Cincinnati vs. Columbus (Cleveland, Toledo, Akron: best city, neighborhoods, living)

[czb2004]

If by "giant suburb" you mean safer, more livable neighborhoods, then yes Columbus feels more like a suburb. If by "true city feel" you mean some of the most dangerous ghettos in the country, then Cincy would top Columbus on this as well. While I agree that downtown Columbus needs work, and Cincinnati's downtown feels more like a big city, in terms of having more livable neighborhoods within city limits, Columbus wins. There are plans for Columbus to build more low rise buildings downtown in place of parking lots and make the city more pedestrian friendly. As Columbus grows I think it will have more of a big city feel in addition to having attractive and safe neighborhoods to live in.

[austiNati]

Originally Posted by czb2004

If by "true city feel" you mean some of the most dangerous ghettos in the country, then Cincy would top Columbus on this as well.

Cincy has it's share of bad areas, but we absolutely do NOT have some of the worst hoods in the country. Ever been to Baltimore? Vallejo? Detroit? St. Louis? The Bronx?

[1watertiger]

czb2004,, no, by "giant suburb" i mean most of columbus looks and is developed like suburbs in other cities.. bland strip malls, office parks, cookie cutter development.. reminds me of clevelands 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs of strongsville,mentor,etc.. also, "plans for cbus" i will believe it when i see it. seems to me that the cbus population boom has come slowed considerably over past few yrs.

[Cbus76]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

czb2004,, no, by "giant suburb" i mean most of columbus looks and is developed like suburbs in other cities.. bland strip malls, office parks, cookie cutter development.. reminds me of clevelands 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs of strongsville,mentor,etc.. also, "plans for cbus" i will believe it when i see it. seems to me that the cbus population boom has come slowed considerably over past few yrs.

Agreed that significant portions of Columbus look cookie-cutter, due in no small part to metro Columbus' significant growth since the 1950's. Cleveland, and to a lesser extent Cincinnati, were developed much earlier when that type of development was not yet prevelant.

Still, Columbus is not without its nice older neighborhoods. German Village and the Short North rival any city neighborhood in Cleveland and Cincinnati in terms of architecture and culinary options. Older city neighborhoods like Clintonville, Beechwold and Berwick are very charming, and as previously mentioned, Arlington, Grandview and Bexley are nice enough streetcar suburbs.

As for Columbus' growth slowing down, the numbers don't say that. According to US Census estimates, Columbus' metro population in 2007 was 1,759,348, in 2008 it was 1,779,822 and in 2009 1,801,848. I guess people aren't too upset about living in cookie-cutter central. For point of reference, Cincinnati's metro during those years went from 2,148,315 in 2007 to 2,158,643 in 2008 and 2,171,896. Solid growth as well down in Cincy. Cleveland's metro continues to lose poplulation, but at a slower pace 2,099,185 in 2007, 2,094,051 in 2008 and 2,091,286 in 2009. Akron's metro growth is flat over the last several years.

[streetcreed]

It is a fact that Columbus' sprawl actually covers less geographical area than Cleveland and Cincinnati. The metro is smaller and Cleveland and Cincinnati sprawls larger in size and population. Going on about Columbus' post 1950 areas ignores that this is the same in every metro. Also, Cincinnati's sprawl feels very bedroom community and less dense. One attribute to Columbus' annexation, or positive, is that the cities' development codes apply to the annexed areas. If they had been kept suburbs or townships they typically develop with more restrictions and less dense. This has helped to keep Columbus' sprawl relatively dense for the midwest (lots of apartment buildings/closer together homes/sidewalks, etc). Enough of sprawl talk.

It is also a fact that central city columbus is 60 sq miles. These areas were in the developed pre 1950 city boundaries. It would be hard to argue that these streetcar suburbs within the city do not feel urban nor do they qualify as suburban.

Columbus, like any city/metro that isn't declining, has lots of newly developed areas/suburbs, but it also has 60 sq. miles of older central city. This central city is where the city has changed the most in the last 10 years. Denser infill, brownfield site office builds, and lots of residential conversions have made these parts of the city/inner suburbs (especially Grandview w/ lots of dense condo infill) feel like a "real city" even more than before. Ignoring this simply because one can't get over the sprawl around it is short sighted and contradictory.

On downtown redevelopment: Like many Midwestern cities there has been a good amount of downtown residential conversions/new builds. This is a new phenomenon, for Columbus, this decade. The majority of Columbus' residential infill/rehabs had been in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown prior. Between 2004-2008 over 2,000 new units were built/converted in downtown.

http://www.downtowncolumbus.com is the only place I know of that has a complete run down. It's very interesting and deserves a look. I think the most striking thing is the sheer density some of these infill projects took on, especially this one.



Back on Cincinnati VS Columbus:
I think Cincinnati wins for street life downtown, especially a central business district and retail. I say Columbus wins for skyline. Many will disagree, but Columbus has the height and spread that I like and the newer glass style buildings plus I'm a big Leveque fan. Cincinnati's photographs better but when you can get all of Columbus' into one picture its awesome. I love this Columbus skyline pic, but it even misses four large towers (nationwide and north bank condos):


http://b700441e9603e56472e76fceed3901483f5d7759.gripeleme nts.com/img/city/north-bank-condos_700.jpg (broken link)

[CinciFan]

I live in Columbus now, and I honestly dislike Columbus' skyline. All of the buildings are too spread out, and the few tallest ones all seem to be about the same height. It is just very bland IMO.

I think Cincinnati wins for the best skyline. There is a good mix of old and new, good height, and a good balance in size.

I posted this picture on another thread, but I think it belongs here too.

[1watertiger]

all the big three cities have different skylines, and all are good. personally i like cleveland. cincy is very compact,but with very little height. columbus is boxy and spread out with very little infill. cleveland is just right ! kinda like goldy-lox and the three bears.

[1watertiger]

[1watertiger]

[1watertiger]