^ I can't post that information. But remember me when the 2020 census is released : )

40 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

So my initial reaction to the data was the same. And my own experience in downtown Cincy tells me that there's no way it lost population. But then I set aside my biases and put on my demographer cap and it becomes a lot more believable. As I said, a boom in households isn't the same as a boom in population. When you build a new housing subdivision in the suburbs you are building where nothing existed before and each new house has 3-5 people in it. When you build in 43215 or 45202 you are building in places where folks already lived. And in many cases those folks are leaving with their large households and being replaced by single person and two person households. One large housing project can hold as many people as all the new housing built in downtown Cincy or downtown Cbus this decade. 

 

So could these numbers be off? Sure. In some cases the MOE is quite high. But I'd trust them over my own gut reaction because they're based in a real scientific methodology and one that is the best available vs. my own "well I SEE new development happening" reaction. 

I can think of only a single development in 43215 that displaced a single resident (the Sanborn). All the other projects have gone on empty lots or industrial or commercial properties.

 

Harrison Park townhomes: 24

Harrison Park Apartments: 108

Harrison Park SFHs: 38

600 Goodale: 174

The Hubbard: 68

Wonderbread Lofts: 66

Jeffrey Park: ~300

Liberty Place expansion: 207

 

These are the largest outside downtown ones I could think of real quick. That's 985 units. Approximately 1,500 residents. Then you have the state of downtown report stating a gain of approximately 2,800 since 2010. That's 4,300. Any possible displacement would be recouped by smaller projects I'm missing here. And there's no report for 2018 from the Capital Crossroads and Discovery SIDs. Probably 1,000 units have opened in 43215 this year. I find +1,532 impossible.

26 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

^ I can't post that information. But remember me when the 2020 census is released : )

 

Noted. 

Edited December 20, 20186 yr by DevolsDance

So I went back and looked at a few of the above Columbus zip codes more closely, and there are

Zip Code 43215

This area is made up of all or parts of Tracts 21, 22, 30, 32, 40, 42, 52 and 57.  The western offshoot I didn't include as it is essentially just the river with no or very little population either way.  This would include all of Downtown, the Short North up to 1st Avenue, the southern 1/2 of Italian Village, most of the Brewery District, a very small portion of German Village and East Franklinton.  Only 42 and 57 were estimated to have lost population.  Only 42 I believe, as 57 is German Village, which hasn't changed much in terms of household size in decades, and the Brewery District, which never had much housing to begin with, so there's not significant changes there in household size.  Only 42- East Franklinton- is likely anywhere close to accurate just given that it is beginning to gentrify and the city tore down the public housing near Dodge Park.  Overall, these tracts combined for a 2010-2017 gain of 1,842, a little more than the overall zip code estimate, but likely way below the actual population growth.  Household size just hasn't changed enough in them to justify the low numbers, as well as all the additional housing with no increases in vacancy rates. 

 

Zip Code 43201

This one I had the most obvious reaction to.  This zip includes most of Tracts 14 and 15, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 1810, 1820, 20 and most of 1110.  Based on estimates and previous trends, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 1110 all likely lost population.  However, 16, 20, 1810, 1820  likely gained.  Overall, it's certainly possible there had been a loss through 2017 if we are talking about sophomores moving from on-campus to on, the gentrification of Weinland Park and the losses occurring in Milo-Grogan.  However, the estimated loss in the area is far less than the 3600 shown for the zip code, at just over 2000, almost all of which is coming from just 2 tracts, 1110 and 12.  Meanwhile, Tract 1121, the main OSU Campus, gained more than 2000, suggesting that this is where those people went- literally to the other side of Lane and High and just outside of the zip code.  It may take a few years to refill these neighborhoods, but I suspect this will happen far faster than anyone thinks given that much of this housing is historic and generally cheaper than the city average.  Older students, faculty and young adults looking for an urban location would find this area very attractive.

 

Meanwhile, the Census also has large parts of Linden practically booming.  So again, I think zip code and tract estimates have to be held in doubt to a degree.  Common sense and a deeper look at the trends and data is necessary.

 

 

Edited December 20, 20186 yr by jonoh81

One other thing about the household size of the mentioned Columbus zips... most of them have not seen a drop, or have been increasing recently.

 

43201

2000: 2.16

2010: 2.24

2017: 2.46

43205

2000: 2.38

2010: 2.18

2017: 2.33

43206

2000: 2.32

2010: 2.19

2017: 2.22

43215

2000: 1.47

2010: 1.46

2017: 1.52

43223

2000: 2.58

2010: 2.64

2017: 2.72

43229

2000: 2.23

2010: 2.33

2017: 2.48

 

This only further boosts my view that the estimates are problematic.  The 2000 and 2010 numbers are actual counts, the 2017 is an estimate.  However, even if we discounted 2017, 3 zips saw household size increase 2000-2010, 1 essentially didn't change and 2 dropped.  If anything, this suggests that more areas of urban Columbus are actually growing in household size or are fairly steady. 

Edited December 20, 20186 yr by jonoh81

OKI is planning for 200,000 new residents in the Cincinnati metro area by 2050:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/transportation-development/as-one-of-the-states-largest-regions-will-cincinnati-keep-getting-bigger

 

That is a pretty modest prediction. 

17 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

OKI is planning for 200,000 new residents in the Cincinnati metro area by 2050:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/transportation-development/as-one-of-the-states-largest-regions-will-cincinnati-keep-getting-bigger

 

That is a pretty modest prediction. 

 

This is more optimistic than the state's estimates. The state has Hamilton County losing population in every five year period between 2010 and 2050, which is already wrong based on the latest Census estimates. The state also has Butler, Warren, and Clermont Counties growing until 2040 and then losing population between 2040 and 2050. 

 

2010

 

Hamilton - 802,374

Clermont - 197,363

Warren - 212,693

Butler - 368,130

 

Total for Ohio part of the metro - 1,580,560

 

2050

 

Hamilton - 783,890

Clermont - 215,610

Warren - 238,400

Butler - 429,160

 

Total for Ohio part of the metro - 1,667,060

 

So only an additional 86,500 for the Ohio side. Obviously I think this is wrong, especially for Hamilton County. I just don't see it losing almost 20,000 residents between now and 2050. 

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:07 AM, jonoh81 said:

You should take these with a big grain of salt.  No one in their right mind should believe the Short North has lost population, let alone thousands.   The Census has unfortunately routinely mishandled the urban areas of Columbus for whatever reason.  I say this because the 2010 showed strong growth.  That didn’t reverse when you add dozens of large infill projects with very low vacancy rate.  That’s not bias, that’s a rational conclusion.

 

Same with University Circle Cleveland.  No way the neighborhood lost 1000+ people.  There has been an absolute residential building boom of at least a dozen new residential projects built.  Heck CWRU (college in the neighborhood) has probably added 1000 students since 2000. 

 

 

44106 also includes the lower half of Glenville, plus parts of Hough, Fairfax, and Coventry. It wouldn't surprise me if population drops in those other neighborhoods offset the growth in University Circle. 

Edited December 21, 20186 yr by BigDipper 80

 

 

^Oh I see now.

 

Then it'll be really interesting if University Circle by itself can lift up Hough, Fairfax, Glenville, and parts of Cleveland Heights before 2020.

 

There's gotta be at least 1000+ total apartments / condos that opened 2018 / opening in 2019.

 

Just in 2018:

 

“Together, 542 units will come online in 2018,” says Ronayne. He says the timing should coincide with “match week ”— the time in March when medical students find out where they will be placed for residencies. “We have 3,000 to 5,000 medical residents each year through University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic,” says Ronayne. “It’s a mad rush [for housing]”

 

All of this new residential development stems from a plan created in 2007 by the University Circle Land Bank to build 1,000 new apartments and houses. “We’ve now reached that goal and we’re well on to the next 1,000,” says Ronayne.

 

600 residential units coming to University Circle, more in the works

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/UniversityCircle011817.aspx

 

Then the new stuff in 2019 along Chester,  Little Italy, and Uptown currently under construction.

Edited December 21, 20186 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

Zip codes suck as a way to aggregate census information.  Their boundaries aren't designed for that at all.

On 12/19/2018 at 7:39 PM, Toddguy said:

It was a joke post referring to Aaron Renn's article on Columbus. Too bad people on here could not get that. smdh. 

I could care less if it was a joke or not.  I was calling it out. smdh lol.

2 hours ago, MissinOhio said:

I could care less if it was a joke or not.  I was calling it out. smdh lol.

 

 

Density Profiles 2010 and 2017 By Census Tract

30K+

Cleveland: 0 : 0

Cincinnati: 0 : 0

Columbus: 0 : 1

25K+

Cleveland: 0 : 0

Cincinnati: 0 : 0

Columbus: 1 : 2

20K+

Cleveland: 0 : 0

Cincinnati: 0 : 0

Columbus: 3 : 3

17.5K+

Cleveland: 0 : 1

Cincinnati: 0 : 0

Columbus: 5 : 4

15K+

Cleveland: 1 : 1

Cincinnati: 3 : 1

Columbus: 6 : 6

12.5K+

Cleveland: 7 : 7

Cincinnati: 6: 3

Columbus: 7 : 8

10K+

Cleveland: 25 : 23

Cincinnati: 9 : 7

Columbus: 8 : 13

7.5K+

Cleveland: 69 : 59

Cincinnati: 15 : 22

Columbus: 33 : 41

5K+

Cleveland: 116 : 110

Cincinnati: 50 : 51

Columbus: 83 : 91

 

These figures are for all tracts that are wholly within the city limits.  This means that some tracts that have only small pieces of a city have been excluded. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^This is really interesting as the general perception is Cleveland is far denser than Columbus. Are those denser districts OSU dorms, or is there real density in columbus?

Edited December 23, 20186 yr by Pugu

On 12/20/2018 at 4:54 PM, jmecklenborg said:

OKI is planning for 200,000 new residents in the Cincinnati metro area by 2050:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/transportation-development/as-one-of-the-states-largest-regions-will-cincinnati-keep-getting-bigger

 

That is a pretty modest prediction. 

 

On 12/21/2018 at 10:47 AM, DEPACincy said:

 

This is more optimistic than the state's estimates. The state has Hamilton County losing population in every five year period between 2010 and 2050, which is already wrong based on the latest Census estimates. The state also has Butler, Warren, and Clermont Counties growing until 2040 and then losing population between 2040 and 2050. 

 

2010

 

Hamilton - 802,374

Clermont - 197,363

Warren - 212,693

Butler - 368,130

 

Total for Ohio part of the metro - 1,580,560

 

2050

 

Hamilton - 783,890

Clermont - 215,610

Warren - 238,400

Butler - 429,160

 

Total for Ohio part of the metro - 1,667,060

 

So only an additional 86,500 for the Ohio side. Obviously I think this is wrong, especially for Hamilton County. I just don't see it losing almost 20,000 residents between now and 2050. 

Wow this makes me really feel my mortality being in my mid-forties hoping to see Ohio cities catch up with the growth of other cities across the country in my lifetime. I do agree 200,000 seems very modest and don't put much weight in their projections for Cincinnati's metro for 2050. When reading the article my impression was that Lisa Smith was delighted in a gain of 200,000 in population as opposed to losing population over the next 30 years! ?

 

There's always Columbus! OH*IO!

 

Perhaps I'll buy a house boat and live in the Everglades... At least until the next hurricane arrives.  

 

 

18 hours ago, Pugu said:

^This is really interesting as the general perception is Cleveland is far denser than Columbus. Are those denser districts OSU dorms, or is there real density in columbus?

 

The top tracts are near OSU, but there is high density throughout the core areas. 

On 12/21/2018 at 5:46 PM, MissinOhio said:

I could care less if it was a joke or not.  I was calling it out. smdh lol.

All I meant was I really was not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, and I will admit I should have mentioned the Renn article and explained that it was just a joke as not everybody is reading that article and would "get" that joke. My bad for omitting that.

Quick question...where is exactly Columbus growing it's population? I've been there quite a few times to party and what not with friends and I've consistently noticed that the downtown portion of Columbus is by and large very dead at night, even on the weekends.

 

The short north was by far the most active area... But downtown cbus was dead as a door nail.

46 minutes ago, troeros said:

Quick question...where is exactly Columbus growing it's population? I've been there quite a few times to party and what not with friends and I've consistently noticed that the downtown portion of Columbus is by and large very dead at night, even on the weekends.

 

The short north was by far the most active area... But downtown cbus was dead as a door nail.

 

The amount of people walking around a central business district at night has very little to do with the area's population and/or growth.  As is the case in a lot of America, Columbus is still car first and therefore you don't see throngs of people commuting via public transit or long walks through downtown.

Downtown D.C. is a snoozer as well after 8pm. DT Columbus does have small areas of activity at night but they change from time to time. 16-Bit has action most nights and there was a time where Long Street was the place 2B. Gay Street also. The Arena District is a part of Downtown as well with Vine Street close by. The cultural shift from bars and clubs to taprooms has shifted things to more open structures and people going home earlier.

Edited December 28, 20186 yr by GCrites80s

38 minutes ago, ck said:

 

The amount of people walking around a central business district at night has very little to do with the area's population and/or growth.  As is the case in a lot of America, Columbus is still car first and therefore you don't see throngs of people commuting via public transit or long walks through downtown.

 

I mean so is Cincinnati, but there are literally streets that are shut down due to traffic (main St for instance) during say a Saturday. Alot of that is bar and club traffic of course...but I mean walking around downtown Columbus and it's sort of sparse everything. 

 

I remember last june, it was a Saturday, and we were at pins with my group of friends and my girlfriend. We decided to explore the area a bit around pins and all noted how very ghost like it felt. No pedestrians, hardly any cars, etc...Of course when walking back to pins it's get a bit more active with the bar anchoring the traffic. But everything around it was very dead.

 

We decided to hit the short north area which was clearly more active, but downtown Columbus feels very inactive on a weekend compared to cincy. Not sure why that is 

 

Edited December 28, 20186 yr by troeros

^Columbus' surface lots and a need to fill a Downtown that is literally bigger than Cincinnati's and Cleveland's combined contribute. If 1965-1979 never happened you wouldn't believe how few gaps Columbus would have.

Edited December 28, 20186 yr by GCrites80s

44 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

I mean so is Cincinnati, but there are literally streets that are shut down due to traffic (main St for instance) during say a Saturday. Alot of that is bar and club traffic of course...but I mean walking around downtown Columbus and it's sort of sparse everything. 

 

I remember last june, it was a Saturday, and we were at pins with my group of friends and my girlfriend. We decided to explore the area a bit around pins and all noted how very ghost like it felt. No pedestrians, hardly any cars, etc...Of course when walking back to pins it's get a bit more active with the bar anchoring the traffic. But everything around it was very dead.

 

We decided to hit the short north area which was clearly more active, but downtown Columbus feels very inactive on a weekend compared to cincy. Not sure why that is 

 

 

There are a few factors that stand out to me personally. I think the biggest two being that Downtown Columbus is quite large and fairly spread out compared to downtown Cincy as the poster above mentioned. It spreads out the activity there is. And second, Columbus has spent so much time and money making the Short North its go-to regional draw. It feels like only in the past couple of years Columbus has started trying to bridge the gap between downtown and the Short North. Adversely, downtown Cincy was always a stronger after-hours place than OTR until its revival. And Cincy has done a better job of more evenly spreading around its investment between downtown and the adjacent neighborhood. Just my personal opinion. 

Not sure if anyone has ever posted about this, but the Missouri Census Data Center has a fun tool where it tells you the population of any given radius based on 2016 5-Year Estimates. Since we often debate which of the 3 C's has the larger downtown population I decided to use the tool to calculate the population within 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 30 miles for each of the 3 C's. I used Public Square, the Ohio Statehouse, and Cincinnati's Contemporary Arts Center as the middle point (those are the defaults when you type in the name of each of the cities). Here are the results:

 

Cincinnati

 

1-mile: 16,367

2-mile: 68,944

5-mile: 300,309

10-mile: 788,668

20-mile: 1,549,027

30-mile: 1,964,486

 

Columbus

 

1-mile: 9,533

2-mile: 54,350

5-mile: 319,144

10-mile: 941,430

20-mile: 1,507,420

30-mile: 1,795,130

 

Cleveland

 

1-mile: 12,695

2-mile: 36,406

5-mile: 248,278

10-mile: 817,570

20-mile: 1,565,665

30-mile: 2,275,353

 

An obvious caveat here is that if you draw a circle around Downtown CLE then part of that circle will be in Lake Erie. This didn't really come into play for the 1-mile radius but definitely had an effect on the larger ones.

 

But based on this, Cincy has the largest "downtown" population, defined as 1-mile or 2-miles from the center of downtown. Once you start moving away from downtown, Columbus takes over--with the highest number of people within 5-miles of the center of downtown. At the 20-mile marker Cleveland overcomes the lake effect and at 30 miles it takes in a good chunk of Akron. I think the most interesting thing about these numbers are how close they are to each other. It's very interesting that we have three cities that are basically the same size and have similar population distributions at these radii.

^ Interesting data - thanks for sharing!

^ cool info.  It shows how Lake Erie is both an asset and liability for downtown Cleveland. 

 

 

So Cleveland gets a large reduction because of the lake. It would be interesting to see the data for Cleveland if the center was moved 5-10 miles south towards Akron. I would imagine numbers would be much higher and separate it from the other Ohio cities.

Those numbers really aren't a surprise.  Downtown Cincinnati and Columbus are largely surrounded by their densest residential neighborhoods, Downtown Cleveland by sparsely populated industrial areas, with it's densest residential districts located 3-8 miles out.

Great share!  It's interesting to look at it from this standpoint. 

 

While this type of measure is tough on Cleveland b/c of the lake its interesting to see Cincinnati's number.  This type of measure picks up some of the dense urban Northern Kentucky river cities that not often included as part of Cincy's urban core. 

18 minutes ago, bwheats said:

So Cleveland gets a large reduction because of the lake. It would be interesting to see the data for Cleveland if the center was moved 5-10 miles south towards Akron. I would imagine numbers would be much higher and separate it from the other Ohio cities.

 

Ask and you shall receive. Using Independence, OH as the center point, which is roughly 10 miles south of Downtown CLE:

 

1-mile: 2,984

2-mile: 12,076

5-mile: 142,135

10-mile: 732,180

20-mile: 1,788,549
30-mile: 2,605,082

 

Here is a similar analysis for Cincy, using Wyoming, OH as the center point (roughly 10 miles north of Downtown Cincy):

 

1-mile: 9,776

2-mile: 34,736

5-mile: 205,831

10-mile: 756,072

20-mile: 1,675,594

30-mile: 2,090,270

I don't think you can necessarily say that a lack of a natural barrier would lead to more density in a downtown. If anything, barriers seem to push up densities along the inner ring and radial corridors since they can't more evenly spread in every direction. Assuming all things were equal, we'd probably have seen less development in Brunswick and Twinsburg and more development in the middle of the lake, which wouldn't actually change populations, just shift things around. 

 

Not that it really matters, since using a radial measurement is really only beneficial for a handful of newer cities that aren't constrained by some sort of physical feature or national/international border that causes half the circle to be nonexistant. 

8 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

I don't think you can necessarily say that a lack of a natural barrier would lead to more density in a downtown. If anything, barriers seem to push up densities along the inner ring and radial corridors since they can't more evenly spread in every direction. Assuming all things were equal, we'd probably have seen less development in Brunswick and Twinsburg and more development in the middle of the lake, which wouldn't actually change populations, just shift things around. 

 

Not that it really matters, since using a radial measurement is really only beneficial for a handful of newer cities that aren't constrained by some sort of physical feature or national/international border that causes half the circle to be nonexistant. 

 

I think this is a good point. At the very least, the existence of a physical barrier has complex effects that can't be boiled down to a simple explanation. In some way it may skew these numbers downward, in others it may push them upward. 

7 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

I don't think you can necessarily say that a lack of a natural barrier would lead to more density in a downtown. If anything, barriers seem to push up densities along the inner ring and radial corridors since they can't more evenly spread in every direction. Assuming all things were equal, we'd probably have seen less development in Brunswick and Twinsburg and more development in the middle of the lake, which wouldn't actually change populations, just shift things around. 

 

Not that it really matters, since using a radial measurement is really only beneficial for a handful of newer cities that aren't constrained by some sort of physical feature or national/international border that causes half the circle to be nonexistant. 

 

This is a good point. I don't believe you can assume a city will grow evenly in every direction assuming there are no significant barriers. In Columbus, you can drive about 8 miles to south and be in undeveloped farmland, but you have to drive ~25 miles to the north if you want to find the undeveloped farmland. Similarly, the suburbs extend further east in Columbus than they do to the west. Indianapolis, another city with little in the way of barriers, has a very similar layout. 

 

Columbus is actually kind of interesting, because you can essentially cut the city in half along 70 and have two fairly distinct cities. People who live north of 70 tend to be pretty clueless about anything south of 70 because they really have no reason to go down there. On the other hand, people south of 70 have to regularly travel north of 70 for work, shopping, or entertainment purposes. 

 

Regardless, it's always going to be very difficult to directly compare city populations because of how many factors go into determine populations and densities. 

4 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Columbus is actually kind of interesting, because you can essentially cut the city in half along 70 and have two fairly distinct cities. People who live north of 70 tend to be pretty clueless about anything south of 70 because they really have no reason to go down there. On the other hand, people south of 70 have to regularly travel north of 70 for work, shopping, or entertainment purposes. 

 

It's funny how this can apply to other cities as well. In Cincinnati, it is east and west and then of course there is NKY, which is its own thing. Many east siders have never even stepped foot on the west side. Of course it is a much larger city, but I also know folks in North Jersey who go months at a time without stepping foot in Manhattan. When I lived in West Philly I had friends in North Philly who wouldn't come visit me because it was "too far" even though it was only a 15 minute subway ride. 

5 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 Many east siders have never even stepped foot on the west side.

 

"Where is it?"

 

"White Oak."

 

"I don't know where that is."

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It's funny how this can apply to other cities as well. In Cincinnati, it is east and west and then of course there is NKY, which is its own thing. Many east siders have never even stepped foot on the west side. Of course it is a much larger city, but I also know folks in North Jersey who go months at a time without stepping foot in Manhattan. When I lived in West Philly I had friends in North Philly who wouldn't come visit me because it was "too far" even though it was only a 15 minute subway ride. 

 

Yea, it's so bizarre. In Columbus I could mention Obetz to a person from Worthington and they might not even know that's a place in the city. Then, I will explain that it's next to Groveport (kind of) and they will say they've heard of Groveport but they aren't exactly sure where it is. On the flip side, if you are from Obetz or Groveport, you know where everything is in the northern half of the city. 

 

Another funny thing I've noticed in Columbus is that if I mention driving on 33 to most people, they assume I'm talking about driving on 33 between Marysville and Dublin. A lot of people don't even know 33 extends southeast from downtown going past Groveport, Canal Winchester, Lancaster, and all the way down to Athens/OU. 

So I got curious where the Ohio downtowns rank among the country's largest cities. I compared the top 35 most populous cities (as defined by metro area pop) and looked at both 1 mile and 2 mile radii. 

 

Here is the result for 1-mile:

 

 

 

And here is the result for 2 miles:
 

 

 

So room for improvement for all three of Ohio's big cities. If we want our big cities to be walkable, vibrant, and transit-friendly we should be focusing on moving up these lists. 

 

^ wow, you are a data nerd.  I mean that in a good way.  Thanks for these posts.

Philly at 3 and Chicago at 5 are really surprising to me.

Cincinnati’s goal should be to add 10,000 people to OTR, CBD and West End and move up to #15 on the “1-mile” list.

2 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Cincinnati’s goal should be to add 10,000 people to OTR, CBD and West End and move up to #15 on the “1-mile” list.

 

100% agreed. If I'm the mayor I'm making this one of my priorities. 

2 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Cincinnati’s goal should be to add 10,000 people to OTR, CBD and West End and move up to #15 on the “1-mile” list.

All Ohio cities need to be adding people in their 1 mile radius.  We are all way behind the big boys.

13 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Philly at 3 and Chicago at 5 are really surprising to me.

 

It was also surprising to me, but probably for a different reason. I used to live in Center City Philly and I always heard that it was the 2nd most populous downtown behind NYC. But it looks like San Fran has surpassed it. 

 

Btw, if you love cities Center City Philadelphia is one of the best places to visit in the country, maybe the world. The urbanity is amazing and as you walk around you are treated to many different architectural styles from the 1700s to present-day. It is truly a breathtaking place and I miss it every day. 

If that wasn't nerdy enough for ya, I've got a sampling of smaller Ohio cities as well. First, a 1-mile radius:

 

 

 

And also a 2-mile radius:

 

 

Some really interesting stuff here. Akron has a surprisingly dense two-mile radius. Cleveland is pretty low on that list, which I would chalk up to the lake again.

 

Finally, the 1-mile radius results confirm what I've always known--which is that not only is OU better than Miami, but Athens is the best downtown in the whole state of Ohio.

 

Even before you start weighing these population numbers by income (hello SF, NYC, and Boston), a pretty significant reasons why there's so little downtown retail in Ohio's big cities, I reckon.

I really don't get the thinking that the lake hurts population figures in exercises like this. Did people not move to Cleveland because they couldn't live north of downtown?

 

It grew more dense because of the lake, and because of industry that needed to be close to the lake. Especially since its greatest growth happened before cars and highways took over development patterns. The only thing the lake did was effect density, and only in a positive way.

 

I don't see how it has anything to do with total population. The built density is still there, and you can clearly feel it. That's what most people feel when they say Cleveland just feels so much bigger and more urban. Because it is. It's just not filled in at the moment. Though that's starting to change thankfully.

2 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Yea, it's so bizarre. In Columbus I could mention Obetz to a person from Worthington and they might not even know that's a place in the city. Then, I will explain that it's next to Groveport (kind of) and they will say they've heard of Groveport but they aren't exactly sure where it is. On the flip side, if you are from Obetz or Groveport, you know where everything is in the northern half of the city. 

 

 

 

When I was a kid in the '80s the money and businesses weren't nearly as lopsided toward Dublin-Worthington-Westerville. You didn't have to go up there all the time until like 2000 when things got all lopsided like that.

13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

If that wasn't nerdy enough for ya, I've got a sampling of smaller Ohio cities as well. First, a 1-mile radius:

 

 

 

And also a 2-mile radius:

 

 

Some really interesting stuff here. Akron has a surprisingly dense two-mile radius. Cleveland is pretty low on that list, which I would chalk up to the lake again.

 

Finally, the 1-mile radius results confirm what I've always known--which is that not only is OU better than Miami, but Athens is the best downtown in the whole state of Ohio.

 

 

 

That reminds me about how some people will go on and on how much they miss college for the rest of their lives but what they are really missing is the urbanism inherent with it. Do people sit there all the time and think about the branch campus commuter school they went to 25 years ago? No. Most full-on adults wouldn't want to live with no money and homework hanging over their heads all the time.

Yeah, Athens really is a fantastic town.  Requiring freshman AND sophomores to live on-campus and not have cars is the reason why OU has such dedicated graduates. 

 

When I was a student there, there were faculty members and grad students for whom OU was their "safety school" who came there with some sort of image of "Ohio" and Athens, at least, was much more of a functioning town than wherever they came from.  They really hated that people genuinely liked the place.