost every city in the U.S. is shrinking according to the estimates.

 

Here are a few of the cities outside of Ohio that I searched:  Seattle (-5,000), Portland, OR (-5,000), San Francisco (-50,000), Milwauke (-50,000), Chicago (-175,000), Denver (-10,000), Miami (-40,000) down to 320,000!, Atlanta (-70,000) down to 350,000!, Nashville (-10,000), Boston (-50,000), NYC (-20,000),  Philadelphia (-100,000), Baltimore (-50,000), Washington D.C. (-60,000), Detroit (-100,000), Houston (-8,000).

 

Charlotte (+40,000), Dallas(+5,000), San Diego (+15,000), LA (+50,000), Phoenix(+10,000), and Las Vegas (+60,000) were the only growing large cities I found, and even those aren't growing very fast according to these estimates.

 

Well we know the south is flattening out.  Those "popular" cities like ATL, Houston, NoLa, Miami aren't "all that" especially know that they are losing high paying jobs and losing low wage/hourly service jobs and sprawl is at an all time high!

 

In NYC, (I've got to find the news clip) it was announced that NE Ohio is one of the most popular places (I think 2nd or 5th, I can't remember) for people in the NY Tri-State area to relocate.  Black men/women, Latin women, Middle Eastern/Persian/Muslim, Asian and Eastern European were the largest groups to move here.  I also remember the article stating the "high cost of living" in Chicago as a reason to move to Cleveland as we offer everything NYC and CHI have except a world class transportation system.

 

I've also got news for a very reliable source in city hall that over the past year, especially the last 6 months, the number of people the move IN TO Cleveland a week (who knew that they kept track of this??) has risen from ~300 a week to almost ~1000 a week.  However, I don't know and didn't ask how many people leave.

^ That's actually not that hard to track -- building permits, occupancy permits and the like will give them almost real-time data to follow. But I didn't know until your message that they were keeping track of this.

 

Tom Bier at CSU keeps pretty good track of the inflow/outflow data for Cleveland (and other cities). I suspect a Google search will reveal some of that data and give a good average of outmigrating population.

c-dawg no comment but excellent finds and thread.

I just finished rereading this entire thread and the estimates still dont make sense......either economic vitality, exteme amounts of development, and house affordability mean nothing or the numbers are completely fudged.

 

IMO I believe that the numbers are fudged.  There have been reports that Census takers will often not go to every house because of various reasons (mean dog, too tired, too lazy, etc).  They then just guestimate at what the number is.  I would venture to say in older American cities (midwestern) census takers often choose not to go to every bldg because they might find it intimidating or think it is vacant (often times not the case).  Therefore, many of the numbers are lower because of assumed numbers by takers.  Not to mention the homeless population for cities is often much lower than reality.

 

I do know that mailings are done, but that is not the only way the process is seen through.  Like if no one responds to the mailings.

I just finished rereading this entire thread and the estimates still dont make sense......either economic vitality, exteme amounts of development, and house affordability mean nothing or the numbers are completely fudged.

 

IMO I believe that the numbers are fudged.  There have been reports that Census takers will often not go to every house because of various reasons (mean dog, too tired, too lazy, etc).  They then just guestimate at what the number is.  I would venture to say in older American cities (midwestern) census takers often choose not to go to every bldg because they might find it intimidating or think it is vacant (often times not the case).  Therefore, many of the numbers are lower because of assumed numbers by takers.  Not to mention the homeless population for cities is often much lower than reality.

 

I do know that mailings are done, but that is not the only way the process is seen through.  Like if no one responds to the mailings.

 

This happened to me.  They totally missed our bldg.  Then (as told by a neighbor) that when they did see a census worker, the worker stated that we were in "shaker hts", which is totaly incorrect.  God knows how many buildings in the Cleveland portion of Shaker Square were reported as Shaker Heights.

 

We called our councilman, city hall and even shaker city hall and to this day...we have no clue what took happened or where we were reported.

 

Some friends of mine in Hough, said they didn't see census workers even after calling numerous times for assistance.

Business 2.0 claims Phoenix is going to double in size in the next 15 years but I don't think that's true. Be prepared for rapid growth in the Upper-Midwest. As for sprawl, it's inevitable. We have such a huge landmass and frankly, not many people care. Most cities were designed pre-automobile and we needed the convenience of being able to walk downtown or through our little neighborhood business districts. Even if gasoline gets more expensive, eventually we'll have an alternative fuel source and cars themselves will still be used the way they are today. We are a selfish consuming society and to reverse that goes far beyond raising gas prices.

Sprawl is anything but inevitable.  It's the result of a conscious set of policies designed to promote automobile-dependent travel and low-density development.  C-Dawg is right--as long as these policies remain in place, there is nothing that can be done.

 

What's really sad is how college towns are starting to have their own sprawl problems. A dense, little Appalachian town called Athens has been losing the battle...if college towns can't stop sprawl, no one can. It's the same story in Bowling Green, etc.

 

Blech! Athens itself is pretty bad, who would want to move outside of it? And to where? The Plains?

 

  I think this will help explain some things. I've mentioned these stats before.

 

  The average woman in 1955 had 3.5 kids. The average woman in 2000 had 2.1.

  In addition, people are getting married later in life. In 1970 the average age for first marriages was 23 for women and 24 for men. Now it's 26 and 27.

  While I don't have a number, I'm pretty sure that the number of single parents, due to divorce, is up. Also, while I don't have a number, I'm sure there are more empty-nesters, more widows, and more widowers, living by themselves.

 

  Every one of these stats leads in the same direction: fewer people per house.

 

  So, if you had 100 houses in a neighborhood in 1955 and still have 100 houses in the same neighborhood in 2000, you are likely declining in population, even though all of those houses are still occupied.

 

    From two parents and 3.5 kids to one parent and 2.1 kids is a whopping 63% decline! The Census numbers don't surprise me at all.

 

    The only areas that are gaining population are areas where new housing units are being built and occupied: the outer suburbs, and to a smaller extent, some downtown areas. If you don't have new construction, your population is shrinking.

 

    Whatever mistakes the Census makes, for example not counting the homeless, probably happened in the last census also. The absolute number is not as telling as the percentage change.

 

 

    There are four components to population change: immigrants, emigrants, births, and deaths. In Ohio, immigration and emigration are both small and about equal, and thus don't make much of a change. Right now we have more births than deaths, and thus we are growing (barely). However, the death rate is rising and the birth rate is dropping. Sometime in the future, we will have more deaths than births, if current trends continue. At that point, the population of Ohio will peak and then begin to decline. The U.S. Census says that this will happen in 2018.

 

 

 

   

Well, dilution of people-per-household can help account for the population drop, though such attrition isn't going to cause a 10% drop in just four years; and 10K new vacancies in Cincinnati has nothing to do with that dilution, and is a surprising number.

 

As I said before, that doesn't make it wrong - just surprising.

 

Oh, and keep in mind, life expectancy has jumped dramatically since 1955.  I think the points on lowering density are well-taken and valid, but folks are living a whole lot longer than then.  I'm sure it doesn't begin to make up for fewer births, doesn't even begin to make up for it, but it is a separate factor.  And as C-Dawg points out, more widows and widowers only exacerbates the lowering density.

 

I will volunteer for duty in the new Civil War if the Southwest tries to take our water. I feel that strongly about it.

 

Even if gasoline gets more expensive, eventually we'll have an alternative fuel source and cars themselves will still be used the way they are today. We are a selfish consuming society and to reverse that goes far beyond raising gas prices.

 

Your optimism is admirable. But nothing before or since Col. Drake poked a hole in the Pennsylvania countryside and discovered "rock oil" has there been anything with the energy density as the black crack. I do think we can come up with viable alternative energy sources someday, but it will take a national effort on the scale of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project. Nothing like that is even being considered, and there is no guarantee that any alternative energy source out there (all of which are still unproven curiosities) will be as an efficient energy carrier as oil.

 

Most Americans seem to think there is an alternative energy source (or even several) ready to go, or that the oil companies are keeping it at bay. If only that were case, things would be quite rosy. We have built a nation of excess on the assumption that $1 per gallon gasoline would be with us for more than a century or more. Most other nations realized a long time ago the short-sightedness of such thinking. They may have thought that oil would be cheap for 100 years, but to the nations of Europe, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere, a century isn't an impressive span of time -- to Americans it seems beyond comprehension. "Live for today -- we'll figure out how to pay for it tomorrow" is our motto.

 

Tomorrow is coming a lot faster than we ever expected, and our cities, as we decided to design them for the past 50 years, will be severely impacted. The sooner America wakes up from its 50-year-long oil-induced intoxification, the better our cities, our economy and our environment will be.

I should kept my mouth shut (er, keyboard quiet) and just posted this excellent article instead....

__________________

 

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/25/the_alt_fuels_distraction.php

 

May 25, 2006

The alt fuels distraction

by David Roberts

 

In the next 50 years, give or take, those of us in the United States will face two challenges. We must wean ourselves off of oil and we must cut our carbon-dioxide emissions by around 60 percent. Either would be difficult in isolation; together, well ... imagine patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, only with trillions of dollars and millions of lives at stake. And with one arm tied behind your back.

 

What's the best way to meet these challenges? If you were the proverbial Martian, visiting our planet to dispassionately assess our options, what would you find most promising?

 

Would it be nuclear power? "Clean coal"? Ethanol? You'd only decide on those options if you happen to be an uncommonly gullible Martian (or one in the pay of big industry—but more on that later).

 

Substantially increasing the amount of electricity we get from nuclear power would mean building dozens of expensive new plants, none of which would be completed for at least 10 years. Each would be a huge risk for investors and virtually uninsurable without government assistance—and once it had run its course, would cost a fortune to decommission. Each would produce tons of waste—when we don't even know what to do with the waste we already have—and each would produce fissile material that could fall into the wrong hands. By some estimates, the CO2 emitted in the full lifecycle of a nuclear plant—taking into account the oil burned mining, transporting and processing uranium, not to mention constructing the plants themselves—would be only a third less than that released by a coal-fired plant.

 

Burning coal releases CO2. To avoid climate catastrophe, "clean coal" plants would have to sequester their CO2 emissions underground. This technology is speculative, untested and at least 10 years out.

 

Corn-based ethanol is the result of an extremely energy-intensive, CO2-emitting, polluting process. Corn is grown in massive monocultures with petroleum-based herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, which are busy accumulating in an enormous "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. Ethanol refining plants consume enormous amounts of natural gas or coal; their product is distributed across the country in oil-burning vehicles. In the end, grain-based ethanol produces little more energy than what's required to make it, and does virtually nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

What about cellulosic ethanol, the oft-cited, eco-friendlier cousin of grain-based ethanol? Well, it's—wait for it—largely speculative, untested and at least 10 years out.

 

Would a smart Martian choose these uneconomical and/or inefficient and/or unproven fuel sources as its primary means of addressing America's immediate energy challenges? Would he be willing to wait 10 years to ramp up supply, in a quixotic attempt to keep up with burgeoning demand? Not unless he'd been paid off by big energy companies. (Which, let's face it, would inevitably happen.)

 

Our Martian would probably suggest we focus first on reducing our energy use—and might be delighted to discover several simple, at-hand ways to do so. Some low-hanging fruit: boost energy efficiency standards for cars, appliances, industrial equipment and buildings. Institute "feebates," which would tax the purchase of fuel-inefficient vehicles and apply the revenue to rebates on fuel-efficient vehicles. Mandate that all government purchases—of vehicles, buildings, appliances, or anything else—be tied to strict energy-efficiency requirements. Pass a federal renewable portfolio standard, mandating that the feds get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources.

 

And if our Martian wanted to get a little bit more ambitious, he might emphasize these broader policy and technological initiatives:

 

• Quit subsidizing fossil-fuel industries. Period.

 

• Impose a gas or carbon tax. It would put uniform pressure on the market to reduce oil consumption, without favoring any particular alternative. (The impact on low-income Americans could be offset with reduced payroll taxes.)

 

• Encourage density by reversing land-use policies at all levels of government that subsidize road-building and sprawl at the expense of compact, walkable, mixed-use communities served by effective public transportation.

 

• Drop perverse agricultural subsidies that overwhelmingly favor petro-heavy industrial agriculture and long-distance food transport at the expense of organic farms and local food systems.

 

• Scrap electricity-market regulations that virtually mandate centralized power production at large, inefficient plants (by some estimates, up to two-thirds of energy is wasted en route to end users); instead, encourage decentralized production from small-scale, site-appropriate sources.

 

Given the panoply of readily available demand-reduction measures, our befuddled Martian might wonder, why is debate over America's energy future dominated by supply-side options like nuclear, "clean coal," and ethanol? If he hung out for a while and studied the socio-economic scene, our Martian might propose the following explanations:

 

• Policymakers are terrified to tell constituents that big upheavals are coming and big changes are needed. They prefer to propagate the illusion that one set of fuels can simply be swapped out for another, with no disturbance in the hyperconsuming, big-box retailing, suburb-expanding American way of life.

 

• Many of the most effective energy strategies would mean less fossil-fuel power and more people power—i.e., labor. Site-situated power plants and small organic farms, for instance, require more human labor than their centralized, mechanized, super-sized counterparts. The economic consensus of the American power elites (in both parties) has it that labor costs must be held to a minimum by any means necessary—union-busting, federal rate hikes, outsourcing, or liberal use of illegal immigrants.

 

• Finally and most significantly: it's the money, stupid. Scratch the surface of each of the elite's favored alternatives and you'll find an industry with political connections and the financial clout to shape public dialogue. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry front group, has openly established an organization ( http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/ ) designed to push pro-nuclear talking points into the public sphere—it's already paid off in the form of an influential op-ed in The Washington Post. Ethanol has even more friends. Legislators from agricultural states love it; corn brokers like Archer Daniels Midland love it; automakers who want their products to look greener love it; the oil companies that will eventually own and run ethanol refineries and stations love it. And coal—well, even kids love coal! ( http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/4/17/94352/7251 )

 

Alternative fuels backed by big industry bucks aren't necessarily without merit. But those concerned about America's—and the world's—energy future need not accept the debate as it is currently configured, with its skewed focus on supply increase over demand reduction and big-industry products over decentralized, human-scale solutions.

 

Public dialogue is influenced by big money, but it is also, at least for now, influenced by the public. And we, the public, should approach the energy problem with fresh, unbiased eyes.

 

Like Martians.

 

David Roberts is a staff writer at Grist Magazine. His blog is  http://gristmill.grist.org.

I will volunteer for duty in the new Civil War if the Southwest tries to take our water. I feel that strongly about it.

 

Even if gasoline gets more expensive, eventually we'll have an alternative fuel source and cars themselves will still be used the way they are today. We are a selfish consuming society and to reverse that goes far beyond raising gas prices.

 

Your optimism is admirable. But nothing before or since Col. Drake poked a hole in the Pennsylvania countryside and discovered "rock oil" has there been anything with the energy density as the black crack. I do think we can come up with viable alternative energy sources someday, but it will take a national effort on the scale of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project. Nothing like that is even being considered, and there is no guarantee that any alternative energy source out there (all of which are still unproven curiosities) will be as an efficient energy carrier as oil.

 

Most Americans seem to think there is an alternative energy source (or even several) ready to go, but the oil companies are keeping it at bay. If only that were case, things would be quite rosy. We have built a nation of excess on the assumption that $1 per gallon gasoline would be with us for more than a century or more. Most other nations realized a long time ago the short-sightedness of such thinking. They may have thought that oil would be cheap for 100 years, but to the nations of Europe, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere, a century isn't an impressive span of time -- to Americans it seems beyond comprehension. "Live for today -- we'll figure out how to pay for it tomorrow" is our motto.

 

Tomorrow is coming a lot faster than we ever expected, and our cities, as we decided to design them for the past 50 years, will be severely impacted. The sooner America wakes up from its 50-year-long oil-induced intoxification, the better our cities, our economy and our environment will be.

We have the technology and the engineering capability to do it but like you said oil companies have the situation at bay, and when you make billions of dollar in profit a year I'm sure that's easy. I think our great alternative will probably miraculously appear once oil companies are done depleting our oil supply and gas is finally so high that it's way too unrealistic for consumers to buy. The transition seems really scary though because if you think about it, traditional cars are a huge part of our economy. Repair service, parts, dealerships, gas stations, etc. but at the same time I think it would open a lot of doors to opportunity. I'm anxious to see the outcome..I just hope it doesn't involve florida being under water.

Barring the discovery and multi-year development of this "miracle" into a massive source of energy to fuel the world's most gluttonous oil user, simple economics of supply and demand will mean much higher fuel prices (ie: we ain't seen nothing yet). That forces conservation, requiring us to change our lifestyles, where we live and how we move from place to place. There will be casualties, no question about it. But there will also be beneficiaries -- companies that recycle materials for energy or construction materials, bicycle manufacturers and retailers, the railroad and transit industries, "green companies" that offer alternative energy to help in our conservation efforts, etc.

 

But when pondering our oil use and how we've come to waste so much, consider these two graphics of Cuyahoga County's developed land area:

 

1948 - 1.4 million residents

 

 

2002 - 1.4 million residents

 

 

Those graphics, when taken in the context that other U.S. cities have sprawled as much, gives a powerful reason why America's oil use has skyrocketed far beyond that of any other nation on Earth. Even China, with 1.2 billion people (four times that of ours) uses one-third less oil than we do. The EU, with more than 300 million people, uses half the oil as the U.S. Our land use and over-dependence on the car is why.

You can read about energy issues in greater detail in several threads in the transportation section of this forum.

 

  Riverviewer said "Well, dilution of people-per-household can help account for the population drop, though such attrition isn't going to cause a 10% drop in just four years; and 10K new vacancies in Cincinnati has nothing to do with that dilution, and is a surprising number."

 

  I decided to investigate this further. (Warning: lots of math.)

 

  First, I picked some data from the U.S. Census site, linked by C-Dawg at the beginning of this thread. I am looking at the City of Cincinnati. For now I am not disputing the Census data. 2000 numbers are from the decennial census. 2004 numbers are estimates. Here are the six numbers I am using.

 

                                2000      2004

population                  331,285  289,628

total housing units        165,945  167,231   

occupied housing units  147,991  139,851

 

I calculated change and percent change.

 

                                2000      2004        Change        % Change

population                  331,285  289,628    loss 41,657  -12%

total housing units        165,945  167,231    gain  1,286  +0.8%

occupied housing units  147,991  139,851    loss  8,140  -5.5%

 

Discussion:

 

    The City of Cincinnati lost 41,657 residents in 4 years, a 12% change. Wow!

 

    Housing units increased slightly. New construction must have exceeded demolitions.

 

    8,140 occupied houses were lost. Some became unoccupied, and some were demolished. Would a 5.5% loss in occupied houses be noticeable?

 

  The number of demolitions would be interesting but I have no data on them. Assuming there were at least some demolitions, the actually number of new houses would be greater than 1,286.

 

I did some more math.

Total housing - occupied housing = unoccupied housing.

Population / occupied housing = people per occupied house.

 

                                      2000    2004        change      %change

unoccupied housing units    17,954  27,380    gain  9,426  +52%

people per occupied house    2.23      2.07      loss  0.16  -7.2%

 

Discussion:

    The number of unoccupied houses has changed dramatically. Some vacancy would be expected normally, but a 52% change in 4 years is big. There must be something going on here. The vacant public housing projects of Huntington Meadows, Laurel Homes, and English Woods come to mind.

 

    The people per occupied house is dropping due to fewer children per family, etc, as mentioned in a previous post. This is a long term trend.

 

Of these effects, which is greatest?

I did some more math.

 

change due to smaller family  147,991 x -0.16 = loss 23,678    -7.1%

change due to occupied house  -8,140 x 2.23 =  loss 18,152  -5.5%

total change                                                  loss 41,830 

 

 

Discussion:

    The numbers do not add up to exactly 41,657 due to the effect of working with averages and roundoff errors, but they are close. (I am trying to keep it simple.) We can see that in Cincinnati the effect of smaller household size is the greater of the two.

 

Here are the numbers for other Ohio cities. 

 

 

Columbus

                                      2000      2004      Change      % Change

population                      711,470  700,874    loss 10,596    -1.5%

total housing units          327,429  358,169    gain 30,740    +9.3%

occupied housing units    301,788    297,497    loss 4,291      -1.4%

 

unoccupied housing units    25,641    60,672    gain 35,031    +137%

people per occupied house  2.35        2.35              0            0%

 

change due to smaller family              301,788 x 0 = 0                0%

change due to fewer occupied houses  -4,291 x 2.35 = -10,083  -1.4%

total change                                                          -10,083 

 

Cleveland

                                      2000      2004      Change        % Change

population                        478,403  417,872  loss 60,531      -13%

total housing units            215,844  214,118  loss 1,726          -0.8%

occupied housing units      190,633  181,985  loss 8,648          -4.5%

 

unoccupied housing units    25,211  32,133    gain 6,922          +27%

people per occupied house    2.51        2.29    loss 0.22          -8.8%

 

change due to smaller family  190,633 x -0.22 = -41,939            -8.8%

change due to occupied house  -8,648 x 2.51 = -21,706            -4.5%

total change                                                -63,645           

 

 

Toledo

                                      2000      2004      Change      % Change

population                        313,619  305,652  loss 7967    -2.5%

total housing units            139,880  140,690  gain 810      +0.6%

occupied housing units      128,915  126,068  loss 2847    -2.2%

 

unoccupied housing units    10,965    14,622    gain 3,657    +33% 

people per occupied house      2.43      2.42    loss .01      -0.4%

 

change due to smaller family  128,915 x -0.01 = -1,289        -0.4%

change due to occupied house  -2,847 x 2.43 = -6,918        -2.2%

total change                                                -8,207 

 

     

 

Comparison of 4 Ohio cities:

                                                      Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland Toledo

Houses

%Change total                                        +0.8%  +9.3%  -0.8%  +0.6%

% Change occupied                                  -5.5%  -1.4%  -4.5%    -2.2%

% Change unoccupied                              +52%  +137%  +27%    +33%

 

Population

%Change due to household size                  -7.1%        0.0%      -8.8%  -0.4%

%Change due to number occupied houses    -5.5%      -1.4%    -4.5%  -2.2%

%Change total                                        -12%      -1.5%      -13%    -2.5%

 

Conclusion:

 

    Between 2000 and 2004, Columbus gained a lot of houses overall, but also gained a lot of vacant houses. Cincinnati gained a few houses, and Cleveland and Toledo lost a few. All four had a net loss of occupied houses, with Cincinnati and Cleveland having the larger percent change.

 

    All 4 had a dramatic increase in the number of vacant houses compared to the number of vacant houses 4 years ago.

 

    Cincinnati and Cleveland lost a significant number of people per house; in fact, loss of household size was the larger factor in population loss. Columbus and Toledo remained stable in household size.

 

 

   

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cincinnati dropped from 331,285 to 289,628 in four years?  13% decline, in four years?  That seems insanely high...I mean, I know we're hemorrhaging people, but wow, if those estimates are right, that's just insane...

 

I have serious questions about the accuracy of the 2004 Cincinnati population estimate.  I'm not sure how they arrived at the estimate, but there's no way the city lost 13% in four years.  Sure, families might be getting smaller but it doesn't happen that dramatically in four years.  There would be some very noticeable residential abandonment if there were really only 290k in the city.  If there is, it's escaped my attention.

Ethanol... what a waste. Takes almost as much petroleum-based energy to make and distribute as it creates. Perhaps someday it will have a better Energy Returned On Energy Invested but not now. Worse, we don't have enough land for it to make a meaningful imact. Its increased use is already causing prices to rise for meat, chicken and other livestock who feed on corn. Not to mention Ohio's urban sprawl that keeps chewing up some of the best farmland in the world (an attempt to bring this discussion back to the thread's original subject).

Given the continued wonder at the Cincinnati figure, I think it bears repeating that these are not the 2004 Census estimates.  They are the results of a survey.  It's based on 1,464 responses in Hamilton County, for example.  Further, as somebody pointed out a while ago, it's only population in households, which in Cincinnati's case leaves out more than 13,000.

 

A properly done survey should be reasonably accurate, of course, but do remember that they weren't out there actually counting the number of housing units or anything like that.