Clevelander17

How do you figure? Massillon is adjacent to Canton, both in Stark County, so it makes sense that they are together in the same MSA. Akron, on the other hand, is 25 miles away in a different county. I don't see how your comment makes sense. Mostly, I was responding to 13's statement: "I also dont like the idea of a metropolitan area having more than one city in it." I wasn't thinking of county boundaries when I made the comment, so you're right. Massillon being it's own MSA was never an option. From what I've seen in this thread, there seems to be a stronger connection between Akron and Canton than there does between Akron and Cleveland. So, to me, an Akron Canton MSA would make sense. Or, to put it another way: Massillon is to Canton, as Canton is to Akron. (JMO, of course) Gotcha. I'm having a hard time thinking of many other multi-city MSAs where both (or all three) cities are in the same county.

I love this park plan. Johio, forgive my ignorance, but how does this differ from a European design? Also, wouldn't it be cool to have an area for ice skating in the winter?

How do you figure? Massillon is adjacent to Canton, both in Stark County, so it makes sense that they are together in the same MSA. Akron, on the other hand, is 25 miles away in a different county. I don't see how your comment makes sense.

How so?

So where does Canton/Stark County fit into the picture? I asked in the original post, but it's been mostly ignored. Above it seems that an Akronite was claiming that Akron-Canton are a metropolitan area, but in reality, Canton is its own MSA and isn't part of any greater CSA with Akron (or obviously Cleveland).

I don't look at it as a marketing trick, because the same thing will be said about the next "must-have" big spending project.

Crap, that's exactly what I thought it was...

I made this comment on another message board, but it's relevant here. No matter what any survey or zeitgeist seems to be in favor of one city or region of the country, the inherent problem with these rankings is that they assume everyone is looking for the same thing in a city. Obviously a lot of people like warmer weather, which is a big part of the appeal of Florida, the Carolinas, and the Southwest. But a good chunk of people also prefer the four real seasons that the Northeast and Midwest offer. This is something that these rankings lists don't seem to take into account, that it's not one size fits all. The constants are going to things like jobs, taxes, crime, eduction, and cost of living, and thankfully for those of us living in the cities in Ohio that are constantly being crapped on in these rankings, we actually have some control over those things.

In this economy, she's insane to turn down a good job unless she's really cute and has a dense resume. And Atlanta? I've heard that attitude in regards to New York and Chicago, but never Atlanta. I've heard it from some black people. ATL has a bit of a "black mecca" appeal (kind of like NYC/SF being "gay meccas"). That's what I was thinking, too, before I saw your post. I think that Atlanta has cool appeal for a lot of African-Americans, and your analogy to San Francisco for gay people is spot on.

Phoenix, Charlotte, the Florida cities and the big cities besides Austin in Texas aren't "cool" as described in the New Geography articles. They are just growing because there's lots of jobs in them. Miami surely has some sex appeal though. Granted, the economy there is not the greatest, but it will be a cold day in Florida before a city with that kind of water and those public beaches is "uncool." Cities with beautiful water and good public access to it will always be attractive to people (it's a big part of Chicago's appeal too). Miami has a legendary bar and nightclub scene, apparently the women are better-looking there than anywhere else in America (but I have my doubts it beats Dearborn), and there is some density. Granted, too much of it is high-rise, but still, they are attempting to be urban. And a city with that great of a harbor will always have its place in the world. Miami is "cool," it's just more equal opportunity. I get the impression having a fancy degree there doesn't carry the same weight it does in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, DC, or Boston. Yeah, Miami is cool, and depending on who you ask, cities in North Carolina and Arizona may also have a bit of a cool-factor, too. I can't really explain it, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I know that a lot of people roughly my age are clamoring to get to Phoenix or Charlotte, many that don't even have jobs lined up there.

I agree 100%. The east-west lineup would have worked perfectly. Three of the four traditional powers would have been in the east, but Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska would have held down the west just fine. The Big Ten got greedy in looking for a few OSU-UM rematches in the title game down the road. I think they fail to respect that fact that all of the Big Ten schools have big followings in the Midwest and nationwide, and almost any championship game matchup would have (and will) attract huge audiences. Oh well...

What do you mean? Earlier in the thread I mentioned that Chicago wasn't a very realistic model for Cleveland. Then I offered up those cities listed in the quote as examples we should follow. However after thinking about it a bit, and reading that article, I changed my mind, as we're playing a different ballgame than those cities in a number of ways. If you read through the comments of that article, you see that Aaron clarifies his views a bit. Sure, you can have a diverse city consisting of gays, Jews, and Asians, and many of the western cities fit that mold of diversity, but (and I'll try to say this without angering anyone), those groups don't, in general, face the same types of challenges that African-Americans, and to a lesser extent, Hispanics, deal with on a day-to-day basis. Cuyahoga County is almost 30% African-American. King County (Seattle) and Multnomah County (Portland) both have an A-A population about one-sixth the size of that. Now we're treading way off-topic and probably into an area that the moderators don't want to touch, but to bring it all full-circle, my point is that this area is dealing with a different set of problems, and the things that worked in cities in the Pacific Northwest, or the Rocky Mountains, or Upper Midwest, are not likely to work here. And heck, I'll throw this in here, too. I think that a lot of these lists/rankings are biased towards the newer and whiter cities, and biased against the older and blacker cities.

Different divisions, game to remain at end of the season.

I take back what I said about Cleveland using MPLS, POR, and DEN as models: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city

:laugh:

LaRussa doesn't have much to work with now. Trading Ludwick is looking like a bigger mistake with every day that passes. I'm a big fan of the pitcher batting 8th, though. :)

Is the "No Name" bar still there? What's the "No Name" bar? O'Reilly's is still around, not a bad little neighborhood watering hole.

Has a similar study been done on every single other city along the route?

What train are you talking about? I don't particularly care for the 3C corridor, but I'd prefer that if it's going to be built that it have a station in Akron.

Cleveland will never be Chicago, and I don't think it should even try to aspire to be, either. And I doubt there are going to be many businesses that will relocate from Chicago to Cleveland, either, because of a "better business climate." If they're going to leave Chicago in search a better business climate, they'll jump right over Cleveland and head someplace else, probably South. That said, Cleveland has the potential to be a darn good tier II/III city if it ever gets its act together. Think Seattle, Denver, or Minneapolis.

I knew a few kids (more than I would have expected) that also went to EMU. I think the school is part of a tuition reciprocation program in which Ohio kids are allowed to pay Michigan in-state tuition to attend.

Interesting. In my day the pipeline was Eastside of Cleveland ---> Ohio State. I couldnt tell you how many kids for the SH, CH, UH, B'wood, PP, EC, CF went to OSU. It was crazy Hmmm, I always got the impression that that part of town had a strong pipeline to Miami, too, well at least the kids that didn't go Ivy+.

Here's why there may be resentment. Because of people like me, whose gut reaction to this question is: "Well, I don't feel connected to Akron, but I think Akron should feel connected to Cleveland." For that basketball player's whole career, I suspected he resented Cleveland - because he went out of his way to say "Akron." Clevelanders saw him as NEO's, he saw himself as Akron's. I was very intrigued when a co-worker of mine from Stow would say things like, "So I guess we'll find out soon whether or not Lebron is leaving Akron." I'm 30 years old and have been to Akron about 5 times, and never for anything unrelated to sports. I consider it a pretty separate city that just happens to be kind of near to Cleveland. I feel virtually no connection to it, but then again I gravitate north to the lake and east up the coast. I'm the guy who once asked a guy, because he lived south of I-80, "You're from the south, do you know anything about (something or other)?" People have mentioned that there are plenty of folks who live in Akron but work in a Cleveland (or a suburb) or vice-versa, citing this as evidence of a lack of divide. Couldn't you argue the other way and say, "Well if you work in one city, why not just move there?" If it was really one big happy family I actually think there would be less commuting from one to the other, not more. In a sense, commuting shows a lack of a willingness to really be a part of the city you work in. Good post. In regards to your final point, that may make sense, but if you have a job and own a home near Cleveland, but find a better employment opportunity near Akron, it may not be entirely feasible to simply move closer to your new job. Especially if you have a significant other and/or children with their own ties to your near-Cleveland community.

Well, the Republicans will in all likelihood once again control both the Ohio Senate and House, so he'll be able to work with them. As for what will be cut, who knows at this point, probably non-essential, beyond the scope of state government, vestiges of better days that some people will complain about. :) I think I see now how this game works: Someone states why they're supporting Kasich, and the Strickland supporters come out of the woodwork with their "stumper" questions. The fact remains that will Strickland has done a little bit to improve the business climate, but he hasn't gone far enough. Ohio will never get turned around unless we have an aggressively pro-business governor in office that is conscientious about the budget and willing to cut taxes and regulations. Someone who is not tip-toeing around trying not to piss off the unions of industries that have all but left the state. If not now, then never, because I truly believe that time is running out (well maybe that's more of my personal view since I don't have forever to wait around for this state to start thriving again).

Explain what those are please Explain what what are? His 'far superior economic ideas' Lower taxes and get the budget reigned in. Simple, tried and true, yet things Strickland will never do.