Question about Columbus vs. Cincinnati (Cleveland, Kent: appointed, insurance, how much)

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by Subway

BTW, since you are such a staunch advocate of using the rather meaningless parameter of numeric growth when comparing metro areas,

You just won't let go of that, won't you? I brought it up within the context that it didn't seem right to restrict the measure to metros of 1 million + from a percentage standpoint because the bar is raised so much higher for larger areas (and then expounded on this point from several perspectives for metros of around 4 million +). But you and others just keep pounding away, taking it out of context even after I went back to looking at it from a percentage standpoint. Growth measurements become increasingly meaningless when comparing metros and (especially) cities that are not within a reasonably close population band.

I'm curious as to why you never responded to the following from the initial post in this thread by WCRob:


Based on the way you say they should be compared, Columbus certainly isn't growing "so much more" than Cincy. Numerically, Columbus grew by 112,700 and Cincy grew by 94,500. That difference definitely wouldn't qualify as "so much more," the implication of which to me is that Columbus' growth is at least double Cincy's.

Ummmm.... OK.... What is there to respond to? Columbus is growing faster than Cincy. No debate there. Percentage wise the difference is greater.

Another BTW: I noticed that you never responded when OHBuckeye pointed out that Cincy ranks 41st of all 361 metro areas in numeric growth but ranks 194th in percentage growth nationally. If that isn't a perfect example of why percentage growth stats are much more meaningful than numeric growth stats, I don't what is.

Nothing like beating a dead horse. Actually the 41st is quite meaningful when you consider that Cincy was the 23rd largest metro area. It's called CONTEXT. The meaning depends on the CONTEXT.

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

I think the best way to sum it up is to say, "Cincinnati's growth rate is a little below the national average, but higher than all other large metro areas in Ohio except Columbus, and higher than most of the other areas along the rust belt and the Northeast region of the country." OK?

The first two parts of that statement are fine, but the last part is meaningless since Cincy is not in the rust belt. Change the last part to "higher than its region as a whole," and it'll be fine, IMO.

The issue that arises, of course, is what constitutes its region. IMO, it's best to stick to an official and/or widely used region or a combination of said regions. I'm probably in the minority about using the Northeast/Midwest. So, if we exclude that, I think the best choices would be the Midwest (with Kentucky included) or Subway's East North Central + East South Central. Either way, Cincy's 4.7% is higher than its region as a whole, a fact that you continually dismiss; everytime somebody mentions that, you counter by saying that the region mentioned is inappropriate or by saying that Cincy is "middle of the pack" when compared to similar sized metro areas within the region. As Subway mentioned, you get a rather small sample size when you only consider metro areas of 1 to 3 million in a region; when I used the 1 to 3 million comparison, it was for the very broad Northeast/Midwest/Upper South region. I think most people would agree with Subway and I that the best way to compare a metro area's growth to its region is to compare its growth rate to the growth rate of its entire region - simple and all-inclusive. But again, you repeatedly dismiss those comparisons when presented with them. As Subway pointed out, when I first presented comparisons to the entire region, you suggested that it could be argued that it would be better to include the South. Subway then presented an excellent compromise: use the two specific regions (East North Central and East South Central) that the Cincy metro area is located in. Of course, you dismissed it (perhaps because you saw that its 3% growth rate was less than Cincy's 4.7%?). In your reply to Subway's last post, you did not respond at all to his strongest point...IMO, your silence was deafening:

I forgot to address that statement in my first reply. Saying that "most" of the population in the East North Central + East South Central is in the rust belt is blatantly false. Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cleveland are in the rust belt, but Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, all four East South Central States and most of Illinois and Wisconsin are not. It might be 50-50 at best, but "most" is definitely false.

As I pointed out, the growth rate for the East North Central is 2.5% and the growth rate for the East North Central + East South Central is 3.0%. What I didn't mention is that the growth rate for the East South Central by itself is 4.3%. Yes, that's right - the growth rate for the entire East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi), of which the southern part of the Cincy metro lies at the extreme NORTHERN tip, is less than the growth rate of the Cincy metro.

I find it laughable that you suggested that it would be better to compare Cincy to the Midwest + South when OHBuckeye first posted the comparison of the various regional growth rates, but then criticized me when I did exactly that, using the precise regions of the Midwest and South in which the Cincy metro lies! Now I suppose you'll say that Cincy should be compared to the entire Midwest + South so that it can be compared to places such as Texas and Florida...LOL!

[BuckeyezRule]

Let's play nice everyone. =) I'm from Akron, so am biased for Cleveland, but, as far as the Col/Cin debate goes, I'm in Col alot more than Cin, as SIL & BIL live there, so I am partial to Col. I'm still sore that Cleveland had it's own cnty pay for their stadium many years ago, & Cin had the whole state pay for theirs. LOL Note, not the recent stadium. Not sure how that was funded. I'm no longer in Ohio. =( Also, since Col is the capital, maybe that's why it gets more attention. Cleveland is also bigger than Cin. Do they get more media coverage? In anyone's opinion? I think they do, but alot of it is negative, so not sure if it's a bonus? LOL

[Subway]

Cactus Leaguer and OHBuckeye,

Rather than continuing this debate which could go on and on and on, I'm going to make an attempt at a compromise statement with which I think/hope both of you will agree:

Based on the 2000-2006 growth rates, metro Cincinnati is growing slower than the entire nation, faster than the entire Midwest and much faster than the entire state of Ohio. Furthermore, metro Cincinnati's growth rate is below average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas nationwide and average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas in the Midwest.

Agreed?

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by Subway

Cactus Leaguer and OHBuckeye,

Rather than continuing this debate which could go on and on and on, I'm going to make an attempt at a compromise statement with which I think/hope both of you will agree:

Based on the 2000-2006 growth rates, metro Cincinnati is growing slower than the entire nation, faster than the entire Midwest and much faster than the entire state of Ohio. Furthermore, metro Cincinnati's growth rate is below average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas nationwide and average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas in the Midwest.

Agreed?

Yes, I agree with that statement. IMO, the most important part of it is: "Based on the 2000-2006 growth rates, metro Cincinnati is growing slower than the entire nation (and) faster than the entire Midwest." IMO, that, by itself, would be a simple yet fair assessment of how the Cincy area measures up in terms of growth.

[Subway]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

Yes, I agree with that statement. IMO, the most important part of it is: "Based on the 2000-2006 growth rates, metro Cincinnati is growing slower than the entire nation (and) faster than the entire Midwest." IMO, that, by itself, would be a simple yet fair assessment of how the Cincy area measures up in terms of growth.

For the record, I agree, which is why I used the 'most important first' writing principle when composing my compromise statement.

[Sunnydee]

Hey, Rob! I just got back from vacation and I tried to pm you and email you, but the system won't let me. How are you doing?

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

The first two parts of that statement are fine, but the last part is meaningless since Cincy is not in the rust belt. Change the last part to "higher than its region as a whole," and it'll be fine, IMO.

The issue that arises, of course, is what constitutes its region. IMO, it's best to stick to an official and/or widely used region or a combination of said regions. I'm probably in the minority about using the Northeast/Midwest. So, if we exclude that, I think the best choices would be the Midwest (with Kentucky included) or Subway's East North Central + East South Central. Either way, Cincy's 4.7% is higher than its region as a whole, a fact that you continually dismiss; everytime somebody mentions that, you counter by saying that the region mentioned is inappropriate or by saying that Cincy is "middle of the pack" when compared to similar sized metro areas within the region. As Subway mentioned, you get a rather small sample size when you only consider metro areas of 1 to 3 million in a region; when I used the 1 to 3 million comparison, it was for the very broad Northeast/Midwest/Upper South region. I think most people would agree with Subway and I that the best way to compare a metro area's growth to its region is to compare its growth rate to the growth rate of its entire region - simple and all-inclusive. But again, you repeatedly dismiss those comparisons when presented with them. As Subway pointed out, when I first presented comparisons to the entire region, you suggested that it could be argued that it would be better to include the South. Subway then presented an excellent compromise: use the two specific regions (East North Central and East South Central) that the Cincy metro area is located in. Of course, you dismissed it (perhaps because you saw that its 3% growth rate was less than Cincy's 4.7%?). In your reply to Subway's last post, you did not respond at all to his strongest point...IMO, your silence was deafening:

Sorry for the delayed response... very busy at work. Subway's post was like reading a Russian novel, and I was trying to respond to as much as I could in the time I had. I'm not trying to duck any of your points, and besides, I have made many, many points myself which are either ignored or dismissed with a subjective "that's meaningless" retort. I have actually brought up tangible reasons why a measure is or is not meaningful... the only reply I get on that is "our way is best because that's how it is most commonly reported in the media"... which, if you step back and think about it, is a laughably absurd way of judging the usefulness of information.

I have heard you bring up these census stats in two threads: one when you were comparing Cincy with Cleveland, the other in comparison to Columbus. Then you dragged out census stats again in comparing the larger metros in the midwest/northeast (7th out of 21 or something like that). So the driving factor (initially) in these conversations has been, where does Cincinnati stack up against the other large metros? Whether Cincinnati is growing faster or slower than New York (much larger) or Podunkville (much smaller) is pretty meaningless because it has no effect on where Cincy stands in "the pecking order" (national recognition, where funds are being allocated, stuff that we all care about for our cities)... and also because the dynamics of change can be quite different for small versus medium versus large cities.

Yes, I know that Cincy is not in the rust belt, but the collapsing rust belt is the primary driver that pushes Cincy's growth level at or above (depending on how we look at it) the Midwest.

As I've said ad nauseam, we can sit here and define "regions" all day. Every time that I mentioned that Cincinnati was "middle of the pack", I was saying it within the context of comparable metro areas because, well, because THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT!!!! If it makes you feel better to see me write "Cincinnati's 4.7% growth rate exceeded the 2.8% growth rate of the Midwest (as defined by Wikipedia) overall." There. I said it. Feel better? Great. So what does that mean? Not much. But I GUARANTEE you that where Cincinnati stacks up against Indianapolis, Kansas City, Columbus, Minneapolis (all growing faster than Cincy), and where Cincy stacks up against Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and let's throw in Toledo and Dayton (all growing slower than Cincy)... that matters a whole heck of a lot more because it drives the things that matter to the people who live there: Resource allocation, federal funding, corporate relocation, sports/cultural options, airport hubs, etc. etc. etc.... those are all going where the people are and where the growth appears to be headed.

Honestly - and I don't mean to sound harsh - while it is entirely fair to note that Cincy and Columbus are growing and healthy areas in comparison to other areas in Ohio, Michigan, and the Northeast, it is a bit delusional IMHO to describe Cincy as being above average in comparison to the midwest because it implies that Cincy is doing better than most of the similar-sized metros in the region when it is not. But regardless of whether this is delusional or not, I think the challenge for Cincy, Columbus, and other larger metros in the area is how to create a vibrant and growing city center and a transportation system that gets people where they need to go quickly (and more cleanly). In a post-peak oil world, those are things that will maintain a healthy region in the long term (again, only an IMHO).

[OHBuckeye]

Originally Posted by The Cactus Leaguer

it is a bit delusional IMHO to describe Cincy as being above average in comparison to the midwest because it implies that Cincy is doing better than most of the similar-sized metros in the region when it is not.

I guess our entire debate really boils down to that one issue. IMHO, when one makes the simple statement that the Cincy metro area (with its 4.7% growth rate) is growing faster than the Midwest as whole (with its 2.8% growth rate), it does not imply that Cincy is doing better than most similar-sized metro areas in the Midwest - it just implies that Cincy is growing faster than the Midwest as a whole. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Regardless, do you agree that Subway's compromise statement, in its entirety, is a fair assessment of the Cincy metro area's growth? I do.

Based on the 2000-2006 growth rates, metro Cincinnati is growing slower than the entire nation, faster than the entire Midwest and much faster than the entire state of Ohio. Furthermore, metro Cincinnati's growth rate is below average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas nationwide and average when compared to all similar-sized metro areas in the Midwest.

[The Cactus Leaguer]

Originally Posted by OHBuckeye

do you agree that Subway's compromise statement, in its entirety, is a fair assessment of the Cincy metro area's growth? I do.

I agree with the words in the statement but not with the order of emphasis. How's that?