Article in today's (4/5/07) USA Today for USA Metropolitan Areas. (Mods - Feel free to move this if needed)

 

As stated in the articles, Ohio's listed below (Only the five biggest)

 

Population change in states' top urban areas

Updated 4/4/2007 10:00 PM

 

Ohio:   

(First Column is 2000 Population: Second Column is 2006; Third column is % Change)

 

Cleveland - 2,148,010:  2,114,155:  -1.6%

 

Cincinnati - 2,009,673:  2,104,218:  4.7%

 

Columbus - 1,612,841:  1,725,570:  7.0%

 

Dayton -  848,157;  838,940;  -1.1%

 

Akron -  694,960; 700,943: 0.9%

 

Thanks for the informative link.

 

Interestingly, the Columbus Dispatch's take on this is that Columubs is falling behind Indianapolis, which grew by 9%.  (Actually, there's a degree of artificiality going on here.  Madison County, Indiana was in the Indy MSA but was taken out at the county's request.  Add them back in and Indy's MSA population is slightly ahead of Columbus, but the growth rate would slow too - I don't have the figures in front of me, but Madison County has lost population since 2000.  My view is that Indy and Columbus are the closest thing to twin cities in the US).

 

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/04/05/INDYGROW.ART_ART_04-05-07_A1_JN69TF6.html

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati are neck and neck it seems, though I thought Cleveland was closer to 2.2 mm. It will be interesting to see in 2006 if Cincinnati is merged w/Dayton to form one CSA and if Cleveland and Akron remain one CSA instead of one MSA.

Hey...I can live with 4.7% growth.  Thats not too bad (not too good either)!

Cincinnati region gains on Cleveland

April 5, 2007 | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

 

The Cincinnati region's population has grown 4.7 percent since 2000 - and is on pace to surpass the Cleveland Metropolitan area in population sometime this year, according to census estimates released Wednesday.

 

The population of the Cincinnati-Middletown Metropolitan Statistical Area now exceeds 2.1 million people.

 

The Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor area has lost 1.5 percent of its population since 2000 - and had an estimated 9,937 more people than Cincinnati as of mid-2006.

 

Nationally, Cincinnati's growth ranks 15th of 26 metropolitan areas with 2 million or more people. But its growth could be considered healthy for a mid-sized, Midwestern metropolis.

 

The 34 fastest-growing metropolitan areas in America are all in the West and South, with Las Vegas (29.2 percent growth) and Phoenix (24.2 percent) leading the way.

 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Cincinnati-Middletown area as Butler, Brown, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren counties in Ohio; Boone, Campbell, Kenton, Gallatin, Grant and Pendleton counties in Kentucky; and Dearborn and Ohio counties in Indiana.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070405/NEWS01/704050397/1056/COL02

My view is that Indy and Columbus are the closest thing to twin cities in the US

 

There are certainly some uncanny similarities between Columbus and Indianapolis:

 

Both are state capitals.

Both are located on relatively flat terrain.

Both have similar metropolitan populations.

Both are experiencing steady population gain in a region associated with population loss.

Both have two main intesecting streets (Broad and High in Columbus, Meridian and Washington in Indianapolis).

Both have similar highway loops (I-270 in Columbus, I-465 in Indianapolis).

Both have rather poor public transit (COTA and IndyGo).

Both have downtown malls (well, Indianapolis has a downtown mall, Columbus has a shell of one).

Both have burgeoning malls and development in their far north suburbs (Keystone in Indianapolis, Polaris in Columbus).

A trip down N. Meridian looks extremely similar to a trip down E. Broad.

Indianapolis' wealth is concentrated for the most part in the northern suburbs, likewise in Columbus.

Indianapolis' WTHR Channel 13 is owned by the parent company of WBNS Channel 10 in Columbus.

 

Despite all the similarities, however, Columbus and Indianapolis do feel different. I wouldn't say Columbus "feels warmer" than Indianapolis, whatever the hell that means, but they are different. I think the most stark difference is the downtowns. Indianapolis supports a model downtown, of which all cities in Ohio should be envious. Shops and restaurants line the dense streetscapes, activity abounds 24-7, there is constant upward construction (Conrad Hotel, Simmons HQ, multiple condo buildings), a lively arts scene, multiple gorgeous monuments and public spaces, sports, and fun. In a nutshell, downtown Indianapolis is beautiful.

 

Downtown Columbus can't even begin to compare. The sheer size of the downtown area doesn't help, with multiple surface lots scaring the landscape. Downtown Columbus by in large shuts down after 5PM. Unless there's a performance at one of the downtown theaters or a festival going on along the riverfront, there really isn't much pedestrian life during the evening hours. In a nutshell, downtown Columbus has a lot of work to do.

 

However, I do believe Columbus makes up for its lackluster downtown in its surrounding districts and neighborhoods. While the core of downtown Columbus may be quiet at night, the fringes of downtown, such as the Arena District, Park Street, and now parts of Main Street are lively with bars, restaurants, and clubs. The neighborhoods surrounding downtown, such as The Short North, German Village, Italian Village, Victorian Village, Harrison West, The Brewery District, and Old Towne East have become magnetic areas for beautiful architecture, eclectic shops and galleries, superior dining, urban residential life, and all around fun.

 

Meanwhile, the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Indianapolis are relatively quiet. Some neighborhoods around downtown Indianapolis have some beautiful residential areas, however the fun and excitement exists downtown. Indianapolis is home to the Broad-Ripple neighborhood, which sports some eclectic galleries, restuarants, and movie houses, but somewhat lacking in comparison to other urban neighborhoods.

 

I would also say, as a region, that Indianapolis does have more going for it. As the Dispatch article pointed out, the Indianapolis area weathered the recession much better than Columbus, and has seen corresponding growth. Indianapolis is also THE city for all of Indiana (well, except for maybe the northwestern section of the state). Meanwhile, Columbus has 6 other metropolitan areas of size within the SAME state vying for federal and economic dollars. I do remain hopeful, though, that both Indianapolis and Columbus will continue to see continued economic and population growth well into the future.

My view is that Indy and Columbus are the closest thing to twin cities in the US.

 

I think Minneapolis and St. Paul might want pick a fight with you over that last comment. ;-)

Cincy could pass Cleveland soon if based on those numbers, however, having lived in both I would find it hard to believe since Cleveland just feels like a bigger city when you are there.

^ Back in the day Cleveland's city proper population was nearly 1 million, and has an infrastructure for such. I had friends that visited on business and have heard more than once, they didn't know it was that big.

 

The city proper of Cleveland still has about 130,000 more people than Cincinnati. The numbers above are for the entire metro areas.

Thanks for the informative link.

 

Interestingly, the Columbus Dispatch's take on this is that Columubs is falling behind Indianapolis, which grew by 9%.  (Actually, there's a degree of artificiality going on here.  Madison County, Indiana was in the Indy MSA but was taken out at the county's request.  Add them back in and Indy's MSA population is slightly ahead of Columbus, but the growth rate would slow too - I don't have the figures in front of me, but Madison County has lost population since 2000.  My view is that Indy and Columbus are the closest thing to twin cities in the US).

 

http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/04/05/INDYGROW.ART_ART_04-05-07_A1_JN69TF6.html

 

 

That article from the Dispatch was a disaster of anecdotes. Besides the 2% difference in population growth, they look at the differences in terms of which of the cities "feels bigger"? UHH.

 

Anyway, this isn't really news but it's bad for Cleveland, obviously. It would seem to me that 4 to 7% population growth isn't horrible, is it? I'm not an expert. Phoenix et. al. are burning it up, however, but I'd rather live in Port Huron, MI than Phoenix, yech.

 

 

 

 

Cincy could pass Cleveland soon if based on those numbers, however, having lived in both I would find it hard to believe since Cleveland just feels like a bigger city when you are there.

Of course it should. Cincinnati has a much larger metro area as far as land square mile. While Cleveland is against the lake. Cleveland no doubt will have a much higher density which would make a city feel larger.

^ Back in the day Cleveland's city proper population was nearly 1 million, and has an infrastructure for such. I had friends that visited on business and have heard more than once, they didn't know it was that big.

 

The city proper of Cleveland still has about 130,000 more people than Cincinnati. The numbers above are for the entire metro areas.

 

City population is irrelevant these days.

federal funds are often per capita. in ohio, one liquor permit per 2000 residents.

City population is irrelevant these days.

 

I totally agree. I'm only trying to point out why Cleveland may "feel" larger as posted above.

Well, certainly that and Cleveland's horizon lines extending from its major boulevards seemingly go on forever versus Cincinnati's hillside nature, which makes it feel moreso an endless collection of villages hugging hilltops.

Here is the map of Ohio's MSA/CSA areas as designated by census.

Well, as usual, let's assume that Akron and Cleveland are sooooo sooooo far apart that they are different MSA's. But in places like California and even elsewhere in Ohio, other MSA's stretch for 100' and 100's of miles. Truth and behold, Akron/Cleveland is one MSA and *by far* the largest in Ohio.

Well, as usual, let's assume that Akron and Cleveland are sooooo sooooo far apart that they are different MSA's. But in places like California and even elsewhere in Ohio, other MSA's stretch for 100' and 100's of miles. Truth and behold, Akron/Cleveland is one MSA and *by far* the largest in Ohio.

 

True as a CSA Cleveland-Akron is still at 2.9+ million, largest in the state. I wonder what its going to take to become one official metro area seeing as we have so many folks that commute back and forth as well as being in the same economic area and same media market as well as residents in both "metros" that consider themselves living in the Cleveland or The Greater Cleveland area. Though its a bit of a stretch even Canton is part of Greater Cleveland.

Well since we're on the topic....if Cincinnati and Dayton are combined then a CSA Cincinnati-Dayton will be 3+ million.

 

Just some food for thought...

^True, but if Cleveland and akron were one metro, then Cleveland/Akron-Canton(Massillon) would likely become one CSA due to Stark county commuting, that CSA would be just under 3.3 million.  :-)

True...and in all honesty, if Cincinnati-Dayton become 1 metro; then so should Cleveland-Akron (including Canton).  Because I think that it is very reasonable to consider the southern Dayton metro counties in the discussion...I don't think that the northern counties have much relation.  But I guess its an all or nothing kind of thing; so go ahead and combine it.

True...and in all honesty, if Cincinnati-Dayton become 1 metro; then so should Cleveland-Akron (including Canton).  Because I think that it is very reasonable to consider the southern Dayton metro counties in the discussion...I don't think that the northern counties have much relation.  But I guess its an all or nothing kind of thing; so go ahead and combine it.

 

Agreed.

I always thought Cinci's metro area was inflated by the inclusion of 7 NKY counties and 3 in Indiana, but never realized how small they were in geographic area.  I think Lake County is Ohio's smallest at 228 sq mi land area, and some of those Kentucky counties are a lot smaller (Gallatin is only 99 sq mi), and Ohio County in Indiana is only 87 sq mi (wikipedia).  Stupid trivia - Kentucky's 120 counties rank third in the US behind only Texas and Georgia.

 

Those counties on the tip of West Virginia are pretty small too.

Here's how the Midwest metros over one million stacked up, as well as comparison metros about Cincy/Columbus sized:

 

Indianapolis: 9.2%

Kansas City: 7.1%

Columbus: 7.0%

Minneapolis: 6.9%

Cincinnati: 4.7%

Chicago: 4.5% (huge in absolute number terms though)

St. Louis: 3.6%

Milwaukee: 0.6%

Detroit: 0.4%

Cleveland: (1.6%)

 

Here's how some (very roughly) Columbus sized metros in other regions did:

 

South:

Raleigh: 24.8%

Orlando: 20.7%

Charlotte: 19.0%

Jacksonville: 13.8%

Nashville: 10.9%

Memphis: 5.8%

Louisville: 5.1%

Birmingham: 4.3%

New Orleans: (22.2%)

 

West:

Las Vegas: 29.2%

Austin: 21.1%

Sacramento: 15.0%

San Antonio: 13.5%

Portland: 10.9%

Denver: 10.5%

Salt Lake City: 10.2%

Oklahoma City: 7.0%

 

Other:

Hartford: 3.5%

I never understood this logic of "Hey, if we only combine 75 counties into our MSA, our population will be over XX million and we'll be bigger than YY".  Companies and people see right through that. Rearranging the deck chairs with MSA definitions doesn't affect how big a city is really in any meaningful sense.

 

I never understood this logic of "Hey, if we only combine 75 counties into our MSA, our population will be over XX million and we'll be bigger than YY".  Companies and people see right through that. Rearranging the deck chairs with MSA definitions doesn't affect how big a city is really in any meaningful sense.

 

 

 

I agree with that. I don't know why some counties that are hundreds of miles away from the center of a metro area are included in that metro area. In Cleveland's case though alot of campanies and retail stores already consider Cleveland-Akron to be one so its not like the census would just be seemingly randomly adding counties in this case Portage and Summit, to Cleveland.

^ I don't get it either. Why have both MSA's & CSA's? I understand what the difference is but why? Maybe someone more educated in this area can shed some light on this?

I never understood this logic of "Hey, if we only combine 75 counties into our MSA, our population will be over XX million and we'll be bigger than YY".  Companies and people see right through that. Rearranging the deck chairs with MSA definitions doesn't affect how big a city is really in any meaningful sense.

 

 

if you look at atlanta, the CSA is 33 counties, now georgia counties are smaller but that is still a lot of counties

There's a difference between Atlanta and Cincinnati, for example.  In Atlanta, many of these outlying counties are experiencing huge suburban growth.  Atlanta is now over 5 million is a gigantic city.  The metro area added 890,000 since 2000 - that's more than the entire population of Hamilton County, Ohio.  So I don't necessarily think that having Atlanta have lots of counties is awful.

 

I actually don't object to having lots of counties in a metro area anywhere.  What I think is bogus is when people try to inflate their city population by adding rural counties to their MSA or combining MSA's to jack things up artificially.  Atlanta is legitimately growing fast, Cincy and Cleveland aren't.

 

I personally think the CSA/MSA thing is a bit bogus in some regards.  Los Angeles and San Francisco are functionally split into multiple MSA's in a way I don't like, for example.

 

In Cincinnati's case, I am happy with the 4.7 percent growth in that we have 95,000 more people than 2000 (I must say USA Today always does a nice job on this information each year).  I do wish our leaders did have some discussion on how to improve this though.  It seems this used to at least be a topic in the 90's, and we averaged .85% growth a year and now are averaging .76%.  I think the booming economy and unemployment rate around 3% helped, but this is something that should be discussed. 

 

It would be interesting to see a list if you could use specific land areas then do a comparison - such as the number of people within 200, 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 square miles.  That at least would speak to a metro's density.

 

 

Arenn, what you fail to understand is that if the Atlanta MSA/CSA consists of 33 counties, of course there will be large growth. Cleveland's MSA/CSA consists of only 6-7 counties, much of which is bordered by the Lake. The only way for Cleveland to grow is outward and those counties aren't included in the MSA/CSA. If Cincy or Cleveland had its surrounding 33 counties, there'd be even a larger growth period for Cincy and a very positive one for Cleveland (as opposed to the current decline suggested by the latest figures). If Medina and Summit were part of Cleveland's MSA, then it'd X out the people who left. All in all, if Cleveland had 33 counties, OR JUST 15 in its MSA/CSA, there'd be close to 5 million since Youngstown, Canton and Erie, PA would be included.

 

Actually, I am so sick of CSA's and MSA's, we might as well say that Columbus and Cleveland are the same metropolitan region. That'd still be more realistic than these "metropolitan corridor's" along the Rocky Mountains or in Atlanta.

33 counties????? Holy cow. With no mass transit to most of them counties and when gas hits $4-$5 i expect some counties to be dropped, but then again, they would move closeer to the city.

something to remember and this was discussed in a recent cross platform editiorial meeting.

 

Atlanta and Houston had huge gains as many middle class people from New Orleans were able to move to those cities, because they were thought as welcoming black/african american communities, that said middle class and upper middle class familes could move into without little friction.

 

since september 2005, its thought that houston city gained approximately 60-70k people and atlanta gained close to 50k.

33 counties????? Holy cow. With no mass transit to most of them counties and when gas hits $4-$5 i expect some counties to be dropped, but then again, they would move closeer to the city.

 

they have marta...

 

really, the south has no contingency plan for peak oil or even high gas prices.

33 counties????? Holy cow. With no mass transit to most of them counties and when gas hits $4-$5 i expect some counties to be dropped, but then again, they would move closeer to the city.

 

they have marta...

 

really, the south has no contingency plan for peak oil or even high gas prices.

 

Most of the country has no contingency plan for peak oil. Do you think Cincy, Columbus or Indy has created an environment of mass transit? At least Atlanta has MARTA and is starting to really build a lot of TOD and Mixed Use projects along its routes. That puts them well ahead of Cincy, Columbus or Indy in dealing with peak oil.

peak oil= ohio river becomes 2nd or 3rd biggest highway in the country.  Thats Cincinnati's peak oil contingency plan

There's a difference between Atlanta and Cincinnati, for example.  In Atlanta, many of these outlying counties are experiencing huge suburban growth.   Atlanta is now over 5 million is a gigantic city.  The metro area added 890,000 since 2000 - that's more than the entire population of Hamilton County, Ohio.  So I don't necessarily think that having Atlanta have lots of counties is awful.

 

I actually don't object to having lots of counties in a metro area anywhere.  What I think is bogus is when people try to inflate their city population by adding rural counties to their MSA or combining MSA's to jack things up artificially.  Atlanta is legitimately growing fast, Cincy and Cleveland aren't.

 

I personally think the CSA/MSA thing is a bit bogus in some regards.  Los Angeles and San Francisco are functionally split into multiple MSA's in a way I don't like, for example.

 

 

 

Cincinnati is legitamately growing, fast maybe not, but growing nonetheless. I don't think the Cleveland-Akron thing is trying to boost the numbers in any bogus sort of way. Since the areas are so intertwined and so many people from each metro commute to the next for work I wonder why they haven't been joined yet.

I disagree about the suburb to suburb thing, I know quite a few people who commute from Akron to Cleveland and vice-versa and im talking city-propers. 

Using commuting patterns as a criteria for a formula to determine CSA/MSA populations is quite ridicules to begin with.

There really is not that much commuting into the central city...and sometimes there is nearly as much out-commuting as in-commuting.

 

??? Why is I-77 packed northbound every weekday morning and southbound every weekday evening?

 

Same here in Fort Lauderdale, I -595 east is bumper to bumper coming in to the city from the far west sudburbs and same story westbound in the evenings.

There really is not that much commuting into the central city...and sometimes there is nearly as much out-commuting as in-commuting.

 

??? Why is I-77 packed northbound every weekday morning and southbound every weekday evening?

 

Same here in Fort Lauderdale, I -595 east is bumper to bumper coming in to the city from the far west sudburbs and same story westbound in the evenings.

I don't know. Alot of Cincinnati's Interstates backs-up both directions.

Because they're not on a train and you're looking at just the interstate (probably longer distance travel). I'm sure a good number of people are using non-interstates to/from the nearby suburbs.

 

True, I'm not saying that is the case everywhere.

 

Cities like Cleveland with larger daytime populations (something like 100,000 downtown alone) are why the interstates are filled mostly in one direction. They also have major roads (not interstates) that are one direction in or out of town depending on if it is morning or evening.

 

I have been on the rapid only a few times so I can't comment on weather the same holds true for the trains.

Hmmm.  I'm not sure what to make of this.  I agree that MSA/CSA probably isn't the best way to look at cities.  Urbanized area might be better, but it is difficult to get stats sliced that way, and it is much more difficult to do time series.

 

I'll go out on a limb here (though I know I shouldn't do this) and trust the wikipedia stats on urbanized area.  Atlanta is #11 in the US at 3.5 million.  Keep in mind, that was 2000 data an almost 900,000 more people moved somewhere in those 33 counties, most of them likely into the urbanized zone.

 

Cleveland is 1.8 million, Cincinnati is 1.5 million, and Columbus is 1.1 million.

 

I don't know what it would take to convince you that Atlanta is both much larger than any Ohio city and growing at a phenomenal rate that is far and beyond any accident of MSA/CSA geography.  Have you all been there latetly?  The northern arc of the Perimeter is lined with skycrapers.  Heck, Altanta's suburbs generally have better skylines than Chicago's suburbs. Fly into ATL and see the subdivisions go on for miles and miles into the horizon.  This is a real boom town.

 

Any reasonable way you slice it, Cleveland is the biggest city in Ohio, but is clearly hurting.  Cincinnati is catching up, but its own rather modest growth means it won't catch Cleveland anytime soon.  Columbus is the Ohio growth champion. (Interestingly, 3 of the 4 midwest million+ metros with above average growth are state capitals).

 

venice may be the world's best urbanism and has no skyscrapers.

Well, if you want to debate whether or not Atlanta is urban, go ahead.  But it won't change the fact that Ohio (and most of the rest of the Midwest) continues to fall behind the nation in the area of growth.  I salute Columbus here (Ohio's most suburban big city, by the way), which has continued to outpace the national average.

 

Actually, I would suggest taking a drive up Peachtree Ave. and seeing a lot of inner city Atlanta.  Yes, it is not the 19th century rivertown form of Cincinnati (nor as good looking either), but Atlanta is seeing significant reurbanization of its core.  Seattle is another city that has significantly urbanized its core as well.  (I remember being there in the mid-90's and seeing single family cottages demolished to make way for multi-story condo buildings).

 

There's no doubt Ohio's older cities have great urban assets.  The question is whether they can figure out how to monetize them.

 

Well, New Orleans lost approx. 22% of its population. And let's not forget the surrounding areas also hit by the hurricane. Where did those people move to? Atlanta and Houston were not only selected destinations by the government, but they also happen to be the 2 closest large cities. If 100's of thousands of people flock a natural disaster to another city, is this really considered "growth" as you continue to put it, arenn? Is Atlanta's infrastructure growing as quickly as the people fleeing from New Orleans? I don't doubt Atlanta's recent sprawling growth aside from those coming in from New Orleans - just look at all the suburban developments in recent years. All this growth is great, but does Atlanta have long-term assets to help deal with peak oil besides MARTA? The city lacks any rivers, oceans, or lakes and the most difficult aspect of Atlanta for me is that outside of the city center, there is no street grid system. A lot of the growth was centered around developers looking for a quick dollar and a government not realizing that you need to plan for the future. Of course, I shouldn't talk, because some of Cleveland's outer-ring suburbs have this mentality (e.g. North Ridgeville).

Let me interject my favorite tag line of all time: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

 

Instead, plan it, marshall it, access it, focus it and sustain it. Then we can decide if a given sample of growth is good or not. But just because something is growing, doesn't necessarily make it good.

the most difficult aspect of Atlanta for me is that outside of the city center, there is no street grid system.

 

even in the city center there isn't really a connected grid system.  Its all wacky.

 

Let me interject my favorite tag line of all time: "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."

 

Instead, plan it, marshall it, access it, focus it and sustain it. Then we can decide if a given sample of growth is good or not. But just because something is growing, doesn't necessarily make it good.

 

Exactly, thank you.  I wouldn't want 20% growth in Cleveland if all it would bring is subdivisions and power centers from Ashtabula to Sandusky.

Quite frankly, SAVANNAH has the best/largest/most intact urban core in Georgia, and it's a city 1/3 the size of Toledo. Nothing compares to Savannah's core. It's the largest national historic district in America and remarkably beautiful/pedestrian-friendly. It slaughters anyting I've seen in ATL (or Ohio). The funny thing is Savannah still has a lot of sprawl like most American cities, but it has not hurt the core. People just will not give up on historic Savannah, and its beauty/nightlife/food/art/water has made it into one the top tourist destinations in America.

 

i love savannah, I went down there for spring break and literally just walked around for hours every day. its great