jbcmh81

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.

True. Once yuppies grow up, they're out. They move to the suburbs and have families. That's probably how the 1950 boundary area in Columbus lost 45,000 people since 2000. Plus rent is starting to get out of control in the nice parts of the city. I can't believe some of the numbers my friends have thrown out. Are gentrified parts of Columbus more expensive than Chicago now? The urban narcissists are a much better target audience. They're in for the long haul. I would be very surprised if they were anything close to Chicago. I have friends right off High in the SN and pay like 800 for a 2-bedroom, which I think is very reasonable for the area.

That is just not true! How many times have you seen a freeway/road built through an area, only to then see development boom around it? Was there pent up demand to live in a cornfield before the highway was built, or was that demand generated from the highway? The same situation can be applied to rail transit. Put in a line, and development will follow. All you have to do is look at the countless examples of this happening across the country. From DC to LA, cities have experienced development along their urban rail corridors that did not previously exist. It is true. No matter how much conspiracy there was, the car killed the streetcar in the first half of the 20th Century. And the car came about long before the highway system did. And rail doesn't come about out of nowhere to spur development. It's developed because there is a growing population that begins to demand alternative transportation when it becomes difficult to travel around a city. That's why you don't see rail in small cities and towns, or bus lines for that matter. If what you say is true, every place in the country would be trying to secure funding for their own light rail.

By "Short North" I'm also including VV & IV. MV isn't great yet. There are many new & good businesses needed on S High, Parsons, and S 4th before it's ready for primetime. Bexley & Grandview aren't Columbus (thank god). Try going carless and depending on COTA during bad winter days: you'll complain plenty. It is Columbus' fault that no other neighborhood off High has joined the ranks of GV & SN in the past *decade*. As for the streetcar, Columbus city residents & government, in that order, lack the vision and desire to be a real city again. Once again, even many areas along High hadn't even joined the party before the last decade. The result was that population went up in the core neighborhoods, something that hadn't happened in decades. That is a success, whether or not you want to see it. I've seen a lot more focus now being turned to areas along Broad and the East Side, moreso than I have at any point in the last decade or more. High Street IS a success, and now that it is, more attention can be turned to other areas. And with the streetcar, it's simply not a lack of vision or desire to be a "real city" again. It's about practicality. I fully support light rail, streetcars, etc., but only when there is a call for it. I don't want to see millions upon millions spent on this and then not have anyone use it. There needs to be a demand. Right now there isn't. That isn't a lack of vision, as I'm sure all urban folks and city leaders fully expect that there will come a time when this is going to be a reality. I look forward to that and believe it will be well on its way to that reality by the next census, if not much sooner. Streetcars died out by 1930 not because the city lacked vision, but because there was no longer a demand for them to exist. And they won't exist again until that demand returns. This is a basic principle of services.

No state funding = shelved. Unless you think Cincy is going to go it alone on a major project like this with shrinking population, tax revenues and a still bad economy. You're right, technically it hasn't been officially shelved, but it sure has hit a major wall.

I should appreciate Kingros & Big Nickel tavern: gotcha. You should appreciate that other cities are looking at Columbus and taking notice in a positive light. It's not like Ohio has a lot of bright spots right now. I'm not even sure why you bother to post if you have nothing constructive to offer. I appreciate both. If I didn't appreciate what Columbus has, then I wouldn't be the one taking dozens of trips on my bikes to all parts of this city to photograph our neighborhoods and compile maps and destinations in each one and post them here. I've already offered plenty of constructive criticism and praise, but I've come to the realization that re-branding the city requires the city to make some fundamental changes: changes that this city is not willing to undertake. Notice that all of these articles whether from 2011 or early 2000s all cover the Short North and German Village. When are we going to give papers around this country something else to write about? They're nice and all, yes, but they're yesterday's news. Columbus is going to find itself facing the other Cs' problem of being cut off from wealthy exurbs when, not if, it's not able to keep in all of the money that is pouring out of Franklin County into surrounding Counties combined with additional inner-city population loss that is significant, to the tune of 45,000 urban residents lost from 2000-2010. We were at around 300,000 in 2000: we lost nearly a 1/6th of our inner city population in the last decade. But let's just keep doing what we're doing and pretend this is not a problem that is being ignored: we'll just hire overpriced consultants to tell us what we need to do (be more urban: more quality neighborhoods, better mass transit, pedestrianized streets) and then just not do it. We just need a catchy phrase to gloss over that: get another consultant. Columbus wants to half-ass the urban thing: they don't see it as key to attracting and retaining talent. There used to be reasons to be cautiously optimistic about Columbus' direction towards becoming a great urban place with the beginning (and swift end) of traffic calmed business districts, streetcars, etc, but now that optimism has crossed over by and large into delusion. I just don't know what you want me to say. I'd have to ignore all of the huge investments which the city *is* making as we speak on sprawl which is not, I repeat not, being spent on the inner city, nor is there any hint, anywhere, that this will change. And with the economy still down, not only will Columbus not be able to maintain the ridiculously overbuilt sprawl within city limits (seriously, how many lanes does every road out there really need?), but there's not going to be money available to improve other urban neighborhoods, which continue to be a growing burden on the city as a whole. The city should be providing incentives to make more of these places desirable, especially for small businesses to congregate, and serve as an economic plus, rather than a big negative. Instead, we're poised to lose tens of thousands more residents, which the city assists with their own financial backing, and you want me to be a cheerleader for this city. If you're always happy with what you've got, then you won't have any desire for more. That's where Columbus is today. How's this for rebranding: Columbus and Cincinnati should switch names, since the Mark Twain quote is no longer applicable on Ohio's most progressive city. Cincinnati will be attracting development in their mostly rough neighborhood of OTR and others will follow once additional lines are built and help reduce urban population loss, while ours sit ever more empty as we continue to allow development dollars to leave our urban core on the inner-city highways out towards 270, which is the home and the proper image of Columbus as it houses 2/3 of "city" residents. I really don't understand you, as you constantly contradict yourself. In another post you complained about bus lines not having adequate service and that the city didn't invest enough in it, but then complained when the city expanded service into other parts of the city. Here you are complaining, yet again, about the lack of investment in Downtown vs the far suburbs, yet at the same time b*tching that the focus is on the core neighborhoods along High and not in suburbs further out. You act as if you expect the city to only make improvements in certain areas. The city is large, money is spent in other locations outside of Downtown. I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. I don't think you have any idea what you actually want and have become so jaded that you've fallen into the routine of complaining just to have something to say. Second, you talk about population loss as if it was specific to Columbus and wasn't a national trend in urban areas and has been for years. Even many of the boomtown Sunbelt cities saw drastically lower urban growth than expected. And when you look at the maps, several of the urban core neighborhoods in Columbus saw good to fantastic growth, including the immediate Downtown. Which, by any stretch of the imagination, is a POSITIVE thing for urban revitalization. That you choose to completely ignore that because places like Linden and the near east side (some of the most hard-hit places during the recession) saw population loss is increasingly not that surprising coming from you. The losses and gains for the city are decidedly mixed, but none of the maps or numbers I've seen yet raise a red flag. In fact, just the opposite. Had the city not invested any money Downtown, we probably would've seen much worse numbers and few if any neighborhoods seeing gains. And additional lines for Cincy from what?? The streetcar idea has been shelved there. The state, under the awesome leadership of our douche governor, has made it clear that mass-transit is not going to happen under his watch. You think it's a surprise that Columbus had to do the same with theirs recently?

I should appreciate Kingros & Big Nickel tavern: gotcha. You should appreciate that other cities are looking at Columbus and taking notice in a positive light. It's not like Ohio has a lot of bright spots right now. I'm not even sure why you bother to post if you have nothing constructive to offer.

It's a little sad that people outside of the city can appreciate its successes more than its residents.

Can you provide evidence that the growth was due to illegals and Somalians? Do they even count illegals? What about Asians, as that group grew fairly fast as well? And how was the unemployment 2.9% in the early '90's when the the country (and state) was going through another recession? It has not "steadily risen" since then, that's ridiculous. How can the rate have steadily risen for nearly 20 years and still be less than 9% in the worst recession in 70 years? Also, the trends do not suggest that everyone is moving out. There were several downtown neighborhoods that saw growth, and the immediate core saw rates close to 40% above 2000.

Not to mention it has higher unemployment than most places in Ohio. It seems that more people move there without bothering to have a job already lined up. Charlotte's biggest claim to fame right now has nothing really to do with quality of life in the city, but simply that it's growing fast. The very idea of a "boom" city is a big part in the perception that it's a good place to live. I actually think that perception is what is hurting Ohio cities the most, and that we as a state don't do enough to change that perception.

Like many cities in the early stages of urban revitalization, Cleveland, despite overall city and metro losses, still recorded a downtown population rise between 10 and 20%. That probably hasn't happened since before 1950. Things ARE finally changing, after years of people saying it, the numbers finally support the claim.

What are you using as "Central Columbus"? I've never seen a figure of 220,000 used anywhere. The Downtown's core population went UP 40% since 2000, according to the Dispatch. The Downtown is doing very well with the older inner suburbs just outside of Downtown being hit and miss with most of North High St. gaining as well. Even Franklinton north of Broad saw a very decent population rise, and Franklinton is one of the oldest and probably least desirable neighborhoods in the city. The suburbs closest to 270 but inside the outerbelt probably lost the most, and then the suburbs almost all gained again outside of 270. I noticed on the map the Dispatch had showed that the biggest losses were also in areas that had the highest rates of vacancy and were hit particularly hard by the economy. Not really a surprise. One area, near Nationwide Children's Hospital, however, showed one of the biggest population losses, but part of that is because of redevelopment. The hospital has been involved in an $800 million expansion and quite a lot of low-income housing was demolished. That overall area is seeing a lot of changes. So even in those areas that saw a population drop, it's not all indicative of an overall decline.

Interesting idea and would be a cool building to live in with great views of the city. Downtown apartments are in demand.

They will be out to vote them all out of office come the next election, you can be sure about that.

Charlotte also grew over 35% in 10 years, which is more than 3x faster than Columbus. It has a lot more momentum in population and development right now than we do, and again, a far worse highway system. A system which, like it or not, does play a role in demand for alternative options. I also think that Columbus is now suffering from conservative policies, the same ones that just killed the streetcar (for now) in Cincinnati. Our governor is clearly anti-mass transit. It is no coincidence that Columbus "shelved" its own project in the last few months. Again, though, it's not about the right people in the city. Personally, everyone I know would love to see it happen, and we just added another 75,000 people to the city and Downtown had a 40% growth in population since 2000. These are positive trends to see a stronger push for mass transit despite what our governor wants. And in a few years he'll be gone anyway.

As someone who was counted in the Cleveland numbers in 2000 but was counted in Seattle in 2010 let me speak from experience. I had a very similar attitude and left Cleveland in 2002. For myself, leaving Cleveland was the absolute best decision I ever made. Living in a city that's been in a downward spiral for the last 60 years just wasn't appealing to me. I would have loved to stay and support Cleveland, however I didn't want to waste the next 30 years living with that constant "maybe next year things will get better" attitude. Things won't get better. Not in our lifetime. Look at the numbers, they are getting WORSE. Don't let yourself be disillusioned that a city like Cleveland or Cincinnati is about to turn the corner. If you want to stay and help, then go for it! Some people are built that way, I wasn't. Personally I love living in a progressive and on the rise city. But to me the biggest difference are the attitudes. I can't really put into words the attitude difference. It's something you'll have to experience for yourself. There's not a day I look back and regret the move out west. You owe it to yourself to give it a try, you don't want to live the rest of your life thinking "what if". To each his own! If it doesn't work out you can always move back! What is the point of your post, exactly? It's great that you're enjoying Seattle, but so what? How does coming over to an Ohio forum and basically bashing Ohio doing anything productive? We have enough people doing that already, we don't need people who ran away years ago coming back in here to do the same. This IS a great state, but it has been the recipient of bad luck for a lot of years, decades even. But honestly, it was not until the last 10 years that the major cities here bothered to do anything about it. One bad leader after another, one economic failure after another... those days, for the most part, are behind us. City cores ARE regaining population, and that will eventually spread. You don't turn around 60 years of decentralization and population loss overnight, or even over the course of a decade. This is not simply being rosy in the face of doom. The census was not good, but it could have been so much worse considering how awful the economy has been nationally and in Ohio. And the more information that comes out, to me, seems to indicate that change is not around the corner, but already happening.

Well if there is any good news for Ohio today in regards to the census, at least one city is still growing. Columbus is reaching the population level where larger and larger projects begin to be a consideration, from buildings to mass transit. If the city continues to grow at a similar pace, here is what it would be in the milestones of the next 20 years and comparisons to the cities closest in city proper populations: Columbus 2010: 787,000 2015: 825,000 2020: 863,000 2025: 901,000 2030: 939,000 VS. Indianapolis 2010: 830,000 2015: 854,000 2020: 877,000 2025: 901,000 2030: 925,000 VS. Fort Worth 2010: 741,000 2015: 844,000 2020: 948,000 2025: 1,051,000 2030: 1,154,000 VS. Austin 2010: 790,000 2015: 857,000 2020: 924,000 2025: 991,000 2030: 1,058,000 VS. Charlotte 2010: 731,000 2015: 827,000 2020: 922,000 2025: 1,017,000 2030: 1,113,000 VS. San Francisco 2010: 805,000 2015: 819,000 2020: 834,000 2025: 848,000 2030: 862,000

It's happening nationwide, even in Ohio. Foreign-born residents were probably the biggest % of population growth for most major cities. Columbus' Asian and Hispanic populations are up 60-90% in the last decade.

Regionally it was pretty close, but Allegheny and Cuyahoga are simlarly balkanized and Cleveland proper's shrinkage rate was twice that of Pittsburgh. Cleveland's east side experienced widespread Detroitification over the last decade. Pittsburgh only has pockets of that, and much of it is in burbs like Braddock rather than in-city. I'd say they're cleaning our clock. And they're better poised for growth in the next decade, because so much of Cleveland's built environment is in shambles. Miles on end. People don't want to live near that, let alone in it, nor do they want to open businesses there. We have a lot of work ahead. Best get to it. Good points. Pittsburgh is likely better poised for growth comparing city proper to city proper. Cleveland's 17% loss is going to be hard to ignore in terms of attracting new business. With Chicago coming in well below estimates, Cleveland coming in at 17%, and Pittsburgh doing poorer than expected, I can only imagine what Detroit's loss might be. If they come in better than 17%, we might start hearing Clevelandification instead of Detroitification. Not only that, but considering that all but one major city lost population, even Columbus will probably lose some new business when they look at the state overall.

Wait, something seems off to me. I know these are estimates, but they are for July, 2010. The actual census count will be for April, 2010, correct? Does that mean that the census numbers come in somewhere between the 2009 and 2010 estimates? If so, then estimates, at least on the county level, were not too far off. Or will the actual census data show something different than both of those numbers?

Pretty much. Very few cities in the country stay busy in their downtown areas at all hours of the day and night, 7 days a week. This is a matter of supply and demand.

That was my question. If growth continues, traffic will most likely go up, even when we do add mass transit. The 70/71 split is one of the worst places for accidents in the entire state, with or without lower traffic levels. It is poorly designed and even if the city overall tries to remove itself from being as car-centric, the rebuild should very probably still happen. The end question for me becomes, is the final design the very best way to both help traffic and help reconnect neighborhoods?

They have already started to take away some of the one-ways. Gay Street is a great success in this.

Keith, no you should NOT ignore things that you believe are problems. I noticed, though, that you seem to believe that you're fighting this fight alone and that you're the only one who cares. The fact is that MANY people care, but they may not all be informed on what's going on. There are groups out there that are doing things to build up the areas that maybe are more ignored than others. It's not like you're the only one who sees issues. I also think you're trying to tackle every single issue all at once. You want to micromanage every neighborhood house to house, street light to mailbox, and that's just unrealistic. In fact, it's a recipe for going totally crazy and turning very bitter about the whole process, which clearly is the point you've reached. If you really think you can move to another city and expect to do this, you're in for a nasty surprise. It sounds more like you need to take a huge step back and prioritize. No one ever said that rebuilding neighborhoods was easy. No one ever said that a city council was always going to vote your way or do the right thing every time. These are, after all, very fallible human beings. You want Columbus to be Chicago, NYC, or LA, and it's not and doesn't move at that pace. Maybe you don't love the city anymore. Maybe you don't even like it, but you clearly once did. I really think this is a matter of you expecting way too much way too fast, and ended up setting yourself up for massive disappointment. This is not to say that the city has not made a lot of mistakes and missed a lot of opportunities. Of course it has. I'll be the first one to say that. But I love my state and I love this city and I just don't think it's the pit of hell that you see right now. As for COTA, on one hand you want expanded mass transit, but on the other you're complaining that they're expanding service to other areas of the city. Isn't this a step in the right direction... bringing people in from the suburbs? Also, I assume that they do some kind of study that shows when and where there is demand for service, otherwise it'd be a waste of time and money. At least that would be the logical conclusion. Is there a high demand for bus service after 9pm where you live and want to go? When I lived in Mexico City, which probably has some of the best mass transit options anywhere, both for cost and availability, there were still times that I couldn't get a train. There were times that I had to wait or choose something else. I never thought of it as a problem simply because I personally was inconvenienced in some way. Mass transit is not just about me. Neither is the direction in which a city chooses to go. Somewhere along the line, you may have forgotten this.

So why not run for city gov't? Clearly you believe that almost everything the city has done is either wrong or not good enough, so why not stop complaining and run on a platform of correcting these issues? BTW, Columbus does not run ODOT. ODOT didn't want a single cap on any of the bridges and just wanted a wider highway canyon, and Columbus wanted just about all of them done, at the very least. They saw that the 670 cap was a success and it did make the neighborhood more cohesive even if it did not restore it to 1950. ODOT has far more power on this issue than the city does. I'm sorry, but as much as you or I would like it, we can't turn back the clock and erase two of the biggest highways in the nation through our Downtown areas. The OT's quoted story is great, but that highway was clearly not a national artery like 70 or 71. You can't just get rid of them. I don't think this is a conspiracy against any particular neighborhood. Our mayor is black, most of the city council is black. Why would they intentionally try to keep a historic black neighborhood isolated? Answer: they wouldn't. Coleman has put a lot of focus on King-Lincoln and OTE trying to revitalize the area. Not everything they want to happen is going to happen... yet. ODOT, honestly, is full of *ssholes and, by nature, is going to be car-centric. Again, I think you're getting yourself way too worked up here. There's only so much the city can do about this. Minimizing the damage is about as much as is possible. Typical apologist rhetoric that I should run for mayor/city council/etc. Maybe I don't want to be a council member, maybe I just want to live in a city that supports its urban areas. To say that Columbus is powerless is absolutely incorrect. Council members had a chance to say "no" to approval of the first phase of the project during a meeting to vote on this. After sitting through three hours of ODOT selling the project to city council, I used my three minutes to present data showing that the figure of 175,000 motor vehicles a day that they use to justify this $1.7 billion project was extremely misleading, as they were using data from 1998-2000 to bolster their case when in reality anyone can check to see right on MORPC's website to see that traffic on the split ranges from 119,000-155,000 in 2006 before the number of highway drivers dropped significantly from then on due to the recession. That data comes from ODOT itself. I did more than anyone in this city to show that this project was an unjustifiable waste of money and I did so just by digging up some simple, publicly available data which I printed out for city council members to see themselves. City council then asked ODOT to explain the disparity and a rep said that different stretches of the split do vary quite a bit in their numbers and that yes, since the recession the number of vehicles using highways has dropped considerably. The result? Each and every council member voted in favor of the project going forward. Again, that's a $1.7 billion project which they then knew didn't have to be done and will cost the city of Columbus (us) around $2 million for the first phase, IIRC. There's just no outrage from anyone but myself. You yourself can ask city council why they went ahead with this knowing what they now know, but you'd be the only aside from myself. Other neighborhood activists from the Near East area present at the meeting already knew that the result was already decided among ODOT and the city government, who has very close ties, including a shuffle of employees between the two. That aside, what you missed from those pics is that unlike the 670 caps the ones on Long and Spring will not function the same way. The 670 cap provides a direct link between the Short North and the convention center. With these caps it'll basically be just like walking across Gay St and crossing 3rd & 4th: totally different. Rerouting 70/71 onto our other plentiful highways, which have likewise seen a downturn in the number of users overall, would be the practical thing to do, but ODOT only wants to build more new highways that we don't need all while they're unable to pay for maintenance of their current infrastructure. And you won't hear any measurable opposition from locals or the city government. And the fact of the matter is that instead of going with what local small businesses want (mainly black owned and operated in King Lincoln) the city went against them and is siding with ODOT to widen the current gap between King Lincoln and Downtown while also preventing the two-way traffic flow which entrepreneurs want for their businesses. The acquiescence of the continuation of a policy that was racist back when these black neighborhoods were leveled for a highway isn't any less racist today and they still continue to funnel investments away from these areas today. You raise a good point about traffic being less right now than in 2000 due in part to recession/high gas prices, etc. However, let's say that the city continued to grow. Even with the addition of mass transit, when the economy improves and adding more and more people to the area would, at the very least, sustain traffic levels, would it not? Aren't you assuming that traffic patterns will remain as they are now and that growth will remain stagnant? And wasn't part of the reason for rebuilding the split was because of poor traffic flow and not necessarily lack of capacity? I know I personally try to avoid doing 70/71 because of all the mergers. I've almost been hit many times travelling through there. As far as the caps, it is my understanding that they are going to build them with the intention of future buildings, at least the ones going to the East Side. Perhaps I have not seen the most recent plans. And rerouting 70/71 where?? 670? 315? 270? Come on, that's a fantasy even for the most ambitious of urban supporters.