RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
An article in today’s Dispatch is reporting that a proposal from Franklin County commissioners would provide a $3 million investment towards the demolition of City Center and development of the Columbus Commons project, but would also set aside six acres of the nine acre site for permanent park space.
The demolition of the mall is already underway (photo updates here) and the Franklin County Commissioners are scheduled to discuss this new plan on Thursday. What do you think of this new proposal?
Looks promising.
No no no no no.
BAD DEAL.
How so?
I’m interested to hear your reasoning as well. Especially when such a large portion of people’s favorites places were urban parks.
Because a lot of this land will be more valuable as redeveloped mid-rise in the not-too-distant future instead of permanently set up as park space.
6 acres is 66% of the City Center site. I think we can do with a smaller greenspace and a larger space set aside for future development. As everyone has been quick to point out in other threads… this isn’t far from the new Riverfront as well as the new (and expanding) Audubon.
I will take permanent park space over the land being annexed for some crappy development anyday. And I don’t think we’ll run out of space for midrise developement anytime soon. Unless, of course, we fill it all with low-rise single-use residential development. And parking garages.
Fair enough. We’ll just to have to agree to disagree on this subject.
I’m on the edge here. I think that taking that land from the market could force density in some of the surrounding areas. There are many flat parking (that is to say undeveloped)lots well within walking distance of the City Center site. A move like this could increase the value of existing downtown retail, office and residential space, and increase the probability of developing those empty parking lots.. A large park downtown could also be a draw for the area..
On the other hand I think that as the downtown grows, this area might become necessary again, and if it’s locked into being parkland in perpetuity that might make the downtown prices artificially high. I’m betting that would be a long time off though, and really, from a tax perspective not an awful problem to have.
Any thoughts?
There’s plenty of space downtown for development. I think this shows some foresight.
Downtown needs to be a real urban center again, not primarily a residential neighborhood with a few business buildings here and there. Cleveland’s model is outstanding … there’s no doubt you’re in a city when you’re in their downtown and they have it all, retail, theatre, and residential. This redrawing streets into 2 way thoroughfares do nothing but create a mess for 5:00 traffic and make me less likely to go there. There are already enough parks in the vicinity of the former City Centre; this is a waste of valuable space that should contribute positively to the tax base. With all the other parks in the older neighborhoods that the City has totally neglected over the past two decades, this is nothing but a slap in the face of the older established neighborhoods. The older neighborhoods that are still in tact need to come first … after all, we’re paying for all the tax abatements for people who live around there, many who make 6 figures with our regular tax bills; we ought to be getting something back.
I agree Rory. I’m sure when the land for Goodale, Schiller, Franklin, Westgate and Whetstone was put aside, many criticized it as wasteful. I agree this is showing foresight and regard for future generations.
Motorist Says: I will take permanent park space over the land being annexed for some crappy development anyday.
Just wait until the County Commissioners release renderings of this 6-acre park, and then you’ll complain about what a crappy development that is too.
michaelcoyote Says: I’m on the edge here. I think that taking that land from the market could force density in some of the surrounding areas. There are many flat parking (that is to say undeveloped)lots well within walking distance of the City Center site. A move like this could increase the value of existing downtown retail, office and residential space, and increase the probability of developing those empty parking lots.. A large park downtown could also be a draw for the area..
I agree that it would definitely increase the value of those properties, but I can’t say if that would have a positive or negative effect on moving those underdeveloped lots into the form of denser development. More likely (at least in the short term) you’d just see parking lots with higher monthly rates.
I’ll willing to believe that a well executed 3-acre park could be just as effective as a 6-acre park in making this area more desirable for development.
michaelcoyote Says: On the other hand I think that as the downtown grows, this area might become necessary again, and if it’s locked into being parkland in perpetuity that might make the downtown prices artificially high. I’m betting that would be a long time off though, and really, from a tax perspective not an awful problem to have.
This is my biggest concern as well. “Forever” is a long time. I like the flexibility of being able to change our landscape Downtown as need be. I thought the park-today development-tomorrow approach to Columbus Commons was pretty smart. Parks are wonderful amenities, but they not only contribute zero to the tax base, they require resources to maintain and upkeep. I think the site needs to have a balance, and this Franklin County deal sounds like it will not only offset that balance, it will do so in a permanent manner that we can’t undo down the road if something happens to change.
What would we be faced with today if someone pitched in $3 Million in 1989 for City Center Mall to be built under the condition that it be designated as a building that could never be demolished?
Walker, everything can’t be a tax base and you really can’t put a price tag on the benefits to the quality of life that a nice urban park lends, especially 50 or 100 years from now. Hopefully it will all be developed then and someone will say, “that park was a great idea”.
Walker Says:
Just wait until the County Commissioners release renderings of this 6-acre park, and then you’ll complain about what a crappy development that is too.
Haven’t I already? If not, it’s on my to do list ;)
I don’t know enough about the design at this point to say whether or not I think it’s crappy. I know enough about the renderings to say that those are crappy renderings but I am withholding judgement on the design.
Realistically, how far away are we from developing all that empty land downtown? 20 years? 50 years? And by that point, we’ll have to rebuild some of whats being built now anyway. I think we have a mighty long time before we need to worry about this wasted space. Maybe forever.
rory Says: Walker, everything can’t be a tax base and you really can’t put a price tag on the benefits to the quality of life that a nice urban park lends, especially 50 or 100 years from now. Hopefully it will all be developed then and someone will say, “that park was a great ideaâ€Â.
I agree with you that amenities are important, and as I said earlier, I do think greenspace is especially important. I’m just not sure that this particular location was meant for this purpose. I hope to be proven wrong about this the long term, but I still can’t help but worry that this sounds like a short-sighted proposal.
Motorist Says: I think we have a mighty long time before we need to worry about this wasted space. Maybe forever.
Perhaps you’re right.
But I guess I’m more concerned with what is going to be a smarter move for creating a more dense and vibrant Downtown in the next 10-20-30 years…. and I’m not convinced that a 6-acre permanent park in this spot will help any more than a 3-acre park in this spot would. Are you? Does the size matter that much, or is it the quality?
Walker Says: Perhaps you’re right.
But I guess I’m more concerned with what is going to be a smarter move for creating a more dense and vibrant Downtown in the next 10-20-30 years…. and I’m not convinced that a 6-acre permanent park in this spot will help any more than a 3-acre park in this spot would. Are you? Does the size matter that much, or is it the quality?
I do like to think that it’s not the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean, that matters.
Have you been to Millenium Park in Chicago? According to Greenroofs.com, it is 24.5 acres, so we would be about a quarter of that. From some quick numbers found online and estimated, the amphitheater plus the Lurie Gardens would be about 6 to 6.5 acres. I don’t think thats too big for something that may become Columbus’ Millenium Park.
Quality…thats a whole different question….
I’m disappointed with this new development. I think that this city really needs to take every opportunity to redevelop downtown that it can get. Setting aside such a large chunk of this development for permanent park space when there are so many other parks in the downtown and surrounding areas just doesn’t seem the best way to go.
Sure they could develop other areas of downtown, but this seems like such a prime opportunity to start from scratch with a large chunk of downtown.. as opposed to little chunks of certains streets here and there. I was envisioning and Easton-like area with living space, retail, offices, mid-rise/ high-rise buildings… with a nice little park nestled right in the middle.
I’m all for it. There is so much other space that could be developed downtown that probably won’t be in my lifetime. Once something is developed, it almost never will revert back to green space. We need a “Central Park” of sorts, right on our main street, right downtown. The more green space, the better.
They are already spending millions to demo this…spend some extra money on a GOOD developer who actually knows what they are doing and turn this into something awesome…I wish Columbus would stop being so lame…Check out THE BANKS being developed in downtown Cincinnati ..now that is something to get excited about..this is a crock of shit!