January 26, 201312 yr Trends definitely show an increase in downtown populations recently, but it will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the next ring of neighborhoods see the Same investment and growth? In Cincinnati, it seems so. After a decade of investment in the downtown & OTR areas, We are seeing new investment in the next ring of neighborhoods including Walnut Hills Evanston Northside, Avondale, etc. These neighborhoods however, have a very similar housing stock to the urban core. The walkability to business districts Is an attractive factor, and there are quicker ways to beef up transit and connectivity options. THE CHALLENGE however comes next. After this ring of mid to outer neighborhoods one would expect the inner suburbs to receive a similar investment. However the inner suburbs have a housing stock that is significantly less attractive right now, and usually have weak or nonexistent pedestrian oriented business districts. The World War II era housing stock is not desirable to consumers in the way the turn-of-the-century housing stock currently is, especially in the layout of some of these neighborhoods. In greater Cincinnati neighborhoods like Mount healthy, Lockland, Roselawn and Deer Park are Losing population as well and are seeing a demographic shift that is bringing many of the former core residents of the 70's-90's into new, more suburban neighborhoods. These small inner suburbs have less powerful governments to handle issues like code enforcement, blight remediation, economic developments etc. and very likely Will see a continued decline in investment and value before any reversal takes place. Additionally, as most municipalities in Ohio now rely more greatly on income tax to pay for services as state funding & home values have dropped off dramatically, these small municipalities which were originally designed as bedroom communities to the urban core Have little room for new jobs, office space, or commercial developments and can't see residential growth at a rate that can offset state funding losses. As most cities are just beginning to see investment spread out of their downtowns and into their own other neighborhoods, it will likely be awhile before we see these same kinds of investment in the inner suburbs, but the challenges will have to be dealt with eventually.
January 26, 201312 yr This is a great analysis and data--thank you. One thing that stood out to me was that CLE was hardest hit of the three (from almost 1MM population to 300k-something) yet is doing the best in downtown growth. Regarding the Census tracks in the downtowns, is there a quick reference somewhere that shows the boundaries of each of these?---particularly interesting was CLE 1071 which shows a tremendous rate of increase (around 800% since 1970). Unfortunately, there's really not. I have seen no site anywhere that lays out census tracts for cities and measures their demographic/population changes over time. I have all the 1950 tracts for the 3-Cs as far as population goes through the 1930s, but I haven't done demographics because they don't go back as far. The census used to count everyone as either black or white. Asians, for example, weren't really counted separately until the 1980s. So doing demographics for the tracts are only really useful the last 30 years. In any case, if you or anyone else is interested in a particular downtown track and its population trends over the decades, just let me know and I can give you those numbers.
January 26, 201312 yr Trends definitely show an increase in downtown populations recently, but it will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the next ring of neighborhoods see the Same investment and growth? In Cincinnati, it seems so. After a decade of investment in the downtown & OTR areas, We are seeing new investment in the next ring of neighborhoods including Walnut Hills Evanston Northside, Avondale, etc. These neighborhoods however, have a very similar housing stock to the urban core. The walkability to business districts Is an attractive factor, and there are quicker ways to beef up transit and connectivity options. THE CHALLENGE however comes next. After this ring of mid to outer neighborhoods one would expect the inner suburbs to receive a similar investment. However the inner suburbs have a housing stock that is significantly less attractive right now, and usually have weak or nonexistent pedestrian oriented business districts. The World War II era housing stock is not desirable to consumers in the way the turn-of-the-century housing stock currently is, especially in the layout of some of these neighborhoods. In greater Cincinnati neighborhoods like Mount healthy, Lockland, Roselawn and Deer Park are Losing population as well and are seeing a demographic shift that is bringing many of the former core residents of the 70's-90's into new, more suburban neighborhoods. These small inner suburbs have less powerful governments to handle issues like code enforcement, blight remediation, economic developments etc. and very likely Will see a continued decline in investment and value before any reversal takes place. Additionally, as most municipalities in Ohio now rely more greatly on income tax to pay for services as state funding & home values have dropped off dramatically, these small municipalities which were originally designed as bedroom communities to the urban core Have little room for new jobs, office space, or commercial developments and can't see residential growth at a rate that can offset state funding losses. As most cities are just beginning to see investment spread out of their downtowns and into their own other neighborhoods, it will likely be awhile before we see these same kinds of investment in the inner suburbs, but the challenges will have to be dealt with eventually. If the urban movement lasts for any significant time, you might end up with a patchwork of growth rather than a defined outward spread of development. The central core is going to be the most popular destination while further out suburbs are going to be revitalized, most likely, due to their overall condition, housing stock and location. So you'll see some come back while others decline.
January 27, 201312 yr Trends definitely show an increase in downtown populations recently, but it will be interesting to see what happens next. Will the next ring of neighborhoods see the Same investment and growth? In Cincinnati, it seems so. After a decade of investment in the downtown & OTR areas, We are seeing new investment in the next ring of neighborhoods including Walnut Hills Evanston Northside, Avondale, etc. These neighborhoods however, have a very similar housing stock to the urban core. The walkability to business districts Is an attractive factor, and there are quicker ways to beef up transit and connectivity options. Evanston and Avondale are close to as bad as they've ever been. The investment in Uptown and Walnut Hills however are very exciting to see. A McMillan-Woodburn-Montgomery streetcar that connects Walnut Hills' business districts to Xavier would bring Evanston back in a big way. So many feasible solutions to Cincinnati's ills, so many corrupt individuals barricading success. This is some kind of city...
January 28, 201312 yr Evanston and Avondale are close to as bad as they've ever been. The investment in Uptown and Walnut Hills however are very exciting to see. A McMillan-Woodburn-Montgomery streetcar that connects Walnut Hills' business districts to Xavier would bring Evanston back in a big way. I just hope that during the redevelopment of Walnut Hills, they don't completely botch what was once a really nice district... looking at google maps recently compared to the older streetview is super depressing - almost too much has been knocked down. Formed based code will be nice, but given some of the decisions made (such as knocking down the old greaters for a plaza after the found out the store front couldn't be restored [money that could have gone towards stabalizing another structure] - if Eden Park wasn't far enough away) I'm a bit concerned.
January 29, 201312 yr "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts?
January 29, 201312 yr Cincinnati: 0.11 sq mi OH061000200 / 1,068 (tract 2) 0.12 sq mi OH061000900 / 1,652 (tract 9) 0.10 sq mi OH061001000 / 1,437 (tract 10) 0.15 sq mi OH061001100 / 900 (Tract 11) 1.92 sq mi OH061026300 / 1,217 (tract 263) 0.23 sq mi OH061026400 / 2,519 (tract 264) 0.73 sq mi OH061026500 / 2,159 (tract 265) 0.24 sq mi OH061026800 / 1,481 (tract 268) Total: 3.6 sq mi / 12,433 population Cleveland: 0.19 sq mi OH035103300 / 2,222 (tract 1033) 0.89 sq mi OH035103602 / 3,254 (tract 1036) 0.58 sq mi OH035104200 / 1,143 (tract 1042) 1.68 sq mi OH035107101 / 4,193 (tract 1071) 0.77 sq mi OH035107701 / 1,944 (tract 1077) 0.60 sq mi OH035107802 / 3,334 (tract 1078) 0.80 sq mi OH035108201 / 1,354 (tract 1082) 0.53 sq mi OH035108301 / 1,647 (tract 1083) 0.22 sq mi OH035108400 / 1,237 (tract 1084) Total 6.26 sq mi / 20328 Columbus 0.20 sq mi OH049002100 / 1,808 0.27 sq mi OH049002200 / 1,851 0.32 sq mi OH049002900 / 2,368 1.59 sq mi OH049003000 / 3,105 0.27 sq mi OH049003600 / 1,442 0.28 sq mi OH049003800 / 1,896 0.87 sq mi OH049004000 / 2,941 0.45 sq mi OH049004200 / 1,370 0.34 sq mi OH049005200 / 2,584 0.57 sq mi OH049005300 / 3,054 0.80 sq mi OH049005700 / 3,629 Total 5.96 Square miles / 26048 Edit: Forgot one tract for cincinnati (tract 11) which is now added http://www.usa.com/rank/columbus-oh--land-area--census-tract-rank.htm?yr=3000&dis=&wist=&plow=&phigh=
January 29, 201312 yr "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts? These are from 2010 census tracts. The weird hole in Cincinnati's is tract 7. I assumed any "decimals" (e.g. 1078.02 in Cleveland) belonged to the non-decimal variant (in this case 1078). The decimals are usually added when a tract is split. Cincinnati's Downtown is purple (ignore the green pollution): Cleveland's Downtown: Columbus:
January 29, 201312 yr Cincinnati: 0.11 sq mi OH061000200 / 1,068 (tract 2) 0.12 sq mi OH061000900 / 1,652 (tract 9) 0.10 sq mi OH061001000 / 1,437 (tract 10) 0.15 sq mi OH061001100 / 900 (Tract 11) 1.92 sq mi OH061026300 / 1,217 (tract 263) 0.23 sq mi OH061026400 / 2,519 (tract 264) 0.73 sq mi OH061026500 / 2,159 (tract 265) 0.24 sq mi OH061026800 / 1,481 (tract 268) Total: 3.6 sq mi / 12,433 population Cleveland: 0.19 sq mi OH035103300 / 2,222 (tract 1033) 0.89 sq mi OH035103602 / 3,254 (tract 1036) 0.58 sq mi OH035104200 / 1,143 (tract 1042) 1.68 sq mi OH035107101 / 4,193 (tract 1071) 0.77 sq mi OH035107701 / 1,944 (tract 1077) 0.60 sq mi OH035107802 / 3,334 (tract 1078) 0.80 sq mi OH035108201 / 1,354 (tract 1082) 0.53 sq mi OH035108301 / 1,647 (tract 1083) 0.22 sq mi OH035108400 / 1,237 (tract 1084) Total 6.26 sq mi / 20328 Columbus 0.20 sq mi OH049002100 / 1,808 0.27 sq mi OH049002200 / 1,851 0.32 sq mi OH049002900 / 2,368 1.59 sq mi OH049003000 / 3,105 0.27 sq mi OH049003600 / 1,442 0.28 sq mi OH049003800 / 1,896 0.87 sq mi OH049004000 / 2,941 0.45 sq mi OH049004200 / 1,370 0.34 sq mi OH049005200 / 2,584 0.57 sq mi OH049005300 / 3,054 0.80 sq mi OH049005700 / 3,629 Total 5.96 Square miles / 26048 Edit: Forgot one tract for cincinnati (tract 11) which is now added http://www.usa.com/rank/columbus-oh--land-area--census-tract-rank.htm?yr=3000&dis=&wist=&plow=&phigh= Not very populous cores. None of the cores have a population density of over 10,000 per square mile. Within those cores, only three tracts (one more comes close) in downtown Cincinnati, just one in Cleveland and none in Columbus have that scale of density within their tracts. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
January 29, 201312 yr Cincinnati tract 7 has a population of 3,498 and an area of .28 sqmi., making a density of 12,492/sqmi. So there's a fourth in Cincinnati, assuming the omission of tract 7 was a mistake. Even if the omission of 7 was a mistake, I find these borders pretty silly. Including Mt. Adams and Lower Price Hill, but not the West End or northern Over-the-Rhine, is weird IMO.
January 29, 201312 yr Pretty sure jbcmh81 made them up. Exactly. Why not use the area around Tri-C in the Cleveland model? "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts? For Cleveland why didn't you use the following tracts 1076, 1037, 1041, 1091, 1092, 1096, 1093, 1101, & 1079?
January 29, 201312 yr Cincinnati tract 7 has a population of 3,498 and an area of .28 sqmi., making a density of 12,492/sqmi. So there's a fourth in Cincinnati, assuming the omission of tract 7 was a mistake. Even if the omission of 7 was a mistake, I find these borders pretty silly. Including Mt. Adams and Lower Price Hill, but not the West End or northern Over-the-Rhine, is weird IMO. natininja's observations above are my own and aptly sum up what cherry-picked data, coupled with omissions and disagreements, accomplish as far as an objective survey. Interesting, yes; pertinent, yes; accurate, no... Pass. :oops:
January 30, 201312 yr Natininja- chill out. You're coming off really negative over someone doing a pretty good job of providing data. The patronizing "silly" & "made up" terms are not helping anything. I'm sure jcbmh81 can explain or adjust to fix things.
January 30, 201312 yr Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk. I actually assumed everything was kosher until I made those maps. Can you really blame me, though, for being a bit shocked to see Fountain Square wasn't part of the described "Downtown"? At least I went through the bother of making the maps, rather than just running off at the mouth. I apologize for my word choice. I really do appreciate the effort that went into providing the data. And not just the data, but a visualization of it.
January 30, 201312 yr CincyGuy45202--no need to rebuke natininja for sleuthing on his own and consequently uncovering discrepancies in several key previous presentations. All too often, we're enamored by "data for data's sake," blinding us to the fact that we're also making ourselves vulnerable to someone else's subjective narrative, sea of numbers and pretty, professional appearances that may belie that what's underneath just might be permeated with errors. As it's happened here, natininja's own skepticism has led to some critical heavy lifting. Rather than being castigated for it, he ought to be thanked.
January 30, 201312 yr Pretty sure jbcmh81 made them up. Those are the weirdest boundaries for downtown Cincinnati I have ever seen. Cutting OTR, and the West End in half along Liberty Street? I'm interested to hear the logic behind leaving out most of the CBD and including Queensgate, Lower Price Hill and Mount Adams. I am sure there is some reasoning behind things, just to give the benefit of the doubt.
January 30, 201312 yr People get way too touchy on these things. I don't think anyone is out of line for pointing out that a thread called "Ohio's 3C Downtowns and Population Trends" doesn't accurately reflect the "downtowns" in question. I'm grateful to jbcmh81 for doing this work, but I don't think he'd begrudge people pointing out where something doesn't make sense.
January 30, 201312 yr "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts? These are from 2010 census tracts. The weird hole in Cincinnati's is tract 7. I assumed any "decimals" (e.g. 1078.02 in Cleveland) belonged to the non-decimal variant (in this case 1078). The decimals are usually added when a tract is split. Cincinnati's Downtown is purple (ignore the green pollution): Cleveland's Downtown: Columbus: How did you determine the boundaries for Downtown Cleveland? I don't feel they are accurate.
January 30, 201312 yr Some harsh reactions... I knew that that Greater Downtown tracts would be the greatest point of contention because there are really no defined boundaries for them. I looked over discussions on this topic here and elsewhere and used the tracts most often used. I didn't figure everyone would agree with them, but yeah, no good deed I guess. BTW, not including tract 7 for Cincinnati was a mistake. I originally planned to have it included, but for some reason just missed it when I went to make the graphs.
January 30, 201312 yr Some harsh reactions... I knew that that Greater Downtown tracts would be the greatest point of contention because there are really no defined boundaries for them. I looked over discussions on this topic here and elsewhere and used the tracts most often used. I didn't figure everyone would agree with them, but yeah, no good deed I guess. BTW, not including tract 7 for Cincinnati was a mistake. I originally planned to have it included, but for some reason just missed it when I went to make the graphs. I wouldn't look too much into it. Great info as always. The famous cliche, you're human and we make mistakes. Ok, so you left out some census tracts for a few areas... there was a lot of info to be had so there was bound to be a few areas accidentally left out. Keep posting this stuff, it's interesting.
January 30, 201312 yr Here is the updated Greater Downtown Graph with tract 7 for Cincinnati included.
January 30, 201312 yr Some harsh reactions... I knew that that Greater Downtown tracts would be the greatest point of contention because there are really no defined boundaries for them. I looked over discussions on this topic here and elsewhere and used the tracts most often used. I didn't figure everyone would agree with them, but yeah, no good deed I guess. BTW, not including tract 7 for Cincinnati was a mistake. I originally planned to have it included, but for some reason just missed it when I went to make the graphs. I wouldn't look too much into it. Great info as always. The famous cliche, you're human and we make mistakes. Ok, so you left out some census tracts for a few areas... there was a lot of info to be had so there was bound to be a few areas accidentally left out. Keep posting this stuff, it's interesting. Thanks. I enjoy doing this stuff, and there's no intent to deceive or otherwise get things wrong. However, if anyone wants to see a particular tract or group of tracts and their trends, just let me know and I can probably come up with something.
January 31, 201312 yr CincyGuy45202--no need to rebuke natininja for sleuthing on his own and consequently uncovering discrepancies in several key previous presentations. All too often, we're enamored by "data for data's sake," blinding us to the fact that we're also making ourselves vulnerable to someone else's subjective narrative, sea of numbers and pretty, professional appearances that may belie that what's underneath just might be permeated with errors. As it's happened here, natininja's own skepticism has led to some critical heavy lifting. Rather than being castigated for it, he ought to be thanked. There's a difference between sleuthing and pointing out a mistake and saying things like "pretty sure jcmhh81 just made them up" and providing no commentary. For some incredibly bizarre reason that I have yet to understand there are several UO posters who freak out at everything jcmbh81 posts (separate from this incident and in no way related to natininja). Mods have consistently had to step in and remove people for over the top attacks that go beyond criticisms. If you(anyone) don't like it and think he has mistakes sometimes just don't read it or we can all try to point out things like that in an adult way- "I think you made a big mistake- you left out census tract 7, was that intentional because that's definitely a part of downtown cincinnati". But some of this from multiple people gets pretty angry and harsh. I'm cool with Nati and i think he even realized it may have come off a bit harsher than he may have intended, but just because i pointed out the attitude might not be necessary doesn't mean I don't think it's good that he pointed out a mistake that has since been corrected. those two things aren't related. It's good to point out corrections, please don't try to imply I was telling him not to research a post and fact check it. I think that's a good thing always. I love everyone on here. let's get back to scrutinizing data and learning from it. :clap: :wave: :mrgreen:
February 3, 201312 yr Wow did downtown Cincinnati really lose 20,000 jobs in 10 years like this article says? Why isn't the vacancy rates higher? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130203/BIZ01/302030019/Trend-Moving-lower-paying-jobs-burbs?nclick_check=1
February 3, 201312 yr Wow did downtown Cincinnati really lose 20,000 jobs in 10 years like this article says? Why isn't the vacancy rates higher? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130203/BIZ01/302030019/Trend-Moving-lower-paying-jobs-burbs?nclick_check=1 I think this quote from the article says it all: “We see it as a good evolution,” Bolton said. “Nothing on the horizon tells us Downtown is going to lose its place as a major hub for the region.” I think it is a good evolution too. Why shouldn't downtown Cincy be a high end destination with high end amenities, housing, and employment?
February 3, 201312 yr Ehhhhhh it's both. Sure it's good to have higher quality jobs, but it's still horrible to lose 20k workers spending they money at restaurants etc every day. Vacancy in downtown office is around 24%. That's pretty high.
February 3, 201312 yr Ehhhhhh it's both. Sure it's good to have higher quality jobs, but it's still horrible to lose 20k workers spending they money at restaurants etc every day. Vacancy in downtown office is around 24%. That's pretty high. Well, there's certainly no shortage of restaurants in the area. I don't mind fast food joints disappearing in favor better options. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I want people to not be downtown, I'm just taking it in context. Downtown Cincy is very happening and only getting better. So in spite of the loss, downtown is making a lot of progress in the right direction. The glut in office space needs to be converted to residential to some degree. I hope that trend continues.
February 3, 201312 yr Wow did downtown Cincinnati really lose 20,000 jobs in 10 years like this article says? Why isn't the vacancy rates higher? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130203/BIZ01/302030019/Trend-Moving-lower-paying-jobs-burbs?nclick_check=1 It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data.
February 3, 201312 yr True, but Cincinnati can only pay for development and services with more jobs. 70% of the cities operating revenue is from earnings tax and the city gets nothing from Sales tax and only 8% of revenue is from property tax. Jobs fund development.
February 4, 201312 yr It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data. Expect nothing less from the enquirer.
February 4, 201312 yr They do say it is from Census County Business Patterns, which is located here: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/ and one can easily just enter the zip code for desired years.
February 4, 201312 yr PD has been more and more positive lately it seems. For example, the Editorial board is focused on positive stories: www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/02/maintain_the_momentum_toward_a.html This is regarding Downtown Cleveland momentum, especially in the residential -- 1100 new apartment units coming online in the next 18 months Downtown (see page 10 of 14): http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/82160/q4_2012_final.pdf It's be interesting to see the spike in Downtown Cleveland numbers in 1-2 years when these are all finished.
February 4, 201312 yr And now from the Dispatch today! http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2013/02/04/cities-hearts-beating-strong.html
February 4, 201312 yr Wow did downtown Cincinnati really lose 20,000 jobs in 10 years like this article says? Why isn't the vacancy rates higher? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130203/BIZ01/302030019/Trend-Moving-lower-paying-jobs-burbs?nclick_check=1 It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data. Most certainly, this particular article was both pertinent and disturbing--and thus probably deserved the "front page treatment" bestowed upon it by the Enquirer. Nevertheless, as mentioned by jbcmh81, where were the source links? And buried within the article were comments about both Cleveland and Columbus experiencing similar losses in their own downtowns, yet (once again) no source links. As several other concerned forumers have already mentioned, such numbers of job losses in any of the "3-Cs" (but especially in Cincinnati during this time period) cannot be minimized nor ignored. However, much else is at play that suggests that the 3-Cs' dilemmas aren't nearly as serious as our trusty Enquirer has trumped them up to be. Bad news sells papers to outlying suburbanites; good news plugs their ears; does anybody disagree? An article worth reading, YES; an article worth gnashing of teeth, no.
February 4, 201312 yr They do say it is from Census County Business Patterns, which is located here: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/ and one can easily just enter the zip code for desired years. Thanks. I tried looking it up but apparently missed this.
February 4, 201312 yr Wow did downtown Cincinnati really lose 20,000 jobs in 10 years like this article says? Why isn't the vacancy rates higher? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130203/BIZ01/302030019/Trend-Moving-lower-paying-jobs-burbs?nclick_check=1 It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data. Most certainly, this particular article was both pertinent and disturbing--and thus probably deserved the "front page treatment" bestowed upon it by the Enquirer. Nevertheless, as mentioned by jbcmh81, where were the source links? And buried within the article were comments about both Cleveland and Columbus experiencing similar losses in their own downtowns, yet (once again) no source links. As several other concerned forumers have already mentioned, such numbers of job losses in any of the "3-Cs" (but especially in Cincinnati during this time period) cannot be minimized nor ignored. However, much else is at play that suggests that the 3-Cs' dilemmas aren't nearly as serious as our trusty Enquirer has trumped them up to be. Bad news sells papers to outlying suburbanites; good news plugs their ears; does anybody disagree? An article worth reading, YES; an article worth gnashing of teeth, no. Yeah, I'd be more worried if the drop in total jobs coincided with a drop in payroll, but it seems to be just the opposite. Downtowns used to be the centers of money and commerce, as well as where people lived. For the past 60 years, downtowns were gutted of residents and high-paying jobs. It seems as if both residents and high-paying jobs are coming back, and I suspect, eventually more jobs overall. But even if not, there's definitely a lot more positive momentum going on that the article failed to touch upon.
February 10, 201312 yr Merged the 3C downtown population thread with the Ohio cities downtown population thread. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 10, 201312 yr I made these maps for Franklin County and the adjacent areas similar to the Cincinnati map about jobs. The first one shows % of employee change by zip code 2000-2010. The 270 suburbs definitely had the best performance, while the core neighborhoods as well as far rural areas didn't do as well. The second map is average employee income by zip code. The highest incomes are Downtown, New Albany, the Polaris area, Dublin and Easton. The High Street corridor also has relatively high income levels. Rural and far outer suburban areas tend to have the lowest average incomes. The third map is income % change 2000-2010. There doesn't seem to be any strong pattern. There's no strong correlation between it and jobs growth, and the urban core did mostly as well as the suburbs.
February 10, 201312 yr jbcmh81 Can you answer my question below? How did you determine which tracts to use for Cleveland? Pretty sure jbcmh81 made them up. Exactly. Why not use the area around Tri-C in the Cleveland model? "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts? For Cleveland why didn't you use the following tracts 1076, 1037, 1041, 1091, 1092, 1096, 1093, 1101, & 1079?
February 10, 201312 yr I made these maps for Franklin County and the adjacent areas similar to the Cincinnati map about jobs. The first one shows % of employee change by zip code 2000-2010. The 270 suburbs definitely had the best performance, while the core neighborhoods as well as far rural areas didn't do as well. The second map is average employee income by zip code. The highest incomes are Downtown, New Albany, the Polaris area, Dublin and Easton. The High Street corridor also has relatively high income levels. Rural and far outer suburban areas tend to have the lowest average incomes. The third map is income % change 2000-2010. There doesn't seem to be any strong pattern. There's no strong correlation between it and jobs growth, and the urban core did mostly as well as the suburbs. Edit: I guess I can't post them because they're too large of files, even changing the format. They're on my site though, so just take a look if you're interested. Link is in my sig.
February 10, 201312 yr jbcmh81 Can you answer my question below? How did you determine which tracts to use for Cleveland? Pretty sure jbcmh81 made them up. Exactly. Why not use the area around Tri-C in the Cleveland model? "Now for the Greater Downtown Area. Here are the tracts I used for each: Cincinnati: 2, 9, 10, 11, 263, 264, 265, 268 Cleveland: 1033, 1036, 1042, 1071, 1077, 1078, 1082, 1083, 1084 Columbus: 21, 22, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 42, 52, 53, 57" Do you have stats on the actual land area for these tracts? For Cleveland why didn't you use the following tracts 1076, 1037, 1041, 1091, 1092, 1096, 1093, 1101, & 1079? Post #427. If I was to add any, I'd say 1087 and 1093. You guys do know that you can make your own maps based on your own definitions, right?
August 29, 201311 yr Cross-post of a fantastic map of ethnic composition that Oldmanladyluck found. Figured it might be worthwhile in this thread for two topics: the amount of integration or segregation in our downtowns; and the degree of concentration of population into particular parts of downtowns. In a quick look at the 3 C's' downtowns, I was surprised to see just how dense population was in some relatively small areas, with huge swaths of white (no population) in between. It gives you a sense of just how much more population/connectivity/density our downtowns can hold as we do more office-to-residential, mixed-use conversion and new construction residential. This is the most comprehensive map ever made of race in America. Each person counted by the 2010 US Census is represented by a colored dot. Whites are coded as blue; African-Americans, green; Asians, red; Hispanics, orange; and all other racial categories are coded as brown. A rundown of the map can be viewed here. http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/Racial-Dot-Map The actual map can be viewed here. http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html Fair warning: Prepare to spend a good amount of time looking at this... DISCUSS!!
August 31, 201311 yr Raw Census Data for Downtown Cleveland which includes everywhere South of Lake Erie, East of the Cuyahoga River, North and West of I90. Total: 7,443 White alone : 3,682 Black or African American alone: 2,771 American Indian and Alaska Native alone: 20 Asian alone: 730 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: 5 Some Other Race alone: 59 Two or More Races: 176 Male: 4,479 Female: 2,964 Under 5: 178 15 to 17: 25 25 to 29: 1,668 60 to 84: 648 85 and over: 41
August 31, 201311 yr Wow downtown Cleveland is a sausage fest! DCA needs to think like a bar promoter--get some ladies living down there and more guys will follow!
Create an account or sign in to comment