Jump to content
Toddguy

Columbus: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This gets annoying. Columbus is the fastest growing city and metro area in the state. It is the most diverse. It has the largest state university and is the seat of government. It has many booming and wonderful neighborhoods. It's got everything going for it. So why do Cbus people get so defensive about every little thing?

 

 

I was just making a joke. Relax. I'm not being defensive at all. I don't care what Cleveland or Cincinnati people think of Columbus. It doesn't affect me. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I was just making a joke. Relax. I'm not being defensive at all. I don't care what Cleveland or Cincinnati people think of Columbus. It doesn't affect me. 

 

I know you were. And I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. It's just frustrating to me because I love Cbus. I think it is a great city. I love spending time there and I tell people about all the cool things going on there. I went to OU and we'd go up to Cbus sometimes and bop around and I have tons of friends from college who live there now and I visit often. But I feel like any time someone says something that could be interpreted as even slightly negative about Cbus here they get jumped on. Nobody said annexation was bad. I wish Cincinnati and Hamco would just consolidate completely.

 

EDIT: Also, I'm not intending this to sound combative. Just pointing out a perspective. I know sometimes tone is hard to convey in text.

Edited by DEPACincy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Perhaps, but as you know in Dayton, we also have parts of the city that were annexed greenfields that could be new growth for the city that haven't "grown" like annexed Columbus.  

That's largely a function of where land was annexed, though. If Dayton were able to annex along 75 South, 35 East, or 675 to the south/east, things would look very different from a municipal population perspective.

 

54 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

I think the simple answer is if you have strong/above-average economic growth, you're likely going to have a growing city.  Whether it's "landlocked" like Minneapolis, Seattle, or Boston or still has room to grow with Columbus, Indianapolis, or San Antonio, it's the economy.  If the economy in, say, Cleveland were on par with, say, Austin or Raleigh, then no one in Cleveland would complain about Columbus' previous annexation.  Just like how this Daytonian isn't complaining about having empty greenfields waiting for the latest Ryan homes to be built for my city's future growth. 

I agree, and this wasn't something I or (I think) @edale were contradicting. The only dispute was with @jonoh81 citing the recent halt in annexation nullifying annexation's effect on population numbers. It's definitely still a part of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

And I don't get your point about the annexed land.  Growth doesn't count if it happens on land added after a certain date?  Land added in 1960 doesn't count, but land added in 1900 does?  How does that make sense?  Before what date did the land have to be added to count? 

I would say this is exactly the stuff I'm talking about where people have arguably arbitrary rules for some places based on questionable information.

 

 

Where did I say "growth doesn't count"? What does that even mean? All land included in Columbus' boundaries obviously counts towards it population. I'm not using any arbitrary rules or anything like that.

 

- You said Columbus' growth can't be attributed to annexation because annexation has drastically slowed as population continues to rise

 

- The hole in this argument that I was trying to point out is that Columbus largely annexed undeveloped land on the periphery of its city boundaries. So even though annexation has dramatically slowed, the city is still growing as a result of prior annexations being developed. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Columbus' population growth is occurring in the older portions of the city. However it is also reaping benefits from annexation, even as new annexation has slowed or stopped. Is that clear? I don't think that's controversial in the slightest.

 

I do understand @ColDayMan's point about annexation in a vacuum not resulting in growth. If the city's economy wasn't strong and the region as a whole wasn't growing, there'd be no assurance that those annexed greenfields would be developed. Point taken, and I wasn't trying to say that Columbus is only growing because of annexations. But I don't think its honest to say that you can't attribute some of Columbus' city growth to annexation and the huge land area the city now covers. This has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Cleveland. I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

Hope this post clears stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robuu said:

That's largely a function of where land was annexed, though. If Dayton were able to annex along 75 South, 35 East, or 675 to the south/east, things would look very different from a municipal population perspective.

 

Eh, I don't know about that.  It might end up looking like Detroit.  If DPS were better and had a Columbus-like agreement with suburban schools, then I'd agree.  Otherwise, I'd argue Metro Dayton would be even more sprawly if Dayton annexed those areas and it certainly wouldn't look like Sawmill or Polaris.

 

10 minutes ago, Robuu said:

I agree, and this wasn't something I or (I think) @edale were contradicting. The only dispute was with @jonoh81 citing the recent halt in annexation nullifying annexation's effect on population numbers. It's definitely still a part of the story.

 

Oh, I don't disagree that annexation helped Columbus' current growth patterns.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, edale said:

I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

I (kinda) get your point but the only thing about that is there are rarely clear distinctions between city and suburbs.  Westwood in Cincinnati, for example, could just blend in the rest of the westside townships.  Madisonville might as well be Fairfax; Hartwell might as well be a poorer Wyoming, Pleasant Ridge blends into Silverton/Kenwood, etc.  In the case of Cleveland, the inner-ring suburbs are sometimes more "city like" than the city neighborhoods they border (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, etc).  It's rare, aside from natural barriers, that city and suburbs have a clear line of distinction.  If Cincinnati had annexed land back when Columbus did, or even currently annexed darn near Hamilton County, it wouldn't really make a visual difference. 

 

The only true "smaller city boundary" systems that would be in that favorable distinction are English and Australian city boundaries.

 

But overall, I get your point.  I would personally prefer Ohio to just have the Big 7 core counties become the cities and get it out of the way, like China.

  • Like 1

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I don't think that's what is being said at all. They are saying if growth happens in Mason or North Ridgeville those numbers don't count toward Cincy or Cleveland populations. But all the growth happening along 161 between 270 and New Albany counts toward Cbus's growth. 

 

But that's a ridiculous measure of growth.  Again, you'd have to define a specific, arbitrary date when land was added to not have that be true.  All cities annexed over their histories, so at what year does it stop counting?  If Columbus had added 200 square miles in 1910, would the growth be any different now than if the same amount was added after 1950? 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Sorry, what I meant to convey is that the argument requires us to believe that population growth via annexation only "counts" (whatever that means) if the land was already developed.  Let's say Lincoln Village was built up, then got annexed once the population there grew.  Then it's "ok?"

 

I'm not sure how annexing mostly empty land, then working to get it developed which leads to population increases is *worse* than annexing areas that already have neighborhoods and population.  Sure, it's a "one time" population increase but the work has already been done to get people to live there.  

 

And to jonoh's point - where is the cut off?  What about farmland that was annexed in 1850?  or 1890?

 

The argument of "the population increase in Columbus is boosted because the city annexed mostly empty land 60-70 years ago and that's now being developed today" is different than "Columbus has gotten its population increases largely because of annexation."

 

Exactly.  The argument makes no sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Robuu said:

I think the argument is that population growth from development on annexed land is still, at least in part, "due to annexation." I think this is supported by the simple fact of it being cheaper and easier to develop on a green field than doing in-fill. It would further be supported if developer interest in the land in question was part of the impetus behind annexation (which would clearly be the case if, e.g., annexation is tied to utility expansion; demand for utilities would come from people wanting to develop the land).

 

Okay, but again, how is that any different than land added to a much younger city in the 19th or early 20th centuries? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Where did I say "growth doesn't count"? What does that even mean? All land included in Columbus' boundaries obviously counts towards it population. I'm not using any arbitrary rules or anything like that.

 

- You said Columbus' growth can't be attributed to annexation because annexation has drastically slowed as population continues to rise

 

- The hole in this argument that I was trying to point out is that Columbus largely annexed undeveloped land on the periphery of its city boundaries. So even though annexation has dramatically slowed, the city is still growing as a result of prior annexations being developed. I have no doubt that a significant portion of Columbus' population growth is occurring in the older portions of the city. However it is also reaping benefits from annexation, even as new annexation has slowed or stopped. Is that clear? I don't think that's controversial in the slightest.

 

I do understand @ColDayMan's point about annexation in a vacuum not resulting in growth. If the city's economy wasn't strong and the region as a whole wasn't growing, there'd be no assurance that those annexed greenfields would be developed. Point taken, and I wasn't trying to say that Columbus is only growing because of annexations. But I don't think its honest to say that you can't attribute some of Columbus' city growth to annexation and the huge land area the city now covers. This has nothing to do with Cincinnati or Cleveland. I actually much prefer smaller city boundaries where you can make a clear distinction between the city and suburbs. I do wish Cincinnati could absorb the 'island' communites that are entirely surrounded by Cincinnati boundaries (Norwood, St. Bernard, Elmwood Place), but that is more or less to reinforce the notion of what is urban vs suburban. That distinction is blurred in a city like Columbus (or Charlotte, Jacksonville...hell even Los Angeles) due to incredibly large municipal boundaries. 

 

Hope this post clears stuff up.

 

Why even mention that the annexation contributes to growth if you weren't trying to quantify the value of that growth?  It's running dangerously close to calling it "fake growth", something I have definitely heard about Columbus in this context.  Yes, Columbus has larger boundaries than either Cleveland or Cincinnati, but it would still be growing even if it was still at its 1950 boundaries.  The whole debate just seems weird to me and trying to add a value judgement to where that growth is occurring.  I would think the much better debate is the type of growth rather than where it happens- sprawl vs dense mixed-use, for example.  Dublin's Bridge Park is quality urban development, but it's also in a fringe suburb.  I just think the argument is much more complex than location of growth or what was on the land previously. 

 

And for the record, my point about annexation was not that no growth was occurring on land that had been annexed decades ago, but that the growth is not occurring specifically due to more land being added that already has a population base, which was true for the period 1950-1980, a lean time for cities nationally.   To me, that's a pretty big distinction.  I don't know, maybe we're all just talking past one another.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Remember in back then it was not just annexation, but rather annexation for water. I don't know if that clarifies anything for the people who didn't know.

 

The annexation-for-water scheme came about for 2 main reasons.  The first was that Columbus was having water supply problems in the 1950s.  There were times when parts of the city didn't have water or had very low water pressure.  Sensenbrenner grew up in Hilltop, and that was one of the areas that regularly had those water problems.  When he became mayor, he had to consider ways of paying for new water infrastructure without worsening already strained supply problems.  Any suburbs that wanted to use Columbus water, therefore, had to be annexed into the city so that the city could tap into the tax base.  The second reason is more obvious- they knew that the suburbs were becoming popular, and they were worried that the city would eventually be completely surrounded with a shrinking tax base, a problem that has hurt countless older cities ever since.  The annexation policy also ensured that the city could still grow outward, taking advantage of suburbanization trends.  I generally don't like Sensenbrenner for many reasons.  He had little understanding of urban issues and was a heavy promoter of urban renewal and bulldozing neighborhoods for highways, but on this, he was smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Why even mention that the annexation contributes to growth if you weren't trying to quantify the value of that growth?  It's running dangerously close to calling it "fake growth", something I have definitely heard about Columbus in this context.    The whole debate just seems weird to me and trying to add a value judgement to where that growth is occurring.

 

Who is trying to quantify the value of growth?! Honestly, this seems more and more like your insecurities prompting this discussion than anything else.

 

How did we get here:

  • Columbus annexes tons of undeveloped land around the traditional '1950' boundaries.
  • Columbus slows annexation dramatically in recent years
  • Previously annexed city-owned land develops and fills in over the years
  • Columbus' population continues to grow
  • @jonoh81 Annexation has mostly stopped! Obviously population growth has nothing to do with annexation!
  • Me: well, that land that was annexed previously is just now being developed, so it's effect on population is still being felt, even while the core of Columbus continues to grow, too.
  • @jonoh81 Stop quantifying our growth!! It's not fake growth!!
  • Me: wtf...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

 

I (kinda) get your point but the only thing about that is there are rarely clear distinctions between city and suburbs.  Westwood in Cincinnati, for example, could just blend in the rest of the westside townships.  Madisonville might as well be Fairfax; Hartwell might as well be a poorer Wyoming, Pleasant Ridge blends into Silverton/Kenwood, etc.  In the case of Cleveland, the inner-ring suburbs are sometimes more "city like" than the city neighborhoods they border (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, etc).  It's rare, aside from natural barriers, that city and suburbs have a clear line of distinction.  If Cincinnati had annexed land back when Columbus did, or even currently annexed darn near Hamilton County, it wouldn't really make a visual difference. 

 

The only true "smaller city boundary" systems that would be in that favorable distinction are English and Australian city boundaries.

 

But overall, I get your point.  I would personally prefer Ohio to just have the Big 7 core counties become the cities and get it out of the way, like China.

 

Of course it's very rare that there is a 100% clear distinction between city and suburbs. There are older, more urban suburbs that could pass as urban neighborhoods, and there are more suburban neighborhoods in the city. For the most part, though, the city boundaries in a place like Cincinnati contain housing that is older and denser than its surrounding communities. There aren't whole neighborhoods that were built in the last 40 years in the city of Cincinnati. Perhaps there are some isolated streets or redeveloped areas like the suburban shit around the old Cincinnati Gardens, but those are the obvious exceptions. When exurban neighborhoods like this and this are counted as the City of Columbus, it dilutes the meaning of being in the city. These places are literally at the edge of metro Columbus, but are counted in the city population. It kind of makes a mockery of what most people think of as being 'the city'.

 

The other end of the spectrum is a place like San Francisco or maybe St. Louis (or potentially Cleveland) that have such small municipal boundaries that it excludes a big chunk of what would otherwise be thought of as city neighborhoods due to age of development and density. There is truly not a good method for comparing cities. I think the best method is probably urban area, as it ignores the often arbitrary political boundaries, and instead just looks at contiguous development over a certain threshold. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair with that near-Canal Winchester example for Columbus, even New York City has areas like that along the fringe.  Hell, every city in Ohio does, even some closer to downtown.  Even with urban area, which I agree is probably the best measure of a "city," that can get fuzzy.  Again, I'd say just make all the core counties of Ohio the "cities" and be done with it.  Kentucky did it with two of their largest cities and both seem economically/population growing.

  • Like 1

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, edale said:

 

Who is trying to quantify the value of growth?! Honestly, this seems more and more like your insecurities prompting this discussion than anything else.

 

How did we get here:

  • Columbus annexes tons of undeveloped land around the traditional '1950' boundaries.
  • Columbus slows annexation dramatically in recent years
  • Previously annexed city-owned land develops and fills in over the years
  • Columbus' population continues to grow
  • @jonoh81 Annexation has mostly stopped! Obviously population growth has nothing to do with annexation!
  • Me: well, that land that was annexed previously is just now being developed, so it's effect on population is still being felt, even while the core of Columbus continues to grow, too.
  • @jonoh81 Stop quantifying our growth!! It's not fake growth!!
  • Me: wtf...

Lol ok.  I explained exactly what I meant when I said annexation is not responsible for the growth and you decide to ignore that and make it weirdly personal for some reason.  Whatever. It’s a dumb argument and I’m out.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...