DaninDC

I had to highlight this quote, because the theme has been persistent through this thread. If so many people agree that Steelyard Commons will (hopefully) be bulldozed for something better in the future, then WHY NOT JUST BUILD SOMETHING "BETTER" IN THE FIRST PLACE? Nothing like designing for low expectations and obsolescence. It's the Cleveland Way!

BWI's transformation is not the result of one guy, though. The State of Maryland has sunk incredible sums of money into that airport over the past few years. What a fantastic airport--you can fly direct to Manchester, NH or Ghana, and everywhere in between, not to mention the rail connection to the entire Northeast Corridor. True, the business climate in this region drives a lot of the investment (what other region has three solid airports?), but on the other side of the coin, I think Cleveland's complacency and reluctance to invest in itself have helped drive Hopkins in the other direction. All these factors are tightly intertwined.

And if you want to get more creative and selectively consider only the past five years, OSU actually leads the all-time series. GO BLUE!!!

I would be one of them! I hate that stupid light rail connection from Penn Station. What a waste. Gotta love 17 minute headways during rush hour for that overglorified bus on rails.

That's not quite what you said above: I understand if extensions were funded with Olympic money, though.

I'm not arguing the 1979 part, MTS. I'm highly skeptical that Olympic money paid for the MARTA rail system. Atlanta wasn't even selected until 1990--11 years after the first segment opened.

Are you sure about that? I was certain the MARTA rail system opened its first segment in 1979 (with planning beginning in the 1950s--well before the Olympic effort). And, for all its supposed shortcomings versus RTA, the "joke" MARTA rail system carries nearly a quarter of a million passengers per day, or about six times the ridership of RTA's rail system. www.itsmarta.com

I listen to more hard-rock and metal, so my nominations in addition to those above: --the late, great Randy Rhoads --Dimebag Darrell--made two notes into one of the heaviest riffs ever on "Walk" --Dave Mustaine is highly underrated, and perhaps one of the best rhythm players ever

Actually, quite a few Senators and Congressmen are bigtime Amtrak supporters, and recognize that airlines are heavily subsidized. Right now, I'm thinking Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and former Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, because those guys actually ride/rode the train back to their homes--mostly because it was a REALISTIC option.

Not really. Hours of Operation is a business expense, and any loss can be written off on the IRS 1040. Commuting 90 miles a day--that's just plain dumb, and I don't feel sorry for anyone who does that. American Dream-atcha!

I noticed the same thing in DC. The percentage went up by 5.2% in 2 years (!). A lot of the old-school "lifers", who tend to be blue collar types, are cashing out and moving into PG County, Maryland, while the young and educated, yuppies, and empty nesters are moving into town.

And people say where I live is expensive...sheesh!

While public squares are something I adore, this rubbed me the wrong way:

Okay, I confirmed it--the rankings are for "places". In most cases, these are cities, as noted on the chart: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R1402&-ds_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_&-redoLog=false&-format=US-32&-mt_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_R1402_US30

Hmmm. Interesting stat, kendall. I just noticed that the percentage with college degrees in DC was about 47%, according to the article, when I know in the District itself, it's more like 39%. The median household income also seemed lower than one would expect, so it seemed like it would include outlying suburbs (where incomes tend to be lower). It would be interesting to see what the methodology was. Glad you enjoyed yourself on the Hill. Send me a PM--I'd love to hear where you hung out!

Because people in the Cincinnati area make less money, on average, than the other cities. Just want to clarify that this list is based on Metropolitan Areas, not "cities", as the article title claims.

I agree. It requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce steel and concrete--the two most common building materials for non-residential structures. Furthermore, the quality and supply of timber decrease with every McMansion constructed. Since over half of our landfills are construction debris, the most efficient and least energy-intensive means of dealing with old buildings is to rehab and reuse. Now, Cleveland isn't as bad as Certain Other Cities to the north that tear down buildings just because they can. It is quite wasteful, however, to keep building subdivisions and strip malls for a zero-population-growth metropolis. Especially as the supply of petroleum runs out, all the asphalt used to pave the roads is only going to get more expensive and more energy-intensive to produce.

I love how they mention Cleveland's two "paltry" farmer's markets. Seriously--have these people actually been to the West Side Market??? RE: Columbus, perhaps Mr. Coleman can explain how his city IS sustainable instead of bitching about a (justly-deserved) dead-last ranking. When continuous annexation of outlying areas is your strategy for "growth", you directly contradict the definition of the term "sustainable".

Of course, this has nothing to do with patronizing the chain stores in the suburbs. I thought sales taxes in Ohio were levied by the counties.

Sprawl is anything but inevitable. It's the result of a conscious set of policies designed to promote automobile-dependent travel and low-density development. C-Dawg is right--as long as these policies remain in place, there is nothing that can be done.

It's even worse than that. They take estimates of new housing units and estimates of housing units lost to estimate changes in population. If the initial estimates are the slightest bit off, the error will be compounded dramatically. Now then, let me ask which is easier to see being built: a greenfield subdivision or a renovated apartment building? It's a very half-assed methodology with a lot of room for error (which again, will be compounded). I just don't see how my gentrification could possibly be spreading across my city if we lost 10% of our population in only 4 years. Something tells me that real estate would have seriously dropped off in that time....

Because I was there during 9/11 and actually understand the science behind the building destruction and collapse that ensued. The U.S. Census has had their techniques questioned for years. Perhaps if their methodology wasn't so questionable, these estimates might not seem so suspicious. It's not as if they went and knocked on every door, you know.... http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2004_su_meth.html

Don't forget, though, that Census data is used to allocate federal funding, and the areas that receive a greater share of the funding are the ones that are "growing". Given the current Administration, and how they've twisted everything from WMDs to EPA reports, don't be surprised if these stats are purposefully twisted in order to serve the exurban Republican constituencies.

Exactly, which is why I don't believe DC lost 54,000 people in 4 years, or any of the other numbers for that matter.

Okay, I stand corrected. Temporary brain fart. Now I'll shamefully delete my posts, although I still don't trust the Census numbers.