RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
A rendering of the "Tribeca" apartment community, which will be located at 700 West Third Avenue.
Columbus is seeing a huge influx of new apartment development, and the Edwards Communities is hard at work to make sure their developments are some of the first to come available for residents to move in and start renting.
Tribeca is the name of their community development located at 700 West Third Avenue, which is already under construction. This development will feature 183 one and two bedroom apartment units, a fitness center, pool, theatre room, club room and an interior courtyard space.
“The warm winter has been very good for construction,” says Ryan Szymanski, Senior Vice President of Development at The Edwards Communities. “We believe there’s a good market in this area for apartments and it will be advantageous to get out in front of our competition. We expect to be entirely completed with this project by the end of the year.”
No rental rates have currently been set, but Szymanski says that they’ll be competitive to rates at The Flats on Vine and Grandview Yard Apartments. Tribeca is expected to attract a young professional demographic due to the price points and location.
“It provides proximity to the OSU Medical Center and Downtown,” says Szymanski. “This development will be great for people that don’t want to live right in Arena District, but still close enough to the action to easily take a cab there.”
Additionally, residents at Tribeca will be within close proximity to the ongoing development of Grandview Yard, which includes a recently announced Giant Eagle located right next door. The new grocery store could break ground before the end of the year and is anticipated to be open by the Summer of 2013.
Edwards is working on several other apartment developments located much closer to the campus of The Ohio State University, but those are progressing at a slower pace.
A year ago, Edwards presented a student apartment project located just east of The Ohio State University between 15th and 16th Avenues. That project is being developed in collaboration with Campus Partners and has been put on hold as officials at the University wait to see how the initiative to house Sophomores in on-campus dormitories will affect the demand for off-campus housing.
Meanwhile, on Lane Avenue, Edwards is planning a new five-story development that would be home to 40 apartments containing 112 beds and podium-style parking below the units. The project has faced opposition by the University Area Commission for not providing enough parking spaces for the building’s residents. The original plans call for a ratio of 0.6 parking spaces per bed, providing parking spots for 60% of the tenants.
Rendering of the student apartment development Edwards Communities is proposing at 150 West Lane Avenue.
“We firmly believe that with the proximity to campus that the parking plan would be more than sufficient,” said Szymanski. “We’re targeting students who don’t want to own a car.”
The development plans presented by The Edwards Community meets city code, and variances for reduced parking plans can be applied, but Szymanski says that the university overlay is more stringent.
“We did a parking study on the Lane Avenue area and found that most apartment buildings are below the 0.6 level,” he explains. “So we went to the Columbus Board of Zoning Adjustment, but they asked us to find more parking.”
Nearby, Edwards has proposed a similar student-oriented development at 236-262 West Norwich Avenue. This collection of four three-story buildings provides housing for 156 residents with two stories of parking, but faces similar opposition because of required parking variances.
“The Area Commission is against it, and the neighboring land over filed an appeal on our BZA variances,” explains Szymanski. “A lot of these types of projects get a lot of variances. Some landlords want you to believe that a one-to-one parking ratio is necessary. But we believe that the area around OSU has the best transit alternatives in all of Columbus, between COTA, CABS, Hertz on Demand, and the walking proximity — all those things justify our request for the reduction of parking.”
A rendering of the apartment development proposed by The Edwards Communities for Norwich Avenue.
In addition to their work in Columbus, Edwards is working on student-oriented residential projects in Tampa, Florida and Boulder, Colorado. Szymanski says that city, neighborhood and university officials in those markets have been somewhat easier to work when building denser urban development.
“This is not meant to be a knock on Columbus or OSU, but it’s just tougher to get deals here in terms of high density student housing,” he says. “We’ve found Tampa and Boulder to just be very supportive of the need.”
The Edwards Communities will present an updated plan for 150 West Lane Avenue that includes additional parking accommodations for approval on April 24th.
More information can be found online at www.EdwardsCommunities.com.
“Some landlords want you to believe that a one-to-one parking ratio is necessary. But we believe that the area around OSU has the best transit alternatives in all of Columbus, between COTA, CABS, Hertz on Demand, and the walking proximity — all those things justify our request for the reduction of parking.”
+1. If Columbus wants to be more urban (and maybe it doesn’t, I don’t know), it needs to allow less parking around places with excellent transit service. There’s no place with less car demand than campus. I commend Edwards for pushing the envelope here, and I also tend to like their designs.
Also, what do they mean by podium parking? And are cabs really easy to hail at 3rd and Olentangy?
The parking requirements are ridiculous. How can Columbus gain the density needed for vibrancy when idiotic area commissions treat the city like New Albany. Further, for people that want to live in these developments, if they are in desirable areas, they will come in regardless of the car situation or how much parking there is, and given that this is a huge student area, cars are even less necessary.
@johnwirtz
Podium style parking = building built over parking garage
I think everyone hails a cab with a cell phone in Columbus.
Calling 444-4444 or 777-7777 when you need a cab is pretty easy to remember. ;)
“I think everyone hails a cab with a cell phone in Columbus.”
That’s kind of what I figured. I don’t really like cabs that much, but sometimes it’s nice to be able to grab one on demand.
I’m probably missing something or not clued in, but one thing I’d think would add some nice extra value to your already great blog is to have maps showing where these local developments are. Many of them I know, but I guess I’m not sure where 700 W. Third is. Sounds like it’s in Grandview? Thanks!
One question? Did you have a car as a college student?
The base zoning for these projects allows for 1.5 parking spaces per unit, many of the Edwards prototypes have 4 to 5 beds per unit; that would be 0.3 parking spaces per tenant.
Would you like to be the roommate that loses the coin toss?
I look forward to the day when the alternative means of getting around are better developed, but that day is not yet here (solely based on my own history some 15 years ago) … Car sharing being the current best model.
I personally like the Edwards projects but the numbers they cite are a little misleading.
Urban, are students, or anyone else, forced to rent in these developments? I also don’t think that development should only plan for right now, instead of down the road as well. That’s a recipe for really terrible projects.
@Urban Dansigner – I think there’s a chicken & egg scenario here though. Will transit improve if everyone has an abundance of parking spaces and cars? Will residents seek alternatives if owning a car is made a top priority for all development? If we want mass transit to become a viable option worthy of investment, then parking and driving and owning a car is probably going to have to be less convenient than it currently is in areas like the University District.
Also, it’s worth noting that Millenials are trending away from cars in a way that generations before them did not. It doesn’t really matter if previous students owned a car 10 years ago or 20 years ago or before. What matters is what the income class of 2012 and beyond is interested in. And all signs are pointing toward a decrease in car ownership.
@Roger – Here you go: http://g.co/maps/qkxer
All signs really point towards a decrease in car ownership?
I very rarely drive, I fill up my tank once every 2-3 months. I’m also a student at Ohio State, and in fact live on Norwich. When I lived on Lane (94 W), we didn’t have enough room for my car and I stashed it over at Ohio State’s Kinnear apartments. It sucked. I would never not have parking again.
In fact in the conversations I’ve had for Ohio State with people who live off-campus, specifically to see how we can promote living closer to campus, one of the big issues was off-street parking availability.
I am 100% for dense apartments on Lane Ave, but parking is a must. These are kids who want to drive home every now and then–I am from Toledo, there’s no way I would make my family drive down to pick me up; granted, I am only an anecdotal account but our studio’s research still had a very very very strong reaction for off-campus housing. Even if it’s not to drive around on a daily basis, just easy car storage outside your house is a huuuuge plus.
For it to really be a homerun, and I know there’s no such thing as a free lunch…let alone a parking garage, but they’re going to need one. Right behind Harrison Apartments would be an excellent spot.
I actually worked out the measurements once out of curiosity–years ago, so they’re probably incorrect haha I’ll have to double check–but I calculated that you could fit more cars onto the streets if you eliminated the parallel parking on both sides of the street and just did diagonal parking on one side (the side opposite the fire hydrants).
I’m sure a professional would have to look at it, but it would certainly be something to consider. Most of the streets off-campus are one-way, so it’s not like it would be intrusive at all.
parking requirements are silly and we all pay the price:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html
http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988
Some reading material on how car driving is in decline in the US, car ownership is declining in importance for Millenials, and how walkable neighborhoods are growing in importance for the next generation:
• The Great Migration of the 21st Century
• Young Americans Dump Cars for Bikes, Buses
• Is Urbanism Slowing the Rise of Car Travel?
• How Americans Really React to High Gas Prices
• Are we reaching Peak Car?
• The end of the road for motormania
When I was in college, I parked my car 30 minutes away in a lot on the outside edge of campus. I had to take the bus to get my car if I wanted to venture outside the campus area where a bus didn’t go. So, I don’t think on-site parking is a necessity, especially for college students who are used to a little trouble if they really want to get in their car.
I’m shocked the Area Commission is trying to require more parking, especially when a DEVELOPER is comfortable doing less parking.
If students need parking that badly, then Edwards will have trouble renting out units without enough parking, right?
Here are two scenarios. Tell me which ones make the most sense.
1. A developer decides to build some apartments. They do market research to figure out how much people are willing to pay for rent and what kind of amenities they want, including parking. The developer estimates the cost of building the development with and without certain amenities, including parking. They design and construct the project while considering the market demands and costs of construction.
2. The government decides the minimum number of parking spaces people need to live and forces developers to build them in order to obtain a construction permit. The extra parking spaces take up space in the development and increase costs. This reduces the number of units in the development and increases the cost of construction. Both drive up housing costs. So now there are fewer people in the area with less disposable income available. But at least they all have a parking space.
If I’m not mistaken there’s a C student lot right across the street. Is the issue free parking or just parking because there are options if you pay enough. It seems to me that this might be more of a convenience factor than anything else where people want to roll out the door and get immediately into their car. Does that need to be an option in a dense urban setting? Granted Columbus isn’t Manhattan but there are places I go and assume that I’m not getting my god given right to park for free. And they often coincide with vibrant urban neighborhoods. Or do the kids have to be informed that they’re moving to the big city and things might be a little different. ;)
The same debate is happening in Victorian Village with projects such as Leafy Dale. In that case they are adding a parking garage. They did not have to provide parking because it was grandfathered in, but they are because the Columbus market wants/demands it.
In all fairness, I think the Area Commissions worry that students who do not have assigned parking will just bring cars anyway and that there will be seas of triple parked cars where backyards have become pay parking lots and even permit street parking would be a wild west show down.
If you have seen the kind of crazy that parking on campus has become, I think one might be reluctant for fear of how these precedents may be used by other campus developers. Obviously change needs to happen.
Attn developers: Please please I beg you please STOP naming your projects (or floor plans) after neighborhoods in New York! Lamesauce. If you’re that strapped for names call it 700 w 3rd… Otherwise rock on Edwards and thank you for building in Columbus!
@leftovers – Did Leafydale add parking because the market wants/demands it or because the Area Commission wants/demands it? Two different things…