jbcmh81

Regionally, here is the breakdown of net migration. South (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, N. Carolina, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and W. Virginia. 2005 -45,460 2012 -13,625 % Change: +70.03% By State by Year Alabama 2005: +370 2012: +2,294 Change: +520% Arkansas 2005: -155 2012: -251 Change: -66.23% Florida 2005: -22,764 2012: -6,561 Change: +71.18% Georgia 2005: -1,778 2012: +551 Change: +130.99% Kentucky 2005: -3,234 2012: -3,814 Change: -17.93% Louisiana 2005: -541 2012: +1,099 Change: +303.14% Mississippi 2005: -188 2012: +121 Change: +164.36% North Carolina 2005: -4,361 2012: -3,839 Change: +11.97% Oklahoma 2005: -893 2012: -290 Change: +67.53% South Carolina 2005: -1,670 2012: -1,943 Change: -16.35% Tennessee 2005: -2,759 2012: -2,658 Change: +3.66% Texas 2005: -3,442 2012: +3,032 Change: +188.09% Virginia: 2005: -3,160 2012: -2,429 Change: +23.13% West Virginia 2005: -885 2012: +1,063 Change: +220.11% So it appears that the Sun Belt is losing its grip quite a bit. West Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. 2005 +211 2012 -6,730 By State by Year Alaska 2005: +177 2012: +891 Change: +403.39% Arizona 2005: -2,330 2012: -2,977 Change: -27.77% California 2005: +3,080 2012: -1,658 Change: -153.83% Colorado 2005: +596 2012: +1,353 Change: +127.01% Hawaii 2005: -267 2012: +314 Change: +217.60% Idaho 2005: -292 2012: -606 Change: -107.53% Montana 2005: +10 2012: -126 Change: -1,360.00% Nevada 2005: -1,354 2012: -500 Change: +63.07% New Mexico 2005: -1,332 2012: +183 Change: +113.74% Oregon 2005: -658 2012: -979 Change: -48.78% Utah 2005: +1,159 2012: -1,658 Change: -243.05% Washington 2005: -1,077 2012: -330 Change: +69.36% Wyoming 2005: +169 2012: -617 Change: -465.09% The West, particularly the Mountain West, did much better in 2012. Overall, the west was the only region that did worse. Northern states are next.

Thought this was some interesting data on domestic migration into and out of Ohio. First some maps. Ohio had a net gain in domestic migration from 22 states in 2005, but still had an overall loss of 40,481. In 2012, Ohio had a net gain from 25 states. Although not a huge difference in the number of states, the state had a net loss of just 105. The state improved its net migration rate in 34 states including DC. Quite the improvement.

As someone else said in that thread, I hope this is the start of the Broad Street reconfigure/diet project that was part of the 2010 downtown list. It was supposed to include a fairly significant lane reduction to Broad, landscaped trails and much wider sidewalks. I remember reading that funding had been approved, but that was awhile back and we've heard nothing about it since.

Actually, there's been 3 new proposals. Another 6-story has been proposed for 1055 N. High, across from Bodega. http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/6-story-building-proposed-to-replace-rebecca-ibel-building-in-short-north

There's a Facebook page too. I just don't understand these people. The pool wasn't good enough to support for years, and now it's suddenly a neighborhood treasure when the owners decided to stop subsidizing it.

Those are a little weird looking, but they're not on 5th, but the section of the development that's on Holly Avenue. The main building will be much nicer, imo.

Why would it matter if they were the same size? No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block.

Most of the top 10 are along or near High Street from the Short North to Campus. Almost all of them are actually getting more dense over time as well. However, OSU is really not the only reason for the density. If you expand the category out to those blocks with 5,000+ densities, Columbus and Cleveland have a difference of only 14 (350 vs. 336. Cincinnati has only 160). Columbus has far more density than what people think, and it goes far beyond Campus.

Whatever they used to have, here are the top 10 densities of blocks in each of Ohio's major cities. The highlighted ones are the only blocks with 30,000 or greater densities. Akron 1. 21,626.5 2. 10,917.6 3. 10,738.5 4. 10,643.7 5. 10,264.2 6. 10,174.5 7. 10,049.7 8. 9,973.0 9. 9,624.5 10. 9,581.0 Cincinnati 1. 41,175.5 2. 23,493.3 3. 20,770.5 4. 19,966.9 5. 19,182.0 6. 19,126.7 7. 19,060.1 8. 16,975.5 9. 16,907.7 10. 14,163.7 Cleveland 1. 18,784.9 2. 18,545.4 3. 17,117.9 4. 17,069.8 5. 16,291.6 6. 16,236.0 7. 16,231.1 8. 16,021.7 9. 15,899.0 10. 15,388.1 Columbus 1. 61,114.0 2. 46,583.1 3. 38,020.0 4. 34,112.8 5. 31,005.4 6. 30,404.3 7. 29,874.1 8. 29,634.7 9. 26,970.4 10. 26,543.8 Dayton 1, 20,615,2 2. 14,432.8 3. 11,338.3 4. 10,530.8 5. 10,116.6 6. 9,940.3 7. 9,658.4 8. 9,604.7 9. 9,579.3 10. 9,539.7 Toledo 1. 12,454.3 2. 12,428.0 3. 12,024.4 4. 11,667.4 5. 11,664.9 6. 11,573.3 7. 11,550.6 8. 11,416.4 9. 11,167.3 10. 10,978.1 Youngstown 1. 6,536.8 2. 6,188.7 3. 6,133.2 4. 5,764.4 5. 5,687.1 6. 5,331.8 7. 5,274.0 8. 5,158.4 9. 5,023.7 10. 5,002.0 And here are the number of neighborhoods (blocks) by city that have densities at or above 10,000. Akron: 7 Cincinnati: 30 Cleveland: 111 Columbus: 84 Dayton: 5 Toledo: 14 Youngstown: 0 I bet this surprises a lot of people.

The fact that it's in Clintonville means it's either never going to happen or be forced to compromise every decent element of urbanity. The community outrage over the pool going away is already rampant... despite the fact that they didn't bother to support it financially. I hold absolutely no hope for this coming to pass.

I believe the corner building is actually as old as the rest of the buildings (1920's), but it was determined to be non-contributing because of the alterations to the storefront. It was built in 1930 and last faced alterations in 1983. I hope they replace it with something.

Doesn't NRI own the undeveloped land west of the railroad tracks in the Arena District? It would be cool if they built a new office building there to kick off the redevelopment of that area. All that land has been long planned to be a residential development, perhaps with mixed-use elements.

Who's moving to Dublin? Chase?

You have to wonder how much panic is going on in Dublin tonight. That's a huge blow for them.

Chase too. They're not based in Columbus, of course, but they have increased the workforce in the area by thousands in recent years. But all those increases have been in the far-flung suburbs.

A bit disappointing that Nationwide won't build a new tower for all those workers, but that disappointment is mitigated by the fact that the new complex will essentially be Downtown and will have a fairly strong influence on the future of the area. We may end up seeing some larger scale residential projects come up because of it, including (finally) the one that's supposed to happen at the old casino site in the AD.

I call bs on the report, especially for Columbus. Sprawl is not currently the dominant growth factor there. Metro vs. Core City Growth 2000-2010 and 2010-2013 Cincinnati 2000-2010 Metro: +120,519 +6.0% City: -34,340 -10.4% Total city change as a % of total metro change: -28.5% 2010-2013 Metro: +22,826 +1.1% City: +574 +0.2% Total city growth as a % of total metro growth: 2.5% Cleveland 2000-2010 Metro: -70,903 -3.3% City: -81,588 -17.1% Total city change as a % of total metro change: 115.1% 2010-2013 Metro: -12,515 -0.6% City: -6,702 -1.7% Total city change as a % of total metro change: 53.6% Columbus 2000-2010 Metro: +223,842 +13.9% City: +75,293 +10.6% Total city growth as a % of total metro growth: 33.6% 2010-2013 Metro: +65,092 +3.4% City: +35,520 +4.5% Total city growth as a % of total metro growth: 54.6% All cities improved have improved their city growth numbers since the 2000s, and all have lower rates of sprawl growth than the 2000s. However, in the cases of Cincy/Cleveland, their suburbs are still growing faster (or losing more slowly) than the core cities. While the rates are better between them, the story remains the same. Columbus is the only one of the three to reverse it, where the city is now growing faster (by %) than the suburbs. It also has a much larger share of growth within the city than the other two. The point is, all 3 cities are trending away from sprawl, not towards a continuation or acceleration of that type of development.

The convention authority should be ashamed of itself. It took what could've been a signature project that could've actually helped them reach their goal of attracting new business and turned it into a glorified entranceway and 1970s parking garage, eliminating even the retail element of the garage that had previously been pushed. All this because they deemed the Hilton's business too valuable to face any competition from a private hotel (which didn't have to be part of the project at all). And then they have the gall to talk it up like they're doing something transformative. What's even worse is that they took a private investment and made it into an entirely taxpayer-funded endeavor. Awful decision by terrible convention leadership. This one is going to keep me bitter for a long time.

No, they do them for pretty much every place. Here is the link for all incorporated places, regardless of size: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk For an even more local level, you'll have to wait for the updated census tract and block estimates that will come out later this year.

Considering the GOP is consistently the roadblock in just about every single public transit expansion project, this seems wholly ironic to me.

What does sprawl have to do with a county's population? Do people not count towards a county's population if they live in the suburbs?? And at what population point, exactly, will that 75 square miles no longer apply? 2.3 million? 2.5 million? 3? And I'm willing to bet that there are at least 75 square miles in Franklin County that are undeveloped. The question is not "What does sprawl have to do with a county's population?" The question is: "What does sprawl have to do with the cost of public services for the population." The answer is: "Plenty." This question followed comments about Franklin getting a bigger share of the state Capital Budget than did Cuyahoga. When homes and businesses are spread further apart in sprawling areas, it costs a lot more for the roads and water lines and sewer lines to serve those areas. Sprawl = greater public expenses and higher taxes. Then would it surprise you to know that Columbus is not the #1 sprawler in Ohio?

What does sprawl have to do with a county's population? Do people not count towards a county's population if they live in the suburbs?? And at what population point, exactly, will that 75 square miles no longer apply? 2.3 million? 2.5 million? 3? And I'm willing to bet that there are at least 75 square miles in Franklin County that are undeveloped. quite a bit, they count, anything outside of each county anyone would care to compare and perhaps. Still not getting what you're saying. Are you talking about the metro or the county? Population within the county counts no matter what type of built environment. In regards to metros, sprawl is not a part of the qualifications.

I believe the portion of the Convention Center that would be demolished would be the late 1990s addition and not part of the original structure. I'm fine with that. It'll still leave the longest uninterrupted useless wall on High Street.

What does sprawl have to do with a county's population? Do people not count towards a county's population if they live in the suburbs?? And at what population point, exactly, will that 75 square miles no longer apply? 2.3 million? 2.5 million? 3? And I'm willing to bet that there are at least 75 square miles in Franklin County that are undeveloped.

What is that money being allotted for, though? Without that breakdown, the total seems meaningless.