June 1, 20187 yr O'Byronville is indeed an official Cincinnati neighborhood. What differentiates the Short North from other "more official" neighborhoods in Columbus is that it doesn't have a neighborhood association of its own. It has a business association. Notice within stories on here that the projects are submitted to the Victorian N.A. if the project is on the west side of High and to the Italian N.A. if on the east.
June 1, 20187 yr There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too. Walk Scores provide some context too: Cleveland 60 Cincinnati 50 Columbus 41 Just looking at Downtown Walk Score: Cincinnati 93 Cleveland 91 Columbus 82 That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions. I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem I think the walk scores are illuminating to this conversation. You can have a density of residents over a large area, but if there aren't many businesses in that area, what is the point? The primary reason urbanists like density is it enables walkable neighborhoods. Maybe what's going on here is that the older C's have a greater mix of uses. Anecdotally, that makes sense from what I have seen of Columbus; that the retail/commercial districts are more segregated from residential districts (versus Cleveland/Cincinnati). You also see that in edale's streetviews. In edale's more-urban examples, you see a mix of uses. In the others, you don't.
June 1, 20187 yr O'Bryonville is actually a part of Evanston according to the City's website, as well as Google Maps and Wikipedia. I've seen some maps that list it as a separate neighborhood though, so maybe Cincinnati has 51.5 neighborhoods instead of 52. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
June 1, 20187 yr In Cincinnati, if a neighborhood doesn't have its own neighborhood association registered with the city is it then "unofficial"?
June 1, 20187 yr O'Byronville is indeed an official Cincinnati neighborhood. What differentiates the Short North from other "more official" neighborhoods in Columbus is that it doesn't have a neighborhood association of its own. It has a business association. Notice within stories on here that the projects are submitted to the Victorian N.A. if the project is on the west side of High and to the Italian N.A. if on the east. It's actually not on the list of official neighborhoods, which makes it a perfect example. I can't believe I didn't think of it. https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/reports-data/census-demographics/
June 1, 20187 yr There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too. Walk Scores provide some context too: Cleveland 60 Cincinnati 50 Columbus 41 Just looking at Downtown Walk Score: Cincinnati 93 Cleveland 91 Columbus 82 That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions. I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem I think the walk scores are illuminating to this conversation. You can have a density of residents over a large area, but if there aren't many businesses in that area, what is the point? The primary reason urbanists like density is it enables walkable neighborhoods. Maybe what's going on here is that the older C's have a greater mix of uses. Anecdotally, that makes sense from what I have seen of Columbus; that the retail/commercial districts are more segregated from residential districts (versus Cleveland/Cincinnati). You also see that in edale's streetviews. In edale's more-urban examples, you see a mix of uses. In the others, you don't. Columbus is seriously lacking in the NBD department
June 1, 20187 yr Columbus is very High Street focused, to its benefit and to its detriment. High Street is great but there needs to be other corridors. Summit/4th will hopefully burgeon. German Village is nice because of all the corner businesses. Kind of lacking in other parts of the city.
June 1, 20187 yr There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too. Walk Scores provide some context too: Cleveland 60 Cincinnati 50 Columbus 41 Just looking at Downtown Walk Score: Cincinnati 93 Cleveland 91 Columbus 82 That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions. I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem I think the walk scores are illuminating to this conversation. You can have a density of residents over a large area, but if there aren't many businesses in that area, what is the point? The primary reason urbanists like density is it enables walkable neighborhoods. Maybe what's going on here is that the older C's have a greater mix of uses. Anecdotally, that makes sense from what I have seen of Columbus; that the retail/commercial districts are more segregated from residential districts (versus Cleveland/Cincinnati). You also see that in edale's streetviews. In edale's more-urban examples, you see a mix of uses. In the others, you don't. People give too much credence to this site. The last time I looked at it, it showed the walkscores had dropped for pretty much the entire High Street corridor and neighborhoods, including the Short North (however it is defined). Does anyone really believe that walkability declined there? Yet Walkscore said it did. People should take these scores with a HUGE grain of salt.
June 1, 20187 yr Columbus is very High Street focused, to its benefit and to its detriment. High Street is great but there needs to be other corridors. Summit/4th will hopefully burgeon. German Village is nice because of all the corner businesses. Kind of lacking in other parts of the city. It makes sense that the city is High Street focused. That's where most of its best urban neighborhoods are, from Worthington to Campus south to Merion Village. And that's a huge, continuous area, longer and larger than in almost any comparably-sized city. That said, West Broad is going to explode soon, at least in Franklinton. And all of the Near East neighborhoods are rapidly improving. The Parsons Corridor is seeing a lot of new stuff and places like Old Oaks have seen their vacancy rates plummet. Summit/4th are already well on their way, with multiple projects under construction or about to begin. The entirety of Weinland Park is getting better too. 5thxNW. It's really not that hard to find areas off High seeing action.
June 1, 20187 yr There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too. Walk Scores provide some context too: Cleveland 60 Cincinnati 50 Columbus 41 Just looking at Downtown Walk Score: Cincinnati 93 Cleveland 91 Columbus 82 That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions. I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem I think the walk scores are illuminating to this conversation. You can have a density of residents over a large area, but if there aren't many businesses in that area, what is the point? The primary reason urbanists like density is it enables walkable neighborhoods. Maybe what's going on here is that the older C's have a greater mix of uses. Anecdotally, that makes sense from what I have seen of Columbus; that the retail/commercial districts are more segregated from residential districts (versus Cleveland/Cincinnati). You also see that in edale's streetviews. In edale's more-urban examples, you see a mix of uses. In the others, you don't. People give too much credence to this site. The last time I looked at it, it showed the walkscores had dropped for pretty much the entire High Street corridor and neighborhoods, including the Short North (however it is defined). Does anyone really believe that walkability declined there? Yet Walkscore said it did. People should take these scores with a HUGE grain of salt. The constant creep away from stores that sell objects to having more and more bars and restaurants will negatively impact walkscores.
June 1, 20187 yr There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too. Walk Scores provide some context too: Cleveland 60 Cincinnati 50 Columbus 41 Just looking at Downtown Walk Score: Cincinnati 93 Cleveland 91 Columbus 82 That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions. I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem I think the walk scores are illuminating to this conversation. You can have a density of residents over a large area, but if there aren't many businesses in that area, what is the point? The primary reason urbanists like density is it enables walkable neighborhoods. Maybe what's going on here is that the older C's have a greater mix of uses. Anecdotally, that makes sense from what I have seen of Columbus; that the retail/commercial districts are more segregated from residential districts (versus Cleveland/Cincinnati). You also see that in edale's streetviews. In edale's more-urban examples, you see a mix of uses. In the others, you don't. People give too much credence to this site. The last time I looked at it, it showed the walkscores had dropped for pretty much the entire High Street corridor and neighborhoods, including the Short North (however it is defined). Does anyone really believe that walkability declined there? Yet Walkscore said it did. People should take these scores with a HUGE grain of salt. The constant creep away from stores that sell objects to having more and more bars and restaurants will negatively impact walkscores. I'm not sure how going from more galleries to more restaurants would negatively affect walkscores. More people eat than buy art. The clothing stores have largely remained. Other than that, what's really changed significantly?
June 1, 20187 yr Walkscore rewards variety and penalizes areas lacking certain amenities that may or not be important to a particular individual. Like, I don't go to the movies but an area will still see a lower walkscore without a movie theater.
June 1, 20187 yr Walkscore rewards variety and penalizes areas lacking certain amenities that may or not be important to a particular individual. Like, I don't go to the movies but an area will still see a lower walkscore without a movie theater. The variety of businesses in the Short North hasn't really changed. A few galleries closing doesn't mean there aren't galleries to walk to, nor does it mean that no new types of businesses have opened. I think this is just a debate in futility and semantics. The scores are far from perfect. Another example of their imperfection is using population data at the tract level. Up until I think last year, the Census had the Short North losing population, which would affect the score also. Does that also seem reasonable?
June 2, 20187 yr Walkscore has a lot of weaknesses in its methodology that are obvious to people who hang out on sites like UO. A lot of people who use the Walkscore don't know them. What it does tell people is that no, the Short North isn't Manhattan but it's also incapable of telling people that Easton Town Center isn't Manhattan either.
June 2, 20187 yr Isn't there a better thread for this Short North conversation? I keep coming in here thinking I'm going to read about Ohio census estimates.
June 4, 20187 yr People give too much credence to this site. The last time I looked at it, it showed the walkscores had dropped for pretty much the entire High Street corridor and neighborhoods, including the Short North (however it is defined). Does anyone really believe that walkability declined there? Yet Walkscore said it did. People should take these scores with a HUGE grain of salt. I think we've established pretty well that all measures are flawed. Walk Score has the problem of making a ton of inadequate assumptions, due to the complexity of the notion of walkability, including the difficulty of quantifying and collecting information about things such as the nature of businesses or urban design features. But it's still an objective measure, in the sense that the algorithm treats every place to which it is applied equally. And in a lot of cases, the comparative numbers agree with my and others' subjective and objective experience of places. Particularly in the case of comparing Ohio cities and neighborhoods, walk score seems to do a better job of measuring urbanity and walkability than using population density as a proxy for the same -- the proxy relationship which is an implicit assumption in your analysis and one with which a lot of people here disagree. Rather than explaining why Walk Score has problems, which I don't think anyone would disagree with, why don't you look up each of the 3 C's and check out the neighborhood lists, then tell us which scores by comparison to each other seem blatantly wrong. If you can find a sufficient number, you might convince some or all of us that the metric is discredited in the discussion at hand.
June 4, 20187 yr People give too much credence to this site. The last time I looked at it, it showed the walkscores had dropped for pretty much the entire High Street corridor and neighborhoods, including the Short North (however it is defined). Does anyone really believe that walkability declined there? Yet Walkscore said it did. People should take these scores with a HUGE grain of salt. I think we've established pretty well that all measures are flawed. Walk Score has the problem of making a ton of inadequate assumptions, due to the complexity of the notion of walkability, including the difficulty of quantifying and collecting information about things such as the nature of businesses or urban design features. But it's still an objective measure, in the sense that the algorithm treats every place to which it is applied equally. And in a lot of cases, the comparative numbers agree with my and others' subjective and objective experience of places. Particularly in the case of comparing Ohio cities and neighborhoods, walk score seems to do a better job of measuring urbanity and walkability than using population density as a proxy for the same -- the proxy relationship which is an implicit assumption in your analysis and one with which a lot of people here disagree. Rather than explaining why Walk Score has problems, which I don't think anyone would disagree with, why don't you look up each of the 3 C's and check out the neighborhood lists, then tell us which scores by comparison to each other seem blatantly wrong. If you can find a sufficient number, you might convince some or all of us that the metric is discredited in the discussion at hand. This. Any measure will be flawed, but Walkscore is consistent and that's the important part. Also, a bunch of these posts about Walkscore seem incorrect. Short North has not seen a drop in it's Walkscore at all. It's a 92, which is extremely high, and I believe the highest neighborhood in Columbus. I use Walkscore regularly for work so I'd notice if it had dropped over time. Also, someone brought of up Easton, which has a Walkscore of 34. That seems very correct to me, so I'm not sure what point was being made.
June 4, 20187 yr Walkscore has a lot of weaknesses in its methodology that are obvious to people who hang out on sites like UO. A lot of people who use the Walkscore don't know them. What it does tell people is that no, the Short North isn't Manhattan but it's also incapable of telling people that Easton Town Center isn't Manhattan either. I mentioned this in my comment above, but could you elaborate? The Lower Eastside of Manhattan (just to pick one example) has a Walkscore of 96. Short North is 92. Easton is 34. I think those scores line up really well with what we all experience in those places.
June 4, 20187 yr Isn't there a better thread for this Short North conversation? I keep coming in here thinking I'm going to read about Ohio census estimates. Well Census estimates only come out periodically and this conversation is related to those estimates so I'm not sure why it would be an issue to have it here until new data is released.
June 4, 20187 yr Walkscore rewards variety and penalizes areas lacking certain amenities that may or not be important to a particular individual. Like, I don't go to the movies but an area will still see a lower walkscore without a movie theater. The variety of businesses in the Short North hasn't really changed. A few galleries closing doesn't mean there aren't galleries to walk to, nor does it mean that no new types of businesses have opened. I think this is just a debate in futility and semantics. The scores are far from perfect. Another example of their imperfection is using population data at the tract level. Up until I think last year, the Census had the Short North losing population, which would affect the score also. Does that also seem reasonable? Just about every gentrifying neighborhood has lost population, so it would apply equally to Over-The-Rhine, Tremont, etc., no? Also what population data would you prefer? The block group level data has some really high margins of error so I think tract level data makes the most sense.
June 5, 20187 yr Walkscore has a lot of weaknesses in its methodology that are obvious to people who hang out on sites like UO. A lot of people who use the Walkscore don't know them. What it does tell people is that no, the Short North isn't Manhattan but it's also incapable of telling people that Easton Town Center isn't Manhattan either. I mentioned this in my comment above, but could you elaborate? The Lower Eastside of Manhattan (just to pick one example) has a Walkscore of 96. Short North is 92. Easton is 34. I think those scores line up really well with what we all experience in those places. I got a 65 for 160 Easton Town Center 43219, right in the middle of the center. Used to be that malls and lifestyle centers really pushed up your walkscore (over 90 sometimes) but I think that since supermarkets have moved further away from them, the variety of stores decreased and WalkScore started adding things such as doctor's offices the WalkScores dropped.
June 5, 20187 yr Walkscore has a lot of weaknesses in its methodology that are obvious to people who hang out on sites like UO. A lot of people who use the Walkscore don't know them. What it does tell people is that no, the Short North isn't Manhattan but it's also incapable of telling people that Easton Town Center isn't Manhattan either. I mentioned this in my comment above, but could you elaborate? The Lower Eastside of Manhattan (just to pick one example) has a Walkscore of 96. Short North is 92. Easton is 34. I think those scores line up really well with what we all experience in those places. I got a 65 for 160 Easton Town Center 43219, right in the middle of the center. Used to be that malls and lifestyle centers really pushed up your walkscore (over 90 sometimes) but I think that since supermarkets have moved further away from them, the variety of stores decreased and WalkScore started adding things such as doctor's offices the WalkScores dropped. Yes, if you just put in an address in the center you'll get the highest Walkscore possible. But if you just type in Easton, Columbus, OH you'll get a "neighborhood" average, which is 34. Short North has an average of 92, but if I put in 1209 North High Street it shows me that the score is 95 for that exact address. Malls were never a positive for Walkscore because it places high emphasis on pedestrian connectivity. Malls surrounded by huge parking lots kill connectivity. Maximum points are given to amenities within 5 minutes, and the decay function they use has always been built in. Block length, intersection density, and population density are all included variables and have been from the beginning--and they tend to make lifestyle centers score lower than traditional urban neighborhoods.
June 19, 20186 yr Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition
June 19, 20186 yr ^Do they really believe Millennials flock to places because of low or non-existent state income taxes? Old people with tons of money and passive income do that -- not young people starting out.
June 19, 20186 yr ^Do they really believe Millennials flock to places because of low or non-existent state income taxes? Old people with tons of money and passive income do that -- not young people starting out. Millenials have no wealth nor pay much in taxes so of course they don't.
June 19, 20186 yr Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group.
June 19, 20186 yr ^Do they really believe Millennials flock to places because of low or non-existent state income taxes? Old people with tons of money and passive income do that -- not young people starting out. Millenials have no wealth nor pay much in taxes so of course they don't. That doesn't explain why coastal cities attract so many businesses vs. e.g. Kansas.
June 19, 20186 yr I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. Doesn't who "counts" entirely depend on what you're trying to measure? If you're trying to measure where Millennials are moving, you don't count those who are staying in place.
June 19, 20186 yr Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. Isn't that what is attempts to show? I guess it does not show the household creation from those who grow up in a certain area, but it captures some of the data from those who leave and move to other places. It is difficult to capture the data you are looking for because it would probably take some pretty in depth analysis to build such a model, and I doubt the budget for this magazine would allow for that type of analysis.
June 19, 20186 yr ^Do they really believe Millennials flock to places because of low or non-existent state income taxes? Old people with tons of money and passive income do that -- not young people starting out. Millenials have no wealth nor pay much in taxes so of course they don't. That doesn't explain why coastal cities attract so many businesses vs. e.g. Kansas. What comes first, the chicken or the egg. Do people come for the jobs or do the jobs come for the people?
June 19, 20186 yr Surprised to see Cincy so high on the list. Good for Cincy. Definitely surprising. Hopefully this is the beginning of a trend. Importing young people with outside perspectives would be great for Cincinnati.
June 19, 20186 yr What comes first, the chicken or the egg. Do people come for the jobs or do the jobs come for the people? According to Amazon, the latter.
June 19, 20186 yr I'd definitely say the latter. There seems to have been a rise in "amenities cities" in the past decade or longer, most notably with Portland and Denver, but also to a lesser extent places like New Orleans and Missoula. NOLA in particular is interesting since it doesn't seem like there has been all that much economic growth down there, but the post-Katrina housing prices are getting pretty outrageous. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
June 19, 20186 yr Dare I say the all-controlling days of the "amenity city" have subsided to the "jobs city". Seattle and the Bay Area are both -- and that's how they really slay.
June 19, 20186 yr I'd definitely say the latter. There seems to have been a rise in "amenities cities" in the past decade or longer, most notably with Portland and Denver, but also to a lesser extent places like New Orleans and Missoula. NOLA in particular is interesting since it doesn't seem like there has been all that much economic growth down there, but the post-Katrina housing prices are getting pretty outrageous. I have recently read that New Orleans is fairly insular. That by its nature it just isn't desirous of drawing a significant number of newcomers.
June 19, 20186 yr I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. Doesn't who "counts" entirely depend on what you're trying to measure? If you're trying to measure where Millennials are moving, you don't count those who are staying in place. They don't actually say how they got those numbers other than saying from the Census and using 1-year ACS estimates, but not specifically which ones. They don't answer if this only included domestic movers rather than also international, for example. Also, even using ACS 1-year data, it only includes previous residences of those who moved TO a particular city, not those moving away, so it doesn't explain where they got those net numbers. There is no acknowledgement that the 20-34 population may not actually represent the Millennial population. The start and end year for that generation is not agreed upon, and some of the older fringe has already aged out of that range but would still otherwise be Millennials. So all they're really doing is showing the growth of that specific age group presumably only for domestic migration. It's not really a Millennial comparison.
June 19, 20186 yr Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. It's millenniasl moving there minus the millennials leaving so it captures people who grow up somewhere and stay there.
June 19, 20186 yr I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. Doesn't who "counts" entirely depend on what you're trying to measure? If you're trying to measure where Millennials are moving, you don't count those who are staying in place. They don't actually say how they got those numbers other than saying from the Census and using 1-year ACS estimates, but not specifically which ones. They don't answer if this only included domestic movers rather than also international, for example. Also, even using ACS 1-year data, it only includes previous residences of those who moved TO a particular city, not those moving away, so it doesn't explain where they got those net numbers. There is no acknowledgement that the 20-34 population may not actually represent the Millennial population. The start and end year for that generation is not agreed upon, and some of the older fringe has already aged out of that range but would still otherwise be Millennials. So all they're really doing is showing the growth of that specific age group presumably only for domestic migration. It's not really a Millennial comparison. It's net migration, so it includes both domestic and international. I'm not sure I understand your comment about destination-location? All you need is migration, who is leaving and who is staying, to compile this list. It doesn't matter if the people leaving Cincy are moving to LA or San Fran or Houston. They're still migrating away. 1980 to 1996 are the birth years most commonly used for millenials, so that would put them at 22 to 38 years old right now, give or take. 20 to 34 is the age bracket reported by the Census Bureau so it's the closest approximation available for the data.
June 19, 20186 yr Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. It's millenniasl moving there minus the millennials leaving so it captures people who grow up somewhere and stay there. That would just be migration, not natural growth. I looked at the 2016 1-year estimates for mobility/migration and I haven't been able to find any combination that matches their numbers. There's not enough information to know what they used. BTW, here are the numbers for major Ohio cities 2005-2016 in terms of the total change in that age group, which would be the net of both migration and natural growth. 2005-2016 Akron: 0 Canton: -1,346 Cincinnati: +13,505 Cleveland: +11,519 Columbus: +55,851 Dayton: +8,053 Toledo: +264 Youngstown: -1,536 2010-2016 Akron: +1,462 Canton: -626 Cincinnati: +531 Cleveland: +6,673 Columbus: +21,084 Dayton: +4,680 Toledo: -2,268 Youngstown: -1,137
June 19, 20186 yr Change for 20-34 over time isn't a good measure, because lots of people in the group in 2005 or 2010 have aged out by 2016, just as people who were too young in 2005 or 2010 will be counted in 2016. Did you move the ages around? 9-23 in 2005 and 14-28 in 2010?
June 19, 20186 yr Change for 20-34 over time isn't a good measure, because lots of people in the group in 2005 or 2010 have aged out by 2016, just as people who were too young in 2005 or 2010 will be counted in 2016. Did you move the ages around? 9-23 in 2005 and 14-28 in 2010? You're right, and that's why I made the comment about that link not really being about Millennials, but about just the change in that age group at the time. I made that same comparison for the numbers above that was used in the link, only over a greater time and using total change rather than just supposedly migration. The closest thing I could find to what the other site did was to look at mobility 2015-2016. Here were the total numbers of people who moved to each city in that 20-34 age group 2015-2016 from outside the city. Akron: +4892 Cincinnati: +13,030 Cleveland: +6,230 Columbus: +27,270 Dayton: +2,911 Toledo: +4,765 Youngstown: +1,085 Basically if someone could point me to the specific numbers they used, I would appreciate it.
June 19, 20186 yr Do you have those numbers for Lakewood and Cleveland Heights? I'd be interested to add those two to CLE's total, because I think they get a lot of that population, where in Cbus and in Cincy they mostly go to the city proper.
June 19, 20186 yr Do you have those numbers for Lakewood and Cleveland Heights? I'd be interested to add those two to CLE's total, because I think they get a lot of that population, where in Cbus and in Cincy they mostly go to the city proper. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t Use the buttons on the left to find any information you're looking for.
June 22, 20186 yr The Census released demographic estimates for counties and metros yesterday. I looked at the numbers for the 3-Cs. Total Non-Hispanic White By Core County 2017 and change from 2010. Cuyahoga: 738,951 -48,594 Franklin: 819,604 +34,506 Hamilton: 532,187 -11,314 Metro Non-Hispanic White Total and change from 2010. Cincinnati: 1,747,284 +5,757 Cleveland: 1,440,587 -51,786 Columbus: 1,520,204 +59,267 Non-Hispanic White % of Total Population by Core County in 2010 and 2017 Cuyahoga 2010: 61.5% 2017: 59.2% Franklin 2010: 67.5% 2017: 63.4% Hamilton 2010: 67.7% 2017: 65.4% Non-Hispanic White % of Total Metro Population in 2010 and 2017. Cincinnati: 2010: 81.8% 2017: 79.6% Cleveland 2010: 71.8% 2017: 70.0% Columbus 2010: 76.8% 2017: 73.1% Non-Hispanic White % Change 2010-2017 by Core County Cuyahoga: -6.2% Franklin: +4.4% Hamilton: -2.1% Non-Hispanic White % Change 2010-2017 by Metro Cincinnati: +0.3% Columbus: +4.1% Cleveland: -3.5% Non-Hispanic Black Total By Core County in 2017 and change from 2010 Cuyahoga: 369,766 -6,120 Franklin: 292,139 +46,782 Hamilton: 213,053 +7,588 Metro Non-Hispanic Black Total and change from 2010. Cincinnati: 272,079 +17,178 Cleveland: 407,130 -3,560 Columbus: 325,339 +53,433 Non-Hispanic Black % of Total Population by Core County in 2010 and 2017 Cuyahoga 2010: 29.4% 2017: 29.6% Franklin 2010: 21.1% 2017: 22.6% Hamilton 2010: 25.6% 2017: 26.2% Non-Hispanic Black % of Total Metro Population in 2010 and 2017. Cincinnati: 2010: 12.0% 2017: 12.4% Cleveland 2010: 19.8% 2017: 19.8% Columbus 2010: 14.3% 2017: 15.7% Non-Hispanic Black % Change 2010-2017 by Core County Cuyahoga: -1.6% Franklin: +19.1% Hamilton: +3.7% Non-Hispanic Black % Change 2010-2017 by Metro Cincinnati: +6.7% Columbus: +19.7 Cleveland: -0.9% Non-Hispanic Asian Total By Core County in 2017 and change from 2010 Cuyahoga: 39,917 +6,779 Franklin: 68,700 +23,350 Hamilton: 21,969 +5,609 Metro Non-Hispanic Asian Total and change from 2010. Cincinnati: 57,543 +16,739 Cleveland: 49,937 +9,215 Columbus: 90,098 +32,269 Non-Hispanic Asian % of Total Population by Core County in 2010 and 2017 Cuyahoga 2010: 2.6% 2017: 3.2% Franklin 2010: 3.9% 2017: 5.3% Hamilton 2010: 2.0% 2017: 2.7% Non-Hispanic Asian % of Total Metro Population in 2010 and 2017. Cincinnati: 2010: 1.9% 2017: 2.6% Cleveland 2010: 2.0% 2017: 2.4% Columbus 2010: 3.0% 2017: 4.3% Non-Hispanic Asian % Change 2010-2017 by Core County Cuyahoga: +20.5% Franklin: +51.5% Hamilton: +34.3% Non-Hispanic Asian % Change 2010-2017 by Metro Cincinnati: +41.0% Columbus: +55.8% Cleveland: +22.4% Hispanic Total By Core County in 2017 and change from 2010 Cuyahoga: 73,989 +12,719 Franklin: 70,887 +15,169 Hamilton: 26,649 +6,042 Metro Hispanic Total and change from 2010. Cincinnati: 70,623 +15,503 Cleveland: 119,797 +21,664 Columbus: 86,431 +19,578 Hispanic % of Total Population by Core County in 2010 and 2017 Cuyahoga 2010: 4.8% 2017: 5.9% Franklin 2010: 4.8% 2017: 5.5% Hamilton 2010: 2.6% 2017: 3.3% Hispanic % of Total Metro Population in 2010 and 2017. Cincinnati 2010: 2.6% 2017: 3.2% Cleveland 2010: 4.7% 2017: 5.8% Columbus 2010: 3.5% 2017: 4.2% Hispanic % Change 2010-2017 by Core County Cuyahoga: +20.8% Franklin: +27.2% Hamilton: +29.3% Hispanic % Change 2010-2017 by Metro Cincinnati: +28.1% Columbus: +29.3% Cleveland: +22.1% Non-Hispanic Other Total By Core County in 2017 and change from 2010 Cuyahoga: 25,891 +3,608 Franklin: 40,651 +8,760 Hamilton: 19,964 +3,523 Metro Non-Hispanic Other Total and change from 2010. Cincinnati: 46,972 +9,173 Cleveland: 41,393 +6,161 Columbus: 56,653 +12,204 Non-Hispanic Other % of Total Population by Core County in 2010 and 2017 Cuyahoga 2010: 1.7% 2017: 2.1% Franklin 2010: 2.7% 2017: 3.2% Hamilton 2010: 2.1% 2017: 2.5% Non-Hispanic Other % of Total Metro Population in 2010 and 2017. Cincinnati: 2010: 1.8% 2017: 2.1% Cleveland 2010: 1.7% 2017: 2.0% Columbus 2010: 2.3% 2017: 2.7% Non-Hispanic Other % Change 2010-2017 by Core County Cuyahoga: +16.2% Franklin: +27.5% Hamilton: +21.4% Non-Hispanic Other % Change 2010-2017 by Metro Cincinnati: +24.3% Columbus: +27.5% Cleveland: +17.5%
June 23, 20186 yr ^^ I hope with our economy doing well and with a NEED for more housing, we can attract more hispanic immigrants. My parents live on the far west side next to a Mexican family that has done very, very well with construction work-they transformed the house they bought, especially the inside, since they work on exclusive homes in Dublin, etc. They are the best family to live in that house in over 20 years. F**k the xenophobic crazy anti-immigrant stance that the nation's leadership has seemed to embrace. As a city Columbus should continue to reach out to and actively pursue ethnic, religious, or racial minorities (and especially persecuted groups like LGBTQ in areas like the Middle East, Africa, etc. )-the city and region is growing fast and can make a good case for moving here. I don't know how much the city alone can do, but it should do whatever it can to attract these people, especially if they can somehow manage to make it to the US on their own. And yes, this should be a sanctuary city to the hilt. JMHO *This Mexican family has also been very gracious in helping my parents with various small projects in their home, and even sometimes mowing their yard-as my parents are 90 and 85 years old and these small things help them remain in their own home independently. I wonder what Cbus and other Ohio cities are actually doing to attract immigrants. Is there a special department or something in the city that markets the city to certain specific groups like these minority groups?
June 23, 20186 yr Hey jonoh81[/member], can you do Dayton, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown? I'm just curious. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 24, 20186 yr So it seems that the bulk of Cleveland's population decline comes from the Black/African American population. The population dropped by around 4,000 from 2015 to 2016 while virtually every other group grew. Seeing how the east side is predominately black and also is in TERRIBLE shape, which in turn has led to massive flight, this isn't surprising. Stabilize the Black population and I feel we will see Cleveland's population stabilize as well. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_B03002&prodType=table Screen Shot 2018-06-24 at 12.26.24 PM by dwainross34, on Flickr Screen Shot 2018-06-24 at 12.26.10 PM by dwainross34, on Flickr
Create an account or sign in to comment