This is a long post, but if you stick with it, you’ll be rewarded with what I think are some interesting maps at the bottom.
I’m currently working on a “streetscape master plan” project at work, with a focus on economic development for a 3.5 mile long major arterial roadway. I needed a way to measure economic activity, so I looked at walkscore.com. Walk Score looks at the walking distances from a defined location to the nearest grocery store, bars and restaurants, shopping, coffee shops, book store, bank, park, and school. The destinations are weighted by importance (see methodology here) and a walk score is generated. There are destinations included that aren’t related to economic activity, like the nearest park and school. However, the focus is largely on nearby businesses, so I thought it was an acceptable measure of economic activity. Here is the Walk Score map for Columbus:
Many of the green spots on the map are locations with major shopping centers (e.g., Graceland, Tuttle Crossing, Crosswoods, Polaris, Easton) and some are big box retail centers (e.g., Sawmill & SR-161, Hamilton & Morse, Stringtown Rd in Grove City). These types of economic activity centers tend to attract people from farther away, traveling by car. These aren’t really what I’m interested in measuring here. I’m interested in the walkable urban business districts that are mostly supported by the people within walking distance. This includes High Street from German Village through South Clintonville. The green spots appear to extend west into the Brewery District (Front Street) and east to German Village (3rd Street). Almost the entire downtown area is green. The segment of 5th Avenue in 5th by Northwest (north of Grandview Heights) is green. Grandview Avenue would be too if it were on WalkScore’s map. Main Street in Bexley is green. So is State Street in Uptown Westerville. These are some of Columbus’ great streets. They are the places with the most people on the sidewalks, the most shops and restaurants, the least vacancies, probably the biggest parking problems too. They’re the places you go for fun and where you take out-of-town guests to show them the best Columbus has to offer.
I’ve long noticed that these “great streets” are in areas that are both relatively wealthy and dense and assumed that an urban commercial street needs a combination of moderately high densities and incomes nearby to sustain itself successfully. It seems intuitive, but my project at work gave me a chance to test this theory with actual data. Using Walk Score data for Chicago community areas as my dependent variable, I compared it to median household incomes, household densities, and aggregate income densities (all the income for all the households within an area divided by the land area in square miles) using Census American Community Survey data (2005-2009). Below are some charts showing the relationships for 77 community areas in Chicago (click to expand). You can see that income alone was a somewhat weak predictor of economic activity (R^2 = 0.21), density was a pretty good fit (R^2 = 0.68), and aggregate income density was a very good fit (R^2 = 0.74). This seems to confirm my theory that aggregate income density is a good predictor of economic vitality, at least in Chicago.
I would love to put together similar charts for Columbus to see if the relationship extends as well, but the Walk Score neighborhood boundaries just don’t line up neatly with the Census tracts like they did in Chicago. However, the tabular data is interesting and I can map that to Census tracts using GIS software. Below is a list of all the Census tracts in Franklin County sorted by aggregate income density. I added the neighborhood or city names for many places, particularly at the top of the list, but not all of them. It’s pretty obvious that the tracts at the top of the list are generally the most vibrant in the city. Victorian Village, Harrison West, and Italian Village all support High Street in the Short North. German Village and the Brewery District are no surprise. South Clintonville and Bexley rank pretty high, as would be expected. After the aggregate income density drops below about $200 million per square mile, maybe a little less, the quality of the urban streets in the area starts to drop off.
Census Tract | Neighborhood | HH/sq. mi. | Med. HH Income ($2009) | Aggregate Income | Aggregate Income Density |
20 | Victorian Village/Harrison West | 6,405 | $67,625 | $134,768,700 | $501,544,409 |
21 | Victorian Village/Harrison West | 5,577 | $48,125 | $84,950,100 | $421,871,193 |
52 | Brewery District/German Village | 4,003 | $58,780 | $119,716,100 | $352,882,376 |
4.10 | South Clintonville | 4,170 | $54,361 | $81,116,000 | $271,272,560 |
57 | Brewery District/German Village | 2,566 | $69,196 | $210,314,800 | $264,427,042 |
91 | Bexley | 1,997 | $100,125 | $204,395,100 | $252,126,713 |
58.10 | Merion Village/German Village | 3,551 | $51,409 | $88,593,500 | $248,920,986 |
66 | Upper Arlington South | 1,717 | $102,250 | $195,816,100 | $238,451,307 |
63.84 | Olde Sawmill | 2,860 | $69,850 | $214,061,300 | $226,698,449 |
4.20 | South Clintonville | 2,683 | $64,174 | $126,908,800 | $224,430,585 |
65 | Upper Arlington South | 1,265 | $152,438 | $206,908,600 | $223,550,417 |
90 | Bexley | 1,137 | $122,946 | $221,904,500 | $217,621,711 |
10 | North Campus | 5,790 | $25,926 | $74,260,400 | $215,182,972 |
2.20 | Clintonville | 2,128 | $96,037 | $161,558,400 | $215,100,488 |
5 | South Clintonville | 3,905 | $48,309 | $108,228,900 | $214,860,204 |
22 | Italian Village | 3,144 | $60,000 | $57,402,000 | $212,789,509 |
18.20 | Necko/Dennison Place | 3,696 | $39,509 | $70,387,600 | $208,612,171 |
48.10 | Hilltop | 3,600 | $49,231 | $62,689,500 | $205,523,571 |
18.10 | South Campus | 9,055 | $18,202 | $30,888,800 | $202,523,453 |
6 | Old North Columbus | 4,657 | $39,566 | $70,582,200 | $195,754,873 |
89 | Bexley | 2,459 | $72,188 | $112,632,800 | $185,611,381 |
63.85 | Olde Sawmill | 2,305 | $72,696 | $239,298,400 | $183,278,698 |
64.10 | Upper Arlington | 1,328 | $69,500 | $153,988,600 | $182,554,918 |
38 | Olde Towne East | 3,968 | $23,164 | $50,360,500 | $179,206,465 |
67.10 | Worthington | 1,798 | $61,000 | $118,867,400 | $176,930,030 |
2.10 | Clintonville | 2,147 | $76,750 | $115,038,300 | $174,578,874 |
63.40 | Upper Arlington | 887 | $96,150 | $218,048,200 | $170,481,174 |
1.10 | Clintonville/Beechwold | 2,317 | $64,095 | $127,086,800 | $167,798,978 |
84 | Grandview/Marble Cliff | 1,651 | $75,263 | $145,300,900 | $167,783,777 |
46.10 | Hilltop | 2,692 | $53,311 | $96,343,300 | $167,681,942 |
63.53 | Hendereed | 3,265 | $39,381 | $107,793,600 | $166,396,362 |
79.51 | Tuttle Crossing | 1,562 | $87,604 | $351,690,500 | $164,792,318 |
68.23 | Graceland East | 3,613 | $41,778 | $28,718,300 | $164,175,537 |
64.30 | Upper Arlington | 1,639 | $79,621 | $162,195,200 | $163,197,014 |
63.52 | Northwest Side | 4,387 | $31,865 | $51,452,000 | $161,821,183 |
81.31 | Lincoln Village South | 3,530 | $37,614 | $137,022,200 | $160,381,618 |
63.72 | Riverside Green | 2,903 | $46,752 | $136,266,400 | $157,066,049 |
71.95 | Westerville | 2,047 | $62,087 | $256,056,000 | $156,029,128 |
63.92 | West Worthington | 977 | $131,579 | $246,884,900 | $155,047,021 |
63.23 | Upper Arlington | 1,428 | $93,475 | $142,777,000 | $154,771,429 |
63.71 | Riverside Green | 2,068 | $63,786 | $215,259,000 | $152,736,482 |
27.40 | Eastmoor | 1,704 | $64,213 | $82,176,200 | $151,054,745 |
27.60 | 3,043 | $37,857 | $74,270,100 | $148,473,479 | |
81.32 | 2,500 | $59,503 | $151,014,300 | $147,632,314 | |
68.22 | Sharon Heights | 2,306 | $61,719 | $64,665,800 | $145,468,709 |
69.42 | 3,934 | $32,647 | $20,183,900 | $144,908,181 | |
58.20 | Merion Village | 3,414 | $32,702 | $42,402,600 | $144,051,635 |
78.11 | 2,089 | $53,922 | $120,860,300 | $143,208,774 | |
71.15 | Forest Hills | 3,102 | $38,059 | $125,126,100 | $141,608,046 |
79.32 | Hilliard | 1,474 | $90,422 | $385,300,300 | $138,944,776 |
19 | Fifth by Northwest | 3,223 | $38,494 | $143,752,600 | $138,203,317 |
62.11 | Dublin | 722 | $161,377 | $579,403,200 | $137,163,372 |
71.93 | Westerville | 1,366 | $93,348 | $237,576,800 | $136,206,662 |
71.32 | 1,854 | $59,938 | $308,676,500 | $136,181,336 | |
67.21 | Worthington | 1,115 | $103,352 | $146,659,600 | $134,440,421 |
63.51 | Northwest Side | 2,101 | $51,807 | $117,141,600 | $132,981,698 |
63.21 | Upper Arlington | 909 | $108,676 | $220,105,200 | $132,622,868 |
63.30 | Upper Arlington | 1,731 | $65,787 | $142,508,500 | $129,680,674 |
69.32 | Tamarack Circle | 2,066 | $54,788 | $124,652,800 | $126,244,566 |
93.33 | 2,966 | $32,448 | $37,789,300 | $124,680,842 | |
63.10 | Upper Arlington | 974 | $106,151 | $200,564,000 | $124,030,124 |
83.22 | 2,840 | $37,113 | $79,836,100 | $123,363,899 | |
97.12 | Grove City | 2,405 | $43,250 | $55,230,500 | $121,206,297 |
93.62 | 1,814 | $54,286 | $192,072,100 | $120,549,954 | |
27.80 | Berwick | 1,620 | $57,083 | $79,520,900 | $120,366,166 |
63.87 | 1,881 | $50,211 | $178,628,100 | $119,787,328 | |
97.11 | Grove City | 2,264 | $49,167 | $89,459,400 | $119,021,553 |
94.10 | 2,203 | $49,321 | $59,240,000 | $118,948,545 | |
78.30 | 3,520 | $28,589 | $52,271,300 | $118,774,413 | |
68.21 | Graceland | 2,887 | $37,407 | $67,056,500 | $118,030,761 |
62.12 | Dublin | 1,025 | $100,625 | $456,764,000 | $117,299,001 |
70.20 | Westerville | 1,567 | $65,176 | $200,340,100 | $117,069,684 |
3.30 | North Linden | 3,128 | $35,507 | $35,961,900 | $117,035,285 |
69.44 | Sharon Woods | 1,605 | $67,309 | $115,512,400 | $116,973,039 |
93.50 | Whitehall | 1,942 | $39,025 | $77,305,600 | $116,634,211 |
56.20 | 3,335 | $32,628 | $32,541,100 | $116,180,673 | |
71.94 | Westerville | 1,385 | $67,344 | $216,191,300 | $114,487,139 |
46.20 | Westgate | 3,375 | $24,754 | $32,581,400 | $114,065,051 |
11.10 | North Campus | 4,902 | $15,525 | $23,293,000 | $112,833,323 |
93.84 | Reynoldsburg | 2,052 | $46,845 | $60,432,900 | $112,828,135 |
70.30 | 1,582 | $58,914 | $276,034,800 | $112,443,084 | |
1.20 | Clintonville | 1,380 | $75,313 | $123,965,100 | $111,905,913 |
83.21 | 2,249 | $45,930 | $47,555,300 | $111,648,141 | |
70.40 | Crosswoods | 1,478 | $60,767 | $368,769,500 | $111,244,195 |
69.43 | 2,250 | $42,200 | $78,750,700 | $109,691,639 | |
69.31 | Tamarack Circle | 2,625 | $32,018 | $84,779,400 | $108,667,640 |
13 | South Campus | 6,376 | $12,588 | $28,692,700 | $108,641,389 |
37 | Franklin Park | 1,915 | $25,965 | $86,879,700 | $107,611,459 |
56.10 | 3,265 | $20,346 | $26,233,600 | $107,474,125 | |
12 | North Campus | 4,291 | $19,359 | $27,820,600 | $107,353,017 |
93.81 | Reynoldsburg | 2,029 | $40,972 | $128,013,500 | $106,686,386 |
93.85 | Reynoldsburg | 1,594 | $48,487 | $113,094,100 | $106,477,775 |
71.20 | Huber Ridge | 1,489 | $68,233 | $137,737,700 | $106,131,134 |
93.72 | 1,836 | $56,080 | $91,162,300 | $106,125,923 | |
8.10 | North Linden | 2,678 | $30,786 | $40,519,200 | $105,544,265 |
69.45 | Sharon Woods | 3,144 | $31,149 | $79,675,300 | $104,869,643 |
85 | Grandview | 1,559 | $56,611 | $127,736,500 | $104,315,872 |
74.92 | Gahanna | 1,046 | $78,750 | $247,592,800 | $103,660,584 |
83.12 | 3,255 | $29,057 | $60,402,700 | $102,876,525 | |
92.30 | Whitehall | 2,532 | $31,730 | $72,868,200 | $102,786,746 |
92.40 | Whitehall | 2,692 | $33,444 | $32,857,600 | $102,745,976 |
79.33 | Hilliard | 1,413 | $68,999 | $218,771,300 | $102,509,177 |
59 | 2,883 | $32,946 | $30,858,300 | $102,358,877 | |
17 | Weinland Park | 4,361 | $15,779 | $20,277,800 | $102,346,801 |
93.21 | 2,120 | $37,366 | $39,568,800 | $101,945,165 | |
79.52 | 1,015 | $80,921 | $322,474,400 | $101,630,985 | |
55 | 2,800 | $28,048 | $57,855,900 | $101,193,140 | |
69.10 | Worthington/Riverlea | 882 | $83,929 | $69,700,300 | $101,159,543 |
93.23 | 2,925 | $25,893 | $43,114,600 | $101,128,600 | |
81.10 | Lincoln Village | 2,485 | $35,696 | $81,108,800 | $100,917,428 |
40 | Downtown | 2,338 | $18,762 | $87,488,900 | $100,760,661 |
77.30 | 2,112 | $41,080 | $55,531,000 | $99,315,702 | |
48.20 | Hilltop | 2,941 | $24,086 | $32,167,600 | $98,454,532 |
3.20 | North Linden | 2,164 | $40,046 | $48,480,500 | $98,428,701 |
69.23 | 1,912 | $45,917 | $69,249,000 | $98,232,397 | |
69.24 | 2,485 | $31,355 | $61,993,100 | $97,246,047 | |
69.33 | Tamarack Circle | 3,039 | $26,230 | $56,531,500 | $96,789,255 |
68.10 | Worthington | 1,323 | $60,450 | $65,867,200 | $96,724,467 |
32 | Thurber Village/ Arena District West | 1,701 | $43,534 | $56,260,000 | $96,074,624 |
93.32 | Berwick | 1,696 | $46,516 | $69,767,600 | $95,122,091 |
83.60 | 1,385 | $64,176 | $153,821,300 | $94,782,712 | |
93.83 | Reynoldsburg | 1,946 | $46,969 | $48,510,800 | $94,610,736 |
82.42 | 1,363 | $61,655 | $195,836,900 | $94,220,851 | |
69.50 | West Worthington | 795 | $103,500 | $149,915,700 | $93,954,213 |
93.34 | 1,917 | $45,739 | $53,187,400 | $93,469,780 | |
63.91 | Worthington Hills | 627 | $127,188 | $235,337,100 | $93,461,757 |
81.20 | Lincoln Village | 1,794 | $50,373 | $72,408,700 | $93,072,606 |
93.82 | Reynoldsburg | 1,757 | $44,635 | $69,783,400 | $92,826,531 |
47 | Hilltop | 2,983 | $20,929 | $47,407,600 | $92,500,676 |
71.13 | 1,782 | $47,308 | $93,242,800 | $91,697,673 | |
92.50 | Whitehall | 1,867 | $37,269 | $41,306,900 | $91,361,008 |
28 | Mt. Vernon | 2,723 | $24,492 | $40,243,300 | $91,329,792 |
93.22 | 2,105 | $40,000 | $51,850,700 | $90,672,938 | |
27.50 | Eastmoor | 2,443 | $30,102 | $33,772,500 | $90,466,815 |
25.20 | Woodland Park | 2,012 | $25,643 | $53,433,900 | $88,112,538 |
93.73 | 1,582 | $51,083 | $105,919,700 | $87,275,680 | |
93.26 | 2,903 | $23,750 | $24,573,600 | $86,794,218 | |
93.11 | 1,843 | $44,111 | $57,405,700 | $86,556,947 | |
36 | King-Lincoln District | 2,279 | $19,408 | $22,866,900 | $85,860,832 |
62.20 | Dublin | 889 | $75,852 | $297,352,700 | $83,030,493 |
49 | Hilltop | 2,107 | $33,792 | $77,625,800 | $82,568,762 |
93.71 | 1,635 | $43,179 | $108,972,500 | $81,817,095 | |
74.25 | Gahanna | 1,158 | $59,375 | $77,934,700 | $81,721,850 |
27.70 | 2,154 | $33,689 | $29,510,200 | $81,600,020 | |
77.21 | North Linden | 2,020 | $30,332 | $67,659,800 | $81,491,982 |
74.27 | Gahanna | 816 | $84,500 | $225,376,400 | $80,989,479 |
3.10 | North Linden | 1,963 | $37,208 | $57,735,700 | $80,667,750 |
43 | Franklinton | 1,531 | $35,598 | $157,082,700 | $80,185,773 |
94.20 | Minerva Park | 1,409 | $52,641 | $123,036,500 | $80,091,514 |
71.12 | 1,346 | $52,911 | $122,222,000 | $80,004,470 | |
27.30 | 2,529 | $24,665 | $23,192,100 | $79,489,906 | |
79.42 | 1,248 | $56,235 | $397,001,900 | $78,277,730 | |
7.10 | North Linden | 2,620 | $26,532 | $39,514,000 | $78,135,743 |
93.12 | 2,040 | $35,216 | $47,130,900 | $77,969,579 | |
87.10 | 1,778 | $36,801 | $45,714,700 | $75,174,032 | |
71.31 | 1,244 | $51,948 | $212,377,000 | $75,135,354 | |
93.61 | 967 | $53,547 | $182,428,400 | $75,102,736 | |
75.12 | 1,759 | $35,577 | $57,291,500 | $75,084,873 | |
74.91 | Gahanna/Easton | 935 | $75,513 | $127,631,600 | $75,031,023 |
77.10 | North Linden | 1,986 | $29,884 | $58,631,100 | $74,607,016 |
45 | Hilltop | 1,920 | $36,069 | $72,599,100 | $74,171,459 |
54.20 | Driving Park | 2,114 | $29,107 | $27,039,200 | $74,027,899 |
93.36 | 2,039 | $34,450 | $48,473,200 | $73,657,069 | |
83.30 | 1,719 | $38,578 | $44,368,300 | $72,849,306 | |
69.21 | 1,471 | $37,332 | $71,974,500 | $72,787,507 | |
63.83 | Dublin | 896 | $56,807 | $253,596,800 | $72,775,966 |
93.40 | Whitehall | 1,748 | $34,131 | $41,769,800 | $70,421,144 |
88.25 | 1,313 | $47,990 | $122,597,300 | $70,400,907 | |
77.22 | North Linden | 1,695 | $35,903 | $48,069,200 | $69,457,797 |
83.11 | 1,951 | $25,637 | $66,421,400 | $69,068,332 | |
69.90 | Westerville | 908 | $62,068 | $202,004,600 | $68,919,684 |
9.10 | North Linden | 2,252 | $25,098 | $33,847,900 | $68,353,904 |
83.70 | 1,045 | $58,013 | $173,980,700 | $67,278,806 | |
78.12 | Olentangy Commons | 1,174 | $32,206 | $108,080,700 | $67,151,835 |
75.32 | 2,187 | $27,378 | $21,662,600 | $66,916,266 | |
74.26 | Gahanna | 1,071 | $53,525 | $70,939,800 | $66,909,775 |
8.20 | North Linden | 1,970 | $22,244 | $36,965,300 | $66,155,438 |
78.20 | 2,351 | $16,419 | $51,675,600 | $66,097,997 | |
93.74 | 1,195 | $47,832 | $164,164,900 | $65,510,790 | |
50 | Franklinton | 2,214 | $18,147 | $53,622,900 | $65,309,130 |
63.86 | Dublin | 946 | $54,171 | $108,354,700 | $64,776,171 |
27.10 | 2,335 | $17,344 | $20,786,600 | $64,634,498 | |
9.20 | 2,189 | $17,287 | $22,832,700 | $64,588,110 | |
83.50 | 1,509 | $35,970 | $110,169,000 | $63,783,077 | |
79.31 | Hilliard | 910 | $63,363 | $100,512,000 | $63,492,202 |
63.60 | 993 | $52,513 | $251,086,300 | $63,062,947 | |
71.14 | Forest Hills | 1,219 | $44,239 | $88,804,300 | $63,011,610 |
7.30 | South Linden | 2,387 | $21,058 | $25,250,500 | $62,707,406 |
81.41 | 972 | $59,459 | $201,161,900 | $62,057,480 | |
70.10 | Westerville | 940 | $46,979 | $64,823,900 | $61,896,381 |
61 | Hungarian Village | 2,153 | $23,723 | $25,144,400 | $61,716,162 |
74.24 | Gahanna | 1,229 | $43,427 | $101,551,200 | $59,909,959 |
67.22 | Worthington | 763 | $63,979 | $88,179,800 | $59,139,196 |
92.20 | Whitehall | 1,171 | $46,902 | $44,584,700 | $58,073,311 |
60 | 2,123 | $16,534 | $21,510,700 | $57,523,231 | |
93.31 | 2,148 | $24,028 | $12,642,400 | $56,570,272 | |
79.21 | Hilliard | 632 | $77,792 | $212,817,900 | $56,015,859 |
77.40 | 1,248 | $38,000 | $37,898,200 | $55,890,141 | |
97.52 | Grove City | 689 | $75,388 | $171,568,000 | $54,915,403 |
87.20 | 1,219 | $28,615 | $59,223,900 | $53,896,453 | |
53 | Olde Towne East/Old Oaks | 1,651 | $23,854 | $30,274,800 | $53,527,688 |
75.40 | 1,142 | $37,831 | $160,837,800 | $52,884,051 | |
97.20 | Grove City | 926 | $47,270 | $144,419,500 | $52,611,317 |
93.37 | 1,265 | $34,383 | $59,150,400 | $51,634,585 | |
30 | Downtown | 758 | $36,719 | $79,560,000 | $50,182,383 |
81.42 | 851 | $46,808 | $157,061,100 | $50,138,574 | |
93.90 | Reynoldsburg | 634 | $73,634 | $126,243,900 | $50,101,875 |
79.22 | Hilliard | 486 | $86,899 | $142,632,000 | $46,697,116 |
94.50 | Canal Winchester | 583 | $70,516 | $220,047,900 | $46,304,553 |
73.92 | Gahanna | 654 | $57,581 | $449,114,900 | $45,447,672 |
82.30 | Lincoln Park West | 1,048 | $39,286 | $18,375,500 | $42,599,991 |
16 | Weinland Park | 2,376 | $15,411 | $8,066,300 | $42,588,506 |
93.86 | Reynoldsburg | 1,054 | $31,010 | $42,034,100 | $41,396,796 |
73.91 | 325 | $94,554 | $427,109,400 | $40,297,345 | |
69.41 | 1,096 | $35,000 | $26,666,700 | $40,163,428 | |
96 | Grove City | 679 | $40,428 | $97,647,300 | $39,346,734 |
75.31 | 1,060 | $32,273 | $29,101,900 | $39,260,546 | |
88.13 | 1,093 | $31,867 | $30,529,300 | $38,793,872 | |
75.20 | 1,060 | $29,956 | $37,987,600 | $38,756,312 | |
72 | 327 | $82,365 | $1,025,304,300 | $38,661,269 | |
26 | 1,231 | $24,470 | $49,326,300 | $38,657,640 | |
54.10 | 1,410 | $15,682 | $14,465,400 | $37,365,448 | |
62.30 | Dublin | 404 | $69,416 | $418,699,100 | $35,591,464 |
75.34 | 1,188 | $22,124 | $31,595,900 | $35,513,913 | |
95.20 | Obetz | 611 | $46,086 | $86,526,400 | $35,243,145 |
83.40 | 741 | $40,918 | $106,743,400 | $33,764,154 | |
75.33 | 669 | $41,420 | $26,752,000 | $32,705,643 | |
88.22 | 801 | $33,056 | $63,825,100 | $32,369,482 | |
7.20 | Fairgrounds | 1,111 | $22,133 | $25,511,500 | $30,217,481 |
92.10 | Whitehall | 888 | $31,426 | $74,680,900 | $29,957,807 |
79.41 | 367 | $72,375 | $82,722,500 | $28,480,550 | |
29 | King-Lincoln District | 2,796 | $8,785 | $9,064,100 | $28,375,305 |
93.25 | 964 | $25,310 | $55,786,000 | $27,867,087 | |
94.30 | 516 | $48,774 | $125,996,000 | $27,290,481 | |
94.40 | Obetz | 387 | $66,838 | $91,843,800 | $26,744,857 |
94.92 | Obetz | 467 | $52,238 | $453,830,400 | $26,734,363 |
83.80 | 436 | $50,829 | $101,860,600 | $26,396,261 | |
82.41 | 745 | $26,087 | $41,137,700 | $26,362,089 | |
88.21 | 669 | $32,203 | $39,384,600 | $25,301,918 | |
97.40 | Grove City | 271 | $84,063 | $381,803,200 | $25,092,881 |
15 | South Linden | 1,219 | $13,244 | $12,600,000 | $24,886,943 |
75.11 | 857 | $23,365 | $15,574,500 | $23,543,725 | |
81.61 | 436 | $44,506 | $156,937,800 | $23,100,270 | |
25.10 | 585 | $32,115 | $40,467,000 | $21,229,768 | |
75.50 | 384 | $39,167 | $47,659,500 | $20,346,246 | |
42 | East Franklinton | 973 | $9,583 | $8,487,900 | $18,810,139 |
88.12 | 345 | $42,256 | $52,219,600 | $16,004,837 | |
14 | Milo-Grogan | 499 | $24,460 | $11,222,200 | $15,673,772 |
81.62 | 263 | $52,870 | $212,068,800 | $15,381,189 | |
23 | Milo-Grogan | 522 | $22,708 | $14,444,600 | $14,539,275 |
88.11 | 385 | $26,772 | $25,768,300 | $13,213,516 | |
97.51 | Grove City | 143 | $77,500 | $136,440,400 | $12,990,353 |
82.10 | 337 | $24,906 | $28,419,500 | $9,860,297 | |
87.30 | 421 | $18,235 | $17,265,400 | $9,584,175 | |
71.96 | 121 | $73,565 | $24,594,200 | $8,180,005 | |
80 | 76 | $78,889 | $156,213,100 | $7,003,465 | |
51 | 496 | $10,089 | $10,683,400 | $6,922,887 | |
95.10 | 167 | $36,192 | $33,559,400 | $6,575,514 | |
95.90 | 105 | $48,207 | $98,239,400 | $5,838,314 | |
11.20 | OSU | 214 | $17,319 | $15,426,300 | $5,729,658 |
98 | 68 | $61,588 | $210,400,700 | $5,048,099 | |
94.91 | 42 | $54,542 | $58,070,400 | $3,026,900 | |
74.10 | Airport | 4 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
68.30 | Deaf/Blind Schools | 0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
A couple of exceptions are notable. Downtown should be higher on the list, but my method doesn’t account for employment density, which would probably take care of that problem. The same may be true for campus with its large number of employees. Also, I suspect students have access to more money than just their own income (i.e., mom and dad’s income). Also outperforming expectations is Grandview Heights. It does not have an extremely high aggregate income density, but Grandview Avenue is one of the more vibrant streets in Central Ohio in my opinion. I would guess that a lot of people in Upper Arlington and other areas go to Grandview and help support that business district. If Upper Arlington were to build its own urban street, whether on Lane Avenue or at Kingsdale, it could take a bite out of Grandview Avenue’s business.
That’s about all I have to say about this at the moment. Let me know if you see anything interesting or spots you’d like to see more detailed data.
Great post John! It looks like a reasonable approach to identifying target areas for development.
[…] that went up today over on XingColumbus. John Wirtz has crunched a lot of numbers to determine the aggregate income density of various census tracts in Central Ohio to not only study the economic vitality of existing urban business districts, but to study new […]
This is a fascinating analysis. Thanks so much for sharing. It really does show how density rules, especially when combined with the proper city planning and infrastructure.
I love your thoughts about the Northwest side of town. We all know Sawmill, Bethel, and Henderson are nightmares to drive on. Anyone seen walking along these streets (where sidewalks exist) looks out of place–like a criminal. There is so much activity, density, and a high aggregate income for these areas that I agree with your suggestion that they be pretty high on the list for streetscaping. Some simple code changes could do alot for the aethetics and walkability. And a connector to the Olentangy Bikeway (or a Scioto Bikeway) would be an amazing addition to the pedestrian/cyclist mobility to the CBD for the Northwest side.
Thanks. If you don’t already know about it, check out Dublin’s Bridge Street Corridor Plan. If I know Dublin (and I think I do), the design will be of a very high quality. I predict it will be extremely successful and set a new standard for suburban urbanity.
Great write-up on it here.
John – this is extremely interesting and I agree we all assumed those facts, but its nice to see it proven. I live and work in the east of Sawmill, West of Reed between Bethel and Henderson – neither Upper Arlington nor Columbus want to claim ownership of this area as evidenced by the lack of snow plows and road repairs. This area has become a great ethnic melting pot with small ethnic businesses, and restaurants
My wife and I live in Eastmoor which is just east of the green Bexley area. East Main St. would be a prime new development area for Columbus. A little investment on street, sidewalk and landscaping and that green area could reach all the way to Whitehall.
I labeled Eastmoor’s two census tracts (27.40 and 27.50) in the table. It looks like the west half is wealthy, but not dense enough . The east half is almost dense enough, but much less wealthy. I would say it’s probably not quite time for Eastmoor. However, maybe improving the appearance of Main Street could help spur some new residential development whenever the housing market recovers? Some additional people in West Eastmoor could push it over the edge.
Really interesting post. All things we weighed when moving our business from South Clintonville to Grandview Avenue.
I’ve been interested in Walk Score for some time but have never seen so much information extrapolated from it in this way. I was searching for some interesting uses of it and found this page. Seems I need to spend more time with it. Great info!
Thanks. Most of the data was from the Census. I just used Walk Score as a proxy for economic activity and grouped the census tracts to match Walk Score’s neighborhood boundaries. It would be interesting to see if the Census tract and Walk Score neighborhood boundaries line up well for other cities though.
Wow. My census tract – 48.10 – on the Hilltop came up higher than Bexley. This is the area south of Sullivant and east of Westgate Ave. to about Richardson. Hague and Sullivant is the relevant intersection.
Higher than one of Bexley’s tracts and lower than two, but still impressive. It seems like the Hilltop could support more walkable urban development, but a lot of the land fronting Sullivant is residential single-family homes . Where do people on the Hilltop currently go if they feel like having dinner, going for a stroll, and getting some ice cream?
Yes, the Hilltop can support more walkable urban development. On Sullivant, we need to calm the traffic and fix the sidewalks. Still, many of us walk to the Dairy Twist and UDF for ice cream, the new BP for coffee and Subway and the library for food for thought. Then there’s Massey’s Pizza, Koki’s Tortilla’s, La Bodega grocer, plus a couple of southeast Asian grocers, one with Thai takeout. There’s a few Mexican and Somali eateries within a long walk or short bike ride from Hague and Sullivant. To contemplate all that food, you can stop by the largest Confederate cemetery north of the Mason Dixon. In this area, the glass is perhaps half full. Thanks for the great insights, John!
It seems to me that you might be confusing a correlation with causation. It is my understanding that several of these economically successful walkable areas, particularly those along High Street, were neither economic successful nor having high income density until after they were redesigned to be more inviting as pedestrian environments. As Columbus redeveloped these areas and businesses began to thrive, higher income residents then moved in.
Let’s not forget the power of streetscape development to bring up the economic standing of an area. Maybe streetscape investment is exactly what places like the east tract of Eastmoor needs.
A good point. Perhaps the causation goes in both directions. A high income density can support businesses, so they move to those areas, but a pretty street can attract more density and wealth as well. Either way, over time, the correlation is created.
In the case of the Short North, I would say that the Victorian/Italianate architecture in combination with a convenient location between two major job centers (downtown and campus) probably attracted the residents first. The residents opened businesses and pushed for streetscape improvements, which attracted more residents and more income. I’m not sure exactly when more trees were planted or when sidewalks were reconstructed, but I know some streetscape improvements (e.g., arches, murals, freeway cap) were made long after the area became trendy.
In terms of policy, I guess my point would be that there are many places that would like to have a more attractive streetscape. Given unlimited funds, we could take care of all of them. However, if you have to prioritize, it makes sense to look for the areas that could economically support more businesses than they currently have. There are other factors to consider too though, like a walkable street grid. Eastmoor would do better on that measure that Sawmill Rd or Henderson Rd. I think Eastmoor is a good idea (as I noted in the comment above), it’s just not at the top of my list. If I were Columbus, I would personally probably go after Olde Towne East and the Hilltop first.
[…] on the Network today: Xing Columbus analyzes the connection between walkability and a metric called “income density.” […]
One interesting application of this analysis would be to use it to test Mayor Coleman’s assertion that the reason City Center failed was that there was an insufficient cluster of residents in the downtown area at the time City Center opened. You would need to have comparable data from 1989, the year City Center opened. If you had such data, you could show what these maps would have looked like in 1989 and then determine whether the signs at that time would have indicated little potential for a major retail development at the location of City Center. I raise this because some have suggested that City Center failed, not because of lack of nearby residents, but because communities in the region allowed new competitors (Easton, Tuttle Crossing, Polaris) to come on the scene instead of taking steps to drive traffic to City Center. John’s methodology might be useful for testing which of these alternate theories is more likely correct.
I think I am missing something here – how do you calculate aggregate income density?
I tried a quick google search, but that consisted of links to this article!
My apologies if this is urban economics 1.0 and I am missing something obvious.
It’s not obvious. I’m happy to explain.
Aggregate income is measured by the US Census Bureau. I used Table B19025 in the American Community Survey 5-year estimate data (2004-2009). I divide the aggregate income by the land area of a tract to get what I am calling aggregate income density. The land areas can be found in the database (.dbf) files associated with the Census’ Tigerline GIS shapefiles for census tracts.
(Aggregate Income) / (Sq Mi.) in each Census Tract
John,
It would be interesting to see the this done using the same data, but by place of work just to toggle back and forth between the two.
I agree, it would be nice to have workers factored in – but don’t forget about students too.
My eye too went to the Olde Sawmill tract. My guess is that apartment complexes that have little to no physical connection to single family areas help boost the density. There are a couple of variables you might explore to help examine that:
1) Average (Census) Block Size in a Block Group – CNT’s H+T index uses this one, though you could do the same by Census Tract. It’s not great, but it’s a decent proxy for walkable physical form (http://htaindex.cnt.org/downloads/Methods.3.3.11.pdf)
2) Diversity index – Emily Talen (http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Design-Reclaimed-Techniques-Strategies/dp/1932364633) has been using Simpson’s Diversity Index on various urban and census data sets. Running some of the census’ housing data through that would probably reveal blocks or block groups that are skewing some of these tracts toward “walkable urban districts.”
I always have to scratch my head when someone suggests streetscape improvements alone to help revitalize a corridor. Your intuition as evidenced by this analysis shows that there are other factors that should be considered. Thanks!
Andy
Hmm, I wasn’t able to find this data by place of work. Do you know that it exists? Do you know the table number?
[…] Comments « Aggregate Income Density: A Measure of Potential for Walkable Urban Business Districts […]
@Andy – I am dismayed by your comment that “apartment complexes that have little to no physical connection to single family areas help boost the denstiy.” Of course they do! Multiple family dwellings are more dense than single family dwellings, I think we all would agree. It seems that the author’s point is that areas that have higher density (which in itself implies some form of mixed use, i.e. apartments, offices, single family on smaller lots, etc.) are the areas that are ripe for development or have been successfully revitalized. How can you say that apartment complexes have little to no connection to single family if they are in fact in the same census tract? I live in Victorian Village and there are all kinds of apartments all over the census tract. They are very connected to the fabric of the neighborhood and to the single family dwellings. The diversity of structures as well as diversity of occupants and income levels is precisely what makes it such a desirable place to live. I alos believe that streetscape has a HUGE impact. Areas like Bethel/Sawmill are blighted because they are not built on a human scale and are designed only to be driven through in cars. There is no connection of the homes and businesses to the streetscape. In downtown Columbus they are converting many streets to a narrower street width, widening sidewalks and returning streets back to two-way from one way. All of these factors make the streetscape more desirable, more human in scale and the areas are starting to thrive again.
I think Andy was saying that just the apartments in Olde Sawmill (tracts 63.84 and 63.85) are disconnected from the remainder of the single family homes in the neighborhood. You can see here that the apartments are not integrated throughout the neighborhood, but are clustered near Sawmill Rd and Hard Rd with their own cul-de-sac entrances. With a little effort though, this short section of Sawmill could be more walkable. I frequently biked to this area as a kid and worked in the Burger King on Sawmill as a teenager.
Got it! Thx for clarifying. One thing that I think makes older neighborhoods work better is that the multi-family and mixed use concept is so much more/better integrated. Seems with the newer parts of town, like the one you are referring to, the multi-family is all “chunked” together. What makes neighborhoods like Vic Village, German Village, etc. so vibrant is that you have a huge spectrum of humanity living and working together. I live on Neil and there are homes on my block ranging from $200K to over $1million and right across the street and behind my house I have Section 8 housing mixed in. It adds to the dynamic which I think is lacking in more suburban developments.
Lisa – I agree. John – Thanks for clarifying. That’s what I was referring to.
The “vibrant” or “dynamic” feel that comes from mixed income areas (as a result of mixes of unit types) can be seen where a variety of businesses are supported. You get your convenience store, your art gallery, and everything in between.
[…] A study analyzes the correlation between Walk Score, urban density, and household income [Xing Columbus] […]
John, great article and really good information. I don’t think it’s any secret that the older urban neighborhoods in Columbus are economic engines that have been forgotten by retailers over the years. Most of the area’s you mention are in the older areas of the City of Columbus and they have also forgotten about these area’s and have let the infrastructure crumble.
I agree these areas could benefit from a streetscape plan, but without changing the underlying zoning code and forcing more urban type development, we will spend a lot of money for nothing, and end up with more large lot development with lots of parking, not very friendly to pedestrians.
Morse road is a good example of this. Great streetscape project but without changing the built environment not alot will change other than really nice trees.
Other areas such as Fifth Ave could benefit the most. The build envirionment is already there and a streetscape plan would make this area that much better for encouraging pedestrian activity. The urban overlay is already in place in this area thanks to the 5thXNW area commission.
Aside from the possibility for walkability in places like Olde Sawmill, the income map highlights the same urban areas that the 2005-2009 census data for household distribution does such as the central area of the Hilltop and Merion Village. I’d much rather see existing urban business districts get the attention for traffic calming and streetscaping since every one of them, starting with the ones with most potential, should be configured for pedestrians instead of thru-traffic.
Unfortunately, the Hilltop info has been out there for at least a few years, yet the dense walkable district on W Broad east of Hague St has seen its newest business Cycle Co open up about two years ago. The city thought it would help to fill in more of the empty storefronts by, not streetscaping and pedestrianizing the strip as they had hired Neighborhood Design to draft (finished five years ago with no funding from the city for implementation) or help fund renovations for entrepreneurs who sign a lease, but instead added metered parking to a district in their infinite wisdom. Last few times I rode down there they’ve been mostly empty and no new businesses have moved in as a result of the new meters When you have such a clueless city government holding back the great potential that the Hilltop still holds with a high number of residents with disposable income and a dense five block stretch of empty commercial buildings that doesn’t bode well for many of the other urban business districts that aren’t working with nearly as much as the Hilltop such as E 5th Ave in East Columbus/Krumm Park (due north of Bexley).
So basically, you have a clueless city government that ended up nipping a would-be up-and-coming district in the bud and city residents that are more than happy to let that happen. In reality, that map outside of the usual suspects (Short North, German Village, etc) might as well all be pale yellow because it’s potential that is just going to sit dormant and go on unnoticed by no one in the private or public sectors.
Nice to hear from you. Have you move away from Columbus?
Very nice…Did you make this in GIS? If so, have you considered (if you have the data) including walking infrastructure in your analysis (such as bike paths and sidewalks). You could use network analyst to determine areas best served physically (in addition to the walkscore)…Perhaps it would show a more compelling illustration?
I used GIS just to join the database to the Census Tract shapefile and produce the map. I don’t have sidewalk data, but I think I have a bike path layer from MORPC. Perhaps the streets layer could be used as a proxy for walking routes, even though not all streets have sidewalks. I’ve never used the network analyst function before, but maybe I’ll look into it. Thanks for the tips.
Ok John
This thread seems more active than the one on CU so I’ll x-post my overdue promised comments here.
and again thanks for the awesome, thought provoking work.
just some random thoughts I had FWIW
1) As Beth said correlation is not causation. In this case I do think the correlation you found is a valid cause. What you basically have done is a version of the old “retail follows rooftops” location practice but applied it to urban applications.
2) The immediate thing that jumps out at me, is how high the ADI you cite now has to be to support urban retail. The Boxes and Malls have taken and concentrated so many dollars that they have rendered whole neighborhoods unserviceable. This study shows a somewhat sad sign that perhaps in order for us to vibrant urban retail in the age of the big box it may continue to be limited to highly affluent areas for the immediate future. 😦
3) A crucial difference between Chicago and Columbus, is the public’s willingness to use mass transit. Let’s face it COTA is not even close to being as well used by varied income groups as the EL, so urban format retailers in Columbus I’m going to guess probably require a higher threshold Disposable Income density than Chicago to survive as their urban shopping pull area is largely limited to the fabled 5 minute walk distance.
4) I dont think you need to worry about throwing office workers and such into it. Retailers generally consider that a very secondary factor (unless you are an office supply business). The old rule of thumb is roughly 1 resident=6 office workers. At least in my sub-industry. If you do include it , I would make sure to not give it the same weight as the residential income.
4b) Tourism on the other hand is huge, especially the convention business. I think it’s no accident north market has thrived of late while central market failed.
Or that the Short North is where it is.
For ancedotal evidence if you look at Indianapolis, their City Center equivalent (same size and age) is still viable today, but it directly connects to their convention center unlike City Center which was on the other end of downtown from our Convention Center.
4c) College students are also badly underrepresented in this methodology. While many may not sport robust incomes, they are usually inhabit very dense areas and tend to spend OPM or in this case OPI and in shopping behavior they tend to act more like residents than workers.
5) a big assumption that this study also makes (not meant as a slam, every study makes some)is the preference for shopping in urban format stores being equivalent across cities. In my experience that doesn’t usually hold true in Columbus, in fact I would argue most here actually prefer the suburban style when weighing all the relevant factors (location, selection, price, experience etc). For years major upscale retailers would not locate here, as Columbus shoppers had a national rep for being “thrifty”. Even City Center was basically a suburban mall despite its’ location. I think this also is a crucial factor for why the Hilltop in particular lacks adequate urban retail, it is too close to a large number of suburban shopping options. Enough that the neighborhood’s income is probably not as available as it appears. Of course as others have mentioned the Hilltop also could use some streetscaping help from the City.
6) there also is the assumption that all these districts are equally easy for retailers to service (an understandable one as well as it would add lots of time to determine this). One of the challenges in downtown in particular is access to customers. Retailers cannot build inexpensive parking due to code, cannot inhabit many buildings without significant rehabs (to the point of being uneconomic) to comply with ADA & local urban building codes and on the customer side Columbus shoppers are generally reluctant to either pay for parking or take mass transit/bike to shop. It can be a no win scenario for us.
also In Olde Town East’s case, there really isn’t an easy answer commercial street with good building stock (unlike Franklinton which has great commercial building stock). The Best commercial street in recent memory is Parsons, but it’s on the edge and oriented the wrong way to the growth. Still of the underserved neighborhoods I think OTE is closest to being ready given it’s distance from other options and the direction the Income is moving. Merion Village would be another.
7)Downtown’s numbers are bad but they seem on target to me given what I see and have seen. However data does seem supportive of what I’ve said for years that the most upside potential is in the south and east ends. We have the biggest existing base, the cheapest land prices and the most commercial vacancy. I still think the city incentivized too broad of an area with the condos, they would have been better focusing on one sector of downtown. That being said there is no part of downtown that is very close given the serviceability issues (and even further away once factor in how close competing retail areas are , especially grandview yard and Lennox). I think given the code issues down here vs other neighborhoods we will need higher than 200 to be viable.
8) I like this study, because it matches what I see in my personal experience, and basically reflects where I think the retail potential is in Columbus. 🙂
9) and if you do any more cities (or other times in these cities histories) please Let me know ! I really enjoyed your post!
OMG! ZHC, your comments were so enlightenting. I have a question for anyone on this thread who is knowledgable about such things. I’m a member of the Short North Business Association and of course we constantly get complaints (from just about everyone who doesn’t live in the Short North) about parking. It seems that people are just completely unwilling to walk any distance (even a block) between where they park and where they shop. There is this expectation that they should be able to pull up right in front of the door of the business and park and not have to walk any further than from the car to the door of the shop/restaurant. As someone who lives in the neighborhood and walks and bikes everywhere (even over to Grandview or downtown), I don’t understand this mentality or where it comes from. Is it just because Columbus (by that I mean the greater metro area including the ‘burbs) has so many little strip malls and shopping centers where suburbanites can pull in and park in front of the store? How do we educate/encourage people to see the beauty of walking? It is so frustrating to me. I know it would help if we had a better mass transit system (COTA improvments, bus rapid transit, streetcar, etc.) But even as COTA has improved in recent years, I don’t see any interest in using it outside of the urban core. Can someone help me understand this?
Lilsa
hey thanks, Glad my answer was useful to you. John in my opinion shared the real info here though. 🙂
in re: your question I agree with John’s answer.
My impression of why people support transit in other cities (we’re not talking about transit fans who might locate because of that lifestyle, but the swing voters if you will people who go either way), is not necessarily a preference for it but the fact it is their fastest/easiest way to get around.There is no question COTA can not currently provide the same advantages here for a variety reasons (lack of density, lack of funding,roads that handle peak capacity car flow well etc).
And so most Columbusites go places by car and have the consumer expectations that car shoppers have. Which is Abundant Free Parking visibly in front of their destination. They have been trained by their life experiences to expect that and to be honest they have close (by car) alternatives that do in fact provide them with that amenity.
I don’t know how fix it to be honest. In the short run more parking garages might have to be the answer until we get enough density to support some sort of more frequent transit service. The major downside there is not only garages expensive and break up pedestrian walk flow, but they are also generally really really to convert to another use in the future given their unique structure and ceiling heights. Still as long as free parking is out there and close by it’s going to be a problem. Car shoppers hate meters, we lose shoppers every day because they hate to pay for parking no matter the amount. City Center only charged a dollar for a day and people still griped about it non-stop and ultimately went elsewhere.
I’m sure John has better transit related fixes than I do.
I think my previous post here can explain why more people in Columbus don’t use transit. Basically, lots of people (97.5% of workers) already have cars. For those people, transit is too expensive to be cost-competitive for short trips and too slow to be time-competitive for long trips. The exception is trips to places where parking costs money or is difficult. Since parking is somewhat difficult in the Short North, at least during certain times, transit should be a realistic option. I would guess that a lot of people do take transit to Gallery Hop, or maybe on Friday and Saturday nights in general. However, they probably live within a few miles. Other than express routes, which only run rush hours, COTA is not time-competitive for long trips compared to a car. The transit coverage and frequency in the suburbs is also pretty poor. I have a large number of suggestions for how to improve transit in Columbus. You can see previous posts on XingColumbus or check my out-of-date website for that.
The reluctance to walk short distances perplexes me too though. I agree with you that it is most likely a cultural phenomenon based on a small-city automobile-oriented lifestyle. I have become so accustomed to Chicago, where there is very little parking in the most exciting neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Andersonville, Lincoln Square), that when I visit the Short North, I tend to take one of the first available parking spots I see and end up parking much farther away than necessary.
Normally, I would say making the walk more pleasant would encourage more people to walk , but it’s already a beautiful neighborhood with a beautiful main street. Walking couldn’t be any more pleasant. So I’m not sure how to change this culture except to let people get used to it over time. It’s tempting to try to please everyone all the time, but I don’t think it’s possible and I’m not sure we should try. Focus on maintaining the Short North as an exciting and fun place to go and people will find a way to get there, as they do now.
I think other solutions for drivers include valet parking (used extensively by restaurants in the Short North I know) and market rate pricing for meters. At least then drivers could choose to pay a premium not to walk. The extra revenue could be reinvested into the business district a la Pasadena.
John, thanks for your additional insights. I share your belief that you can’t please everyone and that the Short North and surrounding neighborhoods are delightful and beautiful for walking. My concern with the SNBA (and the SID) is that they seem to believe that parking garages are the holy grail and they are willing to sell their soul to the devil (or Pizzuti Development!) in order to get parking garages throughout the district. I believe the long run that will undermine the beauty and walkability of the district because it breaks up the grid, eliminates alleys and caters to a car-centric population and worldview. I think that if people don’t want to park at a small distance and walk then they can just stay away or shop elsewhere. Obviously, that is not the most popular opinion with some of my fellow business owners; however, the district has done amazingly well despite parking challenges and compared to cities like Chicago and Boston parking is still quite easy. As someone who lives, works, plays and owns a business and real estate in the area, I think there is more upside to preserving the walkability than catering to a car-centric crowd.
I tend to agree with you for two main reasons:
1. The Short North won’t be able to out-compete the suburbs for parking. You’re attracting people based on the unique urban experience and destinations, not parking supply.
2. More space devoted to parking means less available for people in the form of residential and retail space, and people are what really contribute to the economy. If you want to see how parking contributes to the economy, look no farther than the downtown retail. City Center didn’t fail due to lack of parking. If failed due to lack of people.
That said, I do think it’s important to have some parking (although not “throughout the district”). If you’re planning for long term growth, a few extra spaces built into some residential garages that are available to the public isn’t a bad thing, provided it’s designed well. I see no reason why it has to disrupt the street grid or alleys. Access can be off of the side streets or the alleys themselves. The ground floor, if on High or other main streets, should be used for retail. And avoid the ugly wedding cake effect where the residential units are set on top of a giant platform of parking with no architectural detail.
[…] walkable business areas and Olde Towne East’s up-and-coming business area. Check out the full story with tables and charts […]
[…] much safer than four-lane roads too. Since Upper Arlington needs a “main street,” and this area can support it, I really like this idea. More from ThisWeek: Traffic calming, on-street parking Upper Arlington […]
As of a month and half after your question: yes. I’ve been a resident of Minneapolis and it’s been amazing. Take whatever is good in Columbus and multiply it by five: so many more vibrant urban districts, neighborhoods, cycling infrastructure, not to mention a 2nd light rail line under construction between the downtowns of Mpls and St Paul slated to be up and running in 2014. After experiencing life here it’s all too clear that other large cities in the region like Columbus, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis won’t even be where Minneapolis is today in a decade and even giving them two would be pushing it. Big changes in transportation and urban revitalization requires big funding, which these cities just don’t want to do
Highly descriptive post, I liked that a lot.
Will there be a part 2?
[…] streetscape project is a great idea on this stretch of Sullivant. My previous analysis showed that based on demographics in the Hilltop, this area has the potential to be a great […]
It appears u actually understand plenty pertaining to this
particular issue and it all exhibits by means of this excellent posting, titled “Aggregate Income Density: A
Measure of Potential for Walkable Urban Business Districts
Xing Columbus”. I am grateful -Beatrice