DTCL11

That's a fair assessment and a legit sentiment I have. Heck, Easton could probably accommodate 20,000 units if done correctly and become it's own city. Easton should be pushed to be more than it is. We shouldn't only be concerned when downtown and downtown adjacent developments don't realize full potential, Easton should face just as much scrutiny IMO and not treated as an 'oh well, it's a suburban mall' mentality. It can still contribute to the health of the city in more ways than it does. They should have never been permitted to build Easton Gateway the way they did. The city needs housing. Easton has the Land. It can get the capital. It has the draw. It has the infrastructure. It has the potential to be a bridge park x20. To be like developments seen in Texas (mentioned above). Even better if they are able to achieve true mixed income residential. But the focus is clear, maximize profit on retail and maybe consider some residential aspects while promising residential to obtain financial benefits from the city and the city is willing to let them do pretty much whatever they want. It really does say something when Polaris is venturing more into residential focus than Easton.

Meh. I find very little about this Exciting or 'in the right direction.' They're still largely neglecting residences. One potential building is still less than even Polaris has built in the Last few years. It's hardly a 'hold my beer's to Bridge Park as Bridge park's goal of residency has been ever present and a major part of the build out. Easton's Vague implications of more down the road while only building out retail is the general MO for the last 20 years. When they get serious about adding significant residential and perhaps a mid-rise or five, then it might be exciting. It was Feb of 2017 when Easton got the big tax deal with Linden and announced a 10 year abatement on over 1million SF of residential that has yet to appear. That doesn't kick in until its built and there appears to be no deadline so Easton seems to have gotten a tax break to cash in whenever, if they ever follow through with it. Until then, it's just a variant on a shopping mall. Albeit a successful one from that standpoint, but I'm still hesitant to celebrate anything regarding urban density about it. Tear down the out lots, including across Morse Road, front the retail on Morse and build 10,000 residences across the whole area, THEN they might be onto something game changing for urbanism.

Not quite. Franklinton takes out a chunk up to the railroad tracks. This is the adopted city code for downtown. Some of the peninsula is included as of 2013. I'm not sure if it was prior or not. Edit. Also note that even though this is the boundary, the Franklinton review board has jurisdiction over the peninsula to the river according to the neighborhood commissions map.

The closer Pavey gets to completion, the more I fear they won't be painting the dryer vents. The white vents in a non symmetrical patterns all over the facade kill me each time I pass by.

There is one line from CBF that gives me pause: It seems to imply that the fact that CSX owns the land as still being a big hurdle itself. It makes no mention of actually being in an agreement with CSX, but surely if they are looking for zoning changes and engineering plans, it is because they already have an agreement and not just an attempt to persuade CSX....

I mean, there are entire empires and cult followings built off that. #hgtv #farmhousesuburbanchic lol

It would be interesting to see if there are any old articles on the demolition of some of the old homes and see whether there was some sort of opposition or if it was seen as a right of passage for a growing city back then.

Not likely, but the value of parking is significantly greater. The other part of the equation is simply land transactions. Franklinton got bought up and is being built up because 1. Space is limited and 2. There is no inherent revenue to the empty land in the same way it is downtown. The perpetual struggle will be getting owners to sell the lots. Empty lots, long paid for, are a big money for both mom and pop owners and big parking companies. They don't have to do anything to make money. The price has to be high, not simply for the inherent value of the land but the lost passive revenue. That does not ring true in Franklinton where the price reflects land value and not lost revenue. If the price for a surface parking lot isn't right, it doesn't hurt the owner because they will still make tons of money and can afford to wait for the right price. I've always advocated for some sort of incentive by the city to make surface lots less attractive and profitable but I'm not sure what that solution would look like.

I'm sure Ohio State Life has the money to go bigger and bolder with their building but again, they are an insurance company and always lean conservative. It's not like they don't have the pockets for it. - Said some development nerd in 1926... probably.... ?

Ugh! Another plain box! Did these builders just share plans with each other and copy/paste? Why can't we get anything original or with character to stand out from everything else? Why do they all have to look the same? Talentless hacks ruining the fabric of the neighborhood! - Said some NIMBY in 1926... probably....

It would appear the same entity (336 E Broad) bought 3 parcels in May. The application does not reflect all the parcels but it continues back across Kelly Alley as well. May be a sizable infill project.

He referring to the CSCC Bond package articles a page back that would include a decent chunk of money for the Delaware campus. I though the same thing at first as well.

A couple things that I've been wondering for awhile that hopefully someone can clarify: -Is the moxy hotel going to have the wall of frosted glass facing high street or will that change pending the restaurant opening? If not, that's disappointing. As it is now, it's a bit offputting but the big wooden doors make me think those will be entrances in the future. -What happened to the mikey's shipping container that they had to being in a pull behind trailer?

It's almost reminiscent of NBBJs vision for Goodale at the convention center, and their aesthetic in general. I like the attention of keeping/replacing a semi wooded buffer zone. I really love the amount of green roofs, ESPECIALLY what appears to be a green top of the massive parking structure. I would not mind seeing a bit more contouring of the first couple floors along the park side. It would be nice if the parking for this project could potentially decrease the need for surface lots on parkland increasing greenspace on the public land. As for a faster timeline, that's where there might be a benefit in the city having a direct loan program. It's hard for me to get on board with direct funding and even financing of some of these projects but that is one way to speed things up if the city wants to try to see some of these big projects come to fruition more quickly.

No public greenspace is being lost. You are correct that the proposal affects privately owned scrubland only which is why I don't really get any uproar that's been observed. (I avoid CU comments anymore so I dont know what's being said, Especially on facebook). I think an connection to the east is definitely within reason here. Even a small one like the Arena District has off Marconi would go a long way. Elevated access over the tracks may even be feasible as well depending on how both sides of the tracks are developed similar to the Arena Crossing.

As a bit of an aside, I've always thought the area North of Greenlawn was ripe for development like this with a pedestrian and bike connector to audubon via Maier and Deckenbach (of course we are still waiting on one from the Scioto peninsula to the Arena District so it's quite a pipe dream). Perhaps if this is successful, we could see that in the future. The waterfront and skyline view potential is great here as well. Now, it is behind the flood wall, but I believe this Whittier peninsula project is also in the designated flood plain.

I will refer to my original comment where I indicate chances are slim but it doesn't hurt to better protect it. Even in my first comment, I said to take it to 70 thinking there was more untapped room between the dog park and railroad track but to take it to 70 would remove said dog park and field. I'd have to revise my Initial though on that. The argument will come down to whether the dog park and field are actually 'preservation' or untapped potential that would in fact create a uniform swath of development on the peninsula. There is a case for both and I'm not sure even preservationist will bring out the pitchforks and torches for a dog park. We will see but this has to make it to fruition and I believe the fate of the warehouse will ultimately decide what pressure is put on that particular block abutting 70. And I doubt we will be collecting taxes on more residents, let alone high net worth. The city would have to move forward with it's new tax abatement guidelines and so far, it hasn't. I would guess that this will easily sail through an abatement process. And with such a long time frame, I would bet money on extensions at some point.

Additional measures could be codified to stipulate how or why land can be sold. Rather than leaving it solely at the hands of the board, it could be transferred to public referendum or sale must be reviewed by multiple entities etc. While ultimately, a sale may not be 100% avoided, it can be made much more difficult to achieve. There may also be some value in utilizing partnerships with other organizations and land trusts to add an additional layer of protection. As is, it just seems that a single group of people needs to agree and it's done.

1545.12 states that the board can sell the land at their will. There is a public process for offering the sale of the land but if the board ever decides that land is no longer needed for preservation purposes or there is a greater public interest, they can get rid of it. There is nothing that actually prevents sale. It just outlines the process for sale, most notably that it has to be offered to public entities (city, county, state) first before going to public sale. If the public entities don't want it, it goes up for market value. Then, they get to decide which bid is 'in the best public interest' which to some, is a project like this. Like I said, it's all a matter of leadership and priorities can change. The best public interest could be millions of dollars for land to fund a general fund or park expansion elsewhere at the expense of this park. Honestly, it would most likely affect the lower portions close to 70 including the dog park, mowed field, etc. Again, it's not about now, it's about who may be leaders in the future. Edit: under the 1545 statute, Summit Metroparks just sold off 140 acres 'in the public interest' for light manufacturing becuase the county lacked sufficient land zoned for light manufacturing. The land was previously acquired in 2016 but since, the park has acquired other lands it would rather spend time and money on and use the value of the 140 acres to achieve goals elsewhere.

Has there ever been an interest for such development next to an existing metropark? It's not whether a precedent has been set, but preventing one. Like I said, chances are slim but city leadership can change, priorities can change, a sale can be more attractive at some point. I'd rather have a bit of added protection. Lord knows city council passes plenty of frivolous, symbolic resolutions that they could afford to spend a bit of time to protect it.

This times 100. It's been said here by many that outside investment is what's going to push developers up and into better design. (Generally. Certainly not in all cases ie. King and High) A couple of my thoughts. - I've long wanted the remaining non-park buildings on the peninsula to be razed and added to the restoration of the land. However, that was before something like this was imagined. - I hope the warehouse can still be razed and this vision continued to 70. - Scioto Audubon should be better protected in statute that no public land be lost to private development. I'm not going to subscribe to a slippery slope in this case but I do want greater assurances the city wont see a money making opportunity and sell of any portions of the metro park. - it is encouraging the developer has stated they have a contractual agreement with the railroad it seems. Still a bit of hesitation given the history of railroad easements etc but it seems it much more concrete than the former proposal in the arena district on railroad land. - I'm glad to see the mound road underpass being included. That needed to be restored anyway. If only we could get the overpass restored for pedestrian only use as part of this plan. (But it doesn't fit into odots vision so down it will go)

There are no parking minimums in downtown Columbus and 4 Cincy neighborhoods (Downtown, Over-the-Rhine, Pendleton and a portion of West End). Many of the Cincy neighborhoods are exactly where a project like this would fit in.

I wish the city would create a 'main street' grant program for Linden and other areas. Other cities have found success in a grant program that awards funds to business owners or building owners for capital improvements to the exteriors/storefronts in an effort to restore and spruce up areas. Not loans, but funds that allow current owners/occupants to take part in the revitalization of areas they may not have been able to otherwise. Other cities have also done similar programs or interest free loans for home improvements and curb appeal projects. To my knowledge, the only similar program columbus offers is roofing and tax abatements, the latter benefitting people who can purchase a flipped house more than current residents. I think is important to continue to explore more options to keep current residents and not rapidly change the value and demographics of the area. IMO I want to see the city go all in in Linden. I don't want to see a half-assed attempt. Take my tax dollars and do it big. Do it right. Additionally. It sounds like the 200 units for those on the brink of homelessness may be similar to a Franklin Station. If not, I'd like the city to build another shelter and services center in Linden as well. Ideally, we should have several additional shelters across the city IMO.

Not to veer too far off but I believe ORR is prime for an elevated passenger rail. I'll just be happy with a TRUE BRT along that corridor.

A Few things come to mind. 1. The railroad will not give right of way. They denied right of way for airport to convention center where they have PLENTY of room for most of the route without much additional work needed. 2. That's one widened bridge out of how many that would need to be widened along that route? 3. Also, the photos appear that it is widened on one side only? The south side. The north side abuts the trucks directly? This seems to me to imply it's a place for servicing equipment and/or or a control box. That would also be the more logical location to leave wide for a parking pad for servicing vehicles as access behind the fire station is relatively easy.