July’s Missed Opportunity of the Month




July’s missed opportunity of the month is just one more entry into the list of dumb ideas, but it isn’t about something bad with the development itself. Rather, it’s instead about the unfortunately common plague of NIMBYism that festers in so many urban neighborhoods, and how it can kill good urbanism because some people have delicate sensibilities that need stroking.

A while back, Kaufman Development proposed a 10-story, mixed-use project at 23 W. 2nd Avenue that spanned part of the block between Price and 2nd, most of which was already a vacant grass lot. The project proposed renovating the 91-year-old IBEW building and incorporating it into the overall project, which included a mix of apartments, retail and office space.

—Last rendering in July 2018.

Victorian Village, the neighborhood of which the project fell under, was of course completely apoplectic about it. After the first neighborhood commission meeting, at which commission members and neighborhood busybodies expressed deep concerns about the design and size, Kaufman went back to the drawing board. Over time, Kaufman redesigned the project more than 20 times, the height changing from 10 to 9 to 14 and then back to 10 stories, with the number of apartments, uses, scale, etc. being changed over and over again to please the fickle nearby residents. These residents (and let’s not forget commission members, which admittedly, faced a 4-4 tie in the vote because the commission was lacking its 9th member, something the City hopes to rectify in the near future) complained about traffic and that the project would “block the sun”, among other roll-of-the-eyes nonsense. It was the kind of shenanigans that even Clintonville might suggest had gone too far.

So after 7 straight months of trying to please those that cannot be pleased, the actual preferred outcome inevitably occurred:
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/07/12/kaufman-walks-away-from-contested-mixed-use.html

Instead of continuing to deal with unreasonable people, spending more time and money for something they couldn’t make work, Kaufman decided to walk away from the project altogether. Though they still own the property and may eventually come back to the table with another proposal, it seems unlikely to be anywhere near the scale originally proposed. The NIMBYism aside, this speaks to the disconnect between the real estate conditions in Columbus and the pushback on building new development that would actually help resolve some of the existing problems. Columbus is currently in the midst of a housing crisis. Population estimates show that the city has become one of the nation’s fastest-growing. This growth, combined with a historically-low inventory and record sales, has put a huge strain on the housing market, including pushing prices to ever-higher levels. Simply put, residential construction hasn’t been keeping pace with the influx of population into the city, and this has been the case since at least the 2009 recession. Instead of intentionally limiting developers to go smaller in prime locations- such as in the very-high-demand Short North off of High Street- development commissions across the city should be welcoming more housing. Instead, projects are being downsized or rejected by local populations left and right. Let’s look at a few reasons why commission members and some residents opposed this particular project.

Traffic!!!!
The argument that traffic would be a problem is silly and misguided for many reasons, but I’ll just review a few of them. First, the project plan provided parking in a garage for its residents and at least some for retail customers/visitors, and the extra cars driving around wouldn’t have been significant enough to make any noticeable difference in an already busy area. Second, Price Avenue was said to be too small and narrow to handle cars going in and out of the garage entrance per the project, but it’s clearly wide enough for 1-way traffic (its 1-way already) and 2 more lanes of curbside parking, so that reason seems equally bunk. And entrance/exit from the project would not have taken up many existing curb spots, and no configuration changes to the street would’ve been needed except for perhaps a very small end section of Price.

—Price Avenue looking toward High, about where the Kaufman project would’ve gone on the left.

Third, traffic and parking shouldn’t be used as a hammer to squash development, but as the catalyst to demand better transit and pedestrian options. Whether those include buses, rail, bikes, better sidewalks, etc. can be debated, but transit is an important part of the picture in urban neighborhoods, whether people like it or not. Furthermore, this area is already highly served by bus and bike, as well as car-share and Uber. The idea that people even have to drive here, or even to the Short North in general, is simply not true. Given that the Short North is highly walkable, many of the residents that would’ve lived here would’ve been less likely to use their cars for all trips, anyway, thereby further reducing the impact on local roads.

It’s Too Big for the Neighborhood!!!
To this, I say, bullshit. Multiple projects just as big or larger have already been built or are under construction on both sides of High Street, including in Victorian Village, which this site falls under. To say that the Kaufman site is not appropriate is completely arbitrary, even if the site is not on High itself, but set back slightly. To the east is the High commercial corridor and to the west is an alleyway. 4 single-family homes exist to the east of the alleyway, and would’ve been the only ones really directly near the project. The complaint that there would be significant “sun blocking” is ridiculous. It wasn’t a 50-story tower, and the orientation of project meant that any sun loss would have been minimal at worst.

The Historic Character of the Neighborhood is Being Lost!!!
This one comes up with virtually every single development in this particular neighborhood. Victorian Village is indeed a beautiful neighborhood with some of the city’s best-preserved historic housing. But the Kaufman project would’ve had no impact on that, whatsoever. No demolition would’ve taken place, as this particular land lost all of its historic buildings before 1980. It’s just a vacant lot now. More importantly, the proposal would’ve renovated an actual historic building, the IBEW, helping to preserve it for the future. The histrionics on preserving the neighborhood rings hollow when nothing was actually under threat.

In any case, the project is probably dead. Whatever might be proposed in its place will likely do that much less to help address the housing crisis or to keep the neighborhood progressing. It’s a shame that some people can hold entire neighborhoods hostage with outdated thinking, and how a 40-year-long vacant lot- and counting- can be preferable to the fear of change.




2017 Ohio City Population Estimates




city population estimates

So once again, 2017 Ohio city population estimates came out today from the Census. As has been the case for a long time now, Columbus is rocketing upward at record pace. The 2016 comparison numbers have been adjusted by the Census for the 2017 update.

First, let’s take a look at the top 25 largest cities in Ohio on July 1, 2017.
Census 2010—————————-July 1, 2016——————-July 1, 2017
1. Columbus: 787,033——–1. Columbus: 863,741———–1. Columbus: 879,170
2. Cleveland: 396,815———2. Cleveland: 387,451———-2. Cleveland: 385,525
3. Cincinnati: 296,943———3. Cincinnati: 299,127———-3. Cincinnati: 301,301
4. Toledo: 287,208————-4. Toledo: 278,06—————4. Toledo: 276,491
5. Akron: 199,110————–5. Akron: 197,711—————5. Akron: 197,846
6. Dayton: 141,527————6. Dayton: 140,743————–6. Dayton: 140,371
7. Parma: 81,601————–7. Parma: 79,591—————–7. Parma: 79,167
8. Canton: 73,007————-8. Canton: 71,294—————-8. Canton: 70,909
9. Youngstown: 66,982——9. Youngstown: 64,360———9. Youngstown: 64,604
10. Lorain: 64,097————10. Lorain: 63,700—————-10. Lorain: 63,841
11. Hamilton: 62,477———11. Hamilton: 62,157————11. Hamilton: 62,092
12. Springfield: 60,608——-12. Springfield: 58,902———12. Springfield: 59,208
13. Kettering: 56,163———13. Kettering: 55,218————13. Kettering: 55,175
14. Elyria: 54,533————-14. Elyria: 53,880—————–14. Elyria: 53,883
15. Lakewood: 52,131——-15. Lakewood: 50,500———-15. Lakewood: 50,249
16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,652–16. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,197–16. Newark: 49,423
17. Euclid: 48,920————-17. Newark: 48,899———-17. Cuyahoga Falls: 49,247
18. Middletown: 48,694——18. Middletown: 48,819——–18. Middletown: 48,823
19. Mansfield: 47,821——–19. Euclid: 47,464—————19. Dublin: 47,619
20. Newark: 47,573———–20. Mentor: 46,823————-20. Euclid: 47,201
21. Mentor: 47,159————21. Mansfield: 46,671———-21. Mentor: 47,121
22. Cleveland Heights: 46,121–22. Beavercreek: 46,393–22. Beavercreek: 46,948
23. Beavercreek: 45,193—–23. Dublin: 45,673————-23. Mansfield: 46,160
24. Strongsville: 44.750—–24. Cleveland Heights: 44,805–24. Strongsville: 44,744
25. Fairfield: 42,510———25. Strongsville: 44,713———25. Cleveland Heights: 44,562

So Columbus easily maintained #1, and Dublin and Newark are rapidly climbing the list.

Here are all of the Columbus Metro’s cities, towns and villages on July 1, 2017, and the total change from July 1, 2016.
1. Columbus: 879,170 +15,429
2. Newark: 49,423 +534
3. Dublin: 47,619 +1,937
4. Grove City: 41,022 +1,128
5. Lancaster: 40,280 +431
6. Westerville: 39,737 +671
7. Delaware: 39,267 +506
8. Reynoldsburg: 37,847 +345
9. Hilliard: 35,939 +938
10. Upper Arlington: 35,337 +217
11. Gahanna: 35,297 +241
12. Marysville: 23,912 +462
13. Pickerington: 20,402 +350
14. Whitehall: 18,913 +89
15. Pataskala: 15,566 +147
16. Worthington: 14,646 +71
17. Circleville: 13,930 +80
18. Bexley: 13,786 +48
19. Powell: 13,204 +400
20. New Albany: 10,718 +301
21. Heath: 10,713 +100
22. London: 10,138 +143
23. Canal Winchester: 8,294 +349
24. Grandview Heights: 7,778 +116
25. Logan: 7,069 +25
26. Granville: 5,773 +11
27. Groveport: 5,621 +26
28. Sunbury: 5,293 +57
29. Johnstown: 5,002 +43
30. Obetz: 4,967 +99
31. New Lexington: 4,704 -12
32. Plain City: 4,379 +32
33. West Jefferson: 4,355 +59
34. Ashville: 4,147 +29
35. Mount Gilead: 3,655 +1
36. Baltimore: 2,989 +15
37. Buckeye Lake: 2,816 +18
38. Crooksville: 2,491 -6
39. Hebron: 2,435 +23
40. Richwood: 2,372 +56
41. Utica: 2,211 +17
42. Cardington: 2,048 +2
43. South Bloomfield: 1,972 +19
44. Roseville: 1,839 -4
45. Mount Sterling: 1,767 +10
46. Commercial Point: 1,629 +13
47. Lithopolis: 1,573 +128
48. Ashley: 1,537 +26
49. Somerset: 1,462 -1
50. Bremen: 1,441 +6
51. Minerva Park: 1,321 +6
52. Hanover: 1,178 +15
53. Williamsport: 1,065 +6
54. Millersport: 1,055 +7
55. Urbancrest: 1,001 +6
56. Thornville: 999 +5
57. Pleasantville: 964 +3
58. Milford Center: 860 +20
59. New Holland: 840 +5
60. Junction City: 808 -2
61. Shawnee Hills: 787 +14
62. Amanda: 747 +4
63. Ostrander: 713 +13
64. New Straitsville: 711 -1
65. Marble Cliff: 683 +10
66. Galena: 682 +1
67. Shawnee: 643 -1
68. Valleyview: 638 +1
69. Thurston: 609 +4
70. Corning: 571 -1
71. Butchel: 568 +5
72. Stoutsville: 567 +3
73. Riverlea: 566 +2
74. Carroll: 560 +33
75. Kirkersville: 542 +3
76. Alexandria: 534 +3
77. Laurelville: 511 +2
78. Murray City: 441 +1
79. Edison: 438 +0
80. Sugar Grove: 426 +0
81. Hartford: 404 +2
82. St. Louisville: 380 +4
83. South Solon: 357 -1
84. Marengo: 338 -1
85. Harrisburg: 335 +4
86. Midway: 326 +1
87. Rushville: 310 +2
88. Magnetic Springs: 285 +8
89. Tarlton: 282 +1
90. Orient: 278 +1
91. Fulton: 258 +0
92. Lockbourne: 246 +0
93. Darbyville: 234 +1
94. Unionville Center: 232 -1
95. Chesterville: 227 +0
96. Gratiot: 222 +1
97. Glenford: 172 +0
98. Sparta: 158 -3
99. Hemlock: 152 +0
100. West Rushville: 135 +1
101. Brice: 119 +1
102. Rendville: 36 +0

Some milestones include Grove City and Lancaster passing 40,000 for the first time and Johnstown passing the 5,000 mark. 11 places lost population, 8 stayed the same and 83 gained population. The growing portions of the Columbus metro continue to encompass the vast majority of incorporated places.

Nationally, here were the top 20 fastest-growing cities by numerical change between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017
1. San Antonio, Texas: +24,208
2. Phoenix, Arizona: 24,036
3. Dallas, Texas: +18,935
4. Fort Worth, Texas: +18,664
5. Los Angeles: 18,643
6. Seattle, Washington: +17,490
7. Charlotte, North Carolina: +15,551
8. Columbus: +15,429
9. Frisco, Texas: +13,470
10. Atlanta, Georgia: +13,323
11. San Diego, California: +12,834
12. Austin, Texas: +12,515
13. Jacksonville, Florida: +11,169
14. Irvine, California: +11,068
15. Henderson, Nevada: +10,534
16. Las Vegas, Nevada: 9,966
17. Denver, Colorado: 9,844
18. Washington, DC: 9,636
19. Tampa, Florida: 9,383
20. Mesa, Arizona: 9,025

Columbus may in fact be an official boomtown now.



Columbus Domestic Migration Origins



Columbus domestic migration origins

Most people seem to recognize that the Columbus domestic migration origins are often based in Ohio. Many rural counties and downtrodden cities are seeing residents move to Columbus and the greater metro for better economic and other opportunities. But how much of that domestic migration is actually from Ohio?


Top 30 Largest Net Domestic In-Migration Origins (Ohio Counties and States)

Numbers are based on estimates. Updated 1/24/2018 with 2011-2015 data.

2006-2010————————2009-2013—————————-2011-2015
1. Cuyahoga: 1602———-1. Cuyahoga: 1905————–1. Cuyahoga: 1842
2. Montgomery: 1020——-2. Michigan: 1425—————-2. Michigan: 1239
3. Michigan: 893————-3. Montgomery: 1123————3. Montgomery: 1088
4. Maryland: 745————-4. Summit: 744——————–4. Summit: 764
5. Lorain: 740—————–5. Lorain: 715———————-5. Lucas: 626
6. Virginia: 636—————6. Indiana: 694———————6. New Jersey: 608
7. Mahoning: 603————7. Lucas: 569———————–7. New York: 575
8. Stark: 584——————8. Maryland: 512——————-8. Medina: 572
9. Lucas: 554—————–9. Hamilton: 504——————–9. Stark: 484
10. Summit: 531————-10. Clermont: 466—————–10. Trumbull: 465
11. Highland: 499———–11. Stark: 466———————–11. Maryland: 464
12. New Jersey: 497——-12. Arizona: 463——————–12. Allen: 406
13. Hamilton: 483———–13. Alabama: 431——————-13. Washington (state): 399
14. New York: 419———-14. Trumbull: 401——————-14. Erie: 386
15. Allen: 384—————-15. Mahoning: 387——————15. Indiana: 386
16. Tennessee: 375——–16. Fayette: 354———————16. Massachusetts: 384
17. Logan: 328—————17. Washington (state): 353—–17. Pennsylvania: 371
18. Trumbull: 325————18. Coshocton: 346—————-18. Kentucky: 368
19. Coshocton: 310———19. Medina: 322——————–19. W. Virginia: 339
20. Jefferson: 290———–20. Allen: 302————————20. Lake: 316
21. Scioto: 259—————21. Erie: 290————————-21. Belmont: 314
22. Belmont: 254————22. Highland: 270——————-22. Wayne: 298
23. Huron: 245—————23. Puerto Rico: 265—————23. Fayette: 290
24. Darke: 217—————24. Adams: 260———————24. Mahoning: 289
25. Lake: 212—————-25. Warren: 260———————25. New Hampshire: 288
26. Tuscarawas: 202——-26. Massachusetts: 259———-26. Alaska: 282
27. Iowa: 200—————–27. Wayne: 259———————27. Alabama: 280
28. Shelby: 199————–28. Morgan: 255——————–28. Lorain: 277
29. Medina: 196————-29. Tuscarawas: 253————–29. Tuscarawas: 277
30. Massachusetts: 192—30. Ashtabula: 244—————–30. Geauga: 261

Top 30 Largest Net Domestic Out-Migration Destinations (Ohio counties and States)
2006-2010——————————-2009-2013—————————-2011-2015

1. Texas: -1371———————-1. Georgia: -1024—————-1. Florida: -1333
2. Knox: -942————————-2. Florida: -1013——————2. Missouri: -703
3. North Carolina: -782————3. Greene: -524——————-3. Georgia: -680
4. Georgia: -718———————4. Missouri: -516——————4. Athens: -607
5. Athens: -679———————-5. Colorado: -448—————–5. Knox: -506
6. Kentucky: -516——————-6. California: -436—————–6. Tennessee: -442
7. South Carolina: -499———–7. South Carolina: -431———-7. Colorado: -435
8. California: -364——————-8. Knox: -418———————-8. California: -391
9. Florida: -360———————-9. North Carolina: -417———-9. Greene: -388
10. Wood: -351———————10. Wisconsin: -395————–10. South Carolina: -362
11. Richland: -344——————11. Athens: -336——————11. Marion: -329
12. Greene: -239——————–12. Minnesota: -308————-12. Hamilton: -312
13. West Virginia: -236————13. Utah: -290———————13. Logan: -306
14. Missouri: -219——————-14. Richland: -266—————14. Utah: -300
15. Crawford: -209——————15. Portage: -265—————–15. Wood: -282
16. Hardin: -179———————16. Kentucky: -257—————16. Scioto: -249
17. Noble: -177———————-17. Logan: -242——————-17. Seneca: -183
18. Muskingum: -175—————18. Pennsylvania: -242———18. Champaign: -174
19. Butler: -173———————-19. Tennessee: -200————19. Oregon: -158
20. Holmes: -163——————–20. Oregon: -187—————-20. New Mexico: -157
21. Marion: -138———————21. Wood: -166——————21. Meigs: -150
22. Portage: -134——————-22. Sandusky: -157————–22. Mississippi: -146
23. Ottawa: -131——————–23. Mississippi: -151————-23. Portage: -142
24. Sandusky: -124—————-24. Jefferson: -127—————24. Idaho: -137
25. Oregon: -120——————-25. Kansas: -98——————-25. Minnesota: -125
26. Indiana: -116——————-26. Delaware (state): -88——-26. North Dakota: -112
27. Idaho: -115———————27. Idaho: -74———————-27. Wisconsin: -111
28. Utah: -103———————- 28. Crawford: -73—————–28. Darke: -103
29. Fayette: -93———————29. Hardin: -68——————–29. Texas: -95
30. Kansas: -90———————30. Seneca: -66——————-30. Hardin: -87

Top 25 Largest Positive Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Texas: +1276
2. North Carolina: +982
3. Kentucky: +884
4. West Virginia: +575
5. Indiana: +502
6. Washington (state): +466
7. Knox: +436
8. Richland: +406
9. Butler: +395
10. Fayette: +383
11. Medina: +376
12. Alaska: +364
13. Michigan: +346
14. Alabama: +298
15. Clinton: +282
16. Erie: +263
17. New Hampshire: +261
18. Lawrence: +241
19. Cuyahoga: +240
20. Summit: +233
21. Wayne: +226
22. Crawford: +221
23. Muskingum: +211
24. Clermont: +198
25. Nevada: +197

Top 25 Largest Negative Swings Between 2006-2010 and 2011-2015
1. Florida: -973
2. Tennessee: -817
3. Hamilton: -795
4. Logan: -634
5. Colorado: -598
6. Scioto: -508
7. Highland: -491
8. Missouri: -484
9. Lorain: -463
10. Virginia: -437
11. Darke: -320
12. Mahoning: -314
13. Champaign: -310
14. Jefferson: -301
15. Maryland: -281
16. New Mexico: -261
17. Minnesota: -249
19. Coshocton: -233
20. Washington (county): -208
21. Ashland: -202
22. Utah: -197
23. Marion: -191
24. Seneca: -181
25. Iowa: -158

Total Counts By Period
Positive Ohio Counties

2006-2010: 53
2009-2013: 57
2011-2015: 50

Positive States, including DC and Puerto Rico
2006-2010: 21
2009-2013: 24
2011-2015: 28

Total Net In-Migration
Ohio

2006-2010: +8,008
2009-2013: +11,366
2011-2015: +7,895

Outside Ohio
2006-2010: -1,158
2009-2013: -466
2011-2015: +1,598

Ohio and Outside Ohio
2006-2010: +6,850
2009-2013: +10,900
2011-2015: +9,493

All these figures show that the Columbus metrohas net positive domestic migration. While the majority of that comes from within the state, Columbus’ previously negative net total from outside the state has more recently become positive as well. For a long time, Columbus’ relative success was not well-known outside of the state, but perhaps word is finally getting out.

Where Racial Groups are Growing Fastest in Franklin County



The US Census recently released updated estimates for 2016 for smaller-area designations like tracts and blocks. Looking at them, I wanted to see where racial groups were growing fastest at that level.
The first map is based on the % change from 2010 to 2016.

What’s interesting about this map is that it is such a hodgepodge. No single part of the county is dominated by growth in any specific racial group. However, a few things can be generally determined. For example, almost all of the tracts where the White population is growing the fastest are within I-270, and the majority of those within the eastern half of the Columbus in what have long been dominated by Black majority populations. These areas include parts of Linden, the Near South and Near East sides. That said, the White population was growing the fastest in just 30 census tracts by % change. This compared to 53 for the Black population, 83 for the Asian population and 107 for the Hispanic population.

The next map takes a slightly different approach, measuring the TOTAL change in population, rather than by %.

Again, a hodgepodge, but much less so than before. Instead of being the fastest-growing in just 30 tracts, the White population rockets up to 108 tracts. This shows that, while Asian and Hispanic populations have respectable % growth, this is largely based on comparatively small population bases. Still, non-White populations are clearly making inroads throughout Franklin County.

Before and After German Village



German Village dates back to the early 19th Century, when it was sometimes called called Germantown. Unsurprisingly, by the middle of the 20th Century, the neighborhood had declined significantly, yet still retained the vast majority of its historic buildings. The city of Columbus had it in mind to bulldoze a large part of the neighborhood in the 1950s for public housing, but activists organized against those plans. Instead, in what was one of the first major success stories of Columbus preservation, German Village was saved. The entire area was eventually added onto the National Register of Historic Places in 1975, and today it is still the largest historic district on the registry anywhere in the United States. Here are just a few before and after photos around the neighborhood.

Before: Stewart Avenue Elementary School, looking northeast, in 1920.

After: 2017

The school was constructed in 1873 and remains in use today, one of the oldest continuous schools remaining in the city.

Before: City Park Avenue at Lansing Street, looking south, in 1898.

After: 2016

Before: The Max Neugebauer Tailor Shop at 764 Mohawk Street in 1897.

After: 2016

Neugebauer arrived in Columbus in 1887, but it’s unclear when he opened this business.

Before: Beck Street and Mohawk, looking east, in 1950.

After: 2017

German Village was considered a “slum” by 1950, so the before photo would’ve been around the time of the neighborhood’s low point.

Before: Third Street and Beck, looking east, in 1981.

After: 2016

The photo shows a German Village “Haus and Garten Tour” through the neighborhood.