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 03-07-2013, 03:54 PM
 
2,886 posts, read 3,962,865 times
Reputation: 1499

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
Hi kjbrill--

Here's the stats that none of the other posters are willing to post.

Is there redevelopment on the Banks and in OTR? Sure. But it's not doing much to reverse a city-wide trend, and it won't happen until the city as a whole becomes a desirable place to live. That doesn't mean Cincinnati isn't in a bad area, or the economy is truly awful, or there aren't any jobs. That's why the area is doing just fine.

Which is why since 1950 the metro area has gained 901,881 people (from 1,270,310 to 2,172,191).

But the city has lost 207,647 since that same year, and shrunk from being ~40% of the metro area to less than 15%.

Get it together, Cincinnati.

There is nothing preventing the city of Cincinnati from succeeding except its backwards-thinking City Council that believes redeveloping OTR is a silver bullet that will bring the city back to its glory days, and the people who also subscribe to this belief. If they want people to move back into the city, they need to make the whole place - including all its neighborhoods - desirable places to live, work, and play.
Exactly. There are good reasons why people have been voting with their feet. This is not to disparage the redevelopment which has taken hold in the city's core. But even modest amounts of money and resources directed at the neighborhoods could do wonders to stop what is a real population hemorrhage. The city simply cannot expect to retain large numbers of responsible, financially viable homeowners when so many quality of life issues continue to be ignored. And, no, there is no rate rapid enough of developing new housing downtown to "fix" this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,838,861 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
Here's the stats that none of the other posters are willing to post.

Quote:
1950 503,998
1960 502,550 −0.3%
1970
452,525 −10.0%
1980 385,460 −14.8%
1990 364,040 −5.6%
2000
331,285 −9.0%
2010
296,945 −10.4%
Est. 2011
296,351 −0.2%
Actually, you prove my point. The Est. 2011 actually shows that population loss is stabilizing, which precedes growth and is the lowest since 1960.

Remember Hen. To turn around a declining city you need to:

- Retain existing residents
- Retain existing businesses
- Attract new residents
- Attract new businesses

By redeveloping downtown, OTR, etc., Cincinnati has done the most important thing it could to reverse it's fortunes: stabilize it's urban core. In fact, the urban core is seeing strong growth. This is absolutely vital in redeveloping Cincinnati.

I think Cincinnati has it together just fine.

Report: Downtown Cincinnati population up 12% - Business Courier
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,838,861 times
Reputation: 924
For those of you who care to understand deeper nuances of Cincinnati's population loss, here is a very well researched article:

What’s the full story behind Cincinnati’s 50-year population decline? — UrbanCincy

To quote:

Quote:
Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by those who practice the politics of decline, this loss of population is symptomatic not of variously corrupt or negligent city officials but is rather the outcome of social trends that have evolved well outside the purview of city government.
Quote:
Cincinnati’s municipal boundaries have not changed since it achieved its peak population in 1950, but thousands of prewar homes and apartments have since been replaced by non-residential structures. This means Cincinnati not only lost tens of thousands of residents for construction of expressways, light industry, and other purposes, but these properties are generally unavailable today for any effort to repopulate the city. Cincinnati’s loss of residents and residential land was not limited to expressway construction and urban renewal projects. In the neighborhoods collectively known as Uptown, physical growth of universities, hospitals and other institutions has resulted in the demolition of over 1,000 homes and apartments since 1950.
Quote:
A variety of unscrupulous local politicians and media figures cleverly play two sides of Cincinnati’s population loss narrative. According to them, Cincinnati has lost population due to high crime, high taxes, and corrupt city governance. But should the city start attracting new residents, the perceived “bad element” will be pushed outside city limits and into the areas of those trumpeting this false narrative.
Quote:
Therefore, with every avuncular call for Cincinnati to improve itself, these figures work to undermine the city’s capital improvements, and have succeeded in creating a suburban culture that looks upon the city and those who support it with deep suspicion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:10 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,523,244 times
Reputation: 687
^^^ and ^^^^

You both ignore the fact that the more suburban neighborhoods of the city are at a structural disadvantage when pitted against outside municipalities. Along with the city comes legacy costs which suburbs are buffered from by municipal lines. If Wyoming or Glendale annexed Lincoln Heights and Lockland, the glorious governments which run those wealthy municipalities would suddenly become "ineffective". They'd have intractable problems on their hands, and no government of any political ideology would be able to just solve things.

By focusing extra attention on the city center, the city is enhancing its assets which the suburbs cannot compete with; the assets that give the city a structural advantage; the assets which yield the highest return on investment. To say the city is ignoring other neighborhoods is also not accurate (e.g. look at the city's streetscape program, and attempts to stem the foreclosure crisis), but throwing a ton of money at neighborhoods which contemporary housing trends put at a structural disadvantage when competing with the suburbs is a lot like throwing tons of money at inner-city schools and expecting it to fix things, which should be language you suburbanites understand.

You have to invest where your money will have the greatest impact, and that's what the city is trying to do. I will not say everything they do is perfect, but when you look at the way apartments and condos are being gobbled up in the city center faster than they are coming online, and you see the center of the city springing to life in a way it hasn't been in decades, you have to recognize the successes of this strategy. You can't build a 300+ unit apartment complex in Westwood or College Hill and expect it to draw a bunch of professionals who will help the economic situation in the city, which by the way helps the entire city and not just the area the apartment building is built.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,398,559 times
Reputation: 1920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomJones123 View Post
Actually, you prove my point. The Est. 2011 actually shows that population loss is stabilizing, which precedes growth and is the lowest since 1960.

Remember Hen. To turn around a declining city you need to:

- Retain existing residents
- Retain existing businesses
- Attract new residents
- Attract new businesses

By redeveloping downtown, OTR, etc., Cincinnati has done the most important thing it could to reverse it's fortunes: stabilize it's urban core. In fact, the urban core is seeing strong growth. This is absolutely vital in redeveloping Cincinnati.

I think Cincinnati has it together just fine.

Report: Downtown Cincinnati population up 12% - Business Courier
Regrowing Cincinnati is a nobal idea and one which is growing. But it is is actually overcoming the decline in the City's population as a whole? I have no doubt it is is raising the population of downtown. But is the City as a whole regaining population and not reducing? That is what I am not too sure off. If the downtown is up 12%, and considering where that was coming from that is not a great number of people. Like I always remembered, 12% of near zero is still abouit zero.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,838,861 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
But it is is actually overcoming the decline in the City's population as a whole?
It has to start somewhere.

Quote:
Est. 2011 296,351 −0.2%
Also, you really can't ignore:

Quote:
Total Investments since 2010: $7,172,100,032
When did 7.1 billion become insignificant?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,022,302 times
Reputation: 2334
Hi all--

I would be real careful before using population estimates as an indicator of whether the population's stabilizing.

Here's an old Wiki article to prove my point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=382207487

The 2008 population estimates said that the City's population had actually risen from 331,285 (2000 census) to 333,336 (2008).

Of course, we know what actually happened in 2010 - a drop to under 295xxx, or greater than 10% loss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,838,861 times
Reputation: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
I would be real careful before using population estimates as an indicator of whether the population's stabilizing.
Back peddling? I was just using your information.

Or am I only allowed to cherry pick data that shows continued population decline?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,838,861 times
Reputation: 924
Actually, there was an independent "drill down" population study done in Cincinnati that showed the census had vastly under-counted Cincinnati.

http://www.uc.edu/cdc/urban_database...own_report.pdf

I read it in it's entirety and it raises some very interesting points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2013, 05:43 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,523,244 times
Reputation: 687
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjbrill View Post
Regrowing Cincinnati is a nobal idea and one which is growing. But it is is actually overcoming the decline in the City's population as a whole? I have no doubt it is is raising the population of downtown. But is the City as a whole regaining population and not reducing? That is what I am not too sure off. If the downtown is up 12%, and considering where that was coming from that is not a great number of people. Like I always remembered, 12% of near zero is still abouit zero.
One thing to keep in mind is that population is not everything. In a lot of ways, people use population as a proxy for tax revenue. But in those cases, the gain of one resident is not equal to the loss of another. Here is where the "new left" urbanist is at odds with the traditional left. And it surprises me more conservatives are not on board with the concept.
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