jbcmh81

Of course the SN can handle more residents.... That's why vacancy rates from Downtown north are less than 3%. That's why hundreds of new units are getting built in and around the area. You also have to consider that Downtown had the larger increase in population because it started so low to begin with, not necessarily because the SN didn't have a significant increase in residents as well. Here are 12 new projects alone. http://www.columbusunderground.com/the-list-11-new-apartment-developments-around-columbus Read the comments. These dozen projects cover up to 2,000 new residential units, and this is not a full list of what's going on.

Then you either didn't see posts #464, #468, #469 and #476 in this thread - which explains the history of that site, how the previous developer of the site went into bankruptcy, and how a new developer was recently given the go-ahead by the bankruptcy judge to proceed with a five-story retail & residential building with parking garage. Or you are being willfully ignorant. Yeah, I hope he's not referring to the old Ibiza site, as the ongoings of that fiasco have been well-known for years now. It's certainly not because the lot's been ignored for development. I'm surprised the "Guy who knows everything about Columbus" wouldn't know something like that. It is certainly a shame that Columbus didn't build a huge network of upper-level walkways like those in your new city of Minneapolis. But I'm sure that Keith/Minneapolisite is now working very hard to get those anti-urban structures removed. In the meanwhile, the Short North will just have to be content with a 250-vehicle parking garage to be built with the new 5-story residential building at Hubbard & High and the 313-vehicle parking garage to be built with the Pizzuti Short North Hotel further south. Not to mention that his claim doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Businesses don't tend to move to "bad" areas in order to build up an area. If they go there at all, it's because building space is much less expensive than it would be in higher profile areas. This is also why so many of them fail, because while it may be less expensive, there are also far fewer people patronizing them (unless they have an amazing word-of-mouth). Businesses are in it to make money, not to rebuild neighborhoods. The vast majority of businesses like established areas with a more proven formula for success. While it's great to get new entrepreneurs in up and coming neighborhoods, they don't do it for charity, and in no other city does it work the way Keith seems to believe. Not even in Minneapolis. I was talking about the lot right between the UDF and the hookah lounge. You should read that article on Lawrenceville in Pittsburgh which contradicts your notion that businesses, and I'll narrow that down to urban businesses, only stick to established areas. If that were the case, Lawrenceville would not have gained an additional 16 new businesses in 2010 alone and they all would have opened in Shadyside and Squirrel Hill instead: two established neighborhoods just southeast of there. But that is not what happened. No one said anything about a new business district being charity except you and it does work in other cities: I've seen these firsthand in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Hell, isn't Lessner about to open the first bar in the Discovery District? I guess that must have been a dream because it's not already a vibrant, established neighborhood. I didn't say businesses only stay in established areas, I said that they tend to, which is absolutely true. Businesses build where they think their customers are. They don't pick random neighborhoods and build in some hope that, while they will probably go out of business, they at least raised the profile of the area. You have way too naive a view of how business works. Having the first bar there doesn't mean it's the first new business. It's going right next to the Hill's. And none of the businesses would be moving in unless they believed that the customer base had reached the critical needed level to support them. That came with all the new residential/park/improvement projects that you've been negative on the last several years.

Being as we're talking about the city's hottest strip for several years more should already be done; it's not like it still needs to prove itself worthy. There are other similar neighborhoods, around the same size at the SN too, where much more development has already occurred. Ignoring the worst residential/commercial economic downturn since the Great Depression, why exactly should more have been done? Those projects just mentioned were/are almost exclusively infill on vacant lots. The list above does not include the countless renovation projects to existing buildings, the 670 cap, the continuing gentrification of IV and projects around 4th, etc. You, knowing everything about the city, should already know this. Here are the number of vacant/surface parking lots between 670 and the Fireproof along High and their known status: -2 lots, one just north of Marcellas, the other just south of Bernard's: Both are part of the Pizzuti Hotel project, of which construction has begun. -1 lot just south of Buttles and High next to TwoFish. I am not aware of any plans for this lot as of now, but it's size and location practically make it a given that something's going to eventually be built there. -1 small lot that is part of the L'Antibes building. 3 or 4 businesses exist there along the length of that building, so it's not really practical to build there. -Haiku lot. This has the potential to eventually go away, but I doubt the owners would be willing to sell the lot until better parking is established nearby. Perhaps the Hubbard garage can accomodate this need. As of now, no plans to develop it. -2 lots, the largest in the SN, that were part of the failed Ibiza site: Now planned residential/retail project tentatively called The Hubbard. Will include a 5 story building in the front lot with a garage on the 2nd lot along with a row of concealing condos. This project is going through approvals. -Greystone Building lot. Again, like the Haiku lot, probably not going away unless overall parking improves. Plus it's a source of income. -Vacant lot just south of United Dairy Farmers. This lot, for many years, was simply fenced and empty. It was finally put to some use when parking was allowed there this year. It's in a great location, but I have no idea if the current owners plan to do anything with it. -Salon Lofts building lot. This building is set back from High, so unless they rebuilt this similar to what they did with the Kroger, this is probably not going away anytime soon. -Donatos lot. Again, a business lot and probably not going away unless Donatos closes. -Old "Concrete Jungle" lot. Overall, this is pretty small, so any development here would include demolition of the small building. I believe there is another business there now, though. -White Castle lot-See Donatos. -City lot near 2nd, just north of White Castle-has potential, but I haven't heard anything related to developing this. -Fireproof Building lot along 2nd. Will get a building, though no renderings have come out for the new construction part of this. -PayDay Loans lot-See Donatos. It's really easy to say that every lot should have development, but it's a lot more difficult to make that a reality. You have businesses that don't want to part with them, existing parking problems that need to be addressed, lots with owners who don't seem to want to do anything with them, and impractical existing development that make certain lots almost impossible to develop. Throw in an economy like we've had since 2007, and I think we're lucky to be living in a city that is still able to push projects forward, albeit fewer of them. It seems we turned a corner this year, though, and 2012 looks like a pretty banner year for new projects. Those skyways are a bit of a bummer, but they didn't stop the success of an intact ten block urban wall which is very popular and almost totally occupied by businesses, including a couple of urban big-box stores. You're missing the point, which is that any great city doesn't just stick to one little area, but instead created more new vibrant places and building parking garages is only going to provide more incentive to drive in a car to go to the SN and it's proposed as if that is the one and only solution. Remember, we're talking about the same populace who when offered a streetcar shot it right down. There was a study, which I can't find at the moment, which states that with parking garages once a driver can't find a spot at X floor or below, they're much more likely not to use the garage. Seemed to pan out that way at the Gateway garage, which is a short bus ride down to the SN. It's about time that Columbus joins other cities that also have a Short North equivalent and moved on to other business districts which now offer quite a bit more than they used to. What? When did we ever take a vote on the streetcar? Coleman didn't even propose it until the 2006 State of the City address, and polling of Downtown residents had 7/10 people saying they would use it. Everyone from the City to COTA to MORPC wanted this to happen. The problem was that the economy nosedived and we elected Kasich. The city residents, however, were never given a chance to vote for the streetcar proposal, so that is an outright fabrication. As for the city spreading development, we've already been over this 1000x, so I'm not sure why you continue to bring this up. You don't even live here anymore, so why should it bother you (despite the fact that it's completely untrue). And I think it's ironic that you are talking about Columbus putting too much development in too small of an area when Minneapolis is 1/4th the size of Columbus' city limits. It's a lot easier to concentrate development when you have a much smaller area to work with. Columbus has to develop and revitalize 217 square miles. Minneapolis has to do it for 58 with a significantly large metro population to pull resources from. This is not rocket science, Keith.

Then you either didn't see posts #464, #468, #469 and #476 in this thread - which explains the history of that site, how the previous developer of the site went into bankruptcy, and how a new developer was recently given the go-ahead by the bankruptcy judge to proceed with a five-story retail & residential building with parking garage. Or you are being willfully ignorant. Yeah, I hope he's not referring to the old Ibiza site, as the ongoings of that fiasco have been well-known for years now. It's certainly not because the lot's been ignored for development. I'm surprised the "Guy who knows everything about Columbus" wouldn't know something like that. It is certainly a shame that Columbus didn't build a huge network of upper-level walkways like those in your new city of Minneapolis. But I'm sure that Keith/Minneapolisite is now working very hard to get those anti-urban structures removed. In the meanwhile, the Short North will just have to be content with a 250-vehicle parking garage to be built with the new 5-story residential building at Hubbard & High and the 313-vehicle parking garage to be built with the Pizzuti Short North Hotel further south. Not to mention that his claim doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Businesses don't tend to move to "bad" areas in order to build up an area. If they go there at all, it's because building space is much less expensive than it would be in higher profile areas. This is also why so many of them fail, because while it may be less expensive, there are also far fewer people patronizing them (unless they have an amazing word-of-mouth). Businesses are in it to make money, not to rebuild neighborhoods. The vast majority of businesses like established areas with a more proven formula for success. While it's great to get new entrepreneurs in up and coming neighborhoods, they don't do it for charity, and in no other city does it work the way Keith seems to believe. Not even in Minneapolis.

I really like that rendering of the Fireproof. I love that they've taken that huge eyesore of a blank wall and turned it into windows and balconies. I also like that they are considering adding more floors to the design of the adjacent building. I hope they go for at least 3.

I wonder if they are not building a larger building for residential floors because the plan is to use the Fireproof building for that purpose. Or perhaps part of the requirement/limitation to move forward with the project is to leave part of the existing lot. I'll withold final opinion on the project until I see some renderings. At the very least, it's great news to be getting more residents in the area and at least part of that lot filled with a building. Walking down that way towards Late Night Slice or something, that lot always seems like a big, glaring hole. Now if only they will demolish the Payday Loan place across the street and put something better there. It looks like a converted McDonald's and it looks awful.

What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :) Just to show the long term trend. The short-term trends are somewhat similar but less dramatic. wait, what? long term tread?? Do you understand what I'm saying? This reminds me of political stat-keeping to manipulate numbers... Think of it scientifically: Example: 1880: 10 1890: 11 1900: 40000000 1910: 5 1920:18 1930: 170000000 1940: 0 1950: 5 1960: 11 1970: 15 1980: 50000000000 1990: 15 2000: 18 2010: 12 Percent change from 1880-2010: 20% It's essentially selecting two random points without regard to any data values in the middle and finding the percent difference. My point is: it is completely arbitrary and pointless. Not to mention, it covers 3 generations of people (including a majority who have most likely died...)...impossible to connect...meaning, this is no model for growth, if that's what you're trying to illustrate. I didn't randomly choose them. They were the beginning and end census years that were provided with the NY Times link I got these from. The 120 year trend change was just shown to illustrate how foreign-born % of population had changed over that long period. I'm not sure why there being generational changes in that time period means anything in relation to that point. In any case, here are short term trends, take your pick. 1970-2000 Cuyahoga: -36.0% Franklin: +259.3% Hamilton: +25.5% 1980-2000 Cuyahoga: -10.0% Franklin: +191.0% Hamilton: +38.1% 1990-2000 Cuyahoga: +14.2% Franklin: +103.7% Hamilton: +31.5%

True, because if the last 120 years have taught us anything, it's that every trend is permanent and irreversible. Definitely no permanent trends to be seen, for sure. The good news is that all 3 areas saw increases by 2000 and I believe 2010 kept that up.

What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :) Just to show the long term trend. The short-term trends are somewhat similar but less dramatic.

Immigration and health in what way? I don't think immigration is the driver of economic health, but rather a symptom of it. People move where the economy is best.

This may be why there was so much hype in a "return to cities" before the Census. The trends were already suggesting a decline in people moving out to the suburbs, but like many things, the Census revealed that the trend was not as strong as hyped. Still, there *is* a trend, and it is a trend that we haven't seen in several decades. I think some people were just too fast on their predictions. It's great to see all 3 of Ohio's major cities involved in this trend, even if recent economic problems have helped it along.

5,100 square feet seems small to me. Will that even fill up the large surface lot there? And it will probably also be one to two stories at that size. I'd like to see the max of 5 in that area just to keep increasing density.

It's good to see that the Wonderbread building is going to be put to good use afterall. The area along 4th has been somewhat unlucky since the whole Jeffery Place development ground to a halt. Hopefully this will spur other development in that giant empty field across the street.

The Columbus and MSP metros grew 13.88% vs 11.74% respectively. The cities grew 10.6% vs 0.0%, respectively. Who wants those corporations gone? Even with the Blue Jackets, I don't think most people want them gone, some are just angry over the arena deal. Otherwise, I have not seen or heard of anyone who wants any of the other corporations out of Columbus. Nor the symphony. So the theaters Downtown don't bring people in after 5pm? The new restaurants don't? Housing doesn't? I would agree there's still a lot of work to do, but there's been more than 2 things in 20 years, come on. Columbus Commons is a work in progress. The park portion itself is the first stage. And the fact that it was popular all summer and fall says that people, for the most part, are enjoying it.

There's a decent amount of urbanity left which attest to the greater density that used to be: how do you think there were three theatres on Livingston? What about the brick commercial structures dotting Parsons and Main in OTE? Did you even watch the King-Lincoln episode which showed a jampacked Long St? Your own backyard has the densest collection of commercial buildings off High St and Central and West Franklinton combined are a close 2nd. Then for the Steelton down south it has the densest stretch of Parsons and Cleveland around Myrtle has a dense but probably less-so now collection of commercial buildings. These are all very real, dense areas which have lost quite a bit, some a good deal more: there's no conjecture there. Even today, they have to bones to be regional magnets if they were given proper attention. Okay, and? We agree that the base is there for revitalization. We don't agree that the city has the resources to rebuild them all at once, particularly when Downtown still needs so much work. You're right, though, we do barely agree on anything. That's pretty hard to do when all of the cold hard facts I consistently lay out are addressed with the same old opposing emotional appeals; I suggest reading that Dispatch article a few more times for it to sink in. You're confusing it with this one, which just so happens to mention the high number of immigrants moving into the area who would be moving in to a couple of now empty streets if the city gave them decent reason to: yet another missed opportunity by a city that gives way more focus to malls than to its own neighborhood business districts. If by "cold hard facts" you are referring to your constant Debbie Downer imitation, then yes, I take issue with that. I have offered up plenty of facts and statistics that run counter to you and you simply find another reason to ignore them or change your story. If you seriously cared about your home town and its future, you wouldn't have rushed off to somewhere else. The fact that you continue to come here only to attempt to stomp on any positive news just makes your motivations all the more insincere. You can't be taken seriously, and I'm not sure why we even bother with the debate.

Development comes in waves and always has. When downtowns were the core of a city, that was where the people were, that's where the density was. As cities and transporation options grew, so did the suburbs. More people left the city and decline moved in, making even nore people move. Revitalization happens in the same way, just the opposite. A downtown that has been rebuilt and becomes a place to be ends up pulling in more people. As prices rise and availability fall, people begin to look at neighborhoods further and further out. This in turn rebuilds the older suburban rings. What you seem to believe is that randomly choosing neighborhoods that never had much density to begin with should be the centers of the entire city's revitalization process. I disagree, but that's not a suprise because we barely agree on anything. And honestly, there is no "we". You don't live here anymore. You're in your Land of Oz now where all your problems have melted away. Your criticisms now seem even more empty and unnecessary.

The park has been a catalyst for many of the new projects. The Dispatch has run articles in which developers specifically cited the park and the new activity there were considerations for coming Downtown. The Hills people even cited new Downtown activity and that it seemed the right time to put in the grocery. Deny it all you like, but you were 100% wrong. You seem to ignore that projects tend to spur others. As you say, it takes a critical mass to get things to happen, and while Columbus' Downtown may not have yet reached it, the combined projects that have occurred are pushing us towards that. What I don't like about you and your love of MSP is that it is very easy to criticize a place that has a lot of hard work to do in comparison to a place that never fell that far to begin with, so it doesn't have all that dirty work to do. It's also easier to fix things with 2x the metro population. It's also easier to do when your Downtown and city limits are basically the same size. You basically wanted it quick and easy and you moved to a place that gave that to you. Congrats. Your negativity and defeatism will not be missed here.

Keith and I have had many disagreements about Columbus. He's one of those "grass is greener everywhere else" types and has been extremely negative when it comes to nearly everything the city has done. He criticized Columbus Commons and how he didn't believe it would really spark retail, yet we have had 9 new restaurants go in or planned, a new grocery, and other retail and residential projects announced almost all since the park opened. Downtown has a long way to go, but it's definitely seeing a major upswing lately. All that said, and despite his obvious bias and love fest for MSP, I agree to some extent that we should be saving as many of the older buildings as possible and trying to fill surface lots first and foremost. This new project, while fantastic, is a mixed blessing. It removes more surface lots, but removes existing buildings as well that could've been renovated/expanded.

Well, most streets Downtown have little going on, but at least this is closer to desirable areas and it was smart to include four retail spots, although if this were to take up a spot on High right around the corner from Gay that would have helped get some momentum for a revitalized High St instead of having to be enough of a draw to get people to stray from Gay, High, and to a lesser degree, Long (which sadly has seen a high rate of new businesses folding). No one is going to open a gastro-pub or anything else for that matter in developments like the Terraces on Grant which offers only a big blank wall for pedestrians and parking inside, but with this one there's more likelihood that at least one spot may attract plenty of visitors to the area. Gay Street, back when it was mostly empty, offered a pre-existing retail corridor (with some nice architecture in parts which will never be replicated in new developments). In this case, a few more similar developments would have to be built from scratch nearby before Spring has the possibility of being as prime a spot as Gay was. Right now, there's really nothing that say, a restauranteur could move into, aside from the Static nightclub building which is closed I think. I think that's the point though. Getting rid of these surface lots with new builds in parts of Downtown really is the only option considering so many buildings were destroyed over the decades. It's a start, and that's what is needed. And did you see my post about the surface lot on High by the Atlas Building? It's a 2 for 1 project... renovating the Atlas and removing a huge surface lot on High.

I actually like that they chose a location with not much going on. The availability of space seems to be as prime as Gay Street was before Neighborhood Launch.

You have to give Columbus credit for really trying to get rid of surface lots. I also read yesterday that the large surface lot just north of the Atlas Building (where Nationwide does their giant ads) was purchased by the same people converting that building to residential and that they plan on developing the lot into a brand new building with ground floor retail and several floors of residential.

Downtown Columbus will be getting a new grocery store on Grant Ave. and a new 5-story apartment/condo building will be built off of Spring. It will include 102 units with 71 underground parking spaces. Both are referenced in the link. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2011/10/21/grocerys-plan-seen-as-another-step-for-downtown.html

I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. Also, what I find interesting is that Columbus' foreign-born population bottomed out in the 1950 census and then began growing again by 1960. This correspondes perfectly with Cleveland losing a significant portion of it's foreign population at the same time. Even Cincinnati saw a small rebound by 1960, but then fell again through 1980. Cleveland's losses seems to have been Columbus and Cincinnati's gain, at least in a small way. Also, Columbus bottomed out 30 years before Cincinnati and 40 years before Cleveland. At the rate Columbus seems to have been growing, I wonder if the 2010 numbers show Franklin County being on top now. That would be a complete reversal from where the numbers started.

I find these numbers interesting for a few reasons. First, they show the evolution of immigration groups in Ohio's major cities. At the beginning of the period, Hamilton County had the largest number of foreign-born residents, but by 1890 Cuyahoga County did and maintained the largest percentage throughout it's lifespan. Cuyahoga's foreign-born population continued to grow through at least 1930 before beginning a steady decline. Hamilton began to experience that decline a few decades earlier, and both seeminly were an early precursor to the overall population declines that would be in full force by the 1950s. Franklin County's foreign-born population started out the smallest and stayed the smallest for 100 years. For 100 years, as well, the largest immigration groups were Eastern European. 1980 saw the first significant changes. Franklin County went above Hamilton County for the first time in foreign-born population, as well as having its largest group of that population be from Asia. Since 1980, Franklin County's foreign-born population has almost tripled, a growth faster than either Cuyahoga or Hamilton Counties, which both saw rebounds by 2000. Cuyahoga was still strongly European even through 2000. Interestingly enough, none of the 3 have their largest foreign populations from Latin America, which is, by far, the largest group nationally.

2005 Murder (All Highest to Lowest, rates per 100,000 people) Youngstown: 43.7 Cincinnati: 25.1 Cleveland: 23.8 Dayton: 20.0 Columbus: 14.0 Akron: 12.7 Toledo: 9.2 Canton: 5.0 Rape Cleveland: 104.2 Cincinnati: 100.2 Dayton: 87.3 Akron: 86.2 Youngstown: 77.2 Canton: 71.3 Columbus: 70.9 Toledo: 58.7 Robbery Cleveland: 815.7 Cincinnati: 737.8 Dayton: 530.7 Columbus: 517.2 Canton: 476.6 Youngstown: 446.3 Toledo: 444.4 Akron: 294.4 Aggravated Assault Toledo: 708.6 Youngstown: 612.2 Cleveland: 454.6 Cincinnati: 321.4 Dayton: 318.0 Canton: 282.7 Columbus: 234.7 Akron: 202.6 Total Violent Crime Cleveland: 1,398.2 Toledo: 1,220.9 Cincinnati: 1,184.6 Youngstown: 1,179.5 Dayton: 956.0 Canton: 874.7 Columbus; 836.7 Akron: 595.9 Burglary Toledo: 2,327.4 Youngstown: 2,209.7 Dayton: 2,013.6 Columbus: 1,999.6 Canton: 1,959.0 Cleveland: 1,873.7 Cincinnati: 1,727.7 Akron: 1,606.0 Larceny Canton: 4,927.4 Cincinnati: 4,463.7 Toledo: 4,369.3 Columbus: 4,343.8 Dayon: 3,760.8 Akron: 3,416.8 Cleveland: 2,864.6 Youngstown: 2,850.3 Auto Theft Cleveland: 1,481.9 Dayton: 1,378.7 Columbus: 1,069.8 Toledo: 1,048.2 Youngstown: 982.8 Cincinnati: 939.3 Canton: 683.0 Akron: 649.2 Arson Toledo: 138.0 Youngstown: 137.6 Cleveland: 110.0 Dayton: 89.2 Cincinnati: 76.4 Columbus: 63.7 Canton: 50.0 Akron: 43.3 Total Property Crime Toledo: 7,744.8 Columbus: 7,413.2 Dayton: 7,153.1 Cincinnati: 7,130.6 Cleveland: 6,220.1 Youngstown: 6,042.7 Akron: 5,672.0 Canton: 5,431.3 2009 Murder Youngstown: 30.6 Dayton: 25.5 Cleveland: 20.0 Canton: 16.6 Cincinnati: 16.5 Toledo: 11.3 Columbus: 10.9 Akron: 9.7 Rape Akron: 91.5 Cleveland: 86.9 Canton: 85.8 Columbus: 75.6 Cincinnati: 70.4 Dayton: 59.5 Youngstown: 56.9 Toledo: 56.7 Robbery Cleveland: 253.9 Columbus: 242.5 Cincinnati: 162.3 Toledo: 87.3 Dayton: 55.0 Akron: 51.9 Canton: 23.1 Youngstown: 22.6 Aggravated Assault Youngstown: 661.0 Toledo: 629.1 Akron: 474.6 Cleveland: 460.4 Cincinnati: 423.9 Dayton: 419.7 Canton: 357.3 Columbus: 169.6 Total Violent Crime Cleveland: 1,395.5 Cincinnati: 1,191.9 Youngstown: 1,188.8 Toledo: 1,116.9 Dayton: 1,008.1 Akron: 927.6 Canton: 874.7 Columbus: 703.2 Burglary Youngstown: 2,896.9 Toledo: 2,770.5 Cleveland: 2,149.4 Dayton: 2,120.7 Columbus: 1,920.3 Cincinnati: 1,884.7 Akron: 1,820.4 Canton: 1,753.2 Larceny Columbus: 3,956.3 Cincinnati: 3,751.1 Canton: 3,364.3 Dayton: 3,224.3 Akron: 2,790.8 Cleveland: 2,532.6 Youngstown: 2,423.4 Toledo: N/A Auto Theft Cleveland: 939.1 Youngstown: 613.8 Columbus: 551.2 Dayton: 505.3 Cincinnati: 466.7 Akron: 466.4 Toledo: 459.3 Canton: 313.8 Arson Dayton: 466.1 Youngstown: 348.6 Toledo: 175.2 Cleveland: 93.4 Cincinnati: 67.1 Columbus: 56.9 Canton: 52.5 Akron: 51.8 Total Property Crime Columbus: 6,427.9 Cincinnati: 6,102.5 Youngstown: 5,934.1 Dayton: 5,850.4 Cleveland: 5,621.1 Canton: 5,431.3 Akron: 5,077.6 Toledo: N/A Percent Changes 2005-2009 (Best to Worst) Murder Youngstown: -35.3% Cincinnati: -30.4% Akron: -25.9% Cleveland: -21.1% Columbus: -16.7% Toledo: +17.9% Dayton: +21.9% Canton: +225.0% Rape Dayton: -35.0% Youngstown: -31.7% Cincinnati: -25.4% Cleveland: -22.0% Toledo: -7.8% Akron: +3.3% Columbus: +10.8% Canton: +17.5% Robbery Canton: -15.0% Columbus: -10.1% Toledo: -9.9% Dayton: -9.5% Youngstown: -8.6% Cleveland: -5.0% Cincinnati: -2.0% Akron: +16.3% Aggravated Assault Columbus: -24.9% Toledo: -15.3% Cleveland: -5.3% Youngstown: 0.0% Canton: +23.5% Dayton: +25.9% Cincinnati: +40.0% Akron: +127.9% Total Violent Crime Change Toledo: -12.7% Columbus: -12.6% Youngstown: -6.7% Cleveland: -6.6% Dayton: +0.6% Canton: +2.2% Cincinnati: +6.8% Akron: +51.5% Burglary Canton: -12.6% Columbus: -0.1% Dayton: +0.7% Cleveland: +7.3% Akron: +10.3% Toledo: +13.6% Cincinnati: +15.8% Youngstown: +21.4% Larceny Canton: -33.3% Youngstown: -21.3% Akron: -20.5% Dayton: -18.2% Cleveland: -17.3% Cincinnati: -10.8% Columbus: -5.3% Toledo: N/A Auto Theft Dayton: -65.0% Toledo: -58.2% Canton: -55.1% Cincinnati: -47.3% Columbus: -46.4 Youngstown: -42.1% Cleveland: -40.7% Akron: -30.1% Arson Cleveland: -20.6% Columbus: -7.1% Cincinnati: -6.7% Canton: +2.5% Akron: +16.3% Toledo: +21.1% Youngstown: +134.6% Dayton: +398.6% Total Property Crime Change Canton: -29.9% Dayton: -22.0% Cleveland: -15.5% Akron: -12.9% Columbus: -9.8% Youngstown: -9.0% Cincinnati: -0.2% Toledo: N/A