Which of the three C's do you think will be the most dominant power in all of Ohio by 2050? (Columbus: to live in, statistics)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I expected nothing more from you guys. Good news on Columbus must be silenced or rejected as worthless immediately.

It's not anything to be proud of. Just a dumb statistic. Not all stats mean anything.

[Cleveland_Collector]

^That. It's not "good news." It's just another skewed statistical measure. Why didn't they measure the amount of institutions per square mile? Columbus = 2.7, NYC = 8.8. How about the usage and attendance numbers as well?

It's also just another indicator of sprawl through annexation. Columbus, Miami, and Indy flat out do not belong on a list like this. The inclusion of places like Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Vegas, Charlotte, etc. in the top 20 of cultural anything is simply mind-boggling.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

^That. It's not "good news." It's just another skewed statistical measure. Why didn't they measure the amount of institutions per square mile? Columbus = 2.7, NYC = 8.8. How about the usage and attendance numbers as well?

Because those wouldn't look as good.

It's also just another indicator of sprawl through annexation. Columbus, Miami, and Indy flat out do not belong on a list like this. The inclusion of places like Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Vegas, Charlotte, etc. in the top 20 of cultural anything is simply mind-boggling.

But this point is invalid. Because.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I guess I'm confused why it mentioned recreational activities if recreational centers aren't counted....

SO if I open 500 galleries and put them all in the same neighborhood, that counts as being accessible to the neighborhood in my city that's 7 miles away. It's the same illogic that is applied to crime rates. One bad neighborhood with lots of crime doesn't make the whole city unsafe. A couple neighborhoods with "cultural institutions" does not make the whole city accessible to them.

This isn't that hard to understand. I stand by my "meaningless" assessment. I never made the argument for quality even. That is all you putting words in my mouth.

You're confusing access with location. They're not the same. Access also just means availability. One may have to travel a few miles, but the institutions still exist and are still accessible to the larger population beyond that single neighborhood.

My comment on quality was just to bring it up before someone else inevitably did. Your attempt to equate Columbus' institutions as a bunch of rec centers probably qualifies.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

It's not anything to be proud of. Just a dumb statistic. Not all stats mean anything.

And yet if Cleveland or Cincinnati were near or at the top, someone would be posting it and there would be a gaggle of people congratulating each other. It only doesn't mean anything to the people who don't want it to mean anything. I admit, in the grand scheme of things, it's certainly not the end-all of anything, but it is a positive little thing and god forbid there be anything positive.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

^That. It's not "good news." It's just another skewed statistical measure. Why didn't they measure the amount of institutions per square mile? Columbus = 2.7, NYC = 8.8. How about the usage and attendance numbers as well?

It's also just another indicator of sprawl through annexation. Columbus, Miami, and Indy flat out do not belong on a list like this. The inclusion of places like Memphis, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Vegas, Charlotte, etc. in the top 20 of cultural anything is simply mind-boggling.

Because that wasn't the measurement they were doing and they're not obligated to give you the answers you want?

How does sprawl have anything to do with this? It's population divided by # of institutions. The sizes of these places has no bearing at all. NYC is much larger in square miles than Columbus. Sometimes I just think you bring up sprawl because you have no other argument to fall back on.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Because those wouldn't look as good.

But this point is invalid. Because.

Look as good for who? Or what? You do realize I had nothing to do with it and just reposted right?

Because a per-capita measurement has nothing to do with area size. But you know that as you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. So maybe drop the act.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Look as good for who? Or what? You do realize I had nothing to do with it and just reposted right?

Because a per-capita measurement has nothing to do with area size. But you know that as you seem like a reasonably intelligent guy. So maybe drop the act.

I didn't say you did. I am just always disappointed that you point stats that don't mean anything. It seems that any criticism or investigation, even the mildest forms, are just completely invalid to you. I would be more than willing to jump on some posted about other cities too, but they are routinely posted about Columbus.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I didn't say you did. I am just always disappointed that you point stats that don't mean anything. It seems that any criticism or investigation, even the mildest forms, are just completely invalid to you. I would be more than willing to jump on some posted about other cities too, but they are routinely posted about Columbus.

No, I think people just assume that when I post stats, which I rarely do here anymore because people go completely bonkers, assume that I'm saying they mean more than they do. When I posted that link, did I say that it meant that Columbus was more cultured than most places? Nope. Did I say it was more cultured than Cleveland or Cincy or NYC? Nope. Did I preface that the link had nothing to do with quality or total? Yes. The only point was to show that Columbus had a fairly decent ratio of institutions to population. That's literally the only thing measured. But even that tiny scrap is enough to send in the denial brigade. Because as is always the point, no one in Ohio can ever be happy for another Ohio city that they don't live in. Ever. No matter what the news is, no matter how insignificant. Hell, even when I was happy when Cleveland won the RNC and repeatedly said so, I was accused of being angry and jealous. You just can't win. Honestly, the more I post here, the more it seems that there is just something wrong with everyone. I have never found Ohioans to generally be unhappy or miserable people, but on here... I just don't know anymore.

So if I do a search, how many such studies and rankings will I find posted for Cleveland/Cincinnati? And how many times will I find you calling them worthless?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

So if I do a search, how many such studies and rankings will I find posted for Cleveland/Cincinnati? And how many times will I find you calling them worthless?

I'd love to know, actually. There arent many such posts at all to which I possibly could have responded.