University Neighborhoods Revitalization Plan CONCEPT DOCUMENT

Core Value #3: The University District shall be culturally and socio-economically diverse.

This is one of five chapters that address the intensity and density of development, residential homeownership patterns, availability of community services, access to job resources, and provision of services for students who live in the Neighborhoods. The University District has some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the City, with diversity expressed through broad ranges in levels of income, types of ethnicities established, dependency on community services, and lifestyles. Maintaining that richness of people and culture while meeting the requirements of a clean, safe, and economically stable community is a challenge.

Residential Revitalization

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page

One of the central themes of this Concept Document is stability and improvement in the physical character of the Neighborhoods. An essential goal in carrying out this theme is increasing homeownership. While the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods will continue to serve predominantly the student population, the surrounding communities will require programs and incentives that provide places for residents and university faculty and staff to invest in homeownership. Owning a piece of the neighborhood increases the sense of pride in the surroundings and leads to overall stability. This chapter provides recommendations to facilitate residential revitalization in the Neighborhoods.

6.0 RESIDENTIAL REVITALIZATION

A. Objectives

One of the principal goals of the Revitalization Plan is to increase homeownership, which will require increasing the desirability of the University District as an area where people want to live. Potential residents include students, faculty and staff of The Ohio State University, retired individuals, families of all types, and individuals seeking an urban neighborhood lifestyle.

The primary focus of this chapter’s policies and recommendations is to balance the development of residential options within the District, ranging from single-family homes to affordable rentals. Although a balanced supply is the long-term objective, an immediate emphasis is placed on rapidly increasing single-family homeownership in the District.

No single action of this Revitalization Plan can effect the benefits that will come from pride of homeownership. These benefits include improvements to the community’s physical appearance; a broader community base for volunteer programs; stronger voter turnout; better surveillance of the streets; and economic support for neighborhood retail, school, and civic functions. These recommendations are meant to build on the City’s existing homeownership programs and create more opportunities for individuals at all income levels.

However, while increased homeownership is key to improving the District, it alone will not solve the District’s problems. Without improving the quality of K-12 education, reducing crime, expanding and improving public and social services, and offering more diverse retail options individuals will not seek to move back into the area regardless of how many incentives or programs are offered.

B. Policies and Recommendations

Policy 6.1: A program of specific financial incentives for homeownership in the Neighborhoods should be created to attract a rapid build-up of new homeowners.

Recommendation 6.1.1: Work with City, State, and Federal officials to assure a portion of current homeownership assistance funds are dedicated to the University District to ensure that potential homebuyers have a guaranteed level of funding from existing programs.

Recommendation 6.1.2: The Ohio State University should consider providing a residence for the University President within the University District.

Recommendation 6.1.3: The Ohio State University should lead with a new program of specific incentives for faculty and staff homeownership in the Neighborhoods. The program should provide loan guarantees, interest subsidies, and downpayment assistance using models from other institutions around the country to bring 350 new staff and faculty homeowners into the University District by the year 2000.

Recommendation 6.1.4: Other local employers and institutions should follow Ohio State’s lead and develop similar programs for employees seeking to live in the University District.

Policy 6.2: To maximize the impact of homeownership investments, incentives should be offered in tiers and focus assistance in improving neighborhoods.

Recommendation 6.2.1: Establish a basic level of information and program support for any individual wishing to purchase a home in the University District.

Recommendation 6.2.2: Focus the deepest homeownership incentives in five areas selected for the quality of their housing stock, range of prices, and immediate revitalization potential. Refer to Figure: 13: Homeownership Incentives.

Sub-area of Indianola Terrace as defined by East 12th Avenue north to East 18th Avenue, Fourth Street to Conrail Tracks.

Sub-area of Dennison Place as defined by King Avenue (both sides) to the alley south of Eighth Avenue between Wall Street and Highland Avenue, and the alley south of Ninth Avenue between Highland Avenue and Neil Avenue.

Sub-area of Weinland Park West as defined by Euclid Avenue to East Ninth, from Hamlet Street to Pearl Street.

Northwood Avenue and Oakland Avenues from Pearl Street to Indianola Avenue.

Norwich Avenue to Patterson Avenue from Wall Alley to Tuttle Park.

Recommendation 6.2.3: As improving neighborhoods reach a level of homeownership that successfully supports their stabilization, transfer the deepest incentives to new neighborhoods within the University District that need assistance.

Policy 6.3: To effectively increase the desirability of homeownership, problem properties must be aggressively removed or rehabilitated through a combination of public and private sector initiatives

Recommendation 6.3.1: The city of Columbus and The Ohio State University should establish a Problem Property Fund to acquire and remove problem properties, targeting removal of 15 properties by the year 2000.

Recommendation 6.3.2: For single-family structures to be rehabilitated or de-converted from rooming houses, provide subsidies to ensure they can be sold at market rate to single-family homeowners after renovation. Target 120 units over five years, with a pilot program of 8 structures established in one neighborhood for 1997.

Recommendation 6.3.3: Residual sites following demolition of problem properties should be sold for new, infill single-family development. Pocket recreational facilities or parking lots may also be an acceptable use, but only if an entity can be identified to assume long term maintenance responsibilities, and only if the design of such facilities is completed in a manner that does not disrupt the integrity of the existing block faces. In some cases, where parking is considered as an interim use, design standards must still be met.

Policy 6.4: Discourage further concentrations of poverty in the University Neighborhoods, consistent with City of Columbus 1993 Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Policies.

Recommendation 6.4.1: Monitor subsidized rental housing concentrations to ensure a distribution of units throughout the community and avoid concentrations of poverty in areas already approaching or exceeding the 30% guideline.

Recommendation 6.4.2: Work with HUD/CMHA to determine exact number of Section 8 units in given block areas, and develop strategies to transfer rental units into ownership while decreasing concentrations in accordance with City policy.

Policy 6.5: Ensure that revitalization efforts maintain a balance of market rate to affordable homeowner and rental properties within the University Neighborhoods.

Recommendation 6.5.1: Provide financial and organizational support to Columbus Housing Partnership/Northside Development Corporation for the development of 50 new affordable homeownership units.

Recommendation 6.5.2: The Ohio State University and city of Columbus, working through Campus Partners, should provide gap financing and assistance in managing the acquisition and renovation process of available properties.

Recommendation 6.5.3: The city of Columbus and Campus Partners should convene a planning team of local and national experts to address displacement, low income housing and other issues that are important issues for a balanced and broad based revitalization of the Neighborhoods.

Policy 6.6: A housing promotion and assistance entity should be established to assist potential homebuyers find properties, identify funding sources, and promote homeownership and housing options for long term renters within the University District.

Recommendation 6.6.1: Campus Partners should manage an information clearinghouse that provides accessible information on housing options and resources, with UDO taking an active role in promoting homeownership in the Neighborhoods through a consolidated marketing strategy.

Recommendation 6.6.2: The clearinghouse should provide information for potential homebuyers as well as options for long term or new renters that might become homeowners. This might be as simple as providing a list of immediately available non-student rental properties, to working with Ohio State University to offer incentives for young faculty that may be willing to live in the East, North and South Campus neighborhoods.

Recommendation 6.6.3: The real estate and banking communities should take an active role assisting qualified individuals and structuring financial assistance from existing programs.

Recommendation 6.6.4: Campus Partners should convene a Committee of Housing Providers consisting of lenders, Columbus Neighborhood Development Division, Northside Development Corporation (NDC), Columbus Housing Partnership (CHP), Ohio State, realtors, landlords (such as Broad Street Management), and builders active in the area to review these recommendations, to decide how the programs can best be implemented, and to determine what resources each stakeholder can bring to assist in the revitalization of the Neighborhoods.

Policy 6.7: Historic and contributing residential structures provide a valuable resource for creating unique and positive identity in the University District’s neighborhoods.

Recommendation 6.7.1: Future homeownership programs should emphasize the valuable nature of the Neighborhoods’ four designated Historic Districts as unique places to live, and utilize them to anchor the Neighborhoods’ residential revitalization effort.

Recommendation 6.7.2: New residential development should be designed to reflect its context, including but not limited to; attention to setbacks, building materials, massing and building orientation relative to the streetfront. In designated Mixed Use areas design patterns and building materials should be responsive to context, but flexibility in design should be permitted for solutions that are consistent with the spirit and intent of the surrounding area but do not literally replicate existing design patterns.

Policy 6.8 Upgrade the competitive position of the East, North and South and Campus Neighborhoods as a rental housing location for graduate and undergraduate students.

Recommendation 6.8.1: A District level plan should be prepared for the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods based on a thorough inventory of existing conditions. The plan should guide problem property designation, development of offstreet parking options, and potential locations and phasing for pocket recreation facility development.

Recommendation 6.8.2: Set a goal of 400 improved rental units (rehabilitation and new construction) within the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods by the year 2000, that offer a level of quality above what is currently available, and focusing on markets not currently served.

Recommendation 6.8.3: The Ohio State University should engage in the active upgrading of existing student rental properties while maintaining affordability, either working with existing landlords to improve the quality of their properties, or directly developing improved products through the university’s housing office. This may include acquisition and adaptive re-use of marginal small properties and rooming houses.

Recommendation 6.8.4 : Property owners and the Columbus Apartment Association, with the assistance of the city of Columbus and Campus Partners, should create a Property Owners Association for the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods to provide levels of security, litter removal, front yard maintenance, parking, and open space development commensurate with the density and character of the area.

Recommendation 6.8.5.: The Property Owners Association, in conjunction with Ohio State and the Columbus Apartment Association, should develop a communication and training program for small landlords to upgrade the quality and management of existing rental units in the Neighborhoods.

C. Setting and Current Issues

Homeownership: The level of homeownership in the University Neighborhoods has dropped dramatically over the past four decades. As of the 1990 Census, fewer than 6% of the 11,000 housing units in the University Neighborhoods were owner-occupied. The rate increases slightly to 11% if the area immediately north of the study area is included.

Some portions of the Neighborhoods, particularly the NECKO/Dennison Place and Iuka Ravine neighborhoods, have relatively high homeownership rates and would be even more attractive to potential buyers if incentive programs were in place. In other portions of the Neighborhoods, ownership rates are lower and housing conditions are poorer; in these areas it will be necessary to combine homeownership incentives with actual housing rehabilitation and/or new construction if significant increases in ownership levels is to take place.

Student Housing: The competitive advantage of the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods provided by their proximity to Ohio State has steadily eroded over the past 20 years. A holistic approach to improving the physical and operational characteristics is necessary to maximize the area’s locational advantage. (See Chapter 9.0 for other recommendations for areas beyond housing to improve the student experience).

The most evident problems related to student housing in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods is the poor environmental conditions (crime, trash graffiti) and the lack of amenities within the area’s housing stock. The products and services offered by rental properties in competitive communities are considered superior on almost every level by the student renter. This issue must be addressed if the Neighborhoods and the condition of their rental market are to be improved.

Subsidized Housing: There are currently 1,175 subsidized housing units within the Neighborhoods, all part of the Federal Section 8 program. While 75 of these units are voucher-based (allowing recipients to locate where they can find appropriate housing for the available subsidy), the remaining 1,100 units are project-based or fixed in a specific location. This is both an asset and a concern as the majority of these units are concentrated in one part of the Neighborhoods—the southeast corner of the Weinland Park Neighborhood. In December 1993, the city of Columbus adopted the "Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Policies" which committed the City to mitigating the impacts of poverty and avoiding further concentrations in central City neighborhoods. This was to be accomplished by not supporting new housing projects designed to attract additional very low income residents in neighborhoods at or exceeding poverty rates of 30%.

Market Potential and Revitalization Opportunities

Several neighborhoods within the study area provide an important combination of proximity to the university, affordable housing stock, and a current upward improvement in neighborhood character. A proposed program of homeowner incentives will create an infusion of new homeowners to rapidly advance these neighborhoods toward revitalization. Over time these incentives may be sponsored by a wide number of private and public sector agencies and employers to encompass the majority of the Neighborhoods. However, in its initial phases, the program must be targeted to three or four key areas to create critical mass and be predominantly led by Ohio State for its faculty and staff.

Market Potential – Faculty and Staff Ownership Housing: To achieve greater homeownership many programs must be implemented concurrently. However, the process of revitalization can be greatly accelerated with minimum investment by Ohio State for incentives to faculty and staff to live in the Neighborhoods. Currently, only 3.8% of faculty and staff live in the University District. Despite this fact, research conducted by the Campus Partners planning team revealed a potential of 330-390 units that would be purchased by faculty and staff in the University Neighborhoods, provided the right incentives are offered. Furthermore, successful programs at other similar institutions indicate that as the program catches on and the Neighborhoods improve, faculty and staff turnover will generate more demand for units from all sectors of the population.

Research indicates a preference for three-bedroom units in single-family detached or attached configurations, with parking the most desired amenity. One-fourth to 40% of the respondents to a faculty/staff housing survey would also pay extra for a playground, pool, and child care facility. Most respondents would accept either renovated or new units, although more would prefer renovation.

To achieve this demand, an organized rehabilitation and infill process will be necessary. Purchase (and to some extent rent with option to purchase) will be the most popular, and ownership should be encouraged for the sake of greater benefit to the neighborhood. Many of the interested faculty and staff could afford to buy without financial assistance, but an incentive program will be necessary to ensure a house purchase in the Neighborhoods as opposed to other locations. This is important to create the critical mass of faculty and staff within the University Neighborhoods.

Market Potential - Rental Apartments: The Neighborhoods' share of The Ohio State University’s declining student population has also decreased from approximately 13,000 student residents in 1989 to 11,000 student residents in 1994.

This decline is largely attributable to competition from suburban developments increasingly popular among students. Analysis indicates that off-campus students consider housing outside of the Neighborhoods superior in almost every dimension: security, outdoor lighting, deadbolts and window locks, lack of roaches, general look and condition, insulation, quiet, speed and completeness of repairs, and ease of contacting the landlord. Although there are some managers of apartments in the Neighborhoods whose units rate higher than the average of all managers in the Neighborhoods, no major Neighborhood manager rates close to the average rating for other areas.

This leads to the conclusion that demand exists from both students and others for higher quality rental apartments that would offer the quality, service levels, and ambiance of the better suburban complexes, factors which are more important than specific amenities such as jacuzzis and party decks. There is demand in the East, South and North Campus Neighborhoods for approximately 850-900 units over the next five years if major service and physical improvements can be effected in the neighborhood. Some of this demand should be met through new construction however, most of the demand will be met through renovation. The emphasis should be on graduate student housing until neighborhood improvements generate an increase in the area’s capture rate of undergraduates relative to more suburban areas. Long waiting lists for housing for couples and families with children at Buckeye Village also indicate significant potential for approximately 200 more new units of family student housing.

The market is also strong enough to justify the upgrading of existing rental properties in the East, South and North Campus Neighborhoods. However, some owners will not undertake such improvements voluntarily even if they would be economically rational. Consequently, certain rental properties are so blighted that they have particularly harmful effects on the blocks surrounding them. These will need to be acquired and either rehabilitated for student or non-student use, or replaced with a more appropriate infill use.

D. Programs and Concepts

Homeownership Assistance: There are many existing programs that address the barriers to homeownership. There is downpayment assistance through State and Federal programs as well as through local lenders, assistance with monthly payments through Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) and Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) programs, and acquisition/rehabilitation assistance (including cases in which the appraised value of the home is less than acquisition and rehabilitation costs) through Federal programs and local lender products. These programs can be utilized in almost any combination (with the primary exception that a homeowner may not use both the MCC and MRB programs). The limitations to many of these programs is that funding is small and used up very quickly. To increase homeownership in the Neighborhoods, the existing programs need to be supplemented with additional funding, particularly to address loan-to-value issues.

Staff and Faculty Program: For faculty and staff interested in moving to the University District, the most important actions that would affect their decision are reducing crime and renovating existing housing stock. Also of importance are improving public services, reducing student rowdiness, removing problem bars, and improving public schools.

Some of the interested staff and faculty could afford to buy without financial assistance, but will not consider the University District, without some form of incentive. For many others financial assistance will be necessary to ensure homeownership. Most importantly, financial incentives will be necessary to draw a critical mass of staff and faculty to those parts of the University District on the cusp of improvement. Consequently, staff and faculty programs should be offered throughout, the entire University District, but with more generous incentives in priority target areas. Specific programs include:

Mortgage Guarantees: Given the affordable nature of housing in Columbus in general and the University District in particular, mortgage guarantees may be the most useful mechanism. Under the Revitalization Plan’s recommendation, Ohio State would provide 100 to 105% mortgage guarantees for employees who purchase homes anywhere in the University District. The mortgage guarantee makes obtaining a mortgage possible for employees who might not otherwise be able to do so due to income levels or past credit problems. The program would be especially helpful to those who lack downpayment funds. Based on similar programs at other institutions, the potential losses should be low, particularly since mortgage payments could be made through payroll deductions. Such a program has been in place at the University of Pennsylvania for 30 years with virtually no defaults.

Downpayment Assistance: Ohio State, in partnership with existing Federal, State, local, and private banking programs should offer downpayment assistance (e.g., $2,500 per unit) for purchase of homes in targeted areas, with the City or State committing to downpayment assistance for one-half of the units.

Interest Rate Subsidy: Reduced interest rates should also be available in the target areas, with the State making available tax exempt bond financing or mortgage credit certificates for one-half of the targeted 350 units and Ohio State providing interest rate buydowns (e.g., an interest rate reduction of three points in the first year, two points in the second year, and one point in the third year) for the other units.

Gap Financing: Gap financing, particularly "silent second mortgages" that are repayable only to the extent that homes appreciate over time should be the last tier of incentive. This program can be used to address the problem of appraised values being lower than total acquisition and development costs in the early years of the program. If a home appreciates sufficiently, the assistance would be a true loan. To the extent the home does not appreciate, the assistance would, in effect, be a grant. The HUD 203(k) program, which allows mortgages of up to 110% of the expected market value (with additional flexibility possible in redevelopment areas), can also help to address this issue.

Figure 13, Homeowership Incentives, shows the initial level and location of incentives recommended for various parts of the University District. These may change over time as the program achieves success in certain blocks.

Figure 13: Proposed Homeownership Incentives Area

Property Rehabilitation Program: To achieve the demand for ownership housing forecasted above, and to revitalize the target areas, an organized rehabilitation and infill construction process will be necessary. In addition to providing political and organizational support as well as gap financing for CHP/NDC, Campus Partners using private contractors will need to take an active role in acquiring and rehabilitating selected single-family properties to "prime the pump" and show prospective homebuyers it can be done. Homes that undergo this type of renovation would be made available to any prospective resident and not limited to Ohio State faculty and staff. Construction capital for acquisition and renovation will need to be initially established through a partnership of Ohio State, the city of Columbus, and the banking community, with the proceeds from the sale of each renovated property replenishing a portion of the rehabilitation fund. However, given the potential cost of acquisition of each unit, the cost for renovation, and the cost to bring to market, an estimated $15,000 subsidy will be required per unit. Consequently, to rehabilitate a target of 120 units over 5 years could require $1,800,000 in subsidy.

Affordable Housing Program: Many residents of the Neighborhoods, especially in locations such as Weinland Park, share the same concerns as other residents but want to be able to continue to live in the community after the recommended improvements are achieved. Columbus Housing Partnership (CHP) and Northside Development Corporation (NDC) need to be made partners in any focused residential revitalization program to develop affordable homeownership opportunities for area residents. These opportunities need to be created concurrently with incentive programs developed for Ohio State faculty and staff.

Columbus Housing Partnership and Northside Development Corporation already have experience with rehabilitation projects and associated financing in the Neighborhoods and are ideally positioned to provide the requested services, with Campus Partners offering a reasonable level of financial support for a pilot program. CHP/NDC could manage the properties during rehabilitation and the time it takes to sell the property, arrange or provide financing, and market the program to prospective buyers. If possible, the agreement between Campus Partners and CHP/NDC should be structured so that CHP/NDC has an incentive to keep the subsidy per unit to a minimum, thereby increasing the total number of units assisted. There will be ample units and sites to serve both existing residents willing and able to participate as well as newcomers such as Ohio State staff. In addition, the Neighborhoods will continue to have a significant number of rental units, including halves of some owner-occupied duplexes. For example, if 500 additional homeownership units were created during the next five years, including 450 rehabilitated units and 50 new construction units, the owner-occupancy rate in the study area would increase to approximately 10%. Even given the number of homeownership opportunities, the vast majority of the units would continue to be available for rent.

Housing Stabilization:

If the Plan is successful in achieving its goals, improved economic conditions may result in higher property values in the University Neighborhoods. Such improvements should benefit both current and new residents in the community but should not create new hardships for existing low income residents.

Housing stabilization is a goal of the Plan. The objective is to avoid displacement, including displacement of low income persons, whenever possible. If and when displacement does occur, it should be minimized as much as possible.

The important and complex human and financial issues related to displacement continue to be under discussion. A number of resources exist to address these issues in addition to those identified below (see pp. II-3 and II-4):

Section 8 (public) housing units are a community available to help mitigate displacement. With leadership in management and a comprehensive partnership with residents which includes education, University District Section 8 units can become a model for other communities;

Residents, community and neighborhood organizations and agencies are committed to their community and to its improvement;

An impressive array of human service providers is already in place in the District;

The expertise of university faculty is available from a number of departments in areas such as urban research, housing, and the human services. Their participation is facilitated through the Campus Collaborative; and

Other cities have addressed the issue of housing displacement constructively and successfully in their redevelopment plans. Residents in West Philadelphia and Denver achieved improved circumstances as a result of careful and comprehensive planning for housing displacement. Revitalization efforts in these cities have also been more successful and viewed more positively by the community because displacement was addressed directly and constructively.

An issue related to stabilization is upgrading of current subsidized housing properties. It is not the intent of the plan to reduce the number of units in the University Neighborhoods, but in some instances reduce the concentration. It is also important that subsidized units be improved in quality.

Additionally, agencies responsible for reviewing and approving subsidized properties need to be more rigorous in their review and citing of violations. It would also be beneficial if violations cited through an improved code enforcement process (see Chapter 4.0) would be copied to CMHA and other agencies responsible for monitoring the quality and use of subsidized housing.

In order to address displacement, low income housing and other related issues, a small planning team of local and national experts will be convened by the City of Columbus and Campus Partners to define and develop a program. Their work will be concluded and their recommendations added to the Revitalization Concept no later than September 1, 1996. The team will consist of one representative each from (1) a property management company with significant Section 8 holdings in the University District, (2) an agency which provides social and advocacy services for Section 8 residents in the University District, (3) the city of Columbus, (4) The Ohio State University/ Campus Partners, and (5) a national public housing agency such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Problem Property Fund: To successfully improve target areas, it will be necessary to aggressively remove a limited number of problem properties from all parts of the Neighborhoods, but predominantly the East Campus Neighborhood. A combination of disinvestment, lack of market demand and mismanagement has led to an increase in the number of transient, undesirable tenants Problem properties, for the purpose of this plan can be defined as having on or several of the following attributes:

Suffers from excessive disinvestment and chronic code violations

Has been the site of continued illegal activity and as such has had a negative impact on the quality of life and value of surrounding properties

Presents a significant health hazard to its occupants, neighbors and the community at large.

The recommendations propose that the City and The Ohio State University work together to accomplish acquisition and elimination of at least 15 problem properties over the next five years. While acquisition will most likely be at market rates, purchase prices should be adjusted for severe code deficiencies that may not be reflected by a pure income based appraisal. Although subject to competition from other projects, application could be made to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and to HUD’s Office of University Partnerships to obtain funding for such efforts.

Following acquisition, the properties should be evaluated for adaptive reuse of the structure and/or the site. Options for reuse of the structure/ site include: conversion to single family or duplex housing; smaller scale, less dense rental residential or community facilities. If demolition of the structure is warranted (due to non-contributing status of the building, severe code violations or density) options for residual site use include open space, pocket parking lots or community recreation facilities. However, if demolition of the structure is the most appropriate action, ownership and long term maintenance of the residual site must be defined prior to demolition. It is also critical that the design of any new facility (structure or site based development) respond to the existing fabric of the blockade, and provide appropriate landscape setbacks and screen walls to continue the pattern and front yard street plane of that block.

If the property to be removed is located in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods, pocket facility development should be carefully explored, with long term ownership and maintenance of the site going to the proposed Property Owner’s Association. If the problem property is located in any other neighborhood, and can not be adaptively re-used, the residual site should be sold for infill residential development at a density appropriate to the block.

Homeowner Information Clearinghouse: Campus Partners in conjunction with UDO should develop a central information base on housing and housing programs which might include both ownership and rental options. As a part of this function, they should work with Ohio State to help define the faculty and staff housing program, market it to prospects, assist them in understanding the incentive package, and help them identify appropriate neighborhoods, available properties, brokers, and lending programs.

An on-line computer system would be essential in providing clearinghouse services. The system would not only provide information on the programs, but also allow prospects to enter personal financial information and housing preferences. Based on this information, the prospects can learn how much home they can afford under the various lending programs as well as potential neighborhoods or even individual homes or rental units that fit their criteria.

Personal service is also important, particularly for those who are uncomfortable with use of computers and for those who may be in need of credit counseling to help position them to become homebuyers. It may be possible to staff the clearinghouse using partial support from real estate brokers and lenders. Such professionals are already well-versed in the area and available programs and would likely cooperate in exchange for the prospect of commissions or to meet CRA guidelines. In addition to staffing, it may be possible to use the purchasing power of Ohio State and other clearinghouse users to negotiate discounts in commissions and lending fees to assist in addressing downpayment issues.

Improving the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods: Ideally, it would be possible to create a blend of all types of housing in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods, which are predominantly undergraduate students. However, it is very difficult to encourage graduate and professional students to live in the Neighborhoods, let alone expect them to live in the middle of a very heavy undergraduate concentration where priorities and objectives for the school experience are quite different. The Plan does not recommend a segregation of populations, but instead seeks to create a gradient of resident types and density.

Analysis for the Revitalization Plan, based on consumer and quantitative research, indicates demand for units of a higher quality than currently available in the Neighborhoods. In the early years of the revitalization process, units should be provided specifically for graduate and professional students because they are largely underserved in the Neighborhoods. As the Neighborhoods improve, analysis indicates that there will be sufficient demand to improve the market for additional undergraduate units and support higher quality new units as well, but these should not be developed while the undergraduate market continues to be weak in the Neighborhoods. As the overall objective of the Plan is to improve the quality of life for all residents, a balanced emphasis must be placed on the quality of life for students as well as full time residents. This means not only improving the environmental conditions of the neighborhoods (cleanliness, safety, convenience and services, etc.) but also the quality of the their living options. In the early years of the revitalization process, emphasis should be placed on creating a variety of upgraded housing options for students of all levels, specifically for graduate and professional students because they are largely underserved in the Neighborhoods. If the private sector is unable to upgrade the quality of housing options for students, The Ohio State University may need to take a more proactive role in facilitating development of new products through such actions as:

Acquisition of struggling properties and subsequent repositioning and management through the Ohio State housing office, as an alternative form of student housing.

Acquisition of problem properties and removal of the structures. For the residual site, work with the private sector development community to and create ground leases that provide economic viability for new construction, but with covenants and restrictions to assure that a higher quality product and management is attained.

Acquisition of problem properties, or use of surplus Ohio State property to actively develop new housing products that provide a balance of quality and affordability not currently available within the Neighborhoods.

The ultimate goal should seek to maintain the existing student population, while recapturing some of the 2,000+ students lost to other areas such as Bethel Road.

Baseline Survey: Some of the Revitalization Plan’s other recommendations involve a systematic approach to documenting the existing conditions of the properties in the University Neighborhoods. Nowhere is this more important than the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods. As the first step, a rigorous inventory needs to be conducted of existing properties for code compliance and to update the city’s 1991 study meant to establish an indication of total potential occupancy. The analysis will also help to define a long-term revitalization strategy for the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods regarding which properties should be retired or redeveloped, and help to establish a potential ceiling of units that will reflect effective market demand. At the same time, a baseline of current rental rates could be established as the foundation for future rent-tracking and affordability indexes.

Property Owners Association: Another critical initiative is the implementation of a Property Owner’s Association. The Association, consisting of all landowners in designated parts of the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods, could manage long-term residential improvements. Specific responsibilities could include providing collective maintenance to the front yards, tree lawns, street trees, lights, and alleys, as well as a coordinated litter collection, events programming, marketing, property management training and collective buying of services. Similar to the High Street Special Improvement District (see Chapter 15.0), Ohio State students and faculty in business, planning, and architecture should partner with the Association to provide training and support to landowners seeking to improve both their properties and operations. Assessment and organizational structure needs to reflect current Ohio enabling legislation.

Preliminary discussions with major property owners have indicated that this recommendation has an immediate level of support. In order to be effective and successful from the beginning, it is recommended that a pilot area be developed, which may be smaller than the ultimate intended area. Once the Property Owner’s Association is operating smoothly, new areas can be brought into the program on either a voluntary or mandatory basis.

However, in order to achieve initial success, and substantiate the value of this proposal, the most troubled areas need to be included as a part of the initial pilot project. Figure 14, Special Improvement Districts and Participation Areas, identifies the planning team’s recommended limits for the initial pilot area (in which membership would be mandatory under Ohio’s Special Improvement District legislation, and areas that could be added in the future either on a voluntary basis or through expansion of the mandatory requirements.

Figure 14: Proposed Property Owners Association Boundaries

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents.

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page.