July 1, 2013 City Population Estimates

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

Again, also not true, on either the definition of "much of" which doesn't have to mean most of (I would have used "most of" if I meant that instead) or in the "which also can't happen" part of your statement.

It could just mean "a great quantity of." In Columbus' case it means the city has annexed almost 3x more land area than Cincinnati or Cleveland, or in Indianapolis' case, it actually could mean most of Marion County (Indianapolis takes up 368 sq. miles of 403 total sq. miles) which shows that cities can annex most or even all of their counties eventually. As an example of the latter, take Denver County, Colorado, and the city of Denver. I was actually born in the unincorporated part of Denver County while it still existed before the city annexed and incorporated the entire county.

Cities can combine with their home counties, but it's unlikely that they would be able to annex "much" or most of counties outside of it, regardless of how you define it. Columbus is not going to combine with Franklin County, at least not in the foreseeable future. Franklin County is over 500 square miles. Columbus as an entire city, including the small sections in other counties, is only about 220. If it ever did combine with the county, like Indianapolis did, it would be a city of 1.21 million and would rise to 10th largest.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Cities can combine with their home counties, but it's unlikely that they would be able to annex "much" or most of counties outside of it, regardless of how you define it. Columbus is not going to combine with Franklin County, at least not in the foreseeable future. Franklin County is over 500 square miles. Columbus as an entire city, including the small sections in other counties, is only about 220. If it ever did combine with the county, like Indianapolis did, it would be a city of 1.21 million and would rise to 10th largest.

That's fine, I never said or meant to imply that they would, hence my clarification. Cities usually don't make significant expansions outside their home counties except for very large infrastructure projects such as airports (again, Denver would be an example of this, as the land for DIA was annexed from Adams County.) My point was and remains that Columbus and Indianapolis annexed considerably more territory than other cities in the region, including Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati and their larger populations within city limits are largely a result of that annexation effort. Their metro areas would still likely be doing comparatively well if the annexation hadn't occurred, it's just that a lot of their growth of the last 20 years (think the areas around Polaris, Easton, etc..,) would be seen as suburban rather than urban.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

That's fine, I never said or meant to imply that they would, hence my clarification. Cities usually don't make significant expansions outside their home counties except for very large infrastructure projects such as airports (again, Denver would be an example of this, as the land for DIA was annexed from Adams County.) My point was and remains that Columbus and Indianapolis annexed considerably more territory than other cities in the region, including Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati and their larger populations within city limits are largely a result of that annexation effort. Their metro areas would still likely be doing comparatively well if the annexation hadn't occurred, it's just that a lot of their growth of the last 20 years (think the areas around Polaris, Easton, etc..,) would be seen as suburban rather than urban.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with that point, but it's so often thrown around to be a negative and yet Indy and Columbus are two of the best performing cities in the entire North right now. I'm not sure if the annexation policy helped out the present conditions, but it certainly didn't hurt. Now that Columbus is moving past the annexation stage, it actually has a higher rate of growth now than at any point in its history.

Both the Polaris and Easton sites were mostly farmland or vacant lots before construction of their respective large developments. When Polaris was annexed, there were very few people living on that land. Same with Easton. At one point, there was only about 400 people (or less, more likely) living around the Easton site. The 2000 census, which was a few years after the development was built, still had just 482. So there was very little population added initially. The population came later.

[cbusflyer]

If Cincy and Cleveland could turn back time, I guarantee they would have choosen annexation like Columbus did. Most people don't know city limit boundaries and you can't blame cities for expanding to keep their tax base. Columbus is just a different era city than the other two.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by cbusflyer

If Cincy and Cleveland could turn back time, I guarantee they would have choosen annexation like Columbus did. Most people don't know city limit boundaries and you can't blame cities for expanding to keep their tax base. Columbus is just a different era city than the other two.

I'm not entirely sure that it's the case that they'd annex, as given Cincinnati and Cleveland's higher minority populations than C-bus, and the accompanying poverty levels that go with that, they would likely be closer to Detroit's current circumstance than Columbus' had they chosen the annexation route. More city for them certainly would have meant more city employees, it would have meant bigger pension dilemmas to solve with a stronger/larger union to come to an agreement with.

I agree that there's nothing to blame Columbus for in annexing and that it's a different era city (which is why annexing made more sense for its circumstance,) just that city limit numbers just distort the picture when it comes to determining these cities' relative importance and economic impact and using them as a measure could lead to wrong conclusions: i.e. that Columbus is less business friendly than Cincinnati because it has less global h.q.'s than a city just a third its size.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

I'm not entirely sure that it's the case that they'd annex, as given Cincinnati and Cleveland's higher minority populations than C-bus, and the accompanying poverty levels that go with that, they would likely be closer to Detroit's current circumstance than Columbus' had they chosen the annexation route. More city for them certainly would have meant more city employees, it would have meant bigger pension dilemmas to solve with a stronger/larger union to come to an agreement with.

I agree that there's nothing to blame Columbus for in annexing and that it's a different era city (which is why annexing made more sense for its circumstance,) just that city limit numbers just distort the picture when it comes to determining these cities' relative importance and economic impact and using them as a measure could lead to wrong conclusions: i.e. that Columbus is less business friendly than Cincinnati because it has less global h.q.'s than a city just a third its size.

Global companies are likely not looking at city size, but rather metro size. In that case, the 3-Cs are far more equal, at least right now. It also matters what kind of business climate those cities have, and it would be naïve to believe otherwise. Few companies actually move to Ohio, though. Many of the F1000/F500 companies that exist there are homegrown. In Columbus, AEP, Nationwide, Wendy's, etc. were all started there. AEP actually left for New York for awhile before coming back around 1980. Sbarro recently announced it was moving to Columbus from New York, but that is because the company leaders already had ties to Wendy's, and because Columbus has several food HQs already. I suspect the same is true for Cincinnati and Cleveland.

[jg1450]

Hey jerk,

I read your comment about SE Ohio. I am in Westerville, stop by and I fix your problem.