From: cris3429

The crime rate in Cincinnati is still going up. 

 

actually it is going down

 

http://cincinnati-oh.gov/

 

look under quality of life index 2006, page 3

 

 

 

Recently something like 15-20k people magically appeared in our city after we corrected the census error. Does that have any effect on the quality of life index?

 

Sorry Murders are going up. 

From: cris 3429

 

I go to Reds, and Bengals games every year.  I have been to the National Underground Freedom Center (which is another screwup, what ever happened to not having to use tax payers dollars???), I go to the Taste of Cincinnati every year, and I go to Union Terminal once every couple of months.

 

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city without taking any responsiblity for the health and saftey of the community. 

 

 

If you want to select that one little piece out of everything I said and then spin it to sound like that I guess that is your perogative.  Actually, I work in the city of Cincinnati, and my income taxes do help pay for facilities and personel in the city...so no actually your wrong.

very true, I find it interesting that people use murders as the mark of whether a community is dangerous or not.  murders (and I am using murder and homicide interchangably here) are unquestionably the most severe crimes that can be committed, but they are also perhaps the most motive intensive.  Murders are rarely crimes of opportunities and generally when they are crimes of opportunities they are from badly botched robberies or burglaries.  Murders are also rarely accidents with the rare exception of stray bullets.  I don't have any statistics on this, but I would imagine that the majortiy of the in murders that occured the victim and the attacker knew each other or the victim and the attacker were both engaged in the parralell economy in a competiting manner.

From: cris 3429

 

I go to Reds, and Bengals games every year.  I have been to the National Underground Freedom Center (which is another screwup, what ever happened to not having to use tax payers dollars???), I go to the Taste of Cincinnati every year, and I go to Union Terminal once every couple of months.

 

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city without taking any responsiblity for the health and saftey of the community. 

 

 

If you want to select that one little piece out of everything I said and then spin it to sound like that I guess that is your perogative.  Actually, I work in the city of Cincinnati, and my income taxes do help pay for facilities and personel in the city...so no actually your wrong.

 

hmm.. I guess i missed that work in the city part.

From: cris 3429

 

I go to Reds, and Bengals games every year.  I have been to the National Underground Freedom Center (which is another screwup, what ever happened to not having to use tax payers dollars???), I go to the Taste of Cincinnati every year, and I go to Union Terminal once every couple of months.

 

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city without taking any responsiblity for the health and saftey of the community. 

 

 

If you want to select that one little piece out of everything I said and then spin it to sound like that I guess that is your perogative.  Actually, I work in the city of Cincinnati, and my income taxes do help pay for facilities and personel in the city...so no actually your wrong.

 

hmm.. I guess i missed that work in the city part.

 

Yes I do work in the city.

While I thoroughly enjoy this lively discussion on cc, it is getting highly annoying flipping over here hoping to see that perhaps Cincy's population numbers have again been adjusted.  Please, can we get back on topic,and move the rest to the crime thread?

This topic is about Cincinnati's population trends.  Please stay on topic.  Arguments about Cincinnati's crime rate shall be allowed only if it relates directly to an argument about Cincinnati's population. 

 

Any more talk about our personal freedoms, socialism, our gun laws, Virginia Tech, etc. will be deleted.

 

If you want to discuss these things, either start a topic in Urbanbar or go to another forum.

 

Thank you.

 

Grasscat I went ahead and made a judgement call on when to split the conversations and move the crime talk to the Cincinnati Crime thread.

 

To all forumers, it is imporant to keep the threads related to the topic of discussion.  In the end it only makes more work for us.

 

Sincerely,

Urban Ohio Staff

^ Thanks.

 

The current issue of Cincinnati Magazine has a story on the population gain in the 2006 census.  It had two really interesting stats.  One was that if Hamilton County and Cincinnati merged the city would be the 12th largest in the nation.  The other stat was that the Cincinnati metro area was 148th in crime, much lower than most of the major cities across the Midwest.

The current issue of Cincinnati Magazine has a story on the population gain in the 2006 census.  It had two really interesting stats.  One was that if Hamilton County and Cincinnati merged the city would be the 12th largest in the nation.  The other stat was that the Cincinnati metro area was 148th in crime, much lower than most of the major cities across the Midwest.

 

You could also say much lower than most other major cities across the nation!  But that obviously must be wrong...I know that my bullet-proof Hummer has more than proven its value to me on the dangerous streets of Cincinnati.

 

I don't want to, but here is the completely unnecessary smiley.... :wink:

Cincinnati is home to more people - and they're richer, too - than the Census estimates, according to a new study, which Mayor Mark Mallory will use at a retail convention in Las Vegas this weekend to try to entice developers to invest in the city.

 

The study by the national nonprofit Social Compact says there are about 369,000 residents in the city - almost 40,000 more than an amended U.S. Census estimate.

 

Those people make more money, too, than previously thought, the study says - an average household income of almost $54,000. Social Compact, funded by financial institutions, crunches data from sources such as utility bills, credit reports and car registrations, which it says more accurately counts the informal economy and shows an area's untapped spending power. That is then used to leverage private investment.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070518/NEWS01/705180435/-1/CINCI

 

New pop density 4790 sq/mi

well if its true then this is certainly great news...but i dont know how this count will become "official" in any sense. 

There's probably enough here to support a grocery store," Talmage said.

 

and that was probably the purpose of the study.  An urban grocery stores is one of those healthy city signs.

 

well if its true then this is certainly great news...but i dont know how this count will become "official" in any sense.

 

It won't become official, but it will give Census data collectors (for Cincy) a more guided approach to gathering the information.  Everyone knows that the Census data is only so true, a lot of projections, estimates, and calculations are used...and thats fine, thats how they do it.  But I'm glad that Cincy has gone out and hired someone to do an all-encompassing data collection process...this could have turned out worse for the city, but most of the time it does not (especially for older cities like Cincinnati).

 

I would find it shocking if the 2010 Census strays much farther away from the 369,000 range...this is a MUCH more encompassing data collection process.  I trust this more so than the Census numbers...and I would have said the same thing if the numbers turned out lower, but most of us know our city inside and out.  We knew that the 303,000 number was off, and maybe even the 331,000.  Turns out we were right!

BTW, this was also included in the article.  Some of the differences the analysis brought forward:

 

All about Cincinnati

Population: 368,868 (compared with the Census 2006 amended projection of 331,310; original projection was 307,573).

 

Households: 166,143 (139,590).

 

Avg. household income: $53,877 ($50,371).

 

Aggregate neighborhood income: $8.951 million ($7.031 million).

 

Median home sale value: $139,715 ($134,525).

I would find it shocking if the 2010 Census strays much farther away from the 369,000 range...this is a MUCH more encompassing data collection process.

 

I really doubt the 2010 census will be any higher than 345k unless they change the methodology.

I only posted two sentences you really could have just clicked quote. I bet it took longer to italicize my quotation than it would have to actually quote it.

 

Anyways, I really doubt the pop will be under 300k, that would be a Detroit eclipsing 9.5% loss. assuming the 2005 update is right that would mean a 9.5% loss in 5 years or the equivalent of a 19% loss over the decade, which would be unrealistically high.

 

the urban core is under construction. people are moving in.

the urban core is under construction.  people are moving in.

 

It's awesome seeing and hearing the hype of how people consider the city "cool" again (as if I was around during the sharpest decline).

 

Seriously though, Hyde Park, Oakley, Clifton, Northside, West End, Columbia Tusculem, E. Walnut Hills, downtown, these are all areas that people "desire" or look up to in high regard. There is a sense of pride again and in return our pop. is growing again.

I really doubt the 2010 census will be any higher than 345k unless they change the methodology.

 

I doubt it will be above 300,000. Hamilton County is still the fastest-shrinking core county in Ohio. The census always misses some people of course, but anything before 2010 is just speculation. ACS would challenge these Social Compact numbers to no end...

 

Social Compact blows their numbers way out of proportion. They are pushing an agenda, and their results from Cleveland more than proved that. They claimed Cleveland had nearly 600,000 residents in 2003. They've done the same in Detroit too. Their agenda is to make declining cities look larger and wealthier than they actually are.

 

Your statement that the pop. will be below 300k illustrates your lack of knowledge about Cincinnati.  Secondly, I am sure that Social Compact exaggerates the numbers to a certain extent, but the population trends have begun to turn around in Cincy.  There were large losses, but those have decreased in size.  The 2005 projections illustrate just that...even if there wasn't a gain; I'm sure the loss would be just as miniscule as the gain that was reported.  Whether you like it or not, Cincy's population is increasing.

I really doubt the 2010 census will be any higher than 345k unless they change the methodology.

 

I doubt it will be above 300,000. Hamilton County is still the fastest-shrinking core county in Ohio. The census always misses some people of course, but anything before 2010 is just speculation. ACS would challenge these Social Compact numbers to no end...

 

Social Compact blows their numbers way out of proportion. They are pushing an agenda, and their results from Cleveland more than proved that. They claimed Cleveland had nearly 600,000 residents in 2003. They've done the same in Detroit too. Their agenda is to make declining cities look larger and wealthier than they actually are.

 

http://socialcompact.org/pdfs/Cleveland%20Neighborhood%20Market%20DrillDown%20Summary%20Report.pdf

 

Don't take any of this crap seriously.

Man i'm glad you are not mayor, you would send your city into ruins with your non optimistic attitude.

I read on the Cincinnati Blog that Social Compact estimates are actually more accurate than the census' estimates, because they use tools like utility subscribers from Duke Energy, etc... not sure how close they actually are though. Something to look into.

 

 

The census uses calculations, estimates, models and what not for their projections.  It would be unreasonable for Census to do the in-depth analysis that Social Compact does.  Social Compact looks into every piece of information imaginable that they can get their hands on (credit card info, car payments, tax info, utility bills, etc).

 

From a statistical gathering standpoint the Social Compact methodology seems to be much more accurate.  From a local perspective this also seems closer to the actual truth.  Maybe not 369,000...but 350-360,000 doesn't seem to far off from what the feel of the city is (for what thats worth).

Utility subscribers would measure households, not individuals.  It would miss a certain subset of people living on the street, shelters, or situations where individuals have a domicile of some sort  but are not paying for electricty (perhaps included in the rent?).

 

Do you all think the 10-year 100% census count would be more or less accurate than Social Compacts numbers?

 

 

Well I only put limited faith in the Census numbers...so I would say that the Social Compact numbers would be a better representation.  They simply cross-check their numbers with more sources than Census does.

I would like to know how many homeowners live in the city that actually chooses Florida as their residence. I think anyone  can tell by the way traffic spiked once all the people from florida came back to their Ohio homes that much more people are living in the city in the summer than in the winter.

Well I only put limited faith in the Census numbers..

 

I know there has been a lot of dispute with the iterim estimates, but was expecting the decennial count to be fairly accurate, assuming enumerators are following up on non-responses to the mail-in surveys.

 

I recall there was some discussion about using some sort of sampling methodology instead of a 100% count.  How do you feel about that?

 

 

The hard part about Cincy in terms of numbers is that there are parts of the East Side that have a level of new development going on not seen since before the Depression, whereas the Mill Creek Valley and parts of the West Side are probably still bleeding population. Unfortunately the bleed on the West Side likely includes more families whereas the East Side is picking up a lot of high density small household type dwellings. One thing that points to smaller numbers is that problems schools throughout the city are having with enrollment, with both CPS and the Catholic schools being hard-pressed to keep their numbers at a decent level. Now there have been some analysis that we have picked up more of the creative class than we realize and so there is growth there but families are still going to the 'burbs for the schools and yards and such. Then there is momentary blips like a family in a place like Pleasant Ridge may not be willing to wait for the school to be built don't want to bus their kids to Mad-ville, so they move on out.

cincinnati even maintianing its population of... lets split the difference: 350k (4500 sq/mi) would still be better than the surrounding jurisdictions. Between 2000-2005.  Figures from city-data.com, I beleive using the census data as cincinnat has the unrevised 308k population number.

 

Covington -1.7%

Newport -6.7%;

Norwood -7.7%.

Golf manor -7.9%.

St. Bernard -8%.

Terrace Park -6%. 

Deer park -6.1%

Cheviot -8.7%

 

 

that was my 1000th post and not a bad one at that.

Retailers don't care how many people there are in a city.  They care about how many people are in a relevant radius of their location.

 

 

At this rate, in 30 years Cincinnati should be over 1 million!!!  :wink:

I'm glad our average household income is up.

the urban core is under construction.  people are moving in.

 

If a publically traded company paid a consultant money to commission a study that just so happened to bolster the position that company was selling, what would you think of the quality of that study?  Everyone is quick to pooh-pooh corporately sponsored research, but this is basically the same thing.

 

Cincinnati may have slowed or stopped its decline. It may even be growing. But it is likely to be marginal at best.  Chicago, home to possibly the greatest urban condo building boom in modern day history, is actually losing population.

 

As for the Census "methodology", the method is to physically count people via surveys.  If you'd like to suggest a more accurate method (IMO, one that doesn't give latitude to the person doing the survey to introduce their own biases into the equation), I'd love to hear it.

 

^ No one is stating that Social Impacts' or the Census' methodology is "perfect". Most everyone on here is just stating that the population is larger that the census states.

^You're right, but its really the only source available.  I understand that other sources have a built-in bias, but I think there are things fundamentally wrong with the projection models that Census uses.  It tends to favor new construction over the alternatives when coming up with their estimates.  I know that their estimates don't determine the federal funding, but they sure as hell have an impact on a region's image.

 

For example...it's my understanding that when doing the projections if 100 new SF homes are built, they take the average household size and extrapolate that for the 100 households.  This is assuming that these households are being occupied though...I would like to ask Phoenix how many empty new residential units they have sitting on the market.  It's just another piece to the suburban/sprawl bias built into this country.

Rando, that only applies to the inter-census projections if I'm not mistaken.  The actual Census figures are based on physically counting heads.

 

^That is true on paper...however those physical counts have been known to be inaccurate especially in urban areas.  For example, certain households are more difficult to count than others.  It's real easy to count people in a suburban neighborhood...but not nearly as easy as an area like OTR.  While a building may appear to be abandoned it may actually have people living in it for example.  It has also been seen that counters can be intimidated and make their own assumptions rather than doing the actual counts.

 

Bottom line is that, the methods for the 10 year Census counts have flaws built right in.  I'm not saying that the Social Compact methods are flawless, but they seem to have more cross-checking built in.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the census have a major flaw with their count in the West End?

Mayor: Census count low again

BY GREGORY KORTE | [email protected]

 

The number hasn't been released yet, but Mark Mallory already doesn't like it.

 

The Cincinnati mayor promised to challenge the U.S. Census Bureau's population estimate for Cincinnati, whatever it is, when it comes out Thursday.

 

It was a similar challenge last year that led the Census Bureau to reverse its position on the city's four-decade-old population loss. Instead of losing 22,555 people since 2000, the nation's people-counters said, Cincinnati gained 27 people from 2000 to 2005.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/NEWS01/706270362/1056/COL02

I would challenge those suburban-loving Census people on every single count they performed.  They need to look at their methodologies again and find out if they can do a better job...until then, CHALLENGE!

BTW, this was also included in the article.  Some of the differences the analysis brought forward:

 

All about Cincinnati

Population: 368,868 (compared with the Census 2006 amended projection of 331,310; original projection was 307,573).

 

Households: 166,143 (139,590).

 

Avg. household income: $53,877 ($50,371).

 

Aggregate neighborhood income: $8.951 million ($7.031 million).

 

Median home sale value: $139,715 ($134,525).

 

So the Census Bureau was undercounting the rich neighborhoods???  :roll:

 

Whether you like it or not, Cincy's population is increasing.

 

Wait until 2010. More than likely, the census had been undercounting Cincinnati for decades, and only when the city bitched, were they willing to add a few thousand people. That's hardly proof that the overall 40-year trend has changed. And guess what? Census undercounts have happened in Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Dayton, etc., etc...

 

Are the actual numbers probably higher than the census originally estimated? Of course, but the same can be said about most cities. Hell, even Gary is undercounted on a fairly regular basis...

 

Social Compact are the largest of all population estimates. They added 125,000 people to Cleveland's population in 2003, and claimed it was growing. Reality? Far from it. Cleveland is roughly 450,000 people (even less by ACS estimates) and still shrinking. You have to look at the track record of this organization...

 

Man i'm glad you are not mayor, you would send your city into ruins with your non optimistic attitude.

 

If I were mayor of the city, I would have my budget match the most accurate portrayal of the population statistics (census). The mayor who goes by the Social Compact estimates is the mayor who will get his city into serious financial trouble.

 

I have to admit, C-Dawg is making a lot of sense.  Agreed with the undercounting for decades comment. 

 

Retailers don't care how many people there are in a city.  They care about how many people are in a relevant radius of their location.

 

 

 

Exactly.  It's known as a trade area.  Municipal borders are largely irrelevant to the way the rest of the world operates.

 

that was my 1000th post and not a bad one at that.

 

I agree.  You are a gentleman and a scholar, Thomas.

 

...

 

Anyways... it can be hard to reconcile the possibility of a declining city population with all the development projects we talk about on here... but the march of time has brought upon us radically different social trends and population dynamics than the past.  Average household size has plummeted.  Less people occupy larger spaces and consume more goods. 

^Well...you've got it all figured out.  :laugh:

 

So the Census Bureau was undercounting the rich neighborhoods???

 

This is quite a good point though that I had not thought of.

Census: City's gain suburbs' loss

BY GREGORY KORTE | [email protected]

The Cincinnati Enquirer - Thursday, June 28, 2007

 

Cincinnati, once thought to be one of the fastest-shrinking cities in the country, is now gaining population at the rate of two or three people a day.

 

That's according to new annual estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, the most positive official estimates of the city's growth in decades.

 

But Cincinnati's gain is a loss for its suburbs.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS01/706280319

^ Man, I love that headline! ;)

I love how the enquirer title their stories.

 

Yesterdays title:                Mayor: Census count low again

                                      BY GREGORY KORTE | [email protected]

 

Todays title:                     Census: City's gain suburbs' loss

                                      BY GREGORY KORTE | [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are written by fourth graders

 

as for kentucky

 

Among the region's largest cities, census officials estimate Covington gained 80 people in one year (a 0.2 percent increase), but has lost 573 people overall this decade (1.3 percent). Covington is Kentucky's fifth-biggest city.

 

Florence gained 2.2 percent over one year and 14.2 percent through the decade. The city, Kentucky's 10th most populous, had an estimated 26,929 people as of July.

 

Newport lost nearly 1 percent of its population over one year and 7.8 percent through the decade, according to the federal estimates. Newport as of July had an estimated 15,721 residents, down from 17,048 six years earlier, according to the population estimators

 

Do we want to make some predictions as to what the Cincinnati number is going to be after the challenge? 

 

I'll say 342,976