U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 02-12-2013, 02:24 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,520,060 times
Reputation: 687

Advertisements

275 is big for a ring road, and it's not a good thing. Doesn't make sense, but it is what it is. The "real" ring road in the city is bound by 275 on the south, 75 on the west, 71 on the east, and the Norwood Lateral on the north.

Annexation is highly improbable. Cbus has been able to do it by tying it to utility expansion, which Cincinnati has missed the chance to do. I don't see much or any annexation happening for Cincinnati, short of maybe one day doing a city-county merger. Which could really be a disaster for progressive urban policy, if it happens in the current political climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2013, 02:55 PM
 
101 posts, read 149,457 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by natininja View Post
I don't see much or any annexation happening for Cincinnati, short of maybe one day doing a city-county merger. Which could really be a disaster for progressive urban policy, if it happens in the current political climate.
Why would that be bad for progressive urban policy? Seems like it would reduce some overhead where there is duplicate functions at the city and council level, thus allowing that spending to be more efficiently allocated. I'm just spit-balling here, so I'd love to understand your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,829,904 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8buckeye08 View Post
Why would that be bad for progressive urban policy? Seems like it would reduce some overhead where there is duplicate functions at the city and council level, thus allowing that spending to be more efficiently allocated. I'm just spit-balling here, so I'd love to understand your point.
I think this blog post will be revealing for you.

The Urbanophile Blog Archive Cincinnati vs. Cincinnati
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 04:27 PM
 
101 posts, read 149,457 times
Reputation: 32
Interesting... so, your theory is that adding the Hamilton County voters outside of Cincinnati to vote tallies would swing the needle in the direction of the Tea-Partiers? Maybe, in a few years, once all of the efforts pay off in Cincinnati being one of the more prosperous cities of its size in the US (fingers crossed), some of those folks will see the light.

It's hard to be a Republican when you see crap like what Chabot said or see the gerrymandering. I feel like a man without a party!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,829,904 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8buckeye08 View Post
Interesting... so, your theory is that adding the Hamilton County voters outside of Cincinnati to vote tallies would swing the needle in the direction of the Tea-Partiers?
Something like that. There is such a sharp divide here, and you even see it on City-Data. Personally, I don't feel we need them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 10:01 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,520,060 times
Reputation: 687
It's not just Tea Partiers who are anti-progressive urbanism. Many suburban democrats are also urban-skeptics, or not very urban-friendly.

The city, while having lost a ton of people over the past half century, has hit a sweet spot where there is still money in the city (many cities lost that over the same time period) and there is a large progressive voting bloc who cares deeply about the city and its neighborhoods. People who moved to the suburbs had a mentality of willingness to give up on the city and its progress. I believe the urbanite-suburbanite divide is greater than the Democrat-Republican one on urban issues.

Just look at kjbrill, who is an Obama-supporter. He is no Tea Partier, but he might as well be if he were given the vote on urbanist policies.

Fortunately for you, there are places for conservatives supporting cities (specifically, here, transit), e.g.:
Center for Public Transportation

This is a great article, which I think was recently posted in this thread:
All good Libertarians are pro-transit | Keep Houston Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Cleveland , Ohio
419 posts, read 872,933 times
Reputation: 104
Default That is interesting

Because Cleveland was doing that in the early 20's . And the state put a stop to it !
The story is a little more complex , then that statement , but it is true


. Cbus has been able to do it by tying it to utility expansion,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2013, 07:46 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,014,610 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8buckeye08 View Post
What about population growth through annexation. Columbus did this to include malls outside their outerbelt, I believe. What if Cincinnati decided to gobble up some of the existing townships and/or small towns between the river and 275.

Also, while we're talking about interstates... anyone have an explanation of why 275 goes all the way out to Indiana? I haven't spent a lot of time on the west side, but it seems like it should just go north from the airport to I-74?
Hi n8buckeye08--

You won't see any population growth through annexation anymore, not with the deep divide you have between the city of Cincinnati and pretty much every suburban jurisdiction surround it. Even the townships (Anderson Township, etc.) would likely incorporate into their own city if they were threatened by annexation from Cincinnati.

People that left Cincinnati for the suburbs already had their wallets burned multiple times by City Council - the empty riverfront transit center, the overpriced stadiums, and the Banks which was delayed for more than a decade (but mercifully seems to be going forward now).

They wouldn't likely be sold again. The majority of posters I see on this forum don't seem to remember the past failures - either because they've chosen to forget or simply weren't in town for them. But the people who left the city for the suburbs have longer memories, and won't get annexed anytime soon.



As far as I-275 goes, it was purely a political decision to extend it out to Indiana. If Cincinnati had their way, the south side of the loop would probably be somewhere around 12th St. in Covington, and the west and east bridges would run directly to Westwood and Columbia, respectively, probably meeting up with what is now the Columbia Parkway. At that length it would be a viable bypass but would have done nothing for the suburban development we now see (on the Kentucky side, a lot of it is actually outside the current 275 loop - Burlington, Independence, etc.)

Of course, 275 now serves admirably as a quick way to get to the boat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2013, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,829,904 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
People that left Cincinnati for the suburbs already had their wallets burned multiple times by City Council - the empty riverfront transit center, the overpriced stadiums, and the Banks which was delayed for more than a decade (but mercifully seems to be going forward now).
You have never verified this theory at all. No sources, nothing. Just people moved to the suburbs because they don't like local city council. Yet, you ignore many links, and sources that have been repeatedly posted on CD forums that prove that population shifts in Cincinnati are a very complex topic, with multi-faceted reasons, of which city council plays no part. You seem like a smart person, so what gives? Deliberate misinformation? Ulterior motives?

Oh - BTW - the banks project is recognized nationwide as a resounding success, even earning considerable page space in a recent New York Times article titled
An Ohio River City Comes Back to Its Shoreline

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/r...anted=all&_r=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2013, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
31,201 posts, read 57,343,818 times
Reputation: 52058
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
People that left Cincinnati for the suburbs already had their wallets burned multiple times by City Council - the empty riverfront transit center, the overpriced stadiums
Gotta give credit where credit is due. It was the Hamilton County commissioners that made those wonderful stadium deals.
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