June 28, 200717 yr What does the Census Bureau do when a city like Cincinnati challenges their estimates? How does the Census come up with that revised number? Right now... I'm not sure what numbers to believe... a growing core city in a county that has one of the steepest population declines in the country seems really suspect (and every other "peer" city to Cincy continues to lose population aka northern core cities that have "artificially" small boundaries)... I wonder if the repeated challenges (and potential "political" aspect) has distorted numbers throughout Hamilton Co.... I think Tony Upton has a right to be outraged at these numbers. When the Census Bureau revised Cincy's population... did it also revise the population of Hamilton Co. or the populations of any of the other municipalities in Hamilton Co.? Apparently not... Hamilton County lost 6k from 2005-2006 according to estimates and lost 23k since 2000 Census. It just seems like these Census challenges are shifting around the deck chairs. The Bureau would have to revise estimates for every municipality in Hamilton County to get a real count... but I suppose that's what Census 2010 is for. Honestly, I just can't wait til 2010 when everyone can stop worrying about estimates and get some real numbers. % Change 2005-2006 of selected "peer" cities St. Louis -1.5 Detroit -1.5 Cleveland -1.4 Buffalo -1.1 Pittsburgh -1.1 Toledo -1.1 Boston -1.0 Dayton -0.9 Baltimore -0.8 Providence -0.8 Rochester -0.7 St. Paul -0.6 Milwaukee -0.5 Akron -0.5 Louisville -0.3 Minneapolis - The only cities over 100k to gain population are sunbelt/western cities, cities with enormous land areas that basically include a lot of suburbia within city limits (Columbus, Indianapolis) and mega-suburbs... and a few random smaller cities like Hartford and Evansville gaining 0.1%... Cincinnati appears to be an anomoly in the growth column.
June 28, 200717 yr What does the Census Bureau do when a city like Cincinnati challenges their estimates? How does the Census come up with that revised number? Right now... I'm not sure what numbers to believe... a growing core city in a county that has one of the steepest population declines in the country seems really suspect (and every other "peer" city to Cincy continues to lose population aka northern core cities that have "artificially" small boundaries)... I wonder if the repeated challenges (and potential "political" aspect) has distorted numbers throughout Hamilton Co.... I think Tony Upton has a right to be outraged at these numbers. When the Census Bureau revised Cincy's population... did it also revise the population of Hamilton Co. or the populations of any of the other municipalities in Hamilton Co.? Apparently not... Hamilton County lost 6k from 2005-2006 according to estimates and lost 23k since 2000 Census. It just seems like these Census challenges are shifting around the deck chairs. The Bureau would have to revise estimates for every municipality in Hamilton County to get a real count... but I suppose that's what Census 2010 is for. Honestly, I just can't wait til 2010 when everyone can stop worrying about estimates and get some real numbers. % Change 2005-2006 of selected "peer" cities St. Louis -1.5 Detroit -1.5 Cleveland -1.4 Buffalo -1.1 Pittsburgh -1.1 Toledo -1.1 Boston -1.0 Dayton -0.9 Baltimore -0.8 Providence -0.8 Rochester -0.7 St. Paul -0.6 Milwaukee -0.5 Akron -0.5 Louisville -0.3 Minneapolis - The only cities over 100k to gain population are sunbelt/western cities, cities with enormous land areas that basically include a lot of suburbia within city limits (Columbus, Indianapolis) and mega-suburbs... and a few random smaller cities like Hartford and Evansville gaining 0.1%... Cincinnati appears to be an anomoly in the growth column. Not all southern cities are full of suburban sprawl. Atlanta, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami are southern cities that are very dense and getting denser.
June 28, 200717 yr according to wiki atlanta is denser than columbus, but less dense than cincy or cleveland or toledo
June 28, 200717 yr If only Cincinnatians put as much effort into actually building their city as they do into fighting about every factoid that doesn't support the local entitlement mentality, it really would be one of the great American cities. Cincinnati has experienced one of the greatest urban collapses in the United States, going from one of the nation's premier cities to an also-ran. But this doesn't seem to have dawned on anyone locally. They'd rather talk about how once the Census Bureau combines them with Dayton, they'll be over 3 million population. I've never seen a city whose boosters are so aggressive at arguing facts and figures, but so passive in actually going anything to build a city. That's why former backwater towns like Columbus and Indianapolis are now nipping at Cincy's heels. They are actually out there doing something, not complaining about the Census Bureau. By the way, note how the Census Bureau/OMB is suddenly the source of gospel truth when it comes to adding all those counties to the Cincinnati MSA.
June 28, 200717 yr according to wiki atlanta is denser than columbus, but less dense than cincy or cleveland or toledo I didn't say Altanta was denser, I was trying to say that it has good density compared to may cities in the north. Since Atlanta has grown by an estimate of 50,000 since the 2000 census that density has increased significately. Here some 2000 numbers (per square mile). Atlanta: 3,161 Miami: 10,160.9 (Who said the south has no extremely dense cities) Ft. Lauderdale: 4,803.1 Cincy: 3,879.8 Cleveland: 6,266.5 Dallas: 3,469.9 My main point really was that there are southern cities that can compare to midwest cities in density and in Miami's case, blow everyone out of the water except Chicago.
June 28, 200717 yr My main point really was that there are southern cities that can compare to midwest cities in density and in Miami's case, blow everyone out of the water except Chicago. I'm glad you clarified. In my 18 years here in Miami & Ft. Lauderdale, sprawl has eaten away at what used to be the Everglades. In the pic below, the left side was the Everglades in 1900, the right side is from 1990.
June 28, 200717 yr Thats a pretty depressing pic! I flew into Ft. Lauderdale a few months back and the view from the plane was wild. You couldn't draw a straighter line between sprawl and what I am guessing is protected everglades for as far as you could see from the plane.
June 28, 200717 yr Interestingly the thing Columbus and Indianapolis are doing is annexing every piece of land they can to increase their boundary to show they are growing. If they kept their old boundaries they would be losing population. With all the urban renewal going on within the city limits, I would not say we are passive in building the city although there have been huge disappointments like the time it has taken to get the Banks project going. People here realize there is still much work to be done, and there are actually a lot of individuals working to improve the city. They also realize that American tastes have changed, and many people are moving to suburban settings for larger homes. City boundaries are such a small part of many metro areas anymore that the metro is probably the more accurate measure. The one thing I wish Mallory would emphasize is just how important a healthy core is to a healthy metro, but he has been working on the ever-elusive regional approach. If only Cincinnatians put as much effort into actually building their city as they do into fighting about every factoid that doesn't support the local entitlement mentality, it really would be one of the great American cities. Cincinnati has experienced one of the greatest urban collapses in the United States, going from one of the nation's premier cities to an also-ran. But this doesn't seem to have dawned on anyone locally. They'd rather talk about how once the Census Bureau combines them with Dayton, they'll be over 3 million population. I've never seen a city whose boosters are so aggressive at arguing facts and figures, but so passive in actually going anything to build a city. That's why former backwater towns like Columbus and Indianapolis are now nipping at Cincy's heels. They are actually out there doing something, not complaining about the Census Bureau. By the way, note how the Census Bureau/OMB is suddenly the source of gospel truth when it comes to adding all those counties to the Cincinnati MSA.
June 28, 200717 yr Interestingly the thing Columbus and Indianapolis are doing is annexing every piece of land they can to increase their boundary to show they are growing. If they kept their old boundaries they would be losing population. With all the urban renewal going on within the city limits, I would not say we are passive in building the city although there have been huge disappointments like the time it has taken to get the Banks project going. People here realize there is still much work to be done, and there are actually a lot of individuals working to improve the city. They also realize that American tastes have changed, and many people are moving to suburban settings for larger homes. City boundaries are such a small part of many metro areas anymore that the metro is probably the more accurate measure. The one thing I wish Mallory would emphasize is just how important a healthy core is to a healthy metro, but he has been working on the ever-elusive regional approach. If only Cincinnatians put as much effort into actually building their city as they do into fighting about every factoid that doesn't support the local entitlement mentality, it really would be one of the great American cities. Cincinnati has experienced one of the greatest urban collapses in the United States, going from one of the nation's premier cities to an also-ran. But this doesn't seem to have dawned on anyone locally. They'd rather talk about how once the Census Bureau combines them with Dayton, they'll be over 3 million population. I've never seen a city whose boosters are so aggressive at arguing facts and figures, but so passive in actually going anything to build a city. That's why former backwater towns like Columbus and Indianapolis are now nipping at Cincy's heels. They are actually out there doing something, not complaining about the Census Bureau. By the way, note how the Census Bureau/OMB is suddenly the source of gospel truth when it comes to adding all those counties to the Cincinnati MSA. I can't speak about Columbus (maybe someone from Columbus can), but Indy has done NO major annexations since it because a Unigov government back in 1970 (almost 40 years ago). It is not growing it population through annexation.
June 28, 200717 yr Thats a pretty depressing pic! I flew into Ft. Lauderdale a few months back and the view from the plane was wild. You couldn't draw a straighter line between sprawl and what I am guessing is protected everglades for as far as you could see from the plane. So when you fly over Cincy, Cleveland or Columbus you don't see massive sprawl?
June 28, 200717 yr Many of the inner 'burbs were family places 10-40 years ago, but their housing stock and populations have aged and you don't have a lot of new blood. There can be demographic decline that isn't a particularly negative type. Those famous empty-nesters are living in those 'burbs in the same houses without the kids. I bet places like Madeira, Silverton, Cheviot, older parts of Colerain Twnship may not actually be shrinking in household numbers but the children who grew up there are either living in Mason or Harrison or in the city or have left the region altogether. I actually think the city is in better shape that the ranch house suburbs. The housing stock has so much more potential. Parts of Amberley Village is suffering from this sort of decline.
June 28, 200717 yr I actually think the city is in better shape that the ranch house suburbs. The housing stock has so much more potential. Parts of Amberley Village is suffering from this sort of decline. There are some parts of Green Township that is full of 900 sq. ft. ranch houses that were built in the 50s and 60s. It will be interesting to see what happens in these neighborhoods.
June 28, 200717 yr For Indianapolis, I should have said they have annexed to grow. Columbus seems to slowly continue to increase in size, and has certainly benefited from this in the past, but I do not have the exact numbers or timeline over the years. Ultimately, Indianapolis is 372 - 425 square miles (depending on the source -I do not know the exact number), and Columbus is around 213 square miles, and it it is safe to say that population was added when the boundaries were increased and if the original boundaries were used population would be declining within the original area. I point this out because these cities obviously think it is important to increase the population number that is used for the city.
June 28, 200717 yr For Indianapolis, I should have said they have annexed to grow. Columbus seems to slowly continue to increase in size, and has certainly benefited from this in the past, but I do not have the exact numbers or timeline over the years. Ultimately, Indianapolis is 372 - 425 square miles (depending on the source -I do not know the exact number), and Columbus is around 213 square miles, and it it is safe to say that population was added when the boundaries were increased and if the original boundaries were used population would be declining within the original area. I point this out because these cities obviously think it is important to increase the population number that is used for the city. Just as a quick side note since we are talking about density. Marion County (Indianapolis) actually has more density than Hamilton County. Marion - 2,172 per square mile (403 square miles of land area) Hamilton - 2,075 per square mile (413 square miles of land area) I guess Hamilton County overall is even more suburban than Marion County.
June 28, 200717 yr ^Give me a break. A cursory look at the two counties on google maps and any familiarity with Cincinnati's topography explains why. There are large unpoluated areas of Hamilton County on the Great Miami and Little Miami flood plains as well as large unpopulated wooded hillsides within the city of Cincinnati itself. The whole western third of Hamilton County until recently did not have sewer service because it is in a different watershed. Indiapolis is flat, flat, flat with no such issues.
June 28, 200717 yr Acutally, If you look at Google there is a HUGE section of southwest Marion that is not developments because it is a major flood plain. Also Marion has two very large lakes that take up a lot of land as well. This could go on forever. The real point weather some Cincy people like to admit it or not is, the Cincy metro area really is no denser overall than Indy, Atlanta, Columbus, KC, etc... and I think the real issue is were are each city going. Right now, when it comes to construction, job growth, population growth, and many other economic indicators Cincy is falling farther behind these other cities. I am sure many of these other cities hope Cincy continues to live on what it once was, that means they have one less city to compete against for the future.
June 28, 200717 yr Cincinnati is clearly in relative decline. Any way you slice it, other regional peer cities (KC, Columbus, Indy) are growing faster. Keep in mind, Hamilton County peaked at 924,000 in 1970 - that's a higher value than Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis) as ever had. Now Hamilton County has less than Marion, with only 815,000 people - a drop of over 100,000 since its peak. Projections call for nearly another 100,000 in further declines over the next two decades. Even if this is reversed and Cincy actually grows, the region will continue to decline in relative standing on all measures.
June 28, 200717 yr While Hamilton County has dropped in population, i would think that it would be important also to look at the location of each major city in its county. For both Columbus and Indy they are in the geographical center of their respective county. Cincinnati, on the other hand, happens to fall on the southern most border of its county. Therefore Any of the suburbs south of the city..ie.. Northern Kentucky, are not included in their numbers. That is a large portion of cincy's suburbs that are not included in its county numbers due to city placement. Cincinnati ,is where it is, i am not complaining, i am just saying that the location of it, in regards to the county, limits its growth potential and population numbers , in general. Some something to think about (added) also, I have never heard any data showing the Cincinnati Region Declining. All the data i have seen suggests a pretty stable region, with anywhere from a 1-2% growth rate... correct me if i am wrong
June 28, 200717 yr ^ Excellent point not to be ignored! "Cincinnati, on the other hand, happens to fall on the southern most border of its county."
June 28, 200717 yr I too don't know why the doom and gloomers are out again. Where has anyone else seen this undenyable data that suggests Cincinnati is in decline. For the city: -Crime has gone down -household values remain steady -population steady...maybe growing -job base stable -and a good amount of large-scale construction projects on the table For the metro: -low crime -economic indicators are stable -consistant population growth -job growth exists and remains steady -also a good fair share of large-scale construction projects Whether these numbers are accurate or not, it doesn't really matter until the 2010 Census. I have placed my money on the notion that Cincinnati proper is indeed growing in population, and does have a larger population than what has been stated in the past. Now, I have no connections to the Census Beauro so they have no reason to appease my thoughts...nor do city leaders. Maybe the similarities between the three of us are more than I thought...but who knows. I just don't get it I guess...if someone earlier said "I think Cincinnati is larger than _____ and have better population trends than stated" they would be labeled crazy by you doom and gloomers...but now when those people are saying the same thing (while it's now supported by other authorities) they are STILL considered crazy. On another note...The enthusiasm ragerunner has for Indy, I think has exceeded even my extreme levels of enthusiasm for Cincy. Come on...drop the whole Marion County v. Hamilton County density argument...it's just crazy. That would be like me trying to suggest to someone that Cincy is more dense than Cleveland. It's just not the case. Indy, is what it is, and Cincy, is what it is...and they are two totally different animals.
June 28, 200717 yr I agree about the gloom and doomers - the city gets relatively decent news, and suddenly we have people telling everyone how terribly Cincinnati is doing. The metro population has steadily grown as well as the annual growth in number of jobs. If we could get the population growth rate closer to the job growth rate we would be in pretty good shape. I would argue that the peer cities are those that have not annexed, and regardless of the true number the city seems to be doing alright. Remember, many of those cities are half the size they once were. Atlanta is really one of the few exceptions. If you want to compare to cities that have gone the boundary extension route, then you have to begin doing a metro comparison. Either way, we are confident the metro is growing and it is really a matter of the population distribution within the region - and whether people like it or not, Cincinnati and Dayton are likely to be combined in 2010. This might be one of the few positive aspects of sprawl so we should take advantage of it.
June 28, 200717 yr Acutally, If you look at Google there is a HUGE section of southwest Marion that is not developments because it is a major flood plain. Also Marion has two very large lakes that take up a lot of land as well. This could go on forever. The real point weather some Cincy people like to admit it or not is, the Cincy metro area really is no denser overall than Indy, Atlanta, Columbus, KC, etc... and I think the real issue is were are each city going. Right now, when it comes to construction, job growth, population growth, and many other economic indicators Cincy is falling farther behind these other cities. I am sure many of these other cities hope Cincy continues to live on what it once was, that means they have one less city to compete against for the future. Everytime I drive though Indy, I get the feeling like I am in a bad strip mall full of chain stores and no originallity. While Indy may seem to have a lot going for it, the city is a fad and has no sustainability.
June 29, 200717 yr While Hamilton County has dropped in population, i would think that it would be important also to look at the location of each major city in its county. For both Columbus and Indy they are in the geographical center of their respective county. Cincinnati, on the other hand, happens to fall on the southern most border of its county. Therefore Any of the suburbs south of the city..ie.. Northern Kentucky, are not included in their numbers. That is a large portion of cincy's suburbs that are not included in its county numbers due to city placement. Agreed. I say this every time this topic comes up; we need data based on 1,5,10,25, etc. mile radii to get true apples to apples numbers here! No governmental borders, no arbitrary defininitions. Study these radii and what census blocks or tracts they encompass, then we can talk density, sprawl, declining areas and other matters.
June 29, 200717 yr Do you think Kenton and Campbell counties are really growing that much...esp. Kenton?
June 29, 200717 yr Well, I finally found a website that lets you pull population (2000 Census) by radii on a map http://demo.analygis.com/google/default.htm. Unfortunately, it only does 1,3, and 5 mile radii. This will however give us a sampling as to the density of what we can call "the urban core". Please note too that the numbers can sway by about 500 people on the one mile radius simply by moving your starting point about 100 feet over on the map, so take these with a grain of salt. On each city, I picked out the center of the city's downtown. For most, I used a focal point such as Fountain Square, Public Square, etc. For cities without those squares, I just picked a spot I deemed to be the center of downtown. The first three graphs show a lot of different cities, the last three just show Ohio cities. All are ranked by 1,3,5 mile radii in bold. The biggest surprises for me were Milwaukee and Minneapolis, go figure I guess the cold keeps everybody huddled together. Discuss.
June 29, 200717 yr First that is a very cool website. Thanks. Look at where Cincy already is and figure in the growth in the Banks, the repopulation of OTR and the hills above it and along the river to the east and west. A filled in West End. The continued growth near the river in Newport, Covington, Bellevue and suddenly you could easily get to Pittsburgh/Denver type numbers. I ran the Portland numbers and we would get in that ballpark as well. This isn't stretching or imagining a deck over the river, just a continuation of current developments.
June 29, 200717 yr That is a cool analysis...thx for sharing. Cleveland does have the lake, but their population distributed accordingly, much like a coastal city that can only grow in 3 directions instead of one.
June 29, 200717 yr Very nice site. First, my comments above were based on the metro area not just the city. But, I would agree that if you draw a circle using fountain square as your radius, I would agree with that population. It takes in almost all of Mt. Adam and about the first 4 or 5 blocks of downtown Covington. Other interesting facts that come out of that info. 1 mile circle Cincy Population: 18,747 Average income: $34,200 Indy Population: 11,029 Average income: $47,269 Hamilton, OH Population: 16,793 Average income: $32,931 First, I was shocked at the income gap between the 1 mile Indy area and the 1 mile Cincy area (even with mt. adams in the data). I would say that income in downtown Indy is one reason it has such a strong retail environment and why downtown Cincy retail has not done quiet as well. Second, I was also suprised that Hamilton had almost the same population and income as the Cincy 1 mile. This is good data to have.
June 29, 200717 yr Every one of these stats cuts both ways. For example, Cincinnati isn't central in its region. That actually helps its central population. Like almost all river cities, Cincy has unbalanced growth with the bulk of the population on the Ohio side. "Sprawl" went mostly straight north and only to a lesser extent south. Talking about density is a red herring. (We could have a separate discussion on that point, but I don't think anyone disputes that Cincinnati was originally built out in a far different style than most Midwest cities, has dense development patters, great architecture, and wonderful neighborhoods and topography). The facts are: - The Cincinnati metro area is growing, but more slowly than the national average. - The main factor that has driven Cincinnati's metro area population up over the 2 million mark is adding counties to the MSA (now up to 15 or so I believe), not organic growth. - Even in the Midwest, a number of other metros are growing faster than Cincy (KC, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis). - This means that regions that were formerly much smaller than Cincinnati have closed the gap, and continue to close it in population, economic growth, etc. just as Cincinnati has closed in on declining Cleveland. - Outside of the Midwest, Cincinnati's growth is dwarfed by the likes of Charlotte, NC and many other places in terms of population growth. - Yes, Cincinnati is growing faster than Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. But those are low hurdles to jump. - Central Cincinnati has been in a population decline for many decades. - Even if this has reversed (which is not borne out by the figures), it is really just stabilization, not real growth. - It's true in Cincy and true even in the other places I've mentioned (Indy, Columbus, etc) that while some downtown condos have been built, the totals are typically vastly inflated in media reports (e.g., "thousands of condos" implying some dizzying building spress) and the actual number built would not add up to the number of housing units in one decent sized suburban subdivision. - Even the city of Chicago, which truly is throwing up thousands of condos every year and which has experienced perhaps the greatest urban condo building boom in America because of land availability and pro-development policies, is losing population. Downtown districts represent only a small subset of a city's geographic area. The city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and the metro area as a whole continue to be relative decline. The correct way to look at yourself is not just to measure yourself against your own past, but against what is going on out there in the world. That doesn't mean mindlessly imitating others. But it does mean understanding your competitive standing, not just celebrating because someone built a few condos downtown. Even projects like the Banks, if it ever gets off the ground, are unlikely to materially move the dial. I think it is telling that it is cities like Cincinnati, St. Louis and Detroit, paragons of American decline, that are challenging estimates. Cities that are actually going somewhere don't feel the need to do this. I happen to think Cincinnati has simply the best collection of assets of any city/metro its size in America. I believe it could become a premier city again, though the days of it being a top ten place are almost certainly gone forever. But that takes hard work and working together for common projects, not just working together to complain about the Census Bureau. Cincinnatians should ignore the Census estimates, roll up their sleeves, and get to work.
June 29, 200717 yr First, my comments above were based on the metro area not just the city. But, I would agree that if you draw a circle using fountain square as your radius, I would agree with that population. It takes in almost all of Mt. Adam and about the first 4 or 5 blocks of downtown Covington. Which is why I argue for radii, not governmental or neighborhood lines.
June 29, 200717 yr Cincinnatians should ignore the Census estimates, roll up their sleeves, and get to work. First off, are you a Cincinnatian? And secondly, if you are what are you doing to help the cause. If you're not a Cincinnatian...what are you doing to help your respective city? I'm sure that everyone who is talking about these census numbers can cite the efforts they are working on to make the city a better place...including myself.
June 29, 200717 yr >I believe it could become a premier city again, though the days of it being a top ten place are almost certainly gone forever. When Cincinnati was at its peek in national population ranking in the 1850's, New York was smaller than Cincinnati's MSA populaiton is now. So is New Orleans similarly a failure? The fact is historic events such as the Civil War, the state capital not being located in Cincinnati, and its hilly surroundings prevented it from growing at the same pace as its neighbors to the north in the second half of the 19th century and growing into a much larger city than we currently know. In the 20th century it was surrounded by too many other cities...Houston, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc. all grew primarily because they were the only thing going on for 500 miles and every kid who wanted out of their small town in the region moved there. Also any company in the region set up an office or warehouse there. The fact is cities, the national population, and the world population can't keep growing in population indefinitely. There are in fact many countries with no population growth and China has been aggressively fighting to reduce its population for several decades with forced abortions, sterilizations, and by shunning second-born children. In this country the "if you're not growing you're dying" attitude seems to apply to some places but not others. Specifically, any city recognized as being historic or a tourist attraction like Savannah or New Orleans gets a pass, but everyone else needs to grow, grow, grow.
June 29, 200717 yr >I believe it could become a premier city again, though the days of it being a top ten place are almost certainly gone forever. When Cincinnati was at its peek in national population ranking in the 1850's, New York was smaller than Cincinnati's MSA populaiton is now. So is New Orleans similarly a failure? The fact is historic events such as the Civil War, the state capital not being located in Cincinnati, and its hilly surroundings prevented it from growing at the same pace as its neighbors to the north in the second half of the 19th century and growing into a much larger city than we currently know. In the 20th century it was surrounded by too many other cities...Houston, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc. all grew primarily because they were the only thing going on for 500 miles and every kid who wanted out of their small town in the region moved there. Also any company in the region set up an office or warehouse there. The fact is cities, the national population, and the world population can't keep growing in population indefinitely. There are in fact many countries with no population growth and China has been aggressively fighting to reduce its population for several decades with forced abortions, sterilizations, and by shunning second-born children. In this country the "if you're not growing you're dying" attitude seems to apply to some places but not others. Specifically, any city recognized as being historic or a tourist attraction like Savannah or New Orleans gets a pass, but everyone else needs to grow, grow, grow. You forgot about the excuse that the sun decided not to shine on Cincy, only on Columbus, Indy, Atlanta, Charlotte, KC and Minneapolis. I believe that is one of the main reasons the City continues to grow slower than the US average and much slower than the cities listed above.
June 29, 200717 yr >You forgot about the excuse that the sun decided not to shine on Cincy, only on Columbus, Indy Specifically major east/west railroads and then I-70 was built between Columbus and Indianapolis because they're on the flat watersheds between the Ohio River and Great Lakes systems. During the river era Cincinnati was an east/west transportation city but it had to change to north/south during the railroad and interstate eras. In fact the topography of Kentucky is so tough that a railroad wasn't built south to Tennessee until after the first transcontinental railroad was built, nevermind that the southern economy had been decimated by the war. Can you really sit there and deny that both Indianapolis and Columbus exist where they are for any other reason than by an accident of arbitrary mapping? The political boundaries of the Northwest Territories were established in the late 1700's by people who hadn't even been here. The state capital of Ohio was eventually moved to Columbus because it's dead in the middle of the state. If a state had instead been created that extended south into what's now Kentucky with Cincinnati at the center, then Cincinnati likely would have become state capital. In the 1800's it didn't matter so much but in the 1900's with the huge expansion of government and universities Cincinnati's MSA would minimally be 10-20% larger than it is now with a much larger state university, although UC is pretty big as-is.
June 29, 200717 yr You forgot about the excuse that the sun decided not to shine on Cincy, only on Columbus, Indy, Atlanta, Charlotte, KC and Minneapolis. I believe that is one of the main reasons the City continues to grow slower than the US average and much slower than the cities listed above. He wasn't giving excuses (that's not really jmeck's style), but rather he was citing the historical facts of development patterns/trends.
June 29, 200717 yr Jmeck makes some great points. Many people in this country are having alot less children these days. My house according to any census stat has only one person living in it right now. I am only the second owner of this 50 year old house that previously had a family that raised 6, yes 6 children in a two bedroom house. While it is good to discuss and debate these numbers, I think we psycho analyze these numbers way more than we should about reasons that really do not pertain entirely to the overall goal and economic strength or vitality of a region, county, or city. (IMO) We have reached the point where we are going to be using the term suburban infill pretty heavily in sentences. Many of us from cinci know about the first gen burbs and what is going on in neighborhoods within 6-7 or so miles from downtown. This is a vicious cycle that all towns and cities will eventually face in their own future. One shopping center or special development doesn't make the declining trends reverse themselves. It takes more than a Banks project. Look at CBD without it. It's doing fine and it will didn't shoot up overnight. It took forty years to get to this point and may take another forty to get a area back to acceptable population numbers. PEOPLE LIKE THOSE THAT ARE ON THIS FORUM ARE GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST FACTORS IN HELPING TO MAYBE REVERSE TRENDS OF THE PAST 4 DECADES. Encouraging others to have pride in there neighborhoods will and is playing a huge part in what you see in OTR. Cheviot has been making some strides lately to help boost economic pride. (simple as adding flower pots in front of businesses) West chester will someday go through this whether it be because people are moving back torward Ham Cty because of transportation costs, traffic issues, or whatever other problem you could foresee 10 -30 yrs down the road. The entire U.S. population will eventually stop growing within the coming decades. Birth and death rates will cross each other and in some areas already have. WE WILL JUST HAVE TO EVOLVE!
June 29, 200717 yr ^Very true, and a key aspect of that is that cities in the midwest/eastcoast have already begun this evolution process...whereas places like Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, Dallas, Houston all still feel like it is a never ending pot of gold. We'll see.
June 29, 200717 yr I think it is okay that Cincinnati is a pretty stable kind of town. We don't boom in the boomtimes (at least not since the 1850s) and we don't fall as hard during the downtimes (though the 90-1 recession was much worse here and its effects longer lasting). Clearly we are in the midst of some shifts in culture that depending on how it breaks could really help Cincinnati or send it further down. Growing appreciation of urbanization points toward a reinvigoration of the city and compared to our peers, Cincy has a lot to offer. However if Ohio continues its decline and Kentucky can't move away from its century and a half decline, there is a limit to how much reurbanization can help. On the negative side will always be the challenges associated with poverty and the deep cultural predilection that says that successful midwestern kids have to move away from the hometown to be successful.
June 29, 200717 yr You forgot about the excuse that the sun decided not to shine on Cincy, only on Columbus, Indy, Atlanta, Charlotte, KC and Minneapolis. I believe that is one of the main reasons the City continues to grow slower than the US average and much slower than the cities listed above. He wasn't giving excuses (that's not really jmeck's style), but rather he was citing the historical facts of development patterns/trends. Yes, I consider them excuses. Indy and Columbus could say, well if we had developed along a major river we would even be bigger today. Or if we had hills more people would move here, or mountains or oceans or ...... Indy could have said 20/25 years ago, we don't have this, we don't have that, they call us Indy-noplace and our flat terrain is to much to over come. Instead they create a plan, got the business leaders and politicians on the same page and moved forward. Now they are the fast growing metro area in the midwest, the biggest job producer in the midwest, a thriving downtown, they have become on of the largest Life Science cities in the US, and a major convention and sport destination. Cities are no different than businesses, you either organized yourself for true success (even better than your peers) or give reasons why you can only be mediocre or below average. The point still stands. These cities are growing and developing and moving towards a new economy faster than Cincy. Is Cincy growing, Yes. But at half or less the rate. The reality is, these cities decided to take a stand on their future and its is paying off at twice the rate of Cincy's efforts for their future (and this has now been the 'norm' for almost 20 years now). The sad part of all of this, Cincy really should be the one doing the best. It has the great old architecture, the scenery, the riverfront, the fortune 500 companies (double or triple most of these cities), the Delta hub, etc.... Yet with all of these advantages, its only translating into half the return of these other cities. The answer is actually simple, the business and political community doesn't have the same overall shared vision and it's now showing up in a lot of economic and quality of life stats.
June 29, 200717 yr It's all about the time and age we live in...because you're right, Indy and Columbus didn't have the major waterways to enable fast growth during the 18th and early 19th centuries and Cincy did. So yes, Cincy was growing faster...was it something special that Cincinnati did or was it simply the location that allowed it to grow the way it did? Today, on the other hand, these natural features don't make a difference (hence Phoenix and Las Vegas) and sprawl is best suited for the cheapest land and construction. Guess what...places like Cbus, Indy, Atlanta, and so on have an abundance of land and were eager to take in the developers. Is it something special that they did in order to capitalize on the sprawling growth of modern America? The point is, is that Cincy is a different city than your beloved Indy no matter how you shake it. Cincy had it's boom year during the steamboat and railroad eras...Indy is having their during the automotive era. Who's to say which city did/is doing a better job with itself. I personally think that Cincinnati is doing a great job seeing as how it hasn't totally fallen off and lost economic clout similar to places like Detroit and Cleveland. Cincinnati has continue to grow population wise and economically. To me that's a pretty good job at weathering the storm. When society changes again towards places that are built similarly to Cincy, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh then we will see those cities boom once again. Until then Indy, Cbus, and the like will continue to out pace those other places in growth. It's just a sign of the times. So, NO THEY'RE NOT EXCUSES...they're reality. Indy was left out when Cincy was booming, and now Cincy is left out while Indy is experiencing it's 'boom' (a growth rate that's slightly ahead of Cincy's...well done, great work). :clap:
June 29, 200717 yr The facts are: - The Cincinnati metro area is growing, but more slowly than the national average. So what. Could we do better yes.Could we have been worse off yes but our economy prevented that. - The main factor that has driven Cincinnati's metro area population up over the 2 million mark is adding counties to the MSA (now up to 15 or so I believe), not organic growth. Not organic? What are you talking about, just about every single metro is by far larger(square miles)than Cincinnati besides maybe Cleveland and milwaukee. And other area added evern more counties or what ever to their metro's. - Even in the Midwest, a number of other metros are growing faster than Cincy (KC, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis). They are also growing faster than NYC and Chicago right? So what's your point? Raw growth is better than percentage once you have gotten so big. - This means that regions that were formerly much smaller than Cincinnati have closed the gap, and continue to close it in population, economic growth, etc. just as Cincinnati has closed in on declining Cleveland. I don't think anyone here said Cincinnati was better than any metro. Again i don't see your point. - Outside of the Midwest, Cincinnati's growth is dwarfed by the likes of Charlotte, NC and many other places in terms of population growth. Again So. Who in the world says growth is what makes a place a great place to live? - Yes, Cincinnati is growing faster than Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. But those are low hurdles to jump. Listen I never heard on this forum about Cincinnati is faster growing than these cities. If it is, so what. We can't grab a few million people and put them in out back pocket and act like it's a trophy piece. Listen, if you don't like the town don't come here. - Central Cincinnati has been in a population decline for many decades. Dude EVERY central area has lost population. - Even if this has reversed (which is not borne out by the figures), it is really just stabilization, not real growth. I rather be stabilized than rushing to create a heart attack.
June 30, 200717 yr "Guess what...places like Cbus, Indy, Atlanta, and so on have an abundance of land and were eager to take in the developers." What? Cincy's metro area has just as much abundance of land and its just as cheap as Indy, Columbus, or Atlanta (actually many parts of Atlanta have more expensive land). "When society changes again towards places that are built similarly to Cincy, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh then we will see those cities boom once again." Change to what? Cincy has just as much sprawl that is freeway oriented as Indy or Columbus. So if sprawl becomes out of date, Cincy will feel the impacts as much as an other cities. PERIOD!!! Once again, you act like Cincy has some kind of major topography that limits its sprawl and growth. We have hills and a river, not mountains or oceans. Our topography has not stopped the metro area from sprawling over 15 counties now. :?
June 30, 200717 yr Ragerunner likes to talk about the success of Indy, but even Indy has had its failures. Back in the early 1900's it would have been considered the automobile hub of America with are the auto makers headquartered there. But, we see how Detroit took off from the auto industry and Indy's withered away.
June 30, 200717 yr Comparing Cincy to Indy doesn't work that well primarily because all the resources in the state of Indiana can concentrate on Indy in addition it is the big town for Hoosiers who don't want/like the Chicagoland area. Did they do a bunch of things Cincy didn't such as metrogov, absolutely but they also were deeply intertwined with the culture and society of the entire state in a Cincinnati has never been with large swathes of Ohio. UC and OSU are different economic animals in terms of their effect on urban development and population distribution. In terms of cultural and social effect, UCs peers are more Pitt, Temple, UIC, Toledo, Akron than OSU. As Cbus like Indy serves as the core for Ohio. If your primary identity is an Ohioan which would probably encompass 60% of the state, then you head to Cbus not Cincinnati or Cleveland. Both the boosters and the haters are right. Cincy dropped the ball during the 90s. The area never fully recovered after the 90-91 recession and the piss-poor politics during that era likely constricted growth. Add in the 2001 riots which clearly flowed from the weakness of the 90s and Cincy probably had a relatively worse decade than Indy and Cbus. My sense is that the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively better in Cincy than in a lot places. There is energy in the city and region that hasn't been around in a while. I think the streetcar push is a good example of that.
June 30, 200717 yr ^I'm pretty sure I went to UC for other reasons than my weak identity as an Ohioan. OSU has a different effect on urban development because its almost twice as big as UC! There's also been a much bigger effort to fix up the area between downtown and OSU (the short north) and the area around OSU (and Columbus in general) is percieved to be safer than UC (McMillan and Calhoun are getting much better though).
Create an account or sign in to comment