Topic: Columbus' "Short North" Ranks in Top 35 Best Neighborhoods to Retire

[noozer]

CNN/Money Magazine ranked the 35 Best Neighborhoods to Retire and the Short North in Columbus ranks 22 out of 35!

Columbus, OH
Best place to retire: Short North
Pros: Super-affordable, close to the university
Cons: Not much in the way of nature around Columbus, and the downtown is still pretty sleepy
Real estate: One-bedroom condos can be found for $175,000 or so. Two-bedroom rentals can be found for $1,500.

If you want to get back to city life in Columbus, skip downtown and go straight to Short North, an up and coming arts district. High Street, the main stretch, is lined with trees, galleries, funky restaurants and 17 beautiful lighted arches.

More below:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0710/gallery.bpretire.moneymag/22.html

[ColDayMan]

Up and coming?

[WalkerEvans]

Cons: Not much in the way of nature around Columbus, and the downtown is still pretty sleepy

Huh? Drive for 20-30 minutes in any direction from Columbus and you'll find plenty of nature. We've got tons of parkland too.

[mrnyc]

^as nature goes its not very exciting tho. in fact i would agree its a "con" too.

but i dont buy that article. the sn is mostly a post-collegiate young people place to live.

although it true college towns are attracting retirees, thats not columbus anymore, not by a long shot.

now if they would have said german village is great for older gay couples i would agree.

otherwise, i dont see any of cols or anywhere else in ohio as a top retiree hotspot. but hey if they want to say that its good press we will take it right?

[David]

NEVER take advice from magazines. Don't take business advice and don't live by b.s. in Psychology Today. Money Magazine is trash. They do articles on subjects they're not qualified to write about. I doubt they've ever been to the SN. I don't blame them for thinking so highly of it, but it's not really a place for retirees. I guess I would live there if I were retired but I'm not a typical person either. The "amenities" are more geared towards YPs and gays. I would argue that it's one of the top 35 places to live but I think they're wrong when they say its affordable. Not in real terms. Considering average wages in Columbus (which are probably average).

For an older person I'd probably reccommend Worthington in the suburbs and German Village in the inner city.

[noozer]

I go to lunch at least once a week in the Short North and I'm surprised at the number of older adults and empty nesters I see there, so maybe the article isn't that far off.

[WalkerEvans]

The Short North is full of expensive condos and restaurants. Don't old people just eat and sleep anyway? Sounds perfect if you ask me.

[David]

How many bingo halls in walking distance?!

[seanguy]

"The "amenities" are more geared towards YPs and gays."
anyone who has been to the short north in the last year and a half would know that most of the newer business to open are high end restaurants (great for older people), and lots of shops with high end shoes, clothes, dress clothes (some targeting the empty nesters in the downtown/central columbus area.) 

There is now only ONE gay store in the SN, and it is all the way at 5th and High (at the end of the SN near the OSU campus)  and don't expect that gay store to be open much longer.  There are still gay bars, but even those are now targeting the straight crowd.  The SN is now longer that gay, and many high end restaurants are opening in new retail spaces.

[kingfish out of water]

I swear this article is a reprint from The Onion.

[Columbo]

As much as I appreciate Money Magazine touting Columbus and the Short North, this survey is a real head-scratcher.  I know these surveys are inherently flawed, biased etc. - but even considering this, how does a retirement list top 10 end up looking like this?

1 - New York City
2 - New York City
3 - Chicago
4 - Chicago
5 - San Diego
6 - San Diego
7 - Washington D.C.
8 - Washington D.C.
9 - Portland
10 - Portland

The duplications are that two different neighborhoods in the same city were chosen. 

San Diego, sure.  Portland, okay.  But NYC, Chicago and DC?  All fine places to live, work and visit - but retire to?

And how about the number 18 pick of Downtown Detroit - with the following comments:

Best place to retire: Detroit - Downtown (18 out of 35)
Pros: New development downtown; a big-time buyer's market.
Cons: It's still got a long way to go.

"It's still got a long way to go"!  No kidding!  So does Youngtown, but I don't think I'd want grandma and grandpa living there!

This survey is just plain weird.  I'd go along with kingfish's Onion reprint idea.

[seanguy]

San Diego, sure.  Portland, okay.  But NYC, Chicago and DC?  All fine places to live, work and visit - but retire to?

Okay, if you read the intro to the listing, it says that the list is for people who do not think retiring means living by the beach or lounging at the pool side.  I think the magazine was trying to post a list that is reflective of places (larger cities as they say) that people maybe already live close by or in the metro of, that have "up and coming" or major gentrified areas that would be appealing to people nearing or in the age of retirement.  They were looking for areas for older people who want to be "in the city." 

However, it is just a little strange to have so much of the top 10 by neighborhoods in the same big cities (though they are the largest and most urban (Chicago, NY.)

[the pope]

I swear this article is a reprint from The Onion.

especially the part where downtown detroit made the list.