Will Columbus become largest Ohio metro? (Cleveland, Cincinnati: crime, manufactured, food)

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by Nailerman9192

It’s on that path yes. Columbus is going to grow that big. It has the jobs and the opportunities.

So I did some figuring on the current vs peak census numbers for all big cities in Ohio (minus Columbus) as well as other rust belt cities. The cities that have the highest percentage of their peak population still in the city limits from most to least. It may surprise you.

1. Toledo 70% of peak population
2. Erie, PA 68%
3. Akron 66%
4. Cincinnati 61%
5. Canton 60%
6. Dayton 53%
7. Buffalo, NY 48%
8. Pittsburgh, PA 45%
9. Wheeling, WV 44%
10. Cleveland 41%
11. Tie: Detroit, MI and Youngstown 35%

You wanna turn the population around in those cities. Gotta do it with job growth and opportunities for people to make money.

I wonder where Columbus's core 40 miles is compared to 1950...hmm.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Nailerman9192

It’s on that path yes. Columbus is going to grow that big. It has the jobs and the opportunities.

So I did some figuring on the current vs peak census numbers for all big cities in Ohio (minus Columbus) as well as other rust belt cities. The cities that have the highest percentage of their peak population still in the city limits from most to least. It may surprise you.

1. Toledo 70% of peak population
2. Erie, PA 68%
3. Akron 66%
4. Cincinnati 61%
5. Canton 60%
6. Dayton 53%
7. Buffalo, NY 48%
8. Pittsburgh, PA 45%
9. Wheeling, WV 44%
10. Cleveland 41%
11. Tie: Detroit, MI and Youngstown 35%

You wanna turn the population around in those cities. Gotta do it with job growth and opportunities for people to make money.

You claim Columbus's trend will never slow or reverse and your supporting evidence is how other cities' trends have slowed or reversed.

Cannot wait for columbus to decline, what will you say then?

Most every city on this list has quite a lot of identity and character to it, a decline in population doesn't make it less of a place. Columbus needs numbers on a census report to feel good. Which makes sense, there is nothing else to brag about.

[Jbraybarten653]

City populations are an awful way to discuss cities - it's only relevant want discussing issues that matter based on the political boundaries. This is why MSAs have long been better metrics, even if there also flaws with them (or any measurement). Most of these cities need to generate more jobs and attract more people. If they settle in the city great, but if most won't and that's ok. Generally speaking, if the cities do generate more jobs, then the city proper and burbs will benefit and it compounds growth.

[BRNorth]

Originally Posted by Nailerman9192

Over 100,000 residents lost outside of the Columbus metro. It’s a tale of two Ohios. Ohio would’ve lost the most population in the country if it wasn’t for Columbus.

I like the wishful thinking that it will change due to climate extremes. I just don’t believe it will happen. Too many people want to live in these warm areas that don’t have drinking water or risk being wiped out by tropical storms. Until the money stops flowing and lending to build and move there it will continue.

Columbus is probably going to have over 3 million people in the metro and the state population ends up around 12.5 to 13 million. A population that consolidates around the center of the state while everything around it declines and dies off. The huge gains in Columbus will be a wash with the huge declines in the rest of the state.

https://www.greaterohio.org/blog/202...tes?format=amp

Where at the statistics that Ohio would have lost the most people in the country outside of Columbus? Illinois? New York? Michigan? Raw number wise there are states doing worse.

On a percentage basis, there are states doing far worse, including West Virginia. WV really is worrisome.

[Cbus76]

Originally Posted by BRNorth

Where at the statistics that Ohio would have lost the most people in the country outside of Columbus? Illinois? New York? Michigan? Raw number wise there are states doing worse.

On a percentage basis, there are states doing far worse, including West Virginia. WV really is worrisome.

WV is in rough shape, though they do have a couple bright spots. The Eastern Panhandle (Charles Town, Martinsburg, etc.) is the beneficiary of growth outward from D.C. I mean, you can get from parts of Eastern WV to Dulles Airport in 40 minutes. Also, the North Central region around Morgantown and Bridgeport is doing ok. Cities like Charleston, Parkersburg and Huntington are struggling, especially Charleston.

As for Ohio, a decent portion of Columbus' growth is likely from other regions of the state. I don't see it slowing down anytime soon given some of the new development that will draw people to the central Ohio area (Intel, the new Honda plant, etc.).

[nadnerb]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Delusional?


As I said, read the climate change thread. The grim reality is well documented. You apparently don't think increasing atmospheric temperatures, shrinking water supplies, rapidly accelerating sea level rise, and much more, will impact the desirability of living in significant areas of the nation, especially ocean coastal areas, by 2050? If so, you ignore not only the warnings of climate scientists, but also increasingly empirical reality.


Read through the threads detailing the residential insurance crisis in the Florida forum, just for starters.



Also, the U.S. is just beginning to face the realities imposed by its massive debt burdens, and yet we spend hundreds of billions annually on "resiliency" projects to adapt to climate change impacts disproportionately in certain states. Why are we subsidizing FEMA flood insurance, spending any federal money "refreshing" ocean beaches, spending federal money attempting to manage shrinking water supplies in the West, increasingly spending hundreds of billions in the aftermath of escalating natural disasters (Florida is effectively mandating flood insurance)?


What happens when the federal government no longer can fund these massive "resiliency" needs? Ohio is massively short-changed on infrastructure spending already on a per capita basis, but Ohioans continue to vote for politicians who support federal resiliency projects that should be paid for by local taxpayers, just as Ohioans largely bear the burden of living with snowfalls, although decreasing, and the massive costs resulting from the annual freeze/thaw cycle.


When states such as Florida and Texas are forced to raise taxes to adapt to climate change, will persons still be willing to ignore an increasingly downgraded environment? Additionally, at some point soon, the U.S. will be forced to massively reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to check the existential threat represented by climate change. Texas no longer will be able to live off severance taxes from fossil fuel production.


Check out Florida's historical population at Wikipedia. Florida's population more than doubled between 1950 and 1970. Massive population shifts are nothing new in U.S. history.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida


Have you followed the fuel shortages in southeast Florida as a result of massive flooding impacting port supplies? How attractive will coastal areas remain with largely inundated beaches and once beautiful coastal nature preserves? How will coastal areas deal with increased flooding, and impaired fresh water supplies and sewage removal?

Yes it’s delusional.

Florida boomed in the 50s and 60s partly because it benefitted from high birth rates but also (as much as I don’t care for the state) it has a unique selling point and tangible benefits, something that Ohio doesn’t have. Ohio was one of the slowest growing states last decade and it has very little appeal among young people.

Figuring out the safest place from climate change is an entirely speculative exercise. If you research “best states for climate change” the results are pretty much all over the place. Climate change problems get wrapped up with ecological problems, like land use and overpopulation, which makes it really hard to predict. In my opinion, trying to figure out long term sociological trends is pointless.

[216facts]

Originally Posted by nadnerb

Yes it’s delusional.

Florida boomed in the 50s and 60s partly because it benefitted from high birth rates but also (as much as I don’t care for the state) it has a unique selling point and tangible benefits, something that Ohio doesn’t have. Ohio was one of the slowest growing states last decade and it has very little appeal among young people.

Figuring out the safest place from climate change is an entirely speculative exercise. If you research “best states for climate change” the results are pretty much all over the place. Climate change problems get wrapped up with ecological problems, like land use and overpopulation, which makes it really hard to predict. In my opinion, trying to figure out long term sociological trends is pointless.

Agree. The best prediction of the next 10 years comes from the last 10 years. Population changes like this just basically don't happen.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

I wonder where Columbus's core 40 miles is compared to 1950...hmm.

Probably lost population since Columbus expanded to engulf newly developing suburbs.

[Cbus76]

Columbus' 1950 population was 375,901 and I saw on a different website from a poster who also posts here (jbcmh) that same area in 2020 was 256,939. For comparison, Cincinnati in 1950 was 503,998 and 309,317 in 2020. Cleveland in 1950 was 914,808 and 372,624 in 2020.

[Cbus76]

Franklin County in 1950 was 503,410 and 1,323,807 in 2020. Hamilton County was 723,952 in 1950 and 830,639 in 2020. Cuyahoga County was 1,389,532 in 1950 and 1,264,817 in 2020.