Local Entrepreneurial News
This is the second video provided by Columbus Downtown Development Corporation & Capital South today during the press conference about the redevelopment of the old City Center building into the new Columbus Commons project.
The video contains footage of the developer’s work, renderings of Columbus Commons, and other surrounding downtown developments.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio’s business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
So roads are going to be added. Whoever is behind that doesn’t know what they’re doing.
Agreed …. really no need for more roads. If they want to build large brick walkways I’m up for that … but that’s it.
The only reason I could think of for adding access for vehicles would be to function as alleys, in which case you can still have brick walkways, just have them be limited access to vehicles that need to drop off supplies, etc, with removable bollards which block off thru-traffic. We don’t want to provide a road for traffic passing through.
Neither roads nor cars are evil. If the access streets are kept narrow like the revamped bit of Town Street and provide quick access to meters that’s going to be a HUGE benefit to the retailers who want to set up at CC. Not everyone wants to park in the garage and walk, and not everyone wants to bus or bike. Giving everyone as many options as possible is going to give people as many reasons to go here.
If decisions are made to make this impossible for people to use cars to park and patronize the businesses here, you’re going to set this up for failure.
And that doesn’t mean it can’t be done while simultaneously keeping things pedestrian and cyclist friendly. Something for everyone.
With both the underground garage and the main garage being maintained, isn’t adequate parking more than covered? Whats the difference between using a meter on Town or Third and walking to the commons or parking at the garage. Roughly same distance, right?
I wouldn’t mind the access streets for delivery vehicles to support the businesses and I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of the valet companies work out something with the restaurants.
I don’t think any of the businesses in Pearl Alley suffer for lack of parking. Traffic hasn’t had access to the other side of Town Street for the better part of a decade, I don’t think we need to be in any rush to change that. Especially given the changes coming to other roadways in the near future.
I’m all for finding a reasonable balance, just seems that parking is covered or easily surmounted with something like valet. The North Market validates parking, right? Maybe down the road businesses and Capitol South can get an agreement going to provide validated valet parking if you patronize a commons business. Just throwing thoughts out there.
The video made it look like the roads weren’t really through streets. It kind of looked like there might be perpendicular parking along the park. I’m not sure this would be needed with the garage underneath the park, but maybe it would help the retailers like Walker said. I still think I’d rather see park space than parking though. I agree that if they do need access drives, it might be nice to have them be a bit more like alleys functioning under the concept of shared space. Narrow, no curbs, permeable pavement, etc… Make the cars feel like they are intruding on pedestrian space, and they will go very slow.
Perhaps we can have some retailers chime in here, but I’m willing to bet that having meters directly in front of your store VS meters or a garage a block away can make or break certain types of businesses and have a significant impact on sales for most others.
The garage is great for people who want to spend an hour or more here. But if you want to park, run in a shop for 15 minutes, and then head out, having the option of meters is going to keep that person from just going somewhere else entirely to find what they need.
As much as everyone hates Easton sometimes, I think they’ve struck a pretty good balance with metered/garage parking options.
Not to mention that fact that additional meters means additional revenue for the city. There’s no doubt in my mind that Gay Street wouldn’t be what it is today without the metered parking along it. If it were shut off to through traffic except for a few bikes, it would be a ghost town through there.
+1 for bike/pedestrian friendliness
-1 for bike/pedestrian elite exclusiveness
I don’t know if Gay St. is a great example, as it has always existed as a through road to a degree. Easton is probably closer to an ideal balance, but do we really need to copy Easton?
I would be perfectly fine with the parking arrangement off of a Goodale near the park. There should be a way to create 2 strips of parking parallel to either 3rd and High or State and Rich that allows easy, on street parking in close proximity while still maintaining a friendly space.
I guess I’m being called out here? ;-)
Frankly I think it’s a non-issue at this point since the buildings are five to seven years away from being built and operational.
A lot can happen between now and then, They may entirely change the plans after creating the original 9 acre park. I think there’s a very good chance this plan will be radically different by then. Who knows what the market may demand in 5-7 years?
As far as whether the parking will be close enough for retail, it just depends on the type of retail you have in there.
I don’t think you are likely to have very robust retail in the project, the proposed space is very small so it’s not likely to attract any major footraffic anchor style stores (grocers etc.). Without a high volume anchor you probbaly won’t get much of a retail prescence. There’s also few foottraffic generators along that part of High right now (with CVS being the notable exception) and probably little potential for enough critical mass to creat a mall like attitude for would be shoppers. As a result alot of those retailers are going to probably need very close parking to survive as their customers will be less likely to be willing walk far as they won’t be spending a day like they do at malls or at North Market. They will more likely be convenient targeted style shoppers, in and out. The parking garage being across the street and now unconnected from the shops doesn’t usually work well with that kind of shopper.
The underground lot is probbaly not going to be a big plus either, it’s out of sight out of mind , plus a lot of people dont like the claustrophobic feeling those garages can have.
Either parking place will probably be adequate for restaurant goers who have other options such as valet and generally tend to be more tolerant to walk further/make more effort.
When it comes to retail it’s all about convenience, if it’s not convenient for the majority of shoppers almost all of which come by car they aren’t going to go there wiithout extremely proximate parking because they have plenty of other very easy options In Columbus. Meter parking might work if there is enough of it. As it is now and will likely be in 7 years there probably won’t be enough residents in the area for it survive as a purely pedestrian retail environment either although hopefully it will be a lot better than it is now.
It really all comes down to what kind of retailer they have in mind for those spaces and how many residents are within 4-5 blocks walking distance by then.
My guess is this plan will be modified several times before it’s all said and done with.
I understand the convenience argument. It just always amazes me that people are willing to park at Easton and walk further from point to point than they would anywhere downtown, and yet still complain about our parking situation. (Understanding the density argument you mentioned ZHC)
As I said, I am not opposed to us having a balanced plan. I’m just looking at what downtown is facing over the next few years: a major freeway project that is going to have some major impact on traffic flow around downtown, the possibility of more one way’s to further facilitate the evacuation of downtown and now more parking.
yeah Easton is mall though life, it’s different mindset. A shopper is going there for multiple shops, probably spend several hours there. That’s what they did at City Center too.
Columbus Commons and South high just wont likely have enough shops to create that atmosphere. If you shop there you will probably go to one store do your errand and leave. It’s more like the strip mall mentality.
when you think about it that way it makes sense why people do that. After all they are investing more time at the shopping mall so what’s a little extra walking?
Believe me I’m hyper aware of the construction issues downtown. Somehow I have to survive 5-10 years of Columbus Commons , the split , the streetcar constructions and two way street conversion all at the same time. To say I’m worried is an understatement.
I feel for you, I know what’s it like living with a small business (my dad) that has to endure through tough times.
I think we just have to wait it out for the final concept to see about parking. Going back to what Walker (I believe) touched on in the 70/71 discussion, with 3rd losing it’s feeder status that will hopefully open up those convenient parking meters all day without the rush hour limits.
I should mention if they do get retailers that mainly service office workers (like a bank possibly) or seasonal shops that serve prepared food to park goers than they won’t need much parking.
so really it just depends on what they want in there.
http://www.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/local/article/necessities_needed_to_attract_downtown_residents/12551/
Might be of interest to some. Might be the first time I actually commend our local media for an article.
the article is backwards, more residents are needed to attract necessities :-)
I have no doubt that more necessities will attract more residents, but I can tell you as a potential “necessity” business there just isn’t enough business to support more, plus there’s no tax incentives/abatements for retailers to move downtown unlike office jobs or residents.
That’s why it makes more sense to me to concentrate the housing near the east end and south end which is much closer to critical mass (and cheaper) than spreading it all around downtown.
Residents will locate into an area for a variety of reasons whether it’s cost, look of the home/neighborhood, schools, commute time,safety, a combination etc.
Business will only locate where they think there’s adequate business.
The failed efforts to get retailers in City Center after Capitol South took it over is proof there is insufficient residential density at this time in downtown to support much retail.
Walker has that NBC4i article on the front page here:
http://www.columbusunderground.com/new-downtown-residents-want-groceries-safety
I brought up Easton as an example earlier because of their two-tier parking system. There is ample garage space for those looking to spend some time at the mall and walk around to many places. And then they have meter spaces for people who want to get in and out quickly. The garages are free, but the meters are not, and I’ve always seen many of the meters full. People value convenience so much that they are willing to pay for it.
ZHC: I wasn’t specifically calling you out, but I think you’re a good example since you have metered parking in front of your store and the CC garage not very far away. Where do your customers park? If you didn’t have the meters do you think the CC parking garage would be a valid substitute? Do you think retailers at CC would be more/less likely to set up shop in those retail slots if they have no metered parking available?