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.
Well, it's pretty hard not to make the case for the latter even when future amenities (new shops, restaurants, bars, etc) are considered. Let's take a look at luxury apartment costs vs amenities in Cbus and NYC: The Hubbard vs The Espoir.
- Mass transit/Access
In NYC you get access to high-frequency transit running later and faster than you do in Cbus and to many more amenity rich parts of the city. This means if you get a place in the Short North, Downtown, or German Village you'll be within easy walking distance of amenities within each neighborhood, but traveling between them by bus (the staple #2 bus which traverses urban neighborhoods Downtown-Clintonville leaves out easy reliable access to German Village) can be a long haul if you're heading from Downtown or GV up to Old North or Clintonville. In NYC you have many more desirable neighborhoods and a subway system to quickly reach them instead of sitting on a bus that stops almost every block and is only remotely reliable on a few routes.
- Housing & Walkability:
In the heart of Williamsburg we have a newer mid-rise luxury building (The Espoir) with a 1bd/1ba apartment going for $3,100/month for 600 sq ft (prices not listed on the website) while The Hubbard apartments in the heart of the Short North will start at $1475/month for 758 sq ft. Compare any amenity, whether it's bars (NYC vs Cbus), restaurants (NYC vs Cbus), grocery stores (NYC vs Cbus) or record stores (NYC vs Cbus) and you'll notice a common theme: in Cbus the density of amenities is by and large only on one short strip while in NYC there are several more such dense strips all around. In NYC you'll pay a bit over 2x than you would in Cbus for a slightly smaller apartment, but within the surrounding area alone you have roughly as much as all of Columbus' desirable urban neighborhoods offer within reasonable walking distance. Not only that, but there are more and more vibrant areas outside of this to choose from rather than Cbus where High St is it. So, at The Espoir you pay double and get at least 10x as much whereas at The Hubbard you'll save over half, but have far below half as many amenities.
Is this how the Bus expects to woo urbanites who are deciding between staying there or moving to one of those more amenity rich cities which seem to almost always be on a one of the coasts? Because between the two I'm finding the case for Columbus a very tough one to make, but go right ahead if you can.
First, even for you, this must be a low point in your ridiculous comparisons. MSP was bad enough, but now you're seriously trying to compare NYC's urbanity to Columbus'? Why not Tokyo or London?
Second, no matter how outrageous you think the prices are or how different you think the neighborhoods are, the fact is that the local market dictates price points on residential units. If developers weren't getting people renting their units at those prices, they wouldn't be at those prices to begin with. Occupancy rates are extremely high (98%-99%, and in some cases, 100%), so I'm not sure what your argument here is. The city of Columbus isn't setting rental rates. Private developers are, and so far, they're having plenty of people willing to pay. Apparently, a lot of people disagree with you on the value of Columbus' urban neighborhoods, and let's be honest, that's what really bothers you.
There is a huge difference between 600 sq ft and a 758 sq ft. for starters. Secondly, as the prior person alluded to, it's about the demand. a person in Williamsburg has plenty of luxury apartments to choose from than a person here. Most renters that get a job in Columbus choose to live in Columbus.
There is a huge difference between 600 sq ft and a 758 sq ft. for starters. Secondly, as the prior person alluded to, it's about the demand. a person in Williamsburg has plenty of luxury apartments to choose from than a person here. If a renter only has the option of Columbus apartments then Brooklyn apartments aren't relevant.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
Yep. The OP acts like paying $3,100/month is pretty reasonable, but that is WAY out of the price range for a good portion of the population. Paying less than half that rate for more space, in comparison, is just going to appeal to more people, regardless of personal feelings on a specific neighborhood's level of urban amenities.
I pay about $1,500/month on a 3 bed, 3 bath house with about 3,500 sf here in Mexico City. I have extremely high levels of density and amenities within walking distance, but I also live in a neighborhood that is not as in high demand as others nearby, which has kept prices lower... for now. Demand makes a hell of a difference on pricing. The Short North has very high demand, and it shows. I suspect that urban amenities will only increase there over time.
Yep. The OP acts like paying $3,100/month is pretty reasonable, but that is WAY out of the price range for a good portion of the population. Paying less than half that rate for more space, in comparison, is just going to appeal to more people, regardless of personal feelings on a specific neighborhood's level of urban amenities.
I pay about $1,500/month on a 3 bed, 3 bath house with about 3,500 sf here in Mexico City. I have extremely high levels of density and amenities within walking distance, but I also live in a neighborhood that is not as in high demand as others nearby, which has kept prices lower... for now. Demand makes a hell of a difference on pricing. The Short North has very high demand, and it shows. I suspect that urban amenities will only increase there over time.
Paying $1475 for Short North amenities is less reasonable than $3,100 for over 10x the amenities and guess what? BOTH are WAY out of the price range for a good portion of the population. Paying half for a bit more space and way, way fewer amenities is, "just going to appeal to more people, regardless of personal feelings on a specific neighborhood's level of urban amenities."? So why isn't OKC's population booming several times faster than Cbus? It's cheaper and has even way more less to do! By your logic you can't wait to move there (oh wait, you're living in a dense urban neighborhood in Mexico, never mind!)
Hate to break it to you, but personal feelings have nothing to do with one having objectively a myriad more amenities than the other. It's simple arithmetic. In fact, if "more people" find the Short North more appealing then why is such a building a rarity in the Short North but so commonplace in Williamsburg? Perhaps the latter is just more appealing despite personal feelings? I even mentioned future amenities in the Short North not playing a significant role and they clearly won't. Unless, another half dozen or so equally dense commercial areas spring up within walking distance in the next decade. They won't, of course, not even the rest of the urban neighborhoods could improve enough to offset this (the city isn't investing in them for that to possibly happen). You can cite demand all you want, but for plenty of sane people it makes more sense to pay a bit more for a multitude more amenities than save half and live in the Short North where there's only enough demand for three luxury residential buildings five stories or more: this, The Dakota, and The Jackson. Clearly so much more demand in the Short North than Williamsburg. Maybe if they bulldoze everything in the area except for a one mile stretch, a la the Short North, Williamsburg could dream of becoming as popular as the Short North.
Paying $1475 for Short North amenities is less reasonable than $3,100 for over 10x the amenities and guess what? BOTH are WAY out of the price range for a good portion of the population. Paying half for a bit more space and way, way fewer amenities is, "just going to appeal to more people, regardless of personal feelings on a specific neighborhood's level of urban amenities."? So why isn't OKC's population booming several times faster than Cbus? It's cheaper and has even way more less to do! By your logic you can't wait to move there (oh wait, you're living in a dense urban neighborhood in Mexico, never mind!)
Hate to break it to you, but personal feelings have nothing to do with one having objectively a myriad more amenities than the other. It's simple arithmetic. In fact, if "more people" find the Short North more appealing then why is such a building a rarity in the Short North but so commonplace in Williamsburg? Perhaps the latter is just more appealing despite personal feelings? I even mentioned future amenities in the Short North not playing a significant role and they clearly won't. Unless, another half dozen or so equally dense commercial areas spring up within walking distance in the next decade. They won't, of course, not even the rest of the urban neighborhoods could improve enough to offset this (the city isn't investing in them for that to possibly happen). You can cite demand all you want, but for plenty of sane people it makes more sense to pay a bit more for a multitude more amenities than save half and live in the Short North where there's only enough demand for three luxury residential buildings five stories or more: this, The Dakota, and The Jackson. Clearly so much more demand in the Short North than Williamsburg. Maybe if they bulldoze everything in the area except for a one mile stretch, a la the Short North, Williamsburg could dream of becoming as popular as the Short North.
You must live in a world where people can freely choose to live anywhere, as if budgets play no part whatsoever. That's literally the only kind of world in which what you're saying makes any sense. You pay for what you can reasonably afford, and the level of amenities that go with that price range. Whether or not the SN has the amenities to make it worthwhile relative to the cost of living there is debatable, but clearly, occupancy rates and pricing suggest that many people seem to believe that it is. You would have more of a point if that wasn't the case and the SN was struggling to find renters. It's not... at all.
OKC is growing faster than Columbus. And MSP. And NYC. I would not argue that OKC is better or worse than any of those cities, or that Columbus is better than NYC. We're talking about value relative to the population, and what the population can afford. You seem to believe that having 10x more amenities near a location magically means people can afford the associated costs that come with having all that. That's nonsensical.
What kind of building is a rarity in the Short North?
And yes, I get that you have no idea what's going on in Columbus, developmentally, or you wouldn't feel the need to keep repeating that the city is not investing any money in its neighborhoods. K-L and Franklinton, just in the past few months, have seen announcements for hundreds of millions in investment, and those are just 2 neighborhoods. Repeating a lie over and over again has never and will never make it true.
You equate sanity with being able to afford $3,000/month? See, I equate that with employment and income, not mental health. But then again, I live in reality, and you live in Sim City.
These two cities have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared at all. You're talking about a medium sized Midwestern city and THE biggest city in the country.
Why don't you compare the bicycle to the automobile? And note how the automobile gets you to SO MANY more amenities SO MUCH faster?
But if your point was to really look at "amenities per rental dollar" or whatever you were blathering about, why don't you compare NYC and San Francisco?
I was in Manhattan for 5 days in the beginning of July. Did the whole tourist thing. Hot, smelly, dirty, and expensive. Never want to go back unless I win the Powerball jackpot.
Lame. Lets compare Williamsburg NY to Williamsburg OH next.
Lets not forget that all those amenities that surround Williamsburg, cost 2X/3X what they cost in the Short North. Also, lets talk about rent comparison, you need to look at per SF cost, The Espoir = 5.17/SF and Short North Comes in at 1.95/SF. That's 260% more expensive in NY. Also, what is the fit and finish of the two rentals you are comparing? Is parking included, utilities, trash, bike storage, recycling.....
Why the broad generalization about the ppl wanting these apartments anyways? Prospect Park is great, wouldn't want to live there forever. Therefore the Short North is a great adjustment for somebody that enjoys living in an urban environment but has had enough of the high speed, extremely expensive NY lifestyle. It works for a while, but some people don't want to live there forever. This is nowhere close to apples to apples, you are looking at (2) different types of ppl, or at least someone who is looking at changing where they are and are aware they are looking at a different lifestyle.
Just a side note, the Short North does not stand alone as an island of amenities, on a bike I can be to Campus, Downtown, German Village, Grandview, Upper Arlington, ect all within 15 minutes or less. Those areas are all self supporting neighborhoods with their own amenities. This will only increase with the connection of all the bike paths.
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.
Because between the two I'm finding the case for Columbus a very tough one to make, but go right ahead if you can.
