In today's issue of the Columbus Dispatch, I saw part of the series about saving Ohio cities and a light bulb went off: what if the cities worked together for a common goal (making the state a more viable place) instead of trying to outdo each other?  Of course mayors are humans and everybody wants to have the biggest, coolest city, so I understand it's an idealist thought. However, Ohio is a pretty diverse state in terms of the types of people and the land ([PD's Five Ohios thing comes to my head- http://www.cleveland.com/fiveohios/wide/index.ssf?/fiveohios/charts/0704a.html ). So, I'm wondering in your ideal Ohio, where the economy is going well and everything is dandy, how would the seven major Ohio cities (or whatever the number is) contribute by using their respective strengths?

It might also be an opportunity for Ohio's core cities to unite to advance their agenda in the Ohio General Assembly and at the Governor's office. We've seen the documentation how every mother city of every large Ohio metro area facing poverty rates in excess of 20 percent. They already have a common agenda. They all have very similar problems (I believe that's evidence that state policies are stacked against them). Some big city officials may say they have a common voice in the Ohio Municipal League, but I don't think that's true. There are too many differing voices in that organization which speak against what the mother cities want. They need their own voice and a shared agenda.

Just to clarify you are talking about Columbus and Cleveland and etc., working together better?

 

and not Columbus and Dublin working together better?

I would imagine the best and most visible project to cooperate on would be the first line of the ohio hub (cin-day-col-cle) the combined metro populations would be (1.7 1 1.7 2.1) over half of the population of the state

Just to clarify you are talking about Columbus and Cleveland and etc., working together better?

 

and not Columbus and Dublin working together better?

 

Columbus and Cleveland.

 

I guess kind of like regionalism on steroids.

 

 

Good idea, but there are plenty of people living in urban places that aren't very aware of what is great about urbanism and what needs to be done to improve their cities. Case in point: go to any liberal/urban neighborhood in Columbus and look at how everyone gets around by car, few by bike, even though just about everything worth going to is easily reached by bike. The exception would be OSU, where students are too scared to ride in the road because; OSU hasn't put in enough bike racks, hasn't fixed the horrendous section of the separate bike trail going by there, and refuses to spend any money on making roads safe for cyclists with stenciling or signage. To be fair, some of them are just a-holes and probably better off not pissing off motorists. Anyway, we need to have a more widespread appreciation of urbanism and then we will have a formidable grassroots base who understand the issues we're discussing here.

i'd wish they could all get together better on stuff like transportation, like for the ohio hub.

 

also, for land use. a stagnant population combined with unfettered suburbanization around the core cities is slowly wrecking the state.

i'd wish they could all get together better on stuff like transportation, like for the ohio hub.

 

also, for land use. a stagnant population combined with unfettered suburbanization around the core cities is slowly wrecking the state.

 

Its like we are saying, lets see just how thin we can spread our cities! (re: stagnant population & sprawl)

i'd wish they could all get together better on stuff like transportation, like for the ohio hub.

 

also, for land use. a stagnant population combined with unfettered suburbanization around the core cities is slowly wrecking the state.

 

Its like we are saying, lets see just how thin we can spread our cities! (re: stagnant population & sprawl)

 

it funny to live away and to come home periodically. the latest thin spread reeeaaallllly stands out. "ooh look a new strip mall." stuff like that.

 

ugh.

 

next visit i'll have to make sure to look in on the progress of "the avenue," "battery park," etc., maybe seeing those could help ease my avon farmland tract housing pains.

 

Just to clarify you are talking about Columbus and Cleveland and etc., working together better?

 

and not Columbus and Dublin working together better?

 

Yes, get the Big Eight (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Canton, Youngstown) working together. The coalition could be larger by including other core cities like Hamilton, Lima, Lorain, Middletown, Steubenville and others which are facing a similar lack of public-sector investment while the areas immediately surrounding them are receiving tax-supported investment.

Here's the full story from the Dispatch.

 

On the brink

Can Ohio's big cities be saved?

Sunday, December 2, 2007 3:47 AM

By Mark Niquette, Alan Johnson and Joe Hallett

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Except for Columbus, Ohio's big cities have endured vast population and job losses, but now city leaders realize the glory days aren't coming back.

 

A key reason the plight of Ohio's major cities can't be ignored: Their problems will continue to spread to the suburbs and beyond.

 

Cities are adopting unique strategies to reverse years of decline, but they remain hindered by crime and poor-performing school districts.

 

Read More...

 

******************************************

 

Legislature has let cities down, mayors say

Sunday, December 2, 2007 3:40 AM

By Joe Hallett, Mark Niquette and Alan Johnson

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Much of the blame for Ohio's mortgage-foreclosure crisis goes to the Ohio General Assembly, says Cuyahoga County Treasurer Jim Rokakis.

 

His county had about 7,000 foreclosures in 2000. Six years later, the number had skyrocketed to 13,000. This year, residents of Cuyahoga County will lose about 17,000 homes.

 

The shattering of so many dreams didn't have to happen, Rokakis said. Cleveland, like Dayton and Cincinnati, had passed tough ordinances to rein in predatory lenders. But in 2002, the Republican-controlled legislature passed, and GOP Gov. Bob Taft signed, a law wiping out the local ordinances.

 

Read More...

Here's the full story from the Dispatch.

 

http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/02/CITYFATE.ART_ART_12-02-07_A1_UF8K98V.html?sid=101

 

******************************************

 

Legislature has let cities down, mayors say

Sunday,  December 2, 2007 3:40 AM

By Joe Hallett, Mark Niquette and Alan Johnson

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

 

In 1967, about the time that decline began to accelerate in most of the cities, Ohioans passed a constitutional amendment requiring legislative districts of approximately equal population, creating a 99-member House and 33-member Senate. As a result, the ranks of representatives from big cities, predominantly Democrats, swelled and cities held sway at the Statehouse through most of the 1970s and '80s.

 

But after Republicans took control of the apportionment process in 1991, new legislative lines reflecting population shifts expanded the ranks of suburban and exurban lawmakers, mostly Republicans. A growing number of them cut their teeth in township and smaller municipal governments and had little natural allegiance to big cities, nor an understanding of their problems.

 

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/02/CITYPOL.ART_ART_12-02-07_A13_KJ8KN0K.html

 

The problem isn't really one of the 90s and 00s but rather of the 70s and 80s. Things haven't gotten better but the die was cast forty years ago. The problem was that those Dems were incapable of holding off the decline and thus and therefore.

Part #2

 

On the brink: Cleveland

Pockets of rebirth amid ocean of poverty

Monday, December 3, 2007 3:13 AM

By Joe Hallett

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

CLEVELAND -- Something abnormal is happening in Hough, the east side neighborhood that for decades symbolized urban decay: $400,000 homes are popping up, and young professionals are moving into town houses.

 

On the other side of downtown near the historic Ohio City neighborhood, abandoned houses in an area dubbed "drug alley" are being demolished and replaced by $100,000-plus condos.

 

Nearby, in the Detroit Shoreway Community, new $300,000 condos overlook Lake Erie, and an arts and entertainment district, with affordable lofts for struggling artists, is emerging around Battery Park and 76th Street.

 

Read More...

Two thoughts:

 

(1) Our state needs, and won't get, very tough land use legislation like Oregon has to halt the rapid spread of population to areas farther away from the city core.  Legislation like this could protect both our farmland and cities.  The only losers, really, would be developers who pave over places like Delaware County, in search of their next strip mall.

 

(2) Why can't we as a state be as vigilant as NYC has been about crime?  Twenty years ago, people feared being in parts of "the City."  Now, it's an urban paradise, and one of the safest large cities in the world.  How do cities like Cleveland and Youngstown rid themselves of the street gangs that have taken over neighborhoods (e.g., Slavic Village in Cleveland, the southside of Youngstown)?

^^ I'm surprised that Clevelanders haven't commented on that Dispatch article.

I actually think it's a pretty spot on article.  The Hough lead-in is pretty out of date though.  The "Hough McMansion" phenomenon is pretty well over, it hit it's stride in the mid to late 90's.  Sure a few are being built, but it has really tapered off.  I guess the market for people looking to live the Solon lifestyle in the middle of the city wasn't that deep afterall.

i love how the article says "except columbus" a couple of times when referring to inner city troubles.  Thats pretty dangerous though, as the only reason Columbus's population hasnt shrunk is because of annexation.  The annexation and thus population growth has masked their inner city exodus just like the other ohio cities.  And even the Dispatch has fallen for this and basically claims in this article that everything is a-ok in C-Bus inner city.

Columbus' inner city is still much better off than the other major cities in Ohio, if you look at the demographics on socialexplorer (which is kinda outdated now; it'll be interesting to see the same maps in 2010).

X, I haven't seen any new "Hough McMansions" lately either. I must say that the Dispatch article is more positive than anything the Plain Dealer has put out about Cleveland...

 

i love how the article says "except columbus" a couple of times when referring to inner city troubles.  Thats pretty dangerous though, as the only reason Columbus's population hasnt shrunk is because of annexation.  The annexation and thus population growth has masked their inner city exodus just like the other ohio cities.  And even the Dispatch has fallen for this and basically claims in this article that everything is a-ok in C-Bus inner city.

 

I've been confused ever since I arrived in Columbus for school: Which parts are actually the inner city? I've searched for neighborhood maps but all I can find is the one of the areas in downtown and immediately surrounding downtown like Short North. Is it that Columbus completely annexed suburbs and now they have Columbus' school system, mayor, etc.? Or do separate suburbs like Dublin, Bexley, and Whitehall share city services and therefore the city has decided to add these suburbanites to the city's overall population?

 

X, I haven't seen any new "Hough McMansions" lately either. I must say that the Dispatch article is more positive than anything the Plain Dealer has put out about Cleveland...

 

i love how the article says "except columbus" a couple of times when referring to inner city troubles.  Thats pretty dangerous though, as the only reason Columbus's population hasnt shrunk is because of annexation.  The annexation and thus population growth has masked their inner city exodus just like the other ohio cities.  And even the Dispatch has fallen for this and basically claims in this article that everything is a-ok in C-Bus inner city.

 

I've been confused ever since I arrived in Columbus for school: Which parts are actually the inner city? I've searched for neighborhood maps but all I can find is the one of the areas in downtown and immediately surrounding downtown like Short North. Is it that Columbus completely annexed suburbs and now they have Columbus' school system, mayor, etc.? Or do separate suburbs like Dublin, Bexley, and Whitehall share city services and therefore the city has decided to add these suburbanites to the city's overall population?

 

 

I dont know, I am sure you can find a map of the city school district somewhere.  But I do know that a lot of land Columbus has annexed still serves suburban school districts.  I have a friend who technically lives inside the city of Columbus but went to Dublin Scioto.  Because the area was apart of the Dublin schools before it was annexed, it stayed that way.  This is the case in a lot of the newly annexed areas of Columbus. 

In this map,(may be a little outdated) the orange Highlights the Columbus City Limits, all 222 miles of them.

 

 

I included this map of the Cleveland area to show how big Cleveland would be if it were 222 miles and had annexed some 'burbs and would have retained more wealth and wouldn't look so bad in all the national demographic data.

 

 

 

Cleveland and suburbs: Blue border.

 

Area of 221.2 square miles, population 985,260 (Based on 2000 census)

 

 

 

^Sweet, strange graphic.  I think everyone is stunned.  Too bad the Dispatch wouldn't include something like that. 

 

 

I also thought the Columbus Dispatch article on Cleveland was pretty fair.

 

And that map of Greater Cleveland by Mov2Ohio was pretty interesting. Think of it: if Cleveland annexed land as the metro area sprawled, Cleveland might have more population now than at any time in its history and might have more resources to redevelop its older areas and combat blight. Too bad Cleveland's leaders were asleep at the switch from the 1920s to well into the 1980s.

one thing that would be interesting would be a law allowing a jurisdiction to be able to automatically annex anywhere it provides water/sewer services

one thing that would be interesting would be a law allowing a jurisdiction to be able to automatically annex anywhere it provides water/sewer services

 

That would; and I wonder if it would encourage them to push for an increase in density since the municipality doing the annexing is probably aware of the burden inherent with low density development. Of course large cities would be more likely to do that, as they're more dense, but i'm not aware of whether or not its more common for cities to do it compared to townships, etc

On the brink: Dayton

City of invention seeks to dream up a future

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 3:08 AM

By Alan Johnson

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

DAYTON -- The west side of Dayton, where the Wright brothers dreamed of flight and Paul Laurence Dunbar gave wings to poetry, was gradually taken over by drug dealers, prostitutes and decay.

 

People who didn't live there didn't go there unless they wanted drugs or short-term companionship.

 

Then things changed.

 

Read More...

That article is incorrect about the 1970s being a boom time, as industrial decline was happening, in the city, as early as the 1960s, and the first big plant shutdown, NCR, was in the early 1970s.

 

I did like that statistical sidebar, as it has data going back pretty far, showing some historical trends, like wages. 

Damn, that is a lot of good info, check it out:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/04/daytongraphic.html

 

On the brink: Akron

Transitioning from rubber to polymers buoys economy

Wednesday, December 5, 2007 3:12 AM

By Mark Niquette

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

AKRON -- Chrissie Hynde returned to her hometown in the early 1980s after being away for a decade, stood in the middle of downtown, and cried.

 

My City was Gone was the name of the 1983 song that Hynde, leader of the rock group the Pretenders, wrote about that day.

 

I went back to Ohio

 

But my city was gone

 

There was no train station

 

There was no downtown. …

 

A, O, way to go Ohio

 

Read More...

I think the Dispatch has done a good job with this. Youngstown & Cincy to come should be interesting.

On the brink: Toledo

Leaders say manufacturing remains the answer for city

Thursday, December 6, 2007 3:35 AM

By Joe Hallett

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

TOLEDO -- Ever since militias from Ohio and Michigan gathered for "The Toledo War" in 1835, this city has led a tempestuous existence, at one moment a triumphant beneficiary of economic trends, at the next their guileless victim.

 

From the 1934 deadly confrontation between Ohio National Guard troops and workers trying to unionize the Auto-Lite plant, to the glory of the 1940s when Toledo stocked America's war effort with 300,000 Jeeps, this city has hitched itself to organized labor and struggled against an uncertain future.

 

It can change in a day, as it did Oct. 30 for 750 Chrysler workers who lost their $28-an-hour jobs. Just the day before, Bruce Baumhower, the dynamic president of United Auto Workers Local 12, oozed pride and optimism as he led a tour of the 400-acre Chrysler manufacturing facility forged from a labor pact in 2001 that overnight rewrote Toledo's image as a militant union town.

 

Read More...

Other than the fact that it is flat and cold, Toledo is a pretty cool town. I was around when the Toledo Hearts Jeep push was on. Carty is special. I hope it works out for them.

""There's always been that worry with the auto industry. You just don't know if it's going to be here or not."

 

I'd say that's for manufacturing in general - and it's precisely why my parents insisted that my brother and I would go to college.

I'm a bit suprised that Toldeo sees its future in manufacturing.  Dayton was going to do that with the tool and die industry and the "Tool Town/Tool Valley Iniative", but dropped all that and is now pushing defense R&D contracting as the new economic dev. strategy.

 

 

Of all the second tier (Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Youngstown), so far Akron is the most impressive as a place that is making the transition to a post industrial economy.  When one thinks about it Akron was with rubber what Youngstown was with steel....really dominated by one industry, or so it seems at first glance.

 

I'd say that's for manufacturing in general - and it's precisely why my parents insisted that my brother and I would go to college.

 

For me it was my grandfather doing most of the insisting, and it was more due to upward mobility via education into professional work, rather than no future in the factories. 

 

It was quite a shock moving to Kentucky and going to school with people not looking at or motivated to upward mobility via education.

 

 

 

 

 

Dayton has the ability to access the Wright-Pat complex in a Toledo just doesn't.

OH I have so many things to say.

 

Yes columbus did annex based upon water service.  Almost everyone in the C-bus metro drinks Columbus water.  As growing townships need water columbus would provide and then annex.

 

This is how Columbus grew.  And columbus DID NOT annex developed suburbs.

 

Columbus DID annex growing townships and develop them in the "Columbus way."

 

If Columbus hadn't annexed these townships then there would be lots of ranches where there is now mixed use development (retail, MASSIVE offices JOBSJOBSJOBS, and houses/apartments/condos)

 

The fact is that the CBUS metro is larger and has more jobs than ever, and more than I am sure anyone in the 50s could have imagined.  Columbus' metro growth was huge from the 70s and on.  Maybe, initially, when Columbus first started to annex the cities population decline was masked by the annexation.  However, now enough jobs have been created, infill developed that the metro growth is even greater than the cities growth.

 

If columbus was in the "masking decline" by annexation, the metro would be shrinking while the city was gaining.  Instead the metro and city are both growing.

 

AND Columbus' city schools follows the cities traditional boundaries.  Most of the "newer" areas go to suburban schools.

 

This is from a 1985 occurence....

 

In 1985 the city of Columbus school district wanted to continue to have the students that would soon live in many of the developing and growing areas that were annexed by Columbus. The suburbs, though, would have had these students if they had remained townships and were not annexed.

 

Thus an agreement was reached in 85. Columbus said that ANY area that was soon to be developed and annexed BEFORE 1985 would go to the suburban district that it would have gone to had it remained a township.

 

Anything annexed AFTER 1985, once developed, would go to COLUMBUS.

 

THUS< my parents moved us to Worthington for our schooling in the 1980s. There was one high school, two middle schools, and maybe 4 elementary schools (at the most)

 

Fast forward to the 90s, you have a new high school, the number of middle schools has doubled, and the number of elementary schools tripled. How you ask? Well, all of that farmland that was surrounding Worthington was developed by Columbus, but it was annexed before 1985 so it went to Worthington schools.

 

 

Now you ask, what about those areas of Columbus annexed after 1985? Well those have just started to develop now. Thus, you literally have pockets of areas OUTSIDE of the suburbs that are busing students into Columbus schools.

 

Therefore, if you look at the map of the city limits above, those "yellow columbus boundaries" way out there beyond a suburb are now busing kids into the innercity columbus schools.

 

The government functioning of Columbus is its own animal. 

I think the masking decline by annexation is referring to the original 55 square miles of Columbus that has been declining in population. If Columbus had stayed 55 square miles its population would be smaller as well.

 

There are also plenty of suburban ranch style homes throughout the fringes of Columbus. Easton is mixed use, but what is it surrounded by?

This is how Columbus grew.  And columbus DID NOT annex developed suburbs.

 

Columbus DID annex growing townships and develop them in the "Columbus way."

 

This isnt entirely true.  I remember seeing many stories on the news about how a new development was going in in some random township and after that, Columbus annexed.  So C-Bus annexed after they knew it was being developed, it didnt just get developed because it was in C-Bus.  And I dont know what the Columbus way is, but if its anything like the area my friend lives in, then C-Bus's way is VERY suburban. 

 

If columbus was in the "masking decline" by annexation, the metro would be shrinking while the city was gaining.  Instead the metro and city are both growing.

 

No, what has been said is that Columbus's urban areas are losing population but because they have annexed suburban areas, the city continues to grow.  That doesnt mean the metro would be shrinking at all.  These people moving into these suburban areas in the city arent the only people moving around.  The suburbs are also growing.  But the urban area of C-Bus is getting smaller. 

I have always found Columbus to be surprisingly suburban.  There's a good core of urbanity in downtown, short north, victorian village, german village, and some points over towards the air port, but the rest seems very suburban.  I couldn't believe it when I went to an OSU football game we parked next to a farm! Yes, I know its part of the agriculture campus, but still surprising when compared to the south side of campus that is very urban.  Also, just past downtown, the city turns into what you would see a good 15 miles outside of Cincy and probably Cleveland too.

well, all campus is certainly urban, but it is weird to drive east on lane and see a farm on your left and downtown on your right. 

yeah in the columbus marathon, you get into a very suburban section in the second leg of the race, so it couldn't be more than six and a half miles out of the city, probably less. 

It is kinda cool to see cows with the skyline of columbus behind them

On the brink

Cincinnati battling both perception and reality

Friday, December 7, 2007 3:11 AM

By Alan Johnson

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

CINCINNATI -- More than most cities, Cincinnati has an image problem.

 

High-profile fights with porn peddler Larry Flynt and controversial photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and racially charged remarks by former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott helped shape the city's reputation as an uptight, conservative, old-money town.

 

A 2003 race riot that flared in Over-the-Rhine, the city's downtrodden signature neighborhood, dug the image hole deeper.

 

Read More...

"The numbers don't lie: Cincinnati is one of the fastest-shrinking cities in the nation, losing about 1 percent of its population each year. Jobs have been fleeing to the suburbs and across the Ohio River to Kentucky as well.

 

After he took office in 2005, one of the first things Mallory did was to challenge U.S. Census Bureau figures; the census folks added 22,000 back to the city's population."

 

so the numbers did lie?

And last I checked those riots were all the back in 2001 rather than 2003. This seemed the weakest of the articles in the series. It doesn't have a particularly strong narrative and doesn't seem to reveal much about the city.

and rookwood pottery was in Corryville not clifton

I'm curious to see the Youngstown article.  Did we miss it?

 

 

 

 

I have always found Columbus to be surprisingly suburban.  There's a good core of urbanity in downtown, short north, victorian village, german village, and some points over towards the air port, but the rest seems very suburban.  I couldn't believe it when I went to an OSU football game we parked next to a farm! Yes, I know its part of the agriculture campus, but still surprising when compared to the south side of campus that is very urban.  Also, just past downtown, the city turns into what you would see a good 15 miles outside of Cincy and probably Cleveland too.

 

Keep in mind, west campus was Clinton Township/Upper Arlington, not Columbus.  But I generally agree that since Columbus' 55 square mile core is surrounded by post-WWII stuff, it seems/feels more "suburban" than the other two C's.

I'm curious to see the Youngstown article.  Did we miss it?

 

It is an 8 part series and Canton & Youngstown are left. So Saturday or Sunday.

The farms that are on "west OSU campus" are owned by Ohio state for their farming programs.

 

If columbus owned this land, trust me, it would have been developed into something.  Columbus leaves no piece of land untouched.  They reap the economic worth of the land.  Now there are city parks. 

 

I think its kind of cool to see that piece of Ohio State looking the way the rest of the "outskirts" now the "city" would have looked in the 50s or 60s, before all of the development.

This isnt entirely true.  I remember seeing many stories on the news about how a new development was going in in some random township and after that, Columbus annexed.  So C-Bus annexed after they knew it was being developed, it didnt just get developed because it was in C-Bus.  And I dont know what the Columbus way is, but if its anything like the area my friend lives in, then C-Bus's way is VERY suburban. 

 

Actually, yes it is suburban (the annexed development) but no space is not developed.  Columbus would throw as much "tax making" development into the mix as possible.  Office space everywhere was a major part of the suburban areas that columbus developed.  And as much retail space as possible, this is why almost every section of columbus (that was developed post WWII) has about 3 retail strips.  Most suburbs or townships would have had regulations against that level of bigbox/strip mall retail and massive office parks.

 

The annexed areas of Colubumbus focus on office space helped to grow the metro economy.  If these areas were left unannexed there would be lots of "bedroom communities." 

 

Also, even though a lot of this development involved retail strip malls and parking lots and office parks, since columbus does control the land, and as the city is moving toward more progressive development standards, the city (a few years from now) could easily adapt the suburban retail corridors to have towers, or multi-use buildings. Atleast the city will be able to transform these areas to adapt them with one focus and goal.  Imagine if a dozen suburbs controlled this suburban land, then it would be much harder to get them to adapt to progressive building and unite.

 

Regarding which comes first the annexation or the development, usually there was a plan for development then Columbus would annex to allow that development to occur. 

 

However, that development would, usually, be small in size compared to the area that was being annexed.  There was woods or farms surrounding the rest and then Columbus would use their policies to develop the rest.  Yes, most of the annexed areas developed from the 60s and on are suburban in nature, but it is very middle class/dense suburban development, with a lot of mixed use (even if seperated) that created A LOT of jobs.