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.
Its 61 miles! That's half the distance to Cleveland if you drive I71 north.. I thought cbus stopped annexing every thing?? Ps- its 54 miles across lake Erie to Canada from Cleveland.
The hills start around 30 miles from columbus traveling southeast,east toward Granville,and also northeast .All 3metros have points over 60 miles in their csa,cincy has long had the most sprawling csa in the Midwest ..brown county is in the cincy msa for gosh sakes..and canton in the Cleveland csa.Columbus has higher population density than either in the inner rings.
Its 61 miles! That's half the distance to Cleveland if you drive I71 north.. I thought cbus stopped annexing every thing?? Ps- its 54 miles across lake Erie to Canada from Cleveland.
So... are all of you being serious with this stuff or do you actually not know that 1. Metro designations have absolutely nothing to do with city authority or annexation and 2. That distance has zero bearing on what areas/counties are part of metros?
So... are all of you being serious with this stuff or do you actually not know that 1. Metro designations have absolutely nothing to do with city authority or annexation and 2. That distance has zero bearing on what areas/counties are part of metros?
Yes I'm well aware of it. What I was alluding to and I guess I have to spell it out completely to all you OSU grads is that, if Hocking County is considered to be part of Columbus' MSA and unified region, then Cincinnati and Dayton (Cleveland and Akron too) should be considered to be in one connected interacting economic region as well. View the night time satellite images of Ohio, the light pollution absolutely shows that the suburban areas of both cities have conjoined. I'm pretty sure in 35 years it will be recognized formally as well. Ok, start poking holes in my logic, the commuter patterns don't show enough connectivity, the media markets do not overlap etc. etc. etc.
Yes I'm well aware of it. What I was alluding to and I guess I have to spell it out completely to all you OSU grads is that, if Hocking County is considered to be part of Columbus' MSA and unified region, then Cincinnati and Dayton (Cleveland and Akron too) should be considered to be in one connected interacting economic region as well. View the night time satellite images of Ohio, the light pollution absolutely shows that the suburban areas of both cities have conjoined. I'm pretty sure in 35 years it will be recognized formally as well. Ok, start poking holes in my logic, the commuter patterns don't show enough connectivity, the media markets do not overlap etc. etc. etc.
Again, no. Hocking County is part of the metro because it met certain standards that are part of the metro qualification. The fact that it's further away than other counties means nothing at all. It doesn't matter. Dayton and Cincinnati's relative proximity also doesn't mean anything. They still have to meet those qualifications and to both agree to be combined. One or the other (or both) hasn't happened yet, at least through last year. Same with Akron/Cleveland.
And again with the nighttime satellites... Can you guys show in the census metro designation qualifications where those satellite photos are part of the determining process? If not, then why do they matter again in this context? They just show that exurban sprawl along 75 touches. And it's not the direct suburbs of Cincinnati/Dayton, but the exurban sprawl of suburbs of the city. But none of that matters. It's not a metro designation consideration whatsoever.
Sure, maybe next year or 5 years or 35 years from now, they'll be in the same metro, but it won't be because census demographers are studiously studying light pollution. Even you seem to recognize this reality.
No city is dominant. What happens in Cleveland would not effect anything in Cincinnati or Columbus.
The Cleveland area is responsible for a huge chunk of OH's GSP. It's also the only port area in the state. So, to say that nothing that happens in Cleveland affects any other municipality is quite inaccurate. Any economic loss in NEO has quite a large impact on the state in the form of tax revenue and economic vigor.
SIze of the city doesn't really have much to do with anything. Columbus Blue Jackets lose money because they suck (95% of the time, yeah I know they were halfway decent last year). Being in a big city doesn't guarentee people will come watch. The Chicago White Sox have the 3rd lowest average attendance in the MLB. THat's in Chicago. Miami is 4th lowest. Houston is 5th lowest. Meanwhile, St. Louis has the 2nd highest attendance in the MLB.
Expect the Cavs to be number 1 in attendance next year too, by the way. Winning cures all. Too bad a lot of Ohio owners don't get that. Field a decent team (just every once in a while)- profit.
It has to do with everything when supporting a team in the economic sense. None of the other teams you are mentioning are losing money, either (I think Houston even turned the largest profit in the MLB last year). Sure, winning helps. But, that certainly hasn't helped the Blue Jackets. The problem with CBus, when it comes to pro sports, is that it is a small, sparsely distributed market which also happens to be largely a college town.
Again, no. Hocking County is part of the metro because it met certain standards that are part of the metro qualification. The fact that it's further away than other counties means nothing at all. It doesn't matter. Dayton and Cincinnati's relative proximity also doesn't mean anything. They still have to meet those qualifications and to both agree to be combined. One or the other (or both) hasn't happened yet, at least through last year. Same with Akron/Cleveland.
And again with the nighttime satellites... Can you guys show in the census metro designation qualifications where those satellite photos are part of the determining process? If not, then why do they matter again in this context? They just show that exurban sprawl along 75 touches. And it's not the direct suburbs of Cincinnati/Dayton, but the exurban sprawl of suburbs of the city. But none of that matters. It's not a metro designation consideration whatsoever.
Sure, maybe next year or 5 years or 35 years from now, they'll be in the same metro, but it won't be because census demographers are studiously studying light pollution. Even you seem to recognize this reality.
That's what's so stupid, is that some bureaucrat has to decide whether or not our region is combined when it already qualifies to be. You admitted that. I'm sure there's no real impetus on Columbus' part for any officially recognized combinations to happen and I suspect there's been some political favors passed around to make sure it doesn't ever. Here's one thing I can say: it will be cold day in hell before the Columbus metro sprawl government passes any light rail or streetcar measures. There are too many car dependent conservatives in the burbs not understanding the benefits of rail. Just another instance of bigger is not always better.
Cleveland was already an established market. Modell didn't move the team because Cleveland no longer supported NFL-level football. That left a vacuum in an established, viable market. It wasn't an expansion to return a team almost immediately back into a spot it had already existed.
I forgot that Baltimore had a team previously, so it probably wouldn't count as an expansion team either, although there was more time between replacements.
Well, one or the other was an expansion team. Where one existed, two were created.
Quote:
For the top 20 media markets, the places that don't have an NFL team are LA, Sacramento, Orlando and DC. 2 are already larger than Cleveland's market, and all 4 have been growing vs. Cleveland's decline.
Well, first off, DC has the Redskins. Sacramento is small (by CA standards) and situated quite close (less than 50 miles from outer rings, probably less than 30 in some places) to the SF Bay area where 2 franchises already reside. Orlando and Tampa, same difference. The only real anomaly is LA (which happens to have 5 other pro teams). Within 5 years, they will have an NFL team relocate there. It won't be the Browns.
Quote:
For MLB teams, it would be Orlando and Sacramento.
See above.
Quote:
For NBA teams, it would be Seattle.
Again, another anomaly where the team was essentially absconded with. It's a similar situation as with Cleveland... yet, the NFL responded as it knew losing that franchise and fanbase of 5+ million would be a huge blow to their brand.
Quote:
So there are 3 cities with larger media markets than Cleveland that lack one of the major 3 sports Cleveland has and 5 in the top 20 that do not. All 5, and several that are not in the top 20 yet, have the advantage of a growing population and market. Cleveland does not have that.
Well, your figures are mostly skewed severely or flat out wrong (as pointed out above). Cleveland's media market is also growing and has kept reasonable pace for at least the past decade.
Quote:
Um, no. First, you may have missed my many posts on this very subject, but that's just not true. Let's deal with the annexation claim (yet again).
Annexed land by decade in square miles.
1950-1960: 49.6
1960-1970: 45.8
1970-1980: 46.3
1980-1990: 10.0
1990-2000: 19.4
2000-2010: 6.9
2010-2013: From what I can gather, it's between 1.5 and 2.5.
Population added to the city each decade.
1950-1960: 95,415
1960-1970: 68,361
1970-1980: 25,194
1980-1990: 68,039
1990-2000: 78,560
2000-2010: 75,293
2010-2013: 35,520
Your own numbers show that CBus has annexed a substantial amount of land during each decade and that it's largest numeric gains in population occurred when it annexed the most land. C'mon man, get over it. Columbus' major growth happened during that time.
Quote:
How is it possible for annexation to be responsible for the growth of the past 30 years when annexation is less than 1/4th (in some decades MUCH less than that) than it was pre-1980? How is it possible for the city to be seeing the highest yearly growth rate in the past 7 decades with the lowest rate of annexation in the same period, especially when most of the populated land was already annexed years ago? Please be specific on how you believe this is possible.
It's quite simple really: Columbus gets to count the increase in population for which in Cleveland is known as Westlake, Avon, Broadview Hts., etc.
Quote:
If Cleveland annexed the remaining half of Cuyahoga County, then it would indeed probably be the larger city (provided Columbus didn't do the same).
Columbus has largely already done it. All Cleveland would have to do is annex maybe 6-8 suburbs (which won't happen any time soon).
Quote:
In all cases, Columbus would be more populated no matter what measurement you use. Pound for pound, if whether you use Cleveland's current size for both or any larger measurement, Columbus is just more populated across the board.
I've already demonstrated how that is clearly not the case. All you really have to do is compare the main county population and density. But, if you want to compare 12 on 12, go right ahead.
Quote:
The population densities of the two cities are also interesting. While in 2010, you'd be right, the city of Cleveland was more dense (given the size difference), it's falling over time. With Columbus' growing, they're getting closer every year. Also, if you use the exact same size that Cleveland is, they're almost dead even in density. Columbus gets flack for this, but it's a very compact metro, and has a lot more density than people give it credit for.
12 counties is a very "compact" metro? LOL. It doesn't even beat the ridiculously small, 5 county area that Cleveland is allowed to have by the idiotic pencil pushers who draw this stuff up.
Quote:
There are a few reasons for the financial issues the Blue Jackets have had: 1. No success on the ice. Year after year of subpar performances takes a toll on the fan base. The last 2 years have seen much improvement, and seasonal ticket sales and overall attendance are on the rise. 2. The structure of the arena's financing and maintenance was very unique and not really found in any other hockey location. Most teams are in some way heavily publicly subsidized, but not in Columbus. That hurt them for years until recently when a new deal was structured. Population and market size have had nothing to do with any of it.
They've never drawn well and are constantly in the discussion of contraction. Population and market size may not be the complete reason, but it has very much to do with it. It always does. The bigger the market, the better the media revenue.
It has to do with everything when supporting a team in the economic sense. None of the other teams you are mentioning are losing money, either (I think Houston even turned the largest profit in the MLB last year). Sure, winning helps. But, that certainly hasn't helped the Blue Jackets. The problem with CBus, when it comes to pro sports, is that it is a small, sparsely distributed market which also happens to be largely a college town.
What are you talking about? Until the last season or so, they had exactly 1 winning season since their formation, the same season they lost their single game in the playoffs. The theory that winning solves just about everything was never tested because they simply didn't win from the very beginning. Starting from the 2nd half of the 2012-2013 season, they've been changing that, but fans are only going to come back slowly, and only if they show some level of consistency. Your theory that it has to do with city population just doesn't match the reality of sports. The Clippers consistently win, are not a college team, and have one of the top attendance records in the minor-leagues nationwide.
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.
