jonoh81

I wonder if they didn't because outside of games, this area is too far away from the main action of the Arena District and the housing going there won't be nearly dense enough to otherwise support it.

Yep. The "downtown" of Clintonville is the best stretch despite its low heights/density. I don't know why they wouldn't want to expand that kind of walkable development along their corridors. Even if its only a few stories tall, as long as it was a good mix of uses, that would be much better than what they've been approving.

Continues to be the best suburban development outside of Downtown. 😆 But seriously, every Columbus suburb should be doing things like this. And Dublin needs to do more of it.

Wasted potential is like the Clintonville motto. Overall a nice neighborhood, but their main corridors are a joke. It will be interesting to see how the new zoning codes treat those stretches.

The irony is that Alaska is only in the top 10 because it functions as a socialist kind of oil state.

The intent of the bill is to encourage downtown development, not specifically to attract out-of-state relocations. It would be a positive if it does, but you're essentially arguing a possible tangential outcome that hasn't happened yet is the heart of the bill. Internal relocations of existing Ohio residents are much more likely, and even without this bill, Census results show this kind of shift to more urban areas has been ongoing for years. And I have my doubts this bill would've happened at all if a rich donor group- developers- didn't directly benefit. Republicans don't exactly have a long, storied history of giving a crap about the condition of cities beyond using them as convenient scapegoats for fear-mongering about crime and liberal politics. Even if their intentions are entirely altruistic, given all their other actions, this is more akin to the broken clock theory and it's going to take a far more focused effort to change the state's overall direction.

Well, if Ohio starts being flooded with young people from other states based on a single bill not specifically designed to attract people from other states, I will concede the point.

We're just going past one another. Conservative politics alone don't control migration, but they don't help, and the exclusive focus on them comes at the expense of useful policy. Basically, I'm saying that the GOP, aside from being morally reprehensible, just suck at their jobs. Regressive states can grow because they offer more than just regressive politics. Ohio isn't even trying to offer more than that right now, even as the only places growing in the state at least give the perception that they do.

Where am I doing that? Your original argument for that was based on something I wasn't actually saying regarding conservative politics- that it alone controlled population growth. That was never my contention, though. Here are the 3 main points I've made: 1. Ohio won't attract younger, liberal people by passing regressive laws. 2. Ohio's GOP leadership is doing next to nothing to attract out-of-state and foreign migration. 3. Since Ohio isn't doing much of anything to attract people, and it doesn't have built-in advantages that many people want (such as warmer winters), its attempt to become Mississippi are likely producing a net loss, since young people can't/won't replace all the retiring boomers- and other young people- moving away. Basically, the point is that conservative, divisive politics won't save the state because that's not a game plan and there are already plenty of other backwards states that hate abortion, gays and immigrants that have other things going on. Ohio isn't going to out-Right-wing the South, so maybe don't try.

He's going to argue that anecdotes don't count, and on principle I agree with that. However, he's kind of ignoring that even if conservative social positions aren't preventing people from moving to Ohio, state government focusing on divisive social issues rather than creating conditions to make Ohio more attractive absolutely does. And if you're not incentivizing people to move to Ohio, creating an even more hostile and divisive perception to potential movers can't do anything but cause even more harm.

Thanks for the link. It does look nice, and at least it's not entirely white/gray and there are some interesting design features. That said, I still wonder what condition the interior was in prior to this, and whether there was nothing worth saving. This is basically a new house right down to the trim and floors. Shouldn't have any problem finding a buyer, though. Here's an example of a type of flip I'm talking about. I know they're doing this to kind of present a "blank slate" for potential buyers to personalize it, but it's like living in a world in which all color and charm have been banned. Why, why why would you keep some of the original woodwork and fireplace, but slather it all in a thick coat of colorless paint to the point where they offer no interesting focal points whatsoever? This house was built in 1913, but looks like it was built by LC Communities last year. The most interesting room in this house is now the basement. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/124-Dana-Ave_Columbus_OH_43222_M34116-99801

I would put absolutely nothing past them these days, but I don't see it as a conspiracy plot more than just acknowledging that high growth is undesirable for keeping the state predictably red, as that high growth would almost undoubtedly settle in urban, more liberal areas. Are there even any real-world examples of a higher-growth state becoming more conservative? Maybe Florida?? It's kind of a special case demographically, though, given it receives both high numbers of retirees and high numbers of the most conservative immigrant groups. And you kind of ignored the rest of my post there. What is Ohio's exclusively GOP leadership actually doing to make the state more attractive for relocation if that was really a goal? One bill doesn't cut it.

Franklin County alone counted for 61% of the total state's growth at face value. Obviously, the math is a bit more complex than that, but still. I think this is a phenomenon where people can kind of ignore state-level politics if they live in a location that doesn't feel like it shares those politics. But Columbus can't prop up the state forever. The rural areas are dying fast, and most of its main cities aren't fairing too much better. If birthrates continue to fall and the population continues to age, the state is going to be in terrible shape demographically going in the not-so-distant future.

I never argued that politics alone exclusively controlled population growth. I am just arguing that if you want to attract the most young people- most of whom are neither conservative nor Republican- one of the things you should do is not pass really regressive social rights laws. In states like Florida or Texas, they can somewhat get away with being conservative dumpster fires politically because they are warm, have beaches and people think they'll be on perpetual vacation living there. Ohio has no such perception, so it has to claw for every new resident. How does becoming the next Mississippi make the state more attractive? Old boomers aren't moving to Ohio, either- they're moving to the aforementioned states- so who is this stuff for, exactly, anyway? But even if we fully discount the social side of politics, what is Ohio's controlling party doing to actually attract people? Are they making Ohio a leader in wages and worker benefits? Are they investing heavily in what will be a big future in green technology? Are they marketing the state as being attractive for foreign immigration to counter falling domestic birthrates? I'm seeing none of that. The fact that all these vaccine bans and making sure no Ohio city can pass a plastic bag ban, among other dumb moves, seem to be the main priority doesn't really support that they're all that interested in growing the state that much. And given that high-growth red states are slowing turning more purple- and Republicans know and see that- suggests that maybe high growth is not in their best interest to begin with. So in the end whether they really care about the state growing, their actions- regardless of intent- seem to be doing everything but tackling that issue.

I'm not trashing the cause whatsoever. That part is obviously good. And not having seen interior photos, I also don't know if my description is how these places end up. That said, I've never been a big fan of the quick flip style housing product regardless of who is doing them because limited budgets tend to sterilize these old houses. Maybe not the biggest concern overall, but still.

One bill that may or may not prove transformational in Ohio's cities, but will definitely be a boon for developers doesn't exactly alter the fact that the state is busy passing and attempting to pass dozens of other regressive, socially backwards, science denying and anti-democratic nonsense that is restricting rights and going directly against what younger generations view as important and attractive. Other states are doing a lot more than the bare minimum, and Ohio isn't even doing that.

While some of these are probably total gut jobs, I hope at least some of the remaining intact original interior features are respected and kept intact. A lot of these low-budget, flip-style housing groups tend to just tear everything out, replace everything on the cheap and then cover everything with buckets of the exact same shades of white and gray. The removal of features like dormers and fireplaces suggest this is the same kind of deal, unfortunately.

Dear god, stop. Also, it will totally be approved because there are no standards.

I'm not sure how one connects with the other, so perhaps you'd like to elaborate a bit.

The growing parts of the state can only sustain overall growth for so long. Current leadership is killing the state's attractiveness for younger demographics. That may actually be part of the ploy for Republicans, who have long given up actually trying to expand their base. Without older white people (or cheating), they're dead in the water, so the last thing they want are things like immigrants and young people.

Yeah, that's pretty hideous. I like the southern part better than the northern.

There's already an enormous parking garage there, but it's only a few levels. They could spend the money to reinforce and expand the existing one, or better yet, find ways to get some of the workers out of their cars altogether.

Yet the city keeps allowing the destruction of existing buildings for surface parking lots, and allowing new developments to put parking garages on the ground floor level of primary corridors, indicating that perhaps they are trying to talk out of both sides of their butts on that issue. They also continue to prioritize an auto-centric view overall, such as with their excuses on not adding any other biking infrastructure. I also didn't really see anything about the overwhelming code preference for single-family housing.

One of my personal highlights was writing an unflattering article about that awful project and angering CH to no end.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the long term plans include a stunning 4-story building with 3 levels of parking and a blank wall along the street. I hope they get really creative with the choice of pre-fab panels and visible garage fluorescents.