Dayton+Cincinnati=Good? (Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo: assess, suburbs, guidelines)

[1watertiger]

sorry, maybe an hour tops. i meant dayton to cinci around 45 minutes.

[unusualfire]

Distance is never considered. Sacramento has a city that's over 100 miles from their downtown(Truckee,NV) and it's counted in it's CSA. It's all about commuting.

[1watertiger]

i dont believe more people travel 100 miles away(truckee,nv) to sacramento each day than people from akron and warren/youngstown.. imo its all bullc*ap until someone has some actual numbers.. in fact i would bet more people commute to cleveand each day from akron than the actual population of troee,nv..

[hillside]

unusualfire, my point about distance was responding to the idea that dayton is too far and stretches the CSA to unfair limits, when other localities that aren't counted in a CSA (youngstown-cleveland) might not be counted because the commute is not practical enough to be popular based on time.

[unusualfire]

A simple way is just make Ohio have 5 counties instead of 88. look at Arizona and Maricopa county where Phoenix is located. They have cities located almost 200 miles that counted in Phoenix metro area. but because they are in the same county it's counted. Should there be a better way of measuring metro area's? Use urban area's only?

[1watertiger]

see my point..very subjective... so cleveland and cinci are much bigger urban metros in reality than most metros. but because of commuting,size of counties,etc,etc. IMO get short-changed on status and federal dollars.?. i give up...ok, yes, cleveland has 4 1/2 people left, a rusted steel mill and a couple of rats.. at least i should be able to go to downtown(ghosttown) cleveland and find a place to sit and watch fish die at the polluted lake.

[WeSoHood]

I still find it hilarious.. like you people actually think large numbers of people don't even commute between Cleveland and Akron. Sure, they have a formula they use - but a faulty one at that. Like 1watertiger said, it's mainly subjective... Not matter how many formulas they say they use, the government in the end still has the say in the matter.

[BelieveInCleve]

Cincy-Rise, I know very well how a metro is formed. Plus, Summit County, bordering Cuyahoga to the south, has many commuters that go to Cleveland, so why isnt it counted? So does Portage and Ashtabula, but theyre not counted either. Akron and Cleveland should be in the same metro at the very least, theyre bordering counties for christs sake. My argument is valid. I dont care what the metro numbers say right now, they make it impossible to compare the areas due to the obvious flaws in the formula.

And you are way off on your land areas of the metros.
Atlanta: 8,376 sq miles
Cincinnati: 4,465 sq miles
Cleveland: 2,004 sq miles

Thats a HUGE difference in size. I have no idea how you got those numbers you did. Cuyahoga-458, Geauga-404, Lake-228, Lorain-492, Medina-422. Add all that up and its 2,004. Cincinnati's is over twice as large and Atlanta's is over 4 times as large. Its impossible to do a fair comparison of the population based on that. If Cleveland's was Cincinnati's size it would have well over 3.4 million. Atlanta's size and were pushing 5 million.

[unusualfire]

^ You ahev to take what you have. If there was not a lake. Cleveland would't be as dense as it is. Hills and flood plains are counted in the Cincinnati metro numbers. You can't just build on slops and where water can raise and flood.

Someone mentioned Cleveland is more urban than seattle. That's a flat out lie. There is wilderness and mountains to the west of that place and a bay and ocean to the east. So it can only build linearly.

[Vision-Quest]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Out of every formula you could possible use, none of them comes anywhere close to 7 years. Where are you getting that from??? Itll be at least 19 years, and thats only if Cleveland doesnt start gaining population again, which it will. You have no idea what you are talking about. Cleveland is losing people at a slower and slower rate every year, in a short while, it will level out and start gaining again. Cincinnati was losing population up until a few years ago, and right now its pretty much stagnant. The city of Cincinnatis population is barely budging. I wouldnt even consider it growing, its just stable.

You are also wrong about the midwest metros. Detroits metro is barely stable, but the city is losing at an amazing rate. Your beloved Dayton (the metro and city) is losing population, as is Springfield. Youngstown, Flint, South Bend, Saginaw, Waterloo, Sioux city, and several other metros in the midwest are all losing population.

Flint is in the Detroit metro. Saginaw, Bay City, Midland is all one metro and at one point had about 400,000 people but is losing at a rapid rate. Yes Cleveland is losing population, I wouldnt be critisizing Cincinnati because Cincinnati the city and metro is gaining at a faster rate then once at the top Cleveland. Right now, Columbus is at the top, and i doubt it will change for a long time because Columbus is a lot like Indianapolis, which both cities have more of a population than:
Seattle, Vancouver, San Fransisco, Las Vegas, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, Both Twin cities combined, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, Miami, etc. Columbus is growing faster than both Cleveland and Cincinnati, Metro and city. There really shouldnt be an arguement about Cleveland and Cincinnati metro area does say:
Dayton+Cincinnati=Good? NOT
Cleveland+Youngstown=Good?


If any arguement, it should be with Columbus.