RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeLast I heard anything was last year. Was it approved, any developments?
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Q&A
Q: Any updates on the Urban Oasis project?
[32 posts] [19 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
reSourceRyan
The Wedge
Login to Send PM
Here are some exterior shots:
And this seems to be their official website thus far:
Posted 4 years ago # -
jpizzow
580 N. Park St.
Login to Send PM
i keep checking the website but it's not up yet, it was supposed to launch in july. i go by the AAA building a couple of times a week hoping to see something happening, but not too much yet. is it too much to ask for at least one backhoe. the italian village park is moving along. i wander if they got all the money from the developer that they were promised for the park. i just wish they would hurry up and get this thing built. i was seriously considering buying one of those condos, it's more in my price range.
Posted 4 years ago # -
ilovethiscity
Login to Send PM
What is the Metropolitan you are speaking of in the Short North? The only Metropolitan I am aware of is that in Grandview that is currently under construction
Posted 4 years ago # -
spacernglr
Login to Send PM
Anyone know about the Jackson? They have the fence up but as far as I can tell they have not broken ground yet. This project isn't stalled is it?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote Why?
I feel it is very important to keep diversity and variable incomes in these gentrifying areas. Keep in mind that I very much do want to keep crime and crack out but I feel that if housing becomes unaffordable we may loose some of our best residents, such as cyclist.
In addition, I think having a diverse pool of people causes a more vibrant area in that new ideas are more rapidly shared between classes and cliques, increased tolerance and better culture. I guess I feel that the short north (+vic vill and ital vill) should focus on culture and character and we are risking loosing that if those people can not afford to live there.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
I do feel that they are doing a decent job of keeping mixed incomes right now- I know of a few variable income housing developments (such as Elmer's condominium’s on First and Summit.) It is a worry of mine and I think topics like “when did the Short North jump the shark†validities some of my worries. Maybe for every high income condo complex built they should have to build x amount of low income housing very close by?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Motorist
The Trots
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote Money talks. We live in a capitalistic society, not much more to say. Why should certain people have subsidized housing in an expensive area, while everyone else has to pay top dollar to live there.
Where did the hoodrat comment go? That was a quick edit.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote Money talks. We live in a capitalistic society, not much more to say. Why should certain people have subsidized housing in an expensive area, while everyone else has to pay top dollar to live there.
+1.
I don't like the idea of forcing the market to "ideal" social conclusions. That's closer to socialism than capitalism.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Motorist
The Trots
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote As demonstarted by your response I realized a lot of you are hyper sensitive so I thought it would be in the best interest to explain the situation with different words. Regardless if you commit vandalism you are not helping your cause.
I'm probably one of the last people on the planet that could be accused of being hypersensitive.
I would like to see some requirement, or the city be more active in, building affordable and low income housing. One of my biggest gripes with urbanites is how many of them give lip service to how great the diversity of their community is and then do everything in their power to drive away or stifle anyone who is not like them.
When I was in college in Cincinnati, we had to do a project down in Over the Rhine (where the race riots where 7 or 8 years ago). We had a number of developers from the area come to our studio and talk about their urban renewal efforts. Every single one of them spoke to the diversity of OTR but not a single one of them did any low income or affordable projects and not a single one of them could name someone who was doing those projects in the neighborhood. Seemed pretty hypocritical to me.
We have a similar situation right now in Olde Towne East. The very same people who will list diversity as their number one reason for living in the neighborhood are now forming a group (Residents For A Better Community) to force CPO to drop some of their Section 8 portfolio. Several years ago, CPO agreed to sell of some of their Section 8 buildings and never did so. There was a guy in the neighborhood who was hoping to buy one or two of their buildings and convert them to condos. So how much of his forming RBC is because he really gives two shits about the quality of life of people living in Section 8 housing or because he would like to try to buy a building to convert to condos again?
So in answer to your question about why should certain people have subsidized housing in an expensive area while everyone else has to pay top dollar to live there, I think because some people would like to live in a truly diverse community. And because some people work hard to get by with what they have and could still use some help. And its not as if poor hoodrats are the only people taking advantage of government subsidies. How much has the City of Columbus subsidized the infrastructure at Jeffrey Place so far?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
BUTerrier wrote Money talks. We live in a capitalistic society, not much more to say. Why should certain people "the least well off?" have subsidized housing in an expensive area, while everyone else has to pay top dollar to live there.
Most research has suggested that one of the key reasons why wealth has not translated into happiness is that we tend to compare ourselves with people who are richer than we are. Rather consitently Norway ranks as one of the happiest countries and I believe a large part of that (other than having a crapload of oil) has to do with them really attempting to do away with class distinctions (i.e. pay doctors and waitresses a more similar salery- egalitarian) While I don't believe that overly taxing the rich will lead to happiness, encourageing and looking down upon those who flaunt their wealth will. I guess I am rather unabashidly liberaly and believe a government which maximizes justice rather than the economy will lead to the the "greatest happiness of the greatest number.â€Â
by liberal I mean
"(a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
(b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)."- John Rawls
So to answer your question "Why should "the least well off?" have subsidized housing in an expensive area, while everyone else has to pay top dollar to live there"
The least well off in the U.S. and Columbus did not have equal basic liberties and as a result face economic inequalities. Therefore, justice dictates that when society makes a decision “such as building expensive condos for the economically advantaged,†that decision must cause greatest benefit of the least well off. How to do that (I believe) is to build subsidized places for the least well. Also I think it makes that expensive area better as I posted earlier.
Posted 4 years ago # -
jpizzow
580 N. Park St.
Login to Send PM
urban oasis is supposed to offer units that are fairly affordable, starting around $140,000. that may not sound too affordable to some of you, but it sounds good to me compared with everything else down there. i still think a developer should step in, not worry about making a buttload of money, have the city throw in incentives and build a nice size project with condos in the $100,000 to $150,000 range in or near downtown. i know that brings up a big question of whether or not it's economically feasible, but somehow it can be done. and i'm not talking about yukon studio loft type places where you can take a dump, watch tv and flip your pancakes all at the same time.
Posted 4 years ago #
You must log in to post.
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.