Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Infographic: Burbs Going Bust

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Infographic: Burbs Going Bust

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 118 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #495457

    pedex
    Participant

    GCrites80s said:
    Information Technology has existed ever since people learned to write. That fact is expressed on the first day of any introductory CS or IT related class.

    ya a lot of this stuff has been around far longer than people think

    take hybrid gas electric cars for example, many probably think its a relatively new invention, it isn’t, it’s 111 years old and the idea is older than that

    From a performance and usage perspective cars have actually progressed very little since the model T……our fleet mileage is about the same, same range, same cargo capacity. Modern cars go faster, protect the pax better in accidents, handle better, and stop better. I’d mention durability but our planned obsolescence killed that. But in actual usage from a practical everyday standpoint the changes are very small and incremental compared to going from horse and buggy to autos. Big leaps versus small evolutionary leaps.

    #495458
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    pedex said:
    But in actual usage from a practical everyday standpoint the changes are very small and incremental compared to going from horse and buggy to autos. Big leaps versus small evolutionary leaps.

    Still pissed about the whole flying car thing, eh?

    #495459

    gramarye
    Participant

    Yes, and by the same metric, many modern inventions date to Leonardo da Vinci. So what? What matters is making them workable, not demonstrating a proof of concept. The concept of the fully electric car was around a hundred years ago, too.

    Likewise, if you’re going to twist my words to ignore the point I was making about IT, you’re not missing the point, you’re deliberately ignoring it in order to continue this fantasy that we haven’t made any revolutionary technological advancements in the past few decades.

    #495460

    dirtgirl
    Participant

    James said:
    I don’t know much about the good schools in columbus versus the bad, but I imagine I was typical in that I viewed the suburban (non-columbus) schools as a safer bet when looking for houses.

    So true. When we moved to Columbus, it was just my husband and I and we bought a “starter home” in Clintonville to be close to downtown and urban amenities. Now that we have three young kids, I discovered that our local school (Clinton Elementary) is one of the best in the state and ranks higher than any other elementary school in all of Franklin County. All along we’d assumed (or been told by older, “wiser” folks) that we had to move to Worthington or Bexley to find good schools, but I’m glad we didn’t.

    #495461

    gramarye
    Participant

    Walker said:
    That’s a huge generalization and hardly a universal truth. If you’re talking SOLEY about Downtown proper being expensive on a cost-per-square-foot basis, then maybe I’d generally agree.

    It isn’t just in Downtown proper. Buying a home in Victorian Village, German Village, the Short North, or the Arena District will also generally cost more than homes even in the more desirable suburbs, on a square-footage basis. Buying in Harrison West or Merion Village may set you back less, but the houses there will not be quite at the level of what you would get in the urban neighborhoods closer to Downtown.

    And I was talking about both the current and next generation of homebuyers, and by saying “to the extent that …,” I acknowledged that that very well might be in flux.

    Also, I suppose standards for what constitutes a “McMansion” may vary. I usually don’t label homes that until they start getting up into the 3500+ sf range.

    #495462

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    It isn’t just in Downtown proper. Buying a home in Victorian Village, German Village, the Short North, or the Arena District will also generally cost more than homes even in the more desirable suburbs, on a square-footage basis. Buying in Harrison West or Merion Village may set you back less, but the houses there will not be quite at the level of what you would get in the urban neighborhoods closer to Downtown.

    And I was talking about both the current and next generation of homebuyers, and by saying “to the extent that …,” I acknowledged that that very well might be in flux.

    Also, I suppose standards for what constitutes a “McMansion” may vary. I usually don’t label homes that until they start getting up into the 3500+ sf range.

    By almost any world standard, a 2,000 square foot home is a mansion, or at the very least, a very large home for a single family.

    Costs associated with the urban core are higher simply because there is a demand and limited housing stock. If building kept up with demand, it’s possible that more affordable housing could be available. If Downtown still had all the buildings that existed in 1950, I don’t really think this would be as much of an issue.

    The suburbs will always exist, but they come with their own problems that don’t necessarily make up for a lower initial cost of housing.

    #495463

    gramarye
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    By almost any world standard, a 2,000 square foot home is a mansion, or at the very least, a very large home for a single family.

    One of the perks of being an American, however, is not having to follow world standards. In the U.S., 2000 square feet is actually significantly below the average size of new construction (2392 in 2010, which was *down* from the bubble peak of close to 2500, according to that graph).

    I don’t think one should be using the term mansion or even McMansion to refer to something that barely qualifies as average.

    Costs associated with the urban core are higher simply because there is a demand and limited housing stock. If building kept up with demand, it’s possible that more affordable housing could be available. If Downtown still had all the buildings that existed in 1950, I don’t really think this would be as much of an issue.

    That phenomenon of lower housing stock than demand is not as “simple” as you might think. Yes, there is lower stock, particularly in desirable neighborhoods like Victorian Village and German Village, than there could be. However, the reasons for that are manifold and will take some solving. The regulatory barriers to building in urban areas as generally significantly higher than building greenfield developments; townships seldom have a historic preservation commission or other insider-dominated regulatory body with the power to block development (thereby keeping prices high for those who already bought in, but squeezing out prospective residents). The physical barriers to urban development can also be more formidable than many urbanists appreciate. Many think that it should be easier to build in an urban location where water and sewer lines have already been dug and roads have already been laid. That isn’t always the case.

    #495464
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    gramarye said:
    It isn’t just in Downtown proper. Buying a home in Victorian Village, German Village, the Short North, or the Arena District will also generally cost more than homes even in the more desirable suburbs, on a square-footage basis. Buying in Harrison West or Merion Village may set you back less, but the houses there will not be quite at the level of what you would get in the urban neighborhoods closer to Downtown.

    You left out King Lincoln, parts of Olde Towne East, Old Orchards, Franklinton, Ganther’s Place, The entire Hilltop, Old North Columbus, Milo Grogan, Weinland Park, Linden and beyond.

    For every urban neighborhood with a high price/sqft ratio, there’s an urban neighborhood with a low price/sqft ratio. Your statement that “You get more square footage per dollar in the suburbs” is not a universal truth. It’s maybe a half-truth at best. Especially when you consider the wide range of options available throughout all suburban communities that I’m sure have the same vast range when it comes to price/sqft.

    gramarye said:
    And I was talking about both the current and next generation of homebuyers, and by saying “to the extent that …,” I acknowledged that that very well might be in flux.

    Also, I suppose standards for what constitutes a “McMansion” may vary. I usually don’t label homes that until they start getting up into the 3500+ sf range.

    Despite personal definitions of what constitutes a McMansion, signs are pointing toward Gen-Y’ers wanting smaller homes than generations prior. So the price/sqft ratio is going to become less important to this new crop of home buyers as other factors become more important (walkability, maintenance, short-term resale value, etc).

    #495465

    JonMyers
    Participant

    There’s another factor, which I haven’t seen mentioned that I believe people are starting to consider, especially younger people I talk with all the time.

    That factor is the opportunity cost of suburban living.

    Suburbs are where your network goes to die. Your ability to generate random interactions that might lead to opportunities or collaborations stagnates in the suburbs.

    There is an opportunity cost associated with being in a suburb. I believe there is an opportunity cost being on the outskirts of any city.

    You simply won’t have your net out there as much, and catch as many opportunities in a suburb versus being in the center of the action.

    #495466

    Analogue Kid
    Participant

    JonMyers said:
    There’s another factor, which I haven’t seen mentioned that I believe people are starting to consider, especially younger people I talk with all the time.

    That factor is the opportunity cost of suburban living.

    Suburbs are where your network goes to die. Your ability to generate random interactions that might lead to opportunities or collaborations stagnates in the suburbs.

    There is an opportunity cost associated with being in a suburb. I believe there is an opportunity cost being on the outskirts of any city.

    You simply won’t have your net out there as much, and catch as many opportunities in a suburb versus being in the center of the action.

    Interesting thought. I suppose though that even in someplace like Victorian Village, one would need to spend a significant amount of time in the commercial areas to build networks. Simply owning a single family house in VV isn’t necessarily going to get you more than it would in Upper Arlington, for example. However, the SN has way more vibrancy than any UA commercial areas, so I think that’s what you may be getting at.

    #495467

    gramarye
    Participant

    JonMyers said:
    There’s another factor, which I haven’t seen mentioned that I believe people are starting to consider, especially younger people I talk with all the time.

    That factor is the opportunity cost of suburban living.

    Suburbs are where your network goes to die. Your ability to generate random interactions that might lead to opportunities or collaborations stagnates in the suburbs.

    There is an opportunity cost associated with being in a suburb. I believe there is an opportunity cost being on the outskirts of any city.

    You simply won’t have your net out there as much, and catch as many opportunities in a suburb versus being in the center of the action.

    I certainly agree with the concept. I don’t know if I’ve seen my current urban social circle actively cognizant of that and discussing it the way you’ve suggested, but then again, I’ve never taken the initiative to broach the subject with them, either.

    That said, while it may be harder to maintain a network in the suburbs, it cannot be impossible. Most of the partners in my office live in the suburbs, and many of them are among the most connected people I know.

    #495468

    gramarye
    Participant

    Walker said:
    You left out King Lincoln, parts of Olde Towne East, Old Orchards, Franklinton, Ganther’s Place, The entire Hilltop, Old North Columbus, Milo Grogan, Weinland Park, Linden and beyond.

    For every urban neighborhood with a high price/sqft ratio, there’s an urban neighborhood with a low price/sqft ratio. Your statement that “You get more square footage per dollar in the suburbs” is not a universal truth. It’s maybe a half-truth at best. Especially when you consider the wide range of options available throughout all suburban communities that I’m sure have the same vast range when it comes to price/sqft.

    I left out most of those neighborhoods because even if those neighborhoods may offer the size you’d like (and most of those neighborhoods still aren’t replete with 3000+ sf houses or even 2000+ sf houses), those neighborhoods do involve greater compromises on the other “S’s” I mentioned above: safety and schools. (I left out Ganther’s Place because I haven’t even heard of that one.) Yes, I know that open enrollment exists, but most people still gravitate to neighborhood schools.

    Most couples with school-age children and with the financial means to be considering moving to the better suburbs are not going to be interested in Linden, Weinland Park, Milo-Grogan, or Franklinton.

    I of course recognize that some suburbs are more expensive on a square-footage basis than some urban areas–if you compare the more expensive suburbs to the cheaper urban areas. That’s not a fair comparison, though.

    #495469
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    gramarye said:
    I of course recognize that some suburbs are more expensive on a square-footage basis than some urban areas–if you compare the more expensive suburbs to the cheaper urban areas. That’s not a fair comparison, though.

    Then why are you comparing the expensive urban neighborhoods to the more affordable suburban areas?

    #495470

    gramarye
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Then why are you comparing the expensive urban neighborhoods to the more affordable suburban areas?

    I’m not. Even looking at just the most expensive suburbs vs. the most expensive urban neighborhoods, you get more square footage for your dollar:

    Median List Price per Square Foot (per Zillow):

    43215 (~Downtown, Arena District, southern SN/VV/IV): $202
    43201 (~Harrison West, norther SN/VV/IV, Milo-Grogan, Weinland Park, East Campus): $155

    New Albany: $155
    Upper Arlington: $153
    Bexley: $147
    Grandview Heights: $141
    Dublin: $123

    Even diluted with the lower sale prices of Weinland Park and Milo-Grogan, the 43201 ZIP Code only gets down to the $155 level of the average sale price of New Albany, which I believe is our most expensive suburb. Without the diluting effect of those less expensive urban neighborhoods, it’s fair to assume that the more in-demand urban neighborhoods such as Victorian Village, the Short North, and Italian Village are significantly more expensive.

    #495471
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    What you’re proving is exactly my point. That prices fluctuate quite a bit within neighborhoods, within zip codes and within suburban communities. Displaying averages only tells part of the story, as it doesn’t display the wide range of fluctuating prices within those larger areas. Comparing expensive areas to each other, cheap areas to each other, or opposites to each other will all yield various results.

    Thus making what you originally said:

    “You get more square footage per dollar in the suburbs”.

    Inherently untrue.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 118 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: