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.
Yeah OTR probably represents about 16 percent of Cincinnati's urbanity. You can walk 3 to 4 miles south of OTR and 2 miles north of OTR and still be in a very dense tightly packed urban area with narrow streets and 19th century buildings massed upon one another. This tightly built urban area stretches about 6 miles from south to north and about 3 miles from east to west.
I wonder why then Cincinnati has a lower population density than all the other major Rust belt cities: Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester, St Louis, and Baltimore all have higher population densites. As far as I'm aware, cincinnati still had the same city limits as it did in 1950, and hasn't gone on an annex spree like KC, Columbus, and Indy has.
I wonder why then Cincinnati has a lower population density than all the other major Rust belt cities: Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Rochester, St Louis, and Baltimore all have higher population densites. As far as I'm aware, cincinnati still had the same city limits as it did in 1950, and hasn't gone on an annex spree like KC, Columbus, and Indy has.
I think family household size especially in old walking city has went down dramatically. At the turn of the 19th century there was close to 200,000 people living in the basin of CBD, OTR and the West End. This area was about 1.5 miles long and 2 miles wide so that was over 60,000 people per square mile living in buildings averaging 3 to 4 stories in height. This was the densest populated area of the US outside of Manhattan NY. Now if you include Covington KY, Newport KY, Bellevue KY, Mount Adams, Mount Auburn, Clifton Heights, Corryville and Walnut Hills you would have about 400,000 people living within a 3 mile radius of Fountain Square in the CBD.
To fit all those people in that amount of space you have to a built up area that is structurally built dense also. The problem is now no one with families wanted to live in those areas compared to the Arcadian hilltop neighborhoods several miles further out from the old walking city where you had fresh air and green space with abundant trees. The American dream was the single family house with the white picket fence for most of the 20th and 21st century, the extreme exact opposite of the CBD and OTR. So over time families moved out, household sizes decreased and the tenant buildings in the present day of OTR and CBD became converted into luxury apartments for single adults. The only areas that stayed densely populated consistently over time was the neighborhoods surrounding UC due to the student population.
^Yeah, I think the fact that Oklahoma City is 621 square miles in size and is in parts of 4 counties plays a part in this in terms of standard urbanity across the city. Its population density is a little over 1,000/sq. mi. To put this into perspective, Hamilton County OH, which is where Cincinnati is located is only 406 square miles and has about 150,000 more people. So, that likely plays a big part in this.
OKC's official population density is misleading, though. According to the 2020 census about 512,000 of OKC's 681,000 people live in 155 sq miles of continuous urban area, that's a density of 3,300/sq mi. In other words, 75% of OKC's people live in 25% of the city's boundaries.
Yet, how strangely ironic how people on here quite strongly think that Cincinnati is a better place to live, by far, than Oklahoma City by around 75% to 25%. The only way I can figure out why is because Cincinnati is better than Oklahoma City is because the metro area is quite significantly bigger in population as in: Cincinnati metro: 2,256,884. Oklahoma City metro only: 1,425,695.
It's quite totally irrelevant how Cincinnati, itself, has been declining in population as a rust belt city for decades, while Oklahoma City has been headed well up in population.
Not saying there's anything wrong with OKC as a city or metro overall, and I would like to visit at some point, but this thinking is predicated on the assumption that people always gravitate to the places that are theoretically most desirable by location which is not necessarily the case. People move based on, where they are born/their families are, where opportunities for work are (a not insignificant point in OKC for living, to be fair), and where they can afford to live based on the income their work provides.
If you asked a lot of people where they might want to live in the US, they might give answers like Florida Keys, Asheville, out in the western mountains/near a national park, or, Hawaii or the Caribbean. However, there are reasons why all of these places are actually relatively sparsely populated, and it's not necessarily the same as not wanting to be in said places.
I would agree that in this forum people are more focused on urban characteristics (thus, CityData, lol), but, even accounting for that bias, places where population grows are not necessarily always where everyone wants to move or considers most desirable, as a general point. Also, the thread just asked which one people prefer, not which one they would actually choose to move to and live in weighing it out-those can be separate from one another.
People go where there are jobs.
In a state like Oklahoma, those in rural areas gravitate towards OKC. At least that's been my experience with neighboring states like Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri. I know in Little Rock and Kansas City, at least half their growth seems to come from the surrounding small towns. Good thing is, at least these types of cities are able to capitalize somewhat on that movement rather than everyone just moving out of state completely.
No doubt, plenty of outsiders end up there as well.
Either way, it's legit growth, so they're doing something right in OKC.
I think when you have a bunch of non-familiar outsiders commenting on a place, caricatures start to form. Oklahoma City is a typical U.S. city with a lot to offer as well as having it's share of issues.
Oklahoma City is hosting the effective G20/Major Party Convention of Urbanism next year, the Congress for New Urbanism 2022, for whatever that is worth.
Yet, how strangely ironic how people on here quite strongly think that Cincinnati is a better place to live, by far, than Oklahoma City by around 75% to 25%. The only way I can figure out why is because Cincinnati is better than Oklahoma City is because the metro area is quite significantly bigger in population as in: Cincinnati metro: 2,256,884. Oklahoma City metro only: 1,425,695.
It's quite totally irrelevant how Cincinnati, itself, has been declining in population as a rust belt city for decades, while Oklahoma City has been headed well up in population.
OKC never wins any of these city vs. city polls. In this case Cinci wins to a great degree because of it's age and the character it has due to it's long standing as a grand river city.
OKC is just a plain old plains city. I guess that's why they call them the plains. Because they are kind of plain looking.
That being said I had a friend who was from OKC and got his masters at UC in Cincinnati. He was a grad asst. for the Bearcat basketball team. He always joked that the greatest day of his life was when he graduated and got in his car to get out of there. He couldn't stand it there. And it really wasn't that anything was wrong with the place. It just wasn't what he was used to.
Yet, how strangely ironic how people on here quite strongly think that Cincinnati is a better place to live, by far, than Oklahoma City by around 75% to 25%. The only way I can figure out why is because Cincinnati is better than Oklahoma City is because the metro area is quite significantly bigger in population as in: Cincinnati metro: 2,256,884. Oklahoma City metro only: 1,425,695.
It's quite totally irrelevant how Cincinnati, itself, has been declining in population as a rust belt city for decades, while Oklahoma City has been headed well up in population.
I chose Cincinnati because from what I’ve seen it looks like a nice city and I like to try new places out. I’ve never been there but it looks interesting in pictures and the topography is nice. Plus pro sports and being close to other states.
Now I have been to OKC and IMO it’s one of the most bland boring cities I’ve ever seen. I know the city limits are huge and when you enter OKC city limits it’s basically nothing but empty land that eventually turns into urban landscape, it stretches far and wide and I guess that makes the population seem bigger for OKC eating up so much land. It’s like Amarillo’s bigger uglier cousin, and I do like Amarillo though.
That huge skyscraper downtown looks out of place. I just drove through OKC last month, last year I actually stopped in the city and went to a park and ate and saw more of the city.
To me, Oklahoma City is a smaller version of Dallas/Fort Worth. It's nice, but it's a little too conservative for my taste and I'm not the biggest fan of the Great Plains.
I'd much rather live in Cincinnati, which is one of the most underrated cities in the nation IMO. Not only is Cincinnati historic (very German), but it's pretty as it's on a river surrounded by hills. It almost feels Appalachian-lite, probably because of the hills and close proximity to Kentucky. It's also not as brutally cold as other areas in Ohio.
To me, Oklahoma City is a smaller version of Dallas/Fort Worth. It's nice, but it's a little too conservative for my taste and I'm not the biggest fan of the Great Plains.
I'd much rather live in Cincinnati, which is one of the most underrated cities in the nation IMO. Not only is Cincinnati historic (very German), but it's pretty as it's on a river surrounded by hills. It almost feels Appalachian-lite, probably because of the hills and close proximity to Kentucky. It's also not as brutally cold as other areas in Ohio.
Those are the things I love about Cincinnati. Coming up 71 into Northern Kentucky you start to see the cultural changes. The region really plays off of its topography. It is quirky with a great sense of place. I enjoyed the road improvements and hopefully new bridge(s) when the infrastructure money comes through. I am not sure many people realize the region's size and impact on the economy.
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.
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.
