jbcmh81

That's all well and good, but if the numbers are close to accurate at all, or at least have the general direction right, there is simply no way to spin population loss as a good thing. Unless the goal is to have a desolate urban core, then no. In metros that have smaller city propers, this seems to be even more important, but it's really important for every city.

Saw this link http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2012/0320_population_frey/0320_population_frey.pdf about how population changed during each part of the 2000s decade and the growth in city vs suburbs. First, the rate of growth for each city by time frame. These show how things like the early and late decade recessions changed rates as well as the housing boom during the middle part of the decade. For Metro Akron 2001-2004: +0.5% 2004-2007: +0.2% 2007-2010: -0.1% Cincinnati 2001-2004: +1.5% 2004-2007: +2.0% 2007-2010: +1.5% Cleveland 2001-2004: -0.9% 2004-2007: -1.5% 2007-2010: -0.8% Columbus 2001-2004: +3.7% 2004-2007: +4.2% 2007-2010: +3.6% Dayton 2001-2004: +0.2% 2004-2007: -0.5% 2007-2010: -0.4% Toledo 2001-2004: 0.0% 2004-2007: -0.7% 2007-2010: -0.6% Youngstown 2001-2004: -1.8% 2004-2007: -2.2% 2007-2010: -1.9% What's most interesting to me is that the boom years accelerated previous trends for the most part. With few exceptions, if the trend was down, it was worse during the boom, but if it was up, it was up even more.

Less about the 2010 census, but I saw these city population estimates from Business Journals for April 1, 2012. They are for 2 years. 4/1/2012 estimate and change since 2010 Columbus: 803,427 +16,394 Cleveland: 382,270 -14,545 Cincinnati: 290,270 -6,673 Toledo: 281,684 -5,524 Akron: 195,757 -3,353 Dayton: 137,052 -4,475 As much as I think estimates are iffy, these are probably going to be prove way worse than the actual census ones, and I don't think they're close to accurate, especially with the losses. On the bright side, the rate of loss given is less than it was the previous decade.

The frontage of High is great, but the entire orientation of the lot is terrible, imo. There will be an even larger surface parking lot there when it's complete, the opposite of what should be there. Most of the FP building will be torn down as well as another building behind it. With the larger surface lot in their place, all the project is doing is moving buildings around and leaving more empty space on the entire site than exists right now. This is the kind of thing that is very frustrating when it comes to Columbus projects. While there are plenty that are a great use of space and design, there are these that defy all explanation on what people were thinking approving it as is. Another is the 5th and High building, and the new apartments announced at Columbus Commons. They all leave something to be desired, and don't seem to match the goals neighborhood commissions claim. I know that not every project is going to please everyone, but there should be some basic, enforced principles in these urban neighborhoods, specifically dealing with minimum height, parking, design and overall how it fits in with the area.

Agreed. The Scioto Peninsula could turn out to one of downtown's most interesting development spots over the next decade. One of the biggest hurdles - land acquision - has already been done. The City of Columbus and Franklin County are the only two property owners within the Scioto Peninsula planning area. Personally, I'd love to see a new Crew Stadium get built somewhere over there. My choice would be to remove Vets Memorial and replace it with Crew Stadium 2.0 and include a pedestrian bridge crossing the river to the Arena District (which was another 2010 Downtown Plan idea). Then the COSI parking lots could get some mixed-use development with parking garages. And then throw in a tower or two on that triangular parcel between the new Main Street and Town-Rich Street Bridges that might mirror Miranova across the river. By the way, if this Scioto Peninsula planning leads to some actual development we'll likely split this into its own separate development thread. But for now, we may as well keep it within this Scioto Mile thread. Walker Evans had a great recap of the Scioto Peninsula planning area over at Columbus Underground. Below is a link to the Columbus Underground recap and a map from it showing the current property ownership in the Scioto Peninsula. Columbus Underground: Planning Begins for Redevelopment of Scioto Peninsula A new Crew Stadium there would certainly be interesting and would be an entirely new dynamic to Franklinton, but it's also very unlikely, imo. First, you'd have to get the people on board with it because you would need some type of tax to fund construction. With what happened with Nationwide Arena, I doubt many would be willing to support it. Not unless you could get massive private support, anyway. I do agree overall, though, that the current Crew Stadium, while not all that old, is functionally obsolete and in a pretty crappy location. A pedestrian bridge from Scioto Peninsula and North Bank Park is already on the list of future projects, and I think it'd be something that'd be tackled after the actual river project is complete in 2016.

None of these numbers are "actual". They are all estimates. That is why the discussion here about the validity of such estimates has occured in the first place. These numbers should be taken with a very large grain of salt, if at all. True, but my point is that, given the time frame used and using the estimated numbers, the numbers posted on the thread is not correct either, whether or not you think estimates have much value.

Agreed. There is a big difference between your bus driver and your politician.

More, yes, but not to the exceptional level that people keep suggesting. The numbers just don't show that. What they do show is that over 100K jobs in the other two metros are also government-backed. All 3 are benefitting from government, but the % difference is small and certainly smaller than what has been claimed here. The truth is that all 3-Cs would be in worse shape without them.

Hey ColDayMan, I also noticed that the headline says the numbers are from April 2010 to July 1, 2011. I don't know about the rest of the cities, but if that's the case, the starting numbers for Columbus are wrong. I know the metro number in April 2010 was 1,836,636, not over 1.84 million as it's listed. It's 15-month growth, not just 12. The actual metro growth for Columbus would be over 21,000.

I noticed that Franklin County was one of the top 50 counties in the nation for numerical growth. It represented one of just 3 counties in the entire Midwest to show up on that list.

As a % total jobs, it's not that significantly different. And again, you would expect that a capital city would have more government jobs, or at the very least, the largest city in a state would, like Chicago in Illinois or Detroit in Michigan. I wonder if Lansing or Springfield gets all upset over this simple reality as much as Cleveland and Cincinnnati residents do. In any case, government jobs in Columbus were down further than most other cities.

I like Easton for what it is, and I'm glad it's been so successful in keeping up with changing trends. I'm glad it also helped out that area of the city. But yeah, suburbanites suck. The whole parking thing is laughable. I don't think I've ever been to Easton and had trouble finding a parking spot, even during the holidays.

The majority of metros came in under estimates, even those that had high growth. For every Columbus, there were 20 that were way overestimated, so I'm not sure how you can say that a city like Columbus simply had a bunch of people counted multiple times. That census data suggests that an overcount is FAR more likely than an undercount, so why wouldn't Columbus come in lower than expected like most other higher growth cities?

And also a dedicated source of employment in taxpayer funded state jobs. Government, non-farm jobs by metro, February 2012: Columbus: 153,500 Cleveland: 132,800 Cincinnati: 127,900 Government jobs as a % of total non-farm jobs: Columbus: 16.8% Cleveland: 13.6% Cincinnati: 13.0% You know, for all the talk some people do about Columbus and government jobs being such a huge advantage, they so often fail to see that the real difference is not all that great, especially considering we are talking about a state capital. Cincinnati and Cleveland have well over 100K jobs in government as well.

Yeah i don't understand it either. Fort Meyers seems to have had the worse economy in the USA and still grew by 10k+. Charlotte has had a bad economy as well and still grew 60k+. wtf!!! Las Vegas seems to have came to a Halt though. It seems to take a lot of media attention and time for people to wake up to certain messages about the health and economy of a particular city. Just as it seems to work slow when things turn more positive in the old Rust Belt, it's just as slow getting the message out that former Sun Belt glory cities like Charlotte are now economic hellholes that can no longer rely on perpetual sprawl construction to prop up jobs.

The Scioto River plan was not the only big project announced for the area yesterday. The Scioto Peninsula, which contains Vets Memorial and COSI is now in the planning stages for redevelopment. Other than the two buildings mentioned, east of the railroad tracks there is almost nothing else on the 56 acre but a sea of surface parking lots. The redevelopment plan would be mixed use with lots of residential, retail and office space. Hopefully, it will be built as an extension of Downtown and there will be at least a few skyscrapers thrown in the mix. BTW, Roddy Marciano is not the worst troll on the Dispatch story responses. "Bob Long" is. I have never seen that poster say a single positive thing, and it's always very extreme.

I know it's not the most exciting thing to read, but it's basically for data geeks and anyone interested in employmen/job data for the metros.

I used the Jobs and Family Services site to get February's data so far, which comes from the BLS. http://ohiolmi.com/

Some of the February information has been released so here's that. All of the numbers are from February to February of the years given. Metro Unemployment Rate, February 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 7.2% 2. Cleveland: 8.1% 3. Akron: 8.2% 4. Cincinnati: 8.3% 5. Dayton: 8.7% 6. Youngstown: 9.1% 7. Toledo: 9.3% Unemployment Rate Change, February 2007-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Cleveland: +1.6 2. Akron: +2.4 3. Columbus: +2.4 4. Youngstown: +2.5 5. Dayton: +2.8 6. Cincinnati: +2.9 7. Toledo: +2.9 Unemployment Rate Change, February 2011-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Youngstown: -1.7 2. Dayton: -1.6 3. Toledo: -1.6 4. Akron: -1.4 5. Cincinnati: -1.4 6. Columbus: -1.0 7. Cleveland: -0.5 Unemployment Rate Change, January 2012-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Akron: -0.2 2. Toledo: -0.2 3. Youngstown: -0.2 4. Cincinnati: -0.1 5. Columbus: -0.1 6. Dayton: -0.1 7. Cleveland: 0.0 Total Civilian Labor Force, February 2012, highest to lowest. 1. Cincinnati: 1,088,800 2. Cleveland: 1,075,900 3. Columbus: 955,200 4. Dayton: 405,400 5. Akron: 370,000 6. Toledo: 319,900 7. Youngstown: 263,200 Civilian Labor Force Change, February 2007-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: +15,900 2. Youngstown: -12,400 3. Akron: -12,900 4. Toledo: -12,900 5. Cleveland: -13,700 6. Cincinnati: -14,500 7. Dayton: -17,700 Civilian Labor Force Change, February 2011-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Cleveland: +6,600 2. Columbus: -500 3. Dayton: -4,200 4. Youngstown: -5,900 5. Toledo: -6,900 6. Akron: -8,900 7. Cincinnati: -18,400 Civilian Labor Force Change January 2012-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: +7,700 2. Akron: +4,600 3. Toledo: +3,700 4. Cincinnati: +2,100 5. Dayton: -2,200 6. Youngstown: -2,200 7. Cleveland: -3,000 Total Employment, February 2012, highest to lowest. 1. Cincinnati: 998,700 2. Cleveland: 989,300 3. Columbus: 886,600 4. Dayton: 370,100 5. Akron: 339,500 6. Toledo: 290,200 7. Youngstown: 239,200 Total Employment Change, February 2007-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: -7,500 2. Youngstown: -18,400 3. Toledo: -21,100 4. Akron: -21,300 5. Dayton: -27,900 6. Cleveland: -28,200 7. Cincinnati: -44,700 Total Employment Change, February 2011-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Cleveland: +11,500 2. Columbus: +10,600 3. Dayton: +2,500 4. Youngstown: -900 5. Cincinnati: -1,100 6. Toledo: -1,100 7. Akron: -3,000 Total Employment Change, Janurary 2012-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: +7,900 2. Akron: +5,000 3. Toledo: +4,200 4. Cincinnati: +3,400 5. Dayton: -1,600 6. Youngstown: -1,600 7. Cleveland: -2,300 Total Unemployment, February 2012, highest to lowest. 1. Cincinnati: 90,100 2. Cleveland: 86,600 3. Columbus: 68,600 4. Dayton: 35,300 5. Akron: 30,400 6. Toledo: 29,800 7. Youngstown: 24,000 Total Unemployment Change, February 2007-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Youngstown: +5,900 2. Akron: +8,300 3. Toledo: +8,300 4. Dayton: +10,200 5. Cleveland: +11,900 6. Columbus: +23,500 7. Cincinnati: +30,200 Total Unemployment Change, February 2011-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Cincinnati: -17,300 2. Columbus: -10,200 3. Dayton: -6,700 4. Akron: -6,100 5. Toledo: -5,800 6. Youngstown: -5,000 7. Cleveland: -4,900 Total Unemployment Change, January 2012-February 2012, best to worst. 1. Cincinnati: -1,400 2. Cleveland: -700 3. Dayton: -600 4. Youngstown: -600 5. Akron: -500 6. Toledo: -400 7. Columbus: -300 When the breakdown by job catergory comes out, I'll post that for February.

GDP is a great indicator, but not the only one, and I'm not sure if it's the best one. GDP usually relates to metro size, not necessarily how productive the population is. NYC is obviously at the very top of the GDP ranking, along with the other top 10 largest cities.

Ratio of non-farm jobs to population and ranking vs all metros with at least 1 million in population (there were 51). Cincinnati Population: 2,130,200 Non-Farm Jobs: 982,400 Ratio: 46.1% Rank: 22nd Cleveland Population: 2,077,200 Non-Farm Jobs: 968,100 Ratio: 46.6% Rank: 20th Columbus Population: 1,836,500 Non-Farm Jobs: 912,400 Ratio: 49.7% Rank: 6th Top 10 1. Salt Lake City: 56.2% 2. Washington, DC: 53.3% 3. Boston: 52.9% 4. Minneapolis: 51.4% 5. Milwaukee: 51.1% 6. Columbus: 49.7% 7. Indianapolis: 49.4% 8. Richmond, VA: 48.4% 8. Seattle: 48.4% 9. Pittsburgh: 48.1% 9. San Jose, CA: 48.1% 10. Rochester, NY: 47.8% I got this information from another forum, and apparently the ratio is a good indicator of how productive a metro is. No idea if that's true, so take it with a grain of salt.

I thought just the opposite, that it IS surprising that Columbus is the densist, considering most people seem to believe it's largely low-density sprawl.

One has to wonder that if all these events are moving Downtown, that companies may start considering the urban core rather than the suburbs as well. I don't know if it will be a large scale rethinking, but I can't imagine that this trend won't get companies to at least give Downtown a second look. Nationwide's already doing it.

Unemployment rates should be out before that, but the rest of the data will wait until then. Newspapers usually post them before they're listed.

BTW, I do plan to do these numbers for each month. February's should be out soon. Hopefully this will give people a clearer idea of how Ohio's major metros are doing economically. I know the numbers aren't perfect and there is occasionally contradictory data depending on the source, but it's one of the best sources (BLS) out there, so that's what I'm going to use. If I have time today, I might do the full numbers, as Matt brought up, for 2009-2012, as that shows how things have changed since the recession peaked instead of the numbers I used that show the last year and the change since the first year of the recession.