The Continuing Development of Columbus « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

The Continuing Development of Columbus

[20 posts] [10 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 5 months ago by run214
Latest reply from susank

Tags:

No tags yet. Add them below.

run214

Login to Send PM

In order to save myself from reprimand let me preface this by saying that as a native of Columbus I am wildly excited about all of the exciting news on the development front in Columbus. I spent my formidable years in Columbus always excited about new projects - probably the reason I ended up getting an MCRP from OSU.

I left Columbus several years ago, but I still check Columbus Underground at least three times a day. I write because I am curious about Columbus and whether or not it can sustain all of these new development projects? I was so excited to see that Wagenbrenner stepped up to the challenge at The Jeffrey, I figured it was just a matter of time before that space was developed. But can Cbus really facilitate all of these new projects: Wonderbread, Hubbard, Columbus Commons, New LC proposal, Yankee Trader, Flats on Vine II, Grandview Yard? The list goes on.

I am so excited at the thought of all of this happening, but who is going to fill these spaces? Where are these people relocating from? Where do they work? And are we providing opportunity for a spread of people and not just professionals? The last thing I want to see is a grand proposal for a bunch of projects that go the way of the Ibiza...

Thoughts?

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

run214 said:
I am curious about Columbus and whether or not it can sustain all of these new development projects?

MORPC projects that the Columbus MSA will gain 500,000 new residents by 2035:

http://www.columbusunderground.com/morpc-drafts-long-term-metropolitan-transportation-plan

That's a 27% uptick in 23 years. Or 21,700 new residents in the region per year. The population of Columbus proper has been growing at a rate of 10-12% each decade, so that sounds about right to me.

I don't think it's unsustainable for the "Near Downtown" area to add 3,000 new rental units in the next two or three years.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

run214 said:
The last thing I want to see is a grand proposal for a bunch of projects that go the way of the Ibiza...

Also, keep in mind that the Ibiza development didn't fail due to lack of demand. It failed due to the individual development company. Same goes for the original Jeffery Place development. The Short North and surrounding neighborhoods have only grown stronger and more desirable with each passing year.

run214 said:
And are we providing opportunity for a spread of people and not just professionals?

For every fancy new 100-unit apartment building with high rents in a highly desirable area, there's 100 affordable homes in nearby neighborhood with more affordable pricepoints awaiting. We don't really need to build too much new affordable housing in the central city when there's already plenty to be found.

Posted 5 months ago #
rory
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

Walker said:

For every fancy new 100-unit apartment building with high rents in a highly desirable area, there's 100 affordable homes in nearby neighborhood with more affordable pricepoints awaiting. We don't really need to build too much new affordable housing in the central city when there's already plenty to be found.

I completely disagree. There does need to be more affordable housing downtown and there is not plenty to be found. Making one neighborhood the "affordable housing" neighborhood is poor planning. And why should poor people only live in less desirable areas? Calvinist predestination? Motivate them? There ought to not only be more affordable housing in downtown proper but there should also be an affordable housing component in the new Jeffrey Place development as well.

Posted 5 months ago #
bjones7
Worthington Ohio
Login to Send PM

rory said:
I completely disagree. There does need to be more affordable housing downtown and there is not plenty to be found. Making one neighborhood the "affordable housing" neighborhood is poor planning. And why should poor people only live in less desirable areas? Calvinist predestination? Motivate them? There ought to not only be more affordable housing in downtown proper but there should also be an affordable housing component in the new Jeffrey Place development as well.

+1

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

rory said:
Making one neighborhood the "affordable housing" neighborhood is poor planning.

I didn't say anything about one neighborhood. I'm saying that for every Victorian Village, Italian Village and German Village we have a Franklinton, King Lincoln and Weinland Park already in place and in need of people willing to invest in affordable homes.

And these areas aren't necessarily "less desirable" or only meant for poor people. I'm saying that options abound very close by to the areas with some of the highest property values in the region.

If you want to live close to Downtown but can't afford the Short North, many many many options currently exist. We don't have to force a developer to build a below market rate condo tower in the heart of the Short North just because some people think it would be great to pay cheaper rent and be in the center of the most desirable location possible.

Posted 5 months ago #
InnerCore

Login to Send PM

Here is a 4th quarter report Columbus. (It's a paid report so Walker please don't post as an article).

http://www.marcusmillichap.com/research/reports/Apartment/Columbus_4Q12Apt.pdf

If you look at the Univeristy/Downtown submarket you'll see that vacancy rates are at an insanely low 2.8%. Effective rents have increased 5% year over year. Effective rents are the market rents minus concessions (ex. 1 month free).

Metro wide there are about 6,000 unit in the pipeline. This amounts to a supply increase of just 4.1% if all units are actually built.

There shouldn't be a problem filling all these units and then some. If anything some of the more suburban homes/apartments might take a hit.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

InnerCore said:
(It's a paid report so Walker please don't post as an article).

We never post full articles, free or paid. ;) Thanks for just posting as a link!

Posted 5 months ago #
rory
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

I understand what you're getting at here. I'm saying that it wouldn't kill Italian Village, Victorian Village, and German Village to have a little Weinland Park, King-Lincoln District, and Franklinton mixed in with them. And I don't think it's necessary to force a developer to build a Bollinger Tower type building in the midst of any area that appears to be taking off. But there's no reason why the Low Income Housing Tax Credit scoring can't be altered to make a small amount of affordable housing more attractive in areas that are already considered gentrified. And especially in areas where the tax payer already has a little skin in the game like brownfield redevelopment. There is no reason why the Jeffrey Place can't have a small percentage of affordable housing component included as well as downtown developments. I may have had too much of the city's "diverse, mixed income neighborhood" Kool-Aid but I see no reason why all neighborhoods, gentrified or not, can't do their part for affordable housing rather then the neighborhoods that are deemed affordable.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

I agree that we should have an income mix in all neighborhoods to some extent.

I'd just rather see more encouragement for people to move into affordable homes in areas like WP, KLD & FTON and fix them up and increase property values rather than making some requirement of developers in VV, IV or GV to build new affordable housing in those areas.

Or at least I think there's a much bigger existing opportunity with hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of affordable homes in those areas that could use the TLC, rather than asking 50 units in a 1000 unit new development to be below market rate in Italian Village.

Posted 5 months ago #
InnerCore

Login to Send PM

Working in development I'm going to agree with rory. Although I wouldn't tell anyone at work about by bleeding liberal heart.

If you leave us to are own devices were never going to provide anything but market rate units. That pushes lower income to surrounding areas and a constant cycle of gentrification. Sure lower income families will move into other areas, until they become more popular and then they gut pushed out.

So I think the 50 units in the 1000 unit development is the better way to go.

Now keep in mind I'm talking about using the same money that is already spent on affordable housing through programs like the LIHTC. Instead of using this money to subsidize an entire low income project I rather funnel that same money to allow for a few units in Columbus Commons, 5 in Hubbard, 5 in Flats, etc.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

InnerCore said:
If you leave us to are own devices were never going to provide anything but market rate units. That pushes lower income to surrounding areas and a constant cycle of gentrification. Sure lower income families will move into other areas, until they become more popular and then they gut pushed out.

Does that mean if we do what we can to stave off gentrification we're able to preserve our poorer/empty/dilapidated neighborhoods to remain poorer/empty/dilapidated neighborhoods? That doesn't really sound like a good alternative to me.

Posted 5 months ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

Walker said:
I agree that we should have an income mix in all neighborhoods to some extent.

I'd just rather see more encouragement for people to move into affordable homes in areas like WP, KLD & FTON and fix them up and increase property values rather than making some requirement of developers in VV, IV or GV to build new affordable housing in those areas.

Or at least I think there's a much bigger existing opportunity with hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of affordable homes in those areas that could use the TLC, rather than asking 50 units in a 1000 unit new development to be below market rate in Italian Village.

I see where you are coming from and agree to an extent. I would just argue rorys point as there a number of existing downtown properties that have potential to be redeveloped into small unit, affordable rentals.

Posted 5 months ago #
rory
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

InnerCore said:

So I think the 50 units in the 1000 unit development is the better way to go.

Now keep in mind I'm talking about using the same money that is already spent on affordable housing through programs like the LIHTC. Instead of using this money to subsidize an entire low income project I rather funnel that same money to allow for a few units in Columbus Commons, 5 in Hubbard, 5 in Flats, etc.

Exactly.

@Walker..I don't think anyone is advocating preserving poverty. But LITHC housing credits can be better used by spreading out affordable housing in areas where it is already desirable to live. There's room for a healthy mix and not just pure gentrification or poverty. And I also think a big part of that is encouraging people to move into marginal neighborhoods and fix up the housing stock. But at the same time there ought to be a balance between forcing people out who can't afford the new prices and putting in so much affordable housing that the neighborhood may never change for the people who bought houses and provided some TLC for the neighborhood. I know that from the Weinland Park survey that many people faced with moving out would be content just moving to a safer and more desirable neighborhood environment. And I think the easiest way to please everyone is really spread out affordable housing in a way that the free market will embrace. Otherwise none of the solutions are really going to work.

Posted 5 months ago #
mrpoppinzs
Arena District
Login to Send PM

I think the city should rethink the 100% ten year tax abatement on a lot of these developments and maybe give a lesser percentage to the luxury rentals and give a break for the more affordable units. Some income diversity is important to the health of the neighborhoods.

Posted 5 months ago #
InnerCore

Login to Send PM

Walker said:
Does that mean if we do what we can to stave off gentrification we're able to preserve our poorer/empty/dilapidated neighborhoods to remain poorer/empty/dilapidated neighborhoods? That doesn't really sound like a good alternative to me.

No because as we mix in the low income into the more desirable areas were pushing demand out faster to the other areas.

For example let's look at the Short North and Weinland Park. You've got all the stuff on High St. coming, Dennison, Jeffrey Park, etc. So the people with more means will move into the better location, leaving the people with less means to move into Weinland Park. As a neighborhood Weinland won't fare as well because the owners won't have the resources to invest in it.

Eventually everything will be built out and the development will move towards Weinland Park. At that time people with higher incomes will move in, push the lower income people out to the next dilapidated area and the process repeats itself.

What I'm saying is you go in from the start spread a small precentage of low income through out the desirable area. This pushes the demand out faster. If you designate 135 units of the 1350 units in Jeffrey park as low income the demand for those 135 market rate units isn't going to disappear. So another developer can go a block up the road and do another project for 135 units with 13 low income units, etc. etc.

You create communities that are more well rounded. Low income people get to live in areas with good school districts because they're mixed in with the higher property tax payers, helping to break the cycle, etc.

Posted 5 months ago #
dru
IV
Login to Send PM

i'd just toss out there that the Italian Village will still maintain these %s of low income housing. there are still blocks of Section 8 on Russell, Kerr, Third Ave, New Village Homes, Summit, Fourth Street, Fifth Ave and the aforementioned Bollinger Towers. All of the projects being mentioned right now are new build, not conversion.

There are also 2-bedrooms in the IV listing on Metro-rentals right now for $595-695 per month. Far below the figures for the proposed new builds, and I suspect there will be some pressure on these rates when the new builds first come into the market. So the middle of the market isn't entirely squeezed yet either.

Posted 5 months ago #
johnwirtz
Glenview, IL
Login to Send PM

rory said:
And I think the easiest way to please everyone is really spread out affordable housing in a way that the free market will embrace. Otherwise none of the solutions are really going to work.

+1
This is really the only way to address concentrated poverty and segregation.

Posted 5 months ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM

I should clarify that I'm not against having mixed-income neighborhoods. Nor against affordable housing developments mixed in with market rate development. I think the work that CMHA has already done to decentralize Section 8 where it's historically been most concentrated has worked well.

I just think it seems a bit odd to say that we need to ensure a certain amount of affordability is maintained in one spot when there's an abundance of affordable housing typically less than a mile away.

Posted 5 months ago #
susank

Login to Send PM

I think Rory hits it on the nail.

Posted 5 months ago #