jbcmh81

Indy was listed at $105.3 billion, below Cleveland.

The GMP I used was for "Gross Metropolitan Product".

GMP Trends Between the largest GMP in Ohio, Cleveland's, and the other 2-Cs. Cleveland vs Cincinnati Difference in 2-year increments. Any + means Cleveland is ahead by that much in that year. 2001: +7.7 2003: +7.8 2005: +7.2 2007: +6.2 2009: +4.8 2011: +5.0 Cleveland vs Columbus, Difference in 2-year increments. 2001: +14.1 2003: +14.5 2005: +15.1 2007: +14.5 2009: +11.9 2011: +11.9 Cincinnati vs Columbus, Difference in 2-year increments. 2001: +6.5 2003: +6.7 2005: +7.9 2007: +8.3 2009: +7.1 2011: +6.9

This topic ran into a lot of contention last time, but hopefully it can be avoided now. In any case, I recently saw preliminary numbers for 2011 GMP and wanted to share them here. Preliminary GMP by Metro, highest to lowest, in billions. 1. Cleveland: $106.6 2. Cincinnati: $101.6 3. Columbus: $94.7 4. Dayton: $34.0 5. Akron: $27.8 6. Toledo: $27.0 7. Youngstown: $17.0 8. Canton: $13.1 Total Change 2010 to 2011, greatest to least, in billions. 1. Columbus: $1.4 2. Cincinnati: $1.0 3. Cleveland: $1.0 4. Dayton: $0.6 5. Toledo: $0.4 6. Youngstown: $0.4 7. Akron: $0.2 8. Canton: $0.2 % Change 2010 to 2011, greatest to least. 1. Youngstown: +2.4% 2. Dayton: +1.8% 3. Canton: +1.6% 4. Toledo: +1.5% 5. Columbus: +1.4% 6. Cincinnati: +1.0% 7. Cleveland: +1.0% 8. Akron: +0.7% Total Change 2001-2011, greatest to least, in billions. 1. Cincinnati: +24.0 2. Columbus: +23.6 3. Cleveland: +21.3 4. Akron: +6.9 5. Dayton: +5.4 6. Toledo: +4.7 7. Youngstown: +2.3 8. Canton: +2.0 % Change 2001-2011, greatest to least. Columbus: +33.2% Akron: +33.0% Cincinnati: +30.9% Cleveland: +25.0% Toledo: +21.1% Dayton: +18.9% Canton: +18.0% Youngstown: +15.6%

I really like Bishop's Walk, but that condo building design is one of the best I've seen out of all the recent or ongoing projects in the city. There are very very few modern style buildings going up, and even fewer that look good.

I remember reading about this project in the Dispatch awhile back and some the quotes from Hilliard officials were that they wanted to try to attract young professionals with new, denser development. And then they come out with this site plan that consists of 60-70% surface parking and has absolutely zero urban qualities otherwise. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what attracts the urban-minded young professional and is just more of the same suburban-style building. Hilliard could learn a few things from it's northern neighbor.

http://www.columbusunderground.com/east-franklinton-planned-as-dense-hub-of-urban-creativity East Franklinton Plan finalized. Calls for: -Up to 400 new single-family homes. -2,800-4,300 new residential units (condos and apartments) -100,000 square feet of retail -100,000 square feet of artist space -150,000 square feet of business incubator space -no suburban parking requirements.

Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the East Franklinton plan!

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/07/corporate-headquarters-response/2556/ Top 10 cities with corporate clout, or the number of headquarters per million people. 3 Ohio cities made the top 10. 1. Milwaukee 1.93 2. Minneapolis 1.83 3. Hartford, CT 1.65 4. Columbus: 1.63 5. San Jose, CA: 1.63 6. Memphis: 1.52 7. Springfield, MA: 1.44 8. Akron: 1.42 9. Cincinnati: 1.41 10. Omaha: 1.15

You're just an urban genius ahead of your time, Keith, so unless new development has been designed, approved, funded and constructed personally by you, it really doesn't count. I mean, seriously, who does Weiler think he is to naively assume he has the intelligence and foresight to actually be doing something good with his own money, especially when you have so much experience telling people how wrong they really are. Perhaps a personal intervention is called for? He's just one more silly fool in the sad city of Columbus, and you should probably just get used to being a man above it all.

Ya, like Cincinnati's estimates being revised upwards and then being way off base in 2010. The numbers are very subjective and any "trends" based on them are speculative and highly subjective, IMO. Cincinnati's numbers were adjusted upward because the city contested the census results and the census basically accepted what numbers the city gave them. Estimates in subsequent years were based on those faulty numbers and then the next census came around and brought back reality. This has occurred in cities all across the US, because as another poster mentioned, there is money involved that cities don't want to lose. No set of population numbers is going to be 100% accurate. There is just no conceivable way that every single person is going to be counted, whether in an estimate or during the decennial census. They are the best we have, however, and I think they're better used as trend indicators than literal figures on population.

It probably all depends on what set of data they are using for their article. I thought that too, and then I compared the numbers from the ranking to those of the growth of non-farm jobs on the BLS site. They're all within a few thousand of each other, so the differences wouldn't have caused Ohio to be left off the list. It's hard to imagine that non-farm jobs grew by almost 76,000 in Ohio, but some other factor caused that number to be reduced by the tens of thousands needed to be left off the list completely. I really think it's an oversight, and not the only one. Indiana was the only other state besides Ohio to have yearly job growth surpass 50,000, but not be on the list. Maybe it's not a big deal, but it bugs me when the state doesn't get the positive publicity it has earned, yet Forbes can come out with 100 lists a year on how bad the weather in Cleveland is.

I saw this article today: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-job-generating-states.html What I noticed is that it seems to be deceiving. Ohio gained 75,700 jobs, which would put it in the #4 spot, yet doesn't even make their top 10. They basically just used non-farm jobs for the ranking for the most part, and Ohio ranks 4th in the nation for growth the past year. Did they intentionally leave it off or is it just a poorly researched article? Perhaps it should go into that Dumb List thread.

BTW, here's the trend for Columbus' rate of annexation. 1950-1970 Square miles added: 95.2 % Change: +285.7% 1970-1990 Square miles added: 56.3 % Change: +41.8% 1990-2010 Square miles added: 26.3 % Change: +13.8% 2000-2010 Square miles added: 6.9 % Change: +3.3% This was the slowest decadal annexation rate since the 1940s.

An even better way to measure how cities have grown is through percentage. Here are the top 50 for area percentage growth 1950-2010. 1. Phoenix: +2,921.6% 2. Jacksonville, FL: +2,373.5% 3. Colorado Springs: +2,061.1% 4. Nashville: +2,059.5% 5. Charleston, SC: +2,037.3% 6. Raleigh, NC: +1,198.2% 7. Oklahoma City: +1,093.7% 8. Las Vegas: +986.4% 9. San Jose, CA: +938.2% 10. Columbia, SC: +929.7% 11. El Paso, TX: +896.9% 12. Charlotte, NC: +892.3% 13. Nashville: +887.4% 14. Austin, TX: +828.0% 15. Durham, NC: +713.6% 16. Corpus Christi, TX: +711.1% 17. Fresno, CA: +646.7% 18. Orlando: +626.2% 19. Winston-Salem, NC: +604.3% 20. Greensboro, NC: +595.1% 21. Indianapolis: +561.4% 22. Albuquerque: +542.7% 23. Tuscon, AZ: +538.6% 24. Wichita, KS: +519.8% 25. Montgomery, AL: +511.5% 26. Tampa, FL: +496.8% 27. Fort Wayne, IN: +488.3% 28. San Antonio: +486.5% 29. Sacramento: +479.3% 30. Little Rock, AR: +467.6% 31. Columbus: +451.3% 32. Stockton, CA: 422.9% 33. Madison, WI: +398.7% 34. Kansas City: +289.0% 35. Houston: +274.8% 36. Lincoln, NE: +274.4% 37. Fort Worth, TX: +262.6% 38. Atlanta: +261.0% 39. San Diego: +227.2% 40. Omaha, NE: +212.3% 41. Dallas: +204.0% 42. San Bernardino, CA: +203.6% 43. Memphis: +190.1% 44. Baton Rouge: +154.6% 45. Denver: +129.0% 46. Birmingham, AL: +123.7% 47. Dayton: +123.2% 48. Toledo: +110.7% 49. Portland, OR: +109.5% 50. Salt Lake City: +106.1% Rest of Ohio's cities not in top 50. Akron: +15.6% Cincinnati: +3.9% Cleveland: +3.5% Again, Sun Belt cities dominate.

I hear a lot about Columbus growing because of annexation, and the last 60 years, that is certainly part of the growth. But I wanted to see how the largest US cities fared in comparison, especially in relation to the fastest-growing population wise. So I went through the census records to find areal sizes for cities going back to 1950. I couldn't find all the 1950 area sizes for 2010's 100 largest cities, so I only used those cities that had sizes listed every decade. This came up with 76 total cities, but I'll just do the top 50. First, here is the total growth in square miles by city during the 1950-2010 period, ranked by the largest to smallest change. 1. Jacksonville, FL: +716.8 2. Oklahoma City: +555.6 3. Phoenix: +499.6 4. Nashville: +453.1 5. Houston: +439.6 6. Louisville, KY: +346.1 7. San Antonio: +338.1 8. Indianapolis: +309.9 9. Charlotte, NC: +267.7 10. Austin, TX: +265.8 11. Fort Worth, TX: +246.1 12. Kansas City: +232.9 13. El Paso, TX: +229.6 14. Dallas: +228.5 15. San Diego: +225.8 16. Memphis: +198.1 17. Tuscon: +191.2 18. Colorado Springs: +185.5 19. Columbus: +177.8 20. Tulsa, OK: +170.1 21. San Jose, CA: +159.5 22. Albuquerque, NM: +152.5 23. Corpus Christi, TX: +140.8 24. Wichita, KS: +133.6 25. Montgomery, AL: +133.5 26. Raleigh, NC: +131.8 27. Las Vegas: +123.3 28. Columbia, SC: +119 29. Winston-Salem, NC: +113.6 30. Greensboro, NC: +108.3 31. Charleston, SC: +103.9 32. Little Rock, AR: +98.2 33. Fresno, CA: +97.0 34. Atlanta: +96.3 35. Tampa: +94.4 36. Durham, NC: 94.2 37. Fort Wayne, IN: +91.8 38. Orlando: +88.3 39. Omaha, NE: +86.4 40. Denver: +86.2 41. Sacramento, CA: +81.0 42. Birmingham, AL: +80.8 43. Portland, OR: +70.2 44. Lincoln, NE: +65.3 45. Madison, WI: +61.4 46. Salt Lake City: +57.2 47. Stockton, CA: +49.9 48. Baton Rouge, LA: +46.7 49. Milwaukee: +46.1 50. Toledo: +42.4 Out of the top 25, 22 of the cities that had the largest total area gains were Sun Belt cities. In fact, out of all 50, there were only 13 that were not Sun Belt, including 4 that were either Mountain West or Pacific Northwest. So only 9 cities out of the top 50 were from the Midwest or Northeast.

Really? Again, my argument is not that estimates should be taken literally, only that they generally are accurate in what direction a city/metro are heading in terms of population. The federal funds are why cities choose to challenge decennial census counts, and probably at least part of the reason some cities come up very different than estimates.

Again, they don't have to be 100% accurate to show trends. While estimates can be off on exact numbers, they are useful to show where cities/metros are headed. Atlanta was used because the city population was so different from the estimate, but there were fewer of these large discrepencies than the article implies. Also, even in Atlanta with the large difference, the city still grew even if the estimated growth was too high. When it comes to Ohio cities, all the trends the estimates showed matched what the decennial census came up with for the majority. Here is what they showed for Ohio's 7 largest metros and the actual census result. Akron 2000 Census: 694,960 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +4,975 2010 Census: 703,200 Actual Change: +8,240 Cincinnati 2000 Census: 2,009,632 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +162,264 2010 Census: 2,130,151 Actual Change: +120,519 Cleveland 2000 Census: 2,148,143 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -56,857 2010 Census: 2,077,240 Actual Change: -70,903 Columbus 2000 Census: 1,612,694 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +189,154 2010 Census: 1,836,536 Actual Change: +223,842 Dayton 2000 Census: 848,153 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -13,090 2010 Census: 841,502 Actual Change: -6,651 Toledo 2000 Census: 659,188 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +13,032 2010 Census: 651,409 Actual Change: -7,779 Youngstown 2000 Census: 602,964 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -40,001 2010 Census: 565,773 Actual Change: -37,191 So the metro estimates were largely accurate, at least in showing trends. Only Toledo didn't match. Estimates can be wrong and there are going to be exceptions, but for the majority of places, they are closer than the article writer seems to want to believe. Here are how the city propers did. Akron 2000 Census: 217,074 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -9,865 2010 Census: 199,110 Actual Change: -17,964 Cincinnati 2000 Census: 331,285 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +1,727 2010 Census: 296,943 Actual Change: -34,342 Cleveland 2000 Census: 478,403 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -47,034 2010 Census: 396,815 Actual Change: -81,588 Columbus 2000 Census: 711,470 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +57,862 2010 Census: 787,033 Actual Change: +75,563 Dayton 2000 Census: 166,179 2000-2009 Estimate Change: -12,336 2010 Census: 141,527 Actual Change: -24,652 Toledo 2000 Census: 313,619 2000-2009 Estimated Change: +2,560 2010 Census: 287,208 Actual Change: -26,411 Youngstown 2000 Census: 82,026 2000-2009 Estimated Change: -9,601 2010 Census: 66,982 Actual Change: -15,044 City estimates, again, generally followed real trends. Estimated losses translated to real losses and growth estimates translated to real growth. However, 2 of the 7 had the opposite result of the estimate, and I wonder if some of the larger discrepencies here are due to cities challenging census results. I know that Cincinnati challeged theirs, and that may have held the estimates artificially high even as the city really lost populatin. Not sure if other cities did the same, but that could explain part of that.

I'm feeling like there were several projects missed on that map. For example, with the Neighborhood Launch project, the 260 units are only for 2 buildings. There will be at least two more buildings after that, so you can probably add at least 100+ more. Also, where are the 288 units for the Jeffrey site coming from? I didn't know any formal plans for the site had been announced. The last I hear, the site layout was still in planning.

This. I know I really need to get caught up in this thread (excellent response btw gramarye, I appreciate when people disagree with me intelligibly) - but did I really just wade through 2 pages of "Pure Michigan." Sounds like pure bullsh!t to me. Stop kicking yourselves. How could people from such a nice state (imo) have such an inferiority complex? To the point that they're wishing to become Pure Michigan? I would bring that $40 billion a year figure back down to earth though. Ohio destroys a majority of other states on a lot of things because it destroys a majority of other states in terms of size. Ohio needs to find comparable states to compare itself to, I myself would use Texas and Virginia as model states because they're doing very well and are large states with comparable cities, politics, and demographics. Virginia does around $20 billion and Texas about $52 billion. The last few lists I've seen, Ohio runs easily in the top 10. For Texas, a state that is several times larger in size and has 20 million more people, it's not really all that impressive.

Even if he's only focusing on regional migration, his numbers still really don't support his case. Only 40,000 stayed in the region out of 100,000. Why did the majority of 60,000 leave the entire region? Tax rates did not keep the majority in Cuyahoga County, let alone the cheaper tax environments of surrounding counties. Therefore, there must be other factors involved. Also, isn't it rather an assumption to say that the 40,000 moved to other counties based only on tax rates? What evidence is there that supports that kind of conclusion? And long-term population movements take a long time to happen. Cleveland didn't fall below 400K overnight, it took 60 years, and the suburban boom happened over decades as well. People are finally moving back to the city. It's going to take longer than a few years to start seeing that kind of change spread beyond the immediate downtowns of most cities. But the fact that it's started at all throws the "the suburban movement will continue" scenariou out the window, imo.

The problem is that outside certain pockets, which still face many of these issues themselves, all of these things still exist. Their is still higher crime, their is still alot of decay, and most of Cleveland is getting worse, and the schools still mostly suck. And on top of that, suburbs are still promoted, their are still tons of jobs in the suburbs, and the highways still exist and are adding additional lanes to the suburban parts. Yes certain pockets are doing better, such as Ohio City, Tremont, Little Italy, Downtown, University Circle, and Gordon Square. But thats really just a small portion when you really look at it, and even those areas still face those problems. I would love to see the city come back, and I think we have made some great improvements. One thing that I think might hurt the growth is the spreading out of the focus. Honestly, North Collinwood is far away from Downtown/University Circle, not great access to public transportation, and isnt surrounded by the best areas, and areas that are continuing to decline. Does fixing it up really benefit the city? Those urban minded people would have chosen somewhere else in the city. We still have other areas of the city, Ohio City, Tremont, etc, that still need a lot of work. If we focused our efforts in one area, we could achieve one amazing urban area that will then begin to spill over in the surrounding neighborhoods. Even Detroit Shoreway has taken people away from Ohio City, Tremont, Downtown, and Little Italy. Higher crime, I think, is relative. Is there higher crime in urban than suburban Cleveland, sure, but you don't have to go down to zero crime (and never will) to have this aspect of a city's negative perception change. All people need to see is that crime is going down and they'll at least start taking a second look. Crime in Cleveland, and indeed the vast majority of cities, has been dropping for 20-30 years, and nationally, it's approaching levels not seen since the 1940s. The idea is not to have crime be nonexistant in a city, but to reduce the perception that living in the city is inherently dangerous. I don't think that argument can be made, at least not nearly as much as it used to be. NYC once had very high crime and during the 1970s had the single largest population loss of any US city in history, losing almost as many people that decade as Cleveland had at it's 1950 peak. Now, although it has far from no crime, it's considered a very safe city with a growing population. As far as schools go, the big reason why they declined was because so much of the tax base moved away, and you just can't maintain quality schools on continually falling budgets. I guess it's the chicken or the egg debate. If you are able to attract residents to the city, that will likely help reverse the quality of urban schools, but you need quality schools to attract more people, especially families. But all recent trends indicate that people ARE moving back to the city, though probably not yet in large enough numbers. Still, even in districts that are perceived as bad, individual schools within the district are not all created equally. People just need to do more research into what's actually out there. Decay levels are getting better in most cities, not worse like they did from 1950 through the 1990s. I don't think a serious argument can be made that there is more decay in 2012 than in 1982. If there was, I really don't think you'd see people moving back to the city at all. Things have clearly changed. The suburbs have the fastest growing rates of poverty, have the most homes in foreclosure, are seeing their rates of growth go below that of urban cores, and sprawl has taken a major PR beating in the last 5 years. The idea that the suburbs are going to keep right on going exactly the way they were is a fantasy. And the fact that current young generations don't particularly want the suburban lifestyle is going to have a large impact on growth patterns.

I'm not sure I agree with him at all. First, if taxes were the issue, other cities would not be benefitting from Cleveland's/Cuyahoga County's losses. Columbus, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Indianapolis, etc all have taxes, yet are all gainers of NEO's population losses. And his own data doesn't really show an equal movement. If Cleveland, Lorain and Akron lost 100,000 people, but other counties and cities in the area without taxes only gained 40,000, the other 60,000 moved completely away from the area altogether, not just to no or low-tax areas of NEO. Clearly, there are more significant factors at play. He's also wrong about the expectation of pre-recession trends returning. Cleveland is benefitting from the recent urban movement just like most other cities, and it seems to only be getting stronger. While this will probably not stop losses within the next few years, it's definitely a big change from the suburban explosion of the last several decades. The trends have already changed. And I have to be honest, the guy says he's been doing this all for 35 years... and what have the results of that been? All of his experience has occurred during the worst years of the suburban out-migration period, so it's not really a surprise that he would expect more of the same. The problem with that thinking is that for the past 50-60 years, cities were not what people wanted. People started to move away from cities in the 1950s because cities had become places of higher crime, decay, poor schools and higher expenses. The suburbs were heavily promoted (and heavily subsidized) for decades as the "American Dream". Not to mention that the highway system allowed people to move away yet still maintain jobs within the city itself. And then many jobs themselves left the city, following the population. This image of cities being these rundown hellholes is just no longer true in most cases. Cities have come a long way, through public and private investment. Crime has been dropping for the better part of 30 years, urban decay has gradually been replaced with new development, parks and other amenities, and new generations, as well as retirees, increasingly don't want a car-based lifestyle. Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus all saw large population gains in their respective downtowns, something that would not have happened had new trends not been developing and urban centers not become desirable. All due respect to Mr. Bier, but he just seems out of touch with what's going on today, and he seems to expect the worst-case scenario to continue despite all the trends to the contrary. Cleveland will probably lose population for the next several years. Not because cities have too high of taxes or because the suburbs are still the American Dream, but because long-term trends take time to reverse. To deny that they haven't begun, however, seems like a losing position to me.

And finally, the recovery by industry from the respective recession bottoms to May 2012. I'm only going to do percentages for this. So this is the total % of jobs gained back since the recession by industry. These will also be in order from best recovery to worst. Mining/Logging/Construction Akron: 51.5% Toledo: 41.3% Youngstown: 32.6% Cincinnati: 31.0% Cleveland: 29.7% Columbus: 24.2% Dayton: 21.7% Manufacturing Cincinnati: 49.8% Akron: 44.3% Toledo: 36.5% Youngstown: 33.7% Cleveland: 26.1% Dayton: 12.2% Columbus: 1.7% Trade/Transportation/Utilities Columbus: 37.1% Dayton: 25.5% Cincinnati: 23.2% Cleveland: 22.5% Toledo: 21.8% Akron: 15.2% Youngstown: 14.7% Information Toledo: 22.2% Columbus: 7.7% Youngstown: 7.7% Akron: 0.0% Cincinnati: 0.0% Cleveland: 0.0% Dayton: 0.0% Financial Activities Columbus: 56.1% Cincinnati: 36.9% Akron: 33.3% Youngstown: 25.0% Cleveland: 14.3% Dayton: 14.3% Toledo: 7.7% Professional and Business Services Youngstown: 103.6% Columbus: 90.7% Cincinnati: 83.0% Toledo: 77.6% Dayton: 51.6% Akron: 43.9% Cleveland: 40.2% Education and Health (For this industry, it's % growth since January 2007) Columbus: 24.4% Cleveland: 10.1% Akron: 9.6% Cincinnati: 9.0% Dayton: 8.1% Youngstown: 6.9% Toledo: 4.0% Leisure and Hospitality Dayton: 110.2% Toledo: 85.5% Cincinnati: 83.7% Columbus: 73.7% Youngstown: 66.0% Cleveland: 46.5% Akron: 39.3% Other Services Columbus: 86.1% Cincinnati: 26.5% Cleveland: 22.7% Dayton: 21.1% Youngstown: 20.0% Akron: 16.7% Toledo: 11.5% Government Dayton: 111.8% Youngstown: 65.5% Cincinnati: 60.6% Akron: 47.3% Columbus: 31.1% Toledo: 29.9% Cleveland: 11.3%

This post is about job recovery since the recession ended. I did the April numbers earlier in the thread. So how this works is that I took the pre-recession or recession peak of jobs in each industry, compared that to the bottom reached during or after the recession ended, and then figured out the total recovery seen to the most recent month of data. I only did the 3-Cs last time, but will include the 7 largest metros this time around. Civilian Labor Force Pre-recession/recesssion peak and month of peak Akron: 393,994 July 2008 Cincinnati: 1,144,487 July 2008 Cleveland: 1,127,579 July 2007 Columbus: 982,730 July 2009 Dayton: 429,802 November 2006 Toledo: 343,304 July 2006 Youngstown: 285,364 July 2006 Recession/post-recession bottom and month of bottom Akron: 366,324 January 2012 Cincinnati: 1,081885 January 2011 Cleveland: 1,061,410 January 2010 Columbus: 945,373 January 2011 Dayton: 406,338 February 2012 Toledo: 315,995 April 2012 Youngstown: 263,658 February 2012 Total and % Change from Peak to Bottom Akron: -27,670 -7.0% Cincinnati: -58,602 -5.5% Cleveland: -66,169 -5.9% Columbus: -37,357 -3.8% Dayton: -23,464 -5.5% Toledo: -27,309 -8.0% Youngstown: -21,706 -7.6% May 2012 Civilian Labor Force Akron: 370,022 Cincinnati: 1,105,100 Cleveland: 1,083,700 Columbus: 960,300 Dayton: 407,728 Toledo: 316,045 Youngstown: 265,114 Total Change and % Recovery from recession bottom to May 2012 Akron: +3,698 +13.4% Cincinnati: +23,215 +39.6% Cleveland: 22,290 +33.7% Columbus: 14,927 +40.0% Dayton: +1,390 +5.9% Toledo: +50 +0.2% Youngstown: +1,456 +6.7% Non-Farm Jobs Pre-Recession/Recession Peak Akron: 346,600 December 2007 Cincinnati: 1,060,400 December 2007 Cleveland: 1,090,200 June 2007 Columbus: 957,200 November 2007 Dayton: 412,200 May 2006 Toledo: 336,100 September 2006 Youngstown: 246,200 May 2006 Recession/Post-recession bottom Akron: 308,500 January 2010 Cincinnati: 959,000 January 2010 Cleveland: 969,200 January 2010 Columbus: 884,100 February 2010 Dayton: 363,000 January 2010 Toledo: 297,500 January 2010 Youngstown: 214,400 February 2010 Total Change and % Change from Peak to Bottom Akron: -38,100 Cincinnati: -101,400 Cleveland: -121,000 Columbus: -73,100 Dayton: -49,200 Toledo: -38,600 Youngstown: -31,800 May 2012 Non-Farm Jobs Akron: 322,100 Cincinnati: 1,016,700 Cleveland: 1,002,200 Columbus: 937,700 Dayton: 380,900 Toledo: 302,400 Youngstown: 225,600 Total and % Recovery from bottom to May 2012 Akron: +13,600 35.7% Cincinnati: +57,700 56.9% Cleveland: +33,000 27.3% Columbus: +53,600 73.3% Dayton: +17,900 36.4% Toledo: +4,900 12.7% Youngstown: +11,200 35.2%