2010 Downtown Strategic Plan Meeting #1 Recap
The first (of three) public input meetings for the new 2010 Downtown Strategic Plan took place at the Columbus State Conference Center last night. Attendees included engaged residents, leaders of cultural organizations, students, workers, and everyone in between. The purpose of the meeting was to identify new catalytic projects for Downtown, recommend new city policies, provide an implementation strategy, and establish a framework for regular updates as we move forward with a new plan.
The first thirty minutes of last night’s meeting were spent setting the stage and sharing the initial analysis about the current state of Downtown. Mayor Michael Coleman and Councilmember Andrew Ginther provided a lot of information about the 2002 Downtown Strategic Plan, and addressed both the goals that were met and that were not met in that plan. Guy Worley, CEO of Capitol South and the Columbus Downtown Development Corporation, spent some time discussing some of the ongoing development, and specifically highlighted work in the RiverSouth District. Much of this was information that we showcased in our preview piece “Planning Downtown for the Future with Mike Brown” a few weeks ago.
During the second portion of the meeting, Keith Myers from MSI Design took the stage, and proceeded to provide the planning framework and identify the planning areas. The key questions that he proposed dealt with returning the Downtown population back to 1950 levels, bringing retail back Downtown, and adding new jobs to the area. To accomplish these goals he suggested that we consider redefining our urban development patterns, our transportation systems and by coming up with new ideas that will improve our Downtown quality of life.
In the visual to the right, Keith explained how our Downtown landscape has changed since 1921, and highlighted the areas where surface parking lots have been made detrimentally overabundant. Many of those flat lots he identified as “Downtown Near Term Opportunity Areas” which totaled up to be roughly 163 acres.
Keith went on to explain that filling in those acres in would result in the loss of nearly 15,000 parking spaces Downtown. He suggested that replacing those 15,000 parking spaces with parking deck structures would be nearly impossible and completely impractical. He said that improved public transportation would be key in negating the effects of decreased parking spaces, along with an increased residential population that do not require cars at all.
Additionally, Keith highlighted the density data from various residential developments around Downtown including the Contemporary Building at Neighborhood Launch, the Renaissance Condominiums, Burnham Square, and Sixty Spring. He then extrapolated those densities as residential infill for those 163 acres of near term development opportunity. The chart below displays that the lower density units would only add 5,700 new units to Downtown while the higher density units would add 25,200 units Downtown. Keith suggested that we should work toward finding a balance somewhere in between.
Another important topic discussed was connection and mobility options. Destinations such as the Capital Square business area and Convention Center visitor area were highlighted on another map. These areas were given a five-minute walk radius and we were shown how few of the destinations overlap with each other. Ideas proposed to connect these destinations include improved bike infrastructure, commuter rail services and improved bus transit options.
Additionally, it was pointed out there are some new short-term opportunities for reconnecting Downtown to neighborhoods located adjacent via the 70/71 split fix reconstruction project. Similar to the 670 highway cap that reconnected The Short North with Downtown, additional caps are being proposed to reconnect The King Lincoln District, Olde Town East, German Village and The Brewery District. Keith suggested that we creatively consider how best to reestablish those connections.
The second half of the event was comprised of breakout sessions. Tables were scattered around the room with various maps and overlays broken down with the following focus areas:
- Defining Development Patterns
- Improving Quality of Life
- Strengthening Connections
- Moving People
Additional stations were provided based on three area clusters identified as the High Street Core, the Riverfront and the Discovery District. Attendees were encouraged to move around the room, leave comments, notes, sticky dots, and other input at the various stations. The crowd was buzzing with ideas, and many of the maps were quickly covered with the visible display of community brainstorming.
For anyone who did not attend last night’s meeting, additional public input can be submitted online at DowntownColumbus.com/Plan/Public-Input. Additionally, the visuals from last night’s presentation can be found there in PDF format.
All of the information collected prior to March 19th will be evaluated and reassembled into a presentation at the second public meeting, which is scheduled to be held on April 15th from 6pm to 8pm at The Columbus State Conference Center.
Some additional commentary and ideas can already be found on the Columbus Underground Messageboard HERE.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Development.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: 2010 Downtown Strategic Plan • Development • downtown • Events • ideas • urban living • urban planning
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Really quickly, I have to commend everyone involved with this project. Public input gathering is always a huge undertaking, and this seems to have gone very well last night. I’m always excited about seeing people getting involved with shaping the future and can’t encourage everyone enough to submit ideas into this process. Democracy at work!
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I’d just like to know how seriously this input is being taken. I went to city hall to find out why the city is unnecessarily spending so much to encourage sprawl and invest in the outskirts of the city, instead of spending it Downtown and on Cleveland, Main, Parsons, etc, which need improvements. They gave me some contact info and I emailed the proper city departments. That was in December; still no response.
So, one of my suggestions is that they not wastefully invest money in widening roads on our outskirts and instead use it on necessary road improvements for pedestrians and cyclists in Downtown and other urban neighborhoods. Like before, there’s nothing to let us know what their response is via internet, whether it’s positive or negative unless you can get a straight answer in person during the meeting.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:02 pm
It’s thoroughly depressing to see the ‘21 ‘51 ‘09 images side by side.
@Columbusite - Be careful saying that unless you’re ready for a suburban lynch mob, the consensus from suburbia seems to be that the mayor/city council only devote resources to downtown.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm
jpunkster Says: It’s thoroughly depressing to see the ‘21 ‘51 ‘09 images side by side.
Initially, yes it is. But after the initial depression wears off you begin to see an enormous opportunity for new development.
I was studying some older European and Asian cities recently, specifically looking into how many times certain cities have been torn down and rebuilt, either due to disasters or due to intentional city planning projects. Some of our most dense urban areas in the world have been ravaged by fires, wars, and worse… and they still end up being rebuilt.
If we can look at Columbus on a much bigger timeline, I think that the parking lots are going to be looked back on as a “failed 50 year experiment” in the long run, and it will be nothing more than a small moment in our city’s long history.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:09 pm
^Good point - Haussmann tore down half of Paris in the 1800’s, the Germans bombed London and we bombed both Berlin and Tokyo…. those cities seem to be doing OK.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I agree Walker
the amount of open space gives us a chance to design a city for the 21st and hopefully 22nd century unlike many of our competitors.
Lost of major metropoli have been decimated by catastrophe only to be rebuilt better than they were before
San Francisco , Chicago and even New york have all had major periods of mass destruction.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
If we had an extra million people in Columbus proper that could work - I’m a little less of an optimist on this one though.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
The ‘5 minute walk’ study is very interesting… seems like a great way of framing the problem.
Any chance we could see a larger version of that graphic (and the one above it)?
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
This sounds great!
Wish I could have gone.
There should be more discussions on different ways to maybe fund new projects, like light rail and so forth. It is true that better mass transit will help bring new development.
I can’t wait to see it happen, I am optimistic.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Drew, all of the visuals are included in the PDF files at the top of the public-input site. Specifically, those two images are on pages 2 & 3 of this PDF.
March 4th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Overall, I think the meeting was a good start to the process. colrex7, you’re definitely right though on the action and implementation steps that should follow the plan, especially for projects or improvements that aren’t already in the pipeline. That matter didn’t come up much, and it needs to in future meetings as ideas are prioritized.
One of my big concerns is that if - sorry, when - downtown becomes a big success, a lot of people will get priced out. Socioeconomic considerations need to be part of the planning. But when I had questions about issues like affordable housing, it just didn’t fit in the current framework. The plan should include innovative tools such as bonus densities to encourage developers to include affordable housing or other community benefits, or leveraging of city-owned land (perhaps as community land trusts) to support small business or artists or mixed-income housing. Issues of the built environment and social considerations should go hand in hand.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:34 am
jpunkster Says: If we had an extra million people in Columbus proper that could work - I’m a little less of an optimist on this one though.
This article made me think of your comment: The 10 Percent Solution to Urban Growth
A snippet: “The way to do this is to adopt the “10 percent solution”. That is, for most cities, they should develop a strategy that tries to capture somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the net new growth in their metro areas. If a city can get more, great. But for any growing region, even 10 percent would create a dynamic of massive change in the urban core.“
Might be worth a read.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Looks like I am going to have to mark my calender for April 15th. Hope to make the next meeting. This is all so very exciting. I hope whatever is discussed here comes to fruition. Well, just the stuff I like anyway ;-)
March 4th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Hope this plan continues to evolve. Look forward to future releases. I will provide my comments on the surveys provided online.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Just a quick correction… I was informed that the “getting the density right” portion of the presentation was referring to residential units and not population as I had originally said in the recap above (just edited it for correction).
So the 5,700 10,900, 20,500 25,200 numbers are all referring to units. I was also told that the average person per unit is generally around 1.5, so that means 8,550 16,350 30,750 and 37,800 residents, respectively.
March 7th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
wow that is a pretty big difference in numbers Walker!
I interpretted the same way you did.
I also wonder if they included the students in that number, my impression is they didn’t.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I imagine that refers to any “public” residential units built. So students living in apartments or condos would probably count in those totals. If CCAD builds new dorms, I would guess that it wouldn’t count.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
PLANS PLANS!! We see what the city planners have done:
Circling downtown on one way, wrong way; perpetual nonsense; Allys and streets shut off.
I saw an overhead of traffic on the busiest night of the year — less that half the streets being used.
The shut-off streets are for panhandlers–who would want to locate there?