Disastrous Decision for the Columbus Convention Center




I’m not a complainer… or at the very least, I don’t prefer to be. That said, there are simply times where negativity makes perfectly logical sense, and where it can serve a real purpose for true positive change. That is arguably the case now, with the a very poor decision about the Columbus Convention Center. I’ve not posted too much on my personal views regarding development, but recent events have prompted me to give some of them on this particular project.

Back in March, it was revealed that the Greater Columbus Convention Center leadership had asked the local development community to come up with ideas for a potential expansion project for the convention center itself. The building was designed by famed 1980s and early 1990s architect Peter Eisenman (who also did the Wexner Center for the Arts), and began construction in 1989 and completed in 1990. Originally, the building included 1.4 million square feet of space, with a large parking lot occupying the southeast corner of the Goodale/N. High Street intersection.
Columbus convention center

In 1999, an expansion pushed the structure north nearly to Goodale, but left enough space for a small plaza there.

So even after the initial construction of the original building, there were obvious problems with the design, not least of which was the pastel color scheme better suited for Miami Beach. The building simply didn’t have any street-level presence. Beyond a few entrances, the convention center’s design essentially created a block-long wall along High Street. There was no ground floor retail, no restaurants and no pedestrian interaction whatsoever. Back in 1989, this was just fine and dandy, because no one really cared about that and hadn’t since the days before WWII. Cities had become showplaces and for big buildings and massive surface parking lots that didn’t actually bring anyone to live there. There was no reason to walk on the streets of the city, and architects certainly didn’t think it was necessary to build for that purpose. The suburbs were the real future, blah blah blah. Everyone knows that story.

Since 1999, the neighborhood around the convention center has been rocketing upward in popularity. The nearby Arena District continued to grow and add development, and the Short North continued to rapidly revitalize and is now the city’s hottest neighborhood. For the past few years, there has been a push to attract more business to Columbus via the center and to highlight all the nearby amenities. To that end, the 12-story, 500+ room Hilton was completed across the street in 2012. The $140 million structure was built with public dollars, as a private developer did not step forward when the idea was put forth. The project was somewhat speculative, as the demand for hotel space in the city was not particularly high enough to warrant the construction (a good reason why private development hadn’t shown up), but because the city understood that hotel space was part of the key to attract bigger and better convention events, the hotel went up and Hilton came in to run the space.

The gamble seemed to be paying off, and in January, the Columbus Dispatch came out with an article about the hotel’s success. In the article, there was even the mention of adding even more hotel space, possibly up to 1,000 additional rooms, at some point in the near future.

So when the convention center authority announced it was searching for ideas for a new expansion project, that reality seemed to be taking place. In late March, there was this bit of news. Four separate proposals had been submitted by private developers on ideas to develop the north end of the convention center, along with the surface parking lot north of Goodale behind the 670 retail cap. The most prominent idea came from Wagenbrenner, with a pair of 15-story, mixed-use towers that would’ve included more than 100 residential units, hotel and event space, and ground-floor retail along High Street, an element the original building severely lacked.

Columbus convention center Wagenbrenner proposal

Wagenbrenner Development’s proposal.

Columbus convention center Wagenbrenner proposal rendering 2

Wagenbrenner Development’s proposal, looking southeast from High and Goodale.

Another proposal from Kaufman was far more modern, but still retained mixed-use elements.

Columbus convention center Kaufman proposal

The Kaufman proposal, looking east on Goodale.

In Wagenbrenner’s case, a hotel chain had already stepped forward interested in running the hotel aspect of the project, and there seemed little doubt that one of the proposals would move forward, based on quotes from the convention center authority and their stated goal for a “big idea” sort of project moving forward. The selection of the design would be announced in a few month’s time.

So what was the result of all that? On June 12th, 2014, an article in the Dispatch came out detailing a renovation and expansion project for the convention center.
The problem was that the article did not mention any mixed-use project whatsoever. Instead, it called for a general total-building renovation and a small 30,000 sf expansion and entranceway into the plaza space at the southeast corner of High and Goodale. Additionally, an 800-space parking garage would be built in the surface lot behind the 670 cap.

Wait, what?? When the article initially came out, there was confusion by many in the development-following community on just what was going on. Part of the confusion stemmed from the fact that the convention center authority had already announced a renovation project just 2 weeks prior to the release of the information on the mixed-use expansion project. That announcement had mentioned only a $30 million renovation, not the much larger one announced on June 12th. There had also been mention previously of the garage project, back in late 2013. In that discussion, the garage was being looked at to get ground-floor retail, especially closer to High, to take advantage of the neighborhood’s high walkability and retail success.

So at first, it was assumed that the garage and renovation project was a separate issue from the larger proposed expansion, but the article on June 12th specifically mentioned the very same land that the proposed mixed-use towers would’ve used. The following day, on June 13th, the Dispatch came out with a second article about the $125 million renovation/expansion project, and in it near the bottom, was this damning paragraph:

Jennison said the expansion of the convention center rules out earlier ideas of adding shops and residences to the north end of the facility, including the possibility of more hotel space. The authority’s board sought proposals for such a project earlier this year before ultimately ruling them out.

Suddenly, the 2-tower project had been swept under the rug and abandoned. Worse, it had been abandoned in favor of new carpets/fresh paint, a glorified 2-story entrance on Goodale, and a 1970s parking garage with no retail at all.

Columbus convention center parking garage

The parking garage proposal on Goodale behind the 670 retail cap, part of the convention authority’s new plan.

To say that there was some disbelief that such a decision had been made is putting it mildly. Across development forums, and even on the Dispatch articles themselves, the negative reaction was swift and universal. How and why had such a promising proposal for the convention center turned into the height of mediocrity? And why had potential fully private or a private/public funded project turned into a 100% publicly funded fiasco? The answer, it seems, is likely staring us in the face: The Hilton Hotel. Though it hasn’t been confirmed either way, there is an element of suspicion against the Hilton for obvious reasons. The Hilton is publicly financed and was publicly built. To have a private company build a competing hotel may have taken away business, and the convention authority was not interested in allowing competition for a public enterprise. There are precious few other logical reasons why the convention authority would actively seek private investment only to toss those proposals out a few months later in favor of a project that had no competing elements to it.

Worse still, the convention authority knows it’s a terrible plan in comparison. On June 15th, yet another article on the project appeared in the Columbus Dispatch.

In it, the idea is pushed forth that the renovation plan will be transformative, and will keep Columbus competitive for convention business. The problem is that it’s neither transformative nor competitive. Granted, the convention center is in need of renovations, as much of the interior is dated. But to spend $125 million on that renovation, combined with a laughably bad expansion/garage rather than actually going with, at the very least, a partially privately-funded project that would’ve actually improved Columbus’ competitiveness along with adding much needed pedestrian access and excitement to the intersection in question… well, it’s insanity. And the 3rd article only suggests that the convention authority is well aware of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to their plan and are attempting to justify it as much as possible. Only there can be no real justification. Bad decisions remain bad decisions. Whether this one was made to prevent competition or is simply an example of being out of touch with a stated goal, the convention center authority has made one of the worst decisions in Columbus development history… and that was after the city allowed Union Station to be demolished. Shame on them.



Residential Construction Trends of Columbus in One Graph




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



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%



Exurbia in the Columbus Metro




Exurbia in the Columbus metro

I hear all the time how Columbus is extremely suburban (low density) in its development. But where does it actually rank with its peers? One metric is looking at exurbia, the far outer suburban areas that are largely made up of sprawl. How does exurbia in the Columbus metro compare to other places?

I looked at metros of similar size to Columbus (1.5-2.5 million).

Metro Population Living in Exurbia, 2000
1. Nashville, TN: 23.1%
2. Austin, TX: 21.8%
3. Charlotte, NC: 16.7%
4. Orlando, FL: 14.7%
5. San Antonio, TX: 12.6%
6. Indianapolis, IN: 10.5%
7. Kansas City, KS: 9.0%
8. Cincinnati: 6.7%
9. Virginia Beach: 6.0%
10. Portland, OR: 5.8%
11. Columbus: 4.9%
12. Sacramento, CA: 4.1%
13. Las Vegas, NV: 3.1%
14. Providence, RI: 2.9%
15. Milwaukee, WI: 2.8%
16. San Jose, CA: 1.1%
17. Cleveland: 1.0%
18. Pittsburgh, PA: 0.8%

Metro Population Living in Exurbia, 2010
1. Austin, TX: 32.3%
2. Nashville, TN: 27.9%
3. Charlotte, NC: 22.7%
4. Orlando, FL: 21.7%
5. San Antonio, TX: 20.3%
6. Indianapolis: 15.8%
7. Kansas City, KS: 14.4%
8. Las Vegas, NV: 10.6%
9. Cincinnati: 8.8%
10. Columbus: 7.7%
11. Sacramento, CA: 7.7%
12. Virginia Beach, VA: 7.4%
13. Portland, OR: 6.7%
14. Milwaukee, WI: 3.3%
15. Providence, RI: 3.2%
16. Cleveland: 1.7%
17. Pittsburgh, PA: 1.1%
18. San Jose, CA: 1.1%

Metro Population Living in Exurbia Total % Change 2000-2010
1. Las Vegas, NV: +389.9%
2. Sacramento, CA: +123.5%
3. Austin, TX: +103.8%
4. San Antonio, TX: +101.6%
5. Orlando, FL: +92.0%
6. Charlotte, NC: +82.5%
7. Columbus: +78.4%
8. Kansas City, KS: +75.6%
9. Indianapolis, IN: +72.9%
10. Cleveland: +58.3%
11. Nashville, TN: +46.4%
12. Cincinnati: +38.7%
13. Portland, OR: +33.5%
14. Virginia Beach, VA: +31.2%
15. Pittsburgh, PA: +28.0%
16. Milwaukee, WI: +20.8%
17. Providence, RI: +10.3%
18. San Jose, CA: +9.0%

So what these numbers show is that Columbus is actually in the bottom half of exurban population vs. its 17 peers, but is in the top half of growth in that population. As can be imagined, a large part of this growth came before the recession.

Metro Exurban Population Growth 2000-2007
1. Las Vegas, NV: +285.2%
2. Sacramento, CA: +104.2%
3. Orlando, FL: +78.3%
4. Austin, TX: +74.2%
5. Columbus: +62.0%
6. Charlotte, NC: +58.4%
7. San Antonio, TX: +56.2%
8. Kansas City, KS: +55.4%
9. Indianapolis, IN: +46.4%
10. Nashville, TN: +30.6%
11. Portland, OR: +29.1%
12. Cleveland: +27.0%
13. Cincinnati: +26.2%
14. Virginia Beach, VA: +25.7%
15. Pittsburgh, PA: +16.5%
16. Milwaukee, WI: +13.3%
17. Providence, RI: +10.9%
18. San Jose, CA: +5.9%

Metro Exurban Population Growth 2007-2010
1. San Antonio, TX: +29.1%
2. Las Vegas, NV: +27.2%
3. Cleveland: +24.7%
4. Indianapolis, IN: +18.0%
5. Austin, TX: +17.0%
6. Charlotte, NC: +15.3%
7. Kansas City, KS: +13.7%
8. Nashville, TN: +12.1%
9. Columbus: +10.1%
10. Cincinnati: +9.9%
11. Pittsburgh, PA: +9.8%
12. Sacramento, CA: +9.5%
13. Orlando, FL: +7.7%
14. Milwaukee, WI: +6.7%
15. Virginia Beach, VA: +4.3%
16. Portland, OR: +3.3%
17. San Jose, CA: +2.9%
18. Providence, RI: -0.6%

Average Annual Rate Change Between 2000-2007 and 2007-2010
1. Cleveland: +117.1%
2. Pittsburgh, PA: +45.5%
3. San Antonio, TX: +34.8%
4. San Jose, CA: +25.0%
5. Milwaukee, WI: +22.2%
6. Indianapolis, IN: +1.8%
7. Nashville, TN: +0.0%
8. Cincinnati: -5.9%
9. Charlotte, NC: -29.4%
10. Kansas City, KS: -32.3%
11. Austin, TX: -34.1%
12. Columbus: -53.5%
13. Virginia Beach, VA: -57.6%
14. Las Vegas, NV: -60.8%
15. Portland, OR: -70.3%
16. Orlando, FL: -70.9%
17. Sacramento, CA: -71.0%
18. Providence, RI: -113.3%

So there you have it. Columbus is definitely not anywhere near the sprawl king it’s often made out to be, even within its own peer group. Outside of it, there are dozens of metros with far more.



Housing Market Update December 2013



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%