Jump to content
Guest urbanlife

Cleveland: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

Cleveland's population, 478,000 in April 2000, is projected to fall to 425,00 by 2010 and slip beneath the 400,000 threshold in 2020.

That's a scary thought; however, call it optimism, but I think things will turn before the population shrinks to these levels. 

 

Cleveland's suburbs are not big enough to build big-city amenities. And the city is evolving into something smaller and weaker. But the combined strengths are impressive.

The simplest argument for regionalism.  I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems as good a place as any to ask...

 

Is there an estimated peak population for Cleveland that occurred either before or after the 1950 Census?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very sad but I think it's likely to happen. Ohio as a state is probably done growing for the most part.

 

I think Cleveland and Toledo are the metros that have stagnated the most in Ohio. I always thought metro Cincy grew over the last decades, but maybe I was wrong....

 

I do think Cleveland will slip below 400,000 pretty soon. My own predictions for Ohio cities in 2020 go like this. This is not scientific or anything. Just my guess assuming that the only city to annex will be Bustown.

 

Columbus- 875,000

Cleveland- 400,000

Toledo- 275,000

Cincinnati- 250,000

Akron- 190,000

Dayton- 115,000

Youngstown- 60,000

 

But in all honesty, I do think Toledo will annex or merge with Lucas County creating a city of near 450,000. I would guess one or two other Ohio cities might follow suit. I'm not familiar with the governments of the other metropolitan areas, so I'm not sure which ones will push hardest. I think the big cities all over the midwest and east will start exploring annexation and county mergers much more aggressively in the near future. There's probably no way they will be able to sustain themselves without it.

 

As great as the new trend of gentrification in downtowns and some urban neighborhoods has become, the exodus from the ghettos is drastically outpacing it. I think that is mostly a nationwide trend. The only central cities that really "grow" have massive land areas and far from the midwest. As has been stated on this forum before, the pre-annexation Columbus has actually lost people.

 

I don't think just because a central city is smaller means it is "worse" It's just spreading its wings. The difference is what kind of spread that is and how much of it is sprawl. Metro Toledo and Metro Cleveland are very similar in the fact they haven't grown much in the last couple of decades. The biggest difference I see is that a very small percentage of the Toledo area lives in sprawl. A very high percentage of the Cleveland area lives in sprawl. I can't believe how much it keeps sprawling given zero growth. It's all about the per capita land consumption. Toledo should have sprawled much more than it did. I also think Columbus has limited sprawl, obviously more than some other cities, but one has to keep in mind that Bustown is booming. Some sprawl is expected with population growth. It seems the per capita land use in Greater Bustown is not too bad compared to other cities. I know many people think of it as sprawlsville, Ohio, but it merely is just a more modern city. It's extremely disturbing when there's sprawl without population growth like the Northeast Ohio setup.

 

My understanding of metro Cincy is that northern Kentucky is a major center of growth. It seems that the Kentucky side is sucking the blood out of the Ohio side for the most part. Maybe it's just me, but the Kentucky suburbs seem to be loaded with all sorts of entertainment and dining options that should be in downtown Nati. I have no idea why or how Kentucky has this stuff.

 

That article explains the effect of needing a larger infrastructure with a stagnant or shrinking population really well. It's sad to think how much more money it takes to support the same popualtion when they are spread all over the place. Metro Cleveland is going to be stretched real thin, literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems as good a place as any to ask...

 

Is there an estimated peak population for Cleveland that occurred either before or after the 1950 Census?

 

Yeah I'd wonder that too. I think Cleveland might have peaked in the late 40's, but the 915,000 has to be pretty close to the actual peak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

250,000 seems very low for 15 years from now...as does a flat 400,000 for Cleveland.

 

Well that depends how you look at it historically. Cleveland was losing more than 100,000 people a decade from 1960-1980. It actually went from like 875,000 to 575,000 in just 20 years. Cincy has had some fast loss too. I think it might actually be one of the fastest shrinking cities in the country and is showing few signs of leveling off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cleveland and Toledo are the metros that have stagnated the most in Ohio. I always thought metro Cincy grew over the last decades, but maybe I was wrong....

 

Cincinnati Metro grew at 9%.

 

Columbus- 875,000

Cleveland- 400,000

Toledo- 275,000

Cincinnati- 250,000

Akron- 190,000

Dayton- 115,000

Youngstown- 60,000

 

I doubt Dayton will hit 115,000 by 2020.  If anything, by projection, it would be 140,000.  Cincinnati and Toledo probably in the 290,000s.  Cleveland, probably at 400,000.  Youngstown might be 60,000, never know.  Akron, I can see at 200,000 or 190,000.  Columbus will probably be at 825,000.  Columbus will level off soon, unless Gahanna is going to be annexed :D.

 

My understanding of metro Cincy is that northern Kentucky is a major center of growth. It seems that the Kentucky side is sucking the blood out of the Ohio side for the most part. Maybe it's just me, but the Kentucky suburbs seem to be loaded with all sorts of entertainment and dining options that should be in downtown Nati. I have no idea why or how Kentucky has this stuff.

 

No, Boone County in Kentucky is booming, don't get me wrong, but northern suburbs of Cincinnati are booming the most, people-wise.  southern Warren and Butler counties are exploding (Warren is Ohio's second fastest growing county, behind Deleware in Columbus Area).  It has nothing to do with entertainment and such; strictly jobs.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just out of curiosity, are all of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs incoporated?

 

that i know of, since it is a city with racism, thus an older city, thus less likely to be unincorporated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did Columbus last annex land?

I don't have the real answer to this question, but a Dispatch feature in 2003 had a chart showing annexation through the decades, and it showed six square miles gained in the 2000s to that point.  Whenever the last annexation was, it can't have been too long ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if land has been annexed since that article was published.

 

As far as stagnancy goes, the Dayton metro is pretty stagnant, too.  The official MSA will show a small loss in population, but if you include northern Warren and Butler Counties it evens out, or possibly posts a small gain.  In any case, there is close to zero population change, but more and more land is becoming sprawl.

 

Metro Columbus obviously has the most growth, but it really is a lot of sprawl, too.  I think Franklin County has a net out-migration; it's just not as bad as the other urban counties.  As far as I know, birth rates are the only thing causing population growth in Franklin County.  I'm sure the rate of sprawl in the Columbus area outpaces population growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metro Columbus obviously has the most growth, but it really is a lot of sprawl, too.  I think Franklin County has a net out-migration; it's just not as bad as the other urban counties.  As far as I know, birth rates are the only thing causing population growth in Franklin County.  I'm sure the rate of sprawl in the Columbus area outpaces population growth.

 

Bingo.  Particularly Union, Fairfield, and Delaware Counties.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

    Ohio Population Summary

 

    Ohio has 11,500,000 people according to the 2000 Census.

 

    There are four components to population change. They are births, deaths, immigration, and emigration.

 

    The formula is: Population change from year A to year B = births - deaths + immigration - emigration.

 

    In Ohio, the birth rate is low and dropping; the death rate is low and rising; immigration and emigration are fairly small and about equal.

 

    The birth rate is still higher than the death rate. That means that we had more babies this year than funerals. But, since we are having fewer and fewer babies every year, and at the same time more and more funerals every year, at some point those two numbers have to meet.

 

    The Census has estimated that year as 2018.

 

    That's right: in 2018 the State of Ohio will peak in population. In 2019 we will begin losing population. Rounding off to the nearest Census year, Ohio will peak in 2020.

 

    Since we are only 13 years from the peak, and are on the flat part on the top of a very gradual curve, you might as well say that we are peaking now. We are only 400,000 people, over the whole state, from our all-time high, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

    Go to the Census web site yourself and look it up.

 

-- ----------

 

    The next question is a more detailed look at cities. Within Ohio, people are moving from one place to another. The general statement is this:

 

    People are moving from the cities to the suburbs. People are also moving from the rural areas to the suburbs.

 

    "Moving" does not necessarily imply that a family packed up their stuff, sold their house, and moved to a new one. It could also mean that the birth and death rates are not constant across the state. The birth rate will be higher in places with lots of young couples, such as new subdivisions. The death rate will be higher in places with lots of old people.

 

    Of the 88 counties, roughly half lost population between 1990 and 2000. About 1/4 gained, and 1/4 were stable. We know where the "growth" areas are, but is this "growth" beneficial when it is accompanied by decline somewhere else? I guess it depends on who you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio and Cleveland will grow again. The cost of living and doing business will be much lower here, than in places like  California and Florida. Texas has ALOT of room so i expect that place to keep on growing with cheap land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    That's right: in 2018 the State of Ohio will peak in population. In 2019 we will begin losing population. Rounding off to the nearest Census year, Ohio will peak in 2020.

 

    Since we are only 13 years from the peak, and are on the flat part on the top of a very gradual curve, you might as well say that we are peaking now. We are only 400,000 people, over the whole state, from our all-time high, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

    Go to the Census web site yourself and look it up.

That is a projection, not a destiny.  I don't think we should operate on the assumption that it will come true, or else it will come true.

 

    The next question is a more detailed look at cities. Within Ohio, people are moving from one place to another. The general statement is this:

 

    People are moving from the cities to the suburbs. People are also moving from the rural areas to the suburbs.

 

    "Moving" does not necessarily imply that a family packed up their stuff, sold their house, and moved to a new one. It could also mean that the birth and death rates are not constant across the state. The birth rate will be higher in places with lots of young couples, such as new subdivisions. The death rate will be higher in places with lots of old people.

 

    Of the 88 counties, roughly half lost population between 1990 and 2000. About 1/4 gained, and 1/4 were stable. We know where the "growth" areas are, but is this "growth" beneficial when it is accompanied by decline somewhere else? I guess it depends on who you are.

You can get some idea of where "growth" is growth and where it is just shifting of people by looking at Census migration statistics, which record people's residence five years prior to the census.  For instance, of the 109,000 people in the sprawling hell of Delaware County in 2000, 20,000 of them lived in Franklin County in 1995.  That accounts for nearly half of the county's population increase from 1990, if I'm not oversimplifying the calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a step back through all of this and remember -these are 30 year PROJECTIONS.  No one has a crystal ball.  The key is to take this as a "worst case" scenario, and continue to build the areas of our economy that are growing, thus reversing the trend.  Cleveland can buck these projections and regain population (city and metro), but the worst thing we can do is say "screw it, there's no chance" and resign ourselves to becoming a mid-size metro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more likely that the metro might not be as stagnant as is predicted (along with metro Toledo and Dayton too), but I'm not sure if the trend of leaving the central city is going to stop or even level off by 2020. Something very big would need to happen in our country to end sprawl and bring people back to the central city. Very few central cities with static geographical boundaries are growing. This is over a 50 year trend in some places (Cleveland, Detroit, etc.). Maybe oil supplies will be cut severly, making driving hell. Fresh water could very well play another role. Water out west will get very expensive, and the Great Lakes cities will start looking quite attractive. Fresh water is in very short supply out west and down south. The Colorado River doesn't even flow to its tradtional mouth anymore. It sort of just drys up in the middle of the desert. My only fear is that the Great Lakes won't exist in 20 years because our government will have pipelined all the water out there!! Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. shouldn't even sustain life. Talk about ignorant places to build a city! Cleveland makes a lot more sense.

 

It is likely that everything will burst out west, and Ohio will start being sweeter than it already is with or without population growth. It's quality, not quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I agree. Even places in the Southeast U.S. are seeing water problems, as salt water from the ocean is being drawn into freshwater aquifers hundreds of miles inland.

 

As for energy, I recall that the rejuvenation of German Village in Columbus got its first boost during the 1970s oil crises from people wanting to live closer to work downtown. The same can be said for Ohio City in Cleveland, which saw its first bits of gentrification in the 1970s.

 

Think about a city like Cleveland, where some parts of its appear more rural than urban. I'm thinking of areas on the East Side, such as along Kinsman, the Red Line, and the combined Blue/Green lines around the East 79th station. What keeps these rural are the numerous EPA Superfund sites that await costly cleanup. But it can be done. Battery Park was an EPA Superfund site, due to all the battery acids and chemicals buried in rusting drums on the former Eveready property. Now, ground has been broken on the large housing redevelopment. More funding is needed to clean up a hundred or more sites like it, just in Cleveland.

 

The problem is, metropolitan planning organizations like the Northeast Areawide Coordinating Agency (or Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission in Columbus, or Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission in Dayton, etc.) use past trends to guide future public investments for roads, transit and other infrastructure. They need to develop a regional vision through consensus on what people want their region to look like in 20, 50 even 100 years from now, since the infrastructure investments of today will still be on the landscape (if we build well!) that far into the future.

 

Using past trends to guide investments for the future has been one of the biggest failings of our cities, our state and even our country. It's time to put a stop to it if we want to stop throwing away the neighborhoods we've already built for new ones farther out.

 

KJP


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland (along with Pittsburgh and Buffalo) industrialized first... become obsolete first... and is now overcoming obsolescence first...

 

Cleveland's ahead of the game... it's already acheived ZPG (Zero Population Growth).  ZPG has been acheived by many of the greatest European cities for decades now... and they're more vibrant and successful than ever.  The US is headed towards a grim fate if its third-world-esque explosive growth rates (heavily weighted towards unsustainable desert environments) continues unabated.  Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo will be well-positioned as healthy alternatives to the inadequate carrying capacities of the Sunbelt sprawlers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

far as i know the most recent annexation for columbus was for polaris along I-71 on the far northside. not sure tho maybe something after that too? easton maybe?

 

ev i wish it were true but reaching zero pop growth is not very good news for cleveland. it works in europe because those are the big cities in their own individual countries and get all the attention and support they need. cleveland cannot even get anything like that from it's own state, much less washington. so good health will be only be found via an influx of immigration and added jobs. nobody is going to help the city/region so it has to be done internally and via regional cooperation, a doable but very difficult task. indeed rust belt cities are well positioned for re-birth & growth but i dont see it happening anytime soon energy crisis or not -- everyone is still running south and west. charlotte's and phoenixes are still boom towns --- but forget them cleveland should be looking to the denvers and milwaulkees for inspiration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you saw this in the 10/15/05 PD.  Any thoughts?

 

 

Planners see benefits in cities getting smaller

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

For centuries, it seemed a law of nature: Cities grow.

 

That's why so many people fret over the shrinking populace of Cleveland and other cities wallowing in post-industrial misery.

 

But a handful of planners explored an alternative, even blasphemous, view Friday at Cleveland State University: It's OK to be smaller, if you embrace the vision of a cleaner, greener and leaner city...

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1129368946179170.xml&coll=2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was also discussed this morning on NPR. Discussants were Morrison, Terry Schwartz of Kent State's UDC, and Jerry Egan of the Comprehensive Planning division of Akron's planning department.

One caller brought up the idea of turning vacant urban land into small farms to supply local restaurants. Schwartz said it was a nice idea but difficult in practice because most urban soil is contaminated. Morrison said Youngstown is looking at reforestation, rather than farms, for its vacant property.

Morrison suggested less emphasis should be placed on infill development for vacant property -- that we should instead concede that our cities' population continues to decline, create more density on less land, and convert other land over to public parks and greenspace.

Interesting discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Morrison is right.  I think that we should especially target things like the Cuyahoga Valley, Kingsbury Run, and Walworth Run for "un-development" and then redevelop them as parkland as part of our Metroparks system.  I'd also like to see a policy of urban stream restoration that would include buying up and demolishing houses that are built over culverted streams as they become vacant or are put on the market.  That land could be banked until a sizeable portion of the stream could be uncovered, thus creating a neighborhood greenbelt.  Ideally, I think that we would have a city of dense urban villages defined and connected by greenbelts.

 

I'd hate to see this done scattershot, however, like was done in the 70's and 80's when they would just give over individual lots to the people next door so they could have sideyards or try to turn any old vacant lot into a random park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of reforestification near urban streams. But after all these years of being built up and over, and with a possible lack of good mapping system back in the old days, would we be able to find these old streams? There would also be the logistics of opening thre creeks that became sewer lines underneath roads. I also disagree with morrisons point on infill. Infill is good in alot of areas, its filling up the areas that should have something there ,to make a more cohesive vibrant neighborhood. Can we honestly say infill in the tremont area is bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they can find underground streams, although sometimes they don't find them until you try to build on top of them.  Then you aren't aloud to build!  So all that's left is assembling the sites, and of course uncovering the stream.  That is expensive, certainly.  But if it's done under the aegis of parkland development, I would think there are resources out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about the Cleveland MSA and CSA population figures. From 1990-2000 the CSA including Akron gained around 86,000, and I am not sure about the Cleveland MSA ( I think it held steady). What are the latest CSA and MSA populations? Is the economy of northeast Ohio improving? I have heard some postive stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in January I overheard the following and posted on cleveland.com

 

Returning to Cleveland yesterday via plane, and overheard a majority of a conversation by three people about the POSITIVE increase in population!

 

I could clearly see one person was from the census, I think the other two were from HUD, but I cannot be sure. The woman from the census clearly stated, "There has been a 6.5 - 8% population growth in the city of Cleveland itself and 3-4% growth in the burbs" (yet she did not say what the "burbs" boundaries were. So I don’t know if they meant just the Cuyahoga county burbs or the burbs in all the counties adjacent to Cuyahoga county).

 

They also mentioned the "housing boom" the inner city is experiencing and they would like to inquire what the city/state/real estate leaders will come up with for better retail options. The job market is finally rebounded (not sure if they were speaking about our region or in general) and is a good location for corporate and regional headquarters.

 

They also stated that the city is a good investment because of our low cost of living compared to Boston, Wash., DC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Dallas, Phoenix & Miami and safer!

 

The city is leader in medical, insurance and banking and now there is a high demand for service and luxury goods. Stating that this is the top area for buying luxury goods in either New York or Chicago! The one downfall they felt the city had is inadequate transportation via rail and air and that public transit is ok, but they don’t see any positive plans for growth. They also liked the "positive interest" about a possible casino.

 

I'm searching all over to see if the population information has been published anywhere but I thought this might be a good Tuesday morning read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could you tell where they were from?  Were they wearing "HUD" baseball caps or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^naughty evesdropper

 

The thought of just "getting all up in their business" crossed my mind several time.  I took a lot of will power to restain myself to turn around in my seat and just rattle off questions!  You have no idea how hard i was "dipping".  these people were in the two seats behind me and one accross the aisle. 

 

At one point i did ask, "are you talking about Cleveland".  The guy next to me said, "he can see how this is true as he moved from Solon to tremont, and that all of his neighbors we're transplants from other cities".  He mentioned the tax abatement and the undiscovered energy of the city makes Cleveland new and exciting for young people.

 

In addition, I had a friend from Indi, who came to Cleveland for the football classic, in September, fell in love with Cleveland because he felt it was the most progessive place in the midwest (outside of Chicago).  He got a job the last week of October and moved to Cleveland on November 5.  So for people who say there are no jobs here...thats BS!

 

**  this was my 500th post  & Oh my God, I got another star.  I feel, like, sooooooooooo special - like, OK! **  :drunk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuyahoga County has been losing population at a pretty rapid pace.  But it would not surprise me at all to see the 2010 census show an increase.  There is no doubt in my mind there will be a bump in the county's population.  Cleveland's is one I'm not so sure about.  Should the development continue, it should be possible for Cleveland to make a gain when 2010 comes around. 

 

In 2003-04, the Census estimated that Cuyahoga had lost 10,000 people in that span. From 2000-04 , it is estimated the county lost 45,000 people.  So, it makes me wonder what changed that now it came back up.    It was also estimated that the area as a whole lost 3,000 residents in that four year span.  These numbers came out in April.  I still believe that the county with make this up before 2010 but I wonder just when this time of "growth" occured.  The latest estimates released to the public show the opposite. 

 

And unusualfire is completely correct.  To attract people, you must have jobs.  It is just that simple.  Cleveland gets shafted somewhat in the population numbers as there are plenty of transient people who are in  the area but are not counted by the Census.  These are students, professionals training in the hospitals.  These are people listed as being from their home state although all their time and money is being invested here.  I'm just guessing but I believe Cleveland has plenty of these transients thanks to UH and the Clinic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well we also have to remember the last census there were problems in cleveland and many other areas of cuyahoga county as people and elected officials complained the areas they represented did not get counted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every urban area in the country complains to the Census about being undercounted.  The census has serious problems counting everybody, but almost every leader from every  urban area that lost population complains about the same thing.  Undercounts, they should include homeless, etc.  NEO is no different than any of those.   IMHO, it all evens out since every other city complains about that as well :)  That still doesn't change their estimates they put out in April though.  Remember, that  this is a estimate, there is no actual counting going on.  The whole undercounted thing really doesn't apply here unless they totally missed their estimates.  The prior complaints were in 2000, where they were actually counting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised to see the seven-county CMA and the City itself show increases in 2010. However, I'd be very surprised to see Cuyahoga County as a whole show growth. Most Cuyahoga County suburbs are now entering the phase Cleveland was in 50 years ago, where people abandon obsolete housing and retail options for newer stuff. Ironically, a good share of that newer stuff is now being built in the City (as well as in places like Medina, Lake and Geauga counties).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that much of it has to do with abandonment.  I think most of the population loss is caused by declining household size.  People's children grow up and leave.  They move somewhere else because there is little land for their new household to create a new housing unit in Euclid or Willowick.  Pretty soon a house that held 4 holds 2 and a couple of other houses had to be built somewhere where there was developable land available.  That's a 50% drop in population for the original community, and a gain for the new communities.  Yes, new families move in to the old suburb but statistically they have fewer children than the generations before. 

 

Multiply that whole process by 1,000's of families and you have a significant population drop. The only way to keep a constant population in an era of declining household sizes is to redevelop the same land with more housing units.  Household sizes have been almost been cut in half since the 1950's.  This is where most of Cleveland's and its inner suburb's population has been lost.  Highways and demolition make up a much smaller portion.  So if Cleveland, for example, wanted to regain its 1950 population of almost a million people, it would need to have twice as many housing units as it did in 1950.  You're talking apartments and townhouses instead of singles and doubles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Excellent point


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely true about household size -- an important factor. Still, I doubt it accounts for all (or even most) of the estimated population drop of most cities in Cuyahoga County. Parma, for example, went from about 85,600 people in 2000 to 82,600 in 2004, according to Census estimates -- a drop of 3.5%. Seems too rapid to be explained purely by family demographics, though I suppose it's possible.

Regardless, the ability of Cuyahoga County cities to regain population depends on how well they can build new housing -- or better yet, adapt old housing -- to meet the needs of contemporary households (including single people and couples without children). I think the City of Cleveland is doing that better and in greater volumes than any other municipality in Cuyahoga County. Lakewood and Cleveland Heights are starting to catch on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the average household size was say, 3 people, then a drop of approx .1 person in household size would account for the change in population.  That would be the equivalent of 1 in 10 houses going from say, one child to none.  Add in families going from 2 children to 1 or 3 to 2 or spouses dying off, single mothers, etc. and it isn't hard to see that causing a population drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  ^ X is absolutely correct. The first phase in population loss is a decrease in the number of people per house, which is essentially the same as the number of people per family. Ultimately, if buildings are outright abandoned, the number per house goes down to zero. That problem occurs in some of the worst core neighborhoods. But, overall, the biggest change at present seems to be the decrease in family size in the first-ring suburbs, while new subdivisions in the suburbs are gaining both in young couples who moved there from an older neighborhood as well as their new kids.

 

    Keep in mind that the Census is a night-time count. Essentially, they are counting beds in residential areas rather than workers in employment areas. 

 

    Birth rates continue to drop. It was common for pioneer families of the 1820's to have 10 kids. By contrast, the baby boom of the 50's averaged about 3.5 children per family! Now it's close to 2.0.

 

    This comes as a surprise to a lot of people, but there were more children born in the United States in 1955 than in any other year. In Ohio, there are fewer and fewer children born each year. We are only increasing in population (barely) because old people are getting older instead of dying, while new people are being added to the system by birth. In the big picture, immigration and emmigration to and from Ohio from outside the state are about equal, and small. Census projections show that when the baby boomers really start dying in their 70's and 80's, our population is going to drop. This is based on current trends, with assumptions with regard to future birth rates, death rates, and migration. Of course, they could be wrong, but they could be wrong in either direction!

 

    This is the third time that I've mentioned this on this site. If you don't believe it you can look it up.

 

    REALITY CHECK: Census projections show that Ohio will reach peak population in 2018, and then decline for the forseeable future. That's just 12 years away!

 

    So, if the city is losing population to the suburbs while people move around within the state, what do you think is going to happen when OHIO AS A WHOLE is losing population? We could have people move back from the suburbs to the city and STILL have our cities lose population!

 

    I'm just trying to be realistic here, not alarmist. It's not necessarily bad to lose population. Times change, and we change with them. Time does not move backwards, and the 1950's are gone forever. It is unrealistic to try to re-create the 1950's. In my humble opinion, quality of life is more important than the number of bodies you can count. The 2010 Census promised to be interesting, to say the least.

 

    I find The Banks project in Cincinnati interesting in that the premise is that new residential buildings will attract new people. But, where will these people come from? If they come from another place within the city, then there is no net gain. The same goes for projects in Cleveland, or anywhere else in Ohio. About one fourth of the counties in Ohio are losing population, one fourth are gaining, and one half are stable.  Ultimately, to get new people, you need immigration or births. In Japan, where population of the entire country is peaking now, the politicians are calling for women to have more kids!

 

   

 

   

 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland still losing people

City could drop below 400,000 next July, projections show

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Robert L. Smith

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Seemingly just yesterday, former Mayor Jane Campbell announced a crusade to push Cleveland's population back above the 500,000 plateau by attracting jobs, housing and immigrants.

 

Forget about it. It's even getting late to rally for 400,000.

 

A U.S. Census Bureau survey released today shows that Cleveland's fortunes continue to slide. The city's population is on track to dip below 400,000 by next July -- a number last seen in the early 1900s...

 

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

rsmith@plaind.com, 216-999-4024

www.cleveland.com/census/index.ssf/archive/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really cant believe these estimates, its a bit crazy to think the city is losing population at the same rate as the 1970s... i mean by next year we'll be under 400,000??  does that mean we'll be the size of Toledo by the time 2010 comes??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...