edale

This probably won't be a popular position here, but one argument against city/county mergers across the state would be the dilution of African American political power. In Cleveland in Cincinnati, which both have black populations exceeding 40% of the city, there is considerable black political power in those communities. Hamilton County, by contrast, is only like 25% black, so the voting block would be much less pronounced. Something to think about at least.

Those are some pretty cute little bungalows, but I'm always in favor of more density surrounding business districts. Will be interesting to see what is proposed. I expect there will be quite a fight from the community, though!

Welp, so much for the whole "we already know what the stadium is going to look like" conversation from a month ago. No need to dig up the old posts, but feeling pretty vindicated over that whole discussion ? This is really about what I was envisioning we'd get with this stadium. Pretty much right off the shelf, with very little in the way of interesting or unique features. Bland, gray materials, surface lots, very little street interaction. It's not bad looking, but certainly not great. Given their location adjacent to one of the largest historic districts in the country which happens to be almost entirely brick, can someone explain why brick wasn't incorporated into this design? The rendering for Columbus' new stadium incorporated a lot of brick and looks fantastic. This looks like it was designed in 20 minutes for anywhere, USA and then plopped into some renderings in Cincinnati. It's a bit of a bummer, but fairly predictable.

I also was surprised to not see a single high-rise in the various proposals. It would be great to get another tower or two on the riverfront, I think. It'd create even better views from the Ohio side.

I don't really understand this sentiment. Cincinnati has always had neighborhoods that have restaurants, shops, parks, and bars within walking distance. Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Clifton, Northside, Mt. Adams, Oakley all fit this bill, and all existed before the revitalization of OTR. I understand that The Banks isn't for everyone. It's 100% not for me, for example. In addition to the crowds and noise of the stadiums, the biggest knock for me is being right next to the FWW freeway trench and the super wide freeway-lite Second and Third streets. But it seems to me that the urban core neighborhoods have more amenities now than they have basically ever had in the modern era. It sucks that Macys and the other retail by Fountain Square has gone away, but in terms of having daily needs accessible, I think the core is in a better place today than basically ever before. The amount of restaurants in OTR far exceeds the offerings of any other neighborhood. Findlay Market is booming, and the retail spaces around the market are getting rehabbed and filled for the first time in my lifetime. There's a streetcar to circulate people around to the different nodes (performance/route issues aside). There will soon be a full service grocery store and food hall. Beautiful and vibrant new and rehabbed parks (Ziegler, Washington, Smale). Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods still offer the most walkable environment in the region, plus it's the only part of the region with real traditional urbanism and it has the best transit access of any neighborhood. I also don't really understand the complaints about the city center not being pedestrian friendly. Downtown and OTR have pretty narrow streets as it is. Traffic is not an issue outside of maybe the afternoon rush hour. Jay walking is routine and easy and not policed. Could the city have more bike lanes? Sure. They could add pedestrian bumpouts to other streets in OTR like Main St got. Liberty, Central Parkway and the streets by the Banks are a mess and need to be narrowed for sure. But overall, I never thought Downtown Cincinnati was difficult or stressful to navigate on foot...like at all. It's quite easy and pleasant, I think. Blocks are short, lights are frequent, streets are seldom crowded. Not really sure where these complaints are coming from. Of course Cranley and Co. suck, and they should have moved forward on the giving pedestrians the walk light before cars get the green, implemented signal priority for the streetcar months ago, etc. But overall, I think the situation isn't bad at all for pedestrians.

Of course it's very rare that there is a 100% clear distinction between city and suburbs. There are older, more urban suburbs that could pass as urban neighborhoods, and there are more suburban neighborhoods in the city. For the most part, though, the city boundaries in a place like Cincinnati contain housing that is older and denser than its surrounding communities. There aren't whole neighborhoods that were built in the last 40 years in the city of Cincinnati. Perhaps there are some isolated streets or redeveloped areas like the suburban shit around the old Cincinnati Gardens, but those are the obvious exceptions. When exurban neighborhoods like this and this are counted as the City of Columbus, it dilutes the meaning of being in the city. These places are literally at the edge of metro Columbus, but are counted in the city population. It kind of makes a mockery of what most people think of as being 'the city'. The other end of the spectrum is a place like San Francisco or maybe St. Louis (or potentially Cleveland) that have such small municipal boundaries that it excludes a big chunk of what would otherwise be thought of as city neighborhoods due to age of development and density. There is truly not a good method for comparing cities. I think the best method is probably urban area, as it ignores the often arbitrary political boundaries, and instead just looks at contiguous development over a certain threshold. Just my opinion.

Who is trying to quantify the value of growth?! Honestly, this seems more and more like your insecurities prompting this discussion than anything else. How did we get here: Columbus annexes tons of undeveloped land around the traditional '1950' boundaries. Columbus slows annexation dramatically in recent years Previously annexed city-owned land develops and fills in over the years Columbus' population continues to grow @jonoh81 Annexation has mostly stopped! Obviously population growth has nothing to do with annexation! Me: well, that land that was annexed previously is just now being developed, so it's effect on population is still being felt, even while the core of Columbus continues to grow, too. @jonoh81 Stop quantifying our growth!! It's not fake growth!! Me: wtf...

Where did I say "growth doesn't count"? What does that even mean? All land included in Columbus' boundaries obviously counts towards it population. I'm not using any arbitrary rules or anything like that. - You said Columbus' growth can't be attributed to annexation because annexation has drastically slowed as population continues to rise - The hole in this argument that I was trying to point out is that Columbus largely annexed undeveloped land on the periphery of its city boundaries. So even though annexation has dramatically slowed, the city is still growing as a result of prior annexations being developed. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Columbus' population growth is occurring in the older portions of the city. However it is also reaping benefits from annexation, even as new annexation has slowed or stopped. Is that clear? I don't think that's controversial in the slightest. I do understand @ColDayMan's point about annexation in a vacuum not resulting in growth. If the city's economy wasn't strong and the region as a whole wasn't growing, there'd be no assurance that those annexed greenfields would be developed. Point taken, and I wasn't trying to say that Columbus is only growing because of annexations. But I don't think its honest to say that you can't attribute some of Columbus' city growth to annexation and the huge land area the city now covers. This has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Cleveland. I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. Hope this post clears stuff up.

Woah, I never made a judgement about what is bad, good, or ok. I was just responding to Jonoh's claim that population boomed even while annexation stopped, so annexation can't be the credited with the growing population. That is obviously not true when the land that is annexed is undeveloped. I'm not sure where you're getting the rest of this stuff from.

Uh, no it can't? If Cincinnati annexed Norwood, a community entirely surrounded by Cincinnati city limits and built out for decades, it would receive a one time population bump at the time of annexation. If it annexed a chunk of land out in the undeveloped western portion of Hamilton County, it would receive a tiny bump at the time of annexation, but as that land got developed in coming years, it would continue to show as growth for the city. Huge difference. The latter is what happened in Columbus. I saw it first hand while doing some work around Lincoln Village several years ago. When that land out there was annexed it was farm land, and it remained as such for years. It was actively being built out as single family homes in 2014 or so.

This is disingenuous. Columbus mostly annexed undeveloped land on the fringes of its city boundaries rather than absorbing existing communities. So even though annexation has slowed to a crawl, land that was acquired through previous annexations is still being built out and developed. As someone who seems very familiar with the data, I feel like this is a point you have to already know. Perhaps this type of stuff is why you've been given the 'booster bro' label. Also, @arenn thanks for posting here and clarifying your argument. I really do appreciate The Urbanophile and your contributions to promoting, or at least exploring, midwest cities over the years. Glad to see you're still popping in here on UO from time to time.

These guys are obsessed with making each of their concepts into chains. It's funny how 3CDC supposedly has such a strict 'no-chain' policy, but a lot of the restaurants that started out as one-off places are now chains. It really dilutes the cool factor of OTR, when every city within a 3-4 hour drive has most of the same places. I respect the Thunderdome group for growing their business to now be a mini empire, but I think 3CDC needs to find new blood and not partner with them on any other restaurants. It's also kind of funny to me that there are 3 restaurants devoted to chicken fingers in the Cincy urban core alone. What's up with that? Seems awfully niche and juvenile, though I'm sure they're all good. I just have a hard time imagining a place like City Bird having success other places.

^ If you just read the 65 pages, shouldn't you already know the answer to your question?

Interesting, but I think you’d have to look at NKY, or at least the river cities of Ludlow, Covington, Newport, Bellevue, and Dayton to get a more accurate number of prewar buildings in the Cincinnati area. I have to think almost all of the residential buildings in these cities are pre-war. Of course, Cincinnati also has some very old suburban areas with significant concentrations of prewar stock, too. Glendale and Wyoming are the obvious ones, but places like Lockland and Cheviot also have a lot of old homes. I’m very curious about this- what data source did you use to find these figures? Also, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Columbus experienced more freeway related losses than other cities in Ohio. Cincinnati lost almost the entire West End and huge swaths of the city. I’m sure you’ve seen the old photo of the Cincy basin before urban renewal?

I don't recognize most of these people, but I do remember this pic from when it was first posted! I remember the guy on the right with the cig is The Pope. Wonder what ever happened to him? I think one of the OG's of UO, Grasscat, is second from right on the top row. @ColDayMan is the only other person I recognize!

Have the townhouses at St. C's begun construction yet?

After reading this thread, I've concluded that I am definitely not a camper. It sounds pretty miserable to me all around. The one time I tried it, I ended up sleeping in my car. I enjoy hiking, but similarly enjoy going back home or to the hotel room at the end of the day. To each his own!

I'm not a big fan of Renn, but I do appreciate that his blog was one of the few that promoted midwest urbanism. I think he is a bit full of himself, and he seems like he tries really hard to present himself as an authority figure rather than a dialogue starter. On this issue, he absolutely should have acknowledged your point, @jonoh81, about the mathematical impossibility of the declines in other portions of the state explaining the growth in Columbus. That's a glaring hole in his argument, and I would have thought he'd welcome a chance to explain his methodology. I also think he owed you an explanation for why he didn't discuss international immigration as a cause of population growth in Columbus. As we have seen in many places across the country, when international immigration slows, population growth also slows. The fact that Columbus is still attracting a healthy number of immigrants should be noteworthy, too. I'm a bit torn as to whether IRS or census estimates and ACS data is the better method for analyzing population trends. I'm not sure if students should be counted as 'residents' in the city where they attend school. Most of those students only live in Columbus part of the year, and I think one could make a strong argument for why they shouldn't be included in population data. I also agree with Renn's point about gaining residents from 28 states says nothing about the totals. Columbus could be gaining a few residents from every state but New York, but if it's sending more people to NY than the other 49, then who really cares? I think every city has its boosters, and Columbus is no different. I think because Cbus wasn't really on anyone's radar until recently, the boosters there seem to be a little more defensive than other places. Tell a Cincinnatian that his city sucks and it's something he's heard a million times. He might tell you to f off and Cincinnati doesn't like you either (lol), but he won't be shocked to hear critique. All we heard for decades was critiques! Tell a Columbusite his city sucks, and it might honestly be the first time he's heard a critique of the place, especially if s/he is under say, 30. When the media and demographic narrative is incessantly positive, people tend to react more to the negative coverage. This might be what Renn is picking up on when he talks about the Cbus booster bros.

lol the delusion is REAL

The best view of the skyline, hands down, is from the south (imo). Driving north on the 110 gives a great view, but for photography purposes, the best vantage point I can think of for this angle would be atop one of the parking garages at USC. The skyline looks massive and dense, and you have the mountains providing an excellent backdrop.

I think mansions would be a better land use for that stretch of Euclid than what is mostly there now! Those mansions could have been turned into office space or subdivided into apartments or condos. I'm sure there are examples of this in Cleveland too, but here are a few old mansions that have been converted to offices in Cincinnati: Pension Corporation of America Public library branch Medical office really this whole block

Looks like a great project. With the 3CDC rehabs, new grocery and apartment tower, and this project, Court St. is really seeing a lot of investment. As this node develops further, it will help bridge the activity gap between the CBD core and OTR. I really hope a highrise goes in across Walnut from this building. Removing that huge parking lot would do wonders for improving the psychological connection between this area and the rest of downtown. I think this should be more of a priority than repurposing the library's north building, though I understand the latter might be easier to develop given its public ownership.

Given the insane amount of pollution that jets produce, I'm wondering if this Amazon Prime Airhub will end up being a negative thing for the region. As soon as Amazon can figure out a way to automate the entire process of loading/unloading the jets, sorting the products, and loading the trucks, they will. I think this will happen sooner rather than later, and the number of jobs at this facility will be fairly insignificant, all while the region's air gets polluted by aircraft that isn't providing locals with transportation. Just a thought.

Hard not to think of this project while reading about the Blockland development...

Huh? The Banks has stadiums, museums, apartments, hotel, office space, bars and restaurants, a giant park, and is in an urban environment with a street grid running through it. Kenwood Town Center is a giant single building entirely devoted to retail and surrounded by massive parking lots. What are the similarities? Furthermore, since when is Kenwood Mall 'touristy'? Liberty Town Center is a lifestyle center that attempts to imitate what cities and town centers have had for decades- mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments.