I think these sorts of unweighted statistics are quite useful because the typical "Top Cities for..." lists insert some sort of distortion...

 

The Cincinnati statistic is a surprise to everyone since there is not an outburst of new construction here.  But as I mentioned previously, there were A TON of vacancies in buildings of all kinds during the recession that no doubt are re-absorbing activity, and many of them don't look like traditional office buildings.  There is a ton of Class B & C office and light industrial in and around Cincinnati where quite often 100+ people work. 

 

Yeah, I'm in the middle on these rankings, it does give us a good sense of what is going on but understand it isn't completely accurate...

 

To Jake's point, he has to be right in the absorption of buildings.  Reading the courier almost everyday, it seems you always see a manufacturer or other type is expanding, those jobs add up over a year.  A place like Blue Ash seems to be filling up and will probably need new office buildings, they are already building industrial buildings.  We just aren't really seeing it with new construction in the city itself.  Though driving around lately in East Walnut Hills, there are 4 active, small to large residential construction sites going on in a very small area.

Since both of you have alluded to the accuracy of statistics as evidence of what's actually going on within MSAs ranked for job growth and construction projects leading to job growth - after examining the four links below, what may be concluded about Cincinnati when rated with its Midwestern peer cities?  All this material is listed sequentially by year and it stems from Site Selection Magazine, a strictly professional publication aimed at a select business audience:

 

http://siteselection.com/issues/2017/nov/top-competitive-cities-central-us-dominates.cfm

 

http://siteselection.com/issues/2017/mar/top-metropolitans-of-2016.cfm

 

http://siteselection.com/issues/2016/mar/top-metropolitans.cfm

 

http://siteselection.com/issues/2015/mar/top-metros.cfm

 

 

 

 

 

^I don't really know what Cincinnati's advantage is over Columbus, Indy, Louisville.  The tax rates and cost of living are similar.  CVG is not an exceptional airport anymore.  My only hunch is that the big Cincinnati corporations attract related businesses, not unlike parts suppliers for automobile plants. 

Yes, Columbus doesn't have that. Our big companies are mostly all paper and digital rather than goods. They don't have "suppliers". Honda does, but few of them are in the city.

My question would be where the people filling these jobs are coming from. Does Cincy have a larger group of long-term out-of-work people who weren't counting towards unemployment stats? Columbus has exploding population growth, and there must be jobs for those people moving in. Cincy does not have exploding population growth, so with a greater gain in jobs, I'm left wondering where the new employees are coming from.

As a percentage the number of people in a metro population who are "unenmployed" versus "employed" might look like a lot of people on paper but in reality you can't see the difference.  10,000 new jobs versus 20,000 new jobs out of 2 million is only .005% difference. 

 

Also, the legacy housing stock in Cincinnati probably distorts its housing new-starts as compared to Columbus, Indy, and Louisville.  It was 2x as big in 1950 and so has WAY more prewar 2 & 3-bedroom "starter" homes and prewar 2-family houses.  During the recession many of these structures were completely vacant but might now have 2-4 people living in them.  So there hasn't necessarily been a lot of new construction...just people moving out of their mom's or brother's house into their own apartments or homes. 

 

I think on the site selector lists it is more evidence to what we see with the BLS Data, I think too and not at my desk but the recent year over year was the best in a long time.

 

Strategically I think Cincy metro performs well because of top business talent at top companies branching off and starting new companies, taking over, etc and ramping them up. I also think that top talent helps the Kentucky area too, with NKY maybe looked as more business friendly than Ohio. It is also centrally located in the United States, it has a very large rail facility, very large air cargo hub,  and I think on the economic development sector we have good leadership.

 

Employment levels just this past year hit and exceeded pre-recession levels, so a lot of the people may have been under employed and unemployed. If the job numbers continue to grow at this rate for 3-5 years, in a few years you will start to notice good population gains, I would imagine.

As a percentage the number of people in a metro population who are "unenmployed" versus "employed" might look like a lot of people on paper but in reality you can't see the difference.  10,000 new jobs versus 20,000 new jobs out of 2 million is only .005% difference. 

 

Also, the legacy housing stock in Cincinnati probably distorts its housing new-starts as compared to Columbus, Indy, and Louisville.  It was 2x as big in 1950 and so has WAY more prewar 2 & 3-bedroom "starter" homes and prewar 2-family houses.  During the recession many of these structures were completely vacant but might now have 2-4 people living in them.  So there hasn't necessarily been a lot of new construction...just people moving out of their mom's or brother's house into their own apartments or homes. 

 

 

Lancaster is like that.

As a percentage the number of people in a metro population who are "unenmployed" versus "employed" might look like a lot of people on paper but in reality you can't see the difference.  10,000 new jobs versus 20,000 new jobs out of 2 million is only .005% difference. 

 

Also, the legacy housing stock in Cincinnati probably distorts its housing new-starts as compared to Columbus, Indy, and Louisville.  It was 2x as big in 1950 and so has WAY more prewar 2 & 3-bedroom "starter" homes and prewar 2-family houses.  During the recession many of these structures were completely vacant but might now have 2-4 people living in them.  So there hasn't necessarily been a lot of new construction...just people moving out of their mom's or brother's house into their own apartments or homes. 

 

 

Lancaster is like that.

 

Cincinnati has TONS of these:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1561981/5619-Surrey-Ave-Bridgetown-OH-45248

 

and these:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1564413/4539-Ruebel-Pl-Bridgetown-OH-45211

 

Yet we still have people running around talking about some sort of mythical "housing crisis" in Cincinnati. 

 

I think people want more modern and new homes. They don't want the headache of remodeling and maintenance of older homes. I bought my first home. An older one(1965), but it needs lots of work. I got a great deal on it in a great neighborhood in Ky.

I think people want more modern and new homes. They don't want the headache of remodeling and maintenance of older homes. I bought my first home. An older one(1965), but it needs lots of work. I got a great deal on it in a great neighborhood in Ky.

 

It's the American way--just be lazy and throw it away and get a new one.  My friend with an 800 year old cottage in the UK thinks we are all crazy. 

I think people want more modern and new homes. They don't want the headache of remodeling and maintenance of older homes. I bought my first home. An older one(1965), but it needs lots of work. I got a great deal on it in a great neighborhood in Ky.

 

It's the American way--just be lazy and throw it away and get a new one.  My friend with an 800 year old cottage in the UK thinks we are all crazy. 

 

To be fair, most houses in the US were not built to last more than 100 years; the balloon construction on many wood-frame buildings needs attention that stone houses do not. Also, land has never been at a premium in the US like in the UK.

Most homes in America are the first structure to occupy that piece of land. It's become an institutionalized practice. Maybe in a few hundred years we'll stop it after we locusts have left enough older communities to rot and have to deal with the huge costs of clean-up and economic isolation of those left behind.

Most homes in America are the first structure to occupy that piece of land. It's become an institutionalized practice. Maybe in a few hundred years we'll stop it after we locusts have left enough older communities to rot and have to deal with the huge costs of clean-up and economic isolation of those left behind.

 

Yet here we are....we've been doing it in earnest now since after WW2. The amount of material that went to landfills for highway construction and urban renewal, is astounding. The number of brownfields left behind by industry that either dissolved or picked up and left for local taxpayers to clean up is unforgivable.

Even in this current environment of relatively intense development in some urban cores, we are still tearing down huge amounts of older buildings to construct new ones. Many times under the guise of "green" building.  All that energy embodied in those old structures be damned.

^I don't really know what Cincinnati's advantage is over Columbus, Indy, Louisville.  The tax rates and cost of living are similar.  CVG is not an exceptional airport anymore.  My only hunch is that the big Cincinnati corporations attract related businesses, not unlike parts suppliers for automobile plants. 

Considering your extensive knowledge of the city, your conclusions are disconcerting.  Most certainly, the four cities share numerous positive similarities, but in no way should they be indiscriminately lumped together like four equal entities.  Although I'm fully aware of each city's strengths, here I'm choosing to emphasize how Cincinnati stands out in compariosn with the rest.  In several key ways, the differences are considerable...

 

(a) CVG.  Yes, sadly to say, most people know what happened to this airport, beginning after 2005.  Thanks to Delta, it crashed and burned.  Yet, in the near future, CVG's Amazon/DHL promises to surpass Louisville's UPS operation to become one of the world's greatest air-freight cargo hubs.  (I'm also keeping in mind Columbus' burgeoning Rickenbacker International Airport.)

 

(b) Corporations.  You touched on it above, but not strongly enough.  The combined presense of Kroger, Procter & Gamble and Macy's all headquartered downtown makes Cincinnati a branding/marketing powerhouse which has attracted a wealth of talented agencies and other subcontractors in support.

 

© Business importance.  All four cities share productive diversity, but not necessarily to the extent and influence of Cincinnati.  Turning to Site Selection Magazine's massive 2017 collection of business information, take note of just how many business categories Cincinnati places in among the top-5 US cities. This prestigious publication's global appraisals are undoubtedly studied by business professionals everywhere . In turn, the full-page summary of Cincinnati's business assets (p.74) stands out beautifully:  http://siteselection.com/cc/wmcc/2017/docs/2017%20World_s%20Most%20Competitive%20Cities.pdf?reload=1493834287207

 

(d) Global connections.  There's probably no better way than downloading this particular USA Department of Commerce Trade link to demonstrate how Cincinnati distinguishes itself from the above cities...and its other peer cities too.  The list alone may present a big surprise for some; for others the PDFs may deliver a complete shock:  https://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/metroreport/tg_ian_003084.asp

 

In conclusion, I'd like to further develop point D in another post entirely, whether either here or the "Cincinnati: General Business & Economic News" thread. 

 

 

     

Unlike Amazon, Apple apparently is not issuing an RFP from suitor cities. From AP...

 

BREAKING: Apple says it will build a second corporate campus, hire 20,000 workers in $350 billion, 5-year commitment to US economy.

350 billion but hire only 20,000? Somehow the numbers are not adding up.

^I can't be 100%, but I think out of that $350 billion something like $315 billion they are talking about is bringing the money back to the United States from overseas and paying the new corporate tax rate on it.

^ They are being very fast and loose with all of their numbers.  They are providing cover for the fact that they are repatriating money and getting rewarded for parking their money overseas.

Columbus is the only Ohio city to make the Amazon short list of 20 cities.

More......

 

UPDATE: Amazon names 20 finalists for second headquarters

Today 9:20 AM ET (MarketWatch)

 

Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) announced Thursday a short-list of 20 metropolitan areas that it has chosen to move to the next phase of the selection process for the e-commerce giant's second headquarters, or HQ2. Amazon said it narrowed the list from the 238 communities that submitted proposals.

 

The areas that made the list, in alphabetical orders: Atlanta; Austin; Boston; Chicago; Columbus; Dallas; Denver; Indianapolis; Los Angeles; Miami; Montgomergy County, Maryland; Nashville; Newark, NJ; New York City; Northern Virginia; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Raleigh, NC; Toronto; and Washington, D.C.

 

Amazon said it would invest over $5 billion in the city where it opens HQ2, and create 50,000 "high-paying jobs." Amazon's stock slipped less than 0.1% in premarket trade. It has rallied 30% over the past three months through Wednesday, while the S&P 500 has gained 9.4%.

Looking at the list, I'd say Chicago or northern VA/Montgomery County MD or Austin. Denver is too far west.  The only reason to go to the others (exc. NYC) would be cheaper land. But it would be harder to attract people to places like Columbus and Indianapolis. And Toronto is in Canada.

I am pulling for Columbus but I think Toronto gets it.

Hat's off to Columbus. They have a well educated, relatively low crime, fair COLA city, and deserve a coup like Amazon.

 

My gut screams Boston, but it's good seeing Columbus rewarded for making the cut.

Aside from Columbus, I think this would be most transformative for Newark, Pitt and Indy.

 

Maybe if it's Columbus it helps to spur 3C rail talk once again.

Meanwhile, a lot of residents in some of these cities are desperately hoping they don't "win."

I prefer for Columbus to get it or maybe Pittsburgh as much as I hate to say it.  I think that the whole state can benefit if it's in Columbus and maybe Cleveland could feel some spillover if it's in Pittsburgh or Columbus.

As I didn't realistically expect any Ohio city on the list, Columbus is a surprise.  That said, that's some stiff competition and I still think that would be one of the least likely winners.  The only thing is that perhaps Amazon wants to be somewhere that its presence would make a far larger impact.  That would help smaller metro chances.

My initial top 4 cities I think could win: Chicago, Austin, Dallas, and Raleigh.

 

I'm sure Amazon has already narrowed that list of 20. I would be shocked if they picked LA, Miami, Pittsburgh, NYC, Newark, Philadelphia, Toronto, or DC.

As I didn't realistically expect any Ohio city on the list, Columbus is a surprise.  That said, that's some stiff competition and I still think that would be one of the least likely winners.  The only thing is that perhaps Amazon wants to be somewhere that its presence would make a far larger impact.  That would help smaller metro chances.

 

Not because Amazon cares about making an impact for people, rather such places are more willing to sell their shirts for them, building new roads, schools, etc.

I think DC is definitely still in the conversation, maybe even in the top 3.  CEO preference definitely plays a major role in corporate location (see, e.g., the likely doomed struggle to keep the Crew in Columbus) and Jeff Bezos recently bought a new, enormous home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood (very near the Obamas and Jared & Ivanka Trump).

Does picking Toronto impact Great Lakes port traffic at all? If so, I want Toronto.  Columbus and Pittsburgh I will root for as well.  Would be a nice coup for the region and there is typically spill over affects

I think DC is definitely still in the conversation, maybe even in the top 3.  CEO preference definitely plays a major role in corporate location (see, e.g., the likely doomed struggle to keep the Crew in Columbus) and Jeff Bezos recently bought a new, enormous home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood (very near the Obamas and Jared & Ivanka Trump).

 

There are even 3 locations within the DC metro on the short list. Plus Bezos other business is in DC.

Does picking Toronto impact Great Lakes port traffic at all? If so, I want Toronto.  Columbus and Pittsburgh I will root for as well.  Would be a nice coup for the region and there is typically spill over affects

 

I'm not sure if a HQ will effect port traffic. 

As a testament to its insane rate of growth, Amazon has been lining up a million sf of new office space in central Boston and it's barely a footnote in the company's overall white color expansion plan, apparently.

I think DC is definitely still in the conversation, maybe even in the top 3.  CEO preference definitely plays a major role in corporate location (see, e.g., the likely doomed struggle to keep the Crew in Columbus) and Jeff Bezos recently bought a new, enormous home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood (very near the Obamas and Jared & Ivanka Trump).

 

There are even 3 locations within the DC metro on the short list. Plus Bezos other business is in DC.

 

I think that is very telling.

As I didn't realistically expect any Ohio city on the list, Columbus is a surprise.  That said, that's some stiff competition and I still think that would be one of the least likely winners.  The only thing is that perhaps Amazon wants to be somewhere that its presence would make a far larger impact.  That would help smaller metro chances.

 

Not because Amazon cares about making an impact for people, rather such places are more willing to sell their shirts for them, building new roads, schools, etc.

 

Yes, that's what I mean.  Smaller metros would roll over more. That said, larger metros would be capable of larger incentives.

 

I think DC is definitely still in the conversation, maybe even in the top 3.  CEO preference definitely plays a major role in corporate location (see, e.g., the likely doomed struggle to keep the Crew in Columbus) and Jeff Bezos recently bought a new, enormous home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood (very near the Obamas and Jared & Ivanka Trump).

 

There are even 3 locations within the DC metro on the short list. Plus Bezos other business is in DC.

 

I think that is very telling.

 

I'm not so sure.  Cost of living and limited space are going to eliminate some of the bigger metros I think

Congrats to Columbus!  Bring it home for Ohio.

It was always going to end up in one of the bigger cities despite the dog and pony show they made everyone put on for them.

It was always going to end up in one of the bigger cities despite the dog and pony show they made everyone put on for them.

 

Now they pretty much have a survey of what every city is willing to offer them.  They will try to extract it for any project they try to do in a city.

They will also use each cities bid against the city of their real choice (which I'm sure they've made six months ago) as leverage to get a better deal for the city of their choice. I'm no fan of Amazon and never use them. I even pay more NOT to use them when I come across different prices for something hard to find. Just like Sears, they won't be on top forever....

The Toronto location might be thrown in there to try to extract federal subsidies too.  That's how the game is played.

 

That said, I still want this in Columbus.  It's good for the state and there could be ripple effects for CLE and CIN too.

In Toronto they wouldn't have to foot the bill for employee health insurance.

^I agree with freefourur. Toronto is in there to play the US off Canada. I doubt they really want to set up a 2nd operating HQ in a different country with different operating and accounting rules.

I'm still thinking it's going to be Atlanta, followed by Boston, Philadelphia, or DC; wild card being Chicago but I have a feeling Amazon wants something in the Eastern Time Zone.  And yes, congrats to Columbus (and Pittsburgh and Indy) for pulling this out.

I'm still thinking it's going to be Atlanta, followed by Boston, Philadelphia, or DC; wild card being Chicago but I have a feeling Amazon wants something in the Eastern Time Zone.  And yes, congrats to Columbus (and Pittsburgh and Indy) for pulling this out.

 

I've always felt an Eastern time zone was for sure. I lean now, as always towards Atlanta. I still think they need a metro of a certain size that can fill the amenities needs and sheer workforce numbers.

^Right, including a large international airport for business.  What better than the South's "New York."

Yesterday Apple announced they are going to have a second headquarters somewhere as well.  Its not a stretch to think Columubus will have a good shot, based on Apple & Ohio State's relationship

 

 

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/05/ohio-state-university-apple/

 

https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/17/16902190/apple-new-campus-headquarters-jobs

Assuming Columbus doesn't get it, hopefully a near miss can bolster support for rail transit among the local business/political community who has been waffling on the issue for years. Amazon's been clear about wanting good transit. Maybe even the state government might start to take a hint about it.

I think DC is definitely still in the conversation, maybe even in the top 3.  CEO preference definitely plays a major role in corporate location (see, e.g., the likely doomed struggle to keep the Crew in Columbus) and Jeff Bezos recently bought a new, enormous home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood (very near the Obamas and Jared & Ivanka Trump).

 

There are even 3 locations within the DC metro on the short list. Plus Bezos other business is in DC.

 

I think that is very telling.

 

I'm not so sure.  Cost of living and limited space are going to eliminate some of the bigger metros I think

 

If it were, they would have already been eliminated. Instead you have some of the most expensive metros in terms of cost of living remaining on the list (New York City, Toronto, Boston, Chicago, three DC metro area sites, plus Los Angeles, Miami and to a lesser extent Philadelphia aren't cheap either). That's half of the top 20. I suspect that land incentives will reduce some of the real estate costs. And there's always a former navy yard, old railroad yard, or other huge site waiting for a project of scale to justify and defray their huge site prep costs.

 

I'd love to see the wraps come off Cleveland's submission. Something tells me it was a very innovative proposal -- for 1985.