U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2011, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
I can't say I completely agree. Even at current growth rates, it would take approx. 30 years for Columbus to surpass metro Cleveland, and I'm not sure Cleveland will stay stagnant forever, or that Columbus will grow forever. But anything is possible!
While you're right that Columbus may not continue to grow at this pace, and that Cleveland may not remain shrinking, there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the next 5 years at least.

Here are the 2009 stats (the latest that are availabe on the Census site) on Ohio's largest 3 cities:

Cleveland MSA (metropolitan statistical area): 2,091,286
Columbus MSA: 1,801,848
Cincinnati MSA: 2,171,896

So according to that stat, Cincy is actually the largest metro area. But again, I don't like using MSAs just because they include so many other areas. For example, Cincy includes Middletown, Columbus includes Chillicothe, and Cleveland includes Mentor, etc. All of those towns/cities may be somewhat close, but it's not as if these merely suburbs. They are individual places. That's why I like city-limit data a lot more. That said, here are the growth rates for the MSAs for the 3.

Cleveland: 2008-09 -0.1% or a loss of 2,765 people
Columbus: 2008-09 +1.2% or a gain of 22,026 people
Cincinnati: 2008-09 +0.6% or a gain of 13,253 people.

So clearly, at least based on that data, Columbus is the fastest growing in terms of both people and %. It's literally double Cincy's rate, at least from 08 to 09.

Let's look at 2000-2009 for the same MSAs.

Cleveland
2009: 2,091,286
2000: 2,148,017
Loss of 56,731 or a percentage loss of 2.6%

Columbus
2009: 1,801,848
2000: 1,612,843
Gain of 189,005 or an 11.7% gain.

Cincinnati
2009: 2,171,896
2000: 2,009,651
Gain of 162,245 or an 8.1% gain.

So again, Columbus again has the best gains in the last decade.

Now let's look at just the cities themselves and not the MSAs. Again the stats are for 2009.

Cleveland: 431,369
This number was a 9.7% drop from 2000 and represented the 3rd worst decline of any city over 100,000 people in the nation. Only Flint, Michigan and New Orleans lost more, and it took Katrina to do that to New Orleans.

Columbus: 769,332
This was a 7.8% improvement over 2000, or a gain of about 56,000. The rate of increase has accelerated each year since 2004.

Cincinnati: 333,012
This was a 0.5% increase from 2000, or a gain of about 1,700. However, there has been a slight decline each year since 2007.

So based on all of this, it seems like Columbus is the only city of the 3 that still has strong growth within its borders and that the other two merely have growth in its suburbs. As history has proven again and again, this is a recipe for disaster for the city itself in relation to urban decline. You need a strong central core, not just strong burbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 6,001,953 times
Reputation: 619
Cincinnati is growing without the help of annexing. I don't see how there has been growth just in the suburbs. Cincinnati and Cleveland are seeing much higher amounts of development in their cities than Columbus. Columbus is doing some awesome things, but not on Cincinnati and Cleveland's levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler87 View Post
Cincinnati is growing without the help of annexing. I don't see how there has been growth just in the suburbs. Cincinnati and Cleveland are seeing much higher amounts of development in their cities than Columbus. Columbus is doing some awesome things, but not on Cincinnati and Cleveland's levels.
Not according to those stats. The suburbs, sure, but Cincy itself has hovered between 330,000 and 333,000 for the past 10 years, with a small decline the last 3. You can argue perception all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Also, this is not an argument about which city is doing more projects or development or which city is subjectively "better." It's just about population trends, and currently they heavily favor Columbus. You can chalk it up to annexation, but I think that's pretty simplistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,269,992 times
Reputation: 29451
Actually the thread is about how Chicago relates to its Midwestern relatives...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 6,001,953 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Not according to those stats. The suburbs, sure, but Cincy itself has hovered between 330,000 and 333,000 for the past 10 years, with a small decline the last 3. You can argue perception all you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Also, this is not an argument about which city is doing more projects or development or which city is subjectively "better." It's just about population trends, and currently they heavily favor Columbus. You can chalk it up to annexation, but I think that's pretty simplistic.
No really?! And who ever said it was an argument? It is a discussion on where Columbus is getting its numbers from.

I don't care, developments lead to population growth and money being spent in the city, and what Cincinnati is doing is far more impressive than Columbus. Also, if you look, Cincinnati has reversed its population loss, having more residents than it did in 2000. What is Columbus doing on a scale of The Banks, Flats East Bank, Medical Mart and Convention Center, and regentrification that you see in Cincinnati's and Cleveland's neighborhoods? I love the Short North, German Village, and Italian Village. But Cincinnati and Cleveland are more urban, its a fact.

Columbus is annexing, that is how it is growing. Hell, lets let Cleveland and Cincinnati do the same thing. They would be far more populated as well. jbc, you seem like a cool member, and welcome to the forum. But don't de-rail this thread. It would be cool to have you around. But like you said, numbers are numbers, and Columbus annexes. Compare the city limits. Now let Cleveland and Cincinnati be the same size, population NUMBERS would be far greater than Columbus. They are much more urban. I really like Columbus. It is awesome, young, has a good economy, spectacular urban neighborhoods, and so much more. I stick up for Columbus all the time, even though it doesn't really need anyone to be all positive for it because it has a good reputation minus not having an identity.

Don't turn this thread into what you see all the time in the Ohio forum... a which of the 3C's is the best. Save that for the Ohio forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
I couldn't find area sizes for the 3 cities, but here are the MSA's for them in 2000
Columbus: 3,169.24
Cleveland: 5,347.31
Cincinnati: 3,395.44

Here's what they were in 1990
Columbus: 3,578.8
Cleveland: 1,512.2
Cincinnat: 2,125.0

And Population Density in 2000
Columbus: 490.3
Cleveland: 831.5
Cincinnati: 492.7

And Density in 1990
Columbus: 384.9
Cleveland: 1,210.9
Cincinnati: 683.6

These are directly from the US Census. Now what do they really show? Well in 1990, clearly Cleveland was the most dense city with the smallest total square miles in its MSA. Columbus was by far the largest in area in 1990 with the smallest density, and Cincy was right in the middle.

Ten years later, and look what happened. Cleveland's MSA went up nearly 5x in size!! Cincy added about 1,100 square miles to its MSA size... and surprisingly, Columbus lost 400 square miles.

Even with all of that, in 2000, Columbus had a density almost equal to Cincinnati and about half of Cleveland's despite being 60% smaller.

This, to me, continues to support the notion of strong population growth in the Columbus area despite clearly being outpaced by growth in total area size, and if anything has had a reduction. It will be interesting to see how those trends hold up once the 2010 data is released, but I suspect that we will not see those kinds of dramatic changes, at least not in size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
13,106 posts, read 13,507,872 times
Reputation: 5788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler87 View Post
No really?! And who ever said it was an argument? It is a discussion on where Columbus is getting its numbers from.

I don't care, developments lead to population growth and money being spent in the city, and what Cincinnati is doing is far more impressive than Columbus. Also, if you look, Cincinnati has reversed its population loss, having more residents than it did in 2000. What is Columbus doing on a scale of The Banks, Flats East Bank, Medical Mart and Convention Center, and regentrification that you see in Cincinnati's and Cleveland's neighborhoods? I love the Short North, German Village, and Italian Village. But Cincinnati and Cleveland are more urban, its a fact.

Columbus is annexing, that is how it is growing. Hell, lets let Cleveland and Cincinnati do the same thing. They would be far more populated as well. jbc, you seem like a cool member, and welcome to the forum. But don't de-rail this thread. It would be cool to have you around. But like you said, numbers are numbers, and Columbus annexes. Compare the city limits. Now let Cleveland and Cincinnati be the same size, population NUMBERS would be far greater than Columbus. They are much more urban. I really like Columbus. It is awesome, young, has a good economy, spectacular urban neighborhoods, and so much more. I stick up for Columbus all the time, even though it doesn't really need anyone to be all positive for it because it has a good reputation minus not having an identity.

Don't turn this thread into what you see all the time in the Ohio forum... a which of the 3C's is the best. Save that for the Ohio forum.
How is stating facts about population growth the same thing as having an argument on which city is better? I'm not making those arguments. I like all 3 cities and will defend them against anyone outside of the state for sure. My original point was that Columbus may overtake Cleveland's MSA given its growth rate. I didn't say, yeah Columbus is awesome and Cleveland sucks. Come on.
I have not been in Cleveland in years and so I have no idea what kind of redevelopment is going on there. I was in Cincy in November and thought the waterfront improvements were great and a definite plus.
I think you are right about Columbus overall not having its own identity. For a good portion of its life, it was completely overshadowed by Cleveland and Cincy and that continues to some degree. I don't know if that will change, but I like the direction its going and I have the right to be proud of my hometown and its ability to begin shedding its "Cowtown" image of the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 04:20 PM
 
2,601 posts, read 4,077,212 times
Reputation: 2275
I'm thinking all the Ohio posts should go to the Ohio thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 6,001,953 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI View Post
I'm thinking all the Ohio posts should go to the Ohio thread.
Oh why don't you go make some cheese!

In all seriousness, I thought jbc would have ended it and taken it to the Ohio forum. Guess I was wrong. Back to the topic at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 04:56 PM
 
285 posts, read 556,475 times
Reputation: 199
As I said earlier, I was just using Columbus as an example of how the city that I live in relates to Chicago. I'm sure you can find a thread on the Ohio forum where you can argue which city in Ohio you like the best.

Quote:
Oh why don't you go make some cheese!
?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top