cbussoccer

Kinda sucks to see a bunch of chain restaurants there, but being across the street from a hospital it's not too much of a surprise. Regardless, it's great to see some commercial space being added here. This stretch of Livingston is really ripe for more development like this.

The new one in front of the Big Lots HQ? I'm not sure there's enough space in there for 585 employees in addition to the companies already taking up space there. At the very least, it'd be a tight squeeze.

This project does have some quirks to it. Building on top of a cemetery an obvious one. I would love to know how much that exhumation process cost. They are also tying into a 100 year old building and possibly reconfiguring part of the current North Market. The entire North Market portion of the tower is specialized which is going to be more expensive than building generic office space or residential space. It's also build kind of an odd location, essentially bound by alleys as opposed to actual city streets. I would imagine they had to do more utility work than normal to prep for this tower, but that's just a guess. Add all those quirks to the skyrocketing price of raw materials and it's easy to see how the price is so exorbitant.

There is a lot under construction right now, they just didn't include it in the list.

I like this table from the article: And this one as well:

Has anyone been by the site recently? What's the construction status?

They have a good amount of restaurants/bars and entertainment as well.

Are we talking about the residential building that had a tower crane up right before Covid and then abruptly stopped construction?

Yep, they've definitely got the housing covered. I'm excited to see some solidified plans for some of the new dorms. Hopefully we can get 10+ stories with a few of them.

Easy there fella.

Which is why I'd like to see them renovated and maybe even used for something other than housing. I'm living in fantasy land right now though and I'm sure in reality a renovation will be extremely cost prohibitive so a demo is probably the logical course of action. They are definitely in a bad spot to be used as student housing though, that's for sure. I don't blame OSU for wanting to change that up.

Their ugliness is iconic. But yea I agree the facade should be redone. It's more so the height and shape of the buildings that make them stand out.

Yea, that's a massive amount of square footage to lose. OSU seems to be getting pretty trigger happy with the demolitions and it's making me feel uneasy. The only way I'd be supportive is if they planned to replace them with something equally as iconic.

They are ugly but iconic. I would prefer to see them renovated as opposed to demolished.

Wow that looks amazing. That's going to be a very popular spot.

Looks like they plan to demolish Lincoln and Morrill Towers as well...

This can be true on the macro level, but not on a case-by-case situation. I'll refrain from continuing to debate you on every minute detail you've listed out because this is really the gist of the debate. You are taking an overly generalized and idealistic macro view and attempting to blindly apply it to a very specific situation. I'm looking at the specific situation, taking into context the other factors outside the local jurisdiction and state's control, and coming to a reasonable conclusion. While I agree with your overall idealistic view of deincentivizing auto centric transport, this debate is clearly pointless as we both have vastly different approaches to analyzing the specific situation.

Yes, that's why roads are built. I'm not presenting a new argument because I'm not the one suggesting a new argument needs presented. Right, I said this bypass would shift a percentage of traffic from 270/161 to the bypass. This would reduce the amount of traffic that would otherwise exist on 270 absent the existence of the bypass. You confused yourself because you misrepresented what myself and others were stating. You continue stating building a bypass will not reduce traffic on the bypassed roads, which is logically incoherent. Sure, eventually traffic will increase on 270, because that's what will inevitably happen with a growing population. But it won't increase due to the existence of a bypass. That's logically incoherent. I understand that what you are really doing is arguing for rail transport, in a roundabout way. I fully agree that rail transport is a must for the metro area and should be prioritized, but this bypass in no way precludes that from happening. Oh, and this isn't simply shaving a couple minutes off a trip. This would likely make a trip ~45-60 minutes shorter. That's significant, especially in the logistics world.

This project wouldn’t make a minuscule blip on the global environment, which is what you were fussing about. But if that’s the route you want to take, we should have this pointless debate with every single development project, you know, for the greater good.

Right, this is literally what some of us are explaining. Nobody said the cars and trucks would magically disappear. We are simply acknowledging that there’s going to be a massive increase in semi traffic and it’s better, for a number of reasons, to provide a more direct route to the plant from the main interstates.

I don’t think we should devolve into a debate about climate change in this thread. It’s not relevant and shouldn’t have been brought up in the first place.

And there’s still like three more years of construction! The scope of this project is insane.

If 270 didn’t exist there would be a huge amount of traffic going through downtown as a result of people or semis simply passing through. The point of 270, a bypass, is to allow those people to bypass downtown. It reduces a ton of unnecessary traffic, much of it semi traffic. This is the same exact same concept. Even a remote amount of rational thought will allow you to see this. Another example would be bypasses that have been built on 33. They built a bypass around Nelsonville which has greatly reduced through traffic in Nelsonville which had reduced business related to the through traffic. There are certainly instances where widening or adding roads is redundant and overly car-centric, but this isn’t one of them. The concern about “climate change” for a small 270 bypass is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, this results in less fossil fuel burning due to the more direct route semis are able to take, resulting in less miles driven and less diesel burned.

Which is the whole point of this. There’s going to be a huge increase in truck traffic on 270, specifically between 70E and 71N. Reducing that truck traffic will not only keep traffic flowing better on 270 and 161, but it will also keep it flowing safer. Will it create some more sprawl? Sure. But I’ll take that if we can keep more semis off 270 and allow Intel a better chance at continuing to grow their operations here.

The suite areas at LDC are so nice! Part of the reason corporate partnerships were historically a struggle for the team was due to the minimal suite/VIP areas. That no longer appears to be an issue to say the least, lol.