jbcmh81

The worst thing about revitalized/gentrified neighborhoods is that so many residents, who have themselves been a part of major changes in the neighborhood, end up vehemently opposing further change and seek to treat their streets like gated communities. One day, we're going to be hearing the same kind of stuff out of Franklinton.

Yeah, those make HighPoint look like LeVeque in comparison. Hopefully the UAC will put pressure on them for something that doesn't look like a Soviet-era prison/public housing project.

Exactly. I do not in any way support subsidizing more roads when there are already endless locations around the city that have fantastic access. If OhioHealth absolutely has to build there, they should have to pay for the new roads. They're already getting tax credits. Otherwise, I think it's time to give up on the mass transit dream in Columbus. City leadership just doesn't want to invest in it. That much was clear with the "leap frog" article awhile back talking about how awesome the autonomous car is.

Here's one for the pile: http://time.com/money/4490477/the-best-big-cities/ Columbus named best city of the Midwest region by Money. Of course, it failed to even do due diligence of getting the correct population figures, so yeah...

Pretty obvious. More growth in the city. Don't know why that's so hard to understand. Leadership in Cleveland is lacking for that growth to happen. I don't see any proof from you that development is happening at such a great clip in other rust belt cities. I don't know if the goal should be that Cleveland only match what other rust-belt cities are doing. Frankly, that's kind of a low bar. BTW, as mentioned above, metro GDP's were released today. Cleveland is barely hanging onto #1 in the state, at just over $128 billion. Cincinnati is at $127 and Columbus is at $124. Both are likely to pass Cleveland fairly soon. While it's not the end-all, be-all or anything, I think it might be another blow to the city's psyche. The point is that it has to do more.

I think the real test with Parks Edge is what they do on the remaining parcel immediately east. I have assumed they were planning something of greater height there, using Parks Edge as a smaller buffer (to not obstruct views) between a new tower and Northbank. I hope so. Parks Edge may also have been smaller because of how long it took for North Bank condos to fully sell. There was probably some hesitation to go big and potentially be stuck with a bunch of unsold units. However, the economy today and demand for sale units is drastically different than when North Bank was completed in 2007. Hopefully, Parks Edge sells out quickly and that will be the test needed for something a lot bigger on the other site- and perhaps more similar projects around the area.

When it comes to Downtown, I don't think NIMBYism is at play. In the Short North, neighborhood commissions are the ones that are typically requesting height reductions, along with the local resident population who don't seem to understand that they live in an urban neighborhood that is changing rapidly. That is not the case Downtown. The Downtown Commission encourages height and density, and there is really no organized resident component against those things. The problem seems to be with the developers. Whether it is because they are too small to make the financials work for larger projects, or just aren't comfortable with larger scale, almost all proposals have been undersized for their locations. 10+ stories is a start, but it's still not where things need to be. There have been only 2 projects in the last decade or so that I thought were pushing the established envelope, and they are the Millennial Tower and the recently announced mixed-use project at 500 W. Broad. The latter project has an amazing number of really cool, unique features that I've never seen in another Columbus project, and the former only because it breaks from the pack on height and is not a typical design you'd see in the city.

I check into Cleveland's development page all the time. Not much happening or really impressive. It's slowed down greatly this year, and with the promise of big projects... typical Cleveland, nothing actually comes to fruition. Meanwhile, Milwaukee is about to raise a fourth crane over downtown. I am not bashing Cleveland, just being critical. Same goes for the rest of Ohio, nothing impressive is really happening where you can brag about how well the cities in this state are doing. Here's Columbus' under construction and planned list: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?page_id=4618 I have no idea how comparable it is to other regional cities, but there's a lot going on. Here's the list of completed projects: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?page_id=12

I'd take it a step further. Definitely like the addition of a multiple-level market- with actual market space on the ground floor rather than being a restaurant/incubator type space which is more what NM is now. On top of that, though, I want to see mixed-use of some kind- offices, residential, etc. Preferally 20+ stories would be great. A real defining project for this area.

It's not just RiverSouth. I guess we should be glad that there are more proposals now reaching 10+ stories, an improvement over how long we were stuck at the 5-story ceiling. By the time we move on to 20+ stories, though, most if not all of the prime lots near High and the river will be gone. There are still plenty of lots in the eastern half of Downtown, but I suspect that we'll be seeing low-rise there long into the future.

You mean like Northbank or Parks Edge? :wave: They're more exceptions to the rule. And frankly, I think Parks Edge is underwhelming for the potential the site had.

They make it sound all urban, but it looks like just a bigger strip mall with all the surrounding parking lots along the roads. Typical Polaris sprawl. It's pretty clear that a lot of developers have zero understanding of what an urban development actually looks like, despite the endless examples that exist.

There are no parking minimum requirements Downtown, so it is up to the discretion of the developer. I don't think it'll be that controversial considering the requirements were removed not that many years ago.

There is no way that 1-story lasts too many more years. It will eventually be replaced too at some point. I would hate to see IVC want this proposal's height reduced for such a short-sighted reason. And it wouldn't make much sense, anyway, given that they already approved a 7-story project directly behind the Haiku site at the park.

I would've rather had another developer gotten the Marconi garage site than Nationwide. Their designs are always rather bland, largely brick, and tend to max out at 5 or 6 stories. And they're not particularly fast at getting things developed. They seem to be buying up properties waiting for the maximum return before redevelopment, and they own a lot of property right now. It could be years before something comes out of this.

This just makes me so angry. These people are completely clueless and they will ensure that Columbus remains largely unwalkable and without the kind of transit alternatives that would make it less car dependent. Instead, they want to make sure that it is ONLY cars. I can't state enough how awful this is.

Just a late note on the Grandview Crossing big-box suburban development... From what I understand, because the site used to be a dump site, residential was not a permitted use for the site. A great mixed-use project for this site would've been great, but it's not allowed. The parking lot and strip center was about the best that could happen.

So here are a few links. The first is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/realestate/rethinking-skyways-and-tunnels.html. This 2005 article from the NYT had this to say: Two dozen cities across the country pursued similar plans over the last 30 years, building skywalks and underground retail catacombs to keep businesses and stores from fleeing to suburbs and shopping malls. They ensconced shoppers and office workers in well-lighted, climate-controlled environments and insulated them from crime, cold and urban blight. But now, many of these cities are gripped with builders' remorse. They say the skyways and tunnels have choked off pedestrian traffic, hurt street-level retailers and limited development in the city core. The article highlights several cities nationally who, at the time, were recognizing their skywalk systems as complete failures in terms of getting people on the street. At the time of the article, the full-scale revitalization of downtowns was just beginning, but all of these cities had recognized long before that that they were hurting their efforts. More recently, the fight against the Cleveland casino skywalk: http://www.citylab.com/design/2013/04/if-other-cities-are-demolishing-skywalks-why-does-cleveland-want-new-one/5291/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0886779813000941 Here is an extensive study globally of skywalks and other pedestrian grade separation systems. You will have to pay for it though. In my searches, I have also noticed that skywalks are really only getting praise where they are still relatively new: Asia, particularly as a safety measure alone in extremely congested cities like Mumbai. Otherwise, in the US or North America in general, their defense seems limited almost exclusively to locations that have very harsh winters- Minneapolis, Montreal, etc.

I will do some searches for links on the matter. The particular study I'm referencing was a few years ago, but I will look for it. In the meantime, in my search I am learning more about how skywalks came about. As expected, they came into favor to keep people out of the street due to the danger of traffic. In Cincinnati, for example, skywalks there were first proposed in 1957, but city leadership repeatedly rejected them until the federal government began offering "urban renewal" funds to build them (yes, those two words that have come to symbolize the very destruction of the urban city) in 1971. They also rose for retailers in the core to compete with the growing options of enclosed suburban malls. If there isn't a more clear signal as to how outdated skywalks are to the concept of rebuilding urban vibrancy, I am not sure what is. Still, I will provide some links.

It's really not up for debate. What is the point of trying to increase residents Downtown if you also build infrastructure to keep them off the sidewalk? Why even move Downtown if you don't value the uban form that creates walkability? No, this single skywalk is not going to destroy Downtown's improving street vibrancy, but it will absolutely be detrimental to it in this particular area. I just don't think intentionally creating dead zones should be something to praise. Because pretty much every study done on the matter concludes the same thing- that building for the car only gets you the car and everything that goes with it- traffic, pollution, noise, etc., all things that create an unfriendly, unnattractive environment for pedestrians. Downtown in 1985 had about 65,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Today that number is closer to 40,000. Do you think Downtown has more street activity now or in 1985? There is, contrary to what may seem logical, a pretty direct correlation between a reduction in auto-centric infrastructure and a more vibrant streetscape. First, most suburbs are built for the car, so when people drive to these large parking lots, they obviously have to park somewhere. Of course they are going to park as close to the entrance as they can, that should go without saying. The fact that parking in these lots is usually completely free is only more of an incentive to drive, so the choice isn't exactly unbiased to begin with. There is a built-in, nearly mandatory necessity to drive in the suburbs, as development patterns have made it the only really logical choice. Second, you're not really making an argument against what I said. Sure, some people get dropped off, but the reality is that most people are still willing to put up with the weather and walk whatever distance through the lot. Considering that the vast majority of car-based trips, even to the store, are done alone, the situation you describe represents only a very small % of the people shopping. So why are most people willing to put up with walking sometimes longer distances in bad weather like that? I think the answer to that is pretty simple- because the perception is that the destination offers a greater benefit than the inconvenience to get there. When that principle is applied to Two25, when then is the perception of benefit? Is the benefit of living in a walkable, urban area greater than the lack of convenience of abundant free parking or having to walk 40 feet across a street? I would certainly think that the attractiveness of the former is far superior to the supposed negative of the latter, or at least to the demographic of people that would be interested in living there. I think this kind of assumes that there would be any hardship in attracting residents to begin with, so there is a need, or at least a desire, to provide such extra conveniences. However, the urban market in Columbus has a greater than 96% occupancy with residential units. There has not been a single project in the last 5 years at least that has had any trouble finding tenants, many of which with far less parking convenience than Two25 will have even without a skywalk. And again, there is also the assumption that every potential resident will not only own a car, but will want to drive everywhere even if they did. Skywalks can certainly be better designed, like the one that goes from the Hilton to the convention center, but they're ugly in the way that they detract from the view along the street. Does South High look better or worse without the City Center skywalk? To me the comparison would be like having 7ft ceilings and 20ft ceilings in your home. At least buildings on either side of the street leave an open view to the sky and for long distances in front of you, something that skywalks directly interrupt. I am not saying that no skywalk can ever again be useful, but if they're not contributing to the goal of activating Downtown steets, they need to be heavily scrutinized. If it's just going to be built to provide a selling point to a few residents, the cost is too high and its actual usefulness is too limited. I remember reading about a study that showed that skywalks didn't just impact how people crossed a street. The study was about impacts to local businesses before and after construction, and that those businesses actually saw declines as it removed the casual shopper element. When people were on the street, they were more likely to window shop and patronize businesses, but when they could simply cross the street above it all, that aspect disappeared because it forced those businesses into the destination role. So it isn't just that skywalks only impact how people cross the street, but how they interact with the street and whatever businesses may be near it. The developer, however, specifically stated that safety was a key factor in why they wanted to build it. So why wouldn't they just partner with the city to upgrade the crossing? Even if there is a safety issue, building the skywalk makes those pedestrian improvements less likely. The improved safety literally only benefits the small number of residents and no one else. Crossing a river filled with crocodiles? I agree it is not always black and white, but in this case, I see no reason to be supportive of it.

It is a positive if you want a vibrant streetscape. And again, for those people who place exceptional value over parking convenience, urban development like this probably isn't for them. It is so frustrating to see people constantly trying to pigeonhole suburban amenities into urban development. Downtown Columbus had huge amounts of parking for decades, and yet it was completely dead after 5pm. You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability, or you can have abundant, convenient parking. You cannot have both of them. And I find the whole discussion of convience to be somewhat dishonest anyway. Go to any large box retail in the suburbs and you have huge parking lots in which people are forced to walk from their cars to the store, often at a much greater distance than what the parking garage will be from Two25. And those people do it in every single type of weather, all without any demand for covered space and climate control. Or even safety, for that matter, as shopping center parking lots are often poorly designed for pedestrians. So this idea that people absolutely need these amenities is just not true, because they don't even demand them in suburbia. The bottom line is that if you expect that convenience, you don't buy an apartment in Two25. Everyone has the choice of where to live, and if certain things are important to you that a particular development or location doesn't offer, then you can choose to live somewhere else. Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in. They are outdated in their concept of urban design and in the goal of getting more people on the street. Worse, they seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether. In every way, they are a bad choice.

See, this is the problem that a lot of people, including obviously the developers, don't seem to get. Not every type of development is going to be for every type of person. This particular development really isn't for people who can't imagine walking across a street to their car without climate control, nor should it be. This is an urban location, and there is no reason to expect that such a location should be completely convenient either to drive or park. If people need to have their car right outside their door, the suburbs offer that. I see absolutely no reason to demand that in Downtown, where owning a car is less and less necessary given car share, transit, bike share and the general increase of walkability in the area. Not a single urban development has had any trouble filling up with residents in Columbus regardless of the parking convenience, and this would be no different. What the developer and the city should do instead is to create a safer pedestrian crossing, including perhaps new signals, a raised street section, etc. It would probably end up being cheaper for the developer to do that, it would increase safety and pedestrian access to all- not only residents- and it would maintain the urban form that outdated skywalks take away from. Ultimately, it is about 2 different mindsets- one that values urban living and all that successful urban vibrancy needs to exist, and one that really doesn't care about that so long as you can stay warmer for 30 feet. Given that Gallery Hop in the dead of winter still seems pretty busy, I suspect that all the worry about cold and rain is overblown anyway. People walk longer distances to get into WalMart.

Austin and Charlotte are much bigger than Columbus in square miles, so it goes both ways, really. Indianapolis consolidated with most of its home county, or Columbus would've past it decades ago. Long term, Columbus will definitely pass Indy if it has not already, and then perhaps SF and Jacksonville. Ultimately, it may end up in the same position is is now, 15th largest, or perhaps move up one to 14th. We'll have to see how the growth rates change over time with Columbus and the cites that surround it in the rankings. Ohio's net out-migration is much better than it used to be, when it was regularly losing 3x that many people per year. Also, in the 2000s Ohio was underestimated, and that is probably the case again now.

Yeah, I hope the Downtown Commission rejects that, but I'm sure the developer will claim it's a necessity and that it won't have an impact on street activity when it obviously will. Skywalks are so outdated and represent outdated thinking.

Eh, the only thing really being kept are the facades, so the buildings aren't really being saved. It is similar to the early proposals for Pavey Sqare. I'm glad at least the historic streetscape is being preserved, but this really isn't much different than full-scale demolition. Better than nothing I guess. Otherwise, the design above the original buildings, for me, is a bit bland- at least the side facing Park Street. It's just a flat wall with small, square windows. It'd bet better if it was broken up some.