jonoh81

Was this just the 4-story that they've been planning? I don't recall what the difference was between phases 1 and 2.

I would prefer they be built to be convertible to retail space and to have future development built on top at some point.

I was disappointed opening this thread and seeing this is not about a new tower, but this sounds like a great reuse/mixed use conversion.

Yeah, that map doesn't look any different than what has been around and planned for years. MORPC has had similar maps each time it updates its regional plan. If that's all it is, then yeah, it's just hype and calling an old trail plan a new name. If that's the case... lame.

Yeah, I thought about the low-head dams also. There are still several along the Scioto and Olentangy that would make it all but impossible to do kayaking for any significant distance, let alone commute to work along them. So the dams would have to be removed entirely and many new boat launches would have to be constructed along all the waterways. There would have to be significant improvements to east-west trail connections also, as there really aren't any except the Camp Chase Trail that hooks up to the Scioto Greenways system Downtown. I would imagine that a more ambitious project would try to eliminate on-street sections altogether.

Connecting and building news paths between rivers is relatively simple, but I have no idea what could be in the works beyond that, if anything. I don't think they could possibly be talking about something like building water connections. That would be massively expensive and I don't know where they could even be built in most cases, so maybe just a significant upgrade in the number and quality of multi-use connections is my guess. They mentioned the Highline and the Beltline, but seemed to suggest that this would be much larger in scope. So maybe something alone those lines, but around the entire city?

I assume by "connections", they mean more multi-use trails? The video makes it sound like something a lot more substantial is in the works than that, though.

I generally think that the "Reverse Great Migration" is far more media-hyped than what it is in reality. Data actually points to most AAs who leave Chicago just ending up in the greater metro, other parts of Illinois or other places in the Midwest rather than the South. And AAs don't appear to be moving to the South in any greater numbers than other demographics. To illustrate this, of the 42+ million AAs in the US last year, a little over 5 million are estimated to have changed homes 2018-2019. 85% of all those moves were within the same state. 63% were within the same county. Less than 6% (or less than 300,000) of all AA moves were to a different region, and that includes all regions, not just Midwest to South, but also South to Midwest, South to Northeast, Northeast to South, Northeast to Midwest, Midwest to West and so on. Furthermore, the South actually sent the Midwest more people last year than the reverse- +264,000 vs -253,000. For AAs, specifically, the Midwest sent 80,000 to other regions, but only had a net loss of 35,000. About half that net loss (18,000) was to the South.

I would definitely argue that Easton wasn't as speculative as you're making it out to be. There had been open-air concept malls and lifestyle centers for decades before Easton, including in Columbus. Westland Mall was built as an open-air promenade in the 1960s. The Continent pushed that concept even further in the 1970s. And nationally, there were developments much more similar to how Easton ended up. You could argue that Easton took the concept to a new level and became the template for similar developments, but it was built upon others that had come before it.

I would agree with you about the Arshot comparison- I don't think that's valid. However, we also haven't seen- to this point- any plans for what they described in that article with the last 2 phases of expansion. The article also seemed to be talking about what might be possible future phases over the course of a few decades. It gave no other reference to when this was supposed to happen. I don't think we can realistically say that towers on the order of Columbus' tallest buildings are coming anytime soon to Easton. This is not an argument that they can't happen, only that we should be reasonably cautious about the expectations.

Not saying it's impossible, but we can't even get that type of development density Downtown. What they're talking about is essentially creating a secondary downtown almost, which is extremely ambitious, to say the least. I'd love to see that, but I'm with others that I want to see actual plans, not just talk about an aspirational vision for 20 years in the future. Easton Gateway was a terrible addition to this supposed vision, and it's curious why they didn't try to start pushing height and residential density with this latest phase instead of the still largely low-rise, non-residential it is. I guess we'll see.

To be fair, 200 acres is relatively small to be building a whole new neighborhood of 20-40 story buildings and thousands of residential units, especially compared to the overall 1300 acres. I'd be curious to know where they are expecting to put all this development? The problem is that with limited space directly adjacent to Easton, any future development would not be connected to Easton itself and it becomes less cohesive. Unless they're planning to buy up already developed land and tear things down, that is, but that seems less practical given that little of the nearby development is very old. I guess we'll see, but I think the claims for such large development are probably more aspirational than anything that's being seriously planned at this point.

In case anyone is wondering when Cincinnati and Columbus' 1950 boundaries started increasing in population, Cincinnati looks to have bottomed out around the 2010 Census. and since 2011 has bounced around between 279,639 and 2017's 280,901. Though there has been an increase since 2010, the estimates have more of a steady state in the 1950 core. Columbus bottomed out in 2012, at 229,081. Since then, it's been a steady increase. I suspect, however, that in both cases the 2020 Census will be better than the estimates.

180 is nothing. Between 1950-2010, Houston grew by 440 square miles, Phoenix by 500, Jacksonville by 717, Indy by 310, Austin by 266, Charlotte by 268, San Antonio by 338, Nashville by 453, Oklahoma City by 556, etc. A few of these were county-city mergers, but the result is the same. Columbus' total size growth over the period is closer to the mean of major cities, and it has virtually stopped significant size growth while many Sun Belt cities continue to annex like crazy.

They weren't my comparisons. As for comparing cities today to their 1950 boundaries, I can do that. Several years ago, I went through the Census archives to find the original 1950 census tracts the 3 Cs. Although there have been a lot of changes to them over the years, since the Census keeps records of how individual tracts changed into others, it was just a matter of following the progression. It's not going to be *exact*, but it's the closest we can possibly have. Here they are. 2017 is the latest year available. 2018 comes out later this month. Total Population By Year for the same 1950 Boundary, Area Size and Density Cleveland 1950: 914,798- 75.0- 12197.3 1960: 877,814- 75.0- 11704.2 1970: 750,191- 75.0- 10002.5 1980: 573,667- 75.0- 7648.9 1990: 495,530- 75.0- 6435.5 2000: 468,451- 75.0- 6246.0 2010: 380,891- 75.0- 5078.5 2017: 374,891- 75.0- 4998.5 Cincinnati 1950: 503,998- 75.1- 6711.0 1960: 498,607- 75.1- 6639.2 1970: 448,652- 75.1- 5974.1 1980: 381,268- 75.1- 5076.8 1990: 365,853- 75.1- 4871.5 2000: 337,234- 75.1- 4490.5 2010: 278,509- 75.1- 3708.5 2017: 280,901- 75.1- 3740.4 Columbus 1950: 375,710- 39.4- 9535.8 1960: 389,222- 39.4- 9878.7 1970: 348,808- 39.4- 8853.0 1980: 287,089- 39.4- 7286.5 1990: 268,265- 39.4- 6808.8 2000: 246,713- 39.4- 6261.8 2010: 234,582- 39.4- 5953.9 2017: 241,148- 39.4- 6120.5

Not really. I'm just saying that geographical barriers alone don't always explain the performance with this particular comparison. A geographical barrier, by itself, is not necessarily detrimental, so using the lake as the reason why Cleveland might not perform as well is pretty thin without doing any detailed analysis on its effects to population. For example, if this comparison was done in 1950 when Cleveland's population was heavily concentrated in and near Downtown, its ranking would be much higher on this list, despite the lake. This means that it's not just the lake. It's where people have concentrated.

True, every city is different, so radius measurements work better for some than others. I would also argue that the most populated areas of a city aren't always their downtowns. Columbus is certainly one of those cases- I would argue the center of population if further north toward Campus. The reality is that we're never going to have a single metric that accurately takes into account all the differences from city to city, but also that every argument against a metric doesn't necessarily hold up either.

Yep, every city has empty space, geographical barriers, industrial areas, etc. There is never going to be a perfect metric to exactly compare every single city, and radius population isn't perfect either. But some of the arguments why so and so city doesn't perform as well on it are paper thin.

I never really got the lake argument with these type of measurements. Like with all geographical barriers, it should only serve to concentrate population into a smaller area, meaning that even though half of the circle is the lake, the other half should theoretically include all the population that would've been there anyway. Cleveland isn't the only city with geographical barriers. NYC, Chicago, etc. all seem to do fine on this type of metric.

I wouldn't say none from Venezuela. It went from 255 to 444 2010 vs. 2017, so there's been an increase, but it's not even close to many others. Ohio doesn't seem to do very well at all with Latino/Hispanic immigration, especially compared to other regional states. No Ohio city is seeing significant increases. It's just not on their radar for whatever reason. European immigration has been in decline for some time, at least from more traditional sources. Columbus seems to be doing the best with smaller, Eastern European countries than the big ones like France, UK, Germany, etc. One other thing that struck me- of all the regions, Europe was the only one to have minority representation with the core city. Oceania too, but they're demographically similar. Asia, Africa and the Americas are all mostly in the city rather than the suburbs across the metro.

So the metro numbers are interesting, but who actually lives within Columbus itself? For example, India has become #1 in the metro, but I suspect a large chunk of that population lives in Dublin. So let's see. Top 50 Places of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population for Columbus City Only Ending 2010-------------------------------- Ending 2017 1. Mexico: 13620------------------------------------1. Mexico: 12214 2. India: 7990------------------------------------------2. India: 10095 3. Somalia: 6855-------------------------------------3. Somalia: 8143 4. China: 5691-----------------------------------------4. China: 6768 5. Ghana: 2381----------------------------------------5. Ghana: 5229 6. South Korea: 2246-------------------------------6. Ethiopia: 2428 7. El Salvador: 1542---------------------------------7. Kenya: 2131 8. Japan: 1518-----------------------------------------8. El Salvador: 2057 9. Vietnam: 1496-------------------------------------9. Vietnam: 1992 10. Ethiopia: 1457---------------------------------10. Nepal: 1914 11. Kenya: 1391-------------------------------------11. South Korea: 1564 12. Sierra Leone: 1222---------------------------12. Iraq: 1407 13. Haiti: 1091----------------------------------------13. Sierra Leone: 1399 14. Canada: 1086------------------------------------14. Dominican Republic: 1292 15. Philippines: 1054------------------------------15. Japan: 1292 16. Germany: 1017----------------------------------16. Cambodia: 1165 17. United Kingdom: 970-------------------------17. Russia: 1142 18. Cambodia: 962----------------------------------18. Philippines: 1135 19. Taiwan: 940---------------------------------------19. Morocco: 1134 20. Liberia 852-----------------------------------------20. Nigeria: 1029 21. Guatemala: 832---------------------------------21. Cameroon: 1018 22. Dominican Republic: 804------------------22. Taiwan: 982 23. Russia: 800----------------------------------------23. United Kingdom: 951 24. Ukraine: 716--------------------------------------24. Ukraine: 868 25. Nigeria: 701--------------------------------------25. Pakistan: 861 26. Pakistan: 612-------------------------------------26. Canada: 839 27. Jordan: 603---------------------------------------27. Laos: 839 28. Jamaica: 580-------------------------------------28. Egypt: 739 29. Bangladesh: 515--------------------------------29. Germany: 737 30. Egypt: 484------------------------------------------30. Jamaica: 687 31. Honduras: 471------------------------------------31. Eritrea: 673 32. Brazil: 469-------------------------------------------32. Thailand: 649 33. Turkey: 469-----------------------------------------33. Guatemala: 622 34. Thailand: 459--------------------------------------34. Brazil: 586 35. Laos: 427--------------------------------------------35. Liberia: 584 36. Peru: 426--------------------------------------------36. Iran: 574 37. Italy: 416--------------------------------------------37. Jordan: 565 38. Colombia: 385------------------------------------38. Honduras: 557 39. Belarus: 380---------------------------------------39. Turkey: 509 40. Cuba: 324-------------------------------------------40. Bangladesh: 489 41. Sri Lanka: 312-------------------------------------41. Italy: 479 42. Iran: 301----------------------------------------------42. Haiti: 444 43. Iraq: 299---------------------------------------------43. Ecuador: 401 44. Bosnia/Herzegovina: 287-----------------44. Indonesia: 392 45. Eritrea: 280---------------------------------------45. Sri Lanka: 352 46. Morocco: 261------------------------------------46. Colombia: 349 47. Romania: 255-------------------------------------47. Macedonia: 343 48. Indonesia: 249-----------------------------------48. Syria: 326 49. Lebanon: 245-------------------------------------49. Saudi Arabia: 316 50. Czechoslovakia: 239--------------------------50. Peru: 307 Columbus Total as a % of Metro Total for All Countries Europe 2010---------------------------------------2017 United Kingdom: 34.2%--------39.4% Ireland: 47.9%-----------------------21.1% Denmark: 35.5%--------------------9.1% Norway: 19.0%----------------------55.0% Sweden: 19.6%----------------------27.8% Austria: 55.3%-----------------------52.6% Belgium: 53.9%---------------------75.8% France: 36.3%-----------------------18.4% Germany: 40.9%--------------------33.5% Switzerland: 36.7%----------------17.3% Greece: 42.7%------------------------40.2% Italy: 44.4%-----------------------------47.1% Portugal: 50.0%----------------------57.9% Spain: 57.6%---------------------------37.8% Albania: 64.7%------------------------61.3% Belarus: 90.9%------------------------43.8% Bulgaria: 57.3%-----------------------45.7% Croatia: 56.9%-------------------------58.3% Czechoslovakia: 54.9%-----------43.8% Hungary: 63.1%----------------------52.2% Latvia: 64.3%--------------------------40.6% Lithuania: 59.4%---------------------36.2% Macedonia: 23.4%------------------62.7% Moldova: 76.4%----------------------87.5% Poland: 37.7%------------------------65.4% Romania: 50.6%---------------------56.6% Russia: 50.7%------------------------51.0% Ukraine: 60.0%-----------------------53.1% Bosnia/Herz: 93.5%---------------71.3% Serbia: 55.6%-------------------------73.3% Avg: 50.2%-----------------------------48.1% Asia 2010---------------------------------2017 China: 83.3%------------------65.1% Taiwan: 49.0%----------------55.3% Japan: 49.8%-----------------46.7% S. Korea: 65.4%-------------40.3% Afghanistan: 58.5%-------94.1% Bangladesh: 83.7%--------85.0% India: 61.3%-------------------54.0% Iran: 39.5%--------------------59.3% Kazakhstan: 100%--------41.9% Nepal: 67.6%-----------------89.7% Pakistan: 58.2%-------------63.3% Sri Lanka: 72.2%------------73.8% Uzbekistan: 61.8%---------23.9% Cambodia: 58.4%----------68.5% Indonesia: 49.7%-----------66.4% Laos: 65.3%-------------------69.6% Malaysia: 49.6%------------72.7% Burma: 29.1%----------------55.1% Philippines: 46.5%--------42.7% Singapore: 49.6%---------54.6% Thailand: 51.8%-----------60.9% Vietnam: 63.1%------------64.7% Iraq: 74.2%--------------------87.9% Israel: 51.7%-----------------66.3% Jordan: 85.3%---------------58.2% Kuwait: 54.6%---------------51.2% Lebanon: 71.6%------------56.9% Saudi Arabia: 77.4%------88.5% Syria: 59.6%------------------64.9% Yemen: 100%----------------78.3% Turkey: 74.9%---------------71.5% Armenia: 100%-------------73.5% Avg: 64.5%-------------------63.9% Africa 2010------------------------------2017 Eritrea: 74.9%---------------86.1% Ethiopia: 56.3%------------63.9% Kenya: 86.8%----------------86.2% Somalia: 97.9%------------89.3% Cameroon: 56.1%--------80.5% Egypt: 50.4%---------------62.1% Morocco: 59.%------------81.9% Sudan: 28.2%-------------100.0% South Africa: 46.5%----51.3% Cabo Verde: 100%------100% Ghana: 84.0%--------------88.3% Liberia: 84.1%-------------85.3% Nigeria: 65.0%-------------82.3% Sierra Leone: 92.0%-----96.3% Avg: 70.1%------------------82.4% Oceania 2010---------------------------2017 Australia: 39.7%----------82.4% New Zealand: 34.0%----38.9% Fiji: 0%--------------------------0% Avg: 24.6%------------------39.2% Americas 2010-----------------------------2017 Bahamas: 42.6%-----------83.2% Barbados: 66.3%----------89.3% Cuba: 55.2%-----------------77.8% Dominica: 100%-----------100.0% Dom. Republic: 78.8%----77.7% Grenada: 100%-------------100.0% Haiti: 88.7%------------------78.0% Jamaica: 72.3%-------------76.2% St. Vincent: 83.3%---------69.0% Trinidad/Tobago: 77.2%----72.8% West Indies: 100%----------14.7% Mexico: 76.3%---------------74.5% Belize: 72.2%-----------------54.4% Costa Rica: 85.7%---------50.0% El Salvador: 81.0%---------72.6% Guatemala: 84.8%---------74.1% Honduras: 71.4%-----------74.1% Nicaragua: 51.4%----------58.3% Panama: 71.4%-------------52.6% Argentina: 39.8%-----------67.0% Bolivia: 13.6%----------------81.6% Brazil: 61.5%-----------------63.1% Chile: 92.8%------------------89.9% Colombia: 63.5%-----------52.6% Ecuador: 94.4%-------------81.8% Guyana: 62.3%--------------45.5% Peru: 58.0%-------------------60.2% Uruguay: 100%-------------100% Venezuela: 36.9%---------45.3% Canada: 34.1%-------------30.5% Avg: 70.5%--------------------68.9%

Well, sort of. I don't actually recall where I got those numbers and couldn't find the exact same measurement, which is basically where the foreign-born population is moving from. So, I'll do a new comparison, this time using place of birth. So this would be the full existing population from different countries rather than immigration. You can still measure some obvious immigration due to the population changes, though. These are for the metro. Top 50 Places of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population Ending 2010-------------------------------- Ending 2017 1. Mexico: 17863-------------------------------------1. India: 18712 2. India: 13044-----------------------------------------2. Mexico: 16394 3. Somalia: 7001--------------------------------------3. China: 10,399 4. China: 6831------------------------------------------4. Somalia: 9,118 5. South Korea: 3432-------------------------------5. Ghana: 5923 6. Canada: 3185--------------------------------------6. South Korea: 3885 7. Japan: 3049-----------------------------------------7. Ethiopia: 3799 8. Ghana: 2836----------------------------------------8. Vietnam: 3079 9. United Kingdom: 2836-------------------------9. El Salvador: 2834 10. Ethiopia: 2586----------------------------------10. Japan: 2766 11. Germany: 2486---------------------------------11. Canada: 2751 12. Vietnam: 2372----------------------------------12. Philippines: 2657 13. Philippines: 2267------------------------------13. Kenya: 2473 14. Taiwan: 1917------------------------------------14. United Kingdom: 2412 15. El Salvador: 1903-----------------------------15. Russia: 2238 16. Cambodia: 1647-------------------------------16. Germany: 2201 17. Kenya: 1602--------------------------------------17. Nepal: 2134 18. Russia: 1577-------------------------------------18. Taiwan: 1776 19. Sierra Leone: 1328---------------------------19. Cambodia: 1700 20. Haiti: 1230----------------------------------------20. Dominican Republic: 1662 21. Ukraine: 1193-----------------------------------21. Ukraine: 1635 22. Nigeria: 1079------------------------------------22. Iraq: 1601 23. Pakistan: 1052---------------------------------23. Sierra Leone: 1453 24. Dominican Republic: 1021--------------24. Morocco: 1384 25. Liberia: 1013-----------------------------------25. Pakistan: 1360 26. Guatemala: 981------------------------------26. Cameroon: 1264 27. Egypt: 960--------------------------------------27. Nigeria: 1251 28. Italy: 936-----------------------------------------28. Laos: 1206 29. Thailand: 886----------------------------------29. Egypt: 1190 30. Jamaica: 802----------------------------------30. Thailand: 1066 31. Brazil: 763---------------------------------------31. Italy: 1017 32. Iran: 762------------------------------------------32. Jordan: 971 33. Peru: 734----------------------------------------33. Iran: 968 34. Jordan: 707------------------------------------34. Brazil: 929 35. Honduras: 660--------------------------------35. Jamaica: 902 36. Laos: 654----------------------------------------36. Guatemala: 839 37. Turkey: 626-------------------------------------37. Eritrea: 782 38. Bangladesh: 615----------------------------38. Honduras: 752 39. Colombia: 606-------------------------------39. Turkey: 712 40. Cuba: 587--------------------------------------40. Liberia: 685 41. Poland: 523------------------------------------41. Colombia: 664 42. Romania: 504--------------------------------42. Indonesia: 590 43. Indonesia: 501------------------------------43. Bangladesh: 575 44. Netherlands: 455--------------------------44. Haiti: 569 45. Macedonia: 454----------------------------45. Macedonia: 547 46. Morocco: 439-------------------------------46. Peru: 510 47. Czechoslovakia: 435--------------------47. Syria: 502 48. Sri Lanka: 432------------------------------48. Ecuador: 490 49. Belarus: 418---------------------------------49. Burma: 486 50. Iraq: 403---------------------------------------50. Sri Lanka: 477 25 Fastest Growing By Total and % Total-------------------------------------------------------------------% 1. India: +5668----------------------------------------1. Nepal: +874.4% 2. China: +3568---------------------------------------2. Iraq: +297.3% 3. Ghana: +3087--------------------------------------3. Cameroon: +256.1% 4. Somalia: +2117-----------------------------------4. Bulgaria: +251.0% 5. Nepal: +1915---------------------------------------5. Serbia: +233.3% 6. Ethiopia: +1213-----------------------------------6. Armenia: +228.3% 7. Iraq: +1198------------------------------------------7. Denmark: +219.4% 8. Morocco: +945------------------------------------8. Morocco: +215.3% 9. El Salvador: +931---------------------------------9. Burma: +207.6% 10. Cameroon: +909-------------------------------10. Ecuador: +206.3% 11. Kenya: +871--------------------------------------11. Afghanistan: +187.7% 12. Vietnam: +707----------------------------------12. Moldova: +182.0% 13. Russia: +661-------------------------------------13. Bolivia: +110.2% 14. Dominican Republic: +641----------------14. Eritrea: +109.1% 15. Laos: +552----------------------------------------15. Ghana: +108.9% 16. South Korea: +453----------------------------16. Cabo Verde: +100.0% 17. Ukraine: +442------------------------------------17. Dominica: +100.0% 18. Eritrea: +408--------------------------------------18. Fiji: +100.0% 19. Philippines: +390-------------------------------19. Grenada: +100.0% 20. Ecuador: +330-----------------------------------20. Syria: +88.0% 21. Burma: +328-------------------------------------21. Laos: +84.4% 22. Pakistan: +308----------------------------------22. Sudan: +81.0% 23. Jordan: +264------------------------------------23. Costa Rica: +78.2% 24. Bulgaria: +241----------------------------------24. Croatia: +77.6% 25. Syria: +235----------------------------------------25. Switzerland: +76.5% Overall Totals from Region By Period 2010------------------------2017 Europe: 15627-------15620 Asia: 44833------------64569 Africa: 24607----------37773 Oceania: 542-----------363 Americas: 33258-----32661 Total: 118867---------150986 It seems that Europe and the Americas are largely stagnant to seeing small overall declines, while Asia and Africa are booming.

I don't think it's fair to suggest we shouldn't strive for the best possible development unless we're millionaires putting up the money for it. That's why cities have zoning codes to begin with- to guide development in a certain direction. If the only consideration is how much money a developer can make rather than what is most beneficial to the city, neighborhood or community as a whole, then why have any standards at all? Let them do whatever they want anywhere they want and be done with it. Just because something can be done faster and cheaper doesn't have any relation to the best outcome- unless the only thing we're supposed to worry about is developer profits.

The Dispatch archives are a great resource. It's fascinating to see how attitudes have changed on a variety of issues.

Well, we're looking at it from the perspective of 2019 vs. the mid-1920s. A more relevant comparison would be- how do you feel about preserving a 1960s ranch home? It would be great to have some of these homes still around, but at the time, they probably didn't see it as historically valuable.