The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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

 

There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time. This means that high wage and high productivity activities are becoming concentrated in the municipality of cincinnati. The growth in the number of jobs in the municipality of cincinnati supports this view. Higher productivity is caused by the concentration of more educated and economically productive workers in the same place. This is the same dynamic on a much smaller scale that has supported the growth of central chicago while the south and west sides of that city have declined leaving chicago with 200,000 fewer people over all since 2000. The boom in the loop and near northside and the decline of the south and west sides of chicago are part of the same dynamic and are equally "important" to chicago. In our increasingly unequal economy, one professional class worker in a research hospital, corporate headquarters or research facility, or the business services that provide for them has the income, tax potential, and purchasing power of two, three, or even four traditional middle class workers. It's a kind of creative destruction where old economic patterns are dismantled and reassembled into new ones. People and businesses are moving around to take advantage of these new patterns. If they can't they have to go where their less productive work can still be sustained in lower value locations either in the suburbs, in other metros, or leaves the country entirely.

 

All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom.

 

Columbus? Cornfields?  Clearly you haven't been to a large number of U.S. cities that annex a hell of a lot more than Columbus.  It's unfair to watch Columbus' numbers, but Columbus is not near as bad as plenty of other cities out there.  Indianapolis is much larger than Columbus in area, and not nearly as developed or dense (and speaking of cornfields, the topography around Indy is a lot more boring).  What about Jacksonville, Florida?  Jacksonville takes up all of Duval County.  Ever drive I-10 into Jacksonville and see the bunch of nothing you drive into and think how can I even be in a city of over 800,000.  Maybe Oklahoma City, a city that takes up over 600 square miles that is out in the middle of the county surrounded by a bunch of fields.  Columbus annexes, but I can think of plenty including Charlotte, Austin, and Fort Worth all of which take up more land than Columbus, and Columbus has a density much higher than all of them.

Cleveland is stabilizing. The west side has always been fine...downtown, ohio city and tremont are growing around 70%...it's just the east side that's still losing population.  The issue with all the midwestern cities is the same...young professionals are moving in not families.  You see in the data that population is exploding in good neighborhoods but the household number and income are what are carrying that.

 

Cleveland actually isn't stabilizing, it is just filling in the "doughnut hole" more than it has, or at least more than the 90s when the city was all about building stadiums.  Cleveland, percentage wise (not raw numbers), lost more people last decade than it ever has besides the complete collapse of the 70s.  The east side is very empty and gives off a very Detroit vibe.  The west side still has a lot of work to do, and Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway are only seeing the first signs of gentrification and urban renewal.  You can go a few blocks away from the hot spots, and you run into some bad looking or decayed areas.  Cleveland needs to go on a fullscale development scheme and stop putting such a huge focus on downtown where everyone is raving about casinos and new conventions centers.  I am really happy where Cleveland is going, and Cleveland is the reason I fell in love with cities.  I ended up going to Cleveland State and majoring in urban studies.  But I will not hide the fact that Cleveland has more issues than any other major city besides Detroit, and focusing attention on all neighborhoods of the city is extremely important.  I did a lot of volunteer work for the Famicos Foundation, and we did a lot of work on the east side.... Cleveland never gives that side of town any attention.  In short, Cleveland's neighborhoods, even the healthy ones, are only just now seeing signs of rebirth and have a long way to go, which means overall, Cleveland has a long way to go before it even stabilizes.

All but the very poorest are indeed leaving cities for older suburban areas that have had some big declines in property values in recent years. This is true in cincinnati and many metros. New York's past losses made way for its more recent gains. The same may happen in Chicago. We can't know what the effect of the recent losses will be in the long-run unless we stick around to find out.

 

Who is losing and who is gaining? If the city of Cincinnati losses a middle class resident, but gains a professional class worker, loses millions in local tax income, but gains hundreds of millions in state money for new schools, loses one company to North Carolina, but gains another from England, as have all happened recently, who is really gaining and losing and how do we know? Of course, the answer is found through the use of MSA data. You win some and you lose some, but often you don't know if, when, and why until after the fact.

I've never seen incorporated cornfields elsewhere. Wherever they do exist, I can't imagine why a city would do so. That is my point.

Probably there are some in Omaha. Maybe Des Moines.

I've never seen incorporated cornfields elsewhere. Wherever they do exist, I can't imagine why a city would do so. That is my point.

 

Wait, are you advocating that those "cornfields" be, uh, paved over with urbanized land?  Wouldn't it be a good thing that there is still rural land left in incorporation?  And you can't imagine why a city would annex agricultural land?  You do realize cities like Toronto (northeastern) and Indianapolis (any fringe) also have "cornfields" incorporated in their city limits, correct?

I've never seen incorporated cornfields elsewhere. Wherever they do exist, I can't imagine why a city would do so. That is my point.

 

So you're saying Columbus has them, but I just named plenty of other cities that offer them as well.  And at the same point, Columbus is much smaller in land area and more dense. 

Cleveland is stabilizing. The west side has always been fine...downtown, ohio city and tremont are growing around 70%...it's just the east side that's still losing population.  The issue with all the midwestern cities is the same...young professionals are moving in not families.  You see in the data that population is exploding in good neighborhoods but the household number and income are what are carrying that.

 

Cleveland actually isn't stabilizing, it is just filling in the "doughnut hole" more than it has, or at least more than the 90s when the city was all about building stadiums.  Cleveland, percentage wise (not raw numbers), lost more people last decade than it ever has besides the complete collapse of the 70s.  The east side is very empty and gives off a very Detroit vibe.  The west side still has a lot of work to do, and Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway are only seeing the first signs of gentrification and urban renewal.  You can go a few blocks away from the hot spots, and you run into some bad looking or decayed areas.  Cleveland needs to go on a fullscale development scheme and stop putting such a huge focus on downtown where everyone is raving about casinos and new conventions centers.  I am really happy where Cleveland is going, and Cleveland is the reason I fell in love with cities.  I ended up going to Cleveland State and majoring in urban studies.  But I will not hide the fact that Cleveland has more issues than any other major city besides Detroit, and focusing attention on all neighborhoods of the city is extremely important.  I did a lot of volunteer work for the Famicos Foundation, and we did a lot of work on the east side.... Cleveland never gives that side of town any attention.  In short, Cleveland's neighborhoods, even the healthy ones, are only just now seeing signs of rebirth and have a long way to go, which means overall, Cleveland has a long way to go before it even stabilizes.

 

Can you provide some links or proven data regarding Cleveland's only in better shape compared to Detroit?  You sound like a writer from Forbes.  Do you still in Cleveland?

Seriously...let's look at pre-annexation numbers for most of these cities.  That will paint a new picture of a lot of these "growing" cities. Cleveland needs to do a lot of things, I agree, but so does all of the midwest.

Cleveland is stabilizing. The west side has always been fine...downtown, ohio city and tremont are growing around 70%...it's just the east side that's still losing population.  The issue with all the midwestern cities is the same...young professionals are moving in not families.  You see in the data that population is exploding in good neighborhoods but the household number and income are what are carrying that.

 

Cleveland actually isn't stabilizing, it is just filling in the "doughnut hole" more than it has, or at least more than the 90s when the city was all about building stadiums.  Cleveland, percentage wise (not raw numbers), lost more people last decade than it ever has besides the complete collapse of the 70s.  The east side is very empty and gives off a very Detroit vibe.  The west side still has a lot of work to do, and Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway are only seeing the first signs of gentrification and urban renewal.  You can go a few blocks away from the hot spots, and you run into some bad looking or decayed areas.  Cleveland needs to go on a fullscale development scheme and stop putting such a huge focus on downtown where everyone is raving about casinos and new conventions centers.  I am really happy where Cleveland is going, and Cleveland is the reason I fell in love with cities.  I ended up going to Cleveland State and majoring in urban studies.  But I will not hide the fact that Cleveland has more issues than any other major city besides Detroit, and focusing attention on all neighborhoods of the city is extremely important.  I did a lot of volunteer work for the Famicos Foundation, and we did a lot of work on the east side.... Cleveland never gives that side of town any attention.  In short, Cleveland's neighborhoods, even the healthy ones, are only just now seeing signs of rebirth and have a long way to go, which means overall, Cleveland has a long way to go before it even stabilizes.

 

Can you provide some links or proven data regarding Cleveland's only in better shape compared to Detroit?  You sound like a writer from Forbes.  Do you still in Cleveland?

 

How the hell do I sound like a writer from forbes?  I am not going to paint some rosey picture for Cleveland when it's far from it.  I never said it was so miserable I had to leave the city as soon as I started college.  Look up the stats, Cleveland still has housing prices lower than any other Midwest city back to pre 2000 levels (even Detroit has seen huge growth spurts).  Cleveland is not gaining new jobs, it's population is declining faster than an other city besides Detroit, and there are huge swaths of abandonment that you don't see in other cities outside of Detroit minus St. Louis' north side.  You can sit there and lie and say Cleveland is healthy, or you can throw out constructive criticism.  I still find it interesting that you make me out to be a "forbes" writer.  If that's what you get from my one post, that's pretty sad on your end and I don't even want to know how you hand the majority of NE Ohio and metro Cleveland's reaction to how they view the city.  What I said wasn't even negative at all, it's called being a realist.

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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

 

There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time.

 

From 2000-2010, almost every metro and city in the nation (or at least the 100 largest) had their average household income decline.  That includes all Ohio cities as well.  All of them.  I think this has more to do with the economy of the last decade than population changes, though, because it affected both growing and shrinking cities alike, even the boom metros of the Sun Belt.  

 

All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom.

 

Actually, aside from some of the largest urban metros of the nation, particularly those along the Northeast coast, I can think of dozens of metros with incorporated fields and empty agricultural land.  This would include all 3-Cs.  Unfortunately, your zeal to find flaws with Columbus in every situation, in every post and on countless other boards seems to so often cloud your judgement.  

Seriously...let's look at pre-annexation numbers for most of these cities.  That will paint a new picture of a lot of these "growing" cities. Cleveland needs to do a lot of things, I agree, but so does all of the midwest.

 

Columbus is not near as healthy as everyone makes it out to be.  That's why I make mention, if Cleveland could annex, its population numbers would speak of a "healthier" city to most, or at least look that way.  Cleveland is a different city today than it was even in the early 2000s, but Cleveland is still suffering more than most Midwest cities.  I don't understand how places like Milwaukee can take advantage of so much, while Cleveland sits on its hands and waits to see what will happen.

To say Cleveland isn't gaining jobs two weeks after the Clinic just hired 600 nurses on top of hundreds of other job openings, and a month before the casino opens with hundreds of people employed is ridiculous. Now maybe you're talking about the number of jobs replacing those that are lost, I'm not sure.

 

Downtown is NOT the only place being focused on, but it desperately needed to be focused on, there were and still are so many holes that needed to be filled with something. Also of note is that besides the public investment in the casino and medical mart/convention center there is billions of PRIVATE investment going on, and no one here can control what or where private enterprise invests its money on.

 

Besides downtown you have University Circle, the fastest growing jobs center in the State of Ohio, which aside from developments by the Clinic is also having millions in private money pouring into it and spilling into East Cleveland, one of the poorest cities in the state.

 

On top of even all that there are small scale developments going on in neighborhoods throughout the city, from infrastructure improvements to new schools and other new housing.

 

That's not to say there is not plenty more that needs to be done, the population needs to grow, perceptions need to change and many billions more need to be invested, but this is a boom like Cleveland has never seen before on this side of 1950.

 

This will be the first decade of really large scale new residential investment to really have a positive effect on the population of the city. I just think to say downtown is the only place where things are happening in Cleveland is misinformation at its finest.

Exactly...all we are saying is that your opinions are a little off of reality.  We don't sit here with rose colored glasses, but things aren't nearly as bad as they were.  I've lived here for two years and have seen major change in just that time period.  This city will look a lot better next census, and even with you're negative outlook, you can't deny that.

I seem to have led some here to confuse the cornfield for the cornstalks. My point is that municipalities aren't the cuase of success or failure in metro economies. They respond to them with varying degrees of success or failure. The Detroit metro didn't fail because the city of Detroit first failed politically and that this somehow undermined the economy of the city and then the region. The entire detroit metro failed because its car-based economy failed first. The city of detroit just responded exceptionally badly to this economic decline. Underlying economics are at work and they operate at the scale of MSAs, not municipalities. Bad municipal politics don't cause economic decline, they are an effect of it. That is why more balanced diverse metros are so successful, they have more economic cyclinders to fire on. Detroit had too few cylinders. That is the source of its problems, not the admittedly horrendous politics of the city of detroit in the 80s,90s, and early 2000s.

 

I think that much of the discussion her is using density and incorporated city to mean largely the same thing. Density does not require incorporation in one municipality and incorporation does not require density as cornfields prove. The market value of what people do is what matters, not where they came from to do it, how fashionable they are while they do it, or the kind of food they like to eat when their not doing it.

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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

 

There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time.

 

From 2000-2010, almost every metro and city in the nation (or at least the 100 largest) had their average household income decline.  That includes all Ohio cities as well.  All of them.  I think this has more to do with the economy of the last decade than population changes, though, because it affected both growing and shrinking cities alike, even the boom metros of the Sun Belt.  

 

All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom.

 

Actually, aside from some of the largest urban metros of the nation, particularly those along the Northeast coast, I can think of dozens of metros with incorporated fields and empty agricultural land.  This would include all 3-Cs.  Unfortunately, your zeal to find flaws with Columbus in every situation, in every post and on countless other boards seems to so often cloud your judgement.

 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Exactly...all we are saying is that your opinions are a little off of reality.  We don't sit here with rose colored glasses, but things aren't nearly as bad as they were.  I've lived here for two years and have seen major change in just that time period.  This city will look a lot better next census, and even with you're negative outlook, you can't deny that.

 

My prediction is that things will look even worse next census for the city of Cleveland itself and most inner subs. (that is if you agree that more poverty and even lower population is worse).  Because the few bright spots as far as neighborhoods go likely wont make up for the continued loss of the remaining mid-class. 

 

Otherwise many other things are indeed looking up. 

Even if Cleveland proper's population doesnt increase, the metro area definitely needs to! I would be ok with only the metro area growing and seeing increases in the number of college educated and highly paid residents in Cleveland proper, similar to Chicago.

Seriously...let's look at pre-annexation numbers for most of these cities.  That will paint a new picture of a lot of these "growing" cities. Cleveland needs to do a lot of things, I agree, but so does all of the midwest.

 

Columbus is not near as healthy as everyone makes it out to be.  That's why I make mention, if Cleveland could annex, its population numbers would speak of a "healthier" city to most, or at least look that way.  Cleveland is a different city today than it was even in the early 2000s, but Cleveland is still suffering more than most Midwest cities.  I don't understand how places like Milwaukee can take advantage of so much, while Cleveland sits on its hands and waits to see what will happen.

 

Columbus suffered in the recession like everywhere else, but it performed as well as or better than the majority of the 100 largest metros based on all the evidence I've seen.  It has some issues, but it's easily the healthiest metro in the state and one of the best in the Midwest.  Maybe that's not saying much, but it's not untrue. 

 

Annexation would not solve the problem.  It would only give the illusion of growth but people would still be leaving the overall area even as Cleveland annexed population.  Columbus annexed about 7 square miles in the last decade, which is FAR slower than it was when the city first began that aggressive policy.  Columbus annexed that amount in a day at times during the peak years, but it's been awhile since that's been going on.  Almost all of the new construction permits have been for infill the last few years.  Regardless, recent census data does not show growth by annexation, but just traditional population growth for the most part, which is something Cleveland, at this time anyway, cannot show even if it had the same policy.

I seem to have led some here to confuse the cornfield for the cornstalks. My point is that municipalities aren't the cuase of success or failure in metro economies. They respond to them with varying degrees of success or failure. The Detroit metro didn't fail because the city of Detroit first failed politically and that this somehow undermined the economy of the city and then the region. The entire detroit metro failed because its car-based economy failed first. The city of detroit just responded exceptionally badly to this economic decline. Underlying economics are at work and they operate at the scale of MSAs, not municipalities. Bad municipal politics don't cause economic decline, they are an effect of it. That is why more balanced diverse metros are so successful, they have more economic cyclinders to fire on. Detroit had too few cylinders. That is the source of its problems, not the admittedly horrendous politics of the city of detroit in the 80s,90s, and early 2000s.

 

I think that much of the discussion her is using density and incorporated city to mean largely the same thing. Density does not require incorporation in one municipality and incorporation does not require density as cornfields prove. The market value of what people do is what matters, not where they came from to do it, how fashionable they are while they do it, or the kind of food they like to eat when their not doing it.

 

Cities are the entire catalyst for a metro even existing, and in the vast majority of cases (I really can't think of any situation where this isn't the case), certainly are the economic engines of a region.  Core cities don't have to provide every last dollar of the GDP to have that be true.  The overall metro, of course, contributes, but the city is and always will be the heart of a metro economy, if only because it's the city, and not the suburbs, that attract business to the region in the first place.  To keep suggesting that cities just don't matter is nuts.

The city of cincinnati is tiny within its MSA compared to any other city in Ohio or even in the larger midwest or upper south. Newport on the levee and the entire Kentucky waterfront, the Kentucky Convention Center and mainstrasse in covington, all of the rockwood shopping centers and even parts of Xavier university are not in the city of Cincinnati. This reminds us just what a small part of the cincinnati MSA the municipality of cincinnati is. If the municipality of columbus lost population it would be a sign of economic collapse for the columbus metro, but for cincinnati it is a sign of a modest transfer of people around a complex stable metropolitan area.

 

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

 

There most certainly is a way to "spin" municipal population loss as a good thing and show that it isn't "really" important on its own for any given metro. While the number of legal residents of the municipality of cincinnati may or may not have declined in the last decade, the amount of investment and average wages have risen substantially in the municipality of Cincinnati, along with some other metros, while they have declined in almost every other area of the cincinnati MSA and in much of the U.S. generally in that same time.

 

From 2000-2010, almost every metro and city in the nation (or at least the 100 largest) had their average household income decline.  That includes all Ohio cities as well.  All of them.  I think this has more to do with the economy of the last decade than population changes, though, because it affected both growing and shrinking cities alike, even the boom metros of the Sun Belt.  

 

All of which is separate from the fact that some key dense urban areas of the cincinnati metro are not in the city of cincinnati while Columbus includes what must be the only incorporated cornfields in any metro over 1 million in the U.S. Yes, you most certainly can look beyond superficial statistical calculations to find more complex dynamics at work within metro economies. Of course you'd only do this if you were interested in understanding these areas. If you weren't you'd be satisfied with easy conventional wisdom.

 

Actually, aside from some of the largest urban metros of the nation, particularly those along the Northeast coast, I can think of dozens of metros with incorporated fields and empty agricultural land.  This would include all 3-Cs.  Unfortunately, your zeal to find flaws with Columbus in every situation, in every post and on countless other boards seems to so often cloud your judgement.

 

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

:roll:  The claim made no sense and it's not even accurate, as has been pointed out several times.  Your dislike of Columbus is well noted all over the internet, but of all the real things Columbus can be criticized about (lack of extensive mass transit options for example), this is what you come up with... too many cornfields in Columbus. 

With the annexation comment I think he was stating that since the City of Cleveland proper is so small  and Cincinnati for that matter, the demographics often look worse because the fact a lot of those two metro's wealth is in the burbs so Columbus looks and is richer or better off because what would be another municipality in Cincy or Cleveland is in Columbus proper. On a metro level and purely a metro level things are much more balanced.

A person who criticize others for doing what they themselves have just done is 'throwing stones at glass houses'. Your posts are transparent promotions of Columbus in every way. Paid PR campaigns for the columbus chamber of commerce are more subtle and less biased. If you don't see this, you are the only one. Someone who knows they are self-centered and self-serving is an egotist. Someone who does know that they are self-centered and self-serving is a narcissist.

 

I've never mentioned anything about or cared about columbus' public transportation. I'm uninterested in the local politics or public services of columbus as are many columbusers in my experience. I'm not interested in the municipality of columbus at all. I'm interested in the columbus area as a metropolitan economy. I'm interested in improving understandings of columbus and other metros in the midwest and beyond. I'm somewhat interested in why columbus or any other metro is the way it is, but I am mainly interested in more fully understanding midwest metro economies. Such understandings are not simple, easy, or self-evident. Improving our understandings of ohio's metros is the reason this forum exists. That is why I post here.

 

 

I remember someone posting on here awhile back Columbus's 1950's core population numbers which showed its declining at the same rate as most other cities. It was awhile back. Anyone have updated information that included the 2010 census?

A person who criticize others for doing what they themselves have just done is 'throwing stones at glass houses'. Your posts are transparent promotions of Columbus in every way. Paid PR campaigns for the columbus chamber of commerce are more subtle and less biased. If you don't see this, you are the only one. Someone who knows they are self-centered and self-serving is an egotist. Someone who does know that they are self-centered and self-serving is a narcissist.

 

I've never mentioned anything about or cared about columbus' public transportation. I'm uninterested in the local politics or public services of columbus as are many columbusers in my experience. I'm not interested in the municipality of columbus at all. I'm interested in the columbus area as a metropolitan economy. I'm interested in improving understandings of columbus and other metros in the midwest and beyond. I'm somewhat interested in why columbus or any other metro is the way it is, but I am mainly interested in more fully understanding midwest metro economies. Such understandings are not simple, easy, or self-evident. Improving our understandings of ohio's metros is the reason this forum exists. That is why I post here.

 

I'm really not going to do this whole game with you again.  I just hope you don't think I actually believe any of the crap you just stated, because we both know that you're just as biased as any other person here and it's not just about learning and understanding the ways of the metro.  Your agenda is as clear as you seem to believe mine is. 

 

And for the record, if I wanted to declare myself gd CEO of the Columbus PR Group, you really have no particularly reason to have a problem with that.  Not one reason to have that bother you as much as it clearly does.  I like Columbus, I will continue to use information to argue that it is a good place in the same way that I argue this point about Ohio overall.    I'm well within my rights to express my opinion in that way or in any way I want, provided that I don't break board rules.  Please, for the love of christ, let it go.   

I remember someone posting on here awhile back Columbus's 1950's core population numbers which showed its declining at the same rate as most other cities. It was awhile back. Anyone have updated information that included the 2010 census?

 

You'd be correct.  The 1950 core census tracts have lost about 100K over the decades.  Declines were most severe between 1960 and 1980, with a gradually falling rate of loss since then.  The rate from 1960-1970 was -16.1%, and -5.6% 2000-2010.  Since about the 1990s, a few tracts in the very center of the urban core stopped losing people, increased by 2000 and by 2010 there were 15-20 that were growing.  Almost all of the losses were towards the eastern part of the urban center, in the areas along Parsons, East Main and Broad north through Linden.  Downtown, along with German Village, the Short North up through the University District, parts of Franklinton and Grandview Heights all gained in population.  From the demographics of the core tracts that lost population, most of them, especially the closer you get to Downtown, saw increases in the white population for the first time in decades.  This is usually the first sign of gentrification, so I imagine losses in those areas will slow if not reverse in the coming years as well.

 

Outside of these urban core tracts, if you take all the tracts that are just inside I-270, which doesn't include any far suburbs, the overall population bottomed out around 2000 and has been growing since. 

Columbus' problems are focused are worst on the east side (and getting worse especially as the problems along Cleveland Avenue are moving north). The east side around Bexley is touch and go - could bounce back, could collapse. Don't spend much time in the south side or west side.

Columbus' problems are focused are worst on the east side (and getting worse especially as the problems along Cleveland Avenue are moving north). The east side around Bexley is touch and go - could bounce back, could collapse. Don't spend much time in the south side or west side.

 

I think something the Census showed is that a lot of the poor areas in many cities continue to empty out... but that they are moving to the suburbs, while the central cores are gaining people again.  100 years ago, the urban core was where the money was and the suburbs were the poor areas.  I wonder if we are gradually seeing a return to this setup.  Demographics tell a big part of the story on Columbus' East Side.

A person who criticize others for doing what they themselves have just done is 'throwing stones at glass houses'. Your posts are transparent promotions of Columbus in every way. Paid PR campaigns for the columbus chamber of commerce are more subtle and less biased. If you don't see this, you are the only one. Someone who knows they are self-centered and self-serving is an egotist. Someone who does know that they are self-centered and self-serving is a narcissist.

 

I've never mentioned anything about or cared about columbus' public transportation. I'm uninterested in the local politics or public services of columbus as are many columbusers in my experience. I'm not interested in the municipality of columbus at all. I'm interested in the columbus area as a metropolitan economy. I'm interested in improving understandings of columbus and other metros in the midwest and beyond. I'm somewhat interested in why columbus or any other metro is the way it is, but I am mainly interested in more fully understanding midwest metro economies. Such understandings are not simple, easy, or self-evident. Improving our understandings of ohio's metros is the reason this forum exists. That is why I post here.

 

I'm really not going to do this whole game with you again.  I just hope you don't think I actually believe any of the crap you just stated, because we both know that you're just as biased as any other person here and it's not just about learning and understanding the ways of the metro.  Your agenda is as clear as you seem to believe mine is. 

 

And for the record, if I wanted to declare myself gd CEO of the Columbus PR Group, you really have no particularly reason to have a problem with that.  Not one reason to have that bother you as much as it clearly does.  I like Columbus, I will continue to use information to argue that it is a good place in the same way that I argue this point about Ohio overall.    I'm well within my rights to express my opinion in that way or in any way I want, provided that I don't break board rules.  Please, for the love of christ, let it go. 

 

 

And I'm well within my rights to respond to you remarks. I am uninterested in whether places are good or bad. I don't even know what that would mean. I"m interested in comparing metros. No man and no metro is an island. The only real measure of any person, place, or thing is other people, places, or things. The "problem" isn't shilling for columbus, it's pretending that you're not. By the way, I don't know what "it" is or what my agenda is? Could you tell us?

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

 

 

Quite a pissing match you all have going on here

 

A person who criticize others for doing what they themselves have just done is 'throwing stones at glass houses'.

 

'thowing stones inside a glass house'...... the phrase loses its meaning when you paint the thrower as someone wandering around finding glass houses to throw stones at

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

 

Thank you.  And well said.

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

There's also this old adage that states that respect is something that must be earned--if such is true of men, couldn't it also be true of cities?    :|

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

There's also this old adage that states that respect is something that must be earned--if such is true of men, couldn't it also be true of cities?    :|

I think there are things that all of ohio cities have done at some point to either gain or lose respect.I will say that I feel that the infighting amongst ohio's cities holds the state back and creates a culture of negativity which permeates outside of the state and can be seen in some of the negative articles and perceptions of ohio's cities that have been seen over the years.

If 'being respectful of cities' means attacking evidence of those cities that you don't like or the people who present such evidence, I can't go along with that. But, I do try to be respectful of the intelligence of posters her and peddling propaganda as analysis is not respectful of posters intelligence.

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

There's also this old adage that states that respect is something that must be earned--if such is true of men, couldn't it also be true of cities?    :|

I think there are things that all of ohio cities have done at some point to either gain or lose respect.I will say that I feel that the infighting amongst ohio's cities holds the state back and creates a culture of negativity which permeates outside of the state and can be seen in some of the negative articles and perceptions of ohio's cities that have been seen over the years.

 

To be fair, I think Ohio's cities have more to worry about regarding the perception of them outside of the state than what someone from another Ohio city thinks.  Most of the perception of Ohio seems to be dated back to the 1960s and 1970s.  The state still has significant problems, but nothing like in the past.  The issue now is to get the kind of dynamic leadership that can bring cities back, something I don't think most Ohio cities have right now.

A person who criticize others for doing what they themselves have just done is 'throwing stones at glass houses'. Your posts are transparent promotions of Columbus in every way. Paid PR campaigns for the columbus chamber of commerce are more subtle and less biased. If you don't see this, you are the only one. Someone who knows they are self-centered and self-serving is an egotist. Someone who does know that they are self-centered and self-serving is a narcissist.

 

I've never mentioned anything about or cared about columbus' public transportation. I'm uninterested in the local politics or public services of columbus as are many columbusers in my experience. I'm not interested in the municipality of columbus at all. I'm interested in the columbus area as a metropolitan economy. I'm interested in improving understandings of columbus and other metros in the midwest and beyond. I'm somewhat interested in why columbus or any other metro is the way it is, but I am mainly interested in more fully understanding midwest metro economies. Such understandings are not simple, easy, or self-evident. Improving our understandings of ohio's metros is the reason this forum exists. That is why I post here.

 

I'm really not going to do this whole game with you again.  I just hope you don't think I actually believe any of the crap you just stated, because we both know that you're just as biased as any other person here and it's not just about learning and understanding the ways of the metro.  Your agenda is as clear as you seem to believe mine is. 

 

And for the record, if I wanted to declare myself gd CEO of the Columbus PR Group, you really have no particularly reason to have a problem with that.  Not one reason to have that bother you as much as it clearly does.  I like Columbus, I will continue to use information to argue that it is a good place in the same way that I argue this point about Ohio overall.    I'm well within my rights to express my opinion in that way or in any way I want, provided that I don't break board rules.  Please, for the love of christ, let it go. 

 

And I'm well within my rights to respond to you remarks. I am uninterested in whether places are good or bad. I don't even know what that would mean. I"m interested in comparing metros. No man and no metro is an island. The only real measure of any person, place, or thing is other people, places, or things. The "problem" isn't shilling for columbus, it's pretending that you're not. By the way, I don't know what "it" is or what my agenda is? Could you tell us?

 

Matt, even if you think all I ever do is "shill for Columbus", I'm still not sure how that explains the near constant and not-as-subtle-as-you-think insults, both towards me and the city.  I really don't care how you feel about me or the city, but I do care about how it gets dragged into every thread we're both involved in.  You have tried to do the same thing in my Jobs thread, and whether or not *that* is your agenda, it definitely seems like that's where it always goes.  I wouldn't care if you spent every single day posting data that showed Cincinnati in a positive way, because I know you live there and like it.  The main thing I've always had a problem with is criticism just to crititize, especially if those criticisms were based on stereotypes or innacurate information.  I have tried to "stick to the facts" as much as possible in recent months, and for the most part I think that's worked out well.  Whether or not you believe it, most of the time, when I go looking at and collecting data, I have no idea how it's going to make Columbus look, and with stats, they are easily verified by others to make sure that I have presented them accurately and not with a specific Columbus bias.  If you can find any data that I intentionally lied about or tried to mislead about it and you can prove that, I will not post here again.  Otherwise, for the sake of the intellectual conversation that you state you want and appreciate, stop with these games or whatever it is you're trying to do in regards to me. 

 

I think the numbers speak for themselves and jbcmh81 has done an excellent analysis. Also, please remember to be respectful of Ohio's cities on this board.

 

Thanks!  Again, if anyone thinks that the data I present is incorrect or outdated, let me know.  Also, if there's any specific topic someone wants to see data on, I'll try to find it.  I'm a huge nerd when it comes to this stuff.

 

 

To be fair, I think Ohio's cities have more to worry about regarding the perception of them outside of the state than what someone from another Ohio city thinks.  Most of the perception of Ohio seems to be dated back to the 1960s and 1970s.  The state still has significant problems, but nothing like in the past.  The issue now is to get the kind of dynamic leadership that can bring cities back, something I don't think most Ohio cities have right now.

No I agree. My point is that the negativity towards ohio cities from on outsiders perspective I feel has somewhat been perpetuated by the backwards notions that residents of one city have towards another. Its like its fine as long as you aren't making fun of my city. I've worked with people out of state that thought that cleveland was an industrial wasteland. After I corrected them they said they had gotten that impression from a guy originally from cincy. I would say cut the crap. Who cares how you got there and focus on how things are now and how to improve them.

^Agreed.

 

And as far as "earning respect for cities," ALL of Ohio's cities have been earning respect for decades.

...uhh...since when is posting Census numbers "manipulation" or "fan sites for columbus"?  Had he simply posted Columbus data, I could see your point but he posted the state's data for all.  You should be thanking him, if anything, for being fair and straight-forward.

I'm sure that jbcmh means what he writes. It's just that I don't agree. For the most part, it's not a question of lies or out-of-date or inaccurate data. It is the difference between the 'truth' and the 'whole truth'.  While it is true that Hilter didn't smoke and pushed an anti-smoking public health campaign in nazi Germany, that is far from the monstrous 'whole truth' about Hitler. New evidence of Hitler's life is still being found today and the debate about his life goes on. No one can ever have the 'whole truth' about anything. Just because someone feels that they have presented a 'complete' picture of a topic doesn't mean that others must agree. It is not possible to write a statement about anything that is immune to criticism.

 

There must be a "i love columbus' site where people can share their love of columbus. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and other cites has such sites. If there isn't, start one. But trying to turn threads on urbanohio into fan sites for columbus seems to go against the stated purpose and spirit of urbanohio. Cities, states, or countries aren't good or bad, people are. But people can't make moral choices about where to live or work if they don't know what their choices are. Trying to manipulate or cut off discussion of ohio metros deprives the readers of urbanohio of a way to inform ourselves so they can make these decisions for ourselves.

 

I am willing to find stats or information on just about any topic related to a metro that someone deems interesting.  If you truly believe that I'm not offering up the "whole truth", then please, by all means, if you want to see something specific, all you need to do is ask.  So far, I don't believe I've found any set of data on any topic that you don't have a problem with, so at this point I really have no idea what you're after.  And I realize that specific stats don't tell an entire metro story, but then again, I'm not trying to tell an entire story.  I'm trying to tell the story about *those* individual stats and nothing more.  You can criticize me for posting it, I guess, but I'm not sure why.  I don't do the studies or count the numbers, I'm just reporting it because I find them interesting and think others will too.  If you don't like the numbers and disagree with them, that's perfectly fine, but if you think they're wrong then offer up some evidence why, don't just say they're wrong and claim I have a Columbus bias.  The 2nd paragaph is just hyperbole and it's silly.  I like Columbus, not denying that by any means, and will debate in that regard.  But like it or not, I can't convince the BLS or Brookings or the US Census to artificially make Columbus better.  The numbers are what they are.

I'm sure that jbcmh means what he writes. It's just that I don't agree. For the most part, it's not a question of lies or out-of-date or inaccurate data. It is the difference between the 'truth' and the 'whole truth'.  While it is true that Hilter didn't smoke and pushed an anti-smoking public health campaign in nazi Germany, that is far from the monstrous 'whole truth' about Hitler. New evidence of Hitler's life is still being found today and the debate about his life goes on. No one can ever have the 'whole truth' about anything. Just because someone feels that they have presented a 'complete' picture of a topic doesn't mean that others must agree. It is not possible to write a statement about anything that is immune to criticism.

 

There must be a "i love columbus' site where people can share their love of columbus. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and other cites has such sites. If there isn't, start one. But trying to turn threads on urbanohio into fan sites for columbus seems to go against the stated purpose and spirit of urbanohio. Cities, states, or countries aren't good or bad, people are. But people can't make moral choices about where to live or work if they don't know what their choices are. Trying to manipulate or cut off discussion of ohio metros deprives the readers of urbanohio of a way to inform ourselves so they can make these decisions for ourselves.

 

Matt, why do you think you're often the only one arguing from a certain side? I mean usually there are different camps including a few people on both sides. But it's a frequent occurrence that you're the only one arguing your points. Why do you think that is?

I suggest that if you do genuinely feel that a person's existence; not their words, their existence, is antithetical to the discussion of ohio's metros then you should consider reassessing your life and questioning your emotional health. I have questioned jbcmh's characterizations of ohio metros. He has questioned my motives. I have defended myself and my views. No discussions of terrorism, no rascist aspersions, no threats of violence, credible or not, no descriptions of the inhabitants of metros as somehow less ethical or moral than the inhabitants of other metros. To suggest that someone who disagrees with the economic and demographic characteristics of ohio metros is a threat to the existence of urbanohio is truly, deeply, and utterly pathetic. Ask yourself, would you say the same in person? If so, get help. I would say everything in person that I've written here.

Matt, why do you think you're often the only one arguing from a certain side? I mean usually there are different camps including a few people on both sides. But it's a frequent occurrence that you're the only one arguing your points. Why do you think that is?

While it may seem that Matt often stands alone, actually he may not.  An untold number of U/O members may be equally concerned about the reams of stats that routinely accompany the Columbus-boosterism that materializes here, but not many of us possess the patience, the expertise, or the time to challenge this insidious deluge of statistics.  Numerous times Matt has demonstrated that he possesses the chops to do just this.  Needless to say, it's usually a challenge few other members wish to tackle, so their "silence" doesn't necessarily mean agreement with numbers that too often don't mean anything.  For what it's worth, at this time I stand with Matthew Hall.   

 

 

 

Jesus Christ

Matt, why do you think you're often the only one arguing from a certain side? I mean usually there are different camps including a few people on both sides. But it's a frequent occurrence that you're the only one arguing your points. Why do you think that is?

While it may seem that Matt often stands alone, actually he may not.  An untold number of U/O members may be equally concerned about the reams of stats that routinely accompany the Columbus-boosterism that materializes here, but not many of us possess the patience, the expertise, or the time to challenge this insidious deluge of statistics.  Numerous times Matt has demonstrated that he possesses the chops to do just this.  Needless to say, it's usually a challenge few other members wish to tackle, so their "silence" doesn't necessarily mean agreement with numbers that too often don't mean anything.  For what it's worth, at this time I stand with Matthew Hall. 

 

So posting information freely provided by all kinds of data organizations in the US on an urban forum that regularly deals with related information in multiple ways, is now the work of an "insidious" person (myself) who wastes hours of time compiling them just to make specific cities look worse vs Columbus.  And not only that, but the vast majority of people don't like me or my posts because of it, but only a few brave souls like yourself can stand up to the evil monster that I am.  All this because of numbers that you claim "don't mean anything". 

 

Is that really the argument you're making?

 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ

 

Even he can't save this thread from insanity.

Matt, why do you think you're often the only one arguing from a certain side? I mean usually there are different camps including a few people on both sides. But it's a frequent occurrence that you're the only one arguing your points. Why do you think that is?

While it may seem that Matt often stands alone, actually he may not.  An untold number of U/O members may be equally concerned about the reams of stats that routinely accompany the Columbus-boosterism that materializes here, but not many of us possess the patience, the expertise, or the time to challenge this insidious deluge of statistics.  Numerous times Matt has demonstrated that he possesses the chops to do just this.  Needless to say, it's usually a challenge few other members wish to tackle, so their "silence" doesn't necessarily mean agreement with numbers that too often don't mean anything.  For what it's worth, at this time I stand with Matthew Hall.

 

You have GOT to be kidding me.  "Insidious deluge of statistics." 

 

AGAIN

 

Had he posted JUST Columbus' numbers and stated "this is Columbus compared to ___X___Y____Z____" then you may have a point.  He literally posted numbers.  NUMBERS of ALL the large metros in Ohio.  And believe me, I WISH we had more Columbus boosters on this forum in comparison to the other Two C's!

Matt, why do you think you're often the only one arguing from a certain side? I mean usually there are different camps including a few people on both sides. But it's a frequent occurrence that you're the only one arguing your points. Why do you think that is?

While it may seem that Matt often stands alone, actually he may not.  An untold number of U/O members may be equally concerned about the reams of stats that routinely accompany the Columbus-boosterism that materializes here, but not many of us possess the patience, the expertise, or the time to challenge this insidious deluge of statistics.  Numerous times Matt has demonstrated that he possesses the chops to do just this.  Needless to say, it's usually a challenge few other members wish to tackle, so their "silence" doesn't necessarily mean agreement with numbers that too often don't mean anything.  For what it's worth, at this time I stand with Matthew Hall. 

 

So posting information freely provided by all kinds of data organizations in the US on an urban forum that regularly deals with related information in multiple ways, is now the work of an "insidious" person (myself) who wastes hours of time compiling them just to make specific cities look worse vs Columbus.  And not only that, but the vast majority of people don't like me or my posts because of it, but only a few brave souls like yourself can stand up to the evil monster that I am.  All this because of numbers that you claim "don't mean anything". 

 

Is that really the argument you're making?

 

I wouldn't sweat it.  Most people on UrbanOhio (meaning 99%) see that you're just posting data statistics for a thread titled "Ohio: Census 2010 News & Discussion."  You'll be okay :).