This is Tract 55, south of Livingston Avenue on the Near South Side. It is a historically older neighborhood, built mostly between 1880-1920 on a classic grid pattern.  What is the density?

 

 

 

Yeah, that's all 30x150 or 35x150 lots, which is why it's impossible for Columbus to be effectively denser than Cincinnati.  Much of Cincinnati is comprised of 25x100 or smaller lots and many of those lots have multifamilies on them.  I have already mentioned this.

 

I own a single-family home on a 25x90 lot that has a 4-unit on one side and a 3-unit on the other.  Such a situation is basically non-existent in Columbus because there is almost no such thing as a street platted to 25-foot lots.  My cousin owns a 15-foot wide house nearby.  There is no such thing as a 15-foot wide row house in Columbus.   

 

The 25x100 lots represent *most* of the residential lots situated within a 3- mile radius of Fountain Square, and that includes both sides of the river.  Newport, KY is comprised mostly of 25x100 lots:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Newport,+KY+41071/@39.0886344,-84.4963964,1929m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b10b08002211:0x5dea4a7640e40f0d!8m2!3d39.091449!4d-84.4957757

 

I'm not sure why you're talking about lot size.  The number of people actually living there is directly correlated to density, not strictly the number of houses in a given area.  You seem to be talking more about building density than population density.  In any case, any guesses as to the density of the areas shown above?  How many were below 2,500.  How many above 10K, if any?

Finally we have 8822, on the Far South Side along 23/S. High and just north I-270.  It includes a wide mix of single-family homes, large commercial developments, a huge quarry, farm fields and various other things.  What is the density?

 

 

 

woah woah woah

 

Is there still a Ponderosa Steakhouse in Columbus?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  City vs. city threads are dumb.  I enjoy comparing the differences and certain advantages/disadvantages of a place but I feel the 3 Cs are relatively equal.  Each of the 3Cs has certain advantages and disadvantages of the other. 

This is a reminder about how numbers can make people more emotional than almost anything else.

Finally we have 8822, on the Far South Side along 23/S. High and just north I-270.  It includes a wide mix of single-family homes, large commercial developments, a huge quarry, farm fields and various other things.  What is the density?

 

 

 

Are these rhetorical questions?

 

Because this seems to be turning into a potentially treacherous "my city is less/more dense than your city" comparison which falls into city vs. city shouting matches we are trying to avoid.

 

Nope, not rhetorical.  I'm honestly curious how the perception of Columbus' neighborhood density compares to real life.  The tracts pictured, I thought, were a good representation of most of Columbus' built environment.  I find the subject interesting to discuss and just wanted to hear people's thoughts on what those areas seemed to be.

Finally we have 8822, on the Far South Side along 23/S. High and just north I-270.  It includes a wide mix of single-family homes, large commercial developments, a huge quarry, farm fields and various other things.  What is the density?

 

 

 

woah woah woah

 

Is there still a Ponderosa Steakhouse in Columbus?

 

Apparently.  I went through that south side area a few weeks back and saw it.  I was just as surprised as you.

There is a lot of talking past each other here but I don't think there's as much disagreement as it seems. I would venture to guess that the weighted density (mentioned by someone else) for most neighborhoods in Cincy and Cleveland is higher than in most Cbus neighborhoods. So it's true that the experienced density for most residents is higher. Cincy and Cleveland also have a more nodal development pattern so that contributes to that experience is well. Columbus also has more single-family detached zoning and Cincy and Cleveland have large areas of undevelopable land and industrial areas. These factors all also contribute to the fact that LA is a denser metro than NY even though the lived in experience of most New Yorkers is that they live in denser neighborhoods where they can walk places and people in LA tend to drive everywhere. The NYC metro has very nodal development patterns, with neighborhood density peaking around transit stops/transportation hubs/commercial districts. To a lesser extent Cleveland and Cincy are built that way too.

 

Walk Scores provide some context too:

 

Cleveland 60

Cincinnati 50

Columbus 41

 

Just looking at Downtown Walk Score:

 

Cincinnati 93

Cleveland 91

Columbus 82

 

That doesn't mean that Columbus doesn't have dense, walkable neighborhoods. Of course it does. And it's gaining more every day. It's just a historical fluke that Cleveland and Cincy developed mostly in a different time and under different conditions.

 

I'd also add that there's a term geographers use to describe the effect of how it can be very difficult to compare city populations and densities. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem

The way we calculate population density is wrong. Here’s what we should do instead.

DW Rowlands | November 27, 2017

 

"To calculate median population density, one finds the populations and population densities of neighborhood-sized chunks–Census block groups work well for this purpose–of an area, order them by population density, and find the density at which fifty percent of the population lives at a higher density and fifty percent lives at a lower density."

 

https://ggwash.org/view/65370/median-versus-average-population-density

 

 

There's a Better Way to Measure Population Density

Alasdair Rae | February 8, 2018

 

"Consider a country such as Russia, where urban density is high, but there are vast swathes of empty land. The figures will tell you density is very low (eight people per square kilometer); but this it not what most people in Russia experience in their daily lives. The same is true of Australia, Canada and other large, highly urbanised nations."

 

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-measure-population-density/552815/

The way we calculate population density is wrong. Here’s what we should do instead.

DW Rowlands | November 27, 2017

 

"To calculate median population density, one finds the populations and population densities of neighborhood-sized chunks–Census block groups work well for this purpose–of an area, order them by population density, and find the density at which fifty percent of the population lives at a higher density and fifty percent lives at a lower density."

 

https://ggwash.org/view/65370/median-versus-average-population-density

 

 

There's a Better Way to Measure Population Density

Alasdair Rae | February 8, 2018

 

"Consider a country such as Russia, where urban density is high, but there are vast swathes of empty land. The figures will tell you density is very low (eight people per square kilometer); but this it not what most people in Russia experience in their daily lives. The same is true of Australia, Canada and other large, highly urbanised nations."

 

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-measure-population-density/552815/

 

Since this may have been lost in the argument, everyone should read these articles posted by mu2010. They shine a little light on the disagreement at hand.

ANYWAY...

 

In an effort to get the conversation back on track... here were the tract densities of the photos posted earlier. 

 

Tract 7551 out by Easton- newer single-family homes and apartments: 8,814.5

Tract 330 in North Linden- mid-century bungalows mostly, no apartments: 7,615.4

Tract 1121- OSU main campus: 27,477.8

Tract 6393- single-family homes on the Delaware County border: 6,110.3

Tract 55- historic neighborhood on the South Side: 7,790.8

Tract 8132- mixed development on the western border: 7,556.5

Tract 8822- mixed development- and a huge quarry- on the far south side: 1,960.1

 

I think what this illustrates more than anything is that densities in Columbus are a lot more standard across the city from edge to edge, with both lows and highs mixed in.  It also shows that location relative to the core is less important in Columbus than what may be true in other cities, as it has higher densities even to the very edge of the city. I doubt most people would think that, and certainly not perceive it, which is a good reason to not rely on bias to make a point. 

 

Furthermore, population-weighted density was brought up before as a better measurement.  I do have them for metros, which are going to be less detailed than wanted, but it's the only thing I have at the moment.  The numbers are for 2010, so a little outdated, but... make what you will with them.  From my view, a few takeaways...

 

-Columbus is easily the most compact metro, with a lot more of its population closer to the core city than the other 2. 

-Cincinnati had the most dense CBD.

-Cleveland had the slowest decline of density moving out from the core.

 

 

So this little feud is cute, but maybe take it to personal messages.

 

Columbus has a higher population density than Cleveland and Cincinnati, yes. The on-the-ground perception of many people is that the reverse is true. Now, the question is, why is this? We can argue over lot size and the like until we're blue in the face, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. Columbus is a flat city largely (but not entirely) without the giant industrial corridors of the other C's. Sure there are airports and quarries and other areas that aren't suitable for development, but overall, Columbus is a much easier city to build in than Cincinnati. Because of this, it has a more consistent density than Cleveland and Cincinnati. This gets at the point that other posters have made about LA vs NY metro. LA's metro is more dense than New York because the land area is constrained, and there is a consistent density across basically all of developed Southern California. Even in the far out suburbs, houses are packed closely together- resulting in high densities, even if the built environment doesn't feel urban. This gets at another point- population density does not always equate to solid urbanity. Orange County, CA has a much higher population density than either Cuyahoga, Franklin, or Hamilton Counties, and it contains very few areas that anyone here would call urban.

 

So, Columbus has consistent density across its boundaries. It also almost certainly has higher rates of occupancy in its housing stock, because the city has been consistently growing for years, while Cleveland and Cincinnati went through extended periods of decline. Columbus' core also experienced dramatic decline, but it went relatively unnoticed due to the annexation the city undertook over the years. Columbus has been filling in much of its annexed land, which was mostly farmland instead of already established communities. I think these are the reasons Columbus is the densest city in Ohio, by the numbers.

 

In terms of feeling, Cincinnati developed much earlier than Columbus. It has more neighborhoods that were developed around non-automotive modes of transportation, and it has a host of built forms that Columbus simply does not. The 4-5 story tenement housing of OTR and Pendleton simply does not exist in Ohio outside of Cincinnati. Hell, that style of housing barely exists in the US outside of NYC, Boston, Philly and maybe Baltimore. The age of construction, density of the lot sizes, attached vs detached housing all contribute to the city feeling denser, in places, than Columbus. Due to the hills, flood plains, and industrial corridors, Cincinnati's density is extremely spikey, meaning you might have a very dense neighborhood built adjacent to a massive, unbuildable forested hillside. This obviously drags down Cincinnati's overall population density. Combine this with the abandonment and underutilization of several of Cincinnati's  neighborhoods that, while structurally dense, are not actually all that dense in population, and you get a city that feels larger and denser than it is. 

Columbus' vacant structures are largely in areas that wouldn't be all that dense anyway from being too new such as on the SE Side.

Columbus' vacant structures are largely in areas that wouldn't be all that dense anyway from being too new such as on the SE Side.

 

I drove the length of Cleveland Ave. last month because I had time to kill. Lots of semi-abandonment over there.  That won't be the case 10 years from now. 

 

I don't doubt that High St. is now the most consistently dense and walkable street in Ohio, for a distance of 10 miles.  There is no big golf course, cemetery, park, hill, or industrial interruption.

 

Just one example of how silly Cincinnati's layout is is the way that Spring Grove Cemetery managed to break up what could have been a transit-dense continuous neighborhood stretching for several miles in the mill creek basin.  Not hard to imagine Chase Ave. continuing to what is now called Spring Grove Village.  It would have been an ideal location for the subway to continue as an El from Knowton's Corner.  Instead, all of that space is reserved for 10,000+ dead people. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1702178,-84.5282032,3084m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Even in death, Americans must take up the most space.

So this little feud is cute, but maybe take it to personal messages.

 

Columbus has a higher population density than Cleveland and Cincinnati, yes. The on-the-ground perception of many people is that the reverse is true. Now, the question is, why is this? We can argue over lot size and the like until we're blue in the face, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. Columbus is a flat city largely (but not entirely) without the giant industrial corridors of the other C's. Sure there are airports and quarries and other areas that aren't suitable for development, but overall, Columbus is a much easier city to build in than Cincinnati. Because of this, it has a more consistent density than Cleveland and Cincinnati. This gets at the point that other posters have made about LA vs NY metro. LA's metro is more dense than New York because the land area is constrained, and there is a consistent density across basically all of developed Southern California. Even in the far out suburbs, houses are packed closely together- resulting in high densities, even if the built environment doesn't feel urban. This gets at another point- population density does not always equate to solid urbanity. Orange County, CA has a much higher population density than either Cuyahoga, Franklin, or Hamilton Counties, and it contains very few areas that anyone here would call urban.

 

So, Columbus has consistent density across its boundaries. It also almost certainly has higher rates of occupancy in its housing stock, because the city has been consistently growing for years, while Cleveland and Cincinnati went through extended periods of decline. Columbus' core also experienced dramatic decline, but it went relatively unnoticed due to the annexation the city undertook over the years. Columbus has been filling in much of its annexed land, which was mostly farmland instead of already established communities. I think these are the reasons Columbus is the densest city in Ohio, by the numbers.

 

In terms of feeling, Cincinnati developed much earlier than Columbus. It has more neighborhoods that were developed around non-automotive modes of transportation, and it has a host of built forms that Columbus simply does not. The 4-5 story tenement housing of OTR and Pendleton simply does not exist in Ohio outside of Cincinnati. Hell, that style of housing barely exists in the US outside of NYC, Boston, Philly and maybe Baltimore. The age of construction, density of the lot sizes, attached vs detached housing all contribute to the city feeling denser, in places, than Columbus. Due to the hills, flood plains, and industrial corridors, Cincinnati's density is extremely spikey, meaning you might have a very dense neighborhood built adjacent to a massive, unbuildable forested hillside. This obviously drags down Cincinnati's overall population density. Combine this with the abandonment and underutilization of several of Cincinnati's  neighborhoods that, while structurally dense, are not actually all that dense in population, and you get a city that feels larger and denser than it is.

 

I'm okay with most of what you're saying, but I think we need to differentiate between building density and population density.  Building density is probably what is causing most, if not all, of the perception issues- the "how a city feels" thing.  If you have 10,000 density in a neighborhood that has thickly-spaced, old-school tenement housing vs. 10,000 density in a neighborhood largely with single-family homes and newer apartments, the only difference is perception.  The activity on the ground would otherwise be exactly the same, right?  Beyond the commercial corridor on High, the Short North is overwhelmingly made up of single-family homes. 

 

All of the below are taken from the Short North.  All very different looks and feels.  If you didn't know where they were, would you imagine they'd all be in the same urban neighborhood?  Or would you suggest, only based on perception and building density, that the 1st and 3rd were not consistent with urbanity or density?

 

 

 

Pic 1 isn't actually in the Short North, tho. That's pure Victorian Village.

Pic 1 isn't actually in the Short North, tho. That's pure Victorian Village.

 

Victorian Village and Italian Village are both part of the Short North and have been considered so as long as I've known.  Even the signs entering the neighborhood say "Short North" on them.  It couldn't just be High Street because one side is literally in Victorian Village and the other is literally in Italian Village. 

 

If you have 10,000 density in a neighborhood that has thickly-spaced, old-school tenement housing vs. 10,000 density in a neighborhood largely with single-family homes and newer apartments, the only difference is perception.  The activity on the ground would otherwise be exactly the same, right? 

 

 

Well, yes and no. How buildings meet and interact with the street plays a huge role in the walkability and street level activity in neighborhoods. All of the examples you posted look to have solid urban development, and the biggest difference between the first pic and the other two is tree canopy.

 

Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about:

 

Here are two neighborhoods, one in San Francisco (North Beach), the other in Los Angeles (Palms). Both have population densities of just over 20,000 per square mile.

 

North Beach:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8005179,-122.4085817,3a,75y,64.72h,95.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU3wrmrRAq0_U6XK9bQEFRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

Palms:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0199717,-118.4066946,3a,75y,337.39h,93.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6F4azJ418OO5LE0cPwlZHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

 

And an Ohio example. Here is OTR and Harrison West. Both neighborhoods have about 12,000 people per square mile.

 

Harrison West:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9831668,-83.0155192,3a,75y,312.24h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE5visNSh7iMORaLXGCIHEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

OTR:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.110731,-84.5137105,3a,75y,342.01h,85.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eK2ZeTdEs4ueN5Jg50ZfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Clearly, population density is not everything when it comes to explaining how an area feels. Building density, but also building typology and setbacks all matter, too.

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

The Short North people most people think of is really only two blocks wide, if that. But all of the Short North is also either in Italian Village or Victorian Village.

Pic 1 isn't actually in the Short North, tho. That's pure Victorian Village.

 

Victorian Village and Italian Village are both part of the Short North and have been considered so as long as I've known.  Even the signs entering the neighborhood say "Short North" on them.  It couldn't just be High Street because one side is literally in Victorian Village and the other is literally in Italian Village. 

 

It's all the Short North to me. For formal/planning/governmental purposes, Short North refers just to the High Street business district, but for most people, everything between the Olentangy River, the train tracks to the east, 670, and maybe 5th Avenue is the Short North.

Pic 1 isn't actually in the Short North, tho. That's pure Victorian Village.

 

Victorian Village and Italian Village are both part of the Short North and have been considered so as long as I've known.  Even the signs entering the neighborhood say "Short North" on them.  It couldn't just be High Street because one side is literally in Victorian Village and the other is literally in Italian Village. 

 

Many people will say "Short North" when they are referring to either the Victorian Village neighborhood or the Italian Village neighborhood on either side of High Street between downtown and 5th Avenue.  Sometimes they are referring to the High Street corridor that is the densest, busiest and most-visited part of the "Short North" area.

 

The way we've ended up describing here it at Urban Ohio (in the projects threads) is as follows:

 

1) Short North - The High Street corridor between downtown and 5th Avenue that contains much of the commercial activity in the area.

2) Victorian Village - The primarily residential neighborhood west of High Street between DT & 5th

3) Italian Village - The primarily residential neighborhood east of High Street between DT & 5th

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place. 

 

Pic 1 isn't actually in the Short North, tho. That's pure Victorian Village.

 

Victorian Village and Italian Village are both part of the Short North and have been considered so as long as I've known.  Even the signs entering the neighborhood say "Short North" on them.  It couldn't just be High Street because one side is literally in Victorian Village and the other is literally in Italian Village. 

 

Many people will say "Short North" when they are referring to either the Victorian Village neighborhood or the Italian Village neighborhood on either side of High Street between downtown and 5th Avenue.  Sometimes they are referring to the High Street corridor that is the densest, busiest and most-visited part of the "Short North" area.

 

The way we've ended up describing here it at Urban Ohio (in the projects threads) is as follows:

 

1) Short North - The High Street corridor between downtown and 5th Avenue that contains much of the commercial activity in the area.

2) Victorian Village - The primarily residential neighborhood west of High Street between DT & 5th

3) Italian Village - The primarily residential neighborhood east of High Street between DT & 5th

 

The separation of development threads makes sense from that perspective just because so much is happening there, but yeah, almost everyone today that lives there would say that they live in the Short North, regardless of what side of High.

It's like a Ven diagram.

 

In Cincinnati, "Clifton" is loosely anywhere within walking distance of the University of Cincinnati, even though technically it is only the area north of Good Samaritan Hospital, most of which is beyond convenient walking distance from the campus.  The imagined borders of "Clifton" are caused by the capricious characteristics of Clifton Ave.  For example, it manages to parallel itself for one block. 

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

And speaking of density...to its credit, Columbus is generally MUCH denser than the sunbelt boom towns.  MUCH denser than Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. 

 

Scroll around Atlanta's MARTA stations and prepare to be shocked by just how low-density so much of Atlanta is, 40 years after the system was built, and about 40 years after Atlanta's growth really started to take off.  The metro has more than doubled in population since MARTA was built, and zoning keeps these low-density neighborhoods served by a rapid transit system from being razed and rebuilt as TOD apartments. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Atlanta,+GA/@33.77264,-84.4301303,1272m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88f5045d6993098d:0x66fede2f990b630b!8m2!3d33.7489954!4d-84.3879824

And speaking of density...to its credit, Columbus is generally MUCH denser than the sunbelt boom towns.  MUCH denser than Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, etc. 

 

Scroll around Atlanta's MARTA stations and prepare to be shocked by just how low-density so much of Atlanta is, 40 years after the system was built, and about 40 years after Atlanta's growth really started to take off.  The metro has more than doubled in population since MARTA was built, and zoning keeps these low-density neighborhoods served by a rapid transit system from being razed and rebuilt as TOD apartments. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Atlanta,+GA/@33.77264,-84.4301303,1272m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88f5045d6993098d:0x66fede2f990b630b!8m2!3d33.7489954!4d-84.3879824

 

Nashville has extremely low density when compared to Columbus. I'm sure some of that has to do with the topography, but the overall density of the metro area and of Davidson County is very low. The density of both is less than half of what Columbus and Franklin county is. Now, if you did the whole density at X miles from downtown, the numbers probably even out a bit until you get a bit further from the core where Columbus probably maintains its density and Nashville drops off.

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

 

 

Back in 1983 they were calling the part of the Short North south of Buttles "SoButt". It didn't stick.

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

 

 

Back in 1983 they were calling the part of the Short North south of Buttles "SoButt". It didn't stick.

It did not stick- Fortunately. ;)

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

Actually it seems everyone has said a different thing.  The people that actually live there know where they live, they put in on their neighborhood signs, its on their websites... but what do they know.

Nashville has extremely low density when compared to Columbus. I'm sure some of that has to do with the topography, but the overall density of the metro area and of Davidson County is very low.

 

The lot sizes were gigantic from the beginning.  40x150 lots just across the river from downtown.  So triple the size of a Cincinnati lot. 

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nashville,+TN/@36.1710368,-86.7599086,1004m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8864ec3213eb903d:0x7d3fb9d0a1e9daa0!8m2!3d36.1626638!4d-86.7816016

 

It made the place unwalkable and unstreetcarable from the beginning.  Almost nobody lives within walking distance of the main suburban avenues, hence no bus ridership today. 

 

The 10~ year-old form-based code is allowing new construction at "Ohio" density:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nashville,+TN/@36.2010469,-86.744014,133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8864ec3213eb903d:0x7d3fb9d0a1e9daa0!8m2!3d36.1626638!4d-86.7816016

 

It's like a Ven diagram.

 

In Cincinnati, "Clifton" is loosely anywhere within walking distance of the University of Cincinnati, even though technically it is only the area north of Good Samaritan Hospital, most of which is beyond convenient walking distance from the campus.  The imagined borders of "Clifton" are caused by the capricious characteristics of Clifton Ave.  For example, it manages to parallel itself for one block. 

 

For that portion where there are two Clifton Avenue's parallel to one another, the one that's on the west side is just signed as "Clifton Avenue" and the one that's east of that is "West Clifton Avenue." That had me confused once - if you didn't know any better, you'd be scratching your had as to why West Clifton Avenue was east of Clifton Avenue. The inconsistent signage like that seems to be the norm for any street outside of the basin, though - the West/East seems to be included on signs randomly. 

 

Also, the West/East divider is Vine Street, but for some reason last year about half way up the hill on Clifton west of Vine (right by the old incline pier), the city put up giant street signs that say "Begin West Clifton," even though it should have began back at Vine. Someone made an active decision to put those signs there recently and I'm not sure what the point was.

For that portion where there are two Clifton Avenue's parallel to one another, the one that's on the west side is just signed as "Clifton Avenue" and the one that's east of that is "West Clifton Avenue." That had me confused once - if you didn't know any better, you'd be scratching your had as to why West Clifton Avenue was east of Clifton Avenue. The inconsistent signage like that seems to be the norm for any street outside of the basin, though - the West/East seems to be included on signs randomly. 

 

Also, the West/East divider is Vine Street, but for some reason last year about half way up the hill on Clifton west of Vine (right by the old incline pier), the city put up giant street signs that say "Begin West Clifton," even though it should have began back at Vine. Someone made an active decision to put those signs there recently and I'm not sure what the point was.

 

Until I moved back 11~ years ago I thought it was all Clifton Ave., except I knew that there was an E. Clifton.  I'm a bit surprised that at no point in the city's history did we see a proposal to smash through the block where Clifton Heights Tavern is and connect Clifton to W. Clifton.  That sort of proposal did actually appear in the 1930s to connect Race St. with Vine St. by smashing through the "Robert A's Curve" near Mulburry and then tunneling for 100~ feet under W. Clifton near lower Ohio.  That would have helped take a lot of traffic out of the crazy 5-way intersection at the bottom of the hill. 

 

 

 

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

Actually it seems everyone has said a different thing.  The people that actually live there know where they live, they put in on their neighborhood signs, its on their websites... but what do they know.

 

No, nothing said has been inconsistent. It is a Venn diagram, like jmecklenborg pointed out. Short North is the mixed-use area along High Street, extending one block in each direction. Victorian and Italian Villages are residential neighborhoods to the west and east of High, but they overlap with the Short North area. Now that Short North is trendy it's popular for people to use that term for a much larger area, but it hasn't been traditionally used that way. For example, I have a friend that lives in The Circles. He tells people Short North because they know it and they don't know what The Circles is half the time. The Circles are traditionally not part of the Short North since they are north of 5th. The civic association and block watch groups for all these nearby neighborhoods call themselves Short North because it's popular, that's all.

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

Actually it seems everyone has said a different thing.  The people that actually live there know where they live, they put in on their neighborhood signs, its on their websites... but what do they know.

 

No, nothing said has been inconsistent. It is a Venn diagram, like jmecklenborg pointed out. Short North is the mixed-use area along High Street, extending one block in each direction. Victorian and Italian Villages are residential neighborhoods to the west and east of High, but they overlap with the Short North area. Now that Short North is trendy it's popular for people to use that term for a much larger area, but it hasn't been traditionally used that way. For example, I have a friend that lives in The Circles. He tells people Short North because they know it and they don't know what The Circles is half the time. The Circles are traditionally not part of the Short North since they are north of 5th. The civic association and block watch groups for all these nearby neighborhoods call themselves Short North because it's popular, that's all.

 

How can a neighborhood overlap with another, but not be part of it again?  That just seems like semantics to me. Perhaps the definition of what makes up the Short North is not the same as it once was, but it's always been more than just High Street.  There's never been an imaginary line that separated parts of the Villages away from the other parts. That's pretty much the last I'm going to debate this, as it seems the only thing we're going to agree on is that 5th has always been the northern extent. 

It's a Ven diagram and a Mobius Strip, all at once. 

Sounds like Columbus needs to take a page from the Cincy playbook and use the "Short North Near" moniker.  (I don't know if it's still the case, but when I first got to Cincy the number of apartment listings in Oakley, Norwood, Madisonville, O'Bryonville, etc. that were "Hyde Park NR" was astounding.)

Many rentals in Columbus are still on the "sign in yard/out front system". It's brutal for people who only look at internet and classifieds.

^That's amazing in this day and age.  Whatever works, I guess.

Many rentals in Columbus are still on the "sign in yard/out front system". It's brutal for people who only look at internet and classifieds.

 

I use the "used to play drums in the former tenant's last band" method. 

 

Many rentals in Columbus are still on the "sign in yard/out front system". It's brutal for people who only look at internet and classifieds.

 

Still like that in Cleveland too.  Lots of small-time older landlords.

Pic 3 isn't either. That's Italian Village. So three pics of three different neighborhoods. Though neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary so I'm not sure the point.

 

So you guys are telling me the 2 main neighborhoods making up the Short North... are not in the Short North?  K.  There are these signs all over the area.  I could only find a picture of this one, but I know they exist in Italian Village also.  I also think that even Harrison West and The Circles also have signs like this that say "Short North" on them.  Again, the High Street corridor may be thought of as the heart of the Short North, and it is, but that's not all of it.  It was originally the entire area just north of Downtown south of 5th, several blocks on either side of High.  Italian Village is the east side of High, Victorian Village on the west side.  Why do you guys think that both neighborhoods have development commissions that have a direct say in development along High Street?  Even the Short North Block Watch includes 6 different areas- High Street, Vic Village, Italian Village, The Circles, Harrison West and Dennison Place.

 

Yea, others have addressed this already but parts of Victorian Village and Italian Village are in the Short North, which was an informal term originally used disparagingly to refer to the stretch of High Street just north of downtown. Go to Google Maps and type in all three and it'll show you the boundaries. But you're right that many people use the term to refer to different things. That's why I stated that neighborhood boundaries are semi-arbitrary anyway.

 

Actually it seems everyone has said a different thing.  The people that actually live there know where they live, they put in on their neighborhood signs, its on their websites... but what do they know.

 

No, nothing said has been inconsistent. It is a Venn diagram, like jmecklenborg pointed out. Short North is the mixed-use area along High Street, extending one block in each direction. Victorian and Italian Villages are residential neighborhoods to the west and east of High, but they overlap with the Short North area. Now that Short North is trendy it's popular for people to use that term for a much larger area, but it hasn't been traditionally used that way. For example, I have a friend that lives in The Circles. He tells people Short North because they know it and they don't know what The Circles is half the time. The Circles are traditionally not part of the Short North since they are north of 5th. The civic association and block watch groups for all these nearby neighborhoods call themselves Short North because it's popular, that's all.

 

How can a neighborhood overlap with another, but not be part of it again?  That just seems like semantics to me. Perhaps the definition of what makes up the Short North is not the same as it once was, but it's always been more than just High Street.  There's never been an imaginary line that separated parts of the Villages away from the other parts. That's pretty much the last I'm going to debate this, as it seems the only thing we're going to agree on is that 5th has always been the northern extent.

 

I guess the best way to think about it is that Short North is the name for the main business district that serves as the border for both neighborhoods. I don't think that's difficult to understand?

 

And when the name Short North became trendy people started applying it to more than just the business district. Maybe in 50 years it'll all be called the Short North and we won't use the names Victorian and Italian Village at all, but I hope not.

In common usage and in my mind, the Victorian Village, Italian Village, Harrison West, etc, are all subsections of the Short North "area." In official city maps and planning documents, they're separate neighborhoods. The "subsection" names all predate the term "Short North" which is a relatively recent thing, but cities evolve and change.

 

If the "Short North" is really just High Street, we already have a name for that: High Street.

 

To me the idea that a residential neighborhood is somehow a different neighborhood than its main, adjacent business street is a strange concept, and it doesn't really exist in any other city I've been to. So I wouldn't have drawn the maps like that. I certainly would not want the old neighborhood names to be lost - but I don't think that's happening at all.

It's not really that uncommon. "Hingetown" in Cleveland is ostensibly still part of Ohio City but is really just a transition area between OC and Detroit-Shoreway. My sub-neighborhood, Wright-Dunbar, technically also spans two neighborhoods, with the area north of West Third Street being a part of Wolf Creek and the area south of West Third being a part of Five Points.

Overlapping and fuzzy neighborhood names are common, but the idea of having a bunch of houses on side streets being one neighborhood, and then the main street being "another neighborhood" is a bit unique in my observation.

In common usage and in my mind, the Victorian Village, Italian Village, Harrison West, etc, are all subsections of the Short North "area." In official city maps and planning documents, they're separate neighborhoods. The "subsection" names all predate the term "Short North" which is a relatively recent thing, but cities evolve and change.

 

If the "Short North" is really just High Street, we already have a name for that: High Street.

 

To me the idea that a residential neighborhood is somehow a different neighborhood than its main, adjacent business street is a strange concept, and it doesn't really exist in any other city I've been to. So I wouldn't have drawn the maps like that. I certainly would not want the old neighborhood names to be lost - but I don't think that's happening at all.

 

It's not strange at all. It exists in many places. Broadway is both a street in NYC that is very long and a place in NYC that refers to a short stretch of that street that runs through Midtown. Short Vine in Cincinnati is in Corryville and refers to a short section of Vine Street (only recently officially renamed Short Vine). Avenue of the Arts is a district in Philly that refers to the stretch of Broad Street south of City Hall that serves as the border of Rittenhouse and Wash West. Wall Street. The Miracle Mile in Chicago.

Overlapping and fuzzy neighborhood names are common, but the idea of having a bunch of houses on side streets being one neighborhood, and then the main street being "another neighborhood" is a bit unique in my observation.

 

Again, it's not another neighborhood. It's a Venn Diagram. The east side of High Street is in the Italian Village but is also part of the Short North.

Think of the Short North as a shopping mall within Victorian and Italian Villages.

I was thinking of the best example I could in Cincinnati and I came up with O'Bryonsville.  I don't know if it's an official neighborhood or not, is it considered part of Evanston?  For some reason I thought it was it's own hood but if that is the case it is really only the small commercial strip.