I saw an overhead of traffic on the busiest night of the year — less that half the streets being used.

The shut-off streets are for panhandlers–who would want to locate there?

I also wonder if they included the students in that number, my impression is  they didn’t.

So the 5,700 10,900, 20,500 25,200 numbers are all referring to units. I was also told that the average person per unit is generally around 1.5, so that means 8,550 16,350 30,750 and 37,800 residents, respectively.

This article made me think of your comment: The 10 Percent Solution to Urban Growth

A snippet: “The way to do this is to adopt the “10 percent solution”. That is, for most cities, they should develop a strategy that tries to capture somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the net new growth in their metro areas. If a city can get more, great. But for any growing region, even 10 percent would create a dynamic of massive change in the urban core.”

Might be worth a read.

One of my big concerns is that if – sorry, when – downtown becomes a big success, a lot of people will get priced out.  Socioeconomic considerations need to be part of the planning. But when I had questions about issues like affordable housing, it just didn’t fit in the current framework. The plan should include innovative tools such as bonus densities to encourage developers to include affordable housing or other community benefits, or leveraging of city-owned land (perhaps as community land trusts) to support small business or artists or mixed-income housing. Issues of the built environment and social considerations should go hand in hand.

There should be more discussions on different ways to maybe fund new projects, like light rail and so forth. It is true that better mass transit will help bring new development.

I can’t wait to see it happen, I am optimistic.

Any chance we could see a larger version of that graphic (and the one above it)?

Initially, yes it is. But after the initial depression wears off you begin to see an enormous opportunity for new development.

I was studying some older European and Asian cities recently, specifically looking into how many times certain cities have been torn down and rebuilt, either due to disasters or due to intentional city planning projects. Some of our most dense urban areas in the world have been ravaged by fires, wars, and worse… and they still end up being rebuilt.

If we can look at Columbus on a much bigger timeline, I think that the parking lots are going to be looked back on as a “failed 50 year experiment” in the long run, and it will be nothing more than a small moment in our city’s long history.