Category Archives: Columbus History

2013 Metro Area Comparison

Posted on by
Reply




2013 Metro Area Comparison

The recent Census release of updated population numbers gives new figures on metro populations. In previous articles, I talked mostly about density, so this time, the data is being expanded a bit for a full 2013 metro area comparison.

Metro Area Population on July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2013 By Rank
2012————————————–—-2013
1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,989— 1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,867
2. Charlotte: 2,294,990—2. Charlotte: 2,335,358
3. Portland, OR: 2,289,038—3. Portland, OR: 2,314,554
4. San Antonio, TX: 2,234,494—4. San Antonio, TX: 2,277,550
5. Orlando: 2,223,456—5. Orlando: 2,267,846
6. Sacramento, CA: 2,193,927—6. Sacramento, CA: 2,215,770
7. Cincinnati: 2,129,309—7. Cincinnati: 2,137,406
8. Cleveland: 2,064,739—8. Cleveland: 2,064,725
9. Kansas City: 2,038,690—9. Kansas City: 2,054,473
10. Las Vegas: 1,997,659—10. Las Vegas: 2,027,868
11. Columbus: 1,944,937—11. Columbus: 1,967,066
12. Indianapolis: 1,929,207—12. Indianapolis: 1,953,961
13. San Jose, CA: 1,892,894—13. San Jose, CA: 1,919,641
14. Austin, TX: 1,835,110— 14. Austin, TX: 1,883,051
15. Nashville: 1,726,759—15. Nashville: 1,757,912
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,698,410—16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,707,369
17. Providence, RI: 1,601,160—17. Providence, RI: 1,604,291
18. Milwaukee: 1,566,182—18. Milwaukee: 1,569,659

Total Metro Population Change, 2012-2013, By Rank
1. Austin: +47,941
2. Orlando: +44,390
3. San Antonio: +43,056
4. Charlotte: +40,368
5. Nashville: +31,153
6. Las Vegas: +30,209
7. San Jose: +26,747
8. Portland: +25,516
9. Indianapolis: +24,754
10. Columbus: +22,129
11. Sacramento: +21,843
12. Kansas City: +15,783
13. Virginia Beach: +8,959
14. Cincinnati: +8,097
15. Milwaukee: +3,477
16. Providence: +3,131
17. Cleveland: -14
18. Pittsburgh: -122

Average Annual Population Change from 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013
2000-2010——————–—-2010-2013
1. Charlotte: +88,657— 1. Austin: +55,587
2. Las Vegas: +57,550— 2. San Antonio: +45,014
3. Orlando: +48,985— 3. Orlando: +44,478
4. Austin: +46,653— 4. Charlotte: +39,447
5. San Antonio: +43,081— 5. Portland: +29,515
6. Indianapolis: +36,277— 6. Nashville: +29,007
7. Nashville: +35,910— 7. San Jose: +27,577
8. Sacramento: +35,227— 8. Las Vegas: +25,553
9. Portland: +29,819— 9. Sacramento: +22,214
10. Columbus: +28,928— 10. Indianapolis: +22,028
11. Kansas City: +17,330— 11. Columbus: +21,697
12. Cincinnati: +10,495— 12. Kansas City: +15,134
13. San Jose: +10,109— 13. Virginia Beach: +10.182
14. Virginia Beach: +10,045— 14. Cincinnati: +7,609
15. Milwaukee: +5,517— 15. Milwaukee: +4,584
16. Providence: +1,846— 16. Pittsburgh: +1,527
17. Cleveland: -7,090— 17. Providence: +1,146
18. Pittsburgh: -7,480— 18. Cleveland: -4,172

Annual Growth Rate % Change 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013**
1. San Jose: +172.8%
2. Pittsburgh: +120.4%
3. Cleveland: +69.9%
4. Austin: +19.1%
5. San Antonio: +4.5%
6. Virginia Beach: +1.4%
7. Portland: -1.0%
8. Orlando: -9.2%
9. Kansas City: -12.7%
10. Milwaukee: -16.9%
11. Nashville: -19.2%
12. Columbus: -25.0%
13. Cincinnati: -27.5%
14. Sacramento: -36.9%
15. Providence: -37.9%
16. Indianapolis: -39.3%
17. Charlotte: -55.5%
18. Las Vegas: -55.6%

**Some of the changes in rates are due to boundary changes. For example, part of the growth rate for Columbus 2000-2010 was a retroactive population addition when boundaries were changed in 2013. The actual growth rate changed very little.

Metro Area Density 2012 vs. 2013
2012——————————2013
1. Cleveland: 1,033.3—Cleveland: 1,033.9
2. Providence: 978.8— 2. Providence: 980.6
3. Milwaukee: 859.6— 3. Milwaukee: 861.0
4. San Jose: 702.9— 4. San Jose: 712.3
5. Virginia Beach: 642.2— 5. Orlando: 649.6
6. Orlando: 637.0— 6. Virginia Beach: 645.0
7. Cincinnati: 484.4— 7. Cincinnati: 486.4
8. Indianapolis: 444.4— 8. Charlotte: 450.8
9. Charlotte: 443.4— 9. Indianapolis: 450.1
10. Austin: 428.6—- 10. Austin: 440.0
11. Pittsburgh: 413.7— 11. Pittsburgh: 413.8
12. Columbus: 400.8— 12. Columbus: 405.6
13. Portland: 335.9— 13. Portland: 339.5
14. Sacramento: 316.7— 14. Sacramento: 319.5
15. San Antonio: 302.4— 15. San Antonio: 308.3
16. Kansas City: 276.5— 16. Kansas City: 278.6
17. Nashville: 270.7— 17. Nashville: 275.6
18. Las Vegas: 247.3— 18. Las Vegas: 250.6


Total Births 2012 vs. 2013
2012————————————2013
1. San Antonio: +31,045— 1. San Antonio: +31,527
2. Kansas City: +28,087— 2. Kansas City: +27,937
3. Cincinnati: +27,803— 3. Sacramento: +27,865
4. Portland: +27,683— 4. Portland: +27,762
5. Sacramento: +27,649— 5. Cincinnati: +27,545
6. Orlando: +27,165— 6. Orlando: +27,484
7. Las Vegas: +26,385— 7. Las Vegas: +26,616
8. Columbus: +25,904— 8. Columbus: +25,740
9. Indianapolis: +25,472— 9. Austin: +25,519
10. Austin: +25,015 — 10. Indianapolis: +25,507
11. Charlotte: +24,415— 11. Charlotte: +24,437
12. San Jose: +24,240— 12. San Jose: +24,386
13. Pittsburgh: +24,006— 13. Pittsburgh: +23,938
14. Cleveland: +23,227— 14. Cleveland: +23,204
15. Virginia Beach: +22,799— 15. Virginia Beach: +22,773
16. Nashville: +21,641— 16. Nashville: +21,714
17. Milwaukee: +20,125— 17. Milwaukee: +19,963
18. Providence: +16,761— 18. Providence: +16,668

Total Deaths 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————————–—-2013
1. Austin: -8,732— 1. Austin: -8,859
2. San Jose: -9,965— 2. San Jose: -10,319
3. Nashville: -12,187— 3. Nashville: -12,327
4. Charlotte: -12,241— 4. Charlotte: -12,396
5. Virginia Beach: -12,801— 5. Milwaukee: -12,856
6. Milwaukee: -12,836— 6. Virginia Beach: -13,094
7. Indianapolis: -13,520— 7. Indianapolis: -13,414
8. Columbus: -13,938— 8. Columbus: -14,118
9. Las Vegas: -14,311— 9. Providence: -14,387
10. Providence: -14,568— 10. Las Vegas: -14,462
11. San Antonio: -15,367— 11. San Antonio: -15,593
12. Orlando: -15,419— 12. Orlando: -15,882
13. Sacramento: -15,973— 13. Sacramento: -16,133
14. Portland: -16,013— 14. Portland: -16,155
15. Kansas City: -16,255— 15. Kansas City: -16,254
16. Cincinnati: -18,477— 16. Cincinnati: -18,490
17. Cleveland: -20,708— 17. Cleveland: -20,326
18. Pittsburgh: -27,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -27,070

Net Natural Growth (Births vs. Deaths) 2012 vs. 2013
2012————————————–2013
1. Austin: +16,283— 1. Austin: +16,660
2. San Antonio: +15,678— 2. San Antonio: +15,934
3. San Jose: +14,275— 3. San Jose: +14,067
4. Charlotte: +12,174— 4. Las Vegas: +11,622
5. Las Vegas: +12,074— 5. Indianapolis: +12,093
6. Columbus: +11,966— 6. Charlotte: +12,041
7. Indianapolis: +11,952— 7. Sacramento: +11,732
8. Kansas City: +11,862— 8. Kansas City: +11,683
9. Orlando: +11,746— 9. Columbus: +11,622
10. Sacramento: +11,676— 10. Portland: +11,607
11. Portland: +11,670— 11. Orlando: +11,602
12. Virginia Beach: +9,998— 12. Virginia Beach: +9,679
13. Nashville: +9,454— 13. Nashville: +9,387
14. Cincinnati: +9,326— 14. Cincinnati: +9,055
15. Milwaukee: +7,289— 15. Milwaukee: +7,107
16. Cleveland: +2,519— 16. Cleveland: +2,878
17. Providence: +2,193— 17. Providence; +2,281
18. Pittsburgh: -3,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -3,132

Domestic In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012———————————2013
1. Austin: +31,041— 1. Austin: +25,908
2. Orlando: +22,667— 2. San Antonio: +22,392
3. San Antonio: +21,908— 3. Charlotte: +21,382
4. Charlotte: +18,000— 4. Nashville: +17,975
5. Nashville: +14,946— 5. Orlando: +17,316
6. Las Vegas: +12,315— 6. Las Vegas: +10,524
7. Portland: +11,767— 7. Indianapolis: +8,934
8. Indianapolis: +4,146— 8. Portland: +7,901
9. Columbus: +3,275— 9. Columbus: +5,749
10. Pittsburgh: +1,963— 10. Sacramento: +3,329
11. Sacramento: +1,302— 11. Kansas City: +771
12. Kansas City: -1,061— 12. Pittsburgh: +590
13. San Jose: -2,304— 13. San Jose: -1,397
14. Milwaukee: -4,291— 14. Providence: -3,721
15. Providence: -5,210— 15. Cincinnati: -3,894
16. Virginia Beach: -5,950— 16. Cleveland: -5,581
17. Cincinnati: -6,024— 17. Milwaukee: -5,663
18. Cleveland: -9,990— 18. Virginia Beach: -5,920

International In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012————————————–2013
1. Orlando: +14,506— 1. Orlando: +14,725
2. San Jose: +13,728— 2. San Jose: +14,124
3. Virginia Beach: +7,562— 3. Las Vegas: +6,506
4. Las Vegas: +6,606— 4. Sacramento: +6,071
5. Sacramento: +5,921— 5. Austin: +5,322
6. Austin: +5,199— 6. Portland: +5,280
7. Portland: +5,109— 7. Virginia Beach: +5,037
8. Columbus: +4,654— 8. Charlotte: +4,996
9. Providence: +4,637— 9. Columbus: +4,689
10. Charlotte: +4,573— 10. Providence: +4,563
11. San Antonio: +4,441— 11. Indianapolis: +4,064
12. Indianapolis: +3,958— 12. Cleveland: +3,698
13. Cleveland: +3,647— 13. San Antonio: +3,469
14. Nashville: +3,305— 14. Nashville: +3,463
15. Cincinnati: +3,268— 15. Cincinnati: +3,326
16. Kansas City: +3,164— 16. Kansas City: +3,119
17. Pittsburgh: +2,767— 17. Pittsburgh: +2,778
18. Milwaukee: +2,179— 18. Milwaukee: +2,233

Net In-Migration Total 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————————–—-2013
1. Orlando: +37,173— 1. Orlando: +32,041
2. Austin: +36,240— 2. Austin: +31,230
3. San Antonio: +25,949— 3. Charlotte: +26,378
4. Charlotte: +22,573— 4. San Antonio: +25,861
5. Las Vegas: +18,921— 5. Nashville: +21,428
6. Nashville: +18,251— 6. Las Vegas: +17,030
7. Portland: +16,876— 7. Portland: +13,181
8. San Jose: +11,424— 8. Indianapolis: +12,998
9. Indianapolis: +8,104— 9. San Jose: +12,727
10. Columbus: +7,929— 10. Columbus: +10,438
11. Sacramento: +7,223— 11. Sacramento: +9,400
12. Pittsburgh: +4,730— 12. Kansas City: +3,890
13. Kansas City: +2,103— 13. Pittsburgh: +3,368
14. Virginia Beach: +1,612— 14. Providence: +842
15. Providence: -573— 15. Cincinnati: -568
16. Milwaukee: -2,112— 16. Virginia Beach: -883
17. Cincinnati: -2,756— 17. Cleveland: -1,883
18. Cleveland: -6,343— 18. Milwaukee: -3,430

Residential Construction Trends of Columbus in One Graph

Posted on by
Reply




We’ve been hearing a lot the last few years about how residential construction has largely turned toward the rental variety, and no more so than in the urban areas. I have tried to document the level of activity in the city in my development page, but it doesn’t quite show what’s going on in the city overall. I did a little research and found some surprising realities that fully support the rental boom. The residential construction trends of Columbus have changed significantly in recent years.

Here is a graph of annual housing construction permits from 2004-2013 broken down by multi-family and single-family types.

The chart above is based on the # of units, not the number of overall projects.

So what do the numbers say? Well, it raises some interesting questions. First, was the amount of single-family home construction on the decline before 2004 given the downward trend from that year through 2005? And was multi-family construction on the rise during the same period? Did the recession merely interrupt a trend that began more than a decade ago and resurfaced strongly in recent years? It’s hard to say for sure as I don’t have information before 2004, but regardless, it is clear that multi-family construction is the preferred residential preference right now by builders. Single-family home construction, however, has remained steady and well below its previous peak of the last decade.

This continued low level of single-family construction has likely contributed to the fact that area sales in that market have been down for several months now due to a lack of inventory. Prices, however, have risen.



Housing Market Update February 2014

Posted on by
Reply



housing market update February 2014 Columbus, Ohio

Unfortunately, I have been unable to update this site for about a month, but I am back now and have quite a bit to add. First, I have the numbers for the local Housing Market Update February 2014. Due to changes in the way the numbers were gotten, January’s were not available. I still do them for 21 major areas of Franklin County, however, and here they are. As always, the data is from Columbus Realtors.

Top 10 February 2014 Sales Totals
1. Columbus: 535
2. Grove City: 39
3. Westerville: 36
4. Upper Arlington: 33
5. Dublin: 31
6. Hilliard: 30
7. Reynoldsburg: 29
8. Clintonville: 28
9. Gahanna: 23
10. Downtown: 14

Top 10 February 2014 Sales Increases over February 2013
1. Obetz: +200.0%
2. Westerville: +38.5%
3. Grove City: +14.7%
4. German Village: +10.0%
5. Hilliard: +7.1%
6. Gahanna: +0.0%
7. New Albany: +0.0%
8. Upper Arlington: +0.0%
9. Whitehall: +0.0%
10. Downtown: -6.7%

Top 10 Year-to-Date Sales Through February 2014
1. Columbus: 1,076
2. Dublin: 72
3. Grove City: 65
4. Clintonville: 62
5. Reynoldsburg: 59
6. Westerville: 59
7. Upper Arlington: 55
8. Hilliard: 54
9. Gahanna: 40
10. Canal Winchester: 29

Top 10 Year-to-Date Increases Through February 2014 Over 2013
1. Obetz: +300.0%
2. Pataskala: +20.8%
3. Worthington: +8.0%
4. German Village: +6.7%
5. Reynoldsburg: +3.5%
6. Grove City: +3.2%
7. Westerville: -1.7%
8. Hilliard: -1.8%
9. Clintonville: -6.1%
10. Columbus: -6.8%

Average Sales February 2014
Urban: 60.1
Suburban: 22.9
Urban without Columbus: 12.6

Average % Change February 2014 vs. February 2013
Urban: -1.1%
Suburban: -7.1%
Urban without Columbus: -0.2%

Average YTD Sales Through February 2014
Urban: 120
Suburban: 45.1
Urban without Columbus: 24.4

Average YTD % Change YTD Through February 2014
Urban: +11.8%
Suburban: -9.4%
Urban without Columbus: +13.7%

Top 10 Average Sales Price February 2014
1. New Albany: $641,524
2. Bexley: $460,307
3. Upper Arlington: $378,852
4. Dublin: $334,967
5. Grandview: $318,667
6. Downtown: $302,720
7. German Village: $232,014
8. Worthington: $227,422
9. Westerville: $209,149
10. Hilliard: $199,724

Top 10 Average Sales Price % Change February 2014 vs. February 2013
1. Grandview: +68.6%
2. Pataskala: +47.1%
3. Upper Arlington: +46.5%
4. Bexley: +46.1%
5. Pickerington: +28.6%
6. Westerville: +25.9%
7. Obetz: +25.0%
8. Reynoldsburg: +19.9%
9. Canal Winchester: +17.6%
10. Hilliard: +13.1%

Top 10 Average Sales Prices YTD Through February 2014
1. New Albany: $515,036
2. Bexley: $418,680
3. Upper Arlington: $343,026
4. Dublin: $326,231
5. Downtown: $314,042
6. German Village: $309,343
7. Grandview: $251,136
8. Worthington: $231,133
9. Westerville: $205,636
10. Hilliard: $200,965

Top 10 Average YTD Sales Price % Change Through February 2014 vs. 2013
1. Pataskala: +36.2%
2. Whitehall: +35.5%
3. Bexley: +31.7%
4. Grandview: +26.1%
5. German Village: +22.2%
6. Downtown: +20.0%
7. Pickerington: +18.3%
8. Westerville: +15.8%
9. Canal Winchester: +15.2%
10. Reynoldsburg: +15.1%

Average Sales Price February 2014
Urban: $228,596
Suburban: $235,812
Urban without Columbus: $239,422

Average Sales Price Change February 2014 vs. February 2013
Urban: +15.9%
Suburban: +17.1%
Urban without Columbus: +16.9%

Average Sales Price YTD
Urban: $222,639
Suburban: $220,917
Urban without Columbus: $232,886

Average Sales Price % Change YTD
Urban: +13.0%
Suburban: +13.3%
Urban without Columbus: +13.0%

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets February 2014 (Based on Average # of Days for Listings to Sell)
1. Grandview: 39
2. Clintonville: 57
3. Obetz: 62
4. Worthington: 70
5. Pataskala: 74
6. Hilliard: 78
7. Upper Arlington: 83
8. Westerville: 88
9. Pickerington: 89
10. Columbus: 91

Top 10 Fastest Selling Markets YTD
1. Worthington: 50
2. Grandview: 58
3. Pickerington: 60
4. Clintonville: 64
5. Obetz: 64
6. Hilliard: 66
7. Whitehall: 66
8. Upper Arlington: 73
9. Gahanna: 85
10. Westerville: 87

Average # of Days Before Sale, February 2014
Urban: 86.2
Suburban: 104.4
Urban without Columbus: 85.7

Average # of Days Before Sale YTD
Urban: 81.1
Suburban: 89.1
Urban without Columbus: 80.4

Top 10 Lowest Market Housing Supplies (Based on # of Months to Sell all Listings)
1. Worthington: 1.0
2. Hilliard: 1.6
3. Upper Arlington: 1.7
4. Westerville: 1.7
5. Clintonville: 1.8
6. Gahanna: 1.9
7. German Village: 1.9
8. Grandview: 2.0
9. Obetz: 2.2
10. Bexley and Dublin: 2.4

A healthy housing supply is considered to be around 5 months. Anything less than 3 months is considered very low.

Average # of Months to Sell All Listings, February 2014
Urban: 2.3
Suburban: 2.9
Urban without Columbus: 2.3

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales February 2014 vs. February 2013
Urban: +15.0%
Suburban: -7.7%
Urban without Columbus: +17.0%

Average % Change of Single-Family Home Sales YTD vs. YTD 2013
Urban: +3.0%
Suburban: -10.3%
Urban without Columbus: +4.0%

Average % Change of Condo Sales February 2014 vs. February 2013
Urban: -21.0%
Suburban: +7.0%
Urban without Columbus: -21.8%

Average % Change of Condo Sales YTD vs. YTD 2013
Urban: +20.6%
Suburban: +23.7%
Urban without Columbus: +23.0%



Housing Market Update December 2013

Posted on by
Reply



housing market update December 2013 Columbus, Ohio

December ended a 2-month decline in home sales for the area, with overall sales up 2.5% according to the Housing Market Update December 2013 data from Columbus Realtors.

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

Posted on by
Reply



2013 residential projects

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

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.