^The constant focus on raw numbers (population, number of jobs, etc.) over the quality of the people and jobs.

 

From the article....

 

The newcomers from abroad are especially appealing. Nearly half of Greater Cleveland's immigrants arrived with a college degree, the study found. Among degreed immigrants, 60 percent hold a master's or a doctorate degree.

 

"That's phenomenal," Piiparinen said. "Even though we don't get quantity, the quality is world class."

 

^That's true of most big cities. It has gotten very hard to move to the United States (legally) without an advanced degree and without money.

 

Rags to riches this is not. It's rich to rich...the more money you have, the easier it is to become a citizen.

quality is fine and great to hear, but thats also a national trend - more quantity would good too. there must be some kind of crisis region usa refugee support going on that cle could participate in? syria? russian crisis?? seems like a lot of fuzou chinese coming lately. get some!

I don't really know where to put this, but here is an interesting read on the convergence of Texas's booming population/economy and its small government philosophies.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain both.  When you are a scarcely populated state (relatively speaking) with an abundance of natural resources, things can look quite grand (see North Dakota).  But when your population booms, especially in sprawly faux-urban centers such as D-FW, Houston, SA, etc., the need for governmental investment often outpaces the increased revenue..... especially when you don't have a state income tax.  I think traffic congestion and water supply issues are just the tip of the iceberg for Texas.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boom-time-in-texas--jobs--traffic--water-worries-143250407.html

 

I'd rather drive in LA now than Dallas--especially if there is any weather. 

 

As someone who occasionally drives in both LA and Dallas (though I avoid driving most of the time), I second this. LA is getting more predictable and is no worse than the Bay Area (in fact, I don't think anything in LA can match I-80/Bay Bridge outbound on Friday evening rush or 101 outbound on Thursday morning rush, or 101 inbound during any evening rush). Why LA has its reputation is due to the sheer size of the place. If it takes you 30 minutes to drive 10 miles in the Bay, it likely takes you 1 hour to drive 20 miles in LA. It's horrible, no doubt, but most major American cities have horrible traffic. LA is just a gigantic city with grossly inferior transit compared to New York (true of all American cities). New York is the only American city where the majority of the people don't use cars, and as a result, I've found its traffic more manageable than the Bay Area and LA. We desperately need to beef up transit in cities like LA (they're on it), SF, Seattle, Detroit, all of Ohio, most of Texas, Atlanta, Miami, DC, etc. Chicago is probably closest to New York, but it's still a huge gap.

 

Dallas is shockingly bad for traffic despite being the only Texas city with a hallway decent transit system. It is kind of shocking for the uninformed, and yes, it can even make an Angeleno or San Franciscan stress out. Dallas is particularly scary, because at night, you see a lot more drunk driving than in California (we're hardcore on that in CA). Combine that with heavy freeway traffic, and it's a recipe for disaster. I've seen cars flipped over on the freeways in Dallas with more frequency than in other cities. Is Texas really easy on drunk drivers or something?

 

It's a weird state. I love the people, especially in Dallas (great style and culture), but there are some things seriously wrong. I agree it's not handling growth well. It's not just one city either. The whole damn state seems sprawled up, but to their credit, there is a lot of urban infill right now (not LA level urbanity, but maybe closer to what's happening in Portland). And they certainly are not dealing with any of the extreme housing issues of the Bay Area where they ban skyscrapers or even mid-rises in most neighborhoods.

 

In Texas, it seems go tall or go home! They're no afraid of big projects. That's one thing I love about Texas. I think Dallas at least will get quite a bit better since it's more pro-urban than most of Texas. DART and related TOD proves this.

DART light rail has roughly 100,000 weekday trips, but that's only 40-50,000 people per day out of a metro region of something like 6 million.  By comparison BART has about 300,000 and Washington Metro has something like 700,000. 

^That's true of most big cities. It has gotten very hard to move to the United States (legally) without an advanced degree and without money.

 

Rags to riches this is not. It's rich to rich...the more money you have, the easier it is to become a citizen.

 

No, this is not even close to true in big cities.  In NYC, less than 30% of 25+ year old immigrants have a college degree.  I suspect it's just as low in CA and maybe even lower in Texas cities.

^BART is not the equal to DART. And BART is over 400,000 now and rapidly climbing.

 

You need to compare Muni to DART. Muni is pretty terrible. It is grossly inadequate for a city with the density of San Francisco and there is no rail whosoever in the North Side (densest part of the city) unless you count a couple of cable cars. As a result, almost everyone owns cars.

 

BART is decent, though extremely expensive for people who live outside the city since there is no monthly pass (pay by mileage). It is much more reliable than Muni and 2-5 times as fast.

 

The problem in Dallas is that they have a modern system, yet a good chunk of the population can't even tell you where the stations are at! There just isn't much transit culture in Texas...still, Dallas has more potential than the other cities since the infrastructure is there.

 

*And we're talking worlds of difference compared to Ohio cities, which are way behind the curve. Dallas having DART is a selling point for transplants. I know ex-Ohioans there using it...sure, they moved for good jobs, but were pleasantly surprised by all the urban infill and transit expansions.

^That's true of most big cities. It has gotten very hard to move to the United States (legally) without an advanced degree and without money.

 

Rags to riches this is not. It's rich to rich...the more money you have, the easier it is to become a citizen.

 

No, this is not even close to true in big cities.  In NYC, less than 30% of 25+ year old immigrants have a college degree.  I suspect it's just as low in CA and maybe even lower in Texas cities.

 

It's true in San Francisco, it's true in Portland, and it's true in Seattle. LA and NY are exceptions to the rule. San Diego too.

 

Also, 30% is national average, so that is saying immigrants are just as educated as natives...

 

And there have been rapid changes since the recession. How many under 25 have degrees?

 

California (outside the Bay Area) and Texas would be lower than the national average. That's true of most areas near the border. I suspect Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico would also be lower than average.

 

Ohio would be way above average because very few people move there without a job or place to live. Ohio is much harder to build a life in. Remember that social mobility study? It wasn't as bad as Atlanta, but still pretty bad...

^Right, so in other words, the particularly high educational attainment of immigrants in Cleveland is NOT true in most big cities. Brookings even has a nice map illustrating the point: see page 8 of http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/immigrants%20singer/06_immigrants_singer.pdf

 

Edit: more to the point, when most cities are an exception, it means you're assuming the wrong rule :)

 

 

I'm wondering if it's really worth having bottomless mimosas at brunch and breaking out the caviar over this study...

 

You know in terms of education levels Detroit ranked sky high, Toledo ranked sky high, Youngstown ranked sky high, Buffalo ranked sky high, and Dayton ranked sky high. That's some good company. :wink:

 

What that tells me is that it might be easier for an immigrant to make it in the Rust Belt than natives...though really, it's not easy for anybody in America now.

 

What do I suspect? Most of the high-education immigrants are filling positions at mega-hospitals like Cleveland Clinic and Toledo Hospital due to the shortage of local labor other than nurses. It can be hard to recruit a surgeon or general practitioner to move to the Rust Belt even if it's a nationally-ranked program. Rarely are those cities first choices...

 

In the Rust Belt, immigrants many times fill local labor positions that natives took in other "more desirable" cities. It's needed for sure, but not really saying much about the local private sector economy. A lot of the cities highest ranked for education in that study also have the nation's highest poverty rates. And their foreign-born percentage is still lower than average (really small pool we're looking at here). It could just be more evidence of the growing gap between rich and poor in this country.

 

The Rust Belt needs more immigrants, period. There aren't enough law-abiding people to fill the vacant buildings and empty lots. Sure, cities like Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland need to lose their gangs and general street thugs, but they're a small part of the greater population. There is vitality in having more people, regardless of "quality" or whatever people want to call it. And I got news for ya, I know a girl I used to lean in with sometimes who has a master's degree and just parties all day and lives off her foreign-born trust fund.

 

There are more trust funders coming from overseas today than there used to be, and they've all got degrees of some sort. The global elite knows no national boundaries. Though you can be sure they're in saltwater coastal cities, not in Buffalo, Toledo, or Cleveland. :wink:

 

I guess you can toast the bottomless mimosas for that.

^You're assuming that CCF and other hospitals look to fill their vacancies with local doctors first and only turn to the international candidates when their is a shortfall.  That's not true.  The Clinic would have no problem filling its staff with grads from US medical schools if it so chose.  The areas I know that international doctors are needed due to shortages are in the family practices for rural communities.

 

quality is fine and great to hear, but thats also a national trend - more quantity would good too. there must be some kind of crisis region usa refugee support going on that cle could participate in? syria? russian crisis?? seems like a lot of fuzou chinese coming lately. get some!

 

If it is indeed a national trend, it is one I want our region to be a part of.  Of course, more quantify would be good too.  There are countless things which would be "good too"...... but I was simply pointing out my preference of focusing on and emphasizing quality over quantity.  Most of what you read completely ignores the former and bases all conclusions about overall area 'health' on the latter.

 

As for refugees, we've had an influx of (I think they are) Burmese refugees in the "121" and I read some article a few months back about how well they are doing here.

yeah, the quantity needs to get much bigger. There is a population shortage. Rust Belt cities should have double their current populations. They've got fresh water, they've got good locations on the Great Lakes, and they've got oversized infrastructure from the days when they did have double the population (instead, we're hearing talks of tearing out roads and utilities). It doesn't make sense for this country to keep using all this taxpayer money building up new cities in far-flung places lacking the resources for large populations. The situation in Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. just seems more and more insane the further you get from it...

 

If I were a Rust Belt city, I'd take anyone who is not a drug addict or gang banger.

I'm wondering if it's really worth having bottomless mimosas at brunch and breaking out the caviar over this study...

 

lol--this is true. the masses of immigrants that have boosted NY's population and revitalized so many of its neighborhoods over the past 20 years have hardly been the highly educated elite.

Well Cleveland will clearly need more low skilled labor to keep filling those bottomless mimosas C-Dawg thinks someone is ordering somewhere.

 

I actually agree that that particular observation isn't necessarily a good thing, because it mostly reflects the very small number of unskilled immigrants, which, in turn, reflects other not-so-awesome things. I just find it hard not to correct manifest factual errors other people asset as fact when relevant to the topic...

 

But this report really has very little to do with immigration, so not sure why that's the focus here.  The main-takeaway, which is consistent with past reports by the same researchers, is that the overall stagnation of the region masks some fairly positive trends that are also going on (e.g., growth in absolute numbers of young, educated adults), even if they're not enough to drive the net numbers.

 

[Edited for typos]

I don't really know where to put this, but here is an interesting read on the convergence of Texas's booming population/economy and its small government philosophies.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain both.  When you are a scarcely populated state (relatively speaking) with an abundance of natural resources, things can look quite grand (see North Dakota).  But when your population booms, especially in sprawly faux-urban centers such as D-FW, Houston, SA, etc., the need for governmental investment often outpaces the increased revenue..... especially when you don't have a state income tax.  I think traffic congestion and water supply issues are just the tip of the iceberg for Texas.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boom-time-in-texas--jobs--traffic--water-worries-143250407.html

 

I lived in Houston and agree!

yeah, the quantity needs to get much bigger. There is a population shortage. Rust Belt cities should have double their current populations. They've got fresh water, they've got good locations on the Great Lakes, and they've got oversized infrastructure from the days when they did have double the population (instead, we're hearing talks of tearing out roads and utilities). It doesn't make sense for this country to keep using all this taxpayer money building up new cities in far-flung places lacking the resources for large populations. The situation in Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. just seems more and more insane the further you get from it...

 

If I were a Rust Belt city, I'd take anyone who is not a drug addict or gang banger.

 

It's this:

 

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Yet most transplants to Florida and other warm areas sit around and watch TV all day and night.  They moved 1,000-2,000 for a warmer place to watch TV. 

Yet most transplants to Florida and other warm areas sit around and watch TV all day and night.  They moved 1,000-2,000 for a warmer place to watch TV.

 

Dude, what?  What are you citing for this?  This is quite a claim.

Yet most transplants to Florida and other warm areas sit around and watch TV all day and night.  They moved 1,000-2,000 for a warmer place to watch TV.

 

Dude, what?  What are you citing for this?  This is quite a claim.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38382866/ns/business-us_business/t/americas-laziest-state-louisiana/#.VAnM9HnjjIU

 

 

 

 

There is some truth to that.  Lot's of people hibernate in the summer in the southeast.  95 and humid day and day is just as tiring as 20 and windchill day after day.  That said, the wintertime outdoor activities are much more plentiful....... more people jog, hike, ride bikes during those months than up north. 

There is some truth to that.  Lot's of people hibernate in the summer in the southeast.  95 and humid day and day is just as tiring as 20 and windchill day after day.  That said, the wintertime outdoor activities are much more plentiful....... more people jog, hike, ride bikes during those months than up north.

 

Do we actually know that for sure or that's just something we think sounds logical but isn't really supported?  And does that mean that activities during the summer in the North are more plentiful? 

 

I lived in Florida, albeit briefly, and really didn't see anyone out and about on bikes, jogging, etc., and this was not in the summer.  But that may be because there is absolutely zero infrastructure to do those things.  I can't imagine it's much different in the rest of the South. 

^ Isn't that just the point though?  People ostensibly move to these places for the nice weather, but they can't actually DO anything in it other than drive their cars or maybe walk the dog in their subdivision.  Few seem to acknowledge just how oppressive the heat and humidity is in the summer down south, which negates a lot of the benefits of escaping harsher winters up north. 

^ Isn't that just the point though?  People ostensibly move to these places for the nice weather, but they can't actually DO anything in it other than drive their cars or maybe walk the dog in their subdivision.  Few seem to acknowledge just how oppressive the heat and humidity is in the summer down south, which negates a lot of the benefits of escaping harsher winters up north. 

 

The south is typically much more suburban and car-oriented than the north.  Walking, biking, and public transportation are virtually non-existent in an area measuring about 700x700 miles. 

^ Isn't that just the point though?  People ostensibly move to these places for the nice weather, but they can't actually DO anything in it other than drive their cars or maybe walk the dog in their subdivision.  Few seem to acknowledge just how oppressive the heat and humidity is in the summer down south, which negates a lot of the benefits of escaping harsher winters up north. 

 

the exception is those that live within close proximity to the beach or water front.  They may be out more.  However, there are a lot of people that drive everywhere and think the "weather" is really an enhancement in their lives.

RT @BloombergNews:

Single Americans make up more than half of the adult population for the first time. http://t.co/1JrSWta60r

Washington Post ‏@washingtonpost  42m42 minutes ago

Millennials can afford to become homeowners — just not where most of them live http://wapo.st/1GdTCtb 

 

Where Young College Graduates Are Choosing to Live

 

When young college graduates decide where to move, they are not just looking at the usual suspects, like New York, Washington and San Francisco. Other cities are increasing their share of these valuable residents at an even higher rate and have reached a high overall percentage, led by Denver, San Diego, Nashville, Salt Lake City and Portland, Ore., according to a report published Monday by City Observatory, a new think tank.

 

The entire article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/upshot/where-young-college-graduates-are-choosing-to-live.html?WT.mc_id=2015-Q1-KEYWEE-AUD_DEV-0101-0331&WT.mc_ev=click&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1420088400&bicmet=1451624400&ad-keywords=KEYWEEAD&kwp_0=7198&kwp_1=119129&kwp_4=53937&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Wooo 1%!!! With an overall population loss, that's not bad.

It's interesting Cincinnati and Dayton is starting to be recognized in an international scale. Cleveland Akron Canton too.

 

http://citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html

^That site is either not including Canton or the numbers are wrong.

in the notes, it says, 'incl. Akron'.  so its not including Canton.

Urbanized area. In the USA case consolidated urban area(CUA). Not total MSA or CSA. The international community don't follow the same criteria as the USA definitions.

Yep.  CinDay is more than 2.7m by our definitions.

^ Yes. CinDay is more like 3.2m.

^ Yes. CinDay is more like 3.2m.

 

"CinDay" doesn't exist as a metro, though.  If you want to maybe have it be a region, like SWO, similar to NEO, that might work as a description, but officially, there is no such thing otherwise.  The combined metro has been talked about for many years, and it's never happened.  It may in the future, but at least through 2013, it didn't meet the requirements. 

I would think it would be classified as a CSA well before it ever reached MSA status.

Ten large metros lost population last year. All are in OH, PA, upstate NY, and CT. http://t.co/RuiAJzOMNT

Ten large metros lost population last year. All are in OH, PA, upstate NY, and CT. http://t.co/RuiAJzOMNT

 

July 1, 2014 Estimate, Change from July 1, 2013 and Change since 2010 Census

Cleveland

Cuyahoga County: 1,259,828 -4,009 -20,294

Geauga County: 94,295 +236 +906

Lake County: 229,230 -404 -811

Lorain County: 304,216 +1,210 +2,860

Medina County: 176,029 +1,237 +3,697

Metro Area: 2,063,598 -1,730 -13,642

 

Cincinnati

Brown County: 44,116 -119 -730

Butler County: 374,158 +2,647 +6,028

Clermont County: 201,560 +1,306 +4,197

Hamilton County: 806,631 +2,202 +4,257

Warren County: 221,659 +2,081 +8,966

Dearborn County, IN: 49,506 -293 -547

Franklin County, IN: 22,934 +5 -153

Ohio County, IN: 6,035 +0 -93

Boone County, KY: 126,413 +1,878 +7,602

Bracken County, KY: 8,406 -34 -82

Campbell County, KY: 91,833 +448 +1,497

Gallatin County, KY: 8,589 +85 +0

Grant County, KY: 24,875 +299 +213

Kenton County, KY: 163,929 +562 +4,209

Pendleton County, KY: 14,493 -86 -384

Metro Area: 2,149,449 +10,913 +34,869

 

Columbus

Delaware County: 189,113 +3,911 +14,899

Fairfield County: 150,381 +1,584 +4,225

Franklin County: 1,231,393 +17,559 +67,979

Hocking County: 28,725 +117 -655

Licking County: 169,390 +887 +2,898

Madison County: 43,918 +646 +483

Morrow County: 35,152 +114 +325

Perry County: 35,812 -120 -246

*****way County: 56,876 +410 +1,178

Union County: 53,776 +396 +1,476

Metro Area: 1,994,536 +25,504 +92,562

 

The CSA

Cincinnati: 2,208,450 +10,716 +34,340

Cleveland: 3,497,851 -1,749 -17,795

Columbus: 2,398,297 +25,493 +89,788

 

Other MSAs

Akron: 703,825 +615 +625

Dayton: 800,836 -809 +1,604

Toledo: 607,456 -974 -2,545

Youngstown: 553,263 -2,866 -12,510

Aside from Cincy and Hamilton County, and Columbus of course, the rest of the state did pretty poorly on this estimate round. 

 

For Columbus, 2013 estimates were actually revised upward, indicating greater growth there than originally thought.  Hamilton County has seemed to accelerate its own recovery as well. 

It's interesting to me that Cincinnati's core county (Hamilton) has considerably fewer people than either Columbus (Franklin) and Cleveland (Cuyahoga), but has larger surrounding counties.  4 over 200,000 - 2 over 100,000 in the Cincinnati metro.  I think that's probably due to several things, including the continued emergence of Cin-Day.  Between Butler and Warren counties there are ~600,000 people, making it only 25% smaller than Hamilton County. The continued growth in this area could really effect the locus of power in the region in coming decades. While not in Cin-Day territory, Clermont county is now also over 200,000, so the 'collar counties' now have roughly the same combined population as Hamilton County. Great to see Hamilton County growing again though, and I hope it's more a result of growth in the city than the burbs. 

I bet one of the reasons Hamilton County doesn't have near the population of Franklin or Cuyahoga County is because of the topography.  I could be completely off base on that though.

 

Also, Franklin County is really experiencing explosive growth, good for them.

Also, the three closest counties in Kentucky are shotgun type counties that all touch Cincinnati borders with dense development near the river.

 

And the difference between Cincinnati and Cleveland's metro area is that Cincinnati can build in all directions, but Cleveland is stopped by the lake. So there are more counties in the Cincinnati Metro than there are in the Cleveland Metro.

 

Columbus has always been mostly contained to a single county.

^ I was going to say basically the same thing, but you beat me to it.  The topography is certainly a factor as well. 

And didn't the far western part of Hamilton County just get connected to the water system within the past 15 years or so? I'd imagine a significant portion of suburban growth in the county is on the far west side.

It's interesting to me that Cincinnati's core county (Hamilton) has considerably fewer people than either Columbus (Franklin) and Cleveland (Cuyahoga), but has larger surrounding counties.  4 over 200,000 - 2 over 100,000 in the Cincinnati metro.  I think that's probably due to several things, including the continued emergence of Cin-Day.  Between Butler and Warren counties there are ~600,000 people, making it only 25% smaller than Hamilton County. The continued growth in this area could really effect the locus of power in the region in coming decades. While not in Cin-Day territory, Clermont county is now also over 200,000, so the 'collar counties' now have roughly the same combined population as Hamilton County. Great to see Hamilton County growing again though, and I hope it's more a result of growth in the city than the burbs. 

 

You also gotta take into account that Franklin County is by far the largest county land wise than Hamilton or Cuyahoga.

Just looked up the land areas for each of the biggest three counties:

 

1) Franklin- 543 sq mi

2) Cuyahoga- 457 sq mi

3) Hamilton- 413 sq mi

^Indeed, but for also food for thought:

 

Columbus city: 223 square miles, 822,553 (2013 estimate)

Hamilton County: 413 square miles, 806,631 (2014 estimate)

^Indeed, but for also food for thought:

 

Columbus city: 223 square miles, 822,553 (2013 estimate)

Hamilton County: 413 square miles, 806,631 (2014 estimate)

 

About 1/3 of Hamilton County doesn't have sewers and it doesn't have direct access to the city via road or rail.  US 52 and I-74 are quite circuitous. 

 

 

Columbus

Delaware County: 189,113 +3,911 +14,899

Fairfield County: 150,381 +1,584 +4,225

Franklin County: 1,231,393 +17,559 +67,979

Hocking County: 28,725 +117 -655

Licking County: 169,390 +887 +2,898

Madison County: 43,918 +646 +483

Morrow County: 35,152 +114 +325

Perry County: 35,812 -120 -246

*****way County: 56,876 +410 +1,178

Union County: 53,776 +396 +1,476

Metro Area: 1,994,536 +25,504 +92,562

 

 

Why is this county censored?

Cuyahoga County 2nd nationally for population loss; region a net gainer for international migration

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/03/cuyahoga_county_second_nationa.html#incart_m-rpt-1