Cincinnati MSA to surpass Cleveland MSA in population this year

[chet_kinkaid]

the census bureaus own estimates have columbus passing cleveland and pittsburgh by 2020 census ,and cincinnati by 2030.these are for msa rankings only..cleveland will still be far ahead of both columbus and cincinnati in csa rankings by 2020 with columbus possibly passing cincinnati in csa ranking by 2020..unless cincinnati merges with dayton and st louis missouri and toledo..then cincinnati will have the largest csa.but by pure growth rate estimates columbus will pass all eventually

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by chet_kinkaid

the census bureaus own estimates have columbus passing cleveland and pittsburgh by 2020 census ,and cincinnati by 2030.these are for msa rankings only..cleveland will still be far ahead of both columbus and cincinnati in csa rankings by 2020 with columbus possibly passing cincinnati in csa ranking by 2020..unless cincinnati merges with dayton and st louis missouri and toledo..then cincinnati will have the largest csa.but by pure growth rate estimates columbus will pass all eventually

I think this assumes certain things, especially that all the rates will remain the same through 2020, which they probably won't. Also, even if they did, Columbus would not pass Cleveland's MSA until around 2021.

[UKUKUK]

I'm predicting a Cleveland comeback a-la Milwaukee as they further utilize the lakefront and build housing stock in the city that young people WANT.

Also, I think it could be argued that most of Cleveland's population loss in the past 10 years came pre-Euclid restoration. I think a lot more people are finding pride in Cleveland now that the city is reinventing itself.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by UKUKUK

I'm predicting a Cleveland comeback a-la Milwaukee as they further utilize the lakefront and build housing stock in the city that young people WANT.

Cleveland is definitely doing a lot of good things... but these predictions were occurring 2000-2010 and Cleveland still lost 17% of its population. I do think they have a better chance of reversing this decade, but I am not sure it's going to be as fast or as much as people are hoping for. I think the most likely scenario is that the losses subside or level off, or best-case, there's a very small percentage gain. That would be a truly amazing feat, though, to go from -17% to any gain at all in the space of 10 years. I'm not sure there's ever been a city that's done that.

[UKUKUK]

See my above edit to the post. I mean... Think about Cleveland in 2000, how it was perceived, and think about how that's changing. Note how the city is reinventing itself from the ground up and look at all the new development going on. I'm not saying it'll change overnight, but I'm saying the next 10 years should be years of great improvement.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by UKUKUK

See my above edit to the post. I mean... Think about Cleveland in 2000, how it was perceived, and think about how that's changing. Note how the city is reinventing itself from the ground up and look at all the new development going on. I'm not saying it'll change overnight, but I'm saying the next 10 years should be years of great improvement.

Oh I'm in agreement, I do think the perception is changing. But you and I are interested in these kinds of things, and C-D is not the real world. Most people probably have no idea what their respective cities are doing in terms of overall development. That's why I think it'll take a bit longer than what people here are hoping for. 2020 may not show the growth, though I do think 2030 will for sure.

[UKUKUK]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Oh I'm in agreement, I do think the perception is changing. But you and I are interested in these kinds of things, and C-D is not the real world. Most people probably have no idea what their respective cities are doing in terms of overall development. That's why I think it'll take a bit longer than what people here are hoping for. 2020 may not show the growth, though I do think 2030 will for sure.

I think 2020 will show a sharp leveling though, especially as the lake is being opened up.

[Matthew Hall]

I think people have a better sense of the development of their region from daily life than it might appear and that these perceptions matter much more in how people think, fell, and act wherever they are. This dyanmic has important implications for cities. A city that has a constant population will perceive its situation differently from one that is declining or one with many new arrivals in ways that may not be obvious. The percentage of people who remain in a place and share an experience of it matters very much in their willingness to participate in its collective life of even to what degree there is collective life to participate in in the first place. People in a place with many departures and few arrivals realize that there is less activity around them and remember a time with more. Still they share these experiences and perceptions with each other. They have a shared narrative of decline. Alternatively, a place with many newcomers that still holds onto a large number of locals means that many share experience of that place and that newcomers can take advantage of the shared experiences of locals to engage that place themselves. In other words, there is still a shared narrative through which people can relate to each other. People in a place where many have stayed and few have arrived have an especially strong shared narrative of social, economic and cultural continuity with stable and sustained experiences of the level of activity around them over time. Places with many arrivals AND departures means that many will have no memory of the place's past level of activity at all and make no mental comparisons. In other words, there is much less of a shared narrative for new or old to use to connect to eadh other in the many ways that one must to build a full and varied life. In such a place, many of the people with whom the new arrivals share experiences are elsewhere and many of those around them don't share your experiences. Thus, there is less of a popular narrative of change, or of anything else, in such a place and people don't share their perceptions of change because they don't and can't have any. They only perceive their own individual experiences and they share much less of their personal experiences with those around them, be definition. They have experiences of places they don't live in anymore, but they can't share those with the people they live near now. Some call this 'Social Capital' and I think it explains more about how cities do over time than factors such as income growth, housing prices, and even education levels.

Having shared experiences with those around you is a powerful force in human society. Why else would people continue to go to sporting events, concerts, movies, and restaurants in the age of the internet, mega home kitchens, and microwaves. Places that have more shared experience are very different from those that have less. I know it is a very un-American thought, but where you are from matters just as much if not more than where you currently are in explaining your views, motivations, and the formative experiences of your life. Whether, and to what extent, you share experiences with those around you matters just as much in explaining the collective fortunes of a place as any other socioeconomic variable. This is like the difference between the public and private. People only visit a public park for a period of time and no one sees the totality of the activities of the park over time or necessarily shares their experience of the park with anyone else who is or has been there. While at a private social function people come at similiar times share a common experience of the event and then leave more or less together. A common experience was had that each can share and use to connect with the others that attended the event. Some cities are public parks, some are private parties, and some are both. Some prefer, sustained and personal social connections, ohter prefer occupying the same space for a time with a wide variety of strangers (and presumably potential friends), but most want a combination of both. People live in cities in the first place because it is too hard to reinvent your life from scratch all by yourself, no matter what american 'can-do', 'reinvent yourself' propaganda tells us. I think this explains the relative fortunes of cities over time. The ones that manage to have both will succeed over time because they will appeal to the greatest number of people, I think this explains the boom and bust of cities like Detroit in the past or of phoenix and much of florida today. But, Which of thes models do cleveland, columbus, or cincinnati follow?