23 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Just for reference, here are the 3-C densities 1950-2017 based on land area WITHOUT water.

Cleveland

1950: 12197.4

1960: 11542.2

1970: 9893.3

1980: 7263.6

1990: 6566.4

2000: 6165.0

2010: 5113.6

2017: 4961.7

Cincinnati

1950: 6711.0

1960: 6569.3

1970: 5794.2

1980: 4935.5

1990: 4715.5

2000: 4247.2

2010: 3807.0

2017: 3867.8

Columbus

1950: 9540.6

1960: 5429.9

1970: 4009.5

1980: 3122.5

1990: 3315.4

2000: 3383.1

2010: 3623.5

2017: 4023.7

 

I think this shows some of the misconceptions on density, past and present.  Even at its peak, Cleveland had roughly double Cincinnati's density and about 30% more than Columbus.  They all changed, either through population loss/growth or in Columbus' case, annexation through the 1970s.  Today, they are all roughly in the same ballpark. 

 

Except Columbus is the only one becoming more dense, a maturation that has now continued for nearly 40 years. That's pretty impressive. The other 2Cs would be jumping for joy if that was the case for them, although it's possible Cincinnati has just started a trendline in that direction. Cleveland has merely slowed the bloodletting.

7 minutes ago, Lucas_uLsac said:

 

Metro is always the standard when tabulating regional population statistics, not city limits. By these standards, there is no factoring in of the Northern Kentucky cities or the completely surrounded communities of Columbus, such as UA, Bexely, or Grandview. These things alone change the density and urbanity of a place, which is evident by DEPA's original post. I know the point trying to be made is that the lake adversely portrays Cleveland's density and urbanity, but this is not the correct way to do it. 

 

I'm not trying to tabulate regional population statistics.  Just looking at a different way to measure density in a city.  Instead of everyone yelling how wrong the different measurements are, what is the agreed-upon measurement we should be using?  No one seems to agree on anything. 

24 minutes ago, aderwent said:

But that density isn't just forced out further. It's more focused further in as well. There's no reason to think that if Cleveland could develop where the lake is that it would have any more than a negligible amount of additional people in a given radius.

 

"No reason"?  That's quite a stretch.  There are quite urban densities spreading east and west from the city outside of the 5 mile radius.  It's likely that much of that density would have been built north of the city if that land was available.  I would think people living in those dense areas 5-8 miles from the city would have preferred to live within 5 miles of the city if they could enjoy the same densities and be closer to the city due to there being land available north of the city.

 

Quote

What you're arguing is that people were forced to move further out (East-West in this case). Were people in Cleveland willing to live further out from the jobs center than people in e.g. Columbus? Doubtful. They had the same restrictions as everyone in every other city. They could only live a certain distance away. The lake forced all these people to live in half as much area in that "distance away".

 

People also have a "density preference" in addition to a "distance from the city center" preference.  Both were likely at play, but as long as the "density preference" played any part in people's decision to move further away from the city, then that means more people would have located within the 5 mile radius if they were able to be closer to the city with the same density as they had to seek further east or west.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I'm not trying to tabulate regional population statistics.  Just looking at a different way to measure density in a city.  Instead of everyone yelling how wrong the different measurements are, what is the agreed-upon measurement we should be using?  No one seems to agree on anything. 

 

Yeah its definitely tricky. I feel like people use different metrics based on what they're trying to prove. Me personally, I prefer to use urbanity. This is highly subjective, and very anecdotal. So obviously I don't use it to debate people, but I use it for me personally. 

Just now, Lucas_uLsac said:

 

Yeah its definitely tricky. I feel like people use different metrics based on what they're trying to prove. Me personally, I prefer to use urbanity. This is highly subjective, and very anecdotal. So obviously I don't use it to debate people, but I use it for me personally. 

 

This.  I believe most of us concluded at one point on here that the Urbanized Area definitions of the census are probably the best way to compare different cities.  I'm actually unsure why those aren't more well known than the MSA definitions.

Can someone post the urban areas and defininiton of the 3c's?

 

That would measure continuous urban connected areas which are connected?

39 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Were people in Cleveland willing to live further out from the jobs center than people in e.g. Columbus? Doubtful.

Cleveland did have the rapid transit lines out east.

5 minutes ago, IAGuy39 said:

Can someone post the urban areas and defininiton of the 3c's?

 

That would measure continuous urban connected areas which are connected?

 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/2010ua.html

 

Cincinnati:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua16885_cincinnati_oh--ky--in/DC10UA16885.pdf

 

Cleveland:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua17668_cleveland_oh/DC10UA17668.pdf

 

Columbus:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua19234_columbus_oh/DC10UA19234.pdf

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

Also guys, just a comment about the original radius numbers... the Census version of this starts at Mile 0, not Mile 1, but it is clear that the numbers given used Mile 1 and Mile 0 interchangeably.  The other distances seem to be different as well.  This has an impact, if you're not careful, comparing changes over time for certain radius markers. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Lucas_uLsac said:

 

Yeah its definitely tricky. I feel like people use different metrics based on what they're trying to prove. Me personally, I prefer to use urbanity. This is highly subjective, and very anecdotal. So obviously I don't use it to debate people, but I use it for me personally. 

 

Yeah, there's nothing standard because of different development patterns, different types of measurements, different ideas on what makes for a true city (limits, metro, CSA, urbanized area, etc.)  It's all interesting to discuss and debate, but perhaps the best thing to do is to look at each metric as part of the greater whole rather than each metric being the end-all, be-all on its own.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by jonoh81

19 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

This.  I believe most of us concluded at one point on here that the Urbanized Area definitions of the census are probably the best way to compare different cities.  I'm actually unsure why those aren't more well known than the MSA definitions.

 

One of the problems is the Census only does population figures for them once every 10 years rather than annually like everything else, so they don't stir up discussion as often.  Plus, I think people naturally gravitate to the larger designations of MSA and CSA.

35 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

"No reason"?  That's quite a stretch.  There are quite urban densities spreading east and west from the city outside of the 5 mile radius.  It's likely that much of that density would have been built north of the city if that land was available.  I would think people living in those dense areas 5-8 miles from the city would have preferred to live within 5 miles of the city if they could enjoy the same densities and be closer to the city due to there being land available north of the city.

 

 

People also have a "density preference" in addition to a "distance from the city center" preference.  Both were likely at play, but as long as the "density preference" played any part in people's decision to move further away from the city, then that means more people would have located within the 5 mile radius if they were able to be closer to the city with the same density as they had to seek further east or west.

 

 

Good points. I guess I just see distance as a necessity, and density as a preference. Therefore, I don't think there'd be much of an impact. Of course there's no way to really know.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

FWIW, Cuyahoga County is much denser than Franklin or Hamilton Counties. Of course, then you have the fact that part of Cincinnati's densest urban environment is across the river in Kentucky and that the development patterns spread northward into Butler and Warren County and that western Hamilton County is basically undevelopable. And the fact that Columbus's development skews to the north as well, going into southern Delco. 

 

So, like I said, it's very complex. 

 

I wouldn't say Cuyahoga is much denser than Franklin County. As of the 2017 estimates, Cuyahoga's density was only 300/square mile greater than Franklin's, and that gap is closing quick due to rapid growth in Franklin and a slow decline in Cuyahoga. In fact, as of the 2000 census, Cuyahoga's density was 1,000 greater than Franklin's. So in 7 years that density gap closed by 700. 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

Just for reference, here are the 3-C densities 1950-2017 based on land area WITHOUT water.

Cleveland

1950: 12197.4

1960: 11542.2

1970: 9893.3

1980: 7263.6

1990: 6566.4

2000: 6165.0

2010: 5113.6

2017: 4961.7

Cincinnati

1950: 6711.0

1960: 6569.3

1970: 5794.2

1980: 4935.5

1990: 4715.5

2000: 4247.2

2010: 3807.0

2017: 3867.8

Columbus

1950: 9540.6

1960: 5429.9

1970: 4009.5

1980: 3122.5

1990: 3315.4

2000: 3383.1

2010: 3623.5

2017: 4023.7

 

I think this shows some of the misconceptions on density, past and present.  Even at its peak, Cleveland had roughly double Cincinnati's density and about 30% more than Columbus.  They all changed, either through population loss/growth or in Columbus' case, annexation through the 1970s.  Today, they are all roughly in the same ballpark. 

 

What could possibly be gained by comparing the population density of the Columbus city limits to the population densities of Cincy and Cleveland? The situations are so different you can't even compare them effectively. Columbus encompasses 217 square miles of land while Cleveland and Cincinnati only encompass 77.

31 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

This.  I believe most of us concluded at one point on here that the Urbanized Area definitions of the census are probably the best way to compare different cities.  I'm actually unsure why those aren't more well known than the MSA definitions.

Yes, I much prefer urban areas. It generally lines up with peoples' anecdotal feelings. I wish there were somewhere/someone who put together census estimates for urban areas using the city/township/zip code etc estimates they release. Going ten years between counts sucks!

 

Somewhat related I made this post at Skyscraperpage:

 

"Columbus has an overall Walkscore of 41. That's due to its 217 square mile size. According to Walkscore there are 216 neighborhoods in those 217 square miles. They break down into:

21 (9.7%) are Very Walkable+. Only one (1%), the Short North at 92, is a Walker's Paradise.

Some peer cities:

Indianapolis: 30 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. One (1%) is Very Walkable; Downtown at 77. Zero are a Walker's Paradise.

Cincinnati: 50 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. Eight (17%) are Very Walkable+. Two (4%), the CBD and OTR, tie at 93 for a Walker's Paradise.

Cleveland: 60 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. Six (17%) are Very Walkable+. One (3%), Downtown at 91, is a Walker's Paradise.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 23 (29%) are Very Walkable+. Downtown is the most walkable at 95 with a total of five (6%) at Walker's Paradise.

Nashville: 28 overall at 504 square miles. 168 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The East End and Downtown tie at 82, the high for the city.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 305 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is the Sixth Ward at 86.

Kansas City: 34 Overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 21 (11%) are Very Walkable+. One (1%), Old Westport at 92, is the only Walker's Paradise.

Austin: 40 overall at 298 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 15 (22%) are Very Walkable+. One (2%), Downtown at 90, is the only Walker's Paradise.

So according to Walkscore Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Nashville are three "major cities with few walkable neighborhoods.""

 

I think that generally meshes with peoples' "in person" feelings of urbanity, too.

 

28 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/2010ua.html

 

Cincinnati:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua16885_cincinnati_oh--ky--in/DC10UA16885.pdf

 

Cleveland:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua17668_cleveland_oh/DC10UA17668.pdf

 

Columbus:

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua19234_columbus_oh/DC10UA19234.pdf

I guess I don't get these maps. Columbus' urban area did not include the City of Delaware in 2010, but the map shows it as being included.

3 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Yes, I much prefer urban areas. It generally lines up with peoples' anecdotal feelings. I wish there were somewhere/someone who put together census estimates for urban areas using the city/township/zip code etc estimates they release. Going ten years between counts sucks!

 

Somewhat related I made this post at Skyscraperpage:

 

"Columbus has an overall Walkscore of 41. That's due to its 217 square mile size. According to Walkscore there are 216 neighborhoods in those 217 square miles. They break down into:

21 (9.7%) are Very Walkable+. Only one (1%), the Short North at 92, is a Walker's Paradise.

Some peer cities:

Indianapolis: 30 overall at 362 square miles. 93 neighborhoods listed. One (1%) is Very Walkable; Downtown at 77. Zero are a Walker's Paradise.

Cincinnati: 50 overall at 78 square miles. 47 neighborhoods listed. Eight (17%) are Very Walkable+. Two (4%), the CBD and OTR, tie at 93 for a Walker's Paradise.

Cleveland: 60 overall at 78 square miles. 36 neighborhoods listed. Six (17%) are Very Walkable+. One (3%), Downtown at 91, is a Walker's Paradise.

Pittsburgh: 62 overall at 55 square miles. 80 neighborhoods listed. 23 (29%) are Very Walkable+. Downtown is the most walkable at 95 with a total of five (6%) at Walker's Paradise.

Nashville: 28 overall at 504 square miles. 168 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The East End and Downtown tie at 82, the high for the city.

Charlotte: 26 overall at 305 square miles. 159 neighborhoods listed. Six (4%) are Very Walkable. Zero are a Walker's Paradise. The high for the city is the Sixth Ward at 86.

Kansas City: 34 Overall at 315 square miles. 200 neighborhoods listed. 21 (11%) are Very Walkable+. One (1%), Old Westport at 92, is the only Walker's Paradise.

Austin: 40 overall at 298 square miles. 68 neighborhoods listed. 15 (22%) are Very Walkable+. One (2%), Downtown at 90, is the only Walker's Paradise.

So according to Walkscore Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Nashville are three "major cities with few walkable neighborhoods.""

 

I think that generally meshes with peoples' "in person" feelings of urbanity, too.

 

 

Interesting data, thanks for posting. 

 

I find it odd that the Short North received a "Walker's Paradise" classification, but the University District did not. The University District might actually be more walkable than the Short North due to the number of actual useful amenities (grocery stores and whatnot). Regardless, it's still interesting to look at. Pittsburgh definitely has a ton of walkability, likely due to it's hilly terrain pushing everything together. 

54 minutes ago, Lucas_uLsac said:

 

Yeah its definitely tricky. I feel like people use different metrics based on what they're trying to prove. Me personally, I prefer to use urbanity. This is highly subjective, and very anecdotal. So obviously I don't use it to debate people, but I use it for me personally. 

 

Can you explain this? What does 'urbanity' mean to you and how do you measure it?

 

This discussion about population density and corresponding levels of urbanity has been had countless times on UO before, and probably will be had countless more times here in the future. It seems that forumers from Cleveland, and to a lesser extent Cincinnati, feel a disconnect between what the population/density data shows, and what they feel on the ground. Cleveland, it's argued, feels like a bigger, denser city than Columbus, but none of the data that is commonly posted here backs that up. So, why is this?

 

Cleveland has taller buildings than Columbus and Cincinnati. It has real rail transit, while Columbus has none and Cincy only has a small streetcar line. Downtown Cleveland has wide streets and that Great Lakes grandeur in its scale that the older, tighter Cincy doesn't. Downtown Columbus is....unimpressive (I think most people can agree on that, not trying to be controversial here) and seems smaller and considerably less active than the other 2 C's downtowns. These things all surely contribute to the mental disconnect people have when presented population data that shows Cbus as the densest city in the state. Also, Cleveland and Cincinnati have areas that are structurally denser than anything I've seen in Columbus. There is no equivalent to Lakewood's Gold Coast in the rest of the state, just as there is nowhere in the state that comes close to the structural density of OTR. Columbus doesn't have an area one can easily point to as an example of a highly urban and dense neighborhood, though High Street is becoming somewhat of an Ohio version of Wilshire Blvd. What Columbus lacks in these marquis areas it makes up for in consistent, nearly uninterrupted density across much of the city and metro. Cbus posters can downplay the effects of geography, but there is no arguing that the lack of hills and giant bodies of water have allowed Columbus to develop a uniform density that just isn't possible in Cincinnati and Cleveland. 

 

This discussion reminds me of the classic line about metro LA being denser than metro NY. One looks at the skyscrapers of Manhattan and the low rise development of LA and think there's no way NY is less dense. But LA has filled in basically its entire metro with wall to wall development. There are no large gaps except for mountainous areas, while New York has all sorts of gaps in its metro area, and some very low density suburbs and exurbs, while even 60 miles out from LA, development is still on small, uniform lots, and the density is pretty high. NY has a much higher weighted density, and I don't think anyone could argue it feels more classically urban than car loving, sprawling Southern California, but the numbers are the numbers. I think this is basically the dynamic at play in the Cleveland vs Columbus discussion.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by edale

3 minutes ago, aderwent said:

I guess I don't get these maps. Columbus' urban area did not include the City of Delaware in 2010, but the map shows it as being included.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they changed it. Take a drive up 23 from 270 to downtown Delaware. It's pretty much completely lined with neighborhoods, offices, or strip malls. The suburbs are spilling out from there on either side and pretty much forming a continuous giant suburb from 270 to Delaware. 

5 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they changed it. Take a drive up 23 from 270 to downtown Delaware. It's pretty much completely lined with neighborhoods, offices, or strip malls. The suburbs are spilling out from there on either side and pretty much forming a continuous giant suburb from 270 to Delaware. 

Yes, it is almost certainly part of the urban area now, but those maps are from 2010.

 

Edit: Here is a map with the orange being 500+ ppsm, and 1,000+ being brown:

 

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by aderwent

1 minute ago, aderwent said:

Yes, it is almost certainly part of the urban area now, but those maps are from 2010.

 

Oh I misread your comment, my bad. 

28 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Can you explain this? What does 'urbanity' mean to you and how do you measure it?

 

This discussion about population density and corresponding levels of urbanity has been had countless times on UO before, and probably will be had countless more times here in the future. It seems that forumers from Cleveland, and to a lesser extent Cincinnati, feel a disconnect between what the population/density data shows, and what they feel on the ground. Cleveland, it's argued, feels like a bigger, denser city than Columbus, but none of the data that is commonly posted here backs that up. So, why is this?

 

 

Agree on most your points, but the data does show Cleveland is denser than the Columbus.

 

Cleveland 2017 population - 385,525

Columbus 2017 population - 879,170

 

Cleveland land area (square miles) - 78

Columbus land area ( square miles) - 217

 

Cleveland population density 385,525 / 78 = 4,942

Columbus population density 879,170 / 217 = 4,051

 

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Clefan98

On 1/24/2019 at 11:12 AM, DEPACincy said:

Cincinnati

 

1-mile: 16,367

2-mile: 68,944

5-mile: 300,309

10-mile: 788,668

20-mile: 1,549,027

30-mile: 1,964,486

 

Columbus

 

1-mile: 9,533

2-mile: 54,350

5-mile: 319,144

10-mile: 941,430

20-mile: 1,507,420

30-mile: 1,795,130

 

Cleveland

 

1-mile: 12,695

2-mile: 36,406

5-mile: 248,278

10-mile: 817,570

20-mile: 1,565,665

30-mile: 2,275,353

 

 

Sorry @Clefan98, I meant these numbers. Population in a given radius out from downtown.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by edale

^right on

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Clefan98

30 minutes ago, edale said:

Cleveland, it's argued, feels like a bigger, denser city than Columbus, but none of the data that is commonly posted here backs that up. So, why is this?

 

First of all, Cleveland has more historical density than Columbus, so even if there are a lot of vacancies, its built environment will still be more dense.

 

Also, Cleveland is more walkable, which I think is what a lot of people are referring to when they say something "feels dense."

 

I know the walk scores were posted before (and that WalkScore.com isn't a perfect measure by any means), but I will attach the walk score heat maps for each city as well, where you can see that Cleveland has more green and yellow areas than Columbus (although the stretch between Ohio State and German Village is a nice contiguous stretch of walkability, as we all know, not many other areas of the city are walkable).  The images with the 2 suffix are zoomed one step further out than the default zoom level.

7 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "large".

 

Murray Hill in Cleveland survives, yes it has a heavy college/arts influence but still retains its character.  

 

Slavic Village survived into the 90s and it was more a victim of the mortgage bubble than "urban renewal".

 

Some of this goes back to the ideal that for most Americans (especially away from the coasts), residential density is something to be tolerated or endured, not sought out.

 

 

Not sure if you've ever been to otr...combined with it'd neighborhing historic neighborhoods Pendelton, Brighton, Prospect Hill, Old West End, etc...There is a reason why it was called Cincinnati's 2nd downtown at one point. 

 

It's a very large district...most districts in other cities are typically a handful of blocks in most cases.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I wouldn't say Cuyahoga is much denser than Franklin County. As of the 2017 estimates, Cuyahoga's density was only 300/square mile greater than Franklin's, and that gap is closing quick due to rapid growth in Franklin and a slow decline in Cuyahoga. In fact, as of the 2000 census, Cuyahoga's density was 1,000 greater than Franklin's. So in 7 years that density gap closed by 700. 

 

My bad. I looked at the Wikipedia numbers, which are wrong. Still that's like 13% more dense. Franklin is definitely closing on it though. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

 

Not sure if you've ever been to otr...combined with it'd neighborhing historic neighborhoods Pendelton, Brighton, Prospect Hill, Old West End, etc...There is a reason why it was called Cincinnati's 2nd downtown at one point. 

 

It's a very large district...most districts in other cities are typically a handful of blocks in most cases.

I think you're confusing OTR with Walnut HIlls. It was Walnut Hills that was labeled as Cincinnati's second downtown.

19 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

First of all, Cleveland has more historical density than Columbus, so even if there are a lot of vacancies, its built environment will still be more dense.

 

Also, Cleveland is more walkable, which I think is what a lot of people are referring to when they say something "feels dense."

 

I know the walk scores were posted before (and that WalkScore.com isn't a perfect measure by any means), but I will attach the walk score heat maps for each city as well, where you can see that Cleveland has more green and yellow areas than Columbus (although the stretch between Ohio State and German Village is a nice contiguous stretch of walkability, as we all know, not many other areas of the city are walkable).  The images with the 2 suffix are zoomed one step further out than the default zoom level.

 

I'm not sure walk scores can prove or disprove that one area is more dense or more urban than another area. I think any city that matured at the time Cleveland did is going to beat just about any city that matured during the time Columbus did in terms of walkability scores. Columbus is built for cars and, therefor, can hand much more density without improving walkability than a city like Cleveland could. 

 

Again, the whole conversation around density and what is more "urban" is very subjective. Two different cities can both be dense, or lack density, in completely different ways and you can measure it in completely different ways. As a result, we are pretty much going to talk in circles in the thread for all of eternity lol. 

15 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

My bad. I looked at the Wikipedia numbers, which are wrong. Still that's like 13% more dense. Franklin is definitely closing on it though. 

 

 

 

If estimates are correct, and the current rate of change continues, Franklin and Cuyahoga should be pretty much equal in about three years. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Interesting data, thanks for posting. 

 

I find it odd that the Short North received a "Walker's Paradise" classification, but the University District did not. The University District might actually be more walkable than the Short North due to the number of actual useful amenities (grocery stores and whatnot). Regardless, it's still interesting to look at. Pittsburgh definitely has a ton of walkability, likely due to it's hilly terrain pushing everything together. 

 

Was thinking the same thing about the University District vs. Short North. It would be much easier to live around the university area without a car than the Short North. This shows based on the amount of students that don't have a car. 

So here is every designation I can think of that measures population density.  I'm only doing this for the 3-Cs.  First up are densities up to just the 1950 boundaries.  There are some measurements smaller than the 1950 boundary, but I don't have time.

 

Top 10  Most Densely Populated Block Groups by City, 2017

Block Groups are divisions of census tracts.  Other than individual blocks, which I don't have numbers for, these are the smallest sections of any city in area size, and therefore have the highest measured densities. 

Cleveland

1. 1193002: 19167.3

2. 1235021: 19152.0

3. 1011012: 18759.2

4. 1087013: 18572.8

5. 1053004: 17995.4

6. 1051004: 17854.1

7. 1097012: 17784.4

8. 1195013: 16301.0

9. 1011011: 16278.8

10. 1024011: 16185.3

Cincinnati

1. 7001: 26839.6

2. 264001: 21962.0

3. 269002: 18393.1

4. 26001: 18317.4

5. 9002: 17354.4

6. 10001: 16462.8

7. 20002: 15700.8

8. 10002: 15215.1

9. 29001: 15197.8

10. 37002: 14137.7

Columbus

1. 11213: 71531.4

2. 18105: 48855.5

3. 10005: 36166.9

4. 18101: 34804.6

5. 83122: 33530.3

6. 13004: 31167.5

7. 13002: 28027.9

8. 12004: 25482.2

9. 77212: 24605.3

10. 18104: 23637.7

 

Top 10 Census Tracts with the Highest Density By City, 2017

Census tracts are neighborhood-sized sections of each city, typically smaller than 5 square miles in size. 

Cleveland

1. 110101: 17568.4

2. 101603: 14044.7

3. 119502: 13599.6

4. 102402: 13308.4

5. 1023: 13153.1

6. 1068: 12591.0

7. 1241: 12437.6

8. 1055: 12437.6

9. 119501: 12392.8

10. 1064: 12001.0

Cincinnati

1. 10: 15595.6

2. 9: 14961.8

3. 26: 14944.3

4. 17: 12070.0

5. 25: 11933.2

6. 264: 11751.9

7. 29: 10685.0

8. 95: 9749.3

9. 22: 9490.2

10. 33: 9466.7

Columbus

1. 1121: 28377.3

2. 1810: 25944.7

3. 13: 22309.3

4. 10: 17160.1

5. 12: 15531.6

6. 1110: 13902.5

7. 17: 12542.3

8. 20: 12532.5

9. 8163: 10633.4

10. 21: 10546.5

 

Downtowns using census tracts, 2017

Cleveland: 3,160.8

Cincinnati: 3,871.4

Columbus: 2,907.3

 

Downtowns using radius at Mile 0 (or 1 if you use MCDC), 2016

These may differ some from what was posted before as it depends exactly where you make the center point.  I used Public Square for Cleveland, the Statehouse for Columbus and Cincinnati at Fountain Square.

Cleveland: 3,919.4

Cincinnati: 4,396.5

Columbus: 3,029.0

 

1950 City Boundaries in 2017

Cleveland: 4,998.5

Cincinnati: 3605.9

Columbus: 6120.5

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

What could possibly be gained by comparing the population density of the Columbus city limits to the population densities of Cincy and Cleveland? The situations are so different you can't even compare them effectively. Columbus encompasses 217 square miles of land while Cleveland and Cincinnati only encompass 77.

 

City limits are just one way to compare of about 5 million.  I never made any sweeping declarations that they should be the only measurement of any value.  There is no reason anyone should get upset about someone posting any of these numbers. 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

City limits are just one way to compare of about 5 million.  I never made any sweeping declarations that they should be the only measurement of any value.  There is no reason anyone should get upset about someone posting any of these numbers. 

 

I'm not upset. I was simply questioning why you were comparing apples to oranges. It's all good. 

1 hour ago, jam40jeff said:

 

First of all, Cleveland has more historical density than Columbus, so even if there are a lot of vacancies, its built environment will still be more dense.

 

Also, Cleveland is more walkable, which I think is what a lot of people are referring to when they say something "feels dense."

 

I know the walk scores were posted before (and that WalkScore.com isn't a perfect measure by any means), but I will attach the walk score heat maps for each city as well, where you can see that Cleveland has more green and yellow areas than Columbus (although the stretch between Ohio State and German Village is a nice contiguous stretch of walkability, as we all know, not many other areas of the city are walkable).  The images with the 2 suffix are zoomed one step further out than the default zoom level.

 

No one should be using WalkScore as proof of anything.  It has several inherent flaws to it that make it an interesting, but pretty questionable measurement of walkability.  It shouldn't be used for population density at all.

14 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Top 10  Most Densely Populated Block Groups by City, 2017

Block Groups are divisions of census tracts.  Other than individual blocks, which I don't have numbers for, these are the smallest sections of any city in area size, and therefore have the highest measured densities. 

Cleveland

1. 1193002: 19167.3

2. 1235021: 19152.0

3. 1011012: 18759.2

4. 1087013: 18572.8

5. 1053004: 17995.4

6. 1051004: 17854.1

7. 1097012: 17784.4

8. 1195013: 16301.0

9. 1011011: 16278.8

10. 1024011: 16185.3

Cincinnati

1. 7001: 26839.6

2. 264001: 21962.0

3. 269002: 18393.1

4. 26001: 18317.4

5. 9002: 17354.4

6. 10001: 16462.8

7. 20002: 15700.8

8. 10002: 15215.1

9. 29001: 15197.8

10. 37002: 14137.7

Columbus

1. 11213: 71531.4

2. 18105: 48855.5

3. 10005: 36166.9

4. 18101: 34804.6

5. 83122: 33530.3

6. 13004: 31167.5

7. 13002: 28027.9

8. 12004: 25482.2

9. 77212: 24605.3

10. 18104: 23637.7

 

Top 10 Census Tracts with the Highest Density By City, 2017

Census tracts are neighborhood-sized sections of each city, typically smaller than 5 square miles in size. 

Cleveland

1. 110101: 17568.4

2. 101603: 14044.7

3. 119502: 13599.6

4. 102402: 13308.4

5. 1023: 13153.1

6. 1068: 12591.0

7. 1241: 12437.6

8. 1055: 12437.6

9. 119501: 12392.8

10. 1064: 12001.0

Cincinnati

1. 10: 15595.6

2. 9: 14961.8

3. 26: 14944.3

4. 17: 12070.0

5. 25: 11933.2

6. 264: 11751.9

7. 29: 10685.0

8. 95: 9749.3

9. 22: 9490.2

10. 33: 9466.7

Columbus

1. 1121: 28377.3

2. 1810: 25944.7

3. 13: 22309.3

4. 10: 17160.1

5. 12: 15531.6

6. 1110: 13902.5

7. 17: 12542.3

8. 20: 12532.5

9. 8163: 10633.4

10. 21: 10546.5

 

These figures are pretty surprising to me, especially Block Group 11213 in Columbus with a density of 71,531. It's also surprising that all of the Block Groups in Columbus are more dense than all of Cleveland's (at least of the ones listed here obviously) and are more dense than most of Cincinnati's. I'm assuming the majority of these Block Groups in Columbus are focused around campus and the Short North? It's also surprising that the top Census tracts in Columbus outweigh the top tracts in both Cleveland and Cincinnati. 

 

These figures seem to suggest that Columbus is pretty top heavy in terms of high density in some areas being offset by low density in others while Cleveland is more even keeled across the board.  

1 hour ago, edale said:

 

Can you explain this? What does 'urbanity' mean to you and how do you measure it?

 

This discussion about population density and corresponding levels of urbanity has been had countless times on UO before, and probably will be had countless more times here in the future. It seems that forumers from Cleveland, and to a lesser extent Cincinnati, feel a disconnect between what the population/density data shows, and what they feel on the ground. Cleveland, it's argued, feels like a bigger, denser city than Columbus, but none of the data that is commonly posted here backs that up. So, why is this?

 

Cleveland has taller buildings than Columbus and Cincinnati. It has real rail transit, while Columbus has none and Cincy only has a small streetcar line. Downtown Cleveland has wide streets and that Great Lakes grandeur in its scale that the older, tighter Cincy doesn't. Downtown Columbus is....unimpressive (I think most people can agree on that, not trying to be controversial here) and seems smaller and considerably less active than the other 2 C's downtowns. These things all surely contribute to the mental disconnect people have when presented population data that shows Cbus as the densest city in the state. Also, Cleveland and Cincinnati have areas that are structurally denser than anything I've seen in Columbus. There is no equivalent to Lakewood's Gold Coast in the rest of the state, just as there is nowhere in the state that comes close to the structural density of OTR. Columbus doesn't have an area one can easily point to as an example of a highly urban and dense neighborhood, though High Street is becoming somewhat of an Ohio version of Wilshire Blvd. What Columbus lacks in these marquis areas it makes up for in consistent, nearly uninterrupted density across much of the city and metro. Cbus posters can downplay the effects of geography, but there is no arguing that the lack of hills and giant bodies of water have allowed Columbus to develop a uniform density that just isn't possible in Cincinnati and Cleveland. 

 

This discussion reminds me of the classic line about metro LA being denser than metro NY. One looks at the skyscrapers of Manhattan and the low rise development of LA and think there's no way NY is less dense. But LA has filled in basically its entire metro with wall to wall development. There are no large gaps except for mountainous areas, while New York has all sorts of gaps in its metro area, and some very low density suburbs and exurbs, while even 60 miles out from LA, development is still on small, uniform lots, and the density is pretty high. NY has a much higher weighted density, and I don't think anyone could argue it feels more classically urban than car loving, sprawling Southern California, but the numbers are the numbers. I think this is basically the dynamic at play in the Cleveland vs Columbus discussion.

 

To me, urbanity is the encompassment of features and attributes you would consider "urban". Transit, walkability, large infrastructure, amenities within walkable distances, vibrancy, density (both population wise and the built environment). 

 

For me personally, Cleveland looks bigger, but doesn't feel bigger than Columbus. I think why people perceive it to be bigger is that it has features you associate with 'big city' like rail lines, taller buildings, large pieces of infrastructure that Columbus doesn't have in order to overcome natural barriers and contribute to the local economy, and things of the liking. 

 

I wouldn't consider Cleveland's transit more "real" just because it has rail. There are cities nationally and across the globe that don't have rail, but have bus networks that make Clevelands rail look like the CBUS circulator. While the other two C's may not have that form of transit, they have bus and/or street car that contribute to overall transit, and Columbus' transit network is actually growing. I think this feeds into the idea of perceived vs. actuality. It could be perceived that Cleveland is larger than Columbus because it has rail, but actually the numbers currently say otherwise. Lastly, I think people like to use topography as a scapegoat too frequently. Truth is, if the demand is there, it'll happen. Places like San Francisco and Seattle have managed to become very dense metros and have very challenging topography. 

 

Your last part about LA vs. NYC is a good one. One would assume as a region, New York is denser than LA (Perception). This is because NY has massive amounts of very tall buildings, lots or transit, large infrastructure pieces. LA has very little of that, but the numbers say otherwise because LA's density is consistent for miles and miles. To your point, I would say that yes, that is applicable here. 

 

 

1 hour ago, jam40jeff said:

 

First of all, Cleveland has more historical density than Columbus, so even if there are a lot of vacancies, its built environment will still be more dense.

 

Also, Cleveland is more walkable, which I think is what a lot of people are referring to when they say something "feels dense."

 

 

Can you post some street view links to some of these dense built environments you're talking about? The gentrified neighborhoods, that would actually have things to walk to, are mostly comprised of detached housing, just like they are in Columbus. Tremont, for example, hardly feels like a dense, big city neighborhood to me. Here are some areas of Cleveland that I think feel pretty dense and give you the big city feel:

 

Gold Coast/Edgewater: Aerial and Street View

 

Coventry: Aerial and Street View

 

Shaker Square: Aerial and Street View

 

When I think of Cleveland, though, I usually think of neighborhoods that look like this. Not exactly dense, walkable (meaning mixed use), or urban. And not especially different from Columbus neighborhoods, which often look like this.

 

Not to be a homer, but if any Ohio city is going to claim a supremely walkable, dense (structurally) built environment in Ohio, I think it's Cincinnati. There are plenty of neighborhoods of single family homes like there are in Cleveland and Columbus, but also a fairly sizable chunk of the city (or at least the core) that is classic East Coast style urbanism. Tenement neighborhoods like Pendleton and OTR, attached SFHs in Mt. Adams, rowhouses in Prospect Hill, etc.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by edale

Again I think that just gets into the fine line between "dense" and "urban", both of which can take many forms. I'd consider Yellow Springs one of the most "urban" places in Ohio because it's pedestrian and bike friendly and you have plenty of up-to-the-street commercial buildings and a vibrant street life, but at the same time it's a village of just 3500 people comprised almost entirely of detached houses in an overall very rural setting. Places like Shaker Square can definitely feel "big city", but that's (in my opinion) just one tiny subsection of the overall "urbanism" umbrella. 

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by BigDipper 80

12 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Can you post some street view links to some of these dense built environments you're talking about? The gentrified neighborhoods, that would actually have things to walk to, are mostly comprised of detached housing, just like they are in Columbus. Tremont, for example, hardly feels like a dense, big city neighborhood to me. Here are some areas of Cleveland that I think feel pretty dense and give you the big city feel:

 

Gold Coast/Edgewater: Aerial and Street View

 

Coventry: Aerial and Street View

 

Shaker Square: Aerial and Street View

 

When I think of Cleveland, though, I usually think of neighborhoods that look like this. Not exactly dense, walkable (meaning mixed use), or urban. And not especially different from Columbus neighborhoods, which often look like this.

 

Not to be a homer, but if any Ohio city is going to claim a supremely walkable, dense (structurally) built environment in Ohio, I think it's Cincinnati. There are plenty of neighborhoods of single family homes like there are in Cleveland and Columbus, but also a fairly sizable chunk of the city (or at least the core) that is classic East Coast style urbanism. Tenement neighborhoods like Pendleton and OTR, attached SFHs in Mt. Adams, rowhouses in Prospect Hill, etc.

 

Surprisingly, this part of Columbus is more dense than any of those places. 

12 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Surprisingly, this part of Columbus is more dense than any of those places. 

 

Based on what? I highly doubt it is actually more dense than that part of Lakewood. 

22 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Again I think that just gets into the fine line between "dense" and "urban", both of which can take many forms. I'd consider Yellow Springs one of the most "urban" places in Ohio because it's pedestrian and bike friendly and you have plenty of up-to-the-street commercial buildings and a vibrant street life, but at the same time it's a village of just 3500 people comprised almost entirely of detached houses in an overall very rural setting. Places like Shaker Square can definitely feel "big city", but that's (in my opinion) just one tiny subsection of the overall "urbanism" umbrella. 

 

That gets to my point about Athens. It is a small town, but it has a huge amount of density in its tiny boundaries and has all of those features you mentioned. College towns are where its at. 

4 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Based on what? I highly doubt it is actually more dense than that part of Lakewood. 

 

Census data.  The most densely populated block group in Lakewood is around 23K. 

If Cleveland were intact this would be no contest.  I'm impressed by how well it still does in these stats, after destroying all that multi-story building stock. 

One search and you can easily see the distinction between boundaries. Columbus has very small tracts, which are very dense. Cleveland's densest tracts are spilt up. For example downtown also includes Burke.

16 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Census data.  The most densely populated block group in Lakewood is around 23K. 

 

I guess if you only go by that particular block group. But that's a weird standard to use. Block groups in urban areas are tiny. Without context it could be a very dense block group surrounded by a huge park. 

 

I don't want to get in the Cbus/CLE pissing match but using the 2-mile radius, here are the populations for those two areas:

Lakewood: 88,080

Columbus (Dennison Place): 75,791

I post a 66 now, but this was kind of amusing:

 

"<my address>  has a Walk Score of 66 out of 100. This location is Somewhat Walkable so some errands can be accomplished on foot.

This location is in the North Collinwood neighborhood in Cleveland. Nearby parks include Euclid Beach Park, Wildwood Park and White City Amusement Park (historical)"

 

Yeah I suppose we could call something that closed 110 years ago "historical".

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I guess if you only go by that particular block group. But that's a weird standard to use. Block groups in urban areas are tiny. Without context it could be a very dense block group surrounded by a huge park. 

 

I don't want to get in the Cbus/CLE pissing match but using the 2-mile radius, here are the populations for those two areas:

Lakewood: 88,080

Columbus (Dennison Place): 75,791

 

I knew there was a reason why I moved to The Edge and stayed for 22 years! That kind of density begets 24-hour restaurants, 24-hour stores, 24-hour transit and many more restaurants, taverns, shops (including three grocery stores), a rail station, and more within a 5- to 15-minute walk than I can have in just about any other setting in Ohio.

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I guess if you only go by that particular block group. But that's a weird standard to use. Block groups in urban areas are tiny. Without context it could be a very dense block group surrounded by a huge park. 

 

I don't want to get in the Cbus/CLE pissing match but using the 2-mile radius, here are the populations for those two areas:

Lakewood: 88,080

Columbus (Dennison Place): 75,791

What do you mean, if that’s the only one I use?  I just gave the part of Lakewood that showed the highest density.   It’s higher than anything Cleveland has, but not as high as some areas of Cincinnati or Columbus.  Overall, Lakewood’s density is decent, but still not the highest in the state.  

17 hours ago, edale said:

Not to be a homer, but if any Ohio city is going to claim a supremely walkable, dense (structurally) built environment in Ohio, I think it's Cincinnati.

 

Oh, absolutely, I would never disagree with you there.  Like Pittsburgh, the topography in Cincinnati definitely forced things to be built much more densely in the areas that are suitable for building than either Cleveland or Columbus.