Columbus vs. Cincinnati (Cleveland, Dayton: construction, deal, money)

[motorman]

Originally Posted by db108108

And yet Columbus just passed the 800,000 mark, while Cleveland and Cincinnati continue to slide toward oblivion.... Why do people keep moving to "small town" Columbus and fleeing the thriving metropolises of Cincinnati and Cleveland?

Perhaps the most helpful and kindest tip is to gently remind this poster that "Columbus-proper" comprises app. 225 sq. miles, while Cleveland app. 83 sq. miles and Cincinnati app. 80 sq. miles (the ramifications being enormous). And, as far as his observation about Cleveland and Cincinnati sliding into oblivion--well, what can be said?

[Cbus76]

Originally Posted by db108108

And yet Columbus just passed the 800,000 mark, while Cleveland and Cincinnati continue to slide toward oblivion.... Why do people keep moving to "small town" Columbus and fleeing the thriving metropolises of Cincinnati and Cleveland?

City boundaries are why the city of Columbus is so much bigger than Cleveland or Cincinnati. The more accurate measure are the MSA's and CSA's of the respective cities.

2012 MSA estimates:
Cincinnati - 2,128,603
Cleveland - 2,063,535
Columbus - 1,944,002

2012 CSA estimates:
Cleveland - 3,497,711
Columbus - 2,348,495
Cincinnati - 2,188,001 (if Dayton is included, it would jump to about 3.2 million)

Columbus does have the highest growth rate of the 3 for both the MSA and CSA, but Cincinnati's MSA and CSA continue to grow as well, albeit more modestly. As for Cleveland, I think they're on a similar path to Pittsburgh and it wouldn't surprise me to see some growth in the MSA and CSA later this decade.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Cbus76

City boundaries are why the city of Columbus is so much bigger than Cleveland or Cincinnati. The more accurate measure are the MSA's and CSA's of the respective cities.

2012 MSA estimates:
Cincinnati - 2,128,603
Cleveland - 2,063,535
Columbus - 1,944,002

2012 CSA estimates:
Cleveland - 3,497,711
Columbus - 2,348,495
Cincinnati - 2,188,001 (if Dayton is included, it would jump to about 3.2 million)

Columbus does have the highest growth rate of the 3 for both the MSA and CSA, but Cincinnati's MSA and CSA continue to grow as well, albeit more modestly. As for Cleveland, I think they're on a similar path to Pittsburgh and it wouldn't surprise me to see some growth in the MSA and CSA later this decade.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. If you measured each city at the same square mileage, Columbus would be the bigger city in most measurements. We have population measurements for each mile marker, so it's just basic math from there.

Some examples:
5 miles from the center of each city equals about 78.5 square miles (or about the size that Cleveland/Cincinnati are right now). At that range, the populations would be Columbus: 404,642, Cincinnati: 400,254, Cleveland: 361,475.

10 miles from the center equals about 314 square miles. At that range the populations would be Columbus: 993,957, Cleveland: 918,511, Cincinnati: 862,932.

Columbus would have the largest population at any square mileage between about 51 and 800 square miles around its center. Beyond that, Cleveland or Cincinnati take over back and forth. So it's absolutely incorrect to use say that the current city size differences make all that much of a difference to the population order. Even if Columbus was around the 80 square miles of the other two, it'd still be more populated, and even if the other two were Columbus' current size, Columbus would, again, still be larger. It's math guys, and it shows pretty clearly why Columbus is a larger city even while the other two have larger metros.

Also, I disagree about the CSA being the more accurate representation. MSA is probably better.

[streetcreed]

Originally Posted by motorman

Perhaps the most helpful and kindest tip is to gently remind this poster that "Columbus-proper" comprises app. 225 sq. miles, while Cleveland app. 83 sq. miles and Cincinnati app. 80 sq. miles (the ramifications being enormous). And, as far as his observation about Cleveland and Cincinnati sliding into oblivion--well, what can be said?

But all three metros are within the same size range too.

[db108108]

Originally Posted by motorman

Perhaps the most helpful and kindest tip is to gently remind this poster that "Columbus-proper" comprises app. 225 sq. miles, while Cleveland app. 83 sq. miles and Cincinnati app. 80 sq. miles (the ramifications being enormous). And, as far as his observation about Cleveland and Cincinnati sliding into oblivion--well, what can be said?

Regardless of size (what does it matter?), why are people still fleeing the central cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland? Why did both post post more than 10% losses from 2000-2010, while Columbus was up more than 10%? As for sliding into oblivion, what else can be said about cities that have lost 57% and 41% of their peak populations, respectively.

Both Cleveland and Cincinnati are great cities. But bolstering them at the expense of Columbus is ridiculous - it's clear where the real growth in Ohio is happening, and it's not at the ends. Columbus will be the first Ohio city to pass 1 million in 20 or 30 years, and you guys will still be referring to it as an afterthought.

[bjimmy24]

Meh. This conversation is sooooo 2 weeks ago. Sorry, you missed it. We've all already agreed- most people from their respective "C" prefers their "C." Columbus is growing pretty quickly and has shed a lot of its former "boring" image due to an influx of young, educated, more urban-inclined people. Cincinnati and Cleveland have COMPLETELY differently histories that you can't really compare to Columbus. Population exodus is almost entirely tied to economic opportunities. That is to say, people leaving Cincinnati or Cleveland did not necessarily leave because the people suck, or there is nothing to do, or it's a miserable hell hole. My guess is most people left so they could find good work. This trend is beginning to reverse (for example, Cleveland has become a world-class medical city and attracts top talent in medical fields of all types). Some areas are in rough shape still, but developments in both cities have been picking up very quickly and a lot of core neighborhoods are gaining population. The same is also true in Columbus. All 3 cities have their share of very real issues too, along with some very real reasons to be happy living there.

All 3 of Ohio's major metropolitan areas seem to be doing better than before and there is legitimate reason to like all of them.

But, there's still no reason to like Toledo. Screw them.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by db108108

Regardless of size (what does it matter?), why are people still fleeing the central cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland? Why did both post post more than 10% losses from 2000-2010, while Columbus was up more than 10%? As for sliding into oblivion, what else can be said about cities that have lost 57% and 41% of their peak populations, respectively.

Both Cleveland and Cincinnati are great cities. But bolstering them at the expense of Columbus is ridiculous - it's clear where the real growth in Ohio is happening, and it's not at the ends. Columbus will be the first Ohio city to pass 1 million in 20 or 30 years, and you guys will still be referring to it as an afterthought.

If recent estimates are correct, Cincinnati may be growing again. Good news for them.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Meh. This conversation is sooooo 2 weeks ago. Sorry, you missed it. We've all already agreed- most people from their respective "C" prefers their "C." Columbus is growing pretty quickly and has shed a lot of its former "boring" image due to an influx of young, educated, more urban-inclined people. Cincinnati and Cleveland have COMPLETELY differently histories that you can't really compare to Columbus. Population exodus is almost entirely tied to economic opportunities. That is to say, people leaving Cincinnati or Cleveland did not necessarily leave because the people suck, or there is nothing to do, or it's a miserable hell hole. My guess is most people left so they could find good work. This trend is beginning to reverse (for example, Cleveland has become a world-class medical city and attracts top talent in medical fields of all types). Some areas are in rough shape still, but developments in both cities have been picking up very quickly and a lot of core neighborhoods are gaining population. The same is also true in Columbus. All 3 cities have their share of very real issues too, along with some very real reasons to be happy living there.

All 3 of Ohio's major metropolitan areas seem to be doing better than before and there is legitimate reason to like all of them.

But, there's still no reason to like Toledo. Screw them.

Yeah, I think, despite all of our disagreement in this thread, did agree that population loss doesn't make for a bad city.

Cleveland would lose 6% of it's population if the current rate stays the same through to the next census. While not great, it would be a significant improvement over the previous decade and would hopefully indicate a trend. Cincinnati would end up ahead.

I feel bad for Toledo. I went to school there for awhile... out of all of Ohio's major cities, it just seems to be the most depressing. Maybe that has to do with proximity to Michigan/Detroit.

[Ohiogirl81]

Toledo has a great zoo ...

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by db108108

Why do people keep moving to "small town" Columbus and fleeing the thriving metropolises of Cincinnati and Cleveland?

Actually, Cincinnati's population loss has shown signs of stabilization. You prob. should read up on your facts first, there bub.