Our City Online

Metro

Suburbs brace for impact during financial crunch

Walker Evans Walker Evans Suburbs brace for impact during financial crunch
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

The Dispatch wrote Suburbs brace for impact

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

BY MARTIN ROZENMAN, DEAN NARCISO, JIM WOODS AND ALAYNA DEMARTINI

When Columbus starts talking about a financial emergency, suburban officials cast nervous glances over their shoulders. “Everybody gets concerned when Columbus has a bad year, since they’ve lifted us up in past years,” said Hilliard Finance Director Michelle Kelly-Underwood. “So goes Columbus, so goes the suburbs.”

Westerville, Pickerington and Pataskala want to increase income-tax rates to keep up with the rising costs of police and other services. Others aren’t far behind.

“Central Ohio does reasonably well” in tough times, Mahoney said, pointing to stagnant state and federal funding to cities and weak investment income. “But there’s a heck of a difference between Whitehall and Dublin.”

READ MORE

Print Friendly

Tags:

81 Responses to Suburbs brace for impact during financial crunch

  1. Walker Evans
    Walker July 16, 2008 11:29 am at 11:29 am

  2. Motorist
    Motorist July 16, 2008 11:40 am at 11:40 am

    I hope we’ll be able to hear the crunch from the downtown neighborhoods.

    It’s been known for years that the typical suburban model is unsustainable on most fronts, I’m not sure why this is news.

  3. Walker Evans
    Walker July 16, 2008 11:47 am at 11:47 am

    Motorist wrote It’s been known for years that the typical suburban model is unsustainable on most fronts, I’m not sure why this is news.

    Because everyone else is finally catching up to your wisdom! ;)

  4. Motorist
    Motorist July 16, 2008 11:53 am at 11:53 am

    Walker wrote
    Motorist wrote It’s been known for years that the typical suburban model is unsustainable on most fronts, I’m not sure why this is news.

    Because everyone else is finally catching up to your wisdom! ;)

    ’bout time! I’ve got some thoughts on other topics while “everyone” is listening. :lol:

  5. my medium is dying
    my medium is dying July 16, 2008 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm

    Motorist wrote I hope we’ll be able to hear the crunch from the downtown neighborhoods.

    It’s been known for years that the typical suburban model is unsustainable on most fronts, I’m not sure why this is news.

    what’s up with the unnecessary hatin’ on suburbanites?

    you should be nice to suburbanites. they work tirelessly in your downtown office buildings to provide your income tax revenues. then they take their meager earnings and invest them right back into your neighborhoods. have you seen their waistlines?! they guarantee success for your favorite restaurants.

    all this and they are nice enough to keep their snotty kids out of your schools. plus, they don’t even vote in your elections, for goodness sake.

    poor suburbanites.

    do you know how hard it is to resist the temptation to run over 10 scooterists when you’ve been searching for a parking spot for 4.5 hours?! I just want to get to the NORTH MARKET AND GET ONE OF THOSE HOG DOGS, GAWD!

  6. laChewla
    laChewla July 16, 2008 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm

    wow.

    That was an incredible outburst. There’s a small tear quivering on the edge of my eyelid…oop! There it goes!

  7. Cyclist July 16, 2008 1:11 pm at 1:11 pm

    But the real question here is: What is the crunchiest suburb? Though not a separate municipality… Clintonville?

  8. cab124
    cab124 July 16, 2008 1:36 pm at 1:36 pm

    my medium is dying wrote do you know how hard it is to resist the temptation to run over 10 scooterists when you’ve been searching for a parking spot for 4.5 hours?! I just want to get to the NORTH MARKET AND GET ONE OF THOSE HOG DOGS, GAWD!

    Maybe, you and some of those suburbanites would consider voting “Yes” the next time light rail shows up on the ballot?

    Also, I notice that was only your 7th post. Welcome to CU!

  9. JonMyers July 16, 2008 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm

    Cookie wrote
    Cyclist wrote But the real question here is: What is the crunchiest suburb? Though not a separate municipality… Clintonville?

    Clintonville is not a suburb.

    Seems like Clintonville fits the description of a suburb to me.

    Dictionary.com wrote a district lying immediately outside a city or town, esp. a smaller residential community.

    Wikipedia wrote Suburbs are commonly defined as residential areas on the outskirts of a city or large town. Most modern suburbs are commuter towns with many single-family homes. Many suburbs have some degree of political autonomy and most have lower population density than inner city neighborhoods.

  10. Ndcent
    Ndcent July 16, 2008 2:02 pm at 2:02 pm

    Cookie wrote If Clintonville is a suburb, then so are German Village and Victorian Village.

    No.

  11. Cyclist July 16, 2008 2:22 pm at 2:22 pm

    Cookie wrote
    Cyclist wrote But the real question here is: What is the crunchiest suburb? Though not a separate municipality… Clintonville?

    Clintonville is not a suburb.

    It is pretty suburban in function in and some of its form. And I also stated that I understand that it is not a seprate municipality from the legal City of Columbus.

    Please give me your definition of a suburb. A suburb is a word that is used different ways.

    To some it is a seperate legal jurisdiction that is some way a satillite to a greater legal jurisdiction.

    Others, like me see a suburb as a certain spatial-style different from that of an urban space or rural space. It is a matter of function, form, and dimensions.

  12. whopper jr
    whopper jr July 16, 2008 2:42 pm at 2:42 pm

    Clintonville could be classified as a first-ring suburb, similar to Grandview, Bexley, etc. When those neighborhoods were built, they were absolutely known as suburbs. Now, since they are older and somewhat urban in nature, we may not classify them under our current definitions of suburban, and therefore, suburbs. Plus, for a lot of people it is inconcievable for a suburb to be walkable and somewhat mixed-use, such as Clintonville.

    I think our current notion of “suburban” brings to mind larger lots, garages up front instead of on the rear alley, and variance from the grid system.

  13. Motorist
    Motorist July 16, 2008 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm

    whopper jr wrote Clintonville could be classified as a first-ring suburb, similar to Grandview, Bexley, etc. When those neighborhoods were built, they were absolutely known as suburbs. Now, since they are older and somewhat urban in nature, we may not classify them under our current definitions of suburban, and therefore, suburbs. Plus, for a lot of people it is inconcievable for a suburb to be walkable and somewhat mixed-use, such as Clintonville.

    I think our current notion of “suburban” brings to mind larger lots, garages up front instead of on the rear alley, and variance from the grid system.

    Olde Towne East was originally a streetcar suburb, Bexley came later. That would make OTE an OS and Bexley a second-ring suburb. 8)

  14. Mercurius July 16, 2008 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm

    Cookie wrote
    Cyclist wrote Please give me your definition of a suburb. A suburb is a word that is used different ways.

    My definition? I know of no definition of the word suburb that describes Clintonville. My definition is a development style with an auto centric emphasis. It has less to do with the density, aesthetics and craftsmanship but all of these also play into it.

  15. Mercurius July 16, 2008 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm

    Cyclist wrote But the real question here is: What is the crunchiest suburb? Though not a separate municipality… Clintonville?

    Na, Rush Creek Village. The good Mr. Captain Crunch Dritz also lives in that immediate area. I don’t know, Simply Living is pretty crunchy, so that scores some points for Clintonville, as does the CoOP. But nothing compares to Rush Creek.

  16. catnfiddle July 16, 2008 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm

    Does Clintonville have its own government and school system that is completely independent of Columbus? If it does, then it’s a suburb. If it doesn’t (and I think this is the case), it’s merely a neighborhood within the city limits. Yes, it’s definitely a neighborhood with its own character. Brooklyn definitely has its own character, but it’s still part of New York City and under Michael Bloomberg’s government.

  17. catnfiddle July 16, 2008 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm

    Cookie wrote
    catnfiddle wrote Does Clintonville have its own government and school system that is completely independent of Columbus?

    No, I live in the Columbus Public School District.

    Cool. Thanks for proving my point. 8)

  18. Walker Evans
    Walker July 16, 2008 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm

    catnfiddle wrote
    Cookie wrote
    catnfiddle wrote Does Clintonville have its own government and school system that is completely independent of Columbus?

    No, I live in the Columbus Public School District.

    Cool. Thanks for proving my point. 8)

    There are parts of Delaware County that are within the governing body of Columbus and most definitely aren’t “urban” areas, so I don’t think your point is completely accurate.

    Anyway, we could all argue about definitions for hours, but we’ve all got different ones, so no one is going to end up being in the right about anything.

  19. gramarye
    gramarye July 16, 2008 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm

    Clintonville is not a suburb. Not even Minerva Park is a suburb, though its development pattern could make it pass for one to the naked eye. It’s still Columbus. It’s just a low-density part of the city. That doesn’t make it a suburb.

  20. Rockmastermike July 16, 2008 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm

    OMG! BRACE FOR IMPACT!

  21. Columbusite July 16, 2008 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm

    ^^It does make it sprawl. Anyplace that is dominated by single-use, car-dependent (one and the same) development is sprawl. You have sprawling suburbs (Reynoldsburg) & urban suburbs (Grandview). Places like Worthington or Westerville I classify under sprawling because despite their urban downtowns they are located in a sea of sprawl.

  22. Cyclist July 16, 2008 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm

    gramarye wrote Clintonville is not a suburb. Not even Minerva Park is a suburb, though its development pattern could make it pass for one to the naked eye. It’s still Columbus. It’s just a low-density part of the city. That doesn’t make it a suburb.

    Minerva Park is a separate municipality from Columbus.

    I am looking beyond a place’s legal status, but intead on its dimensions, functionality and form.

  23. mitchellosu
    mitchellosu July 16, 2008 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm

    JonMyers wrote
    Cookie wrote
    Cyclist wrote But the real question here is: What is the crunchiest suburb? Though not a separate municipality… Clintonville?

    Clintonville is not a suburb.

    Seems like Clintonville fits the description of a suburb to me.

    Dictionary.com wrote a district lying immediately outside a city or town, esp. a smaller residential community.

    Wikipedia wrote Suburbs are commonly defined as residential areas on the outskirts of a city or large town. Most modern suburbs are commuter towns with many single-family homes. Many suburbs have some degree of political autonomy and most have lower population density than inner city neighborhoods.

    Like the man just said (and like the other man prefaced)… not all suburbs are distinct municipalities with any degree of autonomy. The word is just most commonly used in reference to distinct municipalities in tiers around a larger city.

    Merriam-Webster:

    Main Entry: sub·urb

    Pronunciation: \ˈsə-ˌbərb\

    Function: noun

    Etymology: Middle English suburbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin suburbium, from sub- near + urbs city — more at sub-

    Date: 14th century

    1 a: an outlying part of a city or town b: a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city cplural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town

    2plural : the near vicinity : environs

    P.S. School districts are not inately linked to city boundaries, many, many districts overlap into different municipalities (think Columbus and Hilliard and Dublin, etc) and not all municipalities have their own school systems (Powell, Marble Cliff, Linworth). Unrelated.

  24. JonMyers July 16, 2008 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm

    The definition of suburb seems to have some ambiguity associated with it. Personally, I also think the definition can refer to a certain aesthetic and function of the housing and community that surrounds it. Clintonville is more walkable than most “suburbs” and has a distinct, functioning downtown, which differentiates it from most bonafide suburbs. Two factors that make a place feel more “urban” I guess. All that said, I personally still think of Clintonville as the burbs.

  25. gramarye
    gramarye July 16, 2008 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm

    Cyclist wrote
    gramarye wrote Clintonville is not a suburb. Not even Minerva Park is a suburb, though its development pattern could make it pass for one to the naked eye. It’s still Columbus. It’s just a low-density part of the city. That doesn’t make it a suburb.

    Minerva Park is a separate municipality from Columbus.

    Whoops! I stand corrected. And apparently, it’s not just it’s own municipality, but part of Westerville Schools (see Hawthorne Elementary), not Columbus Public. I had no idea Westerville City Schools went that far inside the Beltway.

  26. mitchellosu
    mitchellosu July 16, 2008 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm

    gramarye wrote
    Cyclist wrote
    gramarye wrote Clintonville is not a suburb. Not even Minerva Park is a suburb, though its development pattern could make it pass for one to the naked eye. It’s still Columbus. It’s just a low-density part of the city. That doesn’t make it a suburb.

    Minerva Park is a separate municipality from Columbus.

    Whoops! I stand corrected. And apparently, it’s not just it’s own municipality, but part of Westerville Schools (see Hawthorne Elementary), not Columbus Public. I had no idea Westerville City Schools went that far inside the Beltway.

    It takes a big man to admit he doesn’t know the boundaries of Westerville City Schools. :)

  27. mitchellosu
    mitchellosu July 16, 2008 4:40 pm at 4:40 pm

    But I’m not your personal dictionary, so that’s all the defining I will be doing. :)

  28. JonMyers July 16, 2008 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm

    Clintonville a kinder, gentler suburb :wink:

  29. mitchellosu
    mitchellosu July 16, 2008 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm

    mitchellosu wrote But I’m not your personal dictionary, so that’s all the defining I will be doing. :)

    Ok, one more.

    Merriam-Webster:

    Main Entry: out·ly·ing

    Pronunciation: \ˈau̇t-ˌlī-iŋ\

    Function: adjective

    Date: circa 1690

    : remote from a center or main body

    Encarta dictionary:

    out·ly·ing [ ówt l ing ]

    adjective

    Definition:

    remote: far from the central part of a place or region

    But I see your point with this definition from dictionary.com:

    out·ly·ing Audio Help /ˈaʊtˌlaɪɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[out-lahy-ing] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation

    –adjective 1. lying at a distance from the center or the main body; remote; out-of-the-way: outlying military posts.

    2. lying outside the boundary or limit.

    ——————————————————————————–

  30. Drew July 16, 2008 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm

    Cookie wrote Now look up outlying.

    Definition: Clintonville.

    Seriously, it’s not even a close call. I’m not an indiscriminate ‘burb hater, so it doesn’t have the significance for me that it seems to for you, but when you’re in Clintonville, you. are. in. the. ‘burbs.

  31. Drew July 16, 2008 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm

    Cookie wrote I’m irritated by the rampant snobbery on this site.

    SRSLY?

  32. JohnWirtz July 16, 2008 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm

    I think the definition is less clear in Columbus than most places because of the rather unique situation where the city has annexed land to continue on beyond the suburbs. Once you all figure it out though, does anyone want to debate the definition of an exurb?

  33. Mercurius July 16, 2008 5:50 pm at 5:50 pm

    JohnWirtz wrote I think the definition is less clear in Columbus than most places because of the rather unique situation where the city has annexed land to continue on beyond the suburbs. Once you all figure it out though, does anyone want to debate the definition of an exurb?

    http://books.google.com/books?id=S-yLnny00BEC&dq=a+field+guide+to+sprawl&pg=PP1&ots=33DLowSvek&sig=Q-lwN25E5o1almPPrbNTIQ8hf4I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA13,M1

    http://www.doloreshayden.com/images/dhayde-340-exp-Field_guide_to_.jpg

  34. JohnWirtz July 16, 2008 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm

    Mercurius wrote
    JohnWirtz wrote I think the definition is less clear in Columbus than most places because of the rather unique situation where the city has annexed land to continue on beyond the suburbs. Once you all figure it out though, does anyone want to debate the definition of an exurb?

    http://books.google.com/books?id=S-yLnny00BEC&dq=a+field+guide+to+sprawl&pg=PP1&ots=33DLowSvek&sig=Q-lwN25E5o1almPPrbNTIQ8hf4I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA13,M1

    http://www.doloreshayden.com/images/dhayde-340-exp-Field_guide_to_.jpg

    Thanks, I haven’t read that one yet. I did read this and thought it was interesting:

    http://www.amazon.com/Edge-City-Life-New-Frontier/dp/0385424345

    I don’t recommend this, as I think he mis-defines sprawl entirely:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=pW4F5RCuLS0C&dq=bruegmann,+sprawl&pg=PP1&ots=8EmL69ViE-&sig=OxIQNFsQTNJtjpEudPAS2Ef8cP8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

  35. mitchellosu
    mitchellosu July 16, 2008 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm

    Cookie wrote
    Drew wrote Definition: Clintonville.

    Seriously, it’s not even a close call. I’m not an indiscriminate ‘burb hater, so it doesn’t have the significance for me that it seems to for you, but when you’re in Clintonville, you. are. in. the. ‘burbs.

    I’m irritated by the rampant snobbery on this site.

    I like Clintonville, I wasn’t trying to attack the idea or concept of Clintonville, or even sling the word suburb like it’s an insult. I don’t think anyone else (with the possible exception of confirmed Clintonville hater Cyclist) was attempting to attack anything involving Clintonville.

  36. BCOZ July 16, 2008 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm

    I live 5 miles outside “urban” Columbus.

    My ‘burb? Columbus.

    so…I live in Columbus.

    When people ask “Where do you live?

    I say: Columbus

    I. live. in. Columbus.

    Clintonville is less than 1 mile from “urban” Columbus

    It’s ‘burb? Clintonville

    so…people live in Clintonville.

    When other people ask “Where do you live?”

    People say : Clintonville

    You. Live. In. Clintonville.

    Clintonville may actually be more of a suburb than Westerville. Hell, New Albany! ;)

    Geographic distance is not nearly as important as cultural difference with regard to its connection with Columbus.

    Clintonville…in the minds of it’s (mostly) temporary residents…is WAY too cool to be called “Columbus”

    That is…until Clintonville is told it’s a suburb.

    Then it’s “We ARE Columbus”

    Fuck You, Clintonville.

    Oh…BTW…I live in Columbus.

  37. Outerloop July 16, 2008 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm

    ^^ Wow!

  38. hobbesOSU
    hobbesOSU July 16, 2008 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm

    From the looks of that graphic, 12 out of 17 listed suburbs have their income tax revenue up. Looks like they’ll have to plan for increased expenses and budget better, just like the rest of us.

    It’s not like the sky is going to fall if a government ever had to cut back.

  39. zp945
    zp945 July 16, 2008 10:51 pm at 10:51 pm

    BCOZ wrote I live 5 miles outside “urban” Columbus.

    My ‘burb? Columbus.

    so…I live in Columbus.

    When people ask “Where do you live?

    I say: Columbus

    I. live. in. Columbus.

    Clintonville is less than 1 mile from “urban” Columbus

    It’s ‘burb? Clintonville

    so…people live in Clintonville.

    When other people ask “Where do you live?”

    People say : Clintonville

    You. Live. In. Clintonville.

    Clintonville may actually be more of a suburb than Westerville. Hell, New Albany! ;)

    Geographic distance is not nearly as important as cultural difference with regard to its connection with Columbus.

    Clintonville…in the minds of it’s (mostly) temporary residents…is WAY too cool to be called “Columbus”

    That is…until Clintonville is told it’s a suburb.

    Then it’s “We ARE Columbus”

    Fuck You, Clintonville.

    Oh…BTW…I live in Columbus.

    Good lord. Settle down people. clintonville.is.a.neighborhood.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neighborhood

  40. futureman July 16, 2008 11:41 pm at 11:41 pm

    I live 5 miles outside “urban” Columbus.

    My ‘burb? Columbus.

    so…I live in Columbus.

    When people ask “Where do you live?

    I say: Columbus

    I. live. in. Columbus.

    Clintonville is less than 1 mile from “urban” Columbus

    It’s ‘burb? Clintonville

    so…people live in Clintonville.

    When other people ask “Where do you live?”

    People say : Clintonville

    You. Live. In. Clintonville.

    Jesus man calm down. I’ve never heard of anyone from Clintonville having an attitude as you suggest. Clintonville is an area of Columbus, that’s it. Not a god forbid suburb (granted it does have the same housing stock as Grandview). Why has this thread become so pro vs anti Clintonville. It’s about the *actual* suburbs. You know the ones were you *don’t* pay taxes to Columbus.

    Get over it for gods sake. Clintonville = Columbus. Yes, housing stock is similar to suburbs (Grandview), but it’s no New Albany.

    By they way, does anyone else think the name “5 by northwest” is crappy name (I live in said area). It’s like they got lazy and just came up with something other than “cheap area between UA and Grandview”.

  41. Columbusite July 17, 2008 12:10 am at 12:10 am

    So we all agree then. Suburbia sucks. Columbus rules (the real Columbus, of course).

  42. Rockmastermike July 17, 2008 7:58 am at 7:58 am

    futureman wrote

    By they way, does anyone else think the name “5 by northwest” is crappy name (I live in said area). It’s like they got lazy and just came up with something other than “cheap area between UA and Grandview”.

    Is that really what this area is called? Wow. That’s lame.

    Nice place though. Really mellow neighborhood.

  43. swan July 17, 2008 8:18 am at 8:18 am

    clintonville = suburb

    cookie = inability to take part in a civil discussion without turning things personal.

  44. BCOZ July 17, 2008 8:23 am at 8:23 am

    Cookie wrote
    Columbusite wrote So we all agree then. Suburbia sucks. Columbus rules (the real Columbus, of course).

    No, this air of superiority based on your proximity to downtown sucks.

    Actually the proximity folks show more pride than superiority.

    As my fair and balanced “fuck Clintonville” post indicates, Clintonville folk have a far greater air of superiority. Undeservedly so…but omnipresent nonetheless.

  45. Roscoe
    Roscoe July 17, 2008 8:28 am at 8:28 am

    I read a lot of the hating on any area other than “urban Columbus” on here and am baffled. Most of the areas that are thrown around here as suburbs or exurbs have existed for a very long time and the long-time residents there aren’t always thrilled about being consumed by Columbus.

    It seems weird to read about Pickerington, Pataskala, and Canal Winchester(not to mention others) in an article about suburbs of Columbus, they’re part of the region/area, but I’m sure they’d rather be known for their own identity.

    For what it’s worth- the City of Columbus is the one pushing the limits, not these other towns. If Columbus wouldn’t keep forcing MetroParks on its neighbors, expanding it utilities outwards as a revenue stream, and policing almost every corner of Franklin County, maybe they could focus more on Columbus proper and those other areas could retain more of their identity.

  46. Ndcent
    Ndcent July 17, 2008 8:35 am at 8:35 am

    Does anyone else think the argument going on here is fucking ridiculous, sad and/or totally stupid?

  47. JonMyers July 17, 2008 8:41 am at 8:41 am

    BCOZ wrote
    Cookie wrote
    Columbusite wrote So we all agree then. Suburbia sucks. Columbus rules (the real Columbus, of course).

    No, this air of superiority based on your proximity to downtown sucks.

    Actually the proximity folks show more pride than superiority.

    As my fair and balanced “fuck Clintonville” post indicates, Clintonville folk have a far greater air of superiority. Undeservedly so…but omnipresent nonetheless.

    :D Ohh, man I can’t stop laughing.. Dig, dig, diggin deeper.. fair and balanced “fuck Clintonville” post.

    I never sensed an air of superiority in Clintonville. Just a hippy sense of righteousness that feels like a combination of the 60s and 90s. Never had much patience for the hippy thing. Feels stuck in time.

  48. Brewmaster
    Brewmaster July 17, 2008 9:03 am at 9:03 am

    Ndcent wrote Does anyone else think the argument going on here is fucking ridiculous, sad and/or totally stupid?

    Yes, yes, and yes.

  49. gramarye
    gramarye July 17, 2008 9:03 am at 9:03 am

    Ndcent wrote Does anyone else think the argument going on here is fucking ridiculous, sad and/or totally stupid?

    Indeed, and, mirabile dictu, without you on either side of it! :P

    Roscoe wrote For what it’s worth- the City of Columbus is the one pushing the limits, not these other towns. If Columbus wouldn’t keep forcing MetroParks on its neighbors, expanding it utilities outwards as a revenue stream, and policing almost every corner of Franklin County, maybe they could focus more on Columbus proper and those other areas could retain more of their identity.

    Expanding the city’s utilities outwards as a revenue stream makes a fair amount of sense for both city and suburb. The alternative is for every municipality to have their own water, sewer, etc. system, which can involve losing a fair amount of economies of scale, including personnel costs in addition to those related to the physical infrastructure itself.

    Also, with respect to the suburbs/exurbs you mentioned, I know that at least Pataskala does have its own water and sewer district. Canal Winchester is far enough out that I’d be shocked if they didn’t have their own as well.

    I’m not familiar with what you mean by “forcing MetroParks on its neighbors,” so I’ll reserve judgment on that one.

  50. Walker Evans
    Walker July 17, 2008 9:14 am at 9:14 am

    Cookie wrote Are you going to argue that there isn’t a prevalent anti-suburb attitude on this board

    I’ll argue that.

    This site focuses on urban topics, and is primarily pro-urban, but that doesn’t make it anti-suburban.

    Of the thousands who have posted here it sounds like your problem is with a vocal minority. 10 people at the most.

  51. gramarye
    gramarye July 17, 2008 9:45 am at 9:45 am

    Walker wrote
    Cookie wrote Are you going to argue that there isn’t a prevalent anti-suburb attitude on this board

    I’ll argue that.

    This site focuses on urban topics, and is primarily pro-urban, but that doesn’t make it anti-suburban.

    Of the thousands who have posted here it sounds like your problem is with a vocal minority. 10 people at the most.

    Ten people can spill an awful lot of cyber-ink if they’re all in the top thirty posters or so, though. I’m with Cookie, for the most part. You’re right that it’s a minority of urbanist posters here that express thoughts that vitriolic about suburbia. However, aside from me and you, not many call them on it very often, which means that they get to dominate the discussion, and therefore the atmosphere of the boards, basically by default. The perjorative sprawl is thrown around with impunity, and the problems of the city that drove many suburbanites to suburbia–crime, failing schools, lack of living space–are alternatively dismissed as delusions (or simply bad priorities on the part of the suburbanites) or blamed on the people leaving for suburbia themselves. Public policies, and broader visions from which future policies would be distilled, are drawn, consciously or not, straight out of Kunstler (hint: he wasn’t the author of The Promise of Suburbia). Urban growth boundaries, demolition of the highways (or at least not expanding them), and all kinds of other measures get bandied around here all under the general rubric of controlling or rolling back “sprawl.” (I’m reminded of a punch line from my Local Government Law class: “Who can tell me what sprawl is? … Easy. It’s the next guy out’s subdivision.” Apparently that applies even from the Short North to Clintonville as well as from Westerville to Sunbury.)

    This thread represents something a little more out there than most–I don’t think too many people have talked about Clintonville as a “suburb” in the past–but what should a resident of Worthington or Lewis Center think from the fact that we’re even having this discussion about Clintonville?

  52. Mercurius July 17, 2008 9:53 am at 9:53 am

    Walker wrote
    Cookie wrote Are you going to argue that there isn’t a prevalent anti-suburb attitude on this board

    I’ll argue that.

    This site focuses on urban topics, and is primarily pro-urban, but that doesn’t make it anti-suburban.

    Of the thousands who have posted here it sounds like your problem is with a vocal minority. 10 people at the most. I’m usually one of said ten people, but I love Clintonville. I know many that get along great up there with out a car. The two main commercial corridors are mostly urban design. Not until I get to the crappy area between Clintonville and Worthington is it decidedly suburban development style. But look at Studio 35′s Area on Indianola, High south of North Broadway and the density of the apartments along the river and I think (well at least south of North Broadway) it is hard to argue the development style is any less suburban than the Short North area.

    In the Short North, where The Kick Start is, I would call a suburban development, the krogers, payday loans and white castle too, but it isn’t an suburban area. The same goes for South Clintonville.

    And this is a retarded argument. Sorry I continued it.

  53. Andrew Hall
    Andrew Hall July 17, 2008 9:59 am at 9:59 am

    gramarye wrote I’m with Cookie, for the most part. You’re right that it’s a minority of urbanist posters here that express thoughts that vitriolic about suburbia. However, aside from me and you, not many call them on it very often, which means that they get to dominate the discussion, and therefore the atmosphere of the boards, basically by default.

    You are failing to put the discussion here in a broader context. There is an urbanist bias here, but it is also a small island in the big ocean of anti-urbanist sentiment. Just like conservatives (rightly or wrongly) perceive themselves beseiged on campus, so do urbanists in the broader culture. And just like any such group within their own space, they get more extreme or position themselves more dramatically.

    Some of us have long Columbus memories and our positioning against the “suburbs” is brought about by years of anti-”downtown” sentiment. Some of it valid for reasons you mention and I am more than willing to call out on. And a non-small portion based on racism, ignorance or other non-factual positions which fed themselves and further marginalized the City. If you have been here long enough to remember Tuttle being built with the specific and tacit understanding it would be a white City Center as just one example, you might have a little more prickle.

    I will agree that it is not the best way to present a positive case, but this is not necessarily the forum for doing so either. Sometimes people are just venting their long-standing frustrations at the City being dumped on for so long.

    A.

  54. th0m
    th0m July 17, 2008 10:36 am at 10:36 am

    isn’t urban originally defined as any place with a population over 5,000?

    i don’t see what the big deal is… if the situation were to really affect the suburbs, they’d just see more apartments being built where now you just have intersections out to the cookie cutter houses.

    thanks for the info, andrew, as always… i dunno… its all the same thing. people in the small town i’m from would gripe about where and how the place was spreading or people were leaving, etc…

    i live in the “crappy area between clintonville and worthington” you insensitive clod ;p … kinda nice actually… 40s and 50s style houses that make sense and have a little room, and still has great bus service… hehe

  55. Mercurius July 17, 2008 10:42 am at 10:42 am

    th0m wrote isn’t urban originally defined as any place with a population over 5,000?

    i don’t see what the big deal is… if the situation were to really affect the suburbs, they’d just see more apartments being built where now you just have intersections out to the cookie cutter houses.

    thanks for the info, andrew, as always… i dunno… its all the same thing. people in the small town i’m from would gripe about where and how the place was spreading or people were leaving, etc…

    i live in the “crappy area between clintonville and worthington” you insensitive clod ;p … kinda nice actually… 40s and 50s style houses that make sense and have a little room, and still has great bus service… hehe Look at the official neighborhood name map. I was using the official name :lol: :lol:


    View Larger Map

  56. th0m
    th0m July 17, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am

    oh wait!!!

    i don’t live there

    i do live in beechwold though sort of

  57. Mercurius July 17, 2008 10:48 am at 10:48 am

    th0m wrote oh wait!!!

    i don’t live there

    i do live in beechwold though sort of elitist

  58. th0m
    th0m July 17, 2008 10:59 am at 10:59 am

    hey at least i was ignorant of it for a little bit!

  59. shroud
    shroud July 17, 2008 11:03 am at 11:03 am

    Mercurius wrote

    Look at the official neighborhood name map. I was using the official name :lol: :lol:

    Like the “Bethel-Henderson Strip Club District”, which is also labeled on there? Or “New Mogadishu” ? :lol:

  60. th0m
    th0m July 17, 2008 11:08 am at 11:08 am

    ??? that’s what my realtor called them

  61. my medium is dying
    my medium is dying July 17, 2008 11:19 am at 11:19 am

    Walker wrote I’ll argue that.

    This site focuses on urban topics, and is primarily pro-urban, but that doesn’t make it anti-suburban.

    Of the thousands who have posted here it sounds like your problem is with a vocal minority. 10 people at the most.

    nah, the pictures of the sprawl and the sprawl-hating is pretty obvious, but that’s okay. you guys are pioneers making your own world Downtown.

    people like cookie and others are on the Away team, so to speak, and shouldn’t expect everyone here to love anything that’s not ultra-urban. it’s healthy.

    own your hate! :)

    that said, i live about 45-60 minutes from Downtown, and i think anyone who can’t plant a 2-acre garden and raise their own pigs and chickens is crazy.

    we can all live where we want to.

    but walker might have to change the name of the site to downtownunderground.com

    set your bookmarks!

    wait. somebody basically already said this didn’t they?

  62. JohnWirtz July 17, 2008 11:28 am at 11:28 am

    Mercurius wrote
    th0m wrote isn’t urban originally defined as any place with a population over 5,000?

    i don’t see what the big deal is… if the situation were to really affect the suburbs, they’d just see more apartments being built where now you just have intersections out to the cookie cutter houses.

    thanks for the info, andrew, as always… i dunno… its all the same thing. people in the small town i’m from would gripe about where and how the place was spreading or people were leaving, etc…

    i live in the “crappy area between clintonville and worthington” you insensitive clod ;p … kinda nice actually… 40s and 50s style houses that make sense and have a little room, and still has great bus service… hehe Look at the official neighborhood name map. I was using the official name :lol: :lol:


    View Larger Map

    I would have to dispute some of the place names, but that is an awesome map.

  63. th0m
    th0m July 17, 2008 11:36 am at 11:36 am

    it is kinda hard for me to get worked up, seeing both sides. i remember when i came to columbus hearing a lot of anti downtown sentiment. i for one though, have seen it get better downtown, so maybe anti downtown sentiments are actually factual some degree, or at least that person’s honest opinion from their point of view.

    these things all work themselves out and ebb and flow and such as a sum total of the collective interrelationships. you should have your divisive opinion and stick to it, though, as thats the only way it will ever happen anyway….

    so lets be true here, and state the obvious. cu is just a ploy by the space aliens to get us all downtown and in one place before they strike.

  64. JimSweeney
    JimSweeney July 17, 2008 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm

    sprawl is just inefficient and unfair. tax dollars are constantly used to stretch and maintin water/sewer, police protection, roads, etc. out to people who don’t want to live where the services already exist. If people who wanted to live in the far flung areas were paying their own way that would be fine. let’s not put anymore general fund money into widening roads. instead let make them toll roads. a sewer tap fee should reflect how many more miles of sewer had be installed to hook you up.

    sure. people should be able to live wherever they want. but i don’t want to pay for it anymore.

  65. Roscoe
    Roscoe July 17, 2008 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm

    gramarye wrote

    I’m not familiar with what you mean by “forcing MetroParks on its neighbors,” so I’ll reserve judgment on that one.

    Don’t want to derail the thread, but here’s your sprawl map: http://www.metroparks.net/ParksMaps.aspx

    It seems disengenuous to take Columbus/Franklin County tax dollars, and buy land outside of those borders (a good bit of it anyway) for the people of Columbus/Franklin County to enjoy. I know the parks are open to everyone, but the uses are pretty restrictive, especially compared to ODNR. It smacks of “here, let us help bring your area up to our standards so that we can all enjoy it more.”

  66. I_Support_Columbus July 17, 2008 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm

    Wow, I don’t know what to think of the turn this post has taken but hopefully I can chime in as a current resident of South Clintonville.

    Having lived in Chicago, Pickerington, Dublin and now Clintonville I’ve seen the pros and cons of both sides for sure. But calling Clintonville a suburb in its current form never crosses my mind. I’m cognizant of its past which conforms to my definition of a suburb but it’s so far from that today it’s not funny. I only tell people I live in Clintonville if they live in or around Columbus. Otherwise I say I live in Columbus. Every aspect of living here gives off the vibe of living in a major metropolitan area. Yes, that vibe is different than Short North or German Village but it’s no suburb. I guess it’s an inner ring ‘burb but not really. Isn’t that Bexley, Grandview, UA, etc.? They have separate taxes and services whereas Clintonville is 100% Columbus. Yeah we have Area Commissioners and whatnot but they aren’t official in that Columbus Council trumps their authority in the end. It’s not superiority here in Cville, it’s just civic pride which let’s us call our area something other than Columbus but we’re lucky we get to do that cause it’s really just Columbus.

  67. pedex July 17, 2008 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm

    heh, everyone is part of Columbus when measuring the population of the city including the far flung exurbs but mention what is and isn’t a suburb and all of a sudden everyone wants to be special

    just an observation

  68. shroud
    shroud July 17, 2008 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm

    Roscoe wrote It seems disengenuous to take Columbus/Franklin County tax dollars, and buy land outside of those borders (a good bit of it anyway) for the people of Columbus/Franklin County to enjoy. I know the parks are open to everyone, but the uses are pretty restrictive, especially compared to ODNR. It smacks of “here, let us help bring your area up to our standards so that we can all enjoy it more.”

    I really have to say this is an argument/issue I’ve never really heard before. I mean, I could actually understand it more if your complaint were the other way around – using Columbus dollars for parks in those areas, when they’re certainly getting used more often by the people who live in the immediate vicinity… but still, are there people in the municipalities around the parks that are unhappy with them being there?

  69. roy
    roy July 17, 2008 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm

    Roscoe wrote Most of the areas that are thrown around here as suburbs or exurbs have existed for a very long time and the long-time residents there aren’t always thrilled about being consumed by Columbus.

    For what it’s worth- the City of Columbus is the one pushing the limits, not these other towns. If Columbus wouldn’t keep forcing MetroParks on its neighbors, expanding it utilities outwards as a revenue stream, and policing almost every corner of Franklin County, maybe they could focus more on Columbus proper and those other areas could retain more of their identity.

    For the record, none of the statements in the post above are accurate.

  70. Walker Evans
    Walker July 17, 2008 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm

    my medium is dying wrote own your hate! :)

  71. my medium is dying
    my medium is dying July 18, 2008 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm

    Walker wrote
    my medium is dying wrote own your hate! :)

    hehe. well done.

    it IS editorial policy to hate kittens.

    except … something is missing.

    http://theteet.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ownyourhate-remix.jpg

    there we go.

    (i worked really hard on this.)

    i hope someone gets backyard chickens.

    two would be nice in the city, i think.

  72. Walker Evans
    Walker July 28, 2008 10:59 am at 10:59 am

    The Dispatch wrote Sunbury area prepares for growth wave

    Monday, July 28, 2008

    BY JANE HAWES

    All along Rt. 37, from the lushly green village square west to the traffic-clogged I-71 interchange, the landscape-altering forces of change in this corner of Delaware County are evident.

    Traffic is one measure. The Ohio Department of Transportation says traffic along Rts. 36/37 at the intersections with Rt. 3 and I-71 has climbed steadily in the past two decades. Since 1982, the average 24-hour traffic volume at Rt. 3 grew 108 percent, totaling 13,700 vehicles in 2004, the most recent year measured. The growth rate at I-71 was even more dramatic, from 8,500 vehicles in 1982 to 28,140 in 2004, or 231 percent.

    In Sunbury, a small family-owned business is closing because it can’t compete with big-box retail and Internet hardware suppliers.

    Just down the hill, construction workers swarm over the 33 acres where the Sunbury Mills Plaza shopping mall is being built. Its Kroger anchor is expected to open by November.

    For-sale signs dot the lawns of homes fronting this 5-mile stretch of road, while a sinuous 2-mile curve of road that is to lead one day to 1,300 planned homes opened this month near the interstate.

    The new road is an extension of Wilson Road, where a silo/water feature painted in a pastel patchwork marks the gateway to the controversial NorthStar Golf Resort community. The road winds to a new golf course and its clubhouse, but ground has yet to be broken on the planned homes or 300 acres of commercial development.

    “The market is so quiet,” said Columbus developer Robert Weiler, who battled Kingston Township for nearly a decade to get this far. So Weiler said he’ll wait until demand rebounds, although he still plans to break ground on the first batch of condominiums this fall.

    READ MORE

Want to comment?

Login or register first.

Lost your password?

metro categories