Cleveland vs. Cincinnati (Columbus, Dayton, Beavercreek: public schools, airport, manufacturing)

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

See, this is where logic fails. If Cleveland has so much more to offer than either Cincy or Columbus, why are people continuing to leave? I don't get some of you Cleveland posters. I understand the desire to defend your city, and I fully support a comeback, but simply saying Cleveland is better when the other two major cities in the state are growing far more rapidly and gaining amenities that previously maybe only Cleveland had... well something needs to be said for that.

That logic does not make sense either. Going just by growth I guess Houston is better than Vienna, Austria because it has a higher growth rate? Quantity does not equal quality.

[nickolaseposter]

Originally Posted by BelieveInCleve

The Lake for one is a natural geographic advantage and no matter how much Columbus and Cincinnati grow they will never have the lake, so we do have that going for us. We have Rivers, Parks, and Hills as well (although not comparable to Cincinnati especially on a hilly neighborhood level).

Not sure if thats so true. Here is why: although it has been cleaned up in the past few years, its no where near the grade it needs to be. It is going to take alot of investment and planning and it is going to have to be very modern. That airport thing needs to go. Seriously. It really is anchoring Cleveland down.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 5Lakes

That logic does not make sense either. Going just by growth I guess Houston is better than Vienna, Austria because it has a higher growth rate? Quantity does not equal quality.

You're right, but again, I was told that Columbus can't compare to Cleveland because it didn't have as many amenities. So apparently you can't make the quantity equals quality argument on that either. All the extra attractions have not made any difference in the flight of population from NEOH. I think everyone here wants to see Cleveland and all Ohio cities succeed, that goes without saying. I just think Cleveland-area posters are coming at this the wrong way. They should not be making lists on what Cleveland has, because apparently a lot of people don't care. They should be making lists on what Cleveland needs and be realistic on its overall strength. People can knock on Cincy and especially Columbus all day long, but they're clearly both doing something right.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by nickolaseposter

Not sure if thats so true. Here is why: although it has been cleaned up in the past few years, its no where near the grade it needs to be. It is going to take alot of investment and planning and it is going to have to be very modern. That airport thing needs to go. Seriously. It really is anchoring Cleveland down.

Yeah, who was the genius that decided to put an airport along the entire urban lakefront?

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

See, this is where logic fails. If Cleveland has so much more to offer than either Cincy or Columbus, why are people continuing to leave?

They are fleeing to the suburbs and Lorain County. Not out of state as many like to think.

[austiNati]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

They are fleeing to the suburbs and Lorain County. Not out of state as many like to think.

Aren't the suburbs shrinking too? I thought that the entire metro area was losing residents.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by austiNati

Aren't the suburbs shrinking too? I thought that the entire metro area was losing residents.

It is. In all the estimates, the city, the MSA, and the CSA were all losing population. Unfortunately, it's not just a Cleveland problem, but a NEOH problem. The central and southwestern parts of the state are the only areas actually gaining people, and I suspect a good portion of those are from those parts losing people.

The good news is that Ohio did not lose people from 2000-2010. In fact, the state had a higher growth rate then in some of the previous 40 years of census counts.

1970-80: +145,613
1980-90: +49,485
1990-00: +506,025
2000-10: +183,364

Still, this is the 3rd lowest growth rate in the history of Ohio's population. 1980-90 being worst, and 1970-80 being second worst.

[austiNati]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It is. In all the estimates, the city, the MSA, and the CSA were all losing population. Unfortunately, it's not just a Cleveland problem, but a NEOH problem. The central and southwestern parts of the state are the only areas actually gaining people, and I suspect a good portion of those are from those parts losing people.

The good news is that Ohio did not lose people from 2000-2010. In fact, the state had a higher growth rate then in some of the previous 40 years of census counts.

1970-80: +145,613
1980-90: +49,485
1990-00: +506,025
2000-10: +183,364

Still, this is the 3rd lowest growth rate in the history of Ohio's population. 1980-90 being worst, and 1970-80 being second worst.

I really hope Cincy and Cleveland's resident population hasn't tanked with the new census results coming in. Other midwestern cities like Chicago and St. Louis took a huge loss in population

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by austiNati

I really hope Cincy and Cleveland's resident population hasn't tanked with the new census results coming in. Other midwestern cities like Chicago and St. Louis took a huge loss in population

I think there are some interesting things happening to Northern cities. I don't think it's just a matter of population loss like it was in the 70s-90s where almost everywhere but the suburbs were losing. Inner city cores are regaining population, but just not in the density as before. It is no longer poor families in projects, but singles and more affluent professionals. This may be the very beginning of the repopulation of the inner city, or the overall transformation of just how we view the livability of city life. We made huge mistakes in city planning starting in the '50s when we decided it was a good idea to plow giant highways through urban core neighborhoods, and revolving downtown areas as car-centered. If you look at city aerial maps from back then, you see very dense cities. 20 years later, it's swiss cheese. What did they think was going to happen? Throw in the collapse of manufacturing and it was recipe for disaster. I think a lot of places are finally (last decade or so) trying to fix some of that damage, but it's going to take more time.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You're right, but again, I was told that Columbus can't compare to Cleveland because it didn't have as many amenities. So apparently you can't make the quantity equals quality argument on that either. All the extra attractions have not made any difference in the flight of population from NEOH. I think everyone here wants to see Cleveland and all Ohio cities succeed, that goes without saying. I just think Cleveland-area posters are coming at this the wrong way. They should not be making lists on what Cleveland has, because apparently a lot of people don't care. They should be making lists on what Cleveland needs and be realistic on its overall strength. People can knock on Cincy and especially Columbus all day long, but they're clearly both doing something right.

IMO, here's what Cincinnati is doing right: Being directly adjacent to a state (Kentucky) that has fewer regulations and lower taxes. And here's what Columbus is doing right: Being the state capital and host to the largest public university in the country.


If Cleveland had either of those advantages, it would be in much better shape than it currently is in. That said, neither Cleveland, nor Cincinnati, is living up to its full potential. Columbus has probably overachieved.