U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2011, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,365,633 times
Reputation: 1919

Advertisements

The whole idea of the argument concerning suburban living versus regeneration of the inner city neighborhoods is rather rediculous. Over a rather long period of time people have spoken with their feet and their money. The areas of the City which are quoted over and over as being beacons for the resurgence of urban living, add up the total population and I am willing to bet it does not even equal West Chester township, particularly if you subtract the captured audience of UC students.

Revitalization of residential areas of the City is a good thing. Without it the City will certainly become just a shell riddled with vacant buildings. But quit trying to act like it is everyone's cup of tea and anyone not desiring to be there is an idiot.

I can only say the advocates for urban revitalization of the inner City are those always attacking the suburbs, not vice versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2011, 06:10 PM
 
2,492 posts, read 3,654,078 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
abr7rmj ... Will not even try to respond in full.

The Ryan Widmer instance is a total proof of how decadent the suburbs are? Don't bother to count the dozens of murders per month in several of the inner city neighborhoods.

The whole attitude that Cincinnati is the reason for the suburbs is part of the problem. In reality, if the suburbs did not exist Cincinnati would have disappeared quite awhile ago. Give me some real statistics on how many are employed within the boundaries of the City and how many jobs are outside of the city in the greater metropolitan area. Just what tail on the dog is waving today.
kjbrill - Every city has suburbs, or satellites, if you will. And in almost each and every city-suburb relationship, it's the city that's great and carries the weight, not the burb. Do people visit New York City or Scarsdale? Chicago or Naperville? How about Denver or Aurora? Seattle or Shoreline? Cleveland or Wickliffe? Cincinnati or Mason? I think you know the answer to that.

And could you possibly be more melodramatic with the "Cincinnati would have disappeared quite awhile ago" without the suburbs. Uh, no it would not have. That's absurd.

As for crime, if you don't involve yourself in drugs or associate with drug dealers, you're probably not going to have any problems no matter where you're at. Innocent bystanders are not getting gunned down on city streets, drug dealers, people who stiff drug dealers and otherwise everyday thugs are the ones who are crime victims.

But I get it: You don't like the city. Cool ... that's your right. But you absolutely cannot deny that there is a growing trend showing people are, in fact, returning to cities in large numbers. Some cities (Denver, Washington DC, Minneapolis, Brooklyn) are experiencing it a lot faster than others, but there's just no getting around that more people are wanting to live in cities for any variety of reasons.

Sorry if you don't want to acknowledge this, but it appears as if weeding those cul-de-sacs isn't everyone's dream anymore: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_569226.html

America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as many younger, educated whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes.

"A new image of urban America is in the making," said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings who co-wrote the report. "What used to be white flight to the suburbs is turning into 'bright flight' to cities that have become magnets for aspiring young adults who see access to knowledge-based jobs, public transportation and a new city ambiance as an attraction."

Last edited by abr7rmj; 07-08-2011 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2011, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,365,633 times
Reputation: 1919
I still say give me some actual numbers. While the revitalized urban neighborhoods may be gaining in population, which is a good thing, I still say it pales in comparison to the growth of the suburbs. Why do those who advocate the City life have to downplay the suburban life to justify their aims? Do they have some sort of juxtapositin complex?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
477 posts, read 529,958 times
Reputation: 275
KJBRILL - Go to the north, near west and near south sides of Chicago sometime, and tell me otherwise. Go to Harlem in Manhattan. Go to the entire city of San Francisco and Boston pretty much, and you'll see proof that people are going back to the city.

Cincinnati is just slow to adopt trends that are happening in other parts of the country :P. Both San Fran and Boston Grew in numbers. Chicago lost population but the majority of it was in areas where the projects were torn down. 180,000 of the 200,000 people who left were African American.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:07 PM
 
478 posts, read 1,651,066 times
Reputation: 268
Some people like walkability, short commutes, trendy sh*t and all that garbage. Others just want a nice house on a lot in a quiet neighborhood, city or suburb, and others just want to get the hell away from the bustle.

Can't we accept that people are different and get off the "urbanist vs. suburbanite" arguments that surface on every damned thread here?

Now, another question related to my original one - why has Cincy's sprawl developed in the way it did? I understand the basic Southwest-to-Northeastward development along I-75 and I-71, but why is there nothing of substance in the Indiana portion of the metro (there's some scattered development around Lawrenceburg, but nothing like anywhere else)? Why nothing along I-74 in that direction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,576 posts, read 2,303,405 times
Reputation: 651
^Sewer and water system. Hard to pump over steep hills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 09:45 PM
 
2,492 posts, read 3,654,078 times
Reputation: 1385
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever View Post
Some people like walkability, short commutes, trendy sh*t and all that garbage. Others just want a nice house on a lot in a quiet neighborhood, city or suburb, and others just want to get the hell away from the bustle.

Can't we accept that people are different and get off the "urbanist vs. suburbanite" arguments that surface on every damned thread here?

Now, another question related to my original one - why has Cincy's sprawl developed in the way it did? I understand the basic Southwest-to-Northeastward development along I-75 and I-71, but why is there nothing of substance in the Indiana portion of the metro (there's some scattered development around Lawrenceburg, but nothing like anywhere else)? Why nothing along I-74 in that direction?
That's some of the most picturesque unaltered landscape we still have left. I hope they don't blight it up with some ill-conceived development.

You would think, though, that the area definitely has some serious potential for growth, particularly along I-74 (a highway that I almost forget we even have ... I honestly haven't been on the stretch between 275 and Northside in years).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 10:06 PM
 
478 posts, read 1,651,066 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by unusualfire View Post
^Sewer and water system. Hard to pump over steep hills.
There are places right in Cincinnati that fall into the "steep hill" category...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 09:52 AM
 
5,316 posts, read 6,614,341 times
Reputation: 2649
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairmetal4ever View Post
There are places right in Cincinnati that fall into the "steep hill" category...

Yes, like Beechmont Ave from Mt. Washington to Lunken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,335 posts, read 5,729,032 times
Reputation: 2058
all the midwest cities chug along despite the suburbs, not because of the suburbs. we simply have nowhere near the population growth to justify our existing and expanding geographic footprint, and that means that huge areas become painfully neglected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top