jonoh81

I'm not sure zoning changes would really affect Downtown too much. Height and density limitations are not as much of an issue already, and I am under the impression that there are no Downtown parking requirements, either. Maybe I'm incorrect about that, though.

True, I'm not discounting an acceleration of growth. It's more that I think there is a limit to how fast and how much it can grow if we're only going to be having low rise buildings taking up entire blocks with only 150-200 units.

It's not just height. Height can allow for greater density in smaller lot sizes, but there still has to be an increased number of units within the projects. The conversion of 150 E. Gay is a great project because the unit number is significant. We need more of that type of unit count in new projects. HighPoint was like 300 units, but I would argue it's bad density because it takes nearly 2 blocks of High Street to get there. We need 300 unit projects in half that space, minimum.

Downtown population has been growing, but not as quickly as you suggest. Here is the breakdown of tracts and population that the traditional Downtown has had over time. The tracts have changed names and sizes over time, but they largely represent the same area, but it's not exact. There's about a 0.6 square mile difference between 1950 and now, for example. 1930 Population and Density 0001A: 3,131- 6262.0 0002A: 5794- 18106.3 0003A: 2,195- 6097.2 0004A: 6,292- 16133.3 0005A: 4,359- 7925.5 0001B: 7,028- 13780.4 0002B: 7,896- 19258.5 0001C: 3,834- 6970.9 0002C: 4,936- 19744.0 Total Pop: 45,465 Avg. Density: 11452.1 based on 3.97 square miles. 1940 Population and Density 30 (Was 0005A): 4,720- 8581.8 31 (Was 0003A): 2,568- 7133.3 32 (Was 0001A): 4,626- 8115.8 33 (Was part of 0002A- Ohio Pen Only): 3,649- 91225.0 34 (Was part of 0002A): 1,983- 7082.1 35 (Was 0004A): 6,453- 16546.2 39 (Was 0002B): 8,666- 21136.6 40 (Was 0001B): 6,811- 13354.9 41 (Was 0002C): 5,180- 16709.7 42 (Was 0001C): 4,069- 7398.1 Total Pop: 48,725 Change: +3,260 Avg. Density: 12273.3 based on 3.97 square miles. 1950 Population and Density- Population Peak 30: 4,535- 8245.5 31: 2,908- 8077.8 32: 4,813- 8843.9 33: 4,417- 110425.0 34: 1,945- 6946.4 35: 7,725- 19807.7 39: 10,379- 25314.6 40: 7,557- 14817.7 41: 5,535- 17854.8 42- 3,834- 6970.9 Total Pop: 53,648 Change: +4,923 Avg. Density: 13513.4 based on 3.97 square miles. 1960 Population and Density 30: 4,506- 8192.7 31: 1,730- 6178.6 32: 585- 991.5 33: 3,785- 94625.0 34: 975- 2437.5 35: 6,046- 17274.3 39: 8,140- 19853.7 40: 4,322- 8644.0 41: 4,463- 15389.7 42: 3,168- 5369.5 Total Pop: 37,730 Change: -15,918 Avg. Density: 9432.5 based on 4.0 square miles. By 1960, Urban Renewal and highway construction was really hitting Downtown hard. 1970 Population and Density 30: 1,008- 1832.7 31: 1,346- 4807.1 32: 2,155- 3780.7 33: 1,980- 49500.0 34: 562- 1405.0 35: 1,975- 5642.9 39: 2,636- 7322.2 40: 1,333- 2468.5 41: 3,603- 11622.6 42: 1,862- 3266.7 Total Pop: 18,460 Change: -19,270 Avg. Density: 4649.9 based on 3.97 square miles. 1980 Population and Density 30: 180- 327.3 31: 797- 2846.4 32: 1,961- 3323.7 33: 1,452- 36,300.0 34: 347- 867.5 35: 913- 2608.6 39: 1,679- 4663.9 40: 1,408- 2560.0 41: 3,062- 8505.6 42: 1,262- 3004.8 Total Pop: 13,061 Change: -5,399 Avg. Density: 3349.0 based on 3.90 square miles. 1990 Population and Density 30: 1,474 (31 and 35 added to 30)- 1249.2 32: 1,819- 3083.1 33: 0- 0.0 34: 159- 397.5 39: 1,212- 3366.7 40: 1,497- 2721.8 41: 2,631- 7308.3 42: 1,301- 3097.6 Total Pop: 10,093 Change: -2,968 Avg. Density: 2587.9 based on 3.90 square miles. 2000 Population and Density- Population Bottom 30: 2,179 (33 and 34 Added to 30)- 1345.1 32: 1,824- 2850.0 40: 2,195 (39 added to 40)- 2385.9 42: 1,432 (41 added to 42)- 2701.9 Total Pop: 7,630 Change: -2,463 Avg. Density: 2056.6 based on 3.71 square miles. 2010 Population and Density 30: 3,105- 1940.6 32: 2,147- 3407.9 40: 2,941- 3231.9 42: 1,370- 2537.0 Total Pop: 9,563 Change: +1,933 Avg. Density: 2584.6 based on 3.70 square miles. 2020 Population and Density 30: 4,189- 3059.9 32: 3,500- 5468.8 4001: 1,253 (40 split into 4001 and 4002)- 4176.7 4002: 4,245- 8179.2 42: 1,107- 2108.6 Total Pop: 14,294 Change: +4,731 Avg. Density: 4266.9 based on 3.35 square miles. Most of this size reduction was in Tract 30, which no longer includes some of the railroad track area on the northern side, so population itself was not really affected. So between 2000 and 2020, Downtown added 6,664 people, or 333 people per year on average. That number did increase from 193 per year during the 2000s to 473 in the 2010s, but it's nowhere near 1000 a year. The 14,294 figure is somewhat generous because it includes the Thurber Village and Michigan Avenue area north of 670, which wouldn't technically be Downtown, so you can probably knock off a least 1000 from that figure. Even if we took that whole number, Downtown was still almost 26,000 behind the 40,000 goal in 2020. It's obviously grown some since then, but probably not by that much given the pandemic and fewer construction projects the past few years. So maybe 15000 in 2022? Let's say current growth rates are a bit higher than they were in the past decade- say 600 per year. Over the next 18 years, that would add under 11,000, which doesn't get us to to even 30K. Even at 1000 per year, the population would reach around 33K. You'd have to see annual growth around 1,500 per year to reach 40,000 by 2040, more than 3x the rate Downtown was growing the past decade. I just don't see it happening with current construction and growth rates, with the types of projects Downtown is getting and the relatively small household sizes. Not trying to be negative, just putting the numbers out there. 40,000 is very ambitious and I would love to see it happen, but it's going to take a wholesale change in how Downtown is being developed to come close. That means every vacant and otherwise underutilized lot from here on out has to be maximized density. If everything gets filled with 3-6 story buildings, I can see population getting to 25K-30K tops assuming at least some families move in. To get families, you will need grocery options and transit and just a much more pedestrian friendly environment, etc. That's just my take and I'm sure people disagree, but I'm just basing it on the numbers and trends.

It needs to start happening now, though, to reach that kind of goal. And developers keep proposing short, relatively low density projects and they keep getting approved for the most part.

To be perfectly honest, I think it's going to be very difficult to hit 40,000 residents within another 18 years. There are 2 main problems I see stopping it: 1. Household size is smaller now than what it was the last time Downtown had 40K-50K residents. 2. Building height/density in modern projects has generally not been big enough to offset those smaller households. If we were building 10-20 story residential projects with 300-500 units each, it would be more doable, but we're still getting a lot of low-rise development with 100-150 units for single people and couples. Consider all of the Downtown develpment that has occurred since the early 2000s when Coleman was pushing for housing there. Now consider that only roughly 7,000 people have been added over the last 20 years with all of those new buildings and renovations and it's still barely 25% of the way there. Something's got to change to reach those lofty numbers. As for a Broad Street makeover like that pictured... we've heard that song and dance for decades. I'm going to be from Missouri until I see the asphalt being pulled up.

People forget that streets are public space, not private parking lots. No one is entitled to a spot right in front of their house regardless if we're talking urban or suburban/rual areas. I have no idea how being able to park closer to one's home somehow lessens the chance of it getting stolen and that doesn't seem like the real objection to me. I think people just don't want to walk.

Grandview Crossing, yes, but I was speaking more broadly about all the large scale developments in the area, including Grandview Yard. For Grandview Crossing itself, I don't think the landfill alone was the reason they didn't mix heights. The national trend is still a big preference for 5 over 1s, which is typically a maximum of 5-6 stories. They can be built cheaply and quickly, while anything above that is more expensive for engineering and materials due to codes. So I don't think it's entirely a matter of that they couldn't, but just that as with most other developments of late- didn't want to spend the money to do so. I'm sure there were extra challenges being on a landfill, so it gets more of a pass. But that doesn't apply to most other locations building the same things.

Yeah, multi-story buildings all served by seas of surface parking is obscene to me. I don't understand why we can't get more Bridge Park kind of developments. It's not like the few that have been built haven't been enormously successful.

Shame none of the buildings took advantage of it. The biggest flaws of this whole development are how just about everything is the same height and somewhat similar design.

I'm devastated with the Jaeger Square name. I can't believe they didn't go with the Whittier Whale or the Beluga Bungalows. Total missed opportunity.

Kind of hope they reject it, honestly. Make CVS sweat a bit. It's not a great development because of them and I'm not a fan of the good enough approach.

Yes, that's kind of my point. That poor and minority neighborhoods have been neglected for decades, and have lacked the kind of oversight that would've held negligent owners more accountable for maintaining their buildings. Though in more than a few cases, the City itself was the neglectful owner. There is a reason that so much of the East Side was torn down or otherwise lost over the last 50 years.

Weird how you only see these kinds of things in places like the NES or Franklinton.

Did it collapse due to fire? Or just years of neglect the city allowed?

The problem is and will continue to be ODOT, which is pretty much entirely made up of highway construction interests. They only know how to make roads bigger, not cover them up. The city has been trying to get them to cover up 70/71 for decades. The "cap capable" bridges were the compromise because ODOT doesn't want to spend the money on such a project otherwise.

The last thing the region needs is another big retail development that will be outdated and abandoned in 20 years when the next wave gets built even further out. It's just cannibalization.

To be fair to Cleveland, total violent crimes haven't increased a ton over the 2000-2020 period, going from 6041 to 6294. The issue is that this is the opposite of most cities, which saw general declines. It also doesn't help that Cleveland's population has been dropping, meaning there are more violent crimes in a decreasing population, so the rate is going up more than it would in a growing city. Meanwhile, Cincinnati fell from 2783 to 2725 and Columbus went from 5998 to 5065. Toledo went from 2380 to 2729, by far the worst performance of any of Ohio's cities in total and % change. And Cleveland and Toledo's performance doesn't seem to match other Rust Belt cities. Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, etc. all had substantial declines in their totals and rates. The only other city in the region that didn't was Milwaukee, so I'm not sure what's going on with those in particular.

I wouldn't call it a "dubmb*ss list", but I did compare violent crime rates for every city with populations at or above 250K, so that includes Toledo and the 3 Cs. I compared 3 years, 2000, 2010 and 2020. https://allcolumbusdata.com/crime-rates-by-city/

It's really interesting how absolutely rabid and irrational the opposition to bike lanes gets. It's not dissimilar from that of development opposition, but they take it to the next level sometimes. A few days ago, I responded to a FB CU article about the revamp of East Broad Street. The plan didn't even include bike lanes, but rather a shared-use path in place of a sidewalk, and someone was trashing bike lanes as a waste of money because nobody used them. When I pointed out Columbus technically only has 1 actual bike lane on Summit and the rest are just half_8ssed painted lines that are dangerous to use, the poster got super angry and responded with a litany of insults to the point the entire discussion was deleted by a CU mod. There is a certain very vocal segment of the population that is extremely threatened by alternative forms of transit. It's like some people's identities revolve around driving as much as some other's revolve around guns.

As I've been saying, I don't think anyone should be hanging their hat on the recent numbers coming out. Austin barely adding 1000 people in a year would be a hell of a fall given their typical growth. I know it was an unusual and tough year, so even if these numbers were remotely accurate (and I have my doubts, to say the least), I would expect more of a return to normal over the next few years. Barring another national or global disaster of some kind... All that said, Columbus hanging on in the positive in even some of the worst estimates in generations nationally is pretty impressive.

In this case, it's not about density or height, I just think it's painfully boring architecturally.

With all the back and forth, the 2020 Census and the Covid-era estimates need large asterisks, IMO. It's hard to believe any of these numbers at this point, good or bad.

I could see some of these being underrated, but Chicago? Philly? NYC??????? Really?

It's okay, but the previous proposal for the site was so much better.