Certainly possible - it would be interesting to see how the estimates of 1999 compared to the 2000 census (or what the 2000 estimate would have been).  When will the Census Bureau release the 2010 numbers?

Eighth, there is no way that this is a zero-sum game.  Which helps the overall perception of this city more, 10,000 new residents in downtown and Over-the-Rhine or 10,000 new residents dispersed beyond the I-275 loop?  Every city in this country has many miles of strip malls and condo complexes with gazebos next to fake lakes, guarded by fake guard shacks.  Only a few have authentic walkable neighborhoods.  Cities like Portland are building from scratch neighborhoods that are trying to look like old East Coast neighborhoods. We already have one, but the older generation of Cincinnatians were brainwashed into rejecting it.   

 

 

I hope you aren't talking about the failure that is City West.

 

  jmecklenborg and jjackyk - my take on what you are saying is that you think the new residents will come from both domestic immigration and suburban transplants. Fair enough.

 

    The construction value of structure parking downtown, at U.C. east and west campus, the zoo, VA building, etc., would have been enough to pay for the streetcar. What a shame.

 

    The decision to own a car, coupled with the decision to build highways and parking, is what led to the rejection of Over-the-Rhine. How much of this was "brainwashing" I don't know, but this is not a trend that is easily reversed. Downtown land owners are STILL building parking structures.  :cry:

In 1949 a small book was distributed to children in the Cincinnati Public Schools which showed pictures of new suburbs as "model neighborhoods" and the basin neighborhoods as "slums".  It explained a brighter future after the basin bulldozed and expressways were built in all directions. If that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is.  Certainly, there is no book being distributed to suburban school districts showing their suburbs as needing to be bulldozed and Over-the-Rhine as the model community. 

 

 

 

  ^--- There is no book being distributed to modern schoolkids that I know of, but it seems that in architecture and planning circles the pendulum is swinging the other way now. See Kuntsler, Jacobs, Alexander, etc.

 

  The basin developments really were slums, especially in the Queensgate urban renewal areas. There were examples of several families sharing one toilet, and it was a privy vault at that. Over-the-Rhine is modern compared to the slums that were torn down. Have we already forgotten the days when people would die by hundreds at a time of water-borne diseases such as cholera and typhoid?

 

  Also, model communities of the 1940's were places such as Mariemont and Greenhills, which we think of today as reasonably nice places. If you think about it, it is not the McMansions on residential streets that make suburban sprawl what it is; it's the commercial strips that are unwalkable. Development based on one long commercial strip with a streetcar, with residential cross-streets - imagine Glenway Avenue - is a very workable neiborhood model.

 

    No one imagined Wal*mart in 1940.

 

   

>here is no book being distributed to modern schoolkids that I know of, but it seems that in architecture and planning circles the pendulum is swinging the other way now. See Kuntsler, Jacobs, Alexander, etc. 

 

 

I shouldn't have to point out that indoctrinating every fifth grader in a large city with anti-city propaganda is different than assigning architecture and planning readings to college students enrolled in architecture and planning classes. 

 

 

>The basin developments really were slums, especially in the Queensgate urban renewal areas.

 

The photographic record (specifically the Kenyon-Barr photos) doesn't support that.  Go to the West End now.  There are lots of great buildings over there in the surviving areas north of Liberty St. and between Central Ave. and John St.  The book I'm talking about, "Cincinnati Now and Then", didn't show the actual West End because it wasn't rough enough.  Instead they showed the "slums" of Philadelphia or Baltimore or some other East Coast City in place of photographs of actual Cincinnati "slums".  Don't you realize that "slum" was a made-up propaganda term?  Just like "Where's the Beef?"  Just like "Farvergnugen"?

 

 

>There were examples of several families sharing one toilet, and it was a privy vault at that.

 

The Clifton mansions built in the 1880's didn't have flush toilets either. Please explain to me how the 3CDC condos now have flush toilets but flush toilets could not possibly be installed in the razed West End buildings.

 

The West End was *overcrowded*, but there was nothing wrong with the buildings themselves.  Over-the-Rhine was likewise *overcrowded* in the 1800's.  Funny how the problem with the buildings in the 1800's was that they were overcrowded, now the problem is that they're vacant.  Let's keep blaming the buildings instead of the propaganda and see how things turn out. 

 

 

^----Flush toilets require a water supply and a sewer to carry the wastes away. 

 

 

In Raja Roomann's book there is a map of sewers built in Cincinnati to 1886. Every downtown street in Cincinnati had sewers. About 90% of the streets in Over-the-Rhine had sewers. Only about 50% of the streets in the Queensgate urban renewal area had sewers.

 

    Privy vaults were supposed to be cleaned out. Experience showed that especially in the poor parts of town, they were not cleaned out, but leaked into the streets, or into the groundwater. A high density area without water and sewer utilities is a recipe for cholera. Believe it or not, it wasn't until 1820 that it was proven that diseases could be spread by water, when John Snow in England traced the source of an epidemic to a privy that communicated with a well for drinking water.

 

    Clifton is hilly, so it was easy to construct sewers, even if they discharged to the Mill Creek. The Queensgate area was flat, and didn't drain well, so it was harder to construct sewers.

 

    Automobiles and highways get most of the attention, but suburban sprawl is just as much about sewer and water. In the old days, the streets were built first, and then the city constructed sewers. Nowadays, sewer and water are almost invariably built first, which is much less expensive.

 

  "There are lots of great buildings over there in the surviving areas north of Liberty St. and between Central Ave. and John St."

 

    The farther south and west you went, the worse the conditions.

 

    Urban renewal worked very well in Paris, because they obliterated old, worn out, unsanitary buildings and constructed quality buildings on well-designed streets, and connected to the medieval streets. In Queensgate, they replaced an urban area with suburban commercial park development. They could have done better.

 

 

   

"In Queensgate, they replaced an urban area with suburban commercial park development. They could have done better."

 

The understatement of the year.

In Raja Roomann's book there is a map of sewers built in Cincinnati to 1886.

 

That's a very poor argument to make.  Virtually no areas of the city had sewers at all outside the central basin at that time.  If you can show that there were still unserved areas of Queensgate in the 1930s, then you might have a case.

 

Clifton is hilly, so it was easy to construct sewers, even if they discharged to the Mill Creek. The Queensgate area was flat, and didn't drain well, so it was harder to construct sewers.

 

The hilltop communities are much more difficult to provide with comprehensive sewage systems because the bedrock is so close to the surface in many places.  Also, just because an areas is flat doesn't mean it's difficult to build sewers.  The Ohio River and Mill Creek are plenty close to provide good drainage.  Again, prove that they didn't build sewers and you might have a case.

 

Urban renewal worked very well in Paris, because they obliterated old, worn out, unsanitary buildings...

 

There's nothing inherently unsanitary about any building, it's how its used that makes it so.  Yes the buildings were overcrowded, because several families would living in one house.  Yes it was unsanitary, because people couldn't afford to install plumbing or properly equip their kitchens (if they even had them).  Yes it was rundown, because of the reasons I just mentioned.  None of those reasons require clearance.  The thinking at the time is that it was just easier to wipe it out and start over, to get the "undesirables" out of the way rather than actually trying to improve their situation.  There's no reason the money spent to plow highways through the neighborhood and build awful public housing couldn't have gone to installing proper kitchens and bathrooms, enforcing occupancy limits, and providing proper garbage pickup and sanitation screening.  Had Queensgate not been demolished and just a little effort been taken to try to stabilize the neighborhood, it would look a lot like Newport does today.  It's not the best neighborhood for sure, but Newport has basically the same typology that existed in Queensgate before it was cleared, and they didn't seem to have any trouble getting the bathrooms and sewers installed.

  So, Civvik, where do you think the new residents will come from? Your choices are foreign immigration, domestic immigration, suburban transplants, and natural increase.

 

Natural Increase.

 

This line of questioning has left me absolutely baffled. Is our MSA not growing? Adding about 150k every 10 years or so?? That's plenty of home-growth, and even a small fraction of that moving downtown, uptown or OTR would go a long way.

 

Let's take a big step back and look at this from a macro perspective. We don't need millions of asians or other immigrants to move here for us to redensify our core and help the city of Cincinnati have a healthier mix of residents.

In 1949 a small book was distributed to children in the Cincinnati Public Schools which showed pictures of new suburbs as "model neighborhoods" and the basin neighborhoods as "slums". It explained a brighter future after the basin bulldozed and expressways were built in all directions. If that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is. Certainly, there is no book being distributed to suburban school districts showing their suburbs as needing to be bulldozed and Over-the-Rhine as the model community.

Who published and distributed the book? (By the tone of your post, one would assume the automobile interests published it)

>^----Flush toilets require a water supply and a sewer to carry the wastes away. 

 

You're not making any sense whatsoever.  The West End has flush toilets today. This means it could have had them in the 1800's, 1700's, or whenever they were invented.  I wouldn't doubt that many of the West End buildings torn down ostensibly because they didn't have toilets actually had them.  Because politicians tell big fat lies. 

 

>Who published and distributed the book? (By the tone of your post, one would assume the automobile interests published it)

 

http://catalog.cincinnatilibrary.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x8FJUXKoU1/MAIN/3120245/9

Published for the Cincinnati Public Schools by the League of Women Voters of Cincinnati

Call Number: 977.178 qS582 1949

12 Copies Available at Main Library

 

 

 

 

 

 

>^----Flush toilets require a water supply and a sewer to carry the wastes away. 

 

You're not making any sense whatsoever.  The West End has flush toilets today. This means it could have had them in the 1800's, 1700's, or whenever they were invented.  I wouldn't doubt that many of the West End buildings torn down ostensibly because they didn't have toilets actually had them.  Because politicians tell big fat lies. 

 

>Who published and distributed the book? (By the tone of your post, one would assume the automobile interests published it)

 

http://catalog.cincinnatilibrary.org/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x8FJUXKoU1/MAIN/3120245/9

Published for the Cincinnati Public Schools by the League of Women Voters of Cincinnati

Call Number: 977.178 qS582 1949

12 Copies Available at Main Library

 

Flush Toilets are useless without sanitary sewers and water supply, just b/c the West End has them in current times is no proof that the infrastructure was in place to have them back in the 1700's and 1800's ...the building stock in the West End was substandard as well. Slum Clearance was the big thin back in those days, mainly kicked off by the work of Jacob Riis, "How the other half lives". Urban renewal had the best intentions at the time.

 

Why would the League of Women Voters of Cincinnati have a schoolchildren brainwashing agenda?

Again, just because a neighborhood had "unsanitary conditions" doesn't mean it couldn't be fixed without demolishing the whole place.  As in the example I gave earlier, many people would say the housing stock in Newport is "substandard" too, but that doesn't mean it's not worth saving and improving.  Demolishing whole neighborhoods is a huge waste of previously invested capital.  It may be depreciated capital, especially in the most rundown neighborhoods, but Queensgate wasn't like The Bronx in the 1970s, it was still fully occupied (over-occupied even), and that's much better than abandoned and decaying. 

 

I won't go so far as to say there was a directed effort to "brainwash" people into hating the city, but perhaps propaganda is a better term.  As cities became more industrial and crowded, of course there was a reaction against it.  However, continuing to this day, most people confuse density with the problem of overcrowding that started a lot of the anti-city sentiment.  Density is NOT a bad thing in and of itself, while overcrowding is, yet most people think they're the same thing.  You can have overcrowding in the suburbs or even rural locations as well, just by cramming too many people into one dwelling unit.  At the same time, you can have huge density in high-rise neighborhoods and still have a lot of space per person in their own unit. 

 

The reaction to overcrowding was certainly justified, as was the desire to get away from pollution.  However, with much of the concentrated particulate air pollution and overcrowding gone, there's still this perception that density is a bad thing.  Early suburbs a century ago were touted for their clean air and healthy conditions, and people thought that was the only solution.  Thus the propaganda machine went into full swing, basically writing off any areas that weren't wide open and full of trees and single-family homes with white picket fences.  While the suburbs do tend to stay cooler than the cities, we've solved all the other sanitation issues, so moving farther out won't get you a much healthier environment anymore.  In fact, because of all the driving necessary to get to and from those areas, it's almost impossible to escape smog and ozone pollution, so we kind of shot ourselves in the foot on that one. 

 

  My grandfather grew up in Cumminsville and he told the story that they didn't get indoor plumbing until he was 14 years old, which was in 1922. "We had a car, but we didn't have a crapper." 

 

   

>Why would the League of Women Voters of Cincinnati have a schoolchildren brainwashing agenda?

 

You answered your own question.  Those with nefarious intentions always get someone or something people trust to do the dirty work. 

 

The gradeschool I went to was built in 1912.  It had outhouses when my grandparents went there and up until around 1938 when an expansion was built that included restrooms.  By your reasoning the 1912 section should have been torn down, but by the time I went there there were bathrooms in the 1912 section. 

 

 

 

  "By your reasoning the 1912 section should have been torn down..."

 

    I think you misunderstood me. By the reasoning of the planners in 1940, the buildings should have been torn down, not my MY reasoning. I was trying to explain what they were thinking.

 

    Read LeCorbusier's "City of Tommorrow," written in 1929, to see what the thinking was in that era.

 

    That said, I still say that sewer and water are underrated in importance. The 1948 Metropolitan Master Plan says that 60% or more of the dwelling units either needed major repairs or lacked a private bath, and the median construction date was prior to 1905. The report says that these areas were in "such deteriorated condition as to call for clearance at the earliest possible date."  The 1948 report references "the 1939-1940 real property survey" which I'm sure would be interesing. Anyone seen it?

 

    Also, don't forget that the barrier dam had not been built until about 1948, so at that time the lower Mill Creek valley flooded every time the river rose. Even if the water didn't reach the streets, it would still flood the sewers.

 

    I'm not necessarily opposed to tearing down neighborhoods. Just as some houses are deteriorated beyond repair and it's easier to start over from scratch, so are entire neighborhoods. It may cost more to add a bathroom than to rebuild the entire house, and it costs about as much to add water and sewer utilities to an existing street as it does to build a new street with utilities in a greenfield.

 

    Architect Christopher Alexander points out that it is better to build on the worst part of a site than to build on the best part of it. Applying this logic to cities, it makes sense to identify the worst neighborhood as an urban-renewal area and re-build it to modern standards.

 

    In 1948, population projects showed that "Even under current projections, the population of the basin area will decrease by 27%." The lower Mill Creek Valley was already losing population.

 

    In Hausmann's Paris, the under-performing neighborhoods were identified one at a time, cleared, and re-built, with all new streets and infrastructure. Look at a map of Paris and note how the grand boulevards cut across the older medieval network of streets. Instead of expanding ever outward like most American cities, Paris made a concerted effort to recycle the worn out areas and upgrade the utilities. The differences between Paris and Queensgate are that the in Paris the new urban buildings were of high quality and the new residential density matched or exceeded what was there before, while in Queensgate the new buildings and streets were low-density suburban in quality. In 1948, the need for more industrial property in the city was identified, as jobs were quickly moving to Woodlawn, Evendale, Sharonville, and so on. Even industrial property was becoming less dense, as single-floor factories and warehouses were replacing the older multi-floor factory buildings.

 

    What could have been done instead? Certainly, the new development could have matched the surroundings better, and there was no need to wipe out the entire Queensgate area at one time. I-75 did not need to be as wide as it turned out to be; in fact, the 1948 plan showed it much more narrow. More effort could have been taken to prevent I-75 from forming a barrier between the east and west side of the basin, perhaps with more bridges OVER I-75 instead of underpasses UNDER it. I-75 at Ezzard Charles does not disturb the neighborhood nearly as much as it does at Findley or Liberty. And certainly the urban renewal could have included some residential component better than the Laurel Homes disaster.   

 

    The problem with the Queengate urban renewal was not the fact that neighborhoods were torn down, but the fact that the new development was poorly designed. 

I still don't think you understand that urban planners and the reports they write can be dictated by politicians and businessmen to their ends and that many Cincinnati reports are of this type.  It's either the plan presented is not the actual plan or there's a bunch of BS justifying an ulterior motive or the plan is a political stall tactic.  What's so funny is tons of these DAAP kids are completely oblivious to this.     

 

>I-75 did not need to be as wide as it turned out to be; in fact, the 1948 plan showed it much more narrow.

 

No kidding.  It was the old bait-and-switch.  Show some narrow inoffensive road on a drawing, then fire up the bulldozers and tear sh*t up. 

 

Demolishing the West End introduced far-reaching problems that these brilliant planners you trust in did not anticipate.  I don't have time to list them all. 

 

 

 

  "I still don't think you understand that urban planners and the reports they write can be dictated by politicians and businessmen to their ends and that many Cincinnati reports are of this type."

 

    Oh believe me, I understand it. Some young planner who graduates from DAAP gets assigned a project with a foregone conclusion. The planner has a choice to play along and collect a paycheck or fight the system and lost his job. This is not limited to government; bureaucrats in large corporations also hire consultants to back up their opinions. Sometimes the consultants are smart enough to realize that they are just playing the game, and sometimes not.

 

    "It was the old bait-and-switch.  Show some narrow inoffensive road on a drawing,"

 

    I don't know if it was intentional or if the draftman just didn't have the technical skill to draw it realistically. Give 100 americans the task of drawing a proposed highway and 90 of them will make it too narrow, just for lack of technical skills. Perhaps the un-human dimensions of highways contribute to this. Even people trained in urban planning will not be able to draw a highway properly, especially back in 1948 when fewer Americans had ever experienced a highway.

    That said, I am aware that in some projects highway construction was used as an excuse to clear certain buildings.

 

    "Demolishing the West End introduced far-reaching problems that these brilliant planners you trust in did not anticipate."

 

    Oh, I don't trust in them. Just as in any profession, there are good planners and bad ones. As I said before, there were all kinds of alternatives that could have been done instead. What actually happened didn't take any particular skill or finesse; the task was more or less to clear the entire site, start over from scratch and build suburban-style development instead of good urban development. There was also a deliberate attempt at planned racial segregation at that time that turned out to be a failure.

 

    For a good book that shows the thinking at the time, read LeCorbusiers "City of Tomorrow" from 1929. The 1948 plan took a lot of plays from that book.

 

    In their defense, planners from 1948 just didn't have the viewpoint from today that we have. They had survived the roaring twenties and great depression, had just won WWII (probably a lot of planners spent some time in the military.) Perhaps a lot of them were buying their first cars at this time, getting married, having kids, and moving to the suburbs themselves. Can you imagine what it felt like to move to Greenhills in 1948? They knew that traffic was increasing, but the multiple-car family hadn't come into fashion yet.

 

  The 1950's were the era of progress. It must have seemed that anything was possible. It was thought at that time that by the year 2000, all of mankind's problems would be solved. Of course they were wrong. Some problems were solved; some were just relocated elsewhere, and some problems were made worse.   

 

    "Where there are people, there is trouble. Where there are no people, there is no trouble." - Josef Stalin

You can argue about the definition of a "slum" and its changing context over time, but the reality of the West End situation was a lot more complicated.

 

It was overcrowded because it was extremely difficult for African-Americans to find housing anywhere else in the city, after realtor's organizations banded together to essentially stop them from renting or buying in neighborhoods outside the basin. This meant that landlords could pack as many people into a small apartment there as they wanted, and didn't have to worry about building maintenance too much because the demand was there. They didn't have to compete for renters. We don't have this problem anywhere in the city today, so it's hard to conceptualize what it was like. We typically think of slums as areas in which the buildings are vacant or crumbling, like in many parts of Over-the-Rhine and the Upper West End today, but it was a different kind of slum back then.

 

An interesting fact is that the Kenyon-Barr project was actually supported by the residents of the Lower West End, and the bond issue would not have passed without their votes - most suburban voters turned it down.

 

Of course, they were duped into thinking that new developments would benefit them, and that they'd have first dibs at the new housing.

Mark, knock off the city bashing.

 

FYI, Marietta is Ohio's oldest city. There are numerous undeniable articles for proof -- I suggest you do a query next time. Let's keep this on-topic or it gets locked. Thanks.

The MSA is at 2,190,062 now.

 

http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/the_score/2010/08/buffalo_hangs_on_to_50th_place.html

 

I don't know if the metro added a county or 2 but 35k in one year has to be the biggest jump in decades.

I'll be interested to see how accurate the biz journal estimates are as compared to the Census figures.

This is interesting in that it states the net domestic migration in is positive over the past decade.  In recent years it has been negative (on an annual basis), albeit in relatively small numbers, with net foreign migration in and natural growth accounting for the overall growth.  Also interesting breakdowns of the data:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120602/BIZ01/306020094/Region-move?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

^ That seem to show an ever closer relationship with the Cincinnati and Dayton area.

This is interesting in that it states the net domestic migration in is positive over the past decade.  In recent years it has been negative (on an annual basis), albeit in relatively small numbers, with net foreign migration in and natural growth accounting for the overall growth.  Also interesting breakdowns of the data:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120602/BIZ01/306020094/Region-move?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

I read through it and it didn't specificaly state what the domestic migration was, only that the total in-migration was positive.  This site here: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa17140.asp shows domestic migration being negative every year since 2001 with the exception of 2006.  The net growth seemed to be from births vs deaths plus positive international migration.  From this site, at least, the Cincinnati metro hasn't had consistent domestic growth since the 1990s.  I used this site for my migration trends post in another thread recently.   

 

 

Well, they can't both be right.  I have to say that, for once, the Enquirer's figures seem a lot more in-depth than the 30,000 foot figures from that website you've been using.

What's up with that site you posted? Every year the births was around 28-30k..all of a sudden in 2010 it was only 7k. What's up with that?

Agree with jdm00.  The Enquirer's figures were good news which now can be added to the great news about Cincinnati being ranked #17 in national job-growth.  No need to muddle up such positive information with extraneous data from questionable sources that detract from our city's growing success.

I used that link because it's difficult to find a breakdown of metro numbers like that, such as births, deaths and immigration trends.  I also have this from Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/state-of-metropolitan-america-indicator-map#/?subject=7&ind=72&dist=0&data=Number&year=2006&geo=metro&zoom=0&x=0&y=0

 

From that link, it shows the net domestic migration numbers from 2000 to 2006-2009 only, though. 

 

So from Brookings, the numbers for total domestic migration are:

2000-2006: -14,710

2000-2007: -16,064

2000-2008: -19,633

2000-2009: -18,313

 

So from this site, it does show a gain between 2008-2009.

 

From the first link I posted, here would be the net changes:

2000-2006: -12,668

2000-2007: -13,501

2000-2008: -17,264

2000-2009: -17,648

 

Ironic that the link no one likes actually shows a more positive picture.  Also, looking at data, I noticed that the Wall Street Journal at this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704211704575140132450524648.html#project%3DCENSUSCHANGE_1003%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive  used the exact same domestic migration numbers that my first link did.  In any case, I've looked everywhere for yearly migration patterns for metro areas.  The US Census site doesn't have a good breakdown that I could see, and most of the links on searches are older, from the 1990s or incomplete from the 2000s.  The Enquirer article, unfortunately, did not really break it down either.  So I guess until the Census comes out with more data, trust whatever link you want. 

 

 

^^ Ya, Cincinnati is just gonna shrivel up and blow away.  :roll:

 

 

^^ Ya, Cincinnati is just gonna shrivel up and blow away.  :roll:

 

? International migration and natural increase are still more than covering any domestic migration losses, if they are still ocurring, that is.  That's why the metro continues to grow.  Domestic migration is just one part of the picture.

I've always liked this site for migration data:

 

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/bustaxstats/article/0,,id=214138,00.html

 

It tracks migration by tax return filings.  One downside is it misses non-filers.

 

I think we all know what these figures have said as I made specific reference to annual numbers in my post.  The thing that made this interesting is that the data released from the Census Bureau in this study is actually showing a gain in domestic migration.  It might be more interesting to dig a little more into this study to determine how they arrived at these numbers.  From the breakdowns it appears they are referring to domestic migration patterns.

 

This is interesting in that it states the net domestic migration in is positive over the past decade.  In recent years it has been negative (on an annual basis), albeit in relatively small numbers, with net foreign migration in and natural growth accounting for the overall growth.  Also interesting breakdowns of the data:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120602/BIZ01/306020094/Region-move?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

I read through it and it didn't specificaly state what the domestic migration was, only that the total in-migration was positive.  This site here: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa17140.asp shows domestic migration being negative every year since 2001 with the exception of 2006.  The net growth seemed to be from births vs deaths plus positive international migration.  From this site, at least, the Cincinnati metro hasn't had consistent domestic growth since the 1990s.  I used this site for my migration trends post in another thread recently.   

 

 

This is interesting in that it states the net domestic migration in is positive over the past decade.  In recent years it has been negative (on an annual basis), albeit in relatively small numbers, with net foreign migration in and natural growth accounting for the overall growth.  Also interesting breakdowns of the data:

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120602/BIZ01/306020094/Region-move?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

I read through it and it didn't specificaly state what the domestic migration was, only that the total in-migration was positive.  This site here: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa17140.asp shows domestic migration being negative every year since 2001 with the exception of 2006.  The net growth seemed to be from births vs deaths plus positive international migration.  From this site, at least, the Cincinnati metro hasn't had consistent domestic growth since the 1990s.  I used this site for my migration trends post in another thread recently.   

 

 

IRS data doesn't pick up certain people like students or others who don't pay taxes and federal workers who are witheld for security reasons. This can lead to undercounts. Also, some people file with their residence as somewhere else in order to pay lower taxes or for other reasons.

 

Census data is self-reported and can lead to inaccuracies that way.

In all seriousness we are still in decent shape, but it would be very nice to get back on the plus side of domestic migration.  We were there all through the 90's, and it looked like we had turned the corner by the mid-2000's, but have reverted back according to some numbers.  That is why the latest article caught my eye.  Worst case, Cincy averaged about a -2000 per year on domestic migration in the 2000's, which was covered by the positive international migration.  Thankfully the natural growth (births minus deaths) is fairly healthy.

 

For comparison metro Detroit had a -35000 per year domestic migation in the 2000's, and Pittsburgh had a few years in the 80's over -30000, which seemingly has negatively impacted their natural growth to this day.  Even DC averaged -20000 per year in the 2000's, but they are blessed with large international growth and extremely healthy natural growth so appear to have booming growth.  Cincy just needs to get into the +2000-3000 range per year on domestic growth, and things will look quite good.

 

^^ Ya, Cincinnati is just gonna shrivel up and blow away.  :roll:

 

 

They have the new urbanized area maps put now.

 

http://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerweb/default.htm

New census estimates for cities are out.  Cincinnati has gone back up over 297,000 -- actually ahead of where we were as of the 2010 census.  Awesome.

 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2013/PEPANNRSIP.US12A

 

That's awesome news. It looked like it was stabilizing and ready to turn around over the last few years and these estimates seems to be showing exactly that. Hopefully we can get back up over 300,000 by the next census. I know they're just numbers, but a perception of increase from a 200-something thousand city to a 300-something thousand city could help make people understand that the city's progress is real and is something that's exciting to be a part of .

^300k was also Ohio's dividing line between 2 and 3 open-container districts in that proposal from last year.  So you could have The Banks and OTR, along with a third district if Cincy can just get past that mark.  Could be a big economic impact for another bar/restaurant area like Mt Adams or Northside.  What ever happened to that proposal anyway?

That's right, I do remember that. I hope something actually becomes of that. Open container districts feel so much more alive and all the concerns people have with them really don't ever come true. I quite liked Savannah's when I lived there. The Banks, OTR, and probably Mt. Adams would be perfect districts for it. So maybe by the time that law could come into reality we'll have above 300,000 which would make it increasingly more beneficial.

That's right, I do remember that. I hope something actually becomes of that. Open container districts feel so much more alive and all the concerns people have with them really don't ever come true. I quite liked Savannah's when I lived there. The Banks, OTR, and probably Mt. Adams would be perfect districts for it. So maybe by the time that law could come into reality we'll have above 300,000 which would make it increasingly more beneficial.

 

That bill was introduced, but hasn't moved passed that in a year:

 

http://openstates.org/oh/bills/130/SB116/

Thanks. Better than rejected, I suppose.

Thanks. Better than rejected, I suppose.

 

It seems like a logical bill that would raise revenues for the state and be a tourism booster, but something tells me not very many of the Republicans, especially the ones in rural districts, would be supportive of it, unfortunately. Maybe that's why it hasn't even been considered for a vote.

The gain in population is good news however I am still cautious of Census estimates since they estimated Cincy gaining to 340,000 in 2009 only to have the population actually fall under 300,000.

 

Still the city has more real positive moment behind it now than it did back then.

^ It's the same thing that happened in Chicago.  Yes there's good momentum in some of the core neighborhoods, but can it overcome the attrition happening throughout the large swaths of middle and outer neighborhoods? 

The gain in population is good news however I am still cautious of Census estimates since they estimated Cincy gaining to 340,000 in 2009 only to have the population actually fall under 300,000.

 

Still the city has more real positive moment behind it now than it did back then.

 

Agree with that.  However, weren't those previous estimates revised upwards as a result of challenges by the city to the figures?  I don't think this is a challenge figure but instead is calculated based on whatever method they normally use, which gives me hope that it is more accurate (as their pre-challenge figures in the 2000s showing the population dropping seem to have been accurate).  Let's hope. 

will they be releasing numbers on a more local level?

I believe they only release numbers on the city level each year for populations over 50,000.