This is the last of my entries prompted by my recent trip to Columbus. I’ve noted before that Columbus and Indianapolis are twin cities in many ways, though with some important differences.
One of those differences is that the civic discussion in Indianapolis today is heavily driven by the urgency of reversing the decline of Marion County as the city of Indianapolis increasingly loses out demographically and economically to its suburbs. In Columbus, by contrast, I didn’t sense nearly the same concern about suburban competition. While again I only have limited data points to go by, what conversations I did have if anything suggested to me that the city of Columbus thinks it’s holding most of the cards in the region. I suggest letting Indianapolis be a cautionary tale, and that Columbus should be much more focused on how to manage future suburban competition than it presently seems to be.
By the late 1960s Indianapolis had, like most cities, been steadily losing ground to suburban development. The response was a city-county merger called Unigov* that in effect annexed all important contemporary suburbs are well as most of the empty land that would be urbanized in the next two decades. This allowed Indianapolis to capture that suburban tax base and avoid many of the problems that plagued other older cities during the 1970s.
Fast forward to the present and it’s clear that the Unigov model is out of gas. Marion County is now largely full apart from some areas in the southern parts, and has a fairly flat growth curve in population. Most the growth is now in the collar counties. What’s more, there’s been a huge employment shift as well, with the city losing 41,000 jobs since 2000 and the suburbs gaining 78,000. I gave an overview of the dynamics in a previous post.
Today Indianapolis has a serious problem on its hand. How did this happen? It’s pretty simple. Unigov bought he city 40 years. But what did it do with that time? It built up its downtown to one of America’s best, a legitimately impressive and important accomplishment. But beyond that it was basically business as usual. Unfortunately, the 5.5 square miles of downtown can’t carry the rest of the city’s nearly 400. The city should have been aggressively preparing for the day when Unigov would reach exhaustion. But it did not.
Columbus utilized a similar technique to Unigov by aggressively annexing suburban development. And it had fairly similar results, doing well and avoiding the problems. But it seems to be widely accepted in Columbus that the city is nearing the end of its growth by annexation phase. While unlike in Indiana, Ohio makes it fairly easy to annex across county lines, and Columbus extends into multiple counties already, annexation has slowed to a crawl. In part I’m told that they are now reaching into territories that have other sources of water than the city of Columbus water utility, and thus the city has less leverage to annex than before. While technically not hemmed in, Columbus has less room for growth than before. This raises the question of when the dynamics of decline will set in within the newly stagnant city.
Columbus appears to be in better shape than Indy right now. I’d say this is for a few reasons. First, Franklin County, Columbus’ home base, is geographically bigger than Indy’s Marion County, giving Columbus a larger area of natural historic dominance. Columbus is also home to newer office/retail suburban development than Indianapolis. For example, Indy’s Keystone Crossing area is based on edge city and power center templates that are dated, while the corresponding Easton area in Columbus is newer and built to a lifestyle center type template that’s a bit more up to date. Columbus similarly has the relatively new Polaris area inside its borders.
What’s more, Columbus’ suburbs are comparatively underdeveloped and thus aren’t rivals as of yet. Indianapolis has five suburbs with more than 50,000 people – two of them with more than 80,000. Columbus has none. Only Dublin, which has 43,000 people, 9.5 million square feet of office space, and major downtown development ambitions, appears to be a full scale competitor at this point. Most other suburban municipalities are much smaller (e.g., New Albany has less than 10,000 people) and/or enclosed by the city of Columbus and thus limited in growth. Favored quarter suburban Delaware County has 185,000 people (some of which are in the city of Columbus) vs. nearly 300,000 for analogous Hamilton County, IN. What’s more, Hamilton County is far ahead in infrastructure vs. Delaware County. Delaware County has next to no upgraded east-west or “crosstown” arterials. Two reservoirs there make developing them difficult, with one of them separating I-71 from the developed parts of the county. Thus the county is even lacking in north-south “radial” movements.
These factors and others have essentially kept Columbus from facing any significant suburban competition. But unless the city wants to somehow double down on annexation and try to restart that engine, at some point these dynamics will change and the city of Columbus will find itself physically constrained and competitively disadvantaged vs. newer and now more powerfully developed suburban entities. Dublin is likely a preview of coming attractions.
I don’t have any particular policy suggestion in mind here, nor am I saying that anything the city is doing is necessarily wrong. But given what has happened in Indianapolis, I would certainly encourage the future prospect of suburban competition to be top of mind. The city of Columbus should be aggressively scenario planning for how this will play out, and use the runway that it has left to be preparing for the era of more intense intra-regional competition to come. Better to err on the side of paranoia, because the risks of waiting until you’ve got a serious problem on your hands are too high to ignore.
* Unigov also ensured a white majority in the city
As a resident of neither city my impression is that while Indianapolis has a better downtown than Columbus, Columbus’ inner neighborhoods are in significantly better shape than Indy’s. They are more active, have better architecture and seem denser. That is why I feel the city of Columbus is in a better position than Indy.
I would beg to differ on Indy having “5.5” sq miles of one of the best downtowns in America. In my opinion the square mile surrounding Monument circle is one of the nicest and cleanest in the midwest and then the density drops off dramatically. The population numbers would seem to bear this out. Indy desperately needs something to drive more high quality dense development throughout the city, but it seems rail is not in the cards there. Perhaps the cultural trail can spur more upscale development? Columbus seems to be building more high quality infill in the inner city that will age much better in my opinion.
I have noticed a sort of cockiness in some Columbus boosters toward the relative struggles of older hemmed in Midwestern cities, particularly instate rivals Cleveland and Cincinnati. It will be interesting to see how they will handle facing some of the same challenges in the future, and I feel that there is some denial that Columbus will ever face some of the same problems.
Columbus doesn’t worry about suburban competition because it’s mostly suburban itself. Moving beyond municipal borders doesn’t allow you to have more space or to avoid costs. You can remain in Columbus and do that. Columbus is functionally suburban in all but a few small enclaves. Many suburban Columbus subdivisions are built at significantly higher densities, and with inferior quality construction, to any I have seen in similarly aged developments around Cincinnati. I’ve often wondered why that was.
Interestingly enough, Nationwide just announced that it would be abandoning the outer suburbs and moving to Grandview Yard, which is just across 315 from the Arena District and Downtown. Dublin is losing 3,400 jobs to this move, and Westerville is losing 200. This move represents the very last of Nationwide’s outer suburban job centers, as it has been moving jobs to the urban core for the past few years. It recently completed moving about 1,800 jobs to a new office building on N. Front Street Downtown.
Similarly, Columbia Gas is just about done with it’s new HQ building in the Arena District, a reinvestment into the Downtown area rather than moving further out or into the suburbs.
Further, Sbarro also recently announced it’s moving it’s HQ from New York to Marble Cliff, an inner suburb adjacent to Grandview Heights.
It’s moves like this and others are the real reasons Columbus isn’t all that worried about its suburbs. The inner core areas are seeing lots of construction and a seemingly increased number of companies investing there, not to mention thousands of residents moving in. Residential vacancy throughout Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods is less than 1%.
Beyond all that, I continued to be baffled by the suburban stereotype. If Columbus was the same size as Cleveland or Cincinnati, it would be the most dense of the 3. Even at 220 square miles, it will likely pass up Cincinnati in density this year or next, despite being 3x larger. Having suburban areas annexed into the city doesn’t automatically mean that those suburbs are very low-density.
@Matthew: Columbus density at 78.54 square miles was 5,124.1 in 2010. Cincinnati’s was 5,096.2 and Cleveland’s was 4,602.4. You can find these densities by using the population from City Hall measurements that the census does. You can use the population and area at each mile marker to find the rough density.
Indianapolis, btw, would have a density at 78.54 square miles of 4,086.1.
Anybody who thinks Columbus does not need to worry about suburban competition is fooling themselves. I suggest that Columbus develop an aggressive strategy to continue annexation. It has worked so far.
This can be done by the old method of leveraging the water and sewer systems. It can be strengthened by the state government which is conveniently in downtown Columbus. Pass statewide legislation to mandate stricter controls on stream water quality, stormwater runoff and greenfield development. Make it more difficult on the smaller water treatment plants and septic systems. Make them buy into the regional water system that has the size to meet all the mandates. Many times these decisions are made locally by vote, let the price of clean water dictate who delivers the water.
Sounds harsh, but this is nothing more than business as usual.
If it were feasible, would annexation of more suburbs be a good idea? If over the next few decades US cities follow inversion pattern with wealthy center and poor burbs, more annexation seems like a major strategic mistake for cities (though maybe burbs should be clamoring for it). Maybe just a hypothetical for Indianapolis and Columbus, but I read that either re-joining the county or a full merger is getting back on the agenda for St. Louis, and wonder whether that idea is past its sell date even if opposition is from the burbs — everyone is looking backwards.
Is focusing on intense intra-regional competition conducive to good governance? I’m afraid it might lead to worse — intense negative sum subsidy competition. I’d rather cities and burbs focus on their own good governance and preparing for massive infrastructure changes due to self-driving vehicles.
City-county consolidation is yesterday’s reform. Indianapolis needs to be part of a regional system. Watch how rising gas prices will impact suburban growth, not to mention low wage norm.Did you read news about how Europe is running out of fossil fuels? Meanwhile major oil field giants are aging and shale forecast just got halved!
Columbus should act quickly before the balance of power swings against it. Delaware County is one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio and the people moving out there not only vote but many have the ability to influence many voters.
Midwest is going to lose boomers to low wage warmer (less need for expensive winter heating) and cheaper South. Keep in mind most boomers are cash poor!
By the way are you aware NC worrying about not having workers to replace retirees! Yes not investing in human coital is going to bite sunbelt- which already relies on federal dole.
By the way I wish Joel Kotkin would stop waxing lyrical about Texas and running down CA. Texas is a moocher and it mooches on CA!
He doesn’t get that manufacturing hires less people today, and low wage South is still poor. Texas is more dependent on federal dole than revenues it sends to it-like other southern states. CA and NE send more dollars then they get back. Maybe also because of the southern tax climate.
It just amazes me that sothern states have no plan B to right to work when it has been failing them for 50 years.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-11/new-south-battles-old-poverty-as-right-to-work-promises-fade.html
New South Battles Old Poverty as Right-to-Work Promises Fade
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004375-americas-new-industrial-boomtowns
America’s New Industrial Boomtowns
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/03/27/which-states-take-the-most-from-the-u-s-government/
Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government?
CA is 7, Texas is no 32. The TX moochers should get federal subsidies cut.
http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings
States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government
The main problem with cities is that they ration services, that drives suburbanizion.Check out survey of 5 largest metros, not to mention an earlier study of NYC. Both revealed this problem.
By the way, I just pulled the jobs numbers in Columbus. Franklin County has lost 30,000 jobs since 2000. Outer suburban counties have gained over 48,000. Franklin County’s share of metro area employment is now right about where Marion County’s was in 2000 – so about a decade or so behind in the trendline.
Jon, are you describing the density of municipal Columbus or Columbus’ MSA. It doesn’t really matter to me because there are just too many variable to summarize it in single numbers, but I think we should define our terms.
Columbus is definitely in an interesting position. It seems like the inner core is growing up rapidly. A new transit plan promises much better service in the central area in the short term. Unlike most cities, the city school system had many acceptable and even desirable options. Basically, people do want to live in much of Columbus and housing prices have been rising rapidly over the last decade.
That said, Dublin is about to redefine what suburbs can do and be with its Bridge Street corridor development. I expect other suburbs will quickly follow suit to build their own downtowns. If suburbs get more urban, that takes away one of Columbus’ core advantages. I think the lost important thing the region could do would be to stop expanding outward so much. There is no need for everything between Delaware and Columbus (now called Lewis Center) to be developed. Same for Marysville. Just stop. Growing there means diverting growth from the core.
@Aaron… Can you point me to where you’re finding county job changes? The only thing I can find is that employment grew by 36,700 May 2000-May 2014. The AFF site from the census only goes back to 2002, and it doesn’t seem to give full jobs numbers, anyway. The BLS only does metros so far as I can tell.
@Matthew, I am talking about the city, which is what was relevant considering that was what this was about… the city vs. its suburbs. Bottom line was that Columbus is about as dense as Cincinnati despite being nearly 3x larger in area.
@John… I like Dublin’s plan, but the idea of more urban-style growth seems to have an obvious limitation. Sprawl-type growth is fast. Meaning that greenfield development is easy and cheap because it’s so often subsidized. If the suburbs start moving away from that and start focusing on smarter infill projects, can those growth rates be maintained? And can prices remain as low? My guess is probably not. And this is not really a situation unique to Columbus, anyway. Cities and suburbs everywhere are facing similar questions about growth and competition.
Even so, take New Albany for example. The town existed for some 150 years before Les Wexner decided to make it into his own personal development experiment. By most accounts, it’s been successful and growing fast. It grew by 282 people 2012-2013, with a 3.3% growth rate, the 2nd fastest of any place in the Columbus metro. Columbus, meanwhile, grew by 12,450, or 1.54%. So New Albany had the faster % change, but nowhere near the actual total growth. Despite a suburb’s perceived success, most of Columbus’ suburbs could double in size and still be less than a 1/10th of Columbus’ size current size if it stopped growing completely, and we’re a long, long way from any of them reaching that point.
There’s also a measure of how much the growth in Columbus is within the larger metro. In Indianapolis, for example, the core city accounted for just 20.74% of the metro’s growth 2010-2013. In Columbus, the core city accounted for 53.93% of the metro’s growth. This is actually a big improvement from the 2000s, when the city accounted for 33.76% of the metro growth. In Indianapolis during the 2000s, the city accounted for 16.67% of the metro growth, so there was improvement there too, but not nearly as much.
So when people go on about how Columbus is in some kind of imminent danger from its suburbs, I am not sure how much evidence for that conclusion there really is right now. Speculation is one thing, but it seems to be based on the ideas that suburban growth will remain consistent or increase while the city suffers some inevitable downturn or loss of population. Right now, Columbus is growing faster than at any point in its history. If it was on the verge of disaster, I’m not sure that would be happening.
MSAs are the scale at which to consider density. they were created to overcome the complications that come from the random and arbitrary differences in local government boundaries.
I used the BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which reports data at the county level. It’s based on payroll taxes, so is limited, but that’s also a key input into the CES time series that’s used for the monthly jobs reports, etc.
I took Franklin County and Columbus MSA 2000-2012 annual total jobs figure from that, and calculated the balance of MSA figure from those.
Ok, this is not going to turn into another Cincinnati vs. Columbus thread. Cincinnati wasn’t mentioned in my original post so no further comparisons.
Jon, you’re basically making my point. Columbus isn’t worried about suburban competition because it’s doing great now. Wait until you aren’t doing so great, and you’ll be behind the 8-ball like Indy. Complacency isn’t a strategy.
2010 Census Data, Metro Area Population-Weighted Density:
Columbus: 3,186.0
Cincinnati: 2,563.6
Cleveland: 3,808.4
Indianapolis: 2,285.6
__________________________________________________________
For the first time since 2000 (or longer?) Franklin County grew at a marginally faster rate than Delaware County in 2013:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/countys-population-growth-leads-ohio.html
Could that be an anomaly? Yes. But look at the chart in that article and you will see that Delaware’s % growth has steadily declined, while Franklin’s has stayed the same or increased slightly. And in real numbers its substantially different with Franklin at over 16,000 and Delaware around 2,000.
I have a suspicion that part of the reason for the difference here is the type of growth that is taking place. Delaware is largely very high end, large lot SFHs. Franklin is largely very dense SFH subdivisions, even in faraway places like Cosgray & Hayden Run and the Easton/Gahanna area as well as both greenfield and infill multifamily.
I’d actually say that Columbus has continued to be very aggressive since the slowdown of annexation but in different ways. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into downtown/core area infrastructure like parks, the river, road projects and tax abatements for residential and office. There has been a push to get corporations to continue downtown growth while still allowing for things to happen at Easton, Rickenbacher, Polaris, and the Airport.
Lots of revitalization money and the ever present OSU which has pour probably $2-$4 billion (not an exaggeration, $1 billion just in the new med center tower). Moving away from the sprawl engine is probably a good idea in terms of economics. Why allow for more hollowing out?
When it comes to scale, one thing to consider is that suburbs don’t have to reach the same size as the city. They just have to have the minimum viable scale to compete. As a rule of thumb, I’d put the start of that scale around 50K for your classic business oriented upscale suburb.
Dublin is cloning Carmel, Indiana’s strategy, which has been very effective. What happened in Indy is that after Carmel pursued its town center vision, many other regional suburbs started doing the same thing. I would expect Dublin, to the extent it has success, to spawn many imitators.
For me, suburban isn’t about lower density, its about politically and fiscally separating yourself from the costs and administrative responsibilities of a metro. HIgh density suburbs aren’t less suburban because of their density. They are suburban because they have separate governments and have figured out how to avoid paying their share of the costs of metro-wide functions. That’s why they exist. If separating yourself from the central municipality doesn’t confer any such advantages why would they do it. In columbus, many don’t because there is no advantage. That’s my point. You can drive west from downtown Columbus and be in the middle of a corn field in 20-25 minutes.
Counties are still arbitrary. That is why MSAs were created; to allow for meaningful comparison of metros that are complicated by the random differences in local government boundaries. When a company looks at locations, they don’t consider county lines, they consider MSA characteristics.
Bottomline, the city of columbus does not include all of metro Columbus. The difference between the city of Columbus and Columbus’ MSA are essential in understanding metro Columbus.
@Matthew, in most metro areas, the suburbs have not been primarily (if at all) about separating themselves fiscally from the rest of the metro. Their biggest drivers have always been (1) more space, (2) better schools and (3) lower crime. The crime reductions in many cities over the past ~25 years have eliminated one of those drivers; the other two remain. For dense cities (which probably doesn’t describe Indy or Columbus), the “more space” issue will probably never go away – that’s kind of their point. As for the remaining driver…well, it’s too bad urbanists rarely discuss schools.
I am no expert on Columbus or Indy – do you think they are exceptions to this? If so, they are outliers. In most/all metro areas, there are lots of people (especially families with children) who want the combination of low density, good schools and access to a healthy job market. And that is a good thing – these are the people who are propagating the species.
@Aaron… But you’re assuming that it won’t be doing great at some point without any real evidence to suggest it would be facing significant adversity from its suburban counterparts. I’d be more than willing to consider the position, but it seems to be based on the fact that Indianapolis is not doing well in comparison with its suburbs. Indianapolis and Columbus have some similarities, but they also have large differences, and lacking much evidence, I wouldn’t assume that the two cities share the same fate, especially when they already seem to be heading in different directions.
This is what makes the city growth vs. the metro area so interesting to me. Indianapolis is significantly larger in area size than Columbus, and yet captures only about 1/5th of its metro population growth, while Columbus captures more than 50% of it. That is a stark difference. People seem to want to live in the city of Columbus much more than they want to live in the city Indianapolis, even though that cit, and that number has improved over the years even as annexation slowed down.
Further, I don’t see Columbus being complacent whatsoever, but perhaps you can point out a few examples where it is being so?
@Aaron… But you’re assuming that it won’t be doing great at some point without any real evidence to suggest it would be facing significant adversity from its suburban counterparts. I’d be more than willing to consider the position, but it seems to be based on the fact that Indianapolis is not doing well in comparison with its suburbs. Indianapolis and Columbus have some similarities, but they also have large differences, and lacking much evidence, I wouldn’t assume that the two cities share the same fate, especially when they already seem to be heading in different directions.
This is what makes the city growth vs. the metro area so interesting to me. Indianapolis is significantly larger in area size than Columbus, and yet captures only about 1/5th of its metro population growth, while Columbus captures more than 50% of it. That is a stark difference. People seem to want to live in the city of Columbus much more than they want to live in the city Indianapolis, and that number has improved over the years even as annexation slowed down. In fact, from 2012-2013, Columbus had almost 1/3rd the total growth that Indianapolis had during the entire decade of the 2000s.
Further, I don’t see Columbus being complacent whatsoever, but perhaps you can point out a few examples where it is being so?
@Aaron,
I looked up the BLS report you were referencing, and from what I can tell, it doesn’t exactly show a loss of 30,000 jobs.
First, the data seems to only go back to January 2001, as I couldn’t change the year to go back any further than that, and ends in December 2013. Second, it doesn’t deal directly with total jobs, but rather total employees.
From there, even if you look at annual averages, the change is nowhere nearly 30,000, but more like 12,000. That change seems to be the result of going from the dot.com boom of the late 1990s-early 2000s when employment was exceptionally high, to the post-double-recession years of the 2000s. The number of employees has been rising since 2010. December 2013 actually had the highest total employees in Franklin County of any month in the 12-year period.
But maybe I am looking at the wrong thing. If so, do you have a link that directly deals with jobs?
Just a couple of clarifying points. You can get an official list of city densities here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
I know its Wikipedia but the source is from the US Census bureau.
Columbus is indeed denser than Cincinnati (which surprised me), but it is not denser than Cleveland. In fact Cleveland has about 1500 more people per square mile than Columbus.
Columbus is much denser than Indianapolis. In fact, Indianapolis is one of the least dense big cities in America, and probably the world. I think, that when comparing the two, there are a couple of things to look at. Columbus’ density is definitely a huge strength over a city like Indianapolis. As others have mentioned, there are more neighborhoods and other pockets around the county that a city like Indianapolis just doesn’t have. However, Indianapolis has a much stronger downtown core. I think Indy is making strides now to densify its core, whereas Columbus has been focusing less on densifying and more on making their core attractive to people wanting to visit (whether from out side of Columbus or other areas in the county).
Having the worst trouble trying to post…
2010 Census Data, Metro Area Population-Weighted Density:
Columbus: 3,186.0
Cincinnati: 2,563.6
Cleveland: 3,808.4
Indianapolis: 2,285.6
__________________________________________________________
For the first time since 2000 (or longer?) Franklin County grew at a marginally faster rate than Delaware County in 2013:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/countys-population-growth-leads-ohio.html
Could that be an anomaly? Yes. But look at the chart in that article and you will see that Delaware’s % growth has steadily declined, while Franklin’s has stayed the same or increased slightly. And in real numbers its substantially different with Franklin at over 16,000 and Delaware around 2,000.
2010 Census Data, Metro Area Population-Weighted Density:
Columbus: 3,186.0
Cincinnati: 2,563.6
Cleveland: 3,808.4
Indianapolis: 2,285.6
For the first time since 2000 (or longer?) Franklin County grew at a marginally faster rate than Delaware County in 2013:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/15/countys-population-growth-leads-ohio.html
Could that be an anomaly? Yes. But look at the chart in that article and you will see that Delaware’s % growth has steadily declined, while Franklin’s has stayed the same or increased slightly. And in real numbers its substantially different with Franklin at over 16,000 and Delaware around 2,000.
I have a suspicion that part of the reason for the difference here is the type of growth that is taking place. Delaware is largely very high end, large lot SFHs. Franklin is largely very dense SFH subdivisions, even in faraway places like Cosgray & Hayden Run and the Easton/Gahanna area as well as both greenfield and infill multifamily.
I’d actually say that Columbus has continued to be very aggressive since the slowdown of annexation but in different ways. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into downtown/core area infrastructure like parks, the river, road projects and tax abatements for residential and office. There has been a push to get corporations to continue downtown growth while still allowing for things to happen at Easton, Rickenbacher, Polaris, and the Airport.
Lots of revitalization money and the ever present OSU which has pour probably $2-$4 billion (not an exaggeration, $1 billion just in the new med center tower). Moving away from the sprawl engine is probably a good idea in terms of economics. Why allow for more hollowing out?
In most American metros suburbs are political separate divisions from metros with different tax and spending regimes. WE know that they are dependent on their metro economies, but their reason for being is to limit the fiscal and regulatory connections to their larger region. If this weren’t true, separate suburban municipalities and townships wouldn’t exist.
What is the relationship between density and economic growth in American metros?
It looks like the online QCEW data in data.bls.gov is on available from 2003. The actual data series goes back to at least 1990 and is available in flat file form here:
http://www.bls.gov/cew/datatoc.htm
The data series you want are ENU3904910010 and ENUC181410010
I pulled the data from my Telestrian system. Speaking of which, it looks like the 2013 annual data is out, so I’m going to update that today.
As I said, the data is from payroll taxes, but it covers the overwhelming majority of jobs.
Jon, if the people in Columbus are satisfied with the status quo, then by all means stay with it.
Here is an article about Density & Economic Growth:
http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/11/cities-denser-cores-do-better/3911/
Long term I tend to think density has more to do with economic efficiency than anything else. If you have the ability to do brown field or grey field development rather than green field it would seem to be to be cheaper and more efficient by many measures.
@DKY,
You’re right that Cleveland is still the current most dense city of the 3-Cs.
Indianapolis’ overall density is a result of Unigov, but it’s still near the bottom of peer cities in terms of density even if you scaled it down to different sizes. I recently compared it to 26 other cities, using both national peers (1.5-2.5 million metros) and the top Midwest metros, and it consistently ranked in the bottom 1/3rd for density no matter the area used. I’m not sure why it developed so differently than many other larger cities, but it did.
Columbus is densifying, however. Single family home construction made up just 17.8% of total units built in 2013, down from 60.5% in 2004. The story is actually similar in the entire county, with just 24.6% of new construction residential units being single-family homes.
Also, take a look at residential construction units in the city vs. the overall metro. What % of those residential units are in the city vs. the metro total?
Indianapolis Average % by Year
1996-1999: 31.8%
2000-2009: 27.7%
2010-2013: 17.6%
Columbus Average % by Year
1996-1999: 41.2%
2000-2009: 42.5%
2010-2013: 51.7%
They’re going in complete opposite directions. The city of Columbus is gaining a larger share of residential construction vs. its overall metro, while Indianapolis is losing its share. So it seems to me that the argument that a city can lose out to its suburbs can be true, but so far, that is only the case for one of the 2.
@Aaron…
I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to that comment. What makes you think the people of Columbus are happy with the status quo, and what specifically indicates that is true at the ground level? I asked a serious question, not just trying to be defensive. What do you think Columbus is doing wrong that indicates it is happy with where it is currently, or that indicates it is in growing danger from its suburbs?
Well, Jon, you’re skeptical of my thesis for all the reasons you’ve outlined in your comments above. If that’s the case, then fine. Go with that analysis. I’m not trying to force feed Columbus or you a scenario you don’t want to buy. In short, I’m being anything but defensive – I don’t feel compelled to try to convince you to see it my way.
@Aaron, I’m not asking you to force me to be convinced either way. But reading your article again, it seems that you’re concluding that what’s happening in Indianapolis is likely to happen in Columbus without significant intervention or some sort of policy change. I’m just asking what makes you think that the two cities are likely to follow the same path, especially when, at least currently, they seem to already be on very different development paths? I don’t think that’s an entirely unreasonable question. Your last paragraph in the article seems to say you don’t think Columbus is necessarily doing anything wrong, but you still seem to feel like it will head in Indianapolis’ direction at some point. I’m just trying to reconcile those two opinions.
How do public schools factor into all of this? The genius and the shame of annexation in Columbus was that the overwhelmingly white city residents whose children attended suburban public schools were allowed to remain in the city without having to send their children to city schools. It’s an article of faith in some circles that the white middle class decamped to the suburbs because they loved the smell of freshly mown grass, but there were larger social issues afoot. So how do Marion and Franklin compare on the real issues of race and education? Franklin County suburban school districts are highly regarded, and homes in those districts sell at high premiums.
I don’t know for certain what will happen. I just see what has happened in other cities, and especially one like Indianapolis where the annexation model was broadly similar. You may have noticed my recent post on the city of Dallas (1.2+ million in the city proper) and its struggles despite a gigantically booming region. It would seem that planning for the reality of a post-annexation future would be wise. Columbus is doing things I’d suggest like building up its urban core areas. But I got no real sense that leaders in the city are even thinking about a day when they are ringed by powerful suburbs and the locus of growth is outside of the city’s borders.
Aaron, this is what it is like discussing Columbus with the handful of people in Columbus who care about it as a place. They aren’t used to getting any disagreement because in Columbus most people they meet care little about Columbus as a place. For most in Columbus, if Columbus doesn’t work out for them they’ll quickly move on. This leaves the field open for the boosterism of the few who imagine staying in Columbus. In this dynamic, there is little to support a useful discussion of Columbus as a place. The shallow and brittle social connections of Columbus are its greatest weakness, in my view.
Granted Matt, in your view there are no positives to the city.
I’d say the biggest thing that Columbus needs to do and really isn’t is a big investment in transit. Even Indy is planning but after a string of levy defeats and the general cautiousness of city leaders its unlikely that anything big will even be considered until 2016. Having said that COTA is planning some good changes that will vastly improve the current system.
Columbus should also probably be modeling many of its ‘suburban’ type neighborhoods redevelopment after Bridge Street in Dublin. It would seem that would be lots of opportunities in the Northwest Dublin/Upper Arlington Corridor that has very little current planning or focus.
Education & crime should also be focuses but those are much harder nuts to crack than develop.
Matthew, what statistics can you site that show that there are only a handful of people in Columbus who care about it as a place?
“In fact, Indianapolis is one of the least dense big cities in America, and probably the world.”
Not really true. Kansas City is significantly lower density than Indianapolis. And many, many southern cities are at an even lower density. And not just from the Nashville approach (which is awfully similar to the Indianapolis approach). Some of them are still annexing voraciously, either to fend off what they see as the impending eroding tax base, or to stave off further hemorrhaging that has already taken place.
But I would agree with you that most of the lowest density cities of the world are in the US.
@Tom… Good luck getting an honest answer to that question. Matt has his own agenda.
@Aaron… Fair enough and I think the point I was trying to make is not to simply post a bunch of excuses or to act like there aren’t any issues facing Columbus. I’m just not convinced that Indianapolis and Columbus share the same inevitable outcome. I think those fates diverged the year Unigov became a reality.
“I think those fates diverged the year Unigov became a reality.”
I think the day they built Ohio State’s main campus near the center of town it also became very unlikely they would have the same development pattern.
John, IUPUI is a big downtown campus in Indy, and that was done deliberately over the last four or five decades. As I’ve pointed out endlessly, OSU has ~13,000 graduate students, and IUPUI over 8,000, but IUPUI’s proportion of grad to undergrad is higher. The IU graduate schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, public/environmental affairs, business, law, art, and informatics/information science all have very significant faculty and student bases at IUPUI.
It’s not as if OSU is an order of magnitude bigger or has higher quality programs than IUPUI. It’s just about twice as big, and many of those programs rank higher than their counterparts at OSU. IUPUI is about the same size as Pitt, even though it is smaller than most B1G flagship campuses.
*OSU’s just about twice as big
Eek. I should edit. That paragraph should start out “It’s not as if OSU is an order of magnitude bigger than IUPUI, or that it has higher quality programs. OSU is about twice the size of IUPUI but many of IUPUI’s programs rank higher than their counterparts at OSU.”
Columbus has jobs. That’s a clear and strong positive. But, so do other places. If that’s all you desire in life, my views are meaningless to you. Most want a life beyond their job. We all ‘makes our bets and takes our chances.’ I’m just highlighting your chances of having a life beyond work in Columbus.
Tom, Do you have any evidence that people DO care about Columbus? There aren’t nor could there every be such statistics. Your suggestion that there even could be in a perfect example of what I’ve written here. I describe my personal experience. In the end, that is all any of us ever has. The thought that someone would base their life on a statistical description of the social life of a place is sad.
Important lesson to know who you’re competing against. I don’t think there are very many cities that actually think about regional competitiveness and the built environment. But when you’re trying to compete with the same suburban product, you’re going to lose out to newer areas. Detroit learned this 50 years ago. Columbus has its sprawl suburbs, Grove City for one, but it is starting to compete with urban development on a large scale. I don’t find that Indy is doing the same or that there is a great interest for many locals in living in the city. It all goes back to: “The City is The People”.
“Important lesson to know who you’re competing against. I don’t think there are very many cities that actually think about regional competitiveness and the built environment. But when you’re trying to compete with the same suburban product, you’re going to lose out to newer areas.”
Exactly- the key is to use natural advantages to create a different product.
I don’t think older cities didn’t think about suburban competition- many of the bad design decisions- mega stadiums, highways & parking were designed to attract suburbanites- at the expense of city residents. The result was the destruction of the city’s urban advantage.
@Matt… Everyone in Columbus has a life beyond their job. Whether or not it is fulfilling is not for you to decide or make claims about. It’s an established fact you hate the city, but try to keep in mind that you speak for no one but yourself.
@Matthew. You need evidence that there are people who care about Columbus? No life here beyond a job? Once again a conversation with you dissolves into arrogant, pathetic insults.
Jon, there are significant numbers of people everywhere who have little beyond work in their life. It one of the hazards of living in an individualistic and dynamic society. Some become disconnected from their fellow man socially and their only connection to others is through market-based relationships.
Tom, you’re proving my point about the level of discussion of Columbus as a place. Where there’s (proverbial) smoke there’s fire.
On second thought, maybe there is a way to measure interest in metro areas’ development. Go to UrbanOhio.com and take a look at the numbers who have viewed the respective forums by metro and the number of topics my metro area. There are big differences.
@Matt… You’re really going to bring up a board you were banned from for doing pretty much the same thing you do here? Will you never learn?
Matt-
I think the reason that UrbanOhio has so little Columbus discussion and content is because the Columbus development/urban enthusiast crowd has Columbus Undergroud which has few real peers around the country. CU should probably be thanked for much of the recent success of Columbus urban culture.
Jon, I’ve never been “banned” from Urbanophile.com. Keep it up, you’re proving my point beautifully. Where ARE the others interested in discussing Columbus??
Josh, Columbus Underground has many real peers around the country. There is growing urbanist interest in the majority of American metros. Cincinnati has UrbanCincy.com. Pittsburgh has http://pittsburgh.urbanistguide.com/. There are many more. There nothing special about Columbus Underground except that its about Columbus.
@Matt… You and I both know I was referencing UrbanOhio, and that wasn’t even a subtle attempt at intentionally ignoring the point.
@Josh… CU is a great board for Columbus and seems to get busier all the time. Certainly, if nothing else, it has tons of people who do actually care about the city and where it’s going and who seem to be actively involved in the community. If other cities have something similar, good for them. Every city needs a place like that.
Jon, I have no idea who you are or anything about you other than that which you write here. I’m not a stalker. This isn’t personal for me.
Columbus Underground has a lot of restaurant reviews. Maybe that’s all many visitors are looking for on Columbus Underground. My guess is that Columbus Underground is a profitable business rather than an urbanist forum. It has few commenters.
http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/the-next-short-north/page/2/#post-1027451
CU had 1.3M unique visitors and 6.4M page views in the first half of 2014 along with a full time staff of 5, 3 part timers and freelancers. I would say that’s impressive for a hyperlocal news site. They have also expanded their coverage of issues and frequently best/scoop other local media such as the dispatch and bizjournal. I think that’s pretty incomparable to urbancincy or indy.
Anywho- I definitely think Aaron has a lot of good points. Seems like focusing on improving and investing in the urban environment along with targeted infill and redevelopment need continued focus.
@Matt… There is no other rational explanation to be so negatively biased against a place unless, in some way or another, it is personal. When you have to dismiss literally everything remotely positive associated with Columbus, then yes, it’s most definitely personal for you. Why that is, I have no idea, and it doesn’t really matter. But I frequent Ohio boards, and I’ve seen you around for a good few years now. It’s time to get over it.
You’re helping to make my point beautifully as well Josh. Have you actually had an in-person conversation with someone in Columbus about Columbus and had some difference in your respective views of Columbus?
I haven’t a clue how to even know how many are accessing any website. I’m interested in my own actual experiences. That’s what I’m describing here.
Yes, of course I have. Most people I think are able to comprehend the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities in Columbus. Of course there is a lot of discord about things like the recent school & zoo levy, the increasing development and gentrification of the Short North and other central city neighborhoods. Lots of concerns about parking, parkspace, transit, changes in neighborhood businesses. Something I’ve observed and discussed a lot is the nostalgia for the good old days of the Short North and the shifting momentum for there to 4th Street, Downtown, EFton and other places.
I think Columbus is a lot like US Soccer (also, by many accords is the Home of US Soccer). While there may not be all the history and traditions, it’s on the upswing, gaining in popularity and in many circles the enthusiasm is palpable. Of course this angers many who see the rise of soccer as a rejection of American traditions like Baseball and Basketball but nontheless it is making it’s own place in the world.
A few points to be made:
1. The Bridge Street project is not only a copy of Carmel, it’s also a copy of Gahanna’s Creekside development, which was the first place to do a downtown redevelopment. It kind of tanked when the market tanked in 2008, but property values nearby went up substantially and there’s nice parkland along with it. Other communities are also trying to do the same thing, albeit not on the same scale as Bridge Street or Creekside.
2. Aaron, I think that Mayor Coleman changed the thinking significantly in Columbus. Before him, it was all about annexation. I think because of two reasons-the fact that annexation is running out of steam (due to competing utilities in other counties) and the changing trends towards urban development-he shifted focus to redevelopment. It has been a significant change in mindset.
Maybe there has to be a phase B to this mindset shift, but the thinking is that Columbus has lots of suburban office parks, but the most valuable real estate in Columbus is often that which gives a unique experience-i.e. German Village, Short North and Yes Dublin (because of its high end appeal). I think the plan is to make urban Columbus more attractive to residents and businesses. The Arena District did much to jumpstart development in the urban core, because it demonstrated that you can do high-quality redevelopment and attract/retain jobs and residents.
To sum it up, I would say the plan is to create an experience that caters to today’s proclivities.
Will that work? My guess is that it will somewhat. It will help the City stand its ground, which it does appear to be doing in the past few years.
I do think there is one major difference between Columbus and Indy. Columbus has a significant level of civic micro-fauna, which is my name for lots of street-level retail. Besides a few blocks around the Indy Convention Center, and several blocks in Broad Ripple, I don’t know where there are concentrations of civic micro-fauna in Indy. Columbus has a number of nodes-some well-known like the Short North and German Village, some less well known like Bexley and Grandview Heights. I think this makes a difference.
I was never able to find a person in Columbus who had given a thought to the metro as a place in my five years there. They were more aware of the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities of the many other places from which they have come and to which they imagine they might move in the future. They weren’t interested enough in Columbus to feel nostalgia or anything else for it as a place. When I asked people in Columbus if they wanted to stay in Columbus, the response was either a shrug of indifference or something along the lines of ‘if I can’t find something better.’ Some may like the lose and shallow social life of such a transient place, some may not. But, all have to admit that its a different experience of life than in less transient places.
“I do think there is one major difference between Columbus and Indy. Columbus has a significant level of civic micro-fauna, which is my name for lots of street-level retail. Besides a few blocks around the Indy Convention Center, and several blocks in Broad Ripple, I don’t know where there are concentrations of civic micro-fauna in Indy.”
Is Indy’s hyped downtown really that great if it can’t support reasonably vibrant retail & street life?
IMHO, from a distance it really seems the massive “investments” have probably done a lot more harm than good.
Somewhere there is a post about a walkable neighborhood near downtown destroyed for an expressway and another about unwalkable dead space created by on ramps.
The neighborhhoods near Indy’s core seem to be hollowing out. There is no equivalent of the Short North. Even Dallas seems to have more residential energy near the core- and a whole lot more investment on the way.
Matt- If you were from Indy and went to UC how would your experience have been remarkably different from that in Columbus. 18-30 year olds, especially college grads, are transient by nature so I think what you experienced had more to do with your age than location.
Of course that point is not to dispute that there aren’t a lot of transplants in Columbus, because there are. But post 30 years old, generally speaking, folks are settled down. Pre 30 they aren’t.
Reflecting more on this, I do agree that it would be more beneficial to have a “part B” of the plan. I do know that the City and surrounding jurisdictions tried to negotiate a non-poaching agreement a few years back, which was a great step forward. Unfortunately I think it met some stiff resistance from local suburban leaders, and only a few signed on. However, it did elevate the issue of regionalism and job poaching, and I still hear local leaders referring to that. It did some good. Trying to create more regional partnerships now would be beneficial to all communities involved.
Columbus also has to solve its transit problem-this would give it a major leg up on the ‘burbs. That’s one of its weakest areas right now. If the City can’t get funds for a streetcar or light rail, then they should look for alternatives. IMO, I think they should try an affordable starter system that would use cheap plastic bollards to block off lanes on busy roads and create “instant BRT” and “instant fixed-path circulators” for the downtown area. It could be like a starter system to develop a robust BRT system-the Curbita of the U.S. The advantage is that it would have dedicated lanes, but would be so cheap that you could do all the lines at once and see what impact it would have.
Next, I would try to focus on businesses that need proximity to Ohio State. Create job centers around this area. Amazingly there is a decent amount of under-utilized land around OSU. Grandview Yards is one of the first large-scale mixed-use developments to take advantage of its proximity to OSU. However, the whole Olentangy River Road corridor is hot because of proximity. The University could find some underutilized land and lease it out for high-density development. The City could prioritize the area for business development. I also think improving transit between downtown and OSU would help downtown develop, since it could also act as a nearby jobs magnet. Maybe create a better link between Franklinton and OSU.
Finally, I think the Columbus Partnership and Columbus 2020 are critical here. As the entities that wield much of the economic development power in Columbus, they should come together and prioritize development of regional assets that benefit the entire metro. They could even create a fund to help match government funds for high-priority projects that will stimulate growth. Examples might be:
-Transit projects
-Better air service
-Better connections to Rickenbacker Cargo center
-Economic development strategies such as leveraging Columbus’ strong positions in design, data analytics and logistics.
I’m from Cincinnati and went to Miami and the University of Maryland. I was 33 when I moved to Columbus for a teaching job and 38 when I left. I had no connection to OSU. I only knew one person who did. Most of the people I met in Columbus were of a similar age to me or older. Of the 7 people I got to know well enough in Columbus to stay in touch with, none is still there.
Josh, I wouldn’t bother arguing. Just let Matt rant and we can discuss real solutions in the meantime.
What are some of those solutions, George?
@John.. Monument Circle is indeed a nice place. But I tend to agree that what might be considered Greater Downtown Indy has never been much better than Downtown Columbus. And beyond the downtown, just doesn’t have the urban neighborhoods that Columbus does. Broad-Ripple is miles away from Downtown Indy, unlike the SN or German Village, which are a walk or a short bike ride away.
There is also this, which I believe I have posted before:
Downtown Indianapolis census tracts population change 1990-2000: http://wapo.st/1lwAUQJ
And the same tracts 2000-2010: http://wapo.st/1lwBzBD
Indianapolis’ urban growth got worse 1990-2000 vs. 2000-2010, even in its downtown area. There were very few urban census tracts growing at all.
Compare those to Columbus. First 1990-2000: http://wapo.st/1xcJtbG
And 2000-2010: http://wapo.st/1xcJU5P
Clear improvement in Columbus’ case.
Maybe Aaron knows the answer, but is Downtown Indianapolis seeing better growth since 2010??
Matt, read my last 2 posts.
I think, Monument Circle was there before the massive “investments” made to improve the downtown.
Everything done since- until perhaps the last few years seems to be a step or leap backwards.
” (Indy) just doesn’t have the urban neighborhoods that Columbus does.”
But, I think it once did have at least some decent core neighborhoods and urbanism. (There is at least one post on here about them)
Indy- did leap to compete with its suburbs, but in retrospect it made all the wrong moves and undermined whatever urban advantages it once had.
@George… Columbus should get its first BRT route in the next few years, along Cleveland Avenue from Downtown north towards Westerville. However, I am not entirely sure how well it will actually be implemented. The city is also studying its first light rail line, from Downtown to the airport. Hopefully, this will move forward and more will follow. COTA’s decision to completely change its entire system should also help. But I agree, this has long been one of Columbus’ biggest problems.
I also know that the city and airport authority are actively working on improving air service. They are in the midst of a major renovation project and just opened up a second runway to accommodate an eventual 2nd terminal. And to that end, May traffic was up the most in 7 years.
Well, I can’t seem to find the post about the older downtown neighborhood destroyed for a freeway ramp.
But, a site called Indianapolis, Then & Now is loaded with posts showing the decline in the street level retail and livable urban design.
This post shows 500 West Washington Street in 1953 vs today.
http://historicindianapolis.com/indianapolis-then-and-now-500-block-of-west-washington-street-eiteljorg-museum/
Many more can be found showing much worse.
George and John:
About 3-5,000 new downtown Indy apartments have recently come on line or are due for completion between 2010 and the next Census, including a 28-story mixed use high rise on the former Market Square Arena site next door to the City County building.
“Micro-fauna” exists in both large and small nodes. Indy’s development occurred around its streetcar lines up to the 1940s, so there were “shopping corners”. Some of them north between downtown and Broad Ripple are in various stages of comeback (or never went bad). Aaron now lives near many of the well-developed ones: 49th & Penn, 56th & Illinois, and 49th, 52nd and 54th on College.
One of the larger nodes is Fletcher Place/Fountain Square, a mini-downtown district about a mile from the edge of downtown on the Cultural Trail and very near Eli Lilly Corporate Center, Farm Bureau Coop, and Anthem Insurance offices. It’s the site of close to 1,000 of those new apartments built or coming.
Downtown includes Massachusetts Avenue (where today there is a World Cup viewing party going on as I write this). Nearly 1,000 of the new residential units are just built or planned in that corridor.
Another significant corridor is East 10th St., the “gritty urban” corridor. It is also connected to the Cultural Trail. There are two small but over-the-median-price single family residential redevelopments going on there, as well as a large redevelopment project (St. Clair Place) and a shopping node at 10th & Rural with a credit union, a coop grocery, a kids clothing shop, barbershops, and other neighborhood businesses.
There is also Irvington, which has some parallels to Bexley except that the small religious-affiliated college and seminary left for a new greenfield campus in 1928. Its commercial district is thriving. Irvington is a high walk-score area.
You mentioned Broad Ripple, which is also more of a corridor, which is connected to a newer early auto era shopping center district (Glendale) about a mile and a half east; the area has very high walk-scores.
There’s also Nora, a mixed-income node on the Monon Trail, downtown Beech Grove and Speedway (Unigov “excluded cities” now enclaves).
It’s not all right downtown, and it’s not highly concentrated like German Village and Short North. There are other little downtowns and commercial corridors, some of which are downscale (besides 10th, there’s Mars Hill, the old “Miracle Mile” on the south side, Lafayette Square/International Marketplace, 38th St. in Midtown, West Michigan, West Washington). It’s there; some of it is admittedly fairly auto oriented. You just have to know where to look.
Aaron has a concept he calls “100 Monument Circles” for Indy, in recognition that the city is pretty dispersed. We aren’t anywhere close, but that will probably be the evolution of the “inside the beltway” part of Indianapolis-Marion County.
Here is a post on Indianapolis, Then & Now on a large group of small apartment blocks destroyed by the construction of I-65 in an area called Fountain Square.(17,000 residents in the downtown area total were displaced)
http://historicindianapolis.com/flats-lost-i-65-construction/
The building types and ages are very close to what I saw in Virginia Highland in Atlanta. Classic street car designs- cause Indy once had a good network of street cars.
The 3,500 downtown apartments planned are nothing to sneeze at, but still far less than most urban areas. Cleveland is on the way to 14,000 residents in and near downtown.
Considering that Indy has few vibrant core neighborhoods, the picture is even worse. (Another post documents the destruction of Garfield Park, North of Downtown.)
Few city’s have “invested” so much to get so little. Indy placed all the wrong chips at the table- with bets on downtown highways, parking garages, mega facilities, monolithic government office districts, one way express “avenues” and distorted street grids.
Garfield Park is south of downtown, and the interstate ran past the edge of it. Much of the urban fabric remains, but the interstate separates it from Fountain Square about a mile and a half north
The interstate impact on Fletcher Place/Fountain Square was big…but no bigger than the interstate gouge through German Village in Columbus and the destruction of its Central Market and Union Station.
Columbus has about twice as many miles of urban freeway (i.e. inside its beltway) as Indy. Both have downtown stadiums and office centers and convention centers. Columbus tore down its downtown mall; Indy’s is still successful. Downtown Indy passes “the underwear test” (downtown residents can buy socks and underwear in stores downtown).
Which town has put more cash into the downtown area – and what has the ROI been like? (Remove 17,000 residents- hope to get back 3000-5000 in the next few years)
Aaron once posted about the people being hired to shoot at pigeons downtown in the 1970’s- inferring that the massive “investments” were needed.
But how did Indy get to that place? The photos on Then & Now, show a fairly vibrant city with lots of beautiful and livable buildings and core neighborhoods.
Indy scores in or near worst in class. Columbus is also near the bottom. How can a major university of OU’s scale produce so little life near it?
Compare this to Cleveland which by the end of 2015 will have 14,000 residents in a near downtown and dynamic growth in other core neighborhoods like Ohio City & Tremont.
http://ibmag.com/Main/Archive/A_Growing_Youth_Movement_12577.aspx
Pittsburgh for the record, also shows underwhelming growth in its downtown population- but this partly reflects the strength of many core neighborhoods.
I don’t understand the desire for urban density as a make or break for a city. Sure you want people who want to live there but as someone who has lived in Buenos Aires, Bogota and San Francisco being stacked up on each other in Capital District, Puerto Madero or Noe Valley the desire for legroom becomes pretty strong.
As someone who lives downtown Indy I really think most people are outside looking in. Yes Carmel is blowing up, but do you really want to live there? And there are no neighborhoods surrounding Indy? I ride my bike through all these places all the time Fletcher Place, Fountain Square, Nora, So Bro, Herron Morton, Chatham Arch, Holy Cross…need I go on.
I’m not here to defend Indianapolis or bash Columbus I like both, and I agree there are strong similarities between them. As someone with boots on the ground I see constant start ups, eating establishments, entertainment, etc. The only thing I can think of is either you don’t get out much or we see two different cities.
“I don’t understand the desire for urban density as a make or break for a city.”
3000- 5000 downtown residents is hardly significant density. 15,000-20,000 is considered the normal minimum for vibrant, walkable retail.
As people have posted, Indy’s core is losing population at a pretty rapid rate.
And many other stats don’t look good.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2014/06/29/columbus-getting-fit-for-the-competition-ahead/#comment-91165
“The downtown vacancy rate jumped from 19.2 percent to 20.6 percent as companies took steps to shave space.”
Cleveland is still bleeding population but is showing core neighborhood growth and demographic positives like more young people, increasing educational attainment and strong momentum downtown.
I don’t think Indy shows much of that.
My guess is things may turn around (Like almost every major metro downtown) but the city is mostly a model of what not to do.
Sorry, this is the correct link about Indy’s high and rising office vacancy rate.
http://www.ibj.com/indianapolis-office-market-shows-rise-in-occupancy/PARAMS/article/47195
“But I got no real sense that leaders in the city are even thinking about a day when they are ringed by powerful suburbs and the locus of growth is outside of the city’s borders.”
Where exactly do you see this happening? One of the things that is striking about Columbus is how much of the total population of the MSA lies within the city itself. It’s north of 40%. Compare that to a city like Detroit where less than 20% of the population of the MSA lives in the city. Where Detroit is surrounded by a couple dozen cities and townships with populations ranging from 50,000 – 130,000 people, Columbus faces no such threats. Not one of its suburbs exceeds 50,000 people and it’s hard to see any of those suburbs adding significant amounts of population in the near-term. Over the long-term, it’s possible that Columbus will see an Indianapolis-style exodus beyond the city limits to the suburbs but other than Dublin, how many of those suburbs even aspire to a Carmel or Fishers level of growth?
@AIM…
One of the interesting things about Columbus’ suburbs is that they’re also not growing as fast as they used to.
Looking at the top 25 largest cities/towns in the Columbus metro, 15 are located within Franklin County. Of those 15, only 10 saw an average rate of growth that was faster 2010-2013 than it was 2000-2010. Only 4 of the 10 were suburbs outside of 270. The remaining 6 were Columbus itself or 5 inner core suburbs like Grandview and Bexley.
The remaining 15 outer suburbs or cities/towns outside of Franklin County all declined in growth rates between 2000-2010 and 2010-2013. What’s interesting is that, in general, the further the place was located from Columbus, the bigger the rate drop in growth. Coincidence? I’d say probably not.
BTW, the 4 outer suburbs that grew faster 2010-2013? Hilliard, Gahanna, Circleville and Westerville. Delaware? -40.2% change in the rate. New Albany? -8.8% Dublin? -40.3%. By the time you get all the way out to Logan, the rate drops by over 100%.
By contrast, Upper Arlington’s rate was up 2,300%. Grandview was up 950%. Columbus was up almost 57%. And so on.
The crime rates also are very different, with Columbus scoring as one off Ohio’s safest cities & Indy passing Chicago’s murder rate per 100,000 people.
The mayor was forced to admit the problem in the 2014 state of the city address.
http://wishtv.com/2014/02/27/ballard-acknowledges-indys-strengths-rising-crime/
(this is an excerpt from my Columbus Underground post, and you can substitute “Indianapolis” for “suburbs” here).
I think it’s (Renn’s article) based on a false, and outdated, assumption that growth is primarily a geographic condition. In fact, the important and impressive aspect of Columbus’s growth is that it’s inward, infill growth — smart growth to use an already tired phrase. And because the inward growth of Columbus is both substantial and sustainable I don’t believe we need to fear competition from the suburbs at all (also a very dated perspective).
Even if suburban growth would rival that of Columbus, we need to reject the us vs. them mindset and encourage regional growth that connects and benefits all municipalities, large and small, within the region (what’s good for Dublin is good for Columbus). The more we fight among each other (or are encouraged to be frightened of each other), the more we ignore the real challenges — global regions that have already planned and worked together to far outpace US regional economies in claiming big slices of the global pie. In other words, the East Central Midwest Region (3C’s, Indy, Pittsburgh…) needs to connect, cooperate, coordinate, grow and market itself as a single region in order to compete on the global field.
I agree fully with this view.
Columbus is still a city with a huge land area and vast untapped infill opportunities. The overall metro is also growing.
There will still be some niches suburban areas can fill- large lots for manufacturing, distribution and office parks for those demanding very large footprint facilities.
This is similar to Atlanta which is really moving on infill all over the city.
48% of Indy’s MSA population is in Indianapolis-Marion County…and it still has several suburbs between 50-100,000 population (Carmel, Fishers, Greenwood).
One difference is, 30-35 years ago, Cbus was still annexing to prevent being boxed in. Indy/Marion County (Unigov) was already boxed in by the state legislature in 1970…yet it retains a very high proportion of the metro population, and is still growing. Slowly, but still growing. Except for 1970-80, when school desegregation was a big topic, the county has never lost population between two Census counts.
It is true of Indy that the obsolete single-family housing outside of downtown but within the historical core has been severely depreciated, and a fair amount of it abandoned. Aaron has pointed out the population losses in Center Township, a proxy for the urban core.
Much of the City-County’s gain has been in the first-ring suburbs (the formerly unincorporated outer townships) that were fully incorporated by Unigov, plus the excluded City of Lawrence (which has just about doubled in population with no boundary change since 1990).
To your point Jonathan (Hi!), Dublin’s Bridge Street District is going to be transformative and beneficial for them, but also for Columbus. And not just in a theoretical or larger sense.
The Bridge Street area is within the Outerbelt of Columbus (quite a difference from Carmel) and adjacent to lots of currently sprawly somewhat depreciated Columbus areas. In order to remain competitive (as Aaron talks about) the City of Columbus should step up to rezone and redevelop the area adjacent to Bridge Street to capitalize on its growth.
In a larger sense, the City of Columbus has a lot of opportunities to capitalize on urban growth in of areas near inner and one outer ring suburbs. Lots of areas around Bexley, Grandview, Upper Arlington, Worthington, and of course the Bridge Street area of Dublin would be ripe for redevelopment.
Currently you can almost always tell when you cross into Columbus from some of these places because of the lack of investment and attention to infrastructure and street design. Investments, rezoing, and plans for redevelop for suburb adjacent areas should be a competitive focus.
Aaron did a post contrasting Bexley’s development pattern with the surrounding city of Columbus a few years ago.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/01/15/replay-neighborhood-redevelopment-and-the-downsides-of-consolidation/
Is it still like that today?
Wait…you can tell when you cross into or out of Bexley (or Grandview, or Upper Arlington)??? So Columbus proper isn’t as nice as its enclave suburbs north and east?
/sarcasm off
As a Bexley native, I knew this already.
And Josh’s description of Columbus seems a lot like Indy…of the favored quarters north (Meridian Kessler, Butler Tarkington, Broad Ripple, Meridian Hills) and east (Irvington), the former single-family, streetcar suburbs of Indy now included in Unigov. The neighborhoods definitely change when you cross lines, even old town lines that were erased between 1920 and 1970.
Oops, This is the original American Dirt post from 2009 contrasting Bexley with surrounding areas of Columbus.
http://dirtamericana.blogspot.com/2009/12/invisible-fences-for-humans-part-i.html
I hope & assume that things have changed a bit since Columbus has turned towards higher quality infill.
@John: more or less its still the same… In the case of the near Bexley area the neighborhoods are solid middle class neighborhoods but very little has been done to change the streetscape or form of the primary corridors in recent years.
The Columbus parts of the Grandview area are finally seeing some movement (large mixed use development) but the streetscape and infrastructure remain pretty bad.
None of this is to say that all areas of Columbus look worse than the surrounding enclaves. The City has invested quite a bit in streetscape and infrastructure all around the city. It just seems to me that areas that could be capitalized on that are enclave adjacent are often overlooked by reinvestment.
You guys really need to exchange numbers or email so you can bicker back and forth on your own.
@Josh
Sad to hear, I know Columbus has made decent strides in terms of infill and many of the projects look very good.
This seems to be at least as much an issue of zoning as investment. Quite likely the developers could pay for street improvements if multi story mixed use of the type shown in Bexley was allowed.
Runs against the narrative that consolidation “saved” Columbus. At best it bought time- which the city hasn’t always used well.
“Runs against the narrative that consolidation “saved” Columbus. At best it bought time- which the city hasn’t always used well.”
I’m not sure that I would go that far. I would say attention has been focused on other areas. Downtown especially has been the focus for the last 5 years or so.
Something that has been a positive step for the city are the Commercial Overlays which now cover large sections of the city. Even in areas with otherwise suburban development buildings are now often up to the street or at the least without parking between the street and the building. (More here: http://columbus.gov/planning/commercialoverlays/)
What now needs to change is the physical infrastructure. I suppose its easier for a place like Bexley to make big changes because they have the time to focus on their small area.
“What now needs to change is the physical infrastructure. I suppose its easier for a place like Bexley to make big changes because they have the time to focus on their small area.”
Bexley didn’t just have time- it had a desperate need to maximize its tax base and livability. For Columbus there was no immediate need- and a lot of political inertia.
I saw the same process in Brooklyn and Queens, where there is no sense of urgency as they mooch off the Manhattan tax base.
Good point…
The city is happy to see Downtown, German Village, SN grow up so at one time they put the money their. Now the money is headed to East Franklinton because the momentum of development has to go somewhere and they want to make sure its in Columbus. Clearly this strategy has benefits but doesn’t necessarily maximize a lot of areas.
The other target of money is often highly distressed areas such as the Near East Side/King-Lincoln, Weinland Park, and South Side/Parsons. Those big infrastructure investments often don’t pay off (at least for a long time) though because development there is subsidized by the city anyway.
This doesn’t seem entirely to be about money as much as zoning and design.
If the area is solidly middle class- (Bexley looks closer to rich) Private developers might consider bankrolling improvements- if the cuffs are taken off in terms of what can be built.
Remember that the urbanist walkable nature of Bexley makes high density development near it easier.
The problem sounds to be more one of political inertia with surrounding car dependent areas supporting auto sewer main streets.
A Bexley council member can ask- “would u rather we just raise your taxes?”; while Columbus feels like they have lots of land to waste.
Oh, and Bexley seems to have a large Jewish population- who prefer to walk to Temple. This captive market could extend into surrounding areas of Columbus.
This really seems to be more about zoning and politics than a lack of cash.
Bexley’s southern third (the “streetcar suburban” neighborhoods of 40-foot lots on straight streets with alleys south of Main) was largely German-Lutheran in the 20th Century, owing to the presence of Capital University and the Lutheran Seminary on Main Street. I sometimes walked with my grandmother to church, and to the small corner grocer. My father and uncles walked to school in their day.
There is, in fact, tremendous inertia in such places against dense infill, other than on the main corridors. This building https://www.google.com/maps/@39.957131,-82.935921,3a,75y,34.18h,86.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKbmiGCuVI0eyuXG1O6o28A!2e0?hl=en
is on Main Street. If I recall correctly, it replaced a smaller residential structure or two that had been converted to commercial use. Across the street to the west is a much older mixed-use building, and there are others nearby. But these things would probably never get built on the side streets, which limits the amount of densification that can happen in such places.
—
I am puzzled, though, that Columbus hasn’t made a priority of investing in the east side neighborhoods between this site (just a couple of blocks into Bexley) and the south edge of downtown 4 miles away. Columbus’ near east side looks very much like Indy’s between downtown and Irvington; Indy is spending lots and lots of community development money in that area.
@Chris and others…
The east side of Bexley becomes Whitehall, and is not in Columbus’ domain.
On the west side of Bexley, between Downtown and Alum Creek, is Old Towne East and King-Lincoln. There is currently lots of money going into this area, both by private investment that is piecemealing revitalization house by house, but also through the city and OSU. There’s currently a $500 million long-term plan for revitalization, and the city already got started by tearing down the problem-ridden housing complex known as Poindexter Village. Construction on nearly 500 residential units, offices, community gardens and park space has begun in its place. The plan also addresses the future of several vital thoroughfares with plans to add density through public/private development. The city also just got a $30 million federal grant just a few days ago to help in this process.
Even before all this, there was evidence that the area was well into revitalization/gentrification, and 2020 should see some of the area’s census tracts gain population for the first time in 50-60 years.
@Jon Thanks, this info helps.
The specific question I have isn’t so much about spending money- but changing zoning restrictions that limit building heights, parking and design- so that private developers might fund street & sidewalk) improvements.
Have all barriers to this type of development been removed across the board at least along the main streets?
Bexley seems like a very wealthy area & the area between it and the downtown very bankable property. I doubt that developers can’t make needed infrastructure investments if they are fully allowed to build what they want. (3-10 story mixed use with little or no mandated parking)
@ Chris Barnett
I brought up the Jewish population specifically because many want or are religiously obligated to not use cars on the Sabbath. Just saying that this is a strong driver for urbanist development since the area has several synagogues.
@John…
I’m not sure if the PACT plan addresses zoning so much as it addresses target areas for investment. Keep in mind that OTE and King-Lincoln have historically been exclusively residential areas. East Main, East Broad and East Long Streets had some commercial here and there, but they were more of the corner-store variety rather than blocks of mixed-used buildings. East Broad was more like Euclid in Cleveland, with large mansions lining both sides of the street all the way to Bexley. The PACT plan does address the need for commercial and retail spaces on main corridors, as much of the original residential housing on those streets is long gone. So it’s an opportunity to rebuild.
Bexley just approved a 4-story mixed-use building on the corner of Main and Cassady, actually. It did get some resident objections, but the project was approved fairly quickly. Bexley has been pushing for this type of development on its portion of East Main for the last few years.
I’m not sure if the PACT plan addresses zoning so much as it addresses target areas for investment. (As in government investment and subsidies?)
So city, state or federal taxpayers are going to fork over $$ in highly bankable area for improvements that private developers would probably pay for if the zoning were changed. It will also accept far less future tax revenue back from this reduced development.
With the lower density and car oriented zoning – quite likely retailers will demand subsidies or masses of parking (city constructed parking garages)
Lack of reasonable TOD also makes any transit less viable and in need of more subsidies.
This is a political issue- not based in the economic reality of location and probable demand.
The end result is also exactly the type of zero sum gentrification that will force out low income residents.
If Columbus were a smaller city, some voice of common sense might be heard. Bexley leaders clearly see the need for denser development and have been willing to push back against childish opposition. Columbus feels like it doesn’t matter.
@John,
The PACT plan is a public/private plan, something that Columbus does very well at. Nowhere did I say it was fully public.
Also, what makes you say that zoning is preventing private investment in the area? Can you point to any zoning laws that would do so?
You sure did run away with that and make some pretty broad assumptions.
How can one prove a negative?
We know there is enough demand for at least a 4 story mixed use building nearby in Bexley. (Probably much more) We also know this is a very upper middle class area and very close to downtown. We also know there is at least one bus route along East Main St.
No, I don’t suppose developers issue press releases about all the projects they might have considered if they were allowed.
I think we also know that the “public’s part in a “public/ private” partnership usually involves some form of grant, tax abatement, below cost land gift, publicly financed garage or other subsidy.
In this case, the public (taxpayers) are likely going to have to put more money in because lower density development doesn’t cover the cost of improvements.
Actually seems that Columbus was the first American cities to mandate parking for all Apartment buildings in 1923.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/09/parking-day-2011/
“Since all units, irrespective of size, are generally required to have a parking spot, apartments have become larger and more expensive. The financial and logistical burden created by parking requirements restricts the rooming supply. “Zoning requires a home for every car, but ignores homeless people,” writes Shoup. “By increasing the cost of housing, parking requirements make the real homelessness problem even worse.”
…
The cost of “free” parking is almost always hidden. Be it at Wal-Mart, McDonalds or a hospital, the free parking that lurks in the backyard of almost all private enterprise is buried in product prices.
“Seemingly, everyone but the motorist pays for parking,” lament Jakle and Sculle. The cost of “free” parking is astronomical. In 2002, for instance, the total subsidy for off-street parking in the USA was between $127 billion and $374 billion. Shoup argues that, “The cost of all parking spaces in the U.S. exceeds the value of all cars and may even exceed the value of all roads.”
Policies like this cause a problem which then we are supposed to thank the government for fixing.
@John, I’m not asking you to give a list of projects that never happened. I’m asking you to cite zoning that would prevent private development from taking place in the areas between Downtown and Bexley.
Yes, public investment usually involves grants, TIFs, etc. In every city, everywhere. Why shouldn’t a city be investing in its neighborhoods? Do you honestly believe that private development alone is going to rush in and save every neighborhood with a problem?
Why are you citing 91 year old policy? Most zoning has changed quite a bit since 1923, and much of the recent neighborhood plans have either reduced parking requirements or got rid of them altogether.
Jon, I specifically mentioned the east side between Bexley and downtown because we’re talking generally about inner-ring neighborhoods.
I know where East Main goes the other way too. It looks a lot like East Washington in Indianapolis east of Irvington: miracle mile after miracle mile out to the beltway, with downscale suburban shopping centers anchored by Burlington and Value City…which, if Google Maps is correct, are in Columbus municipal boundaries.
Then there is a distinct change at the Reynoldsburg city line:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.954773,-82.8327,3a,75y,346.02h,69.14t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s12-e6MaiVyeMattvn98QMg!2e0?hl=en
The point about Columbus leveraging its suburbs’ investment on major corridors is well taken. It applies to Indianapolis too, as there is a similar change at the east county line along US40.
—
Jon, there is a strain of thought that releasing zoning restrictions would unleash a torrent of concentrated investment in cities. Clearly the argument has merit in legacy transit cities (NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, SFO), and in “new system” cities like DC and LA with high demand.
I am not sure anyone has demonstrated particularly well the case that zoning restricts growth in mid-sized midwestern cities. Prime land in both Columbus and Indianapolis in or near downtown is not underutilized because of zoning restrictions on height, parking, or density. It’s about demand.
In Indianapolis, the CBD zoning classification has no lot coverage limits and requires no parking. Yet it has taken more than 15 years since closure to have a developer’s viable plan for the Market Square Arena site…and they feel the need for a parking pedestal under the tower.
And the best Columbus could do with its former downtown mall site is to make a big green field out of it, instead of building a high-end mixed-use tower?
PACT addresses an area north of Broad Street…that’s not the area I was thinking of. I was suggesting that the area in need of investment is directly east of the historic downtown core, south of Broad to I-70 and east to Alum Creek/Bexley along Main and Bryden…Olde Town East and Franklin Park. The streets fronting Franklin Park seem to be in good shape but it drops off pretty quickly away from there toward the interstate and toward downtown. The interstate side in particular has looked bombed out for the past 30 years…again, much like the near east side of Indy.
@Jon; @Chris Barnett
At least one national developer has stated that Columbus’s minimum parking requirements are blocking projects it wants to build.
“Edwards Pushes for Urban Density with New Apartment Developments.”
http://www.columbusunderground.com/edwards-pushes-for-urban-density-with-new-apartment-developments
“Meanwhile, on Lane Avenue, Edwards is planning a new five-story development that would be home to 40 apartments containing 112 beds and podium-style parking below the units. The project has faced opposition by the University Area Commission for not providing enough parking spaces for the building’s residents. The original plans call for a ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per bed, providing parking spots for 60% of the tenants.
“We firmly believe that with the proximity to campus that the parking plan would be more than sufficient,” said Szymanski. “We’re targeting students who don’t want to own a car.”
The development plans presented by The Edwards Community meets city code, and variances for reduced parking plans can be applied, but Szymanski says that the university overlay is more stringent.
“We did a parking study on the Lane Avenue area and found that most apartment buildings are below the 0.6 level,” he explains. “So we went to the Columbus Board of Zoning Adjustment, but they asked us to find more parking.”
Nearby, Edwards has proposed a similar student-oriented development at 236-262 West Norwich Avenue. This collection of four three-story buildings provides housing for 156 residents with two stories of parking, but faces similar opposition because of required parking variances.”
These projects seem to be north of downtown near Ohio State, but it strains belief that few people want to build multi story mixed use in the area close to Bexley.
The article says that a lot of developments get variances- meaning that the basic law is not what the market wants.
I’m not saying all projects are impeded by these restrictions- but this is a big problem. Why not get rid of them and see what happens?
Here is fighting over a proposed project in Olde Towne East, not too far from Bexley.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/26/zoning-board-oks-controversial-olde-towne-east-apartments.html
Higgins and Heffernan represent two camps that have mobilized in the past few months over a three-building apartment complex planned for 122 Parsons Ave. in Olde Towne East, a block east of I-71 and a block north of Bryden Road on the Near East Side. The two groups came together in a nearly standing-room-only meeting last night of the Columbus Board of Zoning Adjustment.
After several hours of hearing concerns from both camps, board members approved the project by a 3-0 vote, with Jim Maniace abstaining because he’s worked with the developer.
Of the dozens of people who attended, many rose to speak, reciting the years they’ve lived in the Olde Towne East neighborhood and why they were concerned about the proposal. A least one shed tears. Proponents of the plan emphasized that it would reclaim the 1-acre vacant lot that used to be home to a carpet factory and is laced with arsenic and other chemicals. They also said it would create a way for new residents to enter a neighborhood known for its 100-plus-year-old houses.”
Many opponents wanted less density & the inclusion of retail- in an area without enough density to support it.
So far it looks like the project will go through- but who knows?
@Chris, the area south of Broad Street directly to the east of Downtown is Old Towne East. Specifically, that tract (#38) will be the first one to see growth in the entire area between Downtown and Bexley. In the 2010 census, demographics switched for the first time, from majority Black to majority White. A similar change is happening in the tracts directly south and directly east, around Franklin Park. This gentrification process has been occurring for years now and is just now reaching that growth tipping point. PACT does largely deal with the areas north of Broad, in King-Lincoln, which is decidedly worse shape than areas south. Even with the plan, it is unlikely that it will see large-scale redevelopment. Both areas, but particularly OTE, are historic districts filled with century old homes. It will mostly involve smaller infill projects on vacant lots, probably in the form of single-family homes. Homeport is doing a lot of that kind of infill, while also renovating existing homes into market-rate properties. So far, it’s been a slow process.
“will be the first one to see growth in the entire area between Downtown and Bexley.”
This is not logical. Bexley is an upper middle class area with lots of shopping and walkability. There is also a Kroger, an Aldi’s and a Walmart within what seems to be walking distance.
It’s not reasonable to think there is no demand for apartment development there.
@John, I’ve found the University Area Commission to be extremely anti-density. The project in reference was not ended because of parking requirements, though. The Norwich project also referenced is under construction and will be done later this summer.
Also, a new University District Plan is going to come out this year which reduces parking requirements to 1 space per every 3 beds, which translates to about 0.333 spaces per bed. That’s almost a 50% reduction from the number you gave, and it’s well below the 1 space per bed standards that were in place at one time, which was astronomically high for literally the most dense area in Columbus. So the bottom line is that zoning IS changing in the University District.
The project at 122 Parsons was approved and is expected to move forward. You are going to find resident objections like this with any proposal anywhere, and would exist even if there were no zoning codes at all. Some people are just afraid of change. But this is one of the first examples of a private developer stepping into the area in a long time. The Short North is getting built out and increasingly expensive. Development interests have to find new places, and they are now including Franklinton and OTE.
@John… I think you misunderstood what I said. I was saying that tract 38 (which is south of Broad and part of Old Towne East) would be the first one of the Near East Side tracts to see population growth by 2020, based on current demographic trends. I was not talking about growth in terms of development or demand.
@Jon
You said that tract would be the “first one to see growth in the entire area between Downtown and Bexley.”
The area I am talking about is also between the downtown and Bexley and has huge potential. Chis Barnett linked to at least 1 new building in the area along that general mold.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.957131,-82.935921,3a,75y,34.18h,86.08t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKbmiGCuVI0eyuXG1O6o28A!2e0?hl=en
Chris says there are several older apartment buildings in the area- dating from before anti urban zoning took hold.
One can’t prove a negative but this clearly is an attractive area for multifamily development.
Jon, I was using Google street view to supplement my prior drives through that area. Clearly OTE and Franklin Park are sitting pretty and should have filled in or gentrified long ago, and are finally starting to tip.
Indianapolis’ Old North Side and Herron Morton went through that process over the last 30 years. That OTE/Franklin Park just sat there rotting for most of those decades again points out that Columbus does not leverage/connect to its upscale enclave suburbs nearly enough.
A lot of this has to do with the SLOW destruction of the near east side of Columbus from 1960-1990, first for I-70/71 construction, then for I-670. In that same time frame, Indy stopped with I-65/70 and canceled its northeast freeway.
I realize Columbus “had” to build 670 to CMH if it was going to keep its airport there. But why didn’t they consider moving the airport down to Lockbourne/Rickenbacker? All those urban freeways in Columbus, twice as many miles inside the beltway as Indy, didn’t do the central city and first ring out from downtown any favors over the past 40-50 years. (I still remember going to the old Columbus Central Market with my parents on Saturdays.)
Given how attractive Bexley is and the wide range of shopping, Franklin Park might have better immediate prospects than OTE.
It’s economically much easier to build on existing viable neighborhoods than to start from scratch. (not always politically easier)
OTE seems to have the remaining great housing stock, but seems pretty damaged and torn up.
The first step the city should take is to remove all car oriented zoning laws along the main streets.
The shift towards car sewer design in Columbus vs Bexley is pretty dramatic.
OK, Olde Towne East looks pretty awesome on some levels- like Shadyside crossed with Manchester or other North Side neighborhoods.
The whole area is ripe for infill. Just saying that the land closest to Bexley may have the best immediate prospects.
Almost all main commercial corridors in the city already have been designated with UCO/CCO overlays which lower parking minimums along with regulating building form to be more urban. You can read more about them here: http://www.columbus.gov/planning/commercialoverlays/
OTE/Franklin Park have been on a slow and steady march up for the last 25 years or so but are just recently seeing the first signs of new build redevelopment taking place. Despite being near Bexley, the Franklin Park area is very disconnected and most revitalization is happening directly around the park or off some main roads.
The area around Parsons to Oak and 18th is where the newer action is happening and where the momentum will likely continue from. This is mostly due, IMO, to the proximity to downtown and the business cluster at Oak and 18th. The Near East Side is such a large area and suffered so much disinvestment and entrenched poverty its hard to break free. The real Bexley adjacent opportunities, in my opinion, lie to the east not west of the boundaries but as you can see from Streetview or the ground significant streetscapeing has to be done on the Columbus side.
The real development (when I say development I mean new build) in the city is focused between Grandview, OSU, & Downtown and will continue to be the main focus because of the synergies, safety, walkability, and amenities. The Grandview area (5xNW) is still without streetscaping or infrastructure improvements but the demand from OSU and company is so high that it doesn’t matter. Here is an example of that: http://www.columbusunderground.com/six-story-mixed-use-development-announced-on-fifth-avenue
East Franklinton is on its way to but is more or less subsidized.
@Chris-
Not a big fan of freeway building but aside from the destruction of “Flytown” (Where Westminster-Thurber now stand in Victorian Village) there wasn’t much destruction from it. And even in the Short North its effects have been abated with the Cap.
Mostly runs over railroad or vacant industrial land. I-70 was the terrible one with 71 coming in a distant 2nd.
Lower parking requirements don’t always mean- low parking requirements.
The current East Main street is a substandard car sewer through most of this area- until one reaches Bexley.
I agree that if demand and all the other factors are working- fancy streetscape improvements are not always needed.
Contrast the car sewer Kroger Shopping center design to a project a similar distance from Atlanta’s Midtown.
http://www.poncecitymarket.com/
The Ponce City Market mixed use complex adopts a huge existing Sears catalog warehouse. The shopping center across the street from it integrates apartments with a supermarket.
The Shadyside Giant Eagle in Pittsburgh also includes apartments.
There is no good reason projects near Bexley are as badly designed as they are.
The other major improvement needed is several pedestrian bridges across Alum Creek.
@John, the google image of that building is from inside Bexley’s city limits. It’s not in Columbus, which begins parallel to the railroad tracks that run along the west side of Bexley. So yes, a few larger developments have happened in Bexley, which is a far smaller area, dominated with middle and upper-class residents, and which suffered no long-term decline as urban areas did to the west. It’s a self-contained suburb with its own government and tax base, which is not what OTE and King-Lincoln are or have. Bexley just has had more ability to get these projects done because it had the economic factors and demand behind it. That hasn’t been the case further to the west until the last few years when urban living has become hot again. BTW, the building in reference was not completed until 2005, and was one of the first newer developments on Main in Bexley in some time. The development to the west, at Parkview and Main, is even newer, but those are just about the only 2 that have come in the last 10 years. So it’s not as if Bexley has been experiencing some kind of development boom in relation to OTE, even given much better demographics and stability. It too had to wait for urban living to make a comeback. Now private development is going to come because there is demand.
So when you talk about “anti-urban zoning”, in this case, I just don’t think that was the issue. Certainly not in OTE, which was your typical inner city neighborhood that experienced very typical decline as many other inner city neighborhoods did nationally. When the suburbs were hot, people didn’t want to invest there. This has long been about demand, not zoning. Now that there is demand, there is and will be a continuing increase in development, especially that Columbus’ Downtown and SN residential vacancy is less than 1%. That demand is going to spread out, and by all accounts, has been.
@Chris… 670 was not really the problem. At least through Downtown, there was a large rail yard that existed there prior to its construction. It went from Downtown east north of King-Lincoln and 670 was basically built in its place. So its construction was FAR less destructive than I-71/I-70, which plowed directly through hundreds of historic buildings and cut off the Near East Side from Downtown. But then again, there really are few cities that don’t have similar examples. It sucks, but there’s not much that can be done about it. When ODOT originally proposed rebuilding the 70/71 split, which is currently happening, Columbus wanted the bridges connecting the Near East Side to Downtown to all be capped similar to the only on High Street that crosses 670. ODOT has no interest in doing that kind of thing, but it did at least agree to make the new bridges wider and more landscaped. It also made the bridges cap-capable, which means that if a private developer comes along and wants to build over top of 71 along those bridges, they can handle the weight. And we found out this year that new bridges on S. High and Front, which connect Downtown to German Village, WILL be capped with new development. So some reconnections are being made.
BTW, you reference Central Market as if it was demolished for highway construction, but the site was nowhere near 670 or 71. It was in the center of Downtown, and the site is where the current Greyhound bus depot is. It was a terrible loss, but that was the early 1960s for you, when urban destruction and lack of thought into the consequences was the norm.
@Josh… I would not say what’s happening in Franklinton is mostly subsidized. There seems to be a TON of private investment. Besides the city tearing down the half-collapsed B&T building a few years back, I haven’t seen a lot of public dollars going into the neighborhood. Even the Scioto Peninsula plan is mostly geared toward private investment. At the very least, it will be a public/private mix, such as with the proposed new Veterans Memorial, of which half the cost is from private interests.
“Certainly not in OTE, which was your typical inner city neighborhood that experienced very typical decline as many other inner city neighborhoods did nationally.”
Yes, like any typical inner city neighborhood in the path of a huge possible highway.
When did divestment start and what role did the highway speculation and Urban Renewal projects like Poindexter Village play in that?
No way to really know. All I am saying is in the here and now- anti urban zoning and community opposition to reasonable levels of density looks like a big problem.
Bexley’s progress is slowed more from this than any demand issues.
@John… You’re right in that lower parking requirements won’t automatically mean lower parking standards would actually be met… unless there is demand for density. 5, 10, or 20 years ago, had there been zero or low parking zoning, it probably would not have made much difference because how people viewed the city was in the frame of auto-dependency and auto-convenience. It was not walkability, not pedestrian access, etc. So even if the standards had been in place, you can bet that projects would’ve been granted variance after variance to build with much a much higher parking ratio.
That way of thinking is not necessarily the case anymore. The city and neighborhoods have been working on new zoning codes for the last few years. Columbus just implemented the Complete Streets guide to its entire street grid, for example. While there are going to be projects that get approved with parking in mind, that’s going to happen FAR less now than in previous years, even if the zoning had been different a long time ago.
@John, as I said, the Near East Side generally reached peak population between 1950-1960. I-71 split off the area in about 1962. Demographics and population changed dramatically in the following decade or two. Poindexter Village did not have that much of an impact. It was one of Columbus’ first public housing complexes and came around 1940, so there is very little correlation between it and the decline of the neighborhood. It did help exacerbate the problem later on, though, when it became known for criminal activity, but this was, again, post 1960.
“5, 10, or 20 years ago, had there been zero or low parking zoning, it probably would not have made much difference because how people viewed the city was in the frame of auto-dependency and auto-convenience. It was not walkability, not pedestrian access, etc.”
Not sure if I agree with that. Part of Bexley’s big appeal seems to be highly walkable streets.
There is also an Orthodox Jewish population who are religiously banned from using cars on the Sabbath and the remains of a pre zoning apartment stock.
http://www.toratemet.org/2012/
The huge problem was that Bexley alone couldn’t preserve that character as long as the surrounding districts were auto driven.
@John… But keep in mind that even Bexley declined relative to outer suburbs. It lost population in 3 of the last 4 decades, including the 2000s. That walkability did not truly become an asset until the last 5 years. It may have helped prevent all-out freefall (along with a host of other factors like good schools), but it didn’t prevent decline altogether. Since 2010, population estimates show that it is, indeed, growing again. The same with Whitehall, on the east side of Bexley, which also faced long-term population losses until recently. This is true across the city, especially areas inside 270.
Bexley’s relative strength over many years speaks for itself. It could only go so far as long as the surrounding area was sliding down the car sewer. Columbus would be wise to learn and play to Bexley’s strength.
This should be a win-win relationship. A stronger, denser more walkable area around Bexley allows both communities to cut down on dead land use & increase taxable development. It also better anchors transit.
Eliminate all parking minimums and raise height limits along the main streets and see what happens.