I was sliding between generalizations. I was saying that 'Ohioans' look to Cbus as the city, whereas one of the key markers of a Cincinnatian is that s/he barely acknowledges that s/he lives in a state at all. OSU is actually only about 1/3 bigger - 15,000 more than UC depending on whose fudging the numbers on which day. I was actually thinking regionally rather than directly speaking to the neighborhoods around campus. The OSU allure seems to draw alumni to live in the Cbus region after graduation more so than UC. That is at least my impression. UC's strongest programs all seem to scatter their graduates across the country rather than building up the local area - CCM and DAAP most obviously are this way. I'm not as sure about Engineering.

Yeah I don't know any fellow DAAPers particularly wanting to stay. Especially design students. I went to a furniture exhibit downtown, all stuff made by ID students, and I talked to an Industrial Design student that Co-oped with Puma in Boston...4 of his shoes are going on the market in other countries or are already on the market and he hasn't even gotten his degree yet. Needless to say, Cincinnati doesn't exist in his mind. DAAP also has students from all over the country so they're likely to move back where they came from as opposed to typical in-state students who tend to go to a school close to home.

"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 So if sprawl becomes out of date, Cincy will feel the impacts as much as an other cities.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.

 

Some of this is just silly...first of all there is major topography limitations in Cincinnati that affect it's growth patterns (especially when you look back at the historical development of the city) and if you don't believe me maybe you should contact Eric Russo for some additional information on the subject matter.

 

The metro is over 15 counties, but a big time contributer to that is the various other cities that have been settled in the region since the 18th and early 19th centuries...it's a combination of sprawl from places like Middletown, Hamilton, Covington, Newport, Dayton, Harrison, Lebanon, etc.  Whereas places like Indy and Cbus have been the almost sole contributers to sprawl in their region (obviously with a few exceptions).

 

Oh and if you don't want to believe me about the smaller impacts that sprawl has had on Cincinnati compared to other places...maybe have a talk with Andres Duany who said one of the greatest things about Cincinnati is that it has managed to avoid much of that crap.

 

I really wish I didn't have to cite every last comment that I make on here sometimes.  It gets quite ridiculous, but please feel free to question me on every comment...I'm ready willing and able to defend my points.

Here is a quick map I created with the places I mentioned (with a couple others) that illustrate the spread of settlements in the present day metropolitan area.  This places have been growing outward ever since their inceptions.

 

One other quick note:

 

Cincinnati MSA

Population = 2,058,221

Land Area = 4,399 square miles

Persons per square mile = 468

# of counties = 13

 

Indianapolis MSA

Population = 1,607,486

Land Area = 3,523 square miles

Persons per square mile = 456

# of counties = 10

 

There are the facts...you make the call on which city is more sprawl/auto oriented.

^ Hes going to have something to say about how you didn't point out the CSA of Indy. Sometimes you just can never please people, no matter what kinda facts we come up with.

Cincy's CSA adds only one more county and 43k residents, with an area of 412 mi^2

 

Indy's adds about 317k  in 5 counties with an area of 2184 mi^2

Cincinnati CSA

Population = 2,147,617

Land Area = 4,811 square miles

Persons per square mile = 446

# of counties = 14

 

Indianapolis CSA

Population = 1,984,644

Land Area = 5707 square miles

Persons per square mile = 347

# of counties = 15

 

Remember Cincinnati's MSA/CSA includes Kentucky counties, which are smaller than Indiana or ohio counties.

Population density isn't always a good indication of sprawl or lack of sprawl. Much of the land could be protected parkland, etc. Cincinnati's definitely more urban though.

Here is a quick map I created with the places I mentioned (with a couple others) that illustrate the spread of settlements in the present day metropolitan area.  This places have been growing outward ever since their inceptions.

 

One other quick note:

 

Cincinnati MSA

Population = 2,058,221

Land Area = 4,399 square miles

Persons per square mile = 468

# of counties = 13

 

Indianapolis MSA

Population = 1,607,486

Land Area = 3,523 square miles

Persons per square mile = 456

# of counties = 10

 

There are the facts...you make the call on which city is more sprawl/auto oriented.

 

So you are basing your opinion that Cincy MSA has so much less sprawl and auto orientation because it has 12 more people per square mile? That about an extra 4 houses. WOW!!!

 

Cincy MSA has just as much sprawl (-12 people less per square mile) than Indy (and probably similar cities like Columbus, KC) and car dependency. Cincy's MSA would be just as impact by high gas prices and the lose of sprawl development as Indy or many other cities.

 

I still stick with my main point that I bolded in an above post.

 

Indy create a plan, got its business leaders and politicians on the same page and moved forward and that effort is now paying off at twice the rate of Cincy's efforts in almost all economic indicators. (This has now played out for the last 20 years.)

 

Just as a side not, Cincy MSA has 15 counties not 13 and its CSA has 16 not 14.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html

 

The Sad part of all this, during the time we have spent discussing this topic, Cincy, Indy, Columbus, KC, etc... have probably added X amount of more suburban housing and strip centers and just became a little more auto oriented. None of these cities have any mass transit systems current under construction but, they all have billion of dollars in road projects under construction.

I'll be honest, didn't actually count the counties, I just added one to Randy's numbers

I'm curious as to how many square feet of park there is in Cincinnati's MSA. And just for fun ( ;-) ) Compare it to Indy's

This whole civil war 2.0 thing is getting on my nerves. There are a million good and bad things we can all say about Cincinnati, Indy, Atlanta, etc. This is really getting obnoxious. For a city of its size, Cincinnati is extremely walkable. There are so many great neighborhoods where you can walk from your house to a neighborhood business district with many unique stores. Pleasant Ridge, Montgomery, Northside, College Hill, East Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, Price Hill, Mt. Adams to name a few. I kinda miss that now that I'm trapped in a sh!tty Dominion homes subdivision in Columbus right now. I understand Atlanta has a lot of skyscrapers and the residents make more money and I'm happy for them but its all a matter of what's most important to you and you're not going to change what people percieve that as.

I'm curious as to how many square feet of park there is in Cincinnati's MSA. And just for fun ( ;-) ) Compare it to Indy's

 

Actually Cincy would probably lose that one. Part of Indy's current MSA is Brown County. Which is home to Brown County State Park that covers 15,696 acres as well as Yellow Wood State Forest and part of the Hoosier National Forest. With that said I think Hamilton County, OH has one of the best county park systems in the US. :wink2:

While Cincy had it's initial boom back in the steamboat days, it had another smaller "boom" im the 70's, when many skyscrapers were built and the city was the envy of the region.  Indy in these days was really just a blip on the radar.  Now, Cincy is no longer booming like it was, and Indy is.  These booms come and go, Indy is just experiencing theirs about 30 years after Cincy did.

^Booming in what way? Indy went from 900.8 thousand job to 907.2 thousand from may 2006 to may 2007. While cincinnati  went from 1104 in may 2006 to 122.6 in may 2007. It seems Cincinnati is booming twice as fast as Indy.

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf

What is Indy's annual public transport ridership total compared to Cincy's METRO and TANK? That should be a good way of show auto dependancy.

While Cincy had it's initial boom back in the steamboat days, it had another smaller "boom" im the 70's, when many skyscrapers were built and the city was the envy of the region.  Indy in these days was really just a blip on the radar.  Now, Cincy is no longer booming like it was, and Indy is.  These booms come and go, Indy is just experiencing theirs about 30 years after Cincy did.

 

You cannot tell arenn or ragerunner that.

 

Did ragerunner comment on Macy's being a target of an acquisition? - Yes.

Did ragerunner comment on Cincinnati Bell's profit up 7%? - No.

Is Ragerunner or Arenn fooling anyone on here? - No.

 

... a doom and gloom poster that can only say one thing:

 

... Indy create a plan, got its business leaders and politicians on the same page and moved forward...

 

... ladies and gentleman, I present to you ... *gasp* ... *more gasp* ...

 

A freakin mall in a downtown. lol.

 

 

 

Get a life it's going to take more than shopping to get us pumped up. BTW, I guarantee you Cincy's downtown has been more vibrant than Indy's lately.

 

 

On that map upthread, with Dayton at 1805.  Dayton was settled in 1796 or 1797. 

 

Some other towns founded in the last decade of the 18th century were Franklin, Waynesville, and Deerfield, which was renamed South Lebanon at some later date.

 

I always found it interesting that this part of Ohio was settled so early, and its been an interest of mine to map out the dates of the early settlements...looks like Rando got off to a good start on that.

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.

 

Yeah, he does, and I think his point is probably valid in an indirect sense,too, as historic high birthrates led to larger populations in rural places, which migrated to the citys.  I know this is what accounted for Dayton's 19th century growth rate (as it didnt get a large foreign immigration): rural in-migration from the counties to the north, east, and west.

 

Arenn makes some good points upthread.  I know Aaron from elsewhere on the internet and he has a lot of credibility with me on urban affairs issues.  I don't think anyone can dispute that the Cincinnati area is growing at a lower rate, and that Hamilton County is losing population.

 

A lot of the midwestern citys  that are seeing strong metro growth numbers are ones with a strong Finance/Insurance/Real Estate (FIRE) sector.  I think this accounts for a lot of the growth and strong economy in places like Omaha and Des Moines, as well as Indianapolis and Columbus, though Columbus is diversified into other kinds of white collar work.

 

What drags Cincinnatis growth down is probably the manufacturing sector.  That Cincinnati has a diversified economy and is just a large enough metropolitan that can generate its own growth might account for the growth still occuring, rather than stagnating of declining, like in Dayton.

 

Arenn makes some good points upthread.  I know Aaron from elsewhere on the internet and he has a lot of credibility with me on urban affairs issues.

 

Really? Could have fooled me ...

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=profile;u=1124;sa=showPosts

 

 

On that map upthread, with Dayton at 1805.  Dayton was settled in 1796 or 1797. 

 

Some other towns founded in the last decade of the 18th century were Franklin, Waynesville, and Deerfield, which was renamed South Lebanon at some later date.

 

I always found it interesting that this part of Ohio was settled so early, and its been an interest of mine to map out the dates of the early settlements...looks like Rando got off to a good start on that.

 

You're right...many of these places were settled much earlier, but I tried to use incorporation as the standard for my map.  It just depends what you're wanting to look at.  If you looked at when these places were settled, most would date back to the mid to late 18th Century.

Mallory disputes census figures

Neighborhood-by-neighborhood study says census is underestimating city's population, average income

BY JANE PRENDERGAST | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

July 2, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - Continuing his push to correct what he thinks are too-low census numbers for Cincinnati, Mayor Mark Mallory plans to release today alternate figures that show the city is home to more than 378,000 people.

 

That number tops even the U.S. Census' improved 2006 population projection, released last week at 332,252 - up 942 people from 2005 and the most positive official news in decades about the city's population.

 

Mallory's using data collected by Social Compact, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit group that aims to attract development in underserved areas by telling what researchers believe is a truer picture of an area's population and spending power. The mayor is using the data as part of his Shop 52 program (named for the number of neighborhoods in the city) to add grocery stores, banks and other retailers to downtown and throughout the city.

where did 378k come from, the Social compact survey said 368k. 

Either a typo, or Mayor Mallory is really trying to shoot for the moon!

 

...even if you miss, you'll land amongst the stars.

No, if you miss you end up between colorado springs and arlington texas

^ LOL...  I actually get the subtle joke :)

I feel like a celebrity.

 

I'm happy to correct any factual mis-statements I've made.  Obviously you can disagree with my conclusions derived from them.

 

Indianapolis and Columbus can be dismissed as state capitals if you want.  But Kansas City is right there with them, and it is neither a state capital, nor the largest metro in the state.  What's more, it is also on a river and is a multi-state metro.

 

Social Compact is an activist lobbying organization.  I see no reason to believe that their figures are any better than the Census Bureau's.  It's also not clear to me what Cincinnati gains from challenging these figures.

 

By the way, I don't think Indy, Columbus, or KC are perfect.  In fact, I'll be the first to say that I think Indy is in a precarious position.  It's job market has struggled recently and the city is suffering from a financial crisis, out of control crime, and suburban decay.  The old central city of Indianapolis has been hollowed out just like Cincy has.  And the amount of downtown development is only a drop in the bucket compared to what has left and compared to suburban growth, where one subdivision could have more homes than every condo being built downtown put together.  Still, I think that for the Midwest, Indy, Columbus, KC, and Minneapolis have found a way to distinguish themselves.  While all cities suffer from boosterism, these places didn't get where they are through complaining about Census figures and otherwise arguing about data.

 

Social Compact is an activist lobbying organization.  I see no reason to believe that their figures are any better than the Census Bureau's.  It's also not clear to me what Cincinnati gains from challenging these figures.

 

A successful challenge of Census' numbers will result in more federal $$$ coming Cincinnati's way.  Now it doesn't matter all that much for these year-to-year estimations, but hopefully it will set up a benchmark for the 2010 count that will lead ultimately to a more accurate number (be it higher or lower).  Challenging these year-to-year things (successfully) makes your city appear better to many people.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that even people, in the Cincinnati Metro, are viewing Cincinnati more positively lately...population increasing (maybe, or maybe just holding steady...still an improvement), significant drops in crime, and some high-profile developments coming to fruition.

 

Perception is often times reality.

Social Compact is an activist lobbying organization.  I see no reason to believe that their figures are any better than the Census Bureau's.  It's also not clear to me what Cincinnati gains from challenging these figures.

 

A successful challenge of Census' numbers will result in more federal $$$ coming Cincinnati's way.  Now it doesn't matter all that much for these year-to-year estimations, but hopefully it will set up a benchmark for the 2010 count that will lead ultimately to a more accurate number (be it higher or lower).  Challenging these year-to-year things (successfully) makes your city appear better to many people.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that even people, in the Cincinnati Metro, are viewing Cincinnati more positively lately...population increasing (maybe, or maybe just holding steady...still an improvement), significant drops in crime, and some high-profile developments coming to fruition.

 

Perception is often times reality.

 

I thought Cincinnati or any city between 250K and 500K will only get more federal dollars when their populations become 501K.

They get more liquor licenses (woohoo!!)  :]

Social Compact is an activist lobbying organization.  I see no reason to believe that their figures are any better than the Census Bureau's.  It's also not clear to me what Cincinnati gains from challenging these figures.

 

A successful challenge of Census' numbers will result in more federal $$$ coming Cincinnati's way.  Now it doesn't matter all that much for these year-to-year estimations, but hopefully it will set up a benchmark for the 2010 count that will lead ultimately to a more accurate number (be it higher or lower).  Challenging these year-to-year things (successfully) makes your city appear better to many people.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that even people, in the Cincinnati Metro, are viewing Cincinnati more positively lately...population increasing (maybe, or maybe just holding steady...still an improvement), significant drops in crime, and some high-profile developments coming to fruition.

 

Perception is often times reality.

 

I thought Cincinnati or any city between 250K and 500K will only get more federal dollars when their populations become 501K.

 

I don't really know, but it would seem odd that they give a city of 250,001 the same amount of money as a city of 499,999.  All I know is that the Census population figures is what federal funds are based on.

 

David does bring up a good point, since we're living in prohibition Ohio here with the nonsense liquor license laws!

I think the whole thing was about liquor licenses (the reason why we investigated the census data). They were trying to get more liquor licenses approved for fountain square and had to prove a higher population to get more licenses there.

I think the whole thing was about liquor licenses (the reason why we investigated the census data). They were trying to get more liquor licenses approved for fountain square and had to prove a higher population to get more licenses there.

 

While I understand liquor licenses and the need for them (they really help restaurant development). I really hope the city didn't use taxpayer dollars to fund a study to get more liquor licenses.

I think the whole thing was about liquor licenses (the reason why we investigated the census data). They were trying to get more liquor licenses approved for fountain square and had to prove a higher population to get more licenses there.

 

we could have also created a community entertainment district to get more liscences, (we will do it for the Banks) or encourage more microbreweries, there is no quota for microbreweries liquor liscense.

the entire 126 page social compact report is available here:

 

 

http://rcc.org/mayor/downloads/mayor_pdf16564.pdf

or encourage more microbreweries, there is no quota for microbreweries liquor liscense.

Wow, that's interesting.

the entire 126 page social compact report is available here:

 

 

http://rcc.org/mayor/downloads/mayor_pdf16564.pdf

 

The study seems pretty thorough, just from glancing over it.

 

 

We also cannot forget Norwood. Norwood, a city within the City of Cincinnati will not be added into the census numbers (of course our MSA though). Norwood adds over 20,000 residents and has a whopping 6,956.5 people per square mile!

 

 

It drives me nuts when people compare Cincinnati's population to other cities and leave out Norwood.

the entire 126 page social compact report is available here:

 

 

http://rcc.org/mayor/downloads/mayor_pdf16564.pdf

 

The study seems pretty thorough, just from glancing over it.

 

 

We also cannot forget Norwood. Norwood, a city within the City of Cincinnati will not be added into the census numbers (of course our MSA though). Norwoods adds over 20,000 residents and has a whopping 6,956.5 people per square mile!

 

 

It drives me nuts when people compare Cincinnati's population to other cities and leave out Norwood.

 

Don't forget about St. Bernard and Elmwood Place -- that's another 8,500 people.

I think the whole thing was about liquor licenses (the reason why we investigated the census data). They were trying to get more liquor licenses approved for fountain square and had to prove a higher population to get more licenses there.

 

While I understand liquor licenses and the need for them (they really help restaurant development). I really hope the city didn't use taxpayer dollars to fund a study to get more liquor licenses.

 

You need to read more of David's posts...this was not meant to be taken seriously (at least I think).

Looking inside the numbers and the coverage, this is really about arguing that Cincinnati's African-American middle class is bigger and has a lot more purchasing power than the census and white community traditionally gives it credit for. Look at the neighborhoods that get a lot of attention.

I think what Mallory is doing is fantastic. He is using the data to blow apart some of the behind the scenes redlining that takes place. The point is to show that African-American neighborhoods like Bond Hill, Mad-ville, and Westwood deserve more attention from national retailers and investment in general. If he can show that these neighborhoods can support a much more intensive and high quality retail situation and investment that drives, then the whole city benefits and it also works to break down the racist perceptions of certain neighborhoods.

I took a look at that Social Compact report.  Much the bulk seems to be repeated information for various neighborhoods.  I only really looked for the methodology they used for their population estimates.  It wasn't very detailed and so I can't give a real assessment.  But there seemed to be plenty of wiggle room in it.  I also find it ironic that they are willing to take the Census Bureau's word for average household size when they don't believe any other figure.

 

I would say, however, if there are really 47% more people than the Census records in some neighborhoods, it should be easy enough to create a list of names that exceeds the Census total by some more than nominal amount.

 

some of the numbers from social compact suprised me, OTR -35% below census. Corryville -49%, Clifton Heights -20%

It seems that Social Compact numbers are far more aware of the actual on the ground changes recently in housing than the census. They also probably deal with college students in a different manner.

Does anyone know exactly how the compiled their property list and exactly how they calculated their occupancy percentage?  If Cincinnati is like most cities, it has a large amount of vacant housing and vacant lots, so it would be easy to inflate the rates for either of these through some sort of miscounting.  I'm particular skeptical of what they called "utility usage rates".  What does that mean exactly?

 

Does anyone know exactly how the compiled their property list and exactly how they calculated their occupancy percentage?  If Cincinnati is like most cities, it has a large amount of vacant housing and vacant lots, so it would be easy to inflate the rates for either of these through some sort of miscounting.  I'm particular skeptical of what they called "utility usage rates".  What does that mean exactly?

 

I believe that they acquire their information through a number of ways (city government and other companies).  The "utility usage rate" is probably data they receive from the utility company (Duke)...if a home is using utilities, it's probably safe to say that someone is occupying that space.  Therefore, you can check it off the list of vacant properties (this would not contribute to the owner-occupied v. renter-occupied stats).

Somebody should take a defined district and do a special census to try to find these people.  Again, if a neighborhood is really having its population underestimated by about 50%, it should be easy to at least find say 25% more actual people just by looking.

 

I'm always skeptical of these statistical analyses, which can be tweaked to make the answer come out like you want it to.

 

What's more, if Cincy is legitimately undercounted, it's likely all of its peer cities were too, thus the census would accurately portray its relative standing.

 

Social Compact should publish details of their methods and make their raw data available for independent inspection if they expect their study to be taken seriously.  I did a quick google for it but couldn't find anything, so if anyone has a link, let me know please.

 

Bond Hill had new subdivisions built within the last 4 years--with houses that probably start at atleast 200k. I think Madisonville has new construction, or atleast they're going to. Dunno about Westwood.

What's more, if Cincy is legitimately undercounted, it's likely all of its peer cities were too, thus the census would accurately portray its relative standing.

 

You're saying their methodology is questionable, but at the same time making a comment like the one above? Hmmm ...

Bond Hill had new subdivisions built within the last 4 years--with houses that probably start at atleast 200k. I think Madisonville has new construction, or atleast they're going to. Dunno about Westwood.

 

Westwood has Brodbeck Park, Woodcrest Park and the Bluffs at Woodcrest.

 

From the 7/5/07 Enquirer:

 

 

Census challenges may widen

Mallory, Portune invite suburban mayors to planning dinner

BY JANE PRENDERGAST | [email protected] AND JESSICA BROWN

 

Broadening their push for more favorable census results, Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory and Hamilton County Commission President Todd Portune want all suburban officials to consider challenging their counts, too.

 

They've invited mayors of all county suburbs to a July 24 dinner to talk about how to file challenges to the U.S. Census.

 

Mallory's office challenged the city's 2005 estimate of 308,728, prompting the census to change that number to 331,310.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070705/NEWS01/707050351/