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.
Agreed on the Short North. As for towers there should already be more built and some U/C. Portland has 2/3 the population of Columbus, but I already count two 30 story residential towers: The Ardea and Mirabella Portland. Austin which is another sprawling capital has the 360 condos clocking in at 44 stories. Basically, every other peer city already has these buildings while Columbus hasn't even broken ground on what will be the 2nd tallest residential tower in the city after Miranlva at only 27 stories. It's bizarre.
Taking your Old Oaks example further, perhaps some people moving to Columbus are populating higher vacancy neighborhoods like these as a result of the lack of new builds in the urban core? Of course, someone looking to live a downtown high rise most likely won't be moving to East of Parsons as their 2nd option.
I'm originally from Austin. The present Columbus urban core is what Austin's looked like in the late 80s. The present day Austin urban core is far more vibrant and developed than Columbus' but I can see a similar trajectory.
The mid to late 80s is when Austin really gots its footing in the high tech industry.
With HB2 in NC effecting Research Triangle Park companies it seems like a great time for Columbus to push High Tech incubators. The intellectual capital is here with OSU and the other colleges.
Last edited by Clever nickname here; 06-06-2016 at 08:42 PM..
I would say both Austin and Houston's urban core revivals were really kicked started by how bad commutes got and $4 a gallon gas while mortgages were at 4% interest. A lot of people figured out $500 a month in commuting costs bought $100K worth of more expensive closer in homes and gave them all that commuting time back.
I'm originally from Austin. The present Columbus urban core is what Austin's looked like in the late 80s. The present day Austin urban core is far more vibrant and developed than Columbus' but I can see a similar trajectory.
The mid to late 80s is when Austin really gots its footing in the high tech industry.
With HB2 in NC effecting Research Triangle Park companies it seems like a great time for Columbus to push High Tech incubators. The intellectual capital is here with OSU and the other colleges.
While Columbus' immediate Downtown is nothing special, I think you're giving too much credit to Austin here, which IMO may be the most overrated city on the planet right now. I'm not saying it's a bad city or anything, but the problem is that the more hype a place gets, the less likely it is realistically able to meet it. The majority of its growth is still in the suburbs. The last time I checked the census stats, Columbus still had more population in its downtown, which itself is extremely low for a city its size. Even a few miles out through the core, the 2 cities are fairly close in population. Granted, population is just one metric to the equation, but for all of Austin's growth and new construction, it's still building like most of the Sun Belt, with a full embrace of suburbia.
Agreed on the Short North. As for towers there should already be more built and some U/C. Portland has 2/3 the population of Columbus, but I already count two 30 story residential towers: The Ardea and Mirabella Portland. Austin which is another sprawling capital has the 360 condos clocking in at 44 stories. Basically, every other peer city already has these buildings while Columbus hasn't even broken ground on what will be the 2nd tallest residential tower in the city after Miranlva at only 27 stories. It's bizarre.
Taking your Old Oaks example further, perhaps some people moving to Columbus are populating higher vacancy neighborhoods like these as a result of the lack of new builds in the urban core? Of course, someone looking to live a downtown high rise most likely won't be moving to East of Parsons as their 2nd option.
I have given my own theory on why Columbus has yet to build taller. My 3 main points were:
1. The development community is too local and small, with too few resources to take big projects on any regular basis.
2. Securing financing in the area for such projects has been consistently difficult. I have no idea why that has been the case, as if Columbus is some risky market, but that has been cited numerous times.
3. A persistent attitude that Columbus is not actually a major city.
Perhaps that is finally changing as the average project proposed recently has definitely started to at least break the 5-6 story mark that seemed to be all anyone could build for the last several years. As long as growth rates remain consistent or even increase, it is inevitable for Columbus to see more larger scale projects, if not from local developers, then from interests outside the metro. As much as the NYT and others have written about the city in recent years, it's going to happen.
I think enough people are moving to the city to accomodate both repopulating older neighborhoods and filling up new projects. Vacancy rates are very low in new builds and falling rapidly in those older neighborhoods. As I said before, for Old Oaks to see its vacancy rate halved in just a couple of years is significant. Housing is still cheap in these areas, which is certainly attractive for those looking for a central location but don't have a half million or more to sink into a new luxury condo.
While Columbus' immediate Downtown is nothing special, I think you're giving too much credit to Austin here, which IMO may be the most overrated city on the planet right now. I'm not saying it's a bad city or anything, the problem is that the more hype a place gets, the less likely it is realistically able to meet it. The majority of its growth is still in the suburbs. The last time I checked the census stats, Columbus still had more population in its downtown, which itself is extremely low for a city its size. Even a few miles out through the core, the 2 cities are fairly close in population. Granted, population is just one metric to the equation, but for all of Austin's growth and new construction, it's still building like most of the Sun Belt, with a full embrace of suburbia.
Said every Austin NIMBY for the last 35 years while Austin doubled in population and built no infrastructure to handle it.
My family returned to my parent's home, Austin in 1976. I'm the only one of the family who no longer lives there so I'm back 'home' regularly to see family and friends. Everyone has been predicting Austin's bubble bursting since shortly after I graduated HS. One of my kids is about to graduate HS. It hasn't happen yet.
Said every Austin NIMBY for the last 35 years while Austin doubled in population and built no infrastructure to handle it.
My family returned to my parent's home, Austin in 1976. I'm the only one of the family who no longer lives there so I'm back 'home' regularly to see family and friends. Everyone has been predicting Austin's bubble bursting since shortly after I graduated HS. One of my kids is about to graduate HS. It hasn't happen yet.
I said nothing about a bubble and I am not predicting Austin's downfall. I am just saying that my opinion is that the hype exceeds the reality.
All that said, all booms come to an end. It is inevitable at some point. That doesn't mean Austin becomes the next Detroit or something, but certain factors will work to end its extreme growth rates. Most likely, those factors will be something related to cost of living and other economic factors. It's not like it will be the next NYC.
Um... a depressed neighborhood being revived by arts and restaurants.... isn't that the Short North?
If art can reverse the economy of a neighborhood, why don't we just give everyone in Camden a paintbrush?
My point was more fundamental. Art is a result of already generated wealth, not the cause of it. Don't put the cart before the horse.
And I guess I still don't get your point about foreign investment fueling bubbles. It matters not whether or not it's foreign or domestic, it's the speculative nature of it that matters. Places that attract lots of speculative investment, a lot of which comes from abroad, can certainly be in trouble. But that doesn't mean domestic speculative investment doesn't happen and isn't a major problem.
If art can reverse the economy of a neighborhood, why don't we just give everyone in Camden a paintbrush?
My point was more fundamental. Art is a result of already generated wealth, not the cause of it. Don't put the cart before the horse.
And I guess I still don't get your point about foreign investment fueling bubbles. It matters not whether or not it's foreign or domestic, it's the speculative nature of it that matters. Places that attract lots of speculative investment, a lot of which comes from abroad, can certainly be in trouble. But that doesn't mean domestic speculative investment doesn't happen and isn't a major problem.
Who said anything about art by itself reversing the economy of a neighborhood? You said that art galleries and restaurants, which are BUSINESSES, don't revitalize neighborhoods, but there are plenty of examples of that very thing. Just painting an alley wall is not going to do that, but fixing up buildings to put in new businesses is exactly the type of activity that does. The first types of businesses in declined neighborhoods tend to be galleries and to a bit lesser extent, restaurants, for the simple fact that rental prices are going to be low in those conditions. The Short North was absolutely not wealthy by any definition in the late 1970s-early 1980s when art galleries first started showing up and Gallery Hop was born. Incomes were very low, crime was high and population was falling.
Arguably the hottest art neighborhood now is Franklinton, not the Short North, and Franklinton is also not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but the booming arts scene there is causing tons of interest from private development. I know Nationwide seems to be buying up everything they can right now with plans for mixed-use development.
You brought up Miami as an example of a city that suffered from being overbuilt, but a huge portion of the condo tower market was being built and sustained through foreign investors. Miami wasn't the only example in 2006, and it isn't the only example in 2016, but either way, Columbus doesn't have that influence inflating the local market beyond demand. Your assertion seems to be that MT is speculative development just as much as the Miami condo market is/was, but there is no evidence to support that. Columbus isn't being overbuilt. It is being underbuilt, so a single project like this isn't going to crash a very tight market. Even a dozen projects of this scale wouldn't.
Who said anything about art by itself reversing the economy of a neighborhood? You said that art galleries and restaurants, which are BUSINESSES, don't revitalize neighborhoods, but there are plenty of examples of that very thing. Just painting an alley wall is not going to do that, but fixing up buildings to put in new businesses is exactly the type of activity that does. The first types of businesses in declined neighborhoods tend to be galleries and to a bit lesser extent, restaurants, for the simple fact that rental prices are going to be low in those conditions. The Short North was absolutely not wealthy by any definition in the late 1970s-early 1980s when art galleries first started showing up and Gallery Hop was born. Incomes were very low, crime was high and population was falling.
Arguably the hottest art neighborhood now is Franklinton, not the Short North, and Franklinton is also not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but the booming arts scene there is causing tons of interest from private development. I know Nationwide seems to be buying up everything they can right now with plans for mixed-use development.
You brought up Miami as an example of a city that suffered from being overbuilt, but a huge portion of the condo tower market was being built and sustained through foreign investors. Miami wasn't the only example in 2006, and it isn't the only example in 2016, but either way, Columbus doesn't have that influence inflating the local market beyond demand. Your assertion seems to be that MT is speculative development just as much as the Miami condo market is/was, but there is no evidence to support that. Columbus isn't being overbuilt. It is being underbuilt, so a single project like this isn't going to crash a very tight market. Even a dozen projects of this scale wouldn't.
Look, people don't buy art who can't already afford food and housing. That's my point. Art is a lagging indicator. I don't think this is very debatable.
I don't think my point about housing is getting through. Suffice to say, I think we disagree on the state of the housing market. I'm skeptical of grand projects given current market conditions, not only in housing but really across the economy.
I'm not wishing a failure, I'm simply expressing a thought.
Look, people don't buy art who can't already afford food and housing. That's my point. Art is a lagging indicator. I don't think this is very debatable.
I don't think my point about housing is getting through. Suffice to say, I think we disagree on the state of the housing market. I'm skeptical of grand projects given current market conditions, not only in housing but really across the economy.
I'm not wishing a failure, I'm simply expressing a thought.
So your argument is that the Short North was a wealthy area in the early 1980s and that art came because of that wealth? Here are a few photos. 1-2, and 4-5 are from High, with 1, 4 and 5 from the current heart of the neighborhood. The Garden Theater photo is a bit further north. The corner building is from Italian Village and is the most recent photo of the bunch- 1998. Which just goes to show that it wasn't even that great as recently as 2000.
It's fine if you're skeptical, but you have to offer some kind or reason why you think it's all going to come crashing down. Housing construction really hasn't recovered fully in many areas. In Columbus specifically, single-family housing construction in the city, county and metro overall is less than 1/4th of what it was in the mid-2000s, and has shown zero signs of returning to what it once was.
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.
