Is Columbus the best city in the Midwest? (Cleveland, Cincinnati: cinema, calculation)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by ferraris

I am all about these sorts of amenities and cultural things, but I also know quite a few people who couldn't care less about it. A lot of people are perfectly fine with living their lives between work, home, typical "shopping center" type options, and a run of the mill park or two. Even more people are fine with making a road trip to scratch the itch every now and then.

There isn't anything wrong with that. Columbus is great a place for the commuter, mall, default American lifestyle. I won't argue that.

[Cbus76]

Thought this was interesting from the City v. City forum, a look at 2020 demographics for Ohio's 3 C's. Columbus is often derided as vanilla and lacking the diversity of its older counterparts (and that may have been true several decades ago), but that doesn't seem to be the case as much anymore. Of course, Ohio's cities and the state as a whole is much less diverse than many states in this country.

Cincinnati - 2,256,884
White: 1,712,872 - 75.9%
Black: 273,322 - 12.1%
Hispanic: 95,073 - 4.2%
Asian: 67,673 - 3.0%

Columbus, OH - 2,138,926
White: 1,478,968 - 69.1%
Black: 334,842 - 15.7%
Hispanic: 110,967 - 5.2%
Asian: 105,237 - 4.9%

Cleveland/Elyria - 2,088,251
White: 1,407,943 - 67.4%
Black: 410,206 - 19.6%
Hispanic: 133,862 - 6.4%
Asian: 53,852 - 2.6%

[WRnative]

This article statistically reinforces my belief that population growth alone doesn't improve quality of life in a city or a metropolitan area.

<<Urban planning consultant Pete Saunders wrote for Bloomberg News a syndicated opinion piece titled "The 'best places to live' may not be the best places to live" noting that coastal juggernauts and long-booming Sun Belt cities are running low on economic fuel. The subhead read "The link between the popularity of cities and economic growth has been severed. Some of the most vibrant metropolises in the U.S. are actually shedding people."

Care to guess which urban areas he counted among the most economically vibrant -- as measured by rates of per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth above the national average -- that were also losing population?

"Most surprisingly, a handful of Rust Belt metros — Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, among others — outpaced the average per capita GDP gains yet actually lost population," he wrote.>>

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...-national.html

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...-growing-op-ed

Any comparable article analyzing Columbus economic development vs. demographic changes?

There's a great picture in the above article (first link) that I've never before seen (likely a drone shot) of the Cleveland city employment corridor of Carnegie, Euclid, Chester and Superior Avenues stretching about 6 miles from eastern University Circle to the Cuyahoga River. There is massive development underway within that corridor.

If nobody beats me to the task, some day I'll hopefully research per capita GDP and percent changes to see how Columbus compares with other cities.

BTW, the blog containing this article also highlighted plans for the Sherwin-Williams on Public Square in the heart of downtown Cleveland. Any similar developments planned for downtown Columbus?

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...ffer-busy.html

See drawings here of the new skyscraper that occupy the west quadrant of Cleveland's Public Square.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/08/...-cleveland-hq/

Threads such as this should consider not just population growth, but also changes in per capita GDP. I've always emphasized per capita personal income is higher in Greater Cleveland than in Greater Columbus, a fact that would never be guessed reading about Columbus' economy in many posts in this thread.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLEV439PCPI

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COLU139PCPI

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WRnative

This article statistically reinforces my belief that population growth alone doesn't improve quality of life in a city or a metropolitan area.

<<Urban planning consultant Pete Saunders wrote for Bloomberg News a syndicated opinion piece titled "The 'best places to live' may not be the best places to live" noting that coastal juggernauts and long-booming Sun Belt cities are running low on economic fuel. The subhead read "The link between the popularity of cities and economic growth has been severed. Some of the most vibrant metropolises in the U.S. are actually shedding people."

Care to guess which urban areas he counted among the most economically vibrant -- as measured by rates of per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth above the national average -- that were also losing population?

"Most surprisingly, a handful of Rust Belt metros — Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, among others — outpaced the average per capita GDP gains yet actually lost population," he wrote.>>

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...-national.html

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...-growing-op-ed

Any comparable article analyzing Columbus economic development vs. demographic changes?

There's a great picture in the above article (first link) that I've never before seen (likely a drone shot) of the Cleveland city employment corridor of Carnegie, Euclid, Chester and Superior Avenues stretching about 6 miles from eastern University Circle to the Cuyahoga River. There is massive development underway within that corridor.

If nobody beats me to the task, some day I'll hopefully research per capita GDP and percent changes to see how Columbus compares with other cities.

BTW, the blog containing this article also highlighted plans for the Sherwin-Williams on Public Square in the heart of downtown Cleveland. Any similar developments planned for downtown Columbus?

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...ffer-busy.html

See drawings here of the new skyscraper that occupy the west quadrant of Cleveland's Public Square.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/08/...-cleveland-hq/

Threads such as this should consider not just population growth, but also changes in per capita GDP. I've always emphasized per capita personal income is higher in Greater Cleveland than in Greater Columbus, a fact that would never be guessed reading about Columbus' economy in many posts in this thread.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLEV439PCPI

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COLU139PCPI

The argument isn't really that population growth by itself improves a city, but rather just that it is indicative of a perception that it has more positives than negatives for potential movers. But I would argue that strong population growth does eventually lead to a lot more development and amenities. One example of that in Columbus is that almost every part of the city saw growth, even in what would be considered declined areas. This is because demand for housing far outstripped supply, prompting revitalization even in some of the worst areas.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by WRnative

This article statistically reinforces my belief that population growth alone doesn't improve quality of life in a city or a metropolitan area.

<<Urban planning consultant Pete Saunders wrote for Bloomberg News a syndicated opinion piece titled "The 'best places to live' may not be the best places to live" noting that coastal juggernauts and long-booming Sun Belt cities are running low on economic fuel. The subhead read "The link between the popularity of cities and economic growth has been severed. Some of the most vibrant metropolises in the U.S. are actually shedding people."

Care to guess which urban areas he counted among the most economically vibrant -- as measured by rates of per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth above the national average -- that were also losing population?

"Most surprisingly, a handful of Rust Belt metros — Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, among others — outpaced the average per capita GDP gains yet actually lost population," he wrote.>>

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...-national.html

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...-growing-op-ed

Any comparable article analyzing Columbus economic development vs. demographic changes?

There's a great picture in the above article (first link) that I've never before seen (likely a drone shot) of the Cleveland city employment corridor of Carnegie, Euclid, Chester and Superior Avenues stretching about 6 miles from eastern University Circle to the Cuyahoga River. There is massive development underway within that corridor.

If nobody beats me to the task, some day I'll hopefully research per capita GDP and percent changes to see how Columbus compares with other cities.

BTW, the blog containing this article also highlighted plans for the Sherwin-Williams on Public Square in the heart of downtown Cleveland. Any similar developments planned for downtown Columbus?

https://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2021/...ffer-busy.html

See drawings here of the new skyscraper that occupy the west quadrant of Cleveland's Public Square.

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/08/...-cleveland-hq/

Threads such as this should consider not just population growth, but also changes in per capita GDP. I've always emphasized per capita personal income is higher in Greater Cleveland than in Greater Columbus, a fact that would never be guessed reading about Columbus' economy in many posts in this thread.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CLEV439PCPI

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COLU139PCPI

You absolutely can "boom" during stagnant/declining population periods. Pittsburgh built its light rail and some notable skyscrapers during its sharpest population loss period, Cleveland with the RNC and a new skyscraper with minimal fanfare. Los Angeles population growth is pretty stagnant, yet 2028 Olympics, acquisition of Chargers, Rams, LAFC, new tallest skyscraper in the western U.S. and some of the largest and most complex mass transit projects in the world all in the last few years.

Population growth isn't a tangible civic achievement, and that's really the entire argument for Columbus in this thread (and others).

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by statebw

It gets complicated because population growth (or decline) is connected to the local economy.

Yes, which is one of the big reasons people relocate. A positive economic image plays into the perception that a city has more to offer. That's why I keep harping on the basics- economic and educational opportunities, solid infrastructure, safety, etc. All of those are far, far more important than theater districts and museums for the vast majority of movers, no matter how world-renowned they may be.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

You absolutely can "boom" during stagnant/declining population periods. Pittsburgh built its light rail and some notable skyscrapers during its sharpest population loss period, Cleveland with the RNC and a new skyscraper with minimal fanfare. Los Angeles population growth is pretty stagnant, yet 2028 Olympics, acquisition of Chargers, Rams, LAFC, new tallest skyscraper in the western U.S. and some of the largest and most complex mass transit projects in the world all in the last few years.

Population growth isn't a tangible civic achievement, and that's really the entire argument for Columbus in this thread (and others).

No, the civic achievements would be what are behind the population growth. Population growth is just the end result of doing enough things right. You all can refuse to acknowledge that to the end of time, but it doesn't make it less true. It's not about population growth, it's about what cities do to make that happen.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Yes, which is one of the big reasons people relocate. A positive economic image plays into the perception that a city has more to offer. That's why I keep harping on the basics- economic and educational opportunities, solid infrastructure, safety, etc. All of those are far, far more important than theater districts and museums for the vast majority of movers, no matter how world-renowned they may be.

Wealthy individuals and those with very desirable job skills who can be selective about relocation decisions certainly care very much about amenities. This is one of the great attractions of NYC despite much higher living costs. Consider if you enjoy boating, fishing, professional sports, and very high quality museums, theater, and classical music, all factors which benefit from a relocation to Greater Cleveland over Greater Columbus.

Retired individuals also care about both amenities and the relative cost of housing, another factor where Greater Cleveland offers an advantage over Greater Columbus. E.g., Greater Columbus offers no suburbs with superior mass transit, including garden cities such as Shaker Heights with superb rail mass transit, or an entire county like Lake County with an extensive point-to-point mass transit system, extraordinarily popular among retired individuals.

Please explain why per capita personal income is so significantly higher in Greater Cleveland than Greater Columbus. See post 263. Likely one explanation is that Greater Cleveland's superior amenities attract more wealthy individuals.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

No, the civic achievements would be what are behind the population growth. Population growth is just the end result of doing enough things right. You all can refuse to acknowledge that to the end of time, but it doesn't make it less true. It's not about population growth, it's about what cities do to make that happen.

Baloney. The massive investment in Cleveland's University Circle over the past decade, including the $320 million renovation, digitalization, and expansion of the Cleveland Museum Art, dwarfs the cultural investments in Columbus in the entire 21st century. None of these investments were correlated with population growth in Greater Cleveland. Ditto, the massive investment in Cleveland's Playhouse Square in recent decades.

https://www.cleveland.com/arts/2014/...of_arts_p.html

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

No, the civic achievements would be what are behind the population growth. Population growth is just the end result of doing enough things right. You all can refuse to acknowledge that to the end of time, but it doesn't make it less true. It's not about population growth, it's about what cities do to make that happen.

Columbus really doesn't have anything great about it though. Just redirecting money from elsewhere to pay bureaucrats to mess around all day. That is simply the truth. I'm tired of pretending this isn't the case.