Tag Archives: Downtown Columbus

2020 Downtown Population Growth

Posted on by
Reply




2020 downtown population growth Columbus, Ohio

With the latest US Census data for 2020, we can once again take a closer look at how the Downtown area is doing.


Looking at the graph above, we can see that the Downtown population peaked in 1950 and declined through 2000. The last 20 years have seen accelerating growth and the population was the highest in 2020 since 1970. One caveat with this is that the census tract boundaries that are used to make up this graph have changed some over the years. They haven’t changed significantly, but the area that’s being covered in 2020 is slightly different than it was in 1950. As such, it’s more of an approximation per year rather than exact figures based on the exact same area. Still, the rapid decline after 1950 is well-documented. Highways were either being planned or already under construction through the neighborhood during the 1950s, and this also helped the beginning stages of the suburban flight from the urban core.

The urban core of the city overall reached its population peak in 1950, and the 1950 boundaries represent the oldest, arguably most urban part of the city today. Let’s examine how the population within that boundary changed over the same time.

The 1950 boundary peaked in 1960 and then declined through 2010. Between 2010-2020, the 1950 boundary area gained more than 22,000 new residents, a significant increase which puts the area back to where it was around 1995.

So in both cases, the urban core of Columbus is in recovery, though it is unlikely to ever regain its 1950 population. Average household size is much smaller now than it was 70 years ago, so it would require a massive amount of infill that would be far denser than much of what is getting built in recent years. Outdated zoning codes, among other reasons, have been limiting many projects in the urban core from reaching their potential.



Breaking things down a bit further, let’s look at the census tracts that made up the 1950 boundary in 2020 and rank them for population and growth.

1950 Boundary Census Tracts by Population Rank 2010 and 2020
2010————————————2020
1. 1121: 7,300——————–1. 1121: 12,131
2. 13: 6,583———————–2. 49: 5,686
3. 10: 5,830———————–3. 10: 5,613
4. 49: 5,651———————–4. 12: 5,201
5. 43: 5,613———————–5. 47: 5,138
6. 50: 5,205———————–6. 45: 5,048
7. 45: 5,154———————–7. 1810: 4,324
8. 47: 4,971———————–8. 22: 4,279
9. 12: 4,822———————–9. 4002: 4,245
10. 1810: 4,434—————–10. 30: 4,189
11. 55: 4,228———————11. 5: 4,187
12. 5: 4,057———————–12. 220: 4,186
13. 26: 4,028———————13. 1902: 4,063
14. 6: 3,780———————–14. 55: 4,062
15. 220: 3,727——————–15. 1901: 4,059
16. 1110: 3,688——————-16. 17: 3,994
17. 57: 3,629———————-17. 26: 3,920
18. 1902: 3,410——————-18. 6: 3,839
19. 910: 3,409———————19. 1110: 3,751
20. 4610: 3,368——————-20. 57: 3,715
21. 110: 3,344———————21. 910: 3,693
22. 37: 3,303———————-22. 730: 3,629
23. 20: 3,252———————-23: 32: 3,500
24. 120: 3,162———————24. 4301: 3,532
25. 1122: 3,159——————–25. 110: 3,489
26. 310: 3,147———————-26. 37: 3,389
27. 420: 3,139———————-27. 310: 3,377
28. 820: 3,121———————-28. 710: 3,339
29. 30: 3,105———————–29. 2760: 3,331
30. 710: 3,102———————30. 420: 3,316
31. 730: 3,090———————31. 4610: 3,298
32. 2760: 3,066——————-32. 1122: 3,268
33. 53: 3,054———————–33. 20: 3,259
34. 40: 2,941———————–34. 120: 3,220
35: 210: 2,935———————35. 820: 3,193
36. 4810: 2,891——————-36. 2510: 3,144
37. 2510: 2,856——————-37. 52: 3,125
38. 17: 2,704———————–38. 5002: 3,095
39. 4620: 2,659——————–39. 210: 3,049
40. 2520: 2,648——————–40. 1302: 3,039
41. 28: 2,629————————41. 4810: 2,929
42. 4820: 2,589———————42. 1301: 2,903
43. 810: 2,540———————–43. 29: 2,887
44. 410: 2,419———————–44. 2520: 2,784
45. 320: 2,390———————–45. 810: 2,747
46. 720: 2,384———————–46. 5810: 2,719
47. 330: 2,314———————–47. 4820: 2,685
48. 1820: 2,598———————-48. 53: 2,676
49. 52: 2,584————————-49. 4620: 2,609
50. 5810: 2,548———————-50. 720: 2,583
51. 59: 2,546————————-51. 2750: 2,554
52. 2780: 2,423———————-52. 51: 2,548
53. 61: 2,398————————-53. 61: 2,534
54. 29: 2,368————————-54. 320: 2,505
55. 2750: 2,349———————-55. 1820: 2,478
56. 60: 2,345————————-56. 28: 2,461
57. 2740: 2,316———————-57. 21: 2,456
58. 5820: 2,230———————-58. 2740: 2,447
59. 5420: 2,151———————-59. 410: 2,439
60. 32: 2,147————————-60. 330: 2,427
61. 2730: 2,104———————-61. 5620: 2,422
62. 920: 2,069————————62. 16: 2,399
63. 15: 2,031————————-63. 59: 2,365
64. 1901: 2,031———————-64. 2780: 2,353
65. 2770: 1,995———————-65. 2770: 2,300
66. 51: 1,928————————–66. 60: 2,224
67. 38: 1,896————————–67. 920: 2,209
68. 2710: 1,858———————-68. 2730: 2,183
69. 22: 1,851————————-69. 5820: 2,127
70. 21: 1,808————————-70. 38: 2,105
71. 5610: 1,784———————-71. 15: 2,092
72. 16: 1,682————————-72. 5420: 2,082
73. 14: 1,543————————-73. 36: 2,039
74. 23: 1,453————————-74. 2710: 1,908
75. 36: 1,442————————-75. 4302: 1,740
76. 42: 1,370————————-76. 5001: 1,647
77. 5410: 1,362———————-77. 5610: 1,646                                                           ———————————————78. 14: 1,531
——————————————79. 23: 1,503
——————————————80. 5410: 1,418
——————————————81. 4001: 1,253 
——————————————82. 42: 1,107
The color coding is Green: Growing since 2010, Red: Declining since 2010, and Pink: New Tracts that did not exist in 2010. New tracts: 13 became 1301 and 1302, 40 became 4001 and 4002, 43 became 4301 and 4302, 50 became 5001 and 5002.

Top 10 Fastest-Growing 1950 Boundary Census Tracts by Total 2010-2020
1. 1121: +4,831
The tract is the main OSU Campus. The explosive growth is mostly due to the recent requirement that sophomores also have to now live on Campus, prompting thousands of students to move to the tract from nearby neighborhoods.
2. 4002: +2,592
This new tract was split off of Tract 40 and includes the southwest area of Downtown, including RiverSouth.
3. 22: +2,428
This tract is the heart of Italian Village and includes the large, new Jeffrey Park development.
4. 1901: +2,028
Includes the 5th Avenue corridor to just east of 5thxNW.
5. 32: +1,353
This tract covers the southern part of Victorian Village/Harrison West, as well as the far western sections of the Arena District where the new White Castle HQ complex is.
6. 17: +1,290
Western Weinland Park, which has seen rapid revitalization in recent years.
7. 30: +1,084
This area includes all of the norther half of Downtown north of Broad Street and west to Neil Avenue in the Arena District.
8. 16: +717
Eastern Weinland Park, which has seen hundreds of new housing units constructed along and near Grant Avenue.
9. 1902: +653
Includes the 5th Avenue corridor through 5thxNW.
10. 21: +648
The heart of the High Street strip in the Short North continued to add people. It reached its highest population in 60 years.

Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Population Densities in 2020
1. 1121: 34,888.8
2. 1810: 28,351.1
3. 1302: 24,740.7
4. 1301: 20,549.1
5. 17: 20,158.6
6. 12: 20,069.6
7. 1110: 18,353.2
8. 10: 16,260.2
9. 16: 12,675.6
10. 21: 12,196.7
All of these tracts are either in the Short North or surrounding Ohio State’s campus. They include the highest densities anywhere in Ohio.

So there you have it. The urban core of Columbus is clearly on a positive path. So long as infill development continues, population growth should also continue to increase. Perhaps someday, this increasing population and density may facilitate the construction of more amenities, including rail lines, BRT and more biking infrastructure, all of which lags in the area.
To see Census Tract data in map form, the Census Tract Maps page provides it.



How I Would Complete the Arena District

Posted on by
Reply




In the 2nd in this series of posts, I made maps for how I imagine the Arena District could be finished and made whole.

Here’s the link to the map. There are 2 pages, so be sure to check them both.
http://goo.gl/maps/t0Xw1

What I envision for this area is as follows:

-5 new parking garages, all at least 5 stories and 500 spaces. They would also be mixed-use with ground floor retail/restaurant space and potential residential above. 1 additional garage already built would be expanded.
-7 groups of historic buildings would be preserved. These could be converted to mixed-use spaces.
-10 existing buildings would be torn down and replaced with mixed-use development.
-11 new parks/green spaces would be created. The largest would be go in the large wooded lot south of Vine Street and north of the railroad tracks.
-A transit hub for light rail would be built at the railroad tracks just north of Nationwide Boulevard west of the Buggyworks complex. The location could serve trains going in any direction.
-New pedestrian/bike trails would be built from the Scioto River connecting to the new transit hub, as well as to a new parking garage behind the LC Pavilion and to the large central park south of Vine Street. The trail would then run parallel to the park, cross under 670 and connect with the Olentangy Trail.
-The old casino site would become the new home of a new/relocated stadium for the Columbus Crew.
-Broadbelt Lane would be extended past the new stadium site and then connect to W. Nationwide Boulevard. This would allow several new mixed-use buildings to go up around the stadium.
-A large public plaza would go in north of the stadium. It would potentially include a playground, skate park, public art pieces, barbeque areas and perhaps an outdoor skating rink.
-At least 22 surface lots would be replaced with mixed-use development, all at least 5 stories in height. Those closest to the Scioto would be minimum of 10 stories.
-Bike lanes would go on all major streets, and new sidewalks would be constructed where they either don’t exist or where they need to be connected.

So, what do you think of this plan?

Columbus Historic Buildings Mapped on Google

Posted on by
Reply



Columbus Historic Buildings Map

This link is continuously being updated because there are thousands and thousands of historic buildings in the Columbus area. I am focusing on just those within I-270. Information includes the address or name of the building, the year or approximate time built, height in stories, original and current uses, as well as whether or not it is on the National Register of Historic Buildings. If so, I included the year that it was added to the Register.

The buildings on the map go all the way back to 1804 and run through 1925.

Because this map is a work in progress, the link will be permanent under the City Resources links on the home page. Keep checking back to see more places being added over time.

Enjoy!

Rise of RiverSouth

Posted on by
Reply




The RiverSouth area of Downtown was, not that long ago, the epitome of the disastrous Urban Renewal policy so popular during much of the mid-latter part of the 20th century. Bounded to the east by High Street, north by State Street, west by the Scioto River and south by I-70, this area, by the mid-1990s, had become a sea of surface parking lots, old storage warehouses, underutilized or empty storefronts and ugly infrastructure. The construction of City Center Mall in 1989, with its location directly across High Street, was supposed to help bring this neighborhood back with new development. Instead, as the mall did with the rest of Downtown, it helped suck the life out what retail and business existed there. Worse, the concrete, prison-like exterior of the mall lacked any type of street-level connection, so it functioned to keep people off the sidewalks and the streets were as abandoned as ever even as thousands of shoppers flooded the new mall every weekend.
The imposing structure of City Center.

As newer suburban competition gradually killed City Center itself, the city was left with the task of figuring out what to do with its hulking core. Proposals were put for from everything to government buildings to redesigning the building itself into an Easton-like outdoor shopping town center. However, the money and interest for such proposals just weren’t there, and so the city came up with another, much different plan. The 10-15 year development plan called for the complete demolition of the mall complex, replacing it with a new city park complete with an entertainment stage, carousel and eateries.
City Center’s demolition in 2010.

The mall was closed in 2009 and demolished the following year. This event seems to have marked the true beginning of the rise of RiverSouth. Columbus Commons and its 9 acres opened to the public in 2011. Despite a hugely negative expectation by some that the park would see little use and become a new place for vagrants and criminals, CC was an almost instant success. Hundreds of events were held there during its first year, and those numbers have grown every year since. Picnic with the Pops moved to the new park during the 2012 season, and the Columbus Food Truck Festival has attracted tens of thousands each of the last 2 years. The carousel, outdoor library and other events have been popular with kids and families. The park, with all its success, helped to bring about another important change to the area. It attracted development.
Columbus Commons before any development.

Originally, the park’s long-term plan was to have the grassy areas along High Street developed, but no one expected that to happen within a decade. Instead, a developer came forward less than a year after the park opened. High Point was that project, a pair of 6-story mixed-used buildings that would line the entire west side of the park from the corner of Rich and High. 302 new apartments, a handful of restaurants and ground floor retail lining High were all part of the project. Still under construction, this project should be complete in early 2014. Unfortunately, as the below pictures show (and the most flattering ones I could find at that) that the architecture is pretty horrendous. Despite that, the buildings will help fill in the gaps on High Street and bring hundreds of new residents, so the positives outweigh the negatives here.


Since the announcement of City Center’s demise, other projects have come about over the last few years that have helped raise the profile of RiverSouth.
-The Annex at RiverSouth replaced several surface parking lots along S. Front Street. This 214-unit, 4-story residential complex was originally planned to be a mix of condos and apartments, but became mostly apartments when the condo market died off. The complex was completed in 2010.

-The new Franklin County Courthouse, a $106 million, 7-story complex was completed in 2011 at the southwest corner of W. Main and S. High Streets.

-The Scioto Mile, the $44 million riverfront park, was completed in 2011 complete with fountains, a restaurant, paths and an entertainment stage.

-Main Street Bridge was replaced with a signature, $60 million arched span in 2011.

-The Rich Street Bridge was also replaced in 2012 with a new $26 million open span.

-The old Lazarus building, once connected to City Center by a massive skywalk, received a $60 million renovation in 2010 that converted the former retail building into an LEED green office building for the Ohio EPA and other organizations.

-Many of the streets in the area have been rebuilt with brick crossing and new landscaping.

So a lot has been done over the past few years, but what’s coming next? Beyond the High Point project, 3 more projects have recently been announced.

-The first is the conversion of the Secur-It warehouse building at the northeast corner of S. Front and W. Main Street. The century-old building was once used as a shoe factory, but was bricked over and used as a storage facility for many years. The current plan by Casto is to turn the building into about 90 residential units. The old warehouse windows will be restored, as well as the façade and interiors. The project should get started in the spring of 2014.
The current Secure-It building.

Rendering for the Secure-It proposal.

-Second, we have Lifestyle Communities LC at RiverSouth project. This 8-story, 102-unit residential building will occupy the northwest corner of S. High and W. Rich Streets, directly across from Columbus Commons. Construction should begin this fall and complete in early 2015.

-And finally, we have the recently announced 250 High project. This $50 million, 12-story mixed-use tower would have ground floor retail, 4 floors of offices and 7 floors of residential totaling 156 units. This project will be built on the surface lot adjacent to the old City Center parking garage at 250 S. High Street. Construction on this project should also begin in the fall and complete sometime in early 2015.

These projects will no doubt spur others in the near future. Several surface lots still exist in RiverSouth, and a few of them are still along S. High Street just north of the new courthouse. Given the momentum of the neighborhood, expect to see development announcements on at least a few of these lots sooner than you think.



The Recovery of Downtown vs. Cleveland and Cincinnati Part 1

Posted on by
Reply



Columbus’ downtown has seen many many changes, especially over the last decade. Developments like the Arena District, Columbus Commons, the Scioto Mile and more have brought new life to the area. Dozens of new restaurants have opened the past year or two alone, and a new grocery store will be opening for area residents in February. More developments coming up include the Scioto River restoration project that will create acres of new Downtown park space and pathways, and the redevelopment of the Scioto Peninsula behind COSI should connect the two sides of the river. All of this had led to rising population, now approaching 7,000. More than 1,000 residential units are currently under construction and more is on the way. So the question I was wondering is how has population been changing not only in Columbus’ downtown, but in comparison to Cleveland and Cincinnati. Both of those cities have also seen major projects in their downtown cores and are seeing an uptick in their downtown populations. So how has the recovery of Downtown vs. Cleveland and Cincinnati progressed?

First, I examined the 1950 city limits for all three cities. This was the last census year before sprawl really took hold and changed the city dynamics and growth patterns. 1950 is also when most cities in Ohio reached their peak urban population, so I thought it would be interesting to see how those old boundaries had changed over the years. I went to the US census website and began to look up all the census tracts that existed in each city in 1950. Those would represent my base area that I would use to see the changes in the city core. All of the 3-Cs have grown beyond those 1950 boundaries, especially Columbus, but these areas were the hardest hit when the urban decline came the last 50-60 years while the suburbs grew. The results are both sobering and hopeful.

1950 Boundary Population Change 1950-2010
Cincinnati: -225,489
Cleveland: -536,351
Columbus: -141,319

1950 Boundary Population % Change 1950-2010
Cincinnati: -44.7%
Cleveland: -58.6%
Columbus: -37.6%

So what do these numbers show? Well, it’s clear that all 3 cities had urban core population declines the past 60 years just like just about every other city in the nation did. This was mostly a result of the suburban movement.
In Cleveland, the rate of loss had gradually been slowing down since the 1970s, but suddenly skyrocketed again in the 2000s. I’m not sure what exactly caused this. The double recessions made it more difficult for people to move, so if anything, the losses should’ve not accelerated. Cleveland lost over 90,000 people in its urban core from 2000-2010, the highest lost by % and total of any Ohio city.
In Cincinnati, population loss had peaked in the 1970s and the rate of loss fell substantially the following decade. However, the past 2 decades have actually seen a gradual acceleration of losses. The 2000-2010 period saw the second biggest total loss for the urban core.
For Columbus, it’s been the opposite picture. Like the other 2-Cs, losses peaked in the 1970s. Since then, the urban core losses have been in gradual decline. The 2000-2010 period had the smallest rate and total loss of any decade the past 60 years.

So interesting results, but these numbers don’t show any trends of what’s going on inside the 1950 boundaries, especially not the relatively small part that would be the downtowns. So let’s break the numbers down to the tract level.

# of Tracts in 1950*
Cincinnat: 107
Cleveland: 201
Columbus: 48

*The number of tracts changed from 1950 on as some were split or consolidated. This made it more complicated, but luckily the Census gives lists on how tracts changed over time, so one can figure out what tract became what and reasonably keep up with the same boundaries that existed in 1950.




So with this breakdown, we can see more of the trends within the 1950 boundaries. In Cincinnati, a long decline was followed by a recovery in 1990, only to have the next 20 years show an increasing decline. The 2010 census showed the fewest number of tracts growing on record. This is the worst performance of the 3-Cs. Cleveland also had a steep decline followed by a recovery, but it too declined more at the last census, but not nearly to the low point it reached in the 1970s and 1980s.

Meanwhile, Columbus also faced an initial steep decline and barely had any tracts growing during the 1970s. Since then, the trend has been up. The 16 growing tracts in 2010 were the highest since the 1940s. This is the best performance of the 3-Cs, and Columbus had the highest % of growing tracts in its core. Still, those 16 represent less than 1/3rd of the total tracts within the 1950 boundaries. So while there appears to be recovery ongoing in Columbus, especially compared to Cleveland and Cincinnati, it’s not where it needs to be.



So let’s look to the future. All these tracts are trending in certain directions themselves. While they may be losing now, they may be trending toward an eventual gain, and vice versa. If we follow the trends ongoing for the urban core tracts, where might the picture look like in say, 2020?

Tract Trends for Those Tracts Growing in Population in 2010
Trends are listed from what, in my opinion are the most positive to the most negative.

Growing in both 2000 and 2010, but Growth Accelerating Over Time and % of Total Tracts
Cincinnati: 0- 0%
Cleveland: 7- 4.6%
Columbus: 5- 11.3%

Shrinking in 2000 but Growing in 2010 and % of Total Tracts
Cincinnati: 10- 9.5%
Cleveland: 20- 13.1%
Columbus: 10- 18.9%

Growing in both 2000 and 2010, but Growth Slowing Over Time and % of Total Tracts
Cincinnati: 1- 1.0%
Cleveland: 1- 0.7%
Columbus: 1- 1.9%

Shrinking in both 2000 and 2010, but Loss Slowing Over Time and % of Total
Cincinnati: 28- 26.7%
Cleveland: 21- 13.7%
Columbus: 15- 28.3%

These tracts are those most likely to switch to positive growth come 2020. This is arguably one of the more positive trends and may deserve to be bumped a bit higher on the list.

Growing in 2000 but Shrinking in 2010 and % of Total
Cincinnati: 18- 17.1%
Cleveland: 42- 27.5%
Columbus: 5- 9.4%

Shrinking in both 2000 and 2010, but Loss Accelerating and % of Total
Cincinnati: 48- 45.7%
Cleveland: 93- 60.8%
Columbus: 17- 32.1%

These are the worst of the worst tracts, likely representing the most declined parts of the urban core. It’s pretty surprising to see that almost 2/3rds of Cleveland’s tracts are in this condition.

The tract trends paint a very interesting picture about each city’s urban core future. If we expanded these trends to the next census in 2020, this is what you might see.


All this information, however, deals with the entire urban core. What about just the Central Business Districts, or the downtown areas for each city? In , I will examine those numbers and trends for the very heart of these cities.