Columbus, how it grew and the misunderstandings (Newark, Dublin: house, neighborhood)

[floridaorbust]

Originally Posted by ryeager9

You got that right! Especially in Charlotte...

we were going to move to Charlotte. Until we heard about the growth. Wow. I know growth can be a good thing.
But, we decided on moving to florida. Hopefully the Sebastian area. Still have a home with some land. Growth isn't as bad in that area. But first we have to sale our home here.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by NorthPoleMarathoner

I would say sprawl is good.

It rarely is. Sprawl takes an enormous toll on many aspects of our daily lives, from environmental destruction, to excess fossil fuel consumption, to the cost in time spent commuting to jobs elsewhere and more. Developments such as Easton and Polaris are pristine examples of destructive sprawl: constructing expansive commercial developments in areas significantly removed from other commercial or population centers. Polaris as an urban planning example is particularly abysmal.

This isn't meant to slam only Columbus; many cities have been willing participants to this sort of thing. But it's not a recipe for smart growth.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

It rarely is. Sprawl takes an enormous toll on many aspects of our daily lives, from environmental destruction, to excess fossil fuel consumption, to the cost in time spent commuting to jobs elsewhere and more. Developments such as Easton and Polaris are pristine examples of destructive sprawl: constructing expansive commercial developments in areas significantly removed from other commercial or population centers. Polaris as an urban planning example is particularly abysmal.

This isn't meant to slam only Columbus; many cities have been willing participants to this sort of thing. But it's not a recipe for smart growth.

While I understand your sentiments, and many folks would agree with you, I don't think this is necessarily true.

Without getting into the deep alternative theories of development, you have to consider that "regionalization" is a possible scenario too. In this process, you end up with multiple job/shopping/medical cores, and this allows better access to the services without long trips. Though there is a lot of benefit to verticle and dense development, it isn't necessarily the only way to go, nor necessarily the optimal approach either.

Frankly, in my view there is room for both.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Without getting into the deep alternative theories of development, you have to consider that "regionalization" is a possible scenario too. In this process, you end up with multiple job/shopping/medical cores, and this allows better access to the services without long trips. Though there is a lot of benefit to verticle and dense development, it isn't necessarily the only way to go, nor necessarily the optimal approach either.

Frankly, in my view there is room for both.

Not all expansive developments are bad, of course. Out here in the DC area, regions such as Bethesda, Arlington and Alexandria have sprung up outside of the core of the city, and each is relatively self-sustaining in terms of jobs and proximity to population centers. But these areas are relatively compact and represent only a small portion of what has become one of the most sprawling metropolitan regions in the country.

It's no surprise that DC is home to the second worst traffic congestion in the nation when so many people are living in developments so far removed from job and retail centers; it's a significant quality of life issue.

In terms of Columbus, I have less of a problem with Easton because there are elements of a self-sustaining environment there--the relative compactness of the area, the focus on residential, retail and office space, somewhat pedestrian friendly, etc. Although I am generally not a fan of vast commercial developments that spring up in underpopulated or otherwise undeveloped regions.

Polaris I think is an urban planning travesty--sprawling, disjointed, difficult to navigate, choked with traffic and completely non-pedestrian friendly. It comes straight from the 1960s-era mentality of urban planning where massive indoor shopping malls were the wave of the future and no one balked at hopping into their car to cross the street. Easton at least strives for, and somewhat achieves, a "town center" feel, whereas Polaris doesn't even pretend. It's Sawmill Road 20 years ago, only with a bigger mall and even farther removed from Columbus's core.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by jmargaret

Thank you, Teacher. Although, this short overview appears slanted in some ways--due to Columbus' lack of planning for growth, it has also created problems for itself. It is now one of the premier examples of Suburban Sprawl in the nation.

Columbus appears sprawly because it's actually growing. I can assure you that if Cleveland, for example, were growing as quickly as Columbus is, we would have an as bad or worse sprawl problem.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

Not all expansive developments are bad, of course. Out here in the DC area, regions such as Bethesda, Arlington and Alexandria have sprung up outside of the core of the city, and each is relatively self-sustaining in terms of jobs and proximity to population centers. But these areas are relatively compact and represent only a small portion of what has become one of the most sprawling metropolitan regions in the country.

It's no surprise that DC is home to the second worst traffic congestion in the nation when so many people are living in developments so far removed from job and retail centers; it's a significant quality of life issue.

In terms of Columbus, I have less of a problem with Easton because there are elements of a self-sustaining environment there--the relative compactness of the area, the focus on residential, retail and office space, somewhat pedestrian friendly, etc. Although I am generally not a fan of vast commercial developments that spring up in underpopulated or otherwise undeveloped regions.

Polaris I think is an urban planning travesty--sprawling, disjointed, difficult to navigate, choked with traffic and completely non-pedestrian friendly. It comes straight from the 1960s-era mentality of urban planning where massive indoor shopping malls were the wave of the future and no one balked at hopping into their car to cross the street. Easton at least strives for, and somewhat achieves, a "town center" feel, whereas Polaris doesn't even pretend. It's Sawmill Road 20 years ago, only with a bigger mall and even farther removed from Columbus's core.

We agree a bit here, I'm familiar with DC having lived in the Fairfax and Burke area from 1979-1992 (and going back about half a dozen times a year until recently). Bethesda is a great example of what I was describing, as would Reston and Fair Oaks.

One place that has what you and I would likely agree to be a good approach to sprawl is actually in the Glendale area of Los Angeles. I was down in LA a few weeks ago visiting our kids, and they took us over to see a new development, the Americana at Brand.

It is much like a compact version of Easton, but adjacent to a very large enclosed mall and a couple of very active shopping/residential streets (especially N Central Ave). It was quite impressive, the businesses seemed to integrate fairly well and all were very active:

The Americana at Brand
Glendale Galleria

[JefferyT]

From what I've seen of Columbus, or heard of it, the city did have a manufacturing base. I understand that the Milo-Grogan grew due to Timkin having industrial plants there, and there was the Jeffery Works over by the state library. I think there was some industry on the southside, too. As for immigration, wasnt there an Italian Village on the north side near the Jeffrey plant?

[streetcreed]

rom what I've seen of Columbus, or heard of it, the city did have a manufacturing base. I understand that the Milo-Grogan grew due to Timkin having industrial plants there, and there was the Jeffery Works over by the state library. I think there was some industry on the southside, too. As for immigration, wasnt there an Italian Village on the north side near the Jeffrey plant?

yes Columbus had a manufacturing base but it was limited. The high immigrant areas were the n. high st. area which was very Greek. Italian Village next to the Jeffery factories and German Village south of downtown.

Columbus was the largest manufacturer of buggys in the country. However, the mix of factories was offset by many government jobs and a limited amount of job growth. There was never an explosion of immigrants, car manufacturers, or the steel industry. There were some factories here and there and they kept stable for jobs for families that stayed in the city for decades.

Also, the fact that the development of the industrial era was slower led to more time to build housing. This is why Columbus' oldest central city is nearly made out of all brick homes and structures. These types of homes are now very sought after for renovation and will last for hundreds of years, and already have.

In a city like Cleveland many areas were built with wood framed houses. These were cheaper and quicker to build for the mass amounts of immigrants. Also, I Have heard brick was easy for Columbus to come by.

Compare this to the 80s, 90s, and 2000s (during Columbus' high growth periods) and you will see where Columbus now has housing for the white collar masses in its newer sections of the city and suburbs. These homes look very similar or could be called "tract housing." One might say Columbus' new tract housing is the cities version of a Cleveland two story wood frame. Some of these "new" neighborhoods are declining faster than George Bush's approval ratings post 2006. While the older brick neighborhoods have property values shooting through the roof and staying high even in a recession.

[VideoEngineerAJS]

To the person that mentioned 270... that is a very good point. Look at other cities like Boston, Houston, etc that have 2 "outerbelts". Columbus and the State of Ohio has mulled around the idea of building a second outerbelt (that goes by Marysville, Delaware, etc), but nothing has really come to fruition because it's not really a dire need at the moment.

Personally, I even like the suburbs of Columbus. Now I was born in Columbus and raised in Marysville, but I've lived and have traveled to many areas. If you want to have an idea of where Columbus is trying to go, I remember a few years ago that Columbus and Toronto became "sister" cities and that leaders in both cities were going to try and talk to each other and work together to get high tech jobs and companies into the area.

The 33 corridor between Marysville and Dublin has a huge growth potential for high tech jobs especially given the fact that Dublin has already set aside the area around Post Rd and 161 as a technology park. Also the 42 and 33 area was at one time going to have an Easton style development. The developer of that area is holding off until the economy bounces back, but it's by no means completely gone.

Central Ohio in my view is one of the best areas in the country in terms of positive, constant, and well planned growth.

[NorthPoleMarathoner]

Originally Posted by 14thandYou

It rarely is. Sprawl takes an enormous toll on many aspects of our daily lives, from environmental destruction, to excess fossil fuel consumption, to the cost in time spent commuting to jobs elsewhere and more. Developments such as Easton and Polaris are pristine examples of destructive sprawl: constructing expansive commercial developments in areas significantly removed from other commercial or population centers. Polaris as an urban planning example is particularly abysmal.

You are expressing your opinion as fact.

People that live in suburbs and spend long times commuting do so by choice. They could live in the Columbus city limits if they wanted to.

Easton and Polaris are in areas signficantly removed from population areas? Franklin and Delaware Counties are not population areas?

Polaris is a shopping mall. It never pretended to be an example of urban planning. It is a few acres of land in an enormous metropolitan area. And you said it was put in an area significantly rmoved form a population center. So why would it need to be urban anything if there is no population around?

And fossil fuels? LOLs. People in Columbus use just as many fossil fuels as people in Dublin or Lewis Center. What about people that live in Columbus but work in Newark? I know plenty. Are they using too many fossil fuels? Should we just pass a law that limits how far a person can live from their work?

Why should anyone be concerned about fossil fuels anyway. In my short lifetime humans have survived:

overpopulation, new ice age, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, three mile island, killer bees from Latin America, bird flu, cancer causing cell phones, ddt, Kuwati oil fires, S.A.R.S., HIV, nuclear overkill, numerous food and water shortages, Exxon Valdez, red dye number 2, desertification, deforestation.............

Those are just the environmental non-disasters that I can remember. Somehow we survived them all. But I am supposed to worry about fossil fuels and global warming. LOLs.

Oh snap. We even survived the great landfill shortage in the 80s. Remember that barge full of garbage on the east coast proved we had no more room for trash and people were thinking of ways to send it to outer space. LOLs. Now that was some funny stuff.

I never understood why people think the environment is in such bad shape. Life expectancy in 1620s London was 26 years for women and 24 for men. What is it now? Approaching 80 in the industrailized world.

People are living longer, helathier, more productive and happier lives than at any point in human history. That is because of the industrial revolution and the evil fossil fuels. But now all of a sudden everyone has to live and drive a certain way? Gimmie a break.

I'm not trying to start an arguement here, but just because some people don't like sprawl doesn't mean it is evil or wrong.

What if Central Ohio decided to put a stop to all sprawl? What they will have done is to artifically make a plentiful resource (land) scarce. The value of said land will then be artificially expensive. This not only hurts people that would like to purchase the land in the future it hurts the people that already own it. And it might be one of the reasons for the recent housing crash.

Go to Davis California (where sprawl is illegal) and look at the price of land. Go 10 miles up the road to Woodland (where sprawl is legal) and see how much more affordable a similar property is.

Sprawl also forces the town that people are leaving to improve. If there is a mass exodous out of Columbus to the suburbs won't that force the city to start doing things to improve the city? In theory it does.

And blaming sprawl on developers, as an earlier poster did, is not very accurate. Developers won't build if people won't buy.

And why do we get mad at private developers? We are the ones buying up the property after they build. If we didn't buy it they wouldn't build it.

Personally, I don't care one bit to live in a sprawling surburb. So I don't. That seems to work for me.

But, it doesn't bother me if others want to.