Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

The Continuing Development of Columbus

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion The Continuing Development of Columbus

This topic contains 19 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  run214 1 year, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #94889

    run214
    Participant
    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?

    #522356
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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.

    #522357
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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.

    #522358

    rory
    Participant
    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.

    #522359
    bjones7
    bjones7
    Participant
    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

    #522360
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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.

    #522361

    InnerCore
    Participant
    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.

    #522362
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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!

    #522363

    rory
    Participant
    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.

    #522364
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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.

    #522365

    InnerCore
    Participant
    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.

    #522366
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    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.

    #522367

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant
    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.

    #522368

    rory
    Participant
    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.

    #522369

    mrpoppinzs
    Member
    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?