jbcmh81

Here are the newly released metro GDP numbers for 2016, in millions. Cincinnati: $132,010 Columbus: $130,758 Cleveland: $129,440 Dayton: $40,572 Akron: $37,300 Toledo: $33,158 Youngstown: $19,966 Canton: $16,343 Change 2010-2016 in millions. Columbus: +$35,570 Cincinnati: +$24,943 Cleveland: +$23,895 Akron: +$8,082 Dayton: +$7,184 Toledo: +$6,267 Canton: +$2,483 Youngstown: +$2,463 Change 2015-2016 in millions. Columbus: +$5,564 Cincinnati: +$5,398 Cleveland: +$2,719 Akron: +$1,935 Dayton: +$998 Toledo: +$552 Youngstown: +$106 Canton: -$580 Only change in the ranking was that Columbus passed up Cleveland to become the state's 2nd largest metro GDP.

A couple things... how are they defining "Downtown" here? Also, Buffalo, Nashville, Pittsburgh and Baltimore are not Midwest cities.

Correct, the original city limits of Columbus, as of 1950, has had significant population decline also. That aside though, regardless how they got there, it's still growing. It did, yes. It lost about 55K people after 1960- still a far cry from how other cities hollowed out in that era. However, it's been growing since probably the mid-2000s, and added almost 6K people 2010-2015.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hyperloop-one-reveals-10-strongest-133034079.html So this idea of a Chicago-Columbus-Pittsburgh hyperloop route has been floating around for a while. It was one of originally hundreds of such proposed routes globally. Recently, Hyperloop One, the company currently testing the potential technology, narrowed down the choices to the top 10 strongest, and the Columbus route has made it to that exclusive group. While such a route would be years away at best, and funding for it is far from certain, the potential of this cannot be understated.

Looks promising, but I don't like the surface lots around the 2 main buildings. Easy to fill in later, but that's not walkable as is and looks like something you might see in southeast Florida. I also don't like the way the separate the residential portions from the other development north of the railroad tracks. I'd rather see the uses integrated a bit more.

I listened to it and honestly found it a little annoying. They must've mentioned how expensive building rail is 300 times, as if expense alone was the only reason why the city lacked rail transit. At no point was it mentioned that there continue to be cities without rail that are either currently building or have recently built rail systems, indicating they found a way to get it done despite the cost. Whether one likes rail or not, the city has to do much better than just the bus. Waiting around for autonomous cars or the hyperloop doesn't seem all that realistic.

I'm also hoping for DKG. Carter is forever on my hate list and I like the 3-way partnership. I think that just brings more possibilities in terms of scope and design.

I'm happy they didn't get the bid. I'm hoping the city selected something far more interesting architecturally.

Meh, I'm not all that impressed. They seem to have only just matched the bare minimum of what the city asked for. They have the few requested towers, but the majority of the development is all exactly the same height and boxy shape. It's basically the Arena District or Easton with a few towers. We've seen that already, let's see something different for Franklinton. I'd like to see much more variation in style and height. Not everything needs to be glass and/or brick, and not everything should be 5-6 stories. It's boring stuff, and looks like a planned neighborhood rather than having any organic feel. The peninsula is a blank slate. Going back to the same development styles again and again and again in Columbus has been stale for a while now. Think outside the box- literally.

Is it just me, or does it seem counterintuitive to want to slow traffic by adding medians while simultaneously widening the street? Widening tends to cause faster traffic speeds, so will that simply cancel out any effects from the medians?

Moving where? Just within the market or anywhere?

The Business First article said that 138 additional acres would be added to the first 62, and I imagine most of that would include the wooded area along te Scioto. Also, they talk about connecting the Heritage Trail in Hilliard to the Scioto Greenway through the park, and a perfect place for that would be the old railroad bridge at the Scioto River. I would love to see this happen eventually at the much more massive quarry sites along South High/23, perhaps as an extension of Scioto Grove.

That study has both Cleveland and Columbus at 0% of the population in the CBD...behind Indianapolis, San Jose, etc. How is that? The main problem with this article is that they're using an entire metro to show urbanity of the core city. That seems kind of dumb to me. They would be classifying villages, towns and cities in outer counties as "suburbs" or "exurbs" of the core city when they're clearly not. New Geography is VERY pro-suburb, and most of their articles skew towards that. This seems to be no different. If you were to believe them, even New York is more suburban than not.

Yeah, no natural light or windows, 1970's color combinations... yuck.

Everything I've heard suggests terrible quality. I'm not huge on all things modern anyway, but I still value something that's going to last longer than a year or two. And you can get cheap, modern stuff pretty much anywhere. I don't get the obsession/hype.

I still just don't get the appeal of IKEA, no matter how cheap it may be.

I feel like that thing was announced 17 years ago. Is that ever going to start?

Many of these articles use growth rates rather than aggregate totals, which I think is misleading, as exemplified by the Columbus article above. Just because some small town or rural county has a fast growth rate does not mean they're actually adding more people. It just means that their rate of % growth can look much higher than much larger, urban cities even as those urban cities add many times more people. Another thing to consider is that much of the suburban hype doesn't take into account real demand. For example, there is much more limited buildable space in the urban core than there is on some farmland. Because of that, regardless of how much demand there really is, only so much housing can be built, and it is often more expensive because there is less of it. A lot of people end up being forced into cheaper suburbs because of that. The headline of the NYT story is the same kind of misinformation, but then they go on to acknowledge that urban supply is likely the culprit: This combination of faster population growth in outlying areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people out to the suburbs. It’s a reminder that where people live reflects not only what they want — but also what’s available and what it costs. This particular article weighted the density of each tract by its population, so it's not really being skewed by low population ares with small absolute/large percentage increases. If you are talking about census tracts, I'm not sure how they did that when those numbers for 2016 won't be out until December. I'm not sure what exactly they looked at, to be honest, because it doesn't specifically say what areas they measured other than "urban vs. suburban" or overall metro densities. Metro densities shouldn't tend to go down so long as their is population growth. The only reason a metro density would decline is because additional, low-density counties were added, but metro boundaries haven't changed since 2013.

They were talking in terms of percentage increase. I know, but they were using that suggesting that those suburbs were destroying the city in growth, but it's actually the opposite. New Albany added less than 500 people last year, but because there are only 10K people, it can seem like it's booming. Columbus adding 22x that number means that the core city isn't doing as well?? That doesn't make sense to me.

Many of these articles use growth rates rather than aggregate totals, which I think is misleading, as exemplified by the Columbus article above. Just because some small town or rural county has a fast growth rate does not mean they're actually adding more people. It just means that their rate of % growth can look much higher than much larger, urban cities even as those urban cities add many times more people. Another thing to consider is that much of the suburban hype doesn't take into account real demand. For example, there is much more limited buildable space in the urban core than there is on some farmland. Because of that, regardless of how much demand there really is, only so much housing can be built, and it is often more expensive because there is less of it. A lot of people end up being forced into cheaper suburbs because of that. The headline of the NYT story is the same kind of misinformation, but then they go on to acknowledge that urban supply is likely the culprit: This combination of faster population growth in outlying areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people out to the suburbs. It’s a reminder that where people live reflects not only what they want — but also what’s available and what it costs.

Part of that article is wrong. Columbus did not 'grow' to 841,000 from 850,000-it increased to 860,000 and it moved ahead of Indy in the process. 'Columbus grew by 1.2 percent, or 9,771 people, for a total of 841,563.'...not correct. The 9,771 number is not right either. According to the updated numbers, the city went from 850,044 to 860,090, an July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016, an increase of 10,046. The city of Columbus alone grew more than every suburb combined in the entire 10-county metro. This is example of a disingenuous headline, as Columbus added far more people than any suburb. Columbus added 21x more people than Dublin, 22x more than New Albany and nearly 28x more than Grandview over that 1-year period.

Ugly and too short. Edwards is so bipolar with its projects. Sometimes they're really good, sometimes they are just awful. Nothing that gets built/proposed Downtown should be smaller than what you would see in Hilliard. I think that's a good starting point for Downtown development, especially on an important street.

I thought I remember reading that all such issues were worked out a long time ago. And even if not, they could still just say it's not moving forward and they are looking into alternatives. The "no comment" or "something's really going to happen this time!" stuff is crap. It's like the Wonderland reborn.

It's really annoying to me how Arshot operates with this. If the project is not happening, why not just say so? It's been years and nothing has happened. Everyone already knows it's not happening. It's unfair to the neighborhood that they try to keep this charade going instead of trying to come up with another redevelopment plan. This is why I worry about the Millennial Tower actually getting built considering it's the same company.

2 things... height is already being reduced and I remain very wary about Arshot being involved with their track record of announcing big projects only to see them completely disappear after several years of "updates". I don't have much hope for this one and won't believe it until there's a crane on site and steel is going up.