I see a lot of trees, there were more trees in Cleveland in the 40s, than there are today

3 minutes ago, punch said:

I see a lot of trees, there were more trees in Cleveland in the 40s, than there are today

 

I’m not just referring to the above. I think most residential neighborhoods have far more landscaping and trees now. 

Cleveland has never been dense, at least not on a large scale. Have there been a few block sections of higher density, of course, but most of the city is, and always has been detached single family and 2 family homes. The city was however overcrowded (different than high density) and people did understandably want to escape that. Don’t view that as an escape from density though, as it was not. 

8 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

That was something the majority endured because it was necessary at the time (WWII, and the postwar era when the rural migration did not reverse), not because they chose or enjoyed it.

 

As they endured it, they worked to get away from it.

 

City planners and boosters err when they romanticize density.   

 

Maybe it's time to update this opinion given all that's happening in Downtown, UC, or the near Westside, with gobs of new apartment and townhouse developments being built.

5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

What I always notice about old city pictures is just how awful the cities look. There are few trees, little to no pedestrian infrastructure, manufacturing pollution... it’s no wonder people wanted to leave.  We don’t build density like we used to, but we also don’t build completely sterile, dirty places with no thought for residents anymore, either.  

The concept of cities has changed. They were utilitarian back in the day as people lived there because they had no choice. Now, people live in the city as part of a lifestyle choice and cities have been able to reinvent themselves because of it.  As you point out, the buildings may not have as much character but the goal is to connect it with the street now. In the old days, the street was not meant for people.

 

3 hours ago, JSC216 said:

Cleveland has never been dense, at least not on a large scale. Have there been a few block sections of higher density, of course, but most of the city is, and always has been detached single family and 2 family homes. The city was however overcrowded (different than high density) and people did understandably want to escape that. Don’t view that as an escape from density though, as it was not. 

Cleveland is very dense. Shaker Square, Van Aken, Ohio City, Cleve Heights, Lakewood, Brooklyn, etc are all example of very dense neighborhoods. There are a lot more buildings that are 3-10 stories in Cleveland neighborhoods than any city in Ohio.

14 hours ago, E Rocc said:

City planners and boosters err when they romanticize density.   

 

What they are romanticizing is the amenities that density brings - lots of retail options in a short (usually walking) distance, frequent transit service, safety in numbers. Nothing wrong romanticizing those things.

All the things that we love about cities can only happen when cities are built at a pedestrian-scale -- i.e. with density and mixed use.

Also remember that a lot of people can't help but extrapolate any time things change even a little bit. Like if another person gets on a train, then everyone will have their cars taken and be forced onto the train.

 

My block is all single family homes and everyone has a back yard and a front porch. It is quite dense by American standards but doesn't feel stifling at all. The lots are only 25' wide and everybody parks on the street for the most part. When every house doesn't have huge side yards and a driveway you can build quite dense single-family neighborhoods that don't feel like you're on top of each other. 

 

My old neighborhood in West Philly was also quite dense, with a mix of 3 to 5 story apartments, corner stores, bars and restaurants, and many, many two-family twin houses. It was the greenest place I've ever lived, and I grew up way out in the country in Southern Ohio. 

Look at Yellow Springs. I don't think the village has a single apartment building, and it's still one of the most vibrant, walkable, and urban places in the state. 

This density is OPPRESSIVE...

 

https://goo.gl/maps/U7FoVPFpoAx1H1J27

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Look at Yellow Springs. I don't think the village has a single apartment building, and it's still one of the most vibrant, walkable, and urban places in the state. 

 

Yellow springs is pretty small though. Their entire downtown is maybe slightly larger than downtown Loveland. 

10 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

This density is OPPRESSIVE...

 

https://goo.gl/maps/U7FoVPFpoAx1H1J27

 

Absolutely suffocating!

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Look at Yellow Springs. I don't think the village has a single apartment building, and it's still one of the most vibrant, walkable, and urban places in the state. 

 

It does have apartment buildings. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8002956,-83.8985875,3a,75y,3.69h,88.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slqqLig_hirSk0TW75WpDng!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlqqLig_hirSk0TW75WpDng%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D328.61435%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

10 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

 

Absolutely suffocating!

 

stacked right on top of each other!

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Look at Yellow Springs. I don't think the village has a single apartment building, and it's still one of the most vibrant, walkable, and urban places in the state. 

 

Easy now. I love Yellow Spring, but it's a sleepy small town with a decent little business district. I wouldn't call it urban, let alone one of the most urban places in the state! 

 

As far as this larger density conversation goes, I actually think @E Rocc is correct in that different countries and portions of this country have differing tolerances for density. The East Coast is generally more tolerant of traditional forms of density, i.e. multi-family buildings, row-houses, etc. The West Coast generally tends to be less tolerant of density than East Coasters, but they don't seem to mind the relative density of their single family homes, even in suburban and exurban areas. People in a Southern (excluding Miami) or Midwestern suburb would never tolerate their suburban residential neighborhoods having homes as close together as they are in Orange County or Vegas, for example.  When you look internationally, even the majority of Manhattanites would scoff at the notion of living in Hong Kong style density. The development patterns people are used to absolutely affect their appetite for density.

 

That said, I don't think these attitudes are set in stone, and I do think that the conversation needs to be much more nuanced than just 'people don't like density'. People DO like environments where they can comfortably walk. They like having commercial establishments to walk to. They enjoy neighborhoods that facilitate interaction with their neighbors. As urbanists, many of us know that density is, in part, the way to achieve these things, but there is a disconnect between the two concepts for many people. I think most Americans do desire a bit more space than people in other countries, and in some places, achieving meaningful density is going to be a challenge. The good thing is, many of our cities in the Midwest already have the bones and structures to facilitate dense environments, we just need people to reoccupy them. We aren't starting from scratch when it comes to designing dense neighborhoods, unlike places like Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, etc.  

 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Yet there is someone, even in this ''cities are social places'' pic, on his phone...lol...''living in isolation''.  Besides, Richard Florida is a bit ''yesterday''; he has also recently come up with a ''beautiful city'' theory.

Edited June 1, 20196 yr by Oxford19

Painesville's growing, but somebody asks why Mentor is not on the chart. Who cares? lol

 

 

 

On 6/1/2019 at 3:36 PM, Oxford19 said:

Yet there is someone, even in this ''cities are social places'' pic, on his phone...lol...''living in isolation''.  Besides, Richard Florida is a bit ''yesterday''; he has also recently come up with a ''beautiful city'' theory.

 

How do you know what he's doing? He could be finding something interesting online to show his friends. 

Just now, DEPACincy said:

 

How do you know what he's doing? He could be finding something interesting online to show his friends. 

or maybe he's the average trendy city dweller, on his phone most of the time, social setting or not..lol...must be cuz he found something interesting to share...lol.  Maybe he's taking a selfie...another one..lol

 

At a minimum, this pic shouldn't have been used in promoting the social benefits of city living...in order to avoid a discussion about why this guy is on his phone.

Edited June 3, 20196 yr by Oxford19

City Lab had an interesting article linking ApartmentList.com's migration report.

 

Cleveland and Columbus seem to be pulling from mostly the Rust Belt.   Cincinnati too, but oddly enough seems to have a pipeline from Philly.  I don't know what is driving the connection between our two cities, but I thought that was pretty cool.

 

Also, Detroit is getting ravaged by other growing rustbelt cities, not a good look.

46 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

City Lab had an interesting article linking ApartmentList.com's migration report.

 

Cleveland and Columbus seem to be pulling from mostly the Rust Belt.   Cincinnati too, but oddly enough seems to have a pipeline from Philly.  I don't know what is driving the connection between our two cities, but I thought that was pretty cool.

 

Also, Detroit is getting ravaged by other growing rustbelt cities, not a good look.

 

Fascinating. My girlfriend and I moved to Cincy from Philly and we've met a handful of other people who have made that move as well. But I didn't realize there were that many of us haha. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why this number would be so high. Are there any big companies that have moved operations from Philly to Cincy recently? 

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 10:46 AM, 10albersa said:

City Lab had an interesting article linking ApartmentList.com's migration report.

 

Cleveland and Columbus seem to be pulling from mostly the Rust Belt.   Cincinnati too, but oddly enough seems to have a pipeline from Philly.  I don't know what is driving the connection between our two cities, but I thought that was pretty cool.

 

Also, Detroit is getting ravaged by other growing rustbelt cities, not a good look.

 

Apartment search listings seem like an odd choice to measure actual migration, especially when they literally only use their own site as the measurement.  There are an awful lot of apartment search engines and real estate websites out there.  And this doesn't address at all whether people who look for apartments even move.   

Edited June 16, 20195 yr by jonoh81

On 6/14/2019 at 11:46 AM, 10albersa said:

City Lab had an interesting article linking ApartmentList.com's migration report.

 

Cleveland and Columbus seem to be pulling from mostly the Rust Belt.   Cincinnati too, but oddly enough seems to have a pipeline from Philly.  I don't know what is driving the connection between our two cities, but I thought that was pretty cool.

 

Also, Detroit is getting ravaged by other growing rustbelt cities, not a good look.

this is an interactive advertorial based on searches.  Not actual moves.  Nothing to see here

I'd imagine the U-Haul data is better, though still limited to U-Haul customers.

That's true it isn't factual migration data, but I think there is still value in the broader results, even if it is all info we've seen before.  The Philly -> Cincinnati thing is highly interesting to me, why are people searching to go to Cincinnati from that region specifically?

10 hours ago, 10albersa said:

That's true it isn't factual migration data, but I think there is still value in the broader results, even if it is all info we've seen before.  The Philly -> Cincinnati thing is highly interesting to me, why are people searching to go to Cincinnati from that region specifically?

 

Perhaps a corporate merger or relocation?

1 hour ago, freefourur said:

 

Perhaps a corporate merger or relocation?

I would wager Children's Hospital is pulling a bunch of people from there (anecdotally)

 

Is the Philly thing a one time blip and how big are the numbers?

On 5/31/2019 at 11:17 AM, BigDipper 80 said:

Look at Yellow Springs. I don't think the village has a single apartment building, and it's still one of the most vibrant, walkable, and urban places in the state. 

I'm going with Lakewood on this one...

 

^The only point I was trying to make when I said that was that there's a difference between "urban" and "urbanized". It doesn't matter if your town has 700 or 700,000 people in it, you can still prescribe the principles of urbanism to make your city more accessible for everyone. It's possible to build lower-density environments that are still walkable and pleasant; you just need to properly space out your business districts instead of grouping them all around a mall and then having a bunch of cul-de-sacs spreading out around that mall for 10 miles in every direction. 

Even Stryker had good urbanism at one point.

 

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

I think the Asian and AIAN numbers are flipped for Millennials and Gen Z. 

^yeah, i agree.something is funny there. Tell Brookings if you can otherwise the wrong data will be perpetuated in later studies by others...

ASIAN AMERICAN BIRTHRATES PLUMMET AS JAPAN HERBIVORE CULTURE SPREADS TO U.S.

2017 Urban Area estimates have been released. Results for Ohio's cities are about as expected. Here's how the 3 C's fared (2010-2017 differences):

 

Cleveland: -20,084 (-1.13%)         

2017 UA: 1,760,589

 

Cincinnati: +45,843 (+ 2.82%)     

2017 UA: 1,670,680

 

Columbus: +151,976 (+ 11.11%)

2017 UA: 1,520,011

 

 

Look at the percent change for #31 Cincinnati vs. #32 Austin...2.82% vs. 21.02%.  

Yeah, I was actually shocked to see Cincinnati is still larger than Austin, though given the growth rates of the two, Austin has probably already passed us up.

 

Also interesting that there were only two urban areas that declined in population- Cleveland and San Juan, PR. If you look at the metro growth (table copied below), it shows Pittsburgh also losing population at the metro level, even while showing a tiny increase in the urban area population. Cleveland is also showing greater decline in its urban area than the metro, by about 2,000 people. I guess this means that losses are concentrated in the urban area, but the fringes/non urbanized area of the metro is slightly growing? Pittsburgh is growing very slightly in the urban area, but must be experiencing dramatic declines in the rural/non-urbanized parts of the metro that more than off-set the small gains in the UA. 

 

The fact that the Las Vegas metro is 97% "urban" is a good example why there should be a clearer distinction between "urban" and "urbanized".Miami appears to have the same effect since it has a very clearly defined edge, just with a swamp instead of a desert. 

1 hour ago, edale said:

Yeah, I was actually shocked to see Cincinnati is still larger than Austin, though given the growth rates of the two, Austin has probably already passed us up.

 

Also interesting that there were only two urban areas that declined in population- Cleveland and San Juan, PR. If you look at the metro growth (table copied below), it shows Pittsburgh also losing population at the metro level, even while showing a tiny increase in the urban area population. Cleveland is also showing greater decline in its urban area than the metro, by about 2,000 people. I guess this means that losses are concentrated in the urban area, but the fringes/non urbanized area of the metro is slightly growing? Pittsburgh is growing very slightly in the urban area, but must be experiencing dramatic declines in the rural/non-urbanized parts of the metro that more than off-set the small gains in the UA. 

 

That's from me. Got bored at work today...

Also you missed the bottom seven cities:

 

 

Nashville and Charlotte stick out like the sore thumbs I've always thought of them as. I don't know why people are so enamored with Nashville. Hard to tell if its "roll" will continue. It seems so fake. My best friend lives there, and I've been a handful of times. I've always thought it very similar to Columbus, but with tourism vs livability. I mean, Nashville is 71.30% the Urban Area as Columbus, but has 3x worse traffic. Horrible infrastructure there. It's got to eventually catch up to them.

 

Sorry to take a turn to bashing Nashville as we tend to do here...

@aderwent thanks for putting this together! I assumed these tables were posted somewhere else and then posted to SSP. If I knew you created them, I definitely would have credited you! 

 

Yeah, Charlotte and Nashville both have appallingly low percentages of their metros in the urbanized area. I know both cities have very little in the way of traditional urbanism, but as @BigDipper 80 noted, urbanized does not equate to urban. I figured the Nashvilles and Charlottes of the world would have similar urbanization patterns as the midwest/east coast, but a higher percentage would be sprawl as opposed to pedestrian centered urban neighborhoods. I guess they really do have small urbanized areas, and are surrounded by such low density sprawl that it doesn't even fit the parameters for urbanized area! That's pretty crazy.

 

 

What is defined as "core city" here? Where do the 3Cs pick up their additional population? In-county 'burbs?

1 hour ago, aderwent said:

Nashville and Charlotte stick out like the sore thumbs I've always thought of them as. I don't know why people are so enamored with Nashville. Hard to tell if its "roll" will continue. It seems so fake. My best friend lives there, and I've been a handful of times. I've always thought it very similar to Columbus, but with tourism vs livability. I mean, Nashville is 71.30% the Urban Area as Columbus, but has 3x worse traffic. Horrible infrastructure there. It's got to eventually catch up to them.

 

Columbus is much, much more of a "real city" than Nashville.  Like 100x more.  And that's in a state where it is #3 in that realm behind Cincinnati and Cleveland, which each smoke Nashville or Charlotte so far as being legit cities with a real sense of place. 

 

39 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

What is defined as "core city" here? Where do the 3Cs pick up their additional population? In-county 'burbs?

The main city of the Urban Area i.e. the first one listed; e.g. New York-Newark is just New York, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim is just L.A., and San Francisco-Oakland is just San Francisco. Basically what everyone thinks of when they hear "Phoenix" or "Dallas"; you don't need to add on "Mesa" and "Forth Worth-Arlington" even though they're included in the numbers. Also, to make the spreadsheet more readable ?

Edited July 2, 20195 yr by aderwent

1 hour ago, edale said:

@aderwent thanks for putting this together! I assumed these tables were posted somewhere else and then posted to SSP. If I knew you created them, I definitely would have credited you! 

 

Yeah, Charlotte and Nashville both have appallingly low percentages of their metros in the urbanized area. I know both cities have very little in the way of traditional urbanism, but as @BigDipper 80 noted, urbanized does not equate to urban. I figured the Nashvilles and Charlottes of the world would have similar urbanization patterns as the midwest/east coast, but a higher percentage would be sprawl as opposed to pedestrian centered urban neighborhoods. I guess they really do have small urbanized areas, and are surrounded by such low density sprawl that it doesn't even fit the parameters for urbanized area! That's pretty crazy.

 

 

For sure on the urbanized area. I should have made that the name for those columns, but then it wouldn't fit on one sheet in readable font, and I would have had to splice and dice which I didn't have time for. Threw this together quickly on my lunch! Also, another couple errors I couldn't quite figure out how to deal with so I just left them: Cleveland's % urban decline/metro decline, and Pittsburgh's % urban gain/metro decline don't show quite right in that column.

 

Another thing I noticed is San Juan's decline. It must only have gotten worse since Maria which happened just after what these numbers are based off of. What was/is going on down there?

What is "% metro growth that is urban" and how did Cleveland (+107.45%) come in third behind New York City and Los Angeles in that category?

6 minutes ago, KJP said:

What is "% metro growth that is urban" and how did Cleveland (+107.45%) come in third behind New York City and Los Angeles in that category?

It’s the negative urban area growth divided by the negative metro growth. Negative divided by a negative equals a positive. What it means is Cleveland’s negative growth is heavily concentrated in the urbanized area. It’s a bummer.

12 hours ago, bumsquare said:

It’s the negative urban area growth divided by the negative metro growth. Negative divided by a negative equals a positive. What it means is Cleveland’s negative growth is heavily concentrated in the urbanized area. It’s a bummer.

 

Sounds too much like math to me. Maybe my six-year-old math-wiz son will understand....

This link was just posted in my SSP thread. Very good visualization of the data I posted. It has way more info, too. You could spend hours perusing. Also, it answers my question to whether this data is from 2010 Urban Area boundaries or if it includes what will likely be the boundaries in 2020. It's the latter.

 

https://censusreporter.org/profiles/40000US19234-columbus-oh-urbanized-area/