Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^To be fair, i'm not the one that said it was disproportionate, the article did. I just threw in a quote that would catch people's attention so that they would read the article.
I really wanted people to see the graphic that was included in the article.
According to the graphic (from 2005, i know it's a little old, but the only one i could find at the moment) Ohio’s seven largest metro areas contributed 80 percent of the state's total GDP. The GDP for metro's in Ohio were as follows:
Cleveland - 22.5%
Columbus - 18.7
Cincinnati - 17
Dayton - 7.3
Akron - 5.8
Toledo - 5.6
Youngstown - 3.1
Here's what these numbers look like added up when these metros are classified into regions:
NE Ohio includes metro Cleveland, metro Akron, and metro Youngstown = 31.4%
NW is metro Toledo = 5.6%
SW is metro Cincy/Dayton = 24.3
Central is metro C-bus = 18.7
The rest of the state contributes 20% according to this article
My argument is that the rust belt areas of Ohio contribute way more to the state's GDP than does Columbus and central Ohio which are growing and which i don't consider part of the rust belt.
I'm having trouble finding where Ohio GDP ranks among the rest of the states, but i did find these stats in a 2008-2009 State Budget document.......you can find it on google, but it's in Word form.
Quote:
* Despite its challenges, Ohio is still the 7th most populous state in the nation. As of 2007, Ohio has an estimated population of 11,466,917, an increase of 113,777 since the year 2000.
* The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that Ohio’s gross domestic product in 2007 was $466.3 billion, ranking it 7th in the nation.
* Ohio ranks 5th with 28 Fortune 500 corporations. The state is also home to 59 Fortune 1000 companies, ranking Ohio 5th nationally in that category as well. Ohio has also three cities with headquarters of 5 or more Fortune 500 companies (Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland), ranking Ohio first with Texas.
Not too bad for a "rust belt" state i suppose...........
I know what you are saying. I go to Charlotte a lot for work. Charlotte has its historic sections, but they are very small. The old section of Charlotte is nothing compared to the city of Pittsburgh. Most of the inner city of Charlotte feels like the suburbs of Pittsburgh. You don't have Lawerenceville, south side, Shadyside neighborhoods in the south. Many of those neighborhoods are newer and are similair to what is found in our suburbs. I myself like the old urban neighborhoods of the N.E. and would not want to live in a neighborhood that resembles a 90s suburb.
To each their own.
How is it that you think you know the kinds of neighborhoods we have in the South? The NE does not have a monopoly on urban/historic neighborhoods...I'm not going to list or post photos of Atlanta's neighborhoods that fit this category, but there are a lot of them - and in other cities outside of the NE as well.
Cities like Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Savannah, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Winston-Salem, Richmond, Norfolk, Roanoke, Charleston, Columbia, Wilmington, Greensobor, Savannah, Greenville, Augusta, Mobile, Dallas, Louisville, Asheville, and so on - they weren't just recently inhabited (some go back to the 1700s, others the early 1800s) and all have plenty of old urban neighborhoods to choose from. On the flip side, all cities have their share of 90s suburbia and/or sprawling subdivisions - and that includes Pittsburgh and other NE cities.
I am also from Pittsburgh. THose neighborhoods he listed are really only unique to Pittsburgh. I lived in Atlanta too, and no, those neighborhoods listed do not exist down there. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I agree that cities like Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah have neighborhoods kind of close to them though. You should probably know what you are talking about before rambling on also.
I am also from Pittsburgh. THose neighborhoods he listed are really only unique to Pittsburgh. I lived in Atlanta too, and no, those neighborhoods listed do not exist down there. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I agree that cities like Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah have neighborhoods kind of close to them though. You should probably know what you are talking about before rambling on also.
Good God, who wants them to exist here? You think we're just praying to match Pittsburgh's slummy neighborhoods, explosive population growth, and overal popularity? Yes, every city you despise is just jealous of all Pittsburgh's advantages that we simply can't match.
Ok, now back to reality. I know what I'm talking about, and I believe I mentioned earlier that each city has unique and interesting neighborhoods that people shouldn't expect to find in other cities. Why would one expect to visit Charlotte and find those exact neighborhoods? I'm pretty sure my exact statement was..."The NE does not have a monopoly on urban/historic neighborhoods" amd then I listed lots of cities in the South that have plenty of old historic neighborhoods to choose froom.
You need to at least READ my ramblings before you come back with some lame comment that doesn't pertain to them.
Good God, who wants them to exist here? You think we're just praying to match Pittsburgh's slummy neighborhoods, explosive population growth, and overal popularity? Yes, every city you
Good God, who wants them to exist here? You think we're just praying to match Pittsburgh's slummy neighborhoods, explosive population growth, and overal popularity? Yes, every city you despise is just jealous of all Pittsburgh's advantages that we simply can't match.
Ok, now back to reality. I know what I'm talking about, and I believe I mentioned earlier that each city has unique and interesting neighborhoods that people shouldn't expect to find in other cities. Why would one expect to visit Charlotte and find those exact neighborhoods? I'm pretty sure my exact statement was..."The NE does not have a monopoly on urban/historic neighborhoods" amd then I listed lots of cities in the South that have plenty of old historic neighborhoods to choose froom.
You need to at least READ my ramblings before you come back with some lame comment that doesn't pertain to them.
You are right that southern cities do have older charming neighborhoods. Its the "newer", bigger cities like Charlotte(for the most part) that lack these things seem to be put in the spotlight though.
I am also from Pittsburgh. THose neighborhoods he listed are really only unique to Pittsburgh. I lived in Atlanta too, and no, those neighborhoods listed do not exist down there. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I agree that cities like Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah have neighborhoods kind of close to them though. You should probably know what you are talking about before rambling on also.
Someone already responded to this the way I was going to, but yes, Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are unique. So are Atlanta's. So are Denver's. There is not an equivalent of Sloan's Lake in Pittsburgh or Atlanta (to give a Denver example), but so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239
You are right that southern cities do have older charming neighborhoods. Its the "newer", bigger cities like Charlotte(for the most part) that lack these things seem to be put in the spotlight though.
"The area that is now Charlotte was first settled in 1755 when Thomas Polk (uncle of United States President James K. Polk), who was traveling with Thomas Spratt and his family, stopped and built his house of residence at the intersection of two Native American trading paths between the Yadkin and Catawba rivers.[7"
If I am not mistaken, that is roughly the same time as the founding of Pittsburgh, no?
Someone already responded to this the way I was going to, but yes, Pittsburgh's neighborhoods are unique. So are Atlanta's. So are Denver's. There is not an equivalent of Sloan's Lake in Pittsburgh or Atlanta (to give a Denver example), but so what?
"The area that is now Charlotte was first settled in 1755 when Thomas Polk (uncle of United States President James K. Polk), who was traveling with Thomas Spratt and his family, stopped and built his house of residence at the intersection of two Native American trading paths between the Yadkin and Catawba rivers.[7"
If I am not mistaken, that is roughly the same time as the founding of Pittsburgh, no?
Correct but Pittsburgh's population exploded at an earlier time, giving it more distinct, unique, historic neighborhoods. Charlotte's population exploded at a later time when things such as strip malls and suburbs were big.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You think we're just praying to match Pittsburgh's slummy neighborhoods, explosive population growth, and overal popularity? Yes, every city you despise is just jealous of all Pittsburgh's advantages that we simply can't match. 
