cbussoccer

Currently in Columbus we have huge numbers of immigrants/refugees from Africa. When these people come to Columbus, they often end up cramming together in apartments in either the Northland area or the Blacklick/East Broad area, as well as various other pockets of the city. We also have the largest population of Bhutanese-Nepali people outside of Bhutan at nearly 30,000 and growing. These people also cram large families into apartment units, largely in the Blacklick/East Broad area as well. If trends continue, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts to have a measurable impact on density numbers in Columbus. Going off of this thought, I would have to say that the campus area gives Columbus a huge bump in density. UC certainly helps out Cincinnati, but not to the same extent OSU helps out Columbus. The areas surrounding OSU are the most densely populated areas in the state. In these areas, you can have house after house after house with 20 people living in each house. It's essentially the effect that a poor area gets when a large number of people live in a unit, without the increase in a vacancy that a poor area experiences.

I won't dispute this, but topography and land use are the primary reasons why this is the case. Cincinnati and Cleveland's suburbs extend further out because there is a lack of flat/appropriate land close in. When you have flat open land in any direction you can just develop it. You cannot claim that topography and land use are the primary reason unless you have empirical data to prove it. It's virtually impossible to know the true reason for differences in density numbers, so it's not productive to claim one factor is the main reason for variances. I think another "non-permanent" factor that influences population density today is vacancy rates. I don't have the numbers in front me right now, but I would imagine both Cleveland and Cincinnati have higher vacancy rates than Columbus does, especially closer to the urban core. Cincinnati and Cleveland are older cities, so absent topography and land use issues there is no credible reason to believe that they would not be denser than Columbus. All of the urban planning literature backs up that idea. It's not a value judgement, it's just the way cities in the US developed at different time periods. My guess is that, if things continue the way they are, in 20 years or so Columbus will be denser than Cincinnati and Cleveland in both actual density and perceived density for the vast majority of residents. This is not a contest for me, and I would like to see all three Ohio cities densify and grow substantially. These are just my observations as a professional in the field of urban planning who has studied the issue extensively. Also, without looking at the numbers, I doubt vacancy effects the top line number that much--though vacant land that once housed people probably have a noticeable effect. There are many credible reasons to believe that, absent the topography and land issues, they would not be denser than Columbus. Both cities benefited greatly from their geographic location on bodies of water which were hugely important for trade at the time the cities were established and growing. These were huge benefits for both cities compared to Columbus in the early days. Land use piggy-backed on the geographic location and was also a huge reason for the large populations of these cities compared to Columbus many years ago. Making arguments about what Cleveland and Cincinnati would be like without their topography/geographical location is about as useless as making argument about what Columbus would be like if it wasn't the state capitol and if Ohio State didn't exist. Without these things, these cities would not be what they are today. Finally, this is not a contest me either. I'm not trying to make positive or negative comments toward any one city with regard to their density. My initial comment was simply that I found it interesting that Columbus has a higher population density using that population statistic and that caused me to theorize the many different factors that could influence the density. For me, none of this demographics conversation is a contest. There is no reason for it to be.

I won't dispute this, but topography and land use are the primary reasons why this is the case. Cincinnati and Cleveland's suburbs extend further out because there is a lack of flat/appropriate land close in. When you have flat open land in any direction you can just develop it. You cannot claim that topography and land use are the primary reason unless you have empirical data to prove it. It's virtually impossible to know the true reason for differences in density numbers, so it's not productive to claim one factor is the main reason for variances. I think another "non-permanent" factor that influences population density today is vacancy rates. I don't have the numbers in front me right now, but I would imagine both Cleveland and Cincinnati have higher vacancy rates than Columbus does, especially closer to the urban core.

Yeah, it's more of a conundrum for regions with big changes like Columbus. Estimates are notoriously prone to major corrections, so it's just problematic overall that there isn't any good data for 2018. Agreed. For Cleveland, 2010 numbers might be fairly accurate for today. But for Columbus, it's already extremely outdated.

Hm I wonder why you like those numbers better? Hm I wonder. Maybe because they're not 8 years out of date? In some sense. Yet the 2010 numbers are far more reliable. In my work, we still use 2010 for just about everything we can. Once the 2020 census results come out, we'll use those for the next decade. 2010 numbers are reliable for what reality was in 2010, but not for 2018. Columbus was very different in 2010 than it is in 2018. All you have to do is spend an hour driving around the city to see the growth. Now, I would agree that 2010 census figures paint a more accurate picture of what reality was in 2010 than 2018 estimates do for 2018.

I think topography and land use certainly play a part in the differences in population density, but I don't think that's the whole story. Take a look at the total square miles that are considered to be part of these urban areas. Cleveland has a total population of 1,760,000 over 772 square miles for a population density of 2,300. Cincinnati has a total population of 1,675,000 over 788 square miles for a population density of 2,100. Columbus has a total population of 1,540,000 over 510 miles for a population density of 2,700. With that in mind, I think another factor is that Cleveland and Cincinnati have low-density suburbs extending further from the urban core than what Columbus has which are still considered part of the urban area. This is likely due to the time in which the three cities saw population growth and also their proximity to other mid-sized cities. The Cleveland suburbs had the Akron suburbs to connect to, and the Cincinnati suburbs had the Dayton suburbs to connect to. Columbus didn't have another citiy's suburbs to connect to, so it grew fairly evenly in each direction until recently. We are now seeing the northern suburbs in Delaware County growing like crazy because it has Delaware to connect to, and we are also seeing the New Albany area grow eastward toward Granville/Newark.

I like these urban area definitions(2018): Cleveland: 1,760,000 Cincinnati: 1,675,000 Columbus: 1,540,000 http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf Based on these statistics, Columbus actually as a higher population density than both Cleveland and Cincinnati. Pretty interesting in my opinion.

So apparently I was correct about the tower crane. I drove past today and saw a red tower crane operating at the sight. Unfortunately I could grab a picture because I was driving down 71.

I didn't think it was that costly? I joined UO precisely because they killed the forums over there. Should have done it sooner. Cost was the reason he gave for shutting it down.

I think the latter is the only possibility that makes sense. The most likely scenario is they refined their plan (which they said they were doing way back in January I think), and then someone got their wires crossed and accidentally dropped it into the webpage too soon.

This is so true. He comes across as so arrogant and defensive. Also, I can’t believe he did away with the message boards a few years back. I understand it was costly but he’s wasting money paying people to write articles that nobody cares about reading. He should have just focused on urban development.

Hm, interesting. Eh, not my debate to fight. Wasn't trying to rope you into any debates, I just stumbled across it and thought it was kind of funny. I think agree with the Bob guy who Walker is debating with when he says that you and Walker can both be correct at the same time.

Walker Evans, the czar of all Columbus Underground comment sections, is claiming that tlb919 is wrong about Market Tower in the comment section of this article: https://www.columbusunderground.com/new-plan-calls-for-demolition-of-four-story-building-bw1#disqus_thread

I recently saw some updated renderings for the new Hilton expansion tower. The design is looking much sleeker than the original conceptual rendering. Seemed like the floorplates were a little larger and the building a couple stories shorter as well. Nice! I didn't really mind the early renderings but I thought there was certainly some room for improvement. Was the reduction in height noticeable?

They snuck in this little bit about the new 22-story Hilton 2.0: "The Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority continues to work through design work on the hotel expansion, which has seen projected cost estimates from $165 million to $200 million. The authority retained JLL as development consultant to help it plan and refine the plans. Its latest projections show significant construction work next year and completion by 2021."

I won't mind them tearing down a skinny 4-story building if we can get a 20+ story building on the last empty lot on this block: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9642511,-83.0010777,3a,75y,83.77h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR1FZOACpBYVd-gXshcBO9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en Also, while we are at it, let's get something built here as well: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9628204,-83.0008069,3a,75y,266.25h,92.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOEhUeBmiKX1OTOwVpqIK4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

The link isn't working for me....

Here is another article from Columbus Biz First: https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/09/24/chipotle-investing-millions-hiring-hundreds-for.html According to the article, Chipotle currently leases some office space at 8800 Lyra Dr. in the Polaris area though it will be moving to a new location. The new location has not yet been announced by the company. Given what we heard about Arshot looking for an anchor tenant for Millennial Tower (thanks tlb919), this seems like it could be a good opportunity for Arshot to target.

Chipotle is moving a portion of its operations to Columbus, bringing 270 new jobs and estimated investment of $5.5 million. https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/chipotle-moving-part-of-corporate-operations-to-franklin-county/1471299134

Ah gotcha. Anything noteworthy on the agenda for tomorrow?

^ I wonder how large of a tenant they are looking for. Hopefully they can get something lined up before too long.

It's not on the agenda. Where are you seeing the agenda? I don't see it up on the website.

There is a downtown commission meeting tomorrow morning. Unfortunately the agenda has not yet been posted, but I wonder if the new version might be going in front of the commission and we might get some solid info on the start date.

Haha, not me but mrtuggles seems to have an in on the projects happenings. While it looks like mrtuggles isn't directly connected to the project, I can say the post information isn't too far off base. Regarding what I can and cannot say, most of it falls into the "cannot" category. I'm connected to the project (hence my glaring lack of posts in this thread) so even though we're on the interwebs as an "anonymous" users, I don't prefer risking my income too much haha. Basically at this point I can confirm the rendering was not supposed to be public yet and I can confirm the structure will be taller than the proposed 35 floors. There are goals in place to get things moving before years end but there's basically one last barrier being working through. I think you all will be VERY VERY pleased with the details, makeup, and height once it is all released. Hopefully that gives you a tiny peek behind the curtain and nobody will report me. If you have any questions, I'll attempt to answer, but again i'm really very limited in what can be said for the moment. Come on, be a pal. Who needs an income. Share the dirty details. Seriously though, thanks for sharing what you can share. It's much appreciated. It's pretty exciting that it will actually be taller. About this last barrier....if you can't say anything it's perfectly fine, but is something that could derail the project or simply something that is more or less a delay, such as deciding on which contractor to use for a specific part of the project.

Hey tlb919, are you mrtuggles on Reddit? https://old.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/9gz6cz/new_site_for_market_tower/