Columbus: More like Cleveland or Cincinnati? (Hamilton, Franklin: hippest, housing, suburban)

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The actual urban core of all 3-Cs is roughly the same size... between 70 and 80 square miles. There is very little difference in that. Columbus just appears to have less because its borders include a lot of area outside of that.

Totally disadree. The key is "urban expanse". Cincinnati and Cleveland don't feel suburban until you get into the 2nd ring of suburbs. Where as Columbus starts to look and feel suburban after a few miles outside of its downtown.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

Totally disadree. The key is "urban expanse". Cincinnati and Cleveland don't feel suburban until you get into the 2nd ring of suburbs. Where as Columbus starts to look and feel suburban after a few miles outside of its downtown.

You can disagree, but it is a fact. All of them have about the same area of pre-1950 development, which is typically what is considered the most urban in form and before the suburban explosion. However, I do think there is one difference besides annexation that influences opinion. Both Cincinnati and Cleveland's urban core developed in a half-moon shape out from its downtown because of water. So the urban development may spread further from their downtowns- it had to all go in one direction. Columbus had no significant water feature that dictated directional development. Its core was built along its two main roads, Broad and High, so its most urban development is more cross shaped. There are annexed, much more recently built areas closer to downtown for that reason. A lot of the suburban feeling areas were built after 1960 and were originally built when the areas were part of local townships that were only later annexed into the city. That is also why so many of these areas lack things like sidewalks, as they were built before they were part of the city and had those requirements. But that does not mean that the actual urban development takes up less area. It is there, just in a different configuration. This is not an excuse or anything, just an example of how these cities developed a bit differently.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by U146

Lower Midwest and Upper South are not the same region. Columbus and Cincinnati didn't have very many English or Scotch settlers. Primarily Germans. And they are not part of the Upper South. They are part of the Lower Midwest.

Oh, I disagree. Over the years, the Lower Midwest and Upper South have morphed into their own distinct region. A sub-region, I suppose one might say. Mostly thru migration, but also culture and lifestyle, food and accents.
The Southern 2/3rds of Ohio and Indiana, and the Lower 3rd of Illinois are Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia Light There's enough business, pleasure, family ties between those regions, they become their own region.

To think the Lower Midwest and Upper South is not at the least a sub-region is denial.

Sorry for grammar and spelling errors. I haven't got my specs with me and I can barely see. Everything looks fuzzy and blurred to the max.

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You can disagree, but it is a fact. All of them have about the same area of pre-1950 development, which is typically what is considered the most urban in form and before the suburban explosion. However, I do think there is one difference besides annexation that influences opinion. Both Cincinnati and Cleveland's urban core developed in a half-moon shape out from its downtown because of water. So the urban development may spread further from their downtowns- it had to all go in one direction. Columbus had no significant water feature that dictated directional development. Its core was built along its two main roads, Broad and High, so its most urban development is more cross shaped. There are annexed, much more recently built areas closer to downtown for that reason. A lot of the suburban feeling areas were built after 1960 and were originally built when the areas were part of local townships that were only later annexed into the city. That is also why so many of these areas lack things like sidewalks, as they were built before they were part of the city and had those requirements. But that does not mean that the actual urban development takes up less area. It is there, just in a different configuration. This is not an excuse or anything, just an example of how these cities developed a bit differently.

It's a good explanation of Columbus growth. However Columbus does not have the older urban growth street by street , block by block , neighborhood by neighborhood that Cleveland and Cincinnati have. Columbus is mostly small urban areas surrounded by older/ suburban growth.
ie- just like Columbus has older and more urban development compared to a larger newer city like Phoenix.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

It's a good explanation of Columbus growth. However Columbus does not have the older urban growth street by street , block by block , neighborhood by neighborhood that Cleveland and Cincinnati have. Columbus is mostly small urban areas surrounded by older/ suburban growth.
ie- just like Columbus has older and more urban development compared to a larger newer city like Phoenix.

If you mean like a traditional street grid, most of the urban core I'm referring to is built like that. All of the area between 315 and 71 from Clintonville down through the Near South Side certainly is, as well as the Near East side, Franklinton and Hilltop. All of these areas were part of the original core. Linden, which was not part of the pre-1950 boundary and dates from the 1950s and later, also has significant portions laid out that way, particularly areas along and west of Cleveland Avenue and south of E. North Broadway. Even some of the old streetcar suburbs are like that, such as Bexley and the older parts of Grandview.


I like this link to show what I am talking about: http://www.historicaerials.com/ You can look at Columbus back to 1957 and basically identify most of the pre-1950 boundary as it existed then.

[U146]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Oh, I disagree. Over the years, the Lower Midwest and Upper South have morphed into their own distinct region. A sub-region, I suppose one might say. Mostly thru migration, but also culture and lifestyle, food and accents.
The Southern 2/3rds of Ohio and Indiana, and the Lower 3rd of Illinois are Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia Light There's enough business, pleasure, family ties between those regions, they become their own region.

To think the Lower Midwest and Upper South is not at the least a sub-region is denial.

Sorry for grammar and spelling errors. I haven't got my specs with me and I can barely see. Everything looks fuzzy and blurred to the max.

We will have to agree to disagree. The Southern 2/3 of Ohio are culturally, linguistically, and demographically different from Kentucky and West Virginia and that is a fact. Columbus and Cincinnati have more in common with Indy, Chicago, and Detroit than they do with Louisville, Lexington, and Charleston from a linguistic, cultural, and demographic standpoint. The Lower Midwest is very distinct from the Upper South.

[313 TUxedo]

The "Southern 2/3 of Ohio" is off target, but Southeast part of Ohio, especially those areas close to West Virginia, have a strong Appalachian verve. This area has no really large cities. Cbus is not included - it's at the edge of the Midwestern zone, though it does have much more of a southern background than Cleveland.

Dayton and Cincinnati are in the southern 2/3, and don't really have that feel. 40 years ago, both did have many residents that had arrived from points further south, but their 2G and especially their 3G have assimilated to be Urban Midwesterners.

Columbus and Indy do have something in common with each other that Cincy and Cleveland do not - the merger of pre-war and post-wat (WW2) development under one political control. Cbus did it by annexing as it grew, and Indy did it by empowering a whole county government to take control of the broader area.

[U146]

Originally Posted by 313 TUxedo

The "Southern 2/3 of Ohio" is off target, but Southeast part of Ohio, especially those areas close to West Virginia, have a strong Appalachian verve. This area has no really large cities. Cbus is not included - it's at the edge of the Midwestern zone, though it does have much more of a southern background than Cleveland.

Dayton and Cincinnati are in the southern 2/3, and don't really have that feel. 40 years ago, both did have many residents that had arrived from points further south, but their 2G and especially their 3G have assimilated to be Urban Midwesterners.

Columbus and Indy do have something in common with each other that Cincy and Cleveland do not - the merger of pre-war and post-wat (WW2) development under one political control. Cbus did it by annexing as it grew, and Indy did it by empowering a whole county government to take control of the broader area.

Agreed.

[phillydominican]

Cleveland is a Great Lakes city (upper midwest or even interior northeast), it feels alot like Buffalo, Detroit, Rochester NY, and Pittsburgh.

Cincinnati is a upper South/lower midwest city it feels alot like Louisville, Nashville, and St. Louis.

Columbus is a "classic midwest" city, it doesnt feel too southern like Cincinnati. And it doesnt feel too northeastern like Cleveland and other cities in the eastern Great Lakes region. It feels alot like Indianapolis, or even Chicago or Milwaukee. Though, Indianapolis has a more southern feel than Columbus, they both that "classic midwest" but Indy is more Cincinnati/upper south leaning and Columbus is more Cleveland/Great Lakes leaning. Despite, being closer to Cincinnati, Columbus is definitely a little more like Cleveland culturally, politically and demographically.

[phillydominican]

Originally Posted by U146

Also Columbus and Cincinnati are Lower Midwest. Not Upper South whatsoever.

Upper south and lower midwest are nearly interchangeable. Cincinnati feels alot more like Louisville and even Nashville and St. Louis then Columbus.