Will Columbus become largest Ohio metro? (Cleveland, Cincinnati: codes, bike, subway)

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Yes, that's why I said earlier that annexation was very beneficial. Like most cities after WWII, the core declined. Though from what I understand, that decline was much less severe than elsewhere in the state and region. The core saw really strong growth the last decade or so, so I think that is now reversing. I think Covid interrupted that some, but it seems to be back on track now.

Your basically describint nationwide trends. After WWII suburban development kicked into high gear with shopping malls eventually anchoring neighborhoods that pulled people away from downtowns across America. Its not sustainable...thus all the dead malls we see today. Im hoping you can quantify how C-bus bucked this trend?...I agree that some cites were affected more than others...so this isnt a gotcha question...Im seriously asking and I have no loaded answer to retort with..thx.

PS Im not from the mid-west and am a transplant to Cincinnati...so local history around the state is an interest of mine...peace.

[PerryMason614]

Here we go again. Who cares about Columbus' boundaries? We are talking about METRO POPUPLATION. The METRO POPULATION has basically been the SAME SIX COUNTIES (and then Morrow and Union, which had little population, were added).

Depending on your starting point, METRO POPULATION has MORE THAN QUADRUPLED. I believe it was only 300,000 or so in the 1950's

SAME COUNTIES, LOTS MORE PEOPLE.

COLUMBUS IS GROWING AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANNEXATION.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Here we go again. Who cares about Columbus' boundaries? We are talking about METRO POPUPLATION. The METRO POPULATION has basically been the SAME SIX COUNTIES (and then Morrow and Union, which had little population, were added).

Depending on your starting point, METRO POPULATION has MORE THAN QUADRUPLED. I believe it was only 300,000 or so in the 1950's

SAME COUNTIES, LOTS MORE PEOPLE.

COLUMBUS IS GROWING AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANNEXATION.

Who the heck are you to referee other's conversations? Dont wanna discuss it then check out the conversation...or are you a fan of censorship?

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

COLUMBUS IS GROWING AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANNEXATION.

Ya...columbus just grew people out of its cornfields...columbus population trends are more than your selected narrative that cbus is some megatropolis...

https://teachingcleveland.org/annexa...ander-tebbens/

Hidden within the successes, however, are some very unflattering facts about the city’s growth. Between 1950 and 2000 the city added around 357,000 residents. For the past decade, the main population growth in Columbus has been on the northern and eastern boundaries, particularly near new shopping areas such as Polaris Fashion Mall and Easton Town Center29. The city’s largest shopping areas are no longer at its middle but at its peripheries30. In the areas that made up the city in 1956, there was actually a loss of around one hundred thousand individuals31. Areas that were once in or near the core of the city, such as Franklinton, the Hilltop, the Near East Side and Linden, have all experienced drops in population32. Perhaps Columbus is no longer in danger of being strangled by the suburbs but it had been in the process of strangling itself. Until recently, with each push outward the city has increasingly become a shell around an empty center.

For nearly fifty years Mayor Sensenbrenner’s annexation policy was the standard operating procedure for Columbus and for the most part it has worked. In 2003, however, Mayor Michael Coleman introduced a change in the policy with a plan dubbed “Pay as you Grow”. Under the new policy developers and residents of new annexations have to bear some of the infrastructure costs associated with adding that land to the city36. Mayor Coleman explained that aggressive annexation is no longer needed, as the danger of the city being encased by the suburbs has passed. Mayor Coleman argued that the city’s prior annexation policy put a strain on city taxpayers, as it was ultimately they who had to pay for the additional water and sewer lines and other infrastructure added to annexations3

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Your basically describint nationwide trends. After WWII suburban development kicked into high gear with shopping malls eventually anchoring neighborhoods that pulled people away from downtowns across America. Its not sustainable...thus all the dead malls we see today. Im hoping you can quantify how C-bus bucked this trend?...I agree that some cites were affected more than others...so this isnt a gotcha question...Im seriously asking and I have no loaded answer to retort with..thx.

PS Im not from the mid-west and am a transplant to Cincinnati...so local history around the state is an interest of mine...peace.

I'm not from Ohio, either, so this is all just based on things I've read, so take that with what you will.

I don't think Columbus bucked the trend, exactly. Had it stayed the same size as it was during WWII, it would have shown population loss. As you said, these were national trends that occurred almost everywhere, so that's nothing surprising. I think annexation was just a very effective way to avoid the negative consequences of that core decline in ways that Cleveland or Cincinnati really couldn't. Columbus's core was also smaller, so the area of decline would've been smaller. Both other cities were already 70+ square miles by the 1940s, while Columbus was around 40. So the total area of decline was already going to be very different in nature and much smaller. Meaning it couldn't lose nearly as many people, but it could also recover faster when trends changed. I would argue Columbus being a smaller city at the time when the suburban exodus began also helped it in the long term, not only annexation.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Here we go again. Who cares about Columbus' boundaries? We are talking about METRO POPUPLATION. The METRO POPULATION has basically been the SAME SIX COUNTIES (and then Morrow and Union, which had little population, were added).

Depending on your starting point, METRO POPULATION has MORE THAN QUADRUPLED. I believe it was only 300,000 or so in the 1950's

SAME COUNTIES, LOTS MORE PEOPLE.

COLUMBUS IS GROWING AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANNEXATION.

You're right in that this thread is ultimately about metro population size and city boundaries don't really matter to that. Perhaps there should be a separate discussion created about cities instead. I get the feeling this is not the first time this topic has come up around here, though.

Columbus metro has 10 counties today. That doesn't mean that the main 6 didn't add a lot of people themselves, just that the number of counties has also changed over time.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by cheech14

I'm not from Ohio, either, so this is all just based on things I've read, so take that with what you will.

I don't think Columbus bucked the trend, exactly. Had it stayed the same size as it was during WWII, it would have shown population loss. As you said, these were national trends that occurred almost everywhere, so that's nothing surprising. I think annexation was just a very effective way to avoid the negative consequences of that core decline in ways that Cleveland or Cincinnati really couldn't. Columbus's core was also smaller, so the area of decline would've been smaller. Both other cities were already 70+ square miles by the 1940s, while Columbus was around 40. So the total area of decline was already going to be very different in nature and much smaller. Meaning it couldn't lose nearly as many people, but it could also recover faster when trends changed. I would argue Columbus being a smaller city at the time when the suburban exodus began also helped it in the long term, not only annexation.

Thanks!!

[bjimmy24]

Metro population is of course the better way to think of cities, but healthy growth should be more urban than suburban imo. In Central Ohio, I see more old farm land converted to McMansions, it's actually really sad. The problem in Columbus is that the core is set up great but they built so much during the 60s and 70s with single family ranches around that original core and whatnot that you can't really build good urban neighborhoods anymore anyway.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Metro population is of course the better way to think of cities, but healthy growth should be more urban than suburban imo. In Central Ohio, I see more old farm land converted to McMansions, it's actually really sad. The problem in Columbus is that the core is set up great but they built so much during the 60s and 70s with single family ranches around that original core and whatnot that you can't really build good urban neighborhoods anymore anyway.

I really disagree with this. You can urbanize just about any type of neighborhood. Yes, it's harder to urbanize some types of development than others, but there's no such thing as a neighborhood that can't ultimately be redeveloped. The more relevant question is not whether it can, but if it will.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by cheech14

I really disagree with this. You can urbanize just about any type of neighborhood. Yes, it's harder to urbanize some types of development than others, but there's no such thing as a neighborhood that can't ultimately be redeveloped. The more relevant question is not whether it can, but if it will.

This would involve forcing people out of their homes and demolishing large swaths of the city. All these parcels are already owned and spoken for. Can't be re-developed practically.