jonoh81

I bet that tow truck driver lives in Obetz or something Or remembers it from the last time he paid a hooker for some cocaine back in 1985.

One of the simple joys in life is watching people wail about Cin-Day and Clakron.

So I think part of this is that Franklinton is a lot more open to development right now simply because they haven't had much of anything new built there in decades. As things progress and the neighborhood gets new residents, I expect the level of NIMBYism to start increasing. It will take a while to reach that of Clintonville-Short North, but it'll definitely get a little harder to get approvals this fast as time goes on. The level of shade thrown at Vic Village by the developer after this was awesome, though.

Weird choices for "Peer Cities" Providence, Akron, Virginia Beach, San Antonio, Toledo, Portland, Ft. Wayne all on the same list. It's a comparison of all major Midwest cities along with Columbus' national peers. Virginia Beach, San Antonio and Portland fall under the latter. I determined "peer" cities using metro size between 1.5-2.5 million.

http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=5781 Columbus-centered, but here are the updated numbers for all racial demographics for all major Midwest cities for 2017.

http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=5767 An update on foreign-born population in all major Ohio cities for 2017, and a comparison to other cities nationally.

No. The only MSA change was Cincinnati adding another small Indiana county, and is now 16 counties.

So country music is now "low class culture"? ELITIST SNOB!!! lol. I think Cbus should then go for state fair stuff(we could be the "it" city with food on a stick), and bowling. *He mentions Indy a lot but is often not very kind to it. I will never forget how he described the city as 'built on the cheap' and with significant parts of it looking like a small rural town because of lack of sidewalks, curbs, storms sewers, etc.. He posted pics of his own street I believe as an example. I will admit he is not afraid to call out things as he sees them. Maybe being in NYC has made him even a bit rougher. I am now kind of hoping he has forgotten about his upcoming post on Cbus. That crazy guy who used to post here, got banned from here(and other sites) and is now on City Data and spars with jbcmh81 has enough negativity towards the city for everyone. You are talking about the Minneapolis guy, I assume.

I guess you're referencing this article: http://www.newgeography.com/content/006071-northern-cities-need-ramp-it-up-attraction I've had run-ins with him on this particular issue in the past, because the numbers are misleading. He uses numbers from the IRS, which are not considered to be as accurate as Census figures, and those don't agree with his numbers whatsoever. The chart that he uses shows negative net out-of-state domestic migration for Columbus in 2015-2016, but the Census shows the direct opposite. Adding up the counties for the metro area, Columbus gained 2,756 in that time according to the Census, almost all of which ended up in Franklin County. That total more than doubled from the previous period. The numbers for domestic migration overall have been trending upward, not down as his chart shows. Why he uses the less-reliable figures has always annoyed me, especially when he uses them to make condescending posts like that. Another point of contention is that he makes it out to be only a Midwest thing that most cities/metros attract most domestic migration from their home states, but that's true for the vast majority of national metros. It intentionally tries to create an issue that isn't one.

Good to see UA move that forward. Landlocked inner suburbs like this need to figure out the best ways to keep growing, and densification is really the only way to do it. UA probably has the best chance to do this going forward given that it's the biggest inner suburb by land area by far. Grandview Heights and Bexley have far more challenges. I think Grandview Yard had the potential to be much larger in scale, but that opportunity was squandered IMO.

I really hope you are right and they take this as some form of inspiration for the Scioto Peninsula RFD. My understanding of some of the reasoning behind the city dropping the Indy development company from the Peninsula project was that there was disagreement on the short, uninspired designs. The city wanted more height and diversity. Remember, they originally envisioned a couple of 30+ story buildings.

Also, if you're seeing this scale west of the railroad tracks, it raises hope of seeing fairly tall development to the east. In theory.

So we can get 12 stories in Franklinton, of all places, in forward-thinking designs, but Downtown keeps getting downsized, crappy, 5 to 7-story bland boxes proposed with extra parking and no ground-floor retail.

The problem is that I imagine a lot of the empty lots are in neighborhoods that are less desirable and already have a lot of low-income residents. Adding more is just going back to the problems associated with concentrating poverty. It's proven that it's much better to scatter low-income housing in higher-income neighborhoods, but then NIMBYism enters the picture, where those higher income residents don't want low-income housing anywhere except in existing low-income neighborhoods. Rinse and repeat.

It's a cool building, but I always thought it was tiny compared to the size of the overall site. It's not even as big, I believe, as the former Vets Memorial building. I hope it's a success, and perhaps there be future growth on the site to add more, but that remains to be seen. They snagged a decent director. Let's see what he can do with it.

Question because I wasn't sure... why couldn't Kaufman just push the issue and, if rejected by the VV commission, not just take the matter to the City of Columbus? Don't they have the power to override any neighborhood commission? Perhaps it's not standard practice, but I seem to remember this happening before on other projects.

So... why does this have to be affordable again? Was that a requirement for the site or something? It seems they are saying that increased costs have made the affordable apartments for the project too cost-ineffective. Okay, so while I recognize the need for affordable housing, building tiny buildings in prime real estate sites doesn't really help market demand for anything, affordable or market-rate. In fact, building this way will likely just lead to higher rents for Downtown housing overall, making affordable components even less likely in future projects. And it still doesn't explain why they increased parking for 50 fewer apartments or abandoned the retail element. It's a sh** project.

The numbers are the totals added to each previous decade. So 1990 includes the 1980s.

Columbus annexations have slowed almost to a halt since the late '90s. Pretty sure it's been less than 20 square miles since then. Annexation is only for very specific situations these days. jonoh81's site goes into this, but it looks like the image link needs fixed: Columbus’ Shrinking Annexation http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=4675 An updated annexation image can be found on the Demographics page.

Yes, all well put. I don't blame the bristling by Columbus people when others complain about state-supported institutions being disproportionately located there. I think it's because there is a perception of a double-standard. People talk about OSU, but none of the other state schools. People talk about government jobs in Columbus, but not government jobs anywhere else. That kind of thing irks me to no end, honestly, and I find that to be a dishonest discussion. Not necessarily saying from you, but there are some people who really push that narrative for whatever reason.

The fact that Cincinnati is doing well economically and even managed to turn around its population decline shows that, for Ohio cities, it wasn't Columbus- and still isn't Columbus- that determines their destinies. The other 2-Cs had different histories and made different choices than Columbus. While it's convenient to blame all those problems on the capital, Cleveland and to a lesser-extent Cincinnati suffered from very similar problems that many other cities have in the region. I actually think the best thing Columbus ever did was annex during the 1950s-1970s. These were the very worst times for urban cores, and even Columbus lost population in the core during that time. Annexation allowed it to coast through those lean urban times, maintaining the tax money coffers and keeping services going. It also never gained the stigma of population decline. In the Midwest, there is a pretty stark difference between those cities that were able to annex, and those that couldn't. Indianapolis, Madison, Omaha, Lincoln, Des Moines, Ann Arbor, Kansas City, etc. all are doing well, and none of them have been hemmed in by their suburbs. The older cities that were just have fundamentally different problems to address.

From that puff piece: The Wexner Medical Center expansion and construction of the new James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute and Critical Care Center supports 15,000 jobs in our local community: 5,000 construction jobs 6,000 direct full-time jobs 4,000 indirect full-time jobs supported through spending by Ohio State and its patients and visitors The Wexner Medical Center expansion project will generate $1.7 billion in economic impact for Ohio by 2015. Ohio State already generates $2.4 billion in economic impact each year.Funds from state tax incentives applied to the Wexner Medical Center expansion will be used by Ohio State to contribute to Partners Achieving Community Transformation, a revitalization project in Columbus's Near East Side neighborhood. That piece says "the state" but the things it itemizes are all localized economic benefits. Your links- thanks for them- still don't really address the claims made. The first is just the budget. OSU, like all public universities, receives some state funding (which was never in dispute). 10x the state funding amount comes from other sources. The 2nd link is CSU's budget, of which just over 30% comes from the state, though obvious much less in total than OSU gets. Size and influence in this case are clearly different. Either way, neither of those links address where the money comes from- certainly not by any listed region. I'm not sure what you're trying to show with the 3rd link. It would be of no surprise that most employees of OSU are at the main campus. 4th link- no **it. 5th link- the link doesn't work. 6th sorta link- The chart is highly deceiving. First, not all those jobs are state jobs. There are federal and local, and include everything from local school teachers to bus drivers (which city residents pay for directly) and people at the DSCC. Second, government-based jobs in Columbus are in line with all major Ohio cities relative to size. Dayton actually has the largest % of its economy based on government jobs in Ohio. If you don't believe me... www.bls.gov. The vast majority of the city/metro economy is made up of other industries. You're making a straw man. I literally never denied that having OSU isn't a positive economic asset for Columbus. In fact, I'm pretty sure I stated that investment in higher education was a fantastic economic return for Ohio. Oh, and if those universities and colleges are such a benefit to the local area, why are people trying to single out OSU only in this regard? That would apply to CSU, Toledo, etc. also, right? Why is it that Columbus is also held to a completely different standard? So you're of the belief that those employees don't pay state income taxes? That they don't buy things and consume goods? That literally every dollar made in the Columbus region never benefits the rest of the state whatsoever? That would be quite the feat. And yes, all of this debate is designed to mitigate any success in Columbus. They're stealing from everywhere else, so it's not *real* success. They're not really doing anything well except mooching on Ohio. It's the same story as always.

Why does this matter? More money (by a long shot) flows to Columbus to support its state university. The funding per capita (of metro residents) would be a more meaningful metric than per student. That funding has a much larger beneficial effect to the local economy, period. If you want to talk about net benefit to the state vs. public spending, how about CWRU? As far as research goes, I would say CWRU provides an even greater benefit to Ohio, with no state subsidy. Your "facts" (a large portion of which are opinions) don't actually prove what you think they do. So just a recap... 1. It was claimed, without any proof, that Columbus is a net recipient of state public dollars, and that even if Columbus is a net contributor of tax dollars to the rest of the state, another claim is that Columbus is receiving targeted funneling of dollars from specific regions... again, with not a lick of proof. 2. Twice, people have said more money flows to OSU than CSU. Not a single link provided. 3. It was claimed that OSU provides no significant benefit to the rest of the state outside of the local area, with, you guessed it, no facts presented! 4. You have claimed that funding per-capita would be more meaningful than per-student. You provide no study making this argument or why it's better. Nor do you even provide a link to per-capita numbers. But wait, there's more. 5. You then claim that CWRU provides a greater benefit to Ohio than OSU- yep, with no corresponding evidence. But I literally provide 3 different links to real numbers and economic impact studies, but I'm accused of being delusional and spreading opinions only. I swear to god, humans suck.

Even if that were true- which no one has provided a single bit of evidence to support- an economically strong Columbus isn't good for Ohio economically?? How would that be any different than Cleveland State, which receives a larger % of its funding from the state than OSU does? Why is it that I'm the only one providing links and studies and data, but the insinuation is that I'm delusional for arguing against a position that no one can factually support? This is how this debate always goes, and it's an obvious waste of time.

No one has detailed data, because it would be a serious undertaking to tally up state spending by geography. But, for example, the state spent about $75M in direct operating subsidy ("State Share of Instruction") for Cleveland State vs. $384M for Ohio State in FY 2018 (which excludes another huge bucket of "other government support" OSU shows in its budget). This is direct appropriation of general revenue, not fee or tuition revenue. Similarly, the centralized functions of state government are (obviously) disproportionately located in Columbus. So yes, Columbus disproportionately contributes to "the state," but the state spends its money disproportionately in Columbus. That's the argument. None of this really moves me though. Salaries of centralized state functions are a small part of the state budget and state subsidies of higher ed have been pretty stagnant, I believe. These things are ever small parts of Columbus's growing, diversified economy. That doesn't support the claim at all, actually. First, the claim was that money flows between regions are largely TO Columbus from the rest of the state, but you admit that no one has any data to back it up. Which means that we can't assume that the money Columbus is sending to the state doesn't eventually make it back there instead of money from elsewhere. Second, you assume that Ohio State, a much larger university than Cleveland State, receiving more overall funding means there's some unfair and disproportionate subsidy going on. The OSU thing has been brought up before, and OSU's % of funding from the state is smaller than Cleveland State's, despite the lower total. It's also been declining over time. CS gets a higher amount of its funding from the state than OSU does, even if it gets a lower total. And of course none of this deals with the economic benefits the state receives through things like research, patents, education retention, sports, merchandise sales, business and economic development programs, etc. that come from OSU. There is pretty much zero chance here that OSU is some kind of net economic drain on the rest of the state, and the suggestion is ridiculous to me. This article (with a study link) and others support that public investment in universities in Ohio has an economic return more than 4x greater than the state funding they receive. https://news.osu.edu/news/2018/06/13/new-study-shows-ohios-public-universities-added-42-billion-in-income-to-states-economy/ And here's an article about ONLY the Agricultural Research and Development Center generates over $1 billion for the state, or how the Wexner Center generates almost $2 billion. https://www.osu.edu/highpoints/economicimpact/ Economic impact reports going back at least through the mid-1990s give numbers that OSU, individually, produces several times more economic return for the state than it gets in state dollars. A simple Google search will provide links to many of them. So again, the State, NOT just Columbus, is a beneficiary of OSU, not a PayDay Loan for it. Higher education is a fantastic investment for states to make. In any case, this is one of those claims that will forever rear its head because facts aren't important. The narrative that Columbus is stealing from the rest of the state has been around for a very long time now, and no one is going to be convinced by data.