jonoh81

Anti-urbanists would use such data to say that urban areas are becoming less popular and that there isn't any urban trend at all, but there is definitely a direct correlation between urban areas becoming nicer and more expensive with these types of population drops. These trends tend to be specific to the largest, and often most expensive, cities, however. Our major cities in Ohio are all seeing urban population growth, not decline, as prices haven't become so high as to drive out larger numbers of people. The other obvious issue is that you can only build so much housing in urban areas that are already mostly or completely built out. Cities like Paris and New York can only go up with greater density- though in Paris' case, that would be even more difficult. Such density is significantly more expensive to build, and is typically marketed toward and populated by single professionals with higher incomes, not families. None of this would support cities in actual decline, though.

Weighted density, the measure that shows what density the population within an area will typically encounter on a daily basis, is measured by finding the mean of all the densities within the subgroups of a particular larger area. In that context, blocks would probably work best, there are also block groups, larger than blocks but smaller than tracts. However, it's easy enough to run the numbers on census tracts for a given area. For example, in Columbus the given density for the city is just over 4000. However, the weighted density is as follows, using census tracts. City Limits 2010: 5363.5 2017: 5691.8 Franklin County 2010: 4513.0 2017: 4760.3 If this seems like a large difference, that is typical with weighted density. For example, the density of the whole US is like 100 ppsm, but the weighted density exceeds 5000, because there are far more urban tracts than rural ones, which tend to be very large in relative size with low populations. Most people live in urban rather than rural areas, so they're much more likely to encounter higher densities.

Even smaller, I think. You'd have to go to census blocks.

A lot of the independent cities in Cuyahoga County are really small area-wise. University Heights for example, which is 2nd on the list, has less than 2 square miles. Most of the others are between 3-6. Columbus and Cincy have relatively few urban, independent places that small, but if you looked at individual neighborhoods within any of the big cities- including Cleveland itself-, you could easily find equivalent areas that would have higher densities than even Lakewood, which is only 5.53 square miles. It would be great if we had weighted density for all these, but that would take a huge amount of time to figure out.

Yeah, I was a little surprised by its ranking, but it developed early- 1900-1940- and had very little urban renewal demolitions and has no highways rammed through it, so most of it has remained intact.

And here are the rankings for land only, not including any water area. Again, they are based on all communities with populations of at least 10,000. Aside from a few cities, not including water does not actually change that much. Top 50 most densely-populated cities in Ohio, 2010 and 2018 2010---------------------------------------------2018 1. Lakewood: 9426.9------------------------1. Lakewood: 9059.7 2. University Heights: 7439.0-----------2. University Heights: 7108.8 3. Norwood: 6097.5-------------------------3. Norwood: 6296.5 4. East Cleveland: 5774.4----------------4. Bexley: 5701.2 5. Cleveland Heights: 5701.4-----------5. Willowick: 5569.3 6. Willowick: 5579.1------------------------6. East Cleveland: 5536.9 7. Bexley: 5373.3-----------------------------7. Cleveland Heights: 5471.4 8. Cleveland: 5107.0-----------------------8. Cleveland: 4939.4 9. Parma Heights: 4944.6---------------9. Parma Heights: 4762.5 10. South Euclid: 4794.6----------------10. South Euclid: 4617.8 11. Euclid: 4602.1----------------------------11. Mayfield Heights: 4461.9 12. Mayfield Height: 4593.5-------------12. Euclid: 4416.4 13. Shaker Heights: 4529.9-------------13. Maple Heights: 4309.1 14. Maple Heights: 4475.4--------------14. Shaker Heights: 4347.5 15. Rocky River: 4264.3-------------------15. Rocky River: 4247.9 16. Parma: 4076.0---------------------------16. Columbus: 4109.8 17. Garfield Heights: 3990.2-----------17. Parma: 3933.6 18. Cincinnati: 3809.9---------------------18. Cincinnati: 3882.5 19. Columbus: 3624.0---------------------19. Garfield Heights: 3829.5 20. Fairview Park: 3595.3----------------20. Whitehall: 3614.3 21. Reading: 3593.4------------------------21. Upper Arlington: 3610.0 22. Toledo: 3559.4-------------------------22. Reading 3551.6 23. Whitehall: 3433.8----------------------23. Fairview Park: 3479.5 24. Upper Arlington: 3432.0-----------24. Reynoldsburg: 3429.9 25. Bay Village: 3424.7------------------25. Oxford: 3425.9 26. Berea: 3337.9---------------------------26. Toledo: 3407.8 27. Warrensville Heights: 3278.9----27. Bay Village: 3346.8 28. Reynoldsburg: 3216.2---------------28. Berea: 3261.4 29. Akron: 3209.9---------------------------29. Westerville: 3238.7 30. Oxford: 3199.3-------------------------30. Kent: 3234.7 31. Lyndhurst: 3160.5-------------------31. Warrensville Heights: 3200.0 32. Kent: 3152.0----------------------------32. Akron: 3192.1 33. Marion: 3137.7------------------------33. Painesville: 3160.7 34. Painesville: 3110.2-----------------34. Marion: 3073.9 35. Kettering: 3006.6-------------------35. Lyndhurst: 3043.8 36. Struthers: 2943.1-------------------36. Kettering: 2949.8 37. Barberton: 2936.9------------------37. Sylvania: 2936.7 38. Sylvania: 2927.6---------------------38. Barberton: 2884.1 39. Eastlake: 2902.7--------------------39. Hamilton: 2878.4 40. Westerville: 2896.6----------------40. Gahanna: 2860.1 41. Hamilton: 2891.1-------------------41. Trenton: 2853.5 42. Forest Park: 2888.9--------------42. Eastlake: 2833.0 43. Canton: 2867.5---------------------43. Struthers: 2804.1 44. Lima: 2857.1------------------------44. Canton: 2767.4 45. North Olmsted: 2803.6---------45. Hilliard: 2764.9 46. Wickliffe: 2747.8------------------46. Wickliffe: 2749.6 47. North Canton: 2732.5-----------47. Lima: 2716.4 48. Lorain: 2707.9----------------------48. North Olmsted: 2707.0 49. Gahanna: 2674.8------------------49. Lorain: 2705.0 50. Tiffin: 2657.2------------------------50. Brunswick: 2701.0

I did density comparisons for every city with a population of at least 10,000. Here were the top 50 most densely populated in both 2010 and 2018. These first charts include total area, not just land. Land only is my next post. 2010------------------------------------------------------2018 1. Lakewood: 7792.4------------------------1. Lakewood: 7488.8 2. University Heights: 7439.0-------------2. University Heights: 7108.8 3. Norwood: 6079.5------------------------3. Norwood: 6296.5 4. East Cleveland: 5755.8-----------------4. Bexley: 5654.7 5. Cleveland Heights: 5687.3-------------5. Willowick: 5569.3 6. Willowick: 5579.1------------------------6. East Cleveland: 5519.0 7. Bexley: 5329.4---------------------------7. Parma Heights: 4762.5 8. Parma Heights: 4944.6-----------------8. Cleveland: 4653.7 9. Cleveland: 4811.6------------------------9. South Euclid: 4617.8 10. South Euclid: 4794.6------------------11. Mayfield Heights: 4451.2 11. Mayfield Heights: 4582.5-------------10. Shaker Heights: 4319.9 12. Shaker Heights: 4501.3---------------12. Maple Heights: 4309.1 13. Maple Heights: 4475.4----------------13. Euclid: 4089.4 14. Euclid: 4261.3---------------------------14. Columbus: 4000.4 15. Parma: 4065.8-------------------------15. Parma: 3923.8 16. Garfield Heights: 3957.3--------------16. Cincinnati: 3804.4 17. Cincinnati: 3733.3----------------------17. Garfield Heights: 3797.9 18. Rocky River: 3603.0-------------------18. Upper Arlington: 3599.0 19. Fairview Park: 3595.3-----------------19. Whitehall: 3593.8 20. Reading: 3593.4------------------------20. Rocky River: 3589.1 21. Columbus: 3527.6----------------------21. Reading: 3551.6 22. Upper Arlington: 3421.6---------------22. Fairview Park: 3479.5 23. Whitehall: 3414.4----------------------23. Oxford: 3425.9 24. Toledo: 3414.3-------------------------24. Reynoldsburg: 3405.5 25. Berea: 3275.0--------------------------25. Toledo: 3268.8 26. Warrensville Heights: 3271.0--------26. Westerville: 3202.8 27. Oxford: 3199.3-------------------------27. Berea: 3199.8 28. Reynoldsburg: 3193.3----------------28. Kent: 3196.3 29. Akron: 3192.4--------------------------29. Warrensville Heights: 3192.3 30. Lyndhurst: 3153.4---------------------30. Akron: 3174.7 31. Marion: 3116.5--------------------------31. Marion: 3053.0 32. Kent: 3114.7-----------------------------32. Lyndhurst: 3036.9 33. Kettering: 3000.2---------------------33. Kettering: 2943.5 34. Sylvania: 2905.2-----------------------34. Sylvania: 2914.2 35. Forest Park: 2888.9-------------------35. Forest Park: 2882.4 36. Barberton: 2867.2---------------------36. Trenton: 2853.5 37. Canton: 2865.3------------------------37. Painesville: 2832.1 38. Struthers: 2864.4---------------------38. Gahanna: 2821.5 39. Westerville: 2864.4-------------------39. Hamilton: 2815.9 40. Eastlake: 2844.9----------------------40. Barberton: 2815.6 41. Hamilton: 2828.2----------------------41. Eastlake: 2776.6 42. Lima: 2809.5--------------------------42. Canton: 2765.2 43. North Olmsted: 2803.6--------------43. Wickliffe: 2737.8 44. Painesville: 2786.8-------------------44. Hilliard: 2729.7 45. Wickliffe: 2736.1----------------------45. Struthers: 2729.1 46. North Canton: 2732.5----------------46. North Olmsted: 2707.0 47. Lorain: 2655.2-------------------------47. Powell: 2699.6 48. Brunswick: 2643.1--------------------48. North Canton: 2699.5 49. Gahanna: 2638.7----------------------49. Brunswick: 2692.7 50. Elyria: 2616.7---------------------------50. Lima: 2671.2 Here are the top 25 fastest densifying Ohio cities 2010-2018 1. Hilliard: +613.2 2. Columbus: +472.9 3. Grove City: +369.8 4. Powell: +366.9 5. Harrison: +345.0 6. Westerville: +338.4 7. Bexley: +325.3 8. Dublin: +278.1 9. Delaware: +271.5 10. Pickerington: +262.2 11. Trenton: +250.7 12. Oxford: +226.6 13. Reynoldsburg: +212.2 14. Wadsworth: 208.5 15. Loveland: +205.2 16. Worthington: +204.3 17. Norwood: +199.0 18. North Ridgeville: +187.6 19. Gahanna: +182.8 20. Whitehall: +179.4 21. Upper Arlington: +177.4 22. Avon Lake: +162.6 23. Mason: +153.9 24. Springboro: +131.9 25. Marysville: +131.2 And the 25 Ohio Cities that Lost Density the Fastest 2010-2018 1. University Heights: -330.2 2. Lakewood: -303.6 3. East Cleveland: -236.8 4. Cleveland Heights: -229.4 5. Warren: -196.5 6. Parma Heights: -182.1 7. Shaker Heights: -181.3 8. South Euclid: -176.8 9. Euclid: -172.0 10. Maple Heights: -166.3 11. Garfield Heights: -159.4 12. Cleveland: -157.9 13. Toledo: -145.4 14. Parma: -142.0 15. Lima: -138.3 16. Struthers: -135.3 17. Ashtabula: -132.1 18. Mayfield Heights: -131.3 19. Lyndhurst: -116.4 20. Fairview Park: -115.8 21. Ironton: -110.8 22. Niles: -109.0 23. East Liverpool: -101.3 24. Brooklyn: -100.7 25. Canton: -100.0 Going up are dominated by Central Ohio communities, while going down are dominated by NEO communities, even as many NEO remain on the top density list.

Arshot is really the worst.

Complete with a retention pond. Terrible.

That last rendering looks suspiciously like the original 235 S. High proposal, just flipped. Also, while it's all fine, I hope they put in some actual high rises with the larger portion of the Peninsula. I thought one of the reasons that Buckingham lost the bid was because they were going too small with the development. This proposal is only marginally taller. At least some of the development east of the railroad tracks should be taller than anything west of them, and we have 12 stories to the west with Gravity 2.0.

Wait, what?

Perhaps. One thing I've heard over the years about Columbus development is just how difficult it is to get financing for anything. This seems to be a contributor to a lot of the local development issues outside of zoning or developers, themselves.

I really think developers are now overusing the "mixed-use" term. It was originally meant to be used to different uses within the same building, then it expanded to included urban-style, dense, larger scale developments that had multiple uses, now it's just being used for any development that may have residences and a fast food outlet. While the proposal has more uses than a McDonalds and some apartments, as shown above, it is entirely suburban and has very little to do with the original or even later urban definitions of "mixed-use", IMO. Developers have really watered down urban concepts of late, like when they were trying to call Hamilton Quarter "walkable" a few years back. The increased density is an improvement, but that's a low bar. Everything else about this looks terrible.

I'm assuming the "restaurants" means the likes of McDonalds with a drive-thru and that everything will be of poor, suburban design with plenty of surface parking. If it even happens at all.

Columbus is running *slightly* behind last year's murder total. 58 through yesterday when 2018 had 61. The heat hasn't translated to a spike in crime like it sometimes does. Of course, any single month could make or break a better overall year.

Doesn't seem to be an issue in Nashville or Austin.

So people can only criticize a project if they're paying for it? I don't subscribe to the "good enough" philosophy so prevalent in Columbus and never have. I know there are local issues at play- financing problems, labor and material costs and shortages, few large-scale developers capable of handling big projects, etc., but so many projects just aren't good urbanism, or underwhelming in design, scale or use. Even small projects can be good urbanism (mixed-use, low or no parking, etc) but typically are not. Too many sites are being gobbled up by sub-par development. If we're at all serious about tackling the housing issues or if we really want expanded transit in Columbus, real density has to be developed. That means a lot more 10+ story projects and a lot fewer 5-story or less projects. I've said it before, but we only get one opportunity to do these projects right and then we have to live with them for the next 50 years. I'm a native of Columbus and spent most of my life there. I literally study every conceivable facet of its growth, history and demographic nature. I'm pretty sure I know it.

So you're complaining about so-called whining while whining that not everyone has the same idea of what urban development should be? Ok. 4 stories is not dense. There's not a suburb out there that hasn't built 4 stories. It's simply unacceptable in a downtown area. The AD is part of Downtown. They're not even going as high as the rest of the district. It's lame, underwhelming and a poor use pf space and prime real estate. Good for you if you're happy with that. I'm not required to be, no matter how much money gets spent building it.

In regards to the dilution of urban votes, it would make it all that much harder, for example, to get another transit system in Columbus if it was up to all of Franklin County to decide. it would not be much different than the vote a few years back to get a zoo expansion on the Scioto Peninsula. Suburbanites have a long history in most cities of voting against urban projects. Columbus should maintain control over its own future as much as it can, same as all cities. Also consider Columbus' peer city Indianapolis. It merged with its county back in the 1970s, I believe, and the city itself has fallen steadily behind Columbus in terms of development and population growth, even though it counts its entire county. One of the reasons for this is because many people who had lived in suburbs around Indianapolis found, to their perceived detriment, that they were now in the city limits with city schools and city problems. This had the long-term affect of pushing more and more of the metro growth to ring counties. The story is not dissimilar to Nashville, which also has consolidated. Despite all its downtown boom, the overall city/county grows very slowly compared to its ring counties. It just seems to promote sprawl while reducing urban growth and urban power.

Grandview Yard is taller.

lol... so the underwhelming part at least. It'll be hard to reduce 4 stories, though, but if anyone can do it... These parking lots are enormous. They could've been something special because they are on full display from 670 and 315. But nope. Who needs vision when you can go cheap. I can't believe we waited 20 years for this.

All for the first building? If so, that would obviously be taller than 5 stories. At least 6 ? But seriously, I'm expecting underwhelming design and a height reduction for whatever gets proposed.

Yep. But it's not just the height problem, for me. You can have great urban neighborhoods that aren't especially tall. I worry more that projects just aren't maximizing their locations or potential. The project at Gay and High is awful, not only from its size, but design. There are so many projects like that. Of course I am happy that we are seeing bigger projects now, as for a long time we couldn't even get past 5-6 stories even Downtown, but there's still a troubling issue where projects are constantly downsizing and getting built on the cheap. I just don't get it when vacancies are very low and demand is very high. I know there are issues with construction labor shortages and higher steel prices, but those issues are national and plenty of other cities with far fewer positives are still managing to get bigger, better and a larger quantity of projects financed and built. There just seems to be specific, local issues at play.

Cool, so HighPoint is like the most urban project Downtown has seen, because it has had the highest density of any project in the last 20 years. I'm glad everyone's fine with mediocrity. The design got worse, the height dropped... Columbus has no real vision, IMO. And if height reductions aren't a big deal, consider all the projects since 2000 that have been proposed around the urban core that saw reductions, the many undersized proposals for the location or projects that were canceled outright due to NIMBYism. How many more buildings would they have added up to? I'm comfortable saying that the number is high. Even if you're all fine with the design- yet another box- the city is still facing a massive housing shortage. One project won't affect that, but dozens and dozens over the years combined? I just don't understand why things can't get done the way they should be. Columbus is not really addressing a single urban issue it has, and sooner or later, that's going to come back to haunt them.

When only losing a quarter of the original height is considered a big win, there’s a problem.