Have you moved from North Carolina to Ohio? (Columbus, Cleveland: employment, neighborhoods)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

It has everything to do with state economic policy. While it is true that many national and international factors led Ohio's manufacturing decline, that does not change the fact that state policies played a role in Ohio's economic slide in general. You have to ask yourself how NC managed to attract tons of jobs and people over the last few decades while Ohio has regressed during the same time period. What is each state doing differently? What are the results? What can we conclude?

And yes, every city has a ghetto. But every city does not have areas which are as bad as Cleveland's east side(much of it, anyway). Look at EC. It's basically abandoned. But this doesn't need to be so Cleveland centric. Look at Youngstown, Ashtabula, Parts of Toledo and Akron. A good chunk of northern Ohio is in shambles. Why? You can't just blame larger "international" factors and be done with it. What is it that prevented tech firms from relocating en masse to Ohio like they did to parts of NC?

I don't know the answer to these questions. We all probably have a hunch. But these are the sort of questions we're going to have to ask if we want answers to Ohio's problems.

This is what I mean. 30 years of population loss in most of Ohio's big cities and you have the gall to question the stability of other states economic policy. States, by the way, which have grown by leaps and bounds over the same time frame.

In the most recent decade, Ohio was one of the 3 slowest growing states in the country. It managed to outpace economic juggernauts Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Michigan. If you want to pretend that's something to be proud of, be my guest.

I don't know what's ahead for North Carolina...or Ohio for that matter. I don't get enjoyment out of the poor shape Ohio is in. I will always love Ohio. I'm not even much of a NC booster, but some of you are over the top with the whole rust belt vs sun belt discussion.

I've already kind of answered why NC was able to attract people. Retirees, cheap sprawl, lower cost of living, lower legacy costs and a general better economy. The factors were combined with economic decline in Ohio, higher costs, declining urban centers that were no longer attractive to people who valued suburbia, etc. This was the reality from say, 1960-2005 or so.

Today, certain things are no longer true. Ohio has a lower cost of living now. Ohio's economy is doing better than NC's. Urbanity has become very popular again, and urban centers that were in long-term decline like Cleveland and Cincy, for example, are seeing massive amounts of growth and revitalization in their cores. Ohio gained population in the 20-35 age group since 2010, the first such growth in that demographic in decades. These are all relatively recent developments, but the long-term implications are not as one-sided in NC's favor anymore, not even close. You'll still have warmer winters, but economics, and NOT weather, play a far bigger role in where people move. The Great Migration to the North was a good example of this. Outside of Texas and a handful of other Sun Belt states, increasingly, the economies are better in the North again. This is especially true in the Midwest. Ohio's biggest fault, perhaps, was in the overreliance of manufacturing, but that was a story 40 years ago. It's not 1970 anymore.

I'm going to argue that every city indeed DOES have an area as bad as East Cleveland. There may be different sizes involved, but every city has it. Calling a "good chunk" of Northern Ohio in shambles is pure hyperbolic nonsense. Most of the area was hurt by the long-term decline, but there are plenty of signs showing that is no longer happening, and there are still places growing and in which make great places to live. If you use only population changes, you're not really seeing the big picture.

You're misunderstanding. It's because Ohio has witnessed these problems that I think NC may be heading for trouble. Once you've seen it happen, you begin to recognize some of the signs, as well as some of the signs for real rebound. NC's growth, like it or not, is also tied to what happens in the North in states like Ohio. NC didn't magically do it all by itself with some kind of perfect policy. It took many many factors north and south of Mason-Dixon to make the boom possible. Sorry to say, many of those factors are rapidly changing and NC is going to have to step it up more and more to keep it going. Recent events suggest it's not even close to being prepared for that scenario.

I think it's kind of ironic that you're talking about slow growth for Ohio, yet NC is still a few million behind it in population. The North's practically been handing you guys people left and right for 50 years, and Ohio's still growing and still ahead. And now you may finally be leaving your window.

This isn't about the Sun Belt vs. Ohio, this is about discussing very real trends in the two areas.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ZnGuy

Very good comments and good to see some realistic thoughts compared to the rose colored glasses comments from our Mexican friend but as I have said in the past, he seems to have a hard on against the Sunbelt..There is something to the great migration and I can say many folks from OH (and northerners) have made the move to NC, a very small percentage have done the reverse. For me the initial attraction was the weather, I consider it fantastic in NC. I don't get the 'it's too damn hot in the Summer', jeez, I say grow some b*lls. Many enjoy the outdoors, I am very active, play tennis 4-5 times a week at a high level, yes I sweat, I like it, I'm fit. I also have my top down on my car 9-10 months out the year, no problem. I also survived the tough winters of the snow belt In Cleveland, weathered the Browns games at the old & new stadium...I chose to get away from that type of climate as many others have as well.

And once again, the Sun Belt's boom is probably 10% or less related to warmer winters. It's been about economics. The area had a better economy, it's as simple as that. My question is... is that still true? Data suggests, not really.

[carymom1]

I've moved to Apex NC last Fall and I love it. I don't understand why people say North Carolina Summers are so hot, so far this Summer the hottest it's been is 94. So far it barely hits the 90's and it rains a lot. Yes there is culture and yes the politics in North Carolina are really conservative, but who said being conservative is bad. Honestly the next election it will probably go back being a Democrat state.

[Ohio Hello]

Originally Posted by ZnGuy

I don't get the 'it's too damn hot in the Summer', jeez, I say grow some b*lls. Many enjoy the outdoors, I am very active, play tennis 4-5 times a week at a high level, yes I sweat, I like it, I'm fit.

Originally Posted by Bmachina

I have to agree with this. I have been living further south than NC for over 1 month now, and have barely even used the ac. We have been enjoying the heat, not running from ac to ac, like some said.

The prolonged warm weather is a nice feature of the South, but some people who complain about the hot, humid summers don't do so because it's uncomfortable, but because the high humidity makes it difficult to breathe.

I have asthma, and on hot, humid days the air is so thick and heavy it's exhausting to walk around the block with my dog. It just sucks the life right out of me and I struggle to breathe.

I love the heat -- I spent years in Phoenix and the dry, hot summers didn't bother me at all. I went outside and still enjoyed hiking and biking even in 100+ temps. It's not a matter of being out of shape or growing some b*lls, some people just have a tougher time of it when the air's so saturated.

[gypsylea73]

Originally Posted by carymom1

I've moved to Apex NC last Fall and I love it. I don't understand why people say North Carolina Summers are so hot, so far this Summer the hottest it's been is 94. So far it barely hits the 90's and it rains a lot. Yes there is culture and yes the politics in North Carolina are really conservative, but who said being conservative is bad. Honestly the next election it will probably go back being a Democrat state.

This has been a mild summer for NC..not the norm. So next summer lets see what you think. NC had problems before the Republicans took over, they have just magnified existing problems and created even more. As for the Democrats being voted back in..we can all hope that happens but with the new voting laws it is going to make it more difficult for that to happen.

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I've already kind of answered why NC was able to attract people. Retirees, cheap sprawl, lower cost of living, lower legacy costs and a general better economy. The factors were combined with economic decline in Ohio, higher costs, declining urban centers that were no longer attractive to people who valued suburbia, etc. This was the reality from say, 1960-2005 or so.

Oh yeah, I forgot that you know everything.

Social phenomena are extremely complex. You can't just rattle off a bunch of likelihoods and call it a night. Not to mention:

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

and a general better economy

Why??? Until you answer that your logic is circular.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Today, certain things are no longer true.

The burden of proof is on you.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio has a lower cost of living now.

Source?

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio's economy is doing better than NC's.

Source?

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Urbanity has become very popular again, and urban centers that were in long-term decline like Cleveland and Cincy, for example, are seeing massive amounts of growth and revitalization in their cores.

People move where they can find work. A shift in preference in the urban/rural paradigm would explain a movement from suburbs/rural areas to the urban core within the same metropolitan area. It would not, however, have a serious effect upon the growth of metropolitan areas in general.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Ohio gained population in the 20-35 age group since 2010, the first such growth in that demographic in decades. These are all relatively recent developments, but the long-term implications are not as one-sided in NC's favor anymore, not even close.

Good for Ohio. And just to be clear, you're saying that, for the first time in a long time, "the long-term implications are not as one-sided in NC's favor anymore". That's a good indication of just how lopsided it's been over the past few decades.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

the economies are better in the North again.

Source?

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I'm going to argue that every city indeed DOES have an area as bad as East Cleveland. There may be different sizes involved, but every city has it.

Agree to disagree. Most cities have slums/ghetto. But few western cities have areas completely abandoned and devoid of any life like Cleveland's east side.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Calling a "good chunk" of Northern Ohio in shambles is pure hyperbolic nonsense. Most of the area was hurt by the long-term decline, but there are plenty of signs showing that is no longer happening, and there are still places growing and in which make great places to live. If you use only population changes, you're not really seeing the big picture.

Population change is the big picture. You're arguing that there are instances of growth in otherwise dying cities. While true, it doesn't change the fact that many northern cities are bleeding population.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You're misunderstanding. It's because Ohio has witnessed these problems that I think NC may be heading for trouble. Once you've seen it happen, you begin to recognize some of the signs, as well as some of the signs for real rebound. NC's growth, like it or not, is also tied to what happens in the North in states like Ohio. NC didn't magically do it all by itself with some kind of perfect policy. It took many many factors north and south of Mason-Dixon to make the boom possible. Sorry to say, many of those factors are rapidly changing and NC is going to have to step it up more and more to keep it going. Recent events suggest it's not even close to being prepared for that scenario.

I don't know what the future holds for NC. Frankly, I don't really care.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I think it's kind of ironic that you're talking about slow growth for Ohio, yet NC is still a few million behind it in population. The North's practically been handing you guys people left and right for 50 years, and Ohio's still growing and still ahead. And now you may finally be leaving your window.

You can keep insulting southern growth. I don't care. I don't really mean to defend the south. But you should know it makes your insecurities pretty clear to everyone else.

[jbcmh81]

[quote=ksu sucks;31101732]

Oh yeah, I forgot that you know everything.

Social phenomena are extremely complex. You can't just rattle off a bunch of likelihoods and call it a night. Not to mention:

Why??? Until you answer that your logic is circular.

The fact that it is complex is why there are so many contributing reasons. Why what? Do you disagree that NC had better economic conditions the last 30 years?

Source?

Here's a few on cost of living.

Cost of Living 1st Quarter 2013
Cost of Living by State

Source?

July Unemployment Rate: Ohio: 7.2% NC: 8.9%
January-July Labor Force Change: Ohio +4,778 NC -79,990
January-July Employment Change: Ohio -11,604 NC -44,406
January-July Unemployed Change: Ohio +16,382 NC -35,584
January-July Non-Farm Jobs Change: Ohio +29,800 NC +7,200

At a Glance Tables

People move where they can find work. A shift in preference in the urban/rural
paradigm would explain a movement from suburbs/rural areas to the urban core
within the same metropolitan area. It would not, however, have a serious
effect upon the growth of metropolitan areas in general.

You're thinking a bit too small scale here. While it's true that the people could simply move to the urban core of a metro area, I was more referring to the fact that most Northern cities are simply built during an earlier time, and therefore typically have greater density. If density is now attractive, these places have the advantage in the long run. Even Columbus, the least dense of the 3-Cs, is still more dense than anywhere in NC.

Good for Ohio. And just to be clear, you're saying that, for the first time in a
long time, "the long-term implications are not as one-sided in NC's favor
anymore". That's a good indication of just how lopsided it's been over the
past few decades.

I don't disagree. It has been lopsided towards the South in general, not just NC. It's similar to the way it was lopsided in the North's favor prior to 1950.

Source?

Average July Unemployment Rates: Midwest 6.2% Sun Belt: 7.5%
Average Labor Force Change January-July 2013: Midwest: +4,154 Sun Belt: -7,422
Average Employment Change January-July 2013: Midwest: +1,819 Sun Belt: -3,802
Average Non-Farm Jobs Change January-July 2013: Midwest: +16,275 Sun Belt: +24,340

All of the Sun Belt's numbers would be much worse without Texas. 7.6%, -15,458, -9,263 and +16,100 for the above categories without Texas. Even with Texas, the Midwest is doing better on almost every metric. You can use the BLS link above to verify, but you'll have to do a little math.

Agree to disagree. Most cities have slums/ghetto. But few western cities have
areas completely abandoned and devoid of any life like Cleveland's east side.

Pretty sure the East Side is not completely abandoned and devoid of life. In bad shape, sure, but let's not be overly dramatic.

Population change is the big picture. You're arguing that there are
instances of growth in otherwise dying cities. While true, it doesn't change the
fact that many northern cities are bleeding population.

Many is way too strong a description. Of the 100 largest metros, 9 are losing population. Every single one of them is in the Great Lakes. The Northeast and rest of the Midwest do not have any at all. All 9 are Rust Belt metros that were hit hard from the manufacturing decline. If people were moving for weather alone, for instance, the losses should be universal across the North. It's about economics. If you use the 100 largest cities, there's only 7 losing population, with 6 in the Great Lakes and 1 in the South. At least one of the 6 in the Great Lakes, Cincinnati, has reversed and is now growing.

I don't know what the future holds for NC. Frankly, I don't really care.

If you live there, I would think its future would be somewhat important.

You can keep insulting southern growth. I don't care. I don't really mean to
defend the south. But you should know it makes your insecurities pretty clear
to everyone else.

How did I insult southern growth? What I stated is 100% true. The boom in the Sun Belt began a good 50 years ago and was, for the most part, fueled from people in the North moving there. Despite Ohio being one of the hardest hit states with economic decline, it still grew and it remains larger.

[Tarheel8406]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

At least one of the 6 in the Great Lakes, Cincinnati, has reversed and is now growing.

What's your source for this? The Census says that as of 2012, Cincinnati's population is 296,550, whereas in 2010, it was 296,943. Also, didn't you say that past performance isn't necessarily a prediction of future performance? If that's the case, then what difference does it make, even if your claim were true?

Going back to the OP's question, Ohio has been hemorrhaging population from it's main cities for quite some time now (with the exception of Columbus). As a result, there's a lot of development in the form of urban sprawl. That's not to say that there hasn't been any development in downtown Cincinnati and Cleveland; there has, but it seems like either the locals are relocating to the suburbs or the transplants are deciding to move directly to the suburbs. If you're seeking a suburban environment, then this won't be much of an issue.

To drive home this point, an article in the Dayton Daily News says that from 2000 to 2010, "Cleveland...ended up losing 17 percent of its residents this decade, close to 82,000 people. Cleveland fell below 400,000 residents to 396,815, a 100-year low. Cincinnati and Toledo had both been estimated to gain population, but Cincinnati fell 10 percent to 297,000, also a 100-year low. Toledo lost 9 percent to 287,208." I'm too lazy to look up the stats for their metro population, but I think they've been growing (slowly) from 2000 to 2010, suggesting that most growth occurring takes place in the suburbs.

And I don't mean to turn this into an Ohio bashing thread or a North Carolina boosting thread, but here's more food for thought:
Ohio on Verge of Population Lost
- From July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2012, Ohio grew by 3,218 (0.03%), which was the 4th smallest gain in the country for that period.
- "Last year’s increase was less than half of the 7,286 people it gained only two years ago – and is less than one eighth of the almost 27,000 population growth in 2002-03. The trend line is...heading toward negative territory."

To end things on a slightly good note, this article says that Ohio is losing less people than it has in the past. (However, North Carolina is number two in terms of the destination of people moving away from Ohio.) Also, Ohio has been gaining jobs from 2010 to 2012.

[jbcmh81]

[quote=Tarheel8406;31106880]

What's your source for this? The Census says that as of 2012, Cincinnati's population is
296,550, whereas in 2010, it was 296,943. Also, didn't you say that past
performance isn't necessarily a prediction of future performance? If that's the
case, then what difference does it make, even if your claim were true?

The 2011-2012 estimate had Cincinnati gaining. Whether or not this translates to overall growth by 2020 remains to be seen. However, the level of development there suggests that it's certainly on that track.

Going back to the OP's question, Ohio has been hemorrhaging population from it's
main cities for quite some time now (with the exception of Columbus). As a
result, there's a lot of development in the form of urban sprawl. That's not to
say that there hasn't been any development in downtown Cincinnati and Cleveland;
there has, but it seems like either the locals are relocating to the suburbs or
the transplants are deciding to move directly to the suburbs. If you're seeking
a suburban environment, then this won't be much of an issue.

I think that was true as late as 2005 or 2007, but hasn't really been true since then. National trends are for urban cores to be revitalizing and adding population rather than just the suburbs. Cleveland's fastest-growing census tracts in the whole metro from 2000-2010 were in the urban core. These urban trends have only gotten more pronounced since then. It may or may not translate to overall city growth come 2020, but as with all population/demographic trends, they take time to really get going.

To drive home this point, an article in the Dayton Daily News says that from 2000 to
2010, "Cleveland...ended up losing 17 percent of its residents this decade,
close to 82,000 people. Cleveland fell below 400,000 residents to 396,815, a
100-year low. Cincinnati and Toledo had both been estimated to gain population,
but Cincinnati fell 10 percent to 297,000, also a 100-year low. Toledo lost 9
percent to 287,208." I'm too lazy to look up the stats for their metro
population, but I think they've been growing (slowly) from 2000 to 2010,
suggesting that most growth occurring takes place in the suburbs.

I haven't looked closely at Dayton or Toledo, but in Cleveland and Cincinnati,
the number of urban census tracts growing increased the past decade vs. previous
decades. You can see this here: The Recovery of Downtown vs Cleveland and Cincinnati Part #2 | All Columbus, Ohio Data
I agree with you that the overall city populations fell through at least
2010. But if the urban cores are seeing recovery, it's only a matter of
time for the overall cities. It took 60 years for places
like Cleveland to fall as far as it did, so it's not going to happen
overnight. That's why I said just looking at population change for the
city during a short period is not looking at the entire picture.
Outside of Detroit, Ohio has some of the cities that most declined, as they too,
heavily relied on manufacturing and other industry. So while it make take
these cities longer to recover, it will take less time elsewhere in the
North. And once that recovery is in full swing, what does that really
do to migration rates? I don't think the Sun Belt has an answer for
that question in the same way that the North (and Ohio) did not have an answer to what would happen to their economies if manufacturing declined 50-60 years ago.

And I don't mean to turn this into an Ohio bashing thread or a North Carolina
boosting thread, but here's more food for thought:
Ohio on Verge of Population Lost
- From July 1, 2011 to July 1, 2012, Ohio grew by 3,218 (0.03%), which was
the 4th smallest gain in the country for that period.
- "Last year’s increase was less than half of the 7,286 people it gained only
two years ago – and is less than one eighth of the almost 27,000 population
growth in 2002-03. The trend line is...heading toward negative territory."

Maybe, maybe not. That prediction has been being made for many years now and it's not happened. If it ever does, it does not really have any implications on the long-term population.

To end things on a slightly good note, this article says that Ohio is losing less people than it has in
the past. (However, North Carolina is number two in terms of the destination of
people moving away from Ohio.) Also, Ohio has been gaining jobs from 2010 to
2012.

And NC better hope that Ohio gets no better, or that the North in general gets no better. It needs the status quo moving forward to keep up those growth rates. Do you believe that the state will boom indefinitely? That seems to be the overriding suggestion by many of the posters. Given the current economic, social and government situation there, it's more likely that the people who still want to move to the South from Ohio would just choose another Southern state.

[Tarheel8406]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The 2011-2012 estimate had Cincinnati gaining.

Again, what's your source? The link I provided says that Cincinnati did not gain population from 2010 to 2012. (Also I realize that it's only an estimate, and that there's always room for error.)

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I think that was true as late as 2005 or 2007, but hasn't really been true since then. National trends are for urban cores to be revitalizing and adding population rather than just the suburbs. Cleveland's fastest-growing census tracts in the whole metro from 2000-2010 were in the urban core. These urban trends have only gotten more pronounced since then.

I understand that the national trend has been for people to move back into the cities. That's why I've had such a hard time understanding why this has not been the case for cities in Ohio (with the exception of Columbus).

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I haven't looked closely at Dayton or Toledo, but in Cleveland and Cincinnati,
the number of urban census tracts growing increased the past decade vs. previous decades. You can see this here: The Recovery of Downtown vs Cleveland and Cincinnati Part #2 | All Columbus, Ohio Data I agree with you that the overall city populations fell through at least 2010. But if the urban cores are seeing recovery, it's only a matter of time for the overall cities. It took 60 years for places like Cleveland to fall as far as it did, so it's not going to happen overnight. That's why I said just looking at population change for the city during a short period is not looking at the entire picture. Outside of Detroit, Ohio has some of the cities that most declined, as they too, heavily relied on manufacturing and other industry. So while it make take these cities longer to recover, it will take less time elsewhere in the North. And once that recovery is in full swing, what does that really do to migration rates? I don't think the Sun Belt has an answer for that question in the same way that the North (and Ohio) did not have an answer to what would happen to their economies if manufacturing declined 50-60 years ago.

That's an interesting post, and that's great news for Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus. However, you should check this out as well. Granted, the two posts are talking about different things (census tracts vs. downtown growth), but it found that on average, "the oasis of modest downtown growth was more than negated by losses surrounding the downtown areas. Virtually all the population growth in the major metropolitan areas lay outside the six mile radius core, as areas within the historical urban core, including downtown, lost 0.4 percent."

It specifically talks about Cleveland: "In view of Cleveland’s demographic decline (down from 915,000 in 1950 to 397,000 in 2010), any progress in downtown Cleveland is welcome. But despite the frequently recurring reports, downtown Cleveland's population growth was barely 3,000. Despite this gain, the loss within a 6 mile radius was 70,000 and 125,000 within a 12 mile radius. Beyond the 12- mile radius, there was a population increase of nearly 55,000, which [was] insufficient to avoid a metropolitan area population loss."

So while people may be moving back into downtown Cincinnati and Cleveland, it seems like there's still more growth occurring outside of downtown areas (and probably the cities themselves). I know what your response is probably going to be: things have changed since 2006/2007, and these numbers don't reflect that trend. I haven't been to Cleveland, but I know that Cincinnati has a lot of work to do before it turns that corner. I won't even mention Dayton, where there's hardly any interest from locals to move into the city.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Maybe, maybe not. That prediction has been being made for many years now and it's not happened. If it ever does, it does not really have any implications on the long-term population.

You're correct that people have been predicting that Ohio will lose population for a while now. One of the professors quoted in the article says that he predicted it would happen back in 2005. However, the fact that Ohio is gaining fewer and fewer people over the last decade or so suggests that in the future, the state may lose population. I'm not sure how that "does not really have any implications on the long-term population."

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

And NC better hope that Ohio gets no better, or that the North in general gets no better. It needs the status quo moving forward to keep up those growth rates. Do you believe that the state will boom indefinitely? That seems to be the overriding suggestion by many of the posters. Given the current economic, social and government situation there, it's more likely that the people who still want to move to the South from Ohio would just choose another Southern state.

This is where I have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It's almost as if you're taking North Carolina's success personally. I certainly never said the state is going to boom indefinitely. Also, as a moderate, the recent political developments have been disconcerting to me. But you can't deny that people are leaving Ohio for North Carolina.