jonoh81

Supposedly at 3pm EST.

I am seeing information that suggests that, while the 2020 county estimates won't be the official census numbers, they may have been adjusted based on the 2020 state census results. That's not confirmed yet, but they might be closer to the official numbers than we think.

Based on the leaves, it's probably a Honey Locust.

30K-50K will absolutely never happen Downtown without pushing for far denser projects than what it's been getting. The 3-8 story projects are just too small, especially when factoring in the lower average household size than what existed during the population peak in the 1950s. Franklinton has had more proposals over 10 stories the past year than Downtown has had proposed or built in the past decade. Take the Nicholas or HighPoint projects- both have plenty of units, but occupy relatively large lots. Had either one of those projects been split into 2 or more separate projects with similar units but with some additional height, density with both could've been doubled or more.

Yeah, let's get as many dense, tall buildings up along Broad now because it's inevitable that the people moving into Franklinton will end up forming a NIMBY whale watchers brigade soon enough.

I agree no one knows the future. The only point of contention was suggesting Columbus didn't have much existing room to build within its current limits. It absolutely does, and even if it was otherwise fully built out, densification could occur across like 99% of its land area long into the future. The irony is that Columbus is estimated to have added more people in the 9 years between 2010-2019 than the 10 years of any single decade in its history, including the decades it was packing on the square miles through annexation.

I would argue that's a good example of what NOT to do. Columbus has and is building far too many of these intermediary developments- half urban and half suburban- that don't fully take advantage of their land use potential.

Columbus city limits has enormous amounts of room to both add infill and just densify. All of Linden and much of the far South Side alone, just for starters, could see decades of infill without breaking a sweat. If Columbus ever did away with single-family exclusionary zoning, the sky's literally the limit. No more land needs to be added to keep growing indefinitely.

I think we are all kind of talking about slightly different things. Cleveland almost definitely didn't grow the last decade, so we're really talking about how many people it was able to retain. I think some of the underestimate may be in assuming the losses there were greater than they were. In Columbus, it's more likely to be an underestimate of how fast it added people overall. Cincinnati is kind of in between, with some growth and some retainment.

There really isn't any evidence that Central Ohio is being overestimated. In the past few decades, it's been just the opposite.

The city has been getting about 50% of the total metro growth for some time, but there's no guarantee that that has continued. My metro range is +266,276 to +342,355. Bare minimum, I think Columbus will pick up 40%. 40% of Metro Growth: 893,543-923,975 50% of Metro Growth: 920,171-958,211 60% of Metro Growth: 946,788-992,446 So a total overall range of 893,543-992,446. Columbus very likely hit 900K in 2017-2018 given the overall estimate undercounts. I would think a number around 930,000 would not be all the surprising.

So there are 3 possibilities: 1. A growth rate similar to the 2000s. 2. A growth rate faster than then 2000s. 3. A growth rate a bit slower than the 2000s. #3 seems highly unlikely as all indications point to record growth in the metro area, along with the fact that Ohio grew more that past 10 years than it did during the 2000s. #1 is more possible, but again unlikely given the evidence. So that leaves us with #2. 2000-2010, the metro grew by 226,961. This was a rate of 13.55%, or an annualized rate of 1.355% 2010-2019, the metro was being estimated to have grown by 220,297, a rate of 11.58%, an annualized rate of 1.287%. However, we now know that the estimates were off quite a bit in Ohio, with even the 2020 estimate being off by more than 106,000. Cincinnati may have picked up some of that, but given that Columbus is the only Ohio metro that's had positive domestic migration overall in recent years, it's entirely possible the Columbus metro picked up the vast majority of that undercount. Furthermore, the Columbus region has been consistently undercounted when compared to earlier estimates, and has always needed to be revised upwards. Given all the other evidence, the Columbus metro only growing by 1.287% annually is very unlikely. Furthermore, it seems that a rate similar to the 2000s is also not supported. So all that said, I would not expect to see an annual growth rate above the 2000s at minimum. I would put the annualized rate between 1.4%-1.8%. That would put the Columbus metro between 2,168,250 and 2,244,329, with a most-likely number around 2.2 million. The 2019 estimate was 2,122,271.

Someone from Columbus just asked about the state. Ohio +2.3% This is faster than the 1.6% 2000-2010, so Ohio actually improved.

Pennsylvania saw a 2.4% increase over the decade. That might be somewhat similar to what Ohio sees.

Yes, and keep referring people to census.gov to see the rest of the data, but it's clearly not available there. Edit: They just said the tables will be posted after the conference.

Early data seems that the US grew at the second slowest rate in history the last 10 years. Population growth through 2020 was actually below the 2020 estimates. That affects apportionment, as the South didn't gain as many seats and the North didn't lose as many seats as expected. Ohio lost one seat, but it was in danger of losing more. Florida only gained one, but was expected to gain at least 2. It appears only 3 states lost population the last decade, however. I know WV was one of them, but not sure who else yet. I only managed to catch one state's actual population- California at 39,538,223.

This was my prediction in early March.

Nice. I guess we'll find out how good the predictions were.

I may mention you in my awards speech.

Weird how a company can't make the financials work for an 11-story in IV, but they work just fine at 15 stories in Franklinton, an arguably far less desirable current location. I know, different companies and all, but still... It is good news.

I want credit if it gets that name.

Where is the link to this page?

That might have been why the proposal never went anywhere. However, I do believe that the silt buildup problem was in part due to all the low-head dams allowing it to collect behind them through Downtown. I wonder if the problem would be as severe today with fewer of them.

Not related to current development, but I thought I'd share this. Back in 1965, the city formed a plan to redevelop the riverfronts of the Scioto and Olentangy, and part of the plan including the Scioto Peninsula and Franklinton. The plan was to create a large park with a lake with development surrounding it- seemingly right underneath the existing railroad tracks. The main feature, though, was a new canal that would've been dug through the middle of Franklinton that would have had boats launches, restaurants and other amenities along it.