jonoh81

Not just disappointing, but should be illegal. Affordable housing should not get a pass in gobbling up large tracts of land for very low-density projects.

This is really on the city for not pushing for anything better. Frankly, a lot of developers lack any imagination because imaginative design tends to cost more, and without any pressure from neighorhood commissions or the city, they're just going to copy and paste the same designs over and over again. It's the same reason the suburban subdivisions are so sterile and every house is just a variation of the same design.

Just one more lane, bro.

Certainly interesting, and incredibly ambitious for the location and the current neighborhood conditions. I don't necessarily see it being approved, though. The Franklinton Commission is more open to taller, denser development than most neighborhoods, but I can easily see this being a bridge too far for even them. 11 stories was already arguably pushing it. I'd love for it to happen and to be a true catalyst for this part of Franklinton, though. When I always talk about maximizing potential of sites, this is what I am talking about, but even I'm pleasantly surprised. That doesn't happen that much. Is it possible he's proposing this so that when he gets the opposing feedback, he can go back to the height he actually wanted in the first place and claim compromise? I think that's also a good strategy. Better to cut it in half at 20 than at 11.

Exactly. I am concerned that LinkUS routes are already getting watered down over time and we have too many people making excuses. Yes, we want a nicer, more interactive and pedestrian friendly waterfront and Downtown, but we should also have an effective transit system. If that transit system is to be BRT, then it should be of a high standard and not something closer to CMAX. We can have both, and we shouldn't accept less than both, or only the cheapest possible versions of both. I'd much rather see one done right than both wrong.

I think the question was whether the LinkUS route was going to be mixed-traffic or dedicated-lane here, and this obviously suggests mixed-traffic. Which again, if it's mixed-traffic, that would undermine the point of BRT, even if only for a short distance. And I think that by trying to force everything onto the existing bridge to save money- even as wide as it is- you still end up having to sacrifice something. I'd rather that sacrifice that not be transit effectiveness because we need these routes to essentially overperform if we're going to keep expanding options. A significant portion of the Broad route is already going to be mixed-traffic as it is.

? is that for the West Franklinton proposal?

I didn't even think about LinkUS, but you're right. I don't see how that part of Broad and the bridge could see any significant road diet with expanded pedestrianization and also have dedicated transit lanes. That means that the options are that the bridge would have to be expanded for all the intended plans, the pedestrianization plans would have to be drastically reduced to resemble nothing like the renderings, an actual separate pedestrian bridge would need to be constructed, or the dedicated lanes on this part of Broad would have to be scrapped. The favored plan shows neither a bridge expansion nor separate bridge, so the other two bad options are all that are left.

It's pretty clear that the owners don't have the finances/resources to do anything of significance with the site, so as has been suspected for some time, this is highly likely to be a huge disappointment and missed opportunity when any actual site plan is finally released. At this point, I'd rather it go on the market and be sold to someone with both the resources and vision to do something transformative, but I know that's wishful thinking.

If you go through that link, it appears they were/are considering 4 options, and (shockingly) seem to prefer the option with arguably the least overall potential impact and investment that would build zero new connections. It would mostly be about doing a road diet on the existing bridge and adding landscaping. I don't think the bridge to the AD is happening anytime soon.

This is just copium, in my opinion. As if people on the forum would be anything but absolutely thrilled to get a couple dozen residential high-rise projects proposed for Downtown/urban core. We praise mediocrity in development because those are typically the development projects Columbus gets, not because they're the pinnacle of development possibilities. Most of the development you're talking about is mid at best for an urban core. Jeffrey Park, GY, Neighborhood Launch, etc. are essentially just versions of suburban lifestyle centers, and the funny thing is that Dublin- an actual suburb- made one that is arguably more walkable, dense and interestingly urban than any of those built partially or fully within Columbus. It's embarrassing. I also fully reject the idea that a taller building is automatically more sterile. It's how the ground floor is built and how it interacts with the street- just like with shorter buildings- that ultimately makes it good or not. Despite being short, most of the developments you mentioned are almost entirely sterile from a street interaction standpoint, with a lot of use separation, street setbacks and and overall lack of incorporated retail/restaurant space within the larger project. Franklinton is getting better projects, but they seem more willing to allow them than most other areas of the city.

You're basically advocating Downtown develops the next 20 years in the same way it has for the past 20 years- that added barely 10K people. I think without the large office conversions, there would be no hope at all for reaching 40K, and even with them I have serious doubts. No one has given me any good reason why that should continue. "Downtown has lots of space!" is not a good reason, because that just means, IMO, that Downtown is a blank slate that can be developed as great or as terribly as we push for. At what point do we start pushing for more? How many sites must go away before we should care about what goes in what's left? I don't understand the logic of wanting to wait for something better.

I'm not sure I really get this argument. So we shouldn't want to maximize potential in all neighborhoods, including Downtown? If density equates to success, I don't think shooting for the bare minimum makes much sense. What level of density Downtown would be successful? In 2020, the density level was between 3K-4K. That was roughly 1/5th the density of the Short North and about half the density of main Franklinton. So if we want densities closer to that of the city's most successful urban neighborhood, we would need at least 5x the current population- or about 60,000. Does anyone believe we're going to reach anything close to that at this rate?

Wasn't most of the urban core of Paris built like 100-200 years ago and most of those older buildings have more units in them than what typically get built in comparably-sized buildings today? And either way, Columbus isn't building like urban Paris whatsoever- there's virtually nothing truly comparable anywhere in the United States- so I don't really get the comparison here. Yes, low-mid rise can be very dense, but Columbus isn't building those kinds of buildings, and the smaller household sizes necessitate more units to meet the same kind of density that existed historically. They're largely building low-mid rise projects with low-medium unit density, even in the heart of the city. Neighborhood Launch is a great project... for Dublin or Hilliard, not Downtown. We're never going to see a return to 30K-50K people Downtown at this rate, no matter what the stated goals are. We're not even to half of the lower end of that goal more than 20 years after Coleman started pushing for housing there. Again, I am not necessarily saying we need 30-story buildings for every lot. My concern is density, not height. I was under the impression housing demand in the city is already there. Is that not why prices continue to rise so quickly?

Latest 2023 City Estimates Top 25 Largest Ohio Cities 1. Columbus: 913,175 2. Cleveland: 362,656 3. Cincinnati: 311,097 4. Toledo: 265,304 5. Akron: 188,701 6. Dayton: 135,512 7. Parma: 78,951 8. Canton: 69,197 9. Lorain: 65,337 10. Hamilton: 62,997 11. Youngstown: 59,108 12. Springfield: 58,082 13. Kettering: 56,876 14. Elyria: 53,117 15. Middletown: 51,478 16. Newark: 51,046 17. Cuyahoga Falls: 50,742 18. Lakewood: 49,337 19. Dublin: 48,923 20. Euclid: 48,212 21. Mansfield: 47,711 22. Beavercreek: 47,193 23. Mentor: 46,929 24. Strongsville: 45,511 25. Delaware: 45,158 Top 25 Largest Cities Population Change since 2022 and 2022 1. Columbus: +7236/+4937 2. Delaware: +3831/+1176 3. Cincinnati: +1530/+1692 4. Newark: +1098/+262 5. Beavercreek: +663/+264 6. Middletown: +488/+262 7. Elyria: +450/+239 8. Mansfield: +170/-130 9. Lorain: +125/+11 10. Cuyahoga Falls: -377/+98 11. Hamilton: -388/+61 12. Dublin: -390/-90 13. Mentor: -512/-95 14. Springfield: -572/+13 15. Youngstown: -939/-109 16. Strongsville: -974/-209 17. Kettering: -993/-114 18. Euclid: -1473/-277 19. Canton: -1571/-348 20. Lakewood: -1604/-331 21. Akron: -1717/+229 22. Dayton: -2113/-316 23. Parma: -2172/-409 24. Toledo: -5576/-1046 25. Cleveland: -9940/-150 Top 10 Largest Increase 2020-2023 1. Columbus: +7236 2. Delaware: +3831 3. Marysville: +2838 4. Pickerington: +2156 5. North Ridgeville: +1785 6. Sunbury: +1730 7. Grove City: +1538 8. Cincinnati: +1530 9. Centerville: +1505 10. Obetz: +1488 Top 10 Largest Increases 2022-2023 1. Columbus: +4937 2. Athens: +1955 3. Cincinnati: +1692 4. Oxford: +1343 5. Marysville: +1279 6. Delaware: +1176 7. Obetz: +945 8. Bowling Green: +729 9. Pickerington: +729 10. Centerville: +625 Top 10 Largest Decreases 2020-2023 1. Cleveland: -9940 2. Toledo: -5576 3. Parma: -2172 4. Dayton: -2113 5. Akron: -1717 6. Lakewood: -1604 7. Canton: -1571 8. Euclid: -1473 9. Cleveland Heights: -1408 10. Westerville: -1236 Top 10 Largest Decreases 2022-2023 1. Toledo: -1046 2. Parma: -409 3. Canton: -348 4. Lakewood: -331 5. Dayton: -316 6. Cleveland Heights: -290 7. Berea: -287 8. Sandusky: -285 9. Euclid: -277 10. Barberton: -257 Finally, as with most new estimates, previous years were adjusted up or down. Here are the best and worst adjustments for the original 2022 estimate and the 2023 estimate for 2022. Since estimates can be off, adjustments can tell us if a place may be growing or shrinking faster/more slowly than estimates may indicate, or whether previous estimates were off more than thought. Top 10 Best Adjustments 1. Athens: +1898 2. Oxford: +1352 3. Cleveland: +1199 4. Granville: +361 5. Columbus: +267 6. New Albany: +223 7. Delaware: +87 8. Youngstonw: +73 9. Alliance: +67 10. Toledo: +49 Top 10 Worst Adjustments 1. Westerville: -308 2. Fairborn: -271 3. Berea: -186 4. Ashland: -171 5. Canton: -126 6. Dayton: -116 7. Cincinnati: -108 8. Tiffin: -83 9. Wilmington: -52 10. Massillon: -43 Overall, the 2023 estimates seem weird to me, but they've been weird for a while now. They were generally better for larger cities than in other post-pandemic years, generally bad for major suburbs, and very mixed for everywhere else.

Columbus isn't even building enough to match existing demand, so isn't it a bit of a contradiction to say building low to mid-rise development is "building for a growing population", all with the hope that- decades from now- we might be able to fill in a few urban core sites with something truly dense if/when land values supposedly justify it?

Everyone wants to make excuses, but you're not wrong. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with the project, just the location. Everyone says we need more density, but then we get proposals like this on prime property and everyone's like "I don't understand why we should expect better?!" The guys proposing that 11-story out in the middle of Franklinton are the ones who we should be making excuses for, not this, because at least that is challenging the existing conditions in that neighborhood. Again, the proposal is fine, but I'm tired of low to mid-rise Downtown, especially when so many other cities near Columbus' size have multiple skyscrapers either planned or under construction. It feels like Columbus continuously punches well under its weight in terms of actual significant development projects, and I'm not sure why.

Yep, I still feel like the city is going too cautious for too many areas. I have a feeling it's for 2 reasons- fear of NIMBYs and a belief that too much density will severely impact traffic, and Columbus definitely cares about catering to cars above almost anything else.

I'd rather not see more of these condos built downtown like this. Not to argue that they don't look nice and that a few smaller lots here and there can't include them, but I think the majority of the space Downtown should not be built with this kind of very low-rise, low-unit project that would better serve as infill in other parts of the city, such as in the abundance of single-family neighborhoods. I'd rather see the available land Downtown be maximized as much as possible.

A preserved historic neighborhood built a century ago is not really a good comparison or what I'm talking about. I am also not advocating we demolish German Village or the houses on Neil for highrises. My criticism is more about the limitations of the maximum in areas that look like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/wHmag9H46PtvzkMP9 or this https://maps.app.goo.gl/nGBtz6C8Fj516Bmw6 or this https://maps.app.goo.gl/PrZ2SmMW4xyNuCGZ6 etc. We're essentially talking about a lot of blank slates on major corridors through the city. I am not saying that 4 story buildings can't lead to a vibrant neighborhood, but vibrant neighborhoods do not suddenly cease to be possible at 5, 6, 10, etc. stories. 4 stories really feels like a compromise with the NIMBYs rather than a true push for density and housing. Just my opinion, people can agree or not, but I would've doubled the height maximums across the board.

Thanks, and that's kind of confirming my worry. Nowhere on High Street should there be a 4-story max, IMO.

I haven't seen a map on where the 6 new districts will go yet, so I am curious to see if some major corridors still have rather limited height regulations. Some of the new standards won't exactly allow significantly higher buildings than the current 35'- basically from 3-story max to 4-5-story max. If anything, I think the overall maximum heights are still too low across the board. A lot of projects will still likely go to neighborhood commissions. Fewer yes, but we're still going to be dealing with the same NIMBY and anti-urban influence we always have in more neighborhoods than we really should have to. I can totally see Clintonville, for example, getting the lowest of the new standards in part to ruffle the fewest feathers rather than what should truly be the new zoning standards there. It makes me a little concerned that the 2nd phase of the new zoning rollout, which includes all the actual neighborhoods and not just main corridors, will not offer the necessary changes to truly allow more density. For example, I'm not convinced that we see parking eliminations in those areas, or the end of exclusionary zoning for single-family housing. None of this is to say that the new codes won't help, because they absolutely will. But I definitely think they won't go far enough in many areas.

I still think they could've done so much more with this site. That's a lot of empty space.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think there's a missed opportunity for some kind of green roof or shared resident rooftop space on some of these projects? That's a whole lot of bland roof.

Am I a bad person for wanting to have popcorn ready for the reaction to the first 10+ story building proposed for Clintonville?