DTCL11

I'm not sure if it belongs here or in the Short North thread but I think I saw something in the SN referring to a 'new stadium experience center' ? I may have missed it or misinterpreted it. Although it might now be bad to have a combination sports store in the SN to promote all our teams some day. ?

“City Council is calling for a total and complete shutdown of new homes entering Pataskala until our city's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on" I read it as if Stephen Colbert was reading that. While I understand the concerns, It will be interesting to see if they come out of the other side with a proper plan to address infrastructure and city planning allowing for moderate, healthy, sustainable, and denser growth or if they just move forward with a NIMBY plan. I'd probably hedge my bets on the latter.

While the Y does not have $50 million to renovate but this may be the best opportunity for a private/public partnership to upgrade and keep the housing. Franklin Station cost a little over $10 million for 100 units. I imagine a comparable project to build 400 new build units as the YMCA has would exceed the $50 million YMCA projects for reno. Further, it would keep with the historical use of the building. And if I remember correctly, the complex under construction across the street is supposed to be workforce housing as well? A hotel sounds wonderful but I'd rather see some of our tax dollars go to maintaining this resource downtown in a new format the Y does not appear to be able to maintain. What I fear is that the Y will potentially do what other ymcas have done across the country is leave the historic buildings and build suburban model 2 story facilities within downtown. Although Akron's Y attached theirs to the hospital which allowed for cross use as rehab facilities, parking, and the inclusion of pools.

For me, while a simple tower makes sense and would probably be successful and I wouldn't argue against it, I'd rather see a smaller building with contour, green roof terraces to maintain park elements and access, landscaping that almost allows it to blend in, etc. Which is what I'd also like to see complemented on the entire confluence. But hey, I dont have the money, so my vision is pretty pointless. We all know that the boat house will eventually be redeveloped into a less than spectacular project at some point anyway.

^My point exactly. Lol. There will always be a pull in either direction. It should be noted that development can compliment conservancy. The proper vision could create a unique and green concept without feeling like a concrete and glass tunnel or your standard copy and paste mixed use we are used to seeing. Land bridges could be worked into the design to navigate the bungle of roads and railway for a near seamless park like experience. And I'm certainly not suggesting anything be built at the river bed. My other point being that other than 2 restaurants, Columbus lacks the experience of riverfront commercial uses that other cities use to their advantage. Not all residents and visitors are looking for simply experiencing the river by visiting a park. If there is a place to do it, this is it. It's a 50/50 argument either way. Both have merits. I guess my position is that if the city decides to develop confluence park, something better could potentially be achieved.

Confluence park will be a conundrum for awhile I think. There's going to be a natural pull for natural landscape and parkland to promote further restoration and equally for development. I wish the railroads weren't there because that trio of plots are about the only place I could see an interconnected set of mixed use developments that could take root utilizing the river as a draw. Otherwise, I don't see columbus getting much more in terms of waterfront restaurants, shops, etc in the way Bridge Park is utilizing both sides of the river. (Albeit the new side has the frustrating 6 lane separation that is poor planning IMO). I think there is still potential (even with the railroad), that a proper master plan to take mixed used and commercial spaces from 670 to Franklinton along the river is feasible but I believe it's probably too late for that.

While I get the benefits of using banners, I think they look rather cheap and offputting IMO. Sort of like the Smith Brothers Water Tower. It hasn't looked any better since they switched from a painted logo to the banner logo. Hopefully they move to a more permanent, painted, display.

Gotta find a way to get those views above the highway lol.

That's alot of work and cost to just build more parking and bus resources. The garage is already built in park to handle COTA buses so in theory, converting more of it to be a station may be feasible. One side is already ground level retail which is kind of amazing given the age of it and the fact that we can't convince many new garage builders to do the same. I think pablo has a point about potentially peeling away the exterior for more of the street side experience improvement. But why knock down an exorbitantly expensive structure to rebuild exorbitantly expensive structure with the same purpose? Also, building more Matans on underground parking gets you more 5 story buildings. For those looking for some height, now you've got a few extra stories built in. I've seen prior discussion on restoring the street grid before but I'm not sure what would be achieved by restoring the street grid on this block. Other than alleys that would be non-navigable anyway and a pedestrian walkthrough, it wouldn't contribute to additional vibrancy if Rich, Mound, and Main are revamped appropriately. For me, while acknowledging the sadness that comes with being auto focused and the reality of the city we love in, it's about identifying a resource and using it in the most cost effective and creative way without being overly wasteful while maintaining its usefulness to the surrounding area. By maintaining much if its use, it can potentially reduce pressure on surrounding developments to include parking and allow more flexibility for buildings in the surrounding blocks without having to add the cost of also building garages into their buildings on Main Rich or Mound if it was Lost.

I wonder if they will inevitably redevelop the shops on lane to be more in line with the mixed use direction of the corridor.

That darn city center garage. It's a perfect spot for a RFP to develop on top, update the facade etc. Some green space that lines up with the commons with apartments and/or offices above. Time to think outside and above the box. Some of our peers have been doing similar projects on top of existing garages.

I like the little 'boop' of a building that the old building has become. They could do something similar with the Main Bar and it would be just fine. There also appears to be a good canvas for a mural on the blank wall.

From Business First: My favorite: This argument is old. Tired. And flat out bat crap crazy. No. Cars and destroying 1/3 of the neighborhood for a freaking highway did. Building a hotel will not. These people.... yikes.... probably the same type of people woke enough to decry income inequality and homelessness then fund campaigns against low income or homeless resources anywhere near them. Aha! That's it! I wanna see a developer propose a small village of structures that mimic GV 100% and propose that it be transitional housing and resources and see how they react. Let's push the limits and see if it truly is over glass and steel, height, and parking....

Perhaps some examples of similar projects of complete compatibility would be helpful. From my experience, even in the historic neighborhoods of DC, Baltimore, Chicago, this is not uncommon to have a blend of modern. The reality is though that many are not seeking preservation. They could build a 3 story reproduction of the southern theater, model it after the new LC buildings, etc etc and it would face the same scrutiny. If they nail the design, the conversation with shift to parking, traffic, height, etc.

Ooooh.... plot twist! A NIMFY instead of a NIMBY! I kid. I kid. But in seriousness, I think that cities in the north and east need to step up to do more to incentivize and regulate lawns beyond rain gardens in tree lawns. Homes with certain size plots should be required to have their own rain gardens to handle their own water run off etc.

Remember, you can also always email your commissions and city in support of a project if you cant make a meeting. Something I try to do when I support a project and cant attend.

Somewhat relevant. Car2Go is pulling out of Denver and Austin and Chicago before the end of the year. If these cities don't have enough business to support the model, I doubt there are any Hope's for a return ?

Honestly, they may be quiet as support for such a project would raise immense backlash. We are already seeing the drama of committee members resigning etc. I hope to god the city flips the bird at the community and overrides them if they turn it down. I want to see someone chain themselves to the parking lot.

I've never had an issue with the density, but the massing was off IMO. Hopefully moving the tower to the middle helps. And I agree that the focus should be to make sure the design and materials are right. Still a shame they dont seem to be able to incorporate the service station. May take some out of the box thinking and may not necessarily maximize every last inch but I think it would be worth it in the end.

Yes. Most student commute and that is the reality of the catch 22 but that still doesn't mean there is a place for a standalone parking garage. If someone wants to build a garage downtown, I believe it must be accompanied with other uses beyond storing vehicles. Whether that is commercial space, residences, offices, etc. We shouldn't be continuing to allow city blocks to be dominated by single use parking structures.

I'm aware of the master plan but it is mixed news in the idea that parking garages continue to perpetuate a car centric model of an urban community. It's the catch 22 of the urbanization of this city. The chicken and the egg. Maybe 'news' isnt the right semantics but it is certainly a conundrum we will continue to face and I firmly believe that there is no place for a stand alone parking deck in the core of any city. That's all.

Seriously. What is wrong with that at all? They took the care and attention to step down to meet the aesthetic as it goes back toward the residence. *gasp* they want to use metal and glass on the front facing a highway! *clutches pearls* I think they have done a wonderful job bringing the two aesthetics together and it looks amazing.

On another note, non-comparative note. at one time, I believe there was a concept floated would have actually turned spruce street into a pedestrian only plaza from the convention center. I can't find it but I vaguely remember a conceptual drawing of it as part of a larger 'convention center district' plan or something. Also, does this plan alter or eliminate the stress parking on spruce. Perhaps these are opportunities to take from cars and give back to pedestrians as a way to spruce up the NM Plaza and pedestrian experience from the convention center.

The prospect of a parking garage is mixed news in that it can free up alot of surface lots but it's also a parking garage sooooo....

I mean, Arshot kept up the facade for SPARCC for years as well. The sign may even still be there if I remember correctly. And they may, in earnest be still looking for the right tenant to make it work but it comes down to the idea that if you havent found an anchor or two by now in today's market, what about the project is off and not able to attract them.