jbcmh81

I don't think this is true. The city has far more census tracts with growing minority populations than it does a growing white population. Majority white tracts are in decline citywide as most are becoming much more racially diverse. Racially integrated tracts grew from just 2 in 1990 to 98 in 2015, a 4800% increase. In 1990, 153 tracts were at least 90% white, but that number had fallen to just 46 in 2015.

Madison County doesn't really have much going on and is furthest from Columbus city limits. Even western Franklin County is pretty empty past 270. I can say "semi-rural Franklin County" with a straight face. I actually think the fact that the Big Darby is so protected prevents sprawl from moving in that direction and keeps Madison County stagnant versus all the other surrounding counties to Columbus.

Madison has had a very small loss overall since 2010, not one of the highest in the state by any means. Interesting to see that Indianapolis' home county lost population. That's bad news for Indianapolis considering the city includes most of Marion County. City estimates won't be out until May. Nationally, it seems that the majority of cities, even in Sun Belt areas, saw year-over-year growth rate declines. Of course, this could merely be a function of the estimates themselves rather than any real change.

And yet NEO had one of the largest moves FOR the GOP in the last election, based at least in part on the idea that Trump would restore manufacturing to prior glory. It doesn't seem like the message is really getting out on how this is a losing proposition.

:? This is what they thought was "historic"? That's by far the most underwhelming proposal for the site of them all, even versus the rejected ones. Maybe if it was 10x taller, sure, it would be historic for the city, but that is just embarrassing. Even if this was just the initial proposal and they pulled it because even they knew it was underwhelming compared to other proposals, I can't imagine that they altered it so much that it competes with the 30+ story that was proposed. I've said it before but NRI, for as many resources as it has, plays it entirely safe/boring more than any other developer in the city. Whatever they come back with, I don't think it'll exceed 12 stories.

I continue to find the parking complaints ironic. Downtown, where there are at least 40,000 parking spots and 40% of the land is used for parking, retail consistently struggles outside of maybe a small section of Gay Street. When the Short North had tons more parking, its retail corridor was full of holes and population in the area was falling. Complaining about a lack of parking for Gallery Hop is like complaining that you can't find a spot close to a store at Easton on Black Friday. 99% of the time, it's relatively easy to find a spot in the Short North, especially after the new garages were built. God forbid anyone have to walk more than 100 feet- or *gasp* a few blocks- to find a spot off High. I'm not sure what people think is going to happen with the SN parking situation. There is only so much room for parking, and all of the new development projects have included parking, so they're not really adding to that problem. You either tear stuff down for more garages/lots and lose some of the vibrancy/popularity of the area and therefore decrease demand for the parking you just built, or you accept that this is an urban neighborhood with limited space. If your business plan needs a drive-thru, the SN is probably not going to work out for you. If you need to park 10 feet from the entrance to a restaurant, maybe you should stay in Hilliard. This is just how urban neighborhoods work. Simply put, there is never again going to be a time when parking is cheap and abundant in the Short North. Can't handle it, stay away. I'm willing to say that Whit's didn't survive because it doesn't have the name that Jeni's does, and people are willing to stand in that line. Parking is like building onto a road, people will fill to the capacity that it provides. However, to say that parking is an easy task any Friday or Saturday is a joke. Non-residence of the Short North are unable to park on the majority of the side streets, the garages fill up quickly and valet zones take up valuable space on High Street. I've never been unable to find a spot, but I have looked for a spot for close to an hour at times. Unfortunately parking is something that Columbus has to have, it has to be built into new developments, because adding 100+ new residents to the neighborhood makes it that much harder for non-residence to find a place to park and patronize the restaurants, bars, and shops in the community. I was there for Gallery Hop in November and at 6:30pm found the new garage off of Goodale mostly empty. It wasn't super warm out or anything, but it was still busy. I've never had trouble finding a spot relatively close to where I wanted to be. At worst, I'll park Downtown and take the C-Bus... which is free. I have no idea why more people don't do that. Or use Uber, or the bike-share. The point is that there are options for urban and suburban residents alike to be able to enjoy the neighborhood without stressing about parking. Parking IS being built for new development. New residents in apartment buildings aren't taking extra spots, as new development often includes more spots than the lots they're replacing. It's not the new projects or their residents that are the issue. The issue is that you're just not going to have enough in the exact spot everyone who comes into the neighborhood from elsewhere wants it to be. It's literally impossible without destroying the fabric of the neighborhood. And we have plenty of historic proof that parking has nothing to do with vibrancy. Cities tried that before, in the 1950s and 1960s, and it failed spectacularly. Yes, the city should get better transit, but even without it, there are still options for people. They just don't want to walk or get out of their cars.

I continue to find the parking complaints ironic. Downtown, where there are at least 40,000 parking spots and 40% of the land is used for parking, retail consistently struggles outside of maybe a small section of Gay Street. When the Short North had tons more parking, its retail corridor was full of holes and population in the area was falling. Complaining about a lack of parking for Gallery Hop is like complaining that you can't find a spot close to a store at Easton on Black Friday. 99% of the time, it's relatively easy to find a spot in the Short North, especially after the new garages were built. God forbid anyone have to walk more than 100 feet- or *gasp* a few blocks- to find a spot off High. I'm not sure what people think is going to happen with the SN parking situation. There is only so much room for parking, and all of the new development projects have included parking, so they're not really adding to that problem. You either tear stuff down for more garages/lots and lose some of the vibrancy/popularity of the area and therefore decrease demand for the parking you just built, or you accept that this is an urban neighborhood with limited space. If your business plan needs a drive-thru, the SN is probably not going to work out for you. If you need to park 10 feet from the entrance to a restaurant, maybe you should stay in Hilliard. This is just how urban neighborhoods work. Simply put, there is never again going to be a time when parking is cheap and abundant in the Short North. Can't handle it, stay away.

We have people constantly arguing that Columbus' urban core doesn't need height or residents. I am always more shocked when a project ISN'T being reduced in size. I hate to say it, but the city continues to act like it's about 10x smaller... a cowtown. Parking over walkability, mediocrity over creativity, suburban over urban, cars over transit, low over high density. SSDD.

Just checked 777 Neil Avenue on historicaerials.com and that's correct. Also, the original plaza wasn't there in in 1957, but appears in the 1963 aerial photo. The original plaza is still there in the 1994 aerial as well, but then the new plaza is seen after that. I love that website. I use it all the time in helping to determine the fate of historic buildings for my pages.

When they're replaced, it won't be for 3-4 stories.

I think ever project like that should include a retail element. Otherwise, a positive.

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do. This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care? I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city. There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there. The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree. So you're worried about how this tower may adversely affect traffic and parking availability? So no, you are actually demonstrating the very opposite of what a dense, walkable neighborhood is. Parking is difficult in truly vibrant neighborhoods because there is less physical space used for parking. Instead, it is used for residential units, offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, parks, etc. It is NOT used for another 10-story parking garage. Have you seen Front Street? There are an abundance of parking spaces, but it's completely dead. Even with the addition of a few residential projects down by Main Street, the majority of that stretch will continue to be dead regardless of the hour. Yet you're arguing that what the AD needs is more parking rather than people and things to do. And you think that is an example of your understanding of walkability? Come on. And DC is not Columbus. There is no danger in the next 50 years of Columbus reaching anywhere close to DC or SF or NYC or Chicago average density, even if that entire time, there were 30+ story towers going up. Downtown is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the entire city. Most of the suburbs have tracts that are 2-5x more dense. That's pathetic. There is plenty of room to grow, and plenty of ways to make it a true destination. Sorry that parking is your primary concern, but that's not what makes a city, sorry. That is where you lack any reading comprehension. I never once said I was concerned about parking and I want that lot gone and have stated it several times. My primary concern was congestion because of the size of the streets and roads in the area. As a matter of fact I wouldn't expect this project to even have parking involved. However when it involves residential it has to have parking because you cannot put that many people in one area in a city of our size and not expect someone to have a car. And you're calling me crazy, what suburb of Columbus is 5x as dense as downtown!? I included traffic in my response, and you're not disproving the point. Traffic/parking should be the LAST concern when addressing the concept of urban walkability, not a primary one. You're never going to be able to build enough auto-centric infrastructure to keep traffic minimal and parking abundant and cheap and yet at the same time, create a pedestrian-friendly, walkable environment full of dense development. That's just not realistic. The Short North has a big parking problem (according to some, although I've never had a particular problem with it), but it still continues to thrive, arguably more every passing year, even as public lots continue to be lost to development. There have been some garages built, but there are definitely fewer places to park now than 5-10-15 years ago. Why do you think that is? The area of Tract 30, which includes everything north of Broad Street Downtown, had a density of about 2900. There are suburbs with tracts with 10-12K density. So more like up to 4x, my bad. There are almost no other urban tracts in the core that have such a low population density. The area south of Broad is not much better, although it should improve dramatically with all the residential projects around High and Main and High and Front.

Exactly. The #1 question that continues to hold back Columbus is "Shouldn't we be making it easier to drive and park?" #2 is "And where will the parking lot/garage go?" #3 is now "Why build transit when we can just use a technology not tested on the large scale based on the car?"

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do. This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care? I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city. There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there. The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree. So you're worried about how this tower may adversely affect traffic and parking availability? So no, you are actually demonstrating the very opposite of what a dense, walkable neighborhood is. Parking is difficult in truly vibrant neighborhoods because there is less physical space used for parking. Instead, it is used for residential units, offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, parks, etc. It is NOT used for another 10-story parking garage. Have you seen Front Street? There are an abundance of parking spaces, but it's completely dead. Even with the addition of a few residential projects down by Main Street, the majority of that stretch will continue to be dead regardless of the hour. Yet you're arguing that what the AD needs is more parking rather than people and things to do. And you think that is an example of your understanding of walkability? Come on. And DC is not Columbus. There is no danger in the next 50 years of Columbus reaching anywhere close to DC or SF or NYC or Chicago average density, even if that entire time, there were 30+ story towers going up. Downtown is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the entire city. Most of the suburbs have tracts that are 2-5x more dense. That's pathetic. There is plenty of room to grow, and plenty of ways to make it a true destination. Sorry that parking is your primary concern, but that's not what makes a city, sorry.

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods. It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size. Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

If we are talking about a single one, sure, but we are not. We're talking about adding to the collective. It's not some tower out in a field. It has far more potential to add localized vibrancy than some 2-5 story ever would, and it's not even close.

I know and understand that it is not "dense" per se, but it is compact and does not need 1,000 permanent residents. I think the city is playing this wrong and should focus on this being an entertainment district is basically all that I've said. I live and love living in walkable neighborhoods, currently that is IV for me. I've lived in the suburbs for only one year of my 10 in Columbus. I again view the area in which the North Market is located as an entertainment district period. I think once the Park Street Complex is redeveloped into hotel and office space it will spur development of the flat lots behind it into hopefully more residential then that will create your dream of an actual walkable neighborhood in that area. This particular space however should not be the one to do that. You can't just throw sh*t at a wall and expect it to stick, this tower is proverbial sh*t and won't get built in my opinion. Just like the tower on the convention center did not get built. You simply don't get the concept of walkability. A city full of single-use development can be densely built, but there would be no real walkability. Walkability requires a mixed-use development pattern. This is how buildings were built 100 years ago, with apartments, offices and retail. People don't just work in the area, or go to restaurants in the area, but they actually live there too. Saying that the city doesn't need 1000 new residents is frankly, asinine. Of course this area needs residents. Residents increase the buying power of a neighborhood, therefore increase retail options, which in turn make the area more attractive to offices, entertainment and other amenities. It's all connected and feeds off each other. A solely entertainment district would not be vibrant at all times, only during events. That's not what makes for a good, walkable neighborhood. Retail doesn't do well in such environments and the streets would be largely dead otherwise. The Arena District needs residents. So does all of Downtown. And it needs a LOT more of them. The reason the proposals at the convention center did not get built had nothing to do with the area being some kind of entertainment-only district where such a project wouldn't work. That is ridiculous. It didn't get built likely because the convention center's commission didn't want hotel competition so soon after the completion of the publicly-financed one they built across from it. That was probably one of the worst decisions ever made.

Here is Franklin County's density based on recently-released census tract population estimates. The vast majority of the county's census tracts increased in population and density. There are far more tracts growing now than during the 2000s. Also, the maps reiterate that Columbus has greater density spread out across the area than most people think. http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=5954

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back it up? Because I've seen nothing about "empty land" elsewhere in Columbus due to companies and people moving downtown. If anything, with 25K people/year moving to Columbus, increasing jobs, and increasing interest in people already here living downtown, developers should be building far higher than they are. Columbus' Downtown is larger than Cleveland's and Cincinnati's combined. It is a LOT of land. And if vacancy rates were high or population growth was stagnant or low, maybe your point would make more sense. Neither of those things is true, though. Residential vacancy is very low throughout Central Ohio, let alone just in the city or Downtown. Both the city and metro are growing the fastest they have in 50 years. A single 30+ story mixed-use tower (with maybe 100-250 units) is not going to saturate the market and kill projects in other parts of the city. Consider that that architectural ugly duckling HighPoint was the equivalent of a 30-story and yet since then, there have been multiple other projects to start construction or be proposed within a block of it- most of them not on existing surface lots.

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower. Why? It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work. Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case. A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area. It's not just about the current state, but the future as well. I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is. They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal. It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were. Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful. Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say. Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late. They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location. In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise. Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that. Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones. We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it. The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage. I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces. A thousand times this! I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes! If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown. Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential. It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide. It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential. Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold? You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix. I'm sorry, your argument is that the city might get too dense? My gosh, don't ever go to NYC or Chicago, your head might explode! In all seriousness, I've lived downtown for 16 years now, and I would hardly call traffic by the North Market or in the Short North gridlocked, not by any stretch of the imagination. And increased density is actually a good thing, by any measure. Will there be days where it's kinda crazy down there? Sure, and I bet every single vendor in the market, and every single business in the area, will be absolutely thrilled every single time. I have zero problem with density where it is appropriate. The Schottenstein's flat lot paradise on 3rd and 4th for example need these proposals more than this location does is all I am saying. That lot needs filled in but it should be an entertainment destination, not a place to live for that many people. Plus I'm probably going to win this in the end because there is zero chance that Wood/Schiff have the money to see this through. Something like Kaufman's proposal should've been selected. I love Chicago btw and don't particularly care for NYC. Why in the world would they propose something they couldn't build? The city didn't ask for fantasy proposals.

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower. Why? It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work. Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case. A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area. It's not just about the current state, but the future as well. I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is. They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal. It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were. Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful. Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say. Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late. They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location. In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise. Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that. Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones. We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it. The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage. I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces. A thousand times this! I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes! If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown. Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential. It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide. It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential. Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold? You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix. It's not actually densely occupied. Except right on High, almost all the surrounding buildings are only 1-4 stories. That is NOT dense. Most of the area is going to be redeveloped at some point with much taller, mixed-use development. It's inevitable given the location. This part of Downtown actually has low density. In 2010, there were only 2,293 ppsm in this census block that include the North Market neighborhood, along High and the eastern sections of the Arena District. It's probably come up a few hundred since then, but this would be considered low density population-wise. And for the love of god, the idea that bigger development should be stopped because there is a lot of traffic is complete nonsense. It's Downtown... in a major city. Vibrancy is the entire point. If parking your car is the primary concern, perhaps urban discussion is not for you. I don't mean to be flippant, but you present the very contradiction of what a walkable, urban environment should be. Throwing up a tower in RiverSouth is fine, but what happens when that area gets too much traffic? Back to low-rise? Maybe 6 more parking garages on Front Street? Come on.

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower. Why? It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work. Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case. A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area. It's not just about the current state, but the future as well. I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is. They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal. It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were. Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful. Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say. Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late. They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location. In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise. Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that. Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones. We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it. The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage. I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

There was some talk about development coming to this lot some months back, though there haven't been any official announcements yet.

Do you actually know this for a fact? I've never seen any surveys done on out-migration reasoning. Any links or just perception?

It's a bit of a process to work it out. The Census does a county by county domestic migration map, but they are estimates, and I think the last one available was for 2013. I do know that the general breakdown for the Columbus metro is 50% natural growth, 25% foreign and 25% domestic, so right off the bat, about 75% of the growth has nothing to do with the rest of the state. Let me work out the numbers for the other 25% and I'll post back.