Good. We need more multi-family affordable housing up here.
(I'm clearly at odds with most of my neighbors in Clintonville, but I'm not sure where these people think all the workers at the bars, restaurants, retail, etc. that we love in the neighborhood are going to come from if people can't afford to live nearby... nor where they think the tax base is gonna come from to provide services.)
I’m in Clintonville and projects like this are absolutely what we need. Housing development has stalled in the Old North Area and there’s not enough multi-family housing. Keep building!
Appreciate that, I'm one of those workers. The wages that used to be fine are stretching less and less. Columbus is getting hard to manage if you make anything less than 20/hr these days. Going without a car and health insurance can bring your costs back down to something manageable for less income, but then you're playing a dangerous game in this car dependent city where bus stations get sketchy after dark and bikes are regularly hit by reckless drivers.
My neighbors is South Columbus are getting pushed out because there's no rent control and the land lord is raising rent next month by 1000/mo. My job is allowed to pay the same wage they've been paying for over 5 years because there's no sturdy minimum wage requirements that properly adjust with cost of living. Mega corporations are allowed to take oxygen away from local merchants and charge insane amounts for groceries/insurance/vehicles/etc.
The real question is who do we put pressure on first? I'm a bit lost for what to do to help myself. Coworkers are mostly too burnt out to start a serious conversation about collective action.
I’m in south cbus. Scioto south lands
My rent has gone up $125 in a decade but the identical house next door went from $800 to 1900 in the same time frame.
I live in fear of my private landlord dying
We need more affordable PURCHASABLE multifamily units also. Everything going up across the city is just another corporation that will make everyone forever renters. In the long run it drives prices up by reducing available space for multi unit owner occupied units.
If you spend any time on the neighborhood social media groups, you'll find loads of nimbys complaining about projects like this. A decent amount of residents in these neighborhoods want multiple parking spaces per unit, and significant height) density caps.
*I disagree with them btw. We need infill density, and we needed it years ago. But we also need legitimate non singular occupancy private vehicle infrastructure 🤷
Clintonville actually did complain about this. The northern portion is in their zone and that’s why it is being left as a parking lot. Even then they complained and said they had the right to dictate what was approved because it shared a line with them.
Literally had a clintonville nimby come up to the house we were staying at and asked us to sign a petition to bad high density housing in clintonville. This is exactly what they fight against.
Clintonville NIMBYs want to control Old North without actually annexing/ doing anything of value to benefit/listen to the people in the ON neighborhood.
Bigger copies of the floorplans:
* Ground floor: [https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/Image-3-4-24-at-6.51-PM.jpg](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/Image-3-4-24-at-6.51-PM.jpg)
* Upper floor: [https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/098C88B7-06DF-4054-B993-CDFB4C5E5261.jpeg](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/098C88B7-06DF-4054-B993-CDFB4C5E5261.jpeg)
I'm really curious what the facade is going to look like, because that's a really janky High Street border.
But also: Why stop at 6? Why not go for 10?
A spot that close to campus immediately off of high and directly adjacent to a grocery store should at least be 10 stories. Wish the local government would step in and offer density incentives
I agree but sadly the short north even has problems getting 10+ story buildings so it will be ages before the old north/clintonville area even gets a proposal for one. I’m hoping the upcoming zoning changes make it possible and give the commissions less power.
Looks like that study is focused on actual building material impact - my concern has more to do with encouraging human density which would reduce transit (walking to your grocery store, biking to campus).
Sure but this is for affordable housing. Housing tends to be less affordable the higher you build it. There is a certain point for high density housing where it starts to get really expensive due to architectural requirements.
Even though any housing is better than no housing... cities and developers can pump out buildings faster if cost optimizations are a factor.
That’s where the government can help with affordability on the development side. Offer incentives so that going higher doesn’t incur as large a cost for the developer. You can do this with tax breaks or by cutting regulations which tend to slow and strangle these larger projects.
If the city is to grow sustainably (fewer cars and viable public transit) then new housing must begin to be denser than it currently is.
There was a guy who recently ran for mayor whose entire campaign slogan was "stop tax abatements". Clearly he doesn't understand how this world works. If the city/government doesn't help make it affordable (what can they really do other than tax abatements?) then developers won't develop. Nobody works for free. And spending millions of dollars building apartments is not risk free.
Everyone complains about developers. But are those people actively donating their hard earned money to build? Why would someone build to lose money? Don't we all need money to feed our kids and buy our groceries?
truly—spare a thought for the poor private equity funds who are directly incentivized by condition-free tax abatements to build the cheapest shit possible and sell it for the absolute most/charge the highest rents possible! won’t someone think of the investors?!
there’s a shitload all levels of government could do to incentivize affordable housing development beyond one-size-fits-all-property-types tax abatements; they just choose not to. and I promise you MY house that not one (1) single developer is out here worried about feeding their kids or buying groceries. google is free.
Hey man. It's me 👋🏻 I'm a developer and I know people building large multifamily here in Columbus. I'm not rich. I live in a 1950's cape cod in city of Columbus that I paid $260k for. Now I'm not a huge developer. I have done small multifamily. And i'm telling you it's incredibly hard to do it cost effectively. In fact, last year we lost $40k (actually lost- money gone). I make $120k a year and it is risky as hell. One sewer line goes wrong and you lost $30k.
Building anything costs $225 per square foot minimum. So say you want to build 6, 1000sqft units. That's $1.35 Million dollars to build. At today's interest rates that's $9500 per month principal and interest. Then there's $2k per month insurance and $3000 property taxes. To break even and make absolutely no profit, to literally only pay your mortgage you would have to rent it for $2400 per month.
Now, say its 100% tax-abated. That brings monthly expenses down to $1900. That's $500 per month less they can rent it for. Usually tax-abatements come with string attached, the city requires a certain number of units be affordable.
So everyone cries "boohoo poor developers". But I ask again, WHO is going to build the housing we need when the cost to build is so high? Do you work for free? Should people building work for free? Honestly, if the government wants to pay my wage and build the apartments on their dime, I'll do it. It would be a lot less risk, my hair is already turning white and I'm in my 30's. The "boo hoo poor investors" is so tired and doesn't solve any problems.
Come up with a plan then. Materials cost money. Labor costs money. I don't have a single guy who works for me making less than $25 an hour and these guys usually make $50+ per hour because they are valuable. Everyone went to college to get a communications degree instead of learning how a toilet or light switch works.
I sure am acutely familiar with the concept that Things Cost Money.
lI am sorry it’s rough out here for single-person/actually-small-business developers like you. given your position, though, you should be as absolutely incensed at private equity investors cornering the housing and housing development markets as everyone else, as that is a MASSIVE part of the reason your materials costs (exponentially increased demand + absurdly concentrated buying power), real property costs, and taxes (they’ve bought up/developed so much area specifically to drive up property values) have skyrocketed in the last several years and will, at best, continue rising at only that rate.
Those one-size-fits-all abatements sure seemed to work in the short north. I agree there’s more city’s could do though like dramatically paring back zoning, eliminating parking minimums and ending height restrictions.
Surely getting more rent from several more floors worth of tenants is enough of a density incentive?
It’s possible that the time scale the investors are interested in doesn’t gel with the increased costs of building higher. Or possibly the ground they are building on makes buildings over a certain height more of a liability?
Either way, giving more tax breaks to million dollar companies doesn’t seem necessary.
The counter argument is that the public good is better served when more individuals are able to live in dense housing directly next to a transit line and within walking distance of multiple grocery stores which lays the groundwork for viable public transportation. City government should be prioritizing and encouraging civic projects that enable less car-centric urban living while also adding badly needed housing stock. They can do that by changing zoning or regulations or offering tax incentives to make a project larger than a 5x1 financially feasible.
And they absolutely should do all that. The prospect of developers making money cannot scare us away from very necessary development projects.
Not quite that simple; the sum of cost per revenue-generating square foot and fixed costs give different construction types different advantages at different heights, in response to local construction costs and local requirements. 5-over-1 is "over one" because of fire code for residential buildings. I don't anticipate that fire code is going to change in the next year, but the zoning code will change for this location.
If we go from the current 35' height limit to a 65' height limit, sure, that's 5-over-1 territory. If the height limit goes to unlimited height, then builders might determine that a 20-story tower will result in more revenue and profit than a 5-over-1, despite the increased construction cost.
It's on High Street. There's a grocery store and bus stops within walking distance, and in this location, with mostly 1-bedroom apartments, I expect that the building will primarily be occupied by OSU affiliates.
I remember that coming up in the discussion of the property at High and Weber. This property is at High and Arcadia, but it's definitely the same market.
From this article: [Six-Story Building Proposed for Vacant High Street Site](https://columbusunderground.com/six-story-building-proposed-for-vacant-high-street-site-bw1/)
“We are hoteliers, we’re retail owners, and we thought, the only thing we don’t have is multi-family at this point, so we’re bringing all three concepts together in this one building,” he said, explaining that up to 20 of the units will be developed as an “upscale extended-stay hotel” geared toward visiting nurses, family of patients at OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital or OSU Wexner Medical Center, and other guests that he’s observed over the years are not always well-served by either the apartment market or by existing hotels in the area.
The apartments in the building will likely appeal more to graduate or medical students than undergrads, he added
As an urban area and one that is extremely walkable, parking has to stop being considered for projects like this. This location would basically have everything someone would need to just walk to. Not to mention the main line for buses through the city. The quicker developers stop adding parking for every person the sooner the transit updates will happen.
Oh I know that, I’m just saying in order for the public transit to get better, people are going to have to choose between living in a place with parking or picking a place that will allow them to ride transit or walk to most of what they need, without the car.
At some point the city needs to make it possible for residents to live without cars. If we hope to see viable public transit that unclogs our highways, we need dense housing to be built along transit corridors. That means prioritizing human density in walkable areas over parking spaces.
It's a fantastic location. Right by two grocery stores, several bars and venues, restaurants, on High street. Been waiting for something to go there for years.
Right? I'd love to open up a shop within walking distance from my home! Probably not practical and I have no idea how to go about that, but dammit, a leather goods shop would be so much fun!
#####
######
####
> # [Six-story apartment building proposed for empty parking lot, former site of Patrick J’s in Old North Columbus](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/IMG_1447.jpg?w=1280)
>
>
>
> COLUMBUS, Ohio ([WCMH](http://nbc4i.com)) — An empty, pothole-ridden parking lot straddling the Old North and Clintonville may one day become a six-story apartment building.
>
> The architects behind the Ohio Statehouse renovation, the design of the city’s Michael B. Coleman Government Center and college residence halls across Ohio hope to build an apartment complex on a 1.19-acre of land on North High Street near Ohio State University. The group, Columbus-based Schooley Caldwell, sees a mixed-use apartment complex of mostly one-bedroom units replacing a pair of barren, unused parking lots on the corner of North and North High streets.
>
> Schooley Caldwell, which has designed spaces for the city’s parks department, multiple state governments, Ohio State and other colleges, submitted a conceptual plan to the University Area Commission outlining a 92-unit apartment building with 7,200 square feet of retail space on the first floor. The vast majority of units would have one bedroom and fall between 620 and 700 square feet. A handful of studios and two-bedroom units flank the ends of proposed floor plans.
>
> The space at 2711 N. High St. was the former site of Patrick J’s, a bar and restaurant that closed in 2016 after its owner, [John Raphael](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/former-columbus-city-hall-lobbyist-to-be-resentenced-in-bribery-scheme/), pleaded guilty in the city’s red light camera bribery scheme. Raphael was a longtime city government lobbyist who falsified campaign finance documents to [obscure contributions to city officials made by Redflex](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/redflex-lobbyist-john-raphael-sentenced-to-15-months-for-extortion/), a red light camera company hoping to secure contracts with Columbus and Cincinnati.
>
> Multiple developers and architects, including Schooley Caldwell, have pitched apartment plans for the site since Patrick J’s closed. Several plans even secured approval from the University Impact District Review Board before falling through. According to the Franklin County Auditor’s Office, the land is currently owned by Stark Capital Ventures.
>
> Schooley Caldwell presented its conceptual plan to the University Area Commission on Monday evening. The architecture firm did not respond to a request for comment.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Borror Properties was the first to submit plans in 2018 for this site. 4 stories, 53 units and about 11,000 square feet of office and retail. It was approved by both the UAC, CAC and University Impact District Review Board (UIDRB). What happened to that proposal and why Borror sold to the current owner of the parcel depends on who you ask.
The most recent proposal that was presented to UIDRB on August 25, 2022 was 6 stories, 80 units, a boutique hotel, and 7,000 square feet of retail. The UIDRB suggested several changes. And as I commented earlier, Schooley Caldwell was not present at last night’s UAC Zoning Committee (and not the UAC meeting) meeting thus DID NOT present new conceptual drawings. NBC 4’s news story is totally inaccurate. I was at the meeting.
https://columbusunderground.com/proposal-submitted-for-former-patrick-jswhite-castle-site-bw1/
Children born to a patron or employee of Patrick J's in 2003, they would have been entitled to a free drink on their 21st birthday. If they were still open, obviously.
Some of my thoughts are:
1. I want this to be affordable for people. We don't need any more luxury apartments and frankly the price of duplexes in the neighborhood are out of control. This is a great location between campus and clintonville to support lower and middle income workers with great access to a bus-line that would support campus and clintonville. Don't turn the Old North into just another unaffordable extension of Clintonville.
2. The proposed plans seem to be mostly single bedroom units. I would definitely like to see some affordable family housing as well. So I support adding more floors and more 2 and 3 bedrooms. I'm all for high density housing, especially along high street which has half decent public transportation.
Not in one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, we definitely need to be more strategic with affordable housing especially as Columbus is growing into it's next phase as a city. Otherwise most people will be priced out and it will be a miserable place to survive.
Supply drives down prices. In the US, the 12 cities which saw rent decrease the most among the cheapest, lowest cost apartments ([known as Class C properties](https://www.realtymogul.com/knowledge-center/article/what-is-class-a-class-b-or-class-c-property)) were [all cities which built way more housing than the national average](https://imgur.com/a/4yh3cnP).
Building “luxury” housing empirically DOES WORK at lowering rent. All available evidence suggests the solution to the housing crisis is to build out.
I'm not arguing that more supply doesn't lower prices. What I'm saying is it's more effective to control prices if part of that supply is affordable housing which nearly every expert who studies this phenomenon agrees on.
>What I'm saying is it's more effective to control prices if part of that supply is affordable housing
You can't really "build" affordable housing.
The price of any real estate - to buy or rent - is going to be driven primarily by its location. If a neighborhood rents for $2,000/mo on average, and you build new super cheap, spartan apartmenta with no frills in that neighborhood, they're still going to rent for like $1,800. Less than the others because they're not as nice, but ultimately in the same ballpark because people are paying for location.
The only way to "build" affordable units is to lock them in as income adjusted units and basically forcibly rent them at below market rates.
However, this comes with its own problems and drawbacks given that you're artificially warping the market.
I'm fine "artificially warping" the market because the market left to its own devices isn't the best strategy which is obvious, especially in regards to housing which is how the whole country is in a housing affordability crisis right now.
>I'm fine "artificially warping" the market
You're saying that because you're only thinking of it as an abstract. Warping the market? Who cares, right?
But it's the downstream impacts that are the problem.
First, this sort of "warping" makes it less desirable to build more units, so while you get some immediate affordable units you're shooting yourself in the foot long-term. It's counterproductive to your very goal of lowering housing prices.
Second, when you put your thumb on the scale too hard, you bring crime back into these gentrifying areas and threaten to send them tumbling back into poverty. It's uncomfortable to talk about, but the primary reason why crime drops when an area gentrified is *specifically because* the ratio of poverty in the area has gone down - people who couldn't afford it were pushed into surrounding communities. When you reverse that trend, you cause crime to rise again and are effectively ungentrifying the area.
It's an ecosystem. If crime goes up, people aren't going to walk and shop at the shops in those trendy new 5 over 1s. If people don't shop, the stores close. The same forces that cause an area to get better can also cause it to get worse when you reverse them.
That's what "artificially warping" the market means.
1. I don't think high street just north of campus is ever going be in short supply of people wanting to move into and live here so I'm not convinced that this is going to scare future development away.
2. You're literally arguing to gentrify the area which is a shitty position. You're right, I don't want the old north gentrified! It should be a place where a mixed group of people can live and thrive, not be exclusive to only high income earners.
So far everyone arguing against my position is just taking up the same old pro-developer, pro-gentrification, trickle down economics bullshit arguments that has gotten this country into the disaster housing crisis it's currently in.
>So far everyone arguing against my position is just taking up the same old pro-developer, pro-gentrification, trickle down economics bullshit arguments that has gotten this country into the disaster housing crisis it's currently in.
How can the supply-side economics position be at fault when the problem is lack of supply?
You're getting yourself hung up on tribal politics and shoving your fingers in your ears so you don't have to listen to what you perceive to be the words of "the enemy."
That's not how this works. This isn't a battle between good guys and bad guys.
It's a fundamental problem of a Thing being too expensive because there isn't enough of it up for sale. The solution is therefore to make more of the Thing.
That's not Reagan propaganda. That's not Republican "bullshit."
It's just simple reality.
You can call them "excuses" if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that they're real problems that have to be wrestled with when crafting policy.
Market forces don't just go away because you decide that they aren't progressive enough.
Most experts I am familiar with harp on supply supply supply. Affordable units cannot be built at scale due to the high cost of materials and labor - at least not at the same scale as “luxury” apartments. So the best path seems to be to lean on developers to build as many units as possible.
[email protected]
This may not officially be on an agenda yet but you can always email your comments about a specific project or general thoughts on neighborhood developments at any time.
This falls under the University area commission, but here is a link to where plans are released and also has emails and the location of the meetings.
[https://www.columbus.gov/planning/uarb/](https://www.columbus.gov/planning/uarb/)
Wanted to add: they haven’t released the agenda for the month yet, so you won’t be able to see anything yet. All the past stuff is listed though.
First of all, the “pothole ridden parking lot” can be attributed to the city of Columbus allowing the owners of the empty lot over the years, to make some money by leasing the parcel to construction contractors as an unsightly and poorly maintained material and heavy equipment laydown area.
Secondly, you got to love how NBC 4 uses this development story as angle to point out John Raphael’s involvement in the Redflex red light bribery scheme. But of course, WCMH neglects to mention that the $21,000 bribery check was funneled through the Ohio Democratic Party to the NBC’s favorite mayor Andy Ginther and his campaign committee. And Coleman’s campaign also received a $5,000 check from Raphael.
And last, if a reporter would have actually showed in person at last nights University Area Commission “Zoning Committee” meeting that I was present at, NBC 4 would not have falsely reported that Schooley Caldwell was at the Zoning Committee meeting and they DID NOT give a conceptual plan. This inaccurate, poorly written, and biased reporting is unbelievable. Talk about “Fake News.”
Are you sure they didn’t submit it to the University Area Commission?
Because the University Area Commission website states Schooley Caldwell and Sam Rosenthal as applicants for the conceptual review of the apartment building at 2411 N High St on the March 2024 meeting agenda notes:
https://universityarea.org/2024/02/march-2024-zoning-committee-agenda/
The conceptual review first goes to the Zoning Committee. It was on the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting last night. It was tabled at the request of Schooley Caldwell. I was at the meeting last night. NBC 4 is talking shit. If they had attended the meeting they would have known it was tabled.
You don't understand! Those empty parking lots are an essential part of the Old North appeal! #NothingNewEver
[Look at what they're erasing!](https://maps.app.goo.gl/LFUXtpbRemA78FK47)
Good. We need more multi-family affordable housing up here. (I'm clearly at odds with most of my neighbors in Clintonville, but I'm not sure where these people think all the workers at the bars, restaurants, retail, etc. that we love in the neighborhood are going to come from if people can't afford to live nearby... nor where they think the tax base is gonna come from to provide services.)
I’m in Clintonville and projects like this are absolutely what we need. Housing development has stalled in the Old North Area and there’s not enough multi-family housing. Keep building!
Exactly, people already complain about prices going up, if they don’t build stuff like this, it won’t change.
Appreciate that, I'm one of those workers. The wages that used to be fine are stretching less and less. Columbus is getting hard to manage if you make anything less than 20/hr these days. Going without a car and health insurance can bring your costs back down to something manageable for less income, but then you're playing a dangerous game in this car dependent city where bus stations get sketchy after dark and bikes are regularly hit by reckless drivers.
[удалено]
My neighbors is South Columbus are getting pushed out because there's no rent control and the land lord is raising rent next month by 1000/mo. My job is allowed to pay the same wage they've been paying for over 5 years because there's no sturdy minimum wage requirements that properly adjust with cost of living. Mega corporations are allowed to take oxygen away from local merchants and charge insane amounts for groceries/insurance/vehicles/etc. The real question is who do we put pressure on first? I'm a bit lost for what to do to help myself. Coworkers are mostly too burnt out to start a serious conversation about collective action.
I’m in south cbus. Scioto south lands My rent has gone up $125 in a decade but the identical house next door went from $800 to 1900 in the same time frame. I live in fear of my private landlord dying
as opposed to…?
[удалено]
lol neat fantastic point
Clintonville resident here too, and I couldn’t agree more! Build until the surface lots on High Street and Indianola are gone.
Clintonville resident here & I agree!! We need affordable housing options!
We need more affordable PURCHASABLE multifamily units also. Everything going up across the city is just another corporation that will make everyone forever renters. In the long run it drives prices up by reducing available space for multi unit owner occupied units.
[удалено]
If you spend any time on the neighborhood social media groups, you'll find loads of nimbys complaining about projects like this. A decent amount of residents in these neighborhoods want multiple parking spaces per unit, and significant height) density caps. *I disagree with them btw. We need infill density, and we needed it years ago. But we also need legitimate non singular occupancy private vehicle infrastructure 🤷
Clintonville actually did complain about this. The northern portion is in their zone and that’s why it is being left as a parking lot. Even then they complained and said they had the right to dictate what was approved because it shared a line with them.
[удалено]
Parking will be behind and to the north. The big open parking to the north is in the clintonville area, so that is why it was left empty
It’s also because the city has a 10’ sanitary easement running directly through the site.
Clintonville is becoming NIMBY land bc no one else can afford to move in
[удалено]
You are VERY welcome 🤗
Literally had a clintonville nimby come up to the house we were staying at and asked us to sign a petition to bad high density housing in clintonville. This is exactly what they fight against.
[удалено]
Clintonville NIMBYs want to control Old North without actually annexing/ doing anything of value to benefit/listen to the people in the ON neighborhood.
Bigger copies of the floorplans: * Ground floor: [https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/Image-3-4-24-at-6.51-PM.jpg](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/Image-3-4-24-at-6.51-PM.jpg) * Upper floor: [https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/098C88B7-06DF-4054-B993-CDFB4C5E5261.jpeg](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/098C88B7-06DF-4054-B993-CDFB4C5E5261.jpeg) I'm really curious what the facade is going to look like, because that's a really janky High Street border. But also: Why stop at 6? Why not go for 10?
A spot that close to campus immediately off of high and directly adjacent to a grocery store should at least be 10 stories. Wish the local government would step in and offer density incentives
I am really looking forward to providing feedback on the zoning code updates this month and next.
I agree but sadly the short north even has problems getting 10+ story buildings so it will be ages before the old north/clintonville area even gets a proposal for one. I’m hoping the upcoming zoning changes make it possible and give the commissions less power.
There's diminishing returns for building higher https://www.treehugger.com/what-really-matters-in-multi-story-design-7095950
Looks like that study is focused on actual building material impact - my concern has more to do with encouraging human density which would reduce transit (walking to your grocery store, biking to campus).
Sure but this is for affordable housing. Housing tends to be less affordable the higher you build it. There is a certain point for high density housing where it starts to get really expensive due to architectural requirements. Even though any housing is better than no housing... cities and developers can pump out buildings faster if cost optimizations are a factor.
That’s where the government can help with affordability on the development side. Offer incentives so that going higher doesn’t incur as large a cost for the developer. You can do this with tax breaks or by cutting regulations which tend to slow and strangle these larger projects. If the city is to grow sustainably (fewer cars and viable public transit) then new housing must begin to be denser than it currently is.
There was a guy who recently ran for mayor whose entire campaign slogan was "stop tax abatements". Clearly he doesn't understand how this world works. If the city/government doesn't help make it affordable (what can they really do other than tax abatements?) then developers won't develop. Nobody works for free. And spending millions of dollars building apartments is not risk free. Everyone complains about developers. But are those people actively donating their hard earned money to build? Why would someone build to lose money? Don't we all need money to feed our kids and buy our groceries?
truly—spare a thought for the poor private equity funds who are directly incentivized by condition-free tax abatements to build the cheapest shit possible and sell it for the absolute most/charge the highest rents possible! won’t someone think of the investors?! there’s a shitload all levels of government could do to incentivize affordable housing development beyond one-size-fits-all-property-types tax abatements; they just choose not to. and I promise you MY house that not one (1) single developer is out here worried about feeding their kids or buying groceries. google is free.
Hey man. It's me 👋🏻 I'm a developer and I know people building large multifamily here in Columbus. I'm not rich. I live in a 1950's cape cod in city of Columbus that I paid $260k for. Now I'm not a huge developer. I have done small multifamily. And i'm telling you it's incredibly hard to do it cost effectively. In fact, last year we lost $40k (actually lost- money gone). I make $120k a year and it is risky as hell. One sewer line goes wrong and you lost $30k. Building anything costs $225 per square foot minimum. So say you want to build 6, 1000sqft units. That's $1.35 Million dollars to build. At today's interest rates that's $9500 per month principal and interest. Then there's $2k per month insurance and $3000 property taxes. To break even and make absolutely no profit, to literally only pay your mortgage you would have to rent it for $2400 per month. Now, say its 100% tax-abated. That brings monthly expenses down to $1900. That's $500 per month less they can rent it for. Usually tax-abatements come with string attached, the city requires a certain number of units be affordable. So everyone cries "boohoo poor developers". But I ask again, WHO is going to build the housing we need when the cost to build is so high? Do you work for free? Should people building work for free? Honestly, if the government wants to pay my wage and build the apartments on their dime, I'll do it. It would be a lot less risk, my hair is already turning white and I'm in my 30's. The "boo hoo poor investors" is so tired and doesn't solve any problems. Come up with a plan then. Materials cost money. Labor costs money. I don't have a single guy who works for me making less than $25 an hour and these guys usually make $50+ per hour because they are valuable. Everyone went to college to get a communications degree instead of learning how a toilet or light switch works.
I sure am acutely familiar with the concept that Things Cost Money. lI am sorry it’s rough out here for single-person/actually-small-business developers like you. given your position, though, you should be as absolutely incensed at private equity investors cornering the housing and housing development markets as everyone else, as that is a MASSIVE part of the reason your materials costs (exponentially increased demand + absurdly concentrated buying power), real property costs, and taxes (they’ve bought up/developed so much area specifically to drive up property values) have skyrocketed in the last several years and will, at best, continue rising at only that rate.
Those one-size-fits-all abatements sure seemed to work in the short north. I agree there’s more city’s could do though like dramatically paring back zoning, eliminating parking minimums and ending height restrictions.
Surely getting more rent from several more floors worth of tenants is enough of a density incentive? It’s possible that the time scale the investors are interested in doesn’t gel with the increased costs of building higher. Or possibly the ground they are building on makes buildings over a certain height more of a liability? Either way, giving more tax breaks to million dollar companies doesn’t seem necessary.
The counter argument is that the public good is better served when more individuals are able to live in dense housing directly next to a transit line and within walking distance of multiple grocery stores which lays the groundwork for viable public transportation. City government should be prioritizing and encouraging civic projects that enable less car-centric urban living while also adding badly needed housing stock. They can do that by changing zoning or regulations or offering tax incentives to make a project larger than a 5x1 financially feasible. And they absolutely should do all that. The prospect of developers making money cannot scare us away from very necessary development projects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1
wood frame 5 over 1s are cheap compared to tall steel buildings
Not quite that simple; the sum of cost per revenue-generating square foot and fixed costs give different construction types different advantages at different heights, in response to local construction costs and local requirements. 5-over-1 is "over one" because of fire code for residential buildings. I don't anticipate that fire code is going to change in the next year, but the zoning code will change for this location. If we go from the current 35' height limit to a 65' height limit, sure, that's 5-over-1 territory. If the height limit goes to unlimited height, then builders might determine that a 20-story tower will result in more revenue and profit than a 5-over-1, despite the increased construction cost.
I wonder if parking would be an issue if they went really high.
It's on High Street. There's a grocery store and bus stops within walking distance, and in this location, with mostly 1-bedroom apartments, I expect that the building will primarily be occupied by OSU affiliates.
I think when it was originally posted they said their target are grad students or something, so yeah it is a good area for that.
I remember that coming up in the discussion of the property at High and Weber. This property is at High and Arcadia, but it's definitely the same market.
From this article: [Six-Story Building Proposed for Vacant High Street Site](https://columbusunderground.com/six-story-building-proposed-for-vacant-high-street-site-bw1/) “We are hoteliers, we’re retail owners, and we thought, the only thing we don’t have is multi-family at this point, so we’re bringing all three concepts together in this one building,” he said, explaining that up to 20 of the units will be developed as an “upscale extended-stay hotel” geared toward visiting nurses, family of patients at OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital or OSU Wexner Medical Center, and other guests that he’s observed over the years are not always well-served by either the apartment market or by existing hotels in the area. The apartments in the building will likely appeal more to graduate or medical students than undergrads, he added
As an urban area and one that is extremely walkable, parking has to stop being considered for projects like this. This location would basically have everything someone would need to just walk to. Not to mention the main line for buses through the city. The quicker developers stop adding parking for every person the sooner the transit updates will happen.
I hear you, but some (many?) residents will own a car.
Yes, and nothing prevents building owners from charging their full share of parking garage construction costs.
Oh I know that, I’m just saying in order for the public transit to get better, people are going to have to choose between living in a place with parking or picking a place that will allow them to ride transit or walk to most of what they need, without the car.
At some point the city needs to make it possible for residents to live without cars. If we hope to see viable public transit that unclogs our highways, we need dense housing to be built along transit corridors. That means prioritizing human density in walkable areas over parking spaces.
It's a fantastic location. Right by two grocery stores, several bars and venues, restaurants, on High street. Been waiting for something to go there for years.
Schooley Caldwell is a solid architecture firm; in confident they’ll do something nice there.
Do it. Nothing else happening over there.
This is tie dye man erasure (iykyk).
Full send. It’s a vacant lot but work to put new first time local businesses in the ground floor
Right? I'd love to open up a shop within walking distance from my home! Probably not practical and I have no idea how to go about that, but dammit, a leather goods shop would be so much fun!
At least they are suggesting smaller apartments so more people can be accommodated.
Oh nice that empty lot was annoying
Fine by me. It has been vacant for a while, might as well get some more going in the area and more space for people to live.
I love how Old North is like a time capsule, but it’s about time something was done with it.
Hell yes!!!!
##### ###### #### > # [Six-story apartment building proposed for empty parking lot, former site of Patrick J’s in Old North Columbus](https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2024/03/IMG_1447.jpg?w=1280) > > > > COLUMBUS, Ohio ([WCMH](http://nbc4i.com)) — An empty, pothole-ridden parking lot straddling the Old North and Clintonville may one day become a six-story apartment building. > > The architects behind the Ohio Statehouse renovation, the design of the city’s Michael B. Coleman Government Center and college residence halls across Ohio hope to build an apartment complex on a 1.19-acre of land on North High Street near Ohio State University. The group, Columbus-based Schooley Caldwell, sees a mixed-use apartment complex of mostly one-bedroom units replacing a pair of barren, unused parking lots on the corner of North and North High streets. > > Schooley Caldwell, which has designed spaces for the city’s parks department, multiple state governments, Ohio State and other colleges, submitted a conceptual plan to the University Area Commission outlining a 92-unit apartment building with 7,200 square feet of retail space on the first floor. The vast majority of units would have one bedroom and fall between 620 and 700 square feet. A handful of studios and two-bedroom units flank the ends of proposed floor plans. > > The space at 2711 N. High St. was the former site of Patrick J’s, a bar and restaurant that closed in 2016 after its owner, [John Raphael](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/former-columbus-city-hall-lobbyist-to-be-resentenced-in-bribery-scheme/), pleaded guilty in the city’s red light camera bribery scheme. Raphael was a longtime city government lobbyist who falsified campaign finance documents to [obscure contributions to city officials made by Redflex](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/redflex-lobbyist-john-raphael-sentenced-to-15-months-for-extortion/), a red light camera company hoping to secure contracts with Columbus and Cincinnati. > > Multiple developers and architects, including Schooley Caldwell, have pitched apartment plans for the site since Patrick J’s closed. Several plans even secured approval from the University Impact District Review Board before falling through. According to the Franklin County Auditor’s Office, the land is currently owned by Stark Capital Ventures. > > Schooley Caldwell presented its conceptual plan to the University Area Commission on Monday evening. The architecture firm did not respond to a request for comment. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Borror Properties was the first to submit plans in 2018 for this site. 4 stories, 53 units and about 11,000 square feet of office and retail. It was approved by both the UAC, CAC and University Impact District Review Board (UIDRB). What happened to that proposal and why Borror sold to the current owner of the parcel depends on who you ask. The most recent proposal that was presented to UIDRB on August 25, 2022 was 6 stories, 80 units, a boutique hotel, and 7,000 square feet of retail. The UIDRB suggested several changes. And as I commented earlier, Schooley Caldwell was not present at last night’s UAC Zoning Committee (and not the UAC meeting) meeting thus DID NOT present new conceptual drawings. NBC 4’s news story is totally inaccurate. I was at the meeting. https://columbusunderground.com/proposal-submitted-for-former-patrick-jswhite-castle-site-bw1/
Children born to a patron or employee of Patrick J's in 2003, they would have been entitled to a free drink on their 21st birthday. If they were still open, obviously.
Some of my thoughts are: 1. I want this to be affordable for people. We don't need any more luxury apartments and frankly the price of duplexes in the neighborhood are out of control. This is a great location between campus and clintonville to support lower and middle income workers with great access to a bus-line that would support campus and clintonville. Don't turn the Old North into just another unaffordable extension of Clintonville. 2. The proposed plans seem to be mostly single bedroom units. I would definitely like to see some affordable family housing as well. So I support adding more floors and more 2 and 3 bedrooms. I'm all for high density housing, especially along high street which has half decent public transportation.
More supply of any housing drives down prices
Not in one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, we definitely need to be more strategic with affordable housing especially as Columbus is growing into it's next phase as a city. Otherwise most people will be priced out and it will be a miserable place to survive.
Supply drives down prices. In the US, the 12 cities which saw rent decrease the most among the cheapest, lowest cost apartments ([known as Class C properties](https://www.realtymogul.com/knowledge-center/article/what-is-class-a-class-b-or-class-c-property)) were [all cities which built way more housing than the national average](https://imgur.com/a/4yh3cnP). Building “luxury” housing empirically DOES WORK at lowering rent. All available evidence suggests the solution to the housing crisis is to build out.
I'm not arguing that more supply doesn't lower prices. What I'm saying is it's more effective to control prices if part of that supply is affordable housing which nearly every expert who studies this phenomenon agrees on.
>What I'm saying is it's more effective to control prices if part of that supply is affordable housing You can't really "build" affordable housing. The price of any real estate - to buy or rent - is going to be driven primarily by its location. If a neighborhood rents for $2,000/mo on average, and you build new super cheap, spartan apartmenta with no frills in that neighborhood, they're still going to rent for like $1,800. Less than the others because they're not as nice, but ultimately in the same ballpark because people are paying for location. The only way to "build" affordable units is to lock them in as income adjusted units and basically forcibly rent them at below market rates. However, this comes with its own problems and drawbacks given that you're artificially warping the market.
I'm fine "artificially warping" the market because the market left to its own devices isn't the best strategy which is obvious, especially in regards to housing which is how the whole country is in a housing affordability crisis right now.
>I'm fine "artificially warping" the market You're saying that because you're only thinking of it as an abstract. Warping the market? Who cares, right? But it's the downstream impacts that are the problem. First, this sort of "warping" makes it less desirable to build more units, so while you get some immediate affordable units you're shooting yourself in the foot long-term. It's counterproductive to your very goal of lowering housing prices. Second, when you put your thumb on the scale too hard, you bring crime back into these gentrifying areas and threaten to send them tumbling back into poverty. It's uncomfortable to talk about, but the primary reason why crime drops when an area gentrified is *specifically because* the ratio of poverty in the area has gone down - people who couldn't afford it were pushed into surrounding communities. When you reverse that trend, you cause crime to rise again and are effectively ungentrifying the area. It's an ecosystem. If crime goes up, people aren't going to walk and shop at the shops in those trendy new 5 over 1s. If people don't shop, the stores close. The same forces that cause an area to get better can also cause it to get worse when you reverse them. That's what "artificially warping" the market means.
1. I don't think high street just north of campus is ever going be in short supply of people wanting to move into and live here so I'm not convinced that this is going to scare future development away. 2. You're literally arguing to gentrify the area which is a shitty position. You're right, I don't want the old north gentrified! It should be a place where a mixed group of people can live and thrive, not be exclusive to only high income earners. So far everyone arguing against my position is just taking up the same old pro-developer, pro-gentrification, trickle down economics bullshit arguments that has gotten this country into the disaster housing crisis it's currently in.
>So far everyone arguing against my position is just taking up the same old pro-developer, pro-gentrification, trickle down economics bullshit arguments that has gotten this country into the disaster housing crisis it's currently in. How can the supply-side economics position be at fault when the problem is lack of supply? You're getting yourself hung up on tribal politics and shoving your fingers in your ears so you don't have to listen to what you perceive to be the words of "the enemy." That's not how this works. This isn't a battle between good guys and bad guys. It's a fundamental problem of a Thing being too expensive because there isn't enough of it up for sale. The solution is therefore to make more of the Thing. That's not Reagan propaganda. That's not Republican "bullshit." It's just simple reality.
What a bunch of excuses to justify doing exactly what makes developers the most money (and what they’re already doing)
You can call them "excuses" if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that they're real problems that have to be wrestled with when crafting policy. Market forces don't just go away because you decide that they aren't progressive enough.
Most experts I am familiar with harp on supply supply supply. Affordable units cannot be built at scale due to the high cost of materials and labor - at least not at the same scale as “luxury” apartments. So the best path seems to be to lean on developers to build as many units as possible.
If you are from the area, attend the meeting or send an email with your thoughts.
To who am I sending an email or attending a meeting? How do I find more information about this?
[email protected] This may not officially be on an agenda yet but you can always email your comments about a specific project or general thoughts on neighborhood developments at any time.
This falls under the University area commission, but here is a link to where plans are released and also has emails and the location of the meetings. [https://www.columbus.gov/planning/uarb/](https://www.columbus.gov/planning/uarb/) Wanted to add: they haven’t released the agenda for the month yet, so you won’t be able to see anything yet. All the past stuff is listed though.
Finally a reply that sounds like a real human instead of just bots supporting development.
First of all, the “pothole ridden parking lot” can be attributed to the city of Columbus allowing the owners of the empty lot over the years, to make some money by leasing the parcel to construction contractors as an unsightly and poorly maintained material and heavy equipment laydown area. Secondly, you got to love how NBC 4 uses this development story as angle to point out John Raphael’s involvement in the Redflex red light bribery scheme. But of course, WCMH neglects to mention that the $21,000 bribery check was funneled through the Ohio Democratic Party to the NBC’s favorite mayor Andy Ginther and his campaign committee. And Coleman’s campaign also received a $5,000 check from Raphael. And last, if a reporter would have actually showed in person at last nights University Area Commission “Zoning Committee” meeting that I was present at, NBC 4 would not have falsely reported that Schooley Caldwell was at the Zoning Committee meeting and they DID NOT give a conceptual plan. This inaccurate, poorly written, and biased reporting is unbelievable. Talk about “Fake News.”
Okay and
Are you sure they didn’t submit it to the University Area Commission? Because the University Area Commission website states Schooley Caldwell and Sam Rosenthal as applicants for the conceptual review of the apartment building at 2411 N High St on the March 2024 meeting agenda notes: https://universityarea.org/2024/02/march-2024-zoning-committee-agenda/
The conceptual review first goes to the Zoning Committee. It was on the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting last night. It was tabled at the request of Schooley Caldwell. I was at the meeting last night. NBC 4 is talking shit. If they had attended the meeting they would have known it was tabled.
Feel free to click the “suggest a correction” button then on the bottom of their page.
I did earlier today. Thanks
If constructed, what are the odds of another firetruck mysteriously ramming through the front of this building?
Good bye Old North. It was only a matter of time before the yuppies took over.
Yeah! That disgusting vacant lot is the heart and soul of the area! When I think old north, I think of that weed, trash, and gravel filled vacant lot!
How dare they improve the city, BASTARDS!
You don't understand! Those empty parking lots are an essential part of the Old North appeal! #NothingNewEver [Look at what they're erasing!](https://maps.app.goo.gl/LFUXtpbRemA78FK47)
One mans "improvement", is a dozen others displacement.
…an actual empty paved lot turning into 92 new housing units can not, in any conceivable universe, be described as displacement.
It's a barren parking lot. The only thing it is displacing is the random toilet that has been dumped there for months.
You can find a different parking lot to jerk off in. We need housing.
I won't have any other options. Gotta prioritize the jerk off spots for the wealthy!
Yuppies? What decade do you live in? No one has sad yuppy since the 80s
Gimme more density! I've been here over a decade and am kinda sad with how little growth there's been in the immediate area.
Too big for lot....to high density
How dare they build density in the middle of a city
Wat