Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to split hairs, but I didn't say "everyone"...my exact words were "just about all rankings I've ever seen of fastest-growing cities/counties/metro areas/states has (sic) used the percentages as the basis of the rankings," which is a statement that I stand by. Newspaper articles, magazine articles, almanacs, the top 100 lists on this website, etc. typically use the percentages when comparing numerous places of vastly different sizes.
Like most, I still think that the percentages by themselves are a much better barometer than the raw population changes by themselves when comparing numerous places of vastly different sizes. For example, the last link you provided shows that Cincy ranks 41st out of all 361 metro areas nationwide in terms of numerical population change, which certainly conflicts with your statement (with which I agree) that Cincy's population growth is below the national average. OTOH, Cincy ranks 194th out of 361 in terms of percentage population change (Cincy's is 4.7%, the nation's is 6.4%), which concurs with your statement that it is below the national average.
With that being said, after reading your last shot at explaining why percentages can be misleading, I finally understood the point you were making. As you pointed out, the percentages by themselves seem to imply that the population gap between Cincy (the smaller place) and Philly (the larger place) is shrinking, when in fact the opposite is true; likewise, the percentages by themselves seem to imply that the population gap between Louisville (the smaller place) and Cincy (the larger place) is shrinking, when in fact the opposite is true. So, I can now see that it would be optimal to consider both (numerical and percentage) when ranking areas of vastly different sizes since numerical favors larger places and percentage favors smaller places. But how would you propose that we do that in order to compute an overall ranking? The only way I can think of doing it is to average the numerical change rankings and percentage change rankings from columns I and J in the last link you provided, and then sorting the averages from low to high (however, I don't know whether the results would be very meaningful?). FWIW, I used Excel to do that, and Cincy ranked 112th out of 361 (just below San Diego and just ahead of Louisville), which puts it in the top third nationally.
BTW, you previously stated that Cincy's growth is "below average on a national stage" and "middle of the pack" for the Northeast/Midwest. I am curious as to what your thoughts are now? By stating that it was below average on a national stage, you must have been basing it on the percentage changes, given that Cincy's is 4.7% and the nation's is 6.4%; as I pointed out above, Cincy is 41st out of 361 nationally based on numerical changes, which would mean that it is far above average nationally. If, as it appears, you agree that using the percentage change is the way to compare a metro area to the entire nation, then am I correct in assuming that you agree that it is also the way to compare a metro area to its entire region? If so, do you agree that your "middle of the pack" comment was inaccurate? As I previously mentioned, Cincy's 4.7% is definitely above average when compared to the Midwest's 2.8% (BTW, if you lump KY in with the Midwest, the Midwest's rate is 2.9%) and to the combined Northeast/Midwest/Upper South's 3.0%. Either way, Cincy's growth rate is above average for its region, as also evidenced by its ranking 7th of the 17 Northeast/Midwest/Upper South metro areas with 2000 populations between 1 and 3 million.
BTW, you previously stated that Cincy's growth is "below average on a national stage" ... I am curious as to what your thoughts are now?
I stand by that as well. Here are the numeric and percentage rankings for the entire US for metros between 1m & 3m as of the 2000 Census:
Numeric -
1. Las Vegas 401,801
2. Orlando 340,292
3. Tampa 301,718
4. Sacramento 270,260
5. Austin 263,802
6. Charlotte 252,613
7. San Antonio 230,501
8. Denver 229,430
9. Portland 209,684
10. Minneapolis 206,224
11. Jacksonville 155,247
12. Nashville 143,308
13. Indianapolis 140,928
14. Kansas City 130,985
15. San Diego 127,621
16. Columbus 112,729
17. Baltimore 105,411
18. St. Louis 97,696
19. Richmond 97,051
20. Cincinnati 94,545
21. Oklahoma City 76,918
22. Virginia Beach 72,540
23. Memphis 69,510
24. Louisville 59,807
25. San Jose 51,304
26. Birmingham 48,714
27. Hartford 40,223
28. Providence 29,992
29. Milwaukee 9,237
30. Rochester -2,398
31. Buffalo -32,589
32. Cleveland -33,855
33. Pittsburgh -60,309
34. New Orleans -291,834
Percentage -
1. Las Vegas 29.21%
2. Austin 21.11%
3. Orlando 20.69%
4. Charlotte 18.99%
5. Sacramento 15.04%
6. Jacksonville 13.83%
7. San Antonio 13.47%
8. Tampa 12.59%
9. Nashville 10.92%
10. Portland 10.88%
11. Denver 10.53%
12. Indianapolis 9.24%
13. Richmond 8.85%
14. Kansas City 7.13%
15. Oklahoma City 7.02%
16. Columbus 6.99%
17. Minneapolis 6.95%
18. Memphis 5.77%
19. Louisville 5.15%
20. Cincinnati 4.7%
21. Birmingham 4.63%
22. Virginia Beach 4.6%
23. San Diego 4.54%
24. Baltimore 4.13%
25. St. Louis 3.62%
26. Hartford 3.5%
27. San Jose 2.96%
28. Providence 1.89%
29. Milwaukee 0.62%
30. Rochester -0.23%
31. Cleveland -1.58%
32. Pittsburgh -2.48%
33. Buffalo -2.79%
34. New Orleans -22.17%
Personally I think Baltimore (part of DC), San Jose (part of SF), and New Orleans (Katrina) should be excluded from the sample since they aren't really comparable, but I'll keep them in there to be consistent... but leaving them in there pushes Cincy closer to the middle of the pack nationally.
1. Numerically Cincy was ranked 11 out of the 21 metros on your NE/MW list, which I said was middle of the pack.
2. Cincy was middle of the pack for growth on a regional basis.
I stand by those remarks and I will defend them by looking your sample (1m --> 3m as of 2000), for your region, both numerically and by percentages:
Numeric growth -
1. Indianapolis 9.24%
2. Kansas City 7.13%
3. Columbus 6.99%
4. Minneapolis 6.95%
5. Cincinnati 4.7%
6. St. Louis 3.62%
7. Milwaukee 0.62%
8. Cleveland -1.58%
Percentage growth -
1. Minneapolis 206,224
2. Indianapolis 140,928
3. Kansas City 130,985
4. Columbus 112,729
5. St. Louis 97,696
6. Cincinnati 94,545
7. Milwaukee 9,237
8. Cleveland -33,855
Again, there are lies, darn lies, and statistics.
It's the 2nd statement - "Cincy was middle of the pack for growth on a regional basis" - that I contend is wrong. When you made that remark about the region, all discussion of the 'region' up to that point had included the Northeast/Midwest, to which you had not objected. Now, you're "defending" your remark by only including the Midwest.
There are two reasons that I had referred to the region as the Northeast/Midwest right from the start. First is that Ohio, the easternmost Midwest state, is viewed by a lot of people (including many Ohioans) as a Northeastern state; you can easily see why with a quick glance at any U.S. map. Throughout the years, I have seen quite a few marketing and political studies that have lumped Ohio in with the Northeast. The second reason is that the Northeast and Midwest combined are often referred to as the North, and Ohio is definitely a Northern state. Northern United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia IMO, given its geographic position, any study that is done for the sake of comparing Ohio and/or its cities/metro areas to its region is incomplete if the region is defined as only the Midwest instead of the Northeast/Midwest. Does Ohio really have more in common with the western part of the Midwest than it does with states such as Pennsylvania and New York? I think not.
I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible when comparing Cincy to its region, which is why I included the northern portion of the South (KY, WV, VA, DC, MD, DE) when I ranked the metro areas with 2000 populations between 1 and 3 million; again, its debatable whether those areas are truly in the South even though the Census Bureau says they are, so I included them in the North. I thought that that was especially appropriate given Cincy's location in the southern part of the North. Again, using that most inclusive definition of the Northeast/Midwest region, Cincy ranked 7th out of 17 with a growth rate of 4.7% compared to the average of 3.5% for all of them - IOW, Cincy's growth is above average for its region. Also, as I previously pointed out, it's even more above average when you compare it to the entire region (+3.0%) instead of limiting it to metro areas of 1-3 million. (An aside: as I previously mentioned, if you only consider the Midwest, as you did in defending your remarks, the growth rate for the entire region is only 2.8%).
As for Cincy's growth being below the national average, I have never disagreed with that. I mentioned in my last post that Cincy ranks 41st out of 361 metro areas numerically while it ranks 194th out of 361 on a percentage basis. IOW, the percentage ranking by itself, while not perfect, was a much better reflection of how Cincy measures up nationally than the numeric ranking by itself. I tossed out the idea of combining the two rankings to compute an overall ranking (for which Cincy would be in the top third), but I didn't really endorse the idea.
Last edited by OHBuckeye; 07-16-2007 at 02:36 AM..
Do you honestly believe that Cincinnati would be considered part of the Northeast? That's a huge stretch. IMHO, as someone who has visited all parts of the country for business, Cincinnati has more in common culturally and politically with the Midwest or the South than the Northeast.
Look, this is getting silly. You are obviously not going to change my mind and I apparently won't change yours. I think the best way to sum it up is to say, "Cincinnati's growth rate is a little below the national average, but higher than all other large metro areas in Ohio except Columbus, and higher than most of the other areas along the rust belt and the Northeast region of the country." OK?
I couldn't agree more! The central issue of the debate between you and OHBuckeye was about whether the Cincy metro is or is not growing faster than its region. IMHO, OHBuckeye won the debate when he posted the following:
Quote:
Summation of 2000-2006 Regional Growth Rates
Cincinnati Metro Area = 4.7%
State of Ohio = 1.1%
Combined States of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana = 2.4%
Midwest (Census Bureau definition) = 2.8%
Northeast + Midwest (Census Bureau definition) = 2.5%
Northeast + Midwest (alternate definition) = 3.0%
Whether you only consider the Midwest or the Midwest/Northeast, Cincy is growing faster than its region. I can't understand why the debate continued after that post. Why should it be limited to metro areas with populations of one to three million? IMHO, comparing the growth rate of the Cincy metro to the growth rate of its entire region is by far the best, most comprehensive way to do it.
I tend to agree with The Cactus Leaguer that the Northeast shouldn't be included, but, as OHBuckeye pointed out, Cincy's 4.7% growth rate trounces the 2.8% growth rate for the entire Midwest (2.9% with Kentucky included). However, I can think of three other appropriate ways to define the region in which Cincy is located. As OHBuckeye mentioned at some point in this thread, the Census Bureau subdivides its four main regions into smaller regions. The part of the Midwest that Ohio is in is the East North Central, which also includes Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin; that would be one appropriate definition of the region. As The Cactus Leaguer has said, it could be argued that the South should be included since part of the Cincy metro is in Kentucky. The specific region of the South in which Kentucky is located is the East South Central, which also includes Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. Thus, another appropriate definition of Cincy's region that I am proposing is a combination of the East North Central and the East South Central. The final one, which is probably the most appropriate, is the Midwest as defined by climatologists - Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota. (Welcome to the MRCC Homepage)
Now, here are the growth rates for those three regions:
East North Central - 2.5%
East North Central + East South Central - 3.0%
Midwest (climatological definition) - 2.9%.
In conclusion, no matter which definition of Cincy's region that is used, the regional growth rate is in the 2.5-3.0% range, clearly below the Cincy metro's 4.7%.
BTW, Cincy is not in the rust belt: Manufacturing Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As for being in the Upland South, part of the metro area is, but the three most populous counties of the metro are not. The Upland South Wikipedia description includes Southern Ohio and gives this link to it: Appalachian Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Hamilton, Warren and Butler Counties are not included. Also, the Upland South page contains this description:
The Upland South contains its own subregions. The fertile lowlands of the Nashville Basin and the Bluegrass Basin gave rise to the truly urban cities of Nashville, Lexington, Louisville which grew into banking and mercantile centers in the 19th century, home to an elite class of Upland Southerners, including bankers, lawyers, and politicians. Most of the Upland South, however, remained rural in character.
Right, but most of the population in your "East North Central + East South Central" IS in the rust belt. That's like saying "Compared to Flint, we are a juggernaut."
The nation is generally moving to the south and to the west. If you want to say "Hey, Cincy is growing faster than the rust belt and the northeast", then I agree 100%. The data backs that up. If your definition of the "region" is such that Cincy is the southwestern tip, then naturally the data backs that up as well. But if you look at Cincy from the center outward, and in comparison to similar sized regions, then it's middle of the pack.
Right, but most of the population in your "East North Central + East South Central" IS in the rust belt. That's like saying "Compared to Flint, we are a juggernaut."
The nation is generally moving to the south and to the west. If you want to say "Hey, Cincy is growing faster than the rust belt and the northeast", then I agree 100%. The data backs that up. If your definition of the "region" is such that Cincy is the southwestern tip, then naturally the data backs that up as well. But if you look at Cincy from the center outward, and in comparison to similar sized regions, then it's middle of the pack.
In all honesty, your attempts at trying to make it look like Cincy's growth is only average for its region are becoming rather comical. You have been presented with numerous plausible definitions of Cincy's region, all of which have growth rates below those of the Cincy metro. My East North Central + East south Central was only one of several. When you defended your statement that Cincy is only average for its region, you only considered the Midwest. Yet when confronted with the fact that the growth rate for the entire Midwest is only 2.8% (2.9% if Kentucky is included), you claim that Cincy has a geographic advantage when only the Midwest is considered. Maybe you need some geography lessons, as Cincy certainly isn't the southwestern tip of the Midwest - it's in the southeastern part of the Midwest. Yes, the nation is generally moving to the south and west, so don't the south and east portions of Cincy's location within the Midwest cancel each other out? If you bisected the Midwest from northwest to southeast in order to divide it into its northeast and southwest halves, Cincy would be very close to the bisection line. The only 'region' to which Cincy has been compared for which it was at the southwestern tip was the state of Ohio.
Right, but most of the population in your "East North Central + East South Central" IS in the rust belt. That's like saying "Compared to Flint, we are a juggernaut."
I forgot to address that statement in my first reply. Saying that "most" of the population in the East North Central + East South Central is in the rust belt is blatantly false. Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cleveland are in the rust belt, but Columbus, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, all four East South Central States and most of Illinois and Wisconsin are not. It might be 50-50 at best, but "most" is definitely false.
As I pointed out, the growth rate for the East North Central is 2.5% and the growth rate for the East North Central + East South Central is 3.0%. What I didn't mention is that the growth rate for the East South Central by itself is 4.3%. Yes, that's right - the growth rate for the entire East South Central (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi), of which the southern part of the Cincy metro lies at the extreme NORTHERN tip, is less than the growth rate of the Cincy metro.
I find it laughable that you suggested that it would be better to compare Cincy to the Midwest + South when OHBuckeye first posted the comparison of the various regional growth rates, but then criticized me when I did exactly that, using the precise regions of the Midwest and South in which the Cincy metro lies! Now I suppose you'll say that Cincy should be compared to the entire Midwest + South so that it can be compared to places such as Texas and Florida...LOL!
It seems to me that you are one of those people who can just never admit to being wrong. You stated that "Cincy was middle of the pack for growth on a regional basis. When you made that statement, you never specified that you were only referring to metro areas with populations between one and three million (which creates an awfully small sample size). Using the growth rates for the region, it was clearly proven to you that Cincy's growth is noticeably above average on a regional basis (whether you define the region as the entire Midwest or the specific regions of the Midwest and South in which the Cincy metro lies).
BTW, since you are such a staunch advocate of using the rather meaningless parameter of numeric growth when comparing metro areas, I'm curious as to why you never responded to the following from the initial post in this thread by WCRob:
Quote:
I know the actual city of Columbus itself is larger than Cincinnati proper. But are things in Columbus really that much better? Why is it growing so much more than Cincinnati?
Based on the way you say they should be compared, Columbus certainly isn't growing "so much more" than Cincy. Numerically, Columbus grew by 112,700 and Cincy grew by 94,500. That difference definitely wouldn't qualify as "so much more," the implication of which to me is that Columbus' growth is at least double Cincy's.
Another BTW: I noticed that you never responded when OHBuckeye pointed out that Cincy ranks 41st of all 361 metro areas in numeric growth but ranks 194th in percentage growth nationally. If that isn't a perfect example of why percentage growth stats are much more meaningful than numeric growth stats, I don't what is.
In all honesty, your attempts at trying to make it look like Cincy's growth is only average for its region are becoming rather comical.
As are yours at attempting to make Cincy's growth rate appear better than it really is. I have chosen my words carefully all along and I have also freely admitted all along that it's easy to twist statistics to force the argument in your favor. You (and OHBuckeye) are twisting it one way, I'm twisting it in another way. I have tried to suggest a reasonable compromise but for some reason you and OHBuckeye seem obsessed with proving me wrong.
Quote:
You have been presented with numerous plausible definitions of Cincy's region, all of which have growth rates below those of the Cincy metro. My East North Central + East south Central was only one of several.
Which just goes to show that Cincy doesn't easily comform as it borders several regions, in various ways that we have sliced and diced regional definitions.
Quote:
When you defended your statement that Cincy is only average for its region, you only considered the Midwest. Yet when confronted with the fact that the growth rate for the entire Midwest is only 2.8% (2.9% if Kentucky is included), you claim that Cincy has a geographic advantage when only the Midwest is considered.
I said that it was middle of the pack numerically under OHBuckeye's original viewpoint, and then I said it was middle of the pack (both percentage-wise and numerically speaking) compared to similar sized metros within the Midwest. Those are indisputable facts.
Quote:
Maybe you need some geography lessons, as Cincy certainly isn't the southwestern tip of the Midwest - it's in the southeastern part of the Midwest.
And maybe you need reading comprehension lessons, as I said that Cincy was southwesterncompared to the rust belt and the northeast combined.
Quote:
Yes, the nation is generally moving to the south and west, so don't the south and east portions of Cincy's location within the Midwest cancel each other out? If you bisected the Midwest from northwest to southeast in order to divide it into its northeast and southwest halves, Cincy would be very close to the bisection line. The only 'region' to which Cincy has been compared for which it was at the southwestern tip was the state of Ohio.
This was brought up in the context of looking at the growth rates for the similar sized metros in the midwest and northeast. As we could see, growth was somewhat (though not perfectly) correlated toward the south and west. Cincinnati was not a positive outlier (as Columbus was, while St. Louis was a negative outlier).
Last edited by The Cactus Leaguer; 07-17-2007 at 01:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
