DevolsDance

It's been pretty inconsistent since the beginning on the Elford site, I've been checking the site on Loopnet more recently because it displays every time there is an update to the page. https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/101-W-Rich-St-Columbus-OH/11228312/ They are labeling it as 101 W Rich St so its kind of hard to find just under "Millennial Tower".

Updated from yesterday, looks like things are going up. Things are moving pretty quickly now on the site, they have been pouring concrete every day almost. Southwest corner looking up Long towards Neilston. Northwest corner looking towards Long St from 5th and Lafayette.

Keeping the market in motion: Not satisfied with standing still, Rick Harrison Wolfe seeks new merchants – and new locales – for the North Market https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/04/04/keeping-the-market-in-motion-not-satisfied-with.html A pretty interesting article overall, discussing the Bridge Park expansion and how the market helped launch some major local eateries. The article also goes over Rick Harrison Wolfe's desire to keep amping up cuisine diversity in the market... but the real meat we care about comes in here... "Though quiet for months, the 35-story North Market Tower plan remains on the table. First announced in 2017, the more than $100 million project would redevelop the parking lot into a mixed-use high rise that would include expanded market space, public space and additional parking. The North Market Development Authority and developers Wood Cos./Schiff Capital Group are hammering out details of their relationship before the project moves forward. “We have one chance to get this right,” Wolfe said.The market’s priorities remain the same as when the plans first were announced. They include a long-term financially sustainable structure to support the market, ensuring the tower fits with the existing historic building, and the ability to expand market services and operations. “It’s a complicated project at a crucial point with us and the developers and the city. It has to work for all of us,” Wolfe said. Michael Schiff, president of Schiff Capital, said he anticipates news soon on the project and remains positive about its progression.The city of Columbus, which owns the land and is the market’s landlord, has taken a step back at this point. They need to take the time to go through and figure out what’s important,” said Columbus Economic Development Director Steve Schoeny. “We support a vibrant, viable North Market. This is important enough to be patient about.” I am going to look at this as good news.

I may be mistaken, but isn't Price a one way street with a light where it hits High? If every other development has managed to be built without causing a traffic apocalypse then I am pretty sure this would have been fine as well. I also vividly remember Kaufman adjusting this proposal 6-8 times before giving up, so maybe you mean map instead of drawing board. You just seem like the truest NIMBY right now, you're here claiming you support density as long as it isn't where?... Oh, as long as it isn't in your back yard. Dude, all of these responses are right. You're gatekeeping development input and opinions but that's just not how it works. I go to a lot of these commission meetings but I don't own property in any of them. I live in German Village but I care about how the city grows and develops as a whole.

I really hope they don't end up naming this the "North Market" in any way. Maybe it's just me but i'm thinking a public market shouldn't be named like a chain. Bridge Park Market or Dublin Market get my vote. Either way, Dublin continues its evolution. Maybe the CU April Fools article isn't too far off. Ha

Wood has the best looking development in the city. I hope they build the Market Tower as nice as others. My only desire at this point.

Another Wood Cos product I'm sure will break the curve on my development quality gauge. I cannot believe how much of a gem Wood is for this city.

We all have very much remained on topic. You asked "How is light rail any better than an actual BRT line? t seems to me that the cost of constructing a light rail line far exceeds the cost of a BRT line (with true bus designated/protected lanes and the whole 9 yards) without providing much additional value." I think we've all put a fair and valid effort to answer your question. A few of us have provided everything from price breakdowns to comparisons, rider and public experience, and retail ownership POV, all points of view really. The merits are that it would cost about the same (maybe more long term), have lower capacity, lower development potential, but be constructed quicker. Was there a more specific thing you were wanting?

Exactly, the CMAX cost about $50 Million to build but offers little to no advantage over an express bus. The CMAX isn't spurring development, isn't creating a transit corridor, and isn't significantly faster. While, I believe BRT lite systems like CMAX do have a place in urban transit planning because of their fantastic ability to gauge ridership demand and build a transit user base, they will never be able to achieve much more than that. Something interesting to consider is the Orange Line BRT in LA. The orange line is true BRT built in 2005 at a cost of about $350 Million (2019 cost of $453 Million) with dedicated lanes all the way from North Hollywood to Chatsworth. The line has been increasing ridership since its inception and is now being considered for a conversion to rail to help increase capacity and influence denser development. While it is looked at as a success, I think it should also be looked at as a slight mistake. Metro, now only 14 years after sinking the equivalent of $450 Million into the line, is going to pay an additional few hundred million to put down rails where they should have been in the first place. Long winded response to why rail would be a better solution for Broad Street than BRT? Streetcar/LightRail is a permanent solution with environmental, capacity, development, and ongoing maintenance benefits that surpass those of true BRT at a virtually equal cost point. Ultimately every major city in the world has figured out that it will always come back to rail, either pay the money now or later. The only true benefit of building a BRT over rail is construction time; the cost benefits of BRT are overblown and will likely just end up back at a solution that has been around for centuries.

While I am a large supporter of BRT when done correctly, we in the US very rarely do that. Through all of my research, I have seen that BRT only come close to rail if given the power and money that rail requires, ultimately making it not as much of a cost saver in the long run as one would imagine. I'm going to attempt (hang with me) to break this down to as equal of a comparison as one can with the information publicly available. So based on availability of information, alignments connecting downtown to an adjacent neighborhood, city size, and capacity, I will be using the Cleveland Health-line for BRT since it's a true BRT and the Oklahoma City Streetcar. Where I will break from this formula is with the ridership numbers (since OKC is new) and route length and number of stops. CLE BRT Year completed - 2008 Distance - 6.8 Miles Total Stops - 39 Construction Cost - $200 Million (2008), 235 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) Cost per mile - 29.4 Million (2008), 34.5 Million (Adjusted to 2018 Inflataion) Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes Vehicle Capacity - 57 Persons Now, where the fun starts Avg lifespan of Pavement - Max 15-20 years (Based on being dedicated but a heavier vehicle) Avg lifespan of Bus - 12 years OKC STREETCAR/LRT Year completed - 2018 Distance - 4.8 Miles Total Stops - 22 Construction Cost - 135 Million Cost per mile - 28.2 Million Rush Hour Headways - 15 Minutes Vehicle Capacity - 150 Persons Avg lifespan of of Street Rail - 100 years Avg lifespan of LRT/Streetcar Vehicle - 40 years Now, there are a lot of factors in this that are necessarily represented by the cost breakdown above, however from here I believe we have a starting point. It is often touted that BRT is insanely cheaper and quicker but thats not always the case, these factors do depend on the city itself but overall they honestly come out fairly equal. Where they differ drastically is in terms of investment around the lines, while deciding factors are a bit ambiguous, rail tends to see a larger ROI but I will say, this is a much harder factor to truly grasp because it depends on so many factors. Yes BRT can be done cheaper, but so can rail, it's kind of just all about ROW and what a transit agency is trying to do. Overall, I would say I still favor rail because it carries a lower stigma, always feels more integrated into neighborhoods and culture, has a significantly higher capacity, and tends to run more efficiently in all weather situations. I think there may be a lot to discuss here, but as for a breakdown I hope I was able to help.

Actually, while I don't love the ambiguity of it, that makes sense. However look for rail instead of BRT.

My question is how does the city not already have this equipment with the Summit bike lanes being that already. I remember reading one of the reasons the Summit St protected lanes was so expensive was because they had to purchase said equipment. Uhm, can it not be used on multiple roads or something? PS... I love this excuse most though because I have not once seen any bike lanes cleared this winter anyway. Always full of now or ice thats been plowed off of vehicle lanes.

Strolled by the other day and snapped a few pictures of the new RISE HQ and the groundwork happening at Third & Long (Schottenstein Development)

That's uh, that's quite aspirational. I bid them good luck with that one. *walks away laughing*

Who knows, Haha.

Looks like the project has submitted it's FAA application. Cool news is that the stated height of the project will be around 101' per the application. https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=399510999&row=6 With this application, should start seeing things kick into full gear on this real soon.

Come on Columbus. A road diet of Broad should absolutely include protected bike lanes and could probably maintain parking even. Im thinking a Summit St style makeover would do wonders on Wes... All of Broad

Absolutely, yeah I think this and 250 High actually turned out pretty identical to the proposed renders with Gravity is shaping up to be the same. It's exciting, seems they have finally figured out their flow.

Hmm, I would have rather had that skywalk and sculpture over the ones we ended up with. Don't get me wrong, I love the light skeleton but I have a weakness for the juxtaposition of raw materials like wood and concrete together. Also I just love large dimensional art pieces vs the giant illuminated 80 thats barely an art piece.

Yeah, it's turned in a unique disaster of poster over there. More and more it seems like the same 5 posters that do nothing all day but interject random off topic homer stuff into every single thread. I think I look at it every Monday and that's about it.

Looks like the developments are out of the gates and running now that the weather has flipped... 195 E Main Going vertical!

Was walking home last night and snapped a pic of 5th and Long development. Yesterday there also seemed to be a few more people on site than normal, I think with the weather finally breaking we are going to see a ton of developments kick into overdrive.

I have a theory that this was originally supposed to be the anchor location for Apple had they chosen Ohio over Texas. I know JobsOhio never mentioned the location but with the relationship OSU and apple harness, I seems likely it would've been Columbus. Just the way this all came about and the overall focus of the project very much seems like it is a development that was anchored around something like a tech campus. Unfortunate we will never know but i'm excited OSU is planning to move forward with such a plan.

Don't tease me with such notions. Ugh

Hmmm.... interesting. Why Easton?