I hear a lot about Columbus growing because of annexation, and the last 60 years, that is certainly part of the growth.  But I wanted to see how the largest US cities fared in comparison, especially in relation to the fastest-growing population wise.  So I went through the census records to find areal sizes for cities going back to 1950.  I couldn't find all the 1950 area sizes for 2010's 100 largest cities, so I only used those cities that had sizes listed every decade.  This came up with 76 total cities, but I'll just do the top 50. 

 

First, here is the total growth in square miles by city during the 1950-2010 period, ranked by the largest to smallest change.

 

1. Jacksonville, FL: +716.8

2. Oklahoma City: +555.6

3. Phoenix: +499.6

4. Nashville: +453.1

5. Houston: +439.6

6. Louisville, KY: +346.1

7. San Antonio: +338.1

8. Indianapolis: +309.9

9. Charlotte, NC: +267.7

10. Austin, TX: +265.8

11. Fort Worth, TX: +246.1

12. Kansas City: +232.9

13. El Paso, TX: +229.6

14. Dallas: +228.5

15. San Diego: +225.8

16. Memphis: +198.1

17. Tuscon: +191.2

18. Colorado Springs: +185.5

19. Columbus: +177.8

20. Tulsa, OK: +170.1

21. San Jose, CA: +159.5

22. Albuquerque, NM: +152.5

23. Corpus Christi, TX: +140.8

24. Wichita, KS: +133.6

25. Montgomery, AL: +133.5

26. Raleigh, NC: +131.8

27. Las Vegas: +123.3

28. Columbia, SC: +119

29. Winston-Salem, NC: +113.6

30. Greensboro, NC: +108.3

31. Charleston, SC: +103.9

32. Little Rock, AR: +98.2

33. Fresno, CA: +97.0

34. Atlanta: +96.3

35. Tampa: +94.4

36. Durham, NC: 94.2

37. Fort Wayne, IN: +91.8

38. Orlando: +88.3

39. Omaha, NE: +86.4

40. Denver: +86.2

41. Sacramento, CA: +81.0

42. Birmingham, AL: +80.8

43. Portland, OR: +70.2

44. Lincoln, NE: +65.3

45. Madison, WI: +61.4

46. Salt Lake City: +57.2

47. Stockton, CA: +49.9

48. Baton Rouge, LA: +46.7

49. Milwaukee: +46.1

50. Toledo: +42.4

 

Out of the top 25, 22 of the cities that had the largest total area gains were Sun Belt cities.  In fact, out of all 50, there were only 13 that were not Sun Belt, including 4 that were either Mountain West or Pacific Northwest.  So only 9 cities out of the top 50 were from the Midwest or Northeast. 

Interesting.  I don't believe that Cincinnati has added any significant territory since about 1925. 

An even better way to measure how cities have grown is through percentage.  Here are the top 50 for area percentage growth 1950-2010.

 

1. Phoenix: +2,921.6%

2. Jacksonville, FL: +2,373.5%

3. Colorado Springs: +2,061.1%

4. Nashville: +2,059.5%

5. Charleston, SC: +2,037.3%

6. Raleigh, NC: +1,198.2%

7. Oklahoma City: +1,093.7%

8. Las Vegas: +986.4%

9. San Jose, CA: +938.2%

10. Columbia, SC: +929.7%

11. El Paso, TX: +896.9%

12. Charlotte, NC: +892.3%

13. Nashville: +887.4%

14. Austin, TX: +828.0%

15. Durham, NC: +713.6%

16. Corpus Christi, TX: +711.1%

17. Fresno, CA: +646.7%

18. Orlando: +626.2%

19. Winston-Salem, NC: +604.3%

20. Greensboro, NC: +595.1%

21. Indianapolis: +561.4%

22. Albuquerque: +542.7%

23. Tuscon, AZ: +538.6%

24. Wichita, KS: +519.8%

25. Montgomery, AL: +511.5%

26. Tampa, FL: +496.8%

27. Fort Wayne, IN: +488.3%

28. San Antonio: +486.5%

29. Sacramento: +479.3%

30. Little Rock, AR: +467.6%

31. Columbus: +451.3%

32. Stockton, CA: 422.9%

33. Madison, WI: +398.7%

34. Kansas City: +289.0%

35. Houston: +274.8%

36. Lincoln, NE: +274.4%

37. Fort Worth, TX: +262.6%

38. Atlanta: +261.0%

39. San Diego: +227.2%

40. Omaha, NE: +212.3%

41. Dallas: +204.0%

42. San Bernardino, CA: +203.6%

43. Memphis: +190.1%

44. Baton Rouge: +154.6%

45. Denver: +129.0%

46. Birmingham, AL: +123.7%

47. Dayton: +123.2%

48. Toledo: +110.7%

49. Portland, OR: +109.5%

50. Salt Lake City: +106.1%

 

Rest of Ohio's cities not in top 50.

Akron: +15.6%

Cincinnati: +3.9%

Cleveland: +3.5%

 

Again, Sun Belt cities dominate.

BTW, here's the trend for Columbus' rate of annexation.

 

1950-1970

Square miles added: 95.2

% Change: +285.7%

 

1970-1990

Square miles added: 56.3

% Change: +41.8%

 

1990-2010

Square miles added: 26.3

% Change: +13.8%

 

2000-2010

Square miles added: 6.9

% Change: +3.3%

This was the slowest decadal annexation rate since the 1940s. 

A lot of the older cities in the Northeast and Midwest were landlocked by their suburbs in the early 20th century or even earlier.  The booming, generally younger cities of the Sun Belt didn't have that issue and as such annexation of new developments has been much easier especially in the second half of the 20th century and with all of the car-generated sprawl.

 

I'm having a hard time picturing where Cleveland's 3.5% in growth came from.  Perhaps some land that was Brook Park out near/around the Hopkins Airport?  I was going to guess Miles Heights, but that full merger happened in the 1930s I believe.

 

Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville, and Kansas City (?) all had recent city-county mergers which I believe accounts for a lot of their respective growth.

 

It seems like there has been (and still is) a lot of unincorporated territory in Franklin County that has been up for grabs for annexation for Columbus and probably some of the suburbs as well.  I'd be curious if the annexation has been unique to Columbus, or if some of its bigger suburbs have gotten in on the action, too.

It seems like there has been unincorporated territory in Franklin County that has been up for grabs for annexation for Columbus and probably some of the suburbs as well.  I'd be curious if the annexation has been unique to Columbus, or if some of its bigger suburbs have gotten in on the action, too.

As was pointed out in the historical article posted in this post:

 

"Columbus controlled most of the water and sewer lines in Franklin County.  It defined service areas for suburbs and required that landowners outside those areas annex to the city to obtain the services needed for development."

It seems like there has been unincorporated territory in Franklin County that has been up for grabs for annexation for Columbus and probably some of the suburbs as well.  I'd be curious if the annexation has been unique to Columbus, or if some of its bigger suburbs have gotten in on the action, too.

As was pointed out in the historical article posted in this post:

 

"Columbus controlled most of the water and sewer lines in Franklin County.  It defined service areas for suburbs and required that landowners outside those areas annex to the city to obtain the services needed for development."

 

I knew about that situation with the water, too, so maybe it was a dumb question. 

Sorry for digging up an old thread, but I've been interested in the Columbus annexation subject since I arrived here last year. It seems like annexation has slowed greatly. Does anyone have any information on land being annexed since 2010? The only area I've heard of recently annexed was the casino site.

It seems like annexation has slowed greatly. Does anyone have any information on land being annexed since 2010? The only area I've heard of recently annexed was the casino site.

 

Pretty much.  I can't recall any big annexations since the westside casino.  Here's the current city boundary as of Nov. 2013: http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Columbus/Departments/Development/Planning_Division/Map_Center/Columbus%20Corporate%20Boundary.pdf

It seems like annexation has slowed greatly. Does anyone have any information on land being annexed since 2010? The only area I've heard of recently annexed was the casino site.

 

Pretty much.  I can't recall any big annexations since the westside casino.  Here's the current city boundary as of Nov. 2013: http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Columbus/Departments/Development/Planning_Division/Map_Center/Columbus%20Corporate%20Boundary.pdf

 

The only other larger annexation I can think of since 2010 was the Scioto Downs site. 

It seems like annexation has slowed greatly. Does anyone have any information on land being annexed since 2010? The only area I've heard of recently annexed was the casino site.

 

Pretty much.  I can't recall any big annexations since the westside casino.  Here's the current city boundary as of Nov. 2013: http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Columbus/Departments/Development/Planning_Division/Map_Center/Columbus%20Corporate%20Boundary.pdf

 

Thanks for that map. I'd love to see Columbus take over a bunch of those little islands of unincorporated townships

Franklin County has a page for annexations here: http://development.franklincountyohio.gov/planning/annexations/recent-annexations.cfm

 

I don't know if all of 2014 has been updated, but it looks like last year was the least number of annexations in recent history. I was also surprised to see the City of Columbus gave up 27 acres to its suburbs in 2013.

Franklin County has a page for annexations here: http://development.franklincountyohio.gov/planning/annexations/recent-annexations.cfm

 

I don't know if all of 2014 has been updated, but it looks like last year was the least number of annexations in recent history. I was also surprised to see the City of Columbus gave up 27 acres to its suburbs in 2013.

 

Nice link, thanks.  I added up all the annexations since 2010, and it represents about 492.1 acres, or only 0.769 square miles.  So the city's on pace to add less than 2 square miles this decade.  This would be about what was added during the 1940s before major annexation began.  The slow growth should also help density jump up.  If this continues, I would expect density for the city to be between 4,300-4,500/ppsm. 

Franklin County has a page for annexations here: http://development.franklincountyohio.gov/planning/annexations/recent-annexations.cfm

 

I don't know if all of 2014 has been updated, but it looks like last year was the least number of annexations in recent history. I was also surprised to see the City of Columbus gave up 27 acres to its suburbs in 2013.

 

Nice link, thanks.  I added up all the annexations since 2010, and it represents about 492.1 acres, or only 0.769 square miles.  So the city's on pace to add less than 2 square miles this decade.  This would be about what was added during the 1940s before major annexation began.  The slow growth should also help density jump up.  If this continues, I would expect density for the city to be between 4,300-4,500/ppsm.

 

Good analysis. Of those acres added 316.32 were in two annexations in 2011. I think for Scioto Downs and the casino. We may not see anymore annexations of that scale for the rest of the decade. The decade could end with Columbus only adding a single square mile or less!

Franklin County has a page for annexations here: http://development.franklincountyohio.gov/planning/annexations/recent-annexations.cfm

 

I don't know if all of 2014 has been updated, but it looks like last year was the least number of annexations in recent history. I was also surprised to see the City of Columbus gave up 27 acres to its suburbs in 2013.

 

Nice link, thanks.  I added up all the annexations since 2010, and it represents about 492.1 acres, or only 0.769 square miles.  So the city's on pace to add less than 2 square miles this decade.  This would be about what was added during the 1940s before major annexation began.  The slow growth should also help density jump up.  If this continues, I would expect density for the city to be between 4,300-4,500/ppsm.

 

Good analysis. Of those acres added 316.32 were in two annexations in 2011. I think for Scioto Downs and the casino. We may not see anymore annexations of that scale for the rest of the decade. The decade could end with Columbus only adding a single square mile or less!

 

Very true.  I keep telling people that annexation in Columbus is more or less over with, at least on a mass scale, but I don't think too many take that claim seriously.  They still think the city is growing almost completely from adding population in the outer reaches (which ironically, would have the least amount of population), rather than actually attracting new residents.

Franklin County has a page for annexations here: http://development.franklincountyohio.gov/planning/annexations/recent-annexations.cfm

 

I don't know if all of 2014 has been updated, but it looks like last year was the least number of annexations in recent history. I was also surprised to see the City of Columbus gave up 27 acres to its suburbs in 2013.

 

Nice link, thanks.  I added up all the annexations since 2010, and it represents about 492.1 acres, or only 0.769 square miles.  So the city's on pace to add less than 2 square miles this decade.  This would be about what was added during the 1940s before major annexation began.  The slow growth should also help density jump up.  If this continues, I would expect density for the city to be between 4,300-4,500/ppsm.

 

Good analysis. Of those acres added 316.32 were in two annexations in 2011. I think for Scioto Downs and the casino. We may not see anymore annexations of that scale for the rest of the decade. The decade could end with Columbus only adding a single square mile or less!

 

Very true.  I keep telling people that annexation in Columbus is more or less over with, at least on a mass scale, but I don't think too many take that claim seriously.  They still think the city is growing almost completely from adding population in the outer reaches (which ironically, would have the least amount of population), rather than actually attracting new residents.

 

Yes.  Yes.  A thousand times yes!

According to the Census data in Wikipedia, Columbus increased in density from 3,384 people / square mile to 3,624 people / square mile between 2000 and 2010

According to the Census data in Wikipedia, Columbus increased in density from 3,384 people / square mile to 3,624 people / square mile between 2000 and 2010

 

Yep, it did.  And if the annexation numbers are correct, and I don't know why they wouldn't be, with the addition of over 35,000 people to the city between 2010-2013, the 2013 density was likely between 3,750-3,800/ppsm.  That's why I am thinking it will easily be over 4,000 by 2020, if not much higher.  This would mean it would pass up Cincinnati and be approaching Cleveland's density numbers.  For a city everyone thinks is suburban sprawl, and given that it has almost 3x the area size, that's a pretty amazing feat. 

^Not necessarily.  Metro Los Angeles is denser than Metro New York, but no one would say that LA has the denser urban form in the traditional sense.  As a city essentially entirely without topographical or geographical challenges, Columbus probably has a much more uniform density than a city like Cincinnati that has very dense areas surrounded by nearly unbuildable hillsides.  This past summer, I was touring around the southwest side of the "city" and there is sprawl popping up in the fields all over the place.  The man touring me around was telling me which subdivisions were Columbus vs Prairie Twp. and some of the other townships in the area, and it seemed very random and fairly evenly split.  These are subdivisions that you would find on the periphery of any US city, but they are counted in Columbus' city population.  I could be wrong, but didn't Columbus typically annex land rather than communities? Rather than absorbing established suburbs, the city would annex land and then develop it? If so, that would be a pretty logical explanation for the increasing density within city boundaries.

 

I definitely believe that Columbus is adding population in its core neighborhoods, and that it is densifying, but I think it's always important to note just how much the city has benefitted from annexation.  Even beyond gross population increases, the narrative of a growing city has not been a luxury afforded to either Cincinnati or Cleveland.  Both of those cities have had to battle the stigma of the dying city surrounded by booming burbs, while Columbus gets the narrative of constant, robust growth.  I think that has contributed a lot towards the perceptions that locals have toward the center city in each of the 3 C's.

^Not necessarily.  Metro Los Angeles is denser than Metro New York, but no one would say that LA has the denser urban form in the traditional sense.  As a city essentially entirely without topographical or geographical challenges, Columbus probably has a much more uniform density than a city like Cincinnati that has very dense areas surrounded by nearly unbuildable hillsides.  This past summer, I was touring around the southwest side of the "city" and there is sprawl popping up in the fields all over the place.  The man touring me around was telling me which subdivisions were Columbus vs Prairie Twp. and some of the other townships in the area, and it seemed very random and fairly evenly split.  These are subdivisions that you would find on the periphery of any US city, but they are counted in Columbus' city population.  I could be wrong, but didn't Columbus typically annex land rather than communities? Rather than absorbing established suburbs, the city would annex land and then develop it? If so, that would be a pretty logical explanation for the increasing density within city boundaries.

 

I definitely believe that Columbus is adding population in its core neighborhoods, and that it is densifying, but I think it's always important to note just how much the city has benefitted from annexation.  Even beyond gross population increases, the narrative of a growing city has not been a luxury afforded to either Cincinnati or Cleveland.  Both of those cities have had to battle the stigma of the dying city surrounded by booming burbs, while Columbus gets the narrative of constant, robust growth.  I think that has contributed a lot towards the perceptions that locals have toward the center city in each of the 3 C's.

 

Well, first we're talking about city, not metro. Second, if you actually look at Cincinnati and Cleveland's density down to census tract level, it's less to do with geography than the fact that individual densities at ground level aren't as impressively different as one might believe, as shown by the graphs below. 

 

With annexation in Columbus, the policy was that when townships or surrounding areas wanted to get Columbus water and services, they would have to annex.  So basically, Columbus wasn't going to give away city resources if they didn't get the tax benefits of that population.  So it wasn't necessarily empty land, and in many cases, was already built up in some way.  However, that was back when there was a lot of area to annex that still had decent populations.  The land Columbus would typically annex these days is either on the fringe with very little development, or once in awhile, a small part of an already developed piece of land.  Columbus kept growth going when it needed to, but with diminishing returns.  Every decade during the high annexation years, less population would be added than the decade before it.  Annexation only works for population growth if there is an existing population to add.  Columbus city attracted about 73% of the population growth of all of Franklin County 2010-2013, but it includes only about 40% of the land within it.  This indicates that people are actively moving into the city instead of being annexed in.  The annexation numbers above only reinforce that annexation now is virtually nonexistent as a population grower.

 

And even so, we're talking about a city closer to 218 square miles vs. the 75-80 for Cleveland/Cincinnati.  For Columbus to even be in the mix density-wise, there has to be some fairly high density across the board, and not just in the central core.  Again, this is shown in the graphs below.  If Cincinnati/Cleveland began annexing to the point of the same square mileage, they would likely be less dense than Columbus.  This is shown in a few ways.  First, the Census does a thing measuring population at increasing distances from the center of the city.  Density can be worked out in a certain square mileage using these numbers.  At Mile 8, which would be about 201 square miles, the densities in 2010 would've been:

 

Columbus: 3,957.4

Cleveland: 3,577.1

Cincinnati: 3,411.7

 

The other way to tell is by using urban area, something the census also tracks.  Demographia has more recent estimates than the census.  The latest are:

 

Columbus: 2,700

Cleveland: 2,300

Cincinnati: 2,100

 

Anyway, perception is typically wrong about a lot of things.  In the case of Columbus density, it certainly is.

 

 

 

^ You’re still not accounting for one of the most important factors when it comes to density: geography, which Edale pointed out above. There’s also the simple fact that half of Cincinnati’s densely populated urban core is actually in Kentucky. There’s a perception that much of Columbus is sprawl, because physically it is. The density may still be higher despite that, as there is little in the way of the physically unoccupiable places like lakes, rivers, hillsides, etc. that Cleveland and Cincinnati have. For instance, even some of Cincinnati’s densest tracts would be denser if they didn’t include unbuildable hillsides. The misconception may be that sprawl = low density, which is not always the case.

I had done my own analysis on here a few years back.  It goes strictly by MSA, so it is not limited to urbanized areas.  What really affects Greater Cleveland's density numbers is the lake, with about 2/3 of Cuyahoga County being in the water, and large chunks of the other counties within the MSA being the same.  I did not account for hillsides or other factors, such as the industrial valley or the Cuyahoga Valley National Park or the Metroparks which are not eligible for development.  Cincy has similar obstacles, for sure.  I did factor in the parts of the Cincy MSA outside of Ohio.  So...... just going strictly by 'land', regardless of whether it was buildable or not, I came up with the following......

 

Cincy Metro - 4,399 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 498/sq. mi.

C-bus Metro - 3,983 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 458/sq. mi.

Cleveland Metro - 2,004 sq. mi. for a pop density of 1040/sq. mi.

 

The areas exlude water (some of Cleveland metro's counties are nearly or more than half in the lake) and is based on the following:

 

Cincy's metro includes 15 counties - 3 in Indiana (Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio), 7 in Kentucky (Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Pendleton), and 5 in Ohio (Brown, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, Butler)

 

C-Bus's metro includes 8 counties (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union)) all in Ohio.

 

Cleveland's metro includes 5 counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina) all in Ohio.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24919.105.html#ixzz3Qc39iFvj

^ Youre still not accounting for one of the most important factors when it comes to density: geography, which Edale pointed out above. Theres also the simple fact that half of Cincinnatis densely populated urban core is actually in Kentucky. Theres a perception that much of Columbus is sprawl, because physically it is. The density may still be higher despite that, as there is little in the way of the physically unoccupiable places like lakes, rivers, hillsides, etc. that Cleveland and Cincinnati have. For instance, even some of Cincinnatis densest tracts would be denser if they didnt include unbuildable hillsides. The misconception may be that sprawl = low density, which is not always the case.

 

The City of Cincinnati also has a large number of cemeteries, golf courses, and several square miles dedicated to a railroad yard.

It think that's a little bit of a stretch argument.

 

Columbus has their main airport in city boundaries.

^ You’re still not accounting for one of the most important factors when it comes to density: geography, which Edale pointed out above. There’s also the simple fact that half of Cincinnati’s densely populated urban core is actually in Kentucky. There’s a perception that much of Columbus is sprawl, because physically it is. The density may still be higher despite that, as there is little in the way of the physically unoccupiable places like lakes, rivers, hillsides, etc. that Cleveland and Cincinnati have. For instance, even some of Cincinnati’s densest tracts would be denser if they didn’t include unbuildable hillsides. The misconception may be that sprawl = low density, which is not always the case.

 

1. Urbanized Area would remove geographical limitations because it only looks at land that is continuously developed. 

2. No, Cincinnati's density is not centered in Kentucky.  The Ohio side not only has the highest density tracks in the metro, but has more of them that are within the higher range of 10K+.  The Covington side may be more uniform, but it's a smaller area as well.

3. How are you defining sprawl?  If it's total low-density development in a metro, Cleveland has the least, Cincinnati the most.  If it's how fast low-density sprawl is growing, Cleveland has the fastest, not Columbus.  I'm sure the perception is that Columbus leads in both categories, but it's been studied.  There was just a report out last year about this.  Or if you think sprawl is the number of square miles that have been developed, again, Columbus is dead last.  Both Cincinnati and Cleveland's urbanized areas are much larger. 

4. If Cleveland suffers from lots of geographical limitations on density, how does it have the highest in the state? 

 

So what is sprawl then?

 

I had done my own analysis on here a few years back.  It goes strictly by MSA, so it is not limited to urbanized areas.  What really affects Greater Cleveland's density numbers is the lake, with about 2/3 of Cuyahoga County being in the water, and large chunks of the other counties within the MSA being the same.  I did not account for hillsides or other factors, such as the industrial valley or the Cuyahoga Valley National Park or the Metroparks which are not eligible for development.  Cincy has similar obstacles, for sure.  I did factor in the parts of the Cincy MSA outside of Ohio.  So...... just going strictly by 'land', regardless of whether it was buildable or not, I came up with the following......

 

Cincy Metro - 4,399 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 498/sq. mi.

C-bus Metro - 3,983 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 458/sq. mi.

Cleveland Metro - 2,004 sq. mi. for a pop density of 1040/sq. mi.

 

The areas exlude water (some of Cleveland metro's counties are nearly or more than half in the lake) and is based on the following:

 

Cincy's metro includes 15 counties - 3 in Indiana (Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio), 7 in Kentucky (Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Pendleton), and 5 in Ohio (Brown, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, Butler)

 

C-Bus's metro includes 8 counties (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union)) all in Ohio.

 

Cleveland's metro includes 5 counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina) all in Ohio.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,24919.105.html#ixzz3Qc39iFvj

 

That's why I think UA is a better measurement because it wouldn't include the lake or undeveloped forests as detractors.  I don't like to use metro for density anyway because it's based on county lines, not development boundaries.  It's only useful for metro density itself, but not for the core cities.

 

And to those suggesting geographical boundaries are problems, especially in regards to the metro density above, why would they only be counted?  It would seem to me that if you can't county some land because it's forested, hilly or has water, then why would you county empty farm fields or otherwise vacant land?  Both make up a large chunk of metro land, and while it may be possible to build on it, the fact that it's not serves the exact same issue that a body of water would: It detracts from the density of an area. 

It think that's a little bit of a stretch argument.

 

Columbus has their main airport in city boundaries.

 

What about parks, rivers, vacant lots or farms?  How about highways?  Once you start going down this route, where do you draw the line? 

You might be on to somethig with your "what is sprawl" question.  If the common perception is that Columbus is Ohio's sprawl poster child, but density levels prove that not to be the case, then I think it's important to know why that dissonance exists. Maybe density is not actually what people most look for when categorizing neighborhoods as sprawl. One guess that I would put forth is that sprawl is often associated with new single housing developments. Even though older, more mature neighborhoods like Hyde Park/Shaker Hts/Bexley might have similar densities to communities on the periphery of their regions, I think people are less likely to categorize them as sprawl because of their age and proximity to the core. It would be interesting to see the date of construction 'bands' for each of the 3Cs. I would assume that Cincinnati and Cleveland would have larger swaths of older communities, simply because of their earlier periods of growth and importance. Sprawl tends to stop being considered sprawl when it's eclipsed by new development and becomes a bit more established in the fabric of the region, so the very fact that a large part of the Columbus metro is 'newer' could explain why it is perceived to be more sprawly.

In general (key phrase), I would consider sprawl a residential development that isn't within walking distance to a walkable commercial district and requires a car to reach any notable walkable area.

 

Also, a commercial district that requires a car (loose term as buses may access an area, but you generally need a car to really do anything there) to access. That is also sprawl.

 

And of course rural is basically sprawl, but with more farms and a very little connection to a large urban area.

Rural doesn't have sewers.  This discourages suburban-type developments. 

In general (key phrase), I would consider sprawl a residential development that isn't within walking distance to a walkable commercial district and requires a car to reach any notable walkable area.

 

Also, a commercial district that requires a car (loose term as buses may access an area, but you generally need a car to really do anything there) to access. That is also sprawl.

 

And of course rural is basically sprawl, but with more farms and a very little connection to a large urban area.

 

So are Roselawn and Bond Hill sprawl? How about more established suburbs like Blue Ash, or places that have some walkable 'urban' districts mixed with traditional suburban development (Montgomery, Madeira)?

 

The only clear cut demonstration of sprawl that I can think of is a map I saw a while ago that showed the footprint of metro Buffalo between 1960(?) and current day.  While the population is almost exactly the same in Buffalo, the total land area had almost doubled.  That is textbook sprawl. Growth doesn't necessarily equal sprawl, though.  Nor does the expansion of the metro if the population is growing.  Each generation of Cincinnati saw a new ring of sprawl, starting with Clifton and Walnut Hills expanding out of downtown once the inclines opened.  The house I grew up in was built in the 80s, but I don't think most people would consider the Blue Ash area to be sprawl in the traditional sense, especially because the metro stretches 12+ miles in all directions around it.  In the early 80s, however, Blue Ash and Evendale probably were considered sprawl because they were the 'frontier' of the region at that time. 

 

Almost all categorizations of sprawl have limitations, imo.  If you go by lot size, would that make Hyde Park and East Walnut Hills sprawl? We've already seen that density doesn't seem to capture what people think of as sprawl.  Age of development gets you closer when thinking about single family homes, but with the advent of New Urbanism and urban infill, that method also has limitations. 

I think you need to look at things on a street level and not a city level. There is definitely sprawl in the City of Cincinnati. There is definitely sprawl in Blue Ash. There is sprawl in Mason. There is sprawl in Batavia.

 

But all of these places also have walkable areas that were designed around a neighborhood business district. While some of these communities would be considered sprawl, by no means are all of it sprawl.

 

The trickiest category for me is whether we should consider the origin of the neighborhood or the current conditions. Bond Hill was definitely anchored by a business district on both sides of the neighborhood when it was originally built. Now the business district is pretty much only accessibly by cars with drive-thrus aplenty and the neighborhood acts more like sprawl. I lean toward the original condition because the business districts can always be brought back.

Getting down to street level seems to miss the point of 'sprawl', IMO. I think what you're getting at has more to do with urban design than actual urban sprawl.  The definition of urban sprawl is "the spreading of urban developments on undeveloped land near a city" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urban%20sprawl).  The reason why we/you think of sprawl in terms of urban design and the orientation of development around a business district is because modern sprawl (i.e. development on the periphery) tends to be built in an auto-centric manner with big boxes and strip malls serving as the 'business districts'. That is just the normal template for exurban development in 2015.  In the 30s and 40s, sprawl still was occurring (Bond Hill), but the accepted norm for development at that time still revolved around small businesses and neighborhood business districts. 

So everything outside of a metropolitan area's primary CBD is sprawl?

Getting down to street level seems to miss the point of 'sprawl', IMO. I think what you're getting at has more to do with urban design than actual urban sprawl.  The definition of urban sprawl is "the spreading of urban developments on undeveloped land near a city" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urban%20sprawl).  The reason why we/you think of sprawl in terms of urban design and the orientation of development around a business district is because modern sprawl (i.e. development on the periphery) tends to be built in an auto-centric manner with big boxes and strip malls serving as the 'business districts'. That is just the normal template for exurban development in 2015.  In the 30s and 40s, sprawl still was occurring (Bond Hill), but the accepted norm for development at that time still revolved around small businesses and neighborhood business districts. 

 

The definition you're using is not helpful. As ryanlammi[/member] indicated, it's too broad for us to have a constructive conversation about it then. Doing a quick Google search will give you definitions that include the words "uncontrolled" development,  "low density," or "auto dependent." I think looking at "sprawl" within that context is much more useful

Modern sprawl = current edge of the metro area.  Idk what's so hard to understand about that.  If a region has a higher percentage of development that is more recent, it's going to look more like "sprawl" than an area that was developed earlier, or has been surrounded by development even further out.  So in the case of comparing the 3Cs, if one was to go 10 miles away from the core city, Cleveland and Cincinnati are going to have older, more traditional styled neighborhoods than Columbus, which would have more modern neighborhoods, with styles that were popular at their time of development.  Assuming similar population densities, which census numbers seem to confirm, does that mean that Columbus is more sprawled? In my opinion, it does not.  It means that Columbus turns to a more suburban development style more quickly than either Cleveland or Cincinnati. 

 

In terms of area, Cincinnati and Cleveland are much larger, and are physically more sprawled.  In fact, I'm always surprised by how quickly downtown Columbus pops up when traveling in from 71 S.  In Cincinnati, you know you're in the suburbs a good 20 miles north, and ~16 miles south of Downtown.  In Columbus, other than Grove City, there really isn't much in the way of development until you are about 8 miles away from the core.  So I think there is difference between actual sprawl, and perceived sprawl.  That is what I was trying to get at.

^Just an FYI regarding that "quickly how downtown Columbus pops up" thing, it's the Big Darby watershed that prevents much development west and south of the city.  Thus, you can drive from Dayton or Cincinnati into Columbus city "quickly" versus the more urbanized north or east sides.  Much like going to Cincinnati on I-74 from Indianapolis, Cincinnati seemingly "pops up" out of nowhere to the casual visitor due to the hillsides.

^Just an FYI regarding that "quickly how downtown Columbus pops up" thing, it's the Big Darby watershed that prevents much development west and south of the city.  Thus, you can drive from Dayton or Cincinnati into Columbus city "quickly" versus the more urbanized north or east sides.  Much like going to Cincinnati on I-74 from Indianapolis, Cincinnati seemingly "pops up" out of nowhere to the casual visitor due to the hillsides.

 

When you pass under the North Bend Rd. overpass on I-74, you are passing between the Great Miami to Millcreek watersheds.  No sewers existed on the Great Miami side until the late 1990s.  Some developments appeared in the 80s in anticipation of the sewers and they switched from their own small sewage treatment facilities over to the new county sewers in the late 90s.  Since then some particularly egregious sprawl has taken off around the Rybolt/Harrison exit.  This is the first sign for visitors that they are approaching Cincinnati. 

 

ColDayMan[/member] I would love to hear your take on this discussion

You might be on to somethig with your "what is sprawl" question.  If the common perception is that Columbus is Ohio's sprawl poster child, but density levels prove that not to be the case, then I think it's important to know why that dissonance exists. Maybe density is not actually what people most look for when categorizing neighborhoods as sprawl. One guess that I would put forth is that sprawl is often associated with new single housing developments. Even though older, more mature neighborhoods like Hyde Park/Shaker Hts/Bexley might have similar densities to communities on the periphery of their regions, I think people are less likely to categorize them as sprawl because of their age and proximity to the core. It would be interesting to see the date of construction 'bands' for each of the 3Cs. I would assume that Cincinnati and Cleveland would have larger swaths of older communities, simply because of their earlier periods of growth and importance. Sprawl tends to stop being considered sprawl when it's eclipsed by new development and becomes a bit more established in the fabric of the region, so the very fact that a large part of the Columbus metro is 'newer' could explain why it is perceived to be more sprawly.

 

That could explain some of the perception issue, but density actually typically plays a role in the "sprawl definition".  It's almost universally considered to be low-density. 

 

In any case, if Columbus' city boundaries were the same size as Cincy or Cleveland, I suspect more of that perception would be explained too.  Columbus 1950 boundaries is roughly 70-80 square miles.  Cleveland and Cincy didn't grow much outwardly past 1950, while Columbus did, and its boundaries include much of that later development.  If it was still just the core city, I wonder if it would be perceived as it is now.  Or if Cleveland and Cincinnati had boundaries out to 218 square miles, would they be considered the same? 

I think you need to look at things on a street level and not a city level. There is definitely sprawl in the City of Cincinnati. There is definitely sprawl in Blue Ash. There is sprawl in Mason. There is sprawl in Batavia.

 

But all of these places also have walkable areas that were designed around a neighborhood business district. While some of these communities would be considered sprawl, by no means are all of it sprawl.

 

The trickiest category for me is whether we should consider the origin of the neighborhood or the current conditions. Bond Hill was definitely anchored by a business district on both sides of the neighborhood when it was originally built. Now the business district is pretty much only accessibly by cars with drive-thrus aplenty and the neighborhood acts more like sprawl. I lean toward the original condition because the business districts can always be brought back.

 

Same for Columbus suburbs.  Hilliard has a walkable old downtown, but it's also surrounded by sprawl.  I think the terms "walkable" and "dense" go hand-in-hand, because an area can't be walkable without a denser development pattern.  Dublin is urbanizing its entire Bridge Street Corridor, by building tons of infill and rebuilding infrastructure to be more walkable.  To do that, buildings will automatically be far more dense in terms of population per square mile, than before.  Your average exurban neighborhood named Hollow Bend or Briar Cliffs is not going to have either walkability or density... hence sprawl.

Columbus' annexations helped the City financially survive the postwar suburbanization era, maintaining a more stable tax base as most Americans with the means to do so left cities. Probably left Columbus more poised for success at the beginning of the 2000s, the beginning of the reurbanization boom. And, they didn't have as much industry leave town during that time and all the social problems that creates. However, IMHO, the biggest reason for the success of the Columbus urban core is three letters... OSU.

Columbus' annexations helped the City financially survive the postwar suburbanization era. Probably left them more poised for success as the urbanization boom that began in the 2000s. And, they didn't have as much industry leave town during that time and all the social problems that creates. However, IMHO, the biggest reason for the success of the Columbus urban core is three letters... OSU.

 

Eh, I'm not so sure about OSU.  The core of the city still lost tons of people during the suburbanization years, and OSU was growing throughout that time.  Neither the university nor being the center of state government prevented the same suburbanization processes from occurring.  It was only annexation that masked it... at least through about 1980, and then the annexation rate dropped significantly.  Incidentally, one of Columbus' highest rates of annexation occurred during one of its slowest growth decades, the 1970s.  Without annexation, it's entirely possible the city would've lost population that decade.  The perception of decline is a hard stigma to get rid of, and who knows if that would've affected Columbus' long-term growth patterns.  Luckily, it didn't have to find out.  Today, the city is having a relative boom, with the highest annual total growth of any decade in its history, all without virtually any annexation at all.

Oh... actually what I meant was that the success of the urban core since about 2000 is due to OSU more than any other factor... not necessarily for the past 60-70 years. My bad. And I'm not saying it's the only reason, just the biggest reason.

 

I think the fact that campus is so physically close and connected to the Short North, combined with the fact that there's so many college kids who love to stay for fifth years and keep living in the area after graduation, that supplied the area with a steady stream of young kids to repopulate. Because they all had these fun college experiences and associated that with the city, for them it didn't have the "CITY=BAD" stigma that the other two "C's" had to deal with. This is just what I've noticed anecdotally, from living around here and being in that generation. I did not go to OSU but I moved to the area after I graduated from Miami.

 

(It's not just that though. It's also the University's increased role in the local economy. This is happening everywhere but no University statewide has the muscle and clout of OSU, to Columbus' benefit.)

 

In Cleveland, Case is too small and isolated, and CSU has too many commuters, for a similar effect to occur.

 

I am not as familiar with UC but it seems like the middle ground between the two.

ColDayMan[/member] I would love to hear your take on this discussion

 

I think you nailed the perception issue of "sprawl" versus "suburban."  Honestly, it's all subjective.  Clearly all Ohio cities sprawl.  As you stated earlier, Columbus seemingly "sprawls" due to newer-ish development closer to the core than, say, older "sprawl" such as Parma in Cleveland (who's equivalent, structurally, would be Northland in Columbus) or any of those Western Hills townships in Cincinnati (which sprawl far worse than even Dublin).  It's a good, needed discussion.

Oh... actually what I meant was that the success of the urban core since about 2000 is due to OSU more than any other factor... not necessarily for the past 60-70 years. My bad. And I'm not saying it's the only reason, just the biggest reason.

 

I think the fact that campus is so physically close and connected to the Short North, combined with the fact that there's so many college kids who love to stay for fifth years and keep living in the area after graduation, that supplied the area with a steady stream of young kids to repopulate. Because they all had these fun college experiences and associated that with the city, for them it didn't have the "CITY=BAD" stigma that the other two "C's" had to deal with. This is just what I've noticed anecdotally, from living around here and being in that generation. I did not go to OSU but I moved to the area after I graduated from Miami.

 

(It's not just that though. It's also the University's increased role in the local economy. This is happening everywhere but no University statewide has the muscle and clout of OSU, to Columbus' benefit.)

 

In Cleveland, Case is too small and isolated, and CSU has too many commuters, for a similar effect to occur.

 

I am not as familiar with UC but it seems like the middle ground between the two.

 

Oh, I really disagree about OSU's influence on the urban core post 2000.  I just think Columbus, like almost every city, is seeing the results of changing tastes and development patterns.  Keep in mind that almost all of the revitalization has taken place off campus and even outside of the adjacent neighborhoods.  With the exception of the South Campus Gateway, there was virtually nothing else going on until very recently.  The Short North is far more responsible.  Campus was pretty crappy long after the Short North was in relative upswing.  The fact that the Short North has matured and become expensive has pushed development northwards.  That's why Weinland Park is starting to see a lot of development.  It's going south to north rather than south from OSU.  Also, college kids aren't exactly known for their funds, so they're probably the least likely group to be a big part of revitalization efforts, which don't come cheap.  Instead, its young professionals, say 25-35, who seem to be the big group.  Columbus may benefit from having college-educated people stay in the city after they graduate, though.

Instead, its young professionals, say 25-35, who seem to be the big group.  Columbus may benefit from having college-educated people stay in the city after they graduate, though.

 

That's what I mean. The Short North was able to leverage a nearly endless supply of future residents who spent four years living 10 blocks to the North, and already had familiarity with, and good associations with, the area.

Wow, I turn my back on this thread for a few days figuring it would have gone back into hibernation only to find it exploded with activity.

 

I don't see why this has to be an argument of Columbus verses Cincinnati verses Cleveland. The fact is that Columbus became the most populous city in the state through a massive amount of annexation that has now dropped to almost nothing. The population continues to rise though so of course density is increasing. As a residence of Columbus I feel this is a good thing.

Wow, I turn my back on this thread for a few days figuring it would have gone back into hibernation only to find it exploded with activity.

 

Boom. Boom to the power of Boom.

 

I don't see why this has to be an argument of Columbus verses Cincinnati verses Cleveland.

 

Cleveland and Cincinnati people like to talk about Columbus' annexations a way to assert their city's position as more of a major city than Columbus, in spite of Columbus' larger population. (I am a Cleveland person so I can say that haha) And to a certain extent it is true... there are way more people, as well as various cultural, historic, and architectural significance, in the metro areas of CLE and CIN than in Central Ohio.

 

However, that doesn't mean that Columbus' annexations were not absolutely the correct strategy. Most of us dislike sprawl on here, but sprawl was the trend during the time of the annexations... why should Columbus not benefit in it? Why should Columbus give away all of their wealth? Columbus city leaders looked at Cleveland and looked at Cincinnati and saw disaster, and they formulated a strategy to protect themselves from it. They had an advantage in that their city was surrounded by far more unincorporated land than CLE or CIN. (Although Cincinnati still has lots of unincorporated land bordering the city so Cincinnati leaders really dropped the ball on that one). They kept wealth and a tax base in their city, as well as avoided the crippling decentralization caused by the presence of 60-some bickering municipalities in Cuyahoga County. And today the positive effects of that decision show.