Link of the Day: Ohio Movie Locations

An interesting part of Ohio’s history is that an Ohio helped found Hollywood. Daeida Wilcox Beveridge was born in Hicksville in 1861. She went to school both in Hicksville and Canton and spent her formative years in the area. After marrying Harvey Wilcox, the couple moved around a bit until ending up in Southern California in 1886. There, they purchased a 200-acre ranch outside LA.

The following year, in 1887, the couple started to subdivide their land in order to lay out a brand new town. The town’s name was Hollywood, a name while visiting family in Ohio. While there, she may have gotten it from what a Chicago friend called her country estate. This is not the only legend around the name, so who knows how true it is. In any case, it was Daeida who helped name many of the city’s most famous streets, like Sunset Boulevard.

Until her death in 1914, Daeida spent her life promoting her new city and was instrumental in helping the city gain much of its amenities, including the nascent focus on the arts. By the end of her life, she was known as the Mother of Hollywood. She is now a part of the Ohio Women’s Hall of Fame.

Despite all of this, Ohio has only occasionally been the location for movie shoots, though that seems to be increasing in recent years with several high-profile projects filming around the state, such as the Avengers movie. The link of the day is a site that gives maps, photos and other information on movie locations around the state. Take a look and remember that Ohio helped give the world the movies that they enjoy (not to mention native Ohioan Thomas Edison’s contributions to cameras, lighting and sound).

http://www.sceneinohio.com/Locations.aspx

Link of the Day: The Columbus Land Bank

The Columbus Land Bank got started back in 1994 to address vacant land and properties, but more specifically, the worst of the worst. Over the years, the number of properties on the list has grown into the hundreds as the city bought the properties to either renovate what could be renovated, or to demolish those that could not be saved and were contributing to the decline of surrounding neighborhoods.

The city provides a few links where these properties can be searched for and purchased. The properties are in various stages of decline and are being sold only to those qualified to renovate the properties or replace them with new development. Many of them are in urban locations, and most of the houses are old, with many retaining elements of their original architecture. In most cases, they need major to moderate rehabs, however. Given the rise of urban living lately and the rapid pace of revitalization happening throughout urban Columbus, these properties maintain some inherent value despite what their overall condition may be.

The first link is an interactive map where you can search for properties. It’s a great resource where you can search by address, street or area. You can also apply to buy properties if you are so inclined.
https://public-cbus.epropertyplus.com/landmgmtpub/app/base/propertySearch

The second link is a list of for-sale property highlights. This list is updated through the last 90 days.
http://columbus.gov/landredevelopment/listings/

Take a look!

Columbus Housing Market Update- June 2014

June’s housing data for the Columbus region was just released. The month continued the same story as the previous 5 months, with home sales down due to a lack of inventory. Prices continued to rise and the number of days to sell a home continued to fall in relation to this problem. As always, I looked at 21 major areas of the Columbus region, both urban and suburban. Here is how those areas performed.

Top 10 June 2014 Sales Totals
1. Columbus: 1,045
2. Upper Arlington: 109
3. Dublin: 108
4. Clintonville: 83
5. Westerville: 77
6. Gahanna: 63
7. Grove City: 62
8. Reynoldsburg: 59
9. New Albany: 38

Top 10 June 2014 Sales Increases over June 2013
1. Downtown: +72.0%
2. Grove City: +14.5%
3. Gahanna: +12.7%
4. German Village: +10.5%
5. Grandview Heights: +6.3%
6. Canal Winchester: +3.8%
7. Hilliard: 0.0%
8. Minerva Park: 0.0%
9. Columbus: -1.8%
10. Reynoldsburg: -5.1%

Top 10 Year-to-Date Sales Through June 2014
1. Columbus: 4,803
2. Dublin: 362
3. Grove City: 332
4. Clintonville: 323
5. Westerville: 299
6. Upper Arlington: 294
7. Reynoldsburg: 265
8. Hilliard: 258
9. Gahanna: 221
10. Pickerington: 136

Top 10 Year-to-Date Increases Through June 2014 Over 2013
1. Obetz: +42.1%
2. Downtown: +13.4%
3. Grove City: +11.0%
4. New Albany: +2.8%
5. Reynoldsburg: -0.4%
6. Westerville: -3.2%
7. Pataskala: -3.4%
8. German Village: -3.9%
9. Columbus: -5.3%
10. Clintonville: -5.8%

Average Sales June 2014
Urban: 122.3
Suburban: 55.1
Urban without Columbus: 30

Average % Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: -5.8%
Suburban: -5.1%
Urban without Columbus: -6.0%

Average YTD Sales Through June 2014
Urban: 545
Suburban: 222.6
Urban without Columbus: 119.2

Average YTD % Change YTD Through June 2014
Urban: -4.8%
Suburban: -5.3%
Urban without Columbus: -4.7%

Top 10 Average Sales Price June 2014
1. New Albany: $659,186
2. Upper Arlington: $389,575
3. Bexley: $382,496
4. Dublin: $377,541
5. German Village: $307,753
6. Downtown: $300,582
7. Worthington: $283,209
8. Grandview Heights: $246,271
9. Hilliard: $230,396
10. Gahanna: $229,845

Top 10 Average Sales Price % Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
1. Whitehall: +55.6%
2. Worthington: +17.7%
3. New Albany: +15.8%
4. Bexley: +15.6%
5. Columbus: +12.2%
6. Clintonville: +9.3%
7. Hilliard: +8.5%
8. Canal Winchester: +7.4%
9. Pickerington: +6.7%
10. Gahanna: +6.4%

Top 10 Average Sales Prices YTD Through June 2014
1. New Albany: $541,077
2. Dublin: $360,202
3. Upper Arlington: $348,160
4. Bexley: $334,491
5. Downtown: $305,215
6. German Village: $302,117
7. Worthington: $261,659
8. Grandview Heights: $245,946
9. Hilliard: $225,849
10. Gahanna: $213,782

Top 10 Average YTD Sales Price % Change Through June 2014 vs. 2013
1. Obetz: +24.7%
2. Grandview Heights: +15.5%
3. Worthington: +11.3%
4. Pataskala: +10.8%
5. Columbus: +10.6%
6. Pickerington: +9.9%
7. Canal Winchester: +9.5%
8. Downtown: +9.5%
9. Dublin: +9.2%
10. Westerville: +8.5%

Average Sales Price June 2014
Urban: $232,965
Suburban: $253,488
Urban without Columbus: $240,917

Average Sales Price Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: +7.6%
Suburban: +5.0%
Urban without Columbus: +7.1%

Average Sales Price YTD Through June 2014
Urban: $220,893
Suburban: $234,492
Urban without Columbus: $229,327

Average Sales Price % Change YTD Through June 2014
Urban: +6.6%
Suburban: +7.5%
Urban without Columbus: +6.2%

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets June 2014 (Based on Average # of Days for Listings to Sell)
1. Worthington: 21
2. Upper Arlington: 36
3. Clintonville: 38
4. Gahanna: 39
5. Hilliard: 39
6. Dublin: 40
7. German Village: 42
8. Obetz: 45
9. Bexley: 46
10. Pataskala, Westerville: 47

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets YTD Through June 2014
1. Worthington: 39
2. Minerva Park: 44
3. Upper Arlington: 44
4. Obetz: 46
5. Hilliard: 47
6. Clintonville: 52
7. Westerville: 53
8. Grandview Heights: 54
9. Dublin: 57
10. Bexley: 59

Average # of Days Before Sale, June 2014
Urban: 47.8
Suburban: 54.3
Urban without Columbus: 47.3

Average # of Days Before Sale YTD Through June 2014
Urban: 58.6
Suburban: 67.8
Urban without Columbus: 57.4

Top 10 Lowest Market Housing Supplies June 2014 (Based on # of Months to Sell all Listings)
1. Grandview Heights: 1.0
2. Worthington: 1.4
3. Westerville: 2.0
4. Clintonville: 2.1
5. German Village: 2.1
6. Gahanna: 2.3
7. Hilliard: 2.5
8. Minerva Park: 2.7
9. Obetz: 2.7
10. Upper Arlington: 2.7

A healthy housing supply is considered to be around 5-6 months. Anything less than 3 months is considered very low. Grandview’s 1 month is ridiculously low and the lowest reading I’ve seen for any area.

Average # of Months to Sell All Listings, June 2014
Urban: 2.7
Suburban: 3.5
Urban without Columbus: 2.6

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: +33.2%
Suburban: -5.4%
Urban without Columbus: +36.8%

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales YTD Through June 2014 vs. YTD 2013
Urban: -8.8%
Suburban: -5.4%
Urban without Columbus: -8.9%


Average % Change of Condo Sales June 2014 vs. June 2013

Urban: -4.0%
Suburban: +41.0%
Urban without Columbus: -5.0%

Average % Change of Condo Sales YTD Through June 2014 vs. YTD 2013
Urban: +19.3%
Suburban: +7.0%
Urban without Columbus: +21.0%

Lots of Updates

I have made some significant updates to the blog. Beyond adding several new posts, here are recent updates you should check out:

-New Pages! I broke up the Historic Buildings Database: Residential page as it was just getting too large. I separated the Old Towne East/King-Lincoln section into its own page, and may at some point separate out more neighborhoods. In the meantime, I have added dozens of new houses to the residential pages, along with new maps and updated information.

-I also started another Historic Buildings Database page for hotels and retail buildings. There’s not a lot on it yet, but it will grow just as the residential pages have.

-I added more Google Maps links: Columbus’ Lost Historic Buildings map for historic buildings that have been destroyed or lost, and a general Columbus Historic Building map for those buildings that still exist. I have also added a Columbus Development 2014-2017 map. Check them out! They have all been recently updated, and will be continuously updated.

-I have made several updates to the individual weather month pages, and added a page for April.

-I added new share links for posts and pages, so that if you like what you see, please share it!

-Finally, I have added a new comment system using the Disqus platform. I’d love to see more comments, suggestions and conversation take place here.

Columbus Metro’s GDP vs. the Midwest

Rank of Midwest Major Metros by GDP, 2001 vs. 2012
In Millions
2001————————–2012
1. Chicago: $403,556____________________1. Chicago: $571,008
2. Detroit: $183,864____________________2. Minneapolis: $220,167
3. Minneapolis: $146,155________________3. Detroit: $208,379
4. St. Louis: $99,086___________________4. St. Louis: $136,677
5. Cleveland: $85,188___________________5. Indianapolis: $116,094
6. Kansas City: $77,733_________________6. Kansas City: $113,090
7. Cincinnati: $77,488__________________7. Cleveland: $111,597
8. Indianapolis: $75,622________________8. Cincinnati: $108,236
9. Columbus: $72,029____________________9. Columbus: $100,512
10. Milwaukee: $63,540__________________10. Milwaukee: $88,708
11. Grand Rapids: $34,297_______________11. Omaha: $51,878
12. Omaha: $31,859______________________12. Grand Rapids: $43,862
13. Dayton: $27,932_____________________13. Dayton: $33,858
14. Toledo: $21,293_____________________14. Akron: $29,466
15. Akron: $20,901______________________15. Toledo: $28,311

Total Change by Rank in Millions, 2001-2012
1. Chicago: +$167,452
2. Minneapolis: +$74,012
3. Indianapolis: +$40,472
4. St. Louis: $37,591
5. Kansas City: +$35,357
6. Cleveland: +$30,748
7. Columbus: +$28,483
8. Cincinnati: +$26,409
9. Milwaukee: +$25,168
10. Detroit: +$24,515
11. Omaha: +$20,019
12. Grand Rapids: +$9,565
13. Akron: +$8,565
14. Toledo: +$7,018
15. Dayton: +$5,926

Total % Change by Rank, 2001-2012
1. Omaha: +62.84%
2. Indianapolis: +53.52%
3. Minneapolis: +50.64%
4. Kansas City: +45.49%
5. Chicago: +41.49%
6. Akron: +40.98%
7. Cleveland: +39.68%
8. Milwaukee: +39.60%
9. Columbus: +39.54%
10. St Louis: +37.94%
11. Toledo: +32.96%
12. Cincinnati: +31.0%
13. Grand Rapids: +27.89%
14. Dayton: +21.22%
15. Detroit: +13.33%

Columbus is in the top half of total growth (barely), but in the bottom half by %. It is one of the fastest-growing metros in the Midwest, so its economic output seems to be lagging that of more slowly-growing metros.

Finally, let’s take a look at per-capita GDP and income.

Rank of Metros by Per-Capita GDP in Hundreds, 2012
1. Minneapolis: $55,514
2. Chicago: $51,350
3. Indianapolis: $50,981
4. Omaha: $49,856
5. Milwaukee: $49,330
6. Kansas City: $48,311
7. Cleveland: $46,238
8. Columbus: $44,658
9. Cincinnati: $43,291
10. Detroit: $42,655
11. St. Louis: $41,670
12. Toledo: $39,052
13. Grand Rapids: $37,957
14. Dayton: $36,687
15. Akron: $35,835

Total Growth 2001-2012 by Rank
1. Omaha: +$4,056
2. Minneapolis: +$3,490
3. Milwaukee: +$3,351
4. Akron: +$2,793
5. Chicago: +$2,595
6. Cleveland: +$2,367
7. Kansas City: +$2,046
8. Indianapolis: +$1,659
9. Toledo: +$1,572
10. St. Louis: +$704
11. Cincinnati: +$679
12. Grand Rapids: -$1,051
13. Dayton: -$1,090
14. Detroit: $-1,439
15. Columbus: -$1,701

Columbus had the worst performance of all 15 metros during the period.

Total Change 2010-2012 by Rank
1. Detroit: +$3,035
2. Toledo: +$2,927
3. Grand Rapids: $2,536
4. Minneapolis: +$2,342
5. Cleveland: +$2,295
6. Chicago: +$1,893
7. Cincinnati: +$1,683
8. Columbus: +$1,532
9. Indianapolis: +$1,481
10. St Louis: $1,164
11. Kansas City: +$1,156
12. Akron: +$897
13. Dayton: +$652
14. Omaha: +$522
15. Milwaukee: +$428

Columbus has done better more recently, but still lags behind many others. This, again, seems to be function of a GDP that is not keeping up with population growth.

May 2014 Jobs Data

May was generally a positive month for Columbus and Ohio. Unemployment rates did creep up a bit, but largely because more people came onto the market looking for jobs, which is considered a positive sign.

Also positive is that almost every industry saw decent growth in the metro.

Columbus City
Unemployment Rate: 4.4%
Unemployment Rate Change since May 2013: -1.7%
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2014: -1.4%
Civilian Labor Force: 435,500
Civilian Labor Force Change since May 2013: -2,000
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2014: +1,800
Employment: 416,400
Employment Change since May 2013: +5,600
Employment Change since January 2014: +8,000
Unemployment: 19,100
Unemployment Change since May 2013: -7,500
Unemployment Change since January 2014: -6,300

Franklin County
Unemployment Rate: 4.4%
Unemployment Rate Change since May 2013: -1.7%
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2014: -1.5%
Civilian Labor Force: 636,400
Civilian Labor Force Change since May 2013: -2,600
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2014: +2,800
Employment: 608,300
Employment Change since May 2013: +6,100
Employment Change since January 2014: +11,800
Unemployment: 28,100
Unemployment Change since May 2013: -10,700
Unemployment Change since January 2014: -9,000

Columbus Metro Area
Unemployment Rate: 4.4%
Unemployment Rate Change since May 2013: -1.6%
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2014: -1.6%
Civilian Labor Force: 982,412
Civilian Labor Force Change since May 2013: -4,512
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2014: +2,216
Employment: 939,332
Employment Change since May 2013: +12,108
Employment Change since January 2014: +17,688
Unemployment: 43,080
Unemployment Change since May 2013: -16,620
Unemployment Change since January 2014: -15,472

Ohio Overall
Unemployment Rate: 5.5%
Unemployment Rate Change since May 2013: -1.9%
Unemployment Rate Change since January 2014 : -1.4%
Civilian Labor Force: 5,721,891
Civilian Labor Force Change since May 2013: -48,893
Civilian Labor Force Change since January 2014: -41,237
Employment: 5,406,014
Employment Change since May 2013: +60,405
Employment Change since January 2014: +38,259
Unemployment: 315,877
Unemployment Change since May 2013: -109,298
Unemployment Change since January 2014: -79,496

Metro Non-Farm Jobs
Total: 995,600
Change from May 2013: +11,100
Change from January 2014: +29,800

By Industry
Mining/Logging/Construction Total: 33,700
Change from May 2013: +1,900
Change from January 2014: +4,400

Manufacturing Total: 67,700
Change from May 2013: -100
Change from January 2014: +1,700

Trade/Transportation/Utilities Total: 187,900
Change from May, 2013: +3,900
Change from January 2014: +1,500

Information Total: 18,100
Change from May 2013: +100
Change from January 2014: +0

Financial Activities Total: 73,500
Change from May 2013: -2,000
Change from January 2014: -300

Professional and Business Services Total: 162,500
Change from May 2013: -700
Change from January 2014: +4,100

Education and Health Services Total: 142,500
Change from May 2013: +2,800
Change from January 2014: +5,300

Leisure and Hospitality Total: 103,00
Change from May 2013: +1,800
Change from January 2014: +9,100

Other Services Total: 38,900
Change from May 2013: +900
Change from January 2014: +600

Government Total: 167,800
Change from May 2013: +2,500
Change from January 2014: +3,400

A Glimpse at 1960s Preservation Efforts and the Mystery of the Alfred E. Kelley House

In my research into finding photos and information on historic buildings in Columbus, I have come across some interesting documents related to why some buildings were demolished. Take the Alfred E. Kelley House, which once stood at 282 E. Broad Street. Built over the course of about a year between 1837-1838, the house was a classic Greek Revival. Over the many years of its existence, the house functioned in multiple capacities, including as a school. During those other uses, the architecture was drastically altered, and by 1960, the year the house was proposed to be demolished to build the Christopher Inn, the historic nature had been “severely damaged”. Still, the house had survived 122 years by then, and a history-minded group of people got together to try and save it with the intent of restoration and operating a period museum.

The Kelley House in 1898.


Photo taken around 1900.


Photo taken around 1900.


The Kelley House in 1958.


The rear of the Kelley House in 1958.


An interior room of the Kelley House in 1958.

In early January 1962, the efforts to save the house during the previous year were detailed by one Dixie Sayre Miller, chairman of the Kelley House Committee, which had been formed on March 24th, 1961. The goal of the committee was as follows:

“Considering the time element and the importance of Kelley to the State**, the committee decided to ask the legislature for money for which to move the house intact. We, later, would seek private money with which to restore it.”

The Committee had some powerful allies at the time. State Rep. Chris McNamara and John Vorys, former delegate to the UN, were both in leadership roles. Given this, even during a time when preservation efforts took a clear backseat to development, the Committee did meet with some initial success. The Kelley House legislative subcommittee was able to pass an appropriations bill in July 1961 for the amount of $95,000. The governor vetoed the bill, calling the appropriation “frivolous”. In August, a member of the Committee, Lee Skilken, had the idea to solicit local contractors to volunteer in taking down the house in order for it to be moved. When the idea was presented to the property owners on September 5th, it was rejected because it could not be guaranteed that the property would be clear in time for construction to begin. Instead, the owners wanted a paid contractor to do the work so that the timeline could be met. The land had to be cleared by October 15th, 1961, and the Committee had to have the money to pay the contractor by September 15th.

Here is where the story becomes a bit shady and political. On September 6th, members of the committee went to the Governor for advice on how to proceed. He recommended that they go to the Emergency Board, which would be able to issue a grant towards the project. The Governor promised he would “not object, would not fight it and would not make a political issue of it”.
On September 15th, the money deadline, the Committee had raised only $11,000 towards the $35,000 cost of the paid contractor. However, the following day, they caught a break. Another contractor came forward offering to take down the house for just $20,000 and would begin immediately. Further, even though the Committee did not have the full $20,000, the contractor trusted that the Committee would have raised the amount by the time the work was completed. I’m not sure if such deals would ever occur in today’s environment, but they still happened 53 years ago.
Only 2 days after the contractor began to take down the house, the Emergency Board awarded a $20,000 grant to the Committee and the house was fully dismantled before the deadline of October 15th. Stonework and foundations of the house were moved to a holding site at Franklin Park, while interior detailing was stored “in a city building”, all waiting for funding to be assembled and restored at a new site. This new site was listed as being in Wolfe Park on “East Broad at Nelson Road”.

So, why isn’t the Alfred E. Kelley house at Wolfe Park today? Two things happened after October 15th. First, the Governor lied. On the very day that the Committee was supposed to pay the contractor, they received a call stating that the Governor had deemed the Emergency Board grant unconstitutional and was withholding the money, despite being his recommendation that the Committee seek the grant from it in the first place. This also after a promise that he would not interfere or stand in the way. The Committee considered legal action, but decided a costly court process was not “advisable”.

Without the $20,000, the Committee was only able to pay the contractor $6,000, who then threatened legal action for the full amount. Since the Committee had neglected to be incorporated, each member was personally responsible for a share of what was owed. By December 1961, the Committee had become incorporated and had managed to pay an additional $2,000, but still owed the majority of the contract.

That concluded the events through January 1962. After that time, there are mysteries that remain unknown (at least as far as I can tell). First, what happened to the Committee? Did it end up raising the amount to pay off the contractor or did they end up in court? Why had the Governor decided to prevent the Committee from getting the grant? Did he have a political axe to grind with members of the Committee? Finally, and far more importantly, what happened to the Kelley House? The materials were in storage in early 1962, but the house was never rebuilt. Were they destroyed? Did the contractor take possession of them if the Committee was unable to pay? Are they still sitting in some warehouse somewhere covered in half a century’s worth of dust? We may never know, though I suspect that someone out there has the answers.

The irony of a Dispatch article from the fall of 1961.

**Kelley helped save the state from bankruptcy during the Panic of 1837 by offering up his house, possessions and business interests as collateral.

Edit 7/18/2014:
I guess research pays off, and now, at least part of the mystery is solved. As mentioned above, part of the house’s remains, particularly the stone and brick portions, were stored at Franklin Park after the demolition in 1961. Five years later in 1966, these were moved to the Ohio Expositions Center at the Ohio State Fairgrounds. By then, the plans no longer called for putting the house back together and restoring it. Instead, the stone materials were planned to be incorporated into a new Ohio Historical Center in the late 1960s, presumably the one that sits adjacent to the fairgrounds today. But that plan also fell through. Today, the material is currently in the hands of the Western Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland. This still leaves many questions unanswered, such as where the interior portions of the house ended up, why none of the material was reused in Columbus and how they ended up in Cleveland. Perhaps an email to the WRHS is in order.

An Examination of Columbus’ International Migration

First, let’s take a look at the total of international immigrants becoming legal citizens each year in the Columbus metro.

Online Graphing
Graph maker

As can be seen, the totals seem to be on a trend of increasing over time, but not significantly.
The 5 year combined totals are:
2004-2008: 24,377
2009-2013: 25,418

But where are all these people coming from? Luckily, we have that answer, and it may surprise you. I added up the total for the entire 10 year period, as well as broken down into the 5-year periods for all nations.

2004-2008 Nations of Origin for International Immigrants to the Columbus Metro
(All Nations with at least 150 Immigrants to Columbus)
1. Somalia: 4,322
2. India: 2,080
3. Ghana: 1,667
4. China: 1,389
5. Ethiopia: 1,069
6. Kenya: 922
7. Mexico: 556
8. Sierra Leon: 449
9. Philippines: 434
10. Nigeria: 400
11. Canada: 389
12. Mauritania: 377
13. South Korea: 355
14. United Kingdom: 347
15. Vietnam: 347
16. Russia: 313
17. Ukraine: 306
18. Liberia: 304
19. Morocco: 298
20. Pakistan: 287
21. Jordan: 284
22. Egypt: 245
23. Guatemala: 222
24. Bangladesh: 221
25. Senegal: 214
26. Taiwan: 201
27. Japan: 198
28. Guinea: 191
29. Dominican Republic: 176
30. Iran: 174
31. Colombia: 170
32. Peru: 158

Somalia may be expected in its very dominant position at #1, but the list becomes decidedly mixed the further down you go.

2009-2013 Nations of Origin for International Immigrants to the Columbus Metro
1. Somalia: 2,988
2. India: 2,267
3. Ghana: 1,903
4. China: 1,299
5. Ethiopia: 1,233
6. Kenya: 1,030
7. Iraq: 729
8. Mexico: 622
9. Bhutan: 573
10. Philippines: 502
11. Nigeria: 431
12. Sierra Leon: 424
13. Canada: 379
14. Pakistan: 375
15. Jordan: 358
16. Nepal: 352
17. Senegal: 350
18. Morocco: 330
19. Burma: 328
20. South Korea: 320
21. Dominican Republic: 306
21. Mauritania: 300
22. Guinea: 291
23. United Kingdom: 280
24. Cameroon: 277
25. Bangladesh: 262
26. Vietnam: 255
27. Liberia: 233
28. Eritrea: 232
29. Egypt: 229
30. Russia: 211
31. Iran: 207
32. Japan: 184
33. Ukraine: 161
34. Algeria: 153

The top of the list didn’t change significantly in the most recent 5 years as far as the order goes. New countries seemed to pop up out of nowhere, like Bhutan and Nepal, and more nations had at least 150 immigrants than the earlier period.

Finally, let’s look at the top immigrant origins for the entire 10-year period. For all nations that provided at least 300 immigrants.
1. Somalia: 7,320
2. India: 4,347
3. Ghana: 3,570
4. China: 2,688
5. Ethiopia: 2,302
6. Kenya: 1,952
7. Mexico: 1,178
8. Philippines: 936
9. Sierra Leon: 873
10. Nigeria: 831
11. Iraq: 790
12. Canada: 768
13. South Korea: 675
14. Pakistan: 662
15. Jordan: 642
16. Mauritania: 637
17. Morocco: 628
18. United Kingdom: 627
19. Vietnam: 602
20. Bhutan: 573
21. Senegal: 564
22. Liberia: 537
23. Russia: 524
24. Bangladesh: 483
25. Dominican Republic: 482
26. Guinea: 482
27. Egypt: 474
28. Ukraine: 467
29. Cameroon: 419
30. Nepal: 388
31. Japan: 382
32. Iran: 381
33. Eritrea: 365
34. Burma: 349
35. Taiwan: 331
36. Peru: 305
37. Colombia: 304

Do these immigration stats surprise you?

Before and After- July 2014 Edition

The Hippodrome Theater
Operated from October 26th, 1914 to December 31st, 1933.
Address: 77 N. High Street, Downtown
Seats: 300+
First movie shown: “The Nightingale” with Ethel Barrymore
Last movie shown: Unknown
Opening Admission: 10 cents

Photo of the entrance to the Hippodrome Theater, 1915.

The silent-era Hippodrome Theater was developed by G.E. Overton, who took over the Bonnett Jewelry store that occupied the building previously. News articles at the time of its opening described the d├ęcor in this way:

The little theater, which seats over 300, is neatly decorated in yellow. The lobby is attractive in white marble and the foyer is in yellow and gold. There is no stage; the picture being projected against a large screen as in most picture theaters.

The Hipp, as it was referred by, had a 6-piece orchestra under the direction of W.H. Claspill. It was the first movie theater in Columbus to have an orchestra.

There seems to be a bit of confusion on just when this theater opened. The official first movie shown there was in 1914, but by some accounts, the theater actually opened in April, 1910. Also, there is some mystery on the lone photograph above. Some list it as having been originally taken in 1915, but others have it listed from 1934, after the theater had closed.

The current view of the site.

View Larger Map

The Park Theater
Operated until November 24, 1893. The date it opened is unknown.
Address: 217 N. High Street, Downtown
Seats: Unknown

The Park Theater began operations sometime in the 1880s or very early 1890s, and may have operated long after 1893 if not for a disaster from the building just to its south, the Chittenden Hotel. In 1889, Henry Chittenden purchased the office building of the B&O Railroad, added 2 floors and spent $400,000 (an enormous sum at the time) converting and renovating the building into a luxury hotel. In 1890, a fire broke out and gutted the entire building, but spared neighboring businesses like the Park Theater.

The second Chittenden Hotel. The Park Theater building can be seen on the very right. The photo is from 1892.

Chittenden decided to rebuild, and the 2nd Chittenden Hotel was completed in 1892. This second hotel had its own theater, the Henrietta, which was still partially under construction on November 24th, 1893. That evening at around 8pm, a fire started during a performance there. The fire originated in the auditorium, in an area that was still under construction and spread into the seating area itself. Once the flames breached the theater, strong winds quickly spread the fire and began to burn the hotel as well as surrounding buildings, including the one that housed the Park Theater. By the time the fire burned itself out just the next morning, both theaters, the hotel, a drug store, saloon, shoe house and clothing shop were all completely destroyed.

The second Chittenden and Park Theater, November 1893.

The Park Theater, November 25th, 1893.

Improbably, despite 2 hotels in the same locating burning down, Chittenden rebuilt for yet a 3rd time, with the largest and grandest version of all- not to mention with far better fire-resistant construction. The third time, it seems, was the charm, and the hotel survived from its completion in 1895 to its final demolition in 1973.

The unlucky Park Theater itself never rebuilt, though the lot had a new commercial building in its spot by 1895. That building also faced the wrecking ball in 1973.

The current location of where the Chittenden and Park Theater once stood.

View Larger Map

Columbus Metro Density vs. Peer and Midwest Metros

No, this is not a repost. Awhile back, I did a post on population by mile marker from “City Hall”. You can find that post here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=1079
In the post, I compared Columbus with the 14 other largest Midwest metros.

Over the years, I’ve learned that Columbus has a very suburban reputation, meaning that it is perceived to have very low density throughout, especially because it aggressively annexed suburban areas into the city limits decades ago. With those claims, I wondered what the density would be if Columbus’ area size was scaled down to others to find out if it really deserves the suburban reputation. Bare with me, because there is a lot to look at.

First, I used Columbus’ 18 peer metros (population 1.5-2.5 million) as well as the 14 large Midwest metros. Since there was some overlap in the 2 groups, it made for a total group comparison of 27. So a fairly sizeable group. Next, I used the mile marker population, which in the City Hall census analysis is made up of circles going out from the center. So it’s just a matter of finding the area of each circle and dividing the population into that. What’s left is the density by area.

Density at Mile Marker 1, with an Area of 3.14 Square Miles.

2000———————————-2010
1. Chicago: 42,492.4______________________ 1. Chicago:57,870.7
2. Minneapolis: 36,801.6__________________ 2. Minneapolis: 39,339.5
3. Providence, RI: 36,476.1_______________ 3. Providence, RI: 36,693.0
4. San Jose, CA: 31,854.8_________________ 4. San Jose, CA: 33,438.9
5. Las Vegas: 27,618.8____________________ 5. Milwaukee: 27,471.7
6. Milwaukee: 26,755.1____________________ 6. Portland, OR: 25,987.6
7. Grand Rapids, MI: 25,748.1_____________ 7. Las Vegas: 25,069.1
8. Pittsburgh: 25,570.7___________________ 8. Grand Rapids, MI: 24,080.6
9. Cincinnati: 22,728.0___________________ 9. Pittsburgh: 23,464.3
10. Portland, OR: 21,256.1________________ 10. Austin, TX: 23,149.4
11. Toledo: 20,973.6______________________ 11. Cincinnati: 20,781.5
12. Austin, TX: 20,301.9__________________ 12. San Antonio, TX: 18,596.8
13. San Antonio, TX: 20,156.7_____________ 13. Omaha: 17,905.7
14. Akron: 19,946.2_______________________ 14. Toledo: 17,751.3
15. Omaha: 17,922.6_______________________ 15. Akron: 17,106.7
16. Dayton: 16,311.5______________________ 16. Columbus: 15,817.5
17. Columbus: 16,151.6____________________ 17. Nashville: 15,529.3
18. Indianapolis: 15,865.6________________ 18. Sacramento, CA: 15,512.7
19. Nashville: 15,554.4___________________ 19. Charlotte, NC: 14,873.9
20. Sacramento, CA: 15,385.7______________ 20. Indianapolis: 14,356.4

Density at Mile Marker 2, with an Area of 12.57 Square Miles.
2000————————————–2010
1. Chicago: 22,808.1______________________ 1. Chicago: 25,339.9
2. San Jose, CA: 18,854.7_________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 19,696.3
3. Minneapolis: 17,936.8__________________ 3. Minneapolis: 18,212.2
4. Milwaukee: 16,799.9____________________ 4. Milwaukee: 16,609.1
5. Providence, RI: 16,134.9_______________ 5. Providence, RI: 16,457.6
6. Las Vegas: 16,016.4____________________ 6. Las Vegas: 15,331.4
7. Pittsburgh: 13,232.7___________________ 7. Austin, TX: 12,524.4
8. San Antonio, TX: 12,427.0______________ 8. Pittsburgh: 12,123.2
9. Cincinnati: 12,250.1___________________ 9. Portland, OR: 11,881.0
10. Austin, TX: 12,152.8__________________ 10. San Antonio, TX: 11,690.5
11. Columbus: 11,203.7____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 11,324.8
12. Akron: 10,999.9_______________________ 12. Cincinnati: 10,997.2
13. Grand Rapids, MI: 10,884.2____________ 13. Columbus: 10,726.0
14. Sacramento, CA: 10,606.1______________ 14. Grand Rapids, MI: 10,146.0
15. Dayton: 9,756.8_______________________ 15. Akron: 9,737.1
16. Indianapolis: 9,383.0_________________ 16. Omaha: 8,993.2
17. Omaha: 8,960.7________________________ 17. Indianapolis: 8,147.3
18. Toledo: 8,816.9_______________________ 18. Dayton: 8,100.0
19. Orlando: 8,212.5______________________ 19. Charlotte: 8,086.8
20. Charlotte: 8,095.5____________________ 20. Nashville: 7,777.6

Density at Mile Marker 3, with an Area of 28.27 Square Miles
2000————————————2010
1. Chicago: 17,528.7_____________________ 1. Chicago: 18,003.2
2. San Jose, CA: 13,883.0________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 14,549.2
3. Las Vegas: 11,646.0___________________ 3. Las Vegas: 11,576.2
4. Minneapolis: 11,494.2_________________ 4. Minneapolis: 11,503.3
5. Milwaukee: 11,448.9___________________ 5. Milwaukee: 11,288.0
6. Providence: 11,173.7__________________ 6. Providence, RI: 11,240.2
7. Pittsburgh: 10,594.4__________________ 7. Pittsburgh: 9,738.7
8. San Antonio. TX: 9,234.3______________ 8. Portland, OR: 8,973.6
9. Portland, OR: 8,257.0_________________ 9. San Antonio, TX: 8,846.8
10. Cincinnati: 8,141.9__________________ 10. Columbus: 7,834.0
11. Columbus: 8,134.9____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 7,668.7
12. Sacramento, CA: 7,261.5______________ 12. Austin, TX: 7,534.0
13. Austin, TX: 7,232.3__________________ 13. Cincinnati: 7,273.6
14. Akron: 6,925.4_______________________ 14. Grand Rapids, MI: 6,540.0
15. Grand Rapids, MI: 6,852.0____________ 15. Akron: 6,284.9
16. Indianapolis: 6,727.9________________ 16. Orlando: 6,055.1
17. Toledo: 6,651.5______________________ 17. Omaha: 5,968.3
18. Dayton: 6,382.8______________________ 18. Toledo: 5,982.1
19. St. Louis: 6,093.7___________________ 19. Indianapolis: 5,879.9
20. Kansas City: 6,025.1_________________ 20. St. Louis: 5,663.8

Density at Mile Marker 4, with an Area of 50.27 Square Miles
2000———————————2010
1. Chicago: 15,447.2____________________ 1. Chicago: 15,205.9
2. San Jose, CA: 12,209.3_______________ 2. San Jose, CA: 12,629.6
3. Las Vegas: 9,788.0___________________ 3. Las Vegas: 10,022.2
4. Minneapolis: 8,874.4_________________ 4. Minneapolis: 8,921.8
5. Milwaukee: 8,823.8___________________ 5. Milwaukee: 8,725.5
6. Providence, RI: 8,454.3______________ 6. Providence, RI: 8,483.8
7. Pittsburgh: 8,216.0__________________ 7. Portland, OR: 7,785.5
8. Portland, OR: 7,282.9________________ 8. Pittsburgh: 7,602.6
9. San Antonio, TX: 7,208.6_____________ 9. San Antonio, TX: 6,995.5
10. Cincinnati: 6,922.8_________________ 10. Cincinnati: 6,279.4
11. Columbus: 6,449.3___________________ 11. Columbus: 6,257.4
12. Sacramento, CA: 5,744.7_____________ 12. Sacramento, CA: 6,138.5
13. Austin, TX: 5,541.5_________________ 13. Austin, TX: 5,847.2
14. St. Louis: 5,447.5__________________ 14. Omaha: 5,047.2
15. Cleveland: 5,356.2__________________ 15. St. Louis: 5,001.6
16. Indianapolis: 5,348.8_______________ 16. Grand Rapids, MI: 4,922.9
17. Detroit: 5,163.1____________________ 17. Orlando: 4,911.7
18. Omaha: 5,019.8______________________ 18. Indianapolis: 4,793.5
19. Akron: 4,900.7______________________ 19. Akron: 4,532.0
20. Dayton: 4,889.3_____________________ 20. Cleveland: 4,521.8

Density at Mile Marker 5, with an Area of 78.54 Square Miles

Note that this area size is about the current city size of Cincinnati and Cleveland.
2000————————————2010
1. Chicago: 14,213.6___________________ 1. Chicago: 13,591.0
2. San Jose, CA: 10,464.0______________ 2. San Jose, CA: 11,037.1
3. Las Vegas: 8,521.9__________________ 3. Las Vegas: 9,062.8
4. Minneapolis: 7,443.0________________ 4. Minneapolis: 7,455.9
5. Milwaukee: 7,081.2__________________ 5. Milwaukee: 7,029.1
6. Pittsburgh: 7,009.9_________________ 6. Pittsburgh: 6,492.7
7. San Antonio, TX: 6,326.6____________ 7. Portland, OR: 6,442.3
8. Providence, RI: 6,048.3_____________ 8. San Antonio, TX: 6,223.4
9. Portland, OR: 5,950.1_______________ 9. Providence, RI: 6,055.8
10. Cincinnati: 5,588.9________________ 10. Sacramento, CA: 5,664.2
11. Cleveland: 5,494.6_________________ 11. Orlando: 5,274.1
12. Columbus: 5,252.9__________________ 12. Columbus: 5,152.1
13. Sacramento, CA: 5,104.0____________ 13. Cincinnati: 5,096.2
14. Orlando: 4,993.7___________________ 14. Austin, TX: 4,993.7
15. Austin, TX: 4,786.5________________ 15. Cleveland: 4,602.4
16. Detroit: 4,748.7___________________ 16. St. Louis: 4,285.4
17. St. Louis: 4,731.5_________________ 17. Indianapolis: 4,086.1
18. Indianapolis: 4,447.7______________ 18. Omaha: 3,962.2
19. Akron: 4,025.9_____________________ 19. Grand Rapids, MI: 3,887.3
20. Grand Rapids, MI: 3,990.6__________ 20. Akron: 3,778.8

So if Columbus was the same size as Cincinnati and Cleveland, it would be the most dense city of the 3. And it’s generally in the top half of the grouping in its most urban areas.

But what about further out, past the urban core?

Density at Mile Marker 10, with an Area of 314.16 Square Miles.

This area size is much larger than the city limits of Columbus, but it gives an idea of the larger area’s density and not just within the city limits.
2000———————————–2010
1. Chicago: 9,344.3______________________ 1. Chicago: 8,795.0
2. San Jose, CA: 4,563.2_________________ 2. San Jose, CA: 4,809.8
3. Minneapolis: 4,183.2__________________ 3. Las Vegas: 4,794.2
4. Detroit: 4,117.4______________________ 4. Portland, OR: 4,230.3
5. Las Vegas: 3,877.3____________________ 5. Minneapolis: 4,178.3
6. Portland: 3,780.8_____________________ 6. San Antonio, TX: 3,454.9
7. Cleveland: 3,308.4____________________ 7. Detroit: 3,354.7
8. Pittsburgh: 3,279.8___________________ 8. Columbus: 3,163.9
9. San Antonio, TX: 3,217.8______________ 9. Pittsburgh: 3,080.4
10. Milwaukee: 3,013.7___________________ 10. Orlando: 3,055.0
11. Columbus: 2,973.3____________________ 11. Sacramento, CA: 3,016.4
12. St. Louis: 2,937.6___________________ 12. Milwaukee: 3,006.2
13. Cincinnati: 2,873.4__________________ 13. Cleveland: 2,923.7
14. Orlando: 2,783.9_____________________ 14. Indianapolis: 2,772.6
15. Sacramento, CA: 2,736.7______________ 15. St. Louis: 2,751.3
16. Indianapolis: 2,652.6________________ 16. Cincinnati: 2,746.8
17. Kansas City: 2,599.0_________________ 17. Kansas City: 2,538.3
18. Providence, RI: 2,360.0______________ 18. Austin, TX: 2,439.6
19. Austin, TX: 2,111.3__________________ 19. Providence, RI: 2,375.1
20. Dayton: 1,920.7______________________ 20. Charlotte, NC: 2,332.7

So what does all this tell us? That while Columbus is not the most dense city of its peer group, or within the Midwest group, it probably does not wholly deserve its low-density, suburban reputation. Most of the measurements are in the top half of the grouping for density, yes, but it is clearly the most weak in the urban core closest to Downtown, as that ranking is the lowest for it. The Mile 0 population, for example, is down near the very bottom, and that is a good reason why densities are not as high as they should/could be. Currently, Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are seeing a residential development boom, so that will help, but the city needs to think a lot bigger if it wants that stereotype to truly go away. The recent abandonment of the Convention Center mixed-use project is not a good way to go about that goal… and it should be a goal.