jbcmh81

Here are the maps for the county % of state Democratic vote totals.

That could easily be corrected by breaking down the scale into smaller increments. I used a rather large scale because, as you have noted, the differences are wide between counties. I also used a larger scale because using 20 different colors gets a bit confusing and some of the trends, particularly in overall regions of the state, get lost. In any case, I started this thread with the intention of examining the trends from several different angles. This was just the first set based on total votes. In future updates, maybe you'll find other variations more useful.

Do you mean % increase by county as a total of the state vote?

Finally, a couple of long-term change maps. First 2000-2012, and the second 1980-2012.

5th is 2008-2012. First map is the 2012 election. Second is the change from 2008-2012.

Fourth is 2000-2008. First is the vote margin of victory for the 2004 election. Second is the change from 2000-2004. Third is 2008. Fourth is the change from 2004-2008.

The third set of maps is 1996-2000. The first map is the vote margin of victory for the 1996 election. The second is the vote margin of victory for 2000. Third is the change from 1996 to 2000, either more Republican or more Democratic.

Here is the long-term change from 1980 to 1992, either to more Republican or more Democratic. Some changes over this period include Franklin County gradually going from strong Republican to light Republican, Northeast Ohio gradually turning more blue overall, and Cincinnati staying strongly Republican through the period.

Next set is 1988-1992. The first is the vote margin of victory for the 1988 election. Second is the vote margin of victory for the 1992 election. Third is the change from 1988 to 1992, either more Republican or more Democrat.

The first map is a vote margin-of-victory map by county for the 1980 election. Second is a 1984 vote margin of victory map. The third is how those margins changed from 1980-1984, either more Republican or more Democratic and by how much.

I can't believe Westerville City Code calls for 5-units per acre and can only grant up to 8. That's crazy low density development. Has Westerville not gotten the message about development desirability changes?

Actually, from another forum's poster who attended a meeting of the commission related to this project, there was significant discussion about doing studies on the potential to save and renovate the building. Apparently there have already been studies on the building that suggest the facade has been damaged and there's not much left of the historical character inside either.

"The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street." You were attacking those of us that feel the empty lots should be developed before tearing down other structures. You state that the developer wants to be on High Street, and imply that the only way to do so would be to destroy buildings. And of course they can't build on land they don't own, but at one point in time they decided to purchase the lot they do own instead of the other. You're implying that every lot along High and in the city is up for grabs, but many of them are privately owned or are owned by other developers who have yet to formulate specific plans. This is not Sim City where you can just build wherever you want at any time. The likely scenario was that they wanted to build near the park on High and this was the plot that was available at the time for purchase.

There are parking lots on High Street, one block over. And? The company doesn't own the lots to develop them. They can only build on what they own. From what I understand the thin lot between High and the City Center garage may have plans drawn up for development, but it hasn't been announced yet.

Good point.

It does if you compare a metro's sprawl with overall its population gain (or lack of). But we have threads more appropriate for this discussion. Well, that gets into subjective areas. What constitutes sprawl? How is it measured? Any development outside city limits? Population density measurements? Type of buildings? The numbers I saw measured by exurban development and population, so generally outside of city limits. For those, Ohio's cities, even Columbus, had relatively low sprawl levels compared to many areas of the country. Different measurements may find different results. It's an interesting discussion, but you're right, probably better reserved for other threads.

Ohio does not have a sprawl problem, at least not in the way that could be defined as runaway, large-scale sprawl. I've seen maps and %'s and Ohio cities have nothing on the Sun Belt or West. Cleveland actually had the lowest level in the state. Perhaps you have a very different definition of sprawl. The "Rust Belt" refers to an ever-shrinking set of specific metros and doesn't even encompass whole regions, nor is it reserved for Great Lakes cities. Population loss really doesn't have anything to do with the term, anyway.

I know it's fashionable to pick on Detroit, but saying any city should emulate it may be the strangest comment ever made. More resources in what, exactly? Ohio has the Great Lakes access too, it has a sh*tload of natural gas and coal, and Ohio adds more to the national GDP than Michigan does. Michigan's biggest exports for a long time now have been terrible news and Forbes 10 Worst lists. You're just way off base here.

Yes, because the government of Michigan has certainly helped Highland Park, Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Benton Harbor, Muskegon, Midland, Lansing (oy vey!), Jackson...uhmmm...and uh... It...does? All the "tourist" towns of Michigan have generally always been nice (Traverse City, Holland/Grand Haven, Mackinaw, etc). And the fact that most of the signed petitions are coming from Michigan should tell you something: Desperation Ohio's tourism industry makes more than twice what Michigan does annually. It's not even close. Apparently, Michigan doesn't know wtf its doing despite the nonsensical "Pure Michigan" ads.

It's actually somewhat of an upgrade from the 2nd set of renderings, believe it or not.

The urban core is not at all synonymous with 'within 270'. I think it is awesome that Columbus is adding residential to downtown, and I realize as a perspective vs. now it sounds good, but having 10,000 people in 2020 is still an embarrassing number for a city of this size. That's why I mentioned that the vast majority of the 8000 or so were within the 1950 boundaries, which most certainly IS the urban core. I just don't see the point in focusing on the negative. It's going in the right direction and quickly. It's going to take time to build up the population, though I think a lot of people believe that the Downtown population used to be significantly higher and it's just not the case. I once read a Dispatch article that stated about 30,000 people lived Downtown at the peak, but they must've been using a very broad definition. When I checked the census tracts all the way back to the 1930s, the peak population I found in the CBD was about 13,000, or roughly double what it is now. That number will easily be surpassed in the next 10-15 years, if not sooner. I just don't think the situation is as bad as suggested. Maybe it was at one time, but now?

I think as long as we're adding residential, that's the important part. More people will ultimately lead to more projects down the line and all those ugly surface lots will gradually disappear. But if we only add residential to locations that involve tearing down existing structures, it will take an extremely long time to fill in the surface lots. It is good that we are adding residential, but as it is now the downtown area population is very low for the size of the area. The official borders of downtown has what, just over 5,000 residents for 1.8 sq. miles? The population could increase five times over and still probably wouldn't be able to completely fill in the parking lots, especially if you are hoping for more than six story buildings. For the two census tracts that make up Downtown, or at least the CBD, the 2010 Census had the population just over 6,000. With the pace of announced or ongoing project, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rise to 9 or 10,000 by 2020. There have been about 8,000 residential units under construction or announced with new projects near the urban core in the past year (within 270), the majority of which have been within the 1950 city boundaries. Downtown really didn't start gaining momentum until about 2002-2003, and of course the recession slowed things down quite a bit. The population at one time was just over 1,000 people, so it has come a long way.

It's still very very bland, especially the park-side rendering. It's only marginally better than the older renderings. Beyond the new residential units and ground-floor retail, I'm pretty disappointed by this project overall. There was so much more potential for this site, and given the tax breaks and other city help, they could've (and should've been obligated) to do so much more. Compared to what may go in across the street, CC Apartments look like Soviet-era public housing.

Metro Industry % Recovery from Respective Recession Bottom to October 2012 Civilian Labor Force Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 81.1% 2. Cincinnati: 53.5% 3. Youngstown: 20.3% 4. Akron: 19.6% 5. Cleveland: 6.0% 6. Toledo: 3.7% 7. Dayton: 0.0% October was lowest for Dayton. Employment Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 81.4% 2. Cincinnati: 62.1% 3. Dayton: 52.0% 4. Youngstown: 47.1% 5. Cleveland: 43.2% 6. Akron: 39.9% 7. Toledo: 39.7% Unemployment Recovery, best to worst 1. Cleveland: 93.5% 2. Toledo: 87.9% 3. Dayton: 86.2% 4. Akron: 86.1% 5. Youngstown: 80.9% 6. Columbus: 79.5% 7. Cincinnati: 70.7% Unemployment Rate Drop, best to worst. 1. Toledo: -48.9% 2. Akron: -48.7% 3. Dayton: -46.8% 4. Youngstown: -45.2% 5. Columbus: -43.7% 6. Cincinnati: -41.1% 7. Cleveland: -37.8% Non-Farm Jobs Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 84.3% 2. Akron: 57.5% 3. Cincinnati: 49.4% 4. Cleveland: 47.0% 5. Dayton: 42.7% 6. Youngstown: 38.7% 7. Toledo: 34.4% Mining/Logging/Construction Recovery, best to worst. 1. Akron: 58.8% 2. Youngstown: 44.2% 3. Dayton: 43.8% 4. Cleveland: 35.7% 5. Cincinnati: 34.9% 6. Columbus: 31.5% 7. Toledo: 26.1% Manufacturing Recovery, best to worst. 1. Cincinnati: 62.6% 2. Akron: 47.0% 3. Youngstown: 37.0% 4. Toledo: 32.8% 5. Cleveland: 22.1% 6. Dayton: 20.2% 7. Columbus: 2.3% Trade/Transportation/Utilities Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 40.9% 2. Cincinnati: 40.3% 3. Youngstown: 26.3% 4. Cleveland: 24.3% 5. Akron: 16.1% 6. Toledo: 13.4% 7. Dayton: 11.8% Professional and Business Services Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 98.6% 2. Youngstown: 82.1% 3. Cleveland: 73.7% 4. Akron: 69.5% 5. Toledo: 67.2% 6. Cincinnati: 63.1% 7. Dayton: 58.2% Financial Activities Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 57.6% 2. Akron: 45.5% 3. Cincinnati: 43.1% 4. Youngstown: 25.0% 5. Dayton: 13.9% 6. Toledo: 7.7% 7. Cleveland: 5.7% Health and Education GROWTH, January 2007-October 2012, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 29.6% 2. Cleveland: 13.5% 3. Akron: 11.5% 4. Dayton: 9.6% 5. Cincinnati: 9.3% 6. Youngstown: 6.7% 7. Toledo: 5.6% Leisure and Hospitality Recovery, best to worst. 1. Dayton: 110.2% 2. Columbus: 86.1% 3. Toledo: 77.6% 4. Cincinnati: 76.0% 5. Youngstown: 57.4% 6. Akron: 32.6% 7. Cleveland: 26.3% Other Services Recovery, best to worst. 1. Columbus: 150.0% 2. Cincinnati: 42.9% 3. Akron: 41.7% 4. Dayton: 36.8% 5. Youngstown: 30.0% 6. Cleveland: 20.5% 7. Toledo: 15.4% Government Recovery, best to worst. 1. Dayton: 120.8% 2. Akron: 100.0% 3 Youngstown: 60.0% 4. Cincinnati: 51.3% 5. Toledo: 44.9% 6. Columbus: 29.6% 7. Cleveland: 18.3%

Not going to do a full update this month. Instead I'm going to do some general stats and recession recovery update. October Ohio Unemployment Rate: 6.9% -0.1% from September Metro Unemployment Rates, best to worst, and change from September 1. Columbus: 5.4% -0.3% 2. Akron: 5.9% -0.2% 3. Cleveland: 6.1% -0.4% 4. Cincinnati: 6.3% -0.1% 5. Dayton: 6.6% -0.3% 7. Toledo: 6.9% -0.3% 8. Youngstown: 7.4% -0.2% County Unemployment Rates, best to worst, and change from September 1. Franklin: 5.5% -0.3% 2. Summit: 5.9% -0.3% 3. Cuyahoga: 6.2% -0.8% 4. Hamilton: 6.2% -0.2% 5. Mahoning: 6.6% -0.3% 6. Montgomery: 6.9% -0.4% 7. Lucas: 7.3% -0.3% City Unemployment Rates, best to worst, and change from September 1. Columbus: 5.5% -0.3% 2. Akron: 6.5% -0.3% 3. Cincinnati: 6.8% -0.1% 4. Cleveland: 7.9% -1.0% 5. Dayton: 8.0% -0.3% 6. Toledo: 8.0% -0.2% 7. Youngstown: 8.6% -0.2%