Skyscrapers in Columbus's Future? (Franklin, Camden: crime, homes, neighborhoods)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

My concern is that people are spending their money on unnecessary dwellings, when they should be saving. Sure, do what you want with your money, but I don't think that's sustainable.

Also, that's what they said about condos in Miami in 2006. Interesting developments on that front again now, curiously.

You kind of assume that the people who would be moving into the units are blowing all of their income on the rent. We don't really know the financial situation of these people.

Miami is a unique situation in that it clearly was a speculation market and massively overbuilt. It was a good example of the kind of small-scale bubble that existed in the overall national housing market bubble in 2006. If developers there are dumb enough to do that again, well.... Regardless, that's not the situation in Columbus. You just don't have a ton of quantity of projects going up without people moving in. In fact, I would actually say that the market is being underbuilt given population growth. Between 12K-13K people are year are moving into the city, but less than 4,000 units are getting built in any given year. There is only so much existing vacant stock in addition to new builds, and that is why the city is seeing a historically low inventory and rising prices. A good example of this was reported recently about the Old Oaks neighborhood around Parson Avenue. As recently as 2012, vacancy rates in this long-declined area were nearly 40%, but just a few years later had been cut in half. Columbus could easily handle double the construction it is currently seeing without even sniffing any kind of bubble.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by gottaq

Shouldn't a city of over 800,000 people have more skyscrapers?

No, not necessarily.

[Clever nickname here]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

My concern is that people are spending their money on unnecessary dwellings, when they should be saving. Sure, do what you want with your money, but I don't think that's sustainable.

Also, that's what they said about condos in Miami in 2006. Interesting developments on that front again now, curiously.

Why are they unnecessary dwellings? If people want to live an urban walkable lifestyle wouldn't there need to be housing that allows them to do that?


I don't think Columbus will ever be a place foreign investors park their money in high-rise condos for the Miami effect.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Clever nickname here

Why are they unnecessary dwellings? If people want to live an urban walkable lifestyle wouldn't there need to be housing that allows them to do that?


I don't think Columbus will ever be a place foreign investors park their money in high-rise condos for the Miami effect.

Let me clearly rephrase: housing is not unnecessary, this type of housing is unnecessary (bells and whistles and nonsense for "millennials", i.e. glorified dorms for the graduates of the last 5-10 years).

Additionally, whether someone or foreign doesn't matter. Anytime you have people buying property on a speculative basis to use more or less as an ATM down the road, you'll run into problems. I mean, some of the hardest hit places from the housing crisis were not glamorous foreign money fueled cities.

I'm just skeptical of projects like this. That's all.

[Clever nickname here]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Let me clearly rephrase: housing is not unnecessary, this type of housing is unnecessary (bells and whistles and nonsense for "millennials", i.e. glorified dorms for the graduates of the last 5-10 years).

Additionally, whether someone or foreign doesn't matter. Anytime you have people buying property on a speculative basis to use more or less as an ATM down the road, you'll run into problems. I mean, some of the hardest hit places from the housing crisis were not glamorous foreign money fueled cities.

I'm just skeptical of projects like this. That's all.

Your example was Miami so that is pertinent to Miami.

Your new statement pertains to banks lending to people they shouldn't have contribution to last housing bubble. Along those lines, I'm in the camp of 3.5% mortgages are causing a present bubble.

I would bet more of the people moving into urban core walkable developments are well heeled empty nesters/retirees, that no longer need/want a suburban home, than millennials. It is kind of the gentrification cycle. Looking for affordable housing the creative class moves in and use their talents to raise a neighborhood up by; fixing things up, opening shops and restaurants, and then get priced out of it.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Clever nickname here

Your example was Miami so that is pertinent to Miami.

Your new statement pertains to banks lending to people they shouldn't have contribution to last housing bubble. Along those lines, I'm in the camp of 3.5% mortgages are causing a present bubble.

I would bet more of the people moving into urban core walkable developments are well heeled empty nesters/retirees, that no longer need/want a suburban home, than millennials. It is kind of the gentrification cycle. Looking for affordable housing the creative class moves in and use their talents to raise a neighborhood up by; fixing things up, opening shops and restaurants, and then get priced out of it.

I don't really buy the creative class Richard Florida stuff. I don't see how a depressed neighborhood is revived by art and restaurants. There's nothing really there that raises anyone's income or standard of living. Not in the same way that a factory could produce a ton of income for a neighborhood and its citizens (though that's way less sexy). Not really the point of this thread at all, just thought I'd respond to that one line. At least we agree there is a bubble.

[WRnative]

If the objection is to rents, there is nothing that prevents the building of high-rise condos. Certainly, multi-story condos already exist in the Columbus market.

Influencing Millennial thinking is that they don't want to commit to any market for more than several years given the increasingly transient nature of the American job market. Transaction costs, market risks, etc., don't make this preference for rental properties unreasonable.

Given the currently low, actually in some cases (but not for mortgages) negative real interest rates, an interest rate normalization could crush property values. The Great Recession collapse in residential property values certainly still informs many Millennials. Building ownership equity requires property values being stable or increasing.

I do wonder how many persons want to raise families in urban cores, but obviously in some major cities, such as NYC, this actually is considered desirable, especially for higher-income cohorts.

I don't know what Columbus is doing, but Cleveland's public school district offers a downtown-centric STEM program and a new downtown school, often in conjunction with Cleveland State's downtown campus.

MC2STEM (9-12) / MC2STEM (9-12)

https://www.csuohio.edu/cehs/campusi...ational-school

http://www.cleveland.com/architectur...f716-100981953

These enhanced educational experiences reportedly are leading to an marketed increase in the number of children living in Cleveland's downtown.

The population of children is increasing from a small base:

<< At the same time, the population of children living downtown increased [from 2010 to 2014] 189% for children ages 5 to 9 years old and 97% for children ages 0 to 5 years old.>>

http://www.crainscleveland.com/print...families-alike

Close to 700 children aged 15 or less lived in downtown Cleveland in 2013 (see residents table here).

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/med...rs_updated.pdf

If a downtown offers equity residential opportunities and enhanced educational opportunities, I could see how downtown living might be a very desirable alternative to the typical suburban family experience, especially as many suburbs are beginning to deal with more urban ills as they have aged.

Many rental properties are constructed these days to allow the easy conversion to condos if market conditions warrant it.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I don't really buy the creative class Richard Florida stuff. I don't see how a depressed neighborhood is revived by art and restaurants. There's nothing really there that raises anyone's income or standard of living. Not in the same way that a factory could produce a ton of income for a neighborhood and its citizens (though that's way less sexy). Not really the point of this thread at all, just thought I'd respond to that one line. At least we agree there is a bubble.

Um... a depressed neighborhood being revived by arts and restaurants.... isn't that the Short North?

I think the point is that there is no bubble in Columbus. That one might exist in a few cities does not make it a universal issue. Columbus doesn't have the type of massive foreign investment that Miami or NYC does that fuels those high-rise booms, so it isn't a problem there. As for the MT in particular, while I understand the marketing if for the supposed young, hip Millennial crowd, many of its amenities are attractive to many more demographics than just them. It will have zero trouble staying occupied, and there will likely be more projects of this scale, or even larger, coming to Columbus over the next decade.

[Mplsite]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Um... a depressed neighborhood being revived by arts and restaurants.... isn't that the Short North?

I think the point is that there is no bubble in Columbus. That one might exist in a few cities does not make it a universal issue. Columbus doesn't have the type of massive foreign investment that Miami or NYC does that fuels those high-rise booms, so it isn't a problem there. As for the MT in particular, while I understand the marketing if for the supposed young, hip Millennial crowd, many of its amenities are attractive to many more demographics than just them. It will have zero trouble staying occupied, and there will likely be more projects of this scale, or even larger, coming to Columbus over the next decade.

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.

[Clever nickname here]

Creative class isn't just arts. It is couple that moves into the neighborhood eyesore that has 30-40 years of referenced maintenance issues that they fix themselves, it is those that start shops and small service businesses, it is restauranteurs, micro breweries, etc.

They aren't reviving neighborhoods by raising incomes or they wouldn't get priced out in the long run. They come in and clean and fix things up and start amenities in the neighborhoods that make those areas desirable. The jobs you are talking about change whole towns and cities. I'm talking about reviving and creating amenities on the neighborhood level.

I'd add Clintonville and Grandview Height to areas on the upswing after having declined from the middle class going to further and further out suburbs.