jbcmh81

Yeah, it's good that the UAC has little power in this regard and the city basically told them to drop dead. The comments some of the members made were completely out of touch. I think, outside of those few people, most understand that is is one of the most important commercial strips in the city, and there's no reason to limit development to 1-2 stories, especially considering there are buildings at 5+ stories mere blocks away.

AA is probably getting more city funding than Franklinton, which seems to be coming around mostly from artists and entrepreneurs, much like the SN did in the 1980s. And I'm not convinced that those neighborhoods won't eventually see these developers moving in, especially in Franklinton. The question they have to ask is if a project in a certain area will provide a return on investment. When the answer is yes, you will see those developers moving in.

Your point is silly, because clearly the parking requirement did not prevent this project from moving forward at all. Further, why is Weinland Park being redeveloped? It's definitely not at the level of the SN. Neither is East Franklinton or American Addition, but those areas are getting more attention as well. Also, the desirability of a neighborhood has nothing to do with parking requirements. If parking was the main concern, Downtown should have 30,000 residents again, as parking there is clearly not a problem.

It's interesting you advocate that builders get a choice, but suggest that residents be forced to buy smaller cars (which still need to be parked somewhere btw), ride the bus or use a bike. Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this policy in most cases (I don't), but in areas that have very restrictive and limited parking to begin with, and given that the size of the project is so small, adding a few spaces is just not a big deal to me and the policy makes more sense than not. Also, given the nature of the neighborhood, walking to restaurants and other amenities will likely still happen, but the commute to work is a different story.

Having a place to park is important to most people, and parking in IV is extremely limited as it is, so what would you suggest? Force them to ride bikes whether they like it or not? I certainly understand the hatred for surface parking lots, but the car culture is still the most dominant nationwide and probably will stay that way through our lifetimes. In some cases like this, it probably makes rational sense for that policy. Not all the time, mind you, but on occasion. Also, I'm pretty sure the Jeffrey site has already been taken over by Waggonbrenner for future development.

I took at look at some aerial surveys from 1957 and 1971 and there was indeed a building there. In 1957, it looks like one large building, but by 1971 when 670 was there, most of it was gone and only the north and northwest portion remained. You can take a look at http://www.historicaerials.com/. Be forewarned, however. If you like urban density, some of those maps will just make you both sad and angry. The change from cohesive, dense neighborhoods to highways and surface parking lots between 1957 and 1971 is pretty staggering.

I don't think anything is there now. I'm thinking that area was a vacant lot used to have booths during the Italian Festival.

Not going to answer the question then?

Remember that State of Erie thread that got locked? Clevelander17 was on to something. Cleveland is probably getting screwed over by Columbus (the state capitol). We needed these numbers. Comparing Lucas and Montgomery's population, Lucas got shafted too. Summit also shows slightly outsized cuts. Political payback? Montgomery is the largest of the second-tier urban counties, but its cuts don't reflect that. How do you figure it supports Clevelender when the Columbus area had the 2nd highest cuts, both by total metro and county? If anything, Cincinnati wins.

Columbus is now looking at BRT, and the first route would go from Downtown up along Cleveland Avenue. It was just in the Dispatch the last few days.

I've ridden BRT before in other cities and it's great. I don't think this precludes the idea of light rail coming to Columbus as well. Many cities have both. I think the more options available, the more people will become comfortable with mass transit ideas overall. I don't think light rail is realistically all that far off.

I know this was probably aimed at me (or maybe not), and I agree with you. I would rather not let someone like Keith ruin real debate and discussion about projects and the future of urban development here. Columbus (and Ohio) has many flaws. I think we can all agree on this point. I would rather, however, discuss how we can improve them in a constructive manner than to be constantly dragged down into what I have allowed myself to be dragged into with Keith. I wish him well where he is and respect that he has many opinions, but Columbus is a signifantly better city and Ohio is a significantly better state than the ideas he throws upon us.

Columbus to get BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) soon? Routes are now being looked at. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/01/08/cota-studying-speedy-bus-route.html (MODERATOR NOTE: This post and the following two posts were moved from the Random Columbus Developments Thread into this COTA thread. Hence the duplication of the Dispatch article.)

http://bestcities.milkeninstitute.org/ This is for the top 200 largest metros. Ohio Metros Columbus: #55, up from #108 in 2010. Cincinnati: #138, up from #141 in 2010. Akron: #147, up from #171 in 2010. Dayton: #166, up from #169 in 2010. Toledo: #171, up from #195 in 2010. Cleveland: #176, up from #183 in 2010. Youngstown: #178, up from #192 in 2010. I guess the good news is that they all went up. Rankings 2002-2011 Columbus 2002: #66 2003: #105 2004: #138 2005: #135 2007: #154 2008: #135 2009: #108 2010: #108 2011: #55 Cincinnati 2002: #130 2003: #131 2004: #115 2005: #149 2007: #167 2008: #173 2009: #138 2010: #141 2011: #138 Akron 2002: #154 2003: #180 2004: #153 2005: #160 2007: #155 2008: #172 2009: #167 2010: #171 2011: #147 Dayton 2002: #173 2003: #188 2004: #188 2005: #187 2007: #190 2008: #189 2009: #183 2010: #169 2011: #166 Cleveland 2002: #172 2003: #194 2004: #187 2005: #194 2007: #193 2008: #193 2009: #186 2010: #183 2011: #176 Toledo 2002: #174 2003: #195 2004: #195 2005: #196 2007: #196 2008: #194 2009: #198 2010: #195 2011: #171 Youngstown 2002: #199 2003: #199 2004: #175 2005: #199 2007: #191 2008: #188 2009: #193 2010: #192 2011: #178

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers. Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen. But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail. Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year. Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant. And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing. Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest. I don't. Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus. You moved because you couldn't handle it. So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in. BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious. You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards. Problem is, such a vote never took place. Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied. Which is it? And you continue to not understand how demand works. In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market. Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works. I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow). While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS. And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year. Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development. Quite the selective reading there, Keith. In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be. It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything. Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them. BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year. I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are. It's only a matter of time. In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more. Okay, I'll bite. What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done? I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information. I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities. Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action. You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession. I'll be waiting for your report. Not selective at all and Coleman is quoted that the city will be "worse off" without rail. Hell, the plain ole light rail system was shot down 55% vs. 45% on the ballot in 1999. Keith, I really wish you would put more effort into your arguments. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this quote on an article about the 1999 vote: "Sadly, the people of Columbus are not even permitted to vote on the issue. Only once has the business community allowed light rail on the ballot, in 1999. In that election, COTA was required to split its request for a half-cent sales tax into two quarter-cent ballot issues, one for permanent funding and one for ten year funding. COTA was not allowed to use the phrase “light rail” on the ten year funding issue. Confused voters approved permanent funding, unaware that they defeated light rail." Nice try, though. And it's interesting that the link you provided lists much larger, supposedly much more progressive cities that had the issue on the ballot and defeated them often by even larger margins, and I am betting most of those ballots actually listed what it was for, unlike what happened in Columbus. Doing so much more "despite the recession" is not anywhere equivalent to "continued to build as if nothing happened": simple reading comprehension. Actually, it pretty much is the same thing, as you have maintained that most other cities with similar Columbus neighborhoods have continued building nonstop through the recession, and that they were universally able to do so at a much greater rate contrary to the economic demand. You have made enough comments on the topic to not have been vague on the point. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you shouldn't have repeated the same ideas so many times. Speaking of residential developments, there are 1301 residential units being added on top of existing projects in my Short North (Uptown) and you can count the number of present day developments and the number of floors of each residential building: the Short North should have a comparable ratio. Here are a few of the larger ones: More here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195465 First, why should Columbus be matching Minneapolis? Minneapolis' metro is 2x larger and has a significantly larger amount of companies and demand than Columbus has. You are comparing apples to oranges. Hey, guess what, I bet Columbus also doesn't compare to NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami, etc. Second, Columbus IS adding thousands of new units, but they are spread through the Downtown and the urban core ring neighborhoods. Remember how you argued that the Short North was getting too much attention in comparison to others? Well, now they pretty much are all getting attention with infill and revitalization. Shockingly enough, all of the large increase in announced projects came within the last year as the recession has been ending. Strange, huh? In any case, you haven't really given me what I asked for. I want to know what similarly sized cities have been doing, and I want more specifics, lists, etc. If you'd like, I can repost what Columbus is doing to give you an idea of what I'm looking for.

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers. Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen. But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail. Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year. Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant. And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing. Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest. I don't. Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus. You moved because you couldn't handle it. So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in. BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious. You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards. Problem is, such a vote never took place. Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied. Which is it? And you continue to not understand how demand works. In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market. Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works. I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow). While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS. And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year. Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development. Quite the selective reading there, Keith. In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be. It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything. Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them. BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year. I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are. It's only a matter of time. In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more. Okay, I'll bite. What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done? I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information. I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities. Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action. You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession. I'll be waiting for your report.

We voted against that, sorry.

I think they are waiting to see what Illinois will do before they make their decision. Incentives have been rejected once but last I heard was being pushed again. I don't think the package is as big as Ohio is offering, but if it goes through, will very likely be enough to keep them from moving. I also don't think there will be any significant backlash.

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers. Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen. But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail. Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year. Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant. And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing. Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest. I don't. Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus. You moved because you couldn't handle it. So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in. BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious. You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards. Problem is, such a vote never took place. Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied. Which is it? And you continue to not understand how demand works. In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market. Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works. I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow). While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS. And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.

Why do you guys keep pushing this idea that the potential location was all Kasich's idea? He had nothing to do with it. SEARS approached the state with Columbus already in mind. This is not a conspiracy nor does it have anything to do with what Cincy or Cleveland may or may not have. The idea that Sears first approached Kasich about Columbus is simply not true. The very FIRST publicly-acknowledged discussions of Sears moving to Ohio took place in Cincinnati about its move THERE. Capsule summaries of those discussions between the governor and John F. Barrett, the powerful head of Western & Southern Life (also a major player in downtown Cincinnati real estate), can be found in the Cincinnati Business Courier, 4-29-11 and 5-10-11. Only later was Columbus ever mentioned. The astonishing $400 million capital bribe followed shortly afterwards. That's not been in a single article I've read, not from Chicago, and not in any of the other articles from state publications. Everything I've read says Sears approached Ohio about Columbus, not the other way around, but that sites in all 3 cities were looked at anyway. Regardless of what happened, Sears ultimately narrowed down the choice, and only Ohio choice, to Columbus. I guess if believing in conspiracies makes you sleep better, go for it.

As a resident of Greater Cleveland, I feel that there is a big disconnect at times between what's going on up here and what's being "decided" for us down there. I'm all for the Ohio cities working together, but I don't really see how giving a company big tax breaks to move to Columbus does anything at all to help Cleveland. Much of those taxes, by definition, won't have to be paid, so very little that revenue will be "trickling up" to Cleveland. If the state is willing to make similar considerations for all potential companies to move to Ohio (and also then likely have to do the same to entice companies to stay here), then I'd be fine with it in theory. Unfortunately that would be budgetary suicide for the state. Ultimately this move sets a bad precedent for the state. And I don't think it's going to benefit Cleveland or any other struggling Northern Ohio city as much as some are implying. This is not a very good example of Ohio cities working together. Situations like this one sometimes get me wondering how much better off Greater Cleveland might be if everything from roughly Stark County and north were its own state. A stronger Columbus can help Cleveland through related industry growth and companies looking at Ohio overall for future business moves. Not all of them are going to go to Columbus, otherwise you wouldn't have F500 companies in Cleveland or Cincinnati. You have to look at the bigger picture, not just your city. Besides, Sears is still likely not coming here, anyway.

First, and again, the state didn't choose the location. Second, do you or anyone else have any kind of evidence that Columbus gets far more attention than the rest of the state in terms of economic boosts or incentives?

Why do you guys keep pushing this idea that the potential location was all Kasich's idea? He had nothing to do with it. SEARS approached the state with Columbus already in mind. This is not a conspiracy nor does it have anything to do with what Cincy or Cleveland may or may not have.

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers. Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen. But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail. Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year. Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant. And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing. Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest. I don't. Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus. You moved because you couldn't handle it. So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in. BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street.

I don't care for the shape, but it would bother me a lot less if it was interactive in some way. I don't like public art that just sits and does nothing, even as a conversational piece. The best public art, imo, is that which the public can touch, walk through, around, and generally interact with. That's what made the bean in Chicago so successful. The size is great, and I don't mind the materials, but make it accessible to the public.