You couldn't even answer direct questions posed to you such as what new businesses are poised to move into your own neighborhood this year or the next: I take it that is because the answer is very close to 0. Next time you enter a lot of text make sure to address my statements instead of going off on tangents.

 

 

Er, a lot of businesses aren't going to announce what they're doing until they're ready to promote their opening so that somebody doesn't steal their idea.

 

It doesn't matter.  The guy has absolutely no desire to stay, and whatever the real reasons are, he's going to take out every bitter thought and emotion out on the city.  The only thing we can do is wish him luck and hope he finds what he wants.

*Reminder to jbcmh81: personal attacks are not allowed and certainly won't raise a low walkscore.*

As for the decimation of downtown Columbus, probably the single biggest reason is the zoning code. Columbus adopted a suburban-style code for the whole dang city, including downtown, which had all sorts of stupid parking requirements. So developers, by law, had to provide lots of parking spaces, and they bought and demolished hundreds upon hundreds of buildings and demolished them for surface lots in order to meet code. Until about a dozen years ago, you could have put a 7-Eleven with parking out front at Broad & High, but to build a mixed-use tower there you'd have had to get a variance.

 

Cleveland has the same problem.  Keeping these zoning codes on the books is inconceivable to me.  Fixing them should be an agenda-topper.

As for the decimation of downtown Columbus, probably the single biggest reason is the zoning code. Columbus adopted a suburban-style code for the whole dang city, including downtown, which had all sorts of stupid parking requirements. So developers, by law, had to provide lots of parking spaces, and they bought and demolished hundreds upon hundreds of buildings and demolished them for surface lots in order to meet code. Until about a dozen years ago, you could have put a 7-Eleven with parking out front at Broad & High, but to build a mixed-use tower there you'd have had to get a variance.

 

Cleveland has the same problem.  Keeping these zoning codes on the books is inconceivable to me.  Fixing them should be an agenda-topper.

 

For the sake of accuracy - the suburban-style development codes UrbanSurfin was describing created the parking lot problems in the 1970's and 1980's.  In the 1990's, the City of Columbus did repeal those suburban-style codes within the downtown area.  In 1997, the City of Columbus enacted a very urban-friendly development code for their downtown.  Since then, downtown Columbus has had many developments that put mixed-use urban neighborhoods on blocks and blocks of former parking lots:  Such as the massive Arena District, the multi-block Neighborhood Launch/Gay Street Condos development and the RiverSouth neighborhood redevelopment among many other smaller individual projects. 

 

I think UrbanSurfin's point is that despite those very positive downtown developments, the downtown still has too many surface parking lots and gaps in the urban fabric.  But that isn't because of any current suburban-style downtown development code.  It's because downtown Columbus is digging itself out of a hole created by bad policy from the 70's and 80's.

Cleveland has the same problem.

 

So does Dayton! 

 

In fact the city was hasseling a recent  coffee shop project over parking limitations.  The building (and surrounding neighborhoods) was built in the 1870s or 1880s for Chrissake!  How can you possibly apply modern auto parking standards in an environment like that?

 

This pops up quite a bit in discussion about why its so tough to get things started...fighing zoning and permitting bureaucracies.

 

 

Columbus does still hassle those who are making improvements to current structures much more than is necessary, fueling new builds and teardowns.

Pittsburgh, btw, ranked a full five points higher on walkscore than Cincinnati (64 to 59), Ohio's most walkable big city, despite the industrial collapse that hit their economy and didn't exactly leave them with bundles of money for urban revitalization.

 

Yeah, Pittsburgh really does defeat expectations of being an urban wasteland.

 

 

 

If that doesn't prove that we're not doing as much as we could in this state, I don't know what would. Sitting around and saying everything is just fine as other cities in our own region surpass us in desirable walkable environments is not going to make them less walkable and less attractive alternatives.

 

If I recall right one of the purposes of this board was to be a more positive online space for urban Ohio..or people wanting a more urban Ohio, and was not to be one of those "city vs city" things.

 

 

 

 

 

What I find interesting about Columbus is that, while its downtown is one of the most devastated of large American cities (in terms of lost fabric and preponderance of parking lots), its old, close-in neighborhoods are more intact than those of so many cities that did a better job of preserving their downtowns. Granted, a lot of those old homes are in bad shape, but the streetscapes are intact, the housing stock remains, and, in most directions, residential redevelopment is taking place. The commercial corridors, however, are much slower to be redeveloped.

 

As for the decimation of downtown Columbus, probably the single biggest reason is the zoning code. Columbus adopted a suburban-style code for the whole dang city, including downtown, which had all sorts of stupid parking requirements. So developers, by law, had to provide lots of parking spaces, and they bought and demolished hundreds upon hundreds of buildings and demolished them for surface lots in order to meet code. Until about a dozen years ago, you could have put a 7-Eleven with parking out front at Broad & High, but to build a mixed-use tower there you'd have had to get a variance.

 

Not only are there several somewhat intact commercial corridors, but German Village and the Short North showed that a downtown first approach doesn't make sense here. Just because you don't throw all of your revitalization dollars on downtown doesn't mean it should be ignored. Where the city gave tax abatements on condos largely within Downtown and even spent millions to pedestrianize streets for big developers, they didn't bend over backwards to give incentives to urban entrepreneurs looking to take a chance in a much more affordable area than High St. And thanks to suburban zoning policies for Downtown, much of it has to be rebuilt from scratch, whereas much more intact urban neighborhoods with homes and commercial buildings already in place, haven't seen much investment outside of the bulldozers used to tear them down piece by piece. E Main St from 5th St to Grant (where a suburban McDonald complete with a drive-thru sits), for just one example, lost its long row of mixed-use buildings to suburban style residential and office buildings all set way back off the street, which makes reconnecting both urban sides impossible for many years to come. So even though such zoning was somewhat addressed (still has ridiculous parking requirements) you can't just bulldoze these existing suburban structures and have developers rebuild them properly.

 

It also doesn't help when the city embarks on a big misguided project to "help" a neglected neighborhood, like American Addition east of Linden to build 150 new homes to replace those lost. This North Central neighborhood is basically our own miniature version of Detroit with a few blocks that only have a home or two left standing. Even if those new homes get fully occupied, it's still going to severely lag in functionality. The neighborhood shows up as "Amercrest" on Walkscore and gets a measly 35. The neighborhood is plotted on an urban grid, yes, but it's isolated and that is one of the reasons it was forgotten by other residents and according to mayor Coleman, "the most egregiously neglected urban neighborhood," in this city. Who wants to buy a home in an urban neighborhood where all you have to walk to is Joyce Ave? Without any walkable commercial component this will continue to be like other North Central residential areas, expect that they are sprinkled with random commercial buildings that unfortunately offer places like this where even if I lived next door I doubt I would go inside, let alone order their pizza. This place doesn't make the top ten list for neighborhoods that could be a huge asset to the city if revitalized largely because it's so unwalkable and there would still be gusts of chemical scented air from nearby industrial sites.  There should be a focus on our best candidates while also setting aside money for small scale efforts in places like American Addition.

 

Pittsburgh, btw, ranked a full five points higher on walkscore than Cincinnati (64 to 59), Ohio's most walkable big city, despite the industrial collapse that hit their economy and didn't exactly leave them with bundles of money for urban revitalization.

 

Yeah, Pittsburgh really does defeat expectations of being an urban wasteland.

 

Cincinnati is the most walkable city in Ohio because of topography, and Pittsburgh is more walkable than Cincinnati for the same reason.

I always thought the opposite was true.  That being, that the hills dissect the neighborhoods and hurt walkability.  Sure, not to the same extent as the lake would hurt cleveland's score under certain tests, but I don't see how the topography of those cities helps.  Maybe because it squeezes things together more?  But I can only see that helping the internal neighborhood's walkscore, not the city as a whole

This North Central neighborhood is basically our own miniature version of Detroit with a few blocks that only have a home or two left standing.

 

North Central and the Parsons Avenue corridor on the South Side.  The "unseen Columbus".

 

Yet, I wonder if this North Central area was ever really built-out.  It seems like it was an area that was the edge of town during the Model T era, but never filled-in.  That would be different than "Little Detroit", which means a close in heart-of-the-city area that is mostly open space.  Not quite the same here,  no?

^I think the peaks and valleys those hills creates squeezes neighborhoods together more making them more walkable. When you start talking about walking from one squeezed together neighborhood to another and having to traverse steep hills, that's another story.

Columbus does still hassle those who are making improvements to current structures much more than is necessary, fueling new builds and teardowns.

 

I understand what you mean about the challenges of meeting the building code for renovation.  There will almost always be more challenges in renovating vs. building new in a greenfield.  But I would take issue that those renovation difficulties are fueling new builds or teardowns - at least in areas of Columbus that are regulated by historic or architectural review commission. 

 

Downtown Columbus is regulated by the Downtown Commission (formed in 1997), which must approve any demolition downtown.  This commission was modeled on the four historic review commissions in neighborhoods next to downtown (Victorian and Italian Village - north of downtown; German Village and the Brewery District - south of downtown).  The Downtown Commission does not approve demolitions downtown unless it's part of a larger development project.  For example, a two-story building at Third and Gay was demolished for the six-story Carlyles Watch condo building.  Or, a three-story building at Gay and Grant which was demolished for the seven-story Abigal apartment building.

 

Since the 1997 formation of the Downtown Commission and accompanying urban-friendly development regulations, there have been loads of prominent building renovations downtown.  For example: the 12-story Seneca Hotel at Broad and Grant into apartments; the Broad & High redevelopment which included the renovation of an 18-story building into condos; Brunson Building at 145 N. High which included the renovation of a 12-story building into condos; 5-story Columbus Athenaeum at Gay and Fourth formerly a Masonic Temple now a meeting/conference center; the 22-story Buckeye Bank Building on Gay Street which is now a Marriott Hotel; the 8-story Connextions Lofts at Third and Long formerly an Ohio Bell switching center, 6-story office building at 78 E. Chestnut which is now apartments; 5-story office building at Front and Hickory which is now condos, 5-story storage building at 60 E. Spring which is now apartments - among other big renovations I've probably omitted and among other smaller renovations I've omitted.  Not to mention the renovation of the iconic 6-story, 1,000,000 sq. ft Lazarus Building - maybe the best of the bunch.

 

Renovations may be a hassle.  And do code officials, inspectors and contractors make it more difficult than necessary?  Sometimes yes - sometimes no.  But that is a very different argument then what it was alleged to be happening today in downtown Columbus.  There is a huge difference between the 1970's downtown development policy of "you can renovate this building if yountear down the adjacent building to meet our suburban-style parking standards" vs. today's standard of "you can renovate this building if you get a building permit".  Difficult maybe - not impossible based on the incomplete yet still lengthly list of renovations in downtown Columbus in the past decade.

I always thought the opposite was true.  That being, that the hills dissect the neighborhoods and hurt walkability.  Sure, not to the same extent as the lake would hurt cleveland's score under certain tests, but I don't see how the topography of those cities helps.  Maybe because it squeezes things together more?  But I can only see that helping the internal neighborhood's walkscore, not the city as a whole

 

It is my understanding that the walk score for a city is calculated by averaging the walk scores for all residences in the city.  Thus, mountains with nothing on them only lower the walk score for residences bordering them.  I don't believe they calculate a walk score for an arbitrary spot in the woods on the side of the mountain and factor that in.  Residences in Pittsburgh are nearly always located in dense neighborhoods in valleys out of necessity, so most of them will have high walk scores.

 

Of course, I could be wrong on their methodology.  However, it wouldn't make sense to "penalize" a city's walkability by factoring in areas of the city where nobody lives.

Glad to hear that Columbus has made some positive reforms.  Leadership from the capital!  If projects like the Gay St condos are a direct result, all the better.  So instead of having "the same" problem, Cleveland has a bigger one in that it has yet to enact such reforms.  But I strongly doubt Cleveland would enforce those aspects of the code downtown.  The corner has been turned on that.  The last time I remember this coming up was when the people renovating the Scofield needed a variance because their century-old building at 9th and Euclid didn't have lawn buffers all around. 

 

But most of Cleveland proper is (was) the sort of density that Columbus only has near its core.  There are a few postwar neighborhoods (Lee/Miles, Euclid/Green, parts of West Park?) but they aren't the norm.  Cleveland needs to eliminate suburban zoning period.  Wipe it from the books, grandfather those few outer areas.  We just had a guy hold up new apartments in University Circle because the zoning code favored his low-density preference.  University Circle is practically another downtown, and we're trying so hard to improve its "walkability," so I'm really disappointed that incident hasn't led to any action on zoning reform.  And that wasn't the first time special interests have tried to force lower density on University Circle.  We still have people saying nothing can be built taller than a certain church.  We have people opposing tall buildings along Euclid because they're afraid of shadows.  Come on now.         

 

Re: methodology, if they don't account for hills they should.  You still have to walk those hills even if nobody lives there.  And if you're expected to limit yourself to your own little village, that's not what I call walkability.

Re: methodology, if they don't account for hills they should.  You still have to walk those hills even if nobody lives there.  And if you're expected to limit yourself to your own little village, that's not what I call walkability.

 

The walk score does account for the hills if they're near a residence.  It doesn't calculate the walk score for an arbitrary spot in the hill though.  I believe the radius the walk score takes into account is one mile.  Thus, if the hills are within one mile of a given residence, they will affect the walk score (unless of course there are so many amenities within a mile in the opposite direction of the hills that the spot still has a high walk score).  If people have hills on one side and tons of amenities on the other, they're going to have a high walk score (and they don't have to walk the barren hills to get where they need, I'm talking about the big hills where there is nothing, not the hills within neighborhoods that can make a 1/2 mile walk feel like 2 miles).

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "restricting yourself to your own little village".  The walk score doesn't expect that you should have to walk 3 miles to get anywhere.  It only takes into account what is very close to a residence.  I don't see why you think people would have to walk up and down large hills where nobody lives to get places if the places people go are concentrated in the valleys.

It's been said that in Cincinnati it's tough walking between neighborhoods, because each they're often cut off from each other by terrain features.  So there might be great walkability within any of the developed areas, but none amongst them.  And yeah, a house right in the edge of hills might have everything they need in the other direction.  But minus the hills it could be a lot more interconnected, at walking level, with other neighborhoods nearby.  And I think there's something to that, because your options multiply.  And a 3 mile walk isn't crazy for carless people.  If you're one of those people, you'd rather not have hills.  I don't know how you'd measure this, but I bet people in flatter areas have a longer range considered walkable. 

I don't disagree with you about true walkability.  My comments about topology were directed at what I believe affects the walk score on the website.

 

Excellent explanation in post #62, rider. Now that I think of it, I can't think of many demolitions of significance (sans the mall) Downtown since '97, but of course, we suffered so much obliteration from the '50s through the '70s that they had to slow down or there'd be nothing left. What I meant by the city hassling those renovating was that those seeking to set up shop in the city (not necessarily Downtown) find that labyrinthine code regulations can increase the cost of their project to the point where it is not viable. That can push projects out to the suburbs, or in non-Downtown areas, to demolition and replacement.

 

I couldn't find the thread over at CU, but I know the Betty's family of restaurants has jumped through a lot of flaming hoops over the years, per Liz Lessner's comments.

Thanks for the kind words GCrites.  I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you.  I just wanted to push back against the "conventional wisdom" that Columbus is currently demolishing buildings left and right in the downtown - when that is the opposite of what's actually happening. 

 

I'm also familiar with the Liz Lessner restaurant renovation thread at CU (which dealt with her renovation of The Jury Room on Mound Street last year).  She did vent her frustrations with city inspectors during the renovation process.  Which somewhat gets to the other point I was trying to make about the nature of renovation vs. new construction. 

 

By its very nature, the application of building codes for renovation projects is going to be more of a challenge then the application of building codes for new construction.  Why?  You could look at the approval process for new construction projects as more clearly defined, or black-and-white, for those involved.  Conversely, you could look at the approval process for renovation projects as less clearly defined, or shades of gray.  That's not a knock on renovations.  It just means that renovation projects can have many more variables that don't lend themselves to clear cut answers.  And when that is the case, communication between inspectors, contractors and owners becomes much more important.  It means that any miscommunications or misunderstandings hit renovation projects especially hard.  Not because the building codes or the city are anti-renovation - but just due to the inherent nature of renovation projects.  And probably a bit of human fallibility thrown into it as well.

This North Central neighborhood is basically our own miniature version of Detroit with a few blocks that only have a home or two left standing.

 

North Central and the Parsons Avenue corridor on the South Side.  The "unseen Columbus".

 

Yet, I wonder if this North Central area was ever really built-out.  It seems like it was an area that was the edge of town during the Model T era, but never filled-in.  That would be different than "Little Detroit", which means a close in heart-of-the-city area that is mostly open space.  Not quite the same here,  no?

 

I only mean that it's the most Detroitesque Columbus neighborhood where the vast majority of homes on any given block are maybe a handful where a dozen once did. There´s a whole bunch of "unseen Columbus" in NE Columbus outside of North Central, which is huge in its own right. Linden is the most well-known, for all the bad reasons. No one knows that East Columbus is a neighborhood just north of the tracks of ritzy Bexley and Milo-Grogan is as close to the Short North as it is the opposite in many ways, including how many people know it exists. North Central was built up back in the day around E 5th Ave and south thereof consisting of the neighborhoods of Devon Triangle and Shepard. American Addition is really the only urban grid neighborhood north of there and unfortunately it's all but certain that is perhaps the most isolated neighborhood precisely because it was a poorer black neighborhood; out of sight, out of mind for white Columbus back then. The other neighborhoods north of E 5th are typical post WWII style sprawl and only interesting for gang activity in the Brittany Hills neighborhood where there was a huge bust and much of the neighborhood was cleaned up. Still didn't help their abysmal 28 walkscore. While rebuilding American Addition back to the original number of homes of 200, now at 50, is a very impressive undertaking it is an effort that in the end is not going to make such a horrible location any more attractive. There's a reason why only 50 homes are left and to rebuild it just for history's sake is a huge waste of resources that can be used in neighborhoods where there are more than 50 homes and have the infrastructure for a walkable, highly functional neighborhood. Any commercial development here would have to be built from scratch and unfortunately the city was too short-sighted (and stupid) to include any sort of commercial aspect to their "revitalization" of one of the most unpopular and obscure neighborhoods in the entire state of Ohio.

^

Thanks for the info!  Yes, we are sort of digressing from that Walkscore discussion...but this is an interesting part of town, this northeast area.  In fact I made a special point about visiting Milo- Grogan during one of my Cols visits based on yours and others posts on the place.

 

Speaking of walkablity there was an attempt to create a walkable intersection with retail potential at the 11th Avenue/Cleveland Avenue intersection.  I came across it by accident.  They also incorporated a bus stop into the design.  Seemed like a good attempt at rebuilding an interesection.

 

 

I can picture a Skynyrd song about those parts of town.

This North Central neighborhood is basically our own miniature version of Detroit with a few blocks that only have a home or two left standing.

 

North Central and the Parsons Avenue corridor on the South Side.  The "unseen Columbus".

 

Yet, I wonder if this North Central area was ever really built-out.  It seems like it was an area that was the edge of town during the Model T era, but never filled-in.  That would be different than "Little Detroit", which means a close in heart-of-the-city area that is mostly open space.  Not quite the same here,  no?

 

I only mean that it's the most Detroitesque Columbus neighborhood where the vast majority of homes on any given block are maybe a handful where a dozen once did. There´s a whole bunch of "unseen Columbus" in NE Columbus outside of North Central, which is huge in its own right. Linden is the most well-known, for all the bad reasons. No one knows that East Columbus is a neighborhood just north of the tracks of ritzy Bexley and Milo-Grogan is as close to the Short North as it is the opposite in many ways, including how many people know it exists. North Central was built up back in the day around E 5th Ave and south thereof consisting of the neighborhoods of Devon Triangle and Shepard. American Addition is really the only urban grid neighborhood north of there and unfortunately it's all but certain that is perhaps the most isolated neighborhood precisely because it was a poorer black neighborhood; out of sight, out of mind for white Columbus back then. The other neighborhoods north of E 5th are typical post WWII style sprawl and only interesting for gang activity in the Brittany Hills neighborhood where there was a huge bust and much of the neighborhood was cleaned up. Still didn't help their abysmal 28 walkscore. While rebuilding American Addition back to the original number of homes of 200, now at 50, is a very impressive undertaking it is an effort that in the end is not going to make such a horrible location any more attractive. There's a reason why only 50 homes are left and to rebuild it just for history's sake is a huge waste of resources that can be used in neighborhoods where there are more than 50 homes and have the infrastructure for a walkable, highly functional neighborhood. Any commercial development here would have to be built from scratch and unfortunately the city was too short-sighted (and stupid) to include any sort of commercial aspect to their "revitalization" of one of the most unpopular and obscure neighborhoods in the entire state of Ohio.

 

So the city is wrong to focus on Downtown.  They are wrong to focus on the suburbs.  They are wrong to focus on neighborhoods in between.  This seems less and less about where the city is putting focus rather than about that they are not focusing on exactly those areas you want them to. 

 

Also, I would also like to see more commercial in AA, or at least some type of neighborhood grocery, etc.  Given the space, it would be easy to do so.  However, it's not a huge area, and any significant revitalization there may end up promoting more commercial outside of it.  In any event, it is good to see the city putting some focus on neighborhoods that were pretty devastated by decline.  Who knows, maybe Parsons is right around the corner.  :wink:  Not that you'll be here to see it...

Keith M. makes a good point though, that precious resources are wasted when we rebuild based on a bad model.  In this case the bad model involves ignoring the mix of residential and commercial that's necessary for walkability.  We did it after WWII and there's no sense doing it again, especially when the stated purpose is to improve the inner city.  The segregated-use suburban sprawl model is a poor means to that end.  Ohio cities need to do a much better job supporting urban retail.  As so many recent projects demonstrate, it's not like there isn't any money.  Our leaders just refuse to realign it toward a proper urban plan. 

 

A great example is the late 90s/2000s in Cleveland.  The economy wasn't shot then, and the city enjoyed positive buzz after investing a fortune in downtown attractions.  But instead of producing one decent mixed use neighborhood or any downtown retail from this momentum, the city threw its weight behind large swaths of semi-dense tract housing and a huge suburban shopping plaza just outside downtown.  That set us back further than we were before.  In that same timeframe, Collinwood deteriorated while Buckeye emptied out.  Clifton lost its anchor grocery store.  If those walkable areas had gotten the public money that was instead thrown at car-oriented development, we could have a far more walkable city in 2011.  Far more attractive too. 

 

We've seen some awful multi-million dollar decisions and they need to stop.  For that to happen, Ohio will need a much more vocal and influential urbanist movement.  Right now there's zero political check on the thinking that got us to this point.  If only urbanism had an ideological lobby like guns and spotted owls do.     

Keith M. makes a good point though, that precious resources are wasted when we rebuild based on a bad model.  In this case the bad model involves ignoring the mix of residential and commercial that's necessary for walkability.  We did it after WWII and there's no sense doing it again, especially when the stated purpose is to improve the inner city.  The segregated-use suburban sprawl model is a poor means to that end.  Ohio cities need to do a much better job supporting urban retail.  As so many recent projects demonstrate, it's not like there isn't any money.  Our leaders just refuse to realign it toward a proper urban plan. 

 

A great example is the late 90s/2000s in Cleveland.  The economy wasn't shot then, and the city enjoyed positive buzz after investing a fortune in downtown attractions.  But instead of producing one decent mixed use neighborhood or any downtown retail from this momentum, the city threw its weight behind large swaths of semi-dense tract housing and a huge suburban shopping plaza just outside downtown.  That set us back further than we were before.  In that same timeframe, Collinwood deteriorated while Buckeye emptied out.  Clifton lost its anchor grocery store.  If those walkable areas had gotten the public money that was instead thrown at car-oriented development, we could have a far more walkable city in 2011.  Far more attractive too. 

 

We've seen some awful multi-million dollar decisions and they need to stop.  For that to happen, Ohio will need a much more vocal and influential urbanist movement.  Right now there's zero political check on the thinking that got us to this point.  If only urbanism had an ideological lobby like guns and spotted owls do.   

 

Even in the urban heydey pre-1950, there were neighborhoods that did not have the kind of walkability that you guys are dreaming about.  This idea that every single area has to be dense and walkable, or even that it can be, is not realistic in the long run.  There is always going to be sprawl, always going to be suburban-style development.  Always going to be mistakes made.  You will continue to be very disappointed by any expectations to the contrary. 

Not if you throw away any standards. American Addition probably wasn't too walkable back then, but any old commercial structures on Joyce have long since been razed to the ground. I'm sure it was no walking mecca, but even these forgotten neighborhoods had a good deal more walkability back then than today. E 5th Ave most certainly didn't have suburban style commercial buildings that just happened to be re-used and are now home to Buckeye Chicken, Popeye's and Grown Folk's Lounge. I doubt E 5th Ave was ever a serious rival to High St, but the remnants of a denser, more walkable corridor are evident in the urban homes lining it in Milo-Grogan and what few old commercial commercial structures are left in East Columbus/Krumm Park. There will be mistakes made, yes, but they really shouldn't when a savvy urban population gives insight to city officials and all it takes is reading a few basic books on urban planning to know what fits in an urban setting and what doesn't. As for always having sprawl, yes, but in the suburbs where it belongs: there is no excuse for suburban crap being built in an urban setting which isn't ever going to be suburban enough to attract suburbanites nor will it attract urbanites, but those who just end up being stuck there.

It probably used to be like Urbancrest. Back then, American Addition was probably as disconnected from the city as Urbancrest, figuratively speaking. A smaller government entity could probably be more in tune with what's going on in American Addition but certainly wouldn't have the monetary resources that the City of Columbus does.

Not if you throw away any standards. American Addition probably wasn't too walkable back then, but any old commercial structures on Joyce have long since been razed to the ground. I'm sure it was no walking mecca, but even these forgotten neighborhoods had a good deal more walkability back then than today. E 5th Ave most certainly didn't have suburban style commercial buildings that just happened to be re-used and are now home to Buckeye Chicken, Popeye's and Grown Folk's Lounge. I doubt E 5th Ave was ever a serious rival to High St, but the remnants of a denser, more walkable corridor are evident in the urban homes lining it in Milo-Grogan and what few old commercial commercial structures are left in East Columbus/Krumm Park. There will be mistakes made, yes, but they really shouldn't when a savvy urban population gives insight to city officials and all it takes is reading a few basic books on urban planning to know what fits in an urban setting and what doesn't. As for always having sprawl, yes, but in the suburbs where it belongs: there is no excuse for suburban crap being built in an urban setting which isn't ever going to be suburban enough to attract suburbanites nor will it attract urbanites, but those who just end up being stuck there.

 

My understanding is that they are basically trying to get AA back to the condition it was previously, ie generally a denser residential area.  Like I said, I do think they need to think more about a mixed neighborhood, though, to keep it more self-sufficient.  However, I haven't seen a whole lot of plans for the area yet.  Do you have any that you've seen?

 

Speaking of the chicken intersection, I read not too long ago that that huge empty lot there is up for development once environmental cleanup is completed.  I haven't seen a time frame for that, either, though.

Well, there are already a handful of buildings that could be used for urban commercial use in MG at least. The city needs to make an effort to get these buildings occupied again since they're already there and just need some decent businesses to attract interest from outside the neighborhood. Again, Skankland attracted visitors in the early 90s to this area and since that closed there hasn't been anything to fill that void and turn more attention back to this area, particularly in the vicinity of E 5th. With new desirable businesses on or near E 5th, AA will have a more walkable area nearby even if it's not the neighborhood itself and would mean that those other neighborhoods are somewhat walkable again too. With the small number of commercial buildings spread out around here from Cleveland to Cassady the city could easily afford to attract higher quality businesses to repopulate these structures. The money the city would spend to chip in for cleanup of the Timken site should instead be used to rehab existing structures where at least one popular establishment was willing to open, so at least there's a greater likelihood that at least another would too if given a good reason.

I should also add that the lack of investment from the 3Cs in making urban commercial streets more attractive for businesses to congregate on leaves out key immigrant groups that would have otherwise moved in to some of these areas. In Minneapolis there are at least a few of business districts where if you took away the Vietnamese or Mexican or Middle Eastern establishments that were wooed indirectly by the city a decade or two ago all that would be left instead are the liquor stores, check cashing places and empty storefronts. On Nicollet where I am right now I can count six businesses next to each other: four are Vietnamese and one is Mexican and then you have a fancy coffeeshop on the end, which likely wouldn't have opened if those other storefronts were empty because it was easier to open up in the burbs, which is sadly the case in most Great Lakes cities since that's where many immigrant businesses tend to be found. Minneapolis is only reinforcing the businesses first, homes second revitalization strategy tenfold. I've seen what happens when the opposite is done and it just plain doesn't work very well. The former makes for walkable, increasingly desirable neighborhoods, while the latter does not.