Interesting Theory on Urban Growth « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Interesting Theory on Urban Growth

[9 posts] [6 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by jpizzow
Latest reply from thepiece

Tags:

No tags yet. Add them below.

jpizzow
580 N. Park St.
Login to Send PM

This would do wanders for our city core:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001433-the-10-percent-solution-urban-growth

Posted 2 years ago #
thepiece
merion village
Login to Send PM

Interesting article, just reviewing the numbers, I think the 10% goal is actually too low, our cities should be capturing at least half of the new growth. Columbus was supposed to add close to a half million residents region wide between 2000 and 2030. If we followed this 10% goal, that would mean 100,000 moving into the city of columbus, with 400,000 expanding the suburbs/exurbs even more. I just can't imagine the region sustaining that much sprawl outside of the city (from a transportation/environment/physical space perspective).

Tricky though for places like Detroit, Cleveland etc which are regions that are not growing anymore (and with no growth to capture).
Interesting theory though....

Posted 2 years ago #
Talcott
Clintonville
Login to Send PM

thepiece wrote >>
Interesting article, just reviewing the numbers, I think the 10% goal is actually too low, our cities should be capturing at least half of the new growth. Columbus was supposed to add close to a half million residents region wide between 2000 and 2030. If we followed this 10% goal, that would mean 100,000 moving into the city of columbus, with 400,000 expanding the suburbs/exurbs even more. I just can't imagine the region sustaining that much sprawl outside of the city (from a transportation/environment/physical space perspective).
Tricky though for places like Detroit, Cleveland etc which are regions that are not growing anymore (and with no growth to capture).
Interesting theory though....

I think some of that defines on how we're defining the city core. When I read the article, I imagined downtown as the target for the 10%. I agree that at least 50% in Columbus itself is a good goal, but I see that as 10% downtown and 40% in urban neighborhoods (Short North, Hilltop, Clintonville, German Village, etc.).

Posted 2 years ago #
jpizzow
580 N. Park St.
Login to Send PM

Yea, I wasn't sure what their boundaries were when referring to the "city". 10% seems a little light when talking about the city of Columbus but a little heavy when talking about the "urban core" of the city. Either way, we need to capture as many as possible within our city core, which I refer to as downtown and the immediate surrounding neighborhoods. I sometimes throw in the campus area and Grandview Heights, because they are pretty dense in nature. Just to imagine only 10,000-20,000 new residents over the next decade within my definition of the "urban core" would be amazing. A couple thousand a year would make a huge difference.

Posted 2 years ago #
alove
Downtown
Login to Send PM

"In contrast, smaller cities have seen a few hundred downtown condos and such, but not a real urban renaissance. There is still a lot of work to do in those places."

Maybe after the addition of two downtown parks, a convention center hotel, better transportation (public and DIY,) better auto-infrastructure, continued efforts on the East and West sides, and a shit-ton of infill around Spring, Long, Gay, Rich, Main and Mound... THEN we can claim we're going through a Renaissance.

Posted 2 years ago #
arenn

Login to Send PM

Thanks for linking my piece.

I would say for Columbus, 10% of regional growth in the "old" city area (excluding the annex areas). It might be desirable to capture more, but it strikes me as unlikely. That's still probably around 17-20K though - very healthy. Is Dublin growing that fast? I don't think so.

Let's not kid ourselves on the ability of infrastructure to support sprawl. Places like Atlanta managed to grow to 4-5x the size of Columbus, so there is plenty of headroom to sprawl.

Posted 2 years ago #
jpizzow
580 N. Park St.
Login to Send PM

If we could get 5000 more residents downtown within the next decade, I would be relatively happy. Of course I want more but I think everything that has happened over the past 10 years, as well as everything planned for the next couple of years is creating pretty good momentum.

Posted 2 years ago #
ohiojimmie
Westgate
Login to Send PM

From 1990 to 2000 Dublin and Pickerington had the some of the greatest increases in population in the state. The next census data should bring up some interesting info on how much those have tapered off and where people are moving now.
But the article talked about what 10% would do for the city without answering its own question and a few others? Why do we want people to fill in the center/core of the city? What will that do for a city? How might they accomplish some of this? These seem like they could be mentioned and be part of a solution rather than telling cities what kind of goal they should have and reach.
I wish geography could be more groundbreaking.

Posted 2 years ago #
thepiece
merion village
Login to Send PM

My hesitation in relation to how much more growth our suburbs can sustain is more based on Ohio's financial and fiscal situation, than physical space to grow. Atlanta has sprawled at an unbelievable pace, but Georgia was also a rapidly growing state at that time, with lots of investment and in migration from outside of the State.

If it were 1990, I would easily see that much growth continuing to go toward our suburbs. But, well to put it simply, the state is broke, and the current development process in Ohio (which is fueled by the state and local governments subsidizing new sprawling growth) is stalling out. (Look at ODOT's pending budget headaches as an example of this). Not that I'm saying all of this is a bad thing, we need to rethink the way the state grows and where public resources get directed and I would love to fewer incentives for developing outside of the city. So, this is a real opportunity to do things different.

Of course, the real question is, how do we assure we capture 10 or up to 50% of the region's growth in our older urban areas (or at least the old (pre 1950) columbus boundaries? Also, do our current policies, housing stock etc. impede or enhance us to capture this growth? Who are our in-migrants and what are there preferences and housing needs? How can we make our urban neighborhoods attractive to these new residents (and accessible)? I feel like we still do not have a good grasp on those questions.

Posted 2 years ago #