Anybody want out? (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati: real estate, 2015, apartment complex)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

Areas as close to downtown cincinnati as german village is to downtown columbus are not in the city of cincinnati and have experienced new investment and population growth in newport and covington kentucky. Similarly, areas in ohio outside of cincinnati as close as five miles from downtown Cincinnati have experienced significant development in recent years. This is the reason that municipal population is not a useful measure of a metro area unless you are a tax payer or collector in a given municipality. Downtown cincinnati has received more investment, job growth and had more population growth in the last decade than in the previous three decades combined. The decline in the working class population on the fringes of the city of cincinnati is the issue. This is why MSA to MSA comparison are the only apples to apples comparisons. MSAs are the scale on which businesses and people operate. If Pittsburgh or cleveland had had cincinnati's numbers for the last decade they would have 200 to 250 thousand more people today. If cincinnati had had columbus' growth it would have 120,000 more people. These differences are significant and explain most of what you need to know about these metro areas.

Those are a lot of ifs... unfortunately ifs don't mean anything. If Columbus had 8,000,000 people, it would be one of the largest cities in the country. How about we discuss what is actually true instead of engaging in this mental masturbation.

Why do I get the feeling that if the situation were reversed and I was saying how the population decline in Columbus was all working class, blah blah blah, you'd counter that it was a signal of significant urban decline and Columbus was on its way to obscurity.

[Matthew Hall]

jbcmh81, You obviously are making a lot of assumptions that i must admit I don't even understand. None of my assertions are 'ifs', they are all facts. The growth rate of all these metros and the resultant total population numbers are self-evidently clear. The difference between 6% and minus 3% is 9% and 9% of Cleveland's 2000 population is about 210,000. That is what Cleveland would have had if it had grown by 6%, as cincinnati did, instead of shrinking by 3.3% as it in fact did. If cleveland had grown by 6% since 2000 it would have about 210,000 more people than in fact did have in 2010 according to the census. That is about as simple as math gets, I'm afraid. Why these eventual demographics developed is, of course, infinitely more complicated, but no one can deny these ultimate numbers. There is a whole world of professional and amateur demographic analysis online discussing just these types of questions, but no one suggests that they aren't true. Each metro has its own story and the numbers help to explain that story, but they are just the beginning of the story. We don't live in a world where pure market principles explain all individual and collective human actions so that we can just plug in the numbers and instantly 'explain' a metro's economy. The historical and economic differences between metros matter. Try urbanohio.com and urbanophile.com to get started.

[Weedydidi]

jbcmh81, this is a thread for people who want to leave Columbus. You obviously think that Columbus is the bestest best place in the whole wide world so why are you posting in here?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Weedydidi

jbcmh81, this is a thread for people who want to leave Columbus. You obviously think that Columbus is the bestest best place in the whole wide world so why are you posting in here?

Because most of the reasons given aren't even based on reality. I don't have a problem, specifically, with those that want to leave, but I do take issue with all the misinformation and outright lies passed off as fact in threads like this. Just as people have a right to make stuff up and be all dramatic about how terrible Columbus is, I have a right to counter those arguments. And no, I don't think Columbus is the "bestest best" place in the world, but neither do I think it's nearly as bad as people love to make it out to be. You are free not to read any of my posts, because I don't think I'm going to stop arguing that Columbus is not the "worstest worst" place in the world.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Matthew Hall

jbcmh81, You obviously are making a lot of assumptions that i must admit I don't even understand. None of my assertions are 'ifs', they are all facts. The growth rate of all these metros and the resultant total population numbers are self-evidently clear. The difference between 6% and minus 3% is 9% and 9% of Cleveland's 2000 population is about 210,000. That is what Cleveland would have had if it had grown by 6%, as cincinnati did, instead of shrinking by 3.3% as it in fact did. If cleveland had grown by 6% since 2000 it would have about 210,000 more people than in fact did have in 2010 according to the census. That is about as simple as math gets, I'm afraid. Why these eventual demographics developed is, of course, infinitely more complicated, but no one can deny these ultimate numbers. There is a whole world of professional and amateur demographic analysis online discussing just these types of questions, but no one suggests that they aren't true. Each metro has its own story and the numbers help to explain that story, but they are just the beginning of the story. We don't live in a world where pure market principles explain all individual and collective human actions so that we can just plug in the numbers and instantly 'explain' a metro's economy. The historical and economic differences between metros matter. Try urbanohio.com and urbanophile.com to get started.

But Cleveland didn't have Cincy's growth, and Cincy didn't have Columbus' growth, so who cares? Both Cleveland and Cincy's MSA are already larger than Columbus', though Columbus will probably pass one or both in the next few decades. We can argue the finer points of MSAs, and that's fine, but I don't really get the hypotheticals.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Because most of the reasons given aren't even based on reality.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

[Cbus76]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Absolutely. People all want different things in life, including the places they live. In my adult life I've lived in Philadelphia, Dayton and Columbus - my favorite city among those three is Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean I don't like Columbus or Dayton. In fact, I have no plans to leave Columbus as it's a really nice place to live. However, I understand others' desire to try someplace new as there are certain things Columbus does not offer that other places do. Some will leave Columbus and find themselves much happier someplace else, others will go and find the grass isn't always greener.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps certain things, not all. There are subjectives and then there are facts, and I continuously see that line blurred all the time. People think all I do is prop Columbus up and defend it because I think it's the greatest, and that's just not how I see it. I would love to debate Columbus' faults and qualities in some kind of constructive fashion, but how often does that really happen on these threads? If someone has an opinion on a place, good or bad, fine, but putting them out there on a public forum means that they are subject to both praise and criticism. If I find reason to place doubt on a particular opinion, I'm going to raise it. I think people would and do do the same to what I say.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Cbus76

Absolutely. People all want different things in life, including the places they live. In my adult life I've lived in Philadelphia, Dayton and Columbus - my favorite city among those three is Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean I don't like Columbus or Dayton. In fact, I have no plans to leave Columbus as it's a really nice place to live. However, I understand others' desire to try someplace new as there are certain things Columbus does not offer that other places do. Some will leave Columbus and find themselves much happier someplace else, others will go and find the grass isn't always greener.

I understand it too. As I've mentioned in the past, I've left Columbus before and lived other places simply because I wanted to see what else was out there. Columbus is far from perfect, and I have no problem pointing that out, but for whatever flaws it does have, we don't need people making up ones that don't exist or that aren't at all supported by the actual conditions. Sometimes it seems people are more interested in making a point than in making one that makes sense.

[Matthew Hall]

200,000 plus people is not a "finer point" Anyone who cares about any of these places should care about how their nearest metros are doing. Nothing and no one exists in isolation and we are all affected through a dense web of economic connections. The relative performance of metros is much more useful and relevant than absolute measures. As Frank McCourt said about his childhood in Ireland, " a ham sandwich was a miracle." Everything, including U.S. metro areas, is relative.