I don't know Tremont so well, but even with the loss of low income folks, the explosive growth of Literary lofts, which I think barely existed (that one block of Literary Ave), would have offset this.

 

I do agree that a number of low income folks have been displaced in Oho City.  Jay Hotel was a shelter, was it not, before it was gutted for the now long-stalled condo conversion?  However, it seems like a number of apartment conversions didn't exist in 2000, like the several mixed use buildings in Market Square.  Also, of course, the Fries & Schelle condo conversion/expansion didn't exist either.  Of course, Riverview towers may be considerably emptier than in 2000, and it's the largest housing complex in practically the entire West Side, let alone Ohio City... Plus it appeared (the last time I was over there) that most or all of those low-rise CMHA units north and opposite of Lutheren Medical hosp were boarded up... If I'm wrong, please correct me, but that's what I recall.

I never thought of that, but it is possible that Cleveland's declining population is due to replacing low income families with the middle/upper class. There have been lots of housing projects in Tremont lately and I've noticed most of those new townhouses have couples or 1 child families living in them. The family sizes are shrinking as more wealthy citizens move in. But as hts121 pointed out, this is addition through subtraction. I can bet those new families pay a lot more in property and city tax than the families who left. Hopefully in the next decade we can see this trend kick in and see a population increase for Cleveland.

^I'd take population stabilization at this point...

To be serious, I expect the inner east side to empty out more which could lead to another loss during the next census.  Neighborhoods such as Mt Pleasant can be downright depressing to live in right now with the amount of abandonment, and you'll have very few people choosing to live there.  The same can be said for South Collinwood, parts of Glenville, Hough, and Fairfax even though those last few surround University Circle.  It will take much more job growth in the Circle and the city in general for these neighborhoods to realistically rebound.

 

Central's growth wasn't that much of a surprise to me, but was great to see nonetheless.  That neighborhood truly bottomed out 10 years ago, and with all of the new construction of subsidized, below-market, and market rate homes, I could see that people were moving back.  It won't be as dense as it was before, but what's there now is MUCH better than what was left behind by years of neglect. 

I would guess that the non-low income people in the city of Cleveland will end up being a-wash since last we had been following the few remaining stable neighborhooods of Cleveland (Clifton area, parts of Shaker Square, and other previously stable areas of the West side (as well as some of the remaining "old" neighborhoods where the last remaining ethnic enclaves are dying out)) have been seeing quite a bit of transitional pressures, and have been losing a good bit of their middle-to higher income base....

 

I think It would really take quite a bit of positive economic pressure (a robust economy) for some time, to really so measureable changes....         

To be serious, I expect the inner east side to empty out more which could lead to another loss during the next census.  Neighborhoods such as Mt Pleasant can be downright depressing to live in right now with the amount of abandonment, and you'll have very few people choosing to live there.  The same can be said for South Collinwood, parts of Glenville, Hough, and Fairfax even though those last few surround University Circle.  It will take much more job growth in the Circle and the city in general for these neighborhoods to realistically rebound.

 

I totally agree.  Depressing as it is, there is still a lot more population loss likely to come in the city proper.  As long as single family homes in more-intact suburbs are affordable, I don't know why people wouldn't continue to flood out of those east side neighborhoods.  And I don't think job growth in University Circle can even do much to stop it, not when the commute from most suburbs, though longer, is still such a breeze.

 

And, I would bet my Urban Ohio account that the overall city population decline had very little to do with smaller middle class families displacing larger low income families.  There is real progress attracting middle class families to Tremont and a couple other neighborhoods, but it's a mere trickle compared to the outflow of household from most neighborhoods.

Agreed.  The rebulding has only just begun, while the exodus is running at full blast and will be for a while.

^ I think places like Tremont could be losing population because of low income families moving out and middle to high income couples moving in. You get 5 people leaving but only 2 moving in.

 

I think there is a direct correlation between losses in Tremont and the gains (25 percent) in Riverside. What happened in the last 10 years? The Valley View housing projects were torn down and replaced with mixed income units. Where did a chunk of those low income residents go? I'd guess Riverside, since the tract that boomed in population is largely made up of the Riverside housing projects.

 

I think some of the gains in Central can be explained by that as well. Wasn't the Longwood housing projects completely torn down in the late 90s (or was that early 2000s). If it was in the late 90s, then I could see how Central lost a lot of population. But those projects have been completely rebuilt (and actually livable now), which could explain an increase.

 

It's radical, and don't know how feasible it is, but I think the county (CMHA) should look into selling its properties (which are mainly in the Central neighborhood) to private developers. Then use the profits to purchase properties in blighted neighborhoods in Mount Pleasant (etc.) and place public tenants there. It's dispersion, but at least you'd be moving the people relying on public housing away from the city's core, which (outside of the lake) is Cleveland's biggest asset. I'd keep the new Longwood property (but make it the most stringent to get in), but sell off Riverview, Outwaithe, King-Kennedy, Morris Black, Cedar Estates and maybe even Garden Valley (though don't see a developer interested in that property yet) and move residents to readily available houses (which in a lot of cases can be bought for less than $1,000) away from downtown.

Here are some preliminary Downtown Dayton numbers:

 

CBD proper - 1990: 1,465; 2000: 2,040; 2010: 2,196 (gain at St. Clair Lofts)

Webster Station (ballpark area) - 1990: 5; 2000: 4; 2010: 362 (mostly the Cannery)

Midtown (south of CBD) - 1990: 125; 2000: 85; 2010: 236 (mostly group quarters)

Oregon - 1990: 1,284; 2000: 1,255; 2010: 1,308 (includes Dayton Towers) 

 

Overall, it looks like the city will show gains in 14 neighborhoods (of 64) most of which are in or near downtown or the fringes.

I think they're separate issues, slum clearance (demand for which has perhaps never been greater) vs what to do with the land that's been cleared. 

 

They're also separate issues from "Ohio Cities' Downtown Population", so back on topic, people.

^Does anyone have the link to the census data for the tracts?  I'd like to see the Cincinnati numbers (like the Dayton numbers on the previous page) but can't seem to find it... :(

Caution on the tracts.  After looking at the .pdf of the Montgomery County tracts I see they did some fiddiling with the tract boundaries so comparsions between different census years.

^Does anyone have the link to the census data for the tracts?  I'd like to see the Cincinnati numbers (like the Dayton numbers on the previous page) but can't seem to find it... :(

 

Cincinnati changed tract 6 to 256 and included some of Queensgate.  With Queensgate essentially being unpopulated this shouldn't change much. 

 

I don't know where to get the data by tract for 2010 either.

I believe Columbus is still behind the other Cs at around 5,500-6,000 residents (The Annex apartments added a good number of residents and is the most recently completed project, I believe). The 2012 plan was for 10,000: the current number is impressive as it is still double the original ~3,000 figure, but falls well behind the goal thanks in large part I'm sure to the initial insistence on higher end condos and no apartments. It also doesn't help that Downtown isn't a "downtown" yet and is more accurately a suburban expressway for cars. People seeking urban living don't want to live in those; they want to live in an urban neighborhood. 

 

Heck, all of Ohio's larger city downtowns are basically suburban motorways dotted with the occasional downtown block that isn't empty. Until city leadership prioritizes downtown residents and pedestrians, and there is little action showing this changing anytime soon, the busiest streets will still be those full of people: exiting/entering downtown in their cars. No wonder when your downtown's main function is getting suburban commuters in and out ASAP and not providing an all-around quality urban environment.

Caution on the tracts.  After looking at the .pdf of the Montgomery County tracts I see they did some fiddiling with the tract boundaries so comparsions between different census years.

 

The Dayton numbers I posted are neighborhood counts, not tracts.  I aggregated the blocks.  I have easily comparable numbers city-wide for Dayton.  If you are interested send me a message or something.

I believe Columbus is still behind the other Cs at around 5,500-6,000 residents (The Annex apartments added a good number of residents and is the most recently completed project, I believe). The 2012 plan was for 10,000: the current number is impressive as it is still double the original ~3,000 figure, but falls well behind the goal thanks in large part I'm sure to the initial insistence on higher end condos and no apartments. It also doesn't help that Downtown isn't a "downtown" yet and is more accurately a suburban expressway for cars. People seeking urban living don't want to live in those; they want to live in an urban neighborhood. 

 

Heck, all of Ohio's larger city downtowns are basically suburban motorways dotted with the occasional downtown block that isn't empty. Until city leadership prioritizes downtown residents and pedestrians, and there is little action showing this changing anytime soon, the busiest streets will still be those full of people: exiting/entering downtown in their cars. No wonder when your downtown's main function is getting suburban commuters in and out ASAP and not providing an all-around quality urban environment.

 

I thought you wanted everyone to focus on neighborhoods?  so confused...

 

but really, what about all the street renovations happening in river south?  that is tons of sidewalk and street enhancements.  it is going to look really great

 

and cleveland and cincy are not nearly the suburban downtown that columbus is

Downtown Cleveland

Tract      Population (populated areas of tract)

107101    4,193 (Warehouse District)

107701    1,944 (North CSU campus, East 12th/13th, Superior Ave)

107802    3,334 (Gateway+South CSU campus)

1033      2,222 (Flats West Bank+Lakeview)

Total-      11,693

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

 

The percentage gains in those 4 tracts over the decade are pretty astounding, too.

 

% Change, 2000 - 2010

 

107101    Warehouse District          43.5%

107701    CSU, E 12/13, Superior    57.4%

107802    Gateway, South CSU        54.7%

1033        Flats West, Lakeview      87.2%

 

This is definitely a smaller coverage area than Brookings used in "Who Lives Downtown", as these tracts had an overall 2000 population of 7,504 (compared with Brookings' number of 9,599 downtown Cleveland residents).

 

Regardless, what's interesting is that Brookings found that among 45 downtowns across the US, Cleveland had the 6th largest % increase in downtown population between 1990 and 2000 (more % growth than any other downtown they examined in the Midwest, Northeast and South). That was with a 32.2% increase. If I did the math correctly, we experienced a 55.8% increase between 2000 and 2010, which is pretty astounding, particularly when you take into account that this happened during a period of two recessions, massive loss of jobs in manufacturing, losing National City and Eaton, the lending crisis, etc. Good work, lil Cleve :)

 

All of this, to me, has to be taken with a grain of salt.  While these will be the "official" numbers, there are plenty of professionals and city advocates out there who believe that the Census systematically under-counts urban areas.  I'm not saying that there's a clearly agreed upon methodology that would be more effective (or feasible), but it's something that I will always have in mind when reviewing these figures.

 

Social Compact did their neighborhood drilldown (http://www.nhlink.net/socialcompact/) in 2003 and found much more positive numbers across Cleveland's neighborhoods.  I'm not sure if there are plans to do this again after the 2010 Census, but I hope they do. 

If you undercount everywhere, it doesn't matter. Also, the gentrifying population is far more likely to get counted than the continuing population of the city.

So final numbers for the six largest 2010 Ohio Cities' Downtown Population:

 

1. Downtown Cleveland

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

107101: 4,193 (Warehouse District)

107701: 1,944 (Downtown/Public Square)

107802: 3,334 (Gateway/Cleveland State)

1033: 2,222 (The Flats)

Total-      11,693

 

2. Downtown Columbus

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

3: 3,105 (Nationwide/Arena District)

4: 2,941 (Downtown)

Total-      6,046

 

3. Downtown Cincinnati

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

265: 2,159 (Downtown/Fountain Square)

7: 3,498 (Downtown/Garfield Place)

Total-      5,657

 

4. Downtown Dayton

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

1501: 3,866 (Downtown)

Total-      3,866

 

5. Downtown Toledo

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

28: 2,153 (Downtown)

27: 1,055 (West of Downtown)

Total-      3,208

 

6. Downtown Akron

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

508301: 2,153 (Downtown)

Total-      2,153

 

*Just a note, some Census tracts I left off due to overlapping with surrounding neighborhoods.  For example, I didn't include the southern part of downtown Dayton nor west of Monroe in Toledo due to the overlapping of older neighborhoods within the tract, which would drive the populations up for both unfairly.  I tried to keep this strictly CBD and associated areas (The Flats and Arena District).

In comparison, some regional cities' downtown numbers.

 

1. Downtown Detroit

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

5172: 1,438 (Downtown)

5207: 2,233 (Grand Circus)

5208: 1,616 (River West)

Total-      5,287

 

2. Downtown Indianapolis

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

391: 4,780 (Downtown)

Total-      4,780

 

3. Downtown Louisville

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

49: 4,263 (Downtown)

Total-      4,263

 

4. Downtown Pittsburgh

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

13: 3,629 (Downtown)

Total-      3,629

 

5. Downtown Fort Wayne

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

13: 2,277 (Downtown)

12: 1,079 (Downtown West)

Total-      3,356

 

6. Downtown Lexington

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

101: 3,072 (Downtown)

Total-      3,072

 

7. Downtown Huntington

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

9: 1,642 (Downtown)

Total-      1,642

 

8. Downtown Charleston

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

9: 1,258 (Downtown)

Total-      1,258

Why so few amenities in downtown Cleveland, then?  Is it because our downtown is more spread out? Or does the population tilt more low-income?

p.s. I don't mean gay bars when I say amenities.

Leadership, strategy.  Steelyard Commons.

Cincinnati's two downtown population tracts posted the highest percentage gains in the City, followed by the area around UC.

Cincinnati's two downtown population tracts posted the highest percentage gains in the City, followed by the area around UC.

 

I know I mentioned this before elsewhere, but "The Cincinnati Fish Wrap" was supposed to run a piece with me, XUMelanie and our little one about the growth in the Cincinnati downtown population.  We were sick that day, but we still took time to be interviewed and I ran home at lunch to get photos taken.  Of course, since the article would have been a positive piece about downtown it was dropped.  *Sigh*

Leadership, strategy.  Steelyard Commons.

Touche`

12 of Cincinnati's Census Tracts gained population

 

1. Downtown North +32%

2. Downtown South +29%

3. UC +26%

4. West South Fairmount +20% (there appears to be a new subdivision here)

5. OTR NE +9.6%

6. Carthage +9%

7. OTR SE +5.4%

8. California +4.8%

9. Vine St. Hill +2.6%

10. Hyde Park/Mt. Lookout +1%

11. West Westwood +1%

12. W. Price Hill +0.1%

 

(Additionally a census tract that contains Madisonville/Columbia Township grew +2% and one that contains Mt. Washington / Salem Heights grew +0.7%)

ColDay--what would downtown Cincy look like with OTR (or at least Gateway/south of Liberty) included?  I ask because that is certainly as close (or closer) to the CBD as the Arena District.

Carthage is Cincinnati's Hispanic neighborhood. Most Midwest downtowns are still Central Business District's in primary land use. Growth is good to see and I expect to continue over the next decade as well.

^^The AD is inside of Downtown, which ends at 670 to the north next to the Short North, which really acts as Columbus' downtown.

Why so few amenities in downtown Cleveland, then?  Is it because our downtown is more spread out? Or does the population tilt more low-income?

 

Low income? I realize there are a couple of subsidized buildings downtown, but I'd say that downtown population is doing pretty well for itself financially.

 

I do think that we'd have more amentities if the housing pockets weren't so spread out. I think that there would be more amenities if the rents were lower for the ground floor tenants. With the rents that they can charge, the clubs and fancy restaurants are the only ones able to pay those prices.

ColDay--what would downtown Cincy look like with OTR (or at least Gateway/south of Liberty) included?  I ask because that is certainly as close (or closer) to the CBD as the Arena District.

 

I'm sure you know "close proximity" is irrelevant in downtown size and scales.  Downtown Columbus is physically larger than downtown Cincinnati which is physically larger than downtown Lexington which is physically larger than downtown Huntington.

 

That said, the area of Over-the-Rhine/West End south of Liberty would be 7,576.  Adding that to downtown would make "greater" downtown 13,233.

^Thanks for doing that.  I understand that we are doing CBD-CBD, but was just trying to get a sense of what kind of population we'd be looking at taken together.  13,000 in DT/OTR south of liberty is not bad at all. 

To visually see which census tracts grew and which did not in the 3C's, check out this link: 

 

http://urban-out.com/2011/03/24/ohio-cities-see-downtown-populations-boom/

 

Great look at how downtown Cleveland's population is not only rising but how that rise is disproportionately among people 22-34 ... in a region that's losing this age group overall. Also a good look at how these trends play out in Ohio City, Tremont, Asiatown and Central.

 

Not Dead Yet: The Infill of Cleveland's Urban Core

by Richey Piiparinen

MetroTrends, Urban Institute

 

Mark Twain once said the "report of my death was an exaggeration". Perhaps the same thing can be said about the City of Cleveland.

 

While Cleveland's struggles are real, there are signs of a revival, particularly in Cleveland's downtown district. Moreover, select neighborhoods on the periphery of downtown are also showing signs of vitality. And while time will tell if the city is filling in its donut hole so to speak, the fact remains: there is a pulse ...

 

... More at http://www.metrotrends.org/spotlight/Cleveland_Spotlight.cfm

 

 

Columbus' Downtown Population (Census Tracts #30 and #40) 1940-2010.

 

1940

#30: 4,720

#40K 6,811

Total: 11,531

 

1950

#30: 4,535

#40: 7,557

Total: 12,092

 

1960

#30: 4,506

#40: 4,322

Total: 8,828

 

1970

#30: 998

#40: 1,314

Total: 2,312

 

1980

#30: 180

#40: 1,408

Total: 1,588

 

1990

#30: 1,578

#40: 2,709

Total: 4,287

 

2000

#30: 2,179

#40: 2,195

Total: 4,374

 

2010

#30: 3,105

#40: 2,941

Total: 6,046

 

Now, I've seen peak Downtown figures put as high as 30,000, so I'm not sure what is all considered to be "downtown".  These two tracts cover the majority of the CBD, though.  You can certainly see the results of highway construction and general "urban renewal" from 1950 to 1980.

^cincinnati's census boundaries have changed over the years, not sure about Columbus' but they do change.

3. Downtown Cincinnati

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

265: 2,159 (Downtown/Fountain Square)

7: 3,498 (Downtown/Garfield Place)

Total-      5,657

 

With the first opening of The Banks, it's now over 6,000. 300 new units, mostly leased up, even assuming a very low household size of ~1.15.

 

It's amazing what one project can do to a rebounding downtown. That goes for any of Ohio's cities.

 

3. Downtown Cincinnati

Tract: Population (populated areas of tract)

265: 2,159 (Downtown/Fountain Square)

7: 3,498 (Downtown/Garfield Place)

Total-      5,657

 

With the first opening of The Banks, it's now over 6,000. 300 new units, mostly leased up, even assuming a very low household size of ~1.15.

 

It's amazing what one project can do to a rebounding downtown. That goes for any of Ohio's cities.

 

 

Do you know this for a fact?  Are you assuming all the new Banks residents were formerly living outside the CBD?

I think that's a fairly safe assumption to consider that <i>most</i> of the tenants are from outside downtown. The demographic target is unique to the market.

Report: Downtown Cincinnati population up 12%

Business Courier by Lucy May

 

For downtown Cincinnati, 2011 was the year of more: More residents, more office workers and more people visiting downtown for fun.

 

Those are among the findings of the eighth annual "State of Downtown Report" released today by Downtown Cincinnati Inc., the downtown advocacy group.

 

“New, world-class office development, active retail leasing and expanded entertainment options demonstrate that downtown is thriving,” Gina Gartner, DCI’s director of stakeholder services, said in a news release. “In addition, the growing residential community, from The Banks to Over-the-Rhine, is actively engaged in making downtown a great place to live.”

 

Cont

I will not be surprised if downtown residential population in Cincinnati cracks the 20,000 threshold within the next 5 years.

^ you're joking right?

^ Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

Developers can't seem to work fast enough to satisfy housing demand. Every unit that hits the market is gone just as fast.

Report: Downtown Cincinnati population up 12%

Business Courier by Lucy May

 

For downtown Cincinnati, 2011 was the year of more: More residents, more office workers and more people visiting downtown for fun.

 

Those are among the findings of the eighth annual "State of Downtown Report" released today by Downtown Cincinnati Inc., the downtown advocacy group.

 

“New, world-class office development, active retail leasing and expanded entertainment options demonstrate that downtown is thriving,” Gina Gartner, DCI’s director of stakeholder services, said in a news release. “In addition, the growing residential community, from The Banks to Over-the-Rhine, is actively engaged in making downtown a great place to live.”

 

Cont

 

All of a sudden Cinci had 13K people living in Downtown.  hummmm

They would have to add quite a few census tracts together to get to 13000

Are there a lot of vacant residential units in downtown Cincinnati at the moment?  If the overall occupancy rate is similar to what we have in downtown Cleveland (96% for apartments,) additional units would have to come online for the population to increase dramatically.  A commonly-used estimate to correlate number of units to number of people is 1.5 people per unit, so to add 7,000 people there would have to be almost 4,700 units built in the next five years!

 

Not saying there isn't demand or that it couldn't happen, but I think that would be jaw-dropping for just about any city, not just in Ohio!

Did you all not read the report?  They are including OTR in the 13,000 figure.  Interestingly, the report shows an increase of almost 5,000 residents in the last 5 years in the CBD/OTR.