So went to Columbus Indiana this past weekend.  For those of you who don't know, Columbus is home to a great collection of buildings by famous architects from the 1940's to today.  If you haven't been I recommend it.  My S.O. and I stayed at the Columbus Inn which is the old city hall, now a bed & breakfast.  On Saturday afternoon we did a 2 hr. bus tour and then mostly just walked around the small city (approx. 39,000 people).  Sunday was more walking and then back to Cincinnati for the Patriots game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be honest, it looks hideous (your pictures are great, though!).

Interesting...great pics!!

 

Downtown looks very clean and well kept, but dead.

City Planner #1: Well we've just completed the finishing touches. Yet still: I'm haunted by the feeling that we've forgot something...

City Planner #2: Um, people?

City Planner #1: Shit...

Excellent photos! Columbus offers a lot of different styles in a relatively compact area; it's been a long time since I've been there, and I should probably go back. I think I would appreciate it more now than I did then.

 

If I remember correctly, the architectural movement in Columbus started with the post office; in the 1960s the USPS planned to build a new one, and the president of Cummins Engine and some other prominent citizens didn't want the generic one the postal service built everywhere else. They offered to pay the architect's fees if they could choose the architect and approve the design. They raised local awareness, and the whole thing sort of took off from there.

In response to the lack of people, on Saturday morning to late afternoon I actually thought there was a good number of people around (esp. for a city of 39,000) although it is not reflective in the photos.  People at the park.  Bikers on the "People Trail".  Tourists following their maps.  The deli downtown at lunch was packed.  The 2:00 tour had about 18 people on it. (There is also a 10:00 tour) and from noon to 3:00 there was some sort of "Columbus Sculpture Invitational" going on downtown south of the courthouse.  I will also say every storefront downtown looked occupied. 

 

The downtown mall was a different story however.  Hardly any stores at all were occupied.  "The Commons" is this mix of private mall and public space owned by the City and houses Arts Council offices, the Art Museum, a stage, and a very popular indoor play space for kids. (It was packed every time we saw it.)  Just announced was a plan to redevelop the whole site, add a hotel, Senior Center, rip off the roof off part, extend a street, etc.  It should help.

 

Now, Saturday evening downtown wasn't too crowded (although the nice restaurant downtown where we ate was crowded.) Many places closed at 5:00 like many other towns.  There are two popular bars downtown and one had a live band and both were lively Saturday night.  (We started at one and ended at the other.)

 

Admittedly, Sunday was kind of quite around with a lot of people at or going to church.  We were amazed at the amount of people getting their God on.

 

And to respond to Rob's comments: The USPS in downtown Columbus I believe is the only one in US that design work was paid with private funds and not by the postal service.  And the program began like Rob said with the foundation agreeing to pay architects fees for public buildings that at first included only schools but then expanded.   

Nice pictures.

 

Over Labor Day weekend last year, my partner and I stayed at a Bed and Breakfast in nearby Nashville.  Although modern architecture isn't really my cup of tea, we ended up spending a day in Columbus and it was actually pretty impressive to see all the civic buildings and churchs.  The bus tour offered by the CVB was also very well done.

This town probably has more noted architectual buildings then probably all of Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland put together. The downtown is very much alive (for a small city of 39,000), almost all the historic buildings have been restored and there is a great mix of modern architecture throughout the downtown as well. They have a great park system, a people trail that connects all city parks together and during the daytime there are 1,000s of office workers with companies like Irwin Financial and Cummins Engine Company having their corporate headquarters downtown. Yes, its does have its suburban shopping areas, just like most cities in America, but they have worked hard to connect them with sidewalks, have good design guidelines for the buildings and landscaping. They could focus more on Mixed Use, which they are starting to do. If only all of our midwest cities (big and small) could be this progressive in design, and development it would truly change the economics and quality of life of the midwest in a positive way.

"This town probably has more noted architectual buildings then probably all of Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland put together."

 

Sure, it has a lot of noted buildings but let's face it - the firms who designed them are often more notable than the buildings themselves.

 

Sure, it has a nice collection of interesting buildings from the Modern era, but if it's this veritable bustling metropolis that you describe, you might want to take a gander at this article: http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=2122

 

I'm not saying that it's not an interesting place, or the Modern buildings aren't impressive in their own right - but more than all the big C's put together? Really now.

First mayday I never said it was a bustling metropolis, I said that its downtown is very lively for a city of 39,000 people with several large corporations headquarted there.

Second, that article is correct, architecture alone will not create utopia and that was the focus of the article. But, quality architecture along with good parks, focus on design and historical preservation definitely moves a community forward economically and socially over many of its counterparts. This is what Columbus has achieved, for a small industrial city in the midwest, it has done very well for its self. 

Third, the American Institute of Architects surveyed 829 of its members in 1991. They ranked Columbus sixth among U.S. cities in architectural quality and innovation. Only Chicago, New York City, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Boston were ranked higher in the survey.

While I can't 'verify' that its has more noted buildings than the 3C, just as you can't 'verify' its doesn't, I don't see any of them on this list.

The American Institute of Architects's 1991 "rant" was simply a promotional tool, if anything.  In terms of "quality" projects, per capita, Columbus IN does very well.  But their "quality projects" are mostly modernist and in the future, the novelty of Columbus will be about as impressive as Space Mountain in Anaheim.

 

But time will tell.

I don't consider quality architecture (old and new - they have both), historic preservation, good pedestrian design and landscaping a novelty. I call it sustainability. Many great European cities have focus on these same items and I would not consider them a novelty either.

Columbus, IN comes across like an impressive museum. A nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Columbus, IN comes across like an impressive museum. A nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

If you want a big city environment then Columbus (39,000) is not a place for you. But, if you were looking for a small town that has big city architecture, parks and design then you would be hard press to find a better community. Also, you are right, it is one of the great outdoor museums for architecture in America.

I'm not questioning the integrity of the community of Columbus, IN, though, from what I've seen and read here and elsewhere, it does appear to have significant sustainability issues on par with other cities of its size.

 

I guess I'm just more of a diamond in the rough kind of guy; I like a beautiful building to sort of sneak up on me or stand out against a backdrop of slightly less intentionally special architecture. I doubt the great architecture of NYC would be considered even greater if you picked out all the repetitive brownstones and mixed-use structures and jammed all the well-known museums and skyscrapers and bridges into a five square block area. But then, I haven't been to Las Vegas in a few years. Maybe it works.

Some good pix here.  Thanks!

 

The issue with Columbus is that, due to this fee program by Irwin Miller, the city has a lot of public and insitutional buildings of high quality, and that is what sets it apart.  Not so much the town itself, which is fairly nondescript.

 

There are some recognized masterpieces there, too, like that first Saarinen church, some of the Cummins facilities, the library, and so forth.  A lot of the firms & architects that worked in Columbus where pupils of Saarinen, or where influenced by him.

 

The Saarinen church had a very subtle design.  The "sunken garden" next to it was supposed to be a reflecting pool, and the concept is that the sunlight playing on the ripples in the pool would  reflect through the windows into the sanctuary, giving a sort of shimmery light within the church. 

 

The Cummins HQ downtown, built around the old mill, and their factory south of town, built into a forest, with a parking lot on the roof, and a wooded glass-enclosed courtyard in the middle, are some great modern buildings that really elevate the experience of the office and shop floor for the workers.

 

 

ahh the modernist mini-mecca. i'm sure we all have read about this place from time to time.

 

i've always wanted to go, but never made it. great pics, thanks for going for me.

 

 

First mayday I never said it was a bustling metropolis, I said that its downtown is very lively for a city of 39,000 people with several large corporations headquarted there.

Second, that article is correct, architecture alone will not create utopia and that was the focus of the article. But, quality architecture along with good parks, focus on design and historical preservation definitely moves a community forward economically and socially over many of its counterparts. This is what Columbus has achieved, for a small industrial city in the midwest, it has done very well for its self. 

Third, the American Institute of Architects surveyed 829 of its members in 1991. They ranked Columbus sixth among U.S. cities in architectural quality and innovation. Only Chicago, New York City, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Boston were ranked higher in the survey.

While I can't 'verify' that its has more noted buildings than the 3C, just as you can't 'verify' its doesn't, I don't see any of them on this list.

 

i dont want to put words in your mouth but i think what you (and aia) mean to say is: per capita or for a town its size columbus, indiana has the most impressive modernist architecture. just as the others on that list do for their big sizes.

 

better overall or more "noted" structures than the three c's tho? yr kidding right? any of them cover much, much more than a nice set of a few low rise mid-century modernist buildings. as others said, a charming grouping like this in a small town really does almost seem like a theme park.

 

otoh, as for living there if i wanted to live in a smaller town i'd certainly consider it. heck i already lived in bowling green, ohio, the anti-columbus, indiana for years, not to mention the lorain years --- so it would be a big step up for me in that dept.  :laugh:

 

I don't consider quality architecture (old and new - they have both), historic preservation, good pedestrian design and landscaping a novelty. I call it sustainability. Many great European cities have focus on these same items and I would not consider them a novelty either.

 

Since when is Columbus, Indiana a good example of pedestrian design and such?  And the difference is that the European cities and such ARE sustainable, HAVE a variety of architecture, ARE pedestrian friendly, and function as cities and not as a "museum" (as others have said).

 

But then again, is Main Street USA in Disneyland sustainable, good urban character, good landscaping, and pedestrian friendly?

After having read about this town, I was underwhelmed by the photos, not at all the fault of the photographer.

Before BallHatGuy decides that he'll never post another photo thread, let me just say that in no way, shape or form am I suggesting that Columbus, Indiana isn't impressive for its collection of significant works by noted architects of the Modern era. In no way, shape or form am I suggesting that said collection is right up there with the "Biggest Ball of Twine" or that the city has nothing to offer beyond a few buildings designed by firms we've all heard of.

 

I simply took issue with ragerunner's assertion of this place having more notable works of architecture than Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland combined. For a town of 39,000 I'm sure it's downright amazing that they'd have a Saarinen, SOM, etc. but let's face it - you could likely fit the entire downtown into one of the big C's neighborhoods. That's all I was trying to say, and BallHatGuy, thank for posting your pics - they are very nice, and my commentary is only addressing another forumer's statements.

 

Yeesh!

I actually like the look of the town. Granted, it's a smaller place but I like some of the cobblestone works, monuments and gardens, and in town street views.

MayDay and ColDayMan,

Thanks for helping to making my point, you could fit Columbus' entire downtown into one of the big C's neighborhoods, and within that small area you would have more than a dozen famous architectural buildings (in downtown alone). That is why this little town is so impressive. While they could improve, just like about every American city, they have worked on good sidewalk connectivity and the people trail that connects all the main parks is now over 12 miles in length. They also have a functioning bus system that doesn't just go to two spots. So yes, for a small town I think this is pretty impressive. If only other cities (not just Ohio) would put this much effort into transit, public space and sidewalks (per person) as Columbus has American cities and town would be a much better place to live.

With that said, the big C's do have some very good modern architecture. University Circle area in Cleveland, University of Cincinnati, etc... But, from your comments ColDayMan on Columbus and modern architecture I would say you are not a fan of UC's modern architecture movement or Peter B. Lewis building at University Circle and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in downtown Cleveland since these place would only be 'novelties'.

Finally, while Columbus is famous for its modern architecture it also has done a very good job at restoring its historic buildings throughout downtown and around the city. So in many ways they have done what many European cities have done, preserve the past, embrace the future (architecturally) and value greenspace and the pedestrian.

With that said, I am note sure this conversation is about architecture, substainability, pedestrian design, etc... This is more about a couple of you feeling my comment about the amount of famous architecture in Columbus was more than the 3 C's. So, I take back that comment since I can't verify it even though, I firmly believe if you asked most architects (putting the size of the city aside), which of the following 4 cities have the best modern architecture, Columbus, IN, Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Columbus, OH they would pic Columbus, IN in a heartbeat.

 

^ if in that last comment you mean "best architecture...in sum total" then you would be terribly mistaken.

 

if you mean best mid-century stuff then....maybe. sadly, in that dept all three c's have prob torn down more modernist stuff than is in that town, but thats not to mention what is still left. for example, in the columbus realm worthington has a similarly planned out whole neighborhood of usonian modernist homes, rush creek village. thats sorta a columbus, indiana right there, at least in the amount of modern structures if not starcitects. i think you may be are forgetting scale here as columbus, indiana is a small town.

But, from your comments ColDayMan on Columbus and modern architecture I would say you are not a fan of UC's modern architecture movement or Peter B. Lewis building at University Circle and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in downtown Cleveland since these place would only be 'novelties'.

 

I never said that.  I simply implied that the modernistic architecture in Columbus, Indiana looked "novelty."  Though the Gehry structures in Cincinnati and Cleveland will probably be "novelty" as well.

ColDayMan,

One final question, have you ever visited Columbus, IN?

ColDayMan,

One final question, have you ever visited Columbus, IN?

 

Once, for a field trip back in high school.

ColDayMan,

One final question, have you ever visited Columbus, IN?

 

Once, for a field trip back in high school.

 

Ooh! Did teacher buy everybody saltwater taffy?

No.  Just cornbread.

It looks like it is a lot smaller than a city of 39,000.

I think it looks great.  Unique.

So I guess I should respond or add a few of my own comments although I am not sure I will add much to the conversation.

 

First, I do think Columbus has a nice collection of early modernist buildings, especially for a city of 39,000 people.  As a member of the AIA, would I personally rank it 6th in the US for architectural quality and innovation?  Maybe not.  Would I have in 1991?  Maybe.  The architectural world has changed a lot in 15 years.  And I honestly think a place like Cincinnati has a lot going for it architecturally esp. with the development of buildings at UC and the CAC and hopefully "The Accent" (yes, I understand it is in Northern Kentucky) in recent years and will make Cincinnati an even bigger name for itself in the years to come.  Modernism in Cincinnati is pretty bland in my opinion but take Cincinnati's older buildings, combined with Modernism and Post Modernism and whatever you call the schism in the architectural world of today, one has a really rich collection here in Cincinnati alone.

 

Now the size of Columbus though does make special mention as we are talking a city of over 30,000 people and NOT over 300,000 in Cincinnati's case.

 

Now, regarding that article I will say I concur with some things and not with others.  Irwin's original thesis I believe was to provide well designed schools to produce what he thought would be better students.  That grew to other public buildings but I never equated that to an impact beyond buildings and their immediate surroundings.  There are great buildings in Columbus and I think the City has marketed a whole tourism industry off that vision to create great buildings.  Where else do we talk about a city of 39,000 that tour buses, 7 days a week, take vistors to look at buildings?  I personally applaud that vision.

 

Now could Irwin, the Foundation, and the City leveraged that vision to go beyond and talk about smart growth, impact of suburbs and bix box retailers, sustainable design & "green" buildings, etc.?  YES.  Have they?  Clearly, the answer is NO.  My SO and I noted that beyond downtown and some of the early development in Columbus around 1950 - 1960, the sprawl looks much like it does elsewhere in America.  A big, new Walmart sits by the highway and McMansions and standard suburban development ring Columbus, encroaching the farmland and rolling hills of southern Indiana. It is ashame Columbus is like most other cities in that regard but I refuse to fault what they started in the 1940's and 1950's. At least they were thinking about their built environment maybe just not going even further in the scope and vision.