Question about Columbus vs. Cincinnati (Mason, Washington: schools, living, restaurants)

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

Puh-leeese! Cincy (as well as other 'older' cities such as Cleveland and Pittsburgh) has much more culture to offer than Columbus...unless your idea of culture is college bars! Yes, the Columbus area is growing faster than the Cincy area, but the Cincy area is growing...the Census Bureau estimated that the metro area gained 94,586 people from April 2000 to July 2006. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...b07-51tbl2.pdf

Cincinnati is growing more slowly than the US as a whole. In terms of net migration (people moving to Cincinnati versus people leaving), Cincinnati is shrinking. That being said, I agree with your opinion that Cincinnati/Cleveland/Pittsburgh have more culture than Columbus.

[Pathwalker]

Okay, so what can Cincinnati do to change its image and start growing at a faster rate?

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

Cincinnati is growing more slowly than the US as a whole.

True, but isn't its growth about average or even slightly above average for the Midwest and Northeast? I'm glad that the Cincinnati area's growth isn't excessive like so many places in the South and West.

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

In terms of net migration (people moving to Cincinnati versus people leaving), Cincinnati is shrinking.

You're referring to net domestic migration, correct? In another thread, you posted that Cincinnati's overall net migration was +0.10% and that its net domestic migration was -0.76%. Again, when compared to other areas in the Midwest and Northeast, I believe that Cincinnati's net migration stats are at least average...please correct me if I'm wrong. At the very least, I am certain that Cincinnati's stats compare very favorably to other Ohio metro areas except Columbus. (Do you have the net migration stats for Columbus? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could post them or post a link to where I can find them.)

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by WCRob

Okay, so what can Cincinnati do to change its image and start growing at a faster rate?

Interesting question. The first thing I would ask is do you really want to have more robust growth, and if so, why? The second thing I would ask is why do folks migrate, and how does Cincinnati compete against other cities?

I have lived in areas with explosive growth, like out here in Sacramento, CA and in metro Washington DC, and the road structure wasn't/isn't sufficient to handle it. In addition, growth brings other problems too, including crime and environmental issues. Being a city shared by two states, why should Kentucky make a big investment in pushing Covington over Louisville and Lexington? Why should Ohio favor it over the very troubled areas of Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron and Toledo?

What does Cincinnati offer that isn't available at least as abundantly elsewhere? Why would someone move to a city with a state income and city wage tax, if not paying either, or one, in another area? What is so compelling about Cincinnati?

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

True, but isn't its growth about average or even slightly above average for the Midwest and Northeast? I'm glad that the Cincinnati area's growth isn't excessive like so many places in the South and West.



You're referring to net domestic migration, correct? In another thread, you posted that Cincinnati's overall net migration was +0.10% and that its net domestic migration was -0.76%. Again, when compared to other areas in the Midwest and Northeast, I believe that Cincinnati's net migration stats are at least average...please correct me if I'm wrong. At the very least, I am certain that Cincinnati's stats compare very favorably to other Ohio metro areas except Columbus. (Do you have the net migration stats for Columbus? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could post them or post a link to where I can find them.)

Components of Population Change for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006

You're right, I meant domestic migration, sorry about that, my bad. And yes, Columbus is growing faster than Cincinnati which, I think, is growing faster than the other large Ohio metro areas. To me the most depressing one is Pittsburgh (another rust belt city with a cool downtown area). The city is one of the few that has literally been dying off this decade (deaths exceed births) --- that is some combination of an elderly population plus the younger population moving elsewhere. Really sad, but I think the city will stage a comeback.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Interesting question. The first thing I would ask is do you really want to have more robust growth, and if so, why? The second thing I would ask is why do folks migrate, and how does Cincinnati compete against other cities?

I have lived in areas with explosive growth, like out here in Sacramento, CA and in metro Washington DC, and the road structure wasn't/isn't sufficient to handle it. In addition, growth brings other problems too, including crime and environmental issues. Being a city shared by two states, why should Kentucky make a big investment in pushing Covington over Louisville and Lexington? Why should Ohio favor it over the very troubled areas of Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron and Toledo?

What does Cincinnati offer that isn't available at least as abundantly elsewhere? Why would someone move to a city with a state income and city wage tax, if not paying either, or one, in another area? What is so compelling about Cincinnati?

Lots of good questions. My personal opinion is that a lot of these cities will eventually make a comeback for the following reasons:

1. New Urbanism, which dovetails nicely with the green movement and favors cities that A.) are well planned, B.) have a large stock of housing built prior to WWII; and C.) were NOT subject to massive, Phoenix-like auto/freeway centric sprawl in recent decades;

2. Global Warming

3. Housing Affordability

4. (my theory which many will disagree with) - Many of the current "hot" cities have little real industry other than growth itself (construction, real estate, mortgage brokers, etc. etc. - I mean no offense to those of you who work in those fine industries) --- when growth stalls, I'd hate to be around for the implosion.

[JoeP]

First of all, I agree with what MABCle said. However, another reason I think that the national media has been down on Cincy for a long time is that Cincy is viewed as being ultra-conservative, unlike the vast majority of major cities. IMHO, the national media has a strong liberal bias, so it's only natural for them to bash the 'nati.

BTW, in terms of metro area growth, Cincy's (4.7% from 2000-2006) isn't that bad when compared to Columbus' (7%).

Columbus doesn't get attention beyond Ohio or that part of the Midwest.

The corporate conservative media doesn't really focus on either city or many others for that matter, unless something of note happens. Cincy has a reputation of attacking the speech so that has come up over the years - even the conservative news networks covered that (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN etc).

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

Components of Population Change for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006

You're right, I meant domestic migration, sorry about that, my bad. And yes, Columbus is growing faster than Cincinnati which, I think, is growing faster than the other large Ohio metro areas.

Thank you for the link. You're correct that Cincy is growing faster than other large Ohio metros except Columbus. The Cleveland, Youngtown, Toledo and Dayton metros are all shrinking; Akron is the only other one that is growing, and its 2000-2006 growth rate (0.9%) is much smaller than Cincy's (4.7%).

With the link you provided, I was able to confirm what I had suspected - the Cincy metro ranks favorably when its growth rates are compared to other Midwest and Northeast metros. Of the 50 metros that have populations of 1 million plus, 21 are in the Northeast and Midwest if you include Baltimore, Washington and Louisville (the Census Bureau does not - it counts them as part of the South). Of those 21, the Cincy metro area is ranked 7th in terms of overall population growth and 8th in terms of domestic migration. In order of their total 2006 population figures, I will now list the 21 metros along with their overall 2000-2006 growth rates (1st) and their 2000-2006 net domestic migration rates (2nd).

New York: +2.7%, -7.9%
Chicago: +4.5%, -4.6%
Philadelphia: +2.5%, -1.2%
Washington: +10.3%, -1.7%
Detroit: +0.4%, -4.3%
Boston: +1.4%, -6.0%
Minneapolis: +6.9%, -0.8%
St. Louis: +3.6%, -0.9%
Baltimore: +4.1%, -0.6%
Pittsburgh: -2.5%, -2.0%
Cleveland: -1.6%, -4.3%
Cincinnati: +4.7%, -0.8%
Kansas City: +7.1%, +1.1%
Columbus: +7.0%, +0.3%
Indianapolis: +9.2%, +2.9%
Providence: +1.9%, -1.4%
Milwaukee: +0.6%, -4.1%
Louisville: +5.1%, +1.4%
Hartford: +3.5%, -0.1%
Buffalo: -2.8%, -3.6%
Rochester: -0.2%, -2.8%

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Those are percentages. Numerically Cincy is #11 in growth out of the 21 largest markets in the Northeast/Midwest (from your list). Middle of the pack. Then again there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

Those are percentages. Numerically Cincy is #11 in growth out of the 21 largest markets in the Northeast/Midwest (from your list). Middle of the pack. Then again there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.

But don't you agree that comparing the percentages is the only fair way to rank places for growth? IMHO, comparing the raw growth numbers of places of vastly different sizes (for example, Cincinnati vs. New York or Chicago) is irrelevant.

After re-reading my above post, I can see that my 2nd last sentence in it wasn't clear enough. I said: Of those 21, the Cincy metro area is ranked 7th in terms of overall population growth and 8th in terms of domestic migration. I meant: Of those 21, the Cincy metro area is ranked 7th in terms of overall population growth rate and 8th in terms of domestic migration rate. Again, IMHO, the rates (percentages) are the only data that I consider to be fair and relevant for the sake of ranking areas of various sizes.