Taken from the poverty thread. Take a long hard look at this. In terms of 1950 city limit population loss, Dayton has by far lost the most. It's estimated anywhere from 60-65% of Dayton's core 25 square miles was lost between 1950-2000. Also notice how from 1950-1970, Dayton increased its land area by 35% but still managed to lose a little population. Even I was shocked by that one.

 

This shows the real picture of population loss in Ohio since you can see that our cities annexed well after 1950, even Cleveland and Cincinnati managed to add a few square miles since then.

 

Columbus has lost a lot of population too from its 1950 city limits, about the same amount Toledo has lost. You can map out the 1950 city limits to see what the population is just in select census blocks and zip codes. Generally speaking, the 1950 city limits are the "old city" (meaning the highest density urban area).

 

I did a mapping for Toledo and came up with about 205,000 people left today in the 1950 city limits. That's in 38 square miles. I encourage others to do the same for their cities. Columbus is an easy one since they have a website for it. There's about 245,000 people left in the 1950 city limits. That's in 39 square miles. Check out this site: http://development.columbus.gov/Bizdevelopment/Demographics/Columbus/Colpopulationboundry.asp

 

I wish the other cities in Ohio had a similar website. It'd save us time.

 

City Limits 1930

 

1. Cleveland: 900,429 in 70.8 square miles

2. Cincinnati: 451,160 in 71.4 square miles

3. Toledo: 290,718 in 33.0 square miles

4. Columbus: 290,564 in 38.5 square miles

5. Akron: 255,040 in 37.6 square miles

6. Dayton: 200,982 in 18.1 square miles

 

City Limits 1950

 

1. Cleveland: 914,808 in 75.0 square miles

2. Cincinnati: 503,998 in 75.1 square miles

3. Columbus: 375,901 in 39.4 square miles

4. Toledo: 303,616 in 38.30 square miles

5. Akron: 274,605 in 53.7 square miles

6. Dayton: 243,872 in 25.0 square miles

 

City Limits 1970

 

1. Cleveland: 750,903 in 75.9 square miles

2. Columbus: 539,677 in 134.6 square miles

3. Cincinnati: 452,524 in 78.1 square miles

4. Toledo: 383,818 in 81.2 square miles

5. Akron: 275,425 in 54.2 square miles

6. Dayton: 243,601 in 38.3 square miles

 

City Limits 2000

 

1. Columbus: 711,470 in 210.3 square miles (gained sh!tloads of land since 1970)

2. Cleveland: 478,403 in 77.6 square miles (gained land since 1970)

3. Cincinnati: 331,285 in 78.0 square miles (same land as 1970)

4. Toledo: 313,619 in  80.6 square miles (actually lost land since 1970)

5. Akron: 217,074 in 62.1 square miles (gained land since 1970)

6. Dayton: 166,179 in 55.8 square miles (gained lots of land since 1970)

 

Percent of city land that is pre-1930 urban area

 

1. Cincinnati: 92%

2. Cleveland: 91%

3. Akron: 61%

4. Toledo: 41%

5. Dayton: 32%

6. Columbus: 18%

 

Percentage of city land that is pre-1950 urban area

 

1. Cleveland: 97%

2. Cincinnati: 96%

3. Akron: 86%

4. Toledo: 48%

5. Dayton: 45%

6. Columbus: 19%

 

 

Intresting work C-Dawg.  What small area did Toledo gove up between 1970 and 2000.  My only guess would be something around Point place in the Washington Township area. 

For cincy and Cleveland the numbers of the city core for 1950 boundaries would be the same as the actual populations, or at least very close since they haven't added much land.

 

Anyway here is a list of some cities which have the data for the core city values with 1950 boundaries. The list only includes cincy, cleveland and youngstown from Ohio.

 

http://www.demographia.com/db-corecities1950.htm

There were a couple attempts in the 70s and 80s for Cincy to swallow up the remaining parts of Columbia Twnp, but otherwise the 'burbs defined themselves against the city really from the 20s onward. Cincy also made the mistake of not making annexation a part of expanding water service throughout the region - which is foundation of Cbus's growth.

If we are going to the Columbus annexing land discussion, below is where Columbus would be had it not began annexing.  Since 1950, it has grown from 39.9 sq miles to 225.9 square miles (about 3.5 Cleveland's/Cincy's in land area).

 

 

Columbus 1950 Boundary

1970 Population    349.299

1980 Population    287,723

1990 Population    267,950

2000 Population    244,347

1990 to 2000 Change -23,603  (-8.8%)

 

More of this info can be seen at the below link which is where this came from:

 

http://development.columbus.gov/Bizdevelopment/Demographics/Columbus/Colpopulationboundry.asp

 

 

In the Columbus Census tracts covering Clintonville south of Morse Road (the 1950 boundary), Clintonville lost 27 percent of its population between 1960 and 2000. These kinds of figures are important in looking at urban economic development. Retailers are going to look at the population they serve, and if the population is dropping, they're going to be less interested in that area. (Clintonville at least has demographics it its favor.) Much of these losses are attributable to smaller family/household sizes. So a place like Clintonville needs one of two things in order to grow: Larger households, which is not very likely, or greater density. Many suburbs are doing something to push density (Creekside in Gahanna, Main Street in Bexley, etc.) Urban neighborhoods need to do the same.

Interesting data...I'm glad this has been compiled into one neat thread.

The water system carrot/stick angle is always brought up when talking about Columbus expansion and rightfully so. But realize that the annexation was also made palatable to the neighboring communites because the annexed land was, by agreement, left in the suburban school districts.

In terms of 1950 city limit population loss, Dayton has by far lost the most. It's estimated anywhere from 60-65% of Dayton's core 25 square miles was lost between 1950-2000. Also notice how from 1950-1970, Dayton increased its land area by 35% but still managed to lose a little population. Even I was shocked by that one.

 

As I mentioned on the previous thread the land annexed since 1970 was for wellfield protection areas and for an aborted new town development.  The land is uninhabited or very sparsly inhabited.

 

But quite accurate about how central Dayton was depopulated.  One reason is in 1950 the inner areas were probably overcrowded, particularly black ghetto areas and some applachian white areas, but also alot was cleared for urban renewal and highway construction, or was encouraged to be torn down for industrial use (sort of like Poletown in Detroit, but not that extreme), and the inevitable abandonments, too. 

 

So the first removals of population was planned.  For the blacks, opening up new neighborhoods after 1950, like Westwood, probably had a lot to do with reducing density in inner city areas.

 

 

 

As I mentioned on the previous thread the land annexed since 1970 was for wellfield protection areas and for an aborted new town development. The land is uninhabited or very sparsly inhabited.

 

I think you once did a thread on that development, possibly? I'm not exactly sure what to search for, so if you could provide a link to that, it would much appreciated!

I doubt all 36 miles of annex land are undeveloped.

 

No, but most of it is undeveloped or turned parks (Eastwood Metropark, for example).

 

I'd like to see it too. I know Dayton has suburban development in the city limits along with undeveloped land. I doubt all 36 miles of annex land are undeveloped

 

think you once did a thread on that development, possibly? I'm not exactly sure what to search for, so if you could provide a link to that, it would much appreciated!

 

Heres the thread on the aborted new town northwest of Dayton, which didn't get much comment:

 

 

NewFields

 

The deal was that Trotwood and Dayton would annex parts of it, in agreement for Dayton not nixing the federal funding.

 

(one of the things that was cool about this..if you are into graphic design.... is that actually hired Serge Chermayeff to do the graphic identity)

I have no idea.

Toledo was also all screwed up by the Great Depression. They had the biggest housing bust in the country - they were the Inland Empire of the 1920s. They had massive numbers of subdivisions laid in 1930 that didn't get developed until much later. They also overbuilt in the 20s, so it retains an old housing stock (at one time the oldest in the country).

Toledo was also all screwed up by the Great Depression. They had the biggest housing bust in the country - they were the Inland Empire of the 1920s.

 

The Skokie of Ohio!

 

Where did you find out about this on Toledo?  I've been looking into this overplatting thing re Dayton a bit, and was wondering what yr source was for Toledo...not questioning it, but just interested.

 

 

Timothy Messer-Kruse book on the Great Depression and Toledo - he was at UT now at BGSU. It is mostly a social history - not all of trad. urban history maps but really depressing in terms how the banking crisis played in Frogtown.

As I recall, the national housing census uses 1939 as the key cut-off - after that it is separated in to 5-10 year segments. They combine everything built pre-1939, so 'medium age' city like Toledo will do as well as a really old city like Boston. Obviously, the key is stability - too much growth and you would lots of redevelopment, not enough growth/too much decline and you have Youngstown and most of Western PA and MA. Oh and not too horrible weather that destroys homes really quickly, Western NY and the South.

Time for cities to try teamwork

Dramatic annexation slowdown gives central Ohio a chance for better planning

Monday,  December 15, 2008 3:07 AM

By Mark Ferenchik

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/15/copy/COLSANNEX.ART_ART_12-15-08_A1_5JC7IVT.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

The housing market is in the dumper, and there's little reason to build stores in a bad economy. The result: Columbus is on track to approve annexations totaling just more than 100 acres this year.

 

For more, click link

Here is a fantastic graphic that accompanied the above article:

 

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/15/annexation_large.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

All too typical of Dispatch stories: Starts to get into a couple of great issues, then scratches the surface and stops. Is this a story about annexation patterns? About regional cooperation? About how the tax revenue added by annexation is not enough to pay for the services required in the annexed area, much less to aid the city as a whole? Each of these topics is worth more space than was given to an article that barely touched on all three.

I was thinking that Columbus:annexation as Madoff:investing . . .

Some of the annexation is simply for "filling in the gaps" (Cooper stadium for example which is only a mile or two from downtown). I believe that area near the landfill/Cooper Stadium/Greenlawn Cemetary is called Franklin Township or something like that. My grandma lives there, on a one acre lot, yet it's very close to downtown. Anywho, I digress.

 

Filling in the gaps is important as it would eliminate conflict (look at Hilliard whining about increased congestion - that Township brought whatever traffic problems they have, on themselves. It speaks volumes about their lack of concern for future growth). Of course it also makes the logistics of public services such as garbage pickup and policing much more efficient. IMO, Columbus' annexations tend to make sense. I'm all for centralization.

 

http://The largest annexation in Columbus this year ended up being a boundary adjustment with Obetz that added 32.5 acres. Whirlpool plans to put a $78 million warehouse there, and it's expected to add 269 jobs near Rickenbacker Airport.

 

Smart move.

^ Annexation is not centralization. It's de-centralization. You say Hilliard has not planned for its growth, but neither has Columbus. Columbus, for decades, has annexed without enough regard for whether it can service the annexed areas. That's not to say the policy of annexation has been bad, but that , in too many cases, the execution of that policy has been bad.

They annexed a Burberry, cut 'em some slack.

 

How is annexation not centralization? It's bringing what was a separate municipality under the same central authority as the areas surrounding it.

I'm not sure Columbus has ever annexed a municipality. It always has annexed odd portions of townships, and in recent years has annexed little tendrils between municipalities to stretch its limits further out from the center. Columbus annexation has been sprawl, pure and simple.

I'm not sure Columbus has ever annexed a municipality. It always has annexed odd portions of townships, and in recent years has annexed little tendrils between municipalities to stretch its limits further out from the center. Columbus annexation has been sprawl, pure and simple.

 

 

 

The sprawl exists whether they annex it or not. There is certainly a difference between annexing a sprawly subdivision with properties that can't pay for themselves vs. annexing land right before Whirlpool plans a $67 Million warehouse on it.

Columbus doesn't annex many subdivisions, either. It annexes land to accommodate the development of new subdivisions. And what Columbus annexes becomes sprawl. Even that Whirlpool warehouse is sprawl -- moving economic activity away from the center, where there are people who need jobs and where there is transportation to get them to jobs.

 

I'm not saying annexation is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not necessarily a good thing. Much of the Columbus annexation in recent decades has not been sustainable (look at the city's budget problems) and it has facilitated less-dense (ie. sprawling) development that is suburban-style growth.

The challenge that annexation in a place like Cbus creates is less attention to the core and instead it follows the growth. There is a happy medium between the Cincy and Cleveland being almost entirely hemmed in and Columbus which has been able to expand at will. One ends with a fetishizing of the city boundary while the other makes the city indistinguishable from the township sprawl.

^ Good observation.

Columbus doesn't annex many subdivisions, either. It annexes land to accommodate the development of new subdivisions. And what Columbus annexes becomes sprawl. Even that Whirlpool warehouse is sprawl -- moving economic activity away from the center, where there are people who need jobs and where there is transportation to get them to jobs.

 

I'm not saying annexation is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not necessarily a good thing. Much of the Columbus annexation in recent decades has not been sustainable (look at the city's budget problems) and it has facilitated less-dense (ie. sprawling) development that is suburban-style growth.

 

Look at Columbus' budget problems? Why don't you look at all of OHIO's budget problems lately. On the city, county and state level. They're making cuts in various departments in various cities. Cincinnati might be cutting their healthcare program and they haven't annexed in forever. New York City is extremely urbanized and they have major budget problems right now. Columbus isn't the only city thinking about charging people for garbage pickup. Jesus. I swear, you people will stop at nothing to blame anything on sprawl. We're in a recession. Show me documentation on how Columbus has had a progressively worse budget deficit in correlation to that annexation chart up above.

Columbus doesn't annex many subdivisions, either. It annexes land to accommodate the development of new subdivisions. And what Columbus annexes becomes sprawl. Even that Whirlpool warehouse is sprawl -- moving economic activity away from the center, where there are people who need jobs and where there is transportation to get them to jobs.

 

I'm not saying annexation is a bad thing. I'm saying that it's not necessarily a good thing. Much of the Columbus annexation in recent decades has not been sustainable (look at the city's budget problems) and it has facilitated less-dense (ie. sprawling) development that is suburban-style growth.

 

Look at Columbus' budget problems? Why don't you look at all of OHIO's budget problems lately. On the city, county and state level. They're making cuts in various departments in various cities. Cincinnati might be cutting their healthcare program and they haven't annexed in forever. New York City is extremely urbanized and they have major budget problems right now. Columbus isn't the only city thinking about charging people for garbage pickup. Jesus. I swear, you people will stop at nothing to blame anything on sprawl. We're in a recession. Show me documentation on how Columbus has had a progressively worse budget deficit correlation to that annexation chart up above.

 

I blame it on building budgets based on an expected constant stream of tax revenues that are tied to markets and industries that are cyclical in nature while not putting away enough reserves.

http://td.ci.columbus.oh.us/Bizdevelopment/downtown_development/index.asp

 

Downtown & Economic Development

 

A vital Downtown is essential to the continued growth of a city.  The Downtown Development Office is working to create a strong, vibrant Downtown through increased housing, restaurants, shops and entertainment opportunities.  The Downtown Office focuses on future development and redevelopment of residential and commercial office space.  Our mission is to foster a Downtown environment that will be an asset to our city as well as the entire region.

Downtown Office Incentive Program

 

The Columbus Downtown Office Incentive Program was designed to help stabilize and strengthen the market of Downtown office space as well as increase employment opportunities in Downtown Columbus by requiring the establishment of new jobs.

 

You may be eligible to receive an Office Incentive if you plan to relocate your company from outside Columbus city limits to Downtown Columbus and will employ ten or more people.

 

Brownfield Remediation

 

Brownfields are abandoned and/or environmentally contaminated industrial sites which are under utilized and afford the potential for redevelopment. Such redevelopment can be in the form of commercial, industrial or residential uses that benefit the community by removing hazardous and unsightly properties and restoring them to productive use.

 

Brownfield Funding Sources

 

  1. Clean Ohio Fund: Up to $3 million in State of Ohio grant funding, per site, may be made available for site acquisition, clean up, infrastructure, or engineering costs. |

  2. U.S. EPA Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund: Up to $500,000 in federal loans are available for clean-up costs with application to the Columbus Department of Development. Loans may be used for all cleanup activities, but may not include site assessments or projects where contamination stems for asbestos, lead paint, or petroleum.

  3. U.S. EPA Brownfield Assessment Pilot: This program funds phase I and phase II site assessments as well as cleanup design. The funds may not be applied to actual cleanup coasts as these funds are used only to determine the extent and character or contamination along with estimating the cost of cleanup.

 

Who is Eligible?

 

Any owner of a Columbus brownfield site willing to work with the Columbus Department of Development on a site clean up and redevelopment plan is eligible.

 

Central City Loan Fund

 

Loan Funds can be used for acquistion and redevelopment of real property and to purchase machinery and equipment. Project sites where new job creation will occur must be located within the Columbus Empowerment Zone or Core Central City. Profitable businesses, developers with a proven successful track record and economically viable non-profit organizations are eligible to apply.

 

 

Neighborhood Commercial Revitalization Program (NCR)

 

The program offers technical assistance, loans and matching grants, capital improvements and planning services in conjunction with the established business association, in 15 commercial areas surrounding downtown. NCR staff provides assistance to individual businesses to secure architectual design services and financial incentives for acquisition and exterior rehabilitation of commercial property through the NCR Investment Fund, the NCR Commercial Improvement Loan Fund, the NCR Facade Renovation Fund, and the NCR Storefront Renovation Grant Fund.

 

Urban Infrastructure Recovery Fund

 

The program funds several million dollars of capital improvements per year in Central City Neighborhoods. Residents propose projects based on a premise they know their neighborhood needs. Since 1992, $36 million in public roadway and public park improvements were constructed such as street paving, assley resurfacing, street lighting upgrades, street trees, curbs and sidewalks, playground equipment, and neighborhood gateways.

 

Land Redevelopment Office - Land Bank

 

The Land Redevelopment Office acquires properties through tax delinquency, donation, or receives surplus from other City departments and outside agencies. We are looking for developers, contractors or individuals to return this land to productive status via quality infill development.

 

    *

      Vacant Commercial Lots

    *

      Vacant Commercial Structures

    *

      Lease Land for $1

    *

      Vacant Residential Lots

    *

      Vacant Residential Structures

 

 

 

 

Look at Columbus' budget problems? Why don't you look at all of OHIO's budget problems lately. On the city, county and state level. They're making cuts in various departments in various cities. Cincinnati might be cutting their healthcare program and they haven't annexed in forever. New York City is extremely urbanized and they have major budget problems right now. Columbus isn't the only city thinking about charging people for garbage pickup. Jesus. I swear, you people will stop at nothing to blame anything on sprawl. We're in a recession. Show me documentation on how Columbus has had a progressively worse budget deficit in correlation to that annexation chart up above.

 

Ohio's current land-use patterns add to the size and cost of government and are a big reason why the state a local governments have so many budget problems. Other state have similar land-use patterns and similar budget problems. American Farmland Trust did a study for the state of Delaware that looked at capital spending and population density over the last 100 years. Density was much the same until the middle of the last century, then began to decline -- at the same time that capital spending began to skyrocket. I've passed on the study to people in the Strickland administration, mostly in the Dept. of Development.

 

Our current development patterns are grossly inefficient, adding to the costs of public services, and fueled by sprawl-inspiring transportation policies that throw good money after bad. This budget crisis is an ideal time to pursue major land-policy reform in Ohio that encourages planning and regionalism, which would reduce the need for annexation.

I never said it was the ONLY reason for budget shortfalls. But sprawl IS ineffiicient. Where homes are 6 or 8 or 10 to the acre, it stands to reason that the cost of the roads, sewers, water lines and private utilities is less per unit than in an area where homes are 1 or 2 to the acre. What's more, the Dispatch had a story this fill about fire department response times and found that they tended to meet federal standards in older, denser areas with streets on a grid, but that response times were worse in newer sprawl with culs de sac and winding streets.

it seems like old sprawl is costly new sprawl does okay