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

 

No, they do them for pretty much every place.  Here is the link for all incorporated places, regardless of size: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

 

For an even more local level, you'll have to wait for the updated census tract and block estimates that will come out later this year.

I found this new article very interesting, especially in terms of Columbus unusually big city limits.

 

http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/06/13/cincinnati-posts-second-year-of-population-growth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vertical_54+%28Residential+Real+Estate+Industry+News%29&r=full

^Are they saying Hamilton county gained 2000 the past year? hmm what happened to the estimates saying Hamilton county will be below 800,000.

 

It goes to show. Do not rely on estimates.

UC Economics Center: City of Cincinnati population growing again

Mar 30, 2015, 3:04pm EDT

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter and columnist- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

After decades of population flight and disinvestment, the city of Cincinnati's population is poised to grow modestly by the 2020 Census, according to a study done by the University of Cincinnati Economics Center.

 

The city's population is expected to grow to 301,051 by 2020, according to the study.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/03/30/uc-economics-center-city-of-cincinnati-population.html

According to Yonah Freemark of the Transport Politic, Hamilton County grew by about 1,500 residents 2014-2015

According to Yonah Freemark of the Transport Politic, Hamilton County grew by about 1,500 residents 2014-2015

 

Nice!

Hamilton Co is up by 1,266 and the Cinci metro area up by 9,269.

 

Here's a link to the data: http://1.usa.gov/1ZwwNdF

Wow... if the trend continues it looks like Columbus will surpass Cleveland with the largest county next year and the larger metro in 2017. Columbus Metro will likely be the largest Metro (over Cincy) by 2020. This, of course, presumes that current trends continue. If the Cincy Metro starts to grow more quickly, it may take Columbus longer to catch it.

Growth of any kind is good in the Cincinnati area especially considering how far it has fallen.

 

All that said, how can the city really amp that up?  I read an article recently on the Port wanting to accumulate a lot of brownfield sites in the Mill Creek area and prepare them for development which could really bode well for the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, but it seems everyone is standing around with their fingers in the air.  I get frustrated at the conservativeness and the lack of ability to think ahead to the future that I think really bogs down Cincinnati in general. 

 

If you own a business, you make strategic investments to boost your bottom line.  Things like the streetcar, road diets, burying utilities, etc.  All these things encourage development, along with incentives of course, but everyone has incentives.

 

We have an opportunity to really leverage available land that is not usable to really build up the middle or lower middle class in this city with high tech manufacturing.  Yet, I don't ever see any of the republican commissioners giving it a sniff.  Mayor Cranley may be interested but he probably won't commit anything unless the county does, which I guess is smart in a way, because the city makes the county go. 

 

I guess this is just me venting frustration at the lack of foresight by the county commission in regards to working with the Port, who has shown they do a great job and are lead by very bright people, dare I say much brighter than our elected officials...

Growth of any kind is good in the Cincinnati area especially considering how far it has fallen.

 

All that said, how can the city really amp that up?  I read an article recently on the Port wanting to accumulate a lot of brownfield sites in the Mill Creek area and prepare them for development which could really bode well for the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, but it seems everyone is standing around with their fingers in the air.  I get frustrated at the conservativeness and the lack of ability to think ahead to the future that I think really bogs down Cincinnati in general. 

 

If you own a business, you make strategic investments to boost your bottom line.  Things like the streetcar, road diets, burying utilities, etc.  All these things encourage development, along with incentives of course, but everyone has incentives.

 

We have an opportunity to really leverage available land that is not usable to really build up the middle or lower middle class in this city with high tech manufacturing.  Yet, I don't ever see any of the republican commissioners giving it a sniff.  Mayor Cranley may be interested but he probably won't commit anything unless the county does, which I guess is smart in a way, because the city makes the county go. 

 

I guess this is just me venting frustration at the lack of foresight by the county commission in regards to working with the Port, who has shown they do a great job and are lead by very bright people, dare I say much brighter than our elected officials...

I don't think the city population numbers came out. The Metro has never lost population.

No, but Hamilton County did. It has been falling for 46 years. A gain, even one of only 5, 328 since 2010, is a big deal for Hamilton County. That means it has not only stopped a half century long trend of decline but has begun gaining again, albeit slowly. If the curve continues the way it has we could see some steady growth in Hamilton County for awhile.

 

They haven't released numbers for cities yet, but I have to imagine a good chunk of that is from the city itself doing good things as has been evident in past year estimates showing the city gaining for the first time in over 6 decades.

Yes sorry, that was confusing on my part.  I was talking about Hamilton County.

 

Hamilton County peaked at 924,018 people in 1970, and is now down to the 807,598, adding a little over 5,000 people in the last 5 years.

 

Cincinnati peaked at 504k and 502.5k in 1950 and 1960, and now is closing in 299k.

 

I think in the next 5 years though, the way the city has a lot of momentum, it should continue to grow.

 

I was in Nashville last weekend, and that city is really booming.  They have the whole Country Music down to a T.  I was thinking, Cincinnati isn't really known for anything besides the Reds, Bengals and maybe Chili nationwide.  I feel like Cincinnati could do really well with a more or less country music district, albeit would be much much smaller than Nashville.  I am talking in an area like OTR or something similar.  Nashville really does it up with the neon signs and they draw in a ton of tourists.  I just feel Cincinnati can learn a lot from a city like Nashville or even a New Orleans in regards to taking advantage of it's assets to make it more of a draw for people around the region.  So people in Indiana say, I really want to move and work in Cincinnati.  Or people in Kentucky saying that, etc.

I think our best bet is being an historic tourist city, a la Savannah. Savannah draws thousands through heritage tours, attractions, etc. that are mostly gimmicks and really uninteresting, but it works. We should focus on emulating their success since we have some of the best historic building stock in the Midwest.

Yeah, that seems a good approach.

 

Since I am from further up north, I've always thought of Cincinnati as more of a southern city, and sharing a border with Kentucky, it does have that southern feel.  I wish the city had a little better logo.  Something like Louisville has is cool, Cincinnati's just seems so 1995.  And it could play off of being the Queen City, like on the cruisers and website have a gold crown with a black background, something like that.  I just don't like Cincinnati's logo at all.

Hey! We have the Cincinnati USA logo, too!

 

Nashville's population is growing despite having almost zero walkable neighborhoods, virtually non-existent bus service, virtually zero historic buildings, and sky-high housing prices.  Country hasn't been anything other than pop music since 1990.  The popularity of Nashville makes no rational sense. 

I actually don't mind the Cincinnati logo.

 

We have the city seal we could use.

 

My issue with it is that, it doesn't seem to correlate with what I picture the city.  The logo seems like a logo from Colorado or some mountain state with the color scheme.  Cincinnati is an old river city, and I think really pushing the Queen City could give it more of a distinct marketing niche, more of an edge.  Because Cincinnati does have a certain edge to it, and we should play off that as a city. 

Back when the city's flag was being designed (1890s I believe), the mayor at the time said he would absolutely not consider anything with a crown on it because he thought it was gimmicky. I'm glad he made that decision.

"Queen City" is really not a very unique identifier. LOTS of cities all around the world use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_City

 

Hey our streetcar trains came from another Queen City!

Lol, man I think you all are tripping!  If I knew how to do vector art or something, I could make something sweet.  A black background with a gold queen crown, like the 1st column, 3rd row, or 2nd column, first row, or even to get crazy, 1st column, second row

 

Then you circle around text at the top, Cincinnati, and the bottom circle text, Queen City.  That would look dope :clap:

 

The current logo looks like Minneapolis' lame logo.  A light blue and green "C", come on, we can come up with something better and more distinct than that!!

 

Haha and just FYI, I am not trying to ruffle feathers, just my opinion here.

 

 

Nashville's population is growing despite having almost zero walkable neighborhoods, virtually non-existent bus service, virtually zero historic buildings, and sky-high housing prices.  Country hasn't been anything other than pop music since 1990.  The popularity of Nashville makes no rational sense. 

 

Agreed. It's popular with hipsters though (well hipster by southern standards lol). Nashville is sort of like Austin. But I'd say Austin wins for nightlife, since Sixth Street is a good knockoff of Ohio University.

 

*A lot of the growing cities in America don't make sense. Ohio's big cities besides Columbus beat most of the inland boomtowns in America.

I like the "River and Crown" logo on the older police cars, but I think that's only for the police department.

Minneapolis' logo looks like-

 

Nashville's population is growing despite having almost zero walkable neighborhoods, virtually non-existent bus service, virtually zero historic buildings, and sky-high housing prices.  Country hasn't been anything other than pop music since 1990.  The popularity of Nashville makes no rational sense. 

 

Agreed. It's popular with hipsters though (well hipster by southern standards lol). Nashville is sort of like Austin. But I'd say Austin wins for nightlife, since Sixth Street is a good knockoff of Ohio University.

 

*A lot of the growing cities in America don't make sense. Ohio's big cities besides Columbus beat most of the inland boomtowns in America.

 

 

Yeah this would be a great topic for a podcast or at least one of those click bait architecture articles.  You could get a ton of clicks from the sort of vs. threads that are banned from most discussion forums.  Cincinnati vs. Nashville would be pretty ugly.  Cincinnati might very well have more walkable neighborhoods with functioning business districts than the entire South. 

There is some weird relationship going on between Cincinnati and Nashville (I think Nashville landed a ton of Cincy area transplants), but Cincinnati utterly wipes its floor clean. I'm totally baffled on what's attracting millennials to Nashville (or Charlotte, or Raleigh, or the myriad of other southeastern boomtowns). Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans I get. I also see an argument for Atlanta considering its cheap rents, downtown corporate base, and transit infrastructure. But Nashville? How did this happen? Charlotte???

 

These are some of the last cities I'd ever expect to be popular with young people...but they are exploding in population with ex-Ohioans.

 

I think that's really the most frustrating aspect of these population trends. Raleigh basically overtook Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo in a span of 20 years. It can't hold a candle to any of those older, more "real" cities...

 

I completely understand why Ohio cities are falling behind West Coast and East Coast cities (and Chicago), but the southern boomtowns are confusing. They are not good places for a traditional urban singles lifestyle. Ditto with the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain cities.

I'm totally baffled on what's attracting millennials to Nashville (or Charlotte, or Raleigh, or the myriad of other southeastern boomtowns).

 

Jobs.

 

That's the main reason anyone moves anywhere.  This applies to Texas and Arizona as well.  The thing is, these sunbelt cities are mostly only growing because...they're growing.  Growth itself is the growth industry, which usually means sprawl-building and little else.  Even in Charlotte's case, a sub-hub of the financial industry, it's about financing sprawl. 

Cincinnati should really emphasize just how German the city is.  It was the 2nd most German city in the United States after Hoboken New Jersey where the German's literally got off the boat.  There are already plenty of events to showcase this, but no unifying theme to tie them together and getting that theme is stupid easy and part of the reason why I make such snide comments about Cincinnati's ability to market itself.  A city that has 4 or 5 German festivals a year and a strong beer culture that is built on the ashes of deep beer history that you can even seen underground.  This stuff writes itself!

 

Take a look at SW Wisconsin for instance, its a heavily Swiss German region that attracts some regional day trip tourism from Chicago building upon its unique German heritage - and these are just a series of well manicured small towns, its nothing compared to Over the Rhine but they are at least trying (unlike Cincinnati) and they have some success (it helps that there is an excellent brewery in the area too):

 

http://www.greencounty.org/

 

There are volumes and volumes of historic stories from Annie Oakley to James Brown all of which can be capitalized upon as they are genuinely interesting and not every Midwestern town has these kinds of stories.  There are unique sites like churches with German inscriptions and beer tunnels as well as a rich brewing heritage as the Urbanophile said its an embarrassment of riches (and I'd argue its an embarrassment of riches that Cincinnati is embarrassed to share with the rest of the world).

 

The country music district IMO isn't good for Cincinnati, when it comes to pop music, really Cincinnati should do everything it can to play up King Records and its legacy.  One of the few things I genuinely liked from the parks plan IMO was making the old site into a memorial/museum.

Nashville's population is growing despite having almost zero walkable neighborhoods, virtually non-existent bus service, virtually zero historic buildings, and sky-high housing prices.  Country hasn't been anything other than pop music since 1990.  The popularity of Nashville makes no rational sense. 

 

Agreed. It's popular with hipsters though (well hipster by southern standards lol). Nashville is sort of like Austin. But I'd say Austin wins for nightlife, since Sixth Street is a good knockoff of Ohio University.

 

*A lot of the growing cities in America don't make sense. Ohio's big cities besides Columbus beat most of the inland boomtowns in America.

Cincinnati might very well have more walkable neighborhoods with functioning business districts than the entire South. 

 

If you're taking out New Orleans and Richmond (and per capita, Louisville/Savannah/Charleston/Miami Beach), sure.

I'm totally baffled on what's attracting millennials to Nashville (or Charlotte, or Raleigh, or the myriad of other southeastern boomtowns).

 

Jobs.

 

That's the main reason anyone moves anywhere.  This applies to Texas and Arizona as well.  The thing is, these sunbelt cities are mostly only growing because...they're growing.  Growth itself is the growth industry, which usually means sprawl-building and little else.  Even in Charlotte's case, a sub-hub of the financial industry, it's about financing sprawl. 

 

People move speculatively to places like Austin and Nashville without a job.  Then they just wait tables, hang out, act like they're going to start a band, and post a bunch photos of themselves at events on Facebook. 

 

Some cities just have a romantic appeal to them. I don't think people do a ton of research before making those types of decisions to just pack up and move speculatively. Think about rust belt bands that have made it big in the past couple of years and how they immediately left the rust belt. Heartless Bastards left Cincinnati/Dayton for Austin; The National left Cincinnati for Brooklyn; Black Keys left Akron for Nashville; Jack White left Detroit for Nashville. To fans of those bands, they just got confirmation that Austin/Nashville/Brooklyn must be awesome!

Yeah totally Jake. And as we all know that's how you can afford those rising rents all over those cities. By doing nothing but pretending you are.

 

If what you said was true of anything more than a negligible fraction of the population then those cities wouldn't have continued thriving. And we know that isn't the case so clearly this isn't an answer to the question you responded to.

I'm totally baffled on what's attracting millennials to Nashville (or Charlotte, or Raleigh, or the myriad of other southeastern boomtowns).

 

Jobs.

 

That's the main reason anyone moves anywhere.  This applies to Texas and Arizona as well.  The thing is, these sunbelt cities are mostly only growing because...they're growing.  Growth itself is the growth industry, which usually means sprawl-building and little else.  Even in Charlotte's case, a sub-hub of the financial industry, it's about financing sprawl. 

 

People move speculatively to places like Austin and Nashville without a job.  Then they just wait tables, hang out, act like they're going to start a band, and post a bunch photos of themselves at events on Facebook. 

 

 

LOL

IMO the only thing we can do is keep building in our core according to "Walkable City" principles, and incrementally build the kind of ecosystem where people (and businesses) want to be. Add a few thousand people in the basin and some Uptown and suddenly the Mt. Auburn tunnel seems possible. Build that and experience a true boomtown. Add light rail to Northside to connect even more neighborhoods.

I'm totally baffled on what's attracting millennials to Nashville (or Charlotte, or Raleigh, or the myriad of other southeastern boomtowns).

 

Jobs.

 

That's the main reason anyone moves anywhere.  This applies to Texas and Arizona as well.  The thing is, these sunbelt cities are mostly only growing because...they're growing.  Growth itself is the growth industry, which usually means sprawl-building and little else.  Even in Charlotte's case, a sub-hub of the financial industry, it's about financing sprawl.

 

Another thing about these new growth cities is that they are terrible at retaining natives, especially cities with little in the way of walkabilty aND rail transit. So everyone's bolting but the cities still have to function. That means job openings and outsiders moving in to fill the positions.

 

I feel natives bolting is the root of Columbus' lack of rail. Nobody stays and fights for rail and walkability, so therefore we don't get it and even more natives bolt. Bolting isn't as much of a problem in Cincinnati due to its more paternal culture and the strong personal networks of native Cincinnatians.

^ Yeah that's an interesting observation. When I was in high school and first few years of college, it seems like there was a general mood of "this place sucks, let's move outta here." But during college I got pulled into all of the changes starting to happen in Cincinnati and made the decision to stay here and try to change things for the better. I think things have changed so dramatically in the past ~5 years that most young Cincinnatians have found their scene (whether it's Northside or OTR or wherever) and no longer have an urge to leave "lame" Cincinnati and go elsewhere. On one of my alumni Facebook groups, I will occasionally see posts like, "I love Cincinnati but I'm moving to LA to take my career to the next level" (which makes since because a lot of my peers went the audio/video production route). But it's never, "Cincinnati sucks and I need to get out of here".

^ Yeah that's an interesting observation. When I was in high school and first few years of college, it seems like there was a general mood of "this place sucks, let's move outta here." But during college I got pulled into all of the changes starting to happen in Cincinnati and made the decision to stay here and try to change things for the better. I think things have changed so dramatically in the past ~5 years that most young Cincinnatians have found their scene (whether it's Northside or OTR or wherever) and no longer have an urge to leave "lame" Cincinnati and go elsewhere. On one of my alumni Facebook groups, I will occasionally see posts like, "I love Cincinnati but I'm moving to LA to take my career to the next level" (which makes since because a lot of my peers went the audio/video production route). But it's never, "Cincinnati sucks and I need to get out of here".

 

I completely agree. It's blatantly visible on tee's now - for example. "Cincinnati against the world, HOME, Queen city this & that" ... there's definately a sense of pride now that wasn't present when I was in High School.

Hmm Cincinnati sucks? Do they mean the people? If you placed Cincinnati folks in Austin and Austin folks in Cincinnati. Would they have reverse growth rates??? If it is the people then there is a WHOLE lot of education to do in this area.

Hmm Cincinnati sucks? Do they mean the people? If you placed Cincinnati folks in Austin and Austin folks in Cincinnati. Would they have reverse growth rates??? If it is the people then there is a WHOLE lot of education to do in this area.

 

I don't think there was much logic behind it. It's just like people saying "there's nothing to do in this city!" It was just pure negativity, and I haven't really seen very much of it recently from younger people.

 

The only negativity I see about the city is from suburbanites who comment on WCPO articles about something happening in the urban core and commenters saying, "Why are they trying to do x? Cincinnati's not a big city and is never going to be one!" (Yeah, not with that attitude.)

 

Anyway, I'm starting to veer away from the topic of this thread...

I can speak for alot of millennials in that OTR and it's rebirth of being a food/drinking/entertainment tour de force is really what made Cincinnati, "cool" again.

 

I know alot of UC main campus students, who live on campus, and are seriously contemplating moving down to OTR in the coming months/year simply because they want to be in the middle of all there favorite things that OTR has to offer. Having a street car that connects UPTOWN to OTR will only create a more "tied" down effect. Where you would usually see UC students move out of Cincinnati, or move to the suburbs, you will begin to see a bigger desire for downtown core living. An OTR is 100% for that.

 

OTR is honestly what will propel Cincinnati forward. It's already known by many urbanists as one of the crown jewels of 19th-20th century preservered architecture. The sheer collection of buildings in practically unmatched in the Midwest, let alone most of America (barring the already heavily tourist historic zones like The North End in Boston, or Savannah). I think the quicker more of OTR becomes revitalized, more world class restaurants and bars/entertainment options start appearing, the more you will begin to start seeing tourists in OTR and in Cincinnati. An in turn those tourists might fall in love with the city as a whole and decide to move here.

 

OTR is the key to Cincinnati success. You have world class entertainment options in Music Hall, Ensemble Theater, The soon to open Shakespear Theater, and others. You have a great drinking/bar crawl scene with the like of Japps/16bit/Sundry and Vice, and you are starting to see a world class foodie scene as well with the likes of Gomez, The Eagle, Bakersfield, Abagails, Nicholoas, Findley Market in general. Add that, with the fact that we have the largest collection of pre-prohibition breweries in all of North America, plus the largest collection of Italianate arheciture, and you will see why OTR has the potential of becoming a major tourist draw.

 

And those tourists, will hopefully become potential residents of Cincinnati. An Cincinnati metro population will grow.

 

We went to OTR last night and it's amazing how much traffic in a rainy chilly Wednesday night comes through OTR.

I can speak for alot of millennials in that OTR and it's rebirth of being a food/drinking/entertainment tour de force is really what made Cincinnati, "cool" again.

 

I know alot of UC main campus students, who live on campus, and are seriously contemplating moving down to OTR in the coming months/year simply because they want to be in the middle of all there favorite things that OTR has to offer. Having a street car that connects UPTOWN to OTR will only create a more "tied" down effect. Where you would usually see UC students move out of Cincinnati, or move to the suburbs, you will begin to see a bigger desire for downtown core living. An OTR is 100% for that.

 

 

There is more of a "local pride" thing going on nationwide.  This is in large part because for decades LA and LA's local culture was the center of the entire country's pop culture.  I can't expect younger people to understand just how dominant the entertainment industry's continual endorsement of California was.  Sitcoms and other shows that were set in cities had a negative angle.  The shows in not-California locations that had a positive bent were things like Dallas.  The show Sex in the City single-handedly influenced tens if not hundreds of thousands of young women to move to New York or other big cities.  I found the show absolutely nauseating. 

 

There is a huge difference between the type of person who is moving to the cities now versus in the 60s-90s.  Previously it was artists, musicians, gays, and eccentric counter-culture people.  But now, cities are filling back up with the sort of people who previously stayed in the suburbs, but as the city populations get more ordinary, the cultural effect of moving to the city has been diluted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^Seinfeld, Friends, Frazier, etc. also popularized the city.

I'd say Friends has had the largest influence on the "back to the city" movement out of any TV show. It still feels relevant to 20-somethings and has a very positive image of the city. Being one of, if not the most, successful shows ever created it's not surprising that many who study the topic of TV on living patterns place quite a lot of emphasis on the influence Friends has had on repopulating city centers.

I'd say Friends has had the largest influence on the "back to the city" movement out of any TV show. It still feels relevant to 20-somethings and has a very positive image of the city. Being one of, if not the most, successful shows ever created it's not surprising that many who study the topic of TV on living patterns place quite a lot of emphasis on the influence Friends has had on repopulating city centers.

 

I'm veering off-topic, but the funny thing here is how Friends painted an image of the city that was almost too positive.  For the majority of the series, there was really only one white collar job between the 5 friends who split what seemed to be about 5,000 square feet of living space in Greenwich Village (Ross being the 6th friend with his own living situations).  The struggling actor, food service worker, masseuse, and newly-independent Rachel lived a pretty charmed life, and I always wonder how that affected the big city dreams of people who grew up with the show.

It resulted in a lot of people being knocked down by the reality of city living, I'm sure.

 

I remember reading a ton about how sitcoms influence how a generation chooses to live and not the other way around. Post-WWII, most TV showed suburban life as perfect and "the dream" and cities as this place where only crime drama could possibly occur. That switched gears pretty dramatically in the early 90s reversed much of those ideas. People growing up with the Archie Bunkers of pop culture flocked to the suburbs and people growing up with the Friends/Seinfeld/Cheers of pop culture are interested in cities again.

As a side note, several people have said upon seeing my condo in OTR for the first time, "This looks like the set of a sit-com." The difference is that in Cincinnati, anyone with a decent job can easily afford a nice-sized urban condo right in the urban core, while all of these sit-coms showing waiters and struggling actors living in nice apartments in Greenwich Village or Williamsburg are totally unrealistic.

It resulted in a lot of people being knocked down by the reality of city living, I'm sure.

 

I remember reading a ton about how sitcoms influence how a generation chooses to live and not the other way around. Post-WWII, most TV showed suburban life as perfect and "the dream" and cities as this place where only crime drama could possibly occur. That switched gears pretty dramatically in the early 90s reversed much of those ideas. People growing up with the Archie Bunkers of pop culture flocked to the suburbs and people growing up with the Friends/Seinfeld/Cheers of pop culture are interested in cities again.

there were enormously popular sitcoms in the 70's that made urban life appealing way before "Friends" (:-P) that I believe started this "back to the city" trend--

I just assume that the characters in sitcoms are so realistic that they are able to live in such nice, $4000+ per month apartments in NYC because they, not unlike a handful of people I know, use their paycheck solely on clothes and booze, and pay the rent with their parents money.