There's plenty of room for infill in Columbus

Photograph: Columbus Dispatch; Fred Shannon; 9 Dec. 1981; Columbus Metropolitan Library

Urban Columbus is de-populated. Why is this an important point to make? Because anti-development folks effectively claim their neighborhoods are at capacity; that there's no room for anyone else. Compared to the mid-20th century, however, many Columbus neighborhoods have fewer people today. Yet, anti-development advocates make claims that our city can't shoulder the burden of welcoming more neighbors. 🏘️

Here's a look at the data to better understand the drastic difference between the sleepy Columbus of today and the bustling Columbus of 1970.

To make this geospatial analysis simpler, we limited the dataset to census tracts whose land area has not substantially changed from 1970 to 2023. Over the years, the U.S. Census Bureau changes, adds, and removes census tracts. To avoid the difficulty presented in those cases, this dataset relies on the 78 tracts which were within 0.1 square mile of their 1970 land area in the 2023 ACS 5-year estimate.

Tracts with the most gain and loss [click to expand]

Top tracts with most population gain, 1970 to 2023

Census Tract 78.12, Olentangy Commons/The Knolls: +98%
Census Tract 32, Thurber Villlage: +42%
Census Tract 29, North Bronzeville: +22%

Bottom tracts with most population loss, 197o to 2023

Census Tract 53, Olde Town East/South of Main: -61%
Census Tract 42, East Franklinton/COSI: -60%
Census Tract 15, South Linden/Milo-Grogan: -59%

The map above illustrates that major swaths of Columbus have fewer residents today than they did more than 50 years ago. When it comes to welcoming new neighbors, our infrastructure is not the problem. Instead, policy and attitude are key reasons why our city remains hollowed-out. 🍩

Fractures in the 'boomtown' narrative

Breaking down the 78 tracts into four categories shows that the vast majority (71) have seen their populations decline between the two selected years. Only seven tracts in this dataset have more people today than they did in 1970—and for the most part these tracts had little to no people in 1970. An analysis at this scale reveals fractures in the 'Boomtown' narrative that city boosters use to describe ubiquitous growth in Columbus. 💥

From The Dispatch archives

August 19, 1980: High Street Bike Lane
"Bikers will be in the driver's seat when bike paths are completed along N. High St. between Chittenden and Lane Avenues. Construction workers also are building another bike path along the west side of the street. The $900,000* project, paid for with U.S. Community Development funds, also will permanently close 13th, 14th, 16th and 18th Avenues between North High Street and Pearl Alley." (Source: Columbus Metropolitan Library)

*$3,490,315 in 2025 dollars

Consider North High Street in the University District.

Old North Columbus, as it was once a separate jurisdiction, is the site of an ongoing battle against density waged by some single-family homeowners. A recent piece in the Columbus Free Press takes on the topic of development in the neighborhood, where "the last morsels of old-school Columbus live on." We'd like to remind readers that old-school Columbus had a lot more people than today—including Old North. Yet, some vocal residents want to keep out new neighbors and prevent their neighborhood from regaining thousands of lost inhabitants. 📉

Data shows that the three census tracts comprising Old North were home to 14,783 people in 1970, and today there are just 12,045 residents in the same area.

Densest district in Ohio?

The same article also claimed that the University District "is already the densest district in the state of Ohio," as if that would permit the neighborhood to rightfully reel up it's drawbridge and deny entry to any additional residents. However, this claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny. According to the Census Bureau, the Gold Coast of Lakewood (a suburb of Cleveland) is the most densely populated census tract in the state. And unlike in Columbus, the densest census tracts in Cleveland and Cincinnati are not immediately adjacent to universities.

Analysis excludes Census Tract 11.21 (OSU campus proper with dormitories). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 5-Year ACS estimates; Social Explorer.

Why not just build housing somewhere else? Where no one cares?

The piece also redirects the conversation by claiming that new housing should be built on the old Cooper Stadium site rather than the most transit-rich and historically-dense corridor in the city: High Street.

This aerial photograph of Cooper Stadium in 1991 features both the highway and Mt. Calvary Cemetery. Source: Columbus Metropolitan Library

A cursory analysis of the Cooper Stadium site (1155 West Mound Street) demonstrates why that's a nonstarter. Wedged between two cemeteries and adjacent to the interstate, the location presents a tough case for housing development. It's also located in one of the poorest census tracts in Central Ohio, with 58% of people in poverty and a median household income of just $22,308 per year (Census Tract 51, ACS 2023, 5-year estimates). Figures also show that households in the tract are paying a median gross rent of $768. None of these data points, or site attributes, make a strong case for building new housing on the site. Of course, the folks in the cemeteries wouldn't voice much opposition. 🪦

Homes for people are positive attributes, not an 'impact' to be mitigated

People who are against housing often characterize new homes and new residents as a negative impact, something like pollution—a thing to be avoided, mitigated, or offset. A pro-housing attitude, on the other hand, is also pro-social. It welcomes new residents rather than railing against them. When taking a wider view of urban infill development and historic density, it's apparent that Old North is particularly well-suited to replacing the thousands of inhabitants it has lost over the decades. On the whole, building more homes for folks in Columbus neighborhoods where life without a car is feasible is always a great idea. 🚶‍➡️

Take the city's ADU survey

Columbus City Council is proposing an expansion of the zoning code to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all residential districts. Per the current zoning code, ADUs are not a permissible use and require multiple zoning variances. See our recent post about ADUs before you dive into the survey!

Take ADU Survey