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)
 
Old 01-01-2012, 05:56 AM
 
2,886 posts, read 3,959,331 times
Reputation: 1499

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
Look, Matthew, a lot of your posts are nothing but...well, complaining...yet you're not offering any ideas about what you think people should do. So come on....what do you think the people in the suburbs should do? What's your solution? Do you advocate we all move downtown?

What's on your mind, other than a bunch of bellyaching and negative jabs aimed at the suburbs? Why don't you go respond to my comments in post #227? Tell me how you would cram the 1.9 MILLION rest of us suburbanites into the core of Cincinnati.
Ha ha. Good one. We've all seen those photos of 20 immigrants crammed into a small room in the mid-19th Century urban tenements. I wish I could have found one to illustrate this posting. But I did find this from Wikipedia--which I don't know to be accurate but it sounds reasonable:

Before Cincinnati's incline system was built in the 1870s, which allowed development of residential areas on the hills, the city's population density was 32,000 people per square mile.[SIZE=3][10][/SIZE] By contrast, in 2000 Cincinnati's population density was 3,879.8 people per square mile.

Yeah, bring back those good old days.

Last edited by Sarah Perry; 01-01-2012 at 06:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2012, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,843,397 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Perry View Post
And here I was hoping for an apology! Oops! Nevermind!
Yes, well you're looking in the wrong place for that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,843,397 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Perry View Post
Ha ha. Good one. We've all seen those photos of 20 immigrants crammed into a small room in the mid-19th Century urban tenements. I wish I could have found one to illustrate this posting. But I did find this from Wikipedia--which I don't know to be accurate but it sounds reasonable:

Before Cincinnati's incline system was built in the 1870s, which allowed development of residential areas on the hills, the city's population density was 32,000 people per square mile.[SIZE=3][10][/SIZE] By contrast, in 2000 Cincinnati's population density was 3,879.8 people per square mile.

Yeah, bring back those good old days.
Really? The 1870s compared to 2012 Cincinnati. Truly a great comparison. The stretch people will go to try to make a point... wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,954,284 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Perry View Post
Ha ha. Good one. We've all seen those photos of 20 immigrants crammed into a small room in the mid-19th Century urban tenements. I wish I could have found one to illustrate this posting. But I did find this from Wikipedia--which I don't know to be accurate but it sounds reasonable:

Before Cincinnati's incline system was built in the 1870s, which allowed development of residential areas on the hills, the city's population density was 32,000 people per square mile.[SIZE=3][10][/SIZE] By contrast, in 2000 Cincinnati's population density was 3,879.8 people per square mile.

Yeah, bring back those good old days.
Yeah, just think of all the new skyscrapers that would pop up downtown and in the adjacent neighborhoods! Our skyline would definitely rival that of New York or Hong Kong. That is, of course, if people didn't gripe and complain about so many new buildings that were taller than Carew Tower. Perish that thought. Hell, it's hard enough to get them to build anything of decent height (or attractiveness) at the Banks.

Anyway, tried to rep you again, but apparently I'm not handing out enough points to others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,954,284 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler87 View Post
Really? The 1870s compared to 2012 Cincinnati. Truly a great comparison. The stretch people will go to try to make a point... wow.
But it's a valid point, which apparently some people aren't really thinking about. I mean, come on....isn't that the dream of urban enthusiasts who like to bash the suburbs and all those who live in them? Don't they secretly wish for two things...either that we all die, or all move into the city core? So yeah, it's a valid point to consider where you'd put the rest of us 1.9 million people within the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,843,397 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
But it's a valid point, which apparently some people aren't really thinking about. I mean, come on....isn't that the dream of urban enthusiasts who like to bash the suburbs and all those who live in them? Don't they secretly wish for two things...either that we all die, or all move into the city core? So yeah, it's a valid point to consider where you'd put the rest of us 1.9 million people within the city.
How is it valid? 1870s infrastructure compared to today's just for the starting point...

The suburbanites are just as guilty of wishing harm on the city as the urbanites are on the suburbs. All I see on this forum is a consistent bashing of the city and its neighborhoods. Hell, I live in the suburbs, I have no problem with them, but when someone is going to bash the city, you bet I will call out their BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:07 AM
 
2,886 posts, read 3,959,331 times
Reputation: 1499
Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
Yeah, just think of all the new skyscrapers that would pop up downtown and in the adjacent neighborhoods! Our skyline would definitely rival that of New York or Hong Kong. That is, of course, if people didn't gripe and complain about so many new buildings that were taller than Carew Tower. Perish that thought. Hell, it's hard enough to get them to build anything of decent height (or attractiveness) at the Banks.

Anyway, tried to rep you again, but apparently I'm not handing out enough points to others.
Look, in all seriousness, I'd love to see more residential infill construction in Cincinnati's older neighborhoods. The property tax abatement program that encourages it is one of the best incentives the city has put in place (at least I think that's a municipal program; if it's county, I apologize). And as far as I know, these small pocket developments have been VERY well received and are an asset to the neighborhoods where they occur. I am absolutely no admirer of sprawl, but I do think redevelopment efforts need to be spread throughout the city--meaning specifically the City of Cincinnati--and not confined to the central business/residential district.

Curious what some of the posters here actually define as "suburbs" as they try to demonize types of development of neighborhoods they don't like.West End? Price Hill? Fairmount? Westwood? College Hill? Saylor Park? Where exactly are the boundaries where, as Mr. Hall suggested a few days ago, city residents should have to start to "fight for their interests" to get their streets repaired?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,954,284 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler87 View Post
How is it valid? 1870s infrastructure compared to today's just for the starting point...
It's valid because the inference is that the suburbanites should all move back into the city core....but there simply aren't enough residential units in the city core to house 1.9 million extra people. The population of downtown is what, maybe 12,000 currently? All this negativity I hear coming from Matthew Hall about the suburbs....I'm not hearing any solutions. So what WOULD the solution be...move us all back into the city? My point is...WHERE would we all live?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler87 View Post
The suburbanites are just as guilty of wishing harm on the city as the urbanites are on the suburbs. All I see on this forum is a consistent bashing of the city and its neighborhoods. Hell, I live in the suburbs, I have no problem with them, but when someone is going to bash the city, you bet I will call out their BS.
I honestly don't see all that much bashing of the city and its neighborhoods. What I DO see is a constant stream of people praising the merits of living in the city itself, particularly Hyde Park, Oakley, OTR, Northside, and the Clifton area. Anytime someone mentions wanting to find something in the suburbs, the wolves come out of their dens and try to discourage people from living in...oh, say West Chester....because it is somehow baddddddd and boring and bland and all "cookie cutter" and sterile and how the schools aren't as great as people think. So instead, the people say "You don't want to live out THERE. Why not check out Wyoming or Hyde Park instead". It's stuff like that which I hear FAR more of than any comments from people in the suburbs bashing the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,954,284 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Perry View Post

Curious what some of the posters here actually define as "suburbs" as they try to demonize types of development of neighborhoods they don't like.West End? Price Hill? Fairmount? Westwood? College Hill? Saylor Park? Where exactly are the boundaries where, as Mr. Hall suggested a few days ago, city residents should have to start to "fight for their interests" to get their streets repaired?
Hopefully my sarcasm wasn't too veiled. I don't want to give the impression I'm "anti-city development". I have my own personal ideas about how I'd like to see Cincinnati progress and grow, but people think I'm stupid so I never express those ideas. I've always gotten shot down whenever I did. So I don't.

Anyway, I'm babbling. It's hard to think of what constitutes the "suburbs" because clearly there are some places outside the city limits which are deemed "suburban" - such as Delhi - while still having other parts of the city proper extend beyond those suburbs. For instance, Delhi sits in a pocket surrounded by Price Hill to the east, Westwood/Covedale to the north, and Riverside/Sayler Park to the south/southwest. So to me, personally, whenever I reference the suburbs, I'm talking about places that lie out further...such as Anderson, Loveland, Montgomery, Mason, West Chester, Forest Park, Colerain, Harrison, Lawrenceburg, Florence, Alexandria, etc. Those places which are generally more than 10 miles from downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2012, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,843,397 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by insightofitall View Post
It's valid because the inference is that the suburbanites should all move back into the city core....but there simply aren't enough residential units in the city core to house 1.9 million extra people. The population of downtown is what, maybe 12,000 currently? All this negativity I hear coming from Matthew Hall about the suburbs....I'm not hearing any solutions. So what WOULD the solution be...move us all back into the city? My point is...WHERE would we all live?



I honestly don't see all that much bashing of the city and its neighborhoods. What I DO see is a constant stream of people praising the merits of living in the city itself, particularly Hyde Park, Oakley, OTR, Northside, and the Clifton area. Anytime someone mentions wanting to find something in the suburbs, the wolves come out of their dens and try to discourage people from living in...oh, say West Chester....because it is somehow baddddddd and boring and bland and all "cookie cutter" and sterile and how the schools aren't as great as people think. So instead, the people say "You don't want to live out THERE. Why not check out Wyoming or Hyde Park instead". It's stuff like that which I hear FAR more of than any comments from people in the suburbs bashing the city.
Comparing 1870s Cincinnati to Cincinnati today is not valid. No one is saying move everyone from the suburbs into the city.

I will say this again, because I believe I have already pointed this out. I live in the suburbs... I have no problem with the suburbs. What I notice here in this sub-forum is there is a huge divide between the people who enjoy the suburbs and city. Once one person says something, they jump into all these assumptions and start bashing the other. I enjoy both. There are people who are going to enjoy the suburbs, and then you have the people who enjoy the city. You can find positives and negatives in both. The problem here is people refuse to the see the positives in one another, while finding and discussing only the negatives against each other.

If people want to move to the suburbs that is their decision and I will help that poster find any information they like. I have told people to look into Mason, Lebanon, Blue Ash, West Chester, etc before. And if people are looking into the city, I will tell them what neighborhoods, downtown, etc will fit them best. It doesn't help a poster at all once one person from the other starts bashing one place because they don't like it.
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