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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

The Continuing Development of Columbus

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion The Continuing Development of Columbus

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
  • #522370


    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.



    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.



    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.

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

    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans

    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.



    I think Rory hits it on the nail.

Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)

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

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!