Lakewood, Elyria, Euclid, Mansfield all dropped under 50,000?

 

What about Cleveland Hts. and S. Euclid?

 

Euclid, Mansfield, and Cleveland Heights have all dropped below 50,000. South Euclid doesn't have that kind of population. Lakewood and Elyria were lost at the bottom of my spreadsheet--good catch.

Surprised at Springfield.  I guess they have some annexation going on?

Environmentally/sustainably speaking...Ohio as a whole is actually populated enough. We don't need to increase population in the cities by getting more people in Ohio, overall... per se...we need to either annex...or reverse the shifting around of people who step over the imaginary line...... just outside city propers Now, I know that is so easier said than done with the parochial mindset establishment. Stats like this make it look, however, that people have left the region all together.

Surprised at Springfield.  I guess they have some annexation going on?

 

I was as well as Springfield has been in a decreasing trend, but the "increase" just places them back at their 2006 estimate. There is not annexation going on (Clark County recently blocked an attempt), but there are new homes being constructed, especially in the northwest side of the city. In 2007, there were 84 new housing starts, which probably influenced the 2008 number. In 2008, however, they only saw 11 new homes.

 

2008    62,269

2007    62,247

2006    62,669

2005    63,268

2004    63,205

2003    63,677

2002    65,030

 

Lorain is growing via sprawl and hispanic population growth, I understand. The hispanic presence may be dwindling with the present economy, however.

Surprised at Springfield.  I guess they have some annexation going on?

 

I was as well as Springfield has been in a decreasing trend, but the "increase" just places them back at their 2006 estimate. There is not annexation going on (Clark County recently blocked an attempt), but there are new homes being constructed, especially in the northwest side of the city. In 2007, there were 84 new housing starts, which probably influenced the 2008 number. In 2008, however, they only saw 11 new homes.

 

2008    62,269

2007    62,247

2006    62,669

2005    63,268

2004    63,205

2003    63,677

2002    65,030

 

Lorain is growing via sprawl and hispanic population growth, I understand. The hispanic [glow=red,2,300]LATINO [/glow] presence may be dwindling with the present economy, however.

Damn, im waiting for an increase one of these years.

^Don't know... maybe by the 2020 census... there's no denying we took a hit during these past ten years.  Maybe we'll see a small rebound of sorts with that census.

 

 

I think what is interesting about Cleveland is that, for the first time in decades, the rate of population decline in the central city is slower than that of the inner ring suburbs and is nearing the County's rate of decline. Obviously, this is not exactly rosy news, but if Cleveland can move to a place where it is seen as the growth area of the county (or the slowest declining at the least), rather than a drain on the surrounding suburbs, it makes the case for regionalism or consolidation a little easier ... though still exhausting and uphill. The 2008 estimates suggest that every one of Cleveland's inner ring suburbs is shrinking faster than Cleveland, with the exception of Parma and Bratenahl.

As I understood it, the 'downtown' population in Cleveland has actually grown to around 10,000 residents. Is this true?

Lorain is growing via sprawl and hispanic population growth, I understand. The hispanic [glow=red,2,300]LATINO [/glow]  [glow=green,2,300]BORICUAN[/glow] presence may be dwindling with the present economy, however.

 

Lorain's growth is from development of land annexed back in the 1950's when the Ford plant was built and Lorain annexed all of Black River Township.  The city borders haven't changed since then, but Forest City has been developing a huge subdivision (Martin's Run/Morningside) in the former farm fields, and Heritage Development is building a big Ryan development (Deerfield Estates) behind a new Target and Lowe's on Oak Point Rd.  15 year tax abatements and the Amherst school district are the main lures.  Development has stalled at the Zaremba project on the Black River with no new housing for at least 2 years now.  And there's plenty of abandonment in the sections of central and South Lorain which have been hit hard by foreclosures and poverty.

^ and are also among some of the worst chronic noise neighborhoods in Ohio. Just ask Denise Carlouff...or check out www.noiseoff.org Such is a major contribution to forcing decent people to move...to the point what is left behind is a concentration of many who do not know how to behave in a communal setting. Property values then take a poop.

As I understood it, the 'downtown' population in Cleveland has actually grown to around 10,000 residents. Is this true?

 

Its probably closer to 13k

Is Cuyahoga Falls still over 50,000?

Is Cuyahoga Falls still over 50,000?

 

Yes, they have surpassed 50,000 since 2000.

 

If any other jurisdictions have done so, they will be omitted from the above list as well.

Out west suburbs are over 100k.

^And? Many of those are poorly planned, unsustainable, and bearing the brunt of the foreclosure crisis.

These are just center city populations.  They dont mean much.

^And? Many of those are poorly planned, unsustainable, and bearing the brunt of the foreclosure crisis.

Idk our older Ohio cities seem to have more problems than the newer ones.

^And? Many of those are poorly planned, unsustainable, and bearing the brunt of the foreclosure crisis.

Idk our older Ohio cities seem to have more problems than the newer ones.

 

Are you serious?  Have you been to Suburban DC, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Tampa, Orlando or San Diego??

Well for one, every single one of them cities are out growing every ohio city. Yes i think they have less problems than Ohio cities.

^

I agree.  In Sacramento's case this means a lot of infill contstruction in their "Old City" vs the ongoing abandonment and demolition we see here in Ohio.

Well for one, every single one of them cities are out growing every ohio city. Yes i think they have less problems than Ohio cities.

 

Those cities are devastated by foreclosures, how can the be growing or even outgrowing Ohio cities?

lets see how they SW is doing in 20years w/dwindling resources (water) and poorly planned infrastructure. 

 

unusualfire - have you been living in a cave this year? Do you really think Cali and its cities are doing good?

lets see how they SW is doing in 20years w/dwindling resources (water) and poorly planned infrastructure.  

You don't think the Federal Government will help with their water problems? Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I see some of our tax dollars being blown on this.

I do think a lot of the cities MTS mentioned are places that people like Ohioans are still fleeing to.  Yes, everything has slowed with the recession - people are less able to quickly sell their homes to move, but there are more people there and more industry with jobs, apparently, because I still hear about lots of people going these places.  I personally know 2 people who have left to go to Atlanta in the last year, and in looking at houses at least half the time people were leaving for a job in Texas or CA.  The other half were downsizing because someone lost their job/they bought too much house.  I attribute a lot of our population declines to people going to the cities on MTS' list.  Not that those areas aren't suffering, but ALL areas are suffering right now.  JMO.

Sacramento has been hit by the recession in a way that no Ohio city has (although, granted, we have our share of problems). MSA unemployment is nearing 12%, residential construction has plummeted year-on-year 50% and, last I saw, they had a tent city in their downtown with several hundred residents. Add to that the impact the MASSIVE California budget cuts will have on public sector employment and this state capitol is in some serious trouble.

 

That being said, they may still be in a better position to rebound from the recession than Ohio cities because of the base of their employment. Furthermore, at least as of now, the economic crisis is having little impact on in-migration into "hot" cities. I read an article recently about how Portland has the highest unemployment rate in the country but is also one of the fastest growing cities in the country. The article cited some sentiments from twentysomethings along the lines of "Well if I'm going to be unemployed anyway, I might as well be unemployed somewhere I like".

There was an in/out migration chart in the paper down here a while back. Cuyahoga County was one of the top counties for in-migration but at the same time about the same number of people are returning.

 

Statewide Florida's population is down. My county of Broward (Ft. Laud) lost nearly 14,000 people in one year for the first time ever.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2009/08/17/daily33.html?ana=from_rss

^And? Many of those are poorly planned, unsustainable, and bearing the brunt of the foreclosure crisis.

Idk our older Ohio cities seem to have more problems than the newer ones.

 

Are you serious?  Have you been to Suburban DC, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Palm Beach, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Tampa, Orlando or San Diego??

 

I see your point, but I think that these cities metioned will have an easier road to travel when bouncing out of the recession than rustbelt cities.  Despite everything going on there, they still have what young people were going down there for, and that is nice weather and beaches (in most of the cities mentioned).  Not only that, young people will be able to get real estate there cheaper than ever before...JMHO

It is all about the length of the downturn. If the job growth stays low or we head into a double dip recession that lasts for another 3 or 4 years then the idea that you've gone to Portland because it is 'cooler' to be unemployed there than somewhere else won't last, because you can only be unemployed so long before you simply become poor and hungry and then they will head to either to where the jobs are or where they can live their parents again.

I love Cincinnati and my next comment is not intended as a negative to that city, but I have been meaning to ask everyone on this forum the following question.

 

Doesn't it seem strange that after years of being reported that St. Louis and Cincinnati were losing population at the greatest rate in the country (5% per year I think), both cities take the census bureau to court and now they are consistently gaining population?  Being in a statistical field, I know that mistakes happen, but it is hard for me to understand how the census could have been so wrong for both cities.  I would understand if the mistake was that they were losing population by 2.5% or 1.5%, but to go from the largest decrease to an increase seems odd to me.

 

I am not disputing the increase in population for both cities.  I think they are great places to live, but to me this seems peculiar.  I wonder what would happen if Cleveland challenged the census bureau. :?

lets see how they SW is doing in 20years w/dwindling resources (water) and poorly planned infrastructure.  

 

unusualfire - have you been living in a cave this year? Do you really think Cali and its cities are doing good?

I said they are doing better than Ohio cities. I didn't say they were doing good.

ugh, it's just pathetic lorain's population is below parma. has been for a long time now. when i was a kid lorain had 20k more people. oh well at least it didnt lose half like youngstown did. maybe its stabilizing some, but otherwise if the more mobile residents dont abandon ship for the local 'burbs like amherst or avon they seem to go for columbus a lot like everybody else.

 

although people have left many places or shuffled around a lot, overall not much is happening because the state population is surprisingly pretty stable -- i think it may have grew just a bit this round, no? so at least thats not a bad thing.

 

back when we lived in columbus i used to laugh at my seattle sister in law because columbus often had a greater annual rainfall than seattle.

 

i know, i know, but it wasnt a constaaaant miiiist. that was always her bs excuse!  :laugh:

This is my take on the odd numbers for Cincinnati.

 

    The Census Bereau has access to birth and death records prepared by doctors in hospitals. They also have data from the decennial Census where they attempt to actually count people.

 

    The decennial Census is most likely undercounted. It is easier to miss people than to count them twice. Some estimates say that the Census is off by as much as 30%. I hope it's not that bad, but I imagine that perhaps it could be. The poor, illegal aliens, criminals, etc., are not as likely to be counted because they resist it.

 

    The Census publishes estimates for intermediate years based on the prior decennial Census along with birth and death records. The trick here is to figure out where people live. Thus, the Census knows that baby X was born in Good Samiritan Hospital in 2001, but they don't know where 8-year old X lives in 2009. So, they distribute the people geographically based on percentages from the previous estimate.

 

    The CIA, World Health Organization, and others use a completely different method to estimate population. They take aerial photos and count houses. Then, they count the average number of people per house in a given area, and estimate the population so. In the United States, the U.S. Census Bereau has been prevented from using statistical methods of estimation by Republicans, who fear that the results will hurt them by allowing states with a lot of poor people a greater representation in Congress.

 

    The Census Challenge, though, incorporates some housing counts.

 

    So, my guess is that the decennial Census has undercounted all these years. The Census challenge resulted in a higher number. The increase in population is not an increase at all, but shows a difference between two estimates. Population is still declining.

 

      The next decennial Census should be interesting. Since Cincinnati and so many other cities successfully challenged the Census, I expect a lot of other cities to challenge the Census also. And since the Census is now recognized to be inaccurate, maybe there will be less trust in the Census numbers.

 

    All along, the purpose of the Census as stated in the Constitution is to allocate representatives among the states. The Census has since become the basis for allocation of funds, the reason why some businesses all rush for the fastest growing county, and the basis for bragging rights on internet forums. Like so many government programs, the Census is growing out of control.  Whether a person lives in Mason or Over-the-Rhine doesn't matter to the state population.

 

 

I love Cincinnati and my next comment is not intended as a negative to that city, but I have been meaning to ask everyone on this forum the following question.

 

Doesn't it seem strange that after years of being reported that St. Louis and Cincinnati were losing population at the greatest rate in the country (5% per year I think), both cities take the census bureau to court and now they are consistently gaining population? Being in a statistical field, I know that mistakes happen, but it is hard for me to understand how the census could have been so wrong for both cities. I would understand if the mistake was that they were losing population by 2.5% or 1.5%, but to go from the largest decrease to an increase seems odd to me.

 

I am not disputing the increase in population for both cities. I think they are great places to live, but to me this seems peculiar. I wonder what would happen if Cleveland challenged the census bureau. :?

 

My sense is that the challenges basically change the curve that the Census Bureau applies to cities. These numbers are usually a combo of very small surveys and death and birth, home construction and the like.

I have been hearing my entire life that "Columbus will be the largest city in Ohio", and I am 42 years old.  Yet, Columbus still remains far behind Cleveland & Cincinnati "metro's".  Cleveland is anywhere between 2.5 to 4.5 million, depending on what you count; Cincinnati is 2.2 to 3.5 million depending on what you count.  As far as "cities" go, don't forget that Columbus is 3-times larger in land than Cleveland (210 sq. miles to 77 sq. miles).  Cleveland should just annex all of Cuyahoga County, that would put them at about 1.5 million right now.

 

While there is some validity to the "port theory", don't forget that Columbus is the largest port not on a body of water in the U.S..  Just drive down to Groveport, warehouses upon warehouses..

 

As far as public sector employment, I think you have far understimated the amount of public sector jobs in Cleveland (Federal Reserve comes to mind).  Cleveland also has two world-class Hospitals (Clinic & University Hospitals), Cleveland has also emerged as the world leader in stem cell research (and only getting stronger in this area), also has an insurance giant (Progressive), who is growing, is a much bigger banking center (PNC/Nat City, Key), has better museums, orchestra, and theater scene, and has 26 colleges & universities within 50 miles (I believe that is the distance used).

 

The strengths (and weaknesses) you outlined also play in Cleveland, I don't know Cincinnati well enough.

 

Cleveland is also still BY FAR AND AWAY the most diverse metro in Ohio, and probably in the midwest (excluding Chicago).  Diverse not only in people, but in topography (lake, waterfalls, rivers) and weather (East & West).

Columbus will be Ohio's first city to ever cross the 1,000,000 mark, and it will be by far our largest metropolitan area. A lot of the growth will just be a result of people relocating from other Ohio cities.

 

"Look at what I just found in my anus!"

Columbus will be Ohio's first city to ever cross the 1,000,000 mark, and it will be by far our largest metropolitan area. A lot of the growth will just be a result of people relocating from other Ohio cities.

 

"Look at what I just found in my anus!"

 

C-Dawg,

 

You are predicting collapse of almost every major Ohio city. Columbus would have to add roughly 250,000 people over the next decade or so to hit one million by 2020. In my opinion, if we are seeing that kind of migration, the entire state is in trouble and Ohioans would be leaving the state all together.

The numbers speak for themselves. Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown are worse than that, not to mention they were bleeding people and jobs before the recession even started. I think that's a key difference people in Ohio are forgetting about. Lucas County is standing at 14.6% unemployment, Montgomery at 12.4%, and Mahoning is at 13.9%.

 

I think the numbers actually tell another story. The number I shared was the MSA rate, not the county rate. As of June 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the Sacramento-Arden-Roseville MSA unemployment rate to be 11.6%, compared to 10.1% for Cincinnati-Middletown, 10.1% for Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor and 9.1% for Columbus. Among our second-tier metros (in terms of population), Akron stands at 10.2%, Youngstown-Warren-Boardman at 14.1% and Toledo at 14.2%. California metros are also well-represented among those nationwide with the highest levels of unemployment ... Stockton at 15.5, Modesto at 16.6, Merced at 17.6 and Yuba City at 18.0 (compare that with the perenially challenged Flint, which stands at 17.4%. El Centro, CA, has the highest unemployment rate of any metro in the country ... a whopping 27.5%. 9 of the 20 U.S. metros with the highest levels of unemployment are in California; none are in Ohio (although Toledo is number 25, Youngstown is 26 and Mansfield is 28).

 

As for state budget cuts, I agree that Columbus has been relatively insulated from public sector losses, at least to date (although many of the agencies are only considering layoffs now that the biennial budget has been adopted). But the scale of the budget gap is considerably different in Ohio and California. OH was addressing a $3.3 billion gap, approximately 12.3% of the total 2010 budget. Compare that to CA needing to address a $45.5 billion gap, representing 49.3% of the 2010 budget (numbers from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). That is an astounding shrinkage of state funding of virtually everything. The idea that the city could escape major public sector employment losses is unimaginable to me. Couple that with the fact that the California budget was balanced at least partially by borrowing from city financial resources, and you can expect to see another round of budget cuts at the municipal level in California (compared to Cleveland, for instance, where the state has not raided local revenue streams and where the mayor was able to balance the budget without any service reduction at all).

 

That being said, I agree that the sunbelt communities are better equipped to rebound following the recession (if for no other reason than the fact that these communities have less of a "legacy of place" problem) and that we still have our own fair share of problems to address, including unemployment rates generally around or above the national average (e.g. Only 3 of Ohio's 16 metros - Huntington-Ashland, Columbus and Wheeling - have rates below the national average, and two of those are located primarily in other states and only have small areas within Ohio).

Regarding unemployment rate by MSA theory, keep in mind that unemployment data in general could be flawed in how it is reported.  "Right to work" states (aka, Sunbelt) have a smaller pool of workers who are eligible to file for unemployment.  RTW states have less employee rights than more unionized states like OH, PA, & MI.  That means that a typical worker in a state like Tenn. wouldn't even have the ability to file for unemployment; but the same worker in OH, PA, MI would be able to file for unemployment benefits.  This makes the employment situation look unfairly worse in the unionized states, when actually it's a positive that a person can fall back on unemployment during down times.

 

So, reported unemployment rates in Detroit is much different than reported rates in places like Charlotte or Memphis, it's apples and oranges..

I was playing around with census data and decided to throw this table together. The list is alphabetical by county.

 

The last MSA's to recover will be those that were built with artificial wealth, aka "home equity"..  Phoenix, Vegas, Orlando, etc. are getting hammered because those areas were built primarily, if not solely, on the backs of "artificially and temporarily inflated housing values".

 

Home owners were using their houses like ATM's, which drove the demand for retailers and other small businesses (and more employees)..  These areas are now pulling back to reality, to levels of spending commensurate with wages.  Unfortunately, there is even more adjusting yet to occur.

 

IMO, the first metro's to pull out (and are already showing signs of recovering) will be those that make things or provide a required tangible service (healthcare for example).

Cleveland is also still BY FAR AND AWAY the most diverse metro in Ohio, and probably in the midwest (excluding Chicago).  Diverse not only in people, but in topography (lake, waterfalls, rivers) and weather (East & West).

 

Totally agree. With the lakefront development plan and other projects in the cooker, I think Cleveland stands the most chance to thrive in the future. 

The last MSA's to recover will be those that were built with artificial wealth, aka "home equity".. Phoenix, Vegas, Orlando, etc. are getting hammered because those areas were built primarily, if not solely, on the backs of "artificially and temporarily inflated housing values".

 

Home owners were using their houses like ATM's, which drove the demand for retailers and other small businesses (and more employees).. These areas are now pulling back to reality, to levels of spending commensurate with wages. Unfortunately, there is even more adjusting yet to occur.

 

IMO, the first metro's to pull out (and are already showing signs of recovering) will be those that make things or provide a required tangible service (healthcare for example).

 

Agreed.  But I think it is interesting to see how many people expect the return of those boom days, as if the end of the bubble that we see now is the aberration, not the bubble itself.

 

Also, interesting regarding the unemployment numbers.  I didn't know that.  What might provide a better comparison is looking at the number number of people employed in the various MSA labor forces, and how much it has grown/shrunk.

Manufacturing losses and major HQ losses have at least cancelled out any gain from these other economic engines.  Also, much of our finance industry is mature, i.e, not hiring a lot of new people.  We also didn't have the inflated growth that came from the bubbles in IT or real estate that underlies much of the growth that the west and sunbelt have seen recently.

As far as public sector employment, I think you have far understimated the amount of public sector jobs in Cleveland (Federal Reserve comes to mind). Cleveland also has two world-class Hospitals (Clinic & University Hospitals), Cleveland has also emerged as the world leader in stem cell research (and only getting stronger in this area), also has an insurance giant (Progressive), who is growing, is a much bigger banking center (PNC/Nat City, Key), has better museums, orchestra, and theater scene, and has 26 colleges & universities within 50 miles (I believe that is the distance used).

 

And the above is what makes Cleveland such a mystery. How come the city an core county are losing people while it has so many economic engines (both public and private sector) and also a low unemployment rate?

 

There are certainly still job losses (in spite of the diversity) that factor in, but I have a feeling that the 2010 census numbers will be higher than many are anticipating.  The MSA grew from 1990-2000, while the city only lost 5% and the county lost 1% of their respective populations.  While we definitely haven't seen a ton of growth, I don't think the losses have been all that steep.

C-Dawg,

 

I agree both Cleveland and Toledo will probably see long-term population growth. I also think Cleveland's manufacturing base may have bottomed out. This may be the reason why metro Cleveland's unemployment numbers are only one percent above the national average. There is no more to cut. I also think the region's healthcare industry has really taken off. We often forget NEO was hammered in the beginning of the decade. The region has lost roughly 100,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. This probably accounts for the core city/county losses. I also think a lot of the core city/county losses are attributable to accelerated sprawl.  It's hard to show positive growth when your largest industry (manufacturing) takes it on the chin every year. However, since manufacturing in NEO may have bottomed out and has become a smaller portion of the overall regional economy, we may see positive growth once the national economy recovers.

While Cleveland does have bailed-out banks and the Federal Reserve,

 

Let's not forget Cleveland's (and Ohio's) largest bank wasn't bailed out, it was bought out using fed dollars by a regional rival, which is costing us an uncounted number of jobs.

^Good point. I should have said bailed out to be bought by PNC. That didn't really help Ohio as much as it helped The Pitts. And I bet those Nat City people who lost jobs left Cleveland.

 

Well look at it this way, we still have a regional HQ and if the bank had gone bankrupt and had to be dissolved, the job losses would have been greater and the affect on the region devastating.