The Carmel-Dublin comparison would be interesting. I'd have to do more research on Dublin though, and I'm not sure I'll ever get the time to do it.

After reading all the comments, though, here's my two cents:

- OSU is definitely the closest thing to a brand that Cbus has (besides the nickname Cbus, which is cute but not much else). As someone else said, Columbusites are Buckeyes whether they like it or not. Growing up there, I never watched pro football, only college. The campus is beautiful in spots, and wonderfully grungy in others, like you'd expect. I've always been a fan of the grungy bits. And as far as culture goes, the Wexner center is fabulous.

Dublin IS Cbus' Carmel. A comparison would be interesting.

Easton, I think, is one of my most loathed parts of Columbus. I've often described it as the Disneyland of malls. It makes me sort of ill to be there for too long. I think a lot of it has to do with the architecture. They've gone a long way to make it look "nice" and pretty and colorful, but it all feels very temporary, like a movie set. Maybe someone more versed in city development would be able to tell me why I feel that way.

I agree that the Arena district, is, by comparison, one of the most successful new additions to the city. I hope that downtown continues to grow more vibrant, like Indy's is.

Besides High St, Grandview is a fun area for independent business and nice restaurants.

I wish that Columbus would make more effort to highlight all the little neighborhoods or districts they have, as Indy has done with its cultural districts. As noted in the post, this needs signage and other marketing, like visitor maps and business directories.

The convention center is nothing short of ugly; my father always called it The Architecht's Nightmare. My biggest gripe is that it looks okay, interesting, whatever, from the street, but from above (as you see it from the highway) or the back it looks like airplane hangers – awful.

I hope that new architecture and/or developments in the city are, above all else, AUTHENTIC. Be bold and crazy in design, but don't try to imitate – do your own thing. Or, be concious of local history and reflect on that. Better yet, just improve on what's already there. I would hate to see the city turn into a homogeneous landscape of faux "towne centres" trying to be something they never will be.

Much more rural?

The Midwest is full of cities built by manufacturing. Isn’t Indiana still the most industrial state?

The cultural and economic geography of the Midwest is too often bastardized. That said, debating the borders of the Midwest is fun. At least, I think it’s fun.

Don’t get me started on the cultural archipelagos of St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Those three cities defy regional labels.

JoeP

Culturally, Ohio is not Eastern, either. It’s really two countries – the Inland North, and the Midland. The Inland North consists of the areas settled by the Erie Canal – the Erie Canal towns in Upstate New York, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, and Milwaukee. It has a distinct accent that just doesn’t penetrate the more conservative cities to its south, like Columbus and Indy; meanwhile, St. Louis, which is very liberal, has adopted this accent pattern even though it’s on the Mississippi.

There is a dictionary definition of Midwest which, unfortunately, includes Ohio due to historic circumstances.

The modern connotation for “Midwest” has shifted further West and become much more rural than Ohio is.

I like to say that Ohio is the bastard love child of New Jersey and Tennessee. It is very northeastern in parts, very southern in parts, very Appalachian in others. Columbus is the odd place where these different cultures meet.

A responsible Governor would ban the word “Midwest” from the state employee’s handbook, put signs at the Indiana border welcoming people to the “Eastern United States” and doing whatever else needs to be done to do re-brand Ohio…well, honestly, anything else other than the Midwest. The word has become such a loaded pejorative.

Please…use something else.

On another note, I think it would be an excellent topic for discussion of why you think that if we do high speed rail in Indiana we should do it by using truly first rate technologies, while you believe Indianapolis’s foray into rail transit is ok using old technologies. (You may have addressed this previously and I may have just forgotten.) Why does top of the line apply in one case and not the other if our infrastructure is going to be one of our greatest selling points now and in the future?