Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, it's like homers just posted after a quick skim and didn't want to acknowledge some cold hard facts.
Of course Columbus isn't going to offer as much as NYC and that's not at all the point. The fact is that in Cbus you're actually paying much more in relation to the cost of housing for what you get amenity-wise: you may be paying 50% less at The Hubbard and get a little more space, but you're probably not even getting 10% of neighborhood amenities which you would get at The Espoir. My point is that for $1,500even with the difference in cost per sq ft you are getting very little in return when for that price you should have at least 2x what the Short North offers and markedly improved mass transit to other popular neighborhoods to justify spending that much.
Consideration needs to be taken into account for the reality that prices for housing and amenities in NYC while higher are also matched by higher paying jobs, thereby negating some of the sticker shock.
Again, we're talking about people looking to live in a "luxury" apartment in an urban setting: people who make bank, are willing and able to spend a big chunk of change (i.e. for those of us not able or wanting to rent such a space, our entire paychecks save a pack of ramen).
The vast array of NYC amenities means plenty of them are comparable in price to Cbus: a cursory glance results in a bar where $4 get you a hot dog or a big pretzel and a can of Genessee, $8 for Chinese noodle dishes, and a bit more for mass transit, but transit that's infinitely more reliable and faster.
In NYC you also don't need a car so 3,100 a month is more affordable, but in Cbus you're more likely to end up buying one which means you're not exactly saving that much money even by spending around half the amount of rent per month since you have to tack on the car payments to that figure.
And why not compare bikes to cars? I can bike from Downtown to Uptown in 10 minutes along amenity rich areas. By car? 7. And I'd have to pay for parking, not to mention the car itself and all additional costs. And to shave maybe a few minutes off in ideal conditions? Cars just don't make as much sense in a healthy and reasonably dense city environment as one would think.
For so much demand in Columbus' Short North for luxury apartments you have to wonder why there are so few developments right on High St and why none break into the double digits for height: only The Jackson comes close at 8 stories. The Hubbard is less than half as tall as The Ibiza was going to be (11 stories) in the same oh-so-popular spot.
Investments in King Lincoln and Franklinton are the exception, not the rule, as proven by the several miles derelict commercial streets and high-vacancy residential areas which outnumber High St and its surrounding neighborhoods, and why that was brought up in the first place I have no idea: maybe jbcmh81 can start his own thread on the matter.
Oh, and of course, no one in Columbus ever hears about locals leaving for NYC. It's not like that wasn't acknowledged by all the condo developments back in the mid 2000s painfully branding themselves as "NY style lofts" or Mayor Coleman comparing North Bank Park to NYC's Central Park during the ribbon cutting. It was as though they were trying to keep locals staying put in Columbus rather than move off to: NYC.
So, I don't know why some are taking issue with the simple reality that in Columbus when you're paying for a luxury apartment that for every dollar you're saving you're also losing amenities at an exponential rate.
Keith, your entire goal of this thread seems to be to convince people not to move into Columbus' urban core apartments because you personally believe that they're not a good value. Since your premise is ridiculous to begin with, and because you simply don't have any influence on how private developers price their residential units (or on preventing anyone from renting them), this thread is basically an all-around pointless fail.
As for the rest, just more of the same Columbus-isn't-doing-anything crap.
Wow, it's like homers just posted after a quick skim and didn't want to acknowledge some cold hard facts.
[list][*]Of course Columbus isn't going to offer as much as NYC and that's not at all the point.
Then why compare them? One "cold hard fact", It's a different market that attracts a different crowd. Therefore you can't weight things one for one, not everybody finds the same things important.
That being said, you can have this argument, sure luxury apartments are a better value in NYC. I'll stick with enjoying the comfort of my C-Bus style brick Victorian .
Keith, your entire goal of this thread seems to be to convince people not to move into Columbus' urban core apartments because you personally believe that they're not a good value. Since your premise is ridiculous to begin with, and because you simply don't have any influence on how private developers price their residential units (or on preventing anyone from renting them), this thread is basically an all-around pointless fail.
As for the rest, just more of the same Columbus-isn't-doing-anything crap.
The topic is luxury apartments in Columbus, not all "urban core" apartments and the premise is that you're getting much less per dollar spent on luxury apartments than you do for those in more popular big American cities (you know, the ones to which Columbus is trying to stem population loss). You can find much more reasonable rent in the same area (a quick look on craigslist resulted in prices around half for 800 sq ft 1 bd/1 ba apartments with a couple listings right on High between Poplar and 1st) which actually reflects the fact that you're living in an urban area with only a fraction of the same amenities as a large city on the coasts and in some cases a total lack of certain amenities (no subway or BRT or LRT aka no quick, reliable mass transit). You know, you're right: it is ridiculous to pay half as much for a luxury apartment as someone does in a highly gentrified neighborhood on the coast (that price goes up a good deal with a car factored in to get around sprawling Cbus), but only get back in return <10% of the amenities you would have over there (maybe that's why the developer had to cut the height of The Hubbard to less than half what was originally planned). But hey, to each her/his own. Glad we can agree on something for once!
The topic is luxury apartments in Columbus, not all "urban core" apartments and the premise is that you're getting much less per dollar spent on luxury apartments than you do for those in more popular big American cities (you know, the ones to which Columbus is trying to stem population loss). You can find much more reasonable rent in the same area (a quick look on craigslist resulted in prices around half for 800 sq ft 1 bd/1 ba apartments with a couple listings right on High between Poplar and 1st) which actually reflects the fact that you're living in an urban area with only a fraction of the same amenities as a large city on the coasts and in some cases a total lack of certain amenities (no subway or BRT or LRT aka no quick, reliable mass transit). You know, you're right: it is ridiculous to pay half as much for a luxury apartment as someone does in a highly gentrified neighborhood on the coast (that price goes up a good deal with a car factored in to get around sprawling Cbus), but only get back in return <10% of the amenities you would have over there (maybe that's why the developer had to cut the height of The Hubbard to less than half what was originally planned). But hey, to each her/his own. Glad we can agree on something for once!
Great, so don't move to those apartments. Upper 90s occupancy rates don't support that anyone cares what you think is a good value and the thread remains dumb.
The Hubbard developer didn't cut the height as they never proposed a larger one to begin with. The Ibiza project was from a completely different developer. You do know that they don't actually just take over each other's designs, right?
Great, so don't move to those apartments. Upper 90s occupancy rates don't support that anyone cares what you think is a good value and the thread remains dumb.
The Hubbard developer didn't cut the height as they never proposed a larger one to begin with. The Ibiza project was from a completely different developer. You do know that they don't actually just take over each other's designs, right?
Oh, so you're going to move back to Cbus and rent one of those apartments because you think it's a good value? Of course not. You're still posting in this thread even though you say no one cares what I think, but you sure do. Oh, and some renters looking to move to the Short North do care about whether or not they'll be getting a lot of bang for their buck. You do realize that the developer could have gone even taller than the proposed Ibiza, right?
My point about The Hubbard not going with a taller height is that like so many others developers they are not finding it worth their time and money to even build anything into the double digits in the city's most gentrified and amenity-dense neighborhood: just 10 stories or more. If it were true that Columbus can support so many more new residents like you say then we would see much denser development in the heart of one of the city's most popular neighborhoods right on the main drag. The reality is that developers don't care how much boosters like you swoon over the Short North and that's reflected in questionably short luxury apartment buildings in the Short North on High St of all places: it still took subsidized public housing to get the only residential building over 10 stories tall in the Short North with Bollinger Tower.
Of course, you have an interestingly 100% optimistic spin that you put on everything Columbus related, so how else do you explain smaller cities being able to support much taller luxury apartments and even within a similar price range? Denver has at least two such structures in a popular downtown-adjacent neighborhood: Golden Triangle, and a further removed locale: Cherry Creek. Here and here ( both over 15 stories tall) with costs slightly higher but comparable to The Hubbard (under 1,800 for a 1 bd/1 ba) yet in Denver, once again, you get real mass transit (light rail lines) and many more healthy, vibrant neighborhoods than do you in Columbus. All this does is bolster my point: that elsewhere you get a lot more per dollar than you do in Columbus for quality urban amenities and in notably higher quantities when shelling out money for a pricey apartment. The disparity between what you're paying in the Short North vs a trendy Denver neighborhood isn't as glaring as the comparison to Williamsburg, but is still glaring nonetheless. You're paying a lot to get little back in the way of quality urban amenities.
Dude what is your point, they will charge what ever the market will bear. The Short North is in high demand and people will pay it. I would pay it if I could live downtown.
My point about The Hubbard not going with a taller height is that like so many others developers they are not finding it worth their time and money to even build anything into the double digits in the city's most gentrified and amenity-dense neighborhood: just 10 stories or more. If it were true that Columbus can support so many more new residents like you say then we would see much denser development in the heart of one of the city's most popular neighborhoods right on the main drag. The reality is that developers don't care how much boosters like you swoon over the Short North and that's reflected in questionably short luxury apartment buildings in the Short North on High St of all places: it still took subsidized public housing to get the only residential building over 10 stories tall in the Short North with Bollinger Tower.
Give. It. Up. Jesus, your "point" has changed at least 5 times in this thread alone.
Columbus in general is not a high rise city, outside of downtown. I can count the number of buildings over 10 stories outside of downtown on two hands. That they're not building 20 story towers in the Short North is thus not surprising - there is no precedent for it in the neighborhood.
Developers will charge what the market will bear, and with occupancy rates in that neighborhood being very high, they are getting the rents they are charging. Why does that bother you so much?
Quote:
You're paying a lot to get little back in the way of quality urban amenities.
Who cares? If you're really that concerned, please come to Columbus and camp out on the corner of 1st and High and tell all of the passers-by just what a crummy deal they're getting. Please. They're obviously too stupid to know any better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
