April 9, 20178 yr Don't forget that the housing projects were actually nice when new, similar to those nice looking new CMHA projects being built in Cleveland. They wouldn't have looked dilapidated or otherwise unappealing back in the 40s.
April 9, 20178 yr Developers aren't going to take such a big risk and over-build with high-rises just because the city and neighborhood is willing to let them. Not the point though, not when developers are proposing high rises and the city is demanding they be shortened or flat-out rejecting them. That's the situation in Cleveland. When proposals for hot areas meet this kind or resistance, it's no wonder there aren't many such proposals for lesser areas. When I say "the city" in this context I generally mean neighborhood activists because Cleveland's bottom-up system empowers them. In addition, many public and quasi-public planning bodies in Cleveland actively and purposefully steer development money toward low-density concepts. I think you and I have similar visions for Euclid Avenue, but with every anti-pedestrian development that goes in, critical mass becomes less and less feasible. High Street could never have become what it is today if Columbus had encouraged Battelle and Abbott Labs to set up shop there. Nobody walks to Battelle.
April 17, 20178 yr A large percentage of the populations in Fairfield, Madison, Pickaway, Licking, Union and Morrow Counties are living in dialup areas for sure. More likely, they are satellite internet or 3G/4G mobile hotspots over dialup. Mind you, Morrow-Delaware Electric Co-op has been promising us (out here in the hinderland) high-speed internet/cable access for five years and they've yet to lay, or string, any cable along our road yet.
April 17, 20178 yr The cell phone service at our farm in NE Pickaway County is miserable. No data and wait for texts. There's even a trailer park across from it which increases density to near-urban levels. There's talk of a 4G tower nearby but it still hasn't materialized. On i-70 in Madison and western Franklin Counties I had a friend monitor cell phone service. Often it was "E"... which is miserable.
April 17, 20178 yr At this point, cable and phone companies should not even bother with installing high speed internet to rural areas. The next generation of wireless will be fast enough that AT&T and Verizon can just sell 5G cellular modems that connect to your home network.
April 17, 20178 yr The cell phone service at our farm in NE Pickaway County is miserable. No data and wait for texts. There's even a trailer park across from it which increases density to near-urban levels. Not to get too far off topic, but I once had a project that involved a new building in a somewhat rural area (near a highway offramp serving a rural area), and the owner wanted to pursue LEED certification. I was able to use a couple adjacent trailer parks to meet the requirements for housing density (Development density/Community Connectivity for those familiar with LEED), which got us a whopping 5 points, and allowed us to beat our goal of just "LEED Certified" and achieve "LEED Silver." I had never really thought about trailer parks having such a dense population until then. They had 12-15 units per acre, and 10 is what LEED considered to be dense enough to qualify.
April 20, 20178 yr At this point, cable and phone companies should not even bother with installing high speed internet to rural areas. The next generation of wireless will be fast enough that AT&T and Verizon can just sell 5G cellular modems that connect to your home network. I don't know if 5G has much range. Most of what I've read about 5G states it has a bunch of smaller 36' towers with a short range of 1 mile or less. No 20-story towers with a 7-mile range like we see with 3G and 4G. They aren't going to spend the money to put in all those rural towers if that's how it works.
April 20, 20178 yr The cell phone service at our farm in NE Pickaway County is miserable. No data and wait for texts. There's even a trailer park across from it which increases density to near-urban levels. There's talk of a 4G tower nearby but it still hasn't materialized. On i-70 in Madison and western Franklin Counties I had a friend monitor cell phone service. Often it was "E"... which is miserable. I live outside of West Jefferson(only because it is cheap lol) and I have Spectrum(ugh) for cable and home Internet and Verizon for phone. West Jeff and London have cable access for internet and don't need dialup. Also I have never had a problem with Verizon for cell phone service anywhere out in Madison, Union, or Champaign counties. No waiting for texts or anything. I know a few miles out of London they had no cable access though and had to get the satellite stuff for TV. I think the dialup is just for the rural locations outside of the population clusters-at least out here.
April 20, 20178 yr Right, the population centers have modern communications in most cases. That's like how if you are 2 miles outside of Lancaster in several directions you have to get satellite. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to sell DVDs at that location LOL. Verizon seems to be the best cell phone carrier in rural central Ohio but I have ATT.
May 25, 20178 yr http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/suburban-growth-remains-strong-in-central-ohio Suburban growth remains strong in Central Ohio. Grandview, Hilliard, and New Albany saw the largest population increases in 2016. Very Stable Genius
May 25, 20178 yr http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/suburban-growth-remains-strong-in-central-ohio Suburban growth remains strong in Central Ohio. Grandview, Hilliard, and New Albany saw the largest population increases in 2016. Part of that article is wrong. Columbus did not 'grow' to 841,000 from 850,000-it increased to 860,000 and it moved ahead of Indy in the process. 'Columbus grew by 1.2 percent, or 9,771 people, for a total of 841,563.'...not correct.
May 25, 20178 yr http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/suburban-growth-remains-strong-in-central-ohio Suburban growth remains strong in Central Ohio. Grandview, Hilliard, and New Albany saw the largest population increases in 2016. Part of that article is wrong. Columbus did not 'grow' to 841,000 from 850,000-it increased to 860,000 and it moved ahead of Indy in the process. 'Columbus grew by 1.2 percent, or 9,771 people, for a total of 841,563.'...not correct. The 9,771 number is not right either. According to the updated numbers, the city went from 850,044 to 860,090, an July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016, an increase of 10,046. The city of Columbus alone grew more than every suburb combined in the entire 10-county metro. This is example of a disingenuous headline, as Columbus added far more people than any suburb. Columbus added 21x more people than Dublin, 22x more than New Albany and nearly 28x more than Grandview over that 1-year period.
May 25, 20178 yr Suburbanites are the ones buying all the papers. They don't care that another taproom opened up on 4th or that more 8-story apartment buildings are proposed in Italian Village.
May 25, 20178 yr hate to break the bad news, but with the exception of a few cities, it's the suburbs that are growing most across America-- Seattle Climbs but Austin Sprawls: The Myth of the Return to Cities Jed Kolko MAY 22, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/upshot/seattle-climbs-but-austin-sprawls-the-myth-of-the-return-to-cities.html?_r=0 http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
May 25, 20178 yr How much of that suburban growth is coming at the expense of rural areas? That's the real story with those articles -- rural-to-suburb migration is off the charts as the rural areas and small towns offer zero jobs and singles.
May 25, 20178 yr The other big story is that the burbs are booming due to lack of housing choices in the central cities. This may be a case of build it and they will come. Austin is a bad example as it is tainted by Texas state politics. Much like here in Ohio, the rural legislators like to stick it to cities--and Austin as a "Libtard Zone" is right in their cross-hairs.
May 25, 20178 yr Yeah, City vs. Suburb/Rural Deathmatch culture probably reaches and even surpasses Cincinnati levels in Texas.
May 25, 20178 yr The 9,771 number is not right either. According to the updated numbers, the city went from 850,044 to 860,090, an July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016, an increase of 10,046. The city of Columbus alone grew more than every suburb combined in the entire 10-county metro. This is example of a disingenuous headline, as Columbus added far more people than any suburb. Columbus added 21x more people than Dublin, 22x more than New Albany and nearly 28x more than Grandview over that 1-year period. They were talking in terms of percentage increase. Very Stable Genius
May 25, 20178 yr hate to break the bad news, but with the exception of a few cities, it's the suburbs that are growing most across America-- Seattle Climbs but Austin Sprawls: The Myth of the Return to Cities Jed Kolko MAY 22, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/upshot/seattle-climbs-but-austin-sprawls-the-myth-of-the-return-to-cities.html?_r=0 Many of these articles use growth rates rather than aggregate totals, which I think is misleading, as exemplified by the Columbus article above. Just because some small town or rural county has a fast growth rate does not mean they're actually adding more people. It just means that their rate of % growth can look much higher than much larger, urban cities even as those urban cities add many times more people. Another thing to consider is that much of the suburban hype doesn't take into account real demand. For example, there is much more limited buildable space in the urban core than there is on some farmland. Because of that, regardless of how much demand there really is, only so much housing can be built, and it is often more expensive because there is less of it. A lot of people end up being forced into cheaper suburbs because of that. The headline of the NYT story is the same kind of misinformation, but then they go on to acknowledge that urban supply is likely the culprit: This combination of faster population growth in outlying areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people out to the suburbs. It’s a reminder that where people live reflects not only what they want — but also what’s available and what it costs.
May 25, 20178 yr The 9,771 number is not right either. According to the updated numbers, the city went from 850,044 to 860,090, an July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016, an increase of 10,046. The city of Columbus alone grew more than every suburb combined in the entire 10-county metro. This is example of a disingenuous headline, as Columbus added far more people than any suburb. Columbus added 21x more people than Dublin, 22x more than New Albany and nearly 28x more than Grandview over that 1-year period. They were talking in terms of percentage increase. I know, but they were using that suggesting that those suburbs were destroying the city in growth, but it's actually the opposite. New Albany added less than 500 people last year, but because there are only 10K people, it can seem like it's booming. Columbus adding 22x that number means that the core city isn't doing as well?? That doesn't make sense to me.
May 26, 20178 yr New Albany attracts a very specific demographic of well-paid people forced to move here by their jobs. No natives.
May 26, 20178 yr hate to break the bad news, but with the exception of a few cities, it's the suburbs that are growing most across America-- Seattle Climbs but Austin Sprawls: The Myth of the Return to Cities Jed Kolko MAY 22, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/upshot/seattle-climbs-but-austin-sprawls-the-myth-of-the-return-to-cities.html?_r=0 Many of these articles use growth rates rather than aggregate totals, which I think is misleading, as exemplified by the Columbus article above. Just because some small town or rural county has a fast growth rate does not mean they're actually adding more people. It just means that their rate of % growth can look much higher than much larger, urban cities even as those urban cities add many times more people. Another thing to consider is that much of the suburban hype doesn't take into account real demand. For example, there is much more limited buildable space in the urban core than there is on some farmland. Because of that, regardless of how much demand there really is, only so much housing can be built, and it is often more expensive because there is less of it. A lot of people end up being forced into cheaper suburbs because of that. The headline of the NYT story is the same kind of misinformation, but then they go on to acknowledge that urban supply is likely the culprit: This combination of faster population growth in outlying areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people out to the suburbs. It’s a reminder that where people live reflects not only what they want — but also what’s available and what it costs. This particular article weighted the density of each tract by its population, so it's not really being skewed by low population ares with small absolute/large percentage increases.
May 26, 20178 yr hate to break the bad news, but with the exception of a few cities, it's the suburbs that are growing most across America-- Seattle Climbs but Austin Sprawls: The Myth of the Return to Cities Jed Kolko MAY 22, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/upshot/seattle-climbs-but-austin-sprawls-the-myth-of-the-return-to-cities.html?_r=0 Many of these articles use growth rates rather than aggregate totals, which I think is misleading, as exemplified by the Columbus article above. Just because some small town or rural county has a fast growth rate does not mean they're actually adding more people. It just means that their rate of % growth can look much higher than much larger, urban cities even as those urban cities add many times more people. Another thing to consider is that much of the suburban hype doesn't take into account real demand. For example, there is much more limited buildable space in the urban core than there is on some farmland. Because of that, regardless of how much demand there really is, only so much housing can be built, and it is often more expensive because there is less of it. A lot of people end up being forced into cheaper suburbs because of that. The headline of the NYT story is the same kind of misinformation, but then they go on to acknowledge that urban supply is likely the culprit: This combination of faster population growth in outlying areas and bigger price increases in cities points to limited housing supply as a curb on urban growth, pushing people out to the suburbs. It’s a reminder that where people live reflects not only what they want — but also what’s available and what it costs. This particular article weighted the density of each tract by its population, so it's not really being skewed by low population ares with small absolute/large percentage increases. If you are talking about census tracts, I'm not sure how they did that when those numbers for 2016 won't be out until December. I'm not sure what exactly they looked at, to be honest, because it doesn't specifically say what areas they measured other than "urban vs. suburban" or overall metro densities. Metro densities shouldn't tend to go down so long as their is population growth. The only reason a metro density would decline is because additional, low-density counties were added, but metro boundaries haven't changed since 2013.
May 26, 20178 yr He's a little sloppy with his language at the end, but he's not calculating vanilla density (total pop per land area), he's calculating weighted density. It's essentially the neighborhood-level density of the average resident. There's a link to his method notes near the end of the piece. He uses us post office occupied residence data to allocate county population across census tracts. I don't think he accounts for different avg household size, so it may be more of an average household density change he's measuring. But that only strengthens his point, because urban households are no doubt smaller, on average.
May 26, 20178 yr The 9,771 number is not right either. According to the updated numbers, the city went from 850,044 to 860,090, an July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016, an increase of 10,046. The city of Columbus alone grew more than every suburb combined in the entire 10-county metro. This is example of a disingenuous headline, as Columbus added far more people than any suburb. Columbus added 21x more people than Dublin, 22x more than New Albany and nearly 28x more than Grandview over that 1-year period. They were talking in terms of percentage increase. I know, but they were using that suggesting that those suburbs were destroying the city in growth, but it's actually the opposite. New Albany added less than 500 people last year, but because there are only 10K people, it can seem like it's booming. Columbus adding 22x that number means that the core city isn't doing as well?? That doesn't make sense to me. I think the point was (or should have been) that the suburbs are also seeing substantial growth. Obviously in totals it can't match Columbus because Columbus' starting point is ~860K vs. 30K or less. Ironically, Grandview and Hilliard have been bolstered by a lot of mixed-use developments and I imagine we'll see Dublin pop up on this "suburb growth" list for 2017 and 2018 as the Bridge Street project comes together. Very Stable Genius
May 26, 20178 yr http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170525/were-no-14-columbus-tops-indianapolis-in-population We’re No. 14! Columbus tops Indianapolis in population Columbus moves up to #14 (remains at #33 metro) in city population based on '16 estimates. Very Stable Genius
September 15, 20177 yr Some data from Jason Segedy, Akron's planning director (though it probably originated from a new Brookings report).... The first 20 cities in the United States to top 100,000 people, and the year that they exceeded that threshold: Those same 20 cities, and where they went in terms of population: Those same 20 cities, and where they went in terms of socioeconomic outcomes: "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 15, 20177 yr Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh.... The list is long. What's surprising is that Chicago has lost more residents between 2000-2010 than Cleveland, Buffalo or St. Louis. It's loss in the first decade of the 21st century is almost as significant as Detroit's. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 15, 20177 yr Interesting that Milwaukee, while about as rust-belt as the rest of us, has managed to maintain a shred of stability. Anyone have reasons or theories?
September 15, 20177 yr ^ but has Milwaukee annexed a lot? If Cincy or Cleveland annexed like Columbus, those numbers would look much different and tell a better story. Look at the Metro areas to get a truer picture of city size
September 15, 20177 yr ^ I also wonder is proximity to Chicago helps Milwaukee. The two metros nearly run into each other.
September 15, 20177 yr ^ but has Milwaukee annexed a lot? If Cincy or Cleveland annexed like Columbus, those numbers would look much different and tell a better story. Look at the Metro areas to get a truer picture of city size Correct, the original city limits of Columbus, as of 1950, has had significant population decline also. That aside though, regardless how they got there, it's still growing.
September 15, 20177 yr What's happening with Louisville KY. How did it increase in pop by 341,000 people from 2000>2010? Does not seem correct to me from what I know about the city.
September 15, 20177 yr All major cities have annexed nearby townships and villages; hell, Cleveland even had skirmishes with Ohio City due to the Columbus St bridge and fears of annexation (which happened 15-20 years later). Brooklyn wasn't part of NYC until 1898 (and that also wasn't a bloodless affair). Annexation is nothing new. Frankly I've never really bought that as a compelling argument to why there is population gain and loss. At best a nominal effect. Look at the prosperous cities with ongoing momentum; there are evident factors for their success, the least of which is their expanding boundaries.
September 15, 20177 yr What's happening with Louisville KY. How did it increase in pop by 341,000 people from 2000>2010? Does not seem correct to me from what I know about the city. Louisville merged with Jefferson County similar to what Lexington and Indianapolis have done.
September 15, 20177 yr All major cities have annexed nearby townships and villages; hell, Cleveland even had skirmishes with Ohio City due to the Columbus St bridge and fears of annexation (which happened 15-20 years later). Brooklyn wasn't part of NYC until 1898 (and that also wasn't a bloodless affair). Annexation is nothing new. Frankly I've never really bought that as a compelling argument to why there is population gain and loss. At best a nominal effect. Look at the prosperous cities with ongoing momentum; there are evident factors for their success, the least of which is their expanding boundaries. I think annexation hugely explains population gains at the city level. Especially annexations which happened in the timeline that we are discussing here.
September 15, 20177 yr ^ but has Milwaukee annexed a lot? If Cincy or Cleveland annexed like Columbus, those numbers would look much different and tell a better story. Look at the Metro areas to get a truer picture of city size Correct, the original city limits of Columbus, as of 1950, has had significant population decline also. That aside though, regardless how they got there, it's still growing. It did, yes. It lost about 55K people after 1960- still a far cry from how other cities hollowed out in that era. However, it's been growing since probably the mid-2000s, and added almost 6K people 2010-2015.
September 15, 20177 yr All major cities have annexed nearby townships and villages; hell, Cleveland even had skirmishes with Ohio City due to the Columbus St bridge and fears of annexation Just to clarify (and I realize you didn't mean this), but the Columbus Street "bridge war" wasn't over annexation but because the new, permanent bridge allowed travelers and traders from the west to bypass the business district of Ohio City. https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/columbus-street-bridge/ Carry on... :) "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 18, 20177 yr Existential Dread @twkovach Alright you monsters, I pulled 5-year ACS data comparing downtown populations in 13 Midwest cities for size, education, & income for 2006-15 ++++++++ Population, 2006-2010 vs. 2011-2015 Average change: +13.3% Minimum: -30.25% Maximum: +76.17% Percent with at least Bachelor's Degree, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +9.12% Minimum: -6.45% Maximum: +32.5% Median Household Income, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +20.4% Minimum: +2.65% Maximum: +174.05% For Cleveland: - Population grew faster than average (+55%) - Educational attainment worse (-0.65%) - Income worse (+7.75%) "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
September 18, 20177 yr Existential Dread @twkovach Alright you monsters, I pulled 5-year ACS data comparing downtown populations in 13 Midwest cities for size, education, & income for 2006-15 ++++++++ Population, 2006-2010 vs. 2011-2015 Average change: +13.3% Minimum: -30.25% Maximum: +76.17% Percent with at least Bachelor's Degree, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +9.12% Minimum: -6.45% Maximum: +32.5% Median Household Income, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +20.4% Minimum: +2.65% Maximum: +174.05% For Cleveland: - Population grew faster than average (+55%) - Educational attainment worse (-0.65%) - Income worse (+7.75%) The downtown population figures for Cincinnati (first graph) need to be challenged... https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/22/how-much-has-the-population-grown-in-cincinnati-s.html https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/04/13/heres-how-much-the-population-has-grown-in.html
September 18, 20177 yr Existential Dread @twkovach Alright you monsters, I pulled 5-year ACS data comparing downtown populations in 13 Midwest cities for size, education, & income for 2006-15 ++++++++ Population, 2006-2010 vs. 2011-2015 Average change: +13.3% Minimum: -30.25% Maximum: +76.17% Percent with at least Bachelor's Degree, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +9.12% Minimum: -6.45% Maximum: +32.5% Median Household Income, 06-10 vs. 11-15 Average change: +20.4% Minimum: +2.65% Maximum: +174.05% For Cleveland: - Population grew faster than average (+55%) - Educational attainment worse (-0.65%) - Income worse (+7.75%) A couple things... how are they defining "Downtown" here? Also, Buffalo, Nashville, Pittsburgh and Baltimore are not Midwest cities.
September 19, 20177 yr I'd be curious whether the decrease in bachelor's would be related to an increase in Cleveland State students living Downtown while in school. I just don't know if i can deal with American Fact Finder right now...
September 19, 20177 yr There seems to be correlation of downtowns that lost population or remained flat to an increase in income. I wonder of there was public housing that was relocated.
December 22, 20177 yr 2017 State population estimates were released yesterday. Ohio increased by 36,055 - our largest year over year increase since at least 2010. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/estimates-idaho.html
Create an account or sign in to comment