Construction in the Short North, Columbus, Ohio
My latest post is online at City Journal. I actually wrote it prior to the Indy op-ed I just put up, but for scheduling reasons they came out in the reverse order. This contains some of the background information against which that op-ed was written. It’s about the resorting of population that’s occurring within US states in the Midwest. Here’s an excerpt:
America’s transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy resulted in a spatial shift in population, from rural to urban. As the economy continues to adapt from industrial to service- and knowledge-based sectors, we’re witnessing another population change—this time, in the country’s former industrial heartland. Residents of Rust Belt states are migrating to larger cities that have emerged as centers of success in the modern economy. But the Rust Belt’s urban resurgence disguises the reality that regional cities remain weak magnets for new residents on a national basis.
The Midwest and the northeastern Frost Belt are home to numerous stagnant and shrinking cities such as Flint, Michigan; Youngstown, Ohio; Rockford, Illinois; Muncie, Indiana; and Erie, Pennsylvania. But other cities within those states are booming. Metro hubs like Columbus, Kansas City, Des Moines, Grand Rapids, Madison, and Minneapolis-St. Paul are growing and thriving. These large cities are complemented by smaller success stories, including Iowa City; Lafayette, Indiana; and Traverse City, Michigan.
Click through to read the whole thing.
It’s possible that population movement to the Sunbelt and coasts will slow down or reverse in the future due to droughts in the Sunbelt and flood waters on the coasts due to climate change.
Only in the very long term. If Phoenix and Miami can exist, it’ll take a lot of climate change to bring that about. They wont’ be moving to Ohio, even if they decide they can’t survive there.
Agreed. The thought that climate change is going to stem that tide is going to be a very long term proposition… if it will ever happen at all. Places like Miami and Phoenix already have weather-related issues (e.. hurricanes in the former and drought and furnace-level summer temps in the latter), yet Northerners are flocking to them. To the extent that there are beneficiaries from climate change making Florida and Arizona totally uninhabitable, it would be the “halfback” areas (the areas halfway back home for Northerners), such as North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.
I’m a lifelong Midwesterner through and through, but we will not ever win the weather discussion with anyone in the US (regardless of how nice our summers might be compared to the Sun Belt). “Bad weather” means “bad cold winter weather” for Americans.
Just to clarify, I absolutely believe that climate change is happening. I just don’t see that as spurring people to move back to or not leave the Midwest based on that reason. There are plenty of other currently desirable metros outside of the Midwest on the upswing that are options.
Agreed, also. I didn’t think they’d be moving here next week due to climate change! 🙂 And, I agree they’ll probably mostly just move a little inland and not to Columbus, where I live. But, noticeable effects like worse water shortages in the Sunbelt and worse basement flooding and storm surges on the East Coast are already starting to happen and may get quite a bit worse within a few decades and may cause some relocation of business locations and people to areas like the Midwest.
But migration surveys don’t really support that people move for weather-related reasons. They move for economic, education or familiar reasons, instead. The Sun Belt didn’t boom because they had more 90 degree days during the year. It boomed because, for a while at least, it was cheaper to live there and companies were moving there with jobs. The cost of living today, however, is equal to or in many places, now exceeds almost anywhere in the Midwest outside of Chicago.
By “very long term” I mean 30 or 40 years. Don’t count on climate change to be a force for economic change in America. If a giant city like phoenix can exist in a brutal desert that looks like an alien planet, then human beings can adapt in-place to climate change.
I would disagree about Miami. I suspect that bad hurricanes will destroy enough properties that the population will start to stagnate or decline in the next 10 years or so. Humans can adapt to lack of water, but once hurricanes and flooding start to regularly destroy or render uninhabitable large numbers of property in a metro, people will stop moving to that metro and people wiped out by the storms will move away, like they did from New Orleans and Houston.
SOME people may have moved away from Houston. But I have seen no statistics indicating a serious population decline or even stagnation. And Houston is still very high on the economic ladder as a headquarters city and economic force, as much as it pains me to admit it. 🙂
Even New Orleans has seen some rebuilding?
The creation of more appealing metros through local migration is an essential step in the larger process of creating metros that will attract from more distant locales. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. It was rural migration to Atlanta through the first half of the 20th century that turned it into a city that northerners would come to in the second half of the 20th century.
And now Atlanta is a huge, traffic-choked mess, devoid of much of its original character and soul. Most people in Columbus roll their eyes and say no thanks to that level of “more-appealing metro”.
How do you know that Atlanta had “original character” or “soul?” Most people in Atlanta may roll their eyes, too, but they do say thanks for their job and affordable housing. Columbusers will do the same.
Columbus residents (at least the ones who don’t take such things for granted) are indeed thankful for the plentiful jobs, relatively affordable housing and good quality of life that the region enjoys today. But if becoming a national magnet means facing the excesses of a southern or western boomtown, trust me. Central Ohio will politely say “FORGET IT”.
Different columbusers will say different things. There is no such unified voice anywhere.
If they do so no, and jobs keep moving to town, then they will also be saying no to the affordable housing aspect of Columbus. As Matt has repeatedly argued, change is not a choice, but an inevitability. Smart metros recognize and plan for this.
Not all of Central Ohio is going to say no. If Columbus says no and goes to bed thinking the matter closed, you’ll wake up the next morning to find one of your outlying communities taking up the offer, and urban Columbus a charming but no longer central part of a huge, traffic-choked, soul-less “metroplex.”
Careful about talk about Atlanta’s or other southern cities’ “original soul” – as a general rule, their pre-Civil Right’s Movement “soul” was a blend of poverty and Jim Crow. It is no wonder most of the past is paved over: it was generally badly built (in the physical sense) and shameful (in the moral sense).
I say this not to criticize these cities (heck, while I grew in the north I live in Dallas). Rather to point out that for most of these cities, what they are today (air conditioned, dynamic economies, equal or better race relations than the rest of the country) is the best they have ever been. Few people living in Dallas/Atlanta/Charlotte/etc look wistfully back at what these cities were a few generations ago, and for good reasons.
Any reason why you continue to use IRS data, which has some large inherent flaws, such as its inability to accurately capture student populations? Census data doesn’t match these numbers at all. From their data, a city like Columbus is gaining net migration from 28 states and DC and has net overall population gain outside of Ohio, yet the IRS data shows the opposite.
The fact of the matter is that cities can’t reach double-digit growth rates per decade only pulling from their own states, especially when the losses in other areas of the state, such as in Ohio, don’t really match up to the growth in other places like Columbus, Cincinnati and the counties that are also seeing growth from the losses of urban Cleveland or Toledo. The math just doesn’t work out without out-of-state migration.
You also don’t bother talking about international migration, as if that somehow doesn’t matter to overall growth, when of course it does. Why is domestic migration seen as better than international, anyway?
You seem to be a perfect example of what I’ve labelled the “Columbus booster bro.” Unsatisfied for others merely to recognize that Columbus is performing well but has some weak points in the same way every other city has weak points, you have to insist on a much rosier picture than actually exists.
As it happens, I have a few years worth of ACS data in my system. The surveys I have (up through the 2007-2011 ACS) show the same pattern as the IRS data. Columbus is gaining people from Ohio but on net losing it to the rest of the country. When you say Columbus I assume you mean the Columbus MSA. Even if it is drawing from 28 states that says nothing about the totals. Columbus gained a net of 4 people from Rhode Island in the 2005-2009 ACS survey, but that’s meaningless. Also, the ACS has its own weaknesses. The migration data has a significant margin of error and you are not supposed to do time series analysis with overlapping surveys, which limits the amount of trend analysis you can do.
Even if Columbus has turned positive from the rest of the country in recent years, it’s likely extremely marginal since migration patters are very stable. But go ahead. Cheerlead about your city to the 10 people outside of Ohio who are listening using the same ineffective sales pitch that you’ve been using for the last decade.
I’m guessing that many cities have booster bro’s; not just Columbus. However, many booster bro’s from the coasts and bigger cities do their boosting in a way that’s condescending and unpleasant to people not from those areas.
I’m from Michigan originally but have lived in Columbus for 29 years. It’s changed a lot in the past 25 years, but of course it has problems and room for improvement like all other cities. For instance, we seem unable to get mass transit like light rail going, to get taller buildings built, etc. The current mayor is just kind of treading water compared to the previous one who got much of the urban growth here going. But, given the problems, it’s still a growing and fairly nice city, that’s also fairly progressive politically.
One way I think they could encourage outside-Ohio migration is to bring many of the suburbanites, who are still stuck in Columbus- as-a-small-town thinking, into downtown and then make them ambassadors when they go on their business trips and talk to their friends from out of town.
One other point is that not all the top talent is on the coasts, or moves to the coasts, as I often read here. Much as it might surprise some, we’re not total idiots in the Midwest compared to the coastal geniuses.
I’ve always thought of Columbus as a ‘starter city.’ It’s a place for young professionals to get their feet wet and get their foot on the first rung of the professional ladder. Everyone I ever knew who lived in Columbus moved on to a bigger or distant city. None expected to stay in Columbus. Columbus was a job, a degree, an internship, it wasn’t their destination. That’s not an insult, it’s a recognition of Columbus’ place in the economic geography of America. At least Columbus isn’t dominated by a mafioso-style local elite working hard to keep out new comers and their ideas and money as in the City That Shall Not Be Named. Be glad for Columbus accomplishments, rather than it’s limitations.
In my experience, most people I meet in Columbus are from somewhere else, but, to Aaron’s point, are from somewhere else in Ohio. They either went to Ohio State or one of the smaller colleges and stayed or were pulled in by a job later in life. In a way, this is good because you don’t get the “which (local) high school did you go to?” vibe, but, as Aaron points out, it is not a stable or sustainable growth pattern.
I know there have been some efforts to appeal to people in expensive coastal cities. I don’t know if they still are running but there were Columbus ads on the DC Metro a few years ago. The data doesn’t seem to suggest those ads were successful, but it might be a long-game approach; wait for the price/congestion/political fatigue to set in and then hope they remember you. In my experience, hope is not a good strategy, especially if it is your only strategy.
Aaron has previously written about the need for Columbus and other similar cities to improve their branding/message and to do more than just check the expected urban boxes, but I’m not sure I can recall if he’s given any ideas of what that could be or look like.. I’d be curious to know what he and/or visitors find to be memorable, forgettable, impressive, and/or unimpressive about Columbus. Does someone who has never lived or visited here even have any kind of impression of the city at all outside of Ohio State football?
‘Branding’ only works if it has some connection to reality. Columbus’ reality is that of a prosperous but anonymous and neutral kind of meeting ground for people from elsewhere. It’s the ‘un-place.” How do you sell that? How do you sell the absence of something rather than its presence? I think Columbus has to go all in on what you can avoid by being in Columbus. That includes incestuous politics and culture, tradition, and a ‘legacy’ economy and built environment created by and for people who are no longer alive. Something like, “Less is More in Columbus” or “Make Something of Yourself in Columbus”…maybe “We don’t have what you don’t want.” How about “You’re Journey Starts Here….Columbus”? It would make it starkly clear that Columbus is the antidote to Midwestern metros coasting on their ‘character” and ‘soul.’ An aggressive social media campaign of Columbusers telling their stories would be good, too. Unchallenged local elites still control the narratives in many midwest metros. Show that there is no such controlling elite in Columbus…and that that is it’s secret.
No, Aaron, I’m asking legitimate questions based on the metrics you chose to use. I have zero problems talking about Columbus’ issues and problems, but at the same time, if there is a real contradiction in the data being used versus other sources, why shouldn’t that be brought up? Perhaps the IRS data is better, so instead of trying to insult those who might disagree with your conclusions, you could try taking the time to explain why you feel they’re more valid than Census migration data. For what its worth, the migration data with the Census goes up to the period 2012-2016. Older years do show that Columbus did indeed gain just about all of its net domestic migration from Ohio, but more recent years have that pattern reversing. The last 2 periods, at least, 2011-2015 and 2012-2016, both had positive and accelerating net migration from outside of Ohio. So really, perhaps both data sets together offer a better picture. Columbus was gaining only from Ohio, but not anymore. In any case, I would still like to know why you prefer IRS to Census. The problem with the IRS data being unable to fully capture students, for example, isn’t a lie. It’s been documented, as students are far less likely to use the change of address that the IRS data uses. In a city like Columbus with more than 10% of its population being students, that could be an issue when measuring migration, and that isn’t the only problem with that data set. Of course, Census data is flawed because they are just estimates and there are margins of error involved, as you mention.
The other point I made about the overall state population changes not being accounted for by Columbus alone is also true. What I’m trying to say with all this has nothing to do with some imagined delusion that Columbus is perfect, but that the data being presented is equally flawed and perhaps shouldn’t be presented as the end-all, be-all. If all the data sets have their limitations, what everyone chooses to use seems somewhat arbitrary based on the story they want to tell. If Columbus posters are so biased to their own stories, based on your reaction to my questions, you seem equally as biased toward your own.
In response to Matt, I agree that branding needs to be derived from something realistic (not necessarily organic but that helps). Branding can only take you so far but it can help and be used to capitalize upon and strengthen existing momentum. Columbus is at somewhat at a disadvantage due to the fact that its history and culture doesn’t really resonate on the national stage. Even in-state, it takes a cultural and historical backseat to Cleveland and Cincinnati in most respects. And, like Indianapolis, it’s geographical location isn’t inspiring or unique.
So, Columbus can’t change its history and it can’t change where it’s located. But those are not insurmountable challenges. Columbus needs to take stock of the cultural, historical, and institutional assets it does have and: a) be honest with itself about where they rank regionally and nationally; b) determine if there is a commonality between several of them that could be leveraged; and c) determine if their is an existing, marketable asset or niche that could be capitalized on that no one else is promoting (or not promoting effectively), at least in the Midwest.
Livability and affordability are nice but I don’t think it is enough. Pretty much every metro in the Midwest is trying to sing that tune. If money or job isn’t an issue, would someone that isn’t an Ohio State fan choose Columbus over Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, or Minneapolis?
If the suggested analysis determines that there are no existing assets or niches that can be successfully leveraged and marketed (which seems like an unlikely outcome), the Columbus movers and shakers need to get together and create something. There was a time when there was no Indianapolis 500 or Kentucky Derby. SXSW didn’t always exist and it was not necessarily unique in the United States. It has some roots in NYC. Austin visionaries saw an opportunity to not only make it theirs but to do it bigger and better.
Joe, great comment.
I don’t know enough about Columbus to be able to do a detailed inventory of unique elements that could be leveraged, but there have to be some. I have a list for Indianapolis and would assume Columbus should be able to marshal something similar. Ohio State football is a no-brainer. I think German Village is unique. The Arnold Classic is a major attraction in its field.
I think Matt’s negative framing could potentially be useful for incorporating into this.
Thanks. It definitely isn’t your charge, I honestly could not recall if you had ever mentioned any specific suggestions. In addition to what you’ve listed:
Columbus Zoo/Jungle Jack Hannah, Center of Science and Industry (COSI), Battelle Memorial Institute, Franklin Park Conservatory, Columbus Symphony, its controversial namesake, it’s location on the National Road, James Thurber, founding location of the American Federation of Labor, a former National Football League headquarters site, Eddie Rickenbacker, numerous national brands (especially in fashion and fast-food), Jack Nicklaus, an original MLS team, All- American Quarter Horse Congress, Pelotonia, R.L. Stine’s Goosebumps series, the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum, Ready Player One, river kayaking, and its relative openness to the LGBT community.
I’m sure others could list additional items. Not all of the things listed are currently “best in class”, unique, and/or marketable but someone smarter than me could probably make a brand out of one or more things on that list.
Joe, the thing I don’t want Columbus to be is another Cleveland. Cleveland has spent decades trying to develop the next big project to gain national attention instead of focusing on the things people actually want in a place: quality of life metrics. That means economic strength, low crime, good education systems, accessibility to amenities, good public transit, etc. Cleveland does most of these rather poorly (except transit), but cities like Columbus (except transit), and to an increasing degree, Cincinnati, are doing much better at. Columbus is not flashy. It doesn’t have world-class institutions built up by 20th Century industrial magnates. Yet for its lack of big-name, big-brand attraction, it’s chugging along just fine. Even if we accept the claim that Columbus doesn’t attract people from outside of Ohio, I would say that’s still important. Better to keep people within the state than to lose them altogether, if for no other reason than because the bigger it gets, the more gravity it will have outside of Ohio as well, regardless of whether it ever figures out how to brand itself.