cincinnati region · 2019. 1. 11. · cincinnati region . the cincinnati region features a small,...

CINCINNATI REGION

The Cincinnati region features a small, low-income, and racially diverse central city surrounded by a large ring of predominantly white and comparatively affluent suburbs. About 37 percent of residents live in an area that is experiencing strong abandonment or poverty concentration, compared to about 3 percent in a strongly expanding area. This imbalance is even greater in the central city itself, where nearly 70 percent of residents – and 77 percent of low-income residents – live in a strongly declining area. Regionally, the white population in these declining areas has dropped by about 100,000 since 2000, indicating significant white flight. Meanwhile, the Asian, black, and Hispanic population of the same neighborhoods has grown rapidly.

Although gentrification and displacement are rare, they are not nonexistent, and areas surrounding downtown Cincinnati have experienced both. This particularly includes the vicinity of Washington Park and adjacent neighborhoods.

Regional Total Population: 2,162,046

Regional Low-Income Population: 618,510

Regional Nonwhite Population: 421,322

Central City Population: 299,938

Central City Low-Income Population: 143,527

Central City Nonwhite Population: 153,279

NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)

Central City: -2,973

Suburbs: -1,649

NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)

Central City: 19,008

Suburbs: 85,586

1 1

DETAILS ON TABLES

The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:

• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live).

• Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low-income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).

Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:

• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non-low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps.

• In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.

Three sets of tables are provided. They are:

• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city.

This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.

Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.

• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share.

• 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts.

• Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.

* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.

2 2

DETAILS ON MAPS

Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.

The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:

• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive.

• Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving.

• Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring.

• Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.

The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.

The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.

3 3

3.0% 65,448 33.3% +16,341 37.3% 807,055 -5.6% -47,7382.5% 15,164 -23.4% -4,622 54.3% 336,098 45.2% +104,5942.7% 7,878 -26.8% -2,889 58.4% 170,006 71.8% +71,0673.1% 4,375 -14.0% -713 58.0% 82,353 81.0% +36,8566.4% 152 -0.7% -1 38.3% 907 -54.1% -1,0708.4% 4,003 684.9% +3,493 28.5% 13,640 26.4% +2,8502.6% 6,675 -29.8% -2,840 70.0% 182,487 15.8% +24,8574.4% 2,768 305.9% +2,086 50.7% 31,827 224.5% +22,0182.9% 50,601 35.3% +13,211 31.9% 555,829 -15.9% -105,4334.1% 18,508 223.0% +12,778 27.4% 124,561 11.8% +13,1932.6% 25,151 -1.2% -305 40.7% 400,104 -7.2% -31,0603.1% 8,142 27.9% +1,777 36.4% 96,774 -18.3% -21,6251.8% 790 -49.0% -759 61.4% 26,898 62.4% +10,3313.3% 7,352 52.7% +2,536 31.5% 69,876 -31.4% -31,9562.1% 647 -41.1% -451 63.6% 19,660 58.4% +7,2513.1% 16,324 27.0% +3,466 36.7% 191,258 -13.7% -30,4143.1% 15,079 20.0% +2,517 42.3% 206,334 -3.3% -7,0203.2% 27,222 43.6% +8,267 35.0% 299,941 -2.7% -8,3512.3% 6,823 44.8% +2,110 37.1% 109,522 -2.0% -2,2812.9% 60,096 25.8% +12,334 37.1% 768,309 -7.5% -62,4495.8% 5,352 297.9% +4,007 41.8% 38,746 61.2% +14,7032.7% 15,088 58.2% +5,552 32.0% 176,638 -13.9% -28,4743.7% 10,621 8.2% +807 52.0% 147,843 6.5% +8,9764.8% 4,253 24.7% +842 50.9% 45,426 76.4% +19,671

11.3% 243,565 26.9% +51,621 57.5% 1,243,904 -3.9% -50,7367.3% 45,005 -11.3% -5,717 71.6% 442,905 39.9% +126,4147.3% 21,178 -7.1% -1,611 75.1% 218,873 65.7% +86,7737.9% 11,253 6.8% +717 75.7% 107,542 74.5% +45,925

11.3% 267 -20.5% -69 53.8% 1,273 -51.3% -1,34312.9% 6,172 326.8% +4,726 49.7% 23,819 43.3% +7,1996.4% 16,690 -17.4% -3,512 81.7% 212,920 16.2% +29,7528.5% 5,337 205.0% +3,587 66.8% 41,914 194.8% +27,694

12.1% 210,732 26.8% +44,562 53.7% 934,024 -11.9% -126,05313.3% 60,583 104.6% +30,970 50.7% 230,506 16.0% +31,81010.5% 103,517 10.7% +9,973 60.2% 590,785 -6.1% -38,32511.4% 30,409 11.2% +3,066 56.1% 149,019 -17.3% -31,1645.7% 2,517 -28.8% -1,020 77.7% 34,039 59.9% +12,752

12.6% 27,892 17.2% +4,086 51.8% 114,980 -27.6% -43,9165.6% 1,739 -26.0% -612 79.9% 24,703 59.2% +9,182

11.5% 60,027 15.2% +7,902 56.0% 291,854 -13.2% -44,19210.1% 49,535 11.2% +4,974 62.0% 302,636 -3.1% -9,81712.1% 104,145 37.5% +28,376 55.3% 474,105 -1.9% -9,23910.1% 29,858 56.9% +10,822 59.4% 175,309 7.6% +12,37111.3% 234,463 24.5% +46,212 57.4% 1,187,896 -5.6% -71,1179.8% 9,102 146.7% +5,413 60.4% 56,008 57.2% +20,375

12.1% 66,738 36.8% +17,962 54.0% 297,930 -9.6% -31,5938.8% 25,026 4.7% +1,113 70.2% 199,481 7.4% +13,754

11.6% 10,322 39.2% +2,906 68.1% 60,821 73.0% +25,663

*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.

Data: U.S. Census.

Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units

Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born

Foreign-Born Foreign-Born

Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)

Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)

Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families

Single Mothers Single Mothers

College-Educated College-EducatedNon-College Non-College

Families Families

Black BlackHispanic Hispanic

White White

Extreme Poverty Extreme PovertyAmerican Indian American Indian

Asian Asian

TOTAL TOTALLow-Income Low-Income

Poverty Poverty

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Expansion*

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods with Any Indicators of Economic Decline*

(Cincinnati Metro) (Cincinnati Metro)

2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Cincinnati Region

ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion

Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Decline

(Cincinnati Metro) (Cincinnati Metro)

4 4

4.8% 14,341 -11.8% -1,927 68.3% 204,746 -9.5% -21,4335.0% 7,126 -29.4% -2,973 77.0% 110,537 20.8% +19,0085.6% 4,827 -26.1% -1,705 77.5% 66,956 40.5% +19,2905.9% 2,764 -22.7% -813 77.1% 36,017 52.4% +12,3886.9% 36 111.8% +19 76.7% 401 -18.2% -899.9% 520 162.6% +322 60.4% 3,159 -6.4% -2153.6% 4,654 -47.6% -4,228 77.0% 99,176 -0.9% -8527.9% 754 132.0% +429 72.1% 6,897 171.1% +4,3535.4% 7,946 23.1% +1,490 60.3% 88,460 -23.2% -26,7617.3% 4,731 198.9% +3,148 46.9% 30,544 2.9% +8484.1% 5,209 -40.3% -3,513 73.9% 93,542 -13.2% -14,1943.3% 1,101 -30.9% -493 71.0% 23,558 -20.6% -6,1163.8% 475 -45.8% -401 79.8% 10,059 25.5% +2,0423.0% 626 -12.8% -92 65.5% 13,499 -37.7% -8,1583.7% 384 -47.6% -349 80.4% 8,292 25.7% +1,6943.3% 2,231 -35.7% -1,239 72.4% 48,697 -15.5% -8,9456.6% 6,247 14.7% +800 67.5% 63,995 -2.6% -1,6924.7% 4,879 -20.7% -1,272 66.4% 68,751 -6.3% -4,6432.9% 984 -17.5% -209 67.6% 23,303 -20.3% -5,9444.7% 13,271 -15.3% -2,398 68.3% 194,680 -10.6% -23,1707.2% 1,070 78.3% +470 67.8% 10,066 20.9% +1,7422.6% 1,344 74.5% +574 61.0% 31,330 -19.7% -7,6667.4% 6,152 -7.1% -473 67.6% 56,169 -4.5% -2,628

10.0% 2,626 14.7% +336 69.0% 18,106 65.5% +7,165

11.5% 34,516 -6.9% -2,562 80.3% 240,809 -9.2% -24,3819.0% 12,952 -25.5% -4,425 84.1% 120,769 18.2% +18,6329.4% 8,115 -23.5% -2,488 84.2% 72,695 38.3% +20,139

10.6% 4,974 -17.5% -1,056 83.5% 38,977 49.3% +12,8689.8% 51 -34.6% -27 79.3% 415 -25.2% -140

16.2% 847 84.5% +388 76.7% 4,011 -1.0% -408.0% 10,296 -37.3% -6,133 83.3% 107,289 -1.8% -1,935

13.2% 1,260 118.8% +684 82.0% 7,846 151.6% +4,72814.3% 21,017 10.8% +2,045 77.6% 113,813 -20.5% -29,32719.0% 12,378 69.3% +5,065 69.6% 45,323 6.4% +2,7339.2% 11,639 -30.1% -5,019 82.4% 104,219 -14.2% -17,312

10.6% 3,505 -18.5% -797 83.0% 27,542 -19.8% -6,7998.1% 1,023 -37.2% -607 87.3% 10,997 25.2% +2,210

12.1% 2,482 -7.1% -190 80.3% 16,545 -35.3% -9,0098.0% 825 -39.6% -541 87.4% 9,018 25.1% +1,808

10.3% 6,953 -18.7% -1,598 83.4% 56,081 -15.3% -10,14312.5% 11,840 2.1% +245 79.6% 75,414 -2.3% -1,80212.1% 12,471 -8.8% -1,197 78.7% 81,430 -6.7% -5,8329.4% 3,252 3.8% +120 80.9% 27,884 -18.6% -6,362

11.5% 32,730 -8.9% -3,179 80.3% 228,830 -10.4% -26,49412.0% 1,786 52.8% +617 80.7% 11,979 21.5% +2,12011.6% 5,969 20.6% +1,020 78.6% 40,385 -17.0% -8,27213.4% 11,161 -9.5% -1,178 77.5% 64,430 -4.9% -3,34114.3% 3,747 2.2% +80 75.6% 19,825 62.1% +7,597


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Cincinnati ) (Cincinnati )










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty


TABLES FOR CENTRAL CITY ONLY - Cincinnati




(Cincinnati ) (Cincinnati )

5 5

2.7% 51,107 55.6% +18,268 32.3% 602,309 -4.2% -26,3051.7% 8,038 -17.0% -1,649 47.5% 225,561 61.1% +85,5861.5% 3,051 -28.0% -1,184 50.3% 103,050 101.0% +51,7771.7% 1,611 6.6% +100 48.6% 46,336 111.9% +24,4686.3% 116 -14.7% -20 27.5% 506 -66.0% -9818.2% 3,483 1016.3% +3,171 24.6% 10,481 41.3% +3,0651.5% 2,021 219.3% +1,388 63.2% 83,311 44.6% +25,7093.8% 2,014 464.1% +1,657 46.9% 24,930 243.2% +17,6652.7% 42,655 37.9% +11,721 29.3% 467,369 -14.4% -78,6723.5% 13,777 232.2% +9,630 24.2% 94,017 15.1% +12,3452.3% 19,942 19.2% +3,208 35.8% 306,562 -5.2% -16,8663.0% 7,041 47.6% +2,270 31.5% 73,216 -17.5% -15,5091.0% 315 -53.2% -358 54.0% 16,839 96.9% +8,2893.3% 6,726 64.1% +2,628 28.0% 56,377 -29.7% -23,7981.3% 263 -27.9% -102 55.1% 11,368 95.6% +5,5573.1% 14,093 50.1% +4,705 31.4% 142,561 -13.1% -21,4692.2% 8,832 24.1% +1,717 36.2% 142,339 -3.6% -5,3283.0% 22,343 74.5% +9,539 30.6% 231,190 -1.6% -3,7082.2% 5,839 65.9% +2,319 33.1% 86,219 4.4% +3,6632.6% 46,825 45.9% +14,732 32.1% 573,629 -6.4% -39,2795.5% 4,282 474.8% +3,537 36.8% 28,680 82.5% +12,9612.7% 13,744 56.8% +4,978 29.0% 145,308 -12.5% -20,8082.2% 4,469 40.1% +1,280 45.6% 91,674 14.5% +11,6042.6% 1,627 45.1% +506 43.3% 27,320 84.4% +12,506

11.2% 209,049 35.0% +54,183 53.9% 1,003,095 -2.6% -26,3556.7% 32,053 -3.9% -1,292 67.8% 322,136 50.3% +107,7826.4% 13,063 7.2% +877 71.3% 146,178 83.8% +66,6346.6% 6,279 39.3% +1,773 71.9% 68,565 93.1% +33,057

11.7% 216 -16.3% -42 46.6% 858 -58.4% -1,20312.5% 5,325 439.5% +4,338 46.4% 19,808 57.6% +7,2394.9% 6,394 69.5% +2,621 80.1% 105,631 42.9% +31,6877.7% 4,077 247.3% +2,903 64.0% 34,068 206.9% +22,966

11.9% 189,715 28.9% +42,517 51.5% 820,211 -10.5% -96,72612.4% 48,205 116.2% +25,905 47.6% 185,183 18.6% +29,07710.7% 91,878 19.5% +14,992 56.9% 486,566 -4.1% -21,01311.6% 26,904 16.8% +3,863 52.3% 121,477 -16.7% -24,3654.8% 1,494 -21.7% -413 73.9% 23,042 84.3% +10,542

12.6% 25,410 20.2% +4,276 48.9% 98,435 -26.2% -34,9074.4% 914 -7.2% -71 76.1% 15,685 88.7% +7,374

11.7% 53,074 21.8% +9,500 51.9% 235,773 -12.6% -34,0499.6% 37,695 14.3% +4,729 57.8% 227,222 -3.4% -8,015

12.2% 91,674 47.6% +29,573 52.1% 392,675 -0.9% -3,40710.2% 26,606 67.3% +10,702 56.6% 147,425 14.6% +18,73311.3% 201,733 32.4% +49,391 53.8% 959,066 -4.4% -44,6239.4% 7,316 190.3% +4,796 56.5% 44,029 70.8% +18,255

12.1% 60,769 38.7% +16,942 51.4% 257,545 -8.3% -23,3216.9% 13,865 19.8% +2,291 67.2% 135,051 14.5% +17,095

10.4% 6,575 75.4% +2,826 65.0% 40,996 78.8% +18,066


Data: U.S. Census.









Families Families


White White


Asian Asian


Poverty Poverty



(Cincinnati Suburbs) (Cincinnati Suburbs)










Families Families


White White


Asian Asian

TABLES FOR REGIONAL SUBURBS - Cincinnati Region


Poverty Poverty





(Cincinnati Suburbs) (Cincinnati Suburbs)

6 6

275

71

74

7571

42

50

127

27

50

32

275275

74

50

471

Madison (t)

Fairfield (t)

Harrison (t)

Cincinnati

Reily (t)

Batavia (t)

Ross (t)

Colerain (t)

Turtlecreek (t)

Oxford (t)

Miami (t)

Milford (t)

Morgan (t)

Goshen (t)

Green (t)

Mason

(t)

Hamilton (t)

Union (t)

Liberty (t)

Hanover (t)

Anderson (t)

Fairfield

Clear Creek (t)

Hamilton

Miami (t)

Pierce (t)

Monroe

West Chester (t)

Middletown

Crosby (t)

St. Clair (t)

Lebanon

Whitewater (t)

Covington

FlorenceOhio (t)

Franklin

Independence

Delhi (t)

Deerfield (t)

Erlanger

Oxford

Blue Ash

Sharonville

Taylor Mill

Trenton

Union

Wilder

Forest Park

Milford

Evendale

Villa Hills

Springdale

Madeira

Edgewood

Amberley

Reading

Loveland

Norwood

Wyoming

Newtown

Cleves

Woodlawn

The Villageof Indian Hill

Alexandria

Symmes (t)

Harrison

FortThomas

Cold Spring

Montgomery

Newport

RylandHeights

Elsmere

Sycamore (t)

FortWright

Lemon (t)

AmeliaFortMitchell

NewRichmond

Dayton

tavia

Glendale

South Lebanon

Silver Grove

Ludlow

Highland Heights

Cheviot

Rising Sun

Southgate

Lockland

St. Bernard

Crestview Hills

Silverton

Greenhills

Fairfax

Bellevue

NorthCollege Hill

North BendTerrace Park

Addyston

MountHealthy

Fairview

Melbourne

Columbia (t)

Deer Park

Crescent Springs

New Miami

Park Hills

Mariemont

Seven Mile

Millville

Lakeside Park

Golf Manor

Bromley

Maineville

Lincoln Heights

Elmwood Place

Arlington Heights

Crestview

KentonVale

Jacksonburg

Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data).

CINCINNATI (CENTRAL) REGION:Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tractwith Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016

BOONE

KENTON

CAMPBELL

CLERMONT

HAMILTON

BUTLER

WARREN

IN OH

OHKY

Miles0 5

129

126

Abandonment:(1)< -700 Low Income

Economic Decline:

(21)-1 to -699 Low IncomeLow Income Concentration:

(127)1 to 699 Low Income(63)> 700 Low Income

Low Income Displacement:(2)< -700 Low Income

Economic Expansion:

(14)-1 to -699 Low IncomeOverall Growth:

(4)1 to 699 Low Income(0)> 700 Low Income

Economic expansion/decline is defined if a tract has a +/- 10% change in middle-high-income population and a -/+ 5% change in low-income population share, respectively.

77

cincinnati region · 2019. 1. 11. · cincinnati region . the cincinnati region features a small,...

Documents