Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan
With all due respect, I don't think that I am.
Yes, old city Columbus was falling (just like the vast majority of all US urban cores at the time), but it didn't fall as far as the other two during the urban dark ages.
Why?
Let's disregard the past 26 years for a moment:
"Old City" Columbus (40 sq. miles):
1950: 375,710
2000: 246,713
Change: -34.3%
Center Township, Indianapolis (42 sq. miles):
1950: 337,211
2000: 167,055
Change: -50.5%
That's 16 points of difference! All cities at the time experienced precipitous drops in average household size, somewhere in the neighborhood of -25% to -33%, so the numbers above would indicate that center township Indy lost far more actual households than old city Columbus did over those 5 decades. 21st century urban infill can't account for that.
|
I mean, falling 35% or 50% is still, ya know, not good. They still all fell together, some clearly a little faster than others, but the general point was that Columbus wasn't exactly holding it together during that timeframe versus Indy/KC at -35%. It just had more stable neighborhoods (as Crawford implied), much assuming like Milwaukee was during that time.
Threaded Mode