Earlier this week I celebrated 10 years of covering urban development for Columbus Underground. Reflecting on that time, I’ve come up with a list of things I’ve learned – some are about the development process, some are about developers themselves, and some take a little wider view and might be more accurately described as wishes for what I’d like to see happen next.
1. The Way We Build Things is Broken
It takes a long time to build housing in Columbus, especially if it’s part of a mixed-use urban infill project (as opposed to a single family subdivision built on farmland). When I started covering the development beat 10 years ago, I made a point of trying to get information out as early in the process as possible. That meant I wrote stories about proposals before they were approved by the relevant neighborhood groups or design review boards, sometimes even before they had been presented to those groups. I figured that since all this information had been submitted to the city, it was public record, and that people deserved to know what was being proposed while there was still time to chime in on it.
What I maybe didn’t realize was that that approval process can then stretch out over a surprisingly long period of time – the meetings are only held once a month, so any back and forth between the applicant and the community takes place on that time scale, and can easily stretch past a year or even two before the approval is secured. After the neighborhood-level approval comes the Development Commission (or Board of Zoning Adjustment) and Columbus City Council, then permits, financing and finally construction, which itself usually takes a minimum of 18 months.
<< Read More: City Zoning Reform Efforts to Focus on Mixed-Use Districts First >>
2. Development Discussions Can Get Wildly Off-Track
The approval process for most projects starts at an area commission meeting (usually it is presented to a small committee before being heard by the full commission). And many of the larger urban proposals in Columbus also end up before a design review board, like the University Impact Review Board or one of the city’s historic architectural review commissions. These boards can delve deep into the details – like hour-long discussions about signage or the width of a window sill – and can go on for months, often without a clear sense that the two sides are getting closer to an agreement, or even addressing the most pressing concerns.
And area commission discussions often center complaints that technically don’t have anything to do with the zoning variances that are being voted on. Some concerns have more to do with how the building will be operated once it is built; like where delivery and trash trucks will go, or how the company will respond to loud tenants. Others are really about an aversion to change – people who don’t want a new building in their neighborhood at all, and they will enthusiastically embrace any argument against it that they can.
There was one development approval process I wrote about that was different – in 2021, Peerless Development submitted a proposal to build a multi-story, mixed-use development at 50 E. Seventh Ave., in Weinland Park (the building is currently under construction).
A group of neighbors who live near the proposed project got together weekly to discuss the project with the developer. The discussions were led by a mediator (who was also a resident of a nearby neighborhood) and focused on the creation of a memorandum of understanding. That MOU was crafted and signed by both parties before the project went through the detailed design discussions led by the University Impact District Review Board. Included in the MOU was a height limit of 70 feet, some general design guidelines, as well as commitments to hire minority businesses when possible and to provide relocation assistance to tenants of the existing apartment buildings before the start of construction.
That unique process seemed to me to allow for a civil, productive back-and-forth discussion that directly addressed the types of issues that are often important to neighbors but not usually discussed during the city’s typical zoning and design review process.
3. Not Everyone Agrees With You About the New Proposal in Your Neighborhood
Yes, it may seem like the neighborhood is united in opposition to a development proposal when 14 people show up to a zoning committee meeting and they all speak out against it. But what is actually happening is those 14 people are the ones that: (A) have two hours free on a Tuesday evening to go to a zoning committee meeting, (B) are angry enough about the proposal to show up and speak to it, and (C), have even heard about the proposal in the first place.
I’ve found that if you start talking to a bigger sample of people in the neighborhood – and even beyond that, to people who don’t currently live in the neighborhood but would like to someday – you’ll find lower temperatures and a much wider range of opinions.
4. Developers Are Just People
Do some of them live up to the stereotype of the greedy developer hell-bent on profits over everything else? Yes, I can verify that because I’ve met them. Are some of them actually thoughtful people who care about the neighborhoods they are building in? Yes, I’ve met that type of developer as well and, believe it or not, have enjoyed speaking with them and getting to know them over the last 10 years. This group of developers – the ones who have a real interest in learning about the history of the neighborhoods they’re working in, and coming up with creative ways to include local residents, business owners and institutions in their projects – can bring a lot of expertise to discussions about building sustainable, walkable neighborhoods and addressing our affordable housing crisis.
Solving that crisis is not going to be easy – I’ve written extensively about it over the years – but reducing the issue to “developers are greedy” doesn’t get us any closer to a solution.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t scrutinize the political donations of developers or question the tax abatement policies that the city uses to incentivize development, just that a focus on individual developers as the main problem to solve is a distraction.
<< Read More: Why It’s So Hard to Build Affordable Housing >>
5. There’s Plenty of Blame to Go Around
The simple narrative of developer vs. neighborhood can be hard to resist but it leaves a lot out. It’s a complicated process and there are a lot of different people involved at every step of the way. Zoning lawyers, for example, are brought on for most projects – even smaller ones – to wade through the zoning code and figure out what variances are needed, and then to shepherd the project through the process. Architects, landscape architects, engineers, planners – sometimes even archeologists – may need to be brought on board before the plan is even approved.
The role of bankers in the process is also not widely understood. Rules about which projects they can lend money to often help to set the parameters for what type of development is possible – and where it can be built – before a proposal is even made.
There are also groups that tend to align themselves with neighbors opposing a new project that can benefit financially if nothing is built. For instance, real estate agents who sell single family homes might not be persuaded by the argument that housing is too expensive in the area and that apartments are needed to meet the demand and/or provide other options for people who want to live there.
The battles over specific proposals can seem life-or-death when you’re close to them and completely worth the months or years of discussion, but when you zoom out you see that our complicated and lengthy development process actually favors the already rich and powerful – either the wealthy home owners who have the resources to fight against more housing being built in their neighborhoods, or the large-scale developers who have the connections and means to survive the process.
6. Developers Don’t Look Like the Rest of Columbus
This isn’t going to surprise too many people, but I had been covering development in Columbus for years before I spoke with a female developer for a story. And it was years after that that I talked to my first female developer of color for a story.
In contrast, I don’t think I could go a month without speaking to someone for a story whose father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was in the same business as they are (and of course the families that have built up real estate holdings in Columbus over generations are overwhelmingly white).
I acknowledge my role in this – I’m a white male reporter covering this industry, and I’m sure I have missed many potential stories over the years because of the limits of my own network, experiences and biases – but there’s no denying that the development industry in Columbus has a long way to go before it more closely reflects the diversity of our city.
7. Demolition of Historic Buildings is Still Too Common Here
Columbus has a long history of tearing buildings down – just look at the number of surface parking lots Downtown – but it seems like a lot of powerful people in this town have not internalized the lesson that the historic buildings that remain are a vital part of our cultural heritage and should only be demolished as an absolute last resort.
Plenty of local developers have been guilty of this – sometimes even arguing that a building is beyond saving when they are the ones who have owned it for decades and have overseen its decline – but I’ve been struck by how many times our major community institutions are the ones tearing down buildings, or trying to.
The Columbus Foundation tore down the Firestone Mansion on East Broad Street and replaced it with a parking lot. OSU deconstructed both Lord Hall and Brown Hall in 2009, and later Campus Partners tore down the Wellington Building and others across from campus. The Columbus Metropolitan Library bought the Grant-Oak apartments next door to the Main Library and initially chose a redevelopment plan that would have torn all seven buildings down (later a plan was approved to preserve four of them). Nationwide Children’s Hospital tore down this 1920’s-era building despite opposition from neighborhood leaders.
Luckily, it seems like bringing attention to these types of plans can sometimes help to stop them. CU published multiple articles – and an opinion piece – about the city’s plan to tear down a building on the Columbus Public Health campus that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (it was going to be replaced with a parking lot). A city representative told me recently that, although there is no renovation planned as of yet, the city no longer plans to tear the building down.
And, although the ultimate outcome is still unclear, an OSU spokesperson said recently that it is pausing the zoning process for its new rehabilitation hospital on Taylor Avenue, which would require the demolition of the Henderson House, a building with a rich history that is deeply woven into the fabric of Columbus’ African American community.
8. Parking is the Problem, Not the Solution
One common source of conflict around development is parking. Residents often argue for more of it, because they are worried that an influx of new residents and businesses will cause street parking to disappear, but I’ve come to believe that accommodating lots of cars in a new urban development causes more problems than it solves.
First of all, the city’s outdated zoning code tends to apply standards for new developments that are more appropriate for a suburban development pattern than an urban one, so infill projects in existing neighborhoods often need large parking variances. In practice, that’s what ends up setting the parameters of the conversation, not an honest look at how much parking is appropriate for projects in century-old neighborhoods that were never designed to accommodate cars in the first place.
Do you like our city’s historic apartment buildings better than the typical five-over-one mixed-use developments that are being built today? Well, none of those old buildings have two or more levels of parking on the ground floor; they were designed to hold people and businesses, not cars. Parking is incredibly expensive to build and creates real restraints to how a building is structured and looks – it can create dead zones on the ground floor, it requires a huge footprint to accommodate the movement of cars, it creates conflict zones between pedestrians and cars entering the garage, and multi-level garages can even mean that a building ends up several floors taller than it otherwise would have to be.
Development pressure is increasing in urban Columbus because the region is growing and people like to live in walkable, vibrant places with lots of restaurants and other businesses – buildings with a third of their space devoted to car storage can actually take away from that vibrancy instead of adding to it.
This is not an easy problem to solve. Even with a new zoning code – or a blanket elimination of parking minimums – most developers and lenders would still want to include lots of parking in their projects. And many of the end users of those buildings (tenants and shoppers) will say that they prefer to have a convenient place to park. In Downtown, for instance, there has not been any minimum parking requirements for over a decade, yet most projects are still built with large garages.
There are some signs that a different approach could be on the horizon – this Clintonville project was approved with only 28 parking spaces for 45 units, and the Weinland Park development I referenced above will have 150 units and only 70-space parking garage.
The bigger issue, of course, is how car-centric Columbus is, which leads me to my next point…
9. More People Need to Care About COTA, Sidewalks and Bike Lanes
I also write about transportation for CU, but my development stories are almost always better-read than the ones I write about transit, bike lanes and sidewalks. That’s too bad, since I think it is all connected, and providing more and better options for getting around Columbus is the key to improving so many things in our city.
COTA was on a positive trajectory before the pandemic. The agency redesigned its bus network in 2017, focusing on high-frequency service along core routes, and in 2018 it rolled out two major initiatives – the CMAX line on Cleveland Avenue and the C-Pass program. In 2019, COTA posted its highest ridership in over 30 years, but 2020 saw drastic cuts in response to the pandemic. Although many lines were restored, late night service has yet to return and the last year has seen more service cuts, which COTA blames on a driver shortage.
This is bad for everyone – even if you don’t ride the bus – yet no one seems to be talking about it. I don’t hear members of city council or the mayor drawing attention to the bus driver shortage or asking tough questions of COTA, and COTA itself does not seem to be tackling the problem with the urgency the situation deserves. The larger LinkUs plan is still moving forward, but pursuing that vision would be so much easier with a strong, healthy COTA. My view is that Columbus is not going to achieve its goals around equity, social justice and affordable housing without fast, frequent and reliable transit.
With bikes and bike infrastructure, I think a lot of people see it as a niche issue – something that’s important to the hardy-but-few bike commuters in Columbus but not relevant to anyone else. But I think that building better bike and pedestrian infrastructure all over the city – including a true network of protected lanes on our streets and better trails off of them – would be transformative, and would mean a safer, healthier, more livable and more sustainable city for everyone (it’s not expensive, either).
<< Read More: Indianola Bike Lane Saga Shows the Need for a New Approach>>
10. More People Need to Care About Columbus City Schools
Finally, a subject that I have not really covered at all (at least not directly), but that underlies so many of the discussions we have about development in Central Ohio.
The new development proposals that we write about on CU tend to be in urban Columbus neighborhoods; that’s always been the main focus of our coverage. Those projects tend to feature apartments, and to specifically target two main demographics – young professionals and empty nesters. Most single family housing in the region (and even multifamily housing that caters to families), is built farther out, within suburban school districts.
There are thousands of families that live in Columbus that have had positive experiences with Columbus City Schools (my own family is one), but many young families in the region don’t even consider living in the city because they don’t see the district as a viable option. That has to change if we want to stop the endless sprawling of our region out into surrounding farmlands – there needs to be a broader swath of people who will actually consider living in the city.
Matter News columnist Brian Williams recently wrote about a local leader who once said that he fully expects the young professionals now filling up Downtown apartments to eventually leave for the suburbs when they have kids. That attitude is common in Columbus, yet it doesn’t make any sense – it would be a lot easier to get to a Downtown population of 40,000 if there were some families with kids mixed in there, not to mention all of our other central city neighborhoods, so many of which have still not recovered from decades of white flight, redlining, urban renewal and destructive highway building. According to Neighbors for More Neighbors, 150,000 fewer people live in urban Columbus now than did in 1960.
Obviously, there’s no simple solution to this one either, but not talking about the importance of schools or even acknowledging them when we discuss housing and development in Central Ohio isn’t helping either.