jonoh81

Honestly, I was unaware you had a problem with me or my posting history. I can assure you that there was no snark in any of these responses. I was just genuinely surprised by the reaction. But anyway, this news definitely changes things for me, and if the mods feel that I am a problem, then I should refrain from posting here.

The post I responded to didn't seem to just be talking about Park's Edge, so I responded in kind. Apparently a misread. The "appropriately vague" thing refers to me thinking it was clear I wasn't just talking about Downtown. I did not mean to imply that Downtown itself had parking minimums and am well aware that they don't exist in the AD. If that wasn't clear, then maybe I should've phrased that better. In any case, I don't understand the confrontational response from you. Sorry if I said something wrong here.

Okay, I thought it was appropriately vague... Anyway, whether there are parking requirements Downtown doesn't really change much. The city still maintains those standards elsewhere. And we don't really have developers willing to build Downtown without it, so the lack of parking minimums hasn't affected development practices there. It's not just about parking minimums, but an overall culture that still treats the car as one of the biggest considerations in development. The city pushing parking in other places arguably creates contradictory policy and incentivizes parking even within Downtown because developers feel no real pressure to do anything different. The city should be a leader in that culture change, but it isn't.

I wasn't just referring to Downtown. The recent news about the Rogue arena comes to mind.

That's basically all I know.

Same problems that have existed for a while- 1. Developers underbuilding for whatever reason, 2. City leadership not pushing for larger projects, 3. Poor zoning across the board, and 4. Parking minimum rules. All these people have seen the studies showing how much growth is coming, and yet they twiddle their thumbs and do nothing to prepare.

So are they advertising space in a yet-to-be-announced project or are they fishing for potential investors in one that doesn't exist yet?

I haven't written specifically about the Nicholas, but I have mentioned it. The C-H project was the basis for saying that Downtown is being shortchanged on development.

I just got an email from the owner of the site saying that the CEO had contacted him angrily demanding my personal contact information. He was (politely) told to get lost.

I wrote an article about this development and how terrible it is, and the CEO of Crawford Hoying was not pleased.

Whatever it is, I hope that it's something that directly engages the river. Now that it's nice and doesn't smell like sewage, there is no reason for development to keep ignoring it.

CoverMyMeds is just going to Franklinton, which although not Downtown, is still very much in the urban core and as close as you can get without actually being Downtown. Franklinton needs the help more than Downtown does.

Yes, almost definitely. It typically goes up between 2-4K, so the 2019 estimate for 2018 will be in the 895K range. I'm being a little conservative with my 2019 estimate, assuming a 8K-12K increase based on the revised 2018 number, or a straight 10K-15K increase from the original.

Probably not for the 2019 estimate, but definitely by 2020. The July 1, 2019 estimate will probably be around 903K-907K.

What Dublin is doing is not much different than any much larger city, including Columbus. There will always be parts that are single-family and pretty suburban, but also parts that are dense and urban. Few cities out there don't have both. You're right that outside of its core, Dublin is still mostly sprawl, but a lot of that was built prior to any of these view changes. It remains to be seen if they push for better development in other parts of their land area.

I don't know about that. Dublin still has room to sprawl, and it didn't need to build Bridge Park anything like they did. It was a conscious choice to embrace more urban concepts there, maybe in part because they recognized that they could maximize things like property taxes by going denser, similar to the way UA and Grandview are now doing to some degree (and because they are both landlocked). I just don't see that happening anytime soon with a place like Delaware, with plenty of room to expand and zero current effort to change development practices. The county will most likely always be about sprawl.

That's a pretty low bar, though, and kind of proves what I said about it. It's urban and walkable... to people who live in the suburbs. That's not necessarily a knock against those people, it just annoys me when things are called urban and walkable when they're really not. It waters down the definitions to excuse what is still really just suburban development. Developers, in particular, are playing fast and loose with those terms in recent years, with one of the most glaring examples being Hamilton Quarter.

Oh, I definitely don't dislike the plan overall, but just think there are some obvious, glaring issues. I guess I'm more just kind of mystified that these same issues keep popping up.

Ooof, I just noticed those. Didn't Columbus leadership once say they were trying to avoid building those because they were outdated and interfered with the street activity? More suburban thinking of trying to avoid the street in a supposed urban development. Even Bridge Park and Easton don't have all those. If they absolutely have to have the garages connected to the other buildings, why not just build the garages with the buildings themselves, or directly attached? I also don't like that the garages are single-use with no planned covering with residential or something like we've seen a few times in the Short North. Seems like a missed opportunity there. And yes, I'm definitely being the contrarian here.

On paper, you may be right, but I've learned to temper my expectations. One of the reasons they didn't like the Buckingham plan was that it was too short, but Phase I looks a lot like that plan. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

The 69 units per acre is for the full planned buildout of 1800 on all 26 acres. The first phase is actually a little lower at 61. This is purely from a residential unit density. If we're talking building density, I'm still not sure, but density is typically measured by population or residential units, not office or retail space. Individual projects around Columbus have certainly had higher densities, but large scale redevelopments like this are rarer just because we don't have a lot of large plots ready for development in the urban core. Anyone know what the density is for the current/planned building of Jeffrey Place? Or the development on West 5th in Harrison West? Or the original Arena District?

"All of this was set up to create a world-class mixed use development," CDDC CEO Guy Worley told the Commission. "The best use of this land is to create as much density in possible. … We believe … Columbus has never had this much density on such a small piece of land." 8-11 stories, which is shorter than what's going up west of the railroad tracks, is "as much density as possible"? I also question if this is really the highest density project in Columbus history. It would boil down to 69 units per acre. Seems a little hyperbolic.

I've seen plenty of comments in stories about New Albany suggesting that its "downtown" adheres to urban development and walkability concepts.

Nope, I live in a world with pretty well-established concepts of what urbanity is... and what it isn't.

Yeah, they've been the only ones who have made any serious effort. Hilliard, Grove City and Gahanna have made only token density plans for very small parts of their land areas, and New Albany is what suburbanites think urban living is.