Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

New, affordable apartments headed to Neighborhood Launch's neighborhood?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development New, affordable apartments headed to Neighborhood Launch's neighborhood?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #556828

    J.Benner
    Participant

    I think the reservations about this project are not about placing a LIHTC property downtown or on Long St adjacent to NL, but rather as a vote of confidence on what Edwards has been doing with their NL project and a concern that this is a sign of them potentially scaling back their well received (quality/design/variety/etc) project from their initial footprint.

    #556829

    InnerCore
    Participant

    jpizzow said:
    Wow! I cannot believe the reaction these proposed developments are getting. The fact that there are so many complaints about potentially having low to medium income folks living next to high income folks is, quite frankly, disturbing. (and this coming from a site where so many people complain about the lack of more affordable housing downtown) Heaven forbid if someone like, say me, who would have qualified for one of these units last year (if the units existed) moved in next to these high income residents. I guess it would be frowned upon if I shopped at the Hill’s Market too and not the Save-a-lot down the road. We are not building an oasis for the rich here folks. Remember when Mayor Coleman stated years ago that downtown was “everyone’s neighborhood”. Well, so far, we have been moving away from that dream with the continuous build out of “luxury” units and systematically creating a neighborhood for one type of person.

    I commend Homeport for taking this challenge on and I am sure they will have no trouble filling all 100 units. In fact, they could easily fill 500 units if built. If the city council has any sense at all they will promptly endorse this proposal. I hope this becomes an ongoing trend because these units are sorely needed.

    The only concern I do have, as I have with just about every other development, is what the building will look like and how it will interact with the street level. I would love to see some retail because as it is not, none of the building being built or proposed along Long St have ground floor retail, which just creates a lifeless void along a major downtown corridor.

    I completely agree and well said. The retail issue for me is also a big point. NL should have added at least a few retail options throughout the development for it to truly be sustainable and walkable well into the future. Maybe not along the entire street level but at least at a few key points for a neighborhood bar, coffee shop, etc. As of right now if you say lived near Normandy then you’re looking at about a 5 min walk (the average time most people want to walk) to just get to Gay and 4th. So sure there isn’t enough demand to support retail now by the time there is enough demand we would have already built out places for it to go.

    With the potential Homeport project getting public money I hope they can encourage them to add some things that are in the public’s favor.

    #556830
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    J.Benner said:
    I think the reservations about this project are not about placing a LIHTC property downtown or on Long St adjacent to NL, but rather as a vote of confidence on what Edwards has been doing with their NL project and a concern that this is a sign of them potentially scaling back their well received (quality/design/variety/etc) project from their initial footprint.

    Keep in mind that Neighborhood Launch has already scaled forward their plans from the original footprint. The two huge apartment buildings (only one under construction currently) were not in the original plan, and are adding a big boost to density to the project.

    The original footprint called for more for-sale townhomes (no rentals at all) on Long Street:

    #556831
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    InnerCore said:
    NL should have added at least a few retail options throughout the development for it to truly be sustainable and walkable well into the future. Maybe not along the entire street level but at least at a few key points for a neighborhood bar, coffee shop, etc.

    Both Grass Skirt and The Hills Market were deals set up through Edwards. So there are already some retail options in key points thus far. I know that a new coffee shop is also on the way (details coming soon) and possibly more in the future as more of the development is built out.

    #556832
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    As an NL resident, I am ecstatic at these plans (and a coffee shop?!).

    The plans would only be better, IMO, if they didn’t involve the sale of NL land to make this affordable housing possible.

    #556833

    InnerCore said:
    How would this hurt property values? Again you wouldn’t be even able to tell the difference unless you actually walked in and tried to rent and found out you make too much money to qualify. Unless you know a lot of people who would refuse to live somewhere because the person next door can only afford $795.

    Because right now you want to try and reach a tipping point in density. NL is doing great but the area isn’t complete neighborhood yet. Let’s face it, it will be years before they fill in everything between gay and long, let alone north of long where one of these buildings is proposed.

    By allowing another developer to come in and fill in some of the gaps NL can continue working on the rest of their other lots. More people walking the streets is better for everyone.

    Like I said, If it sells in a long-term identity of the neighborhood, then great. I’m just not a fan of developing new stuff just because we think we need to fill in lots. In fairness, I don’t think anybody knows what NL’s identity is right now. But I don’t think it’s any small thing to ask what the implications are for the marketability of a neighborhood that just built hundreds of new condos and apartments, and has future plans for more.

    Sorry if this came off as a snobby high income vs. lower income thing. I applaud what CHP is doing and hope they do more of it. I just think #1 priority is to build an iDENTITY that sells in Neighborhood Launch. Only because I feel like that identity will ultimately determine retail and housing development from Long St toward downtown. No small thing. I may have jumped the gun in assuming this housing would mostly target “fresh out of college.” You guys are right, lots of good ways this could contribute to an overall identity, especially given proximity to creative campus and Gay St. My concern is if that’s not considered thoughtfully and, moreso, that this sounds like Edwards is maybe having second thoughts about their proposed future development.

    #556834
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    Just chatted with someone at Neighborhood Launch. It would appear that the two parcels being considered for sale were planned to be overflow parking lots rather than buildings or park space.

    So…I’m on board. Get the design right, per many of the concerns raised in this thread, and let’s get rollin’.

    #556835

    InnerCore
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Both Grass Skirt and The Hills Market were deals set up through Edwards. So there are already some retail options in key points thus far. I know that a new coffee shop is also on the way (details coming soon) and possibly more in the future as more of the development is built out.

    I love the Hills Market and shop there when I’m in town even though it’s out of the way because I love supporting downtown. I’m not disparaging what’s there, I’m talking from a long term planning perspective. The area is empty right now so its easy to forget that you’re downtown. On Gay st. from 4th to 3rd is .3 miles. We shouldn’t be building that entire length without the ability to add a couple of retail stops along the way.

    So I’m talking about creating buildings that will last the test of time. So for instance let’s say 50 years from now this area is packed and more retail is need on the street level on Gay. Well the only way to get it would be to knock down the buildings being built now and put in buildings that allow for street level interaction. But 50 years from now these buildings would could be considered historic.

    So to alleviate those types of dilemmas when building downtown where you know it going to eventually be a dense area we should build adaptable buildings that could last the long haul.

    #556836

    MichaelC said:
    Just chatted with someone at Neighborhood Launch. It would appear that the two parcels being considered for sale were planned to be overflow parking lots rather than buildings or park space.

    So…I’m on board. Get the design right, per many of the concerns raised in this thread, and let’s get rollin’.

    Excellent. I’m warming up to it too. Always appreciate the dialogue on CU. Definitely has changed my opinion in one morning.

    #556837

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Personally, I’d rather see lower-income units phased in with market-rate projects rather than an entire project as lower-income. I understand the need for lower-income inclusion, but I thought we learned our lesson about concentrating too much of it together. I know it would be just 1 or 2 buildings, but still.

    Edit: After reading through the comments, it doesn’t sound like the low-income I was thinking of, so I don’t really have any objections. As long as the building quality design/construction are similar, it doesn’t sound like a bad project at all.

    #556838
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    Thanks for the investigation MichaelC. So now it’s a matter of choosing between having two surface parking lots or two buildings offering affordable rental units? I think that answers itself.

    #556839

    dru
    Participant

    MichaelC said:
    Just chatted with someone at Neighborhood Launch. It would appear that the two parcels being considered for sale were planned to be overflow parking lots rather than buildings or park space.

    So…I’m on board. Get the design right, per many of the concerns raised in this thread, and let’s get rollin’.

    I could be wrong since they are small maps, but if one looks at the proposed sites for this development, and either the map Walker posted on page 1 or the cool graphic on the NL website that shows the project filling in, both of the spots on the Dispatch map have buildings on them. This could have changed at some point to overflow parking, or the Dispatch map could be wrong (and this wouldn’t surprise me). But from what is posted, it looks like this is taking the place of more than two overflow surface parking lots. This does not necessarily make it a bad idea.

    #556840
    Stephen43215
    Stephen43215
    Participant

    It would be insane for people to try and fight this project from happening! If downtown is everyone’s neighborhood then there should be a wide range of rental options! I’m all for development but so tired of all the new projects being announced only for the wealthy! You would have to make over $50,000 dollars a year to live in one of the new builds downtown!

    #556841

    dru
    Participant

    Stephen43215 said:
    It would be insane for people to try and fight this project from happening! If downtown is everyone’s neighborhood then there should be a wide range of rental options! I’m all for development but so tired of all the new projects being announced only for the wealthy! You would have to make over $50,000 dollars a year to live in one of the new builds downtown!

    nothing against this development, but
    “…announced only for the wealthy! You would have to make over $50,000 dollars a year to live in one of the new builds downtown!”

    even though the income fits squarely with the census data:
    Franklin County: Median household income, 2007-2011 $50,045
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39049.html

    #556842

    rory
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    I love the Hills Market and shop there when I’m in town even though it’s out of the way because I love supporting downtown. I’m not disparaging what’s there, I’m talking from a long term planning perspective. The area is empty right now so its easy to forget that you’re downtown. On Gay st. from 4th to 3rd is .3 miles. We shouldn’t be building that entire length without the ability to add a couple of retail stops along the way.

    So I’m talking about creating buildings that will last the test of time. So for instance let’s say 50 years from now this area is packed and more retail is need on the street level on Gay. Well the only way to get it would be to knock down the buildings being built now and put in buildings that allow for street level interaction. But 50 years from now these buildings would could be considered historic.

    So to alleviate those types of dilemmas when building downtown where you know it going to eventually be a dense area we should build adaptable buildings that could last the long haul.

    I’m not sure that many of the buildings recently constructed downtown were meant to pass any test of time. They’re just sticks and Styrofoam. It’s more like 27.5 years now. When it’s depreciated figure out what the market wants and start over.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: