My move to Columbus horror storys (Cleveland: fit in, transplants, how much)

[BelieveInCleve]

Originally Posted by willabee

Uh, not to be picky - but Columbus is larger than Cleveland and is the 4th largest in the Mid-west. Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, and then Columbus. Personally, I think Columbus is better than Cleveland, and being a capitol city and a college town has a lot more to offer.

That's because Columbus takes up like 220 sq miles while Cleveland takes up 76. Columbus annexed most of the smaller communities and unincorporated areas surrounding it.

The Metro numbers are not THAT different, now about 1.75 million to 2.1 million, but Columbus metro includes more counties and a much larger land area than the Cleveland metro does. Clevelands metro will soon include Akron (which is already part of the CSA) making it 2.9 million. Bottomline is that the Cleveland area/NE has over double the population of the Columbus area and central Ohio. Also, Cleveland has much more to offer yes we have more problems than Columbus with crime and poverty, losing jobs and population loss etc. but we definitely have more to offer.

[PhillytoCincy]

Well both Cleveland and Columbus are underrated and extremely overlooked.

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by dlb8685

Yeah, Cleveland has a few older suburbs with nice houses, from what I saw, but the main part of the city is not vibrant. Maybe I missed something.

I find Cleveland's downtown to be much better and having more activity than downtown Columbus. Columbus does have better neighborhoods that are adjacent to downtown, with Cleveland having better inner-ring suburbs (that are pretty much still like city neighborhoods).

[dlb8685]

Originally Posted by 5Lakes

I find Cleveland's downtown to be much better and having more activity than downtown Columbus. Columbus does have better neighborhoods that are adjacent to downtown, with Cleveland having better inner-ring suburbs (that are pretty much still like city neighborhoods).

Come to think of it, I was in town for a funeral.

[Zippy7fo]

lmao at Cleveland is better....city is the laughing stock of the country along with detroit...no way. C-bus has and will be the gold standard for what Ohio cities should be doing....

[dblockindabuildin]

My move to Columbus was alright for the most part. I moved here from Mansfield, though, so Iran would've been better. I made the mistake of moving into some cheap apartments on a bad street, but after I moved out of there my experiences have been nothing but pleasant. I won't stay here after I graduate college, but for now its an alright place to be, and pretty laid back compared to most of the surrounding area.

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by Zippy7fo

lmao at Cleveland is better....city is the laughing stock of the country along with detroit...no way. C-bus has and will be the gold standard for what Ohio cities should be doing....

Sorry bro, but I and many others would disagree. If I was ever going to move back to Ohio it would be to Cleveland, and I know both cities very well. There is simply more to do in Cleveland. Not that Cleveland is all peaches & cream, but Columbus is not the "gold standard" of anything. Columbus has Ohio State and some of Ohio's nicer urban neighborhoods near the downtown, but quite frankly the place is boring unless you're an Ohio State student. Too little activity in the downtown and too much sprawl that is championed as growth.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by willabee

That just really doesn't make sense to me. It's either a bigger city or it's not.

If it doesn't make sense, it's only because you have a decidedly narrow view of what a "city" is. If you think that the political boundaries of a city are all that should be taken into consideration when assessing the size of the city, then sure--Columbus is something like the 15th biggest city on the country, bigger than cities like Boston, Seattle, Atlanta, Denver, Washington, DC, and Baltimore, among others.

But that's a pretty worthless way to think of a city; it's why designators such as "CSA" and "MSA" exist, because it gives a more accurate portrayal of the size of an area's population and economic impact. Columbus the city may have more people living within the 220 sq. miles of its political boundaries, but Columbus the region is barely 1/3 the size of DC's, less than half of Boston's, and so on--and its density is dwarfed by numerous other cities too voluminous to mention.

Political boundaries are basically useless and artificial designations when considering or comparing a city's economic and demographic data. If you want to try to convince people that Columbus is truly bigger than Seattle, be my guest. Just don't expect to get many takers.

[cooks50]

14thandYOu- comparing the population of DC Area to CO isn't a fair comparison. DC area consist of most of MD alot of VA and som of WV. Columbus includes really 3 counties. So the point you made isn't valid at all. In fact DC was never even mentioned in this thread.

[14thandYou]

Originally Posted by cooks50

14thandYOu- comparing the population of DC Area to CO isn't a fair comparison. DC area consist of most of MD alot of VA and som of WV. Columbus includes really 3 counties. So the point you made isn't valid at all. In fact DC was never even mentioned in this thread.

Actually, perhaps unbeknownst to you, it appears that you were able to grasp at least a semblance of the point I was making. Indeed, the DC area is far, far bigger than Columbus. No one's debating that--and that's exactly the point. If you look only at the population of the two cities, Columbus is bigger. I raised that as a way of highlighting the uselessness of looking only at the population within a city's political boundaries when considering a city's size. Political boundaries are useful for reasons of tax and local government; beyond that, not so much. So, while Columbus's large physical size may indeed make it the 15th largest city in the country, that's really a rather meaningless statistic.

If that still isn't clear, perhaps you may want to go back and re-read my post.