General Rant on Local Irritating Subjects (Columbus, Cleveland: price, vs., public transportation)

[abr7rmj]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Very simply, Cincinnati is pulling up the rear. If Cincinnati is right out there marching along with Atlanta please cite example for equal example where they are equal.

You totally missed my point.

There are myriad reasons why Cincinnati, Ohio, the entire Midwest and a lot of the Northeast aren't Atlanta. But 20-lane interstates aren't one of them.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

You totally missed my point.

There are myriad reasons why Cincinnati, Ohio, the entire Midwest and a lot of the Northeast aren't Atlanta. But 20-lane interstates aren't one of them.

Boom!

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by abr7rmj

For brill's reading enjoyment:

Cincinnati’s inner-city neighborhoods most densely populated, economically powerful in region — UrbanCincy

I know Brill won't read it, but here's some nice quotes.

According to the U.S. Census, more than 968,000 jobs are scattered all over the region, but it is the City of Cincinnati that stands out as the dominant force for the 2.1 million person region.

and

In the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), center city neighborhoods account for the highest concentration of jobs, with more than 22,000 jobs per square mile in Downtown’s 45202 zip code, and anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000 jobs per square mile in Uptown neighborhoods.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

For instance Cincinnati, at the current trend how long will it take to recover the 1950 population of 503,998?

Will you please get OUT of the past? No one is trying to regain Cincinnati's "glory years" and the city will never return to what it was. I know you won't actually read Mecklenborg's article, but here's a quote to help you out.

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

So while virtually every old American city has lost population within its city limits since 1950, some of that loss has occurred for reasons unrelated to the commonly heard decline narrative. Family sizes are smaller, non-residential buildings have been built in some former residential areas, and new neighborhoods have formed outside city limits to house those displaced by commercial and institutional growth. Considering these realities, the City of Cincinnati will likely never again be the home of 504,000 people, and so should not measure itself against its former peak population.

Originally Posted by kjbrill

So please stop saying everyone is going back to the urban centers. Some people have made that decision which is their prerogative, no doubt. But a mass exodus I hardly think so. BTW look at the City population increase from 2000 t0 2010 versus the MSA as a whole. I think that is enough said.

You need to actually read what I write. I NEVER said everyone is moving into the urban centers. I have cited multiple sources that plainly show a developing, long term trend, of people moving back to urban centers all across the country. Prove me wrong with something besides insisting that reality isn't real.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Will you please get OUT of the past? No one is trying to regain Cincinnati's "glory years" and the city will never return to what it was. I know you won't actually read Mecklenborg's article, but here's a quote to help you out.

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



You need to actually read what I write. I NEVER said everyone is moving into the urban centers. I have cited multiple sources that plainly show a developing, long term trend, of people moving back to urban centers all across the country. Prove me wrong with something besides insisting that reality isn't real.

Reality is real population figures. If the people are moving back into the urban centers then they should be showing population increases exeeding the growth of their MSA surroundings. Show me just where this is happening on an ongoing, 10 year or more basis.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

Reality is real population figures. If the people are moving back into the urban centers then they should be showing population increases exeeding the growth of their MSA surroundings. Show me just where this is happening on an ongoing, 10 year or more basis.

Ya, I'll get right on it.

[abr7rmj]

Lol ^

[neilworms2]

So while virtually every old American city has lost population within its city limits since 1950, some of that loss has occurred for reasons unrelated to the commonly heard decline narrative. Family sizes are smaller, non-residential buildings have been built in some former residential areas, and new neighborhoods have formed outside city limits to house those displaced by commercial and institutional growth. Considering these realities, the City of Cincinnati will likely never again be the home of 504,000 people, and so should not measure itself against its former peak population.

I wouldn't fully rule out the city returning to this population. NYC for instance has grown past its decline from 1950-1990 as has Boston (though in Boston's case the decline was ~1920-1970) and San Francisco. All there needs to be is enough mass gentrification to make the city desirable again. I think it will happen but it will take time. Cincy has too much going for it to be a laggard forever.

The last census was largely 2 things in Cincy - loss of the housing projects dispersing poor populations out of the city and into the west side and fall out from the riots - depopulation of the west side. I think long term though what will happen is the townships around Mt. Healthy will become slums and the historic neighborhoods on the west side will come back - provided that not too much is demolished :P. Growth is happening in OTR and around the University though we won't know the impact of that til the next census.

[natininja]

The city is rebuilding from the inside-out, the same way it was built in the first place. It takes time (and fixed transit, aka rail) for this urban core seed to blossom noticeably into the rest of the neighborhoods, but, as nielworms said, Cincinnati has too many assets for this not to occur.

There is a lot of space for infill development in the city, so I would not rule out a greater population than in years past. Actually, the potential is there for a much greater population. I don't think this will happen in Brill's lifetime, but as his generation's suburban-oriented worldview dies off (which is not the same as the suburbs dying off, btw) that will be another accelerant for growth.

[n8buckeye08]

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?