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.
Columbus does have a lot of run-down areas to be fair, it's just annexed so much land that they're a smaller overall percentage of the city. Same with Indianapolis and Kansas City.
Will agree about the bias on this site, though. Columbus definitely has a better near-future trajectory than Buffalo.
It has some run down areas, every city does. But as a whole Columbus is much newer and less run down than Buffalo.
I think “newer†in this case could be due to the bigger city limits of Columbus, which likely includes newer, more suburban outer city development.
So they annexed a bunch of stuff that was there while Buffalo kept their small municipal footprint.
Columbus is an old legacy city if there ever was one. Its most iconic skyscraper was built in the 1920's when skyscrapers anywhere outside of NYC and Chicago were extremely rare. Just because it never became famous or reached the heights of its neighbors in the region does not make it "new " now.
So they annexed a bunch of stuff that was there while Buffalo kept their small municipal footprint.
Columbus is an old legacy city if there ever was one. Its most iconic skyscraper was built in the 1920's when skyscrapers anywhere outside of NYC and Chicago were extremely rare. Just because it never became famous or reached the heights of its neighbors in the region does not make it "new " now.
Columbus is "newer" in the sense that its rapid growth is happening now, whereas Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit etc.'s rapid growth happened a century ago.
Yes, the core of the city is not new, but many new developments from said recent growth (sprawl, gentrification, new buildings) have given it a large makeover and expansion. I would say though cities that were much smaller in reputation and size back then, which are currently growing into legitimate sized metro areas and better name recognition, could definitely be considered new compared to older cities with long-known recognition and fame (like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc)
Columbus is new in the same vein Austin is "new". It has a long-standing urban core which is over 100 years old, but its name recognition on the national radar is a recent thing compared to 50+ years ago, thanks to its recent rapid growth.
There really aren't many, if any "new" cities in the U.S. at all. Most of them started out in the 1800's or earlier, and have been growing and modernizing out since then.
Columbus is "newer" in the sense that its rapid growth is happening now, whereas Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit etc.'s rapid growth happened a century ago.
Yes, the core of the city is not new, but many new developments from said recent growth (sprawl, gentrification, new buildings) have given it a large makeover and expansion. I would say though cities that were much smaller in reputation and size back then, which are currently growing into legitimate sized metro areas and better name recognition, could definitely be considered new compared to older cities with long-known recognition and fame (like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc)
Columbus is new in the same vein Austin is "new". It has a long-standing urban core which is over 100 years old, but its name recognition on the national radar is a recent thing compared to 50+ years ago, thanks to its recent rapid growth.
There really aren't many, if any "new" cities in the U.S. at all. Most of them started out in the 1800's or earlier, and have been growing and modernizing out since then.
Phoenix, Las Vegas, Irvine....all new cities compared to legacy cities.
For places like Austin or Columbus, new doesn't apply nearly as much as recent rebranding.
They both became cities within a few years of each other in the early 1800's.
Buffalo finished a light rail system in 1986.
Where is Columbus on adding new infrastructure like this?
Take a drive through columbus and then take a drive through buffalo and you will see what I mean. Nothing is bad with Buffalo, I like the place. But most development in Columbus is newer and Columbus metro is growing at a much faster rate than Buffalo.
What year they officially became cities is irrelevant. Development in Columbus is newer than Buffalo.
Take a drive through columbus and then take a drive through buffalo and you will see what I mean. Nothing is bad with Buffalo, I like the place. But most development in Columbus is newer and Columbus metro is growing at a much faster rate than Buffalo.
What year they officially became cities is irrelevant. Development in Columbus is newer than Buffalo.
So Columbus has "new" suburban development? Not really what this contest is about. A light rail system is a very significant urban amenity and Buffalo has one.
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.
