In today’s cool link edition, we have a new study by the site Demographia that offers a housing affordability comparison for more than 90 markets across 8 different countries/places around the world. What is different about this study is that the comparison is done including a housing cost to income ratio, meaning that it takes into account local incomes versus housing prices. That makes it much more accurate in terms of an overall market comparison.
Columbus ranks fairly well, overall, along with Ohio’s other 2 main markets in Cincinnati and Cleveland. Despite all the local complaints about housing becoming unaffordable, relative to just about everywhere else in the US, Ohio markets are actually inexpensive. That doesn’t mean that housing costs aren’t rising quickly or that more and more people aren’t being priced out of buying and owning a home, because that’s definitely happening and certainly an increasing problem. It just means that the problem isn’t quite as bad locally as it is in most other places.
The local housing market update June 2021 has been released. Here are the numbers!
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 June 2021 1. New Albany: $720,000 2. Bexley: $625,000 3. Powell: $532,500 4. Dublin: $509,000 4. New Albany Plain LSD: $500,000 5. Grandview Heights: $492,500 6. Olentangy LSD: $479,900 7. Upper Arlington CSD: $478,000 8. Big Walnut LSD: $472,500 9. German Village: $465,000 10. Dublin CSD: $445,389 11. Downtown: $445,000 12. Worthington: $440,000 13. Short North: $407,500 14. Jonathan Alder LSD: $407,000 15. Buckeye Valley LSD: $405,000
Top 15 Least Expensive Locations by Median Sales Price in June 2021 1. Newark CSD: $155,000 2. Whitehall: $155,900 3. Circleville CSD: $158,500 4. Lancaster CSD: $176,000 5. Valleyview: $177,925 6. Hamilton LSD: $182,950 7. Groveport Madison LSD: $200,000 8. Columbus CSD: $216,688 9. Obetz: $233,500 10. Jefferson LSD: $237,450 11. Columbus: $240,000 12. Reynoldsburg CSD: $240,250 13. South Western CSD: $250,000 14. Delaware CSD: $252,000 15. London CSD: $261,500
Overall Market Median Sales Price in May 2021: $291,391 Based on the 10 Columbus Metro Area counties.
Top 15 Locations with the Highest Median Sales Price % Growth Between June 2020 and June 2021 1. Jefferson LSD: +62.6% 2. Downtown: +47.6% 3. Bexley: +43.0% 4. London CSD: +39.9% 5. Worthington: +34.1% 6. Big Walnut LSD: +33.5% 7. Gahanna: +31.5% 8. Obetz: +31.2% 9. Sunbury: +29.5% 10. South Western CSD: +28.9% 11. Worthington CSD: +28.7% 12. Canal Winchester CSD: +26.9% 13. Whitehall: +26.7% 14. Pataskala: +26.0% 15. Powell: +25.6%
Top 15 Locations with the Lowest Median Sales Price % Growth Between June 2020 and June 2021 1. New Albany Plain LSD: -7.0% 2. Circleville CSD: -3.2% 3. Delaware CSD: +0.8% 4. Granville CSD: +1.0% 5. Hilliard: +4.3% 6. Short North: +5.0% 7. Hamilton LSD: +6.7% 8. Northridge LSD: +8.3% 9. Newark CSD: +10.1% 10. Buckeye Valley LSD: +10.2% 11. Lancaster CSD: +11.4% 12. Dublin CSD: +11.5% 13. Jonathan Alder LSD: +11.5% 14. Upper Arlington CSD: +12.3% 15. Lithopolis: +12.6%
There were just 2 locations that saw year-over-year median price declines.
Overall Market Median Sales Price % Change June 2021 vs. June 2020:+19.6% Based on 52 metro market locations.
Top 10 Locations with the Most New Listings in June 2021 1. Columbus: 1,450 2. Columbus CSD: 990 3. South Western CSD: 269 4. Olentangy LSD: 236 5. Dublin CSD: 197 6. Hilliard CSD: 179 7. Westerville CSD: 179 8. Worthington CSD: 136 9. Pickerington LSD: 129 10. Grove City: 114
Top 10 Locations with the Fewest New Listings in June 2021 1. Valleyview: 3 2. Minerva Park: 7 3. Lithopolis: 8 4. Grandview Heights: 10 5. Jefferson LSD: 13 6. Sunbury: 13 7. Obetz: 15 8. Whitehall: 15 9. Northridge LSD: 17 10. German Village: 20 11. Jonathan Alder LSD: 20
Total New Listings in the Columbus Metro in June 2021:+3,852 Overall Metro New Listings % Change June 2021 vs June 2020:+18.0%
Top 10 Fastest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in June 2021 1. Minerva Park: 3 2. Hilliard: 4 3. Pickerington: 4 4. Canal Winchester CSD: 5 5. Gahanna: 5 6. Hilliard CSD: 5 7. Jefferson LSD: 5 8. Johnstown Monroe LSD: 5 9. Lithopolis: 5 10. Reynoldsburg CSD: 5 11. Westerville: 5
Top 10 Slowest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in June 2021 1. Bexley: 42 2. Downtown: 34 3. German Village: 27 4. Buckeye Valley LSD: 24 5. Grandview Heights: 24 6. Granville CSD: 16 7. New Albany: 16 8. Dublin: 15 9. Dublin CSD: 14 10. Grove City: 14 11. Lancaster CSD: 14 12. Obetz: 14
Top 10 Locations with the Greatest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale June 2021 vs June 2020 1. Lithopolis: -92.4% 2. Minerva Park: -90.0% 3. Granville CSD: -88.7% 4. Circleville CSD: -88.2% 5. London CSD: -88.1% 6. Northridge LSD: -86.5% 7. Jonathan Alder LSD: -83.3% 8. Pickerington: -81.8% 9. Sunbury: -81.3% 10. Big Walnut LSD: -80.0% 11. Hilliard: -80.0%
Top 10 Locations with the Lowest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale June 2021 vs June 2020 1. Grandview Heights: +84.6% 2. Bexley: +40.0% 3. Obetz: +27.3% 4. Grove City: +0.0% 5. Pataskala: -9.1% 6. Worthington: -10.0% 7. Whitehall: -27.3% 8. Groveport Madison LSD: -30.0% 9. German Village: -35.7% 10. South Western CSD: -35.7%
% Change for the # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale Across the Metro Overall: 14.1
The local housing market update May 2021 is finally out, and the trends continue to show a strong sellers market. Prices continued to accelerate upward and supply continued to lag way behind, pushing home sales to occur even faster than they have been in recent months.
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 May 2021 1. New Albany: $810,000 2. German Village: $630,000 3. New Albany Plain LSD: $570,000 4. Dublin: $528,750 5. Bexley: $497,500 6. Upper Arlington CSD: $495,000 7. Worthington: $461,420 8. Powell: $460,000 9. Dublin CSD: $450,000 10. Olentangy LSD: $445,000 11. Buckeye Valley LSD: $406,790 12. Granville CSD: $402,500 13. Short North: $400,450 14. Grandview Heights: $394,000 15. Jonathan Alder LSD: $390,000
New Albany proper posted an astronomical median price in May, reaching unprecedented numbers for a Columbus suburb.
Top 15 Least Expensive Locations by Median Sales Price in May 2021 1. Whitehall: $138,000 2. Valleyview: $157,500 3. Groveport Madison LSD: $175,825 4. Lancaster CSD: $176,000 5. Circleville CSD: $182,000 6. Newark CSD: $184,250 7. Jefferson LSD: $207,500 8. Columbus CSD: $220,000 9. London CSD: $225,000 10. Hamilton LSD: $237,000 11. Columbus: $240,000 12. Reynoldsburg CSD: $245,500 13. South-Western CSD: $249,900 14. Canal Winchester CSD: $260,000 15. Teays Valley LSD: $268,894
In general, the further out the place from Columbus, the cheaper the location, but there are some exceptions. Whitehall and Columbus proper remain relatively affordable compared to most locations in the metro.
Overall Market Median Sales Price in May 2021: $227,088 The overall market is defined by Columbus Metro Area counties.
Top 15 Locations with the Highest Median Sales Price % Growth Between May 2020 and May 2021 1. German Village: +59.5% 2. Worthington: +54.6% 3. Obetz: +52.2% 4. New Albany Plain LSD: +40.7% 5. Hamilton LSD: +39.4% 6. Dublin CSD: +32.0% 7. Delaware CSD: +32.0% 8. Dublin: +31.4% 9. Pickerington: +30.3% 10. New Albany: +29.7% 11. Newark CSD: +29.4% 12. Worthington CSD: +29.1% 13. Westerville CSd: +28.6% 14. Pataskala: +27.0% 15. Jonathan Alder LSD: +25.8%
Top 15 Locations with the Lowest Median Sales Price % Growth Between May 2020 and May 2021 1. Lancaster CSD: -7.3% 2. Jefferson LSD: -5.5% 3. Downtown Columbus: -4.2% 4. Hilliard: -0.5% 5. Teays Valley LSD: +3.5% 6. Powell: +5.1% 7. Big Walnut LSD: +6.2% 8. Grandview Heights: +6.8% 9. Granville CSD: +7.6% 10. Short North: +7.6% 11. Canal Winchester CSD: +8.3% 12. Minerva Park: +8.4% 13. London CSD: +10.3% 14. Circleville CSD: +11.3% 15. Buckeye Valley LSD: +11.4%
There were fewer locations down year-over-year in May than in previous months, though urban areas generally saw lower increases.
Overall Market Median Sales Price % Change May 2021 vs. May 2020: +18.6%
Top 10 Locations with the Most New Listings in May 2021 1. Columbus: 1,467 2. Columbus CSD: 972 3. South-Western CSD: 217 4. Hilliard CSD: 171 5. Westerville CSD: 168 6. Olentangy LSD: 166 7. Dublin CSD: 166 8. Worthington CSD: 118 9. Pickerington LSD: 115 10. Upper Arlington CSD: 101
Top 10 Locations with the Fewest New Listings in May 2021 1. Valleyview: 2 2. Lithopolis: 5 3. Minerva Park: 5 4. Jefferson LSD: 6 5. Obetz: 8 6. Sunbury: 8 7. Grandview Heights: 10 8. Johnstown-Monroe LSD: 11 9. Whitehall: 12 10. Circleville CSD: 14
Urban areas and major suburbs saw increases in supply versus previous months, but because sales were also stronger, it didn’t help with actual supply or prices.
Total New Listings in the Columbus Metro in May 2021: +3,468 Overall Metro New Listings % Change May 2021 vs May 2020: +14.3%
Top 10 Fastest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in May 2021 1. Jonathan Alder LSD: 3 2. Valleyview: 3 3. Canal Winchester CSD: 4 4. Groveport Madison LSD: 4 5. Lithopolis: 4 6. German Village: 5 7. Worthington: 5 8. Worthington CSD: 5 9. Beechwold/Clintonville: 6 10. Blacklick: 6 11. Gahanna: 6 12. Marysville CSD: 6 13. Pickerington LSD: 6 14. Powell: 6 15. Westerville CSD: 6 16. Whitehall: 6
Top 10 Slowest-Selling Locations by # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale in May 2021 1. Short North: 51 2. Downtown Columbus: 39 3. Johnstown-Monroe LSD: 28 4. Bexley: 25 5. Lancaster CSD: 25 6. Jefferson LSD: 23 7. Obetz: 22 8. Buckeye Valley LSD: 21 9. Dublin: 19 10. Olentangy LSD: 18
Top 10 Locations with the Greatest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale May 2021 vs May 2020 1. Powell: -91.2% 2. Jonathan Alder LSD: -90.6% 3. Minerva Park: -85.7% 4. Circleville CSD: -84.2% 5. Whitehall: -82.9% 6. London CSD: -80.0% 7. Sunbury: -78.9% 8. Newark CSD: -78.0% 9. Upper Arlington CSD: -76.5% 10. Granville CSD: -75.8%
Top 10 Locations with the Lowest % Decline of # of Days on the Market Before Sale May 2021 vs May 2020 1. Short North: +264.3% 2. Valleyview: +50.0% 3. Bexley: +13.6% 4. Downtown Columbus: +11.4% 5. Lancaster CSD: -3.8% 6. Teays Valley LSD: -11.1% 7. Dublin: -26.9% 8. Reynoldsburg CSD: -29.4% 9. Westerville: -33.3% 10. Pataskala: -38.5%
% Change for the # of Days Homes Remain on the Market Before Sale Across the Metro Overall: 14
The market’s sales pace only increased further in May, with the entire metro’s supply of homes selling in an average of just 2 weeks. Many locations were selling at far faster rates, however.
A handy link is the Columbus Realtors website, which most of this data is derived from.
I was recently 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 and flipped’. Flippers buy the homes, strip them of their historic features, throw around endless gallons of white paint and call it a day.
These neighborhoods have some of the best surviving historic housing in all of Columbus. This is true despite being a focus of “urban renewal” demolitions for many 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, restoration has taken a back seat. The Columbus urban housing market has become ever tighter, and it’s become clear that many houses are being purchased by people that have little or no respect for the area’s historic heritage.
Let’s take a look first, however, at 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. The owners converted it 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 beautiful feature while still maintaining the outward integrity of the home’s true age. 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, as 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. A few even manage to maintain a some 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. This design reeks of someone who didn’t quite know how to create a cohesive look, though.
505 Linwood Avenue Now, this is not an old home, as it was built in 2017. Therefore, 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. Most of the renovations aren’t distasteful exactly, but to me, something is being lost. Trying to turn these homes into the equivalent of a loft apartment rather than appreciating the elegance that a historic home offers misses the point of owning an old home. Once those original details are lost, they’re never coming back.
The 2015 housing market was one of the strongest since before the recession, and 2016 looks to do even better. An ongoing problem, especially within the more urban markets, is a historically low inventory of available homes for sale. This has been a problem for several years now, as construction has failed to match demand.
That lack of inventory really shows up in the yearly % change chart. Few urban markets have increased year over year, as they have a much more limited supply of housing, even as demand for urban housing has increased.
Let’s see how this impacted prices.
While urban markets were not necessarily the most expensive compared to suburban, more of them were generally towards the top half of price increases last year.
