Columbus troubling lack of sidewalks, poor walkability

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Yes, absolutely those are examples of urban neighborhoods, and apparently you didn't read what I said.

Let met quote the relevant part you missed:
It's built much like 99% of American cities are- with an urban core surrounded by sprawl.

I literally said that cities have an urban core, which is where those images were taken from- practically in the middle of Cleveland and Cincinnati's downtown. Columbus has this too.
I would like to believe that you don't actually think, however, that the only type of neighborhood that can count as "urban" is the literal downtown of a city. Maybe you should give you definition of what you think defines "urban" to you. Is it building height? Density? Walkability? Access to transit? To what standard?

Let's try an exercise. Which of the following images are urban and which aren't? I won't make it easy by adding obviously urban images from downtown, but instead images of other types of places.
First up, we have a single-family-dominated neighborhood with small lots built 100+ years ago. Built on a grid. Population density is medium to high (Around 8000PPSM) And yes, sidewalks. Relatively low diversity, bus transit access nearby.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aBVJhpQ4oTmJbmvi6

Next, here's a mid-late 20th Century, single-family neighborhood. Not on a grid. Medium to high density (About 7300PPSM). Very diverse population. Sidewalks. Bus transit access nearby.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/j8BKqEfJqP96veAy6

Here's one a bit different. A very stroady-looking main road surrounded by neighborhoods of medium density (Close to 5500-6000PPSM), small lots, a gridded street network, historic buildings, higher diversity, bus transit access with BRT coming soon.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5Qby6jZ6ouuRHthZ7

So you have 3 neighborhood views, and all of them have elements of what most people would say represents "urban", but are they in your view?

My bar for urban is pretty low-roads that transit can access, lack of massive rural fields within city limits, and sidewalks. I know Columbus struggles with at least two of those.

This thread again illustrates the textbook Columbus dodge.

Someone points out that Columbus lacks a bare minimum urban feature.

The rebuttal is usually some version "oh you mean like pretty much every city outside of New York" to imply that 2 million population metro areas without central train stations is typical.

There are a lot of mid sized metro areas that might not have great mass transit, but they have something.

Then there is Columbus.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

This thread again illustrates the textbook Columbus dodge.

Speak on it man, speak on it...

[PerryMason614]

Cincinnati has a choo choo that cost several hundred million dollars, it goes nowhere, nobody uses it and last I heard the city is complaining that they have to sell the water plant to fund their pensions.

Like it or not, the books have to balance.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Jimmy hates Columbus and never misses an opportunity to mention all the ways that's true. Ironic to be accusing others of having a schtick.

you’re pretty tiresome too. how is it me hating when finally we have a dispatch article about this? people notice this. and it really sucks. this is why there is an article about just how bad it is for walking. its objective. why so sensitive? why do facts hurt you so? some of us want better and no, this isn’t cutting it. i’m glad you are happy with mediocrity though.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

My bar for urban is pretty low-roads that transit can access, lack of massive rural fields within city limits, and sidewalks. I know Columbus struggles with at least two of those.

This thread again illustrates the textbook Columbus dodge.

Someone points out that Columbus lacks a bare minimum urban feature.

The rebuttal is usually some version "oh you mean like pretty much every city outside of New York" to imply that 2 million population metro areas without central train stations is typical.

There are a lot of mid sized metro areas that might not have great mass transit, but they have something.

Then there is Columbus.

these people are physically incapable of anytime of critique. anyone who visits columbus for any amount of time outside of the center most 2-3 square miles will notice just how hostile the place is for walking. and yet cheech and his ilk can’t even admit this and talk about what needs to happen, what’s in the works, etc. nope, i just hate columbus for no reason whatsoever.

[bjimmy24]

for the record, i’m excluding perrymason from my previous statement. i actually think he sees things as they are in columbus, he just says “and that’s a good thing” whereas i would like it to change. cheech and others straight up deny that any of these things even exist and want to **** on your leg and tell you it’s raining.

[PerryMason614]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

for the record, i’m excluding perrymason from my previous statement. i actually think he sees things as they are in columbus, he just says “and that’s a good thing” whereas i would like it to change. cheech and others straight up deny that any of these things even exist and want to **** on your leg and tell you it’s raining.

That's true. I'm less doctrinaire about things than my comments sometimes would lead people to believe, but what fun would boring comments be?

However, at the heart of it all, I'm a realist who doesn't look at things with rose colored glasses.

I do wish we had more connectivity where we could get to more places walking or riding with bikes.

At the same time, nobody wants strangers coming through their neighborhoods, so these issues need to be balanced. I'm all for sidewalks on heavily traveled roads. I'm all for dedicated multi-use paths, setback from busy roads. I'm not sure that individual subdivisions and neighborhoods need to be connected. The last thing you want is a situation like what you see in the Northland area, where a lot of through traffic goes through those residential areas.

If I were building Columbus from blank slate, of course I would leave corridors open for things like bike paths and trains. I didn't think we needed trains up until now and maybe I still don't, but I don't think it's a bad idea to start laying in the groundwork for these kinds of things

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

My bar for urban is pretty low-roads that transit can access, lack of massive rural fields within city limits, and sidewalks. I know Columbus struggles with at least two of those.

This thread again illustrates the textbook Columbus dodge.

Someone points out that Columbus lacks a bare minimum urban feature.

The rebuttal is usually some version "oh you mean like pretty much every city outside of New York" to imply that 2 million population metro areas without central train stations is typical.

There are a lot of mid sized metro areas that might not have great mass transit, but they have something.

Then there is Columbus.

The first one doesn't make much sense given that transit, even in cities that have relatively great systems, don't access most roads. That's not a standard any urban planner or transit planner uses- it's more like reasonable access to transit lines, not having it directly in front of all homes. That would be impossible. Or are you just saying gridded streets?
Does Columbus actually have a lot of "massive rural fields" within city limits? I can think of really just a few areas- such as around OSU airport, and around OSU's west campus that is used for its agricultural studies, research, etc. A lot of that is now getting filled in with the "Carmenton" development, though.
The sidewalk one is interesting because it would suggest that you think suburban and exurban areas that happen to have sidewalks count as urban, which would be a very low bar, indeed. Practically non-existent.

Columbus has transit, just not the specific transit you think it should.

You didn't really answer anything I asked. Was that a "dodge"?

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Dude, leave the red herrings and straw man logic fallacies out of the equation. Funny though, I've only lived in Ohio about 14 years, you might have been in middle or high school back then, but Ohio is simply not the state to compare big cities. Cincinnati and Cleveland, with Cleveland being larger and more developed, are the only bright spots...and both cities have sidewalk outside their urban cores...dag bruh...60% of cbus is missing sidewalks. That baffles me because I have 30 years experience in the construction industry and used to frame the typical mcmansion sprawl-a-rama type affairs one can find in most suburbs in America, and they had sidewalks. Used to do a ton of concrete work...sidewalks aren't an anomaly restricted to downtowns there, buddy. I mean, they're pretty common.

What "red herrings and straw man logic fallacies" did I use? Be specific, because your accusation makes it seem like you have no idea what those things are.

Cincinnati
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SAQ5YkB4wJvF3Drf8
Coral Springs
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x5omTAVBSMFqdbU58
Houston
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NYv6rFxW3dS3HAZ86
OKC
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qzNR4xxQsK5Y9BeZ8
Nashville
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2gatYEkSayfbjPK79
Etc. Etc.
Yes, but only Columbus has this issue.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by PerryMason614

Cincinnati has a choo choo that cost several hundred million dollars, it goes nowhere, nobody uses it and last I heard the city is complaining that they have to sell the water plant to fund their pensions.

Like it or not, the books have to balance.

Weird, because roads don't pay for themselves. How do you balance the books with them?