Columbus Is Firing On All Cylinders Demographically, Economically, & Culturally

[Chef]

Everything that is brand new and isn't showpiece architecture is generic. It is the patina of age that gives buildings their character. People in Minneapolis tend to call all urban midrise infill suburban even though it is quintessentially urban in form, and I think it is because they associate suburbia with newness. If you want a city with good character, usually you have to build good urban form and then wait a century.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chef

Everything that is brand new and isn't showpiece architecture is generic. It is the patina of age that gives buildings their character. People in Minneapolis tend to call all urban midrise infill suburban even though it is quintessentially urban in form, and I think it is because they associate suburbia with newness. If you want a city with good character, usually you have to build good urban form and then wait a century.

That’s not just a Minneapolis thing, that’s everywhere.

That’s even a common phenomenon on this forum, and sadly there are too many people who lack the awareness that they are committing this mistake.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Chef

Everything that is brand new and isn't showpiece architecture is generic. It is the patina of age that gives buildings their character.

This isn't really true. There are many examples of new construction infill that aren't generic.

These neighborhood streetscapes are mostly new, but have a distinct sense of place. No one will ask "is this suburban Columbus?":

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7096...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7195...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7221...7i16384!8i8192

I don't think some believe Columbus feels kinda generic because it's new, it's more because it generally looks like everywhere else in random suburban middle America (of course there are exceptions).

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't really true. There are many examples of new construction infill that aren't generic.

I would consider the first and third example that you posted to be the sort of showpiece architecture that isn't generic. The middle example would be considered generic/suburban by the general public here. Expensive markets probably get better design because the higher price points can presumably pay for more well regarded architects (although there are also a lot of cookie cutter developments being built in expensive cities). The more generic buildings will probably be considered nice in a hundred years the way prairie school apartment buildings are now. Prairie school apartments from the 1920s are probably the best example of the phenomenon - they are all basically different variations on the same building and were torn down in large numbers in the early post war years but are now loved in the cities where they were extensively built.

[aderwent]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't really true. There are many examples of new construction infill that aren't generic.

These neighborhood streetscapes are mostly new, but have a distinct sense of place. No one will ask "is this suburban Columbus?":

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7096...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7195...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7221...7i16384!8i8192

I don't think some believe Columbus feels kinda generic because it's new, it's more because it generally looks like everywhere else in random suburban middle America (of course there are exceptions).

Your first example of "suburban" New York is just across the East River from Manhattan. Hardly fair to compare suburban Columbus to a city 20x its size. But would you think this would be located in real suburban Columbus?

https://goo.gl/maps/utWvoHZZNj42

Because it is.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Your first example of "suburban" New York is just across the East River from Manhattan. Hardly fair to compare suburban Columbus to a city 20x its size. But would you think this would be located in real suburban Columbus?

https://goo.gl/maps/utWvoHZZNj42

Because it is.

As impressive as that might seem simply zooming out reveals the truth. Glad to see they are trying.

The city I live in has similar type places. Zoom out to see the truth.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0215...4!8i8192?hl=en

[mhays]

Holy parking garages Batman! That Columbus example is very typical for a suburban node in a low-cost, auto-oriented city. Above-grade garages suggest cheap land and a very driving-oriented culture.

It's attractive and good for what it is (an urban-lite node amidst sprawl), just not urban. It's probably a positive step toward encouraging transit use, the next round maybe having less parking, cycle continues?

The Las Vegas example is worse. It's a suburban mall with things situated around a street in the middle vs. backwards.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by aderwent

Your first example of "suburban" New York is just across the East River from Manhattan. Hardly fair to compare suburban Columbus to a city 20x its size. But would you think this would be located in real suburban Columbus?

https://goo.gl/maps/utWvoHZZNj42

Because it is.

But I wasn't comparing "suburban" anything. I was comparing apples-to-apples urban infill, as previously referenced.

My point is that "urban infill" in Columbus is largely indistinguishable from analogous suburban growth elsewhere in the U.S. The townhouses and streetscapes look the same in downtown-adjacent Columbus or 15 miles north, or in suburban Twin Cities, for that matter.

The issue isn't the "newness", it's that the streetscapes are designed in a generic suburban manner that won't gain a patina with age. Everything is designed around the car, and pedestrians are an afterthought, whether a few blocks from the Ohio State Capital or whether a new "town center" in a cornfield.

[goat314]

Why are we comparing New York City to Columbus again?

[dc_denizen]

Some people seem to have ridiculous standards and groan to acknowledge improving urban conditions outside of one or two cities/neighborhoods.

And have you seen the infill in Rahway or New Brunswick??

Lots of nice shots here

https://www.columbusunderground.com/...inton-more-we1

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This isn't really true. There are many examples of new construction infill that aren't generic.

These neighborhood streetscapes are mostly new, but have a distinct sense of place. No one will ask "is this suburban Columbus?":

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7096...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7195...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7221...7i16384!8i8192

I don't think some believe Columbus feels kinda generic because it's new, it's more because it generally looks like everywhere else in random suburban middle America (of course there are exceptions).

Williamsburg had a first wave of brick loft conversions, the new midrises are just filling in the gaps between. If you had nothing but the new stuff, it would feel just as bland as Columbus.

Admittedly, there are a few exceptional new buildings in W'burg that break away from the pack, like the William Vale (which totally floored me when I visited Brooklyn Brewery a few weeks ago, you can't see that dynamite base until you're right on top of it) or 325 Kent but those are capturing the very tip-top of the real estate market in that neighborhood.

Look at new construction in Europe. If it's not capturing the tip-top of the market or government-subsidized, it tends to have pretty boxy, simple architecture as well, usually with a few tasteful details at windows, balconies, or building entrances. The only difference is that European cities are more likely to embrace stucco or concrete for cultural reasons, and don't feel the need to make their buildings "busy" with multiple materials. Here, everyone hates concrete unless it's painted (which is the worst) and good luck trying to do stucco outside the sunbelt.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

here is the columbus development thread. tons to like here. I don't get the bellyaching here (I am from Ohio and know the complaints about Columbus, but cmon).

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=223108&page=4

This looks almost exactly like that shipyard project being built in San Francisco. Is there any ground floor retail? looks kinda pedestrian unfriendly.

[Chef]

Based on a brief walk around on Google Maps it looks like there isn't much (or any) retail in those new buildings but they are about six blocks from High Street which is a retail corridor.

I haven't been to Columbus but based on Google Maps it looks like a lot of the most urban infill is along High Street between Downtown and the Ohio State campus. A lot of it looks pretty urban to my eyes. I don't see how somebody could call this suburban unless they had an axe to grind:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9789...7i13312!8i6656

[cityscapes]

I don't know how you all took the comments about Columbus being generic and assumed it meant the aesthetic of the city and it's infill.

Inner Columbus has good infill for the most part and it punches above its weight in this area. The historic stuff is unique too. German Village and Victorian Village have historic homes that most cities would kill to have. The older parts of Harrison West, Italian Village, and Clintonville are also solid. OTE has really incredible houses too.

Here's a few pictures of new Columbus infill taken by me:

























What makes Columbus generic is that there's no unique local culture. Nothing that sets it apart from the pack of 2-3 million sized metro areas in the country. Concerts skip over the city, stores that open in Austin or Portland don't open here even though we're bigger. It gets overlooked because it doesn't stand out.

The people that live here are also the type of white people that can't cope when the conversation deviates from college sports or the weather. No one has anything interesting to bring to the table. Even when you try to get beneath the surface and get to know someone better you quickly realize there's no beneath the surface there. What you see is what you get. A walking slice of wonder bread.

There are a lot of unique immigrant communities in Columbus most notably the Somalis but it's pretty hard to interact with a lot of the groups here because it seems like everyone keeps to themselves. The city is extremely segregated along class and racial lines in a way that seems more severe than other places I've been to.

[mhays]

Portland is larger than Columbus. That plus a more unusual culture are why it gets more notoriety.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by mhays

Portland is larger than Columbus. That plus a more unusual culture are why it gets more notoriety.

City of Portland population 2017: 647,805
City of Columbus population 2017: 879,170

Portland MSA: 2,389,228
Columbus MSA: 2,078,725

Yep, so much bigger.

[mhays]

It's not a ton bigger (unless you count its CSA)...I was posting because someone kept posting that Columbus was bigger. Probably didn't get the metro vs. city-limits thing.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Chef

Based on a brief walk around on Google Maps it looks like there isn't much (or any) retail in those new buildings but they are about six blocks from High Street which is a retail corridor.

I haven't been to Columbus but based on Google Maps it looks like a lot of the most urban infill is along High Street between Downtown and the Ohio State campus. A lot of it looks pretty urban to my eyes. I don't see how somebody could call this suburban unless they had an axe to grind:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9789...7i13312!8i6656

I was just here a few weeks ago. It was nice development and most cities would want this. Only SSP snobs would thumb their noses at it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Only SSP snobs would thumb their noses at it.

true.

there are some on this board who seem to have the mentality that if you're not in the east village or beacon hill or the like, then you might as well be in schaumburg.

the real world is gray and shady.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

true.

there are some on this board who seem to have the mentality that if you're not in the east village or beacon hill or the like, then you might as well be in schaumburg.

the real world is gray and shady.

This is first and foremost a skyscraper site and this is a city discussion forum within that, right?. You would think that this site is only about urbanity, density, and grit. Dubai hardly has the best urban form but has skyscrapers galore.

This is not a "anything but the most dense urban form like NYC is crap" site by nature, is it? I certainly favor that over suburban single family large lot sprawl like most on here, but it gets old sometimes.

It is one thing to appreciate that, and another to have an agenda to crush anything but that. It stifles true discourse I think, and can come across as very elitist, classist, judgmental, etc.


I first came to this site because it is "Skyscraperpage" not "Urbanitypage".

JMO of course, and everybody has one. And I am not pointing any fingers at any individual member with this post.