Who cares, honestly?  Columbus not having a strong, specific identity also doesn’t limit it to one identity, which is a positive IMO.  It’s broadly attractive.   Too many need labels to things, but those labels can be anchors.  

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Who cares, honestly?  Columbus not having a strong, specific identity also doesn’t limit it to one identity, which is a positive IMO.  It’s broadly attractive.   Too many need labels to things, but those labels can be anchors.  

There's advantages and disadvantages to having labels. Having a positive label is for sure better than having no label. I can't sit here and put up with you saying, "Who cares..," though. I made this thread, I obviously care, for a reason. You didn't offer anything constructive to the conversation. 

There was an older "Columbus: Re-branding and identity" thread.  So I've merged the new 'Columbus Identity' thread with that older thread.

5 hours ago, David said:

Who is JMan? 

Am I being suspected as being a troll from Skyscraperpage or citydata? I'm just David.

LOL Jman is a notorious querulous malcontent who comments on Columbus Underground posts. He just within the last week was lamenting the lowliness of the Cbus skyline by comparing it to a video of the NEW YORK CITY! skyline, not just as it is now, but how it is projected to be in another decade! 

 

His signature move is posting skyline pics of Austin(or Nashville)to compare to the lowly Cbus skyline. I mentioned him because you just happened to post and compare the Cbus and Austin skylines-his favorite go to post. Apparently now Columbus must compete with a future NYC skyline now! though with him. 

 

*Funny how to him our "peers" just happen to be similar sized cities that are booming with skyscraper construction, and with Austin, perhaps the "it" city of the last decade or two. Nevermind the comparisons to say the skylines of Sacramento, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Tampa/St. Pete., etc.-also "peer" cities-those comparisons would not further his agenda and which he never compares to Cbus. Cbus can only be compared to the hottest and most booming with skyscraper cities of our peers. Funny that. 

 

He is just a real downer over there.  Has been for years.  The comment section over there is getting even more toxic it seems.

 

Is a d*ck measuring contest through skyscraper/skyline proxy really something we want? I would trade any 30 or 40 story tower for a dozen 12-20 story buildings that would actually fill in our vacant lots downtown and bring much more in terms of street life and street activation, along with more residents, workers, retail/flex space, etc. that one. single. tower.  

8 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Austin has rail transit. Beating the drum here.

What about our other peers like Indy? Las Vegas?(that monorail does not count), San Antonio? Where is their booming light rail systems? Hell Phoenix has an urban area nearly 3 times ours and has one 30 mile line or something like that? Does Kansas City or even Cincinnati have anything more than short streetcar lines?(streetcars are not light rail).They are also our peer cities. And many of the cities that do have extensive light rail systems have systems that kinda suck because they were built into sprawling areas that light rail cannot really benefit that much(looking at you Dallas-you need to connect corridors and high density nodes-not endless miles of sprawl).

 

And yeah we suck at this but among our peer cites there are plenty who also suck-just like with the (much less important)skyline d*ck measuring stuff. At least we are getting Amtrak and are making progress-hopefully the 20 miles stretch of Broad and Main will be a light rail line...I think we are moving in the right direction.  

9 hours ago, David said:

It certainly seems like that would help (when you happen to be the state capitol of a much larger and wealthier state) but if you go solely based on that, Albany and Sacramento should be the hippest places on earth and they absolutely are not when they should be killing it. Most people forgot that Albany is even the capitol of NY. Perhaps its a combination of a larger economy AND the large college population. I don't know. Austin has a remarkable restaurant and nightlife scene for a city of it's size (it's metro population is essentially that of Columbus) but it has WAY more venues for things like live music and stand-up comedy. Austin's skyline is also insane, compared to Columbus. When I look at Austin, I can't help but think Columbus is doing things wrong.

You can't look at Austin/Nashville as a peer without looking at San Antonio, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Tampa/St.Pete., Kansas City, St. Louis, etc. and yes Sacramento when comparing skylines-they are peers as well. They are not exactly hitting it out of the park skyline wise either. What you are doing is making a comparison that is explicitly hand-picked and unfair by not looking at the others and instead only mentioning Austin which has arguably been the biggest boom town in the entire nation for the last decade or two. 

Hell even Portland has a tallest building that is older and lower than the tallest in Cbus.

 

When you look at Austin you should feel that those other cities with underwhelming skylines must be doing something wrong too?-or just maybe Austin(and Nashville)are real exceptions and should be regarded as such when even considering comparisons of skylines-which is one of the least important measurements of the worth of a city anyway IMO(and I love skyscrapers).

16 hours ago, David said:

It certainly seems like that would help (when you happen to be the state capitol of a much larger and wealthier state) but if you go solely based on that, Albany and Sacramento should be the hippest places on earth and they absolutely are not when they should be killing it. Most people forgot that Albany is even the capitol of NY. Perhaps its a combination of a larger economy AND the large college population. I don't know. Austin has a remarkable restaurant and nightlife scene for a city of it's size (it's metro population is essentially that of Columbus) but it has WAY more venues for things like live music and stand-up comedy. Austin's skyline is also insane, compared to Columbus. When I look at Austin, I can't help but think Columbus is doing things wrong.

Austin also had/has the benefit of being a music town. They have high tourism because of that. That has helped overall. I would look at Nashville as the same. They had that draw that Columbus, and many other cities don’t have. They also have weather that most people would say is better than Ohio, those people are wrong, but that could be a cause as well. 

7 hours ago, Toddguy said:

LOL Jman is a notorious querulous malcontent who comments on Columbus Underground posts. He just within the last week was lamenting the lowliness of the Cbus skyline by comparing it to a video of the NEW YORK CITY! skyline, not just as it is now, but how it is projected to be in another decade! 

 

His signature move is posting skyline pics of Austin(or Nashville)to compare to the lowly Cbus skyline. I mentioned him because you just happened to post and compare the Cbus and Austin skylines-his favorite go to post. Apparently now Columbus must compete with a future NYC skyline now! though with him. 

 

*Funny how to him our "peers" just happen to be similar sized cities that are booming with skyscraper construction, and with Austin, perhaps the "it" city of the last decade or two. Nevermind the comparisons to say the skylines of Sacramento, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Tampa/St. Pete., etc.-also "peer" cities-those comparisons would not further his agenda and which he never compares to Cbus. Cbus can only be compared to the hottest and most booming with skyscraper cities of our peers. Funny that. 

 

He is just a real downer over there.  Has been for years.  The comment section over there is getting even more toxic it seems.

 

Is a d*ck measuring contest through skyscraper/skyline proxy really something we want? I would trade any 30 or 40 story tower for a dozen 12-20 story buildings that would actually fill in our vacant lots downtown and bring much more in terms of street life and street activation, along with more residents, workers, retail/flex space, etc. that one. single. tower.  

He also compared the Columbus skyline to Fort Wayne Indiana, so after that I stopped reading his comments. 

The reductionist skyline argument is just so tiresome. Yes, Austin has a lot of tall, modern towers built within the last decade which look decent from a distance. But guess what. The street level experience where all those towers are is laughable. Furthermore, Austin's skyline, while having some decent volume now, isn't really all that unique. If you photoshopped a few palm trees into an Austin skyline picture, it could easily be confused with Tampa or a section of Miami's skyline. It's just a bunch of cookie-cutter modern condo towers. 

 

Just look at these street view images of Austin and Columbus. Most of Austin's taller towers are indistinguishable from a condo tower you'd see in Miami, Tampa, Houston, etc; whereas none of the taller towers in Columbus are going to be easily confused with any other city. 

 

Additionally, tall buildings often do not do much to increase the actual quality of the neighborhood on the ground. Especially with the way towers are often built now. Just look at the most popular district of most any city and you'll see that it rarely has any of the taller buildings in that city. The Short North is the most popular part of "urban Columbus", yet it's tallest buildings don't exceed 12 stories. Similarly, OTR is the most popular section of Cincinnati and it has less height than the Short North. The Magnificent Mile, probably the most popular tourist area of Chicago, is lined with many buildings that are no taller than 20 taller stories, some only rising 4-5 stories. Many of the more popular neighborhoods for Chicago residents are very much like the Short North or OTR, with buildings only rising 12 stories at most. Go to NYC and you'll find the most pleasant neighborhoods to walk through are often lined with buildings only rising about 12-15 stories. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. 

 

Columbus doesn't need to worry about building more 500'+ towers in order to improve its image nationally. It needs to focus on continuing to do what it's already doing. Beef up the residential numbers in the core of the city. Improve the pedestrian and residential experience in the CBD. Make Franklinton a livable neighborhood and connect it to the other side of the river. Improve public transportation and reduce the need for cars for those that want to live a classic urban lifestyle. Overall, focus giving its residents the best possible quality of life, rather than focusing on what an Austin Nashville fanboy thinks of it. 

 

I actually feel that cities like Columbus and Indy have a much better long-term sustainability than boom towns like Nashville and Austin. The former are focused on building with their residents in mind, while the latter are focused on building with current day fads in mind. What happens to Nashville when a shakeup in the music industry occurs? Eventually Brides-to-be will decide to have their bachelorette parties elsewhere. Eventually Austin won't be so weird and the indy music scene will move somewhere else. Eventually the tech startups will find a new fast growing and cheaper city to move to. At that point, those cities will be left with a bunch of cheaply built condo towers (that were mostly used as AirBnBs to begin with) sitting largely empty, while Columbus and Indianapolis will have smartly built urban neighborhoods continuing to thrive. 

 

So, to wrap up this long-winded comment, I feel that cities like Columbus and Indianapolis should continue to do what they are doing. Build smart with the future in mind. It's worked so far and it will likely continue to work in the future. Cities like Austin and Nashville can continue to cash in on their fad status. Maybe it will continue in the long-term, maybe it won't. If it does, great for them. But if it doesn't, I hate to say I told you so but....

 

8 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

The reductionist skyline argument is just so tiresome. Yes, Austin has a lot of tall, modern towers built within the last decade which look decent from a distance. But guess what. The street level experience where all those towers are is laughable. Furthermore, Austin's skyline, while having some decent volume now, isn't really all that unique. If you photoshopped a few palm trees into an Austin skyline picture, it could easily be confused with Tampa or a section of Miami's skyline. It's just a bunch of cookie-cutter modern condo towers. 

 

Just look at these street view images of Austin and Columbus. Most of Austin's taller towers are indistinguishable from a condo tower you'd see in Miami, Tampa, Houston, etc; whereas none of the taller towers in Columbus are going to be easily confused with any other city. 

 

Additionally, tall buildings often do not do much to increase the actual quality of the neighborhood on the ground. Especially with the way towers are often built now. Just look at the most popular district of most any city and you'll see that it rarely has any of the taller buildings in that city. The Short North is the most popular part of "urban Columbus", yet it's tallest buildings don't exceed 12 stories. Similarly, OTR is the most popular section of Cincinnati and it has less height than the Short North. The Magnificent Mile, probably the most popular tourist area of Chicago, is lined with many buildings that are no taller than 20 taller stories, some only rising 4-5 stories. Many of the more popular neighborhoods for Chicago residents are very much like the Short North or OTR, with buildings only rising 12 stories at most. Go to NYC and you'll find the most pleasant neighborhoods to walk through are often lined with buildings only rising about 12-15 stories. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. 

 

Columbus doesn't need to worry about building more 500'+ towers in order to improve its image nationally. It needs to focus on continuing to do what it's already doing. Beef up the residential numbers in the core of the city. Improve the pedestrian and residential experience in the CBD. Make Franklinton a livable neighborhood and connect it to the other side of the river. Improve public transportation and reduce the need for cars for those that want to live a classic urban lifestyle. Overall, focus giving its residents the best possible quality of life, rather than focusing on what an Austin Nashville fanboy thinks of it. 

 

I actually feel that cities like Columbus and Indy have a much better long-term sustainability than boom towns like Nashville and Austin. The former are focused on building with their residents in mind, while the latter are focused on building with current day fads in mind. What happens to Nashville when a shakeup in the music industry occurs? Eventually Brides-to-be will decide to have their bachelorette parties elsewhere. Eventually Austin won't be so weird and the indy music scene will move somewhere else. Eventually the tech startups will find a new fast growing and cheaper city to move to. At that point, those cities will be left with a bunch of cheaply built condo towers (that were mostly used as AirBnBs to begin with) sitting largely empty, while Columbus and Indianapolis will have smartly built urban neighborhoods continuing to thrive. 

 

So, to wrap up this long-winded comment, I feel that cities like Columbus and Indianapolis should continue to do what they are doing. Build smart with the future in mind. It's worked so far and it will likely continue to work in the future. Cities like Austin and Nashville can continue to cash in on their fad status. Maybe it will continue in the long-term, maybe it won't. If it does, great for them. But if it doesn't, I hate to say I told you so but....

 

I visited Austin recently, and I must say, for all the hype I was extremely underwhelmed.  Yes from far away the new towers look pretty, but I second the street level sentiment you mentioned as being very disappointing, dark, dirty and I must say they have a HUGE homeless problem.  Tent cities at every corner and under/overpass.

 

I'm glad they are "enjoying" their growth, but the reality is, it's losing it's character, identity and reputation for that matter.  They are simply growing at too fast a rate where they can't even keep up.  It's a "fad" city at this point which is very unattractive to me.  My aunt and uncle from southern Texas dreamed of retiring nearby there and now have completely changed their plans because they hate what it has become.  I have other friend from Texas who are also now avoiding Austin because it's a huge mess and being infiltrated.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-growth, but it has to be sustainable and reasonable growth.  I'd rather grow at a range of 10k-25k a year than 70k+.  Also, this has been discussed at exhausting length at this point, but Columbus is not land poor.  We have made incredible strides in the last decade with infill of buildings 5-12 stories.  No offence to other cities that like to bash us, but we are way more connected and walkable now and are only continuing more of it.  It will be an exciting 20's to see what happens this decade, because it's obvious we are still growing at a nice pace.

9 hours ago, Toddguy said:

What about our other peers like Indy? Las Vegas?(that monorail does not count), San Antonio? Where is their booming light rail systems? Hell Phoenix has an urban area nearly 3 times ours and has one 30 mile line or something like that? Does Kansas City or even Cincinnati have anything more than short streetcar lines?(streetcars are not light rail).They are also our peer cities. And many of the cities that do have extensive light rail systems have systems that kinda suck because they were built into sprawling areas that light rail cannot really benefit that much(looking at you Dallas-you need to connect corridors and high density nodes-not endless miles of sprawl).

 

And yeah we suck at this but among our peer cites there are plenty who also suck-just like with the (much less important)skyline d*ck measuring stuff. At least we are getting Amtrak and are making progress-hopefully the 20 miles stretch of Broad and Main will be a light rail line...I think we are moving in the right direction.  

 

I do count streetcars. They make a big difference. Whereas our system would be light rail with in-street sections. I also feel like we would be wiser with our route than the Sunbelt cities. I don't think we'd approve a line running up Hamilton from Groveport to New Albany as our main, for example.

Austin in particular is definitely not a “fad”, the amount of money being poured into that city is beyond belief. The investments from the tech industry alone will ensure Austin is a big deal for a very long time to come. Also the city has such an extreme amount of ongoing construction that the city you visit today will look noticeably different in just a few years.

2 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Austin in particular is definitely not a “fad”, the amount of money being poured into that city is beyond belief. The investments from the tech industry alone will ensure Austin is a big deal for a very long time to come. Also the city has such an extreme amount of ongoing construction that the city you visit today will look noticeably different in just a few years.

 

That's very much a fad. And it's a fad built on the fad of Austin being the weird hipster city that flies under the radar and does its own thing. Austin failed to "keep Austin weird", and is now just a popular stopping point for the tech bros working their way up the corporate ladder. Those same tech bros moved out to the Bay Area, now they've moved to Austin, and we'll see where they move next.

 

And yes there's a ton of construction occurring. Nobody here is denying that. We are criticizing the type of construction. 

17 hours ago, Toddguy said:

So basically you are saying that Columbus is being held back by the rest of Ohio? lol. Just JOKING! 

 

 

In a way, yes. It would be shocking if Austin weren't fast-growing. Columbus is bucking the trends of Urban Ohio for sure, but also vacuuming up residents from Northern Ohio. There's a subtle distaste for Columbus here in Toledo, because its seen as monopolizing the state's economic development investments, fair or not. 

26 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Austin in particular is definitely not a “fad”, the amount of money being poured into that city is beyond belief. The investments from the tech industry alone will ensure Austin is a big deal for a very long time to come. Also the city has such an extreme amount of ongoing construction that the city you visit today will look noticeably different in just a few years.

Austin's a fad the way Cleveland was a fad 100 years ago. It's too long term to recognize it as an unsustainable rise, but the fall, or at least some stagnation, will come for Austin one of these decades. 

 

On the skyline/streetscape discussion between Austin and Columbus, I completely agree that most Sunbelt cities have very poor street activity. Most of their large buildings and development came in the post-civil rights/brutalist era when buildings turned inward, away from street activity (see also downtowns in Minneapolis, Des Moines, Toledo). The Short North and High Street in general is a *magnificent* urban space. The street activity, small shops, slow traffic going for miles and miles is unlike anything else I've seen in the Midwest outside Chicago. Detroit's Woodward Ave is on the same development trajectory, and maybe Lansing's Michigan Ave is a small-city example. Indy has nothing like High Street in Columbus.  

Edited July 8, 20213 yr by westerninterloper

19 hours ago, David said:

It certainly seems like that would help (when you happen to be the state capitol of a much larger and wealthier state) but if you go solely based on that, Albany and Sacramento should be the hippest places on earth and they absolutely are not when they should be killing it. Most people forgot that Albany is even the capitol of NY. Perhaps its a combination of a larger economy AND the large college population. I don't know. Austin has a remarkable restaurant and nightlife scene for a city of it's size (it's metro population is essentially that of Columbus) but it has WAY more venues for things like live music and stand-up comedy. Austin's skyline is also insane, compared to Columbus. When I look at Austin, I can't help but think Columbus is doing things wrong.

New York is not a fast-growing state like Texas, and Albany does not have the flagship state university (SUNY is weird anyway - much less hierarchical than TX or CA public universities). The population of Upstate New York has been treading water for about 100 years outside the post WWII baby boom. 

 

Sacramento doesn't have a UC campus, and LA, SF and SD are sucking up lots of the development energy in CA. I also think Sacramento is an unattractive physical location compared to Austin; my CA friends used to call it "Excremento".

 

Another example might be Tallahassee, which does have a flagship university and the state capitol, but it's far away from the fast growing regions of the state. Baton Rouge might be another example of a capital city with a major university that's not the largest city in the state (like Cols). 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

That's very much a fad. And it's a fad built on the fad of Austin being the weird hipster city that flies under the radar and does its own thing. Austin failed to "keep Austin weird", and is now just a popular stopping point for the tech bros working their way up the corporate ladder. Those same tech bros moved out to the Bay Area, now they've moved to Austin, and we'll see where they move next.

 

And yes there's a ton of construction occurring. Nobody here is denying that. We are criticizing the type of construction. 

I disagree, but that’s ok. Also what’s with the Columbus obsession with Austin? I don’t associate the 2 at all to be honest.

2 hours ago, 646empire said:

I disagree, but that’s ok. Also what’s with the Columbus obsession with Austin? I don’t associate the 2 at all to be honest.

 

I'm not sure anyone here is obsessed with Austin. I'm certainly not. The two are often compared though. Both are state capitols which have long been overshadowed by other cities in their own state. Both have been growing rapidly for a few decades now. They are two of the largest cities in the country without a "BIg 3" sport. Both are home to massive universities, and each university has a massive athletics department with football and basketball teams who's popularity rivals the NFL and NBA teams in some cities. Both have a relatively young population, which is influenced by the massive university located in each city. 

 

I could go on and on, but they are very similar cities for their respective regions. 

Back to the point about wealthy states and flagship universities, check out these endowment numbers from TX and Ohio:

 

1. Harvard, $38 Billion

2. University of Texas System, $30B

3. Yale, $29B

4. Stanford, $26B

8. Texas A&M System, $13.5B

 

23. Ohio State, $4.6B

56. CWRU, $1.45B

87. University of Cincinnati, $1.35B

 

Endowment $$ makes a huge difference in recruiting star faculty, supporting graduate students, constructing buildings. It's difficult to discount that much money sitting in Austin (the only major UT campus).

 

That, my friends, is the difference between oil money and Wexner's fashion money. 

Edited July 8, 20213 yr by westerninterloper

22 hours ago, westerninterloper said:

Austin's a fad the way Cleveland was a fad 100 years ago.

I like the that Columbus grows slowly and steadily rather than becoming a boomtown.  So many rises and falls around the country over the decades and Columbus was just sitting there quietly in the background always chugging along on its consistent upward trajectory.

On 7/7/2021 at 4:41 PM, GCrites80s said:

Austin has rail transit. Beating the drum here.

So do a lot of cities that are losing population.

On 7/7/2021 at 4:23 PM, David said:

To expound on what I've talked about earlier... Comparable MSAs. Pretty damn remarkable. 

Look at the Phoenix skyline

41 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

So do a lot of cities that are losing population.

 

Are you really getting on the "everybody's leaving the cities" boat? Let's give it a few years for the COVID after-effects wear off and the overheated rents in the most expensive cities cool so that we can see if the cities fill right back in or not. To do so beforehand is knee-jerk reactionary.

5 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Are you really getting on the "everybody's leaving the cities" boat?

Not at all, and I'm not sure how you interpreted my comment as that.  I'm getting on the "people don't move to one city from another because of rail transit" boat.  I disagree with your assessment that Austin is growing more rapidly and has more identity than Columbus simply because it has rail transit.  If rail transit was the main factor at play for relocations from one city to another, inter-city migration would look much different than what we currently see in the US.

Edited July 9, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

It's more like "once they've lived in a city with it they won't move to ones without it" and "cities without it struggle to retain natives". It's not just the rail transit itself, but the development patterns and good urbanism that results from properly-designed rail transit. So without it you still get the people from Coshocton but you don't get anyone from Austin.

17 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

It's more like "once they've lived in a city with it they won't move to ones without it" and "cities without it struggle to retain natives". It's not just the rail transit itself, but the development patterns and good urbanism that results from properly-designed rail transit. So without it you still get the people from Coshocton but you don't get anyone from Austin.

There's no data that really backs this up, though.  If we take the assumption that rail transit is such an important relocation factor, it becomes hard to explain the rise of the sunbelt and population decline in cities like Chicago.  Jobs, climate, cost of living.  That's why people move.  Combine 2 out of 3 of those things, and you get people.  Combine all 3 and you get a boom.  Take Columbus exactly as it is with no rail transit, plop it next to an ocean in warm weather, and we would be booming and wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited July 9, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

21 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

It's more like "once they've lived in a city with it they won't move to ones without it" and "cities without it struggle to retain natives". It's not just the rail transit itself, but the development patterns and good urbanism that results from properly-designed rail transit. So without it you still get the people from Coshocton but you don't get anyone from Austin.

Hmmmmmm.......3 of my best friends I've made in Columbus all moved here from San Francisco, Houston and Manhattan.  They each admitted to not knowing anything about Columbus prior and were surprised by how large it actually was.  All of which have set down roots here real-estate wise and don't ever want to return to those other cities if they can help it.......just saying   Also, when is the last time Columbus had a decline year?

Edited July 9, 20213 yr by Gnoraa

5 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

There's no data that really backs this up, though.  If we take the assumption that rail transit is such an important relocation factor, it becomes hard to explain the rise of the sunbelt.  Jobs, climate, cost of living.  That's why people move.  Combine 2 out of 3 of those things, and you get people.  Combine all 3 and you get a boom.  Take Columbus exactly as it is with no rail transit, plop it next to an ocean in warm weather, and we would be booming and wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Much of the rise in the sunbelt occurred before rail transit started becoming a more important requirement to people. Now we look back at the mid-2000s as the early days of booming interest in good urbanism. Before that it was more Bohemian. And the Sunbelt cities kept up with demand for rail transit by adding or expanding it, even if their lines and station locations are often suboptimal.

3 minutes ago, Gnoraa said:

Hmmmmmm.......3 of my best friends I've made in Columbus all moved here from San Francisco, Houston and Manhattan.  They each admitted to not knowing anything about Columbus prior and were surprised by how large it actually was.  All of which have set down roots here real-estate wise and don't ever want to return to those other cities if they can help it.......just saying   Also, when is the last time Columbus had a decline year?

 

I'm not speaking for everyone. Different personality types look for different amenities. For some no rail transit is a "hard no" whereas for others it's not. But when people who value good urbanism and have a choice of where to live rail transit is indeed important, even if they don't use it often. This is due to the walkability and mixed-use development patterns rail transit leads to. You can build mixed-use but without rail transit and walkability in the "retail" component of it you're way more likely to only get taprooms, hair salons, offices and storage in them rather than the funky stuff and full range of businesses that keep people alive that you see when there's rail transit. We got lucky with the Short North that we got several blocks of something approaching that without rail transit but it took an enormous amount of work, unbelievable turnover and 30+ years to get there.

 

I don't think Columbus has had a decline year for a long time, but it's native retention rate could be a lot better.

14 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Much of the rise in the sunbelt occurred before rail transit started becoming a more important requirement to people.

The sunbelt is currently booming, right now.  And rail transit in nearly all of those cities can hardly even be considered to exist in comparison to cities like NYC and Chicago, places where many of those newcomers have relocated from.  Nobody has ever said, "I'm moving to Austin from Columbus because of Austin's superior rail transit."

Edited July 9, 20213 yr by TH3BUDDHA

They do move because of "vibe" which is more difficult to have without rail transit. For us saying "rail transit" doesn't sound clinical but "vibe" suffers without it.

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

They do move because of "vibe" which is more difficult to have without rail transit. For us saying "rail transit" doesn't sound clinical but "vibe" suffers without it.

But honestly, "vibe" and urbanity and transit is important to a very small subset of, frankly, them goshdanginginit young "hipsters" without other reasons to choose a city. The vast majority of people move to a new place for a job or family. People making lifestyle choices where they live may be increasing because of remote work, but I'd guess they are on the upper end of the income spectrum, and are looking to get away from dense cities and to places with good restaurants, schools, and natural areas. That could be Breckinridge or Flagstaff over Austin or Denver. 

6 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

They do move because of "vibe" which is more difficult to have without rail transit. For us saying "rail transit" doesn't sound clinical but "vibe" suffers without it.

So, you believe that Austin would be on an entirely different trajectory if you removed their rail transit?

No. But it wouldn't be as hot. And there would be more gaps.

Honest question for you @GCrites80s. Have you spent much time in any of these sunbelt boomtowns with mediocre rail transit running through miles and miles suburban areas? I've spent time in these cities, and the rail transit is hardly noticeable or widely used by the residents. It's nothing close to riding the train in a place like Chicago, NYC, DC, etc. It's something that some people use commute to and from work, but that's about it. Aside from that, it's rarely used in everyday life for most of the residents. The bus systems are often more useful than the trains.

 

I agree with much of your sentiment regarding rail and its ability to attract and retain younger people looking for more dynamic urban environments to live in. High capacity transit can be very important in creating desirable places to live.

 

But... Austin’s rail – Capital Metro Rail – is a 9 stop commuter rail line with service every 60 minute off peak. Its ridership was just over 2,000/weekday pre-pandemic. That's equals about 1 out of every 1000 people in the Austin metro area.

 

 

(further discussion of Austin's, and other Sun Belt cities rail transit, should maybe go to the Other States: Passenger Rail News thread)

18 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

Honest question for you @GCrites80s. Have you spent much time in any of these sunbelt boomtowns with mediocre rail transit running through miles and miles suburban areas? I've spent time in these cities, and the rail transit is hardly noticeable or widely used by the residents. It's nothing close to riding the train in a place like Chicago, NYC, DC, etc. It's something that some people use commute to and from work, but that's about it. Aside from that, it's rarely used in everyday life for most of the residents. The bus systems are often more useful than the trains.

 

I have not since the lines were added but have seen enough discussion about them and looked at the layouts on maps/streetview to know that they are indeed mediocre in most cases.

On 7/5/2021 at 1:59 PM, X said:

Ohio in general suffers from being, "Anywhere, USA"- it's the curse of being average. And Columbus is "Anytown, OH".  So it's a bit of a recursive curse.  You'll just have to deal with being an average, but nice city.  It's not the worst thing in the world.

 

I would argue that the "Anywhere, USA" image of Ohio is borne of ignorance, though. The state has a lot of unique places, exemplified by how extremely different the 3C's are. But the view of Columbus as Anytown is an actual thing, which many knowledgeable people (like those in this thread) give credence to.

 

I think Columbus will get an identity eventually. No clue how or what. It's definitely harder to come by one in the digital age when global culture is a melting pot.

15 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

I would argue that the "Anywhere, USA" image of Ohio is borne of ignorance, though. The state has a lot of unique places, exemplified by how extremely different the 3C's are. But the view of Columbus as Anytown is an actual thing, which many knowledgeable people (like those in this thread) give credence to.

 

I think Columbus will get an identity eventually. No clue how or what. It's definitely harder to come by one in the digital age when global culture is a melting pot.

Honestly I'm guilty of this, Cleveland is a rustbelt/great lakes city, Cincinnati is a rustbelt/river city . But I compare Columbus to Indianapolis in that it feels really generic to me. If you drop me in Columbus, Indy, KC, Omaha, OKC, Nashville, or any sunbelt city I wouldn't know the difference.  Columbus, and all Ohio cities really, need more immigrants. Houston should be and was a sh*thole, but they have so many Vietnamese and Central American immigrants that it has developed an amazing culture around food. I'm not sure what the answer is but if I'm being honest when I'm defending Ohio to others I'm defending Cleveland and Cincinnati and basically attributing all the 'boring Ohio' stuff to Columbus. It's my scapegoat and I'm sorry. 

Rail transit can also be important to immigrants especially if they didn't drive back in the old country.

Austin could be considered a “peer city” now because we have somewhat close population numbers, along with a state capital (in a large state) and a massive research university. Despite some of the current overlaps though, they are growing so much faster than not only Columbus, but the ENTIRE county. It is the FASTEST growing metro area of its size anywhere in the US. The forces acting on a city under those conditions are not easy to compare with those acting on Columbus.

 

Greater Austin’s growth rate is ~2.7x greater than Columbus’s (MSA), adding close to 600,000 people over the past 10 years (~250,00 in CLB). The MORPC projections have Columbus growing by 800,000 people by 2050, Austin is projected to grow by over 2.3 million by 2050. You need to add Nashville's growth rate to Columbus’s to get close to Austin’s. Because of this I do not think an Austin/Columbus comparison is too fitting. Austin is anomalous.

 

In 1960 a little over 200,000 people lived in Travis County (1/3 the size of Franklin at the time). Their highway / interstate system was underbuilt for their future growth in the postwar years, and they remain the largest city in the country with only a single interstate. Columbus built the outerbelt and has one of the highest rates of highway miles per capita in the country. Austin’s growth is partially constrained by the Texas hill country to its west, while Columbus is in an almost featureless plain enabling it to expand outward in nearly every direction. These forces acting on Austin lead it down a different path than Columbus in terms of the density of its urban form and the pace at which high-capacity transit is developed.

 

 

Greater density and improved transit are coming to Columbus, but not as fast as many cites in the Sun Belt, or Mountain West. As Columbus and central Ohio work towards these goals, a stronger sense of place can develop around a more dynamic city. It is in this environment where Columbus’s cultural assets can develop to help form a more cohesive identity.

 

The sense of place and urban form is of course not the only thing involved in developing a strong regional identity with flourishing cultural and business assets, but it can be one of the most important. Columbus’s perceived lack of a coherent identity by outsiders (and some of its own citizens) in many ways stems from the bland suburbanism that characterizes much of the region. When a strip mall on Morse, East Main or Broad can be anywhere, its nowhere. Too much of the city is nowhere.

 

This issue is obviously not unique to Columbus, it is something that plagues much of the country. Since a lot of Columbus’s growth was postwar though, it has a comparatively smaller prewar/streetcar era urbanized area than other Northern/Midwestern cities. That roughly 40 square mile area is where many of the things that make Columbus distinct are located, and where its identity can be cultivated. (That area also represents the vast majority of posts about Columbus on this forum). Disclaimer – it may sound as if I was taking shots at Columbus, but that is unintentional. I truly care about Columbus, and want to see it continue to thrive. 

 

 

TL;DR – Austin is anomalous, and may not be the best comparison to Columbus. Columbus will get denser/high-capacity transit, but not as fast as much of the Sun Belt. A more dense, connected and lively city will help foster a stronger identity. A perceived lack of identity in Columbus is partially a result of bland suburbanism that comprised much of the postwar growth in the region.

You do have to drive through miles and miles of Uncool Crescent to get to the core areas if your trip originates outside of 270 anywhere from west side I-70 to all the way up to 670. These once vital areas contain a lot of workforce housing but very little in the way of destinations or anything outside of very basic services such as gas and convenience foods. And much of it is post-1960 which is tough to revive or redevelop to meet current proclivities.

On 7/9/2021 at 3:37 PM, GCrites80s said:

You do have to drive through miles and miles of Uncool Crescent to get to the core areas if your trip originates outside of 270 anywhere from west side I-70 to all the way up to 670. These once vital areas contain a lot of workforce housing but very little in the way of destinations or anything outside of very basic services such as gas and convenience foods. And much of it is post-1960 which is tough to revive or redevelop to meet current proclivities.

Unless you just hop on the freeway which is two miles away. I live over 20 miles from downtown and yet it is easy to get there.  West Jefferson is beginning to have a rush hours with the commuting going on from the warehouse jobs and the west side of Cbus.

 

 

And it is surprising how parts of the uncool crescent are changing-becoming more diverse. Sullivant Avenue(an admitted hellhole street)has so many different ethnic little shops and restaurants.

 

I wish we could get more international immigration, seek it out(like we did with the Somalis)to liven up some of these uncool areas and bring more cultural interest and diversity with them.  Might help with light rail in these areas as well-to help funnel service workers into areas that might need them, like the Short North, Downtown, OSU area, etc. 

I wish we would start by making COTA free, but they would need to make sure that the busses don't become rolling homeless camps for the druggies and the untreated mentally ill I guess.

Too bad our leaders in this state are so opposed to such a thing. near Broad, light rail might work better.

 

/ramblings lol

 

Once core Columbus gets its main lines, extensions paralleling some roads that are seriously Uncool such as Groveport Rd., Harrisburg Pike and West Broad would indeed be warranted. That gets you Grove City, Lancaster and West Jeff all on existing rail corridors. Several stops inside 270 on each would serve those folks.