When Headlines Compete

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports Cleveland outpacing Columbus.  The Columbus Business First reports Columbus outpacing Cleveland.

How can both be true?

Each takes a different angle, but there are two things that I observed in reviewing both articles that are consistent:

Manufacturers deserve credit.  Though Business First fails to mention it, a deeper looks shows that higher than expected growth in manufacturing is why both Cleveland and Columbus areas saw growth.

The 'Burbs deserve credit.  Both cities are actually reporting metropolitan data.  I've done the research before.  Last year, 94% of manufacturing projects reported by Site Selection magazine, and consistently each year at a similar pace, are happening outside of the 3C's.  The 3C's should thank the 'burbs (both suburbs and exurbs) for the pace of growth in their respecting metro areas.

Now, we've settled it.

Thank You, Manufacturers and Suburbs!

Ohio gained second place in the race put on every year by the people at Site Selection magazine.  Second place means Ohio trailed only Texas in economic development project announcements in 2017.

It's a race for coveted capital investment and jobs.

Big thanks go to Ohio's manufacturing sector and Ohio's suburban places for this jobs and investment win.  Confirming a trend that has been the case for at least a decade, Ohio's success is owed to the state's suburban and rural areas for giving Ohio an edge.

53%
Manufacturing carried its weight.  53% of the projects Ohio submitted were in manufacturing.  That's up from the past two years.

95%
Suburbs and exurbs were the magnets for big investments to Ohio.  Ohio enjoyed 30 projects with investments over $50 million announced in 2017.  20 of these were manufacturing projects.  Fully 19 of the 20 came from Ohio's smaller cities.  That 95%.

94%
Manufacturing found suburbs and exurbs the place to invest.  It's no surprise that 94% of the manufacturing projects on the list came from outside Ohio's "3C's" of Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.  It's no surprise because since checking this stat for seven years, it's never been below 89% in any given year.

69%
Suburbs can take a bow for Ohio's second place finish.  Ohio's less urban counties combined to bring 69% of the projects.

Clearly, Ohio economic development benefits from the work of all of its counties.  Any policy in Ohio that would aim to harm suburbs' ability to compete globally would harm Ohio's competitiveness overall.

The bottom line policy-wise for 2018 and beyond:  Ohio's next Governor needs to embrace manufacturing as well as embrace suburban and rural areas for the key role they play in Ohio's development success.  Winning depends on it.

--------------------------------------

More background

This analysis comes from ten years of reviewing the data that has been used to rank Ohio.  The trends are consistent.  

Let's start with what makes the list.  Site Selection magazine counts announcements of manufacturing, distribution, headquarters, and R&D projects that meet at least one of three criteria:

• investment of $1 million or more
• square footage of 20,000  sq. ft. or more
• job creation of 20 or more

The 2017 version of the Ohio Private Investment Survey was recently published to share the list of projects Ohio's Development Services Agency used to help tip the scales in Ohio's favor.  Ohio submitted 392 projects fitting that criteria.

The list shows Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati combined for 12 of the 206 manufacturing projects in the state.  That means 94% came from outside of Ohio's three largest cities.

Seven years of data shows how that pace has played out since 2011 when this analysis was first performed:

2017: 94%

2016: 95%

2015: 89%

2014: 95%

2013: 94%

2012: 94%

2011: 94%

Ohio's smaller counties brought 69% of all overall development projects to Ohio, again.

Of the total 392 total projects, 272 occurred outside of Ohio's three largest counties--Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton.  That's 69% of the overall projects.

Ten years of data show, consistently, that Ohio's success it owed to it's less urban counties.

2017: 69%

2016: 66%

2015: 70%

2014: 74%

2013: 72%

2012: 74%

2011: 68%

2010: 71%

2009: 73%

2008: 74%

Check it out yourself.  The analysis is easily reproduced.

Uniting Behind Pragmatic, Local Policymaking

Richard Florida (left) and Joel Kotkin at a recent joint appearance.

When Joel Kotkin and Richard Florida can pen an article together.  It's time to notice.

Today, The Daily Beast ran the column "To Reunite America, Liberate Cities to Govern Themselves." 

It's a must-read.

The message is summed up in the piece:

The issue isn't just the dysfunction of our national government, but how we can best and most efficiently address our economic needs and challenges.  The United States is a geographically varied place.  No top-down, one-size-fits-all set of politics can address the very different conditions that prevail among communities.

They cite the need for pragmatic local policy making as the key to getting America reunited.

Right on.

Ohio's 'Burbs Bring Ohio Development Success, Again

Congratulations, Ohio!  Our state was #2 again in the annual economic development competition among states put on by Site Selection magazine.  For at least 25 years, Site Selection magazine's rankings have been the annual benchmark for economic development success and Ohio has, proudly, carried its weight in the competition.  2016 was no exception.

Site Selection's 2016 rankings

An especially big thanks goes to the manufacturing sector and Ohio's suburban areas for this win. A quick review of the results from 2016 prove the point that Ohio's success is owed to manufacturing and also to the state's suburban and rural areas. Here's why:

Of 498 projects submitted by the state in 2016, 48% (240 total) where investments by the manufacturing sector.  Manufacturing is Ohio's biggest GDP contributor. It's our state's legacy.  

Of those manufacturing projects, 95% of them came from outside of Ohio's most urban cities.   

Of all the 498 projects overall, two out of three happened in Ohio's less urban counties.

The message?  

Let's celebrate success!  However, as Ohio government ponders how it delivers economic development and job creation programs, Ohio needs to embrace her suburban areas as a key to development in the future.  It's important that outreach to manufacturing and suburban areas are key among the metrics of state-funded development programs.  These numbers prove they should be.

Let's face it.  Ohio's suburbs don't tend to carry the political clout that the state's biggest places do. However, as Ohio's General Assembly considers it's next two-year budget, investment in Ohio's suburban and rural areas deserves attention that political clout might otherwise not dictate.  Any policy debate that aims to cut off the 'burbs means cutting off Ohio's source of success.

Let's have reasons to celebrate in the future too.

------------------------------------

More background

This analysis comes from nine years of reviewing the data that has been used to rank Ohio.  The trends are consistent.  

Let's start with what makes the list.

Site Selection magazine counts announcements of manufacturing, distribution, headquarters, and R&D projects that meet at least one of three criteria:

• investment of $1 million or more
• square footage of 20,000  sq. ft. or more
• job creation of 20 or more

The 2016 version of the Ohio Private Investment Survey was recently published to share the list of projects Ohio's Development Services Agency used to help tip the scales in Ohio's favor.  Ohio submitted 498 projects fitting that criteria.  

Ohio's smaller communities brought the win, again.

The list shows Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati combined for 13 of the 240 manufacturing projects in the state.  That means 95% came from outside of Ohio's three largest cities.

Six years of data shows how that pace has played out since 2011 when this analysis was first performed:

2016: 95%

2015: 89%

2014: 95%

2013: 94%

2012: 94%

2011: 94%

Ohio's smaller counties brought two out of every three development projects to Ohio, again.

Of the total 498 projects, 329 occurred outside of Ohio's three largest counties--Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton.  That's 66% of the overall projects.

Nine years of data show, consistently, that Ohio's success it owed to it's less urban counties.

2016: 66%

2015: 70%

2014: 74%

2013: 72%

2012: 74%

2011: 68%

2010: 71%

2009: 73%

2008: 74%

Check it out yourself.  The analysis is easily reproduced.

Driverless Cars Favor Suburban Living

I listened to remarks presented about autonomous vehicles yesterday and how one urban planner organization views economic development in the future where these cars are prevalent.

It wasn't presented as a biased presentation, but it was.  The planners took an urban view, even though they didn't confess it.

The real debate is which density of living does the driverless car audience of the future favor.  

Many wish for urban.  I say it's suburban.

Suburban vs. Urban is a legitimate debate. Slate wrote a good piece presenting multiple viewpoints and helped to show where bias of some lies.

The issue is this:

Will I still want to own my own car?

Will I still want street parking and wide streets in front of my suburban-style house?

Will I still need to park my car at work?

The answer is "yes" in all three cases for me and, I contend, the vast majority of the general public. Thus, the nationally-favored choice of suburban living won't change.

The planners assume that Generation X and older generations won't matter in this choice.  They're wrong there too.

Yes, there is a growing audience who, in their early adult and childless years, prefer not owning a car, living in a dense neighborhood without streets, and who won't need to park a car at work.

That early adult audience grows up, though, and lives longer than previous generations.

Policy makers need to be aware when and where bias is entering.  Some are already being paid as consultants to try to steer policy.  The policy debate has already begun.

Ohio's Development Success Owed To Manufacturing, Suburbs

Though it didn't make this column in 2016, I wanted to publish the findings of my annual review of the Site Selection magazine ranking of states on economic development.  This report was conducted in April 2016.

Ohio was #2 in the nation in 2015.  The conclusion, though, is clear:  Ohio owes its success to the manufacturing sector and to Ohio's suburbs.

Here's the findings for 2015:

89% of the manufacturing projects topping Ohio's list of development projects in 2015 happened outside of the three C's of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.  Indeed, 20 out of 21 projects with $50 million or more in capital investment happened outside of the 3C's.

Five years of data now show:

2015: 89%
2014: 95%
2013: 94%
2012: 94%
2011: 94%

Ohio's suburbs and rural areas accounted for 70% of Ohio projects overall.  That's a number that has never dropped below 2/3 since I started tracking it in 2008.

Licking County accounted for 10 projects in 2015 and four of them on the Port Authority's campus. If spec building investments were counted (they should be), we would have seen half of the development projects happen at the Aerospace Center.

Consistently, almost three out of four development projects in Ohio are sited outside of Cuyahoga, Hamilton, or Franklin counties.

Eight years of data now show:

2015: 70%
2014: 74%
2013: 72%
2012: 74%
2011: 68%
2010: 71%
2009: 73%
2008: 74%

Why do this?  It reinforces a message.  Ohio's economic strength is in her smaller communities. Density and bigness are not in the recipe for economic development success.  Any policy debate needs to recognize that cutting off the 'burbs means cutting off Ohio's source of success.


-----------------

The source for 2016 data is from the Ohio Private Investment Survey.  Check it out for yourself.

Millenial Watch: Move to Suburbs Beginning?

Joel Kotkin's latest look at demographics is focused on the Generation Xers, but it's a tidbit about millenials that stands out.

He writes, "Like the Xers, millenials are beginning to move into the suburbs, contradicting all claims to the contrary."  As is always the case, Kotkin backs it with data.

See JoelKotkin.com for the full piece.

Spring Break: The Full Urban to Rural Experience

This Spring Break, my kids got the full experience.

They stood on "The Ledge" of North America's tallest structure, looking down from the 103rd floor of the Willis Tower in Chicago.

They stood among the dairy cows at Young's Jersey Dairy near Yellow Springs, Ohio.

They liked both.  I predict they will like suburban living though when they are old enough to decide (and fund) things on their own.

Boosting Ohio Suburbs: Suburbs Boosting Ohio

Site Selection magazine illustrates Ohio's #2 place

He didn't make the cover, but he got a pretty neat illustration souvenir nonetheless.  Governor John Kasich can thank Ohio's suburbs for his win in 2014.

I'm not talking about last year's reelection win.  I'm talking about Ohio's #2 slot in the annual race to win the Governor's Cup from Site Selection magazine.  The article A League of Their Own tells the 2014 story of economic development success around the country.  Ohio has a pretty good story again this year too.

As is my custom, I have analyzed the win.  I'm boosting suburbs, with facts.  Bottom line: Again this year in Ohio, it's a story about Ohio's suburbs boosting Ohio.

Here's the conclusions:

• Manufacturing continues to prove it is alive and thriving in Ohio.  52% of the projects on the Site Selection list were manufacturing projects.  In fact, 62% of the 21 projects with $50 million or greater investments were big manufacturing projects.  Clearly, the majority of Governor Kasich's economic development success is owed to Ohio manufacturing.  

• Suburbs are where manufacturing goes with 95% of Ohio's manufacturing projects happening in Ohio's smaller cities and suburbs.  Ohio's three C's (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) combined for 15 manufacturing projects in 2014 out of 257 statewide.  That means the other 242 came from Ohio's smaller cities, suburbs, and exurbs.

• Suburbs accounted for 74% of all of the projects that brought Ohio second place on the coveted list.  That matches the high percentage for the last seven years of which the total has never dropped below two thirds.

• Licking County garnered 3 of the 21 largest capital investment projects in 2014, more than any other county.  Licking County is a suburban county.

Ohio's economy depends on the strength of its suburbs.  

I can't help but think back to my blog in 2012 to sum up why this matters.  Density and bigness are not in the recipe for economic development success.  Ohio's economic strength is in her suburbs.


---------------------------------------------------------------
More Background:

My research is not all that hard to do.  One can quickly look at the 2015 version of the "Ohio Private Investment Survey" report by Ohio's DSA to glean the stats.

At 95% for 2014, the manufacturing percentage for the suburbs and exurbs stat reconfirms a trend.  It was 94%, 93%, and 94% in 2013, 2012, and 2011 respectively.

Here's seven years of analysis of the percentage of overall projects on the Site Selection list that come from outside of Ohio's three most urban counties:

2014: 74%
2013: 72%
2012: 74%
2011: 68%
2010: 71%
2009: 73%
2008: 74%

Here's links to my 2013 and 2012 columns on this subject.

My Daughters in the 'Burbs

I have two daughters who are growing up in one of the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio.  (My boys too.)

I predict they will continue to want to live in the suburbs.  They talk about where they want to live when the grow up, occasionally even saying they want to live near Dad. 

Apparently, my daughters are the norm, at least the living in the 'burbs part.

Joel Kotkin puts some stats to that phenomenon with his latest piece in the Washington Post titled "America's Newest Hipster Hotspot:  The Suburbs?"

He debunks conventional wisdom and popular entertainment portrayals to the contrary.  Most of our Millennials want to live in the suburbs.

He must have upset some urban elite when he wrote, "Only 17 percent of Millennials identify the urban core as where they want to settle permanently."

Joel will really make some of the Smart Growthers cry as he hits home a central point he's hit home before:  "Rather than vilify suburbs as fundamentally inefficient, deadening and wasteful, its time to focus on how to improve the preferred environment for work, interaction and raising the next generation for most Americans."

Embrace Suburbs, Or Lose

Joel Kotkin is feeding both political parties with some fact-based thoughts on suburbs.  His latest piece, "Why Suburbia Irks Some Conservatives," clearly has a longer-term purpose than just a one-time tweak.  It's just in time for the 2016 election.

He's right to do so.  The last presidential election was decided on suburbs vs. urban areas, with the dividing line being in "swing" suburbs like Newark, Ohio.

Which party will carve out this territory? 

Kotkin begs the question when he writes:

"Yet, there remains a great opportunity for either party that will appeal to, and appreciate, the suburban base. Conservative figures such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher understood the connection between democracy and property ownership and upward mobility. Much the same could be said for traditional Democrats, from Roosevelt and Harry Truman, all the way to Bill Clinton."

Let me tie this back to Ohio.

Suburbs are increasingly becoming independent places with their own identity and their own mix of culture and economy.  Newark, Ohio sits at the center of a suburban place with 44 miles of bike paths, three universities, a science museum, and a performing arts center that brings in national acts.

Suburbs are where manufacturing is located.  If Ohio remains the swing state it has been, manufacturing will be a buzz word again.  You can still find manufacturing workers and companies in the suburbs.

Suburbs are the next generation's home. Kotkin has, repeatedly, defied the conventional wisdom with facts.  The millennial generation, increasingly becoming an economic and voter force, has a greater overall desire to live in the suburbs than their parents' generation.  Newark is Ohio's 20th largest city and one of only two in the Top 20 that is growing.


Ignore the suburbs at your own risk.  That's Kotkin's early message and theme.

Attacking Our American Dream?

 

 

It's as if there is a script circulating among big city media designed to attack the American Dream.  Have you noticed it?

 



It seems inconceivable, on the surface, that anyone would have a hidden agenda to attack the American Dream.  So, it appears as if the reasoning behind it is some objectively-pursued, journalistic pursuit of wanting to know if the American Dream is alive.

 

I'm not so sure. 

 

The American Dream is more associated with kids in the suburbs and is a threat to the narrative that dense, urban living needs to be forced to happen instead.  Attacking the American Dream can have the result of swaying the Millennials away from the track their parents took to the suburbs.  Thus, there could be a negative purpose behind this attack.

 

Thankfully, some are fighting back.  "The American Dream is EMINENTLY Attainable" takes the issue head on.  So does a recent Joel Kotkin piece.

 

I'm living the American Dream, and I want my kids to live it too some day. 

 

 

Knowing What We Know About Ohio's Suburbs. . .

. . . we need to keep investing in success of Ohio's suburbs. 

Ohio's top ranking in Site Selection magazine showed Ohio's economy is dependent on its suburbs and smaller cities.  My analysis of the state-produced report on private investment in 2013, showed 94% of manufacturing projects were outside of the Ohio's largest three cities. 

This is nothing new.  Consistently, this has been the case.  The number was 93% in 2012.  It was 95% in 2011 and 92% in 2010.

Yet, state policy makers tend to hear more from the big cities.  They may, even, scoff at the idea that Ohio's success is so tied to its suburbs.

The noise favors the cities.  There are whole lobbyist groups that are set up to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for cities.  They go after development incentive programs, capital dollars, and policies that are designed to shift favor to the big city clients at the expense of the suburbs.

The suburbs have only the facts on their side.

It's not us vs. them, cities vs. suburbs that should rule the day.  The pattern is clear:  When Ohio invests in the success of its suburbs, all of Ohio gains.

Ohio Suburbs: Take Hand, Pat Self on Back

Ohio didn't take the top spot in the annual quest for recognition from Site Selection magazine for 2013, but Ohio suburbs can, nonetheless, pat themselves on the back again this year for helping Ohio achieve a top spot--#2 among states ranked on the number of projects.

Every March for 20+ years, Site Selection has reported out the list of the previous year's industrial and economy-impacting projects that meet the magazine's investment, jobs, and building space criteria.  Ohio has done well year after year against its competition and 2013 was no exception.

2013 was also no exception to the long-standing fact that the less-told, hidden part of the rest of the story is how much of that Ohio success is due to the success of her suburbs.  I've written on this topic in this column before. 

Unlike some states, Ohio is not dominated by a big city or a trio of big cities in either its political makeup or its development makeup.  The Site Selection magazine rankings have borne that out repeatedly.  Indeed, Ohio's economy is quite dependent on the success of its suburbs. 

In 2013, Ohio's government submitted 409 projects from its development agency-compiled private investment survey to help compete for the ranking.  Of those, 72% (293 projects) were from the smaller counties and cities in Ohio.  Said another way, Ohio's three most-populous counties--Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Hamilton--combined to bring in 28% of the deals.

This trend is nothing new.  The track looks like this for the last six years showing what percentage of projects came from Ohio's smaller counties:

2013: 72%
2012: 74%
2011: 68%
2010: 71%
2009: 73%
2008: 74%

Pretty consistent.

Further, 26 of the 27 projects in Ohio with $50 million or more in capital investment were also in the smaller areas of Ohio.  Almost 99% of the capital investment from the top 27 mega projects came from areas of Ohio outside of Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati.

When it comes to manufacturing-oriented projects, the strength of Ohio's suburbs shines even more.  The analysis shows that in 2013, fully 94% (199) of the 212 manufacturing projects on the private investment list came from places other than Columbus, Cleveland, or Cincinnati.  Ohio's suburbs and smaller cities led the state forward in this core segment of Ohio's economy again this year.

More than giving recognition to the under-recognized suburbs, I write this column to make a key point.  Where would Ohio be without its suburbs? 

Ohio policy makers need to invest in success and embrace the suburbs.  We all need to work hard to never see the day when Ohio's suburbs aren't the engine of economic development success that they have consistently been. 

First Read, Then Heed Kotkin's Warning

The latest Joel Kotkin piece is a good read.  It's also a warning.

Citing that "U.S. suburbs now account for 2.7 times the population of core cities," Kotkin warned of the movement to regionalize governments.  His piece is titled "Dont' Make Big City Mayors Regional Rulers," and it's a must-read for us suburban dwellers.

Kotkin warns of a movement to grab power by big city mayors saying, "Increasingly, it is becoming a movement to create ever more powerful regional governments, which tend to be dominated by large cities, their mayors and their power blocs, whether unions, bureaucracies or politically connected developers."

Could we be seeing signs of this  movement in Ohio?

Follow Up: About Those Suburban Poverty Numbers

Wendell Cox's counter to the suburban poverty trend predictors

Remember a couple weeks ago when the Columbus Dispatch and Columbus Business First, on the same day, gave above-the-fold news coverage to suburbs and on the same topic?  The odds of either publication running any suburban story above the fold on any day are pretty slim (just being honest) much less the same day and with the same story line.

Clearly, you can't get such an incredible coincidence to happen by mere coincidence. 

When you factor in that the stories had the same story line but different sources and quotes tells one, with very little critical thinking at work here, that this was no coincidence.  Only tactical planning can pull that off. 

Some lobbying groups out there are working to fight for cities' piece of the pie at expense of suburbs.  It's a win-lose fight for a piece of a shrinking pie mentality instead of a grow the pie so everyone gets a bigger piece mentality that would be a win-win for all.

Joel Kotkin's NewGeography.com has given the counter answer just in the nick of time.  The concerted attempt to portray suburbs as facing poverty issues on par with big cities is not only a tactic in some groups' strategy, but it's also lacking facts.

See Wendell Cox's one chart above or see the whole article titled "Suburban & Urban Core 2012: Special Report."

Incidentally, the Columbus MSA suburbs were, on average, at 9.9% poverty rates.  Those rates are below the suburban poverty rate nationally and on par or below some comparable cities like those of Austin, Charlotte, and Raleigh.

What's the point?  It's not about boasting a lower poverty rate at all.  Any poverty rate is too high. Instead, it's about ferreting out the fact that a concerted effort is underway to boost policies for cities at the expense of suburbs.

Critical thinking needs honed in the suburbs.  It's just few of us involved in economic development in the suburbs even realize there is a battle in the first place. 

Suggestions for JobsOhio

I was sought out by a management consulting firm hired by JobsOhio to comment on the impact of JobsOhio and the regional groups it has partnered with to deliver Ohio's economic development services.  I consider myself fortunate to get to respond and the bulk of my comments were positive. 

I focused my half hour of input on how to make the economic development of our great state better.  I don't think it's fair I share everything I said, but I did have three key points.

1. Increase the focus on manufacturing.  Too little staffing of this new statewide program is focused on manufacturing.  The next hire JobsOhio makes should be someone with a true manufacturing background to help give the agency a perspective on the industry and align themselves more with that industry.

Manufacturing has been part of our past, is part of our present, and is a huge part of our future in Ohio if we act strategically to seek it out.

I complemented Columbus2020 for bringing prospects to visit our sites in Heath.  That's something no predecessor regional group had ever, ever done.

2. Set up systems to overcome tunnel vision on urban areas versus suburban.  JobsOhio has insulated itself from the suburbs by partnering with regional groups that are, but for one, headquartered in large, urban centers.  Though the propping up of regions by JobsOhio has given them new reasons to be truly regional and, at least in Central Ohio, that has worked, there need to be systems of accountability in place to ensure that all of Ohio's places with the sites, buildings, and workforce get a level playing field. 

It's not about fairness.  That's not the point.  It's about winning more deals, more investment, and more jobs.

As I've written before, it was Ohio's suburbs that saw 93% in 2012 and 94% in 2011 of the state's manufacturing projects reported to Site Selection magazine for the prestigious Governor's Cup.  Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati combined to achieve $0 of the largest projects in 2012.  There's a mismatch between JobsOhio contact with where the vast majority of the deals that are best for Ohio are actually happening.

When the boards and investors are made-up of people who don't know manufacturing and don't know someone who knows manufacturing, they, naturally, can get tunnel vision.  Yet, the majority of prospects and the majority of future, worthwhile state projects are going to come from manufacturers.  Of that, there can be little doubt.

The state needs to be demanding that regional groups that are getting state funding are truly regional in there approach with Board representation from a true, regional cross section.  They need to set up metrics that show people are physically visiting the regional counties that they claim to represent.  They need to monitor to make sure regional groups are equipped to be responsive to manufacturers as manufacturing makes up of most of Ohio's economic development leads.  These are just a few examples.

3. Give statewide attention to emerging industries.  There appears to be a pattern to pick winners and losers, by region, for emerging industries.  That gives away the statewide perspective that a statewide group like JobsOhio can enjoy.

In the past couple of years, I worked with a prospect company which indicated they saw three different regions in Ohio able to supply what was needed to make a potential emerging industry project work.  Instead, the state-subsidized regions went about trying to show the company how they alone in their region could win the whole deal.  The deal was lost.

Another example:  I'm a believer in Ohio's ability to marry its aerospace and automotive prowess to be the leader in the driverless car of the future.  Ohio has the potential to be a leader, but we are lagging in legislation, policy, and coalition-building to realize that potential.  The assets for that capability are not found in any single region of the state so it can't be merely turned over to someone else to do.  A statewide approach is called for in this case for sure.

This is true of many emerging industries--UAV's, fuel cells, nanomaterial, biomedical, etc.  Ohio has vast resources and capabilities, but they often aren't inherit in only one region in Ohio.  The state needs to be there to make sure a whole-state perspective is taken on going after emerging industries instead of just leaving it to one region to the take the lead at the expense of telling the complete story to a prospect.

The bottom line:  It's all about growing the pie so everyone gets a bigger piece instead of letting regions fight for their piece of a shrinking pie.

The Measuring Innovation Trap

In my book, where you choose to live doesn't make you any more or less innovative.  It's my strong assertion that innovation knows no population density.  In fact, I would warn those places that equate their higher density to their innovation superiority are brewing a recipe for a failing economy.

Saturday, Steve Layman wrote about the innovative people to come out of little Homer, Ohio, population 300.  I've written about Derwent, Ohio and the amazing energy and manufacturing industry innovation happening there.  Computers per capita in Hanover, Ohio are higher than most anyplace. Joel Kotkin points out "spread-out urban newbies" as the new model for growth.

I know these are mostly anecdotal measures of innovation.  Measuring innovation isn't something that's so easy to do though.  Those that have tried tend to get caught manipulating the results. It's a trap.

Two cases in point.

Richard Florida wrote a piece "The Density of Innovation" in 2010, and it's the whole premise of his "creative class" approach to economic development.  He's advised cities, including developers in Ohio, on how attracting creative people to dense places is the key to a trickle down of innovation in the economy.

He wrote, "Patents are the conventional measure of innovation. Despite their various weaknesses, patents represent a systematic, quantitative measure of innovation and are used by economists as the single dominant measure of innovation. But, as with other measures, economists tend to measure them on a per capita basis. . . Our measure of innovation density is patents per square kilometer."

This 2010 map is Florida's measure of innovation using patents per square kilometer.

The devil is in the details though. His measure wouldn't work for his point if he didn't then aggregate the data to only metro areas.  If he truly only used patents per square kilometer, there would be a ton of small census tracts that would dominate his list and tend throw out his results altogether.



A clip of the Brookings Institution interactive metro areas patents map.

Brookings uses patents per capita as its measure and did in a February 2013 study.  However, they also aggregate to metro areas which means they don't show us all the data.  Since we don't get the whole picture, we are left to suspect that rural and suburban areas are every bit as innovative per capita as dense, urban areas. 

Don't fall into the trap.  In the end, the wise thing to conclude is that innovation knows no population density.

Give Me 230 People Per Square Mile Any Day

Licking County, via Google Maps
 

With roughly 160,000 population in 687 square miles, Licking County has a population density of around 230 people per square mile.

Compare that to Orange County, California with 3,606 per square mile or 5,686 per square mile in Cook County, Illinois.  Even our bigger neighbor, Franklin County, has 2,183 people per square mile density.

We are truly a mix of suburban, exurban, and rural communities all rolled into one. 

It's a delightful mix, and I'll take it.

Pollution is higher where the density is higher.  So is crime.

Ohio's resurgence in manufacturing is happening in Ohio's less dense locations.  2013 data shows 93% of Ohio's top economic development projects happened outside of Ohio's three, most dense counties.

These are all profound reasons to like less density.

Yet, those denser than us will claim innovation is greater where population per square mile is greater.  Author Richard Florida has made a living boosting urban areas by belittling those suburban places that are less dense.

Many, like Joel Kotkin, dispute Florida's thinking with good reason.  I have disputed Florida's equating population and innovation over the years with more than a few anecdotal reasons.  Computers per capita in Hanover, Ohio are higher than most anyplace.  Derwent, Ohio has every place on the planet beat on manufacturing innovation per capita.

With the World's last hot roll aluminum line, the ability to calibrate high-precision equipment to the arcsecond, and no less than four corporate R&D and innovation centers, Licking County does not concede to those that claim innovation follows population density.

Give me 230 people per square mile any day.

Coincidence or What?

When suburbs make the prominent position on the front page, you need to take notice.  When it's the same story angle in two separate publications on the same day, you have to really take notice.

Columbus Business First has "Going Hungry in the 'Burbs" as its top of fold upper left front page byline today.

Same angle and same placement for The Dispatch food in the suburbs story today too.

One story is about school kids in Westerville getting twinkies for lunch.  The other is a story out of Worthington.

One cites a USDA report.  Another cites Brookings.  Neither appears to repeat from whom they got quotes.

What's going on here?  It is mere coincidence?