March 10, 201114 yr 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. Anyone know what kind of crazy magic legal voodoo it would take for Cincinnati to gobble up NKY municipalities? Hypothetically, of course; I wouldn't expect it to happen in any foreseeable future. I'd guess both states' legislatures would have to pass laws, at a minimum, if not full constitutional amendments with referenda. Then the municipalities would have to agree to joining. Would the feds have anything to say about it?
March 10, 201114 yr ^For what reason? Just to show a bigger Census number? Small chance of that happening. It sounds like it would take an interstate compact, which would require consent of Congress. Meanwhile, Cincinnati can't even gobble up adjacent municipalities in the SAME STATE. But even if it DID happen, what would you expect the Census to do about it? The Census counts population based on state lines. They would probably report something like, "The Ohio portion of Cincinnati has X people, and the Kentucky portion has X people," which is essentially the same as they do now.
March 10, 201114 yr Here are the municipality break downs for Cuyahoga County sorted by % growth/decline % Change City 2010 2000 -34.4 East Cleveland city 17,843 27,217 -30.2 Highland Hills village 1,130 1,618 -17.1 Cleveland city 396,815 478,403 -11.5 Maple Heights city 23,138 26,156 -10.5 Bratenahl village 1,197 1,337 -10.4 Warrensville Heights city 13,542 15,109 -9.5 Brook Park city 19,212 21,218 -9.3 Newburgh Heights village 2,167 2,389 -8.9 Gates Mills village 2,270 2,493 -8.8 Bentleyville village 864 947 -8.4 Lyndhurst city 14,001 15,279 -8.2 Cuyahoga County (OH) 1,280,122 1,393,978 -8.0 Bedford city 13,074 14,214 -8.0 Lakewood city 52,131 56,646 -7.7 Cleveland Heights city 46,121 49,958 -7.2 Euclid city 48,920 52,717 -6.7 Valley View village 2,034 2,179 -6.1 Garfield Heights city 28,849 30,734 -5.5 Bedford Heights city 10,751 11,375 -5.3 South Euclid city 22,295 23,537 -5.0 Walton Hills village 2,281 2,400 -4.7 Parma city 81,601 85,655 -4.3 Parma Heights city 20,718 21,659 -4.3 University Heights city 13,539 14,146 -4.2 Fairview Park city 16,826 17,572 -4.1 North Olmsted city 32,718 34,113 -3.6 Richmond Heights city 10,546 10,944 -3.6 Brooklyn city 11,169 11,586 -3.3 Shaker Heights city 28,448 29,405 -2.7 Bay Village city 15,651 16,087 -2.5 Rocky River city 20,213 20,735 -2.3 Seven Hills city 11,804 12,080 -1.9 Beachwood city 11,953 12,186 -1.2 Mayfield Heights city 19,155 19,386 -1.0 Pepper Pike city 5,979 6,040 -1.0 Brooklyn Heights village 1,543 1,558 -0.2 Hunting Valley village 589 590 0.0 Oakwood village 3,667 3,667 0.3 Independence city 7,133 7,109 0.6 Berea city 19,093 18,970 0.7 Moreland Hills village 3,320 3,298 0.7 Mayfield village 3,460 3,435 1.8 Chagrin Falls township 4,233 4,159 2.0 Strongsville city 44,750 43,858 2.0 Brecksville city 13,656 13,382 2.6 Middleburg Heights city 15,946 15,542 2.7 Orange village 3,323 3,236 3.2 Westlake city 32,729 31,719 3.3 Highland Heights city 8,345 8,082 6.3 North Royalton city 30,444 28,648 6.5 Cuyahoga Heights village (OH) 638 599 6.8 Woodmere village 884 828 7.1 Solon city 23,348 21,802 13.3 Olmsted Falls city 9,024 7,962 13.4 North Randall village 1,027 906 21.5 Broadview Heights city 19,400 15,967 27.8 Olmsted township 13,513 10,575 53.0 Linndale village 179 117 105.6 Glenwillow village 923 449
March 10, 201114 yr ^For what reason? Just to show a bigger Census number? Small chance of that happening. It sounds like it would take an interstate compact, which would require consent of Congress. Meanwhile, Cincinnati can't even gobble up adjacent municipalities in the SAME STATE. But even if it DID happen, what would you expect the Census to do about it? The Census counts population based on state lines. They would probably report something like, "The Ohio portion of Cincinnati has X people, and the Kentucky portion has X people," which is essentially the same as they do now. It's just a curious question. The main reason I can see is to consolidate services, but I'm not advocating it or anything. Just wondering what it would take. Your way might be possible, but it could also be done that the state lines change and part of KY would go to OH. That's kind of what I was imagining. Then the census effects would be clearer. You're right that there hasn't even been the possibility of incorporating nearby municipalities. Not even St. Bernard and Norwood (and Elmwood Place), which seem like no-brainers.
March 10, 201114 yr Interesting that Cheviot is one of, if not the densest square mile in the state at 7,172. We need to get our act together, Ohio!
March 10, 201114 yr 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 Even if the most dire estimates for Detroit come true, Cleveland has likely overtaken it in terms of percentage of population lost since peak. I wonder if Toledo will ever pass up Cincinnati Not likely. That would take an unprecedented economic miracle in Toledo. Keep in mind Toledo is still deep in the weeds. Cincinnati is starting to look like financial gold. Compared to Toledo, even Cleveland's recovery since the 2008 Wall Street Power Grab has been astounding. I think Cleveland and Cincinnati are at economic bottom and won't lose many more people. Given labor force losses yet to be absorbed, Cleveland and Cincinnati are only looking at minimal population losses in the future. Cincinnati will bottom out by 280k, Cleveland will bottom out by 375k. Though their losses were terrible, their labor force numbers paint a strong future. They are starting to get out of the hole. Toledo is still six feet under. Even if Toledo is near economic bottom, it probably has more population loss ahead of it. Over the decade, metro Toledo lost 14% of its jobs but the city only lost 8% of its population (and the city had the worst job losses). It had the sharpest labor force drop in Ohio, and in today already walks tomorrow. Toledo's undercounting of unemployment is very similar to the Detroit situation. A huge number of people have aged out of the system. Toledo is still one of the toughest places in the country to find a good job. I think you can expect more people to move away, especially young people (I'm not seeing any of my friends and family stick around). The only way Toledo stops losing people is with three economic miracles- solar becomes the nation's dominant power source, the Jeep Wrangler becomes the best-selling car in the world, and Andersons buys out Cargill and moves into the Fiberglas Tower. If all three miracles happen, Toledo hits bottom for population by 275k. Realistically, it's not hitting bottom until 260k or 250k. I was probably wrong about it leveling off right now. Unemployment is still dangerously high and other cities offer a lot more for young people. The outlook for this decade is not good in Toledo. The city has not fully absorbed the job losses of 2000-2010. Hopefully by mid-decade it will start to turn around, but it's not going to happen as fast as anyone in Toledo hopes it will. What this census shows more than anything is that Cleveland and Cincinnati have absorbed almost all of their job losses. That's why the drop looks shocking. People normally don't move away so fast. Usually it takes a generation to fully absorb major job losses. Not anymore. Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Youngstown people move away fast (or move to the suburbs). The jobless stick around longer in Toledo. Toledo's losses are probably only half of what needs to be lost to be in sync with the labor force decline. So Toledo lost 25,000 people. That sucks horribly, but guess what? It's could easily lose another 25,000. It's not overtaking Cincinnati any time soon. That's about as likely as Columbus shrinking. Plus, isn't comparing a city that lost 8% of its population with a city that lost 10% of its population kind of splitting hairs? They both are getting their asses handed to them by Raleigh. If this doesn't make you want to throw up, I don't know what will: 2000 Census Cleveland: 478,403 Cincinnati: 331,285 Toledo: 313,619 Raleigh: 276,093 2010 Census Raleigh: 403,892 Cleveland: 396,815 Cincinnati: 296,943 Toledo: 287,208 North Carolina can go to hell!
March 10, 201114 yr That's the trap though with those inner-ring suburbs. While Cincinnati would probably love to get their hands on St. Bernard, P&G might just up and bail on their Ivorydale plant, which gives half of St. Bernard's property tax revenue. Nevertheless, what would Cincinnati gain by annexing Norwood, Elmwood Place, Silverton, Cheviot, Golf Manor, Lockland, or Arlington Heights? These places all have the same problems as the city, so annexing them would only add to the city's problems. Sure there are nice suburbs that border Cincinnati too, like Wyoming, Amberly Village, Mariemont, and there's all of 50' of unincorporated land between the Cincinnati City limits and Indian Hill (excuse me, The Village of Indian Hill), but that brings its own issues. Annexing all these areas or consolidating the county ala Unigov/Indianapolis or Louisville, or even Columbus can be very risky. It's certainly not a panacea. Metropolitan fragmentation has the benefit of being more resilient even if it is inherently less efficient. It's similar to the small town main street versus Wal Mart. The small businesses can concentrate on maximizing their own potential, and while they may compete with each other, they do still work together in other ways. If one fails, then maybe the others can take up the same business, or at least ride out the storm. The Wal Mart may be the most efficient, but it doesn't perform all the duties nearly as well as the individual stores. When it fails, it goes down hard and leaves devastation in its wake. Large combined city/county governments can severely diminish the possibilities of doing good urban projects. Imagine how much harder it would be to get support for the Cincinnati streetcar if the naysayers in Blue Ash, Montgomery, Covedale, Anderson Township, White Oak, etc., were actually part of the city! Suburban interests will dominate, and this is painfully obvious in Columbus and Indianapolis. Yes, the regional government makes it easier for them to get things done, but that doesn't mean they're doing good things. Those big centralized governments also make it much more difficult for particular neighborhoods to get a say in their own situation, to effectively manage their successes or failures. The successful areas subsidize the failing ones, but nobody knows which is which since it's all under one umbrella. When they're separate, each one has to make sure it's self-sufficient, and if it's not, fix the problem (hopefully) or crumble and blow away. At the very least, consolidated governments are a lot more bureaucratic and less people-friendly.
March 10, 201114 yr So, in summary for the 2010 Ohio Census: 2010 Ohio City Populations 1. Columbus city: +10.6% 711,470 787,033 Net Gain/Loss: +75,563 2. Cleveland city: -17.1% 478,403 396,815 Net Gain/Loss: -81,588 3. Cincinnati city: -10.4% 331,285 296,943 Net Gain/Loss: -34,342 4. Toledo city: -8.4% 313,619 287,208 Net Gain/Loss: -26,411 5. Akron city: -8.3% 217,074 199,110 Net Gain/Loss: -17,964 6. Dayton city: -14.8% 166,179 141,527 Net Gain/Loss: -24,652 7. Parma city: -4.7% 85,655 81,601 Net Gain/Loss: -4,054 8. Canton city: -9.7% 80,806 73,007 Net Gain/Loss: -7,799 9. Youngstown city: -18.3% 82,026 66,982 Net Gain/Loss: -15,044 10. Lorain city: -6.6% 68,652 64,097 Net Gain/Loss: -4,555 11. Hamilton city: +2.9% 60,690 62,477 Net Gain/Loss: +1,787 12. Springfield city: -7.3% 65,358 60,608 Net Gain/Loss: -4,750 13. Kettering city: -2.3% 57,502 56,163 Net Gain/Loss: -1,339 14. Elyria city: -2.5% 55,953 54,533 Net Gain/Loss: -1,420 15. Lakewood city: -8% 56,646 52,131 Net Gain/Loss: -4,515 16. Cuyahoga Falls city: +0.6% 49,374 49,652 Net Gain/Loss: +278 17. Euclid city: -7.2% 52,717 48,920 Net Gain/Loss: -3,797 18. Middletown city: -5.6% 51,605 48,694 Net Gain/Loss: -2,911 19. Mansfield city: -3.1% 49,346 47,821 Net Gain/Loss: -1,525 20. Newark city: +2.8% 46,279 47,573 Net Gain/Loss: +1,294 21. Mentor city: -6.2% 50,278 47,159 Net Gain/Loss: -3,119 22. Cleveland Heights city: -7.7% 49,958 46,121 Net Gain/Loss: -3,873 23. Warren city: -11.2% 46,832 41,577 Net Gain/Loss: -5,255 24. Lima city: -3.3% 40,081 38,771 Net Gain/Loss: -1,310 __________________________________________________________________ Going by the 2000 Census counties used for MSA's and CSA's, this is the official list for 2010: 2010 Ohio MSA Populations 1. Cincinnati-Middletown MSA: 2,130,151 2. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor MSA: 2,077,240 3. Columbus MSA: 1,836,536 4. Dayton MSA: 841,502 5. Akron MSA: 703,200 6. Toledo MSA: 651,429 7. Youngstown-Warren-Boardman-(Sharon, PA) MSA: 565,773 8. Canton-Massillon MSA: 404,422 2010 Ohio CSA Populations 1. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria CSA: 2,881,937 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor MSA: 2,077,240 Akron MSA: 703,200 Ashtabula Micropolitan Area: 101,497 2. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington CSA: 2,172,191 Cincinnati-Middletown MSA: 2,130,151 In Ohio: 1,625,406 In Kentucky: 425,483 In Indiana: 79,262 Wilmington Micropolitan Area: 42,040 3. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe CSA: 2,071,052 Columbus MSA: 1,836,536 Chillicothe Micropolitan Area: 78,064 Marion Micropolitan Area: 66,501 Mt. Vernon Micropolitan Area: 60,921 Washington Court House Micropolitan Area: 29,030 4. Dayton-Springfield-Greenville CSA: 1,072,891 Dayton MSA: 841,502 Springfield MSA: 138,333 Greenville Micropolitan Area: 52,959 Urbana Micropolitan Area: 40,097 5. Toledo-Fremont CSA: 712,373 Toledo MSA: 651,429 Fremont Micropolitan Area: 60,944 6. Youngstown-Warren-East Liverpool CSA: 673,614 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman-(Sharon, PA) MSA: 565,773 East Liverpool-Salem Micropolitan Area: 107,841 7. Canton-Massillon MSA: 404,422 8. Lima-Wapakoneta-Van Wert CSA: 181,124 9. Mansfield-Bucyrus CSA: 168,259 10. Findlay-Tiffin CSA: 131,527 *Remember, this CAN (and likely WILL) change due to the Census definitions changing in 2010. Meaning, Dayton or Canton could easily be added to Cincinnati or Cleveland respectively. Or counties could be subtracted...or even added! Stay tuned in April when the official MSA/CSA numbers are out. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 10, 201114 yr Continuing on the labor force thing, Dayton might have more losses ahead of it too. The Dayton market lost 14% of its jobs just like Toledo did. The Cleveland market only lost 12% of its jobs, so I think it's safe to assume losing 80,000 people in the city is enough to absorb those losses. 2010 was an incredible recovery year in Cleveland, so I think it's already making a dent in the labor hole. The plus side of such a dramatic population loss is that there is less competition, which also means lower unemployment. The Cincinnati market only lost 2% of its jobs, so it absorbed its losses in the city and then some (sounds like out-migration to growing sprawl areas). The Akron market only lost 3% of its jobs, so it absorbed all of its losses too. This labor force stuff is metrowide, but in Ohio, it's safe to assume the majority of the job losses were in the cities. We've seen most of our growth in the suburbs. It should also be noted that despite the explosive population growth in Columbus, the metro labor force has not grown at all. I'm thinking that bubble is about to burst. Maybe some of the kids moving to Columbus are not finding jobs. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/economics/2011/01/01/a-decade-of-job-losses-for-ohio-and-kentucky/
March 10, 201114 yr The really sad part about Raleigh is that it's spread out in such a way that is virtually unfathomable to anyone from northern cities. While Cincinnati is still a highly sprawling metro, there's a lot of density in the center, and even for a good ways out along the major streets. The same is true for Chicago. It's huge, but there's also a lot of "center" there. Downtown Raleigh is about the same size and scale of Canton's or Ft. Wayne's, and it's immediately surrounded by low-density sprawl. This is the general pattern in the south of course, and Greensboro and Charlotte are just as bad, but at least Atlanta, Nashville, Miami, and San Antonio have more than a postage-stamp sized bit of urbanity.
March 10, 201114 yr jjakucyk -- I didn't mean to come off in favor of massive consolidation. I actually think a smaller population could be a good thing, since it is likely suburban-minded people who left. They take their money out, which is bad. But they take their suburban-minded interests out of the city's voting booths, too, which opens potential for working on the city's problems, unhindered. Until Cincinnati starts losing the big corporations, I am not too worried. Still, the 200k thing sucks. 120 years of growth disappeared.
March 10, 201114 yr Toledo suburban information is out. There are no surprises. Population of Toledo falls to 287,208 Suburban areas post mix of growth and decline BY TOM TROY AND NOLAN ROSENKRANS BLADE STAFF WRITERS Toledo's population continued its 40-year downward march in the newest U.S. Census, falling by 8.4 percent to 287 208 residents, according to census data released Wednesday. Toledo's loss was the gain of some of its suburban neighbors. Monclova Township saw the most growth in Lucas County, a near-doubling to 12,400 people, while Perrysburg in adjacent Wood County saw its population rise by 21.7 percent, to 20,623. However, suburban growth was not universal. The municipalities of Maumee, Northwood, Rossford, and Ottawa Hills also lost population, as did the Toledo-area townships of Jerusalem, Perrysburg, Washington, Providence, and Swanton. The Census Bureau is releasing detailed state population numbers a few states a week, and has not yet released detailed Michigan figures. Toledo Mayor Mike Bell saw a silver lining in the new numbers. "I don't think it's unanticipated given what we've gone through in the last 10 years," Mr. Bell said. "Actually I'm glad we didn't lose more people. And compared to all the Ohio cities I've seen listed in the top 20, we didn't do that bad, from the standpoint of being metropolitan city." FULL ARTICLE ON BLADE SITE (good read) http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2011/03/10/Population-of-Toledo-falls-to-287-208.html Toledo's Ohio Suburbs Sylvania Township (includes city): 48,487 +9.6% Springfield Township (includes Holland): 26,193 +8.6% Perrysburg: 20,623 +21.7% Oregon: 20,291 +4.8% Maumee: 14,286 -6.2% Perrysburg Township: 12,512 -8.1% Monclova Township: 12,400 +83.2% Waterville Township (includes city and Whitehouse): 11,336 +19.7% Rossford: 6,293 -1.8% Northwood: 5,265 -3.8% Ottawa Hills: 4,517 -1% Swanton: 3,690 +11.9% Providence Township: 3,361 -2.7% Washington Township: 3,278 -8.3% Jerusalem Township: 3,109 -2.3% Swanton Township: 3,012 -10.2% *Perrysburg is seperate from Perrysburg Township. Swanton is seperate from Swanton Township. Sylvania is part of Sylvania Township. Waterville and Whitehouse are part of Waterville Township. Holland is part of Springfield Township. The city of Sylvania is 18,965 and grew by 1.2%. The city of Waterville is 5,523 and grew by 14.4%. The village of Whitehouse is 4,149 and grew by 51.8%. The village of Holland is 1,764 and grew by 35.1%.
March 10, 201114 yr Not that it's any big revelation, but warned that big losses were coming to Cleveland and Cincinnati, just by going off of numbers of other "similiar" cities that had been released before Ohio. However, I will look at the bright side of Cleveland and Cincinnati. Both are hemorraging white population, and black population to a lesser degree (Cleveland greater). Cleveland is down 25.5 percent of its white population, and 13.2 percent of its black population since the last census. Cincinnati is down 17.9 percent of white, and 4.4 percent of black population. But both are showing gains in other categories. Cleveland, for example, saw an increase of 13.8 percent in Latino population. That doesn't sound like a lot compared nationally, but considering Cleveland's Mexican population is essentially non-existent, that is a bright spot. If Cleveland could ever attract Mexicans, the "Hispanic" population could blow up. I actually thought Cleveland would see a decrease in this category. Instead the city reached double-digits, percentage wise. Cincinnati's Hispanic population is up 96.4 percent .... though still a paltry 2.8 percent for a city of its size, so it wasn't that great of an achievement. Baby steps. The Asian populations were also up in both. Cincinnati's up 6.8 percent, while Cleveland's was up 13.7 percent. Both are only 1.8 percent overall, but again, baby steps. At least the hispanic and Asian populations, nationally the fastest growing, are also growing in both cities. It's a silver lining, but if both cities saw a decrease in those populations, it really would be dire.
March 10, 201114 yr Another thing that is eye-opening is the 26.4 percent gain Columbus experienced in its black population. For a city that already had a sizable population, that type of increase is phenominal. For example, Columbus' hispanic population incresed, by 154 percent, but in 2000 that hispanic population wasn't large. So it's not that huge of an accomplishment. Parma, for example, had a 120 percent increase. But considering Columbus already had a black population of 175,000, shooting up to 220,000 (a 46,000 increase, making it the blackest city in the state in sheer numbers) is amazing. I imagine, partly from people I know who are moving down there, a significant amount of black losses in Cleveland (and probably Cinncinnati) aren't leaving the state, but relocating to Central Ohio. It seems to be Ohio's black hotspot. Whether it's actually true or not, the overriding thought in the black community (at least in Northeast Ohio) seems to be is that Columbus is the place to be. I hear it all the time. P.S. I know the Somali population has a large part in that growth as well, but can't be the sole reason for that increase.
March 10, 201114 yr Author The City of Cincinnati is now officially a majority-minority city. Whites only make up 49% of the population within city limits now.
March 10, 201114 yr Daytons 14% drop is the second greatest drop since the postwar era. The worst was between 1970 and 1980, when Dayton lost 20.6% of it's population. Between 1980 and 1990 thec city lost 5.9% Between 1990 and 2000 the city lost 8.7% Between 2000 and 2010 the city lost 14.8% So, if one following the 1980 thru 2000 accelerating loss trend, the city should have lost around 11%. Instead it lost an additional 3.8%, probably due to the foreclosure crisis vacancy explosion. I'm sort of curious about Dayton MSA numbers, to track the MSA numbers from 1970 trhough 2010...using the Montgomery, Greene, Miami, and Preble County definition of MSA (understanding that this would be somewhat limited since the northern tier of townships in Warren County plus Franklin in Hamilton could be considered part of the Dayton metro area....to some degree). The MSA trend since 1970 seemed to be fairly steady-state, with gains in one decade cancelling out losses in another and so forth. So there was minimal net gain in population since the 1970 metropolitan area peak.
March 10, 201114 yr It will be interesting to see this broken down by tract level and age cohort, particularly age cohort. I did some calcuations using that Texas A&M real estate site and it seems that the Dayton area will undergo demographic transition around 2015 or 2016 or so, where deaths will exceed births (I think this is for Montgomery County)
March 10, 201114 yr And Youngstown is shrinking toward the Hamilton and Springfield size range. That is interesting. Cincinnati is now close in population to where Dayton was in 1960: 200,000- 300,000 range.
March 10, 201114 yr The Dayton Daily News has a story: Population Hits 90 Year Low ...with neat map showing increases and declines for city and suburbs (incorporated suburbs, not townships). "...Dayton lost 24,652 people during the decade, according to the data released Wednesday. That was twice the loss previously estimated in 2009 and puts Dayton’s population at 141,527, its lowest since 1920, when it had 152,559 residents... .... Trotwood, the only other city in the region to lose more than 10 percent of it population, fell 10.9 percent...."
March 10, 201114 yr http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10wg1acensusjpg-f6f521b5b0b769a5.jpg Interesting Cleveland map in the PD showing gain/loss by census tract. Surprised by the losses in what appears to be Clark/Fulton, where I had expected to see growth. In general the west side is more of a mixed bag than I had predicted. But there's also some undeniable turnaround beginning wth downtown and UC on the east side. http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10cpcensusjpg-373428b818661613.jpg And here's the metro map.
March 10, 201114 yr That map is really good news. Ohio City and Shaker Square seem to be hurting but otherwise, the city seems to be repopulated with more affluent people, and much of the population loss has been less fortunate folks moving to cities that can offer better opportunities and services for them. Aslo the West Side seems to be somewaht stable. I was worried there might be largescale white flight since the area is becoming much more diverse.
March 10, 201114 yr Demographically, no big surprises other than Columbus broke 5% for its Hispanic population, and Cleveland is majority minority by a good margin now. Ohio Big 6 Primary Racial Groups Columbus 59.29% White 27.66% Black 5.64% Hispanic Cleveland 52.47% Black 33.44% White 9.96% Hispanic Cincinnati 48.10% White 44.56% Black 2.80% Hispanic Toledo 61.44% White 26.75% Black 7.39% Hispanic Akron 61.25% White 31.19% Black 2.14% Hispanic Dayton 50.49% White 42.64% Black 2.95% Hispanic http://www.toledoblade.com/census
March 10, 201114 yr Ohio Big 6 Core County Primary Racial Groups Franklin (Columbus) 67.31% White 20.99% Black 4.79% Hispanic Cuyahoga (Cleveland) 61.40% White 29.29% Black 4.79% Hispanic Hamilton (Cincinnati) 67.58% White 25.52% Black 2.57% Hispanic Lucas (Toledo) 70.98% White 18.68% Black 6.11% Hispanic Summit (Akron) 79.67% White 14.28% Black 1.60% Hispanic Montgomery (Dayton) 72.67% White 20.76% Black 2.28% Hispanic http://www.toledoblade.com/census
March 10, 201114 yr Not that it's any big revelation, but warned that big losses were coming to Cleveland and Cincinnati, just by going off of numbers of other "similiar" cities that had been released before Ohio... But both are showing gains in other categories. Cleveland, for example, saw an increase of 13.8 percent in Latino population. That doesn't sound like a lot compared nationally, but considering Cleveland's Mexican population is essentially non-existent, that is a bright spot. If Cleveland could ever attract Mexicans, the "Hispanic" population could blow up. I actually thought Cleveland would see a decrease in this category. Instead the city reached double-digits, percentage wise.Cincinnati's Hispanic population is up 96.4 percent .... though still a paltry 2.8 percent for a city of its size, so it wasn't that great of an achievement. Baby steps. Yes, very true. Essentially all of Cleveland's 10% Hispanic population is Puerto Rican, which is quite a stat. I'm surprised at Cincy's stat here.
March 10, 201114 yr http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10wg1acensusjpg-f6f521b5b0b769a5.jpg Interesting Cleveland map in the PD showing gain/loss by census tract. Surprised by the losses in what appears to be Clark/Fulton, where I had expected to see growth. In general the west side is more of a mixed bag than I had predicted. But there's also some undeniable turnaround beginning wth downtown and UC on the east side. http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10cpcensusjpg-373428b818661613.jpg And here's the metro map. I wouldn't expect to see growth in Clark/Fulton anytime soon. Lots of houses are coming down there and the foreclosure crisis hit there almost as hard as anywhere in the city.
March 10, 201114 yr Some stats for Toledo's satellite cities in Ohio (part of MSA and CSA, not part of UA). Bowling Green: 30,028 +1.32% Fremont: 16,734 -3.69% Fostoria: 13,441 -3.52% Wauseon: 7,332 +3.40% Port Clinton: 6,056 -5.24%
March 10, 201114 yr Nothing really all that surprising with those maps. No, not surprising.. but encouraging for sure. To have those districts getting more than 20% growth is excellent. Growth has to start with one district and spiral out, it can't happen over an entire city at one time. Certain areas have to get hotter, which can then pour into the outlying areas once they fill up. In other words, say ohio city keeps growing. Clark-Fulton or Cudell will start growing once Ohio City or Detroit Shoreway grows so much that people settle for something CLOSE to ohio city, and so forth. Sorry i'm at work and can't write a completely perfect explanation of my point, but I hope this makes sense. See "the mission" and now "outer mission" here in SF.
March 10, 201114 yr I haven't had the chance to read through all the latest comments on this, but I noticed a few people said Ohio's numbers should not be a surprise to anyone. I was shocked at the numbers; VERY shocked, and disappointed. Just when I was starting to feel optimistic about Cincinnati and the strides the city is making, I get a "1-2 punch." First the street car news and then the daunting population numbers. What happened to all the talk about the growth in Cincinnati? Some people were even claiming the population increased upwards to 350K. Even Mayor Mallory boasted on Undercover Boss about how the city is growing in population . I figured since he made a claim like that on national tv, then he must have based it off of concrete evidence. Dropping down to 296K is a pretty significant drop. Being that the population is now in the 200K range instead of 3 makes the decline look that much worse. I even look like an ass boasting to some of my family and friends in CT about the progress and "influx" of residents Cincinnati is seeing. My mom even sent me a text saying, "I thought u said Cincinnati was on the move?" I hate to be like other Ohioans who have bailed out on the state (which I vowed I wouldn't do), but at this point, I think my decision is made. I honestly do not feel the low cost of living outweighs the negative of this city and state and it seems like the declining trend will continue for a while. There have been several combining factors recently that have basically made me say "I can't take it anymore." Once I'm done with grad school, I'm out. HHS78
March 10, 201114 yr 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. 327 makes a very valid point here on an issue that I see as more often than not an American problem. How is it that we spent our money rebuilding devastated European cities in the 1940's, but we walk away from our own right here at home? There are problems of suburbia and sprawl in other countries, but it never seems to be at the complete expense of the cities that form the core of their region. My fear is this current divided political climate will only serve to hasten this process even more as the suburban constituencies grow more powerful against the less active inner-ring politicians and their citizens. We don't have to look much further than Ohio to see this happening daily.
March 10, 201114 yr 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.
March 10, 201114 yr I haven't had the chance to read through all the latest comments on this, but I noticed a few people said Ohio's numbers should not be a surprise to anyone. I was shocked at the numbers; VERY shocked, and disappointed. Just when I was starting to feel optimistic about Cincinnati and the strides the city is making, I get a "1-2 punch." First the street car news and then the daunting population numbers. What happened to all the talk about the growth in Cincinnati? Some people were even claiming the population increased upwards to 350K. Even Mayor Mallory boasted on Undercover Boss about how the city is growing in population . I figured since he made a claim like that on national tv, then he must have based it off of concrete evidence. Dropping down to 296K is a pretty significant drop. Being that the population is now in the 200K range instead of 3 makes the decline look that much worse. I even look like an ass boasting to some of my family and friends in CT about the progress and "influx" of residents Cincinnati is seeing. My mom even sent me a text saying, "I thought u said Cincinnati was on the move?" I hate to be like other Ohioans who have bailed out on the state (which I vowed I wouldn't do), but at this point, I think my decision is made. I honestly do not feel the low cost of living outweighs the negative of this city and state and it seems like the declining trend will continue for a while. There have been several combining factors recently that have basically made me say "I can't take it anymore." Once I'm done with grad school, I'm out. HHS78 You know it is possible the city did grow from 2005 and the mayor being correct. This takes into ten years of history. In theory, if Cincinnati gained population between 2005-2010 but lost a greater percentage of people between 2000-2005, then it would still show a loss. Yet, the city could very well still be growing. You won't see that result until the 2020 Census. If you are bailing out due to Census loses, then I don't know what old urban city you'd go to except for, well, Philadelphia (which barely gained, though that's still wonderful), San Francisco, Washington, and likely New York. Everybody else lost. Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. Even Dallas and Los Angeles gained minimally. But hey, if you want growth, you could always move to Oklahoma City or North Carolina! "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 10, 201114 yr Be part of the problem or part of the solution. Your choice. I hear Mexico City is still growing if that is the criteria you use to pick your residence.
March 10, 201114 yr ^I could never do Mexico City, too hot there. But I'm actually probably moving to Philly, or back to New England (Providence, RI) which is not growing btw, but I love it there, and it's not too expensive. I would love to move to Boston, but it's out of my price range, so I've narrowed it down to Philly or Providence.
March 10, 201114 yr I haven't had the chance to read through all the latest comments on this, but I noticed a few people said Ohio's numbers should not be a surprise to anyone. I was shocked at the numbers; VERY shocked, and disappointed. Just when I was starting to feel optimistic about Cincinnati and the strides the city is making, I get a "1-2 punch." First the street car news and then the daunting population numbers. What happened to all the talk about the growth in Cincinnati? Some people were even claiming the population increased upwards to 350K. Even Mayor Mallory boasted on Undercover Boss about how the city is growing in population . I figured since he made a claim like that on national tv, then he must have based it off of concrete evidence. Dropping down to 296K is a pretty significant drop. Being that the population is now in the 200K range instead of 3 makes the decline look that much worse. I even look like an ass boasting to some of my family and friends in CT about the progress and "influx" of residents Cincinnati is seeing. My mom even sent me a text saying, "I thought u said Cincinnati was on the move?" I hate to be like other Ohioans who have bailed out on the state (which I vowed I wouldn't do), but at this point, I think my decision is made. I honestly do not feel the low cost of living outweighs the negative of this city and state and it seems like the declining trend will continue for a while. There have been several combining factors recently that have basically made me say "I can't take it anymore." Once I'm done with grad school, I'm out. HHS78 Bye then. Or you could be like others, and make a change for the city. Sure, your contribution alone won't help push Cincinnati back over 300,000 right now, but every change is appreciated and noted. I just purchased a house in Northside, Cincinnati. Why? I'd like to contribute to the upward change in this vibrant and eccentric neighborhood, even as I am surrounded by abandoned, foreclosed and rental properties. Just the very sight of the bright yellow townhouse on the street, with its new roof, lights blaring inside and the vibrancy of activity is enough that we've made a lot of new friends in the past several weeks. People have just come up and knocked and told us just how great it was to find new people who bought into the city, rather than rented from an out-of-state property whore. And we've met people who have just walked through our yard (it is a convenient cut-off in the street grid) and thought our house was abandoned! (It was a crack house for years.) It's enough energy that I'm sticking around for at least the next 5 years and longer. New renovations are going on down the street, a new school (montessori) is popping up on the hill, and I have 10 years of tax abatement to sit on. So what that Cincinnati lost 10% of its population? I'm making a change, are you?
March 10, 201114 yr I think this has been very interesting to read and you all have so many good points, it's hard to even comment. but from that one, scrolling list that WestBLVD posted a couple of pages ago, just from a glance it seems to me that the thing that all the big gaining cities/burbs have in common and the thing that the biggest losing cities have in common are SCHOOLS. Those cities making the big gains are getting very good reports on their school systems and they are getting better each year - Strongsville, N Royalton, etc, while Cleveland schools continue to get worse. I don't presume to have any answers or solutions, but I really think schools play into this in SUCH a big way. There is no way families are going to move back to any urban area or even inner ring suburbs just out of "love" for the city core and at the cost of their kid's education or safety at school. That being said, I think the point about general shrinkage of families should be taken into account as well, but these numbers should be weighed against other numbers across the country. The shrinkage of families making numbers go down as there are less people total argument is only relevant if it's happening EVERYWHERE, and I suspect that the South and West are growing while we are declining, so I don't know if that's a valid point or not.
March 10, 201114 yr Schools are a huge issue. Its hard to get people to settle down in urban areas who plan on having children. Private schools cost to much for most people. Its a tough challenge to overcome, the more involved parents in the area will help the schools tremendously but its hard to find people who want to have their kids be the pioneers. For Cleveland, hopefully the elementary school in Tremont continues to improve, the CSU elementary school continues to expand, and John Hay High School continues to improve. This will at least begin to give residents a choice that doesn't cost a fortune and isn't in horrible shape.
March 10, 201114 yr http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10wg1acensusjpg-f6f521b5b0b769a5.jpg Interesting Cleveland map in the PD showing gain/loss by census tract. Surprised by the losses in what appears to be Clark/Fulton, where I had expected to see growth. In general the west side is more of a mixed bag than I had predicted. But there's also some undeniable turnaround beginning wth downtown and UC on the east side. http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/10cpcensusjpg-373428b818661613.jpg And here's the metro map. Many portions of the Central neighborhood of Cleveland saw some growth in population.
March 10, 201114 yr I was waiting for a snarky response. I actually do volunteer a lot of my time here in Cincinnati. I volunteer a lot of time in OTR, a little at SCPA, the "Y", sometimes at Elementz and in the summer I teach a swimming class. In the latchkey program I'm involved in OTR, I mainly just play basketball or run with the kids, and talk to them about taking education seriously and trying to encourage them to be more receptive to school. I love doing it, but at times I say to myself, "why are no other black males trying to help out the community." It feels like I'm running in place sometimes, especially when one of the kids you mentor goes out and gets killed. The population decline is not really the main reason why I will probably leave. It's just that I miss the vibrancy, culture, and energy of the northeast. But as someone mentioned, schools play a very big part of the overall welfare of a city. A lot of parents do not want to, or are even afraid to send their kids to Cincinnati Public Schools which is showing to not be helping the city one bit. What baffles me is how afraid many suburbanites here are afraid of Cincinnati. It's ridiculous, really! I constantly hear people talking about how bad and "dangerous" the city is. I also get sick of the disgusting responses I get from coworkers when they find out I live in Madisonville. If someone is deathly afraid of stepping foot in Cincinnati, then urban living is probably certainly not for you. Cincinnati is a great city, but it's the people here who make it what it is... [end rant]
March 10, 201114 yr So after the original shock, eh, whatever. So Cleveland has fewer than 400,000 residents? Eh, it really isn't the end of the world, and I seriously doubt it'll make a difference to the business community. So we lose a couple of twits like Kucinich and Fudge, so a few worthless councilmen are out of a job, it doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. What, will Obama now campaign here less; will we yet again not get the DNC or RNC? These numbers are just ego and have no value in the real world outside of bragging rights.
March 11, 201114 yr To HHS78, there is a saying - "The darkest hour is just before the dawn." I live in Cleveland and the census results are certainly not what I would have liked to see. However, there is a "strange" feeling in Cleveland. People are starting to look to the future with anticipation, instead of dread. We see a change in the local economy, moving away from total reliance on manufacturing to a broadening which is being fueled by Biotech/medical, software development, etc. We are witnessing an incredible growth in population for many of our neighborhoods which would have been unheard of 30 years ago. Cleveland never had a significant population downtown, but now it is over 12000! The national housing bubble has burst and I truly think that the Great Lakes and Midwest will begin to catch up. In Cincinnati I know similar changes are taking place. I lived in Cincinnati many years ago. I got my Masters from UC and it is a great city. "The darkest hour is always just before the dawn."
March 11, 201114 yr If Mallory wouldn't have challenged the census estimates this wouldn't have come as such a surprise, they were estimating in the 310s at mid-decade. He did it to break a narrative that was developing, but it made the hard numbers that much harder to accept and now he looks the fool.
March 11, 201114 yr Painesville's population increases by over 2K to 19,563; in large part no doubt due to a large influx of Mexicans ¡Ay caramba! 68.2% White 13.1% Black 22.0% Hispanic (of any race—guess there's a little crossover into the other races, which explains the over 100% total? Calling all statisticians!) http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
March 11, 201114 yr So after the original shock, eh, whatever. So Cleveland has fewer than 400,000 residents? Eh, it really isn't the end of the world, and I seriously doubt it'll make a difference to the business community. So we lose a couple of twits like Kucinich and Fudge, so a few worthless councilmen are out of a job, it doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. What, will Obama now campaign here less; will we yet again not get the DNC or RNC? These numbers are just ego and have no value in the real world outside of bragging rights. That's mostly where I am too. I care about the fiscal health of individual municipalities so they can continue to deliver services, but not so much about population counts per se. I care about aggregate regional population for exactly one reason: to keep our pro sports franchises viable. It's silly, but as a big Indians fan, their TV contract and attendance matter to me. But otherwise, I just can't get that excited by population counts. I'd like there to be a critical mass of people with similar interests and tastes to provide an adequate customer base for the types of restaurants, bars, stores and services that interest me, but by those metrics, things actually seem to be improving in Cleveland. For what it's worth, I'm highly skeptical of any specific predictions about plateaus or bottoms to City of Cleveland's population loss. As long as comparatively intact suburban areas are incredibly affordable and have lots of vacancy (which is still the case), the flow of people out of distressed core city neighborhoods, particularly those households with above-poverty income, will continue. Yeah, there will be some backfill of "urban by choice" residents in some of the most desirable neighborhoods, a trickle of immigration will continue, and there will continue to be some subsidized production of new housing (as in Central), but I don't think that will be nearly enough to overcome the continue outflow for the near future. I don't think this is good news by any stretch, but it will certainly offer some opportunities for reinvention.
March 11, 201114 yr Painesville's population increases by over 2K to 19,563; in large part no doubt due to a large influx of Mexicans ¡Ay caramba! 68.2% White 13.1% Black 22.0% Hispanic (of any raceguess there's a little crossover into the other races, which explains the over 100% total? Calling all statisticians!) The Hispanic and Latino population always throws a wrench in the stats. I even do it sometimes. One day I might feel like marking Latino (Panamanian), most of the time I just mark black, and then other times I'll fill in multiracial or other. Many studies I had to do for my stats class were thrown off because of this mess, and people like me. Lol
March 11, 201114 yr "(excuse me, The Village of Indian Hill)" Make that the City of The Village of Indian Hill. If the population of the City of The Village of Indian Hill ever falls below a certain number, will it become the Village of The Village of Indian Hill? :-D
March 11, 201114 yr Damn straight THM and HHS, who gives a sh!t about the census when you think about it. Even knowing there was a ton of population decline, Cleveland still has massive investments, in particular the University Circle area, that are just remarkable, especially in this Depression. Anyone really think that Gilbert wasn't aware of population loss when he committed 100s of millions to the city. Politically, we, Cleveland at least, are finally on are way to a far less corrupt body as well - the bad guys are out, at least the worst of them. That can't be overstated enough; there is finally a political body that isn't as damaged as the sociopaths who've been running the joint the last 15 years. And as to the census winners, sure Vegas gained an amazing number of people the last decade. And their economy is a$$. And I guarantee you guys those numbers are currently crap as there is a huge exodus from Sin City, with enough stalled projects to make Dubai go hah hah.. They have zip momentum so who cares about their population a year ago - it indicates sh!t. On a practical level, it is meaningless, especially when you look at the longterm picture. And yeah I'm playing cheerleader here a bit, but I think it's kind of needed to balance all this doom and gloom the past 24 hrs since we learned something that isn't surprising really and doest change on thing definitely
March 11, 201114 yr Painesville's population increases by over 2K to 19,563; in large part no doubt due to a large influx of Mexicans ¡Ay caramba! 68.2% White 13.1% Black 22.0% Hispanic (of any race—guess there's a little crossover into the other races, which explains the over 100% total? Calling all statisticians!) The Hispanic and Latino population always throws a wrench in the stats. I even do it sometimes. One day I might feel like marking Latino (Panamanian), most of the time I just mark black, and then other times I'll fill in multiracial or other. Many studies I had to do for my stats class were thrown off because of this mess, and people like me. Lol I just quickly checked the Census figures from Painesville again, and it seems that 2,583 picked the category “Some Other Race,” and 872 chose “Two or More Races.” That seems like an unusually large number for a town of less that 20K! I demand a Congressional investigation and a recount! Lol Actually these days I know more and more people are identifying as more than one race. Maybe it's a good way to boost the figures for your town :wink: (then again, when I was growing up in there in the Middle Ages—the 60's—the only Hispanics were a handful of Puerto Ricans) http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
March 11, 201114 yr Painesville's population increases by over 2K to 19,563; in large part no doubt due to a large influx of Mexicans ¡Ay caramba! 68.2% White 13.1% Black 22.0% Hispanic (of any race—guess there's a little crossover into the other races, which explains the over 100% total? Calling all statisticians!) The Hispanic and Latino population always throws a wrench in the stats. I even do it sometimes. One day I might feel like marking Latino (Panamanian), most of the time I just mark black, and then other times I'll fill in multiracial or other. Many studies I had to do for my stats class were thrown off because of this mess, and people like me. Lol I just quickly checked the Census figures from Painesville again, and it seems that 2,583 picked the category “Some Other Race,” and 872 chose “Two or More Races.” That seems like an unusually large number for a town of less that 20K! I demand a Congressional investigation and a recount! Lol Actually these days I know more and more people are identifying as more than one race. Maybe it's a good way to boost the figures for your town :wink: (then again, when I was growing up in there in the Middle Ages—the 60's—the only Hispanics were a handful of Puerto Ricans) Yep! It's the cool thing to do now. :mrgreen:
March 11, 201114 yr For the past year , it has been assumed amongst many of the city planning elite in cleveland that our census number would come in closer to 330,000. For most in the field , this new census figure is a good sign that things have bottomed out and are stabilizing.
Create an account or sign in to comment