44 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This gets annoying. Columbus is the fastest growing city and metro area in the state. It is the most diverse. It has the largest state university and is the seat of government. It has many booming and wonderful neighborhoods. It's got everything going for it. So why do Cbus people get so defensive about every little thing?

 

 

I was just making a joke. Relax. I'm not being defensive at all. I don't care what Cleveland or Cincinnati people think of Columbus. It doesn't affect me. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I was just making a joke. Relax. I'm not being defensive at all. I don't care what Cleveland or Cincinnati people think of Columbus. It doesn't affect me. 

 

I know you were. And I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. It's just frustrating to me because I love Cbus. I think it is a great city. I love spending time there and I tell people about all the cool things going on there. I went to OU and we'd go up to Cbus sometimes and bop around and I have tons of friends from college who live there now and I visit often. But I feel like any time someone says something that could be interpreted as even slightly negative about Cbus here they get jumped on. Nobody said annexation was bad. I wish Cincinnati and Hamco would just consolidate completely.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not intending this to sound combative. Just pointing out a perspective. I know sometimes tone is hard to convey in text.

Edited July 11, 20195 yr by DEPACincy

50 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Perhaps, but as you know in Dayton, we also have parts of the city that were annexed greenfields that could be new growth for the city that haven't "grown" like annexed Columbus.  

That's largely a function of where land was annexed, though. If Dayton were able to annex along 75 South, 35 East, or 675 to the south/east, things would look very different from a municipal population perspective.

 

54 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

I think the simple answer is if you have strong/above-average economic growth, you're likely going to have a growing city.  Whether it's "landlocked" like Minneapolis, Seattle, or Boston or still has room to grow with Columbus, Indianapolis, or San Antonio, it's the economy.  If the economy in, say, Cleveland were on par with, say, Austin or Raleigh, then no one in Cleveland would complain about Columbus' previous annexation.  Just like how this Daytonian isn't complaining about having empty greenfields waiting for the latest Ryan homes to be built for my city's future growth. 

I agree, and this wasn't something I or (I think) @edale were contradicting. The only dispute was with @jonoh81 citing the recent halt in annexation nullifying annexation's effect on population numbers. It's definitely still a part of the story.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

And I don't get your point about the annexed land.  Growth doesn't count if it happens on land added after a certain date?  Land added in 1960 doesn't count, but land added in 1900 does?  How does that make sense?  Before what date did the land have to be added to count? 

I would say this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about where people have arguably arbitrary rules for some places based on questionable information.

 

 

Where did I say "growth doesn't count"? What does that even mean? All land included in Columbus' boundaries obviously counts towards it population. I'm not using any arbitrary rules or anything like that.

 

- You said Columbus' growth can't be attributed to annexation because annexation has drastically slowed as population continues to rise

 

- The hole in this argument that I was trying to point out is that Columbus largely annexed undeveloped land on the periphery of its city boundaries. So even though annexation has dramatically slowed, the city is still growing as a result of prior annexations being developed. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Columbus' population growth is occurring in the older portions of the city. However it is also reaping benefits from annexation, even as new annexation has slowed or stopped. Is that clear? I don't think that's controversial in the slightest.

 

I do understand @ColDayMan's point about annexation in a vacuum not resulting in growth. If the city's economy wasn't strong and the region as a whole wasn't growing, there'd be no assurance that those annexed greenfields would be developed. Point taken, and I wasn't trying to say that Columbus is only growing because of annexations. But I don't think its honest to say that you can't attribute some of Columbus' city growth to annexation and the huge land area the city now covers. This has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Cleveland. I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

Hope this post clears stuff up.

6 minutes ago, Robuu said:

That's largely a function of where land was annexed, though. If Dayton were able to annex along 75 South, 35 East, or 675 to the south/east, things would look very different from a municipal population perspective.

 

Eh, I don't know about that.  It might end up looking like Detroit.  If DPS were better and had a Columbus-like agreement with suburban schools, then I'd agree.  Otherwise, I'd argue Metro Dayton would be even more sprawly if Dayton annexed those areas and it certainly wouldn't look like Sawmill or Polaris.

 

10 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I agree, and this wasn't something I or (I think) @edale were contradicting. The only dispute was with @jonoh81 citing the recent halt in annexation nullifying annexation's effect on population numbers. It's definitely still a part of the story.

 

Oh, I don't disagree that annexation helped Columbus' current growth patterns.

5 minutes ago, edale said:

I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

I (kinda) get your point but the only thing about that is there are rarely clear distinctions between city and suburbs.  Westwood in Cincinnati, for example, could just blend in the rest of the westside townships.  Madisonville might as well be Fairfax; Hartwell might as well be a poorer Wyoming, Pleasant Ridge blends into Silverton/Kenwood, etc.  In the case of Cleveland, the inner-ring suburbs are sometimes more "city like" than the city neighborhoods they border (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, etc).  It's rare, aside from natural barriers, that city and suburbs have a clear line of distinction.  If Cincinnati had annexed land back when Columbus did, or even currently annexed darn near Hamilton County, it wouldn't really make a visual difference. 

 

The only true "smaller city boundary" systems that would be in that favorable distinction are English and Australian city boundaries.

 

But overall, I get your point.  I would personally prefer Ohio to just have the Big 7 core counties become the cities and get it out of the way, like China.

3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I don't think that's what is being said at all. They are saying if growth happens in Mason or North Ridgeville those numbers don't count toward Cincy or Cleveland populations. But all the growth happening along 161 between 270 and New Albany counts toward Cbus's growth. 

 

But that's a ridiculous measure of growth.  Again, you'd have to define a specific, arbitrary date when land was added to not have that be true.  All cities annexed over their histories, so at what year does it stop counting?  If Columbus had added 200 square miles in 1910, would the growth be any different now than if the same amount was added after 1950? 

Edited July 11, 20195 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Sorry, what I meant to convey is that the argument requires us to believe that population growth via annexation only "counts" (whatever that means) if the land was already developed.  Let's say Lincoln Village was built up, then got annexed once the population there grew.  Then it's "ok?"

 

I'm not sure how annexing mostly empty land, then working to get it developed which leads to population increases is *worse* than annexing areas that already have neighborhoods and population.  Sure, it's a "one time" population increase but the work has already been done to get people to live there.  

 

And to jonoh's point - where is the cut off?  What about farmland that was annexed in 1850?  or 1890?

 

The argument of "the population increase in Columbus is boosted because the city annexed mostly empty land 60-70 years ago and that's now being developed today" is different than "Columbus has gotten its population increases largely because of annexation."

 

Exactly.  The argument makes no sense. 

 

2 hours ago, Robuu said:

I think the argument is that population growth from development on annexed land is still, at least in part, "due to annexation." I think this is supported by the simple fact of it being cheaper and easier to develop on a green field than doing in-fill. It would further be supported if developer interest in the land in question was part of the impetus behind annexation (which would clearly be the case if, e.g., annexation is tied to utility expansion; demand for utilities would come from people wanting to develop the land).

 

Okay, but again, how is that any different than land added to a much younger city in the 19th or early 20th centuries? 

54 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Where did I say "growth doesn't count"? What does that even mean? All land included in Columbus' boundaries obviously counts towards it population. I'm not using any arbitrary rules or anything like that.

 

- You said Columbus' growth can't be attributed to annexation because annexation has drastically slowed as population continues to rise

 

- The hole in this argument that I was trying to point out is that Columbus largely annexed undeveloped land on the periphery of its city boundaries. So even though annexation has dramatically slowed, the city is still growing as a result of prior annexations being developed. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Columbus' population growth is occurring in the older portions of the city. However it is also reaping benefits from annexation, even as new annexation has slowed or stopped. Is that clear? I don't think that's controversial in the slightest.

 

I do understand @ColDayMan's point about annexation in a vacuum not resulting in growth. If the city's economy wasn't strong and the region as a whole wasn't growing, there'd be no assurance that those annexed greenfields would be developed. Point taken, and I wasn't trying to say that Columbus is only growing because of annexations. But I don't think its honest to say that you can't attribute some of Columbus' city growth to annexation and the huge land area the city now covers. This has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Cleveland. I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

Hope this post clears stuff up.

 

Why even mention that the annexation contributes to growth if you weren't trying to quantify the value of that growth?  It's running dangerously close to calling it "fake growth", something I have definitely heard about Columbus in this context.  Yes, Columbus has larger boundaries than either Cleveland or Cincinnati, but it would still be growing even if it was still at its 1950 boundaries.  The whole debate just seems weird to me and trying to add a value judgement to where that growth is occurring.  I would think the much better debate is the type of growth rather than where it happens- sprawl vs dense mixed-use, for example.  Dublin's Bridge Park is quality urban development, but it's also in a fringe suburb.  I just think the argument is much more complex than location of growth or what was on the land previously. 

 

And for the record, my point about annexation was not that no growth was occurring on land that had been annexed decades ago, but that the growth is not occurring specifically due to more land being added that already has a population base, which was true for the period 1950-1980, a lean time for cities nationally.   To me, that's a pretty big distinction.  I don't know, maybe we're all just talking past one another.

 

 

Remember in back then it was not just annexation, but rather annexation for water. I don't know if that clarifies anything for the people who didn't know.

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Remember in back then it was not just annexation, but rather annexation for water. I don't know if that clarifies anything for the people who didn't know.

 

The annexation-for-water scheme came about for 2 main reasons.  The first was that Columbus was having water supply problems in the 1950s.  There were times when parts of the city didn't have water or had very low water pressure.  Sensenbrenner grew up in Hilltop, and that was one of the areas that regularly had those water problems.  When he became mayor, he had to consider ways of paying for new water infrastructure without worsening already strained supply problems.  Any suburbs that wanted to use Columbus water, therefore, had to be annexed into the city so that the city could tap into the tax base.  The second reason is more obvious- they knew that the suburbs were becoming popular, and they were worried that the city would eventually be completely surrounded with a shrinking tax base, a problem that has hurt countless older cities ever since.  The annexation policy also ensured that the city could still grow outward, taking advantage of suburbanization trends.  I generally don't like Sensenbrenner for many reasons.  He had little understanding of urban issues and was a heavy promoter of urban renewal and bulldozing neighborhoods for highways, but on this, he was smart.

37 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Why even mention that the annexation contributes to growth if you weren't trying to quantify the value of that growth?  It's running dangerously close to calling it "fake growth", something I have definitely heard about Columbus in this context.    The whole debate just seems weird to me and trying to add a value judgement to where that growth is occurring.

 

Who is trying to quantify the value of growth?! Honestly, this seems more and more like your insecurities prompting this discussion than anything else.

 

How did we get here:

• Columbus annexes tons of undeveloped land around the traditional '1950' boundaries.
• Columbus slows annexation dramatically in recent years
• Previously annexed city-owned land develops and fills in over the years
• Columbus' population continues to grow
• @jonoh81 Annexation has mostly stopped! Obviously population growth has nothing to do with annexation!
• Me: well, that land that was annexed previously is just now being developed, so it's effect on population is still being felt, even while the core of Columbus continues to grow, too.
• @jonoh81 Stop quantifying our growth!! It's not fake growth!!
• Me: wtf...

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

 

I (kinda) get your point but the only thing about that is there are rarely clear distinctions between city and suburbs.  Westwood in Cincinnati, for example, could just blend in the rest of the westside townships.  Madisonville might as well be Fairfax; Hartwell might as well be a poorer Wyoming, Pleasant Ridge blends into Silverton/Kenwood, etc.  In the case of Cleveland, the inner-ring suburbs are sometimes more "city like" than the city neighborhoods they border (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, etc).  It's rare, aside from natural barriers, that city and suburbs have a clear line of distinction.  If Cincinnati had annexed land back when Columbus did, or even currently annexed darn near Hamilton County, it wouldn't really make a visual difference. 

 

The only true "smaller city boundary" systems that would be in that favorable distinction are English and Australian city boundaries.

 

But overall, I get your point.  I would personally prefer Ohio to just have the Big 7 core counties become the cities and get it out of the way, like China.

 

Of course it's very rare that there is a 100% clear distinction between city and suburbs. There are older, more urban suburbs that could pass as urban neighborhoods, and there are more suburban neighborhoods in the city. For the most part, though, the city boundaries in a place like Cincinnati contain housing that is older and denser than its surrounding communities. There aren't whole neighborhoods that were built in the last 40 years in the city of Cincinnati. Perhaps there are some isolated streets or redeveloped areas like the suburban shit around the old Cincinnati Gardens, but those are the obvious exceptions. When exurban neighborhoods like this and this are counted as the City of Columbus, it dilutes the meaning of being in the city. These places are literally at the edge of metro Columbus, but are counted in the city population. It kind of makes a mockery of what most people think of as being 'the city'.

 

The other end of the spectrum is a place like San Francisco or maybe St. Louis (or potentially Cleveland) that have such small municipal boundaries that it excludes a big chunk of what would otherwise be thought of as city neighborhoods due to age of development and density. There is truly not a good method for comparing cities. I think the best method is probably urban area, as it ignores the often arbitrary political boundaries, and instead just looks at contiguous development over a certain threshold. Just my opinion.

To be fair with that near-Canal Winchester example for Columbus, even New York City has areas like that along the fringe.  Hell, every city in Ohio does, even some closer to downtown.  Even with urban area, which I agree is probably the best measure of a "city," that can get fuzzy.  Again, I'd say just make all the core counties of Ohio the "cities" and be done with it.  Kentucky did it with two of their largest cities and both seem economically/population growing.

2 hours ago, edale said:

 

Who is trying to quantify the value of growth?! Honestly, this seems more and more like your insecurities prompting this discussion than anything else.

 

How did we get here:

• Columbus annexes tons of undeveloped land around the traditional '1950' boundaries.
• Columbus slows annexation dramatically in recent years
• Previously annexed city-owned land develops and fills in over the years
• Columbus' population continues to grow
• @jonoh81 Annexation has mostly stopped! Obviously population growth has nothing to do with annexation!
• Me: well, that land that was annexed previously is just now being developed, so it's effect on population is still being felt, even while the core of Columbus continues to grow, too.
• @jonoh81 Stop quantifying our growth!! It's not fake growth!!
• Me: wtf...

Lol ok.  I explained exactly what I meant when I said annexation is not responsible for the growth and you decide to ignore that and make it weirdly personal for some reason.  Whatever. It’s a dumb argument and I’m out.  

totally agree with colday, make the big urban counties in ohio the cities and be done with it. or just make 88 cities in ohio for all the counties. its not like they are that big area-wise they cant be well covered by a single government. this is freaking 2019 and a world economy, not the 1800s, the need is to be lean and efficient. also, the money saved from getting rid of all the little cle/cinci fiefdoms would be incredible, not to mention the red tape for businesses. of course, the devil is in the details about it, ha, but i bet overall voters could be persuaded to support something like that. it would be really forward thinking of the state to be able to pull it off, but its a worthwhile and doable goal.

But muh Township Trustees

41 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

the money saved from getting rid of all the little cle/cinci fiefdoms would be incredible

 

No it wouldn't.  Per Ohio law, counties and villages/cities (Ohio has no "towns") have virtually zero overlap.  They have virtually zero overlap with their respective school districts.  

 

There is basically no money to be saved.  

34 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

No it wouldn't.  Per Ohio law, counties and villages/cities (Ohio has no "towns") have virtually zero overlap.  They have virtually zero overlap with their respective school districts.  

 

There is basically no money to be saved.  

 

There is absolutely money to be saved. Economies of scale. A government that provided services to all of Hamilton County could do so much more efficiently than 50 different little governments covering different (sometimes tiny) areas. That was the whole impetus of the consolidations in Kentucky and Indiana.

Police & Fire are any area's two biggest expenses, by a longshot.  Everything is peanuts by comparison.  And if you combine city police with county sheriffs there is no check & balance between the two.  

 

Let's say a city/county merger saves 100 "administrators".  Well, the Cincinnati Police Department + Hamilton County Sheriff's Dept fluctuate in size by upwards of 500 staff over a 10 year period, and nobody notices.  No tax increase, no tax reduction.  

 

What's more, most property tax in Ohio goes to school districts, not cities or counties.  Most sales tax goes to Ohio, not counties.  So it's not as if property taxes and sales taxes can each be slashed by 50%.  

 

Ohio already has low taxes as compared to high-tax states like California (state income and capital gains taxes of up to 12% -- far beyond Ohio's top bracket, including municipal earnings taxes), and they're absolutely smoking us.  Ooh that pesky Beverly Hills is right there in the middle of LA.  If only they could consolidate!!! 

There are potential cost savings from the mergers of two adjacent cities or villages (Cincinnati absorbing Norwood or St. Bernard, for example) — having to run one fire department instead of two, one zoning department instead of two, etc. But there is not that much cost savings with a city-county merger since they don't have a lot of overlapping functions.

This probably won't be a popular position here, but one argument against city/county mergers across the state would be the dilution of African American political power. In Cleveland in Cincinnati, which both have black populations exceeding 40% of the city, there is considerable black political power in those communities. Hamilton County, by contrast, is only like 25% black, so the voting block would be much less pronounced. Something to think about at least.

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Let's say a city/county merger saves 100 "administrators".  Well, the Cincinnati Police Department + Hamilton County Sheriff's Dept fluctuate in size by upwards of 500 staff over a 10 year period, and nobody notices.  No tax increase, no tax reduction.  

 

What's more, most property tax in Ohio goes to school districts, not cities or counties.  Most sales tax goes to Ohio, not counties.  So it's not as if property taxes and sales taxes can each be slashed by 50%.  

 

Ohio already has low taxes as compared to high-tax states like California (state income and capital gains taxes of up to 12% -- far beyond Ohio's top bracket, including municipal earnings taxes), and they're absolutely smoking us.  Ooh that pesky Beverly Hills is right there in the middle of LA.  If only they could consolidate!!! 

 

I agree taxes wouldn't change much, but I'm not concerned about taxes. It's pretty well established that people/businesses don't make taxes a big part of their decision about where to locate. I'm more concerned with quality of services. Our dollars would stretch farther if we consolidated jurisdictions. And that goes for school districts too.

38 minutes ago, edale said:

This probably won't be a popular position here, but one argument against city/county mergers across the state would be the dilution of African American political power. In Cleveland in Cincinnati, which both have black populations exceeding 40% of the city, there is considerable black political power in those communities. Hamilton County, by contrast, is only like 25% black, so the voting block would be much less pronounced. Something to think about at least.

 

This is a very good point and one I have considered. And it is not just African American voters but urban dwellers in general that would lose political power. I think it is a very good argument against the idea, but I still think the potential positives outweigh the negatives. And I should also say I don't think a complete county/city merger is necessary to create positive results. If the inner ring suburbs were consolidated into Cincinnati I think that would make a noticeable difference. Make the wage tax lower for city residents than for non-city residents and offer the adjacent communities the chance to consolidate. See if any take you up on it. Probably not, but it would be smart.

Consolidation of school districts at the county level is a completely different issue than city-county mergers.  But people are much, much more loyal to school districts than to municipalities.  

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Consolidation of school districts at the county level is a completely different issue than city-county mergers.  But people are much, much more loyal to school districts than to municipalities.  

 

Sure they are different issues. But they both fall under good governance. 

you have got to be kidding me. the savings would probably be half of current expenditures given all the multiple bloated governments, councils and staff. actual services would not be reduced, but management staffing could be. also business interaction with government would be greatly simplified, with tax money going countycity-wide. same goes for countycity-wide school districts, ie., paying one superintendent those big bucks vs multiple people in the same role.

4 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

you have got to be kidding me. the savings would probably be half of current expenditures given all the multiple bloated governments, councils and staff. 

 

They're not bloated, unless you're talking about overstaffing and overpayment of police and fire, which again, comprise the overwhelming majority of any municipal government's budget.  

 

The reason you never see anti-tax people going after police and fire is because they know slashing police & fire by half would make homes and commercial buildings uninsurable.  

 

7 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is a very good point and one I have considered. And it is not just African American voters but urban dwellers in general that would lose political power. I think it is a very good argument against the idea, but I still think the potential positives outweigh the negatives. And I should also say I don't think a complete county/city merger is necessary to create positive results. If the inner ring suburbs were consolidated into Cincinnati I think that would make a noticeable difference. Make the wage tax lower for city residents than for non-city residents and offer the adjacent communities the chance to consolidate. See if any take you up on it. Probably not, but it would be smart.

 

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. 

Edited July 17, 20195 yr by jonoh81

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/08/27/as-downtown-development-surge-approaches-heres.html

 

Above is a link to a Columbus Business First article about the surge in residential projects occurring in Downtown Columbus.  This is not a surprise for those reading the Columbus construction threads.  Within this article, three different downtown population numbers were cited, as well as a graph showing the increase in downtown residents/housing units since 2002.

 

Unfortunately the article is paywalled for non-subscribers.  But FWIW here are the three different downtown population numbers cited within the article:

 

1)  "Colliers International found that from 2010 to 2018, the central business district grew from 12,900 residents to 17,647 – with the median age at 33.3.  Population growth here could continue at 3.56% through 2023, according to Colliers."

 

2)  "Developer Casto's data shows that while the downtown population is over 15,600, the central business district and nearby neighborhoods swell 10 times to over 119,000 people during the workweek."

 

3)  The last downtown population number is in this graph showing the increase in downtown residents/housing units from 2002 to 2018 - with projections for 2019, 2020 & 2021:

 

I'm not sure why Colliers, Casto's and the County/Vogt/Downtown SID's numbers would be so different.  The article doesn't give any further information beyond what I posted.  However, the Colliers info mentioned the "central business district" and the Casto info mentioned the "central business district and nearby neighborhoods".

 

The third chart - which listed the 2018 downtown population as 9,000 - is partially from the two downtown special improvement districts (CCSID & DSID).  And these special improvement districts issue an annual report that tracks all development within the boundaries of the city's downtown district.  The downtown district includes everything inside the downtown innerbelt freeways, but not including Franklinton west of the Scioto Peninsula.  So it doesn't include the Short North, Near East Side or German Village/Brewery District (i.e. the surrounding neighborhoods).  This takes in basically everything we at Urban Ohio would consider Downtown Columbus but not the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

 

I would be more inclined to accept the SID's 9,000 population number in the above chart as the most accurate without more information on how Colliers and Casto defined their "central business district".  The Colliers and Casto population numbers seem like they might include parts of the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown district.

 

But beyond that, the big takeaway is that downtown population numbers are finally taking a significant upswing.  Using the SID chart - going from 3,619 in 2002 to 9,000 in 2018 - and with a projection of 12,700 in 2021.

15 hours ago, Columbo said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/08/27/as-downtown-development-surge-approaches-heres.html

 

Above is a link to a Columbus Business First article about the surge in residential projects occurring in Downtown Columbus.  This is not a surprise for those reading the Columbus construction threads.  Within this article, three different downtown population numbers were cited, as well as a graph showing the increase in downtown residents/housing units since 2002.

 

Unfortunately the article is paywalled for non-subscribers.  But FWIW here are the three different downtown population numbers cited within the article:

 

1)  "Colliers International found that from 2010 to 2018, the central business district grew from 12,900 residents to 17,647 – with the median age at 33.3.  Population growth here could continue at 3.56% through 2023, according to Colliers."

 

2)  "Developer Casto's data shows that while the downtown population is over 15,600, the central business district and nearby neighborhoods swell 10 times to over 119,000 people during the workweek."

 

3)  The last downtown population number is in this graph showing the increase in downtown residents/housing units from 2002 to 2018 - with projections for 2019, 2020 & 2021:

 

I'm not sure why Colliers, Casto's and the County/Vogt/Downtown SID's numbers would be so different.  The article doesn't give any further information beyond what I posted.  However, the Colliers info mentioned the "central business district" and the Casto info mentioned the "central business district and nearby neighborhoods".

 

The third chart - which listed the 2018 downtown population as 9,000 - is partially from the two downtown special improvement districts (CCSID & DSID).  And these special improvement districts issue an annual report that tracks all development within the boundaries of the city's downtown district.  The downtown district includes everything inside the downtown innerbelt freeways, but not including Franklinton west of the Scioto Peninsula.  So it doesn't include the Short North, Near East Side or German Village/Brewery District (i.e. the surrounding neighborhoods).  This takes in basically everything we at Urban Ohio would consider Downtown Columbus but not the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

 

I would be more inclined to accept the SID's 9,000 population number in the above chart as the most accurate without more information on how Colliers and Casto defined their "central business district".  The Colliers and Casto population numbers seem like they might include parts of the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown district.

 

But beyond that, the big takeaway is that downtown population numbers are finally taking a significant upswing.  Using the SID chart - going from 3,619 in 2002 to 9,000 in 2018 - and with a projection of 12,700 in 2021.

 

The differences are probably just from the area that each one is looking at.  The "CBD" for Collier's is clearly larger than the traditional Downtown, though, and obviously Casto is probably including OTE, GV, Short North, etc.  The traditional Downtown IMO would be census tracts 30, 40 and part of 32.  You could also throw in 42, which is the Scioto Peninsula, if you wanted.  So basically everything between 71, 70, 670 and the railroad tracts to the west. Tract 32 includes part of the Arena District, but also part of Victorian Village.  Splitting that, the 2017 estimate was about 9,100 for that area, so I'm thinking the last graph is going to be the most accurate overall, though maybe a little undercounted.

33 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The differences are probably just from the area that each one is looking at.  The "CBD" for Collier's is clearly larger than the traditional Downtown, though, and obviously Casto is probably including OTE, GV, Short North, etc.  The traditional Downtown IMO would be census tracts 30, 40 and part of 32.  You could also throw in 42, which is the Scioto Peninsula, if you wanted.  So basically everything between 71, 70, 670 and the railroad tracts to the west. Tract 32 includes part of the Arena District, but also part of Victorian Village.  Splitting that, the 2017 estimate was about 9,100 for that area, so I'm thinking the last graph is going to be the most accurate overall, though maybe a little undercounted.

 

Thanks for that explanation.  I figured our local "numbers guy" could help.

 

It is interesting how different people can have different perceptions about what is "downtown".  Everyone agrees that the central core (sometimes called the CBD) is "downtown".  The city, the SID's and Urban Ohio agree that everything within the city's downtown district is "downtown".  (Although we did have one UO poster question if the Arena District was "downtown" - it is BTW.)  But alot of the general public and apparently real estate professionals consider the four surroundings neighborhoods of Franklinton, Short North, OTE & GV/Brewery District as "downtown".

 

But whatever definition of "downtown" they're using, it's clear that all the new construction is finally making an impact population-wise.

1 hour ago, Columbo said:

 

Thanks for that explanation.  I figured our local "numbers guy" could help.

 

It is interesting how different people can have different perceptions about what is "downtown".  Everyone agrees that the central core (sometimes called the CBD) is "downtown".  The city, the SID's and Urban Ohio agree that everything within the city's downtown district is "downtown".  (Although we did have one UO poster question if the Arena District was "downtown" - it is BTW.)  But alot of the general public and apparently real estate professionals consider the four surroundings neighborhoods of Franklinton, Short North, OTE & GV/Brewery District as "downtown".

 

But whatever definition of "downtown" they're using, it's clear that all the new construction is finally making an impact population-wise.

 

The AD is definitely Downtown.  Most of it is in Tract 30, which includes everything north of Broad Street.  Only the section of "Arena West", which will include the upcoming Confluence Village and includes the White Castle development, 600 Goodale, etc. is in Tract 32. 

http://www.andrewsmith.io/columbus-buildings

 

I don't really know where to put this.  Someone has mapped the age of every single building in Columbus and Franklin County.  There are quite a few problems with it, as they use the Franklin County Auditor build dates.  This is problematic as most records before 1920 were destroyed in a fire.  Most older buildings that lost records are often listed on the auditor's site as being built in "1900" or "1910", but almost all of those are wrong.  It often lists buildings as being newer than what they really are.  The other problem is that the map also seems to use recent renovations as build dates.  For example, 380 E. Town Street is color coded as having been built in the 2000s, but it only received a renovation.  The actual build date for it is 1875, a full 125 years earlier.  COSI was built in the old Central High School from the 1920s, but it again shows 2000s. Many of the homes on Hamlet Street in Italian Village were built between 1870-1890, but they're all listed as 1900 or newer.  Most of the homes in places like the Short North, Near East and Near South sides, Franklinton, Clintonville, Hilltop, Grandview, Upper Arlington, Clintonville, Linden, etc. are shown as being years or decades newer than they really are.  Still, the map gives a good idea of where the oldest sections of the city are, at least.

Edited September 12, 20195 yr by jonoh81

^Our house says "1900", but based on records we have, we think it may either be 1887 or 1892.  I doubt the auditor's office would care if we showed them.

4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

^Our house says "1900", but based on records we have, we think it may either be 1887 or 1892.  I doubt the auditor's office would care if we showed them.

 

I doubt accuracy of build date is all that important to them.  It's more of a historical record than a tax purpose one, but the generic "1900" is kind of annoying.  When I'm doing research for historic buildings on my site, I search through everything from telephone directories to Sanborns maps trying to find information, including the earliest or one of the earliest owners, as well as the closest build date possible.  I've done probably close to 2000 buildings in and around the city over the last several years, and dates are consistently too new.  The tricky part is when there have been multiple buildings at the same address over time.  It's a bit like doing archeology, peeling back the layers of data.

Edited September 12, 20195 yr by jonoh81

So when does Columbus actually pass 915,000? Will it be 2019 or 2020? 

Also Columbus City Schools are not going to enforce the win/win agreement from what I remember reading-meaning that areas that were annexed and undeveloped perhaps because they were going to be in Cbus city schools might now get developed since they would be in "better" school districts. Does anyone think this may help fill in some of the annexed areas that have not been developed yet?

 

*Not sure if I heard that thing about win/win involving previously annexed areas or newly annexed areas though.

54 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

So when does Columbus actually pass 915,000? Will it be 2019 or 2020? 

 

Probably not for the 2019 estimate, but definitely by 2020. The July 1, 2019 estimate will probably be around 903K-907K.  

24 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Probably not for the 2019 estimate, but definitely by 2020. The July 1, 2019 estimate will probably be around 903K-907K.  

Do you think they will bump up the 892,000 or whatever it was as a base? That seems to have been the trend lately for us.

6 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Do you think they will bump up the 892,000 or whatever it was as a base? That seems to have been the trend lately for us.

I was just going to comment about this.  MORPC had us over 900,000 in 2018.  Based on their estimates, we would crack 915,000 sometime in 2019.

 

http://www.morpc.org/news/central-ohio-population-to-reach-3-million-by-2050/

3 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

I was just going to comment about this.  MORPC had us over 900,000 in 2018.  Based on their estimates, we would crack 915,000 sometime in 2019.

 

http://www.morpc.org/news/central-ohio-population-to-reach-3-million-by-2050/

I know the 2010 projection was off-it was too low. Do you(or does anyone)recall what the projection was compared to what the census showed? I can't remember how far off it was-I just remember that (for us)it was too low.

1 hour ago, Toddguy said:

Also Columbus City Schools are not going to enforce the win/win agreement from what I remember reading-meaning that areas that were annexed and undeveloped perhaps because they were going to be in Cbus city schools might now get developed since they would be in "better" school districts. Does anyone think this may help fill in some of the annexed areas that have not been developed yet?

 

*Not sure if I heard that thing about win/win involving previously annexed areas or newly annexed areas though.

 

Hopefully Columbus remembers to pay their Win/Win bill if there is development in those areas. Groveport had to sue to get all of their money a few years back.

38 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Do you think they will bump up the 892,000 or whatever it was as a base? That seems to have been the trend lately for us.

 

Yes, almost definitely.  It typically goes up between 2-4K, so the 2019 estimate for 2018 will be in the 895K range.  I'm being a little conservative with my 2019 estimate, assuming a 8K-12K increase based on the revised 2018 number, or a straight 10K-15K increase from the original.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Hopefully Columbus remembers to pay their Win/Win bill if there is development in those areas. Groveport had to sue to get all of their money a few years back.

I wish the city would annex a bit more land in the far northeast/New Albany area and also a bit more in the corridor between Hilliard and Dublin. At least Cbus is filling in that corridor with pretty dense development compared to most suburban areas. I also would not mind a bit more annexation in the southeastern areas near Canal Winchester. 

 

I know it is in the "uncool crescent" and all, but I don't get what is holding up development in the area around/south of that Shannon Green development? It is not that far out from downtown really and they could annex around and consolidate that area. Plus it is not in Cbus city schools, and I think those unicorporated areas around it would get developed much denser if they were in Cbus. 

 

Of course all of this will hopefully coincide with filling in other parts already annexed, replacing strip centers(Golden Bear in UA, The strip along Olentangy and Ackerman where the tiny old Kroger is, etc..that kind of thing but spreading to more of these strip malls), filling in brownfields, etc.

Edited October 30, 20195 yr by Toddguy

I don't know, maybe Shannon Green is just underfunded.

We finally got full data for 2018 all the way down to the census block yesterday.

I looked at every Franklin County community of any size, exurbs of any size near or along the Franklin County border, and then communities with at least 5,000 people further out in the greater metro.  This worked out to 50 places, a little less than half of all the metro places. 

 

Non-Hispanic White Top 25

1. Darbydale CDP: 100%

2. Lockbourne: 98.8%

3. Logan: 98.2%

4. New Lexington: 97.6%

5. West Jefferson: 95.5%

6. Circleville: 95.3%

7. Plain City: 94.6%

8. Riverlea: 94.5%

9. Johnstown: 94.3%

10. Commercial Point: 94.1%

11. Marble Cliff: 93.9%

12. New California CDP: 93.4%

13. Brice: 92.9%

14. Lancaster: 92.8%

15. Grandview Heights: 92.6%

16. Valleyview: 92.2%

17. Shawnee Hills: 91.5%

18. Newark: 90.9%

19. Grove City: 90.7%

20. Sunbury: 90.5%

21. Worthington: 90.4%

22. London: 89.7%

23. Lake Darby CDP: 89.3%

24. Upper Arlington: 89.1%

25. Lithopolis: 88.9%

 

Non-Hispanic Black Top 25

1. Urbancrest: 55.1%

2. Whitehall: 36.2%

3. Blacklick Estates CDP: 35.6%

4. Columbus: 29.0%

5. Reynoldsburg: 25.5%

6. Groveport: 21.7%

7. Pickerington: 18.7%

8. Obetz: 12.4%

9. Gahanna: 11.4%

10. Huber Ridge CDP: 10.9%

11. Pataskala: 10.4%

12. Lincoln Village CDP: 10.3%

13. New Albany: 8.8%

14. Westerville: 7.1%

15. Orient CDP: 6.7%

16. Bexley: 6.1%

17. Canal Winchester: 5.5%

18. Minerva Park: 5.5%

19. Delaware: 5.1%

20. Marysville: 4.7%

21. Lithopolis: 3.9%

22. Heath: 3.8%

23. London: 3.7%

24. Hilliard: 3.6%

25. Grove City: 3.5%

 

Non-Hispanic Asian Top 25

1. Dublin: 18.3%

2. Powell: 12.1%

3. New Albany: 7.0%

4. Columbus: 6.1%

5. Hilliard: 5.7%

6. Upper Arlington: 5.4%

7. Granville: 4.6%

8. Groveport: 4.6%

9. Shawnee Hills: 4.1%

10. New California CDP: 3.8%

11. Gahanna: 3.5%

12. Marysville: 3.3%

13. Reynoldsburg: 2.9%

14. Urbancrest: 2.8%

15. Worthington: 2.5%

16. Delaware: 2.4%

17. Sunbury: 2.4%

18. London: 2.3%

19. Pickerington: 2.3%

20. Heath: 2.2%

21. Westerville: 2.1%

22. Lincoln Village CDP: 1.9%

23. Bexley: 1.8%

24. Commercial Point: 1.8%

25. Grandview Heights: 1.8%

 

Hispanic Top 25

1. Whitehall: 17.2%

2. Lincoln Village CDP: 13.0%

3. Minerva Park: 8.6%

4. Urbancrest: 6.9%

5. Columbus: 6.0%

6. Johnstown: 5.3%

7. Obetz: 5.0%

8. Reynoldsburg: 4.8%

9. Dublin: 4.7%

10. Granville: 4.7%

11. Blacklick Estates: 4.5%

12. Brice: 3.5%

13. Hilliard: 3.4%

14. Grandview Heights: 3.1%

15. Upper Arlington: 3.1%

16. Valleyview: 3.0%

17. Groveport: 2.9%

18. Gahanna: 2.8%

19. Lake Darby CDP: 2.8%

20. New California CDP: 2.8%

21. Westerville: 2.8%

22. Canal Winchester: 2.7%

23. Delaware: 2.6%

24. Pickerington: 2.6%

25. Huber Ridge CDP: 2.5%

 

Non-Hispanic Other Top 25

1. Orient CDP: 13.0%

2. Whitehall: 6.4%

3. Urbancrest: 6.1%

4. Huber Ridge CDP: 5.6%

5. Reynoldsburg: 5.2%

6. Minerva Park: 4.9%

7. Obetz: 4.8%

8. Heath: 4.7%

9. Columbus: 4.6%

10. Lake Darby CDP: 4.5%

11. Valleyview: 4.4%

12. Lithopolis: 4.2%

13. Canal Winchester: 4.1%

14. Newark: 4.1%

15. Sunbury: 4.0%

16. Pickerington: 3.9%

17. Bexley: 3.5%

18. Brice: 3.5%

19. Pataskala: 3.4%

20. Westerville: 3.4%

21. Dublin: 3.1%

22. Granville: 3.1%

23. London: 3.1%

24. Lancaster: 2.9%

25. West Jefferson: 2.9%

 

 

 

Here were the top 15 in each for change 2010-2018.

 

Non-Hispanic White

1. Lithopolis: +44.2%

2. Urbancrest: +36.8%

3. New Albany: +30.5%

4. Hilliard: +21.8%

5. New California CDP: +20.5%

6. Darbydale CDP: +17.7%

7. Grandview Heights: +17.0%

8. Shawnee Hills: +16.2%

9. Sunbury: +15.6%

10. Grove City: +12.3%

11. Commercial Point: +11.8%

12. Canal Winchester: +11.2%

13. Delaware: +10.3%

14. New Lexington: +9.7%

15. Johnstown: +8.6%

 

Non-Hispanic Black

1. Orient CDP: +750.0%

2. New Albany: +304.2%

3. Riverlea: +200.0%

4. Blacklick Estates CDP: +104.1%

5. Lincoln Village CDP: +88.7%

6. Groveport: +83.7%

7. Pataskala: +81.6%

8. Obetz: +72.1%

9. Lithopolis: +71.1%

10. Circleville: +69.4%

11. Lancaster: +69.1%

12. Pickerington: +59.8%

13. Hilliard: +57.4%

14. Heath: +50.2%

15. Dublin: +45.3%

 

Non-Hispanic Asian

1. Heath: +229.6%

2. Plain City: +217.9%

3. New California CDP: +187.0%

4. Sunbury: +168.1%

5. Lithopolis: +162.5%

6. Groveport: +152.9%

7. Pataskala: +150.0%

8. Lincoln Village: +143.0%

9. London: +138.0%

10. Delaware: +108.7%

11. Orient CDP: +100.0%

12. Powell: +82.4%

13. Grandview Heights: +76.9%

14. Columbus: +73.0%

15. Reynoldsburg: +71.2%

 

Hispanic

1. New California CDP: +390.0%

2. Johnstown: +225.3%

3. Minerva Park: +182.9%

4. Dublin: +179.1%

5. Canal Winchester: 164.0%

6. Urbancrest: +108.3%

7. Upper Arlington: +100.6%

8. Brice: +100.0%

9. Riverlea: +100.0%

10. Obetz: +88.0%

11. Hilliard: +82.8%

12. Whitehall: +81.8%

13. Granville: +75.3%

14. West Jefferson: +70.3%

15. Sunbury: +66.7%

 

Non-Hispanic Other

1. Lithopolis: +392.9%

2. Marble Cliff: +350.0%

3. Orient CDP: +312.5%

4. Canal Winchester: +203.5%

5. Sunbury: +153.0%

6. Lake Darby CDP: +130.7%

7. Heath: +108.8%

8. Granville: +106.8%

9. West Jefferson: +101.6%

10. Shawnee Hills: +100.0%

11. Riverlea: +83.3%

12. Obetz: +81.6%

13. Minerva Park: +81.1%

14. Dublin: +78.2%

15. New Lexington: +74.2%

 

And here is the % of population that is foreign-born and change 2010-2018.

 

Foreign Born % of Population 

1. Urbancrest: 17.2%

2. Dublin: 17.0%

3. Columbus: 14.0%

4. Whitehall: 14.0%

5. Powell: 10.6%

6. Lincoln Village CDP: 8.6%

7. Upper Arlington: 8.2%

8. New Albany: 7.0%

9. Reynoldsburg: 7.0%

10. Groveport: 6.9%

11. Bexley: 6.4%

12. Blacklick Estates CDP: 6.4%

13. Pickerington: 6.3%

14. Westerville: 6.3%

15. Shawnee Hills: 6.2%

 

Foreign Born Change 2010-2018

1. Lithopolis: +1150.0%

2. Commercial Point: +828.6%

3. West Jefferson: +426.7%

4. New California CDP: +306.7%

5. Pataskala: +237.3%

6. Blacklick Estates CDP: 218.1%

7. Plain City: +147.6%

8. Groveport: +119.9%

9. Newark: +114.1%

10. New Lexington: +100%

11. Orient CDP: +100.0%

12. Powell: +85.8%

13. Pickerington: +81.6%

14. Marysville: +81.2%

15. Heath: +64.5%

Getting down to a smaller level, here is some updated data on Franklin County census tracts.

 

Top 15 Most Populated in 2018- Note that most of these are much larger suburban tracts.

1. 102 Far SE: 18,266

2. 6230 NW/Dublin: 17,721

3. 9740 Far South: 16,104

4. 7395 Far East: 14,380

5. 7396 Far East: 11,684

6. 9450 Pickerington: 10,356

7. 1121 Campus: 10,200

8. 7210 New Albany: 10,171

9. 7551 South of Easton: 10,027

10. 7921 Hilliard: 9,988

11. 8162 Galloway: 9,529

12. 6383 Dublin: 9,163

13. 7393 Far East: 9,095

14. 105 Dublin: 9,083

15. 7951 West Side: 8,890

 

Top 15 Fastest Growing Tracts 2010-2018

1. 7207 Far NE: +60.1%

2. 7205 New Albany: 53.2%

3. 9331 East/Whitehall: +52.3%

4. 7209 NE: +49.6%

5. 7533 NE/Easton: +41.2%

6. 7721 Linden: +39.9%

7. 1121 Campus: +39.7%

8. 7922 Hilliard: +39.2%

9. 7203 New Albany: +38.4%

10. 32 Vic. Village: +37.1%

11. 6230 NW/Dublin: +35.0%

12. 1901 5thxNW: 33.7%

13. 14 Linden: +31.3%

14. 6933 North Side: +30.5%

15. 7531 NE/Easton: +30.3%

 

Top 20 Tracts with the Highest Density

1. 1121 Campus: 29,218.0

2. 1810 South Campus: 26,609.8

3. 13 Campus/Indianola Terrace: 22,237.8

4. 10 Old North Columbus: 17,076.2

5. 12 Campus: 15,001.9

6. 17 Weinland Park: 14,644.1

7. 1110 North Campus: 14,229.7

8. 20 Vic. Village: 12,386.5

9. 6933 Morse Road  : 11,748.0 

10. 21 Short North: 10,710.4

11. 6942 Northgate: 10,646.1

12. 47 Hilltop: 10,612.7

13. 8163 Lincoln Village: 10,423.7

14. 6352 NW Side: 10,047.2

15. 6 Old North Columbus: 9912.9

16. 9323 East/Whitehall: 9,801.0

17. 4810 Hilltop: 9,741.0

18. 730 Linden: 9,617.6

19. 16 Weinland Park: 9,381.9

20. 1902 5thxNW: 9,370.1