Ohio has 4 major metro areas of over 1 million people including Dayton. Is that good for the state's economy, people and overall governmental functions than having one powerful major megacity like Chicago in Illinois. I would like to hear your thoughts? Thanks. :-)

It's different than a unipolar state like Illinois.  You have more bickering, more money dispursed throughout the cities, etc but at the same time, you'll have more than one "city" (which I presonally prefer over having just ONE "megacity") and more diversity in history, architecture, etc.

I would prefer one city like Chicago is to Illinois, however I prefer Ohio's multiple cities over just one city like Detroit is to Michigan. But to answer your question I think multiple cities really help Ohio, especially since each region is so different and the cities reflect those differences. 

I think having more than on large city provides in state rivalries and the cities are always trying to improve so that they don't fall behind the next city (even though it might not always work) and it gives each region a lot of personality and competitive edge.

definitely multiple cities.  diversity is always a good thing.  im so glad that i had the opportunity to go to osu for school, get away from home, still pay in state tuition, and get to live in a different environment that what i was used to.  look at cali or texas, they all have thriving multi-city states.  places like georgia and illinois have large cities that are magnets to the rest of the state but what about the rest of the state....maybe it gets forgotten about.

It all depends on what you do with state resources, the city-to-city competition/rivalry, etc. Just because we have multiple metro areas of 1 million doesn't make us economically competitive with the rest of the U.S. and the world. Ohio's poor standing in job creation is an example. The few other states that have multiple large metro areas (California, Texas, Florida) all have better job-creation performance than does Ohio. There is no hard and fast rule for unipolar states either, as  Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota and possibly others all seem to be growing economically, while Michigan and Indiana may not be. Make your state's characteristics work FOR your state. Unfortunately, Ohio hasn't been doing that very well in recent decades.

Illinois and Michigan would seem to give you the up and down of having singular mega-metros. Chicago is healthy, so it boosts the state overall. Detroit, the opposite. And in Michigan, legislature-wise, with a weak metro, the rural areas aquire a certain amount of undeserved mojo, which, for one example, gives you inadequate--no, let me rephrase--completely non-existent transportation policy. In Illinois, the opposite.

 

From a purely aesthetic standpoint, I appreciate the multi-metro aspect of Ohio. This is a state of varying cultural and geographical vibes, and having an urban center to bring each region's feel into focus is definitely a good thing.

 

Job creation be-derned, I think Ohio's multiple metro setup contributes to a postive, more broad-based economic footing. Michigan with its monolithic metro certainly isn't leading the way.

 

True, there's a costly duplication of services and resources from metro-to-metro. But should we ever develop (fund) the transportation policy we deserve, we'll have lots of cities within Ohio to connect.

 

(drifts off into his daydream of Logan's Run-style tansit system)