What are you talking about? Charlotte has the same city-metro pop. as Columbus yet already has rail and TOD. We're large enough, but we lack enough of the right people by a huge margin that really want it.

Sometimes I wonder what Cbus would be like without all the annexation. Think of just how big a percentage of the population students would be! Even with low turnout typical of the age group, they could be a very powerful voting bloc, ready to push through a progressive urban agenda.

Honestly I believe columbus and ohio for that matter has a voting bloc of more progressive people right now to push through progressive urban agenda. It really is a matter of getting these people to vote in elections and not just the presidential. I don't know how many people I spoke with had no idea Kasich was against the 3c rail line until after the election.

What are you talking about? Charlotte has the same city-metro pop. as Columbus yet already has rail and TOD. We're large enough, but we lack enough of the right people by a huge margin that really want it.

 

Charlotte also grew over 35% in 10 years, which is more than 3x faster than Columbus.  It has a lot more momentum in population and development right now than we do, and again, a far worse highway system.  A system which, like it or not, does play a role in demand for alternative options.  I also think that Columbus is now suffering from conservative policies, the same ones that just killed the streetcar (for now) in Cincinnati.  Our governor is clearly anti-mass transit.  It is no coincidence that Columbus "shelved" its own project in the last few months.  Again, though, it's not about the right people in the city.  Personally, everyone I know would love to see it happen, and we just added another 75,000 people to the city and Downtown had a 40% growth in population since 2000.  These are positive trends to see a stronger push for mass transit despite what our governor wants.  And in a few years he'll be gone anyway. 

Honestly I believe columbus and ohio for that matter has a voting bloc of more progressive people right now to push through progressive urban agenda. It really is a matter of getting these people to vote in elections and not just the presidential. I don't know how many people I spoke with had no idea Kasich was against the 3c rail line until after the election.

 

They will be out to vote them all out of office come the next election, you can be sure about that. 

God, I'd hate to live in Charlotte. They should nickname it The Prozac City.

God, I'd hate to live in Charlotte. They should nickname it The Prozac City.

 

Not to mention it has higher unemployment than most places in Ohio.  It seems that more people move there without bothering to have a job already lined up.  Charlotte's biggest claim to fame right now has nothing really to do with quality of life in the city, but simply that it's growing fast.  The very idea of a "boom" city is a big part in the perception that it's a good place to live.  I actually think that perception is what is hurting Ohio cities the most, and that we as a state don't do enough to change that perception. 

Well in fairness, Columbus' growth is almost entirely due to Somali refugees and illegal Mexicans. The unemployment rate in Columbus in the early 90s was 2.9% and very, very steadily has risen eversince so I highly doubt people are moving here from other U.S. cities for better job opportunities. That isn't to say it's a bad place to live, just that the growth numbers don't tell the whole story. People think it's yuppies that are moving here. A lot of cities are seeing a decline or stagnation in population. Personally I think a lot of people are moving out of cities and into small towns after the recession but people tend to not look for those patterns. Small towns give people a sense of certainty and are just plain cheaper to live in, in the new economy. It amazes me how people are assuming folks just move from one large city to another. I guess it would be tedious to track a net gain in the sum of small towns compared to the largest cities. Not many people would have time for that.

I agree on the city of Columbus, the region was drawing in affluent whites as well - who do you think is filling southern Delaware County.

Yeah, Deleware County. I live in C. Winchester; growth here is astounding--they're projected to be a 'city' if they aren't already and it isn't Columbus. It's a traditional old small town. Half of it isn't even in Franklin County. You can get an apt. one block from downtown for the same price as what you would pay to live in the ghettos of Columbus and there's some nice amenities around here, no crime, zero blight, dense, etc.

Well in fairness, Columbus' growth is almost entirely due to Somali refugees and illegal Mexicans. The unemployment rate in Columbus in the early 90s was 2.9% and very, very steadily has risen eversince so I highly doubt people are moving here from other U.S. cities for better job opportunities. That isn't to say it's a bad place to live, just that the growth numbers don't tell the whole story. People think it's yuppies that are moving here. A lot of cities are seeing a decline or stagnation in population. Personally I think a lot of people are moving out of cities and into small towns after the recession but people tend to not look for those patterns. Small towns give people a sense of certainty and are just plain cheaper to live in, in the new economy. It amazes me how people are assuming folks just move from one large city to another. I guess it would be tedious to track a net gain in the sum of small towns compared to the largest cities. Not many people would have time for that.

 

Can you provide evidence that the growth was due to illegals and Somalians?  Do they even count illegals?  What about Asians, as that group grew fairly fast as well?  And how was the unemployment 2.9% in the early '90's when the the country (and state) was going through another recession?  It has not "steadily risen" since then, that's ridiculous.  How can the rate have steadily risen for nearly 20 years and still be less than 9% in the worst recession in 70 years?  Also, the trends do not suggest that everyone is moving out.  There were several downtown neighborhoods that saw growth, and the immediate core saw rates close to 40% above 2000. 

I already provided  that information. Swear to God! 2.9% unemployment in I believe 1992 or 1991 and declined eversince. It was simply long term data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics. I couldn't believe it either. As for refugees, I can't remember which website I saw info on the estimated numbers and they may have an anti-immigration agenda but all you have to do is go to any of the local libraries or Columbus State to see how many people are trying to learn English. I didn't say people were trying to move out, my point (since someone said tons of yuppies are moving here) is that growth isn't for the most part due to yuppies.

All this talk about the benefit of yuppies. I think its funny. There's no such thing as the average homebuyer anymore and babyboomer emptynesters who are looking to downsize make up a much larger share of the market than young professionals. New development everywhere will reflect that though it may appear that the inverse is happening by looking at new development because in terms of building design and amenities, the two groups needs overlap in quite a few ways.

God, I'd hate to live in Charlotte.

 

I second that! I've been to Charlotte and the Raleigh area many times. I'm always baffled at the amount of Ohio plates I see down there. I don't see the appeal at all. And not everyone I've talked to has moved down there just for job opportunites. Quite a few I have talked to said they moved there (from all 3C's) because it's a new and "energetic" city, plus it's relatively close to the coast and mountains.

 

I'll admit that their downtown in fairly impressive in some areas, and there seems to be a lot of positive energy propelling things there, but it's amazing how suburban the city starts to feel immediately when you leave downtown. I also don't really see how Charlotte and Columbus constantly get compared. Columbus feels a lot more dense than Charlotte (which is not saying much), the layout, infrastructure, architecture, vegetation, etc, are different. I just don't see how people leave cities in Ohio for a place like that, and I'm not trying to bash Charlotte, I just don't see the appeal of some people depicting Charlotte as utopia.

 

But hey, I guess cities like that attract a different type of people, just like the northeastern cities attract a different type of crowd. Different strokes for different folks.

 

careful -- you dont want to bother with the yuppies, they love their cul de sac mcmansion suburbs and their charlottes.  what you want are the yunnies aka the young urban narcissists. they want the downtown lifestyle. if you build it up downtown they will come. or in columbus' case, stay after osu. more miranovas and less dominion homes!

Hillard-Rome pretty much did need widened. Crummy traffic patterns and congestion are what killed Brice Road and started another round of sprawl out to 256. Today, there might not be the kind of capital available to pick up the sprawl party and move it again further out, but if Hillard-Rome failed due to traffic, I don't picture them moving the Sam's Club inward to Wilson Rd. or Grandview Yard, and a bunch of big box stores shutting down on the fringe probably isn't the tipping point that will convince people to revitalize Franklinton or move to Wienland Park.

No one goes to Hilliard-Rome anymore, it's too crowded. Hehe.

I think there is either confusion or simply irrationality at play when discussing some cities. Clearly Charlotte significantly lacks density and doesn’t have much in the way of character etc.

 

However, nobody is calling it a utopia. The fact is that for a variety of reasons, sun belt cities have grown dramatically the past several decades, which feeds off itself. Obviously the last couple years have been different and Charlotte, a large banking center, got hit particularly hard, but that doesn’t change the long term dynamics at play.

 

Additionally, outside of relatively poor urban planning, which NC shares with most of the country, the state has invested in research, higher education and similar areas better than most, if not all, the South and the Triangle area is as solid as any region in this regard and UNC-Charlotte has become a research university as well.

I think there is either confusion or simply irrationality at play when discussing some cities. Clearly Charlotte significantly lacks density and doesn’t have much in the way of character etc.

 

However, nobody is calling it a utopia. The fact is that for a variety of reasons, sun belt cities have grown dramatically the past several decades, which feeds off itself. Obviously the last couple years have been different and Charlotte, a large banking center, got hit particularly hard, but that doesn’t change the long term dynamics at play.

 

Additionally, outside of relatively poor urban planning, which NC shares with most of the country, the state has invested in research, higher education and similar areas better than most, if not all, the South and the Triangle area is as solid as any region in this regard and UNC-Charlotte has become a research university as well.

 

If your post is directed at me, why would I be "confused" or "irrational" when I already know of the things you  discussed in your post.... And you say no one is calling Charlotte utopia, maybe not on UO, but apparently you haven't talked to enough people who have moved there from Michigan, Cleveland or Buffalo.

If your post is directed at me, why would I be "confused" or "irrational" when I already know of the things you  discussed in your post.... And you say no one is calling Charlotte utopia, maybe not on UO, but apparently you haven't talked to enough people who have moved there from Michigan, Cleveland or Buffalo.

 

 

I wasn't directing it anyone - just responding from browsing the various posts. Again, nobody is calling Charlotte utopia. Well, nobody but some folks you can find in any city that have blind praise for the city, whether in NC, OH or anywhere else. There are people who would despite all its problems and lack of jobs, would never ever leave Youngstown, even if they landed a great job that they were qualified for and paid really well. This is true everywhere, so you have to discount the cheer leading straw man from this....

 

For some, coming from loooong economically depressed areas like the ones you mentioned would make a lot places appear dramatically better.

careful -- you dont want to bother with the yuppies, they love their cul de sac mcmansion suburbs and their charlottes.  what you want are the yunnies aka the young urban narcissists. they want the downtown lifestyle. if you build it up downtown they will come. or in columbus' case, stay after osu. more miranovas and less dominion homes!

 

True. Once yuppies grow up, they're out. They move to the suburbs and have families. That's probably how the 1950 boundary area in Columbus lost 45,000 people since 2000. Plus rent is starting to get out of control in the nice parts of the city. I can't believe some of the numbers my friends have thrown out. Are gentrified parts of Columbus more expensive than Chicago now?

 

The urban narcissists are a much better target audience. They're in for the long haul.

Yuppies w/kids moving out is inevitable, but it's not problematic as long as the inward flow is greater.  A positive net flow will increase the tax base and average educational level of the city, which leads to better schools and services (for all residents), which will allow for more permanent family-based growth down the line.  But it all starts with attracting young and educated newcomers, and that requires providing the built environment (and transit) they're looking for.

^True. Transient isn't bad. Hell, New York and Chicago have a lot of population turnover. Yuppies by nature are highly mobile. They may move to the suburbs for a while, but also might come back to the city (or move to a new city altogether).

 

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

The loss in Columbus isn't of yuppies, rather it is the abandonment of the Near East ghetto for spots north and east (by both blacks and whites).

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

careful -- you dont want to bother with the yuppies, they love their cul de sac mcmansion suburbs and their charlottes.  what you want are the yunnies aka the young urban narcissists. they want the downtown lifestyle. if you build it up downtown they will come. or in columbus' case, stay after osu. more miranovas and less dominion homes!

 

True. Once yuppies grow up, they're out. They move to the suburbs and have families. That's probably how the 1950 boundary area in Columbus lost 45,000 people since 2000. Plus rent is starting to get out of control in the nice parts of the city. I can't believe some of the numbers my friends have thrown out. Are gentrified parts of Columbus more expensive than Chicago now?

 

The urban narcissists are a much better target audience. They're in for the long haul.

 

I would be very surprised if they were anything close to Chicago.  I have friends right off High in the SN and pay like 800 for a 2-bedroom, which I think is very reasonable for the area. 

God, I'd hate to live in Charlotte. They should nickname it The Prozac City.

 

Indianapolis has already claimed that nickname, given that it's the home of Eli Lilly, the company that developed Prozac. 

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

 

Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown.

 

And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route.  People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit.  How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now?  Or to the near East Side?  If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High.  The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable.     

 

 

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

 

Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown.

 

And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route.  People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit.  How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now?  Or to the near East Side?  If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High.  The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable.     

'

There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask.

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

 

Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown.

 

And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route.  People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit.  How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now?  Or to the near East Side?  If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High.  The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable.     

'

There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask.

 

So you are saying that if we had a streetcar to the Hilltop right now, that enough people would ride it to be successful?  Yes or no?  Light rail has seen its share of failure in other cities if routes are not desirable.  The facts are out there, as you say. 

 

And I thought you were moving? 

When can we change the title of this thread to "Smart, young, and left Columbus"?  The drama...

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

 

Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown.

 

And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route.  People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit.  How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now?  Or to the near East Side?  If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High.  The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable.     

'

There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask.

 

So you are saying that if we had a streetcar to the Hilltop right now, that enough people would ride it to be successful?  Yes or no?  Light rail has seen its share of failure in other cities if routes are not desirable.  The facts are out there, as you say. 

 

And I thought you were moving? 

 

And now you conflate streetcars with light rail when they're objectively two different things. I'm done responding to your posts.

JBCM- 800 for a 2bdrm in the bad part of the Short North. Thats what we were paying to  live on 8th St. Weinland Park. For the nicer parts you're looking at atleast 1000 a month, easily.

After looking at the growth map in Columbus (growth along High Street, big losses near East Broad and South Side outside German Village), it's pretty obvious Columbus should build a damn streetcar on High Street already. The market is there. It can't fail. I'd give it a 99% chance of success.

 

That's ironically a big reason for why the High St streetcar, which the city only proposed in and of itself and not part of a multi-line system, was a big failure. Sure, it could work on High, but High, N High, is already a success. The residents in the area where it would run were and are apathetic by and large towards a streetcar. Otherwise, there was outright opposition for the effects construction would have on all current businesses and traffic & parking where there is only one lane. The rest of the inner-city rightfully saw it as a slap in the face: investment in a part of town that has already been invested in heavily while their part of town off of High St continues to be ignored and allowed to wallow in decline for who knows how many more years.

 

Where the first streetcar line would be most successful is where there exists solid commercial building stock and neighbors who are showing they are working to turn around their neighborhood through actions, not talk. W Broad is a great candidate with two large NBDs (the demand in the Hilltop is *huge* for their yet-to-be revitalized NBD) and an entertainment destination/casino on the end, although the long distance will mean a rather "high" price tag which would be more than worth the initial investment. For a shorter line, E Main from Downtown (which has some empty storefronts on what is now a one-way suburban expressway) to the RR or E Main in Bexley would also be a good choice since OTE has made some very noticeable improvements, but could use the extra boost for E Main (which mostly looks as bad as it ever did). The residents in these neighborhoods would actually want a streetcar for the investment factor alone, since their NBDs are suffering and need whatever boost they can get. This would also bode well for residents in other neglected neighborhoods who would see that the city is serious in its actions to invest in them.

 

In the end though, this is all just wishful thinking for a city that doesn't really care to see any of this happen. Suggestions such as these fall on deaf ears whether it's the city government or residents. I could wait around another decade for another side of Columbus to be open for business, but by then I'll be pushing 40: why do that to myself?

 

Yet again pushing the contradiction of demanding focus downtown instead of the suburbs, but complaining that there is too much focus downtown.

 

And you can't just put a streetcar in and hope someone moves into a business along the route.  People aren't going to ride it unless it actually goes somewhere they want to visit.  How popular would a line out to the Hilltop really be right now?  Or to the near East Side?  If the current plans to revitalize the areas begin to really pick up momentum over the next few years, then I'd say sure, but right now, it'd be like running a line to the Wal-Mart on South High.  The casino, if it ever gets built, is probably the best bet, but that's still a few years away anyway and its ultimate success remains questionable.     

'

There's no contradiction; learn the definition of "downtown" before responding to me and at least check out a few books on urbanism from CML (your points were already successfully rebutted by numerous urban planners before you hit "enter"). That's all I ask.

 

So you are saying that if we had a streetcar to the Hilltop right now, that enough people would ride it to be successful?  Yes or no?  Light rail has seen its share of failure in other cities if routes are not desirable.  The facts are out there, as you say. 

 

And I thought you were moving? 

 

And now you conflate streetcars with light rail when they're objectively two different things. I'm done responding to your posts.

 

Not at all.  It could be light rail or streetcars, there have been successes and failures for both for the reason I gave.  Demand and desirable routes play a huge role in how successful mass transit is.  You should know that considering how much you complain about COTA. 

JBCM- 800 for a 2bdrm in the bad part of the Short North. Thats what we were paying to  live on 8th St. Weinland Park. For the nicer parts you're looking at atleast 1000 a month, easily.

 

My friends live near 2nd and High.  That's not a bad part of the SN by any stretch. 

No but it's probably a dump if it's only 800.

No but it's probably a dump if it's only 800.

 

I haven't been there to see it, but they said it was a nice place for the money and location. 

sounds like any cities associated with brain drain need to step up and man up.  deal with the crappy times and make something of your city!  that's all i have to say.  complaints only add to brain drain.

I'm 99% certain I was the only non-Highland West resident who was picking up trash along their business district for the year's first W Broad cleanup and that is just one example; I've more than earned my right to complain about this city. That being said, my highest hopes for Columbus lies in the west side neighborhoods of Franklinton and Highland West where you have active, vocal residents and in the case of Franklinton, lots of city funding for larger scale and very visible projects to jump-start some revitalization (HW is by and large dependent on grassroots efforts).

 

Highland West's business district, during the day at least, is absolutely tranquil: I can't tell you how many times I've been there and not even been panhandled like I am Downtown and occasionally in the Short North. They even have a new bike lane, new bike boulevard, and new designated metered parking spaces for crying out loud. The problem seems to lie mainly in local entrepreneurs who are totally out of the loop and probably don't even know this district exists. If it's not that it's that they think it's too risky (unlike opening a business in the Short north which is always a sure thing), but what gets a "too risky" response here gets a "why not?" in numerous other cities be they on the coasts or interior as evidenced by several neighborhoods that *were* in even worse shape, but people in those cities "get it" much, much more than they do here in Ohio. That's something that's going to be very difficult to change here: might as well try to sell our more down-and-out urban districts to out-of-town entrepreneurs to get some decent places worth going to.

From Columbus Underground:

 

Urban Columbus sees 45% Gain in YPs

By Walker | April 2, 2011 - 8:00am

Columbus Underground

 

According to an article published yesterday in USA Today, the population of young and educated people are on the rise in urban centers around the country: “Urban centers draw more young, educated adults“.  According to 2010 Census data, the number of educated 20- and 30-somethings grew twice as fast in the core of most US cities than it did throughout the rest of their metropolitan regions.

 

Specifically, Columbus gained over 4,000 new young professionals within a 3-mile radius of Broad and High between 2000 and 2010.  That’s an increase in that demographic of 45%.

 

READ MORE: http://www.columbusunderground.com/urban-columbus-sees-45-gain-in-yps

From The Columbus Foundation, a podcast of a panel discussion about the attracting Young Professionals question discussed in this thread:

 

Your Philanthropy: “A Smart & Open City for Young Entrepreneurs”

The gain nationwide and in Columbus, according to the article, is by, "young, educated adults" which is not at all interchangeable with "young professionals". Unlike most cities where the gain is by and large downtown only, Columbus saw growth in the Short North and German Village. Let's not kid ourselves with the impression given with, "over 4,000 new young professionals within a 3-mile radius of Broad and High". Yuppies are not moving in to areas like Linden, Near South, etc, which continue to lose huge amounts. Franklinton, north of W Broad anyway, appears to have actually gained quite a bit of population even with the large loss south of Broad (though it may be due to apartments around Marble Cliff if there are enough units there), while Clintonville lost residents in most parts of the neighborhood, so there are some changes you wouldn't expect, like Linden gaining an increase from Hispanics from virtually nil to a few percentage points even though it lost population overall.

 

This just highlights how limiting it is to cater to the yuppie niche and ties into the artist thread I started a short while ago. This city should have taken what happened in the Short North much more seriously and learned lessons from it much earlier. There were no incentives given back then and artists had to really want to improve the area themselves along with an extra boost from the Wood Companies which actually wanted them and the gays moving in to make the area worth something by rehabbing key buildings in the area block by block and renting out commercial and living spaces to artists. Artists overall were the ones providing the draw to the business district vs. gays and you can see this bear our today where parts of the city that do have a signifcantly higher than average gay population (including DINKs) next to East Livingston, East Main, Parsons, W Broad have all seen very little to no improvements on commercial corridors. Plenty of homes have been fixed up and look nicer, but that's not enough to get others, yuppies especially, to even think for a second about moving into these areas. Yuppies and gays don't make neighborhoods like the Short North, which blows away Downtown even after a decade of incentives by the city directed at yuppies. It's artists that were key in turning around once-blighted neighborhoods/no man's lands in Columbus, Pittsburgh, Portland, etc. Forget about the yuppies, they seem to be filling in downtowns everywhere. They did not go in and do a 180 on the population decrease and economic depression in the no-name blight zones that were the Short North, Lawrenceville, and Alberta St respectively.

 

Do what you have to get as many artists to rent in a few select neighborhoods as possible.

 

• Franklinton is a good start and my one criticism is that none of the incentives are going to W Broad where vacant commercial buildings already exist and instead is going towards brand new commercial spaces being built well off of the most lively central stretch of W Broad.
  

• W Broad in Highland West has the same kind of dense commercial buildings like the Short North, just shorter. Choose a block, provide incentives for artists and let them take it over
  

• East Long is at a turning point and unfortunately no new businesses have opened their doors here for over a year. If the city has no problem taking money from neighborhoods like this from their meter revenue and giving it to the Hiltons to build a downtown hotel, then surely they can scrounge up some change to pay for the rehab of the last few remaining commercial spaces (literally just three remain) here for artists. Hell, this is just down the street from CCAD for crying out loud.
  

 

Think about what Parsons or W Broad or E Main, etc, would look like if the city had provided incentives to artists to live in neighborhoods around any one of those street and occupy commercial spaces that are sitting as empty today as they are a decade ago. This city has *talked* about how great artists are but only very, very recently have they provided any significant money towards incentives for artists to live in any of those areas (they finally showed some love for Franklinton) and even then the south, east and northeast are still ignored and the city is not putting their money where their mouth is. Where they have been investing in these areas it has been in the form of fixing up homes with the goal for them to be bought while allowing the main streets to be the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a losing strategy over the past decade as people have not moved into these homes to begin block by clock revitalization efforts. But what do I know? It's not like reality in the form of an ongoing free-fall in population loss in these same areas proves anything to them and this is just another crazy rant from that guy. I'm sure all they have to do is give yuppies these 100 page neighborhood plans and that'll result in them swarming in to all of our declining inner-city neighborhoods.

Keith, I agree and disagree.  The idea that artists alone are who really bring about drastic changes in neighborhoods simplifies the issue, the same with saying gays do.  Downtown, outside of the SN, etc, did not have a large population of artists, yet it saw 40% growth anyway and increasing amounts of residents.  Same with GV, Merion Village... not exactly big artist neighborhoods.  I think, more than anything, you need an engaged residential population, whether that be artists, gays, or anyone.  All of our most successful neighborhoods had that in common.  Franklinton, Hilltop, OTE really have not.  Yes, the city has not put nearly as much focus on these areas, but at the same time, the residents themselves have not amassed the kind of influence to have the city take more notice.  There are so many small things that those areas can do, one project at a time, to start making changes, but so far, they haven't really done much.  I wish people here would stop waiting on the city and just do it themselves.  It's proven to be very successful.   

Re: young entrepreneurs. Doesn't pertain strictly to young ones, but once you get off of High St you have some unhappy entrepreneurs who are sick of being left on the back burner for even basic maintenance of infrastructure of sidewalks and lamp posts. Then are the numerous complaints for the Building Services Department which likes to delay tenants of establishments like restaurants and bars by finding a problem at the last second and forcing businesses to keep their doors closed for months, forcing entrepreneurs, young or old, to take a loss. Restaurants are already quite risky to begin with since a high percentage don't make the one year mark without being delayed for months while still having to pick up the tab for the commercial space that they can't use.

 

That and you have the fact that young entrepreneurs probably don't tend to have as much money to start their own business. For those looking to open an urban storefront you've got High St which has high rent unless you want to be located in the student ghetto. The cheaper spaces are mainly in rougher areas with virtually no existing community of small businesses to tap into and the city isn't doing anything to make these spaces desirable to entrepreneurs nor have they even stated anything in support of doing so. Columbus isn't a smart and open city for entrepreneurs because it hasn't been configured to be that way. As long as it can claim one degree of superiority over the other Cs that's good enough.

Keith, I agree and disagree.  The idea that artists alone are who really bring about drastic changes in neighborhoods simplifies the issue, the same with saying gays do.  Downtown, outside of the SN, etc, did not have a large population of artists, yet it saw 40% growth anyway and increasing amounts of residents.  Same with GV, Merion Village... not exactly big artist neighborhoods.  I think, more than anything, you need an engaged residential population, whether that be artists, gays, or anyone.  All of our most successful neighborhoods had that in common.  Franklinton, Hilltop, OTE really have not.  Yes, the city has not put nearly as much focus on these areas, but at the same time, the residents themselves have not amassed the kind of influence to have the city take more notice.  There are so many small things that those areas can do, one project at a time, to start making changes, but so far, they haven't really done much.  I wish people here would stop waiting on the city and just do it themselves.  It's proven to be very successful.   

 

This is the only post I've read of yours for months. I believe you'll be hard pressed to find great, unique neighborhoods that went from blight to greatness without the influx of artists, which is he story behind each of the neighborhoods I mentioned. Downtown only saw growth because incentives were directed at yuppies. This is why Downtown and yuppie-friendly GV saw an increase, and a couple of the few urban areas where growth occurred. If the city had broadened their subsidization efforts to artists you can bet there would be at least a couple of interesting strips where empty homes and storefronts sit today. Merion Village *lost* population, btw, according to each tract of the 2010 census that covered the neighborhood.

 

You must not be very engaged with your Hilltop community because I was out there picking up trash on W Broad, sitting in on meetings here and there, helped distribute flyers for a neighborhood bike ride last fall. To say that residents aren't engaged there, in Franklinton (I've been to numerous community events), and in OTE (active block watch and even gathered signatures to make part of the neighborhood dry) simply isn't true. The truth is that as vocal as they may be, the city isn't going to listen to them until they wake up one day and they're cash cows overnight like the Short North. The city is short-sighted, that's actually giving them too much credit as though they have any real vision for these areas, and there's little that these neighborhoods can do aside from that to bring real investment from the city.

Keith, I agree and disagree.  The idea that artists alone are who really bring about drastic changes in neighborhoods simplifies the issue, the same with saying gays do.  Downtown, outside of the SN, etc, did not have a large population of artists, yet it saw 40% growth anyway and increasing amounts of residents.  Same with GV, Merion Village... not exactly big artist neighborhoods.  I think, more than anything, you need an engaged residential population, whether that be artists, gays, or anyone.  All of our most successful neighborhoods had that in common.  Franklinton, Hilltop, OTE really have not.  Yes, the city has not put nearly as much focus on these areas, but at the same time, the residents themselves have not amassed the kind of influence to have the city take more notice.  There are so many small things that those areas can do, one project at a time, to start making changes, but so far, they haven't really done much.  I wish people here would stop waiting on the city and just do it themselves.  It's proven to be very successful.   

 

This is the only post I've read of yours for months. I believe you'll be hard pressed to find great, unique neighborhoods that went from blight to greatness without the influx of artists, which is he story behind each of the neighborhoods I mentioned. Downtown only saw growth because incentives were directed at yuppies. This is why Downtown and yuppie-friendly GV saw an increase, and a couple of the few urban areas where growth occurred. If the city had broadened their subsidization efforts to artists you can bet there would be at least a couple of interesting strips where empty homes and storefronts sit today. Merion Village *lost* population, btw, according to each tract of the 2010 census that covered the neighborhood.

 

You must not be very engaged with your Hilltop community because I was out there picking up trash on W Broad, sitting in on meetings here and there, helped distribute flyers for a neighborhood bike ride last fall. To say that residents aren't engaged there, in Franklinton (I've been to numerous community events), and in OTE (active block watch and even gathered signatures to make part of the neighborhood dry) simply isn't true. The truth is that as vocal as they may be, the city isn't going to listen to them until they wake up one day and they're cash cows overnight like the Short North. The city is short-sighted, that's actually giving them too much credit as though they have any real vision for these areas, and there's little that these neighborhoods can do aside from that to bring real investment from the city.

 

GV and downtown have not always been yuppie.  GV in particular was saved from the wrecking ball in the 1960s not by artists but preservationists.  As the years passed it became what it is today.  Artists were never really a big presense, and you support me in that artists are not always responsible for revitalization.  I'm also not sure, but you seem to have an issue with yuppies.  If they are willing to move into urban neighborhoods and promote growth, I say good for them.

 

And sorry, but picking up trash is great and I support that, but that's not the kind of involvement I'm talking about.  I'm talking about fixing up houses, building businesses, etc.  The residents here, for the most part, seem to not put a lot of time or effort into maintaining their own properties, let alone trying to make the neighborhood more attractive in a development sense.  There is just nowhere near the amount of push forward that some other areas have seen by residents.   

 

 

Downtown was pretty much empty and both have been yuppie for a while. Aside from the Miranova and Waterford there was only Town-Franklin Downtown, which actually has housed CCAD students for quite some time. German Village was saved based on its uniqueness, but as you'll notice by and large, it's not preservationists that saved the Short North, Lawrenceville, Alberta St, and many other once blighted neighborhoods nationwide. In fact, they would be very wise to attract artists to their neighborhoods. Yuppies will only move in after all of the hard work has been done, so it's really not worth seeking them out over other demographics, let alone hire consultants, give tax abatements, etc to them.

 

Active residents alone simply doesn't get the job done. The reality is that when they're in neglected neighborhoods, which make up at least 70% of them, you're ignored by the city plain and simple. When you raise your voice, as some Hilltop residents have, the city then goes from ignoring you to being hostile towards you. Maybe instead of complaining about residents there, you should actually do something rather than just typing that you support efforts: part of the the solution, etc.

Downtown was pretty much empty and both have been yuppie for a while. Aside from the Miranova and Waterford there was only Town-Franklin Downtown, which actually has housed CCAD students for quite some time. German Village was saved based on its uniqueness, but as you'll notice by and large, it's not preservationists that saved the Short North, Lawrenceville, Alberta St, and many other once blighted neighborhoods nationwide. In fact, they would be very wise to attract artists to their neighborhoods. Yuppies will only move in after all of the hard work has been done, so it's really not worth seeking them out over other demographics, let alone hire consultants, give tax abatements, etc to them.

 

Active residents alone simply doesn't get the job done. The reality is that when they're in neglected neighborhoods, which make up at least 70% of them, you're ignored by the city plain and simple. When you raise your voice, as some Hilltop residents have, the city then goes from ignoring you to being hostile towards you. Maybe instead of complaining about residents there, you should actually do something rather than just typing that you support efforts: part of the the solution, etc.

 

The overall point is that artists alone are not and have not been the only path to revitalization.  Are they important?  Absolutely, but there are multitude of groups and factors involved in a neighborhood turnaround.  The Short North was the result of not only artists, but gays, an active residential and civic population, and city attention. 

 

 

Downtown was pretty much empty and both have been yuppie for a while. Aside from the Miranova and Waterford there was only Town-Franklin Downtown, which actually has housed CCAD students for quite some time. German Village was saved based on its uniqueness, but as you'll notice by and large, it's not preservationists that saved the Short North, Lawrenceville, Alberta St, and many other once blighted neighborhoods nationwide. In fact, they would be very wise to attract artists to their neighborhoods. Yuppies will only move in after all of the hard work has been done, so it's really not worth seeking them out over other demographics, let alone hire consultants, give tax abatements, etc to them.

 

Active residents alone simply doesn't get the job done. The reality is that when they're in neglected neighborhoods, which make up at least 70% of them, you're ignored by the city plain and simple. When you raise your voice, as some Hilltop residents have, the city then goes from ignoring you to being hostile towards you. Maybe instead of complaining about residents there, you should actually do something rather than just typing that you support efforts: part of the the solution, etc.

 

The overall point is that artists alone are not and have not been the only path to revitalization.  Are they important?  Absolutely, but there are multitude of groups and factors involved in a neighborhood turnaround.  The Short North was the result of not only artists, but gays, an active residential and civic population, and city attention. 

 

 

 

And you miss the point, as artists laid the foundation for those other groups to move in. Get artists in as the #1 or the rest of the city will continue to fall apart with no almost no improvements as we've seen in the past decade. As usual, I've cited specific examples, but whatever, I know I should've skipped the last post like I did all the others. Goodbye!

Downtown was pretty much empty and both have been yuppie for a while. Aside from the Miranova and Waterford there was only Town-Franklin Downtown, which actually has housed CCAD students for quite some time. German Village was saved based on its uniqueness, but as you'll notice by and large, it's not preservationists that saved the Short North, Lawrenceville, Alberta St, and many other once blighted neighborhoods nationwide. In fact, they would be very wise to attract artists to their neighborhoods. Yuppies will only move in after all of the hard work has been done, so it's really not worth seeking them out over other demographics, let alone hire consultants, give tax abatements, etc to them.

 

Active residents alone simply doesn't get the job done. The reality is that when they're in neglected neighborhoods, which make up at least 70% of them, you're ignored by the city plain and simple. When you raise your voice, as some Hilltop residents have, the city then goes from ignoring you to being hostile towards you. Maybe instead of complaining about residents there, you should actually do something rather than just typing that you support efforts: part of the the solution, etc.

 

The overall point is that artists alone are not and have not been the only path to revitalization.  Are they important?  Absolutely, but there are multitude of groups and factors involved in a neighborhood turnaround.  The Short North was the result of not only artists, but gays, an active residential and civic population, and city attention. 

 

 

And you miss the point, as artists laid the foundation for those other groups to move in. Get artists in as the #1 or the rest of the city will continue to fall apart with no almost no improvements as we've seen in the past decade. As usual, I've cited specific examples, but whatever, I know I should've skipped the last post like I did all the others. Goodbye!

 

And I cited examples where artists were NOT the foundation of revitalization but you ignored them.  I am not trying to butt heads with you.  I actually think we are more in agreement here than not.  Artists are important, and in some neighborhoods they are clearly the deciding factor, but not always.  I'm not sure what's so controversial about that statement.  Are you just disagreeing because you don't like me?