5 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

I have to wonder how much 2016 changed perceptions of Cleveland to the younger population. Since that study Cleveland's economy began to turn a corner and hasn't slowed down. I would like to see this study again, maybe for 2017-2022.

I would assume the 5 years prior to the data in this report showed a faster decline of population in the Cleveland MSA.  If so, the numbers are trending the right way. 

On 2/5/2019 at 9:45 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

To be fair, only Chicago in the Midwest doesn't pretty much die after a certain time of night.  There are very few cities in the US that are like that- New York and LA being the only real others, with a few more cities having much smaller levels of 24-hour activity.  I've lived in a city of literally 22 million that had nearly 30,000 people for every square mile... for like 800 square miles.  Talk about making everything feel smaller. 

 

Have to rep for my favorite city and second home, Philly, here. Center City Philly is the second most populated downtown in the country behind NYC and the streets are crowded around the clock. Most people overlook it but visit and you'll see it is more vibrant than Chicago or LA. 

I wouldn't say Center City Philadelphia is "crowded around the clock" (and this is coming from a huge Philadephia fan who's been exploring that city for nearly 20 years now [YIKES!!!]) but it is certainly a Top 5 vibrant downtowns in the country.  Keep in mind, that Center City Philadelphia number includes all the way to South Street, primarily a residential rowhouse neighborhood that would be like adding Greenwich Village to Lower Manhattan or, more locally, Mt. Adams and OTR to Cincinnati's CBD.  Los Angeles has surprisingly vibrant sections of downtown (Santee Alley/Fashion District, Old Downtown, etc) and Chicago north of the river is arguably the country's second most "vibrant" core.

 

With all that said, I'm surprised by Louisville showing a (small) negative number.  It seems relatively health, hipster-focused, and the primate city for Kentucky.  Though I'm willing to bet Lexington (without looking at stats) is probably more millennial-focused for the state and may take away from Louisville's numbers.

Louisville surprised me, too. I've heard nothing but good things about that city recently.

39 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

I wouldn't say Center City Philadelphia is "crowded around the clock" (and this is coming from a huge Philadephia fan who's been exploring that city for nearly 20 years now [YIKES!!!]) but it is certainly a Top 5 vibrant downtowns in the country.  Keep in mind, that Center City Philadelphia number includes all the way to South Street, primarily a residential rowhouse neighborhood that would be like adding Greenwich Village to Lower Manhattan or, more locally, Mt. Adams and OTR to Cincinnati's CBD.  Los Angeles has surprisingly vibrant sections of downtown (Santee Alley/Fashion District, Old Downtown, etc) and Chicago north of the river is arguably the country's second most "vibrant" core.

 

With all that said, I'm surprised by Louisville showing a (small) negative number.  It seems relatively health, hipster-focused, and the primate city for Kentucky.  Though I'm willing to bet Lexington (without looking at stats) is probably more millennial-focused for the state and may take away from Louisville's numbers.

 

Ehhh, don't want to turn this into an argument about Philly, but I lived in Center City for years and still visit often so I know it well. It wasn't crowded around the clock 20 years ago sure, but now the density is astounding. And most of Center City is a filled rowhouses, but South Street is not primarily rowhouse or residential. It's a mixed use commercial street. Either way, I'm not sure why having rowhouses would negate its status as downtown. They're an incredibly dense housing type, more dense than typical American highrise neighborhoods which devote tons of space to parking garages. And the source I cited for it being the second most populous is the Census Bureau report about growth in downtowns and does include Mt. Adams and OTR in Cincinnati's "downtown" definition (plus a good chunk of Covington and Newport) and Greenwich Village (and the East Village) in Lower Manhattan's. 

 

Anyway, Philly is awesome and I'd be really happy if Cincy, Cbus, and Cleveland modeled their growth trajectories in their urban cores around what Philly has done. 

Just a quick point.  I wasn't trying to say having rowhouses in a downtown somehow negates it being a downtown; my bigger point about Center City Philadelphia is how generous it's definition of a downtown encompasses smaller (mostly) rowhouse neighborhoods such as Fitler Square or Society Hill that normally other cities would separate from downtown stats.  One really can't use "second most populated downtown" when every downtown's definition varies.  Toronto uses Cabbagetown (!!!) as part of their downtown numbers.  Meanwhile, Montreal separates Vieux-Montréal and Chinatown, both of which are clearly more "downtown" than Cabbagetown is to Toronto.  I hope you understand the point.

 

And I agree, Philadelphia is awesome but ironically I see a lot of issues in Philadelphia that I also see in Cincinnati, noticeably the Negadelphians and holding-back provincialism.  But thank God they cleaned up Temple...I have some stories about THAT jawn in the early 2000s...

 

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

 

Wow this is absolutely fascinating. 

So the Gold Coast one block north of me has increased in density by 443 percent to 755 percent to 40,000+ people per square mile...

Edited February 18, 20196 yr by KJP

On 2/12/2019 at 11:26 PM, ColDayMan said:

Just a quick point.  I wasn't trying to say having rowhouses in a downtown somehow negates it being a downtown; my bigger point about Center City Philadelphia is how generous it's definition of a downtown encompasses smaller (mostly) rowhouse neighborhoods such as Fitler Square or Society Hill that normally other cities would separate from downtown stats.  One really can't use "second most populated downtown" when every downtown's definition varies.  Toronto uses Cabbagetown (!!!) as part of their downtown numbers.  Meanwhile, Montreal separates Vieux-Montréal and Chinatown, both of which are clearly more "downtown" than Cabbagetown is to Toronto.  I hope you understand the point.

 

And I agree, Philadelphia is awesome but ironically I see a lot of issues in Philadelphia that I also see in Cincinnati, noticeably the Negadelphians and holding-back provincialism.  But thank God they cleaned up Temple...I have some stories about THAT jawn in the early 2000s...

 

 

i wonder how far back the definition of center city goes and if the boundaries have ever changed? 

 

to me it fits fine, its only 2sq miles, but it certainly seems generous given there are distinct neighborhoods in it.

 

then again, probably everywhere is like that. for example, lower manhattan has wtc, tribeca, seaport, etc., too.

52 minutes ago, KJP said:

So the Gold Coast one block north of me has increased in density by 443 percent to 755 percent to 40,000+ people per square mile...

 

 

that beats 4/5 ny boros -- not bad!

On 2/12/2019 at 11:26 PM, ColDayMan said:

Just a quick point.  I wasn't trying to say having rowhouses in a downtown somehow negates it being a downtown; my bigger point about Center City Philadelphia is how generous it's definition of a downtown encompasses smaller (mostly) rowhouse neighborhoods such as Fitler Square or Society Hill that normally other cities would separate from downtown stats.  One really can't use "second most populated downtown" when every downtown's definition varies.  Toronto uses Cabbagetown (!!!) as part of their downtown numbers.  Meanwhile, Montreal separates Vieux-Montréal and Chinatown, both of which are clearly more "downtown" than Cabbagetown is to Toronto.  I hope you understand the point.

 

And I agree, Philadelphia is awesome but ironically I see a lot of issues in Philadelphia that I also see in Cincinnati, noticeably the Negadelphians and holding-back provincialism.  But thank God they cleaned up Temple...I have some stories about THAT jawn in the early 2000s...

 

Fair point, but that's why I used the Census document which standardizes downtowns by just using distance from City Hall. It's not perfect but it makes things pretty comparable. And great use of jawn!

12 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

i wonder how far back the definition of center city goes and if the boundaries have ever changed? 

 

to me it fits fine, its only 2sq miles, but it certainly seems generous given there are distinct neighborhoods in it.

 

then again, probably everywhere is like that. for example, lower manhattan has wtc, tribeca, seaport, etc., too.

 

So historians aren't really sure when Center City became widely used. It is used in newspapers in the early 20th Century, so at least 100 years ago. Some believe it goes all the way back to the Act of Consolidation which combined Philadelphia City (then only Center City) and Philadelphia County (the rest of the city). That was in 1854. So it's been awhile. 

5 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

I got excited when I saw so much green in the Glenville neighborhood until I realized the peak population occurred in 1960.

19 hours ago, KJP said:

 

 

This covers too broad a spectrum of time to be very useful- some of those neighborhoods have been built, aged, and declined all within that timeframe.

7 minutes ago, X said:

 

This covers too broad a spectrum of time to be very useful- some of those neighborhoods have been built, aged, and declined all within that timeframe.

 

That's kind of the whole point of it though. It goes to show that all of our infrastructure investment on the periphery of metro areas in the last 100 years has only served to depopulate central cities and disperse population. It's unsustainable. 

I'm not sure where they are getting this data or the methodology they are using but for what it is worth see page 6.

http://www.horizongroup.com/Post/sections/3/Files/cleveland 2018 lw.pdf

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by Florida Guy

3 hours ago, Florida Guy said:

I'm not sure where they are getting this data or the methodology they are using but for what it is worth see page 6.

http://www.horizongroup.com/Post/sections/3/Files/cleveland 2018 lw.pdf

 

Thanks.  Definitely fascinating to see that projected population increase for 2021.

 

Although...on page 7 of 9, I find it funny they cite “Case.edu” as their source for the listing of local colleges and universities, and then fail to include Case Western Reserve and its 12,000 students. 

Edited February 25, 20196 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

1 hour ago, MuRrAy HiLL said:

 

Thanks.  Definitely fascinating to see that projected population increase for 2021.

 

Although...on page 7 of 9, I find it funny they cite “Case.edu” as their source for the listing of local colleges and universities, and then fail to include Case Western Reserve and its 12,000 students. 

and they skip Akron University, but include Kent, which is further away.

While this is Chicago data, there is anecdotal evidence that something similar is happening in Cleveland as well. I know of friends (or friends of friends) who are African-Americans and have left Cleveland for the South or moved to coastal cities. While not all of the reasons are the same, some of them are....

 

 

yeah that trend has been happening everywhere in the old black great migration cities of the north for awhile. 

 

atlanta is a thing and so is the south in general, particularly the rural south.

 

escape from the 'hood, much cheaper cost of living and a host other reasons no doubt.

Migration can be a healthy thing. Most people aren't best-served by standing their ground in economically distressed neighborhoods.   

On 2/19/2019 at 12:10 PM, X said:

 

This covers too broad a spectrum of time to be very useful- some of those neighborhoods have been built, aged, and declined all within that timeframe.

 

Also, they are including as 90%+ decreases in density places like the Easterly water treatment plant and Burke Lakefront Airport.

31 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

yeah that trend has been happening everywhere in the old black great migration cities of the north for awhile. 

 

atlanta is a thing and so is the south in general, particularly the rural south.

 

escape from the 'hood, much cheaper cost of living and a host other reasons no doubt.

 

But almost every quality of life metric is actually worse for all demographics in the South, so if people are moving there for that reason, it's a bad move.  Obviously it won't be universal, but Northern cities are much better for the black population overall, despite ongoing economic and locational segregation.

 

Also, I think the whole "reverse Great Migration" is VASTLY overblown.  Most Northern cities, especially in the Midwest, continue to see their Black populations rising, Chicago notwithstanding.

34 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But almost every quality of life metric is actually worse for all demographics in the South, so if people are moving there for that reason, it's a bad move.  Obviously it won't be universal, but Northern cities are much better for the black population overall, despite ongoing economic and locational segregation.

 

Also, I think the whole "reverse Great Migration" is VASTLY overblown.  Most Northern cities, especially in the Midwest, continue to see their Black populations rising, Chicago notwithstanding.

 

It depends. Places like Atlanta, Raleigh, and Austin have huge and growing black middle class populations. So no, I don't think moving to Huntsville or Jackson is going to increase their quality of life, but targeted areas are better. Also, lots of blacks are moving to the Northeast, and places like Philly, DC, and Baltimore have booming black middle class and upper class populations. Look at Prince George's County, a majority black county, as an example. They've added over 100,000 people since 2000 and it went from a median household income of $55,000 to $78,600. 

51 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But almost every quality of life metric is actually worse for all demographics in the South, so if people are moving there for that reason, it's a bad move.  Obviously it won't be universal, but Northern cities are much better for the black population overall, despite ongoing economic and locational segregation.

 

Also, I think the whole "reverse Great Migration" is VASTLY overblown.  Most Northern cities, especially in the Midwest, continue to see their Black populations rising, Chicago notwithstanding.

 

 

well quality of life varies on your situation, but moving south is definitely a running trend, or at least a common talking point.

 

it very well might be overblown, but not for chicago, nyc and likely cle aa populations, for example, which are going down. 

 

i suppose like anything else it varies.

Cleveland was most the most improved large metro for February 2019. Also, some other notable Ohio cities.

https://www.realtor.com/research/february-2019-hottest-housing-markets/

 

Census data for the counties is out... not too encouraging for Cuyahoga with a loss of 4,500 residents ? The 7 county region is overall flat at around a 1000 lost.  Keep thinking that we are turning a corner but it does not appear to be stabilizing like a Hamilton county. 

 

https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

11 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

Census data for the counties is out... not too encouraging for Cuyahoga with a loss of 4,500 residents ? The 7 county region is overall flat at around a 1000 lost.  Keep thinking that we are turning a corner but it does not appear to be stabilizing like a Hamilton county.  

 

https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/04/6d0312c650133/cuyahoga-countys-population-drop-9th-worst-in-the-us-last-year-new-census-estimates-say.html

 

The corner we need to turn has moved a little farther away.  I console myself with total regional employment being up every year since 2011, wage and salary growth exceeding the US average, and the workforce (a fairly mushy number) tending upward since 2015.  I wonder how closely that 1,000 number matches  deaths by murder and overdose.

Remember, though, these are estimates. In reality, Cuyahoga could have GAINED residents. the truth will come out in 2021 or whenever the results from the April 2020 Census is released.

Cuyahoga county will continue to lose population if we keep demolishing more housing than we build. Right now Cleveland is the only one building anything of consequence, and it's more than offset by demolition and dwindling family sizes. There is a smattering of recent construction in Beachwood and Shaker. And Lakewood and Cleveland Heights finally have a handful of projects in the planning stage but none that've broken ground. It doesn't help that rezoning projects in the suburbs get voted down.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/04/council-revisits-2-old-rezoning-candidates-in-kerem-lake-fountains-of-solon.html

 

Quote

City Council revisits 2 old rezoning candidates in Kerem Lake, Fountains of Solon
By Thomas Jewell, special to cleveland.com

 

SOLON, Ohio -- In separate actions on Monday (April 15), City Council briefly revisited two tracts of land that were previously the subjects of ambitious and unsuccessful rezoning bids.

...

 

Edited April 18, 20196 yr by Mendo

With the east-side still in free-fall, I doubt the census estimates are off by that much.

 

The way the region saves itself is through job retention and creation, and the proper training of the public for those jobs.  That's it.  

3 hours ago, Pugu said:

Remember, though, these are estimates. In reality, Cuyahoga could have GAINED residents. the truth will come out in 2021 or whenever the results from the April 2020 Census is released.

 

They are estimates and they could definitely be off. But it is unlikely that Cuyahoga gained residents. The methodology for the estimates has gotten better over time and they should be a pretty fair representation of the actual count, give or take a few thousand. 

 

I can’t speak to the annual estimates, but I can say that the census’ five year estimates are significantly off. Cities where households and housing units are estimated to have fallen by hundreds when the reality has been an increase as seen in local data.

Anyone know the methodology the Census uses for these estimates?  I had heard, though don't know if true: they start with a US number that is the estimate for 2018. THEN they decide how much for each state, and then drill down to counties. Its not a bottom up approach, where they look at each county and roll the data up (cause then the US would have 500M people).  If this is true, if the US grew by XX people, and they want to give YY of it to Texas then only ZZ can be assigned to the rest of the US and so forth....So a lot of it looks at past trends instead of any last minute changes. So Cuyahoga had a trend of losing, the Census bureau will continue that trend. If Houston was growing, it will continue to do so.... But anyone with real insight---that would be appreciated!

1 hour ago, CbusTransit said:

I can’t speak to the annual estimates, but I can say that the census’ five year estimates are significantly off. Cities where households and housing units are estimated to have fallen by hundreds when the reality has been an increase as seen in local data.

 

What local data? 

20 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

They are estimates and they could definitely be off. But it is unlikely that Cuyahoga gained residents. The methodology for the estimates has gotten better over time and they should be a pretty fair representation of the actual count, give or take a few thousand. 

 

When did the estimates become more accurate? They weren't accurate in 2009 as the 2010 census proved for Cincinnati. How can one know they've improved since then if we haven't had an actual count since 2010?

50 minutes ago, Pugu said:

Anyone know the methodology the Census uses for these estimates?  I had heard, though don't know if true: they start with a US number that is the estimate for 2018. THEN they decide how much for each state, and then drill down to counties. Its not a bottom up approach, where they look at each county and roll the data up (cause then the US would have 500M people).  If this is true, if the US grew by XX people, and they want to give YY of it to Texas then only ZZ can be assigned to the rest of the US and so forth....So a lot of it looks at past trends instead of any last minute changes. So Cuyahoga had a trend of losing, the Census bureau will continue that trend. If Houston was growing, it will continue to do so.... But anyone with real insight---that would be appreciated!

 

You're on the right track here but it is a little more complicated than that. They do create a national estimate and then the county estimates (and by extension, state estimates) have to add up to that number so they are adjusted to do so. But going into all the estimates is data on births, deaths, and migration (using multiple sources, including tax returns). So they're using births minus deaths plus domestic and internal migration to create an estimate for each county, then adjusting the counties using a process called "raking" to match the national estimate. This approach is generally accepted as being more accurate than just creating a bottom-up estimate for each county and summing them. 

Just now, Clefan98 said:

 

When did the estimates become more accurate? They weren't accurate in 2009 as the 2010 census proved for Cincinnati. How can one know they've improved since then if we haven't had an actual count since 2010?

 

The methodology is designed to become more accurate as we accumulate more past year data. And changes have been made to make the Census Bureau's methodology better reflect best practices in demography. Of course, we won't know for sure that they're better until after the 2020 Census, but based on past research this should be the case. You have to keep in mind that in 2010 the idea of having annual estimates was still a relatively new one for the Census Bureau and they were learning as they went along. They have a much better handle on this stuff now. When 2020 comes out there will be areas where we see errors in the estimates, and none of them will be exactly right. But we can be confident that in most cases they are going to be in the generally correct ballpark. 

I also wouldn't assume that the 2020 Census numbers will be perfect in and of themselves.  It's a headcount, and lots of people don't care or don't want to be counted.

8 minutes ago, X said:

I also wouldn't assume that the 2020 Census numbers will be perfect in and of themselves.  It's a headcount, and lots of people don't care or don't want to be counted.

 

It is difficult to make this not sound political but, I would venture to say if the "Immigrant" and "Immigration Status" question make it on to the 2020 Census, it will be much much less accurate. 

19 hours ago, DevolsDance said:

 

It is difficult to make this not sound political but, I would venture to say if the "Immigrant" and "Immigration Status" question make it on to the 2020 Census, it will be much much less accurate. 

 

Depends on the meaning of the word "accurate".  People here illegally should not count where legislative apportionment is concerned.

I know conservatives only care about the Constitution when it's convenient for them, but you're wrong according to the text therein:

 

Article I, Clause 3

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

27 minutes ago, X said:

I know conservatives only care about the Constitution when it's convenient for them, but you're wrong according to the text therein:

 

Article I, Clause 3

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Also further clarified by 14A section 2. 

Quote

People here illegally should not count where legislative apportionment is concerned.

 

 

The question, without a doubt, inherently make it likely that legal residents might not fill out the form... and that it the sole intention of the question.

 

 

On 4/18/2019 at 11:50 AM, Dougal said:

 I wonder how closely that 1,000 number [net loss of people in the 7-county area] matches  deaths by murder and overdose.

 

 If Freshwater Cleveland is correct (extrapolating to all 7 Cleveland-area counties), overdoses alone exceeded the regional population loss.

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/features/OpioidRehab041819.aspx

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-26/the-rust-belt-stabilizes-as-the-sun-belt-tops-out

Cleveland's population flattens near 385,000 after decades of big losses, new census estimates say

By Rich Exner, cleveland.com | Posted May 23, 2019 at 12:01 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Cleveland’s population appears to be leveling off heading into the official count next year after a half-century of significant losses at census time every 10 years.

 

New estimates released Thursday place Cleveland’s population at 383,793 for 2018, down 0.4 percent from 385,428 a year earlier.

 

The number is just an estimate, as opposed to the more precise official count that will be conducted in April 2020.

 

But the estimate is another piece of evidence of a stabilizing city, coupled with recovering home sales prices and large new residential housing projects in some areas such as the near West Side.

 

https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/05/d1695a54c89135/clevelands-population-flattens-near-385000-after-decades-of-big-losses-new-census-estimates-say.html