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

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by West_Sider

I choose Cincinnati because of all of its Fortune 500 companies and a great place for shipping things due to being a days drive to 1/2 the countries population. Cincinnati I think may start growing in the next 1 or two censuses and be at about 340,000-360,000 range. Columbus will have grown to about 1.0 million and more dense. I see Cleveland bottoming out and slowly rise in population to around 400,000. Daytonati may possibly happen by 2050 due to the extensive suburban sprawl development in eastern Butler County and Western Warren County. Cincinnati-Dayton Metroplex would be the states biggest Metro still. Cincinnati and Columbus will be attracting the most people to the state with Columbus attracting a little bit more. Culturally and Economically the Three C's will still be pretty much tied. The most influential area will be either Cincy or Columbus since Daytonati will be a huge area of about 3.2 million and Columbus Metro area will grow to about 2.3-2.5 million.

Since Cincinnati is the the state's largest metro area, I wonder why it can't attract an NBA or an NHL team so it can build a new arena.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

If by census, meaning 2010, no, it was shrinking. I don't go by 2013 estimates, until it's official, meaning the 2020 census.

Estimates aren't exact but they generally are correct on whether a plce is growing or shrinking
The only time they tend to be way off is when city governments challenge census results, which tend to keep subsequent estimates from being right. It is very likely that Cincinnati is growing now.

[West_Sider]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Since Cincinnati is the the state's largest metro area, I wonder why it can't attract an NBA or an NHL team so it can build a new arena.

To build a new arena would mean another dreaded by many Hamilton County voters sales tax increase. Due to the Stadiums Tax shenanigans and problems it would by unlikely that to happen soon unless it was restoring landmarks (Current Icon Tax Issue.) Cincinnati used to have an NBA team called the Cincinnati Royals but they moved in the late 1970's. We have a hockey team but its not NHL.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by West_Sider

To build a new arena would mean another dreaded by many Hamilton County voters sales tax increase. Due to the Stadiums Tax shenanigans and problems it would by unlikely that to happen soon unless it was restoring landmarks (Current Icon Tax Issue.) Cincinnati used to have an NBA team called the Cincinnati Royals but they moved in the late 1970's. We have a hockey team but its not NHL.

I know no one wants a tax increase to pay for an arena, let alone building one without a major league tenant. Why can CIN metro area, the largest in the state,only support 2 major league teams and CLE has 3?

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I know no one wants a tax increase to pay for an arena, let alone building one without a major league tenant. Why can CIN metro area, the largest in the state,only support 2 major league teams and CLE has 3?

The amount of sports teams are typically a poor indicator of a metro area's economy. Indianapolis has a higher GDP than any of the three C's but only has two major league teams. San Jose only has one and is the 17th ranked economy in the country. A new arena and getting a third major league team shouldn't be a priority for Cincinnati right now as much as improving its mass transit options. I think regional transportation will be one of the big keys for each of these cities as far as which emerges most dominant in 2050, as outside businesses get attracted by that more than a suite of arena luxury boxes.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

The amount of sports teams are typically a poor indicator of a metro area's economy. Indianapolis has a higher GDP than any of the three C's but only has two major league teams. San Jose only has one and is the 17th ranked economy in the country. A new arena and getting a third major league team shouldn't be a priority for Cincinnati right now as much as improving its mass transit options. I think regional transportation will be one of the big keys for each of these cities as far as which emerges most dominant in 2050, as outside businesses get attracted by that more than a suite of arena luxury boxes.

Tbey've been talking about moving the A's to San Jose, but thankfully, Oakland has them locked up for the next decade. No one questions San Jose's economy, its just the general lameness of San Jose that keeps stuff away it seems.

It is kind of embarrassing that there is no high speed train that links the three C's, almost as embarrassing as there not being one to link Los Angeles and San Francisco. America is so stubborn and backwards when it comes to these matters.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

The amount of sports teams are typically a poor indicator of a metro area's economy. Indianapolis has a higher GDP than any of the three C's but only has two major league teams. San Jose only has one and is the 17th ranked economy in the country. A new arena and getting a third major league team shouldn't be a priority for Cincinnati right now as much as improving its mass transit options. I think regional transportation will be one of the big keys for each of these cities as far as which emerges most dominant in 2050, as outside businesses get attracted by that more than a suite of arena luxury boxes.

I didn't say the CIN economy is poor. Perhaps CLE has 3 pro teams because the CLE-AKR-CAN metro area is 3.5 million people and NEO is about 4.5 million. That would do it.

[RustBeltOptimist]

Originally Posted by Kamms

I didn't say the CIN economy is poor. Perhaps CLE has 3 pro teams because the CLE-AKR-CAN metro area is 3.5 million people and NEO is about 4.5 million. That would do it.

I'm saying that populations matter only to a small degree when it comes to pro teams, what matters is how valuable owners and advertisers think the pro teams' audience is going to be and the politics of existing teams within a few hours' drive. Denver/Boulder/Greeley's combined CSA only has 3.2 million, but the city has all four major sports, five if you're also inclined to count soccer, because it has a valuable media market and no other competitive city is in near proximity. San Jose only has one because of the politics involved with the SF/Oak teams. Cleveland has three because it had three when it was as dominant a regional economic force as Pittsburgh, before declining, and before Columbus gained in population and economic power. Cincinnati has two because it had two after the Royals/Kings moved in in 1972 and because the Pacers and Blue Jackets are within a couple hours' proximity and draw from the Cincy area.

The recent boom in value of regional sports networks makes it easier for middle tier cities to support teams, so Cincy probably could support another major team with a new arena, but as I mentioned before, the arena shouldn't be a priority as much as regional transit. Cleveland has a leg up in transit, but still needs to reverse the general course of this chart:

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

I'm saying that populations matter only to a small degree when it comes to pro teams, what matters is how valuable owners and advertisers think the pro teams' audience is going to be and the politics of existing teams within a few hours' drive. Denver/Boulder/Greeley's combined CSA only has 3.2 million, but the city has all four major sports, five if you're also inclined to count soccer, because it has a valuable media market and no other competitive city is in near proximity. San Jose only has one because of the politics involved with the SF/Oak teams. Cleveland has three because it had three when it was as dominant a regional economic force as Pittsburgh, before declining, and before Columbus gained in population and economic power. Cincinnati has two because it had two after the Royals/Kings moved in in 1972 and because the Pacers and Blue Jackets are within a couple hours' proximity and draw from the Cincy area.

The recent boom in value of regional sports networks makes it easier for middle tier cities to support teams, so Cincy probably could support another major team with a new arena, but as I mentioned before, the arena shouldn't be a priority as much as regional transit. Cleveland has a leg up in transit, but still needs to reverse the general course of this chart:

Never said CIN should prioritize an arena or a team for it. CLE is still a dominant regional force and, despite a decline, still supports 3 teams like PIT. Team owners know where to expand and, currently, CIN isn't a place where anyone wants to bring in either an NBA or NHL team. If CIN could support one, there would be one there so, no, CIN probably cannot support one currently. CIN has not been a hot-bed of growth either since the Royals left in 1972.

CLE is not dead nor should it be written-off; I haven't been optimistic about CLE's future, but having spent 2 weeks there in June, I am very optimistic about its future now. CIN's is experiencing positive growth now, which is good for the State of Ohio. Ohio is currently a top-10 state but I wonder for how long?

[unusualfire]

^I wouldn't being a NFL team Cincy either. It's too small for 2 NFL teams.

You do realize a group tried to team up and bring the Clippers to town the past couple of months right?