Ohio 2018: more important TODAY-->Cincinnati, Cleveland, or Columbus? (Youngstown: suburbs, farm)

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

I understand all this, but none of it supports the claim that Columbus is "new" in any way. 376,000 is not a small city. They've had the same time and opportunity to put in place the kind of things CIN and CLE has.....they just didn't do it.

Cleveland had several advantages over Columbus: 1)Terminus of the Ohio & Erie Canal, offering relatively cheap transport to and from NYC. 2) Lake freighters to deliver raw materials economically. 3) A great preponderance of fabulously wealthy industrialists; consider that John D. Rockefeller managed his oil interests from Cleveland for several decades, and many Clevelanders benefited significantly from their holdings in the Standard Oil Trust; many of these industrialists and their descendants have supported Cleveland cultural institutions very generously over the decades, perhaps notably the Wade (Western Union) and Hanna (mining) families. 4) Tom Johnson was one of the greatest mayors in U.S. history, transforming the city and laying a solid foundation for the future. 5) The Vans exhausted their wealth developing what is now Tower City, Shaker Heights and the initial Cleveland rail rapid system; as with Donald Trump's business bankruptcies, the Vans' leveraged empire collapsed during the Great Depression, but their great projects survived greatly enriching Cleveland.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/10

https://www.city-data.com/forum/cleve...m-johnson.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Sweringen_brothers

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I don't get what's not to get. Cleveland was WAY more developed MUCH earlier than Columbus. 376k isn't small, but compared to Cleveland, yes it was much much smaller and much much less developed.

The majority of Columbus's development took place in the last 50 years. The majority of Cleveland's took place in the 50 years before that. That's the definition of "new" or at least "newer" (than Cleveland).

I don't see what's unclear here.

Was Columbus frozen in some kind of ice age until recently?

My point is, while Cleveland obviously had some advantages, there was never really anything stopping Columbus's development. The fact that they became interested in annexation doesn't mean anything is new. We see "new" used in the context of being an explainer as to why Columbus lacks some basic things you expect when you go to a city. The reasons for Cleveland's development and Columbus's lack of have nothing to do with being new or old (Columbus was incorporated before Cleveland).

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Cleveland had several advantages over Columbus: 1)Terminus of the Ohio & Erie Canal, offering relatively cheap transport to and from NYC. 2) Lake freighters to deliver raw materials economically. 3) A great preponderance of fabulously wealthy industrialists; consider that John D. Rockefeller managed his oil interests from Cleveland for several decades, and many Clevelanders benefited significantly from their holdings in the Standard Oil Trust; many of these industrialists and their descendants have supported Cleveland cultural institutions very generously over the decades, perhaps notably the Wade (Western Union) and Hanna (mining) families. 4) Tom Johnson was one of the greatest mayors in U.S. history, transforming the city and laying a solid foundation for the future. 5) The Vans exhausted their wealth developing what is now Tower City, Shaker Heights and the initial Cleveland rail rapid system; as with Donald Trump's business bankruptcies, the Vans' leveraged empire collapsed during the Great Depression, but their great projects survived greatly enriching Cleveland.

https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/10

https://www.city-data.com/forum/cleve...m-johnson.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Sweringen_brothers

Los Angeles was the world film capital literally while they were figuring out a municipal water system.

Cleveland's advantages over Columbus still have nothing to do with the fact that Columbus is older than Cleveland.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Was Columbus frozen in some kind of ice age until recently?

My point is, while Cleveland obviously had some advantages, there was never really anything stopping Columbus's development. The fact that they became interested in annexation doesn't mean anything is new. We see "new" used in the context of being an explainer as to why Columbus lacks some basic things you expect when you go to a city. The reasons for Cleveland's development and Columbus's lack of have nothing to do with being new or old (Columbus was incorporated before Cleveland).

I said zero things about advantages.

I said Columbus overall is much newer.

This isn't a very good "debate." You are having an argument with someone, but it's not me. I am not making the points you are speaking against.

[pontiac51]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I don't get what's not to get. Cleveland was WAY more developed MUCH earlier than Columbus. 376k isn't small, but compared to Cleveland, yes it was much much smaller and much much less developed.

The majority of Columbus's development took place in the last 50 years. The majority of Cleveland's took place in the 50 years before that. That's the definition of "new" or at least "newer" (than Cleveland).

I don't see what's unclear here.

And as much as Columbus has developed over the last 50 years, Cleveland is STILL much more developed than Columbus is. Cleveland’s built-up area extends way into adjacent counties while Columbus’ built-up area barely gets past the outerbelt. And while Columbus has grown tremendously over the last 50 years, it is still a farm metropolitan area. One can make the argument that farm counties such as Madison, Pickaway and others in the region have very little to with the Columbus area whereas Summit, Lorain, Lake, Medina, Portage and even Geauga counties all contain Cleveland suburbs. This is why it can take upwards of an hour to drive through Cleveland on the highways and only 20 minutes to drive through Columbus. This is in part due to the fact that there are farms/open fields within 7 miles of Downtown Columbus. So the bottom line is that Columbus has a long way to go development-wise to catch Cleveland or Cincinnati. If you need more evidence, take a look at a satellite map. It’s not even close!!

[jbcmh81]

It's kind of incredible that Cleveland, the most amazing urban city in America, has managed to avoid attracting a net influx of people for nearly 70 years now. How is it possible that people don't know? Is it an evil spell? Conspiracy? Aliens?




Sarcasm aside, the answer to the question of why Columbus doesn't have legacy amenities is because it never had the kind of big money players at the time when investing in those things was in style. And anyone who did have the money was in the 2 larger Ohio cities at that time. Most of the mid-size metros that have seen fast-growth in the last 50-60 years have a similar lack of those cultural amenities. Not because they are terrible cities, but that kind of investment doesn't happen like it used to.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It's kind of incredible that Cleveland, the most amazing urban city in America, has managed to avoid attracting a net influx of people for nearly 70 years now. How is it possible that people don't know? Is it an evil spell? Conspiracy? Aliens?

How many times do you want to start this? Just curious, because we are on like 500 right now.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

How many times do you want to start this? Just curious, because we are on like 500 right now.

About as many times as Clevelanders mention the lakefront or Playhouse Square. So basically, this could go on indefinitely. Face it, I called how this was going to turn out from the beginning, because it's always the same conversation. I wasn't even involved for most of it.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

It's kind of incredible that Cleveland, the most amazing urban city in America, has managed to avoid attracting a net influx of people for nearly 70 years now. How is it possible that people don't know? Is it an evil spell? Conspiracy? Aliens?




Sarcasm aside, the answer to the question of why Columbus doesn't have legacy amenities is because it never had the kind of big money players at the time when investing in those things was in style. And anyone who did have the money was in the 2 larger Ohio cities at that time. Most of the mid-size metros that have seen fast-growth in the last 50-60 years have a similar lack of those cultural amenities. Not because they are terrible cities, but that kind of investment doesn't happen like it used to.

It's also kind of incredible that Columbus, whose urban juggernaut and population boom the world hasn't seen since New York and Berlin in the previous century, sat idle for 150 years as a college football town. Of course, none of the recent expansion would have anything to do with massive annexation, so I guess we'll never know what happened.

Sarcasm aside, it is an verifiable, empirical fact that Columbus is an older city than Cleveland. Saying that Columbus is "new" is just a complete revisionist dodge.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Sarcasm aside, it is an verifiable, empirical fact that Columbus is an older city than Cleveland. Saying that Columbus is "new" is just a complete revisionist dodge.

I don't think he agrees with you. You are simply wrong.

A) 1796 was before 1812 (I'm only bringing this up because you are obsessed with which is technically older, I don't think this matters) and B) Cleveland developed to a much much much much higher degree WAY earlier than Columbus.

You seem to be insecure with calling cities "new". Very strange indeed. Lots of great places are "new". The entire USA is new, really, compared to the rest of the world. Am I anti-American now?