So it turns out those census challenges were pieces of sh#t to be blunt. Not worth .pdf they were printed on. I'm curious at the population numbers under 18. I'd guess that the birth dearth is hitting Ohio cities really hard.

Of course it's never easy to see population declines but not too unexpected and nothing to get crazy over, especially from all the negative ill informed comments that are sure to come. From an outsider perspective I have never seen Cleveland in a better position for changes that will affect population loss. Because a city has more people doesn't necessarily make it a better place at all. Here in California there are plenty of places with growth, like San Jose and other parts of the Central Valley, that are far from great areas to live. Cleveland is a tough city with amazing potential and can withstand this better than most places. Cleveland's time is coming. I'm optimistic for the Cleve and Investing in the city.

So frustrating...The foreclosure crisis destroyed so many east side neighborhoods. That was an awful decade for Cleveland.  How do we fix this problem? Obviously, job creation is severely needed; however, I'm starting to wonder if that will be enough. I just talked to my younger brother, who graduated from OSU a few years ago, about this exact topic. How do we convince young people to stay here or move here from other areas? My brother has all kinds of stories about friends turning down jobs in Ohio because they're waiting for a job in a "cool city." He knows a girl who has turned down two PR jobs (sports franchises) in Indy and Milwaukee because she's waiting for a PR job in Atlanta. She's still sitting on her parent's couch in Columbus two years after she graduated! She said she doesn't want to live in those cities because they're boring. How do we overcome that? I feel like things have changed. When I graduated in '03 things didn't seem as bad...people talked about "cool cities," but it seems like it's gotten worse. Is this behavior a symptom of society? Have we become so soft that we can't suck it up and live in a "non-cool" cities? It just seems like our priorities have shifted. I know our problems are a lot more complicated than that and this is just one of the issues facing our cities, but perception does seem to hold a lot weight nowadays.

Interesting to note:

 

* Lorain (pop. 64,097) is now very close to Youngstown (pop. 66,982)

* Findlay (pop. 41,202) now has a larger population than Lima (pop. 38,771)

 

I'm also happy that the towns in and around where I grew up didn't do so bad.

* Sandusky (pop. 25,793) only saw about a 7% drop since the 2000 census (the local newspapers thought it was going to be much worse)

* Norwalk (pop. 17,012) actually grew by about 5% since the 2000 census and is now larger than Fremont

Ouchhh was not expecting under 400....Mark my words, the Southwest is way overpopulated for its fresh water supply, Clevelands time is still to come

Cleveland doesn't even necessarily need people from the outside right now. We need to get people from the suburbs to move back in first before trying to attract outsiders. So how can we bring people from northeast ohio back to Cleveland?

^We need immigrants...at this point I would take illegal immigrants. Also, we can't lose sight of the fact of the cyclical nature of some of this stuff. My family moved north after WWII and my grandmother swore nobody would ever move south again. She said she couldn't see any possible way the South would ever become viable again. With all the racial tension and an antiquated agrarian economy, she saw no hope for the South.  The feeling in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia and North Carolina in the 40's and 50's must be similar to what were feeling now.

Ink, where did you get the numbers from? I was trying to look on the website for a more complete list, but couldn't find even that.

 

cincinnati.com, cleveland.com, and dispatch.com all have the complete list.

Thank you.

One surprise to me is that with the amount of sprawl which Cleveland experienced during the beginning of the 2000s, I expected Mentor to grow to maybe 60,000.  Instead the population declined... in Mentor of all places.  That statistic has me stumped. 

 

With the amount of foreclosures which occurred in Euclid, I'm surprised the population didn't fall much further than a couple thousand.  At the height of the foreclosure crisis, Euclid was just shy of reaching the amount of foreclosures experienced in Slavic Village (without the additional abandonment).  Of course there's been a lot of white flight out of Euclid, but I guess Euclid sucked up some of the losses experienced on the East Side since Euclid's numbers didn't move much. 

Cleveland doesn't even necessarily need people from the outside right now. We need to get people from the suburbs to move back in first before trying to attract outsiders. So how can we bring people from northeast ohio back to Cleveland?

 

I don't know much about suburban Clevelanders, but if they are anything like suburban Cincinnatians (I know there is quite a difference, given the conservatism in suburban Cincinnati), the city might have a better chance of rebuilding without them. Money is leaving, but so is the suicidal anti-city mentality. Pro-city policies may be becoming easier to enact.

Until Cleveland (& Cincinnati) become "cool" places to live, this will most likely continue to happen.  College students want to go places like Chicago, Denver, Cali, NY, Florida, etc and I don't see the trend changing anytime soon.  I've met many kids who grew up in the Cleveland metro area who said they don't ever plan on going back.  The reputation is killing Cleveland in more ways than one.  I think the "Cle tourism video" along with some other things really shined a bad light on Cleveland with regards to college kids whose opinions are very easily swayed. 

 

Agreed.  But I think it's more than a promotional deficenecy... it's the product.  This is why I harp on the apartment stock issue so much, and on what I call functional urbanity.  The people we're looking to attract aren't buying what we're selling.  I would include immigrants in this as well. 

 

Our leadership doesn't get it.  For every positive develpment we've seen recently, like East 4th or Uptown, there is so much waste.  Steelyard Commons, the Euclid Corridor, acres upon acres of plazas and low density tract housing... we've spent zillions on this stuff and all it's done is make us less urban, less attractive, less marketable.  We put up bus shelters that don't provide shelter... we tear up intersections to replace them with different intersections, on a street that lacks proper lighting.  No!  Fix the lighting.  This is a triage situation.  Focus on the immediate needs, the gaping holes, the major problems that everyone agrees on.

I would like to look at the Cleveland census tract data a bit more closely. As a comparison point East Cleveland dropped 34.4% from 2000. I think a lot of the loss from Cleveland might be on the east side.

^We need immigrants...at this point I would take illegal immigrants. Also, we can't lose sight of the fact of the cyclical nature of some of this stuff. My family moved north after WWII and my grandmother swore nobody would ever move south again. She said she couldn't see any possible way the South would ever become viable again. With all the racial tension and an antiquated agrarian economy, she saw no hope for the South.  The feeling in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia and North Carolina in the 40's and 50's must be similar to what were feeling now.

 

Truth.  Immigrants made this city great, and can do so again.  And it finally seems that immigration is coming to the forefront here.

 

I truly think we've hit rock bottom.  Things seem to be turning around regionally.  I'm hopeful that this translates to an increasing population in the city in the future.

 

Interesting to note:

 

* Lorain (pop. 64,097) is now very close to Youngstown (pop. 66,982)

* Findlay (pop. 41,202) now has a larger population than Lima (pop. 38,771)

 

I'm also happy that the towns in and around where I grew up didn't do so bad.

* Sandusky (pop. 25,793) only saw about a 7% drop since the 2000 census (the local newspapers thought it was going to be much worse)

* Norwalk (pop. 17,012) actually grew by about 5% since the 2000 census and is now larger than Fremont

 

Lorain kicks ass and has a great location (better than Youngstown). Despite the economic losses, it's still a very attractive city with Lake Erie at its front door. That's a major selling point.

 

Sandusky is a great city with considerable urban potential. The economy got blasted there, but it is just such a lovable place (the weird layout, bay on Lake Erie, strong downtown buildings, vernacular architecture, etc.). The location is outstanding, the best location for a city in this state. Sandusky is a little city with some big city feel. The shipping port adds a lot of character. And tourism at least buffers the summer economy. If Sandusky ever drops off the map, you know Ohio is hopeless.

 

In terms of Findlay, no surprise. It's the best cow town in the state (unless you still consider Columbus a cow town). It has a very good downtown and is a real sleeper of a city. It's an economic gold mine and you could live a small city yuppie lifestyle there being a big fish in a small pond (usually the happiest people on earth). I'm actually shocked Lima didn't lose more people.

There's certainly demographic shifts at play here too.  The timing is unfortunate, as any trend of decreasing household size has probably reversed a bit in the last 2-3 years.  Nevertheless, looking at the Cincinnati area data, many stable suburbs that are fully built-out have lost some population.  Blue Ash, Deer Park, Evendale, Mt. Healthy, North College Hill, Forest Park, and even Delhi Twp, Springfield Twp, and Indian Hill posted some population loss. 

Just glancing at some of the suburb data in Cuyahoga County, the estimates were terrible. Westlake and Strongsville had estimates losing population, but both came in with growth. Shaker Heights and Beachwood were both estimated to lose close to 10% but only dropped a few percentage points

Interesting that the racial composition of Cleveland hasn't changed that much. Perhaps white flight is over?

^White flight ended as soon as yuppies and hipsters went mainstream (at least nationally). Most of the big cities in Ohio are now showing losses of white people and black people. "Black flight" is gaining traction too.

Until Cleveland (& Cincinnati) become "cool" places to live, this will most likely continue to happen.  College students want to go places like Chicago, Denver, Cali, NY, Florida, etc and I don't see the trend changing anytime soon.  I've met many kids who grew up in the Cleveland metro area who said they don't ever plan on going back.  The reputation is killing Cleveland in more ways than one.  I think the "Cle tourism video" along with some other things really shined a bad light on Cleveland with regards to college kids whose opinions are very easily swayed. 

 

The "Richard Florida effect" doesn't seem to have helped Pittsburgh a whole lot. This is interesting, because I think most urbanist Midwesterners think a lot of the bleeding could be reversed with a change in narrative, marketing, and reputation.

 

I still think the Midwest is poised for a comeback. What has to happen is the realization that cost of living (I'm thinking about the coasts) really does factor into the calculus of livability and quality of life. Then people will slowly start to realize much of the perceived superiority of coastal cities is more hype than reality.

It appears that in Cuyahoga County the excess loss in Cleveland came from overestimating the loss or lack thereof of Cleveland suburbs. The 2009 estimate was 1,275,709 and the 2010 census came in 1,280,122 for the county, which was only 0.3% off, pretty accurate.

 

Linndale - A city with explosive growth! They had 117 in the 2000 census, the 2009 estimate had them 88, but they came in at 179. That's 53% growth!

 

Shaker Heights

29,405 - 2000 Census

26,214 - 2009 Estimate

28,448 - 2010 Census

 

Westlake

31,719 - 2000 Census

30,331 - 2009 Estimate

32,729 - 2010 Census

 

Strongsville

43,890 - 2000 Census

42,378 - 2009 Estimate

44,750 - 2010 Census

 

Brooklyn

11,586 - 2000 Census

10,316 - 2009 Estimate

11,169 - 2010 Census

 

Beachwood

12,186 - 2000 Census

11,036 - 2009 Estimate

11,953 - 2010 Census

 

Brecksville

13,382 - 2000 Census

12,767 - 2009 Estimate

13,656 - 2010 Census

 

And this list could go on and on.

 

Moral of the story. Estimates at the larger scale were decent, but city level data, at least in Cuyahoga County was completely inaccurate. From every municipality in Cuyahoga that I've checked the only two that came in worse than estimates were Cleveland and East Cleveland.

Today was a blood bath for Ohio. These kind of numbers are far worse than I think anyone could have guessed, and to me it means there is much more wrong with Ohio than just a lack of cool factor. Ohio has some serious soul searching to do.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/03/cincinnati-loses-10-4-of-its-population-over-past-decade-according-to-census-bureau/

 

The one bright spot for Cincinnatians is that the region now tops 2.2 million people and is the largest MSA in Ohio (although not all 2.2 million live in Ohio).

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/03/cincinnati-region-grows-to-more-than-2-2-million-people/

^ That second article is founded on estimates, no?

^ That second article is founded on estimates, no?

 

Yes.

I wonder if Toledo will ever pass up Cincinnati

 

First, allow me to say that I am NOT celebrating the loss of population.

 

A number of forums have expressed surprise. Those who know me may remember that I predicted that Cincinnati would be less than 300,000 in the 2010 Census. I think that the challenges to the Census were misinterpreted as a sign that Cincinnati was gaining population when Cincinnati was actually losing population. I based my prediction on continuation of the trends between 1980 and 1990, and between 1990 and 2000.

 

A lot of attention is focused on the movement of people from one place to another. Indeed, the trends show that people are moving south and west, and from not only urban areas but also from rural areas to the suburbs. However, that's only part of the story. The other part is natural increase, or the difference between births and deaths. In Ohio, we still have more births than deaths, but not by much.

 

To put it in more familiar terms, in 1950 it was common for families to have 5 children. I know several older relatives that came from families with 5 children or more. Going back even farther, it was common for families to have even more children - with 10 children per family in 1840 not being uncommon.

 

Today, a family with 5 children is considered large, and somewhat rare. I can think of a few families of that size that I know personally, but not many. I know lots of families with one or two children.

 

The stats on family size are a bit shocking. In 1950, the average family had 3.5 children. In Ohio today, it's more like 2.0. But keep in mind that that only counts families that have any kids at all - more and more people are having no kids, and I'm not sure if that is counted in the average.

 

Would you believe that over 25% of all households in the United States have just ONE PERSON? There are singles, divorcees, widows, and widowers like never before. This is why neighborhoods that appear stable are often losing population. A typical house in 1950 had two parents and 3.5 kids, for an average population of around 5.5 per house. Smaller family size leads to smaller neighborhood population, assuming the same number of houses.

 

Basicly, if a community is not adding new houses, they are losing population. If they are abandoning / demolishing houses without replacing them (even if they add more commercial buildings), then they are losing population even faster.

 

The population formula is this:

 

Population change = births - deaths + immigration - emigration.

 

In Ohio, births are slightly more than deaths, but deaths are expected to become more than births by the next Census.

 

In Ohio, immigration and emigration are both small compared to births and deaths.

 

There are really only two ways to increase population in Ohio: increase the birth rate, or attract a lot of foreign immigrants. The immigration option is tricky, since it is no longer possible to attract immigrants that are already skilled and educated from developed countries because those countries are already losing population themselves. As for increasing the birth rate, I hear a lot of this: "I would like to have another child, but I can't afford it."

 

No surprises here.

 

 

 

 

Holy crap 2008 East Cleveland population numbers were at 10% loss and 2010 number ended up being a 34% loss.

^ That second article is founded on estimates, no?

 

Yes.

And we have just seen how bad estimates can be.

 

Also, it includes Dayton and excludes less densely populated parts of the MSA. It's not really MSA data.

 

My point is: it doesn't really say anything at all, for the obvious reason that it's useless as an estimate, as well as the fact that it measures something we aren't even used to talking about or using for comparisons.

Today was a blood bath for Ohio. These kind of numbers are far worse than I think anyone could have guessed, and to me it means there is much more wrong with Ohio than just a lack of cool factor. Ohio has some serious soul searching to do.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/03/cincinnati-loses-10-4-of-its-population-over-past-decade-according-to-census-bureau/

 

The one bright spot for Cincinnatians is that the region now tops 2.2 million people and is the largest MSA in Ohio (although not all 2.2 million live in Ohio).

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2011/03/cincinnati-region-grows-to-more-than-2-2-million-people/

 

With Hamilton County's numbers coming in well below the 2009 estimate and Cuyahoga County doing just a hair better than estimated, the Cincy metro might not overtake the Cleveland metro as the state's largest metro (even when including the 10 counties outside of the state). We will have to wait for official Kentucky numbers to come out. But regardless the two metros are about identical in size even when you toss in Dayton and Akron for good measure.

 

1,625,406: 2010 Census (5 Cincy OHIO Counties) This represents 4.4% growth in Ohio during the past 10 years

2,077,240: 2010 Census (5 Cleve OHIO Counties) This represents 3.3% decline in Ohio during the past 10 years

^Yet and still, a growth rate for any region of 4.4% is healthy IMO.  This census (along with the last few) should be a wake-up call for Cleveland, most of the rest of the state for that matter. 

Looks like Pittsburgh dropped 8.6% to 305K.  I was curious in their numbers since so many people like to compare how Pittsburgh

has done so much better the Cleveland, etc. etc.  Looks like Pittsburgh continues to feel the same sort of hurt that we feel here in Ohio.

 

I think this census will hopefully bring a greater push for more regional cooperation. Pittsburgh has done a wonderful job of advertising themselves as a region that has changed and is moving forward and generally has a positive perception elsewhere. Despite this, the city of Pittsburgh still lost a considerable amount of people this past 10 years.

 

In the end the Pittsburgh MSA lost 3.1% of its population, the Cleveland MSA lost 3.3% of its population. If you compare the Cleveland CSA to the Pittsburgh CSA, Cleveland did much better in terms of population loss. In the end Pittsburgh changed their image to themselves and the rest of the country but just because you change your image positively doesn't mean people and jobs are coming back.

In the end the Pittsburgh MSA lost 3.1% of its population, the Cleveland MSA lost 3.3% of its population. If you compare the Cleveland CSA to the Pittsburgh CSA, Cleveland did much better in terms of population loss. In the end Pittsburgh changed their image to themselves and the rest of the country but just because you change your image positively doesn't mean people and jobs are coming back.

 

Regionally it was pretty close, but Allegheny and Cuyahoga are simlarly balkanized and Cleveland proper's shrinkage rate was twice that of Pittsburgh.  Cleveland's east side experienced widespread Detroitification over the last decade.  Pittsburgh only has pockets of that, and much of it is in burbs like Braddock rather than in-city.  I'd say they're cleaning our clock.  And they're better poised for growth in the next decade, because so much of Cleveland's built environment is in shambles.  Miles on end.  People don't want to live near that, let alone in it, nor do they want to open businesses there.  We have a lot of work ahead.  Best get to it.

So on the opposite end of the population spectrum, the tiny village of Miltonsburg in Monroe County loses its claim as the smallest incorporated place in Ohio, as its population grew from 29 to 43. (48.2% growth)

 

The new smallest incorporated place in Ohio is the village of Rendville in Perry County, which dropped from 46 to 36. (21.7% drop).

 

I think photo threads are in order...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/03/census_2010_ohio_village_city.html (leave the "Name" field blank to get the entire Ohio census result by county and place)

In the end the Pittsburgh MSA lost 3.1% of its population, the Cleveland MSA lost 3.3% of its population. If you compare the Cleveland CSA to the Pittsburgh CSA, Cleveland did much better in terms of population loss. In the end Pittsburgh changed their image to themselves and the rest of the country but just because you change your image positively doesn't mean people and jobs are coming back.

 

Regionally it was pretty close, but Allegheny and Cuyahoga are simlarly balkanized and Cleveland proper's shrinkage rate was twice that of Pittsburgh.  Cleveland's east side experienced widespread Detroitification over the last decade.  Pittsburgh only has pockets of that, and much of it is in burbs like Braddock rather than in-city.  I'd say they're cleaning our clock.  And they're better poised for growth in the next decade, because so much of Cleveland's built environment is in shambles.  Miles on end.  People don't want to live near that, let alone in it, nor do they want to open businesses there.  We have a lot of work ahead.  Best get to it.

 

Good points. Pittsburgh is likely better poised for growth comparing city proper to city proper. Cleveland's 17% loss is going to be hard to ignore in terms of attracting new business. With Chicago coming in well below estimates, Cleveland coming in at 17%, and Pittsburgh doing poorer than expected, I can only imagine what Detroit's loss might be. If they come in better than 17%, we might start hearing Clevelandification instead of Detroitification.

The "Richard Florida effect" doesn't seem to have helped Pittsburgh a whole lot

 

Well Florida never said that Pgh would benefit. He actually wrote that book while at CMU and often sited Pgh as a city that needed his criteria to prosper.

 

to see what's happening in Pgh or Ohio cities or anywhere else, people need to dig deeper. For example, Pittsburgh has suffered from natural decline for 20 or so years - that's a looong aftershock from the massive mid 80s earthquake that hit the city and region. Good things are happening, but take time and still have yet to gain more births than deaths, even suburban Westmoreland county typically has minor migration gains, but they are offset by natural decline. Allegheny and a few other counties that typically have had population losses annually saw slight gains recently - now part of that is the recession, but employment and housing have been better than the national average.

 

Cleveland got hit hard in both housing and jobs in the recession. I think Florida was only partially right. If a city has jobs, it will gain people. Now to become a destination city (moving without a job, or a national impression of a "cool" place to live and find a job) is secondary and I think can organically gain traction from creating jobs in the first place.

 

The dynamic needs to change for any trends to change. I hope that these long struggling cities can find something to get some traction. I don't know how, but 2020 will be here in no time at all. City, county, and state leaders need to think hard on how improve the job situations. It's hard to get optimistic since this has been the same story for decades now, but All of these cities have something to offer, and each needs to find something that works for them.

 

They shouldn't think about retention or coolness, or attraction of people. Create jobs and these things will happen.

I'm disappointed, but not entirely shocked by Cincinnati's numbers.  Keep in mind, the 2000's were very hard on Cincinnati, and we faced some obstacles that other cities in Ohio did not face.  The beginning of the decade was especially bleak with the race riot, recession, boycott of the city, and destruction of the projects.  The foreclosure crisis and following recession also hurt the city.  The good news is that I think by the end of the decade, the city actually was growing again, or at least heading in the right direction.  I know that seeing a population in the 200's is really startling, but if Cincy can have a revitalized OTR and downtown, healthy neighborhoods from Price Hill to Mt. Washington, then I will take a lower population.  Cincinnati has no glaring holes in the city (although the Avondale to Bond Hill corridor could use work), and I still think the city is moving in a positive direction.  Cincinnati does not feel like a 200k city, and it's not- whether the numbers say it is or not. It's a region of 2.2. million people, and we have a core that is moving in the right direction.  Fear not, Cincinnati!

Looking at the broader picture, a select few worldwide areas have a "problem" with population loss. But yet as a planet we face significant overpopulation to the point where we can't sustain the amount of people on the planet now, let alone adding another billion every decade or so. Is population loss really a fundamental "problem" or the future's answer to a finite number of resources? Perhaps it's best to look at how a city/region/country can grow their respective citizen's quality of life without adding new people and in many cases decreasing people.

^We need immigrants...at this point I would take illegal immigrants. Also, we can't lose sight of the fact of the cyclical nature of some of this stuff. My family moved north after WWII and my grandmother swore nobody would ever move south again. She said she couldn't see any possible way the South would ever become viable again. With all the racial tension and an antiquated agrarian economy, she saw no hope for the South.  The feeling in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia and North Carolina in the 40's and 50's must be similar to what were feeling now.

 

Truth.  Immigrants made this city great, and can do so again.  And it finally seems that immigration is coming to the forefront here.

 

I truly think we've hit rock bottom.  Things seem to be turning around regionally.  I'm hopeful that this translates to an increasing population in the city in the future.

 

 

Absolutely. I would take nearly crazy measures to attract semi-skilled and well-educated immigrants to Cleveland. Not welfare, not entitlements, but opportunity grants, targeted public services...etc. And this is secondary, and related to, a larger effort to attract major employers to the area and allow smaller ones to spring up around them.

Are people who don't return the census estimated into the final number? or just not counted?

^ They sent out census workers to get all the households that didn't mail in their sheets. If you don't send it and the census workers don't talk to you, you're not counted.

During the 2010 Census count, it is estimated that only 70 percent of households responded in the City of Cincinnati which fell below the 74 percent national average.

 

So this means around 88,000 people are not counted in Cincinnati alone? These figures sound like a lot about nothing.

The sad truth is that no old cities have had big growth. LA grew its slowest since the 1880s. Anecdotally, as of 1990 there were five Cincy residents in my parents house and in the neighborhood most houses had two or three children. Today, there is three and the neighborhood has at most one or two kids in household. Spread that across the city and you've got a lotta drop.

Nice perspective edale.  I was honestly startled by the number.  Hopefully we have bottomed out, but I have read some predictions that the bottom will be closer to 250k - who knows at this point?  The city is making good moves now, and they really need to get the streetcar built to add to the draw.  I think I mentioned this a couple of years ago, but Cincinnati and Dayton could eventually benefit from a "bounce back" effect.  Butler County is at 368k and Warren is over 200k.  With the types of retail developments and lawn sizes being built in these counties I can't imaging them holding more than 500k.  In the case of Warren County I also wonder how much further out people will live.  Since the metro is continuing to grow people will have to go somewhere, and the cities could possibly pick up some urban dwellers.  At the very least Hamilton and Montgomery county should benefit. 

 

The lesson for older cities is that if you do not expand your boundaries you lose - Atlanta is one of the few bucking this trend.  One small positive is that the city of Hamilton actually grew.

In the end the Pittsburgh MSA lost 3.1% of its population, the Cleveland MSA lost 3.3% of its population. If you compare the Cleveland CSA to the Pittsburgh CSA, Cleveland did much better in terms of population loss. In the end Pittsburgh changed their image to themselves and the rest of the country but just because you change your image positively doesn't mean people and jobs are coming back.

 

Regionally it was pretty close, but Allegheny and Cuyahoga are simlarly balkanized and Cleveland proper's shrinkage rate was twice that of Pittsburgh.  Cleveland's east side experienced widespread Detroitification over the last decade.  Pittsburgh only has pockets of that, and much of it is in burbs like Braddock rather than in-city.  I'd say they're cleaning our clock.  And they're better poised for growth in the next decade, because so much of Cleveland's built environment is in shambles.  Miles on end.  People don't want to live near that, let alone in it, nor do they want to open businesses there.  We have a lot of work ahead.  Best get to it.

 

Good points. Pittsburgh is likely better poised for growth comparing city proper to city proper. Cleveland's 17% loss is going to be hard to ignore in terms of attracting new business. With Chicago coming in well below estimates, Cleveland coming in at 17%, and Pittsburgh doing poorer than expected, I can only imagine what Detroit's loss might be. If they come in better than 17%, we might start hearing Clevelandification instead of Detroitification.

 

Not only that, but considering that all but one major city lost population, even Columbus will probably lose some new business when they look at the state overall. 

The other "Cincinnati Problem" is that the OH/KY state line runs right through the middle of the region.  If that boundary line wasn't there, Cincinnati proper would easily be 370,000 right now as Covington, Newport, Bellevue, Dayton, and Ludlow would almost certainly be within the city limits.  Add a few more of those NKY suburbs that are still within a close shot of downtown like Ft. Thomas, Southgate, Park Hills, and Villa Hills (which, keep in mind, are no farther from downtown than Hyde Park, Avondale, or North Fairmount!), and we'd be at nearly 400,000 people.  That arbitrary boundary line hides just how big Cincinnati really is.   

It's wasteful to have each generation abandoning cities and building new ones elsewhere, and that's the story I see behind all this.  These stats aren't just bad for Ohio, they're bad for America and the entire human race.

 

Ohio can't mimic the sunbelt's climate, which I think is the primary "cool" factor it's had going for it.  But through regionalism we can at least duplicate the governmental structure their metros (and Columbus) are using.  A lot of our extra costs stem from supporting all these little governments.  I have no doubt that lower taxes will help us lure investment.  But instead of busting public sector unions, we need to be busting the political subdivisions they work for.  And we need to consolidate counties as well as municipalities.

 

But we also need to work on our cool factor in order to attract jobs.  And like it says on the front page of this website, Ohio's secret weapon is its cities.  We need to focus like a laser on making them marketable as cities.  That means planning.  It means more density, more transit, more attention paid to good architecture and aesthetics.  Yes the latter bit is subjective but only kinda. 

 

And right now the political winds are blowing in the exact opposite direction.  I call on everyone here to get more involved in local and state politics.  This is getting out of hand and it's time for us to take over. 

Yeah, none of these numbers should be surprising for anyone.

 

I was surprised.

The other "Cincinnati Problem" is that the OH/KY state line runs right through the middle of the region.  If that boundary line wasn't there, Cincinnati proper would easily be 370,000 right now as Covington, Newport, Bellevue, Dayton, and Ludlow would almost certainly be within the city limits.  Add a few more of those NKY suburbs that are still within a close shot of downtown like Ft. Thomas, Southgate, Park Hills, and Villa Hills (which, keep in mind, are no farther from downtown than Hyde Park, Avondale, or North Fairmount!), and we'd be at nearly 400,000 people.  That arbitrary boundary line hides just how big Cincinnati really is.

 

Exactly. Downtown Cincinnati is in two states and three different cities.

 

This would be like not counting Southside Flats, Mount Washington, Troy Hill, North Shore, or Duquesne Heights in Pittsburgh's city population.

Looking at the broader picture, a select few worldwide areas have a "problem" with population loss. But yet as a planet we face significant overpopulation to the point where we can't sustain the amount of people on the planet now, let alone adding another billion every decade or so. Is population loss really a fundamental "problem" or the future's answer to a finite number of resources? Perhaps it's best to look at how a city/region/country can grow their respective citizen's quality of life without adding new people and in many cases decreasing people.

 

Interesting point. I would like to subscribe to your emails and/ or newsletter.

"Ohio's secret weapon is its cities."  :shoot:

 

As if we were fighting a population war or something?  :|

 

Look at the bright side: we could be living in Lagos, Mumbai, or Cairo, all cities with impressive population numbers.

 

 

 

 

When you look at it historically, we seem relatively stable. Below are combined MSA's  of Akron and Cleveland- notice 1960 to present.

 

 

•1940 - 1,886,863

•1950 - 2,233,237

•1960 - 2,825,417

•1970 - 3,098,048

•1980 - 2,938,627

•1990 - 2,859,644

•2000 - 2,945,832

•2010 - 2,881,937

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/03/2010_census_figures_for_ohio_s.html