Housing Market Update February 2013




housing market update February 2013

The new Columbus Housing Market Update is now available for February 2013!

Note: LSD= Local School District, CSD= City School District. In both cases, school district boundaries differ from city boundaries.

Top 15 Most Expensive Locations By Median Sales Price in February 2013
1. New Albany: $459,000
2. Powell: $300,000
3. Olentangy LSD: $290,000
4. Dublin: $278,000
5. New Albany Plain LSD: $273,000
6. Upper Arlington CSD: $230,000
7. Downtown: $230,000
8. Bexley: $229,900
9. Dublin CSD: $226,500
10. German Village: $218,750
11. Granville CSD: $210,000
12. Buckeye Valley LSD: $209,155
13. Johnstown Monroe LSD: $201,250
14. Gahanna Jefferson CSD: $200,000
15. Gahanna: $200,000

Top 15 Least Expensive Locations by Median Sales Price in February 2013
1. Whitehall: $30,500
2. Jefferson LSD: $56,000
3. Hamilton LSD: $58,000
4. Valleyview: $58,000
5. Newark CSD: $64,000
6. Columbus CSD: $76,500
7. Groveport Madison LSD: $77,778
8. South-Western CSD: $83,000
9. Circleville CSD: $83,900
10. Sunbury: $89,000
11. Reynoldsburg CSD: $96,000
12. Columbus: $97,500
13. Pataskala: $98,950
14. London CSD: $106,500
15. Lancaster CSD: $106,700

Whitehall continued to be the cheapest market for the second month in a row.

Overall Market Median Sales Price in February 2013: $122,143

Top 15 Locations with the Highest Median Sales Price % Growth Between February 2012 and February 2013
1. Jefferson LSD: +64.7%
2. Buckeye Valley LSD: +54.9%
3. Johnstown Monroe LSD: +53.3%
4. Obetz: +43.9%
5. Canal Winchester CSD: +40.1%
6. Gahanna: +37.3%
7. Gahanna Jefferson CSD: +17.0%
8. Dublin CSD: +15.0%
9. Downtown: +15.0%
10. Westerville: +12.2%
11. German Village: +12.2%
12. Groveport Madison LSD: +11.1%
13. Columbus CSD: +10.9%
14. Olentangy LSD: +10.3%
15. London CSD: +8.7%

Far-flung exurban districts seemed to see the largest increases this month.

Top 15 Locations with the Lowest Median Sales Price % Growth Between February 2012 and February 2013
1. Sunbury: -55.0%
2. Big Walnut LSD: -37.1%
3. Hilliard: -29.2%
4. Hamilton LSD: -27.3%
5. Grandview Heights: -26.0%
6. New Albany Plain LSD: -26.0%
7. Circleville CSD: -24.8%
8. Bexley: -22.8%
9. Upper Arlington CSD: -20.0%
10. Pataskala: -19.2%
11. Granville CSD: -17.6%
12. Grove City: -13.1%
13. Whitehall: -12.3%
14. Delaware CSD: -10.1%
15. Hilliard CSD: -9.8%

Overall Market Median Sales Price % Change February 2012 vs. February 2013: -1.5%

Top 10 Locations with the Most New Listings in February 2013
1. Columbus: 1,083
2. Columbus CSD: 677
3. South-Western CSD: 240
4. Olentangy LSD: 177
5. Hilliard CSD: 147
6. Dublin CSD: 134
7. Westerville CSD: 114
8. Grove City: 89
9. Worthington CSD: 88
10. Dublin: 84

Top 10 Locations with the Fewest New Listings in February 2013
1. Valleyview: 0
2. Obetz: 1
3. Lithopolis: 3
4. Minerva Park: 5
5. Grandview Heights: 5
6. Sunbury: 6
7. Johnstown Monroe LSD: 6
8. Jefferson LSD: 8
9. Jonathan Alder LSD: 12
10. Hamilton LSD: 13
11. Whitehall: 14

Total New Listings in the Columbus Metro in February 2013: 2,694
Overall Metro New Listings % Change February 2012-February 2013: +17.9%

Supply improved over a year earlier.

For more information on the local market, go here: Columbus Realtors



Columbus GDP 2001-2011



Recently the US Bureau of Economic Analysis released GDP numbers for metro areas for 2011. Below is a chart for Ohio’s 3-Cs of GDP from 2001 to 2011.
Columbus GDP 2001-2011 Columbus, Ohio

All the metros saw GDP growth during this period, and all saw dips during the recession before growing again the past few years.

Total Growth (in Millions) 2001-2011
Cincinnati: $24,795
Columbus: $22,850
Cleveland: $21,518

GDP % Growth 2001-2011
Columbus: 32.1%
Cincinnati: 31.9%
Cleveland: 25.2%

So this shows that the Columbus metro has had the fastest growth the past 10 years in its GDP, albeit only a bit faster than Cincinnati.

The graph above shows the metro GDP per capita. Columbus was clearly ahead the first half of the last decade, but has fallen since. There are two reasons for this: Continuously growing population and the recession. A growing population and stagnant GDP during the recession meant that the GDP was diluted between more people. Neither of the other two faced the strong population growth during the recession. I expect the trends will reverse again over the next few years, however.