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.
I wanted to point out you are pretty off on education here. Columbus has city schools, in the city, that are actually well performing. This is within the city limits. How are the St.Louis schools? Columbus is consistently rated as having the best library system of any city in the U.S. And Columbus has 12 colleges and universities. I don't think St. Louis can compete with education and overall literature rates in metro Columbus, one of the highest in the U.S.
This was an off topic rant but important none the less.
For this topic: national/midwestern importance of cities I think St.Louis wins, but in terms of the overall health of the two cities Columbus is one of the most gentrified innercities in the U.S., has lower poverty rates, higher education rates, less crime, etc.. Yes, St. Louis has gentrification etc. but Columbus is one of the most "together" of all U.S. cities. If you try to argue this I suggest you fly out here and visit every neighborhood for yourself. Indicators for Columbus in terms of livability (within the city limits not just metro) are defiantly one of the best in the midwest and I think this is the argument John___ is trying to make. However, these do not necessarily mean Columbus is more "important" than St. Louis. Sometimes America rewards bigger cities, metros, and sports teams over livability.
you make very good points, and i would never argue that columbus is one of the most promising cities in the country based on current trends. although i think you and i have two very different views about what "gentrification" means. in most urbanist circles, gentrification implies the deliberate displacement of longtime residents by newer, wealthier residents by heavy handed large scale development. that to me is a negative trend. gentrification is not a healthy or sustainable urban development model compared to small scale reinvestment.
I don't follow here, I'm having a hard time doing so at least. What does this imply?
It's probably not fascinating to many people - I find it fascinating that you're extolling the virtues of Omaha to me (because you quoted me), and you've never even been there; while, I, on the other hand, grew up there. I find it interesting - if that's hard to understand, I don't know what to tell you.
Not that you need this JohnDBaumgardner, but I'm afraid you are reaching a little to say that Columbus is "better off" than St. Louis when it comes to the overall economy. One thing that I will agree with you is that Columbus is growing MUCH faster than St. Louis, but otherwise St. Louis is a bigger city in just about every way, shape and form, and it feels like it too. I've lived in both cities and I feel like I have a decent bias to compare the two. St. Louis has also been "big" for MUCH longer, as it was once the dominant city in the Midwest, along with Cincy and Cleveland. Of the Ohio cities, Cleveland feels like and is the largest overall (CSA especially). Cincinnati is the most appealing architecturally (city only). Columbus is the smallest I believe but is growing the fastest as well as its economy, but Columbus is not "there" just yet -- even though it probably will be.
For the record, I don't dislike St. Louis and I do not mean to discredit it "entirely" ... tho, I did post it's latest designation as "Americas Most Dangerous City", which does carry some relevance in this thread.
I'm well educated on the history and the significance of St. Louis' role in the history of our country, and in many ways St. Louis and Cleveland are identical ... often being mentioned in the same breath.
I still see Columbus as being "better off" economically than St. Louis is tho ... It's primarily due to the EXPLOSIVE GROWTH that is remoulding Columbus into a city to be reckoned with.
St. Louis' metro ( MSA ) is much larger than the MSA of Columbus, while Columbus "proper" ( City Limits ) dwarfs St. Louis by over 300,000 inhabitants.
I see more prosperity and growth in Columbus, than I've witnessed in St. Louis ... as I have traveled recently to Missouri, spending time with friends in suburban St. Louis.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,047,399 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by NowInWI
It's probably not fascinating to many people - I find it fascinating that you're extolling the virtues of Omaha to me (because you quoted me), and you've never even been there; while, I, on the other hand, grew up there. I find it interesting - if that's hard to understand, I don't know what to tell you.
I understand what you mean.
I just have nothing against any place, city, person. There's positives about every place regardless of the conversation. And I just like to highlight on that instead of even thinking about putting a place down to make another look better. That's just shameful.
For the record, I don't dislike St. Louis and I do not mean to discredit it "entirely" ... tho, I did post it's latest designation as "Americas Most Dangerous City", which does carry some relevance in this thread.
so let me understand-- the ranking naming st. louis the "most dangerous city" is relevant to this thread, but the ranking naming cleveland "america's most miserable city" is not? i'm not following your logic here. it seems to me that you only deem sources relevant if they support your own position.
Quote:
I'm well educated on the history and the significance of St. Louis' role in the history of our country, and in many ways St. Louis and Cleveland are identical ... often being mentioned in the same breath.
not identical, but similar, yes. st. louis is a much older city than cleveland and grew to prominence much earlier. the two have followed very similar patterns of growth and decline since the 1920s though. they have diverged in the past decade, though, as st. louis has posted modest gains in both city and metro population while cleveland continues to decline in both city and metro population.
Quote:
I still see Columbus as being "better off" economically than St. Louis is tho ... It's primarily due to the EXPLOSIVE GROWTH that is remoulding Columbus into a city to be reckoned with.
i don't think anyone is arguing with you on this point. columbus is definitely growing faster than most cities in the midwest. you said that cleveland was also "much better off" than st. louis, which i disagree with.
Quote:
St. Louis' metro ( MSA ) is much larger than the MSA of Columbus, while Columbus "proper" ( City Limits ) dwarfs St. Louis by over 300,000 inhabitants.
that's because columbus's city limits cover an area of 213 square miles vs. st. louis's 61 square miles (nearly 3 times the physical area). if you stretch st. louis's boundaries to cover an additional 152 square miles, it would have a much higher population than columbus because st. louis is much more densely populated and its urban area covers a much larger area.
Quote:
I see more prosperity and growth in Columbus, than I've witnessed in St. Louis ... as I have traveled recently to Missouri, spending time with friends in suburban St. Louis.
again, no argument there. columbus is booming now. st. louis is a slow-growth city.
I wanted to point out you are pretty off on education here. Columbus has city schools, in the city, that are actually well performing. This is within the city limits. How are the St.Louis schools? Columbus is consistently rated as having the best library system of any city in the U.S. And Columbus has 12 colleges and universities. I don't think St. Louis can compete with education and overall literature rates in metro Columbus, one of the highest in the U.S.
This was an off topic rant but important none the less.
For this topic: national/midwestern importance of cities I think St.Louis wins, but in terms of the overall health of the two cities Columbus is one of the most gentrified innercities in the U.S., has lower poverty rates, higher education rates, less crime, etc.. Yes, St. Louis has gentrification etc. but Columbus is one of the most "together" of all U.S. cities. If you try to argue this I suggest you fly out here and visit every neighborhood for yourself. Indicators for Columbus in terms of livability (within the city limits not just metro) are defiantly one of the best in the midwest and I think this is the argument John___ is trying to make. However, these do not necessarily mean Columbus is more "important" than St. Louis. Sometimes America rewards bigger cities, metros, and sports teams over livability.
overall i agree with your position, but i do need to point out some misconceptions. there are actually very well-performing public schools in the city of st. louis as well. metro high school, for one, is among the top 100 schools in the country, and among the very best in the state. as for literacy, my sensibilities would tell me that columbus ranks higher in this regard, but i can't find facts to support that. i did, however, come across this recent ranking, which places st. louis well ahead of columbus in overall literacy.
Minneapolis is rated well on this kind of forums because of it's metro size and that it has a functional downtown. However, agreed that the area has mass sprawl outside of its city limits. If it didn't have a functional downtown, and the same metro size, I doubt it would be regarded so highly on these forums.
It is more than just the functional downtown. Because the Twin Cities have had healthy growth in the post war era people forget that Minneapolis was already a major city by 1900. It doesn't have super dense rowhouse neighborhoods like you find out east but it does have walkable pre-automobile neighborhoods covering a large part of the city. This is mostly in the form of dense streetcar suburbs with a lot of brick apartment buildings and village style commercial nodes. There are a lot of middle class neighborhoods in the cities proper while the rougher areas are definitely of the "ghetto-lite" variety. Also there is a large and well supported creative community in the city, especially in music, theater and visual arts. The creative community in the Twin Cities is on a different level than any other city in the midwest besides Chicago (and Detroit at it's peak).
It is more than just the functional downtown. Because the Twin Cities have had healthy growth in the post war era people forget that Minneapolis was already a major city by 1900. It doesn't have super dense rowhouse neighborhoods like you find out east but it does have walkable pre-automobile neighborhoods covering a large part of the city. This is mostly in the form of dense streetcar suburbs with a lot of brick apartment buildings and village style commercial nodes. There are a lot of middle class neighborhoods in the cities proper while the rougher areas are definitely of the "ghetto-lite" variety. Also there is a large and well supported creative community in the city, especially in music, theater and visual arts. The creative community in the Twin Cities is on a different level than any other city in the midwest besides Chicago (and Detroit at it's peak).
I think these are good points. As far as midwestern creative community cities Chicago and Minneapolis are very strong. Of the around 2 million metros Columbus is also very strong in this regard.
you make very good points, and i would never argue that columbus is one of the most promising cities in the country based on current trends. although i think you and i have two very different views about what "gentrification" means. in most urbanist circles, gentrification implies the deliberate displacement of longtime residents by newer, wealthier residents by heavy handed large scale development. that to me is a negative trend. gentrification is not a healthy or sustainable urban development model compared to small scale reinvestment.
Some of Columbus' strong/healthy neighborhoods are due to gentrification. The pre1950 urban boundary of Columbus is around 60 sq miles, so it not a small area by any means. These were all streetcar suburbs.
However, a lot of Columbus' healthy neighborhoods are neighborhoods that never declined in the first place. Many of these are 1930-1950 streetcar suburbs. Parts of the westside are the exception where a loss of manufacturing jobs did lead to your typical midwestern decline. When you combine these areas with the gentrified victorian or 1800 neighborhoods you have a city full of many healthy, vibrant, and relatively safe urban environments.
A factor that helped these neighborhoods stay intact was that there were never extreme racial tensions, nor a decline in growth in any decade, plus city schools that never declined to the point of causing mass urban exodus.
It is truly a unique phenomena and makes me feel like I am in a Canadian city (more than an American one) just based on how together everything is. Even rougher, lower income areas have local urban coffee shops or artist venues. I'm not disagreeing but did want to clarify.
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.
