January 25, 20196 yr Unfortunately it looks like Cincinnati has lost 1,000 people since 2010 in the 1 mile radius so it’s not growing at all. The 2010 1 mile radius estimate listed on allcolumbusdata is 17,681. The city needs to do a better job of adding people in the immediate downtown. It does look like the city has added a couple thousand at the 2 mile and 5 mile, which is consistent with zip codes estimates I have seen projecting slight losses around the CBD and growth around UC and Hyde Park-Oakley areas primarily.
January 25, 20196 yr Sorry it actually looks like Cincy has probably lost population at the 5 mile marker, possibly gained a few thousand at 2 mile marker
January 25, 20196 yr Akron at 30 miles- 2,581,877 50 miles- 3,923,886 Those are huge numbers. Obviously this calls for a huge INTERNATIONAL airport for northern Ohio to be built north of the city with cool maglev connections so people in all 4 major areas of NEO could expediently arrive and depart the airport.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 hours ago, aderwent said: 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. Eh, I'd say in parts of Cleveland this is true, but in parts it's definitely not. I remember taking an uber from Downtown to Little Italy a few years back. The driver drove down Carnegie (I think) for much of the trip, and there were wide expanses of just nothingness. Not abandoned buildings, or buildings that are only partially occupied, but just urban prairies almost. That near east side, combined with the massive industrial valley, are all very light on population and density (both built environment and population). There are other areas in Cleveland and its inner burbs, of course, that are very dense and built up in ways that the other 2 Cs aren't really, for a variety of reasons.
January 25, 20196 yr 3 hours ago, edale said: Eh, I'd say in parts of Cleveland this is true, but in parts it's definitely not. I remember taking an uber from Downtown to Little Italy a few years back. The driver drove down Carnegie (I think) for much of the trip, and there were wide expanses of just nothingness. Not abandoned buildings, or buildings that are only partially occupied, but just urban prairies almost. That near east side, combined with the massive industrial valley, are all very light on population and density (both built environment and population). There are other areas in Cleveland and its inner burbs, of course, that are very dense and built up in ways that the other 2 Cs aren't really, for a variety of reasons. Yeah, some areas have been decimated over the years. They were originally dense, but have been "Detroitified." Here is the area of Carnegie you're likely thinking of (between E. 55th and E. 79th) in 1952 and 2015: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.500679041021755/-81.64055228233336/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.500679041021755/-81.64055228233336/2015/17 And some others... E. 55th and Woodland: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.487507781446794/-81.6495430469513/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.487507781446794/-81.6495430469513/2015/17 The "Forgotten Triangle": https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.48651922623096/-81.64487063884735/1952/18 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.48651922623096/-81.64487063884735/2015/18 Hough: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.50916380297514/-81.6344153881073/1952/17 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.50916380297514/-81.6344153881073/2015/17 Doan's Corners: https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.503487331070204/-81.61523759365082/1952/18 https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.503487331070204/-81.61523759365082/2015/18 Edited January 25, 20196 yr by jam40jeff
January 25, 20196 yr If using Public Square as a center point in all fairness Cleveland should have a 60 mile radius.? * I think we could pick up some Canadians. Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Mildtraumatic
January 25, 20196 yr Remember that Columbus and Cincinnati have their unpopulatable areas too. Columbus has a lot of flood plains and quarries very close to Downtown and Cincinnati has the river and its associated tributary valleys and flood plains. Dayton also with 5 rivers all over the place.
January 25, 20196 yr Unrelated to this radius talk, I'm surprised San Fran's MSA is so low which includes Oakland. Then I discovered San Jose has its own MSA. Has this always been the case?
January 25, 20196 yr 2 hours ago, jam40jeff said: Yeah, some areas have been decimated over the years. They were originally dense, but have been "Detroitified." Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Urban renewal was absolutely brutal to Ohio’s cities. Cincinnati has a huge desolate zone of light industrial parks just west of Downtown in what was formerly incredibly dense, OTR like neighborhoods. I follow the Historic Photos of Cleveland thread, and it’s amazing to see how dense and vibrant these east side neighborhoods were. I think some of those streets near Coventry that are lined with historic apartment buildings still have that very dense, big city feel that much of the east side used to have.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 hours ago, edale said: Oh yeah, no doubt about that. Urban renewal was absolutely brutal to Ohio’s cities. Cincinnati has a huge desolate zone of light industrial parks just west of Downtown in what was formerly incredibly dense, OTR like neighborhoods. I follow the Historic Photos of Cleveland thread, and it’s amazing to see how dense and vibrant these east side neighborhoods were. I think some of those streets near Coventry that are lined with historic apartment buildings still have that very dense, big city feel that much of the east side used to have. You would be hard-pressed to not find a large historic neighborhood that wasn't demolished due to urban renewal in the Midwest. St. Louis, Detroit, and other major Midwest cities have very similar stories unfortunately. That being said, it's still a miracle that we were able to preserve otr and portions of the old west end. Neighborhoods like those, with the size and density that otr has intact is almost impossible to find in most major Midwest cities due to urban renewal.
January 25, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, troeros said: You would be hard-pressed to not find a large historic neighborhood that wasn't demolished due to urban renewal in the Midwest. St. Louis, Detroit, and other major Midwest cities have very similar stories unfortunately. That being said, it's still a miracle that we were able to preserve otr and portions of the old west end. Neighborhoods like those, with the size and density that otr has intact is almost impossible to find in most major Midwest cities due to urban renewal. Depends on the meaning of the word "large". Murray Hill in Cleveland survives, yes it has a heavy college/arts influence but still retains its character. Slavic Village survived into the 90s and it was more a victim of the mortgage bubble than "urban renewal". Some of this goes back to the ideal that for most Americans (especially away from the coasts), residential density is something to be tolerated or endured, not sought out.
January 25, 20196 yr 7 hours ago, GCrites80s said: Remember that Columbus and Cincinnati have their unpopulatable areas too. Columbus has a lot of flood plains and quarries very close to Downtown and Cincinnati has the river and its associated tributary valleys and flood plains. Dayton also with 5 rivers all over the place. Yes, but Cleveland has these areas as well (such as the salt mines and most of the area surrounding the river south of the Flats.) This is in addition to the fact that about 40% of the 5 mile radius is made up of Lake Erie. Edited January 25, 20196 yr by jam40jeff
January 25, 20196 yr 27 minutes ago, jam40jeff said: Yes, but Cleveland has these areas as well (such as the salt mines and most of the area surrounding the river south of the Flats.) This is in addition to the fact that about 40% of the 5 mile radius is made up of Lake Erie. Again, how does this affect total population? If the lake weren't there it would have never been built as dense as it was.
January 25, 20196 yr 14 hours ago, GCrites80s said: 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. Yeah I remember as a young adult in the 80's it was not that bad. Westland was thriving early 80's still and Eastland was doing well. There was very little in southern Delaware County. The change in the westside between 80 and 2000 was huge, and it was not good at all as we all know.
January 25, 20196 yr 33 minutes ago, aderwent said: Again, how does this affect total population? If the lake weren't there it would have never been built as dense as it was. I think the relationship is complex. Surely areas were built more densely because they had to be since there was a lake there, but also would the total density of the radius be more without the completely empty lake? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. But I do think the effects of the lake, and other natural barriers, are more complex than just "more dense" and "less dense."
January 25, 20196 yr 14 hours ago, GCrites80s said: 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. This is so true. And how many don't make the connection at all? A lot.
January 25, 20196 yr 42 minutes ago, aderwent said: Again, how does this affect total population? If the lake weren't there it would have never been built as dense as it was. It doesn't affect the total population as much as the population at a given radius. The population is more spread out (especially to the east and west) than it likely would have otherwise been.
January 25, 20196 yr 13 hours ago, nickrctr said: Unfortunately it looks like Cincinnati has lost 1,000 people since 2010 in the 1 mile radius so it’s not growing at all. The 2010 1 mile radius estimate listed on allcolumbusdata is 17,681. The city needs to do a better job of adding people in the immediate downtown. It does look like the city has added a couple thousand at the 2 mile and 5 mile, which is consistent with zip codes estimates I have seen projecting slight losses around the CBD and growth around UC and Hyde Park-Oakley areas primarily. According to the same tool I was using for the 2016 data, here are the 2010 numbers and the 2000 numbers in parentheses: 1-mile: 18,196 (18,763) 2-mile: 69,646 (76,007) 5-mile: 301,719 (333,612) 10-mile: 785,509 (830,121) 20-mile: 1,527,744 (1,488,291) And as a reminder, here are the 2016 numbers: 1-mile: 16,367 2-mile: 68,944 5-mile: 300,309 10-mile: 788,668 20-mile: 1,549,027 So it looks like you have to go out to the 10 mile circle to see gains between 2010 and 2016, which is really quite disappointing. You also see that even at the 10 mile radius we're lower than we were in 2000. Only the 20 mile radius has seen consistent gains since that time. Hopefully all the new development in the core is turning this trend around and the 2020 Census will show gains in the core. Fingers crossed.
January 25, 20196 yr I have a hard time believing that the Cincinnati core has depopulated by ~2000 people between 2010 and 2016. It'll be interesting when the full census results come out.
January 25, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, jam40jeff said: It doesn't affect the total population as much as the population at a given radius. The population is more spread out (especially to the east and west) than it likely would have otherwise been. This is a good point. You can see on a density map how Cleveland hugs the lake, whereas Cincinnati sprawls north up the Mill Creek valley. Certainly, Cleveland would've been more compact in an east-west direction without the lake.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: I have a hard time believing that the Cincinnati core has depopulated by ~2000 people between 2010 and 2016. It'll be interesting when the full census results come out. DEPACincy's numbers show a loss of 567, not 2000.
January 25, 20196 yr Just now, ryanlammi said: I have a hard time believing that the Cincinnati core has depopulated by ~2000 people between 2010 and 2016. It'll be interesting when the full census results come out. This brings us back to a debate we've had here many times. Some people point out that the interdecennial numbers are just estimates and could be wrong. This is definitely true. I've also pointed out that revitalizing neighborhoods tend to have smaller households replacing larger households. The West End has still seen a lot of demolition this decade and new OTR and downtown residents tend to be smaller households. I think a loss at this point is very much in the realm of possibility. I also wouldn't be surprised if the estimates are off. Hopefully it's the latter.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, jam40jeff said: DEPACincy's numbers show a loss of 567, not 2000. Loss of 567 between 2000 and 2010, and then another 1,829 between 2010 and 2016.
January 25, 20196 yr 48 minutes ago, jam40jeff said: It doesn't affect the total population as much as the population at a given radius. The population is more spread out (especially to the east and west) than it likely would have otherwise been. Of course it is. It has to be. How does this affect the total population at a given radius?
January 25, 20196 yr 15 hours ago, DEPACincy said: 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. I'm guessing Akron's two-mile radius is as dense as it is because UA is practically downtown.
January 25, 20196 yr 5 minutes ago, aderwent said: Of course it is. It has to be. How does this affect the total population at a given radius? It doesn't affect the total population, but it does affect how the population is measured w/in the radius. This isn't rocket science, bud.
January 25, 20196 yr 29 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: It doesn't affect the total population, but it does affect how the population is measured w/in the radius. This isn't rocket science, bud. How? If it's not rocket science you should be able to explain it.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, aderwent said: How? If it's not rocket science you should be able to explain it. What's to explain? I already said it doesn't affect the total populations, so either grasp the basic concepts of measuring and math, or don't.
January 25, 20196 yr It is hard to believe that the population declined by nearly 2,000 people in the one mile radius around Cincinnati in 6 years(not saying it is not true, just hard to believe). Would that be due to some demographic transitions like smaller more affluent households moving in? Any loss of lower income households in any areas within the radius? That would include a bit of an area across the river, right?-anything happen there? I wonder what the change in # of households has been in that same area vs change in population? *never mind, just saw DEPACincy's post Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Toddguy
January 25, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: What's to explain? I already said it doesn't affect the total populations, so either grasp the basic concepts of measuring and math, or don't. If it doesn't affect total population, how does it affect total population in a given radius?
January 25, 20196 yr 16 hours ago, aderwent said: 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. Completely agree. The "geography ate my density" argument is overused and overblown.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 hours ago, DEPACincy said: I think the relationship is complex. Surely areas were built more densely because they had to be since there was a lake there, but also would the total density of the radius be more without the completely empty lake? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. But I do think the effects of the lake, and other natural barriers, are more complex than just "more dense" and "less dense." The answer lies just to the south in Columbus, which has no significant natural barriers whatsoever. There is little reason to believe Cleveland would've ended up with higher density without the lake. Geographical features seem to only concentrate population, and therefore density, into smaller land areas, but there would very likely be the same number of people without those features, just spread out. That would very likely equate to the same or lower density, not higher. Actually, if anything, the absence of the lake at a time when water transport was super important probably would've meant a significantly smaller Cleveland.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: The answer lies just to the south in Columbus, which has no significant natural barriers whatsoever. There is little reason to believe Cleveland would've ended up with higher density without the lake. Geographical features seem to only concentrate population, and therefore density, into smaller land areas, but there would very likely be the same number of people without those features, just spread out. That would very likely equate to the same or lower density, not higher. Actually, if anything, the absence of the lake at a time when water transport was super important probably would've meant a significantly smaller Cleveland. You're just speculating now. No one knows for sure what Cleveland's density or building patterns would be like w/out the lake, so move on.
January 25, 20196 yr 5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: The answer lies just to the south in Columbus, which has no significant natural barriers whatsoever. There is little reason to believe Cleveland would've ended up with higher density without the lake. Geographical features seem to only concentrate population, and therefore density, into smaller land areas, but there would very likely be the same number of people without those features, just spread out. That would very likely equate to the same or lower density, not higher. Actually, if anything, the absence of the lake at a time when water transport was super important probably would've meant a significantly smaller Cleveland. Those are good points, especially the last sentence. But I think the point that Clefan is getting at its a different one. Just looking at the five mile circle as an example. Half the circle is in the lake, so it has zero density. At the same time, the existence of the lake has spread the dense built environment laterally, east to west. So you have higher densities in Lakewood, East Cleveland, and Cleveland Heights that are just outside the 5 mile circle that aren't captured by my analysis. The overall density of Cleveland is probably higher because of the existence of the lake, but my 1, 2, and 5 mile radius densities are lower because it's a circle and doesn't take into account the lake. Does that make sense? Edited January 25, 20196 yr by DEPACincy
January 25, 20196 yr OK, being squeezed into a holler is not the same as a lake barrier which really has no effect on population density (the lake). The lake shoreline is lands end and with a radius to compare density is not a fair representation when comparing density of other cities that do not have a shoreline. Cleveland's center point of the radius is downtown on lands end where other cities downtown's are genuine center points where the population spreads in a true 360 degree radius as Cleveland spreads out guessing in my head 210 degrees, so 150 degrees is uninhabitable and redundant. Downtown Cleveland is not a true center point of the city. I always thought San Jose was part of San Fran's MSA. Not nearly as large as I always thought... Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Mildtraumatic
January 25, 20196 yr 3 minutes ago, Mildtraumatic said: OK, being squeezed into a holler is not the same as a lake barrier and has no effect on population density. The lake shoreline is lands end and with a radius to compare density is not a fair representation when comparing density of other cities that do not have a shoreline. Cleveland's center point of the radius is downtown on lands end where other cities downtown's are genuine center points where the population spreads in a true 360 degree radius as Cleveland spreads out guessing in my head 210 degrees, so 150 degrees is inhabitable and redundant. Downtown Cleveland is not a true center point of the city. I always thought San Jose was part of San Fran's MSA. Not nearly as large as I always thought... To get at this point, if you move your center point a bit south to 2323 W. 3rd St., just east of Tremont, the two mile radius number jumps to 49,574. Still lower than Cbus and Cincy, but about 13,000 higher than the original figure using Public Square as a center point.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: Those are good points, especially the last sentence. But I think the point that Clefan is getting at its a different one. Just looking at the five mile circle as an example. Half the circle is in the lake, so it has zero density. At the same time, the existence of the lake has spread the dense built environment laterally, east to west. So you have higher densities in Lakewood, East Cleveland, and Cleveland Heights that are just outside the 5 mile circle that aren't captured by my analysis. The overall density of Cleveland is probably higher because of the existence of the lake, but my 1, 2, and 5 mile radius densities are lower because it's a circle and doesn't take into account the lake. Does that make sense? Maybe, but then again, if you use the city of Cleveland without any water, it is not really all that much more dense than the other 2-Cs at this point. Even in 1950, the density differences were a lot smaller than people think.
January 25, 20196 yr 13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: Those are good points, especially the last sentence. But I think the point that Clefan is getting at its a different one. Just looking at the five mile circle as an example. Half the circle is in the lake, so it has zero density. At the same time, the existence of the lake has spread the dense built environment laterally, east to west. So you have higher densities in Lakewood, East Cleveland, and Cleveland Heights that are just outside the 5 mile circle that aren't captured by my analysis. The overall density of Cleveland is probably higher because of the existence of the lake, but my 1, 2, and 5 mile radius densities are lower because it's a circle and doesn't take into account the lake. Does that make sense? This is 100% correct. I'm not sure why a few posters on here have such a hard time comprehending this explanation of basic facts?? GEOGRAPHY does play a difference! How much of difference is anyone's guess.
January 25, 20196 yr 14 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Maybe, but then again, if you use the city of Cleveland without any water, it is not really all that much more dense than the other 2-Cs at this point. Even in 1950, the density differences were a lot smaller than people think. Again, you're talking about density in the overall population, which is a bit different than what measuring numbers w/in a given radius would show. You can't say just look at the population density for the city of Cleveland in this instance. That's not what DEPA is reporting on at all. Edited January 25, 20196 yr by Clefan98
January 25, 20196 yr 6 minutes ago, Clefan98 said: Again, you're talking about density in the overall population, which is a bit different than what measuring numbers w/in a given radius would show. You can't say just look at the population density for the city of Cleveland in this instance. That's not what DEPA is reporting on at all. Yes, but I thought the complaint was that radius measurements weren't good because of Cleveland's east-west development pattern plus the lake. That's why I brought up city limits without water. It wouldn't change things as much as some believe.
January 25, 20196 yr Radius measurements don't work when comparing ports with inland cities. Density of a built environment is determined by policy choices, not by physical geography.
January 25, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, aderwent said: If it doesn't affect total population, how does it affect total population in a given radius? Are you trolling? When population is spread east and west because it can't go north, then you have dense areas forced further from the center, while the entire northern side has a density of 0. I fail to see what's difficult to understand about this.
January 25, 20196 yr 32 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Yes, but I thought the complaint was that radius measurements weren't good because of Cleveland's east-west development pattern plus the lake. That's why I brought up city limits without water. It wouldn't change things as much as some believe. FWIW, Cuyahoga County is much denser than Franklin or Hamilton Counties. Of course, then you have the fact that part of Cincinnati's densest urban environment is across the river in Kentucky and that the development patterns spread northward into Butler and Warren County and that western Hamilton County is basically undevelopable. And the fact that Columbus's development skews to the north as well, going into southern Delco. So, like I said, it's very complex.
January 25, 20196 yr 13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Yes, but I thought the complaint was that radius measurements weren't good because of Cleveland's east-west development pattern plus the lake. That's why I brought up city limits without water. It wouldn't change things as much as some believe. Sure, it wouldn't mean Cleveland's population at a given radius would nearly double, but it almost certainly would be significantly higher.
January 25, 20196 yr Just for reference, here are the 3-C densities 1950-2017 based on land area WITHOUT water. Cleveland 1950: 12197.4 1960: 11542.2 1970: 9893.3 1980: 7263.6 1990: 6566.4 2000: 6165.0 2010: 5113.6 2017: 4961.7 Cincinnati 1950: 6711.0 1960: 6569.3 1970: 5794.2 1980: 4935.5 1990: 4715.5 2000: 4247.2 2010: 3807.0 2017: 3867.8 Columbus 1950: 9540.6 1960: 5429.9 1970: 4009.5 1980: 3122.5 1990: 3315.4 2000: 3383.1 2010: 3623.5 2017: 4023.7 I think this shows some of the misconceptions on density, past and present. Even at its peak, Cleveland had roughly double Cincinnati's density and about 30% more than Columbus. They all changed, either through population loss/growth or in Columbus' case, annexation through the 1970s. Today, they are all roughly in the same ballpark.
January 25, 20196 yr 2 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Just for reference, here are the 3-C densities 1950-2017 based on land area WITHOUT water. Cleveland 1950: 12197.4 1960: 11542.2 1970: 9893.3 1980: 7263.6 1990: 6566.4 2000: 6165.0 2010: 5113.6 2017: 4961.7 Cincinnati 1950: 6711.0 1960: 6569.3 1970: 5794.2 1980: 4935.5 1990: 4715.5 2000: 4247.2 2010: 3807.0 2017: 3867.8 Columbus 1950: 9540.6 1960: 5429.9 1970: 4009.5 1980: 3122.5 1990: 3315.4 2000: 3383.1 2010: 3623.5 2017: 4023.7 I think this shows some of the misconceptions on density, past and present. Even at its peak, Cleveland had roughly double Cincinnati's density and about 30% more than Columbus. They all changed, either through population loss/growth or in Columbus' case, annexation through the 1970s. Today, they are all roughly in the same ballpark. I don't see what misconceptions this shows. Nobody is arguing that there's no density in Columbus, but there is a lot of medium density, car-centric development. Even with all of the bombed out areas of Cleveland, it is still 20% more dense than Columbus. If you include Lakewood, the Heights, et al in those numbers, the density goes up even higher. Also, we've been over this before, but dense is not the same as urban.
January 25, 20196 yr 4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Just for reference, here are the 3-C densities 1950-2017 based on land area WITHOUT water. Cleveland 1950: 12197.4 1960: 11542.2 1970: 9893.3 1980: 7263.6 1990: 6566.4 2000: 6165.0 2010: 5113.6 2017: 4961.7 Cincinnati 1950: 6711.0 1960: 6569.3 1970: 5794.2 1980: 4935.5 1990: 4715.5 2000: 4247.2 2010: 3807.0 2017: 3867.8 Columbus 1950: 9540.6 1960: 5429.9 1970: 4009.5 1980: 3122.5 1990: 3315.4 2000: 3383.1 2010: 3623.5 2017: 4023.7 I think this shows some of the misconceptions on density, past and present. Even at its peak, Cleveland had roughly double Cincinnati's density and about 30% more than Columbus. They all changed, either through population loss/growth or in Columbus' case, annexation through the 1970s. Today, they are all roughly in the same ballpark. Metro is always the standard when tabulating regional population statistics, not city limits. By these standards, there is no factoring in of the Northern Kentucky cities or the completely surrounded communities of Columbus, such as UA, Bexely, or Grandview. These things alone change the density and urbanity of a place, which is evident by DEPA's original post. I know the point trying to be made is that the lake adversely portrays Cleveland's density and urbanity, but this is not the correct way to do it.
January 25, 20196 yr 3 hours ago, DEPACincy said: According to the same tool I was using for the 2016 data, here are the 2010 numbers and the 2000 numbers in parentheses: 1-mile: 18,196 (18,763) 2-mile: 69,646 (76,007) 5-mile: 301,719 (333,612) 10-mile: 785,509 (830,121) 20-mile: 1,527,744 (1,488,291) And as a reminder, here are the 2016 numbers: 1-mile: 16,367 2-mile: 68,944 5-mile: 300,309 10-mile: 788,668 20-mile: 1,549,027 So it looks like you have to go out to the 10 mile circle to see gains between 2010 and 2016, which is really quite disappointing. You also see that even at the 10 mile radius we're lower than we were in 2000. Only the 20 mile radius has seen consistent gains since that time. Hopefully all the new development in the core is turning this trend around and the 2020 Census will show gains in the core. Fingers crossed. Both have to remember between 2000 and 2010 Cincy lost an additonal 35k people or so. There have been gains since 2010. In the core this is well known I would guess at the 1 mile and 2 mile radius that there has definitely been an increase in redeveloped buildings, etc. but when properties get bought lots of people move out and it gets redeveloped with less units/density. Keep in account Covington and Newport as well as I believe those areas have lost a lot of population but apprear now to be gaining ground as well. I would guess 2020 Census shows improvement over 2016 certainly but I doubt it will be an improvement over 2000 but the gap will most likely have shrunk. Also I got to think that areas like Walnut Hills, Avondale, the Price Hills, Westwood, etc. have lost a ton of population from 2000. I thought I read at one time that Walnut Hills is like 10k less people now than 1990 and that the Price Hills and Westwood lost like over 30% of their population in that time frame. I think those neighborhoods are stabilizing a bit but I would bet their populations will be less in 2020 than 2010. You can also probably add Roselawn, Bond Hill and West End to that too. OTR and downtown will probably be more than 2010 but not by much because of things like the Columbia Building holding like 200 people then after redevelopment will be around 100, and add all that up throughout the basin and its not much net change but huge net gain in livability and crime. Places like East Walnut Hills, Evanston and Madisonville may show slight increases and development is ramping up there, and Mt, Lookout, Hyde Park, Columbia Tusculum, East End, Oakley should p;robably show gains but nothing huge (2010 to 2020). Northside probably in the category of OTR/Downtown None of this was looked up or cold hard facts but just random info from observation and reports I looked at from time to time. I think there is a neighborhood specific census details I've looked at before soemwhere within the city website which would be awesome to find again if anyone knows where it is.
January 25, 20196 yr 40 minutes ago, jam40jeff said: Are you trolling? When population is spread east and west because it can't go north, then you have dense areas forced further from the center, while the entire northern side has a density of 0. I fail to see what's difficult to understand about this. But that density isn't just forced out further. It's more focused further in as well. There's no reason to think that if Cleveland could develop where the lake is that it would have any more than a negligible amount of additional people in a given radius. That would only be the case if density were so insane it forced people out due to not being livable. Seeing as Cleveland was just over 12,000ppsm at its peak that is definitely not the case. What you're arguing is that people were forced to move further out (East-West in this case). Were people in Cleveland willing to live further out from the jobs center than people in e.g. Columbus? Doubtful. They had the same restrictions as everyone in every other city. They could only live a certain distance away. The lake forced all these people to live in half as much area in that "distance away".
January 25, 20196 yr 3 minutes ago, jam40jeff said: I don't see what misconceptions this shows. Nobody is arguing that there's no density in Columbus, but there is a lot of medium density, car-centric development. Even with all of the bombed out areas of Cleveland, it is still 20% more dense than Columbus. If you include Lakewood, the Heights, et al in those numbers, the density goes up even higher. Also, we've been over this before, but dense is not the same as urban. I didn't say density means urban. I'm just giving the overall city densities without water. All we're talking about is population density.
Create an account or sign in to comment