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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Question about Weinland Park/University District...

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Question about Weinland Park/University District…

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #491048

    dru
    Participant

    also keep in mind that the The One University Enrollment Plan for 2011-2015 calls for OSU to enroll 2700 more students by 2015. So even though the sophomore residency policy calls for retaining a future average sophomore class of approximately 6675 on campus, there will be approximately 1200+ extra juniors and seniors looking to move into the off-campus University District.

    #491049

    bucki12
    Member

    In the larger scheme of things I do not think it will change things much. As dru is saying the campus population will continue to rise. It might take the campus landlords a few extra days to fill their apartments, but they will still fill them.

    Being skeptical of the University’s benevolence, I think that making the sophomores live in dorms is mostly a money grab. I think it will also train some of them to want to live in Campus Partner’s off campus ivory towers when they graduate to upper classmen status.

    #491050

    jimbach
    Participant

    There’s not a huge number of students living in WP right now, although the number seems to grow every year and they move, bit by bit, a little further to the South and East. My opinion is that making sophomores live in dorms will simply keep the status quo.

    If rents are going up in WP it’s for other reasons in addition to students moving in. However, blaming displacement on revitalization or gentrification is tricky business, since WP has traditionally, over the past few decades, had a remarkably transient population (remember that more than four out of five households rent), so people move out of the neighborhood all the time for all sorts of reasons, and only someone with an ideological axe to grind is going to pick one reason over a host of others.

    #491051

    ExileOn6thSt
    Participant

    jimbach said:
    If rents are going up in WP it’s for other reasons in addition to students moving in. However, blaming displacement on revitalization or gentrification is tricky business, since WP has traditionally, over the past few decades, had a remarkably transient population (remember that more than four out of five households rent), so people move out of the neighborhood all the time for all sorts of reasons, and only someone with an ideological axe to grind is going to pick one reason over a host of others.

    That’s definitely a valid point and a solid critique of broader sociological generalizations about gentrification. That being said, the specific cases of displacement that I personally am aware of in Weinland involved families that had been in the neighborhood long-term and who were displaced by students. I say that without trying to make any more general statement or assumption about gentrification.

    #491052

    wpcc88
    Participant

    jimbach said:
    There’s not a huge number of students living in WP right now, although the number seems to grow every year and they move, bit by bit, a little further to the South and East. My opinion is that making sophomores live in dorms will simply keep the status quo.

    If rents are going up in WP it’s for other reasons in addition to students moving in. However, blaming displacement on revitalization or gentrification is tricky business, since WP has traditionally, over the past few decades, had a remarkably transient population (remember that more than four out of five households rent), so people move out of the neighborhood all the time for all sorts of reasons, and only someone with an ideological axe to grind is going to pick one reason over a host of others.

    good point right there.. I think one way to think about it is the “short north” area to Weinland Park say in the late 1980’s-early 90’s.. when an area is in demand it obviously force prices to go up so it’s basically unintentional gentrification in my opinion

    #491053

    wpcc88
    Participant

    Buster Bluth said:
    I actually mentioned that exactly thing to one of the powerful guys at a meeting. I guess you could say that occupancy is at 98%, but demand is at 150% (if that makes sense) and a decrease in 20% of students will still leave everything full and then some.

    Personally, if I’m a freshman and I’m from Columbus, I’m flipping to birdie to Ohio State and living at home for sophomore year. I’d rather drive from Westerville or Hilliard (and save the money!) than live in a dorm again…unless it’s a suite and has AC. But even still a huge number of kids will just live at home or rent a house in their parents’ names.

    you make full sense with you 150% demand comment, couldn’t agree more I’ve had neighbors that attended ODU, CSCC, CCAD and although very rare a couple that attended Capital that chose to live with high school friends on campus..

    when looking at the second paragraph of your response kids from Columbus(even one’s not from here) have been taking advantage of that loop hole for years.. you can say you’re going to live at home and “commute” even your freshman year and instead get a house or apartment on campus which is what I see continuing to happen in the future.. the improvements to the towers on south campus and the brand new dorm down there(which I believe is going to be housing all athletes) will open up Worthington & the Neil Avenue building that do have suites in them and are much nicer than your average OSU dorm… try and get a tour of them if you can

    #491054

    mrpoppinzs
    Member

    Anyone know what the monthly cost of living in the OSU dorms would be (not including food if possible)?

    —–

    found it:

    http://urds.osu.edu/housing/fees-contracts-policies/housing-rates/

    ~ $700-$950 (utilities included) per month depending on number of roommates.

    (looks like they require you to also add a meal plan for more $)

    #491055

    msashlee
    Member

    mrpoppinz is right, rent is around 700-950 depending on number of roommates and amenities. That in itself is horrifying, especially when you consider the cramped conditions. But the real money grab is the required addition of a meal plan which costs an additional $460-$660 per month!!

    Fun fact: or rather, a fun rumor, because I have not been able to verify this yet. I’ve always wondered why the student body hasn’t protested against the high cost of living and the required meal plans but I’ve heard that OSU’s undergraduate student government receives a large chunk of their funding from surplus meal plan funds. (i.e. if students don’t eat the total number of meals they pay for, the students don’t get a refund,USG gets the extra money) hmmmmmm….

    #491056

    dru
    Participant

    if OSU is budgeting their meal plans that way, it is completely irregular.

    most university meal plans are budgeted by a calculation of not how many meals you pay for, but by how many are eaten. so if you buy a 14 or a 21 meal plan, there is already a calculation that the average student will not eat a certain percentage of those meals. (i actually first learned this when as a student government leader I led such a “refund our money protest”). so if you actually eat all 14 or 21, you’re making the most of the system. If everyone ate 14-21, the system would lose money. if everyone drastically under ate, it would have a surplus, but probably not a large one.

    i have posted a number of links back in the earlier discussions over the on campus residency requirements about national survey data showing that such requirements actually contribute to retention and ultimately degree completion. on those issues alone OSU could make an institutional case. regardless of those factors, OSU is a massive organization that has an immense budget, and securing housing numbers and maximizing capacity of resources helps stabilize that budget on a year-to-year basis. will OSU’s bottom line be healthier because of this? probably so. is it a huge money grab that will have Gee and campus RDs swimming in piles of cash, most likely not.

    #491057

    News
    Participant

    Landlords Fear OSU Program Could Lead To Decline In Campus Housing Market
    By: NADIA BASHIR | NBC4
    Published: April 06, 2012

    Today the Ohio State University’s Board of Trustees, approved the idea of a “second year experience program” aimed at OSU sophomores. Some landlords fear the program could eventually have a serious impact on the university’s housing market.

    OSU spokesman Jim Lynch, said OSU president, Dr. Gordon Gee, has been vocal for many years about having a two year residency program for students. Lynch said while no specific plans are currently in place to make that part of a second year experience program, it is possible the university could eventually require sophomores to live on campus.

    READ MORE: http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/apr/06/osu-board-approves-second-year-experience-program–ar-991739/

    #491058

    dirtgirl
    Participant

    The Plain Dealer has a story about this sophomores-to-dorms move today.

    OSU considering move to shift all second-year students into campus housing, but critics aboundhttp://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/05/osu_considering_move_to_shift.html

    It notes that a new group has formed to oppose the plan (“Citizens for the Protection of the University Neighborhoods”) but despite the grassroots-sounding name, it appears to be a group of landlords not interested in attracting local residents to the cause, at least judging by their total lack of an online presence. Does anyone know anything about them?

    UAC chair Seth Golding is quoted in the article as strongly against the plan. But given its limited powers, what can the UAC do to stop it? Perhaps they can mitigate some of the damage by using their zoning and code enforcement powers. One example would be to try to prevent rapid expansion of residential units in advance of the move to dorms by cracking down on conversions of one-family homes to what amount to boarding houses (the example of an illegal conversion of a 2-bedroom to an 8-bedroom on Patterson was raised at the last UAC meeting; at that meeting, commissioners also rejected a zoning request to make townhouses at High and Chittenden residential on the first floor because of the lack of parking and the vast expansion of # of total bedrooms).

    Full disclosure: I’m running for a seat on UAC this June, so I’m also trying to get a sense of people’s opinions on this dorm move, its impact on the UD and the proper role of the Commission in responding to it.

    #491059

    rory
    Participant

    Glad this popped up. I was just writing my letter to the editor. Not everyone in the University Area is against it. In Weinland Park we are behind the plan to move sophomores to campus (Full disclosure: I’m the co-chair of the Weinland Park Civic Association Housing Committee) We believe that moving sophomores onto campus will help reduce the conversion of historic homes into what are essentially boarding houses and reduce the displacement of some long-time residents in Weinland Park. In addition, a large, primarily student population overextends city resources such as trash collection and the police. Frankly, concentrations of transient students reduce the quality of neighborhood life. We would like to see campus landlords in the core student neighborhood improve their exteriors, restore the yards from their current use as parking lots, lower the density, and attempt to make the neighborhood attractive to a wider demographic. Moving more students onto campus will give campus landlords an immediate economic incentive to make a more sustainable and attractive neighborhood. As far as we can see there is no downside for Weinland Park in moving sophomores to campus. It can’t happen soon enough and we are strongly for the plan.

    #491060

    mrpoppinzs
    Member

    As Weinland Park becomes safer it is becoming more attractive to students. Obviously the South Campus ‘house packing’ is bad news and hopefully will slow down as the University moves sophomores to campus.

    I hope that in the end most of the northern section of WP will end up more like North Campus (which is far nicer than South Campus). That is a mix of renters, owner occupants, and students with far less party city. Ideally there would be a higher owner occupant ratio in the northern part, but with the expansion of the South Campus Gateway I see its links with student housing continuing to grow and I do not see the absentee landlord’s selling anytime soon. Hopefully Gee’s plan will curb the gowing house packing problem in WP.

    #491061

    cheap
    Member

    rory said:
    We believe that moving sophomores onto campus will help reduce the conversion of historic homes into what are essentially boarding houses and reduce the displacement of some long-time residents in Weinland Park.

    come on now,you dont need OSU to displace anybody
    devellopers & investors are doing it already,with help from HUD.

    #491062

    dirtgirl
    Participant

    rory said:
    We believe that moving sophomores onto campus will help reduce the conversion of historic homes into what are essentially boarding houses and reduce the displacement of some long-time residents in Weinland Park. In addition, a large, primarily student population overextends city resources such as trash collection and the police. Frankly, concentrations of transient students reduce the quality of neighborhood life.

    This is interesting, I’m glad I asked. UAC President Golding in a recent Dispatch article argued that the loss of sophomores from the housing market would lead to lower quality of life because of increased vacancies or landlords lowering standards for tenants in order to keep units occupied.

    Your view assumes the landlords will make investments to attract tenants, Golding’s assumes they will let their units fall into disrepeair or rent to undesirables. Two very different views; interestingly his is apparently aligned with the landlords themselves.

    mrpoppinzs said:
    Hopefully Gee’s plan will curb the gowing house packing problem in WP.

    You know another thing that could curb the house packing problem in WP? The UAC. They have no power to affect Gee’s sophomore plan, but they could reject variances that lead to house packing.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)

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

Subscribe below: