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.
Yes, that's what I am referring to. A lot of the cities on this list would be cheaper places to live, and many of them at least have decent economies. I think both other 2-Cs are a bit cheaper, and both metros have unemployment rates at or below the national average. So why aren't they attracting this demographic at a more similar rate? I guess I'm looking more for discussion on why certain cities are doing better if some of the conditions are the same.
OSU and the pool of entry level jobs in Columbus. The other 2-Cs currently do not have the higher amount of entry level jobs. On the other hand, Cleveland has one the highest growth rates for post-graduate degree residents. Due, most likely, to the Cleveland's medical and research growth.
Of course it's always good to see the amount college educated residents growing in general but post-graduate degree growth in particular. Applies to all cities, but especially the post-industrial hardcore rustbelt cities.
I know this topic was discussed a bit in another thread, but it got me thinking about where Columbus performs within its peer group and also in the Midwest generally. I looked at cities and the age group of 25-34, arguably the most important group of the Millennial generation.
The bottom line was that Columbus ranked in the top 5 in almost every metric I looked at, from current population to growth rates. It blew away cities you would think it would be behind, such as Portland, San Jose and Minneapolis, as well as some of the boom cities like Charlotte, Orlando and Las Vegas. It even attracted more than Chicago since 2010.
So for all the talk about Columbus' terrible transit and supposed suburban nature, it seems to be able to strongly attract people within the Millennial generation. In fact, almost 50% of the city's total population growth since 2010 has been within the 25-34 age group. That's pretty incredible, imo.
First, you're making the error that people moving to a city is equivalent with them being "attracted" to it. There are instances where people don't move to a city because they're attracted to it, but only because situations force them to do so. Secondly, if we're talking about "cities" as built urban environments, then only a small fraction of Columbus applies (roughly 1/5).
From that website here's one of the top ten lists:
What is not being acknowledged is that in the case of cities like Austin, Orlando, and Columbus, they are largely comprised of suburban sprawl, nothing "supposed" about it, which was annexed by much smaller urban areas. This renders their rankings in this list as meaningless, because the number of people moving into the "city" part of these cities is in reality much lower when you realize the fact that in these "cities" Millennials moving into a sea of suburban apartment complexes and strip-malls are counted as people moving to a "city" when there's nothing "city" about it. Rip these suburban band-aids off and these cities' numbers of 25-34 yr olds crumbles fast.
The other cities, no quotation marks because these are actual cities in every sense of the word which are urban through and through, like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Portland do not have sprawling suburban neighborhoods to pad their numbers and they don't need them to compete with or even trump their sprawling competition. Minneapolis and Pittsburgh trounced Columbus without annexing an additional 175 sq mi of suburban sprawl. Now that speaks volumes. Virtually 100% of Millennials in these truly urban cities actually live in an urban environment, because that's really all there is.
This list would only be accurate if it removed the "uncity" parts of all cities which had added them. When it says Minneapolis has 22.27% of Millennials living in the city that means all 22.27% are living in a real urban city. When it says that Columbus has 20.42% of Millennials living in the "city" many of those are actually living in typical suburban sprawl: the antithesis of a city which is 4/5 of what Columbus is. Remove that giant portion of the "city" and Columbus' % of Millennials residing in urban Columbus is blown out of the water by cities like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Portland, which don't require that "urban" distinction. When applied to these cities it's merely a redundancy: "urban Portland", for example.
This is an important distinction to make to accurately see which urban areas are actually healthy and performing well. We can see from the large majority of Columbus' dilapidated urban center and the fact that only a select few neighborhoods are seeing serious new residential development that Millennials are contributing no where near as much as 20.42% to this urban area's population. This is why urban Columbus can't compete amenity-wise with true Millennial hot spots. Amenities associated with Millennials are found in far greater numbers in Portland and Minneapolis for the simple reason that more Millennials live there and demand such amenities than the few living in urban Columbus that don't meet that high teens/low twenties percentage threshold for those amenities to match a reality of lots of Millennials: urban Millennials. Columbus is getting suburban Millennials who by and large aren't contributing to creating a healthier, larger urban area.
So there, now you know why urban Columbus has so few healthy neighborhoods compared to its thoroughly urban competition (I'm using "competition" very loosely here), why transportation options outside of cars is so lacking, and why Downtown is struggling to get any residential development 20 stories or higher built, while tiny Minneapolis at 400,000 residents already has The Nic on 5th (26 stories), 4 Marq (30 stories), LPM (36 stories) and why Columbus will never reach a similar downtown population of 40,000 in our lifetimes. You're welcome.
Your post is some of the most eye rolling garbage Ive read here. It basically amounts to our millennials are better than your millennials. Which, honestly, is pretty insulting and a good indication of why you have virtually no friends on this forum.
Besides, it's still not a Minneapolis thread. If I lived there, I'd probably live downtown too given that it's frozen arctic tundra for a good chunk of the year. You'd probably want to travel as little as possible.
Excuse me - I must be off to the Minneapolis thread to post about Columbus. Toodles!
First, you're making the error that people moving to a city is equivalent with them being "attracted" to it. There are instances where people don't move to a city because they're attracted to it, but only because situations force them to do so. Secondly, if we're talking about "cities" as built urban environments, then only a small fraction of Columbus applies (roughly 1/5).
From that website here's one of the top ten lists:
What is not being acknowledged is that in the case of cities like Austin, Orlando, and Columbus, they are largely comprised of suburban sprawl, nothing "supposed" about it, which was annexed by much smaller urban areas. This renders their rankings in this list as meaningless, because the number of people moving into the "city" part of these cities is in reality much lower when you realize the fact that in these "cities" Millennials moving into a sea of suburban apartment complexes and strip-malls are counted as people moving to a "city" when there's nothing "city" about it. Rip these suburban band-aids off and these cities' numbers of 25-34 yr olds crumbles fast.
The other cities, no quotation marks because these are actual cities in every sense of the word which are urban through and through, like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Portland do not have sprawling suburban neighborhoods to pad their numbers and they don't need them to compete with or even trump their sprawling competition. Minneapolis and Pittsburgh trounced Columbus without annexing an additional 175 sq mi of suburban sprawl. Now that speaks volumes. Virtually 100% of Millennials in these truly urban cities actually live in an urban environment, because that's really all there is.
This list would only be accurate if it removed the "uncity" parts of all cities which had added them. When it says Minneapolis has 22.27% of Millennials living in the city that means all 22.27% are living in a real urban city. When it says that Columbus has 20.42% of Millennials living in the "city" many of those are actually living in typical suburban sprawl: the antithesis of a city which is 4/5 of what Columbus is. Remove that giant portion of the "city" and Columbus' % of Millennials residing in urban Columbus is blown out of the water by cities like Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Portland, which don't require that "urban" distinction. When applied to these cities it's merely a redundancy: "urban Portland", for example.
This is an important distinction to make to accurately see which urban areas are actually healthy and performing well. We can see from the large majority of Columbus' dilapidated urban center and the fact that only a select few neighborhoods are seeing serious new residential development that Millennials are contributing no where near as much as 20.42% to this urban area's population. This is why urban Columbus can't compete amenity-wise with true Millennial hot spots. Amenities associated with Millennials are found in far greater numbers in Portland and Minneapolis for the simple reason that more Millennials live there and demand such amenities than the few living in urban Columbus that don't meet that high teens/low twenties percentage threshold for those amenities to match a reality of lots of Millennials: urban Millennials. Columbus is getting suburban Millennials who by and large aren't contributing to creating a healthier, larger urban area.
So there, now you know why urban Columbus has so few healthy neighborhoods compared to its thoroughly urban competition (I'm using "competition" very loosely here), why transportation options outside of cars is so lacking, and why Downtown is struggling to get any residential development 20 stories or higher built, while tiny Minneapolis at 400,000 residents already has The Nic on 5th (26 stories), 4 Marq (30 stories), LPM (36 stories) and why Columbus will never reach a similar downtown population of 40,000 in our lifetimes. You're welcome.
If Millennials are moving to suburban sprawl in Columbus (something you haven't proven since the numbers don't show where in any city they are moving to), then you just invalidated everything you've been saying they want. If they are moving to the suburbs, then you just disregarded your own claim that they want to be in urban areas. Otherwise, why would they be moving to those areas?
Thanks, this has been a hilarious example of how you managed to out-hyperbole yourself.
BTW guys, figuring out where this age group is exactly moving to within Columbus is my next project. I'll be making a map of Franklin County census tracts for this. Should be interesting.
Millennials are moving to sprawl in cities which annexed it and offer it as an option like Columbus, Austin, etc. Exclusively? Of course not, but you'd have to be dishonest to say that they're all moving to the city part of these "cities" (suburban sprawl with a tiny urban center) and discounting the suburban areas which are receiving a percentage and thereby misconstruing the true number of Millennials moving to urban areas. Nowhere did I disregard my claim that they want to be in urban areas, it's just much easier to see how many are moving to a city that is all city vs one that is 4/5 sprawling suburb and 1/5 city like Columbus. Whether nearby Pittsburgh or the Upper Midwest with Minneapolis or Portland out on the West Coast they all rank in the top ten of cities with the highest ratios of Millennial populations and they're being chosen by Millennials despite not offering suburban sprawl.
As for where Millennials are moving to in a city-sprawl hybrid like Columbus we can look at tell-tale signs that are results of Millennials moving into an urban neighborhood. Lots of new residential development is certainly obvious, but not as obvious are: alternative transit options (note that over half of Millennials polled would consider moving to another city with better or more options for transportation and that it's ranks as a top three factor in where to decide to live meaning that Columbus performs poorly in this metric with over half of Millennials), third wave coffee shops, record stores, craft beer, bike parking, etc.
Suffice it to say, if an urban neighborhood isn't offering Millennials what most Millennials tend to want then it's very likely not highly populated by them. In cities like Portland and Minneapolis there are several neighborhoods all over the place which fit the above list and more. A brief look at Google Maps for different amenities like record stores in Portland, Minneapolis , and Columbus, or breweries in Columbus , Minneapolis, and Portland and you start to see where these amenities are overlapping and where they are absent and how much each city has. Click the "Bicycling" filter and you'll notice yet another glaring discrepancy among one of them.
Guess which one comes last in virtually every category? (hint: it's the largest in population and sq mi). In Columbus we see such Millennial amenities are also restricted to a much smaller area: German Village/Brewery District to Clintonville and newer areas like East Franklinton with LandGrant. Meanwhile the other two, which have all of their Millennials in an urban environment within their city boundaries and count none of those in the surrounding sprawling suburbs as their own, both have a much stronger presence of Millennial preferred amenities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how Columbus' urban footprint of these amenities is physically much smaller than the competition. Whereas Portland (NE, North, SE, and NW) and Minneapolis (South, NE, and SE) have large areas of entire sides of each city covered with amenities for Millennials, Columbus only offers the North as the lone large area with these amenities while virtually nothing for Millennials exists in much (or all) of it's NE, West, East, and South sides.
Not surprisingly, we see very little in the way of new residential development signaling demand from Millennials aside from that same small section of Columbus, but inversely we do see residential development on those aforementioned sides of the cities of Portland and Minneapolis to varying degrees due to demand in no small part to Millennials. There's no competition either when it comes to dense residential high-rises proving this demand exists: Portland has its the tallest residential tower, the John Ross Tower at 32 stories in 2008, along with with numerous others around 30 stories, Minneapolis has the tallest residential of the bunch with the Carlyle at 41 stories back in 2007 followed by LPM at 36 in 2014, Ivy Hotel and Residences at 25 in 2008, along with the previously mentioned Nic on 5th at 26 stories last year and 30 story 4 Marq this year, Columbus has the Miranova as the tallest residential building at 26 stories in the entire city since 2001 and only North Bank Tower came close in following years in those either constructed, under construction, or planned, especially when in Columbus' case, "As of July 2008, there are no new high-rise buildings under construction in Columbus." Keep in mind that Portland and Minneapolis already had several residential towers matching or besting Columbus' newest ones decades ago and have many more mid-rises to boot. The amount and scope of projects in Columbus simply doesn't match that of its smaller competitors. Clearly, the Millennials have been flocking to Minneapolis and Portland and dominate many sides of the city. As for Columbus, there's simply very little evidence of their presence at all and for being highly concentrated in such a small segment of urban Columbus their presence certainly hasn't resulted in a similarly concentrated number of tell tale Millennial amenities, which are also proof of Millennials being present.
Millennials are moving to sprawl in cities which annexed it and offer it as an option like Columbus, Austin, etc. Exclusively? Of course not, but you'd have to be dishonest to say that they're all moving to the city part of these "cities" (suburban sprawl with a tiny urban center) and discounting the suburban areas which are receiving a percentage and thereby misconstruing the true number of Millennials moving to urban areas. Nowhere did I disregard my claim that they want to be in urban areas, it's just much easier to see how many are moving to a city that is all city vs one that is 4/5 sprawling suburb and 1/5 city like Columbus. Whether nearby Pittsburgh or the Upper Midwest with Minneapolis or Portland out on the West Coast they all rank in the top ten of cities with the highest ratios of Millennial populations and they're being chosen by Millennials despite not offering suburban sprawl.
As for where Millennials are moving to in a city-sprawl hybrid like Columbus we can look at tell-tale signs that are results of Millennials moving into an urban neighborhood. Lots of new residential development is certainly obvious, but not as obvious are: alternative transit options (note that over half of Millennials polled would consider moving to another city with better or more options for transportation and that it's ranks as a top three factor in where to decide to live meaning that Columbus performs poorly in this metric with over half of Millennials), third wave coffee shops, record stores, craft beer, bike parking, etc.
Suffice it to say, if an urban neighborhood isn't offering Millennials what most Millennials tend to want then it's very likely not highly populated by them. In cities like Portland and Minneapolis there are several neighborhoods all over the place which fit the above list and more. A brief look at Google Maps for different amenities like record stores in Portland, Minneapolis , and Columbus, or breweries in Columbus , Minneapolis, and Portland and you start to see where these amenities are overlapping and where they are absent and how much each city has. Click the "Bicycling" filter and you'll notice yet another glaring discrepancy among one of them.
Guess which one comes last in virtually every category? (hint: it's the largest in population and sq mi). In Columbus we see such Millennial amenities are also restricted to a much smaller area: German Village/Brewery District to Clintonville and newer areas like East Franklinton with LandGrant. Meanwhile the other two, which have all of their Millennials in an urban environment within their city boundaries and count none of those in the surrounding sprawling suburbs as their own, both have a much stronger presence of Millennial preferred amenities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how Columbus' urban footprint of these amenities is physically much smaller than the competition. Whereas Portland (NE, North, SE, and NW) and Minneapolis (South, NE, and SE) have large areas of entire sides of each city covered with amenities for Millennials, Columbus only offers the North as the lone large area with these amenities while virtually nothing for Millennials exists in much (or all) of it's NE, West, East, and South sides.
Not surprisingly, we see very little in the way of new residential development signaling demand from Millennials aside from that same small section of Columbus, but inversely we do see residential development on those aforementioned sides of the cities of Portland and Minneapolis to varying degrees due to demand in no small part to Millennials. There's no competition either when it comes to dense residential high-rises proving this demand exists: Portland has its the tallest residential tower, the John Ross Tower at 32 stories in 2008, along with with numerous others around 30 stories, Minneapolis has the tallest residential of the bunch with the Carlyle at 41 stories back in 2007 followed by LPM at 36 in 2014, Ivy Hotel and Residences at 25 in 2008, along with the previously mentioned Nic on 5th at 26 stories last year and 30 story 4 Marq this year, Columbus has the Miranova as the tallest residential building at 26 stories in the entire city since 2001 and only North Bank Tower came close in following years in those either constructed, under construction, or planned, especially when in Columbus' case, "As of July 2008, there are no new high-rise buildings under construction in Columbus." Keep in mind that Portland and Minneapolis already had several residential towers matching or besting Columbus' newest ones decades ago and have many more mid-rises to boot. The amount and scope of projects in Columbus simply doesn't match that of its smaller competitors. Clearly, the Millennials have been flocking to Minneapolis and Portland and dominate many sides of the city. As for Columbus, there's simply very little evidence of their presence at all and for being highly concentrated in such a small segment of urban Columbus their presence certainly hasn't resulted in a similarly concentrated number of tell tale Millennial amenities, which are also proof of Millennials being present.
So in one post you say that Millennials are just moving to Columbus' suburban areas because Columbus doesn't offer anything urban, but in this post you say that they are also moving to the urban areas, but that it's really very small. You can't even keep your story straight. More hilarious stuff from you.
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.
