Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Quality of public schools:
I believe that Louisville city schools may>Columbus city schools. However, in terms of metro, Columbus has Westerville, Dublin, Upper Arlington, Hilliard, etc. T.OSU is a college in superior standing to that of U.L., at least as far as prestige is concerned, so Columbus.
Weather. Quite similar, honestly. Columbus has a coldest month of 37 vs. 43 for Louisville. Columbus doesn't get a lot of snow, but at same time, it probably gets enough that winter sports are more of a possibility for longer. Louisville gets more mild winters, but still not particularly great, and it is balanced out with temps that appear to get somewhat oppressive in July and August at least. Louisville does get more sunlight. So, Louisville, but not by a drastic margin by any means as it is so similar and subjective.
Business friendliness of each city: No idea, but I do know that Columbus has a larger economy (118 v 67 Metro GDP), and greater corporate presence than Louisville does (14 v 4 Fortune 1000 in UA), so do with that what you will.
Cost of living (includes metro): Including the Metro, it still would seem to be Columbus IMO at least. The laymen's approach to this would be going on Zillow, and looking at Metro area valuations which are at 157 for CBus metro and 141 for LVille metro. However, I don't think this tells the whole story. In Columbus, one can find a high end suburb like Westerville or Dublin, and find properties within that are reasonable for 200K or less (6927 Gullway Bay Dr, Dublin, OH 43017 | MLS #216040928 | Zillow) that have high level amenities and schools. St. Matthew's appears to be a similar area in Louisville, and perhaps due to smaller supply, the price there seems to be higher there for similar suburban property than it is in CBus.
Now, Louisville likely has more unique culture, better natural scenery surrounding (though Columbus has a better parks system), and is perhaps growing at a faster rate as a product partially of being in the Sun Belt and partially of being the only city (like big-ish city) in it's state. However, I would still tend to think that Columbus would offer more (Pro Sports, Superior Cultural Options, Better Location, Larger Economy, etc.) than Louisville would, but that's just me.
Louisville is White to Seattle levels. Even Pittsburgh isn't this White. When Cincinnati looks more diverse in comparison, you're very White as a city.
You see this type of talk all over city data....implying that because a city is "white" it is bad in some way. I think that is a very racist statement.
How would it go over on CD if someone turned EddieOlSkool above statement around and said something like: "Memphis is black to Detroit levels. Even New Orleans isn't this black". Or maybe, "Fresno is Mexican to El Paso levels. Even LA isn't this Mexican". I can tell you it would NOT go over well and you would be called out for it because it is not "politically correct" to say this. But, it IS somehow deemed OK and politically correct to say what EddieOlSkool says above about white cities. Classic PC garbage.
There are some great cities that are predominantly white, many people like them a lot. And there are some wonderful cities that are diverse and many people like them a lot. And there are some crappy white cities and some crappy diverse cities.
And you need to get a clue, Seattle is not as white as you think it is. The city of Seattle is approaching 40% non white and many large cities surrounding Seattle in it's metro area are 50%+ non white.
You see this type of talk all over city data....implying that because a city is "white" it is bad in some way. I think that is a very racist statement.
How would it go over on CD if someone turned EddieOlSkool above statement around and said something like: "Memphis is black to Detroit levels. Even New Orleans isn't this black". Or maybe, "Fresno is Mexican to El Paso levels. Even LA isn't this Mexican". I can tell you it would NOT go over well and you would be called out for it because it is not "politically correct" to say this. But, it IS somehow deemed OK and politically correct to say what EddieOlSkool says above about white cities. Classic PC garbage.
There are some great cities that are predominantly white, many people like them a lot. And there are some wonderful cities that are diverse and many people like them a lot. And there are some crappy white cities and some crappy diverse cities.
And you need to get a clue, Seattle is not as white as you think it is. The city of Seattle is approaching 40% non white and many large cities surrounding Seattle in it's metro area are 50%+ non white.
Actually I feel like having a city that is mostly one race like El Paso or Baltimore is in the same vain as a city that is mostly White. No one (except racists) want to be around the same race of people all the time.
Also we have to consider that for someone not White, moving to a city that is very White gives them a limited dating pool unless they're into dating White only. Sometimes Whites (especially in the South) don't even date non-Whites.
So don't group me into the safety pin wearing, constantly offended SJW types. I think diversity is good in many ways. But having a city that is all one race can be problematic for the social scene or an individual. Growing up I went to a high school that was majority Black. I am not Black. It sure would have been a bit better for me if it wad more diverse. I was too out of my element.
Actually I feel like having a city that is mostly one race like El Paso or Baltimore is in the same vain as a city that is mostly White. No one (except racists) want to be around the same race of people all the time.
Also we have to consider that for someone not White, moving to a city that is very White gives them a limited dating pool unless they're into dating White only. Sometimes Whites (especially in the South) don't even date non-Whites.
So don't group me into the safety pin wearing, constantly offended SJW types. I think diversity is good in many ways. But having a city that is all one race can be problematic for the social scene or an individual. Growing up I went to a high school that was majority Black. I am not Black. It sure would have been a bit better for me if it wad more diverse. I was too out of my element.
I think it's worth noting regarding this diversity discussion that Louisville's diversity numbers are diluted by the fact that it's borders are coterminous with it's county. It's not an intellectually equal discussion. It would be interesting to Louisville's diversity statistic pre-merger. If you take any core city and merge it with it's county it's going to appear a lot more white in comparison.
As it stands if you were to look at them with the same metric Franklin County Ohio is only marginally more diverse than Jefferson County Kentucky. Columbus "city" is average in diversity inline with many Midwestern cities, let alone US cities from a ratio standpoint.
I think it's worth noting regarding this diversity discussion that Louisville's diversity numbers are diluted by the fact that it's borders are coterminous with it's county. It's not an intellectually equal discussion. It would be interesting to Louisville's diversity statistic pre-merger. If you take any core city and merge it with it's county it's going to appear a lot more white in comparison.
As it stands if you were to look at them with the same metric Franklin County Ohio is only marginally more diverse than Jefferson County Kentucky. Columbus "city" is average in diversity inline with many Midwestern cities, let alone US cities from a ratio standpoint.
You're right that the city's coterminous boundaries (almost) with JeffCo do skew those numbers, but even before the merger Louisville had a very typical Southern city demographic style. White with Black and then low numbers of everything else. A Latino who is considering either city or an Asian might prefer Columbus based on just feeling less like an outsider.
The issue isn't White people or any one race. I am not even saying that every city or country should have forced immigration. I am not Angela Merkel. It just so happens that people who prefer cities also tend to prefer ideas like diversity. It's like why would a White guy want to move to a city that is majorly Japanese and feel out of touch? It makes no sense to be surrounded by a lot of people who are unlike yourself. Especially in the South where even if inner ring Louisville is progressive, the Louisville social scene is metro based, meaning that any suburban ethnocentrism would still make its way to the trendy areas. If I was a non-White person I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the few non-Whites around especially in Kentucky.
Columbus city affords minorities with the chance to feel less like an outsider due to the fact there's just more of them. Am I saying this because I feel like non-Whites are "owed" some sort of personal comfort by being around members of the same culture? No. But they certainly have a choice and if I was stuck between the TWO cities and I was looking for a more int'l vibe I would certainly not pick Louisville.
You're right that the city's coterminous boundaries (almost) with JeffCo do skew those numbers, but even before the merger Louisville had a very typical Southern city demographic style. White with Black and then low numbers of everything else. A Latino who is considering either city or an Asian might prefer Columbus based on just feeling less like an outsider.
The issue isn't White people or any one race. I am not even saying that every city or country should have forced immigration. I am not Angela Merkel. It just so happens that people who prefer cities also tend to prefer ideas like diversity. It's like why would a White guy want to move to a city that is majorly Japanese and feel out of touch? It makes no sense to be surrounded by a lot of people who are unlike yourself. Especially in the South where even if inner ring Louisville is progressive, the Louisville social scene is metro based, meaning that any suburban ethnocentrism would still make its way to the trendy areas. If I was a non-White person I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the few non-Whites around especially in Kentucky.
Columbus city affords minorities with the chance to feel less like an outsider due to the fact there's just more of them. Am I saying this because I feel like non-Whites are "owed" some sort of personal comfort by being around members of the same culture? No. But they certainly have a choice and if I was stuck between the TWO cities and I was looking for a more int'l vibe I would certainly not pick Louisville.
You are making fact based statements due to your impression on at least one of these cities.
Below is a screenshot taken from the Census Bureau's quickfact website showing a side by side comparison. In a city to city comparison Columbus is a little more diverse than Louisville. Per the bolded above, please tell me how the breakdown in Columbus's numbers are any different than the "typical southern, white/black and then low of everything else you are claiming about Louisville? The negligible numbers outside of White and Black residents in Columbus makes me doubt there is this greater comfort in a feeling of diversity for other minority groups.
The below comparison is the more fair county to county comparison which makes the margin of difference even less. (I've also included the link to the website should anyone want to check). I'm sure a case can be that certain minority groups may feel more comfortable in one city vs the other. However the data doesn't support a chasm between the two at all. I understand you are making a case for Columbus that's fine. However I'm going to ask at this point that you start making fact based arguments instead of using conjecture to skew the view of the city you are arguing against.
Thanks for the stats. It does look like Columbus has only a slight advantage in that regard.
My vote was for Louisville by the way. Just wanted to mention that.
I would say maybe Columbus for some reason just markets itself as more diverse despite stats proving so. Heck, during my visits there it just seemed more diverse unlike Louisville where self-segregation is oh so common. It could have to do with the atmosphere of the city or the fact that Ohio is purple instead of red, I am not sure. I certainly don't see as many mixed race groups or couples in Louisville.
The free and popular C-Bus can take you up High. You wouldn't actually have to walk all of that. Also, in what city are all the places to go in the same neighborhood? High Street is absolutely walkable from German Village to the Short North, even if it's longer than most people would typically walk.
Well, generally speaking you wouldn't be walking it, but the way people talk about Columbus' areas you'd thing they were all close enough to do so with ease.
Louisville seems to be the same way albeit the distances aren't as great between most of the areas so that might influence the feel of the place.
I think largely what this comparison comes down to is just how many amenities you need, architectural style, and probably the people. Possibly Kentucky vs Ohio as well. Personally Louisville seems promising, but is a hard sell as my experiences with the rest of the state have been less than favorable.
Side Note: The bus in Columbus must have changed a lot since I was last there as they weren't really that reliable and carried a stigma if you rode them.
I think I have said this before but Louisville is not all its cracked up to be, its a great city and all but not compared to Columbus. Columbus could be considered the best city in Ohio by some. Louisville is in the category of cities with Dayton, Toledo, Birmingham, Little Rock, For some reason they think there big stuff because they made up their population with the county merger. Dayton almost did the same thing and was going to have about the same population. Louisville is not known to anybody outside of Kentucky, Ohio, or Indiana,. Ask anybody if Lexington or Louisville is bigger they will say Lexington. Not saying the same is not the case for Columbus, they kind of got stuck with a common small city name. I just think Louisville needs to cool it. I think all their big developments are paid for by the city and subsidized. I wont be to long before the city is bankrupt. Columbus on the other hand is booming with real economic success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
