Toddguy

Such a nice story...but why did the last five words of the article have to be "The middle of flyover country"? smh. Such elitism.

Can we please keep on topic about the COLUMBUS and CENTRAL OHIO housing market? We don't want Columbo closing the thread or pruning...even though he did have to make the direct city vs city comparisons to other cities instead of just posting the article and started the whole thing leading to subsequent posts discussing: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Nashville. lol ;) * God knows how impossible it is to just talk about Columbus without getting derailed discussing and comparing other cities (yeah I did it too). Any discussion of Columbus automatically just shifts to other cities. Good thing we won't get Amazon because all the discussion would end up being about other cities (more deserving cities if course)

Well if they fall off of a balcony on the 12 story, they won't be able to sue you because they are dead. But those pesky relatives are a different story(no pun intended).

^^ that user name! lol. I hope they turn it into residential and utilize more of the entire property. There is such a good record of turning former schools into residential buildings here in Columbus. (Praying that the old school in Franklinton right next to 315 is saved and has such a good fate). (EDIT: Added CDM's newest user name to the post. He'll change it later and then we'll wonder what the joke was.)

An improvement and will go very well both with the Moxy and the Hub. Love the rooftop space and the higher density/smaller unit/hopefully a bit smaller price units. That it was delayed so long was a blessing in disguise.

The street frontage part where the green space was does seem to connect the building to the street and makes it less of a "Lane Avenue high rise" type of a look. And the rooftop space on the 12th floor would be an great thing. The views! :) *re: the rooftop space...DO IT! If some drunk does happen to tumble over the side it will be their own stupid fault!

What would be the other one?

Well what I was discussing was Paris was smarter in not destroying a good swath of the central city and simply locating a downtown business center in a better but still proximate location. Those 3 square miles that were sacrificed were worth it. Now all of that other stuff is a different question. Personally I would not want to live as packed in as those pics of the densest parts of Paris and certainly of Barcelona. I think most of DC is relatively low rise and certainly low density especially compared to the other two. How many people (especially outside of this forum) would really want to live in areas that have densities from 50,000 to 100,000 persons per square mile? I love tall buildings but personally even if I had the choice I would want a small yard/garden or even a "yardlette" or courtyard with plants. I would have to be very wealthy to have that in central Paris or Barcelona, and the probably only on a rooftop terrace or something.

The city and the state should do whatever they possibly can to block the move, including appealing any motion to dismiss.

I was looking at that great pic and wondering just how all the new stuff would fit in. Now get a little more creative and have a color or something for (should be filled in) parking lots, like the ones along and just off High in the Short North! ;) It has gotten to where seeing a surface lot near High is disturbing to me lol. *also you might squeeze in the 8 story building on Long, and the new convention center parking garage behind that hotel. And that does not even show the stuff that can't be shown like some of the Riversouth stuff and the 15 floor building to go up by the Holiday Inn. Lots to watch go up!

I can actually agree, and at the same time disagree, with almost all the points made. There is always a counter argument to be made. I don't think we have enough real skyscrapers being built in most cities in the US for it really to be an issue in most areas. They can be often modified at the street level to be more "street friendly". Adequate public transit could also help alleviate the problems that are the worst things that come with them-the huge surface parking lots, huge garages that are the bane of downtowns everywhere, or the "tower on the Podium" type of construction which just leaves a dead space in the building and puts actual uses that much higher up and removed from the street. And yes people love Paris and DC and Barcelona, but they also love Dubai(not necessarily people on here), New York, etc. People flock to visit those cities too. And Paris basically just built itself a downtown very similar to what we find here(just with better public transit) just outside the city limits. La Defense is still a functioning part of the Paris urban area and is only 3 miles from the center of Paris. Instead of knocking down the center of their city like we did so many of ours, they knocked down 3 square miles of somewhat mixed use rundown suburbs and relocated the 25,000 people who lived there (some into monstrous high rise nightmare tower complexes). They were later at it, and smarter about it, and learned from their mistake (Tour Montparnasse). Paris was worth (generally) preserving. Basically there are pros, and there are cons, with skyscrapers as there are with most things. *I actually wish London would have followed the lead that Paris set and had established the Docklands, and everything east of a north/south line there, as a financial/skyscraper/highrise district. I think central London is starting to look like a botanical garden of exotic skyscraper species, each narcissistic and full of itself speaking only to itself but having no relation whatsoever to each other or anything else around them. JMHO.

^^ Well that sucks. :(

Well the city landing Amazon's HQ2 would do the trick I think, but that isn't going to happen. And we can't all pool our money together and hire some criminals to give him the good beating he deserves (just joking here). So besides that, I imagine keeping the heat on from all civic and business groups in the city, helping foment discontent about this among the opposition to the move in Austin (and San Antonio), and coming up with a concrete proposal to buy the crew and build a stadium, with the money for both laid out to show both Precourt and MLS, is all we can do.

Why do you think urban neighborhoods should be built for suburbanites? That is my first question. There are park and rides all over the city, and taxis and ubers. If suburbanites really wanted to come to the Short North, they can, even without endless parking options. And why would you plan infrastructure in the city around an occasional visitor rather than people who actually live and work there? It's just incorrect to think that a popular, dense urban neighborhood can also have abundant, easy and cheap parking. It's just not going to happen, and trying to build with that expectation is only going to make the neighborhood have a bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve. The Short North doesn't need more infrastructure for more cars that will only lead to yet more traffic. It needs people to use every other means- walking, biking, taxis, buses. Not everyone is going to like that, but they can go to Hilliard-Rome Road if they need a free parking lot in front of everywhere they want to go. Half the time you end up walking further from your car to the door on Hillard-Rome than in the SN. It is a much less pleasant and interesting walk as well. The Walmart and Meijer lots are particularly ugly. And you can be accosted by addicts/beggars in those lots as well.

Worthington would ideally want 37 large single family homes of at least 5,000 square feet with three car garages on 37 one acre lots. Just Clintonvillainia North. lol

Why do you think urban neighborhoods should be built for suburbanites? That is my first question. There are park and rides all over the city, and taxis and ubers. If suburbanites really wanted to come to the Short North, they can, even without endless parking options. And why would you plan infrastructure in the city around an occasional visitor rather than people who actually live and work there? It's just incorrect to think that a popular, dense urban neighborhood can also have abundant, easy and cheap parking. It's just not going to happen, and trying to build with that expectation is only going to make the neighborhood have a bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve. The Short North doesn't need more infrastructure for more cars that will only lead to yet more traffic. It needs people to use every other means- walking, biking, taxis, buses. Not everyone is going to like that, but they can go to Hilliard-Rome Road if they need a free parking lot in front of everywhere they want to go. I see what you are saying and agree with most of it, but a garage or two tucked onto an already existing lot or mostly empty space or single story building is not going to hurt. There are going to be more people and yes, they are going to use more cars whether or not there are garages for them. I certainly don't want to see one right on High, but a couple more tucked away would help for those who want to have cars and live there or work there, and there are people who will be in the most urban environment possible and still insist on having or driving a car no matter what. But the more people who don't drive means less congestion as they will not be on the road with those who insist on driving so those other things are very important as well. The problem is that High street is just not that wide of a street, and this is Central Ohio, where many many people will only let go of their cars when their cold dead hands are pried off the wheel. I admit that I love the idea of public transit, but hate taking it in Columbus because every. single. time. there has been a probem so I avoid it like the plague. Very different experiences in places like NYC though. I must be cursed with Columbus transit.

^^ True there may be behind the scenes stuff with the business community that we are not aware of. If we can keep it I am really liking the idea of relocating it to Dodge Park.

^^ Those homes are very nice cute little homes too. But I think it would be worth it. I wonder if they could be relocated?-they seem rather small? I don't really know how that works. And yeah I thought about the Post Office site too, and what is that building that shows up as "Alpha Graphics" just to the north of Middle West Spirits? The two houses north of it are not exactly historic either. The purely residential nature of that street is compromised anyway by that building to the northeast and everything else around it except right up the street to the north. A full 125 by 200 foot garage could go there.

The problem is those areas will fill up. Grove City is growing fast and is probably now only second to Dublin in population. Yes people should be considering those areas, but many of the areas of the "uncool crescent"(I do love that phrase lol) have patchwork development that would have lower costs and would be the place for "more affordable" infill housing whether it be 1.500 -2,000 square foot so called "starter homes" or apartment or whatever. Well heeled professionals and monied millenials are coming into the region, but so are service workers, warehouse workers, tradespeople, etc. and they are going to need places to live too, and a decent amount of them do not give a sh-t about being 'uncool'. EDIT: Language

I completely agree with looking at homes in less desirable neighborhoods, but those neighborhoods are not exactly sitting empty and there are only so many vacant lots. This region is adding 30,000 people a year, and the housing stock(the kind of housing stock that is not just for the upper middle class or wealthy)is just not keeping up. Also part of my point is that "starter homes" don't necessarily have to be just something to start with and then you must "move on up" to something larger. Especially with smaller families, these homes can be just regular homes for anyone, not something deemed as "lowly" or undesirable for anyone except for those "just starting out". As a society we kind of just really have a f***d up mindset about housing IMO. EDIT: Language

Is that small donut shop or whatever it is "contributing"? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9858744,-83.0050157,3a,75y,169.86h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqYjOY1LGMf6HNNU5pAPx0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 That used to be a very suburbanized, car-centric spot. Its current incarnation is much safer for pedestrians. The section of High which "Goody Boy" is located isn't as "tower" happy as the rest of the Short North outside of the Jackson. You have Skully's across the street, Standard and the new Food Hall as prime examples. The rest of the buildings are max 2-4 stories and as was previously mentioned "contributing" structures. What I would like to see happen is the city adding a 2-4 story parking deck on the flat lot next to Skully's. It is going to be needed for the future and would be a wise investment imo. This stems from the data provided at the parking summit which the parking director stated we are one of the cheapest cities in the nation to park. It could easily be fronted with retail and blend seamlessly into the neighborhood. A parking garage right on High is not going to happen, not unless the ground floor was retail space, and I suspect there would also be a push to build it so that apartments or other floors could be added on top at some point. But a standalone parking garage on High is very unlikely, as it would represent a dead zone, something the neighborhood standards frown upon. This section of High is also going to rapidly change over the next 5 years, I imagine. The Yoga on High building already has redevelopment plans, and the church across the street had a multi-story proposal not long ago (not the church itself, but immediately around it). There is still a lot of underutilized space between 3rd and 7th, including surface lots and single-story buildings. Some of them may be contributing, but I think we'll see proposals that might incorporate the facades, but otherwise new buildings will go into these spots as well. It would be a smart investment, that flat lot is what's contributing to the parking issues and it's not going to get better. You could offer hourly parking options in a garage and currently that is not the plan for the parking plan. Also they could build it with future plans for conversion along with retail frontage. We have no "public" garages outside of the Hub in Short North and IMO it would alleviate a ton of the congestion. Week days it could be used by construction workers and in the evening by patrons. What about the lot(and the two homes) along Mt. Pleasant between 2nd and 3rd? that would fit a 125 by 200 foot garage. Four floors with a fifth on the roof would allow about 250 vehicles, another 50 with one level below ground. It would block the views of some of those apartment to the east but would have enough room to not be right against them. And the other side is basically parking. There are little underutilized areas here and there where they should definitely put in public parking, and do it now before it is too late. Not necessarily on High but close enough to it. And they need to relocate North Central or whatever it is at 1301 North High. There is no reason it has to be there, and that land is too valuable right on High and right across from a grocery store.

Yeah the "starter home" thing doesn't necessarily make economic sense. What *does* make sense is just buying a small home and raising your family there and piling the kids in. My dad was one of six kids and was raised in a 3-bedroom, 1-bathroom house. This. I think there is a market for the starter house, and yes they may not just be starter homes but long term homes. But yes to using the existing housing stock. Maybe add an extra room or an extra bath. That is what my parents did. They had three kids, had the house built in 1960, three bedrooms one bath, added the additions in 1968, and payed off the house and stayed debt free, and in retirement were able to go on various cruises and visit different continents. They still live in that house and take care of it, and they will be 90 and 85 in a few months(God willing). And they were definitely middle class, not upper middle class or above the median middle class. As in "uncool crescent" middle class. Not to be the old curmudgeon and all, but many people have become spoiled and expect, and in fact, think they need at least 2500 square feet minimum with all bedrooms suites with their own bathrooms, walk in closets, great rooms, children's playrooms, full decked out basements, etc. US homes are by far the largest in the world. Canada and Australia follow, but even they are not that close. It is ridiculous how much space Americans think they need. And don't get me started on the need for the massive yards. Kids do not play baseball and sports and stuff like that in backyards anymore as they are more than likely attached at the hip to their various electronic communication devices. Most large grassy back yards are used rarely if at all, and then only a section is used. Huge front yards are never really used at all-just for show. Such damn waste with these huge houses on half acre lots. Just that much more to maintain, to care for, to repair, etc. and what exactly is the payback? And the taxpayers pay for the wasteful sprawl. Better for tax purposes to get 5 $200,000 houses on 1/10th acre lots than one $500,000 house on a half acre lot. I despise these suburbs with "minimum lot sizes' and such. /end older guy rant

Take a look at the Top 20 list at the link. Buffalo is #18! Actually going back and reading the article was depressing. The parts about how prices are shooting up so fast, how so much more of what is available is high end, and how basically it is impossible for people with regular incomes to buy any new housing. Basically no "entry level" or such housing, that middle class(and no I don't think a couple making over $150,000 a year is really middle class...I am talking about the real middle class around median incomes)people simply do not have new homes from 1,500 to 2,000 square feet being built for them. Sad really when at one time that was the main target for new homes. Just more of the have's and the have not's now.

What is sad is that we have letters from the mayor and the SaveTheCrew movement, but where is the rest of our civic leadership? We are about to lose a civic institution(yes it does qualify) and where are the letters and protests from our various civic groups, and particularly, from our business "leadership"? Where is the letters from Huntington Bank, or Nationwide, or Wexner, etc? it seems we are lacking in the leadership department. I miss Coleman. At least Coleman would have put up much more of a fight-he would fight for the city. The business community just seems to languish in a self-absorbed stupor. Losing a major league team is NOT good for business. JMHO. /rant

Agree. Especially with the zoning part. It has to start there-nobody can do anything until the zoning is in place. The city needs to identify the appropriate areas and upzone them. And it will bring a hell of a fight in many areas. (looking at you, Clintonvillains and your underbuilt High street corridor).