jonoh81

This photo is from 1901. Keep in mind that the house wasn't all that old in 1924, the year it was actually torn down for the insurance building- only 54 years old- so the condition was probably good. I guess the good thing in this particular case is that another building replaced it. Next to the Key Bank tower, there is a parking lot that has existed for 90+ years after the home there was torn down.

I don't know, I imagine that NIMBY was much less of a thing than it is now. It was probably seen as an improvement over the single-family home.

The current building dates back to 1926 and was originally the Ohio State Life Insurance building. Before that, it was an old house from 1870 on the site. I hope they are able to incorporate this building, if the project is for the same parcel and not for the rear lots.

Is land in Franklinton more expensive than land Downtown?

I don't know, I've always been more of a "why wait to do later what you can do now" kind of person, and I apply that to development. Building smaller projects now will limit the overall density of Downtown later, and subsequently its ability to support more retail and more street-level activity. And I would argue, aside from 250 High, not one High Street project Downtown has even come close to what it should've been in terms of scale. 250 High was the only project that even met the development standards by the city. The height recommendations were for 10-story minimums, so 250 only just met them.

The High Street corridor is not part of GV, so I think the joke is to line it with mid-high rises just to spite the NIMBYs. And Hight Street through GV and Merion Village is just awful from a development standpoint- extremely suburban looking. You're right, though, that GV, given its building patterns, is moderately dense overall with a bit less than 7,000 ppsm on average.

Yes, it does, but that shouldn't prevent higher densities. Many cities across the country have plenty of parking lots in their downtown areas and far slower growth rates and are still getting projects above 10 stories there.

When you lay it out like that, Downtown looks really pathetic in terms of the scale of its projects. I really think it is the most blatantly disrespected part of the city in terms of quality development. The Arena District is part of Downtown, but in terms of the heart of the area, there is a consistent struggle to get much with any real height.

What's interesting about Nashville, is that most of its growth is occurring outside of its core city and county, which are merged. For all that construction, city population growth is relatively slower than most of its Sun Belt counterparts. Since its county/city are merged, the growth is even that much more unimpressive. Here would be the average annual core city growth of some metros with 1.5-2.5 million people if they were all merged with their counties. Las Vegas: 35,047 San Antonio: 33,910 Austin: 28,060 Orlando: 25,377 Charlotte: 21,784 San Jose: 19,491 Columbus: 18,361 Sacramento: 15,273 Jacksonville: 10,740 Portland: 9,568 Nashville: 8,238 Indianapolis: 6,410 Nashville's growth represents only 19% of the whole metro's increase. Meanwhile just the city of Columbus, for example, not including the rest of Franklin County, represents 51.6% of the metro's growth. If there was a city-county merger like in Nashville, that would jump to 71.8%. It's a vastly different growth pattern. Yet by all accounts Nashville is seeing significantly more downtown and urban development than Columbus. It doesn't make much sense to me. The only thing that could explain it is that Nashville has a more well-known reputation.

If the worry is that Scioto Audubon is potentially threatened by future development, that seems extremely unlikely. It's a very popular park, and the fact that the adjacent location is getting a large development might actually further ensure that it doesn't go anywhere. For the businesses and residents of this project, the next-door park will be a huge amenity and possibly part of this reason this location was even chosen. IMO, it's completely safe.

Has there ever been an instance that Columbus sold off existing Metro Park land for development? The quarry park in development on the West Side might be the closest to that, but it wasn't an existing park.

If this was a Columbus developer, I would basically say the time scale by itself, let alone the size, would probably ensure it wouldn't happen, but since it's not, I have hope. I've long been saying that the lack of national developers is preventing us from getting more large-scale development projects, especially ones that get past proposal stages, because I don't think we have very many locals could do something like this. Wish they were doing the 30-story first, though!

The proposal apparently adheres to the existing zoning that encourages exactly this type of project. The only thing missing from that article was a "We're not New York City!"

https://www.thisweeknews.com/news/20191125/neighbors-deem-proposed-grandview-avenue-building-grotesque These people are ridiculous. This article could easily be titled "Grandview residents shocked to learn they don't live in quaint English village".

Numbers are fudged today too, though far more typically with road usage. We often see highway construction projects being justified with huge traffic increase predictions, only to see traffic numbers remain steady or even fall sometimes after construction. There's a lot of money to be made in these contracts.

A 25-year-old study predicted daily ridership of one proposed line 7x-15x that what Cincinnati's streetcar has been doing this month, on par with or greater than Cleveland's much-celebrated Healthline and more than 2x that of it's Green, Blue and Waterfront lines combined. Had that line been built, there is no reason to expect that the ridership today wouldn't be significantly higher. In fact, we probably would've seen far more density built along such a corridor by now. Also, most of the plans had completion around 2000-2001.

In a span of 6 years, MORPC went from pushing against light rail to being for it. There are so many stories like this in the library archives, where there was rarely any clear direction as to transit in Columbus, contradictory views over short periods, poorly done studies, etc. PLANNERS FLIP-FLOPPED ON LIGHT RAIL STUDIES Newspaper April 23, 1994 | Columbus Dispatch, The (OH) In 1988, transportation planners told COTA to forget light-rail trains and increase its bus fleet by 25 percent. That advice cost taxpayers $235,000. Last year, the same planners told the Central Ohio Transit Authority to expand bus service and build an 11.2-mile, light-rail system along the city's north corridor. That recommendation, on which COTA is staking its future, carried a $488,250 price tag. Since then, related studies by the same planners have tipped the tax dollar scale at more than $2.5 million. COTA hopes to pass a permanent sales tax increase next year to add buses and build the train system by 2001 at an estimated cost of $522 million. Ray Miller, a COTA spokesman, said the first study was, at best, a "sketchy plan" that didn't meet the transit system's needs. "COTA didn't invest a whole bundle of money into that plan," Miller said. "It just didn't look at many details, and I'm not sure (planners) had a good handle on what was going on in the north end." In 1987, COTA hired the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission to draw up a "2000 Plan" - an analysis of COTA, Franklin County and transportation into the next century. The plan, completed a year later, called for adding 117 buses to COTA's peak-hour fleet to handle population growth. The study said the bus expansion would cost about $7.7 million annually - or $92.3 million by 2000. The study said early in its analysis that "the light-rail option was eliminated from consideration. The evaluation revealed that the rail corridors do not provide easy access to the high-density residential areas nor the employment and commercial centers necessary to generate the ridership to support such a system." The study examined placing the light-rail tracks on a railroad right of way along the city's north corridor, from Downtown to the Crosswoods past I-270. Bill Habig, executive director of MORPC, said the study was a "quick, capsule look" that couldn't foresee the population growth along the city's north corridor. He also said not enough time was put into analyzing a bus "feeder system" that would shuttle commuters to the light-rail trains. The first study, however, says a feeder system would cost too much. It would "require high-level bus feeder service which would push operating costs too high to be cost-effective." In 1991, MORPC was hired again to do a similar study of transportation through 2010. This time, light rail and a bus feeder system are being pushed by MORPC. The planning panel has expanded the studies and has created numerous task forces to examine light rail. Habig said the main reason for the difference between the two studies is the 1990 census. He said the 1988 study was based on the 1980 census and couldn't account for the population growth in the north corridor. "Demographic projections were low at the time," he said. "We expected a sizable change, but not the explosive growth of that region." The 1988 study projected 1.1 million people living in Franklin County by 2000. The 1993 study projects 1.3 million by 2010, with a heavy concentration of people living and working in the north corridor. Habig said overall, the 1988 study wasn't useful because: The 2010 population and employment forecast wasn't available. He said 20-year planning is typically used for highway and transit projects. Minimal time was spent developing feeder bus service options for "fix-guideway" - including light rail - alternatives. The light-rail analysis didn't include Downtown access along High Street and concentrated on an expensive design.

Funny, because there were just articles in the Dispatch/Business First about how residential construction had declined despite growing demand. Last year, 8000 units were built in the region when a minimum of 14,000 is needed, and that number is down from the year before. Developers, of course, cited problems with everything from financing to zoning and NIMBYism.

It was predicted by COTA consultants in 1994 that almost 15,000 people per day would ride a single Northside light rail line, which was considered insufficient. COTA SEEKS DETAILS ON WHY IT SHOULD SLOW LIGHT RAIL Newspaper January 13, 1995 | Columbus Dispatch, The (OH) Three weeks after consultants told COTA officials to slow their plans for light-rail transit, COTA board members are telling their consultants to explain the recommendation. "We were given a lot to digest," said Philip Whitaker, president of the Central Ohio Transit Authority's board. "We need a chance to get an explanation." The board meets today with its public relations firm, officials from the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission and transit consultants from Minneapolis and Washington. On Dec. 20, COTA's consultants told the board to improve its bus system and increase ridership before asking Franklin County voters to support a sales tax levy to build an 11.2-mile light-rail system along the city's North Side. Consultants from BRW, a Minneapolis firm, told COTA that about 14,700 people would ride a light-rail system every day - not enough to warrant building the line. That shocked some COTA board members. For more than a year, MORPC planners, consultants and COTA officials favored expanding the bus system and building the rail line by 2001. Initial plans called for asking voters in November to support a permanent, .5-percent sales tax levy to expand the system at a cost of about $522 million. Its current .25-percent sales tax, which brings in an annual $25 million for COTA, expires in 1999. But late last year, COTA began to back off the permanent sales tax and is now talking about reducing the amount it would collect. After spending 15 months studying COTA, consultants on Dec. 20 took less than two hours to tell it to: Build local support for transit. Proceed with a plan to ask Franklin County residents to support a .5-percent sales tax on November's ballot that would generate about $50 million a year. Expand bus service. Create a light-rail transit reserve fund. Develop partnerships with the county's major employers to increase their role in transit. Protect railroad rights of way for future light-rail development. "I think a lot of board members have questions," said Glenna Watson, COTA's general manager. "The board wants to have every piece of information made available to them to make a decision." Whitaker said the board will decide on a plan by March. At today's meeting, board members will hear what funding changes the Federal Transit Administration is considering; the result of a second survey on transportation conducted by Paul Werth Associates; project financing; and economic impacts of transit alternatives, including rail.

Most people don't move for transit, true. They move for economic reasons- cost of living, employment, housing, etc. Columbus has a decent cost of living and is actually cheaper than Austin and many other Sun Belt cities. But in a competition for movers, every amenity counts. Columbus has managed to do very well growth-wise without serious transit, but that can only last so long. You aren't going to be able to handle another million people without the infrastructure to handle it. Sooner or later, the lack of planning will hurt Columbus. In some areas, it already is, such as with poor zoning and lack of construction. Imagine if we had begun to tackle this 30 years ago instead of this from 1984:

It's probably already been a problem.

I'll believe it when I see it. I just don't trust this because we've seen this song and dance too many times. Besides, I question why the original corridor study failed to make any recommendations as to transit type, or why these corridors were chosen in the first place if no specifics related to population, public input and infrastructure were considered; all of these being things this 18-month study apparently needs to look into. As for OSU, they've long been in favor of increased transit options. Whether they are pushing harder this time around, I'm not sure. We've actually been far closer to getting transit built in decades past than now or in recent years. There have been specific corridor plans laid out at times that only needed the funding, which is what ultimately killed them. With this, we still don't have transit type, exact routes, cost estimates, design, funding... 5 years isn't going to happen no matter what they're saying.

It was "different" every time they studied this. And the article I read said nothing about having something built within 5 years. They want to study the corridor (something I thought was already done when they chose these corridors to begin with), get public input, etc. because they haven't even figured out what is going to be built yet. So this study will not even be completed for 18 months. After that, once a type of transit is chosen, there will be further studies on everything from costs to ridership, which will likely be at least another year or 2 after that. Construction won't take 1 year. Considering how long it took to get the Cleveland Avenue CMax built, which was basically just fancier bus stations and not any route construction, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see any construction on this one corridor for another 8-9-10 years, which wouldn't be good news for the other routes. And that assumes that there will be funding, which is no guarantee. Or that there isn't some conservative anti-transit group putting this on a ballot measure, especially if the chosen transit type is rail.

The last time I ran the numbers a few years ago, 50% was natural growth (births vs deaths), 25% was domestic and 25% was international migration. Of the 25% that was domestic, about 70% was from Ohio, 30% out-of-state. The out-of-state proportion had been growing and the Ohio proportion shrinking. International migration was also gradually overtaking domestic. Edit: Just ran the numbers for 2018. Columbus Metro Area Breakdown Natural Growth (+10,776) was 44.8% of the total. Domestic Migration (+6,597) was 27.4% of the total. International Migration (+6,764) was 28.1% of the total. The totals are rounded.

I was reading an article yesterday about the NW Corridor and how it was going to be studied- again- to find out what type of transit would be best (as if we don't already know they'll go with a bus). The study will take 18 months before more studies start. It gave me an idea to search through the records to see just how many times mass transit has been studied around the city with nothing tangible coming from it. I've started looking just since 1980. The last time I looked into this, though not as thoroughly, I found at least a dozen times in the 1990s alone. The only thing about transit that Columbus has ever been serious about is wasting money studying it.