^^A valiant attempt!  Probably in vain, though...

 

Well, anyone have any ideas on control data to which we might compare these figures?  Like, some city-provided data to measure vacancies, see if they've truly jumped 52% in four years?

 

BTW, thanks for the walk-through, 8th & State - that quantifies stuff I was guessing at, and shows both where the discussion was accurate and where it wasn't...by the way, when I looked at people per unit data, it didn't come very close to aligning with the Census's people per unit figures - I thought maybe group housing was throwing that off?  You have any theories?

Ah ha, posted pre-Pigboy post...

 

So, not being familiar with all of these surveys vs. estimates shedules and such, is there any chance that the same methodology used for these 2004 figures were employed in 2000, such that we might compare the 2000 figures to the census data and get a feel for possible errors?

 

I'm guessing that the surveys were samplings, and employed in modifying 2000 data, not in substituting for it...but I certainly don't know!

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.

 

By the way, I didn't say the oil companies are keeping alternative energy sources at bay. I said a large number of Americans think they are. I see you count yourself among them. In fact, most oil companies are heavily involved in alternative energy research.

 

See my posting of an article regarding oil industry profits at:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=3590.msg95597#msg95597

 

Energy issues are an important factor shaping where population shifts are occurring on the landscape. But I hope I haven't turned this thread away from its original intent.

 

 

    This is just a guess about population loss in Cincinnati. Anyone have data?

 

    Cincinnati lost the largest percentage of occupied housing, despite having a net gain in houses. Cincinnati had 8000 more houses vacant in 2004 than in 2000.

 

    The English Woods, Laurel Homes, and Huntington Meadows public housing developments were each large developments that were essentially abandoned all at once. How many units did these contain? How many people? I don't know.

 

    Huntington Meadows was eventually leveled and re-developed into single family houses, but what was the status in 2004? Laurel Homes became City West, but again, what was the status in 2004? I don't know about English Woods.

 

    I'm guessing that these three developments could account for 3000 units. I would not be surprised if the household size in these areas was particularly high.

 

    Were there any such items in the other cities?

So, not being familiar with all of these surveys vs. estimates shedules and such, is there any chance that the same methodology used for these 2004 figures were employed in 2000, such that we might compare the 2000 figures to the census data and get a feel for possible errors?

 

I'm guessing that the surveys were samplings, and employed in modifying 2000 data, not in substituting for it...but I certainly don't know!

If you feel up to the challenge of trying to figure out how this thing works, the American Community Survey page is here: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.html.

 

I was wondering about your conjecture that it's a modification of the 2000 data rather than a replacement, but I didn't notice anything that easily answered the question.

 

The survey is similar to the Census long form and is intended to actually replace that form in the future, but at the moment it's of course given to a much smaller sample size.  (I think I saw that the Census long form is given to a 1-in-6 sample; this one went to 3 million nationwide, which is obviously a lot less than 1 in 6.)  But the data on housing units are not sample data in the Census, so in that case the comparison to the 2000 Census might not be as simple.  But then, I don't know how they count housing units to begin with, since unoccupied units are obviously not going to return a form.  So maybe the methods are similar after all... I just have no idea.

 

We need a Census Bureau employee on this forum!

 

    Here's another source of data that indicates population decline: the Cincinnati Public Schools facilities plan.

 

  http://www.cps-k12.org/general/facilities/FinalPlan/0520ExecSum.pdf

 

  "More than 70,000 school-age students live in Cincinnati Public School's attendance area. In the 2000-01 school year, Cincinnati Public Schools served about 42,600 students. Public charter schools served 4,200 students. Historically, enrollment has declined more than 7,000 students in the last decade. Over the past 10 years, there was an approximate 10% decline in the number of children born to parents living in the Cincinnati Public School District. Other issues impacting enrollment include no significant housing starts for thepast 10 years and a large number of school-age children within the district whose parents have chosen schools elsewhere."

 

    Per the census, Cincinnati had 57,282 kids 5 to 19 in 2000, and 51,375 in 2004, a loss of 5,907 or 10% in four years.

 

    Per Cincinnati Public Schools, the school district (a slightly larger area) had 70,000 students in 2001 and served 42,600 of them. Student population has declined 7,000 students or 10% in 10 years. (note the rounded numbers.)

 

    The numbers are somewhat comparable although the census shows a faster decline in the last 4 years.

 

   

 

 

In fact, most oil companies are heavily involved in alternative energy research.

 

Yeah, from what I've read, the earliest adopters of large-scale solar energy were off-shore oil rigs.  They used to helicopter humongous batteries in and, according to what they were supposed to do, helicoptered off, but often they just dumped the used ones into the ocean.  That is, until a particularly low tide met up with a photographer, and the tremendous pile of dead barrel-sized batteries was revealed.  Following the hubbub, they moved quickly to solar, since it was far, far cheaper than crating batteries back and forth...

I didn't read this thread (as I didn't want to sort through this Ball of Confusion) but did anyone talk about how they (meaning, the people who did the survey for the Census) did NOT address the college student populations within the cities (Hmm...conveniently Columbus loses population...though it has the largest school in the Eastern United States (plus ODU/Franklin/etc)...and Cincinnati decreases and it has the state's second largest institution, Xavier,...and blah blah, you get the point).

sorry but i call BS on pretty much all these numbers.....hell i call BS for a while now

 

i realize cleveland isnt exactly flourishing these days but 50,000 loss in a couple yrs? come on now. the metro loss is surprisin too to be honest, i figure it would just be stagnant. theres still a lot of development (sprawl) goin up. yea people are just movin further and further out but damn...

 

 

^I think the point on it not being Census estimates is more that different methodologies may have been employed.  Students is a great example - if one method accounts for them and another method doesn't, you can drop 35K residents from the city just with the wave of a pen.  I'm not saying that's what happened here - just that varying methods can vary massively in its results, without any real changes having occurred.

 

Which is why using consistent methods, and then looking at changes in those methods over time, is very useful - but looking at Census-Approved-Method A from 2000, then Census-Approved-Method B from 2004, may well lead to huge differences in numbers, even if nothing about the population changed at all.

 

And I don't know if we've figured out the answer to that yet.  I know I haven't dug in enough to be able to say...

I'm assuming they just took the college populations from the 2000 census and didn't reflect changes over the last couple of years.

 

Dude, you missed my point.  I said I'm not saying this was what was done.  I'm saying two different methods, both 100% accurate, can have different results, based on differing definitions, that's all.

and Cincinnati decreases and it has the state's second largest institution, Xavier,...and blah blah, you get the point).

 

I thought Kent State was the second largest? And isn't UC falling to number four after the UT merger?

UC has colleges of pharmacy, medicine, law and business as well...is having all those schools infrequent in larger universities?

Kent State is in fact the second-largest university. This happened a couple years ago. Kent State has numerous satellite campuses, which adds to its total enrollment.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1147595654110160.xml&coll=2

Wow...go Ohio!  Can't be many states that beat that...

Wow...go Ohio!  Can't be many states that beat that...

 

Yeah, our universities rock! This state has universities that specialize in nearly anything you could possibly want to study. Now, about the cost....

Kent State University

 

36,600 Students on 8 campuses

2nd largest public university in Ohio

25,000 Students at the main campus

3rd largest OH public university main campus

 

This is 2004 data from:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:NomqdlrwbVEJ:www.kent.edu/rpie/upload/AIR%2520Annual%2520Conference.ppt+Kent+State,+enrollment+main+campus&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

Looks like 27,327 for UC's main campus.

 

http://www.uscollegesearch.org/university-of-cincinnatimain-campus.html

 

So, we're all right!

That's a far cry from when 44k use to be educated there.

So basically, OSU and UC have the two largest "single-campus" populations in the state.

 

Yip...eee...

^But don't you see, that makes my penis larger than others' penises.

But Kent...KENT!!!

 

Oh, and Tri-C, Ohio's second largest college!

 

But I thought it was Wright State's branch campus in Celina!!!

 

GJKA:GJdlj;lajklgd;alkgdslkj GIGGLEWATTS!!!  Damn you, Bowling Green, with your hideous campus and lackluster downtown!!!  No, take THAT, John Carroll!  NO NO, freakin' WILMINGTON COLLEGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

/psycho over.

Well, the downtown is rather Main Street-USAish with a pinch of Skyline Chili and Panera Bread but otherwise, rather boring and small (what, three blocks?).  Then again, I'm sure their "party scene" consisting of wasted Ritz Crackers from Bryan, Bucyrus, and Defiance spruces up the streets with gold and vomit.

 

Alas, Oxford, alas.  Why can't YOU have a Denny's like Findlay...

That's a far cry from when 44k use to be educated there.

 

Really? UC used to have 44,000??

 

Wow, what happened?

 

Black folks went to Cincinnati State.

The most crackers I met when I went to Bowling Green were from Defiance, Toledo, Cleveland, and weirdly...Mt. Gilead!??!

Well, who are they gonna hit on the way back home?  Bessie the Cow?

That's a far cry from when 44k use to be educated there.

 

I just wanted to interject this, but I do not think UC has ever had 44k students.  The largest it has ever been is around 36K from all of the stats I have seen throughout the years.  I think it grew some when it went from private to public in 70's (at which time OSU understandably tried to block it).  Part of Nancy Zimpher's current master plan, however, is to increase enrollment into the 40's in the next five years, but I have not heard much about this lately.  This is the most recent info, which looks to include the branches.

http://www.uc.edu/about/ucfactsheet.html#enrollment

 

The most crackers I met when I went to Bowling Green were from Defiance, Toledo, Cleveland, and weirdly...Mt. Gilead!??!

 

Where did you expect Morrow County kids to go?  Mt Vernon Nazerene?

The Mt Gilead kids most likely go to BG, not only for the small town, but they can stay at main campus away from home.  If they want to go to OSU, most likely they have to start at Marion or Mansfield (unless they got unique funding or abilities) which means staying at home. :|

That's a far cry from when 44k use to be educated there.

 

I just wanted to interject this, but I do not think UC has ever had 44k students.  The largest it has ever been is around 36K from all of the stats I have seen throughout the years.  I think it grew some when it went from private to public in 70's (at which time OSU understandably tried to block it).  http://www.uc.edu/about/ucfactsheet.html#enrollment

 

I thought it would of been in the late 60s, since OSU spun off Wright & Cleveland St in '68

That's a far cry from when 44k use to be educated there.

 

Really? UC used to have 44,000??

 

Wow, what happened?

 

I've been under the impression that for the last 15 or so years that many universities (Ohio and beyond) have changed from a policy of quality over quanity for their incoming students.  Rising minimum test scores, GPAs, and academic demands once students have driven universities to cut back on the number of students served.

I'm sure there is a correlation between the decrease in quanity of students and the decrease in public funding for public education as well.

One thing that hurts Cleveland in the census is that it has the most public housing out of the three big "C"s in Ohio.  What I mean by this is, many times it is hard to get an accurate count of how many people live in these places due to the fact many people never fill out the questionaire...or may be afraid to admit how many people are living there because some people are there that shouldn't be. 

I have serious doubts about how these census..cencuses..censi..oh hell...COUNTS are taken.  I have heard numbers from under 400,000 all the way up to over 600,000 for the number of residents in Cleveland.  Who knows?

^---- True, the Census is not perfect. Remember the debate about ESTIMATING the number of people in the 2000 decennial census? The conventional wisdom was that there were more uncounted people in the blue states, so an estimate would give those states more power. Therefore, the democrats endorsed the estimate, while the republicans opposed it.

 

    With all respect to those who think the Census estimates are very wrong, one would hope that they were consistenty wrong geographically and over time. That is, the Census takers are not any more accurate in one state or city than another, or from one census to the next. If they were wrong in 1990 and still wrong in 2000, yet counted fewer people in 2000, it is very possible that cities are, indeed, losing population. What attracts the most attention is not the absolute number, but the change.

   

    Cities, in particular, are tricky because of commuting patterns. The Census is a night time count; they ask where you sleep. Cincinnati or Cleveland might have a daytime population of twice their night time populations. For that matter, one football game might temporarily increase the population by 80,000. Riverfest in Cincinnati draws a million. 

 

    While the Census isn't perfect, I think they are relatively accurate and consistent. The trends have been fairly steady over many years.

   

BTW, you guys aren't the only ones who think the 2004 Census Figures are all screwed up.

All the politicians here in Louisiana are up in arms over the "Post Katrina/Rita" number released last night (covenently after the 11 PM EDT news).  Baton Rouge believes the census under estimated their population increase.  New Orleans believes more have returned home than the Census folks give credit to, and Texas somehow ended up with 100K ex-Louisianans.

 

The politicization of numbers. Lovely.  :shoot: