Pet Peeve: Restoration vs. Renovation




**This article was originally published on July 5, 2018. It proved to be one of the most popular posts at the time, and it is finally being restored to the site, with some minor tweaks here and there.

The other day, I was looking at real estate listings for the Near East Side, and noticed what I think is a very unfortunate trend- Many historic homes in the neighborhoods of Olde Towne East and King-Lincoln are being stripped of all their historic character in favor of a “modern renovation”, typically for a quick flip. These neighborhoods have some of the best historic housing in all of Columbus, even as the neighborhood has seen hundreds of demolitions, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s during the Urban Renewal years. For a long time, the NES was being revitalized very slowly, with only piecemeal restorations of individual homes by private owners. Not without its own controversy, the early years even spawned a 2003 documentary called Flag Wars about the gentrification process in the area. Controversy or not, this process had been the catalyst of restoring many historic homes. In recent years, as the neighborhoods have become hotter for investment and the Columbus urban housing market has become ever tighter, it’s become clear that many houses are being purchased by people that have little or no respect for the neighborhoods historic heritage. Let’s take a look first, however, as a few of what I would argue are fantastic examples of historic preservation, where the legacy of the architecture has mostly been respected.

1049 Franklin Avenue
This home, built in the 1890s, was updated in 2017.

Photo taken in 2010.

The 2010 photo of the 2-unit shows the home mostly intact, with really only some restoration needed, particularly for the porch area. The double porch is not original to the house, which is listed as a single-family home in the historic record. It was converted into a duplex in 1943.

Photo taken in 2018.

The 2018 shows a mostly unchanged look aside from the porch. The renovation managed to turn a non-original part of the house into a major and beautiful feature while still maintaining the outward integrity of the home’s real age. And while I don’t have before photos of the inside, the after ones show that equal care was given to the interior.



As these pictures show, the home has been updated without losing its character. Original hardwood floors have been restored, woodwork hasn’t all been whitewashed and details like built-ins and stained-glass windows remain intact.

248 South 17th Street
This single-family home from 1894 is another great example of a historic home being updated without extensive change.

Photo taken in 2010.

The 2010 photo shows the house needs some updated curb appeal, but not much else.

Photo taken in 2018.

In 2018, the curb appeal is there and the house looks fresh.



Again, the home has clearly been renovated, but it is also crystal clear that it’s a historic home.

So these are a few examples of the good, where the homes were respected for what they are.

Now let’s look at a few examples where the owners attempted to make the homes into something else, with minimal historic elements maintained or where the character of the homes was changed. These examples represent the majority of current renovations.

240 South 18th Street

Photo taken in 2010.

In the 2010 photo of this 1900, 2-unit home, the right unit is boarded up, but otherwise the exterior appears to be in great shape.

Photo taken in 2018.

In 2018, it appears that there has been virtually no change to the exterior except the boards have come off.
The same cannot be said for the interior.




The renovation is not necessarily bad, but you get the feeling that the owner thought exposing brick somehow equals an appreciation for character. Instead, because the original floors, woodwork, doors, mantles, etc. have all been replaced, removed or covered up, it comes off less as a historic home, but more of an industrial loft that you might find Downtown. This is typical of the vast majority of renovations in the neighborhood. Historic character is an afterthought.

55 Hoffman Avenue
This early 1900s home has a unique exterior that was changed little between 2010 and 2018, other than receiving a new paint job and landscaping.

Photo taken in 2010.

Photo taken in 2018.

Inside the changes have been more drastic.


I feel like this renovation is somewhat a transition between the first set of homes and the 240 S. 18th example. The renovation is much more extensive than the first set, but not quite as bad as 240 S. 18th. However, it shows the popular use of whitewashing everything to make the interiors look modern. The historic character that remains is mostly maintained due to the configuration of walls, windows and woodwork rather than anything specific about decoration or color choices.

The 2 homes above are not the worst, in that they maintain at least some historic elements even if they might have gone a little too far in the modern updating. The next examples are the Frankenstein monsters of the group, where the renovations basically gutted every last historic detail of the interiors, and even significantly altered the exteriors.

422 South Ohio Avenue
This late 1890s home was in very bad condition in 2010, as the photo shows The house had completely lost its original front porch, windows were missing and the home was a candidate for demolition.

Photo taken in 2010.

Photo taken in 2018.

What?? The new porch looks like something taken from some mountain retreat with its oversized wooden beams. It looks completely inappropriate to the home. Yes, the house needed a new porch, but come on. It’s not only the wrong architecture, the color scheme clashes and comes across as tacky.
The interiors are even worse, in that they do not even try to match the exterior style.



This looks like something from a Tim Burton movie. Some rooms are heavily industrial and quirky, others are featureless and bland, and then there are even a few that manage to maintain a few historical elements. Now, given the poor state of this home several years ago, the interiors were probably heavily damaged and it was likely a blank slate, but this design reeks of someone who didn’t quite know how to create a cohesive look.

505 Linwood Avenue
Now, this is not an old home, as it was built in 2017. So this is not a case of renovation or restoration at all. However, it falls into the Frankenstein category for simply not keeping with the architecture of the neighborhood at all.

Photo taken in 2017.

So what’s the style of this? It has some design elements of historic homes, like the punched out windows, but the exterior once again is designed like some kind of modern cabin. And then you have those ridiculous lion columns.



I honestly don’t hate the interior. It has a unique, interesting design to it. It just doesn’t seem to go with the outer look at all, and the whole thing seems so random.

Luckily, the last 2 examples are not the norm, but the rare exception. Still, the fact that most homes fall into the 2nd category is not encouraging. Many people may find no issue in that group. The renovations aren’t distasteful exactly, but to me, something is being lost in trying to turn these homes into the equivalent of a loft apartment rather than appreciating the elegance that a historic home offers. Once those original details are lost, they’re never coming back.



Columbus Housing Trends




I posted a graph recently showing housing permits for Franklin County to show how construction was trending. Today, I found more long-term data for both the city and county that continue to show some interesting trends.

First, let’s look at just the city of Columbus.

The chart above goes back through the mid-1990s. The first thing to notice is the housing boom from 1999-2002. Both single-family and multi-family construction was booming. The very good economic conditions, or seemingly good ones, during the 1999-2000 period is probably most responsible for this. What’s most interesting is that the boom seemed to last through at least part of the mild recession experienced in 2001-2002. After that, housing of both types started to decline through the late 2000s. This shows that construction in the city began to decline as early as 2002-2003, before the peak of the general housing boom in the mid-2000s.

Another interesting fact is at the end of the period. Multi-family units have recovered and are back in boom territory. This boom, however, is much different than the one that occurred more than a decade ago, as shown by the below chart.

During the 1999-2002 housing boom, multi-family housing averaged 59.3% of all the units constructed. In the current boom, which began in 2012, multi-family housing has averaged 81.4% of all the units constructed. The average difference between the types 1999-2002 was just 18.6 points. In the current boom, the difference is almost 63 points! In that regard, there really is no comparison between the housing boom a decade ago and the current one. Multi-family construction is in MUCH higher relative demand now than it was at any time in the last 20 years, including during the last housing boom.

But what does this tell us about where the housing is actually being constructed? Well, for that, we have to look at the entirety of Franklin County. Is the county also seeing a similar multi-family boom, or has single-family construction recovered there more than in the city?

This chart, in some aspects, is the opposite of the one for the city. While in the city, multi-family units consistently outnumbered single-family, the opposite is true for the county as a whole. This is likely because the county takes into account all the suburban areas, most of which are dominated by single-family housing. In only a few instances did multi-family housing units outnumber single-family before 2010. After 2010, it’s clear that the multi-family boom is hitting the rest of the county and not just Columbus itself. This may actually represent an even greater shift in housing construction. While it appeared that single-family construction was gradually rising since 2011, it once again fell off some in 2015 while multi-family went up. It appears that the new reality is, at least for now, holding steady.

Here’s the % of total chart for the county.

So it’s also clear that the county is seeing most of its construction in recent years be multi-family units.




Columbus Housing Market Update- August 2014



For this update, I’m going to do things a bit differently. In previous updates, I have done long ranking lists and it got to be a bit overwhelming. So starting with this update, I’m going to do more charts instead.

In any case, August continued the year-long trend of home sales being down, with the month coming in at more than 11% off from the same time last year. Prices, however, were up more than 6% to reach a monthly record. There continues to be a supply problem, which is the main mechanism driving both lower sales and higher prices.

Now on to the charts!










Columbus Housing Market Update- June 2014



June’s housing data for the Columbus region was just released. The month continued the same story as the previous 5 months, with home sales down due to a lack of inventory. Prices continued to rise and the number of days to sell a home continued to fall in relation to this problem. As always, I looked at 21 major areas of the Columbus region, both urban and suburban. Here is how those areas performed.

Top 10 June 2014 Sales Totals
1. Columbus: 1,045
2. Upper Arlington: 109
3. Dublin: 108
4. Clintonville: 83
5. Westerville: 77
6. Gahanna: 63
7. Grove City: 62
8. Reynoldsburg: 59
9. New Albany: 38

Top 10 June 2014 Sales Increases over June 2013
1. Downtown: +72.0%
2. Grove City: +14.5%
3. Gahanna: +12.7%
4. German Village: +10.5%
5. Grandview Heights: +6.3%
6. Canal Winchester: +3.8%
7. Hilliard: 0.0%
8. Minerva Park: 0.0%
9. Columbus: -1.8%
10. Reynoldsburg: -5.1%

Top 10 Year-to-Date Sales Through June 2014
1. Columbus: 4,803
2. Dublin: 362
3. Grove City: 332
4. Clintonville: 323
5. Westerville: 299
6. Upper Arlington: 294
7. Reynoldsburg: 265
8. Hilliard: 258
9. Gahanna: 221
10. Pickerington: 136

Top 10 Year-to-Date Increases Through June 2014 Over 2013
1. Obetz: +42.1%
2. Downtown: +13.4%
3. Grove City: +11.0%
4. New Albany: +2.8%
5. Reynoldsburg: -0.4%
6. Westerville: -3.2%
7. Pataskala: -3.4%
8. German Village: -3.9%
9. Columbus: -5.3%
10. Clintonville: -5.8%

Average Sales June 2014
Urban: 122.3
Suburban: 55.1
Urban without Columbus: 30

Average % Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: -5.8%
Suburban: -5.1%
Urban without Columbus: -6.0%

Average YTD Sales Through June 2014
Urban: 545
Suburban: 222.6
Urban without Columbus: 119.2

Average YTD % Change YTD Through June 2014
Urban: -4.8%
Suburban: -5.3%
Urban without Columbus: -4.7%

Top 10 Average Sales Price June 2014
1. New Albany: $659,186
2. Upper Arlington: $389,575
3. Bexley: $382,496
4. Dublin: $377,541
5. German Village: $307,753
6. Downtown: $300,582
7. Worthington: $283,209
8. Grandview Heights: $246,271
9. Hilliard: $230,396
10. Gahanna: $229,845

Top 10 Average Sales Price % Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
1. Whitehall: +55.6%
2. Worthington: +17.7%
3. New Albany: +15.8%
4. Bexley: +15.6%
5. Columbus: +12.2%
6. Clintonville: +9.3%
7. Hilliard: +8.5%
8. Canal Winchester: +7.4%
9. Pickerington: +6.7%
10. Gahanna: +6.4%

Top 10 Average Sales Prices YTD Through June 2014
1. New Albany: $541,077
2. Dublin: $360,202
3. Upper Arlington: $348,160
4. Bexley: $334,491
5. Downtown: $305,215
6. German Village: $302,117
7. Worthington: $261,659
8. Grandview Heights: $245,946
9. Hilliard: $225,849
10. Gahanna: $213,782

Top 10 Average YTD Sales Price % Change Through June 2014 vs. 2013
1. Obetz: +24.7%
2. Grandview Heights: +15.5%
3. Worthington: +11.3%
4. Pataskala: +10.8%
5. Columbus: +10.6%
6. Pickerington: +9.9%
7. Canal Winchester: +9.5%
8. Downtown: +9.5%
9. Dublin: +9.2%
10. Westerville: +8.5%

Average Sales Price June 2014
Urban: $232,965
Suburban: $253,488
Urban without Columbus: $240,917

Average Sales Price Change June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: +7.6%
Suburban: +5.0%
Urban without Columbus: +7.1%

Average Sales Price YTD Through June 2014
Urban: $220,893
Suburban: $234,492
Urban without Columbus: $229,327

Average Sales Price % Change YTD Through June 2014
Urban: +6.6%
Suburban: +7.5%
Urban without Columbus: +6.2%

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets June 2014 (Based on Average # of Days for Listings to Sell)
1. Worthington: 21
2. Upper Arlington: 36
3. Clintonville: 38
4. Gahanna: 39
5. Hilliard: 39
6. Dublin: 40
7. German Village: 42
8. Obetz: 45
9. Bexley: 46
10. Pataskala, Westerville: 47

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets YTD Through June 2014
1. Worthington: 39
2. Minerva Park: 44
3. Upper Arlington: 44
4. Obetz: 46
5. Hilliard: 47
6. Clintonville: 52
7. Westerville: 53
8. Grandview Heights: 54
9. Dublin: 57
10. Bexley: 59

Average # of Days Before Sale, June 2014
Urban: 47.8
Suburban: 54.3
Urban without Columbus: 47.3

Average # of Days Before Sale YTD Through June 2014
Urban: 58.6
Suburban: 67.8
Urban without Columbus: 57.4

Top 10 Lowest Market Housing Supplies June 2014 (Based on # of Months to Sell all Listings)
1. Grandview Heights: 1.0
2. Worthington: 1.4
3. Westerville: 2.0
4. Clintonville: 2.1
5. German Village: 2.1
6. Gahanna: 2.3
7. Hilliard: 2.5
8. Minerva Park: 2.7
9. Obetz: 2.7
10. Upper Arlington: 2.7

A healthy housing supply is considered to be around 5-6 months. Anything less than 3 months is considered very low. Grandview’s 1 month is ridiculously low and the lowest reading I’ve seen for any area.

Average # of Months to Sell All Listings, June 2014
Urban: 2.7
Suburban: 3.5
Urban without Columbus: 2.6

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: +33.2%
Suburban: -5.4%
Urban without Columbus: +36.8%

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales YTD Through June 2014 vs. YTD 2013
Urban: -8.8%
Suburban: -5.4%
Urban without Columbus: -8.9%

Average % Change of Condo Sales June 2014 vs. June 2013
Urban: -4.0%
Suburban: +41.0%
Urban without Columbus: -5.0%

Average % Change of Condo Sales YTD Through June 2014 vs. YTD 2013
Urban: +19.3%
Suburban: +7.0%
Urban without Columbus: +21.0%



Columbus Area Housing Market- December 2013



December ended a 2-month decline in home sales for the area, with overall sales up 2.5%.

Here are the stats for the 21 major areas of Franklin County that I look at housing stats for.

Top 10 December 2013 Sales Totals
1. Columbus: 657
2. Westerville: 47
3. Dublin: 45
4. Clintonville: 42
5. Upper Arlington: 41
6. Grove City: 39
7. Reynoldsburg: 38
8. Gahanna: 31
9. Hilliard: 22
10. Pickerington: 18

Top 10 December 2013 Sales Increases over December 2012
1. Minerva Park: +200.0%
2. Obetz: +200.0%
3. Reynoldsburg: +72.7%
4. Clintonville: +55.6%
5. Gahanna: +55.0%
6. Pataskala: +27.3%
7. Dublin: +15.4%
8. German Village: +10.0%
9. Worthington: +6.3%
10. Columbus: +3.8%

Top 10 Year-to-Date Sales Through December 2013
1. Columbus: 10,267
2. Dublin: 797
3. Upper Arlington: 719
4. Clintonville: 701
5. Westerville: 630
6. Grove City: 609
7. Hilliard: 556
8. Gahanna: 526
9. Reynoldsburg: 505
10. Pickerington: 312

Top 10 Year-to-Date Increases Through December 2013 Over 2012
1. Minerva Park: +51.9%
2. Gahanna: +31.8%
3. Pataskala: +31.0%
4. Reynoldsburg: +30.8%
5. Whitehall: +27.3%
6. Clintonville: +26.3%
7. Hilliard: +23.6%
8. Whitehall: +23.4%
9. Westerville: +21.9%
10. Bexley: +21.5%

Average Sales December 2013
Urban: 74.5
Suburban: 28.2
Urban without Columbus: 14.7

Average % Change December 2013 vs. December 2012
Urban: +40.5%
Suburban: +6.4%
Urban without Columbus: +44.2%

Average YTD Sales Through December 2013
Urban: 1,177.1
Suburban: 466.5
Urban without Columbus: 268.1

Average YTD % Change YTD Through December 2013
Urban: +15.7%
Suburban: +19.4%
Urban without Columbus: +15.3%

Top 10 Average Sales Price December 2013
1. New Albany: $563,187
2. Upper Arlington: $377,943
3. Bexley: $376,592
4. Dublin: $351,279
5. Downtown: $314,583
6. German Village: $303,136
7. German Village: $271,656
8. Hilliard: $249,811
9. Worthington: $232,741
10. Clintonville: $223,250

Top 10 Average Sales Price % Change December 2013 Over December 2012
1. Whitehall: +37.3%
2. New Albany: +32.8%
3. Pataskala: +29.6%
4. Reynoldsburg: +26.3%
5. Upper Arlington: +25.8%
6. Clintonville: +25.3%
7. Bexley: +23.7%
8. Hilliard: +21.9%
9. Gahanna: +19.6%
10. Dublin: +13.1%

Top 10 Average Sales Prices YTD Through December 2013
1. New Albany: $542,634
2. Upper Arlington: $365,143
3. Bexley: $352,214
4. Dublin: $336,048
5. German Village: $298,199
6. Downtown: $287,976
7. Worthington: $248,857
8. Grandview Heights: $223,185
9. Hilliard: $217,078
10. Gahanna: $199,546

Top 10 Average YTD Sales Price % Change Through December 2013 vs. 2012
1. Whitehall: +18.9%
2. Downtown: +14.0%
3. Minerva Park: +14.0%
4. Upper Arlington: +13.8%
5. Gahanna: +12.1%
6. New Albany: +9.8%
7. Reynoldsburg: +9.6%
8. Obetz: +9.0%
9. Worthington: +7.5%
10. Bexley: +5.8%

Average Sales Price December 2013
Urban: $218,764
Suburban: $233,048
Urban without Columbus: $227,832

Average Sales Price Change December 2012 vs. December 2012
Urban: -1.6%
Suburban: +15.5%
Urban without Columbus: -2.9%

Average Sales Price YTD
Urban: $217,056
Suburban: $224,060
Urban without Columbus: $226,017

Average Sales Price % Change YTD
Urban: +5.6%
Suburban: +5.6%
Urban without Columbus: +5.7%

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets December 2013 (Based on Average # of Days for Listings to Sell)
1. Bexley: 26
2. Obetz: 42
3. New Albany: 47
4. Hilliard: 50
5. Clintonville: 51
6. Pataskala: 57
7. Gahanna: 58
8. Upper Arlington: 58
9. Reynoldsburg: 61
10. Grove City: 63

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets YTD
1. Worthington: 42
2. Upper Arlington: 46
3. Grandview Height: 49
4. Clintonville: 50
5. Westerville: 53
6. Hilliard: 54
7. Bexley: 57
8. Gahanna: 59
9. Dublin: 63
10. Grove City: 64

Average # of Days Before Sale, December 2013
Urban: 73.4
Suburban: 63.9
Urban without Columbus: 73.8

Average # of Days Before Sale YTD
Urban: 61.3
Suburban: 62.9
Urban without Columbus: 60.9

Top 10 Lowest Market Housing Supplies (Based on # of Months to Sell all Listings)
1. Worthington: 1.2
2. Bexley: 1.8
3. Clintonville: 1.9
4. Hilliard: 1.9
5. Upper Arlington: 1.9
6. Grandview Heights: 2.1
7. Westerville: 2.1
8. Gahanna: 2.2
9. Minerva Park: 2.2
10. German Village: 2.3

A healthy housing supply is considered to be around 5 months. Anything less than 3 months is considered very low. All of the 21 areas I looked at were below 5 months, indicating a county-wide shortage. This shortage has only deepened over the last year, with December having the lowest number of available homes in nearly 15 years.

Average # of Months to Sell All Listings, December 2013
Urban: 2.7
Suburban: 3.2
Urban without Columbus: 2.6

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales December 2013 vs. December 2012
Urban: +28.5%
Suburban: +14.3%
Urban without Columbus: +30.8%

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales YTD vs. YTD 2012
Urban: +9.8%
Suburban: +19.0%
Urban without Columbus: +8.8%

Average % Change of Condo Sales December 2013 vs. December 2012
Urban: +20.5%
Suburban: -4.2%
Urban without Columbus: +20.5%

Average % Change of Condo Sales YTD vs. YTD 2012
Urban: +29.0%
Suburban: +23.5%
Urban without Columbus: +29.9%



2013 Residential Projects and the Year Ahead



2013 was a pretty significant year for Columbus, if only because it saw its busiest residential development year in and around the urban core in many years. Here are the highlights of some of the biggest.

1. The South Campus High Rise and Addition Project
# of New Units: 360
Project Cost: $171.6 Million
Project Height: 7-8 Stories in Multiple Buildings
Some might suggest that this isn’t strictly a residential project because it was student housing. However, I disagree with that. The projects added significant additions to already existing Park, Stradley, Steeb and Smith Halls by connecting the pairs together with what essentially amounted to a brand new building stuck in-between. It also involved significant renovations to other residential buildings in South Campus. This was the first part of a major renovation and expansion project for housing on OSU’s campus.

Some links to this project complete with site maps and construction photos:
http://fod.osu.edu/projects/s_res/2010_7-26.htm
http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/south-campus-high-rise-additionrenovation

2. HighPoint at Columbus Commons
# of New Units: 302
Project Cost: $50 Million
Project Height: 6 Stories in 2 Buildings
HighPoint was a rather unexpected surprise for Downtown. When Columbus Commons was being constructed, the plan called for residential buildings running along High Street on the west side of the park. Unfortunately, that plan was not supposed to happen for perhaps a decade or more, depending on development interests. Within a year of the completion of the park, however, HighPoint was being proposed. While not exactly the most inspired design or preferred height for such a prominent location Downtown, the projects potential 450+ residents will greatly help the neighborhood’s goal of increased vitality and 24-hour activity. In fact, it may not be too much to assume that this project has encouraged others, such as the 12-story 250 High Project and LC’s double 8-story tower project, both of which will begin construction soon just across the street from HighPoint and the park. Collectively, they will add, at minimum, over 650 new residents.

Links for the project:
http://www.highpointcolumbus.com/columbus/highpoint-on-columbus-commons/photos/

3. Liberty Place, Phase II
Address: 250 Liberty Street
# of New Units: 207
Project Cost: $25-$30 Million
Project Height: 4 Stories
Liberty Place, in the Brewery District, was completed in 2006, the last of a slew of development projects in the Brewery District beginning in the 1990s and came in the middle of a relative quiet period that began when the Arena District stole some of the neighborhoods momentum. That momentum has returned in recent years as urban living has gained significant traction in public opinion. Phase II of Liberty Place was supposed to have been built years ago, but the recession and the uncertainty regarding the exact layout of the rebuilt I-70/I-71 split which runs past the site put the project on hold. All told, Liberty Place now has 342 units.

Links for the project:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/phase-2-of-liberty-place-apartments
http://thelibertyplaceapartments.com/

4. Tribeca
Address: 700 West Third Avenue
# of New Units: 205
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 4 Stories
Tribeca, from Edwards Communities, was built along Third Avenue in the 5thxNW neighborhood. While adding significant density to the area, the project is mostly known for its strange layout. Dubbed the “Fortress” or the “prison”, the project has a long, blank wall along Third Avenue with tower-like structures along it, resembling the fortifications of a prison. The ugly design and lack of interaction with Third because of this layout caused the project to receive a lot of criticism.

A link to the project, the criticism and photos:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gowdy-field-development

5. Lennox Flats
Address: Kinnear Road, Lennox Town Center
# of New Units: 194
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 3 Stories
Lennox Flats was built over two phases, the first with 92 units and the second with 102. Built in a mostly vacant lot just to the west of Lennox Town Center (across the railroad tracks), these were built in modern-styles and were targeted at students from OSU.

Link with photos:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/phase-two-of-lennox-flats-wrapping-up-this-summer-bw1

6. 600 Goodale
Address: 600 West Goodale Street
# of New Units: 174
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 5 Stories
600 Goodale is likely the most strangely located new project of 2013. It was built on a small strip of land located north of Goodale Street across from White Castle’s HQ building. The location is strange because the land is bordered by the Olentangy River on the west and a highway exit ramp to the north and east sides. In fact, the site sits on a section of land between 315, 670 and major ramps for both to the north. The land is not directly connected to any major neighborhood. Despite the strange location, the modern building was, at last count, 96% leased.

Photos of the project:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-to-wrap-soon-on-600-goodale-bw1

So those were the top 6 largest projects from 2013. More than 2,200 total units were completed in the urban areas of Columbus.

But what’s coming for 2014? Here are the top 5.

1. Jeffrey Park Phase 1
Address: E. 1st Avenue and N. 4th Street, Italian Village
# of New Units: 334
Project Cost: $180 Million+ For all phases.
Project Height: 4 Stories
The Jeffrey Manufacturing site has long been planned for redevelopment. It is, by far, the largest undeveloped site in Italian Village or anywhere in the Short North. Previous plans from the early-mid 2000s fell through, but were revived by a new developer in recent years. The first phase calls for the completion of a mix of townhomes and apartments in a mix of styles. A community center is also planned with a gym and pool. Although this project was supposed to start in the fall of 2013, calls are now for it to begin before winter is over. This may delay the finish for this project into 2015, but for now, it’s still the biggest project for 2014. The entire Jeffrey site will eventually have more than 1,300 new units.

Photos and project information:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/jeffrey-park-will-add-over-1300-new-residences-to-italian-village

2. Taylor House
Address: 5005 Olentangy River Road
# of New Units: 329
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 4 Stories
This project along Bethel Road will go into the site of a former K-Mart. Construction began over the fall and should wrap up toward the end of the year.

Renderings and more information:
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2013/09/24/former-kmart-site-at-olentangy-and.html

3. View on 5th
Address: 965 West 5th Avenue
# of New Units: 285
Project Cost: $50 Million
Project Height: 6 Stories
The View on 5th, in 5thxNW, is a 2-building complex along 5th and Holly Avenues. The 6-story building along 5th will contain 153 apartments with ground-floor retail, while the Holly Avenue building would be 3-stories and contain 132 units. The project is scheduled for completion this coming summer.

Link with info and renderings:
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2013/06/28/top-end-housing-for-w-5th.html

4. Berkeley House
Address: Bethel Road and Riverside Drive
# of New Units: 256
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 4-5 Stories
Berkeley House is being built by the same company as Taylor House, only on opposite ends of Bethel Road. This will be a mixed-use complex featuring apartments and offices. There was some controversy surrounding this project as it sought to demolish a small stone house from around 1808. Unfortunately, no one seemed to realize the historical significance or age of the structure until the project was set to begin construction. The lack of time made it impossible to raise the money to move the house, so it was demolished. The Upper Arlington Historical Society saved the stone from the house and plans to build some type of marker with it.

Unfortunately, I have not seen any renderings for this project yet, but it has begun construction.

5. Neighborhood Launch
Address: East Long Street, Downtown
# of New Units: 130
Project Cost: Unknown
Project Height: 5 Stories
Neighborhood Launch is an ongoing project Downtown. About 200 units have already been completed along and near the Gay Street Corridor. The project is continuing with the first of 2 buildings, each containing 130 units, along Long Street. The first of these 2 should be complete later this year, with the 2nd beginning construction over the summer.

Renderings can be found here:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/neighborhood-launch-to-build-260-new-downtown-apartment-units

So there you have it. 2013′s and 2014′s largest projects. These, of course, represent just a small sample of what’s being built.