January 24Jan 24 Are they not planning an underpass either? I assumed that's what they would do, like the one they added under RIverside at John Shields.
January 24Jan 24 8 minutes ago, jebleprls22 said: Are they not planning an underpass either? I assumed that's what they would do, like the one they added under RIverside at John Shields. ALLEGEDLY the only "underpass" is a tunnel under 270 where the bridge was supposed to go further north from this. But that just seems like an insanely stupid and foolish idea considering the elevation differences..
January 30Jan 30 Listening to the commission meeting, it sounds like there is a bit of a timing misalignment on this development that is prompting them to keep any pedestrian connection out of it. It was mentioned a few times that Dublin is wrapping up an intensive study on how to make 161 more pedestrian-friendly (cue laughter), and the development team appears to be waiting on the results of that study before making any indication of privately-funded pedestrian infrastructure to solve the problem.
January 31Jan 31 On 1/30/2025 at 1:22 PM, PizzaScissors said: Listening to the commission meeting, it sounds like there is a bit of a timing misalignment on this development that is prompting them to keep any pedestrian connection out of it. It was mentioned a few times that Dublin is wrapping up an intensive study on how to make 161 more pedestrian-friendly (cue laughter), and the development team appears to be waiting on the results of that study before making any indication of privately-funded pedestrian infrastructure to solve the problem. Yeah they basically said nope on a bridge. 161 ain't ever going to be pedestrian friendly with 5+ lanes there.
January 31Jan 31 53 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Yeah they basically said nope on a bridge. 161 ain't ever going to be pedestrian friendly with 5+ lanes there. What you mean, don't you love to take your 3 ton SUV to different stores in the same shopping center because it's near impossible to walk from one side to another??! Serious note, I'm glad to see bridge park expand from it's initial footprint and different transportation options should be encouraged. With two major roads intersecting at the roundabout it spells absolute disaster for pedestrians. I would love to see a wide sweeping tunnel cross under 161 as having pedestrians/bikers play frogger with traffic is an awful idea. Also, give me a BRT to bridge park going across 161 from Premiter Drive all the way across to New Albany (pipe dream Heavy Rail).
February 3Feb 3 On 1/31/2025 at 1:49 PM, columbus17 said: Yeah they basically said nope on a bridge. 161 ain't ever going to be pedestrian friendly with 5+ lanes there. 5 lane roads and walkability do not go together. Looking at you High Street through Clintonville!
February 3Feb 3 1 minute ago, TIm said: 5 lane roads and walkability do not go together. Looking at you High Street through Clintonville! Yeah I always get downvoted on reddit when I tell people that clintonville isn’t a walkable neighborhood, outside of the side streets, but walking doesn’t make walkability. You need to be able to walk comfortably to retail and restaurant spaces.
February 3Feb 3 18 minutes ago, TIm said: 5 lane roads and walkability do not go together. Looking at you High Street through Clintonville! Apparently it'll have BRT
February 3Feb 3 7 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Apparently it'll have BRT High Street's rapid transit mode hasn't been determined yet. I'm hoping for rail that's in a tunnel emerging at Arcadia and travailing on the surface to Worthington.
February 3Feb 3 25 minutes ago, VintageLife said: Yeah I always get downvoted on reddit when I tell people that clintonville isn’t a walkable neighborhood, outside of the side streets, but walking doesn’t make walkability. You need to be able to walk comfortably to retail and restaurant spaces. Just being able to walk to other houses isn't walkability. You can do that in a squiggly 2000s subdivision. Clintonville does have walkable parts but not all of it is truly walkable.
February 3Feb 3 58 minutes ago, Pablo said: High Street's rapid transit mode hasn't been determined yet. I'm hoping for rail that's in a tunnel emerging at Arcadia and travailing on the surface to Worthington. I believe he was talking about 161. However, four years ago I made this High Street subway map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Ut7LfK3jzjKFh7JNYQAdiqf9NIAcH18f&usp=sharing
February 3Feb 3 55 minutes ago, Pablo said: High Street's rapid transit mode hasn't been determined yet. I'm hoping for rail that's in a tunnel emerging at Arcadia and travailing on the surface to Worthington. My ultimate pipe dream is your idea coupled with another rail line that starts at Easton, heads south along Steltzer to the airport, runs along 5th Avenue (likely underground for most of the way west of 71), and then meets up with Riverside Drive and continues north through Bridge Park all the way to the Zoo. Between these two rail lines and the already planned BRT lines, you would have a huge percentage of the population as well as most of the city's attractions served by either BRT or rail.
May 24May 24 Crawford Hoying lands key approvals for Bridge Park expansionsTwo new blocks of Bridge Park are closer to moving forward following the approval of three items by the Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission.The commission authorized an amended final development plan for H Block, as well as a preliminary development plan and conditional use for J Block at a meeting this month.These items follow the approval of concept plans developer Crawford Hoying received for the expansion of Bridge Park, a mixed-use development that has several existing blocks featuring offices, hotels, retail, restaurants and bars, event space and multifamily dwellings.More below:https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2025/05/23/bridge-park-dublin-crawford-hoying-j-block-h-block.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
Create an account or sign in to comment