jbcmh81

Good to know that they are being sold as they are built.

Columbus has quite a few parks close to or in Downtown. CC, Scioto Mile, Franklin, Berliner, Goodale, Topiary, Scioto-Audubon, Schiller, etc. Greenspace is within walking distance for most people in the area.

Interesting annexation graph, I've never seen it before. It certainly seems like the general pace of annexation had slowed down since about 1980, and really slowed down the last 5 years. Hopefully, the rate of infill will continue to exceed or at least match the rate of annexation. Columbus needs a lot of infill. And if annexation occurs, I hope it's also in the areas that are already surrounded by the city, such as internal townships and not further out in the suburbs. Definitely positive urban trends.

I neither said that immigration was inherently good nor inherently bad, but that immigrants are clearly changing neighborhood dynamics in many ways, and at least with the Columbus area I mentioned, have definitely been a positive influence on previously run-down corridors. And let's be honest here, your original response in the thread was not an opposing viewpoint, but a dismissal of the data as important in any way.

Keith, just wanted to mention that today's State of the City address focused on the Parsons Avenue corridor for redevelopment, since you brought up how there needs to be more done there. Well, there you go, more attention.

Seriously? Downtowns shouldn't have large parks? I guess Paris, New York, London, Frankfurt, and Madrid have it all wrong. Yeah, I agree on the no surface lots part, but parks have been shown to have been big property boosters and to attract new residents and development, exactly what CC is doing for downtown Columbus.

Ya, it may be a bad example, but Christchurch, New Zealand which recently has suffered from some bad earthquakes has had to tear down about 75% of its skyline. Of course because of the fear of more earthquakes, no new skyscrapers are planned. Check out SSC, view New Zealand and check out the Christchurch demolitions thread. The city now looks like downtown Detroit. Instead, they are going for low and mid rise density. Skyscrapers, as nice as they are to look at (in certain cases), do not make a city. Mexico City rarely built anything over 7 stories after the 1985 quake. Only within the last decade have larger highrises gone up. I agree that height doesn't make a city, but I would still love to see more highrises in Downtown Columbus. I think mid-rises are great and they can easier be used as infill, but I'd also like to see the large gaps in the skyline be closed up.

Well, right now there's two problems with finding 2011 numbers. First, we don't have population estimates for the cities/metro areas yet, which are needed to come up with crime rates. Second, FBI stats are only out for the first half of 2011, so finding full year numbers is impossible at this point. I have all the numbers for 2010, and comparisons between all Ohio's major cities. I could get them for other cities if you wanted. You just want those cities mentioned above?

Side by side with other cities or other years? I have both... well, for 2010 and previously. 2011's numbers aren't all out yet according to the FBI site.

I tend to agree that AA needs more than just housing, and from what I've seen others say, most seem to be thinking the same thing. However, you can't expect retail and commercial buildings to pop up there if there aren't any people to patronize them. The area needs a growing population to support it, just like Downtown needed more residents to support more restaurants and retail. This means housing, and a lot more of it. 100 new homes is a good start, but I'd also like to see some nice apartment buildings go in as well, to increase the overall density. Once you have the people, you can begin to attract the rest, whether directly in AA or in nearby areas. I think it's unrealistic to expect one without the other.

Tell us how you really feel. :roll: Downtown is actually making huge progress in redevelopment. There are hundreds of new residential units being built or planned, at least a dozen new restaurants/bars in the last year, a new grocery store under construction, new parks, etc. It's not going to happen overnight, but Downtown is lightyears ahead of where it was just 10 years ago.

In what way? The large park was and still is only one step of the overall project. The entire High Street portion is supposed to eventually be developed into large residential/retail buildings. However, you can't force demand. It will happen when a developer steps forward.

I can see two different sides to this. On one hand, as someone who values urban amentities, the isolation and suburban feel of this area is not attractive. I do think more amenities should be considered, if at the very least, how about sidewalks, landscaping, etc, to make it feel more like a cohesive neighborhood. And a grocery store would be a great addition. The problem with this is that the developer is not in that kind of business and is focusing on housing, which is fine. 6 homes have been built so far, and 2 of them are already, from what I understand, in contract. The good news is that the housing seems to be finding buyers so far, and as the population grows, this may have the effect of forcing other types of development. The housing is just one step. On the other hand, it's not exactly without precedent that there are people out there that enjoy the kind of suburban-style neighborhood that AA is at this point, so its lack of urbanity may not be detrimental to people moving there to begin with. The bottom line is that a bunch of new housing will likely attract residents and the population there will likely rise to its highest level in years. How that plays out in regards to neighborhood planning, I don't know, and it will be interesting to see what direction things go. I don't see the revitalization of AA as a "squandered opportunity", though. The neighborhood itself is unusual for its isolation and suburban style in relation to its proximity to Downtown, and may not go through a typical urban-style gentrification. To me, it would only be a squandered opportunity if the new housing sat empty and residents did not return. So far, I don't see that happening.

Immigrants are used by natural citizens to create divisive politics, not the other way around. Low rents and access to available, low paying jobs are attractive to immigrants, and Columbus and Cincinnati both offer these things. Immigrants don't hinder economic growth, they stimulate it by consuming and providing just like anyone else. The difference with immigrants are that they typically populate low-income areas, adjusting housing trends, often for the better. For example, in Hamilton, an industrial city outside of Cincinnati, Mexican, Guatemalan and Latin immigration has been huge in the last 20 years. The westside and the Lindenwald area which is southeast, was almost entirely white, but now you see more blacks in both neighborhoods. That integration, albeit quasi-forced, would not have happened fairly recently without immigration. Don't forget about Guatemalans, guys. They are a major component to the Spanish-speaking immigration wave in central and southern Ohio. And they don't like being called Mexicans. There was an article in the Columbus Dispatch last year about how immigrants had been opening small businesses and redeveloping previously abandoned or struggling retail areas, such as along the Morse Road corridor in Columbus. They tend to move into places, as you said, that are inexpensive and in which space for business is easily attainable. In that same frame, they are also moving into low-income neighborhoods, and in some cases, helping to reverse the population losses in what are considered to be less desirable neighborhoods of urban cores. This can only be positive in the long run.

Hmmm. I wonder if there are any forums on recent immigration to the U.S. where you could share this information? UO doesn't have an immigration forum. This goes along with the topic of "city discussion", however, so I'm not sure what the problem is with posting it here.

The infomation was offered simply to show immigration trends, not to address the correlation, if any, to economic health of a metro.

Why would I get scolded for using that term? It's what the Census uses and is fairly common in demographics data. The 10% is just for Cleveland proper, not for the metro. For the metro, the numbers were given in my previous post.

Ahhhh..... I was just going to say something about the low latin american representation in the stats. I was wondering if they had forgotten to count the near west side :). Now it makes sense. The Hispanic population is counted, though, and that's around 10% of population in Cleveland.

It's interesting, which is more than enough to justify posting it, but there are a lot of applications. For instance, a lot of people who do immigration law argue that the anti-immigration policies are actually counterproductive, because immigrants tend to create, not 'steal' jobs. So, if you believe that (or not) they can be taken as an economic indicator of likely growth (or not), especially in the small business area. If a particular community or nationality specializes in one field, it can be even more specific. Also, it helps government forecast the need for particular services, and it helps businesses, charities, and non-profits do the same. Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) and only a tiny African population, mostly Ghana/Nigeria AFAIK. But you can see how fast the proportions are changing, but they're changing even faster (away from European to others) in other parts of Ohio. Not true if you take into account the Cleveland metro area. As I've pointed out here on a number of occasions, Painesville has become a big magnet for Mexicans: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/painesvilles_hispanic_communit.html Cleveland had the smallest Mexico-born population of the 3-Cs in 2010, though that obviously doesn't include those of Mexican origin who were born in the US.

Then why didn't you ask it like this the first time? I got the idea that it was just comparing the numbers and nothing really beyond that, basic stuff. Interesting I guess. Here in NE Ohio we have a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants and I was kind of surprised they don't count them as foreign-born. Yep, that's basically what it was. Just as a FYI and comparison.

Finally, here is some specific demographic information on where foreign-born immigrants are coming from. Not all of the 2010 information is out yet, so I'll provide what I have so far. % of metro foreign-born population born in Mexico, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Toledo: 10.3% 2. Columbus: 8.7% 3. Cincinnati: 7.2% 4. Dayton: 4.0% 5. Cleveland: 3.2% 6. Youngstown: 2.8% 7. Akron: 2.0% 2010 1. Columbus: 14.3% 2. Dayton: 13.8% 3. Cincinnati: 12.1% 4. Cleveland: 7.0% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population from the rest of Latin America, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Cincinnati: 9.8% 2. Toledo: 9.0% 3. Cleveland: 7.9% 4. Dayton: 7.7% 5. Columbus: 7.0% 6. Youngstown: 5.4% 7. Akron: 5.1% 2010 1. Columbus: 11.9% 2. Cincinnati: 11.6% 3. Dayton: 8.7% 4. Cleveland: 7.3% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Asia, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Dayton: 46.7% 2. Columbus: 44.5% 3. Toledo: 40.6% 4. Akron: 40.3% 5. Cincinnati: 38.9% 6. Cleveland: 27.0% 7. Youngstown: 23.5% 2010 1. Dayton: 48.3% 2. Columbus: 39.1% 3. Cincinnati: 37.9% 4. Cleveland: 32.7% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Africa, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Columbus: 15.5% 2. Cincinnati: 7.0% 3. Dayton: 6.7% 4. Toledo: 4.5% 5. Cleveland: 3.3% 6. Akron: 2.0% 7. Youngstown: 1.6% 2010 1. Columbus: 21.0% 2. Cincinnati: 12.0% 3. Dayton: 7.0% 4. Cleveland: 3.6% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Europe, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Youngstown: 61.9% 2. Cleveland: 54.3% 3. Akron: 44.0% 4. Cincinnati: 31.0% 5. Dayton: 29.3% 6. Toledo: 26.6% 7. Columbus: 20.1% 2010 1. Cleveland: 46.2% 2. Cincinnati: 22.5% 3. Dayton: 17.5% 4. Columbus: 11.1% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A

And now for the city proper information. Total city foreign-born population, 2010. 1. Columbus: 86,663 2. Cleveland: 17,739 3. Cincinnati: 16,531 4. Toledo: 11,559 5. Akron: 8,524 6. Dayton: 5,102 7. Youngstown: 3,695 Change in city foreign-born population 2000-2010, # and %. 1. Youngstown: +2,090 or +130.2% 2. Columbus: +38,950 or +81.6% 3. Dayton: +1,857 or +57.2% 4. Cincinnati: +4,070 or +32.7% 5. Akron: +1,613 or +23.3% 6. Toledo: +2,084 or +22.0% 7. Cleveland: -3,633 or -17.0% % of total city population that is foreign-born, 2010. 1. Columbus: 11.0% 2. Cincinnati: 5.6% 3. Youngstown: 5.5% 4. Cleveland: 4.5% 5. Akron: 4.3% 6. Toledo: 4.0% 7. Dayton: 3.6% % of city foreign-born population that is naturalized, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 55.6% 2. Toledo: 44.4% 3. Akron: 37.8% 4. Cincinnati: 35.1% 5. Columbus: 33.7% 6. Youngstown: 25.8% 7. Dayton: 21.6% % of city foreign-born population entering the US since 2000, 2010. 1. Dayton: 77.4% 2. Akron: 65.0% 3. Columbus: 57.8% 4. Cincinnati: 51.9% 5. Youngstown: 36.8% 6. Cleveland: 36.2% 7. Toledo: 35.8% % of city population that speaks English at home, 2010. 1. Dayton: 95.8% 2. Akron: 93.9% 3. Toledo: 93.7% 4. Cincinnati: 92.2% 5. Youngstown: 89.5% 6. Cleveland: 88.6% 7. Columbus: 86.3% % of city population that is limited-English proficient, 2010. 1. Columbus: 6.0% 2. Youngstown: 4.5% 3. Cleveland: 4.0% 4. Cincinnati: 3.4% 5. Akron: 2.8% 6. Dayton: 2.3% 7. Toledo: 2.0% % of city population of children living with one or more foreign-born parents, 2010. 1. Columbus: 20.8% 2. Akron: 7.3% 3. Cincinnati: 7.1% 4. Toledo: 7.1% 5. Dayton: 7.0% 6. Cleveland: 4.8% 7. Youngstown: N/A % of city foreign-born population under age 18, 2010. 1. Dayton: 28.9% 2. Akron: 18.6% 3. Columbus: 11.0% 4. Toledo: 10.5% 5. Cincinnati: 5.4% 6. Cleveland: 3.2% 7. Youngstown: 1.0% % of city foreign-born population that is working age (18-64), 2010. 1. Youngstown: 86.5% 2. Cincinnati: 84.8% 3. Columbus: 83.9% 4. Cleveland: 77.2% 5. Toledo: 75.2% 6. Akron: 65.8% 7. Dayton: 62.2% % of city foreign-born population that is age 65+, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 19.4% 2. Akron: 15.6% 3. Toledo: 14.3% 4. Youngstown: 12.5% 5. Cincinnati: 9.8% 6. Dayton: 8.9% 7. Columbus: 5.1%

I wanted to update this thread a bit with immigration numbers based on metro and city (don't have them for county) for 2000-2010. This is a LOT of data, so just a fair warning. First, metropolitan information. Total metro foreign-born population, 2010. 1. Columbus: 132,360 2. Cleveland: 123,037 3. Cincinnati: 90,785 4. Dayton: 29,478 5. Akron: 26,910 6. Toledo: 23,435 7. Youngstown: 12,124 Change in metro foreign-born population, 2000-2010, # and %. 1. Columbus: +60,407 or +84.0% 2. Cincinnati: +39,385 or +76.6% 3. Dayton: +8,841 or +42.8% 4. Akron: +6,138 or +29.5% 5. Toledo: 5,042 or +27.4% 6. Cleveland: +10,031 or +8.9% 7. Youngstown: +18 or +0.1% % of metro population that is foreign-born in 2010 and % change 2000-2010. 1. Columbus: 7.2% (+60.0%) 2. Cleveland: 5.9% (+11.3%) 3. Cincinnati: 4.3% (+64.4%) 4. Akron: 3.8% (+26.7%) 5. Toledo: 3.6% (+28.6%) 6. Dayton: 3.5% (+45.8%) 7. Youngstown: 2.1% (+5.0%) % of metro foreign-born population that is naturalized, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 59.7% 2. Youngstown: 58.6% 3. Toledo: 55.2% 4. Akron: 53.8% 5. Dayton: 45.1% 6. Cincinnati: 44.3% 7. Columbus: 39.0% % of metro foreign-born population entering the US since 2000, 2010. 1. Columbus: 53.0% 2. Cincinnati: 47.0% 3. Dayton: 43.9% 4. Akron: 43.5% 5. Cleveland: 31.5% 6. Toledo: 31.3% 7. Youngstown: 21.2% % of metro population that speaks English at home, 2010. 1. Dayton: 95.2% 2. Toledo: 94.8% 3. Akron: 94.2% 4. Cincinnati: 94.2% 5. Youngstown: 94.0% 6. Columbus: 90.8% 7. Cleveland: 89.9% % of metro population that is limited-English proficient, 2010. 1. Columbus: 3.7% 2. Cleveland: 3.4% 3. Cincinnati: 2.2% 4. Youngstown: 1.8% 5. Akron: 1.6% 6. Dayton: 1.5% 7. Toledo: 1.5% % of metro population of children living with one or more foreign-born parents, 2010. 1. Columbus: 13.9% 2. Cleveland: 8.2% 3. Cincinnati: 7.4% 4. Akron: 7.4% 5. Toledo: 7.1% 6. Dayton: 7.0% 7. Youngstown: 2.5% % of metro foreign-born population under age 18, 2010. 1. Akron: 12.3% 2. Cincinnati: 12.1% 3. Dayton: 11.3% 4. Columbus: 10.8% 5. Toledo: 8.7% 6. Cleveland: 7.1% 7. Youngstown: 1.8% % of metro foreign-born population that is working age (18-64), 2010. 1. Columbus: 82.0% 2. Cincinnati: 75.9% 3. Toledo: 74.7% 4. Dayton: 72.7% 5. Youngstown: 72.0% 6. Akron: 71.9% 7. Cleveland: 71.9% % of metro foreign-born population that is age 65+, 2010. 1. Youngstown: 26.2% 2. Cleveland: 21.0% 3. Toledo: 16.6% 4. Dayton: 16.0% 5. Akron: 15.7% 6. Cincinnati: 12.0% 7. Columbus: 7.2%

http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/2-new-five-story-apt-bldgs-w-underground-pkng-245-277-e-long-st?replies=15#post-420470 Looks like Neighborhood Launch, which has been redeveloping Gay Street residential, is now planning to build 2 5-story residential buildings with 130 units each.

http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Development/Planning_Division/Boards_and_Commissions/Historic_Preservation/Italian_Village_Commission/Meetings/2012/2012%20IVC%20FEB.agd.pdf Some good news on the Fireproof Building renovation and the related new construction. Originally the talk was that the large surface lot just to the south would get a small 1-2 story building at most, but now it appears that it will be 5 stories and take up a larger chunk of the lot. Edit: There was also mention of the Jeffrey site east of 4th, of which there has apparently been a master plan submitted with buildings proposed.