Evergrey

It's a Sony Cybershot DSC-H2 with a 12X optical zoom. Welcome to the neighborhood, urbanpreppie! CMU/Pitt is one of the country's top research nodes... but this region hasn't commercialized that research the way Boston and Silicon Valley have (for example, Lycos was founded at CMU in the early 90s but fled to Boston)... it's a very complex economic story that I won't get into. However, the tech climate is improving here... with Google, Apple, IBM, Seagate and other industry heavyweights opening locations here... drawn by CMU and Pitt... and more and more startups and spin-offs from the universities (http://www.clusty.com)... and increasing venture capital. Hopefully we can reach a critical mass soon. We seem to be getting more and more attention in the tech media as an important center (Wired's Top 10 Geek Cities, WSJ dubbing us Roboburgh due to our innovative robotics industry, etc.) Everyone else: Thanks for the overwhelming response! :)

I'm a native of North-Central Pennsylvania... though about 100 miles west of Williamsport in St. Marys... North-Central is a BIG region! lol

Isn't there a steel mill in city limits... like the south-central part of the city... Industrial Valley?

Why? What's wrong with DanInDC? I like your signature, however. I'm impressed that Cleveland still has such a large manufacturing labor force. What comprises this? Automaking, I assume, is a big sector... does Cleveland still have steel mills?

Numbers for 5/2007 (in thousands) Total Nonfarm Employment Cincinnati: 1,047.60 Cleveland: 1,076.80 Columbus: 937.30 Pittsburgh: 1,150.10 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 0.32 Cleveland: -0.55 Columbus: 0.32 Pittsburgh: 0.41 Manufacturing Cincinnati: 120.70 Cleveland: 143.40 Columbus: 77.00 Pittsburgh: 99.00 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -1.07 Cleveland: -2.65 Columbus: -1.41 Pittsburgh: -1.20 Trade, Transportation & Utilities Cincinnati: 208.60 Cleveland: 198.50 Columbus: 187.20 Pittsburgh: 226.10 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -0.14 Cleveland: -0.60 Columbus: 0.38 Pittsburgh: -0.26 Information Cincinnati: 15.40 Cleveland: 19.00 Columbus: 18.50 Pittsburgh: 22.90 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -2.53 Cleveland: 0.53 Columbus: -2.63 Pittsburgh: -0.87 Financial Activities Cincinnati: 64.90 Cleveland: 76.90 Columbus: 72.60 Pittsburgh: 67.90 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -1.07 Cleveland: -0.77 Columbus: -0.82 Pittsburgh: -1.74 Professional and Business Services Cincinnati: 155.60 Cleveland: 139.80 Columbus: 144.70 Pittsburgh: 148.40 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 0.71 Cleveland: -0.50 Columbus: 1.97 Pittsburgh: 1.50 Education and Health Services Cincinnati: 142.30 Cleveland: 172.10 Columbus: 109.50 Pittsburgh: 226.90 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 3.64 Cleveland: 0.64 Columbus: 1.58 Pittsburgh: 2.25 Leisure and Hospitality Cincinnati: 109.20 Cleveland: 97.70 Columbus: 93.30 Pittsburgh: 110.90 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 1.39 Cleveland: 0.00 Columbus: 2.30 Pittsburgh: 0.18 Other Services Cincinnati: 43.00 Cleveland: 44.50 Columbus: 37.40 Pittsburgh: 55.10 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 1.18 Cleveland: 0.68 Columbus: -1.06 Pittsburgh: -0.72 Government Cincinnati: 136.10 Cleveland: 141.70 Columbus: 157.80 Pittsburgh: 131.50 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -0.58 Cleveland: -1.12 Columbus: -0.38 Pittsburgh: 0.77 Unemployment Rate 4/2007 Cincinnati: 4.90 Cleveland: 5.40 Columbus: 4.80 Pittsburgh: 3.80 Homeownership Rate 1/1/2006 Units(%) Cleveland: 76.90 Pittsburgh: 72.20 Columbus: 65.80 Cincinnati: 65.50 Building Permits (All Units) 4/1/2007 Cincinnati: 608.00 Cleveland: 370.00 Columbus: 493.00 Pittsburgh: 406.00 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -36.53 Cleveland: -24.80 Columbus: -38.37 Pittsburgh: 2.27 Building Permits (Single Family Units) Cincinnati: 546.00 Cleveland: 324.00 Columbus: 432.00 Pittsburgh: 347.00 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: -34.92 Cleveland: -28.32 Columbus: -29.53 Pittsburgh: -2.80 Per Capita Personal Income 1/1/2005 Dollars Cincinnati: 34,961.00 Cleveland: 35,423.00 Columbus: 34,960.00 Pittsburgh: 36,530.00 Year-over-Year growth (%) Cincinnati: 3.56 Cleveland: 3.95 Columbus: 3.66 Pittsburgh: 4.94

Because this is URBANOHIO

This is from a report ranking MSAs by how much of the household budget is spend on transportation http://www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/driven_to_spend/Driven_to_Spend_Report.pdf Table 1. 2003 Household Expenditures on Transportation by Metropolitan Area Rank MSA Expenditures on Transportation 1 Houston 20.9% 2 Cleveland 20.5% 3 Detroit 20.5% 4 Tampa 20.4% 5 Kansas City 20.2% 6 Cincinnati 20.0% 7 Anchorage 19.9% 8 Dallas- Fort Worth 19.7% 9 Phoenix 19.6% 10 Miami 19.6% 11 Denver 19.2% 12 Seattle 19.0% 13 St. Louis 18.7% 14 Atlanta 18.7% 15 Los-Angeles 18.4% 16 San Diego 18.4% 17 Honolulu 18.0% 18 Boston 17.2% 19 Minneapolis- St. Paul 17.2% 20 Chicago 16.9% 21 Milwaukee 16.6% 22 San Francisco 16.6% 23 Pittsburgh 16.6% 24 Philadelphia 15.9% 25 Washington D.C. 15.4% 26 New York 15.4% 27 Portland 15.1% 28 Baltimore 14.0% United States 19.1% Source: Selected metropolitan statistical areas: Average annual expenditures and characteristics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2002-2003.

My camera has settings for "low light without flash" and "low light with flash"... My old camera didn't have "low light without flash"... so I was used to using a flash at night which makes pictures quite glittery and overbearingly bright... This time around I experimented... I took two photos of every downtown night shot (the skyline shots were exclusively without flash)... one with flash and one without... then I decided on which one looked better... most of them are without flash... but a few looked better with flash... a lot of depends on how much artificial light is already in the shot for example... without flash: with flash:

btw, it appears some of these photos are a bit too wide for UO's format (this wasn't a problem over at SSP)... so you might need to go down to the bottom of the post and scroll for some of them (i know that's annoying)... but unfortunately I don't think you can tell which ones need scrolling... first and last ones do

Just to nitpick... Allegheny DID NOT rank in the Top 10 of total people moving out of the county. It also did not rank in the Top 10 for net migration loss. It did, however, rank in the Top 10 for raw "population loss"... which in Allegheny's case is primarily due to deaths outnumbering births... a legacy of the demographic devastation that occured in the wake of the steel collapse 20-25 years ago. In almost every other major county... births outnumber deaths... even in struggling population losers like Cuyahoga and Wayne, MI... which makes up for some of the out-migration. There is an important distinction between the two primary components of population change... natural and migration. Though I could suppose you could claim people who die are "moving out of the county to the county of Heaven, NC" lol For example... from 2000-2006... Allegheny, PA has had a net migration of approx. -46k... about half the total number and half the rate of Cuyahoga. Let's compare components of population change for fun... 2000-2006... these are just raw numbers cuz I don't feel like doing percentages right now: Allegheny, PA Natural: -9k Migration: -45k Cuyahoga, OH Natural: 16k Migration: -91k Franklin, OH Natural: 56k Migration: -26k Hamilton, OH Natural: 22k Migration: -67k Erie, NY Natural: 4k Migration: -29k Wayne, MI Natural: 59k Migration: -142k Mecklenburg, NC Natural: 50k Migration: 85k Cook, IL Natural: 236k Migration: -327k as a side note... Cook, IL (Chicago) experienced a mind-boggling DOMESTIC net migration of -601k... INTERNATIONAL net migration made up for less than half of that loss "Just for fun" and accuracy, I'd like to contest the numbers that Evergrey has come up with from a post above the most recent story here. As usual it is skewing the numbers in pittsburgh's direction, and short changing Cleveland's. The 2000-2006 population losses are as follows: Alleghenny County: -58,000 730 sq miles http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42003.html Cuyahoga County: -79,000 458 sq miles http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39035.html Now obviously both are not good numbers, but the numbers are misleading because since alleghenny is much larger in square miles, it contains more of the sprawling area of the metro area. In the end it's probably a wash. Census data and evergrey posts can never be looked at for face value or accuracy. Next time you post statistics "for fun," make sure they're right. Please refrain from personal attacks. There is nothing in my post that is misleading or inaccurate. Those are numbers from the Census Bureau.

What does the Census Bureau do when a city like Cincinnati challenges their estimates? How does the Census come up with that revised number? Right now... I'm not sure what numbers to believe... a growing core city in a county that has one of the steepest population declines in the country seems really suspect (and every other "peer" city to Cincy continues to lose population aka northern core cities that have "artificially" small boundaries)... I wonder if the repeated challenges (and potential "political" aspect) has distorted numbers throughout Hamilton Co.... I think Tony Upton has a right to be outraged at these numbers. When the Census Bureau revised Cincy's population... did it also revise the population of Hamilton Co. or the populations of any of the other municipalities in Hamilton Co.? Apparently not... Hamilton County lost 6k from 2005-2006 according to estimates and lost 23k since 2000 Census. It just seems like these Census challenges are shifting around the deck chairs. The Bureau would have to revise estimates for every municipality in Hamilton County to get a real count... but I suppose that's what Census 2010 is for. Honestly, I just can't wait til 2010 when everyone can stop worrying about estimates and get some real numbers. % Change 2005-2006 of selected "peer" cities St. Louis -1.5 Detroit -1.5 Cleveland -1.4 Buffalo -1.1 Pittsburgh -1.1 Toledo -1.1 Boston -1.0 Dayton -0.9 Baltimore -0.8 Providence -0.8 Rochester -0.7 St. Paul -0.6 Milwaukee -0.5 Akron -0.5 Louisville -0.3 Minneapolis - The only cities over 100k to gain population are sunbelt/western cities, cities with enormous land areas that basically include a lot of suburbia within city limits (Columbus, Indianapolis) and mega-suburbs... and a few random smaller cities like Hartford and Evansville gaining 0.1%... Cincinnati appears to be an anomoly in the growth column.

That's the "Pittsburgh Festival of Lights"... which is running for a couple more weeks. The innovative lighting schemes are designed by French lighting artist Lucette de Rugy and projected on downtown buildings. http://www.duquesnelight.com/Special/FestivalOfLights/default.cfm

more photos for Florida Guy:

How do you get such volume and lustrous shine?

oh noes! :(

What an awful awful environment. That housing looks so cheap... looks like the student apartment buildings in State College, PA... but this is what Amerikans think they want, I suppose. I hope the Banks looks and functions nothing like this. UGH... Thank you, Rando.

one of my favourite cleve nabes

So the Census Bureau was undercounting the rich neighborhoods??? :roll: I have to admit, C-Dawg is making a lot of sense. Agreed with the undercounting for decades comment. Exactly. It's known as a trade area. Municipal borders are largely irrelevant to the way the rest of the world operates. I agree. You are a gentleman and a scholar, Thomas. ... Anyways... it can be hard to reconcile the possibility of a declining city population with all the development projects we talk about on here... but the march of time has brought upon us radically different social trends and population dynamics than the past. Average household size has plummeted. Less people occupy larger spaces and consume more goods.

common knowledge? oh brother! :roll: Please don't derail the thread. You are possibly the only person in the world who would argue that Metro Cleveland has more people... or a more diverse and dynamic economy than Metro Dallas or Metro Minneapolis-St. Paul. Just look up the population statistics in the encyclopedia and the economic performance statistics on the websites of the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Cleveland Fed.

Given its size... Rochester would probably be assumed to be a Tier XIII city... so XII isn't that crazy. Up until a few decades ago, Rochester had one of the world's most high-tech economies... and it was to optics technology (Kodak, Xerox, Bausch & Lomb, Institute of Optics) what Detroit was to automobiles. While Rochester has taken severe hits and seen its global importance as a center of optics diminish... it still retains a substantial cluster in this industry and still fills a minor global niche... enough to vault it a tier higher than the tier it would probably normally inhabit if it was just another million-person metro like Buffalo.

Yes, you are. Chill out and have some cantaloupe. It's common knowledge that Dallas and Minneapolis are larger metros with more diverse and powerful economies than Cleveland and Columbus. These attributes are key components in their higher global connectivities. Nobody is giving Cleveland the "short end of the stick". It's a Tier VI city in the U.S. when it comes to economic global connectivity. The Brookings Institute is one of the country's most highly regarded think tanks and regularly focuses on urban/metropolitan issues and regional economies.

Dallas and Minneapolis are twice the size of Cleveland and Columbus and have much larger, more diversified and more successful regional economies. It only makes sense that they occupy higher tiers than those of minor sub-regional centers like Cleveland and Columbus. Phoenix is a unique case... despite its larger population, it still occupies a low rung in the country's economic hierarchy (right along with Cincinnati) and has little global connectivity.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:tXCyFl1UOukJ:www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20050222_worldcities.pdf+us+cities+world+city+network+taylor+lang&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a The Brookings Institute did a report measuring the global connectivity of U.S. metros. As you may have guessed, New York is a global city par excellence, while LA and Chicago also have strong global connectivity. Cities in Tiers III-V tend to have varying degrees of global connectivity due to large geographic hinterlands (Atlanta is the capital of the South), unique relationships to foreign regions (Miami's role in Latin America) or a unique global economic niche (Houston's energy dominance; Detroit's auto industry). Ohio's three major metros fall in tiers that rank behind even these. Tier I: New York Tier II: Chicago Los Angeles Tier III: San Francisco Miami Atlanta Washington Tier IV: Boston Dallas Houston Seattle Tier V: Denver Philadelphia Minneapolis St. Louis Detroit Tier VI: San Diego Portland Charlotte Cleveland Indianapolis Kansas City Pittsburgh Tier VII: Baltimore Phoenix Cincinnati Tampa Columbus San Jose Rochester Tier VIII: Palo Alto Hartford Richmond Buffalo Honolulu Tier IX: Las Vegas New Orleans Sancramento Omaha Tier X: Wilmington Ohio cities fall within tiers that "combine sub-regional centers such as Charlotte and Portland with reviving industrial cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh. There are suprises in both types of metropolitan area, with relatively low connectivities for the likes of old and reviving Baltimore and new and dynamic Phoenix." With the exception of NYC and a few others, U.S. cities tend to have a very strong domestic focus as compared to similar cities in Europe... and Ohio's cities are leading the pack when it comes to domestic economic connectivity compared to global economic connectivity.

Great Williamsport shot! Look forward to seeing more. Anyways...

I also endorse the Winking Lizard... wonderful food, wonderful vibe