jbcmh81

I heard something similar last year from a girl I talked to at a coffeeshop in Louisville, who moved to Louisville FROM Austin. By choice. She said Austin, even with all that "cool city" street cred, is a lot more suburban and sprawley and she liked the older character of Louisville (sort of what you are talking about with what Columbus has, or might have), as well as the cost of living. It was a qaulity of life/urban character issue with her, and Louisville has enough cool city aspect to make it attractive (its not "potential", its already happening). Columbus has a lot of growth and a good economy but the issue is trying to capture more of it to come into the city. Whats happened so far is pretty incredible (by Dayton standards) and, yes, the place does trump Indianapolis in that regard (though that canal area is pretty impressive in being able to market in-town living in new housing). Broad Ripple is fairly weak compared to whats happening in Columbus and Louisville...more like what one would expect in a much smaller city. Yet tfor Columbus, there are things like that Wonder Bread project that would never get off the ground elsewhere. Not sure about Milo-Grogan, maybe its too out-of-the-way? As for the High Street corridor...AKA Short North and beyond...downtown to OSU. Thats almost "finished", and when it is Id expect some other area will be "discovered" or places already recieving attention will accelerate. I don't think it was ever the intention of the city just to have the SN and that was it. Despite what Keith thinks or says, I do see other areas starting to get more and more interest as the city, for the most part, realizes that High Street is largely a success and will build upon itself for a long time. IMO, Franklinton is definitely next.

Keith, was it my imagination or did a good portion of Broad through the Hilltop just get repaved along with tons of sidewalk work within the last year? And this before Hilliard-Rome gets anything extra. Does that count as "sh*tting all over the Hilltop"? You either have a very selective memory or choose to ignore things like this in your zeal to trash everything the city does. Oh wait, I do remember you complaining about the bike lanes they added and the parking meters, so I guess you must've just forgotten, right? And my point about metro size is that the more people there are, typically the more amenities a city has. Detroit, despite hollowing out and continuing to lose population, still fits that point. Detroit still has many things we don't have, including more mass transit, another common complaint of yours. Having 4 million extra people in the metro to draw from IS important. This is true also of cities doing significantly better in population, such as Minneapolis, which has a smaller city population, but a metro more than 2x the size of Columbus. The more people there are in a market, the more demand for extras. It's basic supply/demand. This isn't rocket science. And in that decade, they've fixed quite a bit. Nowhere am I making the argument that they have reached the maximum level of density and excitement Downtown, but it is certainly going in the right direction. You can't tell me that increases of 40% in population is not a big improvement, and there continues to be more construction and proposals for more. A good example of improvement is with the new downtown park. Now, honestly, I thought it would be pretty lame. I figured what would happen is that they would build it and then it would sit there unused. I also figured that the 2nd half of the proposal for the park, where parts of it would get built upon, would simply be shelved. Instead, the park gets built, and suddenly there are schedules in place for constant events, a new stage planned, theater/concert groups moving to the park, etc. And before the park is even completed, developers went looking for bids for adding new residential/commercial buildings on the site. So all in all, it's seemingly turning out much better than expected. All those extra events is just one more incentive for increased residential population. And in turn, more development, and so on. But yeah, I know, everything sucks regardless and there is no hope for this city. Might as well move and burn the place behind us.

And again, if other cities already had a version of the SN, it's likely because those cities are much larger than Columbus and have had more momentum earlier to create them. But I can guarantee you that those neighborhoods in other cities did not happen overnight, but over a period of several years. All cities in their growth process go through a succession of development. Depending on the pace of the population growth or size, you are going to see different rates and scale. Columbus, for all intents and purposes, is still a mid-sized city and has not quite reached the level of major, given the overall metro population. The kind of overall development we have seen, for the most part, fits into a city of our size and closely matches what other cities have done along our size as well. Some may be further along, some futher behind. I do think over the next decade or so we will see more of an evolving major city status, though. You mention the city proper population, but that is only one standard to use. The city is much denser overall than say, KC, Indy, etc, but it has a relatively low metro population in comparison to the cities you mentioned. I'm not sure how you can seriously compare us even with Detroit, which has a lower city proper population but a mentro almost 5x larger. If you think that 4 million extra people in a metro makes no difference, then you are kidding yourself. And I fully disagree that most of the DT is a ghost town. 10-15 years ago, absolutely. But you can't tell me that there hasn't been tremendous change there despite the mostly terrible economy we've had in that time. And I would agree, it's a small fraction of the entire city, but when talking about DT, I'm not sure if you're really putting into context just how empty the place was not that long ago. The urban core was not decimated overnight, and it's not going to come back overnight. It took some 40 years for the population to drop as low as it was in the 1990s, and to have so many of the buildings leveled for surface lots in the national trend of urban renewal. It's barely been 10 years since things began to reverse. It is completely unreasonable to expect that the entire downtown will have been rebuilt in that time, or even a majority of it, especially when housing and commercial real estate fell apart. The city spends tens of millions on roads/bridges/infrastructure downtown as well, not just in the surburbs. You can't expect the city to simply ignore roads in the suburbs just because you don't like suburbia. Hey, I'm not crazy about sprawl, either, but a city has responsibility to maintain its infrastructure even in areas we don't like. The $30 million repaving that is going on this year is spread out all over the city, from urban to suburban. I have not seen anything to suggest that the suburbs are favored. You say that roads in the suburban areas are payed for with money from poor areas, but isn't the opposite also true? You act like the money is only going in one direction. And quite frankly, Keith, you're a defeatist. You claim to have done all of this, but yet you don't believe anything's going to change anyway. You clearly don't like it here, you hate the city, and you state that the city will never be at the level that you think it should. You seem to live in two worlds, one in which you participate and try to build things up, and another in which you tear everything down. And to be honest, the constant back-patting is just a little too self-serving to take all that seriously given what you actually say about the city. At best, you're a crusader with no goal, no mission, and you wouldn't believe in it even if you did. I love Columbus. It's a fantastic place to live and work. I have fun every time I go out. I enjoy all the friends I have here, many from all over the country and world. I sometimes look around and find it almost unrecognizable from the city of my youth, and the changes I have seen in the last several years are amazing. And my philosophy will always be that if a place no longer suits you, if you can't be happy with where you are, then make a change. Clearly you need that change. I think the thing you don't like about me, the real reason we don't get along... is that you can't stand that I actually like it here.

I'm sorry, but you're not being objective if you're seriously suggesting that there are more parts of the city worse off now than before. There are certainly some parts that have remained relatively unchanged, some areas that have gotten worse, but most of the city? No way. I've brought this up before and you brushed it off, but 10-15 years ago, we had no decent downtown core at all. Any city, no matter how big or where it is, needs a healthy inner core, or you might as well be Dayton. The transformation of entire neighborhoods take years. That reality has never changed, and the fact that we have gone through 2 recessions the last decade, including one of the most severe in the nation's history, yet still have been able to change the face of so much of the urban core is pretty amazing to me. I know it hardly impresses you in any regard, but there are a hell of a lot of cities much worse off than we are. The focus the last decade+ has been that central core, and the city basically made it clear that the latest round of projects finishing up may be the last for awhile while they focus on other areas, such as Franklinton and the far West Side. I know you think that the city must have billions upon billions of dollars to reinvent the entire city all at once, but it's just fiction. It just doesn't, and development is never going to be equal everywhere everytime. Am I satisfied completely with the pace of redevelopment? No, of course not, I would love for it to be faster, for more areas to be improving all at once, but I also don't think that's realistic. And you say that the city does not try to repeat success, such as artist-driven urban renewal... so what exactly is happening in Franklinton, or over at the Wonder factory? Again, not going to happen overnight, but clearly people see a larger picture here. You tout a success in Portland... who cares? Every city has these types of success stories, including us. 15-20 years ago, the SN was that drug-riddled, crime-infested ghetto that Alberta St. was, and that area is far from complete. You really do a huge disservice to all of the efforts of folks in THIS city who have done nothing but work on improving neighborhoods by constantly downgrading success or improvement because some other city has done something similar, or in your opinion, always 100x better. Also, you often compare Columbus to cities have have MUCH larger metro populations. Minneapolis is more than 2x larger. San Francisco is at least 5x larger. Same with Seattle, Detroit, Chicago, even Pittsburgh (and Pitt's still losing people, so I guess it's not that great). You can't expect the same type of development on the same scale and timeframe as those cities. It's completely unfair. You might as well be comparing Springfield to NYC, it makes the same amount of sense. Quite frankly, I hate it that I feel like I have to defend the city so much with you. I think there are plenty of legitimate complaints with the city and its progress, and I'd love to discuss them. I always feel on the defensive, though, in these threads as they seem to degrade into threads like, "What do you hate about Columbus?" I would just like to see more context instead of either a love or bash fest.

No way was it worse than the 1990s. The 2000s featured 2 recessions and a significant scaleback of annexation from the city. Also, on the West Side, past Hilliard, you are going to be seeing a lot less growth simply because builders are going to be running out of room before they reach the Big Darby Creek watershed, which is highly protected. Delaware County easily saw the most sprawl and is still one of the fastest growing counties in the state and country.

Keith, just curious... Has Columbus ever done anything you agree with? You seem to be the epitome of someone who believes the grass is greener everywhere else. I love this city. I think that's why we don't seem to get along. I see most of your posts, quite honestly, as a constant bashing of Columbus, and I don't get it, and definitely the reason that I come off so strongly in my exchanges with you. I know Columbus is FAR from perfect, but I choose to live here because there are also far more good things to it than bad. I respect your opinion, I really do, but I just can't feel that negative about a growing city that, despite all its many flaws, continues to improve. Maybe we will just never agree on that.

It's great to see that there is finally some momentum for this area. 10 years from now, or sooner, this could be the next hot area of the city.

The overall point is that artists alone are not and have not been the only path to revitalization. Are they important? Absolutely, but there are multitude of groups and factors involved in a neighborhood turnaround. The Short North was the result of not only artists, but gays, an active residential and civic population, and city attention. And you miss the point, as artists laid the foundation for those other groups to move in. Get artists in as the #1 or the rest of the city will continue to fall apart with no almost no improvements as we've seen in the past decade. As usual, I've cited specific examples, but whatever, I know I should've skipped the last post like I did all the others. Goodbye! And I cited examples where artists were NOT the foundation of revitalization but you ignored them. I am not trying to butt heads with you. I actually think we are more in agreement here than not. Artists are important, and in some neighborhoods they are clearly the deciding factor, but not always. I'm not sure what's so controversial about that statement. Are you just disagreeing because you don't like me?

The overall point is that artists alone are not and have not been the only path to revitalization. Are they important? Absolutely, but there are multitude of groups and factors involved in a neighborhood turnaround. The Short North was the result of not only artists, but gays, an active residential and civic population, and city attention.

This is the only post I've read of yours for months. I believe you'll be hard pressed to find great, unique neighborhoods that went from blight to greatness without the influx of artists, which is he story behind each of the neighborhoods I mentioned. Downtown only saw growth because incentives were directed at yuppies. This is why Downtown and yuppie-friendly GV saw an increase, and a couple of the few urban areas where growth occurred. If the city had broadened their subsidization efforts to artists you can bet there would be at least a couple of interesting strips where empty homes and storefronts sit today. Merion Village *lost* population, btw, according to each tract of the 2010 census that covered the neighborhood. You must not be very engaged with your Hilltop community because I was out there picking up trash on W Broad, sitting in on meetings here and there, helped distribute flyers for a neighborhood bike ride last fall. To say that residents aren't engaged there, in Franklinton (I've been to numerous community events), and in OTE (active block watch and even gathered signatures to make part of the neighborhood dry) simply isn't true. The truth is that as vocal as they may be, the city isn't going to listen to them until they wake up one day and they're cash cows overnight like the Short North. The city is short-sighted, that's actually giving them too much credit as though they have any real vision for these areas, and there's little that these neighborhoods can do aside from that to bring real investment from the city. GV and downtown have not always been yuppie. GV in particular was saved from the wrecking ball in the 1960s not by artists but preservationists. As the years passed it became what it is today. Artists were never really a big presense, and you support me in that artists are not always responsible for revitalization. I'm also not sure, but you seem to have an issue with yuppies. If they are willing to move into urban neighborhoods and promote growth, I say good for them. And sorry, but picking up trash is great and I support that, but that's not the kind of involvement I'm talking about. I'm talking about fixing up houses, building businesses, etc. The residents here, for the most part, seem to not put a lot of time or effort into maintaining their own properties, let alone trying to make the neighborhood more attractive in a development sense. There is just nowhere near the amount of push forward that some other areas have seen by residents.

Keith, I agree and disagree. The idea that artists alone are who really bring about drastic changes in neighborhoods simplifies the issue, the same with saying gays do. Downtown, outside of the SN, etc, did not have a large population of artists, yet it saw 40% growth anyway and increasing amounts of residents. Same with GV, Merion Village... not exactly big artist neighborhoods. I think, more than anything, you need an engaged residential population, whether that be artists, gays, or anyone. All of our most successful neighborhoods had that in common. Franklinton, Hilltop, OTE really have not. Yes, the city has not put nearly as much focus on these areas, but at the same time, the residents themselves have not amassed the kind of influence to have the city take more notice. There are so many small things that those areas can do, one project at a time, to start making changes, but so far, they haven't really done much. I wish people here would stop waiting on the city and just do it themselves. It's proven to be very successful.

It's Downtown, so we need to be thinking on a larger scale. Parking downtown is not a major issue, and there are plenty of places nearby that a garage can be built.

I'd like to see much taller buildings going in there. It seems like prime real estate for low-rise apartment buildings.

I guess my point is that I don't see this as intentional or an issue with how people think here in terms of development. High Street through the early to mid 1990s was not a nice place. Look at the Campus area even up through 2002, especially south. The Short North area was slowly coming around, but still nothing like it is today. The path of revitalization has happened along High, imo, mostly because it's a central corridor that completely sucked. It was basically like Broad is now. The reason development has continued along High instead of moving out is because it's a prime location between Downtown and OSU that seriously needed help, period, not because the city doesn't believe in revitalizing areas away from it. Yes, there needs to be momentum further out, but you need core areas as well. Also, it's not like other areas of the city are not experiencing or haven't seen improvements in the last decade. MV, Northland, Grandview, Easton, King-Lincoln, Franklinton is finally seeing some attention, and soon the West Side, etc. Not all of these areas are strictly defined by central roadways. I mean, come on, could you honestly say that a bit of development here or there would have had the same impact as High does now? No way, but again that's not the only thing going on.

I disagree. I don't think it has anything to do with being too conservative in urban thinking. There clearly has been spillover in neighborhoods. GV to Merion Village is an example. Weinland Park is another as development along High continues. I really don't think it has anything to do with physical boundaries. If a neighborhood begins to become "hot" it will obviously be the first to see revitalization. Once that area is priced out, people move to the adjacent areas. You see that as an example of development following a physical path, but is it not logical that connected neighborhoods see development, particularly along major thoroughfares? There are exceptions to this, of course, as there are in all cities. Bexley/Whitehall being one of them. Then again, Bexley is not typical in that it never really declined to begin with. Also, I don't really see the benefit of having revitalization spread out in many different pockets of the city, as no particular area really thrives to its full potential, making it easier down the road to lose momentum. I do agree with you, however, that some areas are or have been ignored. Broad is the biggest problem, but I do think that this is the next "hot" area, as High has the kind of momentum to keep going on its own.

Maybe it's just me, but none of the color codings are showing up on that map.

Not to mention that the percentages do not address the whole story. Columbus gained 3x-4x as many YP's than Cleveland, yet ended up with a slightly lower percentage.

How much money are we realistically talking here? I live in that neighborhood and it's pretty uncommon to see many cars parked at any of the meters, so I can't imagine the city is making much off of them to begin with. I do agree, though, that any money made there should be reinvested back into the neighborhood. I also agree it doesn't make much sense for meter placement.

Well, a 3-mile radius can include those older, urban neighborhoods. 3 miles in Columbus would include just about all of them, from the SN, GV, OTE, Franklinton, etc. Obviously they have seen various degrees of revitalization, but I do think the activity level overall has picked up from say, 2, 5 or certainly 10 years ago. Also, consider that even if the immediate Downtown lacks the acitivity that some of the immediate surrounding neighborhoods have, it is at least a centralized location for all of them. For my part, I would rather live Downtown for that very reason.

Considering a good portion of it is supposed to be built on within the next 10 years, the layout seems fine to me.

Louisville and its county merged. It did not grow nearly that much. It's similar to Indianapolis and Marion County where city totals are not nearly what the numbers suggest. If Columbus did the same thing, its population would be over 1 million. And I might agree that Detroit will probably never regain the population level that it once had, but I do think the central core will rebuild.

I haven't been there to see it, but they said it was a nice place for the money and location.

My friends live near 2nd and High. That's not a bad part of the SN by any stretch.

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years. Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them. In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself? Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown. And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route. People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit. How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now? Or to the near East Side? If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High. The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable. ' There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask. So you are saying that if we had a streetcar to the Hilltop right now, that enough people would ride it to be successful? Yes or no? Light rail has seen its share of failure in other cities if routes are not desirable. The facts are out there, as you say. And I thought you were moving? And now you conflate streetcars with light rail when they're objectively two different things. I'm done responding to your posts. Not at all. It could be light rail or streetcars, there have been successes and failures for both for the reason I gave. Demand and desirable routes play a huge role in how successful mass transit is. You should know that considering how much you complain about COTA.

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years. Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them. In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself? Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown. And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route. People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit. How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now? Or to the near East Side? If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High. The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable. ' There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask. So you are saying that if we had a streetcar to the Hilltop right now, that enough people would ride it to be successful? Yes or no? Light rail has seen its share of failure in other cities if routes are not desirable. The facts are out there, as you say. And I thought you were moving?