Ohio Among the Best States for New College Graduates

 

"With its central location, low cost of living and leadership in key industries, Ohio is an ideal place for young professionals including the 180,000 high school seniors and 78,000 college students who graduate from Ohio schools each year to start their careers," said Ed Burghard, executive director of the Ohio Business Development Coalition.

 

 

Except, according to Next Generation Consulting in Columbus, new college graduates rank urban amenities at least as important as the job they are seeking. NextGen found that if an Ohio city offered a really good job but fewer urban amenities as an out-of-state city with an average job and very good urban amenities, the graduate tends to seek the out-of-state job.

 

Too few of Ohio's "leaders" have yet to figure this out.

I may be wrong, but didn't the hispanic population surpass the african american population as a percentage of the entire U.S. a few years ago?

 

I believe you are correct

Except, according to Next Generation Consulting in Columbus, new college graduates rank urban amenities at least as important as the job they are seeking. NextGen found that if an Ohio city offered a really good job but fewer urban amenities as an out-of-state city with an average job and very good urban amenities, the graduate tends to seek the out-of-state job.

 

Too few of Ohio's "leaders" have yet to figure this out.

 

That's the problem with having a bi-cameral state government that gives places like southeast and rural Ohio much greater representation than it per-capita deserves.

I take back what I said about Cleveland using MPLS, POR, and DEN as models:

 

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city

 

What do you mean?

 

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that Chicago wasn't a very realistic model for Cleveland.  Then I offered up those cities listed in the quote as examples we should follow.  However after thinking about it a bit, and reading that article, I changed my mind, as we're playing a different ballgame than those cities in a number of ways.

 

If you read through the comments of that article, you see that Aaron clarifies his views a bit.  Sure, you can have a diverse city consisting of gays, Jews, and Asians, and many of the western cities fit that mold of diversity, but (and I'll try to say this without angering anyone), those groups don't, in general, face the same types of challenges that African-Americans, and to a lesser extent, Hispanics, deal with on a day-to-day basis.  Cuyahoga County is almost 30% African-American.  King County (Seattle) and Multnomah County (Portland) both have an A-A population about one-sixth the size of that.

 

Now we're treading way off-topic and probably into an area that the moderators don't want to touch, but to bring it all full-circle, my point is that this area is dealing with a different set of problems, and the things that worked in cities in the Pacific Northwest, or the Rocky Mountains, or Upper Midwest, are not likely to work here.

 

And heck, I'll throw this in here, too.  I think that a lot of these lists/rankings are biased towards the newer and whiter cities, and biased against the older and blacker cities.

^the authors should have considered that cities with large A-A populations also:

 

-were cities that grew during the industrial hey-days of the early 20th century

-that this sort of development lead to many inner city brownfields that are difficult to re-purpose and create deadzones near the urban core

-that the sons and the daughters of many of the workers who could find good employment are not able to similar jobs as their parents were able to find

-many of those workers were left behind as the economy changed and their skill set was not able to adapt to the global economic changes

-the resulting underemployed manufacturing class is a huge economic burden on the cities that benefited from prior generations. the cities that did not experience this 1920s growth are able to economically advance while the rustbelt cities try to move forward with 50lb economic weights in their pockets

 

Very well thought-out argument.

 

And heck, I'll throw this in here, too. I think that a lot of these lists/rankings are biased towards the newer and whiter cities, and biased against the older and blacker cities.

 

It's not that I think they are biased, I think that they simply do not understand the urban and aesthetic dynamic that exists in other cities. We have a very diverse urban nation. When my wife's community college-educated cousin who works at a local mall from Austin, TX is perplexed and confused as to why we don't live in her city, I sigh as I realize it will take much more than a casual conversation to get her to understand the basic differences (economic, urban planning, architectural, etc) that separate realities and aesthetic differences between her post-industrial skin-deep collegiate faux urban-chick reality and our complex and diverse urban reality.

Another thing to think about in "cool cities" is the fact that many more blacks now live in suburban-style areas these days. Suburban built environments are not "cool" amongst the white urban set, so any city with a large portion of suburban-style development is going to lose out.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually.  If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer.  Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth.  Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals.  Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors.  My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in.  There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool.  NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually. If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer. Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth. Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals. Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors. My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in. There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool. NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Would Minneapolis fit on that list?

^I don't really see that being the case, actually.  If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer.  Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth.  Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals.  Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors.  My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in.  There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool.  NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Phoenix, Charlotte, the Florida cities and the big cities besides Austin in Texas aren't "cool" as described in the New Geography articles. They are just growing because there's lots of jobs in them.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually.  If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer.  Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth.  Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals.  Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors.  My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in.  There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool.  NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Would Minneapolis fit on that list?

 

Definately.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually. If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer. Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth. Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals. Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors. My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in. There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool. NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Phoenix, Charlotte, the Florida cities and the big cities besides Austin in Texas aren't "cool" as described in the New Geography articles. They are just growing because there's lots of jobs in them.

 

Miami surely has some sex appeal though. Granted, the economy there is not the greatest, but it will be a cold day in Florida before a city with that kind of water and those public beaches is "uncool." Cities with beautiful water and good public access to it will always be attractive to people (it's a big part of Chicago's appeal too). Miami has a legendary bar and nightclub scene, apparently the women are better-looking there than anywhere else in America (but I have my doubts it beats Dearborn), and there is some density. Granted, too much of it is high-rise, but still, they are attempting to be urban. And a city with that great of a harbor will always have its place in the world.

 

Miami is "cool," it's just more equal opportunity. I get the impression having a fancy degree there doesn't carry the same weight it does in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, DC, or Boston.

 

Yeah, Miami is cool, and depending on who you ask, cities in North Carolina and Arizona may also have a bit of a cool-factor, too.  I can't really explain it, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I know that a lot of people roughly my age are clamoring to get to Phoenix or Charlotte, many that don't even have jobs lined up there.

Miami just seems so out of reach for a lot of young people. It's cool in a different way.

It seems like places like Phoenix and Charlotte are cool because we're told they're cool by the media. Many of my friends moved to these "cool" cities without ever visiting or having a job. It's like hanging out with the cool kids in high school. I just talked to a girl who wants to get into PR. She is all about moving to Atlanta. I asked if she applied for PR jobs and other cities and she told me she only wants to live in Atlanta. She turned down a decent PR job in Indianapolis. She told me she would rather be broke in Atlanta than having a good job in the Midwest.  I just looked at her with a blank stare.

 

 

I can't really explain it, because it doesn't make sense to me, but I know that a lot of people roughly my age are clamoring to get to Phoenix or Charlotte, many that don't even have jobs lined up there.

 

A few of my friends thought so as well... then moved away when they realized they were wrong.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually.  If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer.  Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth.  Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals.  Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors.  My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in.  There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool.  NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Would Minneapolis fit on that list?

 

Definately.

 

Wait, I missed it.  Are you putting Minneapolis on a list of suburban places or places that put historic architecture to good use?

 

I've always thought of Minneapolis as suburban in comparison, but once you're on the streets, walking around, you realize that there's a lot of grit and engaging street-scapes.  I wouldn't put MPLS in the "suburban" column.  I would put them in the historic preservation column however.  Despite the leveling of Eastern downtown for Metrodome parking, the work they've done in St Anthony Main, and around the Mill Ruins is beautiful.  Their warehouse district is alive and well.  And while their neighborhoods aren't very densely built, they've done a fantastic job keeping the buildings they do have standing.

It seems like places like Phoenix and Charlotte are cool because we're told they're cool by the media. Many of my friends moved to these "cool" cities without ever visiting or having a job. It's like hanging out with the cool kids in high school. I just talked to a girl who wants to get into PR. She is all about moving to Atlanta. I asked if she applied for PR jobs and other cities and she told me she only wants to live in Atlanta. She turned down a decent PR job in Indianapolis. She told me she would rather be broke in Atlanta than having a good job in the Midwest. I just looked at her with a blank stare.

 

In this economy, she's insane to turn down a good job unless she's really cute and has a dense resume. And Atlanta? I've heard that attitude in regards to New York and Chicago, but never Atlanta.

 

I've heard it from some black people. ATL has a bit of a "black mecca" appeal (kind of like NYC/SF being "gay meccas").

But that underscores the NextGen survey which shows many young people move because of an overall city experience, lifestyle or reputation, not because a certain job is great. The priority is for the place, not the job.

It seems like places like Phoenix and Charlotte are cool because we're told they're cool by the media. Many of my friends moved to these "cool" cities without ever visiting or having a job. It's like hanging out with the cool kids in high school. I just talked to a girl who wants to get into PR. She is all about moving to Atlanta. I asked if she applied for PR jobs and other cities and she told me she only wants to live in Atlanta. She turned down a decent PR job in Indianapolis. She told me she would rather be broke in Atlanta than having a good job in the Midwest. I just looked at her with a blank stare.

 

In this economy, she's insane to turn down a good job unless she's really cute and has a dense resume. And Atlanta? I've heard that attitude in regards to New York and Chicago, but never Atlanta.

 

I graduated from college in 2008 and Atlanta was a place that graduates wanted to go.  Even from my majority white graduating class at UD.  Atlanta, NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago, and Denver were the places people from my class seemed to gravitate towards.  Of course most of them ended up in Cincinnati and Columbus, but that's another story.

 

One of my good friends actually just quit his job in Dayton and moved down to Atlanta with his girlfriend.  Neither of them had jobs down there, but she decided she wanted to live in Atlanta, so guess where they went?  And wouldn't you know it, she's in PR.  He found a job pretty quickly in sales or marketing, but she's still looking... what a shock.  I'll take my relatively secure, financially sound job in Cleveland anyday over their paycheck to paycheck lifestyle in Atlanta.  To each his own.

^I don't really see that being the case, actually. If you look at the cities that are growing, many (most) of them are fairly suburban and newer. Growth in Pheonix, the Texas cities, North Carolina cities, and Florida is really mostly suburban style growth. Outside of a pretty small downtown area, Austin is very suburban, yet it still is the poster child of 'cool' among many young professionals. Hell, even the best performing cities in the midwest (Columbus and Indy) are way more suburban than their neighbors. My experience in LA, which is built in a pretty suburban way to begin with, but is 'urbanizing' pretty rapidly, is that people still prefer new buildings to live and work in. There are only a handful of American cities that make best use of their historic architecture, and thought of as cool. NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Fran. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Would Minneapolis fit on that list?

 

Definately.

 

Wait, I missed it. Are you putting Minneapolis on a list of suburban places or places that put historic architecture to good use?

 

I've always thought of Minneapolis as suburban in comparison, but once you're on the streets, walking around, you realize that there's a lot of grit and engaging street-scapes. I wouldn't put MPLS in the "suburban" column. I would put them in the historic preservation column however. Despite the leveling of Eastern downtown for Metrodome parking, the work they've done in St Anthony Main, and around the Mill Ruins is beautiful. Their warehouse district is alive and well. And while their neighborhoods aren't very densely built, they've done a fantastic job keeping the buildings they do have standing.

 

Aside from core neighborhoods and little nodes, Minneapolis' neighborhoods aren't as urban on an eastern US scale (meaning, east of the Mississippi) and I would generally call suburban (but not in the modern sense).  It's more streetcar-suburban (ala Cleveland Heights or Norwood) in structure.  That doesn't mean it's suburban like Pike Township in Indianapolis and is in fact quite walkable (like a Cleveland Heights) but it isn't exactly a Mt. Auburn or Little Italy, Cleveland either.

Atlanta is the black mecca for young professionals. I was hanging out with a few friends last weekend and they spent the whole evening talking about how they want to move to Atlanta. Just about every black professional I know either wants to move to Atlanta (D.C. is now a close second) or has lived in Atlanta. It's the land of milk and honey for black professionals. It annoys me a little because until they move to Atlanta they constantly complain how much they hate the Midwest. Most of them refuse to explore the city they currently live in. One of my friends recently told me Cleveland doesn't have any good restaurants and that he loves the restaurant scene in Atlanta. A lot of these young professionals love Atlanta because of its "upscale" black club scene. The city does offer a lot clubs and lounges that cater to young black professionals. I get a few texts a month from one of my friends in Atlanta telling me he just saw a famous rapper or actor at some club.  I send my usual “That’s cool” reply. At some point, you would think some of these people would get tired of going to clubs. I'm in my late twenties and I hate that kind of scene.

Well, the key to this whole conversation is that those of us who value charming, walkable neighborhoods are a small minority.

Well, the key to this whole conversation is that those of us who value charming, walkable neighborhoods are a small minority.

 

I think it's more complicated than that. Many (most?) of the NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, DC fans also value charming, walkable neighborhoods. Those of us who value affordable, charming, walkable neighborhoods that are not hyped by the media every hour are in a small minority.

^ Dating scene is a big draw, if you look at many surveys that have been done by mainstream publications rather than those geared specifically toward the type of people posting on this forum.  I value affordable, walkable communities as much as everyone else here, and will (hopefully) wind up back in Ohio eventually to raise a family, but I’ll be honest: the dating scene in a place like New York City is much more attractive than in Ohio.  That, or I’m just not looking in the right places :D

 

I think there’s a survey in this thread somewhere that included this as a factor, but I couldn’t find it..

 

It seems like places like Phoenix and Charlotte are cool because we're told they're cool by the media. Many of my friends moved to these "cool" cities without ever visiting or having a job. It's like hanging out with the cool kids in high school. I just talked to a girl who wants to get into PR. She is all about moving to Atlanta. I asked if she applied for PR jobs and other cities and she told me she only wants to live in Atlanta. She turned down a decent PR job in Indianapolis. She told me she would rather be broke in Atlanta than having a good job in the Midwest.  I just looked at her with a blank stare.

 

In this economy, she's insane to turn down a good job unless she's really cute and has a dense resume. And Atlanta? I've heard that attitude in regards to New York and Chicago, but never Atlanta.

 

I've heard it from some black people. ATL has a bit of a "black mecca" appeal (kind of like NYC/SF being "gay meccas").

 

That's what I was thinking, too, before I saw your post.  I think that Atlanta has cool appeal for a lot of African-Americans, and your analogy to San Francisco for gay people is spot on.

I made this comment on another message board, but it's relevant here.  No matter what any survey or zeitgeist seems to be in favor of one city or region of the country, the inherent problem with these rankings is that they assume everyone is looking for the same thing in a city.  Obviously a lot of people like warmer weather, which is a big part of the appeal of Florida, the Carolinas, and the Southwest.  But a good chunk of people also prefer the four real seasons that the Northeast and Midwest offer.  This is something that these rankings lists don't seem to take into account, that it's not one size fits all.  The constants are going to things like jobs, taxes, crime, eduction, and cost of living, and thankfully for those of us living in the cities in Ohio that are constantly being crapped on in these rankings, we actually have some control over those things.

OK, it's a ranking of "pain" felt in states not cities, but it's still another list....

 

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2010/7/9/a-state-by-state-pain-index.html

 

 

The big shift starts at 25. People start dropping like flies- lots of marriage in Ohio from 25-27. I find the state pretty frustrating in this department, but then again, I'm poor, so I don't expect any women to look at me as marriage material. I can't raise a family, not even close. Money is a huge factor in marriage. It causes a lot marriages, and it destroys a lot of marriages. Everybody seems to want to marry someone working class or higher. Kids are expensive these days.

 

 

I'm not getting married and having kids until I'm in my thirties! I I don't get why people are quick to rush into that. I want to live young as long as possible.

 

Money seems to only be a big factor if you have big aspirations. I see tons of people who are broke, marry and have kids when they probably shouldn't. That doesn't stop them though and somehow they manage.

^I think you can be married and still "live young".  From what my friends have told me (married or otherwise) the "fun" ends with kids, not marriage.

Now there is a ranking for the "most stressful" metro areas. Cleveland comes in at #3.

 

http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/09/07/detroit-tops-list-of-most-stressful-metropolitan-areas

 

The robberies/100k stat is pretty alarming. Granted, that only takes the city itself into consideration and not the entire metro area. But still, Cleveland is at 827/100k and the second most, St. Louis, is only at 766/100k.

Based on the number of auto-related crimes I know of first hand, I can't say I'm surprised

I think everyone should invest in an air-taser. I think that would stop a lot of robberies, personally. Just zap them and take your money back. The city could buy them in bulk and sell them to citizens at a discount.  :-P You can't count on the police to defend you, hunt down the criminal and find your lost property. They're too busy sitting in a cruiser, stuffing their face with dunkin donuts while trying to catch someone speeding as we're all filling out our own police reports, online.

 

^I think you can be married and still "live young".  From what my friends have told me (married or otherwise) the "fun" ends with kids, not marriage.

 

Yeah, true.

I think everyone should participate in a neighborhood "block watch".  By talking to neighbors, we can figure out who the trouble makers are and keep an eye on them when they are around .  The police appreciate this kind of input.

Now there is a ranking for the "most stressful" metro areas. Cleveland comes in at #3.

 

http://www.portfolio.com/special-reports/2010/09/07/detroit-tops-list-of-most-stressful-metropolitan-areas

 

The robberies/100k stat is pretty alarming. Granted, that only takes the city itself into consideration and not the entire metro area. But still, Cleveland is at 827/100k and the second most, St. Louis, is only at 766/100k.

well the crime stat is of course unfortunate and does drag the area down.  this all said my eight years in Cleveland have been the least stressful of my life. Best income to expenses ratio I have ever had. Affordable housing, going car lite (hate cars!), great amenities, great job. I will really miss it, but think there are so many quality of life aspects that reduce stress. I know people get ticked off when you bring it up, but it is a reality (yet subjective)- The weather sucks, plain and simple. Spouse (especially) and I got seasonallly miserable and that caused stress.  Luckily we were able to get out to someplace warm at least 2-3x a winter. If we were unable to  do that we would have been gone a lot sooner.

^ Dating scene is a big draw, if you look at many surveys that have been done by mainstream publications rather than those geared specifically toward the type of people posting on this forum.  I value affordable, walkable communities as much as everyone else here, and will (hopefully) wind up back in Ohio eventually to raise a family, but I’ll be honest: the dating scene in a place like New York City is much more attractive than in Ohio.  That, or I’m just not looking in the right places :D

 

Yeah, but the women in NYC just want your Centurion card to take to Neiman Marcus. :-P

 

I live in Akron, which isn't even the biggest of Ohio cities, and I haven't had too many problems on the dating scene.  (And the people I know who moved to NYC and Atlanta and Houston, incidentally, have had it worse--largely, IMHO, because they had unrealistic expectations, but I'll kill the Internet if you tell them I said that. :-D)  I'm a shameless promoter of online dating; I've met probably seven or eight decent dates, including two that turned into long-term relationships, online.

 

The job market is a bigger concern and source of uncertainty because even if one person finds a decent job in an Ohio city, the odds of the second partner finding a good job in the same Ohio city are lower than if you're in a larger market.  That matters for people trying to break into the white collar professions, which increasingly demand a certain degree of mobility.  I was unattached when I moved to Akron.  Had I been attached, taking this Akron job--which was clearly the right job for me, personally and professionally--would have been harder.  Likewise, if my current girlfriend turns into something more and cannot get a good job locally when she finishes her MBA, I'll have a further decision to make (and one that I would definitely like to avoid).

Did anyone see the new...or should I say "old" ranking about Cleveland ...NOW featured on Yahoo news front page as Cleveland being one of the most "stressful" places in which to live? It seems there is some kind of major bias this kind of media has against Cleveland and has done everything to further perpetuate negative images and attitudes. What makes this worse is that it just happens to be featured on Yahoo front page news.

^Check out the previous page on this thread- someone linked to it yesterday :).  It's just as dumb-ass today though, that's for sure.

Did anyone see the new...or should I say "old" ranking about Cleveland ...NOW featured on Yahoo news front page as Cleveland being one of the most "stressful" places in which to live? It seems there is some kind of major bias this kind of media has against Cleveland and has done everything to further perpetuate negative images and attitudes. What makes this worse is that it just happens to be featured on Yahoo front page news.

 

Honestly, I think all that local stuff comes up becasue they know where you are logging in from.  I have noticed Yahoo has started doing that.  They would not make the headline about Cleveland if everyone could see that considering that Detroit was number 1.  Also, the news story on yahoo was from WKYC Channel 5.

^ This scenario may be even worse because too many locals in N.E. Ohio already have an inferiority complex... This seems to compound the problem, no?

^ Dating scene is a big draw, if you look at many surveys that have been done by mainstream publications rather than those geared specifically toward the type of people posting on this forum.  I value affordable, walkable communities as much as everyone else here, and will (hopefully) wind up back in Ohio eventually to raise a family, but I’ll be honest: the dating scene in a place like New York City is much more attractive than in Ohio.  That, or I’m just not looking in the right places :D

 

Yeah, but the women in NYC just want your Centurion card to take to Neiman Marcus. :P

 

I live in Akron, which isn't even the biggest of Ohio cities, and I haven't had too many problems on the dating scene.  (And the people I know who moved to NYC and Atlanta and Houston, incidentally, have had it worse--largely, IMHO, because they had unrealistic expectations, but I'll kill the Internet if you tell them I said that. ;D )  I'm a shameless promoter of online dating; I've met probably seven or eight decent dates, including two that turned into long-term relationships, online.

 

The job market is a bigger concern and source of uncertainty because even if one person finds a decent job in an Ohio city, the odds of the second partner finding a good job in the same Ohio city are lower than if you're in a larger market.  That matters for people trying to break into the white collar professions, which increasingly demand a certain degree of mobility.  I was unattached when I moved to Akron.  Had I been attached, taking this Akron job--which was clearly the right job for me, personally and professionally--would have been harder.  Likewise, if my current girlfriend turns into something more and cannot get a good job locally when she finishes her MBA, I'll have a further decision to make (and one that I would definitely like to avoid).

 

There is no Neiman Marcus in NYC.  Trust me there are "take care of me" women everywhere.

^There's one that's relatively close in Paramus.

^ Dating scene is a big draw, if you look at many surveys that have been done by mainstream publications rather than those geared specifically toward the type of people posting on this forum. I value affordable, walkable communities as much as everyone else here, and will (hopefully) wind up back in Ohio eventually to raise a family, but Ill be honest: the dating scene in a place like New York City is much more attractive than in Ohio. That, or Im just not looking in the right places :D

 

Yeah, but the women in NYC just want your Centurion card to take to Neiman Marcus. :P

 

I live in Akron, which isn't even the biggest of Ohio cities, and I haven't had too many problems on the dating scene. (And the people I know who moved to NYC and Atlanta and Houston, incidentally, have had it worse--largely, IMHO, because they had unrealistic expectations, but I'll kill the Internet if you tell them I said that. ;D ) I'm a shameless promoter of online dating; I've met probably seven or eight decent dates, including two that turned into long-term relationships, online.

 

The job market is a bigger concern and source of uncertainty because even if one person finds a decent job in an Ohio city, the odds of the second partner finding a good job in the same Ohio city are lower than if you're in a larger market. That matters for people trying to break into the white collar professions, which increasingly demand a certain degree of mobility. I was unattached when I moved to Akron. Had I been attached, taking this Akron job--which was clearly the right job for me, personally and professionally--would have been harder. Likewise, if my current girlfriend turns into something more and cannot get a good job locally when she finishes her MBA, I'll have a further decision to make (and one that I would definitely like to avoid).

 

There is no Neiman Marcus in NYC. Trust me there are "take care of me" women everywhere.

 

But you forget Begdorf-Goodman

^ Dating scene is a big draw, if you look at many surveys that have been done by mainstream publications rather than those geared specifically toward the type of people posting on this forum.  I value affordable, walkable communities as much as everyone else here, and will (hopefully) wind up back in Ohio eventually to raise a family, but I’ll be honest: the dating scene in a place like New York City is much more attractive than in Ohio.  That, or I’m just not looking in the right places :D

 

Yeah, but the women in NYC just want your Centurion card to take to Neiman Marcus. :P

 

I live in Akron, which isn't even the biggest of Ohio cities, and I haven't had too many problems on the dating scene.  (And the people I know who moved to NYC and Atlanta and Houston, incidentally, have had it worse--largely, IMHO, because they had unrealistic expectations, but I'll kill the Internet if you tell them I said that. ;D )  I'm a shameless promoter of online dating; I've met probably seven or eight decent dates, including two that turned into long-term relationships, online.

 

The job market is a bigger concern and source of uncertainty because even if one person finds a decent job in an Ohio city, the odds of the second partner finding a good job in the same Ohio city are lower than if you're in a larger market.  That matters for people trying to break into the white collar professions, which increasingly demand a certain degree of mobility.  I was unattached when I moved to Akron.  Had I been attached, taking this Akron job--which was clearly the right job for me, personally and professionally--would have been harder.  Likewise, if my current girlfriend turns into something more and cannot get a good job locally when she finishes her MBA, I'll have a further decision to make (and one that I would definitely like to avoid).

 

There is no Neiman Marcus in NYC.  Trust me there are "take care of me" women everywhere.

 

But you forget Begdorf-Goodman

 

NM owns B-G, but that wasn't the question.  Anyway I would shop at B-G over NM anyday!

Everytime I see a list that presupposes some kind of 'death' of this City, I feel compelled to revive one of the, if not THE, greatest photo thread in UO history - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16950.msg314256.html#msg314256

Atlantic City?  Albany??  Hartford???  NEW ORLEANS????  I agree there are probably some US cities that will become ghost towns in the next few generations.  But this list is just bizarre and completely random.  Did the writers just throw a dart at a map of the US?

Don't know if this one made the rounds yet.

 

Another notorious, "dumb-ass" ranking list that has Cleveland on it

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-american-cities-that-are-dead-forever-2010-9#galveston-10

 

That list is pretty entertaining considering Cleveland, Buffalo and New Orleans are either seeing job growth when most of the counrty is not or were never hit nearly as hard as "alive" cities like Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Chicago and Miami  by this latest recession. It's as if these lists stopped counting current economic conditions after 2007.

 

What's frustrating is there is no real link to contact these individuals these lists with facts. Of course the list was made to sell the product, not to really inform anyone.

Really people.  Don't bring fights from one thread to another thread.  Especially not ones that were dumb to begin with.

 

If New Orleans is surviving or making a comeback, it's probably only because of all of the Federal assistance it receives to subsidize its terrible geographic location.

If New Orleans is surviving or making a comeback, it's probably only because of all of the Federal assistance it receives to subsidize its terrible geographic location.

 

New Orleans isn't the only city in a bad location. If the government didn't step in, SF might still look a little more like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

508 square blocks were obliterated. People in San Francisco were warned about it but it didn't stop them from choosing to live there. Hundreds of thousands were homeless.