jonoh81

Partly due to longstanding neglect and partly due to that mid-century desire to replace everything historic with a parking lot or a "modern" version of the same thing. Going back to the 1950s, there had been pieces of masonry falling off the old courthouse, particularly around the clock tower, and because of that and other "structural issues", the entire tower was removed in 1954 rather than spending the money to repair it. Continued modifications afterward further removed historic elements, and the building itself was described as being dirty from almost a century of factory soot. Clearly, deferred maintenance and a lack of preserving architectural features made it less attractive for saving. When it was announced that it would be torn down, preservations filed a lawsuit against the demolition, but articles around the time say that the building was too outdated to serve modern needs or to renovate. However, this seems a little dishonest given that the site the building was on was never under consideration as the site of a new courthouse, nor was there ever any serious consideration given to renovating it. The push was always to get rid of it. The views of historic buildings at the time were clearly biased against trying to save it in any capacity. There was no appreciation for its age or style. A 1979 article detailing the history of Franklin County courthouses even described the architectural style as "fussy".

Columbus desperately needs a complete elimination of parking requirements in zoning. I guess the positive is that the lots can later be developed.

This is probably as good as we're going to get here in terms of height and historic preservation, and so much better than the previous spite proposal. I don't hold much hope it will be approved as is, though. I expect a healthy group of NIMBYers to object.

I don't know about that. Documented floods occurred regularly in Franklinton throughout the 19th Century.

If so, let's hope for a bit more updated look instead of an exact replica.

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/01/07/german-village-hotel-halted-again-on-height.html As expected. They're trying to make this into a strict interpretation of the existing code, but that's pure BS. It's a classic example of extreme NIMBYism. The "fears" are vastly disproportionate to any supposed threat.

Yeah, it's not really about the height, it being a hotel or having some glass. They are just against development. I wish they would just take it directly to the city.

It's literally on the line, but Grandview residents argued against that project too, so they certainly view it as part of Grandview, similarly to how most people see High Street as part of German Village even though it technically not. Obviously this would have an impact on what gets approved, but Grandview states in their own development plan for Grandview Avenue that they want this type of density, only to argue against it when they get those proposals.

Yeah, German Village arguably has, by far, the least amount of new development of any urban neighborhood in the city, not only because of the historic status, but because there is little developable land. What development they have gotten has matched the neighborhood well, just like this hotel proposal would. These people are smoking crack if they believe the city is working against then.

They’re literally arguing a parking lot and 1980s office building are sacred and a mix of brick and glass are going to destroy GV. It’s no wonder no one wanted to put their names on this trash article.

Here are the 2018 numbers. Cleveland: 371,565 Cincinnati: 281,682 Columbus: 245,993

Biggest story seems to that immigration has fallen off a cliff in a lot of places. It's difficult to not associate that with the current political situation. National international migration has been halved from just a few years ago.

Well, you're getting the LSU win. OU is crapping the bed, but not entirely unexpected. A conspiracy theory mind might think that OSU/Clemson were put together to tire each other out for the inevitable LSU game and an easier SEC win, because OU doesn't look like they should've been there at all.

I don't know, I'm actually still thinking it's being undercounted, if anything. It's not just the vacancy rate of new construction that's low, but also in old neighborhoods. There have been several articles this decade highlighting how former bombed out, high-vacancy neighborhoods like Old Oaks, Driving Park, South Linden, etc. have been seeing plummeting vacancy rates. As housing costs have gone up in the city, the relatively cheaper housing of these neighborhoods has become a lot more attractive. Even some of the worst neighborhoods have started to stabilize. But yeah, that will only go so far. Without building 2x-3x more per year, it will eventually affect how fast Columbus can grow.

Population estimates for cities for 2009 or earlier are no longer available on census.gov. However, on the old ACS website, the 1-year estimate for 2009 was 773,021. 2010 census was 787,033, so not an unreasonable figure. However, these numbers were always revised with each new estimate and these numbers were all revised upward, in some cases significantly. The 2008 estimate ACS has is 740,086, which suggests a single-year growth rate of 33,000. Obviously that is incorrect and the numbers were revised to match the subsequent 2010 census count. The 5-year ACS has a 2009 estimate of 753,572, which is probably much closer to the original 2009 figure. What this all means is that the estimates were too low and had to be revised upward when the real count showed stronger growth. Basically, Columbus was being underestimated.

The release schedule is typically as follows: April: County/Metro/CSA population data and components of growth. May: City population data/State and county housing data June: State/County/Metro/CSA demographic data September: ACS 1-Year Estimates including demographic data for cities. December: Tracts/Blocks/States estimates and ACS 5-year demographic data that includes all sub-county areas like tracts and Census Designated Places. So we won't have data for the cities for 2019 until next May. I did a breakdown not that long ago about the difference between MORPC and Census estimates on this thread, and MORPC just seems to be doing 1 year ahead. They had 2019 estimates out before the Census had 2018, but overall, they seem to be following similar trajectories. I expect the 2019 Census estimate will be in the range of where MORPC was for 2019, if not a bit higher- somewhere in the range of 905K.

Some more data on the census tracts. # of Census Tracts by Density in Franklin County 25,000 or More 2010: 1 2018: 2 20K-24,999 2010: 2 2018: 2 15K-19,999 2010: 3 2018: 2 10K-14,999 2010: 2 2018: 9 7.5K-9999 2010: 27 2018: 35 5K-7499 2010: 61 2018: 62 2.5K-4999 2010: 109 2018: 104 2499 or Less 2010: 79 2018: 68 Average Tract Density 2010: 4512.6 2018: 4852.0

These are brand new. Census tract and block data only comes out each December. It is not part of the spring-summer releases.

Most of this type of development is actually outside of the city boundaries in the State of Mexico, which surrounds the city on 3 sides- north, east and west. A lot of this was built between 1950-1980, when the city and region were adding upwards of 2 million per decade. Standards of construction were obviously not in place, and because there was a lack of housing, a lot of this happened. Although some sources list the greater population at 20-21 million, because so many people are likely undercounted, it's probably closer to 24-25 million in about 700 square miles, MUCH smaller than almost any US metro area. Even at 20 million, the density across the 700 square miles is about 25,000, but that might actually be lower than what it was before 1979. Earthquakes that year, and of course the big one in 1985, caused a mini exodus from the heavily damaged central core. I'm not sure if the 2017 quake had a similar effect. in any case, yeah, living in Mexico City is not for those who don't mind a lot of people.

Getting down to a smaller level, here is some updated data on Franklin County census tracts. Top 15 Most Populated in 2018- Note that most of these are much larger suburban tracts. 1. 102 Far SE: 18,266 2. 6230 NW/Dublin: 17,721 3. 9740 Far South: 16,104 4. 7395 Far East: 14,380 5. 7396 Far East: 11,684 6. 9450 Pickerington: 10,356 7. 1121 Campus: 10,200 8. 7210 New Albany: 10,171 9. 7551 South of Easton: 10,027 10. 7921 Hilliard: 9,988 11. 8162 Galloway: 9,529 12. 6383 Dublin: 9,163 13. 7393 Far East: 9,095 14. 105 Dublin: 9,083 15. 7951 West Side: 8,890 Top 15 Fastest Growing Tracts 2010-2018 1. 7207 Far NE: +60.1% 2. 7205 New Albany: 53.2% 3. 9331 East/Whitehall: +52.3% 4. 7209 NE: +49.6% 5. 7533 NE/Easton: +41.2% 6. 7721 Linden: +39.9% 7. 1121 Campus: +39.7% 8. 7922 Hilliard: +39.2% 9. 7203 New Albany: +38.4% 10. 32 Vic. Village: +37.1% 11. 6230 NW/Dublin: +35.0% 12. 1901 5thxNW: 33.7% 13. 14 Linden: +31.3% 14. 6933 North Side: +30.5% 15. 7531 NE/Easton: +30.3% Top 20 Tracts with the Highest Density 1. 1121 Campus: 29,218.0 2. 1810 South Campus: 26,609.8 3. 13 Campus/Indianola Terrace: 22,237.8 4. 10 Old North Columbus: 17,076.2 5. 12 Campus: 15,001.9 6. 17 Weinland Park: 14,644.1 7. 1110 North Campus: 14,229.7 8. 20 Vic. Village: 12,386.5 9. 6933 Morse Road : 11,748.0 10. 21 Short North: 10,710.4 11. 6942 Northgate: 10,646.1 12. 47 Hilltop: 10,612.7 13. 8163 Lincoln Village: 10,423.7 14. 6352 NW Side: 10,047.2 15. 6 Old North Columbus: 9912.9 16. 9323 East/Whitehall: 9,801.0 17. 4810 Hilltop: 9,741.0 18. 730 Linden: 9,617.6 19. 16 Weinland Park: 9,381.9 20. 1902 5thxNW: 9,370.1

Here were the top 15 in each for change 2010-2018. Non-Hispanic White 1. Lithopolis: +44.2% 2. Urbancrest: +36.8% 3. New Albany: +30.5% 4. Hilliard: +21.8% 5. New California CDP: +20.5% 6. Darbydale CDP: +17.7% 7. Grandview Heights: +17.0% 8. Shawnee Hills: +16.2% 9. Sunbury: +15.6% 10. Grove City: +12.3% 11. Commercial Point: +11.8% 12. Canal Winchester: +11.2% 13. Delaware: +10.3% 14. New Lexington: +9.7% 15. Johnstown: +8.6% Non-Hispanic Black 1. Orient CDP: +750.0% 2. New Albany: +304.2% 3. Riverlea: +200.0% 4. Blacklick Estates CDP: +104.1% 5. Lincoln Village CDP: +88.7% 6. Groveport: +83.7% 7. Pataskala: +81.6% 8. Obetz: +72.1% 9. Lithopolis: +71.1% 10. Circleville: +69.4% 11. Lancaster: +69.1% 12. Pickerington: +59.8% 13. Hilliard: +57.4% 14. Heath: +50.2% 15. Dublin: +45.3% Non-Hispanic Asian 1. Heath: +229.6% 2. Plain City: +217.9% 3. New California CDP: +187.0% 4. Sunbury: +168.1% 5. Lithopolis: +162.5% 6. Groveport: +152.9% 7. Pataskala: +150.0% 8. Lincoln Village: +143.0% 9. London: +138.0% 10. Delaware: +108.7% 11. Orient CDP: +100.0% 12. Powell: +82.4% 13. Grandview Heights: +76.9% 14. Columbus: +73.0% 15. Reynoldsburg: +71.2% Hispanic 1. New California CDP: +390.0% 2. Johnstown: +225.3% 3. Minerva Park: +182.9% 4. Dublin: +179.1% 5. Canal Winchester: 164.0% 6. Urbancrest: +108.3% 7. Upper Arlington: +100.6% 8. Brice: +100.0% 9. Riverlea: +100.0% 10. Obetz: +88.0% 11. Hilliard: +82.8% 12. Whitehall: +81.8% 13. Granville: +75.3% 14. West Jefferson: +70.3% 15. Sunbury: +66.7% Non-Hispanic Other 1. Lithopolis: +392.9% 2. Marble Cliff: +350.0% 3. Orient CDP: +312.5% 4. Canal Winchester: +203.5% 5. Sunbury: +153.0% 6. Lake Darby CDP: +130.7% 7. Heath: +108.8% 8. Granville: +106.8% 9. West Jefferson: +101.6% 10. Shawnee Hills: +100.0% 11. Riverlea: +83.3% 12. Obetz: +81.6% 13. Minerva Park: +81.1% 14. Dublin: +78.2% 15. New Lexington: +74.2% And here is the % of population that is foreign-born and change 2010-2018. Foreign Born % of Population 1. Urbancrest: 17.2% 2. Dublin: 17.0% 3. Columbus: 14.0% 4. Whitehall: 14.0% 5. Powell: 10.6% 6. Lincoln Village CDP: 8.6% 7. Upper Arlington: 8.2% 8. New Albany: 7.0% 9. Reynoldsburg: 7.0% 10. Groveport: 6.9% 11. Bexley: 6.4% 12. Blacklick Estates CDP: 6.4% 13. Pickerington: 6.3% 14. Westerville: 6.3% 15. Shawnee Hills: 6.2% Foreign Born Change 2010-2018 1. Lithopolis: +1150.0% 2. Commercial Point: +828.6% 3. West Jefferson: +426.7% 4. New California CDP: +306.7% 5. Pataskala: +237.3% 6. Blacklick Estates CDP: 218.1% 7. Plain City: +147.6% 8. Groveport: +119.9% 9. Newark: +114.1% 10. New Lexington: +100% 11. Orient CDP: +100.0% 12. Powell: +85.8% 13. Pickerington: +81.6% 14. Marysville: +81.2% 15. Heath: +64.5%

Yeah, LC definitely was definitely hoping no one would notice. You don't do it on 3 separate buildings and act like it wasn't intentional. CF isn't a big fan of mine after I trashed the Cherry Street development. I think all these issues are related to developers not being held accountable by the Downtown Commission. You're not seeing these same circumstances in other areas of the city.

We finally got full data for 2018 all the way down to the census block yesterday. I looked at every Franklin County community of any size, exurbs of any size near or along the Franklin County border, and then communities with at least 5,000 people further out in the greater metro. This worked out to 50 places, a little less than half of all the metro places. Non-Hispanic White Top 25 1. Darbydale CDP: 100% 2. Lockbourne: 98.8% 3. Logan: 98.2% 4. New Lexington: 97.6% 5. West Jefferson: 95.5% 6. Circleville: 95.3% 7. Plain City: 94.6% 8. Riverlea: 94.5% 9. Johnstown: 94.3% 10. Commercial Point: 94.1% 11. Marble Cliff: 93.9% 12. New California CDP: 93.4% 13. Brice: 92.9% 14. Lancaster: 92.8% 15. Grandview Heights: 92.6% 16. Valleyview: 92.2% 17. Shawnee Hills: 91.5% 18. Newark: 90.9% 19. Grove City: 90.7% 20. Sunbury: 90.5% 21. Worthington: 90.4% 22. London: 89.7% 23. Lake Darby CDP: 89.3% 24. Upper Arlington: 89.1% 25. Lithopolis: 88.9% Non-Hispanic Black Top 25 1. Urbancrest: 55.1% 2. Whitehall: 36.2% 3. Blacklick Estates CDP: 35.6% 4. Columbus: 29.0% 5. Reynoldsburg: 25.5% 6. Groveport: 21.7% 7. Pickerington: 18.7% 8. Obetz: 12.4% 9. Gahanna: 11.4% 10. Huber Ridge CDP: 10.9% 11. Pataskala: 10.4% 12. Lincoln Village CDP: 10.3% 13. New Albany: 8.8% 14. Westerville: 7.1% 15. Orient CDP: 6.7% 16. Bexley: 6.1% 17. Canal Winchester: 5.5% 18. Minerva Park: 5.5% 19. Delaware: 5.1% 20. Marysville: 4.7% 21. Lithopolis: 3.9% 22. Heath: 3.8% 23. London: 3.7% 24. Hilliard: 3.6% 25. Grove City: 3.5% Non-Hispanic Asian Top 25 1. Dublin: 18.3% 2. Powell: 12.1% 3. New Albany: 7.0% 4. Columbus: 6.1% 5. Hilliard: 5.7% 6. Upper Arlington: 5.4% 7. Granville: 4.6% 8. Groveport: 4.6% 9. Shawnee Hills: 4.1% 10. New California CDP: 3.8% 11. Gahanna: 3.5% 12. Marysville: 3.3% 13. Reynoldsburg: 2.9% 14. Urbancrest: 2.8% 15. Worthington: 2.5% 16. Delaware: 2.4% 17. Sunbury: 2.4% 18. London: 2.3% 19. Pickerington: 2.3% 20. Heath: 2.2% 21. Westerville: 2.1% 22. Lincoln Village CDP: 1.9% 23. Bexley: 1.8% 24. Commercial Point: 1.8% 25. Grandview Heights: 1.8% Hispanic Top 25 1. Whitehall: 17.2% 2. Lincoln Village CDP: 13.0% 3. Minerva Park: 8.6% 4. Urbancrest: 6.9% 5. Columbus: 6.0% 6. Johnstown: 5.3% 7. Obetz: 5.0% 8. Reynoldsburg: 4.8% 9. Dublin: 4.7% 10. Granville: 4.7% 11. Blacklick Estates: 4.5% 12. Brice: 3.5% 13. Hilliard: 3.4% 14. Grandview Heights: 3.1% 15. Upper Arlington: 3.1% 16. Valleyview: 3.0% 17. Groveport: 2.9% 18. Gahanna: 2.8% 19. Lake Darby CDP: 2.8% 20. New California CDP: 2.8% 21. Westerville: 2.8% 22. Canal Winchester: 2.7% 23. Delaware: 2.6% 24. Pickerington: 2.6% 25. Huber Ridge CDP: 2.5% Non-Hispanic Other Top 25 1. Orient CDP: 13.0% 2. Whitehall: 6.4% 3. Urbancrest: 6.1% 4. Huber Ridge CDP: 5.6% 5. Reynoldsburg: 5.2% 6. Minerva Park: 4.9% 7. Obetz: 4.8% 8. Heath: 4.7% 9. Columbus: 4.6% 10. Lake Darby CDP: 4.5% 11. Valleyview: 4.4% 12. Lithopolis: 4.2% 13. Canal Winchester: 4.1% 14. Newark: 4.1% 15. Sunbury: 4.0% 16. Pickerington: 3.9% 17. Bexley: 3.5% 18. Brice: 3.5% 19. Pataskala: 3.4% 20. Westerville: 3.4% 21. Dublin: 3.1% 22. Granville: 3.1% 23. London: 3.1% 24. Lancaster: 2.9% 25. West Jefferson: 2.9%

Yeah, it's been a little confusing because none of the renderings have shown anything that tall, even at 110'. You would normally be talking about something like 8-10 stories with that kind of height, but I'm only seeing 4. 150' makes even less sense.

I also think people get bogged down in thinking of retail space only in terms of shops, but restaurant space would be far more likely to be used at this point in time. Or even office space of some kind. There is no reason to be building a dead-space parking garage all the way to street level anymore. We know better than this and it keeps occurring.