jbcmh81

May Update (hopefully not deleted) Metro Civilian Labor Force, May 2013 and change from May 2012, best to worst Columbus: 976,660 +7,846 Cincinnati: 1,097,665 +5,201 Akron: 374,995 +4,721 Toledo: 320,870 +2,919 Youngstown: 266,747 -40 Dayton: 402,518 -2,115 Cleveland: 1,041,922 -14,645 Metro Civilian Labor Force, April 2013-May 2013, best to worst. Columbus: +12,226 Cincinnati: +11,082 Cleveland: +8,039 Toledo: +5,019 Youngstown: +3,296 Dayton: +3,031 Akron: +2,202 Employment May 2013 and change from May 2012, best to worst. Columbus: 918,500 +7,215 Cincinnati: 1,022,801 +5,390 Akron: 350,285 +3,858 Toledo: 296,039 +1,719 Youngstown: 246,050 -1,107 Dayton: 373,266 -1,976 Cleveland: 979,060 -12,107 Employment April 2013-May 2013, best to worst. Columbus: +8,714 Cleveland: +6,398 Cincinnati: +6,392 Toledo: +4,391 Youngstown: +2,721 Dayton: +1,618 Akron: +1,507 Unemployment May 2013 and change from May 2012, best to worst. Cleveland: 82,100 -2,538 Cincinnati: 74,864 -189 Dayton: 29,252 -139 Columbus: 58,160 +631 Akron: 24,710 +863 Youngstown: 20,697 +1,067 Toledo: 24,831 +1,200 Unemployment April 2013-May 2013, best to worst. Youngstown: +575 Toledo: +628 Akron: +695 Dayton: +1,413 Cleveland: +1,641 Columbus: +3,512 Cincinnati: +4,690 Unemployment Rate May 2013 and change from May 2012, best to worst. Cincinnati: 6.8% -0.1 Cleveland: 6.8% -0.1 Dayton: 7.3% 0.0 Columbus: 6.0% +0.1 Akron: 6.6% +0.2 Toledo: 7.7% +0.3 Youngstown: 7.8% +0.4 Unemployment Rate April 2013-May 2013, best to worst. Toledo: 0.0 Akron: +0.2 Cleveland: +0.2 Youngstown: +0.2 Cincinnati: +0.3 Columbus: +0.3 Dayton: +0.3 Non-Farm Jobs May 2013 and change from May 2012, best to worst. Columbus: 966,900 +12,200 Cincinnati: 1,022,500 +10,600 Akron: 330,700 +6,000 Toledo: 310,700 +3,300 Youngstown: 228,000 -500 Dayton: 380,000 -1,300 Cleveland: 1,020,600 -5,100

Most of the cities didn't have anything come up using "so" with "Ohio", so I left the so off.

If you just change the structure of the sentence, you get different results, obviously. If you leave it as "Why is (place), Ohio"... it turns out much differently. Cincinnati, the one result was "...called the Queen City" For Cleveland, it's "...important" and still "...so dangerous" Dayton is "...called the gem city" and "...the gem city". Toledo is "called the glass city" and "...in Ohio". Akron is "called the zips", "...the rubber city" and "...the zips". Youngstown is "...famous"

Yep, that's what I thought, so I did the search myself and a lot of the links go to that.

http://www.nateshivar.com/1451/how-other-people-stereotype-your-city/ The question was: "Why is (place) so... " and this is what popped up for Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus. Cincinnati ...so conservative ...so racist ...so boring ...so humid Cleveland ...so bad ...so dangerous ...so cloudy ...so depressing Columbus ...so famous ...so gay ...so important ...so well known I can see some of those stereotypes for Cleveland/Cincinnati because they've been around so long, unfortunately. I really don't get Columbus' though, besides the gay thing. I've always thought Columbus was basically not that known nationally, and the last words I would think of for a stereotype for it are "famous" and "well known". I have long though of it as under everyone's radar, except in Ohio where it's mostly looked down on. I suspect it has to do with sharing a name with Christopher Columbus, rather than anything people think of about the city. The gay thing, though, definitely. If I specify Columbus, Ohio, the results are: ...a test market ...Ohio's state capital ...famous ...called Columbus Some other Midwest examples. Chicago ...so corrupt ...so windy ...so cold ...so violent Detroit ...so bad ...so poor ...so black ...so dangerous Minneapolis ...so great ...so cold ...so expensive ...so gay St. Louis ...so empty ...so bad ...so ghetto ...so dangerous Kansas City ...so dangerous ...so boring ...so humid ...so... Indianapolis ...sobro (after the SoBro Café) Nothing else at all came up for the city. Milwaukee ...so poor ...so ghetto ...so cold ...so segregated Is it just me, or does the Midwest have a lot of negative stereotypes? The state of Ohio gets this result here: http://blog.noupsi.de/post/28896819324/why-are-americans-so ...so important ...so boring ...so important in the primaries

Thanks, I will definitely be doing more.

One of the best recent projects in the Short North, imo.

Yeah, it is. It looked more like a city 100 years ago than it does now with the drastic difference in street level activity and density. Just goes to show that bigger buildings don't necessarily add much beyond a skyline.

I think the original one did, back in 1893. The one in the photo was built in 1895 and remained open until 1972.

I wonder if William Green's 'crown' was an 80's homage to that old hotel. Maybe. That was the Chittenden Hotel and I believe it lasted until the Nationwide complex was built in the 1980s. Same for a lot of that block.

Finally, we have the intersection of Goodale Avenue and North High. This is perhaps one of the most drastic changes of all. The buildings to the immediate left, just before Goodale (the first street on the left), were torn down by the Greek Orthodox Church in the 1980s because they wanted to expand. The buildings on the right were torn down either before or during construction for the Convention Center. North of Goodale, a good many of the buildings were destroyed with the construction of I-670. If you look closely, just past and to the right of the building with the domed rotunda, you can just make out the roof outline of the Yukon Building, which is the first line of buildings that survived north of the 670 construction in the Short North. It's really hard to imagine what Columbus and these areas would've been like today had all this not occurred. It's simply incredible how short-sighted people were at the time. It would probably be nearly impossible to get a similar type of project done today.

Next is Spring and High. There is quite literally nothing left from 1914.

Next is the corner of Long and High.

Next is from the corner of Gay and High. It is absolutely horrifying to me at just how many buildings are gone. What a drastic change.

Third is the corner of Broad and High.

The second photo is Capital Square. Broad and High is in the background.

I found these fantastic photos of High Street in 1914 and wanted to share. They depict the city in a way I've never quite seen before and it's a big reminder of all that was lost from the 1940-1980 "urban renewal" crap and the suburban movement. The photographer apparently walked from Town Street to Goodale Avenue snapping photos, so you get a sense for all that was Downtown at the time. Unfortunately, these are not the high resolution photos as I'm not able to post them, but they're still cool. The first photo is taken at the corner of High and Town looking north. The Lazarus building on the left is likely one of the few remaining buildings from this image. The second image is a Google streetview taken from roughly the same position.

Exactly. Why not use the area around Tri-C in the Cleveland model? For Cleveland why didn't you use the following tracts 1076, 1037, 1041, 1091, 1092, 1096, 1093, 1101, & 1079? Post #427. If I was to add any, I'd say 1087 and 1093. You guys do know that you can make your own maps based on your own definitions, right?

I made these maps for Franklin County and the adjacent areas similar to the Cincinnati map about jobs. The first one shows % of employee change by zip code 2000-2010. The 270 suburbs definitely had the best performance, while the core neighborhoods as well as far rural areas didn't do as well. The second map is average employee income by zip code. The highest incomes are Downtown, New Albany, the Polaris area, Dublin and Easton. The High Street corridor also has relatively high income levels. Rural and far outer suburban areas tend to have the lowest average incomes. The third map is income % change 2000-2010. There doesn't seem to be any strong pattern. There's no strong correlation between it and jobs growth, and the urban core did mostly as well as the suburbs. Edit: I guess I can't post them because they're too large of files, even changing the format. They're on my site though, so just take a look if you're interested. Link is in my sig.

I made these maps for Franklin County and the adjacent areas similar to the Cincinnati map about jobs. The first one shows % of employee change by zip code 2000-2010. The 270 suburbs definitely had the best performance, while the core neighborhoods as well as far rural areas didn't do as well. The second map is average employee income by zip code. The highest incomes are Downtown, New Albany, the Polaris area, Dublin and Easton. The High Street corridor also has relatively high income levels. Rural and far outer suburban areas tend to have the lowest average incomes. The third map is income % change 2000-2010. There doesn't seem to be any strong pattern. There's no strong correlation between it and jobs growth, and the urban core did mostly as well as the suburbs.

It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data. Most certainly, this particular article was both pertinent and disturbing--and thus probably deserved the "front page treatment" bestowed upon it by the Enquirer. Nevertheless, as mentioned by jbcmh81, where were the source links? And buried within the article were comments about both Cleveland and Columbus experiencing similar losses in their own downtowns, yet (once again) no source links. As several other concerned forumers have already mentioned, such numbers of job losses in any of the "3-Cs" (but especially in Cincinnati during this time period) cannot be minimized nor ignored. However, much else is at play that suggests that the 3-Cs' dilemmas aren't nearly as serious as our trusty Enquirer has trumped them up to be. Bad news sells papers to outlying suburbanites; good news plugs their ears; does anybody disagree? An article worth reading, YES; an article worth gnashing of teeth, no. Yeah, I'd be more worried if the drop in total jobs coincided with a drop in payroll, but it seems to be just the opposite. Downtowns used to be the centers of money and commerce, as well as where people lived. For the past 60 years, downtowns were gutted of residents and high-paying jobs. It seems as if both residents and high-paying jobs are coming back, and I suspect, eventually more jobs overall. But even if not, there's definitely a lot more positive momentum going on that the article failed to touch upon.

Thanks. I tried looking it up but apparently missed this.

It's annoying that they don't really offer any source links to their data.

The caps proposed have very little in common with the 670 cap, unfortunately. They will be built a bit wider than traditional bridges, and with extra support to hold buildings, but they're unlikely to ever actually hold any just because it would be so cost-prohibitive for a private developer to do so, and it would require ODOT cooperation considering it'd be done directly over 70. ODOT has shown little to zero interest in helping or even allowing for restoring neighborhood connectivity that it destroyed years ago. It fought the city's push to get more caps and have them building-ready. Ultimately, ODOT mostly won out.

I don't have all the information on how exactly it came to be, but it was completed in 2004 at a cost of about $8 million. I believe it was a collaboration between the city and ODOT when they were rebuilding/expanding 670. I also know that the bridge was built with extra supports to hold the buildings and was designed to directly connect Downtown with the SN and conceal the highway.