Housing Columbus’s Next Million

[@FlyingOverTr0ut]

I'm so heartened to see you and so many other urbanists springing up on KZbin. You provide such a great perspective being in Columbus and raising issues many of us on the coasts don't directly deal with, though many of the fundamental problems are the same. Keep up the great work. I'm convinced that urbanists providing education to a new audience will ultimately be what drives urbanist policies.

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

I hope so! Thanks for the encouragement.

[@jamalgibson8139]

Great video! I'm absolutely astonished at the audacity of the community to oppose a single duplex on the grounds of "traffic, parking, and crime." It's literally two houses, which would be like 4 cars! There's no way those are rational arguments, and the fact that the council even allowed those disingenuous arguments is absurd. Even the second example was a bit ridiculous, but at least it's getting built. But that just goes to show that money is what talks in these discussions. As for the affordable housing argument, I have mixed feelings. I think that generally we just need more housing, and even if all new housing is so-called "luxury," that's not really so terrible, because it still opens up demand from older housing in other areas. My solution would personally be to get the government to build public housing again, to compete with the private market. I'm not talking about the old giant housing projects from the 50s, but building housing dispersed through the community. They kind of do that with section 8 and stipends, but in my opinion that's just a subsidy for developers; what's needed is an increase in supply, which can be provided if the government just builds the housing itself.

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

I hear what you’re saying. There was a study years ago about the “carrying capacity” of a neighborhood - showing that concentrated poverty was harmful to communities. Since reading that study, I’m basically decided that no multi family development should be all affordable/public (and no neighborhood of single family homes either). So I prefer requiring developers to include affordable or public units in otherwise market rate developments - to ensure that those units are evenly spread across all neighborhoods so poverty isn’t concentrated anywhere.

[@78Mathius]

One reason I agree that all developments need to include affordable housing is the commons. Low income neighborhoods are often over policed and under maintained. The quality of parks, roads, retail, and schools that low income folks can access is greatly improved if they are the same ones that everyone else uses.

[@jamalgibson8139]

@78Mathius Yeah, I get that and agree that a mix of housing is needed. I think a good way to get around all of these luxury developments is to make the cost of development cheaper and easier. If it takes you two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get city approval to build, then of course you're going to need to charge at least that much more for your development just to break even. That's why I like the idea of the government just building dispersed public housing. I know people in America are wary of this because of our history with it, but if we followed a model like Vienna, where public housing isn't built to the cheapest standards and is actually reasonably nice, then we could do a good job in reducing housing costs by increasing supply. I'm not opposed to the affordable housing argument, I just think there's more nuance to the argument than at first appears.

[@78Mathius]

​@@jamalgibson8139I think we want the same thing through slightly different policies. Government owned housing mixed throughout the city might help drive rental prices down across the board if done well. That said, I don't trust columbus to do much well.

[@nipo2540]

Great video. I learned a lot! Thank you for your examples on how the current zoning code blocked good development in Columbus. It's funny because I didn't really care a lot about urbanism until I moved from Belgium to the United States. I moved here to close the distance and finally live with my wife. I had already visited Columbus quite a lot before I permanently settled here. However, every time I came here, I stayed with my wife in the university district where walkability was not at all an issue. Then I moved to an extremely unwalkable area adjacent to Morse Rd, because that's all our money could afford, and immediately fell into a depression. I had no idea American cities were this bad in terms of transit and walkability. I've been diligently following the zoning and transit updates since my move here, but I don't think I can stay in Columbus until all that is implemented. I'm kind of angry that it's taking them so long. One thing American urban planners don't seem to understand is that you can perfectly well implement a semi-good solution cheaply and slowly build up to a good one. It seems like, unless something is proven to work and be 100% perfect, it won't happen in America. I don't see how they can't just paint the lanes and have the LinkUS BRT system in place already. Same thing with cheap protected bike lanes.

[@StLouis-yu9iz]

Great discussion, thanks for sharing! :]

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

Thank you!

[@JosiahKeller]

Great video, but the editing made your conversation feel almost scripted towards the end, your points were so brief.

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

I really appreciate the feedback! We’re still learning - I can promise next time will be less edited.

[@simonpusateri3527]

Is there anything in the works to replace the grocery service provided by the Giant Eagle in Jaegar Square?

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

There is a Kroger that is a 20 minute walk away or an 11 minute bus ride on the frequent line that picks up right in front of the development. There’s also an IGA that’s a 20 minute walk in the other direction - or a 7 minute bus trip on either of two other bus lines. The old Giant Eagle was small, run down, and didn’t have the best selection or prices. There’s a reason it went out of business. That said, I don’t know what ground level retail might end up being part of the development. I will say, I think the neighborhood is missing a nice corner store where you could get snacks and a few essentials. That location would be great for that sort of thing.

[@simonpusateri3527]

@@HeartlandUrbanist definitely agree about the small shop! I live over in Vic Village near where they are developing Thurber Village Plaza and while I’m beyond excited that a Luckys grocery store is going in I think it’s a shame that the developer couldn’t incorporate any of the smaller tenants from the old plaza

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

@@simonpusateri3527 that really is too bad!

[@78Mathius]

One issue I see with much of the mixed use development is that the retail spaces are not thought about in advance. A great many 5 over 1s have been built where much of the retail space never gets filled. It also feels that developers each do their own thing without regard for a neighborhood or sector plan. I think the area east of 71 between Morse and 161 is ripe for density but I fear we would get a great many 5 over 1s with no pedestrian or bike considerations leading to and island with a building containing 1 to 3 hundred units, 12 retail locations and sea of parking. I would rather see a side road built containing a long string of connected pedestrian and bike friendly retail with a separate road behind for car and truck access. Maybe even make the retail face inward with the truck and car access running along the major road. 161 already has side roads, just redesign them to access the rear of business with a nice ped stret along the front.

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

This is real. I've seen so many empty storefronts below apartments. I'm intrigued by your idea for the Northside. That area really is special - so diverse and so vibrant. I do think it could densify and I'm intrigued by your idea!

[@derpyeh9107]

I have to wonder how much of urbanists' ideas will fail against the realities of the market. What's the point of building high density housing if there's no demand? What's the point of public transit if nobody rides it?

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

Dense neighborhoods across the country are some of the most expensive. The demand is there, but the supply is currently constrained by dated zoning laws. And where we have good, frequent, and reliable transit, it gets used (though it takes time to change people’s behavior).

[@derpyeh9107]

@@HeartlandUrbanist Are those neighborhoods as expensive as neighborhoods with single family homes on large lot? If they are more expensive, then why pay more for less? That little parenthetical bit at the end is the part of all of this that worries people like me. How do you go about doing that in a way that doesn't involve some kind of dystopian social engineering?

[@HeartlandUrbanist]

@@derpyeh9107 The idea that the only way to define "more" is square footage and acreage is sort of the issue. People who prioritize walkable neighborhoods, community amenities, etc don't think that way. In fact, I actively don't want a house or yard that are too large. It's wasteful of time and money. People's behaviors change as they experience alternative ways of living that they like more - no dystopian pressure required. Look at the streetcar. No one is forcing people to take it, but its ridership is setting records.