jonoh81

First, the numbers are definitely annual, as they are derived from the 5-year ACS. The data is collected over the entire period, but represents the average annual change over that 5-year period. Second, you're forgetting Ohio. I left it off the top 10s because it would easily be the #1 in all cases, and it's more interesting to find out data for migration from outside the state. Ohio- outside of the other Cincinnati metro counties- provided a net annual average of 1,915 to Hamilton County, a significant source of growth. Where did you get the 1282 from? Is it just for 2014-2018 and only for migration, or is it total growth during that period? If it's the latter, you'd also have to factor in international migration and births vs. deaths. The net overall for the 50 states including Ohio, DC and PR into Hamilton- outside the metro counties- 2014-2018 was -549. I don't know if I've come close to answering your question.

Texas net migration did improve between the 2 periods- from -719 to -52 in Cuyahoga, -420 to +297 in Hamilton, and -1,238 to -1,099 in Franklin.

Probably for them and other reasons. New York has been losing people domestically for some time, and Ohio seems to be a beneficiary across the major cities. Here are the top 10 feeder and taker states for the 3-C core counties 2014-2018, not including Ohio. These numbers are average annually, not total over the period. Top 10 Feeders Cuyahoga 1. Puerto Rico: +1,808 2. New York: +702 3. Mississippi: +208 4. Michigan: +196 5. New Jersey: +172 6. Virginia: +162 7. New Hampshire: +129 8. Massachusetts: +104 9. Alabama: +97 10. Oregon: +80 Franklin 1. North Carolina: +742 2. New York: +730 3. New Jersey: +709 4. Pennsylvania: +688 5. Virginia: +548 6. Michigan: +383 7. Illinois: +350 8. Idaho: +250 9. Puerto Rico: +221 10. Washington: +193 Hamilton 1. Texas: +297 2. Tennessee: +286 3. Pennsylvania: +222 4. Massachusetts: +214 5. Illinois: +189 6. Louisiana: +127 7. New York: +126 8. Oregon: +101 9. Arkansas: +88 10. Puerto Rico: +88 Top 10 Takers Cuyahoga 1. Florida: -779 2. North Carolina: -398 3. Colorado: -382 4. Georgia: -316 5. South Carolina: -300 6. California: -282 7. Minnesota: -238 8. Washington: -236 9. Arizona: -219 10. Indiana: -211 Franklin 1. California: -1147 2. Texas: -1099 3. Florida: -1034 4. Georgia: -1016 5. South Carolina: -745 6. Kansas: -462 7. Maryland: -244 8. Missouri: -239 9. Oregon: -219 10. North Dakota: -132 Hamilton 1. Kentucky: -813 2. Georgia: -518 3. Florida: -502 4. Washington: -366 5. Wisconsin: -315 6. California: -271 7. Arizona: -232 8. Colorado: -166 9. Minnesota: -156 10. Virginia: -127 Overall Net Migration for the periods 2006-2010 and 2014-2018, not including Ohio Cuyahoga 2006-2010: -5,282 2014-2018: -782 Franklin 2006-2010: -4,145 2014-2018: +4,628 Hamilton 2006-2010: -3,746 2014-2018: +1,282 So even disregarding Ohio domestic migration, all 3 core counties have improved dramatically between the 2 periods.

Based on my own analysis on migration data, New York was one of the primary feeder states into the Columbus metro in recent years, so not sure if it necessarily over. They weren't just moving for the Limited.

Gas station or 1-story building with a large parking lot.

After CU got rid of their forums, the comments gradually became more and more similar to what they are on their Facebook page. A lot of suburbanites and NIMBYs comment now where before it was much more development enthusiasts similar to here. I know Walker is definitely not anti-development in any way, so that aspect of things must be somewhat frustrating.

Nationwide is not a risk-taker in terms of development, which I guess makes sense given their overall business.

Developers can only utilize sites they own. A lot of the surface lots aren't for sale because they're good income for the owners. There should be more incentives to sell or develop these, though. Until Columbus gets serious with mass transit, parking is going to continue to be an annoying addition to every development of significant size. A whole lot of the population just doesn't care about anything but driving because Columbus- to date- has not developed a culture that emphasizes anything else. The multiple proposed corridors for high-capacity transit- which at best will be BRT only and not guaranteed to have dedicated lanes- remain a "believe it when we see it" proposition. The reality is, however, that a project like this probably would still be successful without parking as Columbus is growing fast enough that it would have demand without it, but the developer also probably wouldn't be able to charge as much for the units if that wasn't an amenity. Money talks. Remember the Swan Cleaners project on South High abandoned bike parking, more units and retail space pretty much exclusively to add more parking. If the city does end up getting a whole new code system like they're talking about, these should be some of the changes: 1. No more demolitions for permanent surface parking lots anywhere. Any new surface lots should be temporary for no more than 1-2 years before new development plans be implemented. 2. No more standalone parking garages. They must either be built to have development built on top at some point, or be built to be adaptable to other uses. And none of them should be allowed to having parking on the ground floor level, period. Preferably, they should all have mixed-use fronts like the Lincoln Street project in Italian Village or the Hubbard Garage. 3. No more parking minimums anywhere in the city. 4. Height and density maximums should instead be made into minimums. This would help in areas like Downtown where there are no height restrictions, but we mostly still get low-rise development. Half of the projects in the past decade never should've been approved as proposed. 5. Single-family zoning should end.

A lot of '70s era apartment buildings look like that.

I'm not sure I believe that considering how many developers allow vocal, but minority NIMBYs from neighborhoods and commissions to dictate watering down every project instead of trying their luck with the city instead.

It's going to have another one of those dead zone parking structures on the ground floor, isn't it.

The structures along the riverfront in the 2nd photo were torn down for more reasons than part of the river control project after the 1913 flood. The photo was probably taken between 1920-1925, as the flood wall on the east side of the river hadn't been extended south of Broad until roughly the late 1920s. But you can also see it complete north of Broad, which was under construction from the late 1910s through the early 1920s. The plan to remake the riverfront got its start in about 1914 and would eventually include the "Civic Center" plan, responsible for most of the riverfront's current government buildings. By the 1940s, the Civic Center concept involved the entire riverfront on both sides, including the current Arena District and both the Scioto and Whittier peninsulas. Mostly office, government and military buildings were planned for the former 2, but Whittier was going to have a zoo, golf course and a large apartment complex. With the Depression and WWII, most just didn't get built.

Clintonville's part of High Street is a dumpster fire of suburbia. And that's just how they want it.

http://allcolumbusdata.com/education-history/ I started a new page on my site about the history of education in the city. It's not exclusively historic photos, but I hope to eventually have historic photos- if available- for every school building ever built in the city, as well as their histories and ultimate fates through the years. It's very much a work in progress, but I have dozens of schools there now. A comment... but man did architecture start sucking after the 1930s, including the very modern stuff. The new Linden Elementary... *woof* compared to the 1921 version they tore down in the process. It looks like a cross between Soviet housing and a minimum-security women's prison.

The bottom photo looks to have been taken in the early 1920s. That's when they were working on the concrete river wall and in the initial stages of the "Civic Center" concept that would bring about most of the riverfront civic buildings between about 1926-1935. Nice photo, as there don't seem to be many from around this time or earlier.

There's something supremely ironic about claiming to have moved to GV from the suburbs to escape dependency on cars, but then demand as much parking and auto-specific infrastructure as possible.

Parking is always one of the most expensive aspects of a development project. If money was the issue, parking should go away, not 3 stories of residential. And yes, developers who build street-level dead zones of parking should have their builder's licenses revoked. There's just no excuse for this terrible stuff. Downtown Commission is going to rubberstamp it without a second thought. It kills me that North High gets these amazing projects only to be killed by NIMBYism, but Downtown has every mediocre proposal built to specifications- actually worse considering how often they intentionally leave out planned details with no oversight.

Yeah, every suburban development is named after some variant of a tree or geological feature. It's like one of those Facebook things where you use your birthday and favorite color to find your porn name. But seriously, suburban housing tracts all have names like River Ridge or Willow Creek or Glacier Hills.

Cities that had low response rates, like Cleveland, are going to be really screwed by the early stop. The purpose of it is to lower the counts in urban areas and poor and minority communities.

Yeah, no one wants another Nicholas anywhere, that's a given, but I think they would oppose this regardless of design the the proposed height and density... and maybe even if it was 1-2 stories.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

The New York Times has written several articles over the years of people leaving NYC for Columbus. It didn't just start with the pandemic. The primary factor in these types of relocations is likely cost of living rather than being "over" urban life.

I think it goes without saying that with the pandemic and all the political shenanigans, the 2020 Census is going to be pretty screwed up in a lot of places, anyway.

Yeah, the garages are hideous. No tiny murals can cover up that fail. They should be built with wraparound residential, or at least built to be able to handle future upward development. There is no reason to keep building these as single-use parking boxes.

A cool mural on that wall- and landscaping- would completely transform that look. It's been an eyesore since it was built.