Question about Columbus vs. Cincinnati (Cleveland, Kent: employment, tax rates, statistics)

[Subway]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

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.

I would further add that Cincy ranks even better if you use the official Census Bureau definitions of the Midwest and Northeast - i.e., you do not include Louisville, Baltimore and Washington. Excluding those three Southern metro areas, out of the 18 Midwest/Northeast metro areas with populations of at least one million, Cincy ranks 5th in terms of overall population growth rate and 6th in terms of net domestic migration rate. Thus, Cincy ranks in the top third of all Midwest/Northeast metro areas in those categories.

[JoeP]

Baltimore and DC are Northeastern cities.

oh nevermind, don't want to mess up with everyone's splitting of hairs.... in comparing two cities of close size and location...

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

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.

Yes, I know what you said the first time. That's why I said "numerically" rather than "percentages".

IMHO, no... I think that using percentages is misleading in this case (especially when you limit your sample to cities over a million which puts the smaller cities at an advantage because they have a smaller denominator). For example, Philly added (a lot) more residents than Cincinnati this decade, but by using percentages you are making it appear the other way around.

With all due respect... I've seen you quote these census stats numerous times and I'm not sure what your point is. To me it appears that you are trying to make Cincinnati look like a thriving metropolis. On a national stage, it is clearly not (to which you say "growing fast is a bad thing"). On a regional stage, it's middle of the pack. Which is cool. It is what it is.

This is not intended as a slam on your city... I like "The Natty" a lot. Sometimes my hometown (Portland) is called "The Cincinnati of the West", mostly because of how the metro area is split by a river dividing two states.

PS - thanks for holding on to Greg Oden for us... and no, you can't have him back!

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Baltimore and DC are Northeastern cities

As Subway and I both mentioned, the Census Bureau classifies them as Southern cities. They classify Maryland as a Southern state (more specifically, a South Atlantic state when they subdivide the South into 3 regions). I can somewhat understand that classification because the original Mason-Dixon line included the Pennsylvania-Maryland border. With that being said, however, I think that Baltimore and Washington are more Northeastern socially and culturally, and that most people think of them as Northeastern cities. That is why I included them in the Northeast; however, Subway is correct that they are not in the Northeast officially.

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

IMHO, no... I think that using percentages is misleading in this case (especially when you limit your sample to cities over a million which puts the smaller cities at an advantage because they have a smaller denominator). For example, Philly added (a lot) more residents than Cincinnati this decade, but by using percentages you are making it appear the other way around.

With all due respect... I've seen you quote these census stats numerous times and I'm not sure what your point is. To me it appears that you are trying to make Cincinnati look like a thriving metropolis. On a national stage, it is clearly not (to which you say "growing fast is a bad thing"). On a regional stage, it's middle of the pack. Which is cool. It is what it is.

With all due respect, I think you are simply wrong that using percentages is misleading. Just about all rankings I've ever seen of fastest-growing cities/counties/metro areas/states has used the percentages as the basis of the rankings...it's the only fair way to do it! (I just Googled "fastest growing cities", and every link that came up that I looked at ranked the cities on the basis of percentage changes, including one from this very website. I will post the first few links that came up at the end of this message.) As far as I'm concerned, it would be illogical to say, for example, that a metro area that had a population of 10,000,000 and gained 200,000 (2% increase) is growing as fast as a metro area that had a population of 5,000,000 and gained 200,000 (4% increase).

As for my quoting these Census stats many times, I have usually done so in response to people who say or imply that the Cincy area is not growing and/or is losing population. When you first stated that Cincy's growth is below average on a national stage, I agreed with you but pointed out that when compared to the rest of the Northeast/Midwest, Cincy's growth rate is above average. The point I've been trying to make is that while it's certainly not booming, the Cincy area is growing, and its growth rate compares favorably to the rest of Ohio (except Columbus), as well as to the Northeast/Midwest regions of the country (Cincy's growth rate is in the top third as Subway pointed out). And, no, I didn't necessarily say that growing fast is a bad thing. I said that "excessive growth" is a bad thing. I do not know what the exact boundary is between healthy growth and excessive growth, but certain booming places in the South and West that have substantial problems due to excessive growth come to mind.

Links:
The fastest growing U.S. cities - Jun. 28, 2007
Census Bureau News (broken link)
http://www.city-data.com/top32.html
City Mayors: Fastest growing US cities 2007
Fastest Growing Cities - GovSpot.com Lists

[Subway]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

I think that using percentages is misleading in this case (especially when you limit your sample to cities over a million which puts the smaller cities at an advantage because they have a smaller denominator). For example, Philly added (a lot) more residents than Cincinnati this decade, but by using percentages you are making it appear the other way around.

I strongly disagree - I think that NOT using percentages in this case would be misleading because it puts the larger cities at an advantage. Using percentages puts every place on equal footing. Yes, Philly added more residents than Cincy, but Cincy's growth rate is nearly double Philly's. Also, if you didn't use percentages, you'd be saying that New York, which has a growth rate of 2.7%, is growing faster than Indianapolis, which has a growth rate of 9.2%, the highest of all major Midwest/Northeast metro areas.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by Subway

I strongly disagree - I think that NOT using percentages in this case would be misleading because it puts the larger cities at an advantage.

How?

Using percentages puts every place on equal footing. Yes, Philly added more residents than Cincy, but Cincy's growth rate is nearly double Philly's.

So are you saying that the gap between Cincy and Philly is shrinking? Because that's the implication.

Percentages can be quite useful, but are also easily manipulated because (as I said before) the denominators are not equal.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

With all due respect, I think you are simply wrong that using percentages is misleading. Just about all rankings I've ever seen of fastest-growing cities/counties/metro areas/states has used the percentages as the basis of the rankings...it's the only fair way to do it!

Actually, they look at both... and none of the examples that you linked were limited to the convenient cutoff of 1 million+. How is that "fair"?

BTW, I am not saying that was intentional on your part, since I know it would be laborious to comb through every single metro area and classify them by region.

[dnbnv]

I have lived in both cities for nearly an equal amount of time and in my personal opinion choose Cincinnati over Columbus for just about every reason. Culture (museums, sports, festivals, the river, things to do, etc.) landscape, cost of living, convienence to...anything, schools, etc. The worse thing about Cinti is the racial tension which contributes to the crime elevation.

Columbus is flat and 'growing'. There are tons of bars, restaurants, nightlife and college life. Sports...only OSU football....otherwise there is nothing.

I think Columbus' growth is due to the college and people staying for jobs. Otherwise, Cincinnati rocks.

[JoeP]

Generally speaking growth is a %, because one is referring to a growth rate.

Raw population #'s don't indicate growth in a meaningful way