ZHC wrote >> I disagree with this a bit. I have no doubt there were developers who wanted to just cash-in/cash-out, but I think there is a general misunderstanding among many about how inexpensively you can realistically deliver a unit, especially once downtown became perceived for awhile as being an extremely hot commodity.
Just as a counterpoint... from the original article:
CityView at 3rd saw high demand early on. In April 2006, Spectrum Principal Bill Shelby told the Dispatch, "we've bumped [up] the price several times, just because the market demand's there. I don't know anybody who's struggling at this time to sell."
I seem to recall several instances of condo prices getting inflated because of the housing bubble. It wasn't rampant, and I'm sure it was occurring in the burbs just as much (if not more) than it was downtown, but in the end it only contributed to the problems.
But I do agree with your point about the cost of development Downtown being much higher than most people realize, which doesn't lend itself well to producing affordable units.
ZHC wrote >>
...you have a situation where it's nearly impossible to deliver any new condo units under 100/sq.
Whoa... $100/sqft? You're talking dirt cheap! ;) I think there's plenty of room for condos in the $150-200 sq ft range (remember that during the hey day, some condos Downtown were going for $350/sqft). Especially if units are smaller by design. I'm no real estate expert, but I do think there's some level of an under-served "YP" market that would invest in condos in the 500-800 sqft range at $200-250/sqft ($100-200k). Possibly even higher. But as far as I'm aware, product like that isn't on the market and very little of it was ever produced in the past 10 years.
ZHC wrote >> Without extremely heavy gov't subsidies and/or a buyer willingness to buy units without parking I don't expect to that to change anytime soon. Until or if that does happen, the closest we'll likely to see affordable housing will be rentals in pre-existing buildings like the Americana.
Heh. I think the closest thing we're soon likely to see to affordable Downtown housing will be the affordable housing located *just a few blocks outside* of Downtown. ;)
ZHC wrote >>
While the 2002 strategy looks to miss its' goals, I would still say it was a solid success.
Totally agree. The positive change Downtown in the past 10 years has been pretty incredible when you compare the differences, even taking into consideration the missteps and the losses.
tree_sketcher wrote >>
I gotta think that now that there are some really nice amenities downtown (parks, restaurants, entertainment) and a number of completed residential projects; we're at a tipping point to creating a HUGE market for downtown apartments.
I just wanted to say... your comment that "now that there are some really nice amenities" really stood out to me. That's one thing that people have debated greatly over the past 10 years as the ultimate chicken & egg situation: Residents won't move Downtown without amenities, and amenities won't come to an area with no residents. Which needs to be built first?
The answer to the question is exactly what happened: Each has to grow slowly, a little bit at a time. One new residential development. One new restaurant or cafe. Repeat.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.