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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 5-Story Mixed-Use Development Proposed for High Street

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development New 5-Story Mixed-Use Development Proposed for High Street

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #461784

    Urban Dansigner
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Is there any way that the University District Area Commission or The City of Columbus can limit or restrict Section 8 conversions/applications in this area to clear that option off the table for campus landlords?

    You could probably limit project based Section 8 but not individual vouchers.

    BTW – The University Area Commission and the University Area Review Board will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on this project before the Zoning is resolved for this project. All three have public meetings.

    #461785

    Mercurius
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Is there any way that the University District Area Commission or The City of Columbus can limit or restrict Section 8 conversions/applications in this area to clear that option off the table for campus landlords?

    I don’t think so?
    http://www.cmhanet.com/s8/s8landlords.htm

    #461786

    bman
    Participant

    rory said:
    Now that’s an interesting idea ;)

    For me section 8 housing is synonymous with inner city neighborhoods!

    #461787

    rory
    Participant

    cbus11 said:
    I would imagine that a similar development will eventually go in on the corner of 5th and High. I think though, that more mid range renters living in the area will actually positively effect the south eastern section of WP. Maybe the Italian village gentrification will cross 5th.

    We call it “revitalization” but its just a matter of time before Wagenbrenner starts building market rate houses on Grant and the Columbus Coated Fabric site between 5th and 11th. And it probably is just a matter of time before something goes on 5th and High. It is one of the last places where you can go over five stories and not have to demolish something too. It’s not going to be long before everything up to Chittenden is going to be shiny and new, or at least restored.

    #461788

    cbus11
    Member

    ^lol, you sound like a realestate agent I know. :)

    #461789
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    bman said:
    For me section 8 housing is synonymous with inner city neighborhoods!

    Are you posting this to add insight to this topic, or just trolling and trying to stir the pot?

    Because it’s not really necessary or productive. Let’s keep the discussion civil and on topic. Thanks.

    #461790

    cbustransit
    Participant

    i heard from a friend of a friend of a friend who knows a guy…that it is a walgreens

    #461791

    OSU’s pending Sophomore residency requirement could very well become a case study on the law of unintended consequences in effect… or not. My understanding is that the University believes requiring students to live on campus in dorms through their Sophomore year will increase its student retention and graduation rate. After two years of dorm living, most 4-year degree students will likely opt to move off-campus. Ergo, the current population of off-campus Sophomores will simply be replaced by a larger population of Juniors and Seniors. Fears of a new tidal wave of Section 8 housing and all of the associated problems may be unwarranted.

    #461792

    cbus11
    Member

    Anyway you cut it OSU would need to increase dorm capacity to house sophomore students, which they are doing. They are not simply displacing older students currently living on campus.

    The University says they are doing it to raise retention and grades (ie less keggers happen in the dorms). Personally, I think a lot of students will continue to get smashed off campus and do the drunken walk of shame back to the dorms in the wee hours.

    Maybe I am a skeptic, but I think it comes down to dollars. There is a lot of money to be milked from students. South Campus slumlords and fast food dives know this and so does Ohio State. OSU wants higher grades and retention but it also wants the sophomores’ rent and lunch money.

    Personally I feel the only way to ‘fix’ South Campus as a nieghborhood would be to increase the amount of owner occupants. Of course this would be far less lucrative than the current absentee ‘investor’ landlord situation that has been in place for decades.

    ————————————————

    The buildings would add 3,200 beds to accommodate an estimated 6,000 sophomores at Ohio State, increasing the university’s housing stock by 31 percent.

    —-
    “If you take 20 percent of your market away, the math is kind of simple,” countered Richard Talbott, chief executive officer of Inn-Town Homes and Apartments, which owns about 700 units containing 2,000 beds, mostly around the university.

    People might have forgotten that the university area was a much-more-blighted place in the 1990s than today, Talbott said. In the recently completed countywide property reappraisal, the university neighborhood was one of the few places in Franklin County where values rose by double digits. The plan would threaten that progress, he said.

    Off-campus restaurants would also suffer because all the sophomores would be required to be on the university food plan, Talbott said.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/08/28/osuplan-would-expand-dorms.html

    #461793

    berdawn
    Member

    Urban Dansigner said:
    You could probably limit project based Section 8 but not individual vouchers.

    BTW – The University Area Commission and the University Area Review Board will review the proposal and make recommendations to the Board of Zoning Adjustment on this project before the Zoning is resolved for this project. All three have public meetings.

    The UAC hasn’t shown any interest in limiting project based subsidies in the past ten years. It appears they approved the 84 units for CHP–who already has a dual diagnosis building next door to the proposed building.

    ETA: CHP has approval for 36 units–not 84.

    #461794

    jimbach
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Is there any way that the University District Area Commission or The City of Columbus can limit or restrict Section 8 conversions/applications in this area to clear that option off the table for campus landlords?

    Why do you hate poor people?

    #461795

    jimbach
    Participant

    berdawn said:
    The UAC hasn’t shown any interest in limiting project based subsidies in the past ten years. It appears they approved the 84 units for CHP–who already has a dual diagnosis building next door to the proposed building.

    Maybe you could explain what “dual diagnosis” means, since at least one person in this thread has asked.

    #461796

    rory
    Participant

    cbus11 said:

    The University says they are doing it to raise retention and grades (ie less keggers happen in the dorms). Personally, I think a lot of students will continue to get smashed off campus and do the drunken walk of shame back to the dorms in the wee hours.

    Maybe I am a skeptic, but I think it comes down to dollars. There is a lot of money to be milked from students. South Campus slumlords and fast food dives know this and so does Ohio State. OSU wants higher grades and retention but it also wants the sophomores’ rent and lunch money.

    Personally I feel the only way to ‘fix’ South Campus as a neyghborhood would be to increase the amount of owner occupants. Of course this would be far less lucrative than the current absentee ‘investor’ landlord situation that has been in place for decades.

    Owner occupancy would certainly help the area and it does have architecturally interesting housing stock in a decent location but you’d have to battle that full-bore party culture that is so lucrative and I would say institutionalized in the neighborhood at this point. And because the whole real estate model is so lucrative the houses don’t come on the market that often. I think there’s too much money being made to change the culture of the neighborhood. And when that student revenue stream dries up do you just invite gentrification over?

    #461797

    surber17
    Participant

    So here is an argument that I think I’m seeing “Maybe we shouldn’t build nice new buildings for renters because it will move good people out of the current overpriced crappy house they currently rent” …….. I really don’t think you need to worry about the neighborhood going downhill because of new/better housing stock. All this will do is up the desire to live there and thus up the value of the land. I said this before on another thread, but the only way we can get slum lords (and that’s what they are, my friend is one of them) to really start taking care of their properties is to up the competition around them.

    #461798

    berdawn
    Member

    jimbach said:
    Maybe you could explain what “dual diagnosis” means, since at least one person in this thread has asked.

    Sorry, I must have missed that. the 36 units CHN is doing are for individuals who are homeless and have a mental health diagnosis in addition to an addiction–usually alcohol–diagnosis. The apt building by Wendy’s (1494) built in about ten years ago is an example of what they do.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 79 total)

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

Subscribe below: