From Buisness First of Buffalo, sourced from the recent American Community Survey, ranking US center cities by urban poverty

 

...The following are the 75 cities in America with at least 250,000 residents, ranked according to their 2008 poverty rates:...

 

 1. Detroit, 33.3% in poverty

 2. Cleveland, 30.5% in poverty

 3. Buffalo, 30.3% in poverty

 4. Newark, 26.1% in poverty

 5. Miami, 25.6% in poverty

 6. Fresno, 25.5% in poverty

 7. Cincinnati, 25.1% in poverty

 8. Toledo, 24.7% in poverty

 9. El Paso, 24.3% in poverty

 10. Philadelphia, 24.1% in poverty

 11. Milwaukee, 23.4% in poverty

 12. Memphis, 23.1% in poverty

 13. St. Louis, 22.9% in poverty

 14. Dallas, 22.6% in poverty

 14. New Orleans, 22.6% in poverty

 16. Atlanta, 22.4% in poverty

 17. Stockton, Calif., 21.6% in poverty

 18. Minneapolis, 21.3% in poverty

 19. Pittsburgh, 21.2% in poverty

 20. Tucson, 20.9% in poverty

 21. Chicago, 20.6% in poverty

 22. Columbus, Ohio, 20.1% in poverty

 23. Long Beach, Calif., 19.8% in poverty

 24. Houston, 19.5% in poverty

 25. Los Angeles, 19.4% in poverty

 26. Baltimore, 19.3% in poverty

 27. San Antonio, 19.2% in poverty

 28. Phoenix, 18.9% in poverty

 29. Boston, 18.7% in poverty

 30. Denver, 18.4% in poverty

 30. St. Paul, 18.4% in poverty

 32. Tulsa, 18.3% in poverty

 33. New York City, 18.2% in poverty

 34. Tampa, 17.8% in poverty

 35. Santa Ana, Calif., 17.6% in poverty

 36. Nashville, 17.5% in poverty

 36. Oakland, 17.5% in poverty

 38. Corpus Christi, Texas, 17.2% in poverty

 38. Washington, 17.2% in poverty

 40. Austin, 17.0% in poverty

 41. Bakersfield, Calif., 16.7% in poverty

 42. Fort Worth, 16.6% in poverty

 43. Indianapolis, 16.4% in poverty

 43. Kansas City, 16.4% in poverty

 43. Oklahoma City, 16.4% in poverty

 46. Greensboro, 16.2% in poverty

 47. Louisville, 16.1% in poverty

 47. Sacramento, 16.1% in poverty

 49. Lexington, Ky., 15.6% in poverty

 50. Aurora, Colo., 15.4% in poverty

 51. Albuquerque, 15.0% in poverty

 51. Omaha, 15.0% in poverty

 53. Portland, Ore., 14.4% in poverty

 53. San Diego, 14.4% in poverty

 55. Glendale, Ariz., 14.3% in poverty

 55. Wichita, 14.3% in poverty

 57. Fort Wayne, Ind., 13.5% in poverty

 57. Riverside, Calif., 13.5% in poverty

 59. Raleigh, 13.3% in poverty

 60. Anaheim, Calif., 13.1% in poverty

 61. Las Vegas, 12.6% in poverty

 62. Charlotte, 12.0% in poverty

 63. Jacksonville, 11.9% in poverty

 64. Colorado Springs, 11.8% in poverty

 64. Lincoln, Neb., 11.8% in poverty

 66. Mesa, Ariz., 11.7% in poverty

 67. Seattle, 11.6% in poverty

 68. Arlington, Texas, 11.3% in poverty

 69. San Francisco, 11.0% in poverty

 70. Honolulu, 10.8% in poverty

 71. San Jose, 8.9% in poverty

 72. Henderson, Nev., 7.5% in poverty

 73. Plano, Texas, 6.7% in poverty

 74. Virginia Beach, 6.5% in poverty

 75. Anchorage, 6.4% in poverty

Congratulations to Urban Ohio for having three of the top 10. 

Those who have everything but actually own nothing....are considered wealthy...those who own little but owe little to nothing are considered poor.

Actually kinda suprised to see Detroit that low.....

As has been said every time this comes out - when you compare "center cities" that have municipal borders encompassing 50 sq. miles with those with 500 sq. miles... not saying Cleveland doesn't have a poverty problem, but it's not apples to apples.

thank you.

 

otoh...

 

Congratulations to Urban Ohio for having three of the top 10.

 

heck, if you stretch it just a bit the big four are in the top twenty-five.

 

ugh, does ohio have the highest low rankings of any state?

 

no wait, california has four in the top 25 too....and more below that.

 

 

As has been said every time this comes out - when you compare "center cities" that have municipal borders encompassing 50 sq. miles with those with 500 sq. miles... not saying Cleveland doesn't have a poverty problem, but it's not apples to apples.

 

Or you could look at metro area rankings, which would be more instructive.  For the center city question this is why Louisville, Lexington, and Indianapolis are relatively low on this list vis a vis Ohio cities..they have those metro governments.

 

 

 

Maybe whats suprising is Pittsburg at 21%. 

 

This is based on the official poverty level.  In reality there is a varying line above this that is recognized by public policy as more of a defacto poverty line, where people are deemed low-income enough to require assistance.  Things like free school lunches, food stamps, EITC eligibility, etc.  The eligibility lines for these are probably more indicative of how poor a city or metro area is than the rather low official poverty line.

 

 

I think May Day made an excellent point above.

 

Also, if we were judged by region, I wonder what the poverty rate would be. Its a little unfair to not consider the fact that Cleveland is one city within a metro region of many, all stitched together like a patchwork quilt. Sure there is poverty within the hardcore boundaries, as poverty is commonly defined, but my point goes back to what May Day posts because with that situation, it presents a whole new viewpoint. Had Cleveland been able to annex already established long ago suburbs, the numbers may be different.

 

Just a point I want to make to ask who is defining what poverty really is...what are the parameters and criteria, because geez.. I could make 15K per year, (I actually make a lot more than that, but using for argument sake) own a car clear....pay rent on time every time in a clean humble place... and eat well...not have any debt, but be considered poor...Meanwhile, the guy over there has it all, but owns nothing...is stretched out on payments, but he is considered wealthy. 

 

We really need to also judge metro areas these days because for all practical purposes, we are more than core Cleveland and  when we say "Cleveland is poorest" from an outsiders point of view, it makes the whole area seem abysmal...and how many times it gets repeated over and over seems to just do nothing for the image. We just need to allow for more broader stats. I wish that would be the case. And I am not suggesting we ignore poverty concentrations in core cities, either. Its all about the imaginary lines is it?

You could use metro areas but the same pissing contest would arise about how to define metros or defining metro boundaries creativley to pad or distort stats.  They do that here in Dayton by taking in Springfield and some northern counties to inflate the pop figures.  I think Grand Rapids does the same with Muskegeon. 

 

Yet metro numbers are still more realistic as they are somewhat based on a regional economy, using commuting patterns, I think.

 

if you use metro numbers you'd get something maybe like Louisville or Indy stats, say 16% or so in poverty. 

 

 

The ranking may be wrong but that do reveal something about Ohio's cities. Part of it is that Ohio has a relatively affordable standard of living which means a national poverty rate has to fit with California and East Coast cities as well as those in the Midwest will inflate the rankings of the Midwest. Ohio's cities also have two migrant groups that outsized poverty levels - African-Americans and white Appalachians. In most Ohio cities, African-Americans have a predominate percentage of their metro population within the center city - white Appalachians somewhat less so. California has very large Mexican and other Latino communities who are generally poorer.

 

It is important to remember for Cincinnati that it has long had one of the lowest levels of homeownership of any large city. Usually below 40%, which is generally a number that aligns with high poverty rates.

An interesting thing to see would be the trend of poverty in these cities, as I would love to see if Cincinnati is actually increasing or decreasing its poverty rate.  I would tend to think that it might actually be lower in 2009 than in 2000 due primarilly to an increase in wealthy people moving into the downtown and downtown near regions.  Riverside Drive, the Gateway Quarter, CBD, etc have all brought lots of new residents, all of whom are not poor.  With the growth of housing coming on with the Banks and expansion of the Q, these numbers could possibly drop.

This is just bullshit plain and simple. All those "impoverished" people who can still pay for a car or two or three, souped up sound system, cable, internet, etc. Go to Mexico where kids will fight over one, single dollar and have none of the above. Now you'll understand the correct definition of "poverty".

This is just bullsh!t plain and simple. All those "impoverished" people who can still pay for a car or two or three, souped up sound system, cable, internet, etc. Go to Mexico where kids will fight over one, single dollar and have none of the above. Now you'll understand the correct definition of "poverty".

 

It's all good in Urban Ohio.  Even the poverty. 

Posting these poll should be banned on UO.  They are stupid!

 

I 100% agree with what MayDay states.

I agree with C-Dawg that we can't hide behind the methodology of these surveys. Ohio cities are poorer and shrinking at a faster rate than almost any other state, and most measure show that the Northern Ohio, Southern Michigan and northern Indiana is about the worst area in the country right now economically.

 

I think he's also right that living in poverty in Toledo is quite a different animal from Miami or Chicago. Housing prices are very low here; I think if there were a "misery index" that Toledo and other smaller Great Lakes cities would score in the middle.

 

For me, the best answer for these areas is increased international immigration. This area just seems tired and static to me. Most cities that have grown in the US in the past 20 years, save for Phoenix and Vegas perhaps, have done so because of high levels if immigration. This is how Midwest cities grew in the past, and how they will grow in the future. Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and even Detroit, which has somewhat respectable levels of international immigration, should be attaching themselves to the diasporic networks of new immigrant streams: Middle East, Southeast Asia, China, and particularly India, to bring new communities to the Midwest. We have much, much to offer, but almost no one on the ground seems interested.

No most of these cities aren't goingto breat again unless something dramatic happens.  However, there are projects that can be undertaken, and some which have already - to slow the decline and possibly reverse the trend.  But to be honest, most cities have their time in the sun and then go through their up and down periods.  Alot of these cities were important at one time but just don't have the same heft now.

As has been said every time this comes out - when you compare "center cities" that have municipal borders encompassing 50 sq. miles with those with 500 sq. miles... not saying Cleveland doesn't have a poverty problem, but it's not apples to apples.

 

This statement is true. If you took the most urbanized 50 sq. miles of Jacksonville Florida, you'd probably get a % very similar to Cleveland. It would be more useful to see a list based on metro area. City limits are rarely helpful for any ranking.

 

However, that's hardly an excuse to dismiss the obvious problem. American center cities have high rates of poverty. This is an artificial condition created by America's policy of cramming public housing and social services in our urban cores. In most other countries, the poverty is in the suburbs, not the center cities.

 

As this relates to Ohio, I think it would be interesting to see if Ohio has a history of more centralized public housing than other American cities (which have occasionally placed some of their projects in the burbs). Certainly, Cincinnati used to have a stunning concentration of public housing in their downtown basin. It's been dispersed a bit in recent years, but I think most of the poverty has stayed within city limits.

Ok, let's worry about the city proper only... But, if anyone is suggesting we need to have a bigger population in Ohio, that is not the answer. 11-plus million is enough for this size state, maybe it was too much to begin with. It is hard (not impossible, but hard) to drive 5 miles on any road anywhere in the state without running into more sprawl-style developments---even in the smallest places.  Maybe the S.E. third of the state, but even that is getting cluttered while the overall state population drops. Land use goes up, population declines. makes no sense other than pointing back to the shifting of populations, or the simple fact we don't need a Lowe's etc..at every intersection and highway interchange.

 

Still, the state population, although has dropped in recent years, has remained relatively stable---and maybe over 11 million was too many in the first place. Ohio, for its size, near 7th in population and somewhere near 37 in geographical size? (don't quote me there) actually has enough population. Lower land size area with a high population in a state... is not very sustainable. Land has a 'carrying capacity' and demanding more than what it can give has its consequences. Um, like filthy air, water, declining habitat like wetlands which cleaned the soil and water for free..no taxes involved. Over stuffed state parks and greenspaces because of high demand but little availability. The repercussions can go on and on to the point it undermines the economy.

 

So, if we are going to worry about only the core cities, then we should think about luring some of the population we already have.... back into the urban hub and focus on quality, instead of quantity.

 

Simply adding more population to Ohio will not fix anything, as it will just put more of a strain on resources, which opens up a whole new can of worms. We have enough people in this state, its just a matter of the concentrations of them spreading all over the place in this 30 mile out sprawl area C-Dog is talking about. Would I like to see a population that actually embraces the restoration and rediscovery of its cities?... YES! But that's the challenge in what I would really like to see (people moving back into the core) because for years, they have been so turned off by the idea of living in the urban core, for the most part...as we realize with the many poorly informed remarks they make about the cities being so unsafe, etc..etc..etc..

 

 

Joel makes some good points, btw.

One reason to take poverty rates in the center cities seriously is that high levels of poverty in the engines of regional growth limits the capacity of those cities to lead the regions toward a better place. Poverty is expensive for everyone - rich pay higher taxes, services from gov't are in greater demand and tend to be more costly, and the poor are often unable to fully their own capacities.

^ Completely Agreed! I shudder to think of some of the last places I go in Ohio to escape to nature for a break, would be overrun by crowds (as Hocking Hills is on the weekends) many of whom have no respect for the place and trash it.

Depressing stats and conversation all around, but I'm not surprised by these numbers

For some regional comparisons here are metro area poverty rates for 2008, same census source as the list in the thread header.  Highest % in poverty to lowers.

 

17.7% Huntington/Ashland

15.8% Youngstown

15.8% Toledo

14.9% Lexington

14.2% Gary/Hammond

13.2% Cleveland

12.8% Dayton

12.8% Louisville

12.7% Columbus

12.1% Akron

12.0% Canton

11.5% Indianapolis

11.3% Cincinnati

10.6% Fort Wayne

 

...as you can see there is a big discrepancy between core city poverty vs metro povery for some of these places.  Cincy: 25% core city poverty, vs a 11.%% metro area poverty.  The core city rate is double the metro area rate.

 

 

 

 

Brookings Metro ‏@BrookingsMetro  25m25 minutes ago

Map: Metro areas in the Sun Belt regions saw some of the largest increases in poor populations http://brook.gs/1gxUTDd 

 

 

Detailed New National Maps Show How Neighborhoods Shape Children for Life

Some places lift children out of poverty. Others trap them there. Now cities are trying to do something about the difference.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/upshot/maps-neighborhoods-shape-child-poverty.html

Detailed New National Maps Show How Neighborhoods Shape Children for Life

Some places lift children out of poverty. Others trap them there. Now cities are trying to do something about the difference.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/upshot/maps-neighborhoods-shape-child-poverty.html

 

What this article calls a lower income "area" in Chevy Chase, Maryland is a golf course.