Will Columbus become largest Ohio metro? (Cleveland, Cincinnati: home, neighborhood, live in)

[kpl1228]

Columbus is the closest thing Ohio has to a true growth city, a Phoenix.
That's not necessarily a compliment. Though it could be.

[kpl1228]

Originally Posted by I_am_Father_McKenzie

Ha
LOL the Cavs and Indians will more likely leave Cleveland (maybe even for Columbus ) than the Crew will leave Columbus (especially for Cleveland). LOL you're delusional. Have you already forgotten you actually lost a team before?

Yeah we've got uniforms and everything, it's really great

[DevolsDance]

Columbus almost lost the Blue Jackets and thanks to a certain owner of a certain Cleveland sports team, big city Columbus may keep its MLS soccer team. Maybe you shouldn't be throwing rocks at any other city's pro sports teams given the recent history of Columbus even having a pro sports franchise. Crew had worst attendance in the MLS.

Enjoy your generic ''what city am I in cuz these all look alike'' MLS ''stadium''.

Whoa, okay I'm not going to get into the "me vs. you" food fight, but I will interject regarding the Crew.

Yes the Crew almost left, however it's in-genuine to act like that was completely or even mostly Columbus' fault. It's been quite well documented that PSV spent their time as an ownership group tanking the team and market because of a fascination with Austin. The Crew were actually trending up until PSV took the reigns, and the team has officially been saved. Look at Chicago, its the 3rd largest market and the second lowest attended team. Ownership has a ton to do with a teams success. When I lived back in Chicago, nobody knew a team existed basically because it was in a terrible location and the owners just didn't care. The success in keeping the Crew was due to a strong public campaign and some owners who see potential and honestly... $$$. Say what you want about the stadium design, but that's all opinion... Hell if you want to talk about iconic, the Horseshoe is one of the most iconic stadiums in the country. Anyway, soccer is a young sport with massive growth, it's a good Major League Sport to have around which is why cities are clamoring to get in.

The Blue Jackets are an entirely different story, but are trending up as well.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by DevolsDance

Whoa, okay I'm not going to get into the "me vs. you" food fight, but I will interject regarding the Crew.

Yes the Crew almost left, however it's in-genuine to act like that was completely or even mostly Columbus' fault. It's been quite well documented that PSV spent their time as an ownership group tanking the team and market because of a fascination with Austin. The Crew were actually trending up until PSV took the reigns, and the team has officially been saved. Look at Chicago, its the 3rd largest market and the second lowest attended team. Ownership has a ton to do with a teams success. When I lived back in Chicago, nobody knew a team existed basically because it was in a terrible location and the owners just didn't care. The success in keeping the Crew was due to a strong public campaign and some owners who see potential and honestly... $$$. Say what you want about the stadium design, but that's all opinion... Hell if you want to talk about iconic, the Horseshoe is one of the most iconic stadiums in the country. Anyway, soccer is a young sport with massive growth, it's a good Major League Sport to have around which is why cities are clamoring to get in.

The Blue Jackets are an entirely different story, but are trending up as well.

Stop reading after first sentence or so. My post responded to the hung-up on Cleveland poster trashing the city and its sports franchises; summary of my post is ''don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house''.

Btw, no one is talking about college sports and the taxpayer funded iconic Horseshoe.

What cities are or did ''clamor'' to get an MLS franchise? So it's all about MLS stadium location in Columbus for crappy attendance; given that Columbus is supposed to be the big MSA in Ohio, yet only has 2 pro teams, why would the MLS stadium location matter?

As far as generic stadiums go, it's not an opinion as it's just another example of how generic cities are becoming generally.

[DevolsDance]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Stop reading after first sentence or so. My post responded to the hung-up on Cleveland poster trashing the city and its sports franchises; summary of my post is ''don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house''.

Btw, no one is talking about college sports and the taxpayer funded iconic Horseshoe.

What cities are or did ''clamor'' to get an MLS franchise? So it's all about MLS stadium location in Columbus for crappy attendance; given that Columbus is supposed to be the big MSA in Ohio, yet only has 2 pro teams, why would the MLS stadium location matter?

As far as generic stadiums go, it's not an opinion as it's just another example of how generic cities are becoming generally.

I read all of your post, I responded appropriately.

No matter who paid for the Horseshoe, it's still iconic. I'm actually unsure why who paid for it matters considering most stadiums are taxpayer funded.

A lot of cities did and are still clamoring for an MLS franchise. Your lack of knowledge on the issue doesn't make it false. Cincinnati, Nashville, Indy, Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, St Louis, Sacramento... etc. All these cities have entered a race to win the next MLS expansion and some have won. They've dropping $150+MM on fees and teams have all committed to new stadiums. It's not the MLS of the past, we've entered MLS 3.0 which is a much bigger force. Did I say it was just about location? Did you read a single thing I wrote about PSV? An isolated location in a rector set stadium absolutely influenced these things, however PSV primarily ran the team into the ground.

I mean, you know why Columbus only has 2 major league teams. It is just now approaching it's MSA status and is the youngest city. Columbus wasn't awarded teams during the major expansions of the NFL and MLS or even NBA because 1. It just wasn't "that" city yet, and 2. Because the other two C's have them and those leagues and owners wont saturate a market like that, and 3. OSU dominance. Seriously, OSU football has a higher average attendance than the highest ranked NFL team.

I will agree with you about many new stadiums being bland though, just the architectural times we seem to have entered.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by DevolsDance

I read all of your post, I responded appropriately.

No matter who paid for the Horseshoe, it's still iconic. I'm actually unsure why who paid for it matters considering most stadiums are taxpayer funded.

A lot of cities did and are still clamoring for an MLS franchise. Your lack of knowledge on the issue doesn't make it false. Cincinnati, Nashville, Indy, Detroit, San Diego, San Antonio, St Louis, Sacramento... etc. All these cities have entered a race to win the next MLS expansion and some have won. They've dropping $150+MM on fees and teams have all committed to new stadiums. It's not the MLS of the past, we've entered MLS 3.0 which is a much bigger force. Did I say it was just about location? Did you read a single thing I wrote about PSV? An isolated location in a rector set stadium absolutely influenced these things, however PSV primarily ran the team into the ground.

I mean, you know why Columbus only has 2 major league teams. It is just now approaching it's MSA status and is the youngest city. Columbus wasn't awarded teams during the major expansions of the NFL and MLS or even NBA because 1. It just wasn't "that" city yet, and 2. Because the other two C's have them and those leagues and owners wont saturate a market like that, and 3. OSU dominance. Seriously, OSU football has a higher average attendance than the highest ranked NFL team.

I will agree with you about many new stadiums being bland though, just the architectural times we seem to have entered.

So now it's ''have entered a race to win the next MLS expansion'' and not ''clamoring''. I'm aware that cities like Sacramento, Detroit and Cincinnati entered a race to get an MLS expansion; I was just wondering which city was ''clamoring'' for one. Regardless, these cities are either trying to maintain or create a pro sports image. No great news there as it's expected. San Diego lost its NFL team, St Louis is down to 2 teams (again), etc.

We all know Columbus is centered on the Ohio State Buckeyes. Hopefully the Crew will increase its attendance at the new stadium as Columbus moves towards just being Columbus instead of Columbus, OH.

We are in a bland times generally though, including architecture.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

What I find most interesting about this discussion is that Columbus used to be a relatively dense urban city with rail transit up until the end of the Vietnam war. In the interest of "making it big", they dismantled that in favor of becoming a megaburbia.

That said, there certainly doesn't seem to be anything stopping them from becoming the largest metro, as they don't have the geographic or administrative boundaries that constrain CIN or CLE.

If there is something stopping this, it will come from within. There are no 3 million + MSA's that don't have some kind of serious mass transit plan laid down, which is a perpetual non-starter in C-bus.

What? This is just dumb. Columbus didn't dismantle anything. The only rail transit it had were trolleys- which disappeared in the 1940s-1950s, the same time they did in every other city as people switched to cars- and Amtrak. The single Amtrak line was not heavily used by the 1970s and was shut down through no decision of the city. The city had no control over either event.
The relative density was related to area size. The density dropped due to border expansion, not necessarily because the density in the urban city dropped. The annexation was partially dictated by ongoing water shortages during the early 1950s and the recognition early on that the burgeoning expansion of suburbs was going to syphon people and money away from the city. IMO, it was one of the smartest decisions Columbus leadership ever made. It spared them from half a century of stagnation or decline, and the negative perceptions that brings with it. For the record, though, the city's density has been rising for 3 decades after bottoming out in the 1980s. A few years ago, it passed Cincinnati's overall density despite being 3x larger in area, and will eventually pass Cleveland's. It also has the highest density neighborhoods in the state.
In addition, Columbus does NOT have Ohio's most metro suburban sprawl. That distinction goes to Cincinnati. Columbus' overall development pattern is actually quite compact.
But I know all this will fall on deaf ears because this is not about facts, this is about having an axe to grind.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by brock2010

As far as you know, are there any plans to restart rail transit in Columbus?

I'm a big critic of the city's lack of movement on this issue, but the fault is not entirely with city leadership. There has been a ton of bad luck, bad timing, poor transit options, lack of funding, etc. I have researched this going back to the 1970s, and it's almost comical all that has gone wrong. As for when it comes back... who knows. There have been rumors for years, false starts, etc.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Define ''rail transit up until the end of the Viet Nam War''? You're talking about Amtrak? Viet Nam War ended in 1975. Otherwise, what rail tranist into the mid-'70s are you talking about?

There wasn't anyway. Trolleys only lasted into the 1940s for the most part, and the city had no control over the fact that demand collapsed.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by I_am_Father_McKenzie

You're still losing population as a metro. You haven't recovered to the jobs level you had before the 2001 recession! I couldn't give two ****s about Cleveland. It's all the old timers who just can't admit Columbus is a big city now, and come troll every forum of every website about Columbus. You're the ones hung up, buddy.

Cleveland has recovered the jobs lost in the last recession, but you're right not since 2001. That said, with the population loss, it's unlikely that it would even need to recover all those. Unemployment can still be low with fewer jobs because there are now fewer people than 20 years ago. It's all relative.
I know the naysayers can be a frustrating lot, especially when they repeat the same tired, false arguments, but this doesn't help that stop. Cleveland is a good city and we should want it to succeed too, just as Cincy has made a turnaround.