jonoh81

They’re all lower, actually. Dallas is the closest, but it’s a few hundred lower per square mile. Austin is almost 1000 lower. All of the cities are like 100 square miles bigger or more. Columbus isn’t even near the top of its own metro population peers in terms of city area size.

I put only annual changes, but the Census 2010 to July 1, 2011 is -4221 people. It adds up to just over 13,000.

I don't think that's exactly true. All designations have their pros and cons. MSA can't really measure a city's urban core, density, etc. CSA is just useless outside of maybe media market size. Urbanized areas can't measure distinct suburban areas that MSAs can. So they all have their place.

It’s weird because the city limits are so big in Texas. People make Columbus out to be huge in area, but it’s average for major cities nationally. You would think there would be places within the city limits that are both suburban and attractive in places like Dallas and Houston, but I guess not. At least in Columbus, there is both urban and inner suburban growth.

Check the most recent estimates. All previous years have been adjusted.

The 14th largest ranking should stay that way for some time. There are few cities below it close enough to reach it within the next decade or more, and the only city it has a chance to pass is Jacksonville, FL, which it sometimes grows faster than, and sometimes doesn't.

Annual change: 7/1/2010-7/1/2011: -739 (starting from Census 2010, the loss was -4221) 71/2011-7/1/2012: -1094 7/1/2012-7/1/2013: +239 7/1/2013-7/1/2014: -909 7/1/2014-7/1/2015: -1,602 7/1/2015-7/1/2016: -1,540 7/1/2016-7/1/2017: -2,280 7/1/2017-7/1/2018: -1,635 This doesn't show what you're saying. If anything, the more recent estimates are actually consistently worse. The greatest loss was the short period between the census and July 1, 2010, which wasn't a full year and is based on the continuing losses of the previous decade. In any case, this doesn't show a slow down of losses from the start to the end of the decade on an annual basis.

1950-1960: -38,758 1960-1970: -125,147 1970-1980: -177,081 1980-1990: -68,206 1990-2000: -27,213 2000-2010: -81,588 2010-2018: -13,022 Average loss this decade: -1,627. x 2 more years until 2020 = -16,227 This is really the best case scenario for the 2010s. However, history shows us that losses actually sped up during the 2000s, and while clearly a lot of good things are happening around Downtown, UC, etc., a lot of the city is still losing and wiping out any gains in those improving areas. That will take time to reverse, and I just don't see losses being as low as you're suggesting. I think they'll actually be higher. My maximum loss projection is still lower than any decade since the 1950s. I'm not sure why people think that's so off. I could be wrong, sure, but I guess we'll see soon enough.

Historical precedent argues in favor of this. Even if I'm right and the loss was 25,000, that would still end up being the best decade in like 60 years, so I don't think I'm being unfair here. I think Cleveland is heading in the right direction, I just think people are overestimating how fast that is happening.

Weren't the 2000s also not estimated to be as bad as the census ended up showing, though? I have a feeling it's going to be the same situation here. The estimates already show a loss of more than 13,000 through July 1, 2018. Even if we assumed that the -1,600 from 2017-2018 was accurate, you'd still be looking at a minimum loss this decade of closer to 16,000. And again, I suspect it's going to be a bit worse. Where I'm thinking Cleveland ends up in 2020 is a loss around 20K-25K since 2010, and a population between 371K-376K.

Another example of how weird these estimates are... the Dallas metro supposedly added over 130,000 people, but the city only added around 2,000. That's a huge difference. Sun Belt cities typically attract low percentages of their metro growth, but that's just hard to take seriously.

Honestly, I wouldn't pop the champagne just yet. Looking at the numbers nationally, these estimates are just weird. Almost all cities saw lower than normal growth rates, both versus the previous year as well as against the average annual growth rate for the past decade. But cities aren't just shown to be growing more slowly, but the cities that are losing are also losing more slowly. This suggests either that the census estimates are having one of their typically off years which occur in the few years just before the actual census, or that mobility overall is drastically decreasing. I can't see any reason it would be the latter, so I suspect it's the former. As for Cleveland, specifically, it's either a glass half full or half empty situation. Even if the estimates are remotely accurate, you can either see it as a slow down of losses, or a continuation of them. The city will still lose tens of thousands of people this decade. It's an improvement, but maybe not time to celebrate just yet.

There doesn't even need to be a specific example city in mind. The goal should just be that development is pushed to be the best possible in any given location. That means mixed-use, that means height, that means density, that means amenities, that means decent materials, that means quality design, etc. Columbus does a really bad job at this, even compared to its peers.

This is why I will always argue against the "good enough" attitudes in Columbus, not matter how negative I come across. These mistakes will last many decades.

I sure would like to know when those plans will happen , lol.

They probably have stacks of studies for High Street. But yes, it’s curious that it wasn’t included this time. High is the most obvious candidate, other than Broad, for a transit line. It contains the city’s highest density already and could immediately support a line. maybe they feel it’s already well served by buses.

I don’t think this is particularly useful for measuring urban core growth. There is more to the urban core than just area covered by the schools.

lol, sorry... for my part, I'm just too skeptical because we've seen this song and dance too many times before. I honestly do hope it works out. The part about addressing zoning codes along these corridors is another very important point, though I think any changes need to be citywide.

I am so curious about this, that I'm actually planning to go through the records and see just how many times the city has done a transit study of any kind that ended up not being implemented in any way. Even if it's limited just since 2000, I bet it's at least dozen or more. Going back to say, 1980, I would not be surprised if the number exceeded 30 or 40 times. For example, I know for a fact that the Broad Street road diet plan for Downtown alone was studied in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1991, 1997, 1998 and 2010. And yet there is no Broad Street road diet.

I mean, it's okay, but the one detail that stood out was the call for "dedicated right-of-way" for whatever transit gets built. Does that mean dedicated, separated lanes? Also, I feel like all Columbus ever really does is study things. This feels like the 10th study on transit corridors, density, population growth, zoning, etc. It would be nice if something actually happened for a change.

The Hyatt was originally proposed to be 17 stories instead of its final 20, so it ended up getting a small size increase. It had a drastically different shape in early proposals, though, something more like a pyramid if I remember right. The lower section on the east side was always part of the design. Interesting story about how this all went down- In 1975, the actual convention center was going to be tied into the hotel south of the railroad tracks. A multi-modal transit station was planned for the north side. The idea was to incorporate the old Union Station into the transit complex. When the city shadily tore Union Station down, it ended up losing federal funds that were tied to preserving Union Station given its status on the National Register of Historic Places. That money had been earmarked to help build the transit center. With that money gone, the city decided to build the convention center on the north side of the tracks, keep the new hotel separate, and we would never see the transit center built. The Union Station/transit center site would remain a parking lot for years after, as the city had no funds to really build the convention center either, showing no real reason why US was even demolished in the first place. I consider this story the most Columbus Columbus of all time.

No they put out the call for proposals themselves. After receiving several, they decided to instead do a $125 million renovation and the small addition. It was never explicitly stated, but it was obvious they were worried that a new hotel would compete with the few-years-old one in Hilton phase 1, which the city helped finance. Columbus subsequently ended up losing events like the RNC due to a lack of hotels. They weren’t forward-thinking at all. This new Hilton is playing catch-up. Furthermore, even with it built, Columbus will still be underserved by hotel rooms compared to pretty much all its national peers. This will remain an issue.

That is just false. The convention leadership are the ones that commissioned development proposals, and could've dictated what they wanted for the development, including convention space. They could've easily ended up with a hotel and convention facilities and with the same ownership setup they are using for the Hilton. And frankly, a 2-story addition is not remotely a great use of that space, anyway. If they were all that worried about maximizing use for the convention, they failed miserably. The Hilton expansion makes sense for where it is, but they really blew a good opportunity on the other end. As for being savvy, I disagree. The fact that they're even building the Hilton tower is because they didn't plan ahead when they built the first Hilton in 2012. They had talked about needing at least one 1,000 room hotel for years, and then proceeded to build one with just half the rooms.

Yeah, true about the parking lot on the north side of Goodale, but with the proposed towers for the expansion site a few years back, it left me a little bitter. There is also the massive parking lot behind the convention center. In 2010, it was a site proposed for a "field house", but that never went anywhere. There's a lot of potential to develop it into a few towers.

Years ago, I made this crude map of what I thought could happen to the site and to the whole area, provided better building standards and a gradual replacement of the existing suburban development. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kl1HVmCV7wVn4jAt-hn9pb_USB8&usp=sharing