....  Eric Fingerhut is a politician, so citing him as a source is no different from me citing a speech by John Kasich as a source.  ...

Pathetic

It's Georgia, btw.

 

Seriously, you expect me to respect a stat that is extremely counterintuitive based on a link to a page on Amazon where a book written by a Democratic partisan is out of stock?

 

And on what axis is Georgia measured as "more successful" than Ohio?  Are they actually that much richer and/or faster growing than we are?

 

Have you been to Atlanta?

 

I have.  It is a sprawling, snarled mess.  I have cousins who live there.  They, too, call it a sprawling, snarled mess.

 

Indy is a QoL leader. Cities wanting to improve send delegations there. As for Pittsburgh, it is losing people, but not highly-qualified people OR creative class. Pittsburgh is rising as an extremely innovative city, and it's exemplifying how population growth isn't the end all be all.

 

I have never been to Indy and have spent very little time in Pittsburgh.

 

As for the "creative class" meme, those who invoke that trope should read this before they do:

 

http://thirtytwomag.com/2012/06/the-fall-of-thecreative-class/

 

Bottom line: the "creative class" isn't as potent in real life as it is in the buzzword echo chamber.

 

Here I go back to QoL being the bottom line. What is the point of growth for growth's sake? Is there some pagan god named Growth that we're obligated to make sacrifices to or something? Copenhagen and Stockholm aren't growing, but their QoL is so much higher than anywhere in North America. There's not a day that goes by that I don't miss living in Rotterdam. I miss Moscow a lot too, but I know the distinction that made Rotterdam so much more livable, and why I always saw NL as a country where I may seriously settle down some day. That difference is QoL.

 

This most likely means that you're white and already at least middle-class.  The Netherlands have a substantial poor population, predominantly immigrants, and its lack of economic growth makes it very difficult for them to break out of poverty.  That immigrant population has been the source of significant political friction and there is surprisingly high support for fringe, nativist political parties there.  European development patterns tend to be more urbanist-friendly because the poverty that is just now becoming part of our suburban economic fabric has actually been the norm there for longer--meaning that if you stay downtown in most European cities, the poor are most likely out of sight and out of mind, whereas in American downtowns, you're more likely to have to encounter those who could use a bit of economic growth.

 

Quality of life is also a subjective measurement.  You say that Stockholm and Copenhagen have higher QoL than anywhere in America; I wouldn't live anywhere but America, and quite honestly, right now, I can't see myself living anywhere but Ohio.

 

I am really confident that the future is going to bring America out-smarting and out-innovating even Europe. They've kicked our butt in the last 40 years, economic hiccup aside (one that isn't affecting the higher QoL countries like NL, DEN, SWE). America is embracing QoL and innovation, and those cities that don't hop on board will absolutely be left behind. There will be a new Detroit, and a new Dallas. Who knows, these cities may even swap fortunes (although I know personally know Dallas has more staying power than it gets credit for).

 

They've kicked our butt in the last 40 years?  Economic hiccup aside?  Economic hiccup not affecting Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden?  I'm sorry, but I think we must be reading both history and current events very differently.

I don't disagree that lower taxes lead to growth, but looking at it state-by-state, many of the "low tax" states are supported by federal revenues provided by donor states that typically have higher taxes themselves.  No analysis is complete without considering that inequity in distributing federal funds.  Texas, for example, gets a large amount of personal income from military spending... including Ohio's military spending.  That makes their budget a lot easier to balance.  No need to thank us, Texas.  You're welcome.  Just keep stealing our industries with your artificially low taxes.

 

I want to say Ohio gets a pretty respectable slice of the defense budget itself, too.

 

Also, Ohio is a fair distance above the national median in terms of population age, too.  All other things equal, that means that we're getting a hefty chunk of the old-age entitlement stream, too, which is significantly larger than the defense budget.

 

Yes, but wouldn't you say the Sun Belt does fairly well in that category too?  Our population isn't aging because old people are moving in, it's because young people are leaving.  That seems to support the quality of life theory.  These young people are probably not leaving due to tax rates.  They may be leaving for opportunity, but many end up going to higher-tax states on the coasts.  And these higher-tax states still have an overabundance of wealthy people, which leads to their federal donor status. 

 

So while I believe that low taxes do help, and I was generally supportive of Taft cutting the state's business taxes, I just don't think it's that big of a deal in terms of growth.

I don't disagree that lower taxes lead to growth, but looking at it state-by-state, many of the "low tax" states are supported by federal revenues provided by donor states that typically have higher taxes themselves.  No analysis is complete without considering that inequity in distributing federal funds.  Texas, for example, gets a large amount of personal income from military spending... including Ohio's military spending.  That makes their budget a lot easier to balance.  No need to thank us, Texas.  You're welcome.  Just keep stealing our industries with your artificially low taxes.

 

I want to say Ohio gets a pretty respectable slice of the defense budget itself, too.

 

Also, Ohio is a fair distance above the national median in terms of population age, too.  All other things equal, that means that we're getting a hefty chunk of the old-age entitlement stream, too, which is significantly larger than the defense budget.

 

Yes, but wouldn't you say the Sun Belt does fairly well in that category too?  Our population isn't aging because old people are moving in, it's because young people are leaving.  That seems to support the quality of life theory.  These young people are probably not leaving due to tax rates.  They may be leaving for opportunity, but many end up going to higher-tax states on the coasts.  And these higher-tax states still have an overabundance of wealthy people, which leads to their federal donor status.

 

Actually, in terms of median population age, <a href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_med_age-people-median-age">Florida is the only Southern state older than us</a>.  My guess is that immigrant populations have something to do with this, because California is also a younger state.  Then again, maybe not--the youngest state (by far) is Utah, not known as an immigrant paradise.

speaking of age - AARP rated Ohio 6th toughest state to retire in.

http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement-planning/info-12-2010/10-worst-states-for-retirement.html

That's a really dated list.  Ohio is on it because we have "high unemployment"?  I guess maybe in January 2011, but not the case today.  Also not very clear what they are basing their rankings on, either. 

Yeah if you are going to retire why do you need a job???????

Long read, but pretty much sums up much of what this thread has been discussing.  Young people don't move where it's hip or cool or trendy, they move where the jobs are.  http://thirtytwomag.com/2012/06/the-fall-of-thecreative-class/

It's all about the jobs. A college graduate will want to live in a place where jobs are available. 

 

So what can the city do? Transform itself into a destination for big companies and make it as easy as possible for first-time business owners to open up shop.

 

I actually think the city is moving in the right direction but it still needs to push harder.

 

That article is very informative and interesting, and I love the way it strikes down Richard Florida. However, I have some problems with it. A big one is that it conflates cities and metros. Many cities are shrinking within growing metros. Clearly there is job creation, yet the city is still shrinking. I don't see that being spoken to here.

This thread is about Ohio being a high growth STATE. The city / suburb debate is a whole 'nother topic. 

The article is primarily about cities and it has been posted by two different people. Sorry for biting the bait.

Now that I think about the objective of the thread, two words come to mind: number one. Much of what Ohio offers for everyday living does not rank near #1. QoL like transportation being one prime example. Instead of vying for a #1 spot in (fill in the blank) Ohio seems to just opt out of the competition for the most part without even trying. Like, why isn't ___, Ohio the #1 most scooter-friendly city in the nation? Well, like with so many other day-to-day amenities, it didn't bother to try. When someplace(s) in Ohio strive to be the best at something that affects daily life in a positive manner I think we'll at least see more people moving there. As far as the either/or proposition where it's hip, cool, and/or trendy vs jobs, you guys are aware that the places you are referring to also offer jobs on top of that and higher quality urban amenities, I'd hope.

 

I have kind of a dumb question. I'm not a Richard Florida devotee, but is this QoL measurement everyone is throwing around something that is quantifiable (i.e. are there specific metrics that are being measured), or is it the more general subjective measurement that Gramarye was mentioning upthread. I have to think that outside of a few generalized concepts (cost of living, maybe cost of housing, education levels, whatever) that it's very hard to establish a consistent baseline for what is acceptable QoL, given everyone has different needs and wants. So how do you use that as a measuring stick?

Even if there are objective criteria, subjective judgments are used in selecting them and even more subjective judgments are inevitably used in weighting them.  For example, just how important is low cost of living?  I've actually seen Akron score quite high in rankings that weighted it strongly, because housing is very affordable here, even in decent parts of the city (west and northwest Akron).  Other rankings that weight transit options more heavily and deemphasize cost of living will not have Akron on their radar screen.

I agree, I was just trying to find out if it was a tangible measurement that, whether correctly or not, could be applied across competing cities.

 

while I'm at it, what's the fascination with the 'creative class'. What does that even mean? Seems like the few articles I've read talking up why cities need to target said class are typically written by someone who considers themselves part of it. Kind of reminds me of the 'consultant' that Akron hired a couple years ago to try and make the city more appealing. I believe she came up with a lot of great ideas, such as young people like to do cool things.

^ I love the young people!

^Me too!

Agreed about the "creative class."  I don't like classes to begin with, and I can't think of anything more elitist to call one.  As if those of us who don't "CREATE!" for a living are just drones.  Listen buddy... I create spreadsheets like you wouldn't believe.

I agree, I was just trying to find out if it was a tangible measurement that, whether correctly or not, could be applied across competing cities.

 

while I'm at it, what's the fascination with the 'creative class'. What does that even mean? Seems like the few articles I've read talking up why cities need to target said class are typically written by someone who considers themselves part of it. Kind of reminds me of the 'consultant' that Akron hired a couple years ago to try and make the city more appealing. I believe she came up with a lot of great ideas, such as young people like to do cool things.

 

Hater!  HUMP

I do have to say that when I've been in Atlanta, and Georgia overall, I thought it was absolutely terrible and wondered why so many people lived there.  I'm sure there are bright spots, but not impressed.

 

Everyone keeps talking about jobs.  It was mentioned earlier in the thread that jobs aren't really the main issue.  Keep thinking they are - This isn't the middle of the 20th century or earlier though.  People have easy options to move where they want and we've got air conditioning now.  You can go to ANY region of the country and find a job somewhere around there.  I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but for the most part it holds true.  You need to make people want to live somewhere and then jobs will certainly follow - especially in the day and age where people can work remotely (and that's not going backwards - it'll just get more and more so).

 

Keep kidding yourselves - Of course jobs are necessary, but they are not what's bringing people to Ohio and making them want to stay and tell others to come too.  Maybe if a huge fortune 100 were to move to a city and really develop their area it could be a nice injection and raise the quality of the area, but that doesn't happen often.  If you focus on tax breaks and roads then you're going to get people paying less taxes and you're going to spend more on roads.  Focus on differentiating our cities from anywhere else.  Focus on giving the residents something you can't find many other places.  It's really not rocket science - there needs to be a defining characteristic that attracts people and that's NOT, "it's a great place to raise a family" vagueness... You can quite literally say that about areas of pretty much any state.

 

I'm currently travelling in San Antonio.  This place is not spectacular by any means, but what do a lot of people think of when they hear it? The Alamo and the little riverwalk thing.  It's really not too impressive and would be easy to do the same type of thing anywhere, in a much more impressive way.  Columbus has a river that runs through the heart of the city, and really what's done with it?? There's a little stage on it that gets some play sometimes, but if you built a neighborhood that incorporated the river and connected to german village and the short north and had sculptures and local restaurants and bars and shows and cool architecture and... the list goes on.  It's not rocket science.  We spend how many millions on various other projects that don't do much... why not start building uniqueness?  I think Columbus has a pretty good start and a really high potential, but it needs to be realized.  Same with cleveland and cincinnati.  And the better any one of those do, the better they all do - IF they are connected by more than a freeway.  Trains would have been a big help.

 

Ohio just does the same old thing as everywhere else - it isn't working.  It's common sense really.

 

And as far as the `creative class`... All it means is that people are talking. They want to go somewhere where innovation is happening.  They don't want to just go to the grocery store, watch movies and go to work.  They want to DO.  You have to foster that and make them feel like where they live is unique and inspiring.  I want to walk out of my apartment every day and feel alive, not a drone just killing time until I pass away.

 

</rant>

First we need to advertise what we do have while working to make it better. Do you know how many ppl I've run into from the NYC that have never heard of Cedar Point? I mentioned cleaning the beaches and making them attractivfor trips Spring thru Fall. Anyways the State needs to actively promote and market what's here. I dont think there is enough of that.

You need to make people want to live somewhere and then jobs will certainly follow

 

You need to make certain people want to live somewhere...namely the people who decide where to move their companies.

 

Don't underestimate the value of a location being a great place to raise a family. It may not be a factor in your decision making as a single person, but wait until you actually have one. I'd argue at that point it becomes one of the predominant factors.

:-o

We shouldn't be trying to draw people in with amusement parks  :|

 

And a good place to raise a family can be found in or nearby every city in the states.  Those are the types of sentiments that keep us from differentiating.

 

And no, u don't need CEOs wanting to live there, u need their employees to want to live there.

^Oh, well, since you put it that way

Ironically a lot of posts in this thread sort of confirm why Ohio is not growing and not attracting young people. "Creative class? Bah, we don't need no stinkin creative class. Blah, Atlanta is just a sprawly mess and it sucks. And that San Antonio Riverwalk thing, lamooo.."

 

I will say I agree that Ohio has a lot of great things that it could do a better PR job with. For some reason, every time I get on Facebook I get these "Ohio means Jobs" adds. I get it that Ohio has done well with "jobs," however the j-word works best on working stiffs without college degrees. Especially if they could do some more trojan spying and glean a little more about my demographic, they could at the least give me a better-targeted Facebook ad.

 

We'll run through a few posts on here..

 

You need to make people want to live somewhere and then jobs will certainly follow

Don't underestimate the value of a location being a great place to raise a family. It may not be a factor in your decision making as a single person, but wait until you actually have one. I'd argue at that point it becomes one of the predominant factors.

 

I wouldn't underestimate it, I would throw it out completely.

 

 

I have.  It is a sprawling, snarled mess.  I have cousins who live there.  They, too, call it a sprawling, snarled mess.

 

Of course, that's exactly what Atlanta is. You were questioning the growth of Georgia, and I think you answered your own question there. But I'd also say to not underestimate the QoL indicators in Atlanta proper, rather than far-flung suburbs of Gwinnett County, et al. Atlanta is a city that was losing inner city population, and has since added 30,000 new residents in the last 15-20 years, mostly with the condo boom. There are truly world-class amenities like MARTA, Piedmont Park, Emory University, Georgia Tech, etc. that has turned ATL into not just a city of choice for young people, but also a cultural magnet for the entire south.

 

As for the "creative class" meme, those who invoke that trope should read this before they do:

 

http://thirtytwomag.com/2012/06/the-fall-of-thecreative-class/

 

Bottom line: the "creative class" isn't as potent in real life as it is in the buzzword echo chamber.

 

I'm sorry, I read that article, and came away unimpressed. He bases the majority of his point discrediting the creative class on not feeling right in Madison, WI. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that Madison is also a fantastic exemplary city for creative policies. And it's "very gay," to the credit of Richard Florida. I guess 32 Mag has a problem with that?

 

This most likely means that you're white and already at least middle-class.  The Netherlands have a substantial poor population, predominantly immigrants, and its lack of economic growth makes it very difficult for them to break out of poverty.  That immigrant population has been the source of significant political friction and there is surprisingly high support for fringe, nativist political parties there.  European development patterns tend to be more urbanist-friendly because the poverty that is just now becoming part of our suburban economic fabric has actually been the norm there for longer--meaning that if you stay downtown in most European cities, the poor are most likely out of sight and out of mind, whereas in American downtowns, you're more likely to have to encounter those who could use a bit of economic growth.

 

Quality of life is also a subjective measurement.  You say that Stockholm and Copenhagen have higher QoL than anywhere in America; I wouldn't live anywhere but America, and quite honestly, right now, I can't see myself living anywhere but Ohio.

 

They've kicked our butt in the last 40 years?  Economic hiccup aside?  Economic hiccup not affecting Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden?  I'm sorry, but I think we must be reading both history and current events very differently.

 

Well that's fine, I wouldn't want you to ever leave America - however I don't think being somewhat worldly is a bad thing, especially in a place. Especially-especially in a place that wants to attract young people after going so long without doing great with that demographic.

 

As for your assessment on European politics, I think you listen to a little too much Rush. The rise of the right-wing in Europe has been impressive but they are still a marginalized political force in all but 3 countries: Switzerland, Austria, and Norway. The Netherlands was governed by a center-right coalition, after decades of left-leaning politics, and it is now turning back to the left-leaning governments. Geert Wilders is a black eye on most of the country.

 

I also take a little bit of offense to your assessment that NL has a ton of poor immigrants dragging the country down who all live in bad areas, which is basically what you said. In Rotterdam I lived in a heavily-Turkish area of the city center that was still a beautiful area. Rotterdam is around 50% immigrant, and there is no way that more than 10% of Rotterdam is impoverished..very clean, modern city. How could I tell it was Turkish? There was a mosque nearby and every morning on my ochtend fietstocht I could smell the delicious Turkish delis baking bread. Yes, getting Turkish food was actually affordable -gasp- unlike the mainstream sports bars I'd also visit. I also think you're ready a ton into my posts - I am white, but I lived in Europe on what was mostly a starving student's budget, with the occasional indulgence. I actually learned Dutch because I couldn't afford all the English-speaking places, for example.

 

So, if you scoff at the notion of being worldly and cultured, discount the creative class, and reassert the importance of "family-friendly" whatever that means, then you're probably exactly what is holding Ohio back to be honest. Which is fine, it's not my home state so I don't feel entitled to make a difference, just my own newcomer's observation based on my own extensive familiarity of economic and developmental concepts.

 

P.S. The Euro crisis is pretty well confined to Southern Europe (which means countries along the Mediterranean Sea). Much of Scandinavia isn't even on the Euro (true).  :wink:

 

Ironically a lot of posts in this thread sort of confirm why Ohio is not growing and not attracting young people. "Creative class? Bah, we don't need no stinkin creative class. Blah, Atlanta is just a sprawly mess and it sucks. And that San Antonio Riverwalk thing, lamooo.."

 

I will say I agree that Ohio has a lot of great things that it could do a better PR job with. For some reason, every time I get on Facebook I get these "Ohio means Jobs" adds. I get it that Ohio has done well with "jobs," however the j-word works best on working stiffs without college degrees. Especially if they could do some more trojan spying and glean a little more about my demographic, they could at the least give me a better-targeted Facebook ad.

 

We'll run through a few posts on here..

 

You need to make people want to live somewhere and then jobs will certainly follow

Don't underestimate the value of a location being a great place to raise a family. It may not be a factor in your decision making as a single person, but wait until you actually have one. I'd argue at that point it becomes one of the predominant factors.

 

I wouldn't underestimate it, I would throw it out completely.

 

 

I have.  It is a sprawling, snarled mess.  I have cousins who live there.  They, too, call it a sprawling, snarled mess.

 

Of course, that's exactly what Atlanta is. You were questioning the growth of Georgia, and I think you answered your own question there. But I'd also say to not underestimate the QoL indicators in Atlanta proper, rather than far-flung suburbs of Gwinnett County, et al. Atlanta is a city that was losing inner city population, and has since added 30,000 new residents in the last 15-20 years, mostly with the condo boom. There are truly world-class amenities like MARTA, Piedmont Park, Emory University, Georgia Tech, etc. that has turned ATL into not just a city of choice for young people, but also a cultural magnet for the entire south.

 

As for the "creative class" meme, those who invoke that trope should read this before they do:

 

http://thirtytwomag.com/2012/06/the-fall-of-thecreative-class/

 

Bottom line: the "creative class" isn't as potent in real life as it is in the buzzword echo chamber.

 

I'm sorry, I read that article, and came away unimpressed. He bases the majority of his point discrediting the creative class on not feeling right in Madison, WI. Oh yeah, forgot to mention that Madison is also a fantastic exemplary city for creative policies. And it's "very gay," to the credit of Richard Florida. I guess 32 Mag has a problem with that?

 

This most likely means that you're white and already at least middle-class.  The Netherlands have a substantial poor population, predominantly immigrants, and its lack of economic growth makes it very difficult for them to break out of poverty.  That immigrant population has been the source of significant political friction and there is surprisingly high support for fringe, nativist political parties there.  European development patterns tend to be more urbanist-friendly because the poverty that is just now becoming part of our suburban economic fabric has actually been the norm there for longer--meaning that if you stay downtown in most European cities, the poor are most likely out of sight and out of mind, whereas in American downtowns, you're more likely to have to encounter those who could use a bit of economic growth.

 

Quality of life is also a subjective measurement.  You say that Stockholm and Copenhagen have higher QoL than anywhere in America; I wouldn't live anywhere but America, and quite honestly, right now, I can't see myself living anywhere but Ohio.

 

They've kicked our butt in the last 40 years?  Economic hiccup aside?  Economic hiccup not affecting Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden?  I'm sorry, but I think we must be reading both history and current events very differently.

 

Well that's fine, I wouldn't want you to ever leave America - however I don't think being somewhat worldly is a bad thing, especially in a place. Especially-especially in a place that wants to attract young people after going so long without doing great with that demographic.

 

As for your assessment on European politics, I think you listen to a little too much Rush. The rise of the right-wing in Europe has been impressive but they are still a marginalized political force in all but 3 countries: Switzerland, Austria, and Norway. The Netherlands was governed by a center-right coalition, after decades of left-leaning politics, and it is now turning back to the left-leaning governments. Geert Wilders is a black eye on most of the country.

 

I also take a little bit of offense to your assessment that NL has a ton of poor immigrants dragging the country down who all live in bad areas, which is basically what you said. In Rotterdam I lived in a heavily-Turkish area of the city center that was still a beautiful area. Rotterdam is around 50% immigrant, and there is no way that more than 10% of Rotterdam is impoverished..very clean, modern city. How could I tell it was Turkish? There was a mosque nearby and every morning on my ochtend fietstocht I could smell the delicious Turkish delis baking bread. Yes, getting Turkish food was actually affordable -gasp- unlike the mainstream sports bars I'd also visit. I also think you're ready a ton into my posts - I am white, but I lived in Europe on what was mostly a starving student's budget, with the occasional indulgence. I actually learned Dutch because I couldn't afford all the English-speaking places, for example.

 

So, if you scoff at the notion of being worldly and cultured, discount the creative class, and reassert the importance of "family-friendly" whatever that means, then you're probably exactly what is holding Ohio back to be honest. Which is fine, it's not my home state so I don't feel entitled to make a difference, just my own newcomer's observation based on my own extensive familiarity of economic and developmental concepts.

 

P.S. The Euro crisis is pretty well confined to Southern Europe (which means countries along the Mediterranean Sea). Much of Scandinavia isn't even on the Euro (true).  :wink:

 

 

I have kind of a dumb question. I'm not a Richard Florida devotee, but is this QoL measurement everyone is throwing around something that is quantifiable (i.e. are there specific metrics that are being measured), or is it the more general subjective measurement that Gramarye was mentioning upthread. I have to think that outside of a few generalized concepts (cost of living, maybe cost of housing, education levels, whatever) that it's very hard to establish a consistent baseline for what is acceptable QoL, given everyone has different needs and wants. So how do you use that as a measuring stick?

 

Yep. There's HDI, the GINI Coeffecient, Mercer does a well-known QoL Index.. alternatively infant mortality statistics are also becoming a widely accepted yardstick for holistic public health. But gramarye is also right that it's subjective as to which yardsticks you chose. I think QoL is subjective only in the holistic sense, but very objective if you can narrow down who your QoL pertains to. Obviously retirees and young people have different needs and requirements. I think you need to focus on improving QoL for the demographic that you lack and need the most in order to have growth.

 

What is the point in investing in family friendly if all the kids flee the "family friendly" locales for creative class locales after they turn of age? Often college towns, often large cities, often beach towns, et al.

 

while I'm at it, what's the fascination with the 'creative class'. What does that even mean? Seems like the few articles I've read talking up why cities need to target said class are typically written by someone who considers themselves part of it.

 

Well why on earth would we ask young people what young people want? Creative class research is best left to angry 60-year old white dudes who fear they've lost their country.

I do have to say that when I've been in Atlanta, and Georgia overall, I thought it was absolutely terrible and wondered why so many people lived there.  I'm sure there are bright spots, but not impressed.

 

Everyone keeps talking about jobs.  It was mentioned earlier in the thread that jobs aren't really the main issue.  Keep thinking they are - This isn't the middle of the 20th century or earlier though.  People have easy options to move where they want and we've got air conditioning now.  You can go to ANY region of the country and find a job somewhere around there.  I'm sure there are exceptions to that, but for the most part it holds true.  You need to make people want to live somewhere and then jobs will certainly follow - especially in the day and age where people can work remotely (and that's not going backwards - it'll just get more and more so).

 

Keep kidding yourselves - Of course jobs are necessary, but they are not what's bringing people to Ohio and making them want to stay and tell others to come too.  Maybe if a huge fortune 100 were to move to a city and really develop their area it could be a nice injection and raise the quality of the area, but that doesn't happen often.  If you focus on tax breaks and roads then you're going to get people paying less taxes and you're going to spend more on roads.  Focus on differentiating our cities from anywhere else.  Focus on giving the residents something you can't find many other places.  It's really not rocket science - there needs to be a defining characteristic that attracts people and that's NOT, "it's a great place to raise a family" vagueness... You can quite literally say that about areas of pretty much any state.

 

I'm currently travelling in San Antonio.  This place is not spectacular by any means, but what do a lot of people think of when they hear it? The Alamo and the little riverwalk thing.  It's really not too impressive and would be easy to do the same type of thing anywhere, in a much more impressive way.  Columbus has a river that runs through the heart of the city, and really what's done with it?? There's a little stage on it that gets some play sometimes, but if you built a neighborhood that incorporated the river and connected to german village and the short north and had sculptures and local restaurants and bars and shows and cool architecture and... the list goes on.  It's not rocket science.  We spend how many millions on various other projects that don't do much... why not start building uniqueness?  I think Columbus has a pretty good start and a really high potential, but it needs to be realized.  Same with cleveland and cincinnati.  And the better any one of those do, the better they all do - IF they are connected by more than a freeway.  Trains would have been a big help.

 

Ohio just does the same old thing as everywhere else - it isn't working.  It's common sense really.

 

And as far as the `creative class`... All it means is that people are talking. They want to go somewhere where innovation is happening.  They don't want to just go to the grocery store, watch movies and go to work.  They want to DO.  You have to foster that and make them feel like where they live is unique and inspiring.  I want to walk out of my apartment every day and feel alive, not a drone just killing time until I pass away.

 

</rant>

 

Excellent rant. The funny thing about "family friendly" nonsense is one of my professors was chatting with me about why she commuted an hour in from Tulsa, rather than living in Stillwater as she was a tenured professor at OSU. Stillwater is a cool college town with all kinds of bars, hipster bars, legendary sports bars, honkeytonks, a few wine bars, coffee bars, tons of great cafes and locally-owned shops, an organic grocer, a Middle Eastern grocer, etc. I was shocked when she said she didn't consider Stillwater family-friendly because it didn't have enough culture for her children to be exposed to..that the culture around OSU was so superficial, like a show being put on for the benefit of all the white people who want lots of "culture" rather than culture.

 

She demanded art in schools, foreign language in elementary schools, diverse communities, gays openly showing PDA, political protests, and so on. To her, she thought that an extremely homogeneous white upper-middle class little enclave on the prairie was sheltering and pulling the wool over her children's eyes, and that was anti-family friendly to her, not the opposite. So she has her family in the big city. That was literally the best explanation I have ever heard of what is "family friendly" but it's such a shame that it's contrary to most people's interpretations.

 

As for Columbus, I agree that Cbus is doing great on young people. It's probably the creative class haven of Ohio, and I say that as someone who is partial to Cleveland having chosen it as my next home. Cincy's streetcar will be a huge boon, and Cleveland has obviously been experiencing a great revitalization. In case it was unclear, and whether the desired model is creative class or family friendly, Richard Florida or Rush Limbaugh, I think that anything happening in Downtown or University Circle does a TON more for Cleveland's economy than anything in Medina or Westlake, et al. Not that those aren't nice places and all, they just don't add any degree of gravitas - that difficult to define, totally subjective oomph that cities need to compete.

You're making far too many assumptions (most egregiously, the notion that I listen to Rush).  I won't even assume that you're necessarily an acolyte of Richard Florida even though you've bought into the "creative class" trope hook, line, and sinker.  That buzzword has metastasized, so you could have picked it up anywhere at this point.

 

In answer to your questions:

 

(1) We would want to be a family-friendly place to work because most professionals do in fact have families.  Young professionals may not, but they don't stay young forever.  More importantly, they often return to their roots even if they leave for a larger, "cooler" metro in the interim.  (This is not to in any way concede that family-friendliness and coolness are somehow completely mutually exclusive, however.)  My firm has done well recruiting people who left Ohio for school and then returned.  We have people with law degrees from Virginia, Duke, Chicago, Michigan, etc. ... and almost all of us are Ohio natives.

 

(2) I do not scoff at the idea of being worldly and cultured--certainly not in the way that you scoff at family-friendliness.  I studied abroad twice.  (And, FWIW, my fiancee isn't even a U.S. citizen or even of European descent.)  Heck, beyond worldly and cultured, I could even claim membership in that "creative class" that I kind of shrug at, considering that I've authored more than a million words of original and derivative fiction and was first published when I was in elementary school.

 

However, you are correct that I find that critique of the "creative class" meme to be very plausible.  At the very least, I find your offhanded dismissal of it to be jejune.  Also, you conflate "creative class" and "young people," and assume that I doubt the importance of the latter just because I question the utility of the former (at least as a lodestar of state policy or urban planning).  That is not the case.  I fully acknowledge that Ohio is getting a little gray (though, in fairness, that applies to much of the country) and could use an infusion of youth.  There is more to the young professional demographic than just the "creative class," however.

 

I look and see more than just Madison.  I also see a lot of metros that are meccas of the "creative class" existing withing decidedly low-growth states ... San Francisco, New York, Chicago, etc.  Washington, D.C. has grown with young professionals primarily based on government employment, which is seldom the most creative of occupations.  I also attend CU meetups and definitely find some creative-class types (the owner of CU himself among the foremost, of course), but also plenty of others who work in insurance, banking, health care, and other more stable, stoic industries that Columbus also offers in abundance.

 

(3) I have ridden MARTA.  I'm not sure that we're thinking of the same transit system when you speak of something called MARTA in Atlanta and call it "world class."  In fact, you are the first person I have encountered, including my friends and relatives who live in Atlanta, to give it that label, and you offer nothing to substantiate that label that would make me doubt my own personal experiences and the accounts of my friends and relatives.

First, I think Gramarye, in a more eloquent fashion, said what I was going to say, (with the exception of being published in grammar school. My grammar school creativity was largely limited to me drawing naked pictures of Cheetara.......I lived a very solitary childhood)

 

I have a couple additional points below

 

(1) We would want to be a family-friendly place to work because most professionals do in fact have families.  Young professionals may not, but they don't stay young forever.  More importantly, they often return to their roots even if they leave for a larger, "cooler" metro in the interim.  (This is not to in any way concede that family-friendliness and coolness are somehow completely mutually exclusive, however.)  My firm has done well recruiting people who left Ohio for school and then returned.  We have people with law degrees from Virginia, Duke, Chicago, Michigan, etc. ... and almost all of us are Ohio natives.

 

I'd even go so far as to say I don't advocate that someone born here should spend their entire life here. You should go out and experience other cities, regions, even (gasp) countries, so that when you ultimately decide where to move to raise your family, you realize how great things were here. You might even bring back that family you started somewhere else with you. 

 

Also, I don't think anyone on this board is saying we should exclude the 'creative class' from our long term planning strategies. I'm just saying that's not the only place we plant our flag. Further, my original  point was that I'm not even sure what that term means. Based on a couple posts here, I'd bet if you ask 10 people you'd get as many interpretations. My guess is that it isn't just 'young people' (which I am on record as loving....), since I think creativity does continue past your 20's.

 

I do believe that drawing creative people to a region is important (both domestically and internationally), but the creative people I'd target are less artists, musicians, etc, than engineers, scientists, and other types creating things that drive economies. Not that artists, et al aren't important, but I think they need an established economy underneath them to support them (an artist needs someone that can afford to purchase his/her art)

 

One other point re: being family friendly. You're equating this with some sort of suburban dream. The idea of being 'family friendly' is as subjective as your QOL measurement. But it's something that is as equally important in marketing as the whole 'creative class' when it comes to liveability.

 

Keep kidding yourselves - Of course jobs are necessary, but they are not what's bringing people to Ohio and making them want to stay and tell others to come too. 

 

</rant>

 

 

Virtually every person I know from out of state has moved here either because of their job, or because they had familial support here.

 

I know very few, if met anyone really, who moved here out of the blue. I will try, but I cannot recall anyone ever telling me they moved here because of public transit, the music scene, the four seasons, beaches, etc.

 

As far as I know the state is not luring people based solely on the adventure of living here (as in NYC). \

 

On a bright note, everyone I know from out of state likes it here.

I mentioned cleaning the beaches and making them attractive for trips Spring thru Fall.

 

You get a gold star from me!

A former co-worker of mine sadly left for greener pastures last week.  This year (2012) he finished getting his Masters Degree in Accounting, completed his CPA examinations (passed each of them on the first try), got an SAP certification and trained to run in the Flying Pig all while working full time.  He is the type of person we should be trying to keep in Cincinnati/OH.

 

My understanding is he and his girlfriend left Ohio because they wanted to live in a city that valued historic renovation, had a strong urban environment, good public transportation, had a progressive vibe, etc... (his girlfriend also mentioned warmer weather would be a plus). XUMelanie and I went on some condo tours in Over-the-Rhine with them a couple of months ago and they were extremely impressed with all the improvements in the area including some quality building renovations, new shopping/dining options and amenities (i.e. Washington Park).  He even mentioned that had these improvements taken place years ago they may never have decided to leave.  I think what Cincinnati is doing to foster the urban neighborhoods is the way to make Ohio a "high growth state".  Sadly, with Kasich and other Tea Party Conservatives in power making improvements like this across the state will be much more difficult.

 

My former co-worker and his girlfriend have no job right now.  They are planning on visiting/evaluating a few cities (I believe they were Portland, some California cities, Albuquerque/Santa Fe and Austin,TX) they have researched in advance to get a good idea of which one they would best like to live.  They will then apply for jobs at companies in the chosen area.  For highly qualified people like them the city is more important, because they will not have any issues finding a job.  I'll let you know where they choose and how they do when I find out.

P.S. The Euro crisis is pretty well confined to Southern Europe (which means countries along the Mediterranean Sea). Much of Scandinavia isn't even on the Euro (true).  :wink:

 

Not sure what you mean by the "Euro crisis," but if you're talking about the general fiscal and economic problems facing European countries--which lately has focused on Greece, Spain, and poentially Italy--the first waves of that crisis happened in Northern Europe--specifically, in Iceland (which I don't believe is on the Euro, either) and Ireland.  It's not a purely Mediterannean phenomenon. 

Did I say we should be attracting people here with amusement parks? Answer: No. I said ADVERTISE what we have. There's no reason why no one has heard of a major park like Cedar Point other than bad marketing. If they haven't heard of a major attraction like that think about what else they haven't heard of that's here in Ohio.

 

The State should work to make the place more attractive to the people who live here and pay its taxes! If you have residents that love where they're from I think it only makes sense to think they'll "Spread the love" and tell all their friends to come!

I don't see how a quality urban environment is too subjective to determine what that is. Look at what the best urbanism in the country has to offer and how popular these places are and replicate that on a smaller scale in Ohio cities. Good mass transit, high concentrations of walkable businesses, etc are all measurable. Columbus and I'm sure others have hired consultants who tell them to attract creative types, improve mass transit, make the cities more bikeable, but I don't understand why after shelling out tons of money to be told what to do to make them competitive with other cities nationwide that they still drag their feet to varying degrees on different aspects of improving the urban environment. If there's just one goal to aspire to over all else that should be to offer one highly walkable neighborhood for every 10,000-ish residents in just 5 years: Seattle, Minneapolis, and San Francisco all do. Now, I doubt the Cs could reach that since that would require more than doubling current numbers, but the improvements would be so very noticeable that it would be worth it if they made the effort and Ohio would easily rank as one of the top three states in the Midwest, not to mention somewhere close to that nationwide. Madison, for example, didn't beat Mpls or PDX for best biking city in the nation, but they sure as hell rank plenty high and benefit from doing so.

^ I would suggest you completely skip every city in this country if you want to emulate quality urbanism or progressivism.

 

Likewise, if you wish to move to a Mecca of urbanism or progressivism, you are a fool to relocate within this country. Here, you will only find the lesser of a set of relative evils. (Evil being a metaphor.)

 

NYC, etc., are on balance conservative and regressive.

^^ Both Keith M. and yourself, natininja, have just contributed insightful comments (#133-134) concerning progressive urbanism (or the lack of it) in Ohio's cities.  However, it would be helpful if both you and Keith M. expanded upon these ideas.  For example, in your commentary, why not select specific foreign cities that you feel are the best-of-the-best metros for us to try to emulate, and briefly explain why.  (Whether they be predominately European, Asian, or South American makes little difference, but most of us are already familiar with the magnetic urbanity of such giants as London and Paris, etc.  What are your favorite, lesser known cities?)

Myself I feel that some of the ideals this country were founded on are worth staying for. I've been all over Spain, Mexico, Canada and a bit of Morocco. As far as emulating other cities successfully I'd have to say look north to Canada where cities are consistently much healthier and vibrant overall. There's sprawl up there, no doubt, but you can't help but notice that they've been able to maintain noticeably higher standards in their urban cores, not to mention a good deal less social dysfunction which I'm guessing is due to less severely undereducated citizens. Ohio would likewise benefit from a just about everyone across the board not being undereducated to a large degree.

 

At the same time though, I do like the fact that Americans have weeded themselves out like how the squares did by fleeing to the suburbs (although a few have bought into chain-filled districts in downtowns all over) while urbanites have gathered in neighborhoods once left for dead, which are now full of interesting culture and are a boon for local small businesses. There's also something satisfying about seeing cities being quickly rebuilt almost from scratch in many parts, like how almost all of Mpls' neighborhoods are already healthy or bustling (I missed quite a bit of that) or seeing the signage going up on LRT stations between Mpls and St Paul or going to a brand new full service grocery store Downtown with another one slated to open next year (Whole Foods) or riding on miles of new bikeways where there were none when I moved here several months ago.

 

For Ohio I'd like to see some ballsy initiatives for once in the Cs and then have those backed with a good amount of funding, like 5 new great neighborhoods in 5 years. For other eye-catching goals and markedly better QoL, Portland, for example, is pursuing a $613 million plan with their goal of 1 out of every 4 Portlanders traveling by bike by 2030 by adding an additional 681 miles of bike infrastructure on top of the current 318 miles. Columbus is planning to stay behind with 728 miles total by 2028 (keeping in mind Columbus has much more land than Portland to cover), as is Cleveland by planning 180 by 20XX(?) and Cincinnati with 445 by 2025. This is just a symptom of my biggest gripe with Ohio: it mainly plans for mediocrity and aspires for nothing more aside from an occasional exception of brilliance. No Ohio city has an inspiring, compelling urban vision to significantly sway young educated city lovers from real liberal cities (PDX, San Fran, Mpls,) and big cities (by big I mean NYC, CHI, and LA). Whether Ohio likes it or not, that's what you've got as competition which can and does successfully lure away Ohioans, so step up your game accordingly or lose more urban residents who have no interest in relocating to a sprawling metro.

I don't claim to be an expert on global urbanism, by any means. However, of the places which I am quite familiar with, the Netherlands (pretty much the whole country, Amsterdam in particular) and Copenhagen are just lightyears ahead of anywhere in the US (or Canada). I know some people in bicycle advocacy groups in Holland, and it is seriously laughable the issues which they get fired up about, relative to the issues faced in NYC or Portland or wherever (though I admit I haven't been to Portland and am not that familiar, but I have read articles talking about opposition to urbanism/progressivism there).

 

I hear people say  they are moving to NYC, SF, Portland, Minneapolis, because they "get it" whereas Ohio cities do not. But to me this is ridiculous, because these places do not "get it" at all, compared to e.g. Copenhagen or Amsterdam. The tension is palpable in NYC with battles over bike lanes (flaring up especially with your NIMBYs at Prospect Park and Hasidim on Bedford Ave., both in Brooklyn). If they had ballot initiatives, they would be locked in battle like Cincinnati has been over the streetcar. And I'm not so sure it's a great thing they have such a strong mayoral system where softdrink bans and the like can be pushed through without much recourse by the citizenry. Good or bad, it's certainly not a sign of progressivism when progress has to be forced dictatorially.

 

If you want to stay and fight for better cities, you might as well be in Ohio, which has very nice cities worth fighting for, all of which (at least the 3Cs) have positive momentum. If you want to leave to where progress is the norm, you need to GTFO of the USA. That's my take.

^ Thanks you, gentlemen, for adding to your previous discussion.  Much to learn here--and, no, I'm not a self-appointed moderator, but merely an arm-chair participant who wants so much to happen in the "3Cs."

I'm dying at Keith talking about how amazing and what an urban oasis Minneapolis by having a new grocery store downtown, zzz.

 

I agree with natininja. living in Tokyo for years now has made me realize how sad even the most urban areas of America are.

To pretend that the Cs couldn't learn from Mpls is laughable, especially when everyone here looks up to Portland as a standard of good urbanism when it's about 2/3 bigger than Mpls yet still goes toe to toe with the same amount of bikeability and highly walkable neighborhoods (Walkscore gives Portland a whopping one more than Mpls). I get the underdog thing, but I want to enjoy my young years in a city making great strides and root for the underdog and both cannot be had in Ohio. Maybe you have ten disposable years, but I don't and there are plenty of people I know who have moved out of Ohio because none of the cities are making a compelling argument to stay: they're in DC, Chicago, NYC, etc, and moving back is not even in their subconscious.  The downtown grocery store is just a bonus and it's funny that gets a "zzz" *only* because it's outside of the borders of Ohio. I mean, aren't there threads on UO pining for a grocery store like Whole Foods to open in their downtown? why yes, there is. That's precisely the kind of attitude holding Ohio back; if urban enthusiasts in Ohio were to do *both* of what Mov2Ohio suggests, namely that "First we need to advertise what we do have while working to make it better." instead of forgetting about the 2nd, very crucial part.

 

Mpls would be no different than one of the Cs if they didn't forge ahead on (then) innovative measures resulting in the city being several times more bikeable than the Cs which aren't even close to making any top ten spot at their current pace and at the same time (and much more importantly) Mpls offers 37 highly walkable neighborhoods which is more than all the 3Cs have to offer combined. I no longer have to drive over an hour or two in order to have that many to enjoy. There's still some work to be done whether it's the rough part of North Mpls or pockets of South Mpls not to mention at minimum a handful of extensive biking improvements that would make it even easier to bike here, so no it's not utopia (or Amsterdam), but at least city officials here are *much* more receptive to doing what needs to be done for a better standard of urban living whereas in Ohio my experience was that it's like pulling teeth because they think, like some UOers here, that everything is just fine as it is.

 

So like I said, for lack of a better expression, Ohio cities need to go "balls out" and realize it is in fact a sink or swim situation, as if the inner-city population losses that are still occurring in Ohio's 3 largest wasn't an indicator of that and are a clearly demonstrate that all the boosters have to say isn't enough to sway them. Still, there is some potential left considering what could happen if all 3 Cs really stepped up their game as a whole: all ranking in (or close) to the top ten most walkable and bikeable American cities would make for a very, very compelling case for Ohio.

To pretend that the Cs couldn't learn from Mpls is laughable, especially when everyone here looks up to Portland as a standard of good urbanism when it's about 2/3 bigger than Mpls yet still goes toe to toe with the same amount of bikeability and highly walkable neighborhoods (Walkscore gives Portland a whopping one more than Mpls). I get the underdog thing, but I want to enjoy my young years in a city making great strides and root for the underdog and both cannot be had in Ohio. Maybe you have ten disposable years, but I don't and there are plenty of people I know who have moved out of Ohio because none of the cities are making a compelling argument to stay: they're in DC, Chicago, NYC, etc, and moving back is not even in their subconscious.  The downtown grocery store is just a bonus and it's funny that gets a "zzz" *only* because it's outside of the borders of Ohio. I mean, aren't there threads on UO pining for a grocery store like Whole Foods to open in their downtown? why yes, there is. That's precisely the kind of attitude holding Ohio back; if urban enthusiasts in Ohio were to do *both* of what Mov2Ohio suggests, namely that "First we need to advertise what we do have while working to make it better." instead of forgetting about the 2nd, very crucial part.

 

Mpls would be no different than one of the Cs if they didn't forge ahead on (then) innovative measures resulting in the city being several times more bikeable than the Cs which aren't even close to making any top ten spot at their current pace and at the same time (and much more importantly) Mpls offers 37 highly walkable neighborhoods which is more than all the 3Cs have to offer combined. I no longer have to drive over an hour or two in order to have that many to enjoy. There's still some work to be done whether it's the rough part of North Mpls or pockets of South Mpls not to mention at minimum a handful of extensive biking improvements that would make it even easier to bike here, so no it's not utopia (or Amsterdam), but at least city officials here are *much* more receptive to doing what needs to be done for a better standard of urban living whereas in Ohio my experience was that it's like pulling teeth because they think, like some UOers here, that everything is just fine as it is.

 

So like I said, for lack of a better expression, Ohio cities need to go "balls out" and realize it is in fact a sink or swim situation, as if the inner-city population losses that are still occurring in Ohio's 3 largest wasn't an indicator of that and are a clearly demonstrate that all the boosters have to say isn't enough to sway them. Still, there is some potential left considering what could happen if all 3 Cs really stepped up their game as a whole: all ranking in (or close) to the top ten most walkable and bikeable American cities would make for a very, very compelling case for Ohio.

 

Stop comparing Minnie to the 3cs. PLEASE! Like Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix, Boston and Chicago there is only one "prime" city in those states.  We have two major urban areas and a third large city.  I'm not saying that Ohio should not improve and strive to be better but our states offer different dynamics.

Myself I feel that some of the ideals this country were founded on are worth staying for. I've been all over Spain, Mexico, Canada and a bit of Morocco. As far as emulating other cities successfully I'd have to say look north to Canada where cities are consistently much healthier and vibrant overall. There's sprawl up there, no doubt, but you can't help but notice that they've been able to maintain noticeably higher standards in their urban cores, not to mention a good deal less social dysfunction which I'm guessing is due to less severely undereducated citizens. Ohio would likewise benefit from a just about everyone across the board not being undereducated to a large degree.

 

At the same time though, I do like the fact that Americans have weeded themselves out like how the squares did by fleeing to the suburbs (although a few have bought into chain-filled districts in downtowns all over) while urbanites have gathered in neighborhoods once left for dead, which are now full of interesting culture and are a boon for local small businesses. There's also something satisfying about seeing cities being quickly rebuilt almost from scratch in many parts, like how almost all of Mpls' neighborhoods are already healthy or bustling (I missed quite a bit of that) or seeing the signage going up on LRT stations between Mpls and St Paul or going to a brand new full service grocery store Downtown with another one slated to open next year (Whole Foods) or riding on miles of new bikeways where there were none when I moved here several months ago.

 

For Ohio I'd like to see some ballsy initiatives for once in the Cs and then have those backed with a good amount of funding, like 5 new great neighborhoods in 5 years. For other eye-catching goals and markedly better QoL, Portland, for example, is pursuing a $613 million plan with their goal of 1 out of every 4 Portlanders traveling by bike by 2030 by adding an additional 681 miles of bike infrastructure on top of the current 318 miles. Columbus is planning to stay behind with 728 miles total by 2028 (keeping in mind Columbus has much more land than Portland to cover), as is Cleveland by planning 180 by 20XX(?) and Cincinnati with 445 by 2025. This is just a symptom of my biggest gripe with Ohio: it mainly plans for mediocrity and aspires for nothing more aside from an occasional exception of brilliance. No Ohio city has an inspiring, compelling urban vision to significantly sway young educated city lovers from real liberal cities (PDX, San Fran, Mpls,) and big cities (by big I mean NYC, CHI, and LA). Whether Ohio likes it or not, that's what you've got as competition which can and does successfully lure away Ohioans, so step up your game accordingly or lose more urban residents who have no interest in relocating to a sprawling metro.

 

Keith, whatever decent points you try to make continually get lost in your insistance that Ohio is far behind everyone else.  I get tired of all these opinions about what Ohio and its metros are doing wrong and a lot of them completely forget why the state's major metros suffered decline.  It wasn't because they lacked bike lanes or some vague "creative class".  It was economics.  Period.  There is a reason that Columbus is doing better than the rest in terms of growth, as it obviously didn't suffer from the same economic conditions of the past 30-40 years.  And let's be honest, you have a serious personal bias against Ohio and Columbus in particular.  If the metro had 10,000 miles of bike lanes and the most progressive public transit system in the world, you'd simply find something else to criticize.  This is what you do, and you use threads like this as a way to try to legitimize opinions in which the goalposts constantly change. 

 

And Minneapolis isn't that special.  The city's lost people every single decade since the 1950s just like Cleveland and Cincinnati, all with corresponding decreasing density.  So for every point of praise you have for the city, it has seen no different results than Ohio's worst.  And Columbus is growing faster. 

This thread has gotten off topic (surprise!) and is now a debate about making Ohio cities more "urban & progressive" than making Ohio a high growth state.  Texas is a high growth state, but is not very urban or progressive.

 

Comparing Ohio cities to places like San Fran or Portland as models of progressive urbanism is ridiculous.  Ohio cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo & Dayton have vast industrial pasts to overcome which those west coast cities do not.  What was Portland doing as a city back in the 1920's when Cleveland was a center of manufacturing/steel/refining etc?  What was San Fran doing during the 40's & 50's when Toledo was making glass for everything in the country?  They don't have these massive outdated/abandoned manufacturing facilities to deal with across their inner cities like many Ohio cities do.  For evidence of what a daunting challenge this is, look no further than the attempts to simply connect the final phases of the canal tow path here in the Cleveland area...  all the final gaps are contaminated former industrial sites...

 

And mentioning bike lanes is silly also.  NYC has a cost of living so high, hardly anyone can afford a car.  That will never be the case here in Ohio.  Bike lanes are cool, but should hardly be mentioned in a list of priorities to make Ohio a high growth state...

Saw a cool commercial about the new New York this morning, about the 10th time I've seen it this weekend. Itbasically expressed why people should invest in or relocate to New York. The people of New York/State Chamber of commerce see the importance in advertising and they have NYC.

 

I wonder how many commercials toting the opportunities in Ohio New Yorkers saw this weekend, but I think I can pretty much guess.

^Ohio lacks in promoting the state.  We have nothing like "Pure Michigan"

^Exactly. While I prefer the "New York State of Mind" commercial over the "Pure Michigan" approach, the fact that we have neither is glaring and I think speaks to why Ohio is not attracting the kinds of investment that could make it a high or higher growth area.

 

Why would someone invest when they don't know what's here to invest in or what advantages Ohio may offer over other States?

 

Saying we need vibrant urban areas to attract x or y is fine, but if the goverment or municipalities could do that on their own they would have done that already. That type of development requires investment so why not advertise to the World to invest here?

So like I said, for lack of a better expression, Ohio cities need to go "balls out" and realize it is in fact a sink or swim situation, as if the inner-city population losses that are still occurring in Ohio's 3 largest wasn't an indicator of that and are a clearly demonstrate that all the boosters have to say isn't enough to sway them. Still, there is some potential left considering what could happen if all 3 Cs really stepped up their game as a whole: all ranking in (or close) to the top ten most walkable and bikeable American cities would make for a very, very compelling case for Ohio.

 

Not sure if you're familiar with it, but you've got me thinking about the Towpath bike trail. It's completion linking downtown Cleveland to the rest of the Trail has taken ages, it seems. Even with the difficulties inherent in such things, I still feel like the process is taking much too long. It's not getting the push or $$$ support it deserves. It's frustrating. I predict that its completion will have a dramatic positive effect. I also predict I won't still be here to see it happen.

 

[edit: ha i see gottaplan beat me to this topic]

^Ohio lacks in promoting the state.  We have nothing like "Pure Michigan"

 

There was  big article in USA Today a few years back about how amazingly successful their campaign is. Other states were desperately trying out their own "Pure Michigan" strategy. I think the key to their success imho is their honesty; Michigan actually has those pristine beaches and wetlands in abundance to back up those pretty pictures.  I'm less sold on their urban campaign, however. I know what Detroit looks like. Anyhow, we can't compete with their beaches, but I don't see any reason why Ohio cannot sell images of it's best urban neighborhoods or Lake Erie Islands on a sunny day.

You guys realize that, in terms of tourism dollars made, Ohio destroys Michigan and a majority of other states.  Ohio makes close to $40 billion a year on tourism... Michigan maybe half that.