From an outsiders perspective, that story is coupled with stories on Indy and Columbus, and they collectively are highlighting some of the positive initiatives these cities are undertaking to stem population loss, or more accurately, accomodate growth. Perhaps (and maybe I'm reaching) the paper is trying to put some indirect pressure on council and the population at large to make some changes.
For example, the lexington article talks about a $15,000 credit for buying homes in the city. I seem to remember a proposal for a $2,500 credit that someone was pushing...what ever became of it? If the enquirer is publishing these things, couldn't logic dictate that I could see it and ask my councilmembers to do the same?
I suppose we should call the U.S. Census biased for daring to report that Lexington is growing and Cincinnati isn't? Please get over yourselves. As far as I can see, letting people know that other cities don't have the same problems that Cincy has is legitimate and not a "clear editorial bias" against Cincinnati. I suppose the papers could write only about the sunshine and puppies that live here, but that would be a lie. Cincinnati is a great place to live, but honestly there are better places and to expect people to put on blinders and ignore the rest of the world out of some misplaced and bizare sense of civic duty is completely insane. People who live here should do so because they think it is best for them and their families, not because they don't know any better.
Better places to live? Well Cincinnati wasn’t compared to Seattle, Boston or New York so no the places mentioned aren’t better places to live. Indy, Columbus & Lexington are hardly better places to live. In fact the article is totally misleading and caters to a suburban populous that probably knows little about the backgrounds of those cities other than traveling to Easton or Circle Center for some shopping. See the background of all the cities included in the study are uni-gov cities. They all annexed the existing county into the city. It would be like if all of Hamilton County would have been annexed into Cincinnati making a city of 830,000 people. What the story doesn’t tell you is that most of the growth in these cities happens in the outlying areas of the cities in the form of sprawly McMansion growth that you would tend to see in typical exurbia. Ironic that the article failed to mention that while downtown Columbus has seen some success in the Arena District, the original 1950’s boundaries of Columbus are still losing population and the downtown mall is in worse condition than Tower Place. Lexington is hardly worth mentioning in the same subject as Dayton, let alone Cincinnati. The downtown is a joke, it is about three blocks deep of quiet streets with little to no activity. You know that park that the editor commented on, ironically I took a photo in that direction on a Saturday afternoon and go figure there is less than a handful of people visible.
http://www.pbase.com/montecarlos.../image/
47970247
How about an honest comparison with cities that are old and land locked without the capability to annex land. Cities like St. Louis, Milwaukee or Cleveland would have at least been better comparisons but all those cities lost population. You think 79 murders are a lot? Why don’t we hear that Columbus has more murders than Cincinnati or that 79 murders would be a success in a city like St. Louis that averages about 150 murders a year. Face it, we are seeing the McMansionization of America. The Cincinnati Metro is growing as a whole but Cincinnati doesn’t have the open land to accommodate the current trends. While downtown Cincinnati is seeing a surge in development, the neighborhoods are suffering the most. I guess places like Roselawn and East Price Hill don’t appeal to people anymore. I know crime has increased in East Price Hill and some blame the destruction of Laurel Homes in the West End for spreading problems into the neighborhoods. I haven’t seen data to justify than claim but you can’t help but wonder if there is truth to it.
Lastly how about this story where the Enquirer claimed that Cincinnati fell below Detroit?
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pb...EWS01/
606210361
Here is another bogus claim by the Enquirer to brainwash people. Cincinnati did not “fall below” Detroit, it tied Detroit for the percentage of people leaving the city. Detroit also lost 6.8% of their population but with 64,599 people leaving the city, it ended up losing over 40,000 more people.
Again I know I come across as championing the city too much but seriously instead of hating on people that appreciate the city, maybe you should question the media outlets. I have proven that they are misleading people.
Goodnight,
Jayson
Amen brotha
There's always more than a handful of people in the park.
I'd say during the weekends, we pack em in more than any other single location downtown.
And we didn't get any subsidy from the City for moving here!
Having attended UK and being a frequent visitor to Lexington I can deifinitely echo the comments of montecarloss.
Downton Lexington is three blocks that clears out like a ghost town as soon as 5:30 p.m. rolls around. It has some nice bars and eating establishments, but the "young" energetic nightlife of Lexington is solely the product of the fact that Lexington is a major college town. That means a ton of people hanging on for their 5th or 6th year and grad students. Pretty much that 24-28 target demographic that people clamor so desperately for.
The vast majority of growth is on the south side of Lexington and is very much suburban tract development housing for young couples who likely have decided to stay after graduating.
Lexington is booming, there is no doubt, but it has no real museums, no professional sports, no riverfront, no real skyline, limited shopping, few dance clubs (other than country) etc. It's not yet a major city.
Doesn't really matter 50-60 years from now Dayton to Cincy to Lexington is going to be one giant metro area and all parts in between will be exurb. You can see that process taking place right now in both directions.
Why not County-wide metro government in Cincinnati? It would create a population demographic and tax base that is more akin to the country as a whole -- which is what you see in Columbus, Lexington, and Indianapolis (at least, we have a Nordstroms and Crate and Barrel, just like Columbus and Indy -- wait, that was a dream, like the Banks). County-wide metro government would make everyone an investor in the schools and the region and would greatly dilute the racial politics of the city to a more manageable place. The city is simply not diverse -- it's about 50/50 white / black, with not much else - unlike the 70/10/13 white / black / brown split in the country, with quite a bit of other groups. In the city, you just have stalemate and resentment, because those demanding programs cannot pay for them and those in the city who can pay for them do not need them.
Agree with RCT about the joining of metro areas -- problem is that 50-60 years from now, everyone reading these words will be dead.
Call me crazy, but I'm not sure that only tieing with Detroit instead of falling below it in percentage of people leaving the city isn't something you should hang your argument on. Detroit's not exactly the benchmark for how to revitalize a city.
jharrison, consider me very far out of the loop when I ask this question!! I thought a C&B was being built in Norwood? Or are you referring to one in the city center? Just curious...
Crate & Barrel signed a letter of intent but that land that they are going to build on is currently held up in the Supreme Court with the eminent domain case.
Zack, please don't dilute the message here. I agree it is nothing to be proud of but the headline was clearly misleading to drive the nail in further.
Can someone show me where the articles mentioned that Indy, Lexington, and Columbus are better places to live?
You can't -- because it doesn't say that.
The premise of the article (follow closely now) is that: (a) these cities are gaining population while Cinti is losing it, and (b) let's take a look at the strategies these cities have used to grow and reinvent themselves.
This typical circle-the-wagons, "everything here is fine" attitude is exactly one of the reasons why many have little optimism about the future of the city.
In response to the question above, Norwood is not in the City of Cincinnati. Also, since timing is everything in retail development, my guess is that the longer the eminent domain battle goes on in Norwood, the harder it is to get commitments from retailers.
All that being said, it says nothing positive about development or growth in the City of Cincinnati. How long has that eyesore on the river been there? How long have people been talking about the Banks? What exactly has happened? Look, if the governance of the city has been given over to people who are not committed to the downtown business core, because such commitment ignores the majority of the poor black residents of that core City, then let's be honest about it. Also, let's ask what exactly it is these leaders have done to change the lives of those poor people and how they plan to pay for it with no tax base?
Dave P. perhaps you should "follow closely", my comment about "better places to live" was in response to Tokyo Joe's comment.
Montecarloss, gotcha. I missed that, sorry.
Commenting by HaloScan
