If trajectories continue as they have been, Columbus will soon become the largest metro and largest economy in the state, and may continue to grow until it's the clear alpha city in the state (a title which I would say is currently up for grabs among all 3Cs).

 

My belief is Columbus is in a race against the clock to build transit in order to change its development patterns and densify. None of us may be around to see the negative impacts of the city not doing that, but all the annexation of low-density areas in the past was a gambit that must be dealt with before the outer city neighborhoods age.

 

Columbus will not be the largest metro anytime soon. Cin-Day will be over 3 million. Columbus growth could not catch that for close to 100 years

 

1). Cin-Day isn't an actual metropolitan area (yet).  It is two adjacent metropolitan areas in SW Ohio.  Columbus will be the state's largest MSA.

2). If Cin-Day DID exist, it currently is around 3.4 million.

 

I suspect that if Cin-Day ever exists (and it's possible it never will), it will become a CSA rather than an MSA. 

 

It will exist by 2020. City leaders from both areas are pretty much counting on this. With the growth in Warren county and areas like Springboro there are so many people commuting from Warren to Montgomery County. Springboro is becoming such an important part of the Dayton area that it is the chief job creator area outside of Wright Patterson. The combined MSA is inevitable, just like Columbus continued growth.

 

There are no jobs in Springboro except for a Kroger and a Dorothy Lane Market.  If you are referring to Austin Landing, that is Miami Township in Montgomery County.  Dayton MSA's largest employment centers are Downtown, UD/Midtown, WPAFB/Fairborn, and Miamisburg/Miami Township.  Springboro has always been a Dayton suburb but not for employment but for "1990's new money," much like Mason is to Cincinnati.  To say that Springboro is a "job creator" for the Dayton area is false...unless you think Mason is a job creator for downtown Cincinnati and Blue Ash.  Then you'll just have to pass the blunt on that one, man.

 

jonoh81 is correct that if Cin-Day did happen, it would be a CSA, much like Cleveland-Akron-Canton.  Columbus would still be the state's largest MSA and Cleveland-Akron would be the state's largest CSA still, but not by much over Cin-Day.  But I'm with ryanlammi, if it hasn't happened in the past 3 Census takings, it'll likely not happen for 2020.  The ironic problem IS Warren County.  Cuyahoga and Summit border each other; There are two suburban counties between Dayton and Cincinnati, Warren and Butler.  Dayton's MSA gets screwed as the northern suburbs of Warren County go to Cincinnati's MSA but that's life.

 

Dayton MSA with it's actual suburbs in northern Warren counted (Springboro, Franklin, Carlisle, Waynesville, Clearcreek Twp, Wayne Twp, and Franklin Twp at 92,572) = 1,167,189, moving up under Albuquerque and Rochester.  Take THAT Fresno!

 

Cincinnati MSA without Dayton's Warren County suburbs = 2,131,659, dropping it slightly below Raleigh.

The UA is what would make the 2 a MSA. It was there, but they choose to not combine them by changing the criteria.  NYC would have absorbed Philadelphia. Of course they are not having that.

 

If WAR happens with North Korea you can throw any of those growth patterns and immigration numbers away.

 

Ohio just needs to solve it's crime problem. Then investment and jobs will follow.

Ohio just needs to solve it's crime problem. Then investment and jobs will follow.

They are obviously related, but I think the causation here is backward.

Why is density a problem for Columbus, but not Cincinnati, a city that Columbus currently has a higher density than? 

Also, with the proliferation of autonomous vehicles, a lot of building patterns may change- certainly car-oriented infrastructure.  I'm not sure any city is really ready for those consequences.

 

Where did I say density isn't a problem for Cincinnati? Cincinnati has a ton of problems, with density being one of them. Columbus might end up with more of the problems Cincinnati has if it doesn't build transit and densify during its boom years. Which is something Cincinnati did do; the city is mostly built in a transit-oriented manner, with residential streets surrounding defined neighborhood business districts. Cincinnati's density problem is one of abandonment, not built form. Including abandonment of the level of transit service that drove the city's early development.

 

Columbus currently has the opportunity of shaping its future that no other cities in the state have. It has the growth. But it has to decide how to channel it in a sustainable manner.

^ not only does Columbus have growth, the city has jurisdiction over a large area.  They can really capitalize on that as well.  Cincinnati and Cleveland have a huge disadvantage in this regard.

Columbus has more than OSU and the State Capital.

 

As stated up thread, Columbus is the most welcoming area for immigrants in the state, at least over the last 30 years. And immigrants are still the primary driver of population growth.  Four-termer Mayor Jackson in Cleveland has openly stated the city needs to take care of "it's own" first. Great attitude in the 21st century.

 

Also, Columbus doesn't have tons of city council members each trying to make a buck in their territory and not looking at the big picture of what's better for the city and region. Same with how the suburbs operate in Cleveland and Cincinnati. Regionalism be damned.

 

It's easy to say the SW/NE Ohio will never have the resources of Central Ohio. It's harder to admit the Columbus area is also doing things right vs. the rest of the state.

 

Again, I think it's great Columbus is becoming the primary MSA in the state. It's the economically solid. As it grows and expands the state will too.

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

author=Brutus_buckeye link=topic=10856.msg886012#msg886012 date=1514527278]

 

It will exist by 2020. City leaders from both areas are pretty much counting on this. With the growth in Warren county and areas like Springboro there are so many people commuting from Warren to Montgomery County. Springboro is becoming such an important part of the Dayton area that it is the chief job creator area outside of Wright Patterson. The combined MSA is inevitable, just like Columbus continued growth.

 

Sprawl development has nothing to do with how they come up with MSA inclusions.

 

Migration is migration whether it be international or domestic. However, when you have immigrants coming in from other countries, they often require more assistance because they 1) generally tend to be lower on the economic spectrum  2) are generally not working or coming to the area for high paid jobs in the growth fields and 3) have more children which requires more schools and other services.

 

Actually, no.  Immigrants typically have lower rates of public assistance than the native population.  They also have higher rates of entrepreneurship and lower crime rates. 

 

Don't look at this as a good or bad thing but it is a reality of the situation.  There is a big difference between the growth of say Silicon Valley and the growth in Laredo, Texas in terms of the use of resources. You still want immigrants coming to the area however, initially, they will not build the wealth of the region up.

 

What a weird comparison.  There are a lot of major differences between those two places that have nothing to do with immigrants. 

 

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

 

I think the benefit of having a flagship state university are hugely important.  This is no a knock on Columbus at all.  Having a large student body and research capabilities of a large university are beneficial to economic development for the region.  Columbus seems to do a good job of leveraging this anchor.  It would be hard for Cleveland to replicate that success given the size of that anchor institution.  Although, Cleveland is starting to do a good job of leveraging Cleveland Clinic, CWRU, UH and to a lesser degree CSU.

I always see comments about how Columbus benefits immensely from having OSU, one of largest universities in the country (for a main campus at least), but I rarely see anyone make the point that OSU also benefits from being located in Columbus. In reality, I think both benefit from each other greatly. OSU provides Columbus with a constant supply of a young educated workforce while Columbus provides OSU with a constant supply of internships/jobs for students, as well as an attractive urban setting that is easy to navigate to become comfortable with.

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

 

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely.  However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. 

Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is.

 

 

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

 

I think the benefit of having a flagship state university are hugely important.  This is no a knock on Columbus at all.  Having a large student body and research capabilities of a large university are beneficial to economic development for the region.  Columbus seems to do a good job of leveraging this anchor.  It would be hard for Cleveland to replicate that success given the size of that anchor institution.  Although, Cleveland is starting to do a good job of leveraging Cleveland Clinic, CWRU, UH and to a lesser degree CSU.

 

I'm not arguing it's not important or not a benefit.  But if people are going to claim that it's run mostly on dollars from the rest of Ohio outside of Columbus, I want to see some hard numbers that show this. 

^ I wouldn't make that argument because I don't have any numbers to prove it.  I would just say that Columbus benefits greatly from OSU.

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

 

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely.  However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. 

Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is.

 

I agree with most of what you said here. I'd only add that while it is true Columbus drastically reduced the amount of land it annexed in the 80s, the population growth from the development of that annexed territory continues to this day.

 

That does not take away from all the population growth from the good infill and redevelopment projects in the pre-annexation city limits.

^ For curiosity sake, is there a source of the population by decade of the pre-annexation part of Columbus? 

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

 

I think the benefit of having a flagship state university are hugely important.  This is no a knock on Columbus at all.  Having a large student body and research capabilities of a large university are beneficial to economic development for the region.  Columbus seems to do a good job of leveraging this anchor.  It would be hard for Cleveland to replicate that success given the size of that anchor institution.  Although, Cleveland is starting to do a good job of leveraging Cleveland Clinic, CWRU, UH and to a lesser degree CSU.

 

Sure, Cleveland has a great asset in the Clinic. It also has a Councilman neighbor who tries to shakedown every business that tries to locate in the area. I don't see that in C-bus.

^ In all fairness, TJ Dow has been defeated, thankfully.  But I don't think Columbus City council is as clean as you think they are.

^ In all fairness, TJ Dow has been defeated, thankfully.  But I don't think Columbus City council is as clean as you think they are.

 

I don't think Columbus is clean, I just know it has never sunk to the level of someone like Dow. Pure anti-business practices in his Ward during his tenure.

 

Didn't know Dow was defeated. That's a positive for C-land for sure.

Well if we barely know what City Council is up to it's got to be tough for people that don't live here to know.

 

Here's a link for Columbus by decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus%2C_Ohio#2000_census

 

What is also interesting about Columbus is that you can even isolate one year as key for the city making it. The year was 1988 and we could tell it was happening. It was the Summer of Floyd around the city as Pink Floyd became the first rock band to play the 'Shoe. A lot of the main skyscrapers around town were finished and growth went into hyperdrive. You can see it in the population chart.

^ Thanks for the population link but is there a place I can quickly find the population for Columbus for only the pre-annexation part of the city. 

^ For curiosity sake, is there a source of the population by decade of the pre-annexation part of Columbus?

 

I think I posted those numbers at some point before.  Annexation didn't really start until the late 1950s, but I'll go back a few decades earlier.

 

1930: 290,564

1940: 306,086

1950: 375,710

1960: 389,222

1970: 348,808

1980: 287,089

1990: 268,265

2000: 246,713

2010: 234,582

2016: 243,432

 

Change by decade

1930-40: 15,522

1940-50: 69,624

1950-60: 13,512

1960-70: -40,414

1970-80: -61,719

1980-90: -18,824

1990-00: -21,552

2000-10: -12,131

2010-16: +8,850

 

All the numbers are based on the census tracts that existed in the core around 1950, the peak year for urban populations before any annexation or mass suburban movement.  The 2016 number is an estimate and is probably too low given that the estimates have places like the Short North losing population for some reason, which is ridiculous.

 

Needless to say, though, Columbus went through the same urban cycle that most major cities did mid-century, though to a somewhat lesser degree than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  The urban core likely began to turnaround in the 1980s (as shown by the much slower loss rate) when areas of High Street/Downtown began to be revitalized, but it took a few decades more for that process to spread far enough to other neighborhoods to see overall growth. 

^edit: there they are!

Here are Cincy and Cleveland through 2010, anyway.

 

Cincinnati

1930: 450,200

1940: 455,601

1950: 503,998

1960: 498,607

1970: 448,652

1980: 381,268

1990: 365,853

2000: 337,234

2010: 278,509

 

Cleveland

1930: 904,929

1940: 878,336

1950: 914,798

1960: 877,814

1970: 750,191

1980: 573,667

1990: 495,530

2000: 468,451

2010: 380,891

 

^ For curiosity sake, is there a source of the population by decade of the pre-annexation part of Columbus?

 

I think I posted those numbers at some point before.  Annexation didn't really start until the late 1950s, but I'll go back a few decades earlier.

 

1930: 290,564

1940: 306,086

1950: 375,710

1960: 389,222

1970: 348,808

1980: 287,089

1990: 268,265

2000: 246,713

2010: 234,582

2016: 243,432

 

Change by decade

1930-40: 15,522

1940-50: 69,624

1950-60: 13,512

1960-70: -40,414

1970-80: -61,719

1980-90: -18,824

1990-00: -21,552

2000-10: -12,131

2010-16: +8,850

 

All the numbers are based on the census tracts that existed in the core around 1950, the peak year for urban populations before any annexation or mass suburban movement.  The 2016 number is an estimate and is probably too low given that the estimates have places like the Short North losing population for some reason, which is ridiculous.

 

Needless to say, though, Columbus went through the same urban cycle that most major cities did mid-century, though to a somewhat lesser degree than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  The urban core likely began to turnaround in the 1980s (as shown by the much slower loss rate) when areas of High Street/Downtown began to be revitalized, but it took a few decades more for that process to spread far enough to other neighborhoods to see overall growth.

 

Sure the core went through the same smaller version of the urban decay cycle. Yet the region as a whole consistently expanded despite what happened at the core. Not the ebb and flow Cincy or C-land regions went through.

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

 

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely.  However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. 

Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is.

That's interesting - I have the exact opposite reaction from living in Cincinnati since 1990. I'm frequently happy that we've not diluted the opinions of folks who desire to live in the densest parts of our counties. Even without such dilution, it's still very hard to pursue progressive urban-oriented policies (and funding for them), so I can't imagine how hard it would be with significant annexation of mostly suburban portions of Hamilton county. This could be a Cincinnati issue alone - I don't know, but I'm certainly very happy to trade off the tax dollars for greater autonomy.

 

For example, I very much doubt that an organization like 3CDC could have existed (with it's stated mission), had we pursued an annexation agenda. As a result, I think Over The Rhine would have succumbed to the bulldozers and big-block developments, instead of being preserved.

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

 

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely.  However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. 

Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is.

That's interesting - I have the exact opposite reaction from living in Cincinnati since 1990. I'm frequently happy that we've not diluted the opinions of folks who desire to live in the densest parts of our counties. Even without such dilution, it's still very hard to pursue progressive urban-oriented policies (and funding for them), so I can't imagine how hard it would be with significant annexation of mostly suburban portions of Hamilton county. This could be a Cincinnati issue alone - I don't know, but I'm certainly very happy to trade off the tax dollars for greater autonomy.

 

For example, I very much doubt that an organization like 3CDC could have existed (with it's stated mission), had we pursued an annexation agenda. As a result, I think Over The Rhine would have succumbed to the bulldozers and big-block developments, instead of being preserved.

 

Doesn't Cincy have a well-established somewhat combative relationship between its city and suburbs, though?  Columbus doesn't really have that.  It has generally good relations between both private/public and urban/suburban interests.  That is not to say that having countywide votes can't run into opinion divides or that things like job poaching can't occasionally be an issue, but generally most people (at least leadership) seem to agree on a common vision of a continuously progressing Columbus, as there is an understanding that a strong core city makes for strong suburbs.   

^ For curiosity sake, is there a source of the population by decade of the pre-annexation part of Columbus?

 

I think I posted those numbers at some point before.  Annexation didn't really start until the late 1950s, but I'll go back a few decades earlier.

 

1930: 290,564

1940: 306,086

1950: 375,710

1960: 389,222

1970: 348,808

1980: 287,089

1990: 268,265

2000: 246,713

2010: 234,582

2016: 243,432

 

Change by decade

1930-40: 15,522

1940-50: 69,624

1950-60: 13,512

1960-70: -40,414

1970-80: -61,719

1980-90: -18,824

1990-00: -21,552

2000-10: -12,131

2010-16: +8,850

 

All the numbers are based on the census tracts that existed in the core around 1950, the peak year for urban populations before any annexation or mass suburban movement.  The 2016 number is an estimate and is probably too low given that the estimates have places like the Short North losing population for some reason, which is ridiculous.

 

Needless to say, though, Columbus went through the same urban cycle that most major cities did mid-century, though to a somewhat lesser degree than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  The urban core likely began to turnaround in the 1980s (as shown by the much slower loss rate) when areas of High Street/Downtown began to be revitalized, but it took a few decades more for that process to spread far enough to other neighborhoods to see overall growth.

 

Sure the core went through the same smaller version of the urban decay cycle. Yet the region as a whole consistently expanded despite what happened at the core. Not the ebb and flow Cincy or C-land regions went through.

 

My point was that if the city had never annexed, Columbus would've been just one more city in the region to be seen as in decline, and it likely would not be as healthy today if it had never happened.  Perception is a hard thing to shake.  So to me, this just shows that things like OSU and state government, while beneficial, would not have prevented decline.  It took extra effort by forward-thinking leadership to keep things moving. 

We have often discussed factors that make Columbus different from Cleveland (and Cinci), but an interesting factor to me that hasn't been discussed as much is the 17-member council with a ward system used in Cleveland vs Columbus' 7-member at-large system where all members are appointed and no election is ever contested.

 

Using recent census estimates, that's about 122,870 residents per council seat in Columbus and 22,828 residents per seat in Cleveland. Furthermore, in Cleveland each council member has a specific 22,828 residents whom they represent while in Columbus all council members represent the entire city. That is a radical difference. Neighborhood interests, especially those in forgotten neighborhoods, would undoubtedly prefer the Cleveland system but corporate interests and development interests do way better in Columbus. (Columbus' neighborhood commissions do serve to allow local representation in the government)

 

We see this pattern continue at the county level, where Franklin County has like 6 big suburbs while Cuyahoga County has dozens of tiny ones. In Cuyahoga County we have about 4 cities per High School while in Franklin County they have about 4 high schools per city. Central Ohio benefits from a far more centralized government. Cuyahoga County is all petty bickering, less gets done to move the region as a whole forward. Though things seem to be improving slightly in recent decades.

 

I'd be interested on a Cincinnatian's take on this, as I know they use the Columbus system (except with more contested elections), I've just lived in both Cbus and CLE so a bit more familiar with the politics of each.

The "Annexation for Water" policy was implemented in the 1950s and did indeed result in Columbus having more control over the region's land and growth as opposed to the suburbs. But other cities would have a much harder time pulling that off today after 70 years of suburban development. And Columbus has only annexed about 20 square miles in the past 15 years. So it's another thing other cities can't clone -- or if they did it wouldn't be nearly as effective as it was in the last half of the 20th Century.

 

Columbus City Council is quite secretive. At least the meetings are no longer closed-door. They've only been open door for the past year.

 

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely.  However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. 

Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is.

That's interesting - I have the exact opposite reaction from living in Cincinnati since 1990. I'm frequently happy that we've not diluted the opinions of folks who desire to live in the densest parts of our counties. Even without such dilution, it's still very hard to pursue progressive urban-oriented policies (and funding for them), so I can't imagine how hard it would be with significant annexation of mostly suburban portions of Hamilton county. This could be a Cincinnati issue alone - I don't know, but I'm certainly very happy to trade off the tax dollars for greater autonomy.

 

For example, I very much doubt that an organization like 3CDC could have existed (with it's stated mission), had we pursued an annexation agenda. As a result, I think Over The Rhine would have succumbed to the bulldozers and big-block developments, instead of being preserved.

 

Doesn't Cincy have a well-established somewhat combative relationship between its city and suburbs, though?  Columbus doesn't really have that.  It has generally good relations between both private/public and urban/suburban interests.  That is not to say that having countywide votes can't run into opinion divides or that things like job poaching can't occasionally be an issue, but generally most people (at least leadership) seem to agree on a common vision of a continuously progressing Columbus, as there is an understanding that a strong core city makes for strong suburbs.   

I wouldn't know how to separate out the two issues - annexation and the degree of "combativeness" - since annexation would seem to have an affect on the discord, by bringing folks together. That isn't bad of course. But there's reasons why geopolitical boundaries exist, and it's not completely clear to me how Columbus or Cincinnati would have evolved differently under different policies that affect where those boundaries are.

Having so many suburban areas and residents within the City of Columbus, who often are part of suburban school districts, serves to make less of an urban/suburban divide between the city governments. The lines aren't as stark as in the other two C's.

^ For curiosity sake, is there a source of the population by decade of the pre-annexation part of Columbus?

 

I think I posted those numbers at some point before.  Annexation didn't really start until the late 1950s, but I'll go back a few decades earlier.

 

1930: 290,564

1940: 306,086

1950: 375,710

1960: 389,222

1970: 348,808

1980: 287,089

1990: 268,265

2000: 246,713

2010: 234,582

2016: 243,432

 

Change by decade

1930-40: 15,522

1940-50: 69,624

1950-60: 13,512

1960-70: -40,414

1970-80: -61,719

1980-90: -18,824

1990-00: -21,552

2000-10: -12,131

2010-16: +8,850

 

All the numbers are based on the census tracts that existed in the core around 1950, the peak year for urban populations before any annexation or mass suburban movement.  The 2016 number is an estimate and is probably too low given that the estimates have places like the Short North losing population for some reason, which is ridiculous.

 

Needless to say, though, Columbus went through the same urban cycle that most major cities did mid-century, though to a somewhat lesser degree than Cleveland or Cincinnati.  The urban core likely began to turnaround in the 1980s (as shown by the much slower loss rate) when areas of High Street/Downtown began to be revitalized, but it took a few decades more for that process to spread far enough to other neighborhoods to see overall growth.

 

Sure the core went through the same smaller version of the urban decay cycle. Yet the region as a whole consistently expanded despite what happened at the core. Not the ebb and flow Cincy or C-land regions went through.

Focusing on the core for a moment, I just wanted to point out that in comparing Columbus "core" versus Cincinnati, the former lost 37.6% of its population from 1950-2010, while the latter lost 41%. That's a significant difference, I guess, though the first observation to be made is that both lost a whole lot of their core population in the same time.

 

The most interesting thing, to me, is the (projected) populations in both cities from 2010 onward. There, Columbus clearly has opened up an advantage, with 3.8% projected growth from 2010-2016, while Cincinnati's growth is only 0.6%. If those numbers hold up in 2020, then I think it will have to be said that Columbus core is truly rebounding at a much faster rate, and it will be useful to find out why.

If trajectories continue as they have been, Columbus will soon become the largest metro and largest economy in the state, and may continue to grow until it's the clear alpha city in the state (a title which I would say is currently up for grabs among all 3Cs).

 

My belief is Columbus is in a race against the clock to build transit in order to change its development patterns and densify. None of us may be around to see the negative impacts of the city not doing that, but all the annexation of low-density areas in the past was a gambit that must be dealt with before the outer city neighborhoods age.

 

Columbus will not be the largest metro anytime soon. Cin-Day will be over 3 million. Columbus growth could not catch that for close to 100 years

 

1). Cin-Day isn't an actual metropolitan area (yet).  It is two adjacent metropolitan areas in SW Ohio.  Columbus will be the state's largest MSA.

2). If Cin-Day DID exist, it currently is around 3.4 million.

 

I suspect that if Cin-Day ever exists (and it's possible it never will), it will become a CSA rather than an MSA. 

 

It will exist by 2020. City leaders from both areas are pretty much counting on this. With the growth in Warren county and areas like Springboro there are so many people commuting from Warren to Montgomery County. Springboro is becoming such an important part of the Dayton area that it is the chief job creator area outside of Wright Patterson. The combined MSA is inevitable, just like Columbus continued growth.

 

There are no jobs in Springboro except for a Kroger and a Dorothy Lane Market.  If you are referring to Austin Landing, that is Miami Township in Montgomery County.  Dayton MSA's largest employment centers are Downtown, UD/Midtown, WPAFB/Fairborn, and Miamisburg/Miami Township.  Springboro has always been a Dayton suburb but not for employment but for "1990's new money," much like Mason is to Cincinnati.  To say that Springboro is a "job creator" for the Dayton area is false...unless you think Mason is a job creator for downtown Cincinnati and Blue Ash.  Then you'll just have to pass the blunt on that one, man.

 

jonoh81 is correct that if Cin-Day did happen, it would be a CSA, much like Cleveland-Akron-Canton.  Columbus would still be the state's largest MSA and Cleveland-Akron would be the state's largest CSA still, but not by much over Cin-Day.  But I'm with ryanlammi, if it hasn't happened in the past 3 Census takings, it'll likely not happen for 2020.  The ironic problem IS Warren County.  Cuyahoga and Summit border each other; There are two suburban counties between Dayton and Cincinnati, Warren and Butler.  Dayton's MSA gets screwed as the northern suburbs of Warren County go to Cincinnati's MSA but that's life.

 

Dayton MSA with it's actual suburbs in northern Warren counted (Springboro, Franklin, Carlisle, Waynesville, Clearcreek Twp, Wayne Twp, and Franklin Twp at 92,572) = 1,167,189, moving up under Albuquerque and Rochester.  Take THAT Fresno!

 

Cincinnati MSA without Dayton's Warren County suburbs = 2,131,659, dropping it slightly below Raleigh.

 

I am mistaken. I was thinking Austin Landing.

 

Even without combining Cin-day, Columbus is still not set to become the largest metro until like 2028 or something like that I thought

 

I am mistaken. I was thinking Austin Landing.

 

Even without combining Cin-day, Columbus is still not set to become the largest metro until like 2028 or something like that I thought

 

2020 if Columbus continues at its current pace (and Cincinnati continues at its current pace).

We have often discussed factors that make Columbus different from Cleveland (and Cinci), but an interesting factor to me that hasn't been discussed as much is the 17-member council with a ward system used in Cleveland vs Columbus' 7-member at-large system where all members are appointed and no election is ever contested.

 

Using recent census estimates, that's about 122,870 residents per council seat in Columbus and 22,828 residents per seat in Cleveland. Furthermore, in Cleveland each council member has a specific 22,828 residents whom they represent while in Columbus all council members represent the entire city. That is a radical difference. Neighborhood interests, especially those in forgotten neighborhoods, would undoubtedly prefer the Cleveland system but corporate interests and development interests do way better in Columbus. (Columbus' neighborhood commissions do serve to allow local representation in the government)

 

We see this pattern continue at the county level, where Franklin County has like 6 big suburbs while Cuyahoga County has dozens of tiny ones. In Cuyahoga County we have about 4 cities per High School while in Franklin County they have about 4 high schools per city. Central Ohio benefits from a far more centralized government. Cuyahoga County is all petty bickering, less gets done to move the region as a whole forward. Though things seem to be improving slightly in recent decades.

 

I'd be interested on a Cincinnatian's take on this, as I know they use the Columbus system (except with more contested elections), I've just lived in both Cbus and CLE so a bit more familiar with the politics of each.

 

I've lived in both Cincinnati and Columbus and actually it's tough to directly compare the two since Cincinnati councilmembers are famous people while Columbus ones are so secretive.

 

I am mistaken. I was thinking Austin Landing.

 

Even without combining Cin-day, Columbus is still not set to become the largest metro until like 2028 or something like that I thought

 

2020 if Columbus continues at its current pace (and Cincinnati continues at its current pace).

 

So we are both wrong. Looks like 2025 if they don't combine the Metros

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/10/11/columbus-region-to-grow-fastest-in-ohio-becoming.html

 

Latinos...er, Hispanics, way up in Painesville, to little surprise. Rumors of a new Mexican grocery store to open. No place to buy white bread and mayonnaise anymore >:(

 

Ranking every Ohio city, county for size of Hispanic population - Census Snapshot

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/12/ranking_every_ohio_city_county_7.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Brooklyn, Cleveland, Lorain and Painesville are among the 13 cities in Ohio where at least 10 percent of the residents are Hispanic, according to new estimates released this month by the Census Bureau.

 

Scroll below to share of Hispanic population for every city and county in Ohio, led by Lorain at 28.3 percent (mostly with ties to Puerto Rico) and Painesville at 24.3 percent (mostly with ties to Mexico).

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

 

Federal jobs and city and county jobs are not relevant here. Cleveland would logically have more federal jobs than Columbus because its bigger.

 

Now regarding the main point here. I don't have any OSU data. But state data is easier to get (in theory).  Here's the logic: 

 

State employees eat in local restaurants, buy home repairs, buy homes, cars, etc. They play a big part in supporting and growing the local Columbus economy.

 

MOST state employees live an work in Columbus---especially the higher paid ones. Yes there are state offices in other cities and interstate snow plow guys around the state. But the bulk of the state payroll is in columbus.  Where does that money come from to pay that payroll?  Ohio income tax and the commercial activities tax or other business taxes.  Ohio's GDP is about $525B. Columbus's GDP is about $125B. So Columbus is about 24%. So 76% of the the money is coming from places outside of Columbus---like Cincinnati, CLE, Toledo, Youngstown, etc.  So these other cities are supporting Columbus. A small piece trickles backs to payroll in other cities like snow plow guys, park rangers, BMVs, etc.  the bulk--and higher paid salaries--are in Columbus.

We have often discussed factors that make Columbus different from Cleveland (and Cinci), but an interesting factor to me that hasn't been discussed as much is the 17-member council with a ward system used in Cleveland vs Columbus' 7-member at-large system where all members are appointed and no election is ever contested.

 

Using recent census estimates, that's about 122,870 residents per council seat in Columbus and 22,828 residents per seat in Cleveland. Furthermore, in Cleveland each council member has a specific 22,828 residents whom they represent while in Columbus all council members represent the entire city. That is a radical difference. Neighborhood interests, especially those in forgotten neighborhoods, would undoubtedly prefer the Cleveland system but corporate interests and development interests do way better in Columbus. (Columbus' neighborhood commissions do serve to allow local representation in the government)

 

We see this pattern continue at the county level, where Franklin County has like 6 big suburbs while Cuyahoga County has dozens of tiny ones. In Cuyahoga County we have about 4 cities per High School while in Franklin County they have about 4 high schools per city. Central Ohio benefits from a far more centralized government. Cuyahoga County is all petty bickering, less gets done to move the region as a whole forward. Though things seem to be improving slightly in recent decades.

 

I'd be interested on a Cincinnatian's take on this, as I know they use the Columbus system (except with more contested elections), I've just lived in both Cbus and CLE so a bit more familiar with the politics of each.

 

Both systems have their own flaws.  An at-large system doesn't focus on the small-scale as well, and some neighborhoods get passed by more often than others.  On the other hand, they're not prevented from having a unified vision for the city, as there aren't multiple representatives competing for resources.  Incidentally, Columbus recently had the chance to leave the at-large system and it was heavily rejected by voters.  For the most part, the people like things how they are.

The plan would have definitely made things more Cleveland-like with wards and a much larger number of council members.

Well it can't be denied that OSU and the state government are major assets for Columbus that contribute to its growth. But it should be noted that those two institutions are subsidized heavily by people outside of columbus, that are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, etc. Probably 80-85% of the geographic subsidies to those organization come from outside of Columbus.

 

I know people *love* to make these claims, but I've never once seen anyone post any factual data to back this up.  We do know from the BLS data that Government jobs in all 3-Cs exceed 100K, and the actual % of government to total jobs in any of them are just a few % points different top to bottom.

 

I've never seen any data whatsoever that OSU is subsidized mostly from money outside of Columbus.  Where is your "80-85%" number coming from?

 

Federal jobs and city and county jobs are not relevant here. Cleveland would logically have more federal jobs than Columbus because its bigger.

 

Now regarding the main point here. I don't have any OSU data. But state data is easier to get (in theory).  Here's the logic: 

 

State employees eat in local restaurants, buy home repairs, buy homes, cars, etc. They play a big part in supporting and growing the local Columbus economy.

 

MOST state employees live an work in Columbus---especially the higher paid ones. Yes there are state offices in other cities and interstate snow plow guys around the state. But the bulk of the state payroll is in columbus.  Where does that money come from to pay that payroll?  Ohio income tax and the commercial activities tax or other business taxes.  Ohio's GDP is about $525B. Columbus's GDP is about $125B. So Columbus is about 24%. So 76% of the the money is coming from places outside of Columbus---like Cincinnati, CLE, Toledo, Youngstown, etc.  So these other cities are supporting Columbus. A small piece trickles backs to payroll in other cities like snow plow guys, park rangers, BMVs, etc.  the bulk--and higher paid salaries--are in Columbus.

 

Wait, what?  76% of Ohio's GDP is not related to Columbus, so that means Columbus is receiving 76% of its money from elsewhere?  Huh?  GDP is the measure of economic output.  Columbus is responsible for a piece of that output, just as Cleveland, Cincinnati and the rest of Ohio are responsible for their own contributions.  You're making a leap to something that is unrelated to GDP- allocation of statewide tax dollars. 

 

I just wanted to know where you got your 80-85% figure in OSU funding.  If you don't have any actual data to support that, it's time to stop repeating it.  Facts matter.

http://www.dispatch.com/article/20120611/NEWS/306119689

 

This article is from 2012, but it says that OSU receives only 7% of its funding from the State, and that it was a decline from as much as 25% in 1990.  That's a far cry from 80%.  It also shows that OSU is becoming less reliant on state funds over time.  Furthermore, that 7% likely includes dollars paid by Columbus citizens, so it's highly likely that the rest of Ohio contributes even less than that percentage. 

A lot of tuition dollars come from the rest of the state, but many more students are international than in the past.

I just wanted to know where you got your 80-85% figure in OSU funding.  If you don't have any actual data to support that' date=' it's time to stop repeating it.  Facts matter. [/quote']

 

Stop repeating it? I never repeated it, not once. But you have mentioned it twice. Read this thread and you will see this is true.

 

My point was that MOST of support for the state gov't and OSU come from parts of ohio outside of columbus. I said "probably 80" as that was just a number to demonstrate it. Using GDP as ONE metric of where Ohio's money/economy is generated shows that Columbus MSA is only 24% of the state. So 76% (you can round up to 80 if you want) comes from outside of columbus, from places like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown.  Certainly more than 24% of the state's employee payroll is spent in Columbus---likely most of it is. Thus, all the Ohio cities/regions are subsidizing Columbus's economy.  (Similarly, NYC subsidizes Albany as well.)

 

I'm not trying to belittle Columbus or make a comment about its 'realness' or otherwise of a city. I'm simply saying that the state government being in Columbus contributes to its growth and that state government is mostly paid for by cities that are not Columbus.

 

A lot of tuition dollars come from the rest of the state, but many more students are international than in the past.

 

So now tuition from students not from Columbus counts as public funding?  Talk about trying too hard.

Some of it does considering things like grants, scholarships and federal loans in a way. But a lot of it is still private money coming from families that live in the rest of the state. Sheesh.

I just wanted to know where you got your 80-85% figure in OSU funding.  If you don't have any actual data to support that' date=' it's time to stop repeating it.  Facts matter. [/quote']

 

Stop repeating it? I never repeated it, not once. But you have mentioned it twice. Read this thread and you will see this is true.

 

My point was that MOST of support for the state gov't and OSU come from parts of ohio outside of columbus. I said "probably 80" as that was just a number to demonstrate it. Using GDP as ONE metric of where Ohio's money/economy is generated shows that Columbus MSA is only 24% of the state. So 76% (you can round up to 80 if you want) comes from outside of columbus, from places like Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown.  Certainly more than 24% of the state's employee payroll is spent in Columbus---likely most of it is. Thus, all the Ohio cities/regions are subsidizing Columbus's economy.  (Similarly, NYC subsidizes Albany as well.)

 

I'm not trying to belittle Columbus or make a comment about its 'realness' or otherwise of a city. I'm simply saying that the state government being in Columbus contributes to its growth and that state government is mostly paid for by cities that are not Columbus.

 

You specifically said that you thought 80-85% of the funding comes from the State.  I provided an article with actual information that shows that is not even remotely true. 

As to your claim that a similar % of funding for Columbus comes from the rest of the state, you have already admitted you have no proof for that.  I don't take suppositions as proof.

 

Your GDP argument makes literally no sense.  Let's review.

 

In 2016, Ohio's GDP was $626.622 billion.  Here were the metro GDPs in 2016 in billions.

 

Cincinnati: $132.010

Columbus: $130.758

Cleveland: $129.440

Dayton: $40.572

Akron: $37.300

Toledo: $33.158

Youngstown: $19.966

 

And % of total state GDP

Cincinnati: 21.07%

Columbus: 20.87%

Cleveland: 20.66%

Dayton: 6.47%

Akron: 5.95%

Toledo: 5.29%

Youngstown: 3.19%

Total of the major metros: 83.5%

 

So right off the bat, your numbers are wrong.  Furthermore, all of the 3-Cs have roughly the same % of the state total.  Columbus is higher than all but Cincinnati, and only barely below it.  For your theory to work out, that would mean that only Cincinnati receives less state help.

But of course, it doesn't work that way at all.  These GDPs are economic outputs.  They do not represent the difference between what they produce an what they receive.

Going even further, the number of state jobs within Columbus represents less than 7% of the total non-farm jobs in the metro area.  That means more than 90% of all jobs there are not under state payrolls.  Simply put, you're wrong from every conceivable angle.

 

 

 

Some of it does considering things like grants, scholarships and federal loans in a way. But a lot of it is still private money coming from families that live in the rest of the state. Sheesh.

 

Students receiving grants and scholarships are not necessarily receiving them from OSU, nor are grants typically awarded based on school choice, but either student need or academic performance.  Those students can choose any school in the state.  It's stretching the definition to the breaking point to say that this is public funding for OSU.  And federal loans wouldn't directly be Ohio state money at all. 

Overall, I just think people are trying to find all these ways that Columbus is supposedly stealing from the rest of the state, but the numbers don't really add up to as much as people think.

But that's not what I'm saying. Smaller towns already didn't have much going on in them already. Maybe people from out of town just like the school or are seeking the networking opportunities available in the city.