I've lived in Columbus almost my entire life, and it's interesting to read a well written and objective analysis of the city. It does seem to me that one factor that is often overlooked about Columbus and similar American cities is the role played by the university, in our case Ohio State University. I've often thought that a primary reason for the decline of Cleveland is simply the lack of a major university there. True, Case Western is an excellent school, but it's relatively small and also private. Cities such as Columbus, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Austin really have a leg up when it comes to attracting the likes of Intel and Anduril.
I’ve noticed that the people in areas tend to want to keep them as they are- and this tends to drive unaffordability. Paradoxically the way to keep the B city affordable might be to accelerate or at least not resist the change to a B+ or A- city
“Solid B cities might not have the MoMA, but they are likely to have good museums and local art scenes, a great brewery scene, a functional bike path, and a minor-league stadium.”
A common mistake, but few look for museums and art scenes before planning a move.
“Mid-sized hubs like Indianapolis can implement transformative urban policy by negotiating workable compromises and keeping the focus on practical projects that benefit lots of people — something large, coastal cities often fail to achieve.”
Very little explanation of why negotiation is a unique strength of mid sized cities
“The central Ohio region is expected to reach a population of 3.15 million by 2050, adding approximately 726,000 new residents, with a substantial portion of that growth occurring in the next decade. “
Most projections are bullshit. Who predicted this? Why is it rigorous? If your point is people expect growth, best to say that directly
I think it's fair to say that I'm just experiencing grass is greenerism but I think it's very easy to live in a B city and only feel the loss. Its like hard to know how some of the benefits of better governance and more affordable housing really cash out for me as I can't like replay ten years time in another place. But I can compare my brief time living in super star international cities to my years living in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Orlando and think wow this is incredibly boring and uninteresting.
Thought: US paper tiger dynamic isn't completely made up. It's a pretty real thing, and it's grounded in (1) the political toxicity* of incurring casualties plus, I think, (2) increasingly limited scale of available ground combat troops.
It's often not possible to win wars SOLELY from the air. Which is probably one (among others) good reason not to start wars in the first place.
*To be clear, I personally don't believe the particulars of Iranian governance and weapons systems are worth a single American life. So I'm part of that toxicity.
Anyway, ground troops or TACO—which one?—seems to me the question before the nation—and its president—at our present moment.
I don't think paper tiger is at all accurate. Not wanting to take casualties for non essential conflicts shows wisdom not weakness.
Matt in his column talked about mistaking other countries' vital interests for our own, and I think that's the heart of the problem. I'm by no means an isolationist, and we clearly do have interests in stability far from our shores. But the further from our shores the less vital the interest and therefore the less wisdom in shedding our own blood.
Our clear military superiority kept the Iranians from trying any substantial attacks on US. That's deterrence. It didn't stop them from attacking everything or everybody, and it didn't stop them from making small attacks on us, but we can't pretend that we're going to love in a perfect world free of harm or worry. No matter how strong we are we will never be omnipotent.
Two different guests on Bulwark podcasts this week, David French and Jonah Goldberg, argued that now we're in it we have to keep going. Both times I had to take of my head phones and scream into the void, NO,NO WE DON'T, THAT'S MORONIC. Both commentators are super pro-Israel and I hope that's the only contingent that sees things this way.
I'm going to Atlanta in August for a conference (yes, Atlanta in August; no, it wasn't my freaking idea to have the conference then). Any recommendations for what to see/do in my spare time? I like history, art, science (as in, science or natural history museums), beautiful nature, and funky bookstores.
Okay, I *might* be traveling around then myself, but I put it on my calendar and we can coordinate when closer. As for things to do, the easy ones are the Georgia Aquarium and World of Coca Cola. There's also a lot of civil rights history things as David mentioned, as well as some Civil War era stuff. For science, there's the Fernbank Museum, although I've never been. For nature, you've got Botanical Gardens and the zoo as well. There is also a lot of nice hiking near the city, but it will be hot as hell.
The city shines with all the various Civil Rights museums / exhibits. I think MLK’s birth home in the Old Forth Ward will be re-opened by then. The Swan House is gorgeous. Nature is in short supply. It’s a pretty concretey city but the belt line is really cool for all of us transit heads.
Re-art scene … I’m not personally a fan of the High Muesum but check out the exhibits. You might be.
But if we don't do something about the underlying mechanism we will just see the same problem repeat in more places. It isn't some law of nature that when a city gets big enough or gets an A rated arts scene it becomes badly run and prevents construction that would keep the metro affordable.
I fear it is just a fundamental problem of people wanting to be and seem compassionate and the fact that you need a lot more evidence/argument to sound compassionate taking away a rule with a positive sounding motive than passing one.
But whatever the reason, if we don't figure out how to avoid turning every city that starts to grow into a failure this isn't a solution.
The idea of optimizing on city size is limited. Cities and towns are throughout history a fluctuating dynamic with different scaling factors. However there are many relevant factors in most city/town growth/decay trajectories that appear solid across time. First is human to human interaction and a second is a fluid exchange dynamic with the surrounding world at increasing scale as humanity has advanced. Many towns and cities initially grew up around ports but few port cities are today world ranking because of their port, but nearly every great city has excellent air travel connections to the rest of the world and one or more great Universities. When you need your fishing net repaired living in a small coastal village you can find someone to do it, when you need someone to work on your Quantum Computer a big city turns out to be better. Transportation flexibility can change the topography of optimum city size under any scheme, but there are many other channels, from cultural, local or larger, desire for/acceptance of things like housing density, daily human density, outdoor space, shared or exclusive, ... that feed into any city optimization for any person at any point in history. Cities are human choices. Scaling laws mean larger is better along some dynamics and the vibrancy and cost of a city is the sum over all dynamics. There have always been and will always be top world cities, but not always the same ones.
As a resident in a B-/C+ city (Panama City, FL), thank you for this. I've been frustrated by the discourse talking about the extremes for some time. While I think the trench warfare of zoning reform *should* happen, it seems politically this is a lot more difficult and zero-sum (people would move from other places to the super-star cities) than have another round of land-grant university development or targeted industry clustering in states. It seems the only places states have tried to do this are the rural areas where, let's face it, you aren't going to turn around with a tax grant for a 200-person new business in a 10,000-person town.
I've lived in Columbus almost my entire life, and it's interesting to read a well written and objective analysis of the city. It does seem to me that one factor that is often overlooked about Columbus and similar American cities is the role played by the university, in our case Ohio State University. I've often thought that a primary reason for the decline of Cleveland is simply the lack of a major university there. True, Case Western is an excellent school, but it's relatively small and also private. Cities such as Columbus, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Austin really have a leg up when it comes to attracting the likes of Intel and Anduril.
I’ve noticed that the people in areas tend to want to keep them as they are- and this tends to drive unaffordability. Paradoxically the way to keep the B city affordable might be to accelerate or at least not resist the change to a B+ or A- city
This seems like less a case for "B" cities and more a case for "A" cities to do better.
“Solid B cities might not have the MoMA, but they are likely to have good museums and local art scenes, a great brewery scene, a functional bike path, and a minor-league stadium.”
A common mistake, but few look for museums and art scenes before planning a move.
“Mid-sized hubs like Indianapolis can implement transformative urban policy by negotiating workable compromises and keeping the focus on practical projects that benefit lots of people — something large, coastal cities often fail to achieve.”
Very little explanation of why negotiation is a unique strength of mid sized cities
“These cities are small enough to try things, see the result, course-correct, and try again.”
Bigger cities could also course correct, importance of smallness not explained
“The central Ohio region is expected to reach a population of 3.15 million by 2050, adding approximately 726,000 new residents, with a substantial portion of that growth occurring in the next decade. “
Most projections are bullshit. Who predicted this? Why is it rigorous? If your point is people expect growth, best to say that directly
I think it's fair to say that I'm just experiencing grass is greenerism but I think it's very easy to live in a B city and only feel the loss. Its like hard to know how some of the benefits of better governance and more affordable housing really cash out for me as I can't like replay ten years time in another place. But I can compare my brief time living in super star international cities to my years living in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Orlando and think wow this is incredibly boring and uninteresting.
> state-level legislative threats that sought to ban dedicated transit lanes
It's one thing to not fund transit. Making transit illegal is a truly wild thing to do.
Thank you Halina for calling out our wonderful city of Columbus!
Thought: US paper tiger dynamic isn't completely made up. It's a pretty real thing, and it's grounded in (1) the political toxicity* of incurring casualties plus, I think, (2) increasingly limited scale of available ground combat troops.
It's often not possible to win wars SOLELY from the air. Which is probably one (among others) good reason not to start wars in the first place.
*To be clear, I personally don't believe the particulars of Iranian governance and weapons systems are worth a single American life. So I'm part of that toxicity.
Anyway, ground troops or TACO—which one?—seems to me the question before the nation—and its president—at our present moment.
I don't think paper tiger is at all accurate. Not wanting to take casualties for non essential conflicts shows wisdom not weakness.
Matt in his column talked about mistaking other countries' vital interests for our own, and I think that's the heart of the problem. I'm by no means an isolationist, and we clearly do have interests in stability far from our shores. But the further from our shores the less vital the interest and therefore the less wisdom in shedding our own blood.
Our clear military superiority kept the Iranians from trying any substantial attacks on US. That's deterrence. It didn't stop them from attacking everything or everybody, and it didn't stop them from making small attacks on us, but we can't pretend that we're going to love in a perfect world free of harm or worry. No matter how strong we are we will never be omnipotent.
>Not wanting to take casualties for non essential conflicts shows wisdom not weakness.<
I agree 100%. But that wisdom is a weakness if you elect to go to war with a regime that cannot be removed by air power alone.
Two different guests on Bulwark podcasts this week, David French and Jonah Goldberg, argued that now we're in it we have to keep going. Both times I had to take of my head phones and scream into the void, NO,NO WE DON'T, THAT'S MORONIC. Both commentators are super pro-Israel and I hope that's the only contingent that sees things this way.
TACO is just the dumbest meme ever at this point. The idiot dropped $50B with of bombs on over 2000 targets. Trump is now a neocon.
I'm going to Atlanta in August for a conference (yes, Atlanta in August; no, it wasn't my freaking idea to have the conference then). Any recommendations for what to see/do in my spare time? I like history, art, science (as in, science or natural history museums), beautiful nature, and funky bookstores.
When exactly? I'd be happy to meet up and complain about NIH if interested and the timing works out.
Yes, I’d be interested! August 6-7, probably with a day tacked on at the front or back.
(Yes, it is 6-7, no, I’m not pulling your leg. Whoever scheduled the conference clearly doesn’t have young children.) 😊
Okay, I *might* be traveling around then myself, but I put it on my calendar and we can coordinate when closer. As for things to do, the easy ones are the Georgia Aquarium and World of Coca Cola. There's also a lot of civil rights history things as David mentioned, as well as some Civil War era stuff. For science, there's the Fernbank Museum, although I've never been. For nature, you've got Botanical Gardens and the zoo as well. There is also a lot of nice hiking near the city, but it will be hot as hell.
The city shines with all the various Civil Rights museums / exhibits. I think MLK’s birth home in the Old Forth Ward will be re-opened by then. The Swan House is gorgeous. Nature is in short supply. It’s a pretty concretey city but the belt line is really cool for all of us transit heads.
Re-art scene … I’m not personally a fan of the High Muesum but check out the exhibits. You might be.
But if we don't do something about the underlying mechanism we will just see the same problem repeat in more places. It isn't some law of nature that when a city gets big enough or gets an A rated arts scene it becomes badly run and prevents construction that would keep the metro affordable.
I fear it is just a fundamental problem of people wanting to be and seem compassionate and the fact that you need a lot more evidence/argument to sound compassionate taking away a rule with a positive sounding motive than passing one.
But whatever the reason, if we don't figure out how to avoid turning every city that starts to grow into a failure this isn't a solution.
The idea of optimizing on city size is limited. Cities and towns are throughout history a fluctuating dynamic with different scaling factors. However there are many relevant factors in most city/town growth/decay trajectories that appear solid across time. First is human to human interaction and a second is a fluid exchange dynamic with the surrounding world at increasing scale as humanity has advanced. Many towns and cities initially grew up around ports but few port cities are today world ranking because of their port, but nearly every great city has excellent air travel connections to the rest of the world and one or more great Universities. When you need your fishing net repaired living in a small coastal village you can find someone to do it, when you need someone to work on your Quantum Computer a big city turns out to be better. Transportation flexibility can change the topography of optimum city size under any scheme, but there are many other channels, from cultural, local or larger, desire for/acceptance of things like housing density, daily human density, outdoor space, shared or exclusive, ... that feed into any city optimization for any person at any point in history. Cities are human choices. Scaling laws mean larger is better along some dynamics and the vibrancy and cost of a city is the sum over all dynamics. There have always been and will always be top world cities, but not always the same ones.
As a resident in a B-/C+ city (Panama City, FL), thank you for this. I've been frustrated by the discourse talking about the extremes for some time. While I think the trench warfare of zoning reform *should* happen, it seems politically this is a lot more difficult and zero-sum (people would move from other places to the super-star cities) than have another round of land-grant university development or targeted industry clustering in states. It seems the only places states have tried to do this are the rural areas where, let's face it, you aren't going to turn around with a tax grant for a 200-person new business in a 10,000-person town.
What is our most underrated city?
(Difficult question as it requires knowing how each city is generally rated, and people disagree on that.)
I’d vote Charleston, SC. That place is awesome and never gets brought up.