Overview of Central Ohio Growth and Change

Jeff Sharp and Elena Irwin

presented at the Simply Living conference, session on “Creating Sustainable Communities,” October 21, 2000, OSU Campus.

Overview

Trends and Terminology

Impacts of Growth and Development

Factors Contributing to Population Growth and Redistribution

Collective and Personal Choices Associated with Growth and Development

Slide 4

Slide 5

Urban/Regional Forms

Urban Core

Suburbs

1^st Ring Suburb phenomenon

Edge Cities

Exurbs (Urban Fringe)

Exurbs (Daniels, 1999)

10-50 miles from urban center of 500,000

Commute 25+ minutes each way to work

Community is a mix of long-term and newer residents

On-site septic system & own well

Ag and/or forestry declining in your community

Slide 8

Slide 9

Edge Cities (Garreau, 1991)

Over 5 million square feet of office space

600,000 square feet leasable retail (shopping mall)

More jobs than bedrooms

Mix of jobs, shopping & entertainment

Growth from nothing into cities within a 30 year stretch

Slide 11

Development Impacts: Population Growth vs. Pattern

Population Growth

Increases property values, per capita income, creates new jobs

Population Pattern

Decentralization of population has created sprawl patterns of land use, which greatly increase the costs associated with population growth.

Ohio’s population increased by less than 2% between 1970-90; the amount of urban land increased by almost 10%. Columbus’ population grew by 68% between 1950-1990; its land area increased by 390%.

The question is not how to stop population growth, but how to minimize the negative impacts of this growth.

Impacts of Current Growth and Development Pattern

Increased costs of public services

Congestion

Loss of open space

Declining environmental quality

Agricultural change

Concentration of poverty; racial segregation

Mismatch between public infrastructure and people

Mismatch between jobs and people

Increasing Public Service Costs

Population growth in the outer areas increases the costs of providing services.

Public infrastructure = roads, schools, sewer and water, fire, police, and emergency medical services.

Estimated costs of each new household under current development trends in Florida: Roads: $7,014; Schools: $6,079; Utilities: $2,187.

(Burchell, and Shad, 1998)

Congestion

Low density, sprawl patterns of development necessitate more driving, which leads to congestion

Between 1982-97, population increased an average of 22% in American metro areas, but the amount that individuals are driving has increased by 70% on average.

In Columbus: 22% increase in population between 1982-1997 and 93% increase in the average amount of time spent driving per individual.

Factors that contribute to increased driving:

Increase in trip length (34%)

Increase in trips taken (18%)

Switch from non-car to car transportation (17%)

Decrease in vehicle occupancy (17%)

(Surface Transportation Policy Project)

Loss of Open Space

Nationwide, almost 20 million acres of rural land were developed between 1970-90.

An average of 400,000 acres/year

(Sierra Club)

Average of 17,000 acres of farmland are converted each year in 7-county Columbus region.

This is ten times the rate before WWII.

(Columbus Dispatch)

Declining Environmental Quality

Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

A 90% reduction in wildlife habitat area can cause a 50% loss of all species formerly present.

National Wildlife Federation

Worsening air and water pollution

Loss of wetlands leads to increased flooding

Between 1988-98, $473 billion in local, state, and federal funds were spent due to destruction caused by flooding.

Sierra Club

Agricultural Change

Total value of Ohio’s agricultural sales decreased by 33.5% in Ohio between 1978-1997

Metro and non-metro areas experienced roughly the same percentage decline in sales (36.4% and 31.4% respectively).

Sales per farm declined by 13.6% between 1978-97 in Ohio

Sales per farm in core metropolitan areas increased by 4.2% between 1978-97

Evidence that farmers have adapted by shifting to higher intensity production and higher valued products.

Sharp, 2000

Concentration of Poverty

Those who can afford to move “up and out” do so, creating areas of concentrated poverty in city and inner suburbs.

1970: 7 Columbus neighborhoods had 30%+ households in poverty; 1980: 23 neighborhoods; 1990; 30 neighborhoods.

Whitehall = inner suburb of Columbus

Between 1970-90, Whitehall lost 23% of its population, poverty rate increased from 5.3% to 9.3% and average income went from 110% to 80% of the regional average income level.

Spatial Mismatch between Public Infrastructure and People

Population loss in city leaves existing infrastructure (roads, buildings) abandoned or under-used.

Downtown Columbus: Approximately one-fourth of the existing parking spaces go unused on a daily basis (MORPC).

Population growth in the suburbs creates overcrowding in schools and on roadways and strains local governments’ budgets.

In St. Paul-Minneapolis, 78 new schools were built in the outer suburbs and 162 schools in good condition closed in the city between 1970-90.

Spatial Mismatch between Jobs and People

Majority of low-skilled jobs (e.g. service and retail) have relocated to the suburbs; majority of low-skilled workers live in city or inner suburbs.

Between 1980-90, American cities lost 15% of their low-skilled industry jobs.

Jobs in central city have become increasingly white-collar; majority of white-collar workers live in suburbs.

58% of all jobs in American cities are filled by persons with more than a high school education.

Why are People Moving Out?

Quality of public services

Better schools, safety, transportation, health care, fire and police protection pull population outward.

Perception of “urban ills” pushes population outward.

More is better

Desire for bigger house, bigger yard

Land is cheaper in outer areas – therefore, can afford bigger house and bigger yard.

The rural ideal

More open space, more privacy, better community, “sense of place,” less taxes, less government.

Why are People Moving Out?

Increased accessibility by car

Federal spending on transportation is projected to be four times as much on roads ($173.1 billion) vs. public transportation ($41 billion) between 1998-2004.

The largest increase in Medina County population (39%) and the largest decrease in Cuyahoga County’s population (13%) occurred in the 10-year period after the opening of I-71. (ODOT)

Relocation of employment

Edge cities allow people to live further out without increasing commute.

Changes in telecommunications

Internet: importance of “face-to-face” communication is decreased; allows work to be done from remote locations.

Why did you leave your previous residence?

Top reasons among all types of moves:

Neighborhood safety

Resale value of house

School quality and safety

Also of importance to those moving outward:

Needed a larger home

Wanted a newer home and neighborhood

Too much traffic congestion in current neighborhood

1995 Study of Household Movers in Columbus Metro Region

Why did you purchase your current home?

Top reasons among all types of moves:

Overall quality and design of house

Housing cost

Size of house and yard

Neighborhood safety

Also of importance to those moving outward:

Economic characteristics of neighborhood

Reputation of schools

Local public services (garbage collection, sewer and water)

1995 Study of Household Movers in Columbus Metro Region

Obstacles to Effective Growth Management

Fragmented & overlapping governments

Size of region

Lack of community or regional vision

Lack of a sense of place & identity

Too few planning resources

Outdated planning and zoning techniques

(Daniels, 1999)

Collective Responses

Big Picture:

Oregon/Portland style growth management & controls

Twin Cities regional govt. & revenue sharing

State of Ohio Actions

Farmland Preservation Taskforce, approval of select provisions (PDRs, etc)

Issue #1: November 2000, greenspace & brownfield issues

Individual Choices

Ecological footprints—Personal decisions do impact land resource use

Food choices, agriculture & farmland

Big box shopping

Residential location desires/choices

Transportation choices

OSU Exurban Change Project

Jeff Sharp, Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology, Human and Community Resource Development Department.

sharp.123@osu.edu

Elena Irwin, Assistant Professor, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics.

irwin.78@osu.edu


	Jeff Sharp and Elena Irwin

	presented at the Simply Living conference, session on “Creating Sustainable Communities,” October 21, 2000, OSU Campus.


	Trends and Terminology
	Impacts of Growth and Development
	Factors Contributing to Population Growth and Redistribution
	Collective and Personal Choices Associated with Growth and Development


	Urban Core
	Suburbs
		1^st Ring Suburb phenomenon
	Edge Cities
	Exurbs (Urban Fringe)


	10-50 miles from urban center of 500,000
	Commute 25+ minutes each way to work
	Community is a mix of long-term and newer residents
	On-site septic system & own well
	Ag and/or forestry declining in your community


	Over 5 million square feet of office space
	600,000 square feet leasable retail (shopping mall)
	More jobs than bedrooms
	Mix of jobs, shopping & entertainment
	Growth from nothing into cities within a 30 year stretch


Population Growth
		Increases property values, per capita income, creates new jobs
Population Pattern
		Decentralization of population has created sprawl patterns of land use, which greatly increase the costs associated with population growth.
			Ohio’s population increased by less than 2% between 1970-90; the amount of urban land increased by almost 10%. Columbus’ population grew by 68% between 1950-1990; its land area increased by 390%.
	The question is not how to stop population growth, but how to minimize the negative impacts of this growth.


	Increased costs of public services
	Congestion
	Loss of open space
	Declining environmental quality
	Agricultural change
	Concentration of poverty; racial segregation
	Mismatch between public infrastructure and people
	Mismatch between jobs and people


Population growth in the outer areas increases the costs of providing services.
	Public infrastructure = roads, schools, sewer and water, fire, police, and emergency medical services.
		Estimated costs of each new household under current development trends in Florida: Roads: $7,014; Schools: $6,079; Utilities: $2,187.
		(Burchell, and Shad, 1998)


Low density, sprawl patterns of development necessitate more driving, which leads to congestion
		Between 1982-97, population increased an average of 22% in American metro areas, but the amount that individuals are driving has increased by 70% on average.
		In Columbus: 22% increase in population between 1982-1997 and 93% increase in the average amount of time spent driving per individual.
	Factors that contribute to increased driving:
		Increase in trip length (34%)
		Increase in trips taken (18%)
		Switch from non-car to car transportation (17%)
		Decrease in vehicle occupancy (17%)
	(Surface Transportation Policy Project)


Nationwide, almost 20 million acres of rural land were developed between 1970-90.
	An average of 400,000 acres/year
	(Sierra Club)
Average of 17,000 acres of farmland are converted each year in 7-county Columbus region.
		This is ten times the rate before WWII.
(Columbus Dispatch)


Fragmentation of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity
	A 90% reduction in wildlife habitat area can cause a 50% loss of all species formerly present.
		National Wildlife Federation
Worsening air and water pollution
Loss of wetlands leads to increased flooding
	Between 1988-98, $473 billion in local, state, and federal funds were spent due to destruction caused by flooding.
	Sierra Club


Total value of Ohio’s agricultural sales decreased by 33.5% in Ohio between 1978-1997
	Metro and non-metro areas experienced roughly the same percentage decline in sales (36.4% and 31.4% respectively).
Sales per farm declined by 13.6% between 1978-97 in Ohio
	Sales per farm in core metropolitan areas increased by 4.2% between 1978-97
		Evidence that farmers have adapted by shifting to higher intensity production and higher valued products.
	Sharp, 2000


Those who can afford to move “up and out” do so, creating areas of concentrated poverty in city and inner suburbs.
	1970: 7 Columbus neighborhoods had 30%+ households in poverty; 1980: 23 neighborhoods; 1990; 30 neighborhoods.
	Whitehall = inner suburb of Columbus
		Between 1970-90, Whitehall lost 23% of its population, poverty rate increased from 5.3% to 9.3% and average income went from 110% to 80% of the regional average income level.


	Population loss in city leaves existing infrastructure (roads, buildings) abandoned or under-used.
			Downtown Columbus: Approximately one-fourth of the existing parking spaces go unused on a daily basis (MORPC).
	Population growth in the suburbs creates overcrowding in schools and on roadways and strains local governments’ budgets.
			In St. Paul-Minneapolis, 78 new schools were built in the outer suburbs and 162 schools in good condition closed in the city between 1970-90.


		Majority of low-skilled jobs (e.g. service and retail) have relocated to the suburbs; majority of low-skilled workers live in city or inner suburbs.
			Between 1980-90, American cities lost 15% of their low-skilled industry jobs.
		Jobs in central city have become increasingly white-collar; majority of white-collar workers live in suburbs.
			58% of all jobs in American cities are filled by persons with more than a high school education.


	Quality of public services
			Better schools, safety, transportation, health care, fire and police protection pull population outward.
			Perception of “urban ills” pushes population outward.
	More is better
			Desire for bigger house, bigger yard
			Land is cheaper in outer areas – therefore, can afford bigger house and bigger yard.
	The rural ideal
			More open space, more privacy, better community, “sense of place,” less taxes, less government.


	Increased accessibility by car
			Federal spending on transportation is projected to be four times as much on roads ($173.1 billion) vs. public transportation ($41 billion) between 1998-2004.
			The largest increase in Medina County population (39%) and the largest decrease in Cuyahoga County’s population (13%) occurred in the 10-year period after the opening of I-71. (ODOT)
	Relocation of employment
			Edge cities allow people to live further out without increasing commute.
	Changes in telecommunications
			Internet: importance of “face-to-face” communication is decreased; allows work to be done from remote locations.


	Top reasons among all types of moves:
			Neighborhood safety
			Resale value of house
			School quality and safety
	Also of importance to those moving outward:
			Needed a larger home
			Wanted a newer home and neighborhood
			Too much traffic congestion in current neighborhood

			1995 Study of Household Movers in Columbus Metro Region



	Top reasons among all types of moves:
			Overall quality and design of house
			Housing cost
			Size of house and yard
			Neighborhood safety
	Also of importance to those moving outward:
			Economic characteristics of neighborhood
			Reputation of schools
			Local public services (garbage collection, sewer and water)

			1995 Study of Household Movers in Columbus Metro Region


	Fragmented & overlapping governments
	Size of region
	Lack of community or regional vision
	Lack of a sense of place & identity
	Too few planning resources
	Outdated planning and zoning techniques

	(Daniels, 1999)


	Big Picture:
		Oregon/Portland style growth management & controls
		Twin Cities regional govt. & revenue sharing
	State of Ohio Actions
		Farmland Preservation Taskforce, approval of select provisions (PDRs, etc)
		Issue #1: November 2000, greenspace & brownfield issues


	Ecological footprints—Personal decisions do impact land resource use
		Food choices, agriculture & farmland
		Big box shopping
		Residential location desires/choices
		Transportation choices


	Jeff Sharp, Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology, Human and Community Resource Development Department.
			sharp.123@osu.edu
	Elena Irwin, Assistant Professor, Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics.
			irwin.78@osu.edu