31 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

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.  

 

You're using a small unit of measure and an outlier to prove a point.  The densest block group in the United States is in Chicago.  It has a population of 978, covers 0.0016 square miles (roughly 180 ft x 180 ft square, just over half of a football field), and has a density of 600,809 person per square mile, about ten times higher than Manhattan.  What does that tell us?  That using a single block group as an anecdote for pretty much anything is meaningless.

 

Let's use some real statistics...

 

I sorted every census tract in Cuyahoga County and Franklin County by density and then computed some summary information.

 

Land area within a census tract that has a population density of 10,000 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 8.75 square miles

Franklin County - 2.05 square miles

 

Population living in a census tract that has a population density of 10,000 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 102,230

Franklin County - 38,684

 

Repeating this analysis with a cutoff of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher yields the following:

 

Land area within a census tract that has a population density of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 30.16 square miles

Franklin County - 12.72 square miles

 

Population living in a census tract that has a population density of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 283,358

Franklin County - 128,709

1 hour ago, jam40jeff said:

 

You're using a small unit of measure and an outlier to prove a point.  The densest block group in the United States is in Chicago.  It has a population of 978, covers 0.0016 square miles (roughly 180 ft x 180 ft square, just over half of a football field), and has a density of 600,809 person per square mile, about ten times higher than Manhattan.  What does that tell us?  That using a single block group as an anecdote for pretty much anything is meaningless.

 

Let's use some real statistics...

 

I sorted every census tract in Cuyahoga County and Franklin County by density and then computed some summary information.

 

Land area within a census tract that has a population density of 10,000 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 8.75 square miles

Franklin County - 2.05 square miles

 

Population living in a census tract that has a population density of 10,000 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 102,230

Franklin County - 38,684

 

Repeating this analysis with a cutoff of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher yields the following:

 

Land area within a census tract that has a population density of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 30.16 square miles

Franklin County - 12.72 square miles

 

Population living in a census tract that has a population density of 7,500 persons per square mile or higher:

Cuyahoga County - 283,358

Franklin County - 128,709

 

I was attempting to make a direct comparison because I used block groups with the 3-Cs as the way to measure the highest possible local density in an area.  All census block groups are small.  However, I didn't suggest that was the full picture of Lakewood's density, only that that was the absolute maximum it reaches there. Meaning that it's not the full story, only part of it.  

As for your numbers, I question them.  Not that long ago, I looked at every single census track within the 3-Cs using city boundaries only, not counties.  I found the size of each of their census tracks, got the density and checked what the total areas were for specific densities, seemingly what you just did.  The numbers don't match your county figures at all. 

 

For example, here were the breakdowns I have, again just based on cities alone.  Notice the differences.

Area in Square Miles Under Specific Density in 2017

Cleveland

20K+: 0.0

15K+: 0.1181

10K+: 4.91214

7.5K+: 16.5765

5K+: 35.6895

3K+: 69.7195

Cincinnati

20K+: 0.0

15K+: 0.0958

10K+: 1.3845

7.5K+: 3.010

5K+: 20.7678

3K+: 46.2210

Columbus

20K+: 0.7657

15K+: 1.3670

10K+: 3.7065

7.5K+: 16.4313

5K+: 44.3061

3K+: 72.9149

 

Population Under Specific Density in 2017

Cleveland

20K+: 0

15K+: 2,075

10K+: 58,170

7.5K+: 147,866

5K+: 263,155

3K+: 341,849

Cincinnati

20K+: 0

15K+: 1,494

10K+: 17,289

7.5K+: 35,028

5K+: 142,632

3K+ 240,690

Columbus

20K+: 19,755

15K+: 29,702

10K+: 55,625

7.5K+: 165,038

5K+: 328,798

3K+: 445,380

 

Not sure how the overall county can have smaller areas and fewer people living in certain densities than just the core city, as you have it.  I got my tract information (population, area sizes, etc.) from the census.  If I did these numbers for the entire counties, the numbers would be even more drastically different.

 

 

.

Edited January 26, 20196 yr by jonoh81

On 1/26/2019 at 9:37 AM, jonoh81 said:

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.  

 

I just mean that the density of one block group doesn't really tell us much, as jam40jeff pointed out. That's why I like the 1-mile and 2-mile radius measurements. They tell us more about what the are is actually like. And using that standard Lakewood is as dense as just about anywhere in Ohio.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I just mean that the density of one block group doesn't really tell us much, as jam40jeff pointed out. That's why I like the 1-mile and 2-mile radius measurements. They tell us more about what the are is actually like. And using that standard Lakewood is as dense as just about anywhere in Ohio.

 

True, but I didn't mean to suggest that those numbers were anything but the maximum existing density.  Lakewood overall is pretty dense, but it's also a pretty small city in area, so perhaps that's not surprising.  And as 500 people have already said, the radius numbers aren't perfect, either.  There are so many ways to measure density that we can pick and choose the ones we like.

Using overall population, Lakewood is more than twice as dense as Columbus.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Using overall population, Lakewood is more than twice as dense as Columbus.

 

 

Its not an apples to apples comparison though. There are probable 6 square mile areas in Columbus or Cincinnati or Cleveland with the same density. 

^ Yeah, I understand that. We're never going to have an apples to apples situation unless you have two cities with the exact same land sq footage and geographical terrain.

19 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

Using overall population, Lakewood is more than twice as dense as Columbus.

 

 

And Cleveland and Cincinnati and Toledo and Dayton and Youngstown and Akron and... But none of those places are 5 square miles, so the comparison is a little suspect.  You'd have to compare 5 square miles of those cities to truly be making an honest comparison.

 

The Short North, Italian Village, Victorian Village, Campus, Weinland Park and Old North Columbus combined are about 5 square miles, and in 2017 had a density of about 13,600. 

Edited January 28, 20196 yr by jonoh81

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And Cleveland and Cincinnati and Toledo and Dayton and Youngstown and Akron and... But none of those places are 5 square miles, so the comparison is a little suspect.  You'd have to compare 5 square miles of those cities to truly be making an honest comparison.

 

So I 100% agree that comparing all of Lakewood to all of any of those cities is apples and oranges, but I actually wonder if there are very many 5 square mile places in those cities that are as dense as Lakewood. I think it would actually be very hard to find many. 

23 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

So I 100% agree that comparing all of Lakewood to all of any of those cities is apples and oranges, but I actually wonder if there are very many 5 square mile places in those cities that are as dense as Lakewood. I think it would actually be very hard to find many. 

 

As I said, the North High Corridor does in Columbus.  If I added all of Clintonville's area to it, the density would still be 11,800.  Even if I added all of Linden, which would take the area near 13 square miles, the density would still be 10,200.  So I could easily find an area in Columbus 3x that of Lakewood with an equal or greater density, and it is all contiguous.  There may not be a lot of examples of this in Ohio, but Lakewood isn't the only one and isn't the most dense of the comparable areas.

Edited January 28, 20196 yr by jonoh81

In my opinion as a Clevelander, there are several ways to look at this question which causes the debate. Each city has something that makes it feel denser, more urban, bigger city etc in its own way. 

 

Over the Rhine in Cincinnati is the structurally densist and most classically east coast urban neighborhood in the state of Ohio. You won’t be able to find anything else like it. 

 

North High Street and surrounding neighborhoods in Columbus offers the largest contiguous Midwest dense area in the state. Centered by a commercial corridor that activity extends for several miles. You won’t be able to find anything else like it in Ohio.  Columbus also has German Village, a structurally dense neighborhood with brick homes and buildings, brick streets, as well as brick sidewalks creating a physicaly unique historic urban neighborhood for the state. Columbus destroys Cleveland and Cincinnati when it comes to downtown adjacent neighborhood density, activity, and stability. 

 

Cleveland’s inner ring suburbs is where it shines. Mainly Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights. Cleveland has Shaker Square, a unique transit oriented historic neighborhood with a rail line running through its center. Again, unique in the state. Cleveland also has medium density suburbs that extend for miles outside of the city, causing it to be “denser” on a regional level. 

 

Obviously each city has things, places, and neighborhoods it can call unique and be proud of, but I tried to keep this strictly about density, both population and structural. 

Edited January 28, 20196 yr by JSC216

Those suburbs represent what Cleveland used to look like.  A lot of Cleveland has been torn down and the larger structures went first.  That was dumb.  Prior to that, it had Lakewood-plus density throughout most of its land mass.  No not like OTR but not that far off, especially the corresponding area just east of downtown. 

1 hour ago, JSC216 said:

Columbus destroys Cleveland and Cincinnati when it comes to downtown adjacent neighborhood density, activity, and stability. 

 

 

I don't know about stability, but when it comes to density this isn't true. The Census data show that within 2 miles of downtown Cincinnati and Columbus, Cincinnati has more density. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I don't know about stability, but when it comes to density this isn't true. The Census data show that within 2 miles of downtown Cincinnati and Columbus, Cincinnati has more density. 

 

Thats from a center point (which includes downtown). I’m talking about adjacent neighborhoods, not a set radius. It’s probably more accurate to say Columbus outperforms Cincinnati and destroys Cleveland. 

On 1/26/2019 at 12:19 PM, jonoh81 said:

As for your numbers, I question them.

 

@jonoh81 I just saw this...

 

My numbers are from the 2010 census.  I don't use estimates because I find them to be too inaccurate.

 

I will link to the spreadsheets I used for Cuyahoga County and Franklin County.  They were downloaded straight from the Census AFF site.  The only modifications I made were to sort by density descending, then calculate the averages above certain thresholds.

 

If you want to find the data yourself, go to https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t, search for "Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - County -- Census Tract", add Cuyahoga County and Franklin County as your geographies, and off you go.  You'll get the same data I attached.

 

If you find an error in my calculations, let me know.

 

Cuyahoga County - https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqRDK8hd4pDOgYcmYqNpWft4IZSDQA

Franklin County - https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqRDK8hd4pDOgYcoKdNhqLTjMaGUQg

 

As far as your numbers go, how did you find them?

Edited February 12, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

On 1/25/2019 at 8:47 AM, DEPACincy said:

 

Loss of 567 between 2000 and 2010, and then another 1,829 between 2010 and 2016. 

 

For Cincinnati, a one mile circle from Fountain Square includes the public housing projects in Newport that were cleared for the Ovation Project and the Queensgate Jail, either of those could have contributed to that decrease in population. 

3 hours ago, jam40jeff said:

 

@jonoh81 I just saw this...

 

My numbers are from the 2010 census.  I don't use estimates because I find them to be too inaccurate.

 

I will link to the spreadsheets I used for Cuyahoga County and Franklin County.  They were downloaded straight from the Census AFF site.  The only modifications I made were to sort by density descending, then calculate the averages above certain thresholds.

 

If you want to find the data yourself, go to https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t, search for "Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2010 - County -- Census Tract", add Cuyahoga County and Franklin County as your geographies, and off you go.  You'll get the same data I attached.

 

If you find an error in my calculations, let me know.

 

Cuyahoga County - https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqRDK8hd4pDOgYcmYqNpWft4IZSDQA

Franklin County - https://1drv.ms/f/s!AqRDK8hd4pDOgYcoKdNhqLTjMaGUQg

 

As far as your numbers go, how did you find them?

 

I use Factfinder pretty much every week, so I'm pretty familiar with it, especially with census tracts at the county level.  I definitely agree with you that estimates can be suspect, especially at the tract level.  They've gotten better over the years, but there's still too much guesswork, and the Census still partially randomizes the overall growth.  For example, in Columbus it has some census tracts in Linden growing faster than some census tracts between Campus and the Short North, which for anyone familiar, is total nonsense.  All that said, we're approaching a decade since 2010, so I don't think they're as useful now.  Despite the flaws of the annual estimates, they're all we have until the 2020 Census.  And that's looking like a potential cluster.... .

I used both 2010 Census numbers and 2017 estimates from the same site.

 

4 hours ago, thomasbw said:

 

For Cincinnati, a one mile circle from Fountain Square includes the public housing projects in Newport that were cleared for the Ovation Project and the Queensgate Jail, either of those could have contributed to that decrease in population. 

 

A great point. Also includes a lot of the West End, which I believe has also lost public housing? 

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

A great point. Also includes a lot of the West End, which I believe has also lost public housing? 

It includes almost all of the West End east of Linn and South of Liberty 

As long as there is not a Cin-Day as of now and there never has been a Cin-Day and the talk of a Cin-Day is just really fantasy talk at this point, I am happy.  ? 

 

 

*just joking around y'all! 

On 2/12/2019 at 2:53 PM, jonoh81 said:

I used both 2010 Census numbers and 2017 estimates from the same site.

 

I was referring more to how you determined the area under a specific density.  What was the unit of area you used to determine the densities (block group, tract, etc.)?  How did you find the set of data for that unit for the entire city?

 

I chose census tracts as my unit and the county as the overall area to study both because I find tract data to be more meaningful when looking at "local densities" (it's not too small of an area to produce outlandish results but also not too big to lose the granularity required to compare relative densities within a city) and also because AFF makes it easiest to obtain this tract data for an entire county.

 

This article gets at the heart of the discussions we've had here about how popular urban neighborhoods can actually be losing population while seeing lots of new development:

 

https://slate.com/business/2019/04/old-buildings-house-fewer-people-than-they-did-50-years-ago-what-happened.html

 

Central Harlem, the gentrifying area adjacent to Central Park, leads the way: Between 2015 and 2018, 112 Central Harlem buildings “shrank,” taking 831 units off the market. That was nearly enough to counteract all the neighborhood’s new construction, which created 854 new units in that time. The neighborhood appears to be getting bigger, but it’s not.

 

It’s a reminder that “growth” in cities isn’t always what it seems and that architecture can be an awfully poor proxy for the social structures to which it seems so closely tied. Neighborhoods that appear to be magnets for new people and more apartments may, behind every historic façade, be losing both.

Edited April 2, 20196 yr by DEPACincy

That makes retailers flee.

 

Families > Netflix/Taproom/Amazon singles when it comes to spending money at stores -- big time.

3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

This article gets at the heart of the discussions we've had here about how popular urban neighborhoods can actually be losing population while seeing lots of new development:

 

https://slate.com/business/2019/04/old-buildings-house-fewer-people-than-they-did-50-years-ago-what-happened.html

 

Central Harlem, the gentrifying area adjacent to Central Park, leads the way: Between 2015 and 2018, 112 Central Harlem buildings “shrank,” taking 831 units off the market. That was nearly enough to counteract all the neighborhood’s new construction, which created 854 new units in that time. The neighborhood appears to be getting bigger, but it’s not.

 

It’s a reminder that “growth” in cities isn’t always what it seems and that architecture can be an awfully poor proxy for the social structures to which it seems so closely tied. Neighborhoods that appear to be magnets for new people and more apartments may, behind every historic façade, be losing both.

 

 Exactly how population in Ohio City over the past couple years has actually marginally shrank (According to Ashley Shaw of Ohio City Inc, the local CDC) homes have fewer people in it or parcels that had multiple units now have one larger living space.

Edited April 2, 20196 yr by skorasaurus

6 hours ago, skorasaurus said:

 

 Exactly how population in Ohio City over the past couple years has actually marginally shrank (According to Ashley Shaw of Ohio City Inc, the local CDC) homes have fewer people in it or parcels that had multiple units now have one larger living space.

That's interesting given the number of apartment buildings that have been built there. The Quarter was built where there was nothing. Clinton was built on a farmer meat packaging company. You'd think it would have grown.

 

1 minute ago, Mov2Ohio said:

That's interesting given the number of apartment buildings that have been built there. The Quarter was built where there was nothing. Clinton was built on a farmer meat packaging company. You'd think it would have grown.

I believe the most recent population data at the neighborhood level is from few years ago. I assume none of these larger conversions had been reflected yet. 

2018's estimates are now officially out

 

Hamilton County: .2% Growth

Franklin County: 1.1%

Cuyahoga County: -.4%

Cleveland.com has some nice tables showing the composition of the population change for each county: https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

Biggest surprise to me is that Franklin County didn't benefit from net domestic migration last year. All its population growth was due to births/deaths and immigration. Has this been the case for a while now? I always assumed domestic in-movers to Franklin County would more than off-set people moving out to the collar counties. Not having looked at the historical trend, could also be a one year blip. And obviously it's all just estimates, but even taking the margin of error into account, that fact was unexpected.

22 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Cleveland.com has some nice tables showing the composition of the population change for each county: https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

Biggest surprise to me is that Franklin County didn't benefit from net domestic migration last year. All its population growth was due to births/deaths and immigration. Has this been the case for a while now? I always assumed domestic in-movers to Franklin County would more than off-set people moving out to the collar counties. Not having looked at the historical trend, could also be a one year blip. And obviously it's all just estimates, but even taking the margin of error into account, that fact was unexpected.

I believe this is the first time in a long while at least for this. Fortunately we have the natural increase(younger population)and the immigration. I was surprised as well. 

 

 

* I guess I will force myself to read the article and ...*sigh* the comments that go along with it. 

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by Toddguy

As has been the case for years, there are 2 major takeaways:

1. All hail the suburbs

2. US Citizens do not want to live here, international immigration is imperative to our growth.

28 minutes ago, StapHanger said:

Cleveland.com has some nice tables showing the composition of the population change for each county: https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

Biggest surprise to me is that Franklin County didn't benefit from net domestic migration last year. All its population growth was due to births/deaths and immigration. Has this been the case for a while now? I always assumed domestic in-movers to Franklin County would more than off-set people moving out to the collar counties. Not having looked at the historical trend, could also be a one year blip. And obviously it's all just estimates, but even taking the margin of error into account, that fact was unexpected.

 

 

People think these things (in-migration and births) are always separate, but they're not. A lot of people don't have kids until they move here.

1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

Cleveland.com has some nice tables showing the composition of the population change for each county: https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

Biggest surprise to me is that Franklin County didn't benefit from net domestic migration last year. All its population growth was due to births/deaths and immigration. Has this been the case for a while now? I always assumed domestic in-movers to Franklin County would more than off-set people moving out to the collar counties. Not having looked at the historical trend, could also be a one year blip. And obviously it's all just estimates, but even taking the margin of error into account, that fact was unexpected.

 

To me, this is looking like a bad estimate across the board for Ohio. The Census had Franklin County with one of it's highest net domestic totals in decades in 2017 with almost +6,000, but for 2018, -213.  This just doesn't happen from one year to the next, especially at a time when the region, county and city, are seeing historically high growth rates.  I would suggest that no one take these numbers all that seriously.  Garbage in, garbage out this year, IMO.

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by jonoh81

^Probably good advice. 

1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

Cleveland.com has some nice tables showing the composition of the population change for each county: https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

Biggest surprise to me is that Franklin County didn't benefit from net domestic migration last year. All its population growth was due to births/deaths and immigration. Has this been the case for a while now? I always assumed domestic in-movers to Franklin County would more than off-set people moving out to the collar counties. Not having looked at the historical trend, could also be a one year blip. And obviously it's all just estimates, but even taking the margin of error into account, that fact was unexpected.

 

From this chart posted in the Immigration thread - https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/14922-immigration/?do=findComment&comment=887458 - it looks like Delaware County (i.e. Southern Delaware County - i.e. just north of Franklin County) got the net domestic migration during this estimate period.  Delaware County has a +3111 U.S. Migration number vs. a -213 U.S. Migration number for Franklin County.

 

 

2 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Immigrants are saving my county (Montgomery):
 

 

I'm glad to see Montgomery County has pretty much appeared to have leveled off. Metro Dayton's counties seem to be doing OK, especially if you throw in Warren County since the northern third is de facto Metro Dayton. 

Looks like CLE is in good company:  Chicago and NYC also lost population, acc to the estimates. Better to be in a group with NY and Chicago than Dallas and Houston!

^ Lol, that's some good spin!

4 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

I'm glad to see Montgomery County has pretty much appeared to have leveled off. Metro Dayton's counties seem to be doing OK, especially if you throw in Warren County since the northern third is de facto Metro Dayton. 

 

Yeah, it's nice to see both Dayton and Cincinnati's core counties appear to have leveled off and are growing again. I'd be curious to see a map of where the growth is occurring in Hamilton County. No doubt parts of the city are growing, but other parts of the city are still losing. There is a bit of new subdivision growth still occurring in the western part of the county, and I think the north/northeast burbs are also growing. Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 new housing developments in Blue Ash alone, and I know the demand for housing in Sycamore schools is off the charts. 

I was about to ask can it really be that Warren Co. increased by that much? Then I realized I was confusing it with the city of Warren. Not that there's anything wrong with living there?

13 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Yeah, it's nice to see both Dayton and Cincinnati's core counties appear to have leveled off and are growing again. I'd be curious to see a map of where the growth is occurring in Hamilton County. No doubt parts of the city are growing, but other parts of the city are still losing. There is a bit of new subdivision growth still occurring in the western part of the county, and I think the north/northeast burbs are also growing. Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 new housing developments in Blue Ash alone, and I know the demand for housing in Sycamore schools is off the charts. 

 

So the 2018 estimates for cities aren't out yet but I looked at the 2017 estimates and Cincinnati grew by 2,503 residents from 2016 to 2017. Hamilton County grew by 3,099 during that period. So 80% of the growth from 2016 to 2017 took place in the city if the estimates are accurate. 

 

Looking at all seven years from 2010 to 2017, Cincinnati grew by 4,398 residents and HamCo grew by 12,299. So Cincinnati accounted for 36% of all growth this decade so far. 

It's good to see Montgomery county stable, but unfortunate that the city of Dayton is still bleeding people.

 

On 4/18/2019 at 5:15 PM, DEPACincy said:

 

So the 2018 estimates for cities aren't out yet but I looked at the 2017 estimates and Cincinnati grew by 2,503 residents from 2016 to 2017. Hamilton County grew by 3,099 during that period. So 80% of the growth from 2016 to 2017 took place in the city if the estimates are accurate. 

 

Looking at all seven years from 2010 to 2017, Cincinnati grew by 4,398 residents and HamCo grew by 12,299. So Cincinnati accounted for 36% of all growth this decade so far. 

 

To update this, from 2017 to 2018 Hamilton County grew by 2,013 people. The City of Cincinnati grew by 957. So Cincinnati accounted for 47.5% of the county's growth. 

 

Looking at the entire period from 2010 to 2018, HamCo grew by 14,312. Cincinnati grew by 5,355. That brings the percentage of growth attributable to the city up to 37.4%.

Interesting how many of the sub-125 population villages are in Monroe County:

 

Wilson, Antioch, Stafford, Miltonsburg, Graysville.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by GCrites80s

I wonder if the 36 people of Rendville village in 2010 are the same ones in 2018

On 4/18/2019 at 1:57 PM, Pugu said:

Looks like CLE is in good company:  Chicago and NYC also lost population, acc to the estimates. Better to be in a group with NY and Chicago than Dallas and Houston!

CLE metro lost under 1,000 while Akron metro (3 counties) lost less than 100.  Not huge losses of course, hopefully there's + population growth in the near future.

11 minutes ago, Oxford19 said:

CLE metro lost under 1,000 while Akron metro (3 counties) lost less than 100.  Not huge losses of course, hopefully there's + population growth in the near future.

Lost a 1000 in a year? Akron under 100? Population loss is slowing down and maybe even increasing now being an estimate. I see a reversal soon or at least a leveling off.

Just now, Mildtraumatic said:

Lost a 1000 in a year? Akron under 100? Population loss is slowing down and maybe even increasing now being an estimate. I see a reversal soon or at least a leveling off.

Well if you take the 5 county CLE MSA net gains v. loss, it's not a huge overall loss; under 1,000.  Same with Akron 3-county MSA.  

 

Since there's a ? not sure what you're getting at with that.

isn't akron MSA 2 counties---summit and portage? what's the third?