Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

Grandview Yard Giant Eagle

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Grandview Yard Giant Eagle

This topic contains 735 replies, has 85 voices, and was last updated by  GCrites80s 1 month, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 736 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #496419
    Pablo
    Pablo
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    lifeontwowheels said:
    Anyone know what’s planned for bike parking at the GE? Most grocery stores have a piss poor rack set out as an afterthought.

    According to the plans Walker posted, along with 990 vehicular parking spaces, there will be 20 bike racks.

    #496420

    bman
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    futureman said:
    bitter much?

    Seems more like you and your fellow “urbanites” are the bitter childlike kids.

    #496421

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Pablo said:
    According to the plans Walker posted, along with 990 vehicular parking spaces, there will be 20 bike racks.

    See that now. Good to know. With work being done on our trail system and the eventual Ohio to Erie trail way, that should be a great spot for local and bike tourists alike.

    #496422

    bman
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    lifeontwowheels said:
    Plenty of examples have been posted on this board for years showing developments in other urban areas where traditional big box retailers have adapted designs to the environment. I doubt they sacrificed much of anything.

    I’ll just wait for your typical nonsensical rantings and effort to paint us as a little cow town despite all population figures to the contrary.

    Pretty simple, do you want a grocery store in that eye sore spot or not?

    #496423
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    futureman said:
    bitter much?

    He’s got a point, though. Presuming the benefits from adherence to a set of aesthetics are difficult to quantify, sacrificing quantifiable benefits for the sake of them is a hard sell to those who doubt the value of those aesthetics ( read: the wider public ).

    #496424

    NerosNeptune
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    You don’t have to look far. I’m sure the Weinland Park Kroger is still making plenty of money and everyone seems to like it.

    It’s amazing how much of a firestorm this development has set off. Bring a bit of the suburbs too close to downtown and everyone hates it, but the people who like the suburbs get offended that nobody downtown likes it. Wouldn’t that be predictable? People who choose to not live in the suburbs don’t like suburban sprawl type development. There are already plenty of options for people who do like it, and have cars to drive to whichever one they like best.

    #496425

    leftovers
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    To be fair the Weinland Park Kroger is probably in the most population dense area in Columbus and on Columbus’ main drag. I have seen a ton of people walking/biking with groceries from it. Though it would be nice, I do not think the Grandview GE is going to get that same type of traffic.

    #496426

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    bman said:
    The developer should sacrifice profit so it meets your aesthetic ideals? I hope you guys end up with nothing.

    Yes, because we all know that good urban planning and money loss go hand in hand and only suburban design makes financial sense. That’s why there’s no such thing as urban grocery.

    #496427

    derm
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    NerosNeptune said:
    You don’t have to look far. I’m sure the Weinland Park Kroger is still making plenty of money and everyone seems to like it.

    It’s amazing how much of a firestorm this development has set off. Bring a bit of the suburbs too close to downtown and everyone hates it, but the people who like the suburbs get offended that nobody downtown likes it. Wouldn’t that be predictable? People who choose to not live in the suburbs don’t like suburban sprawl type development. There are already plenty of options for people who do like it, and have cars to drive to whichever one they like best.

    The most amazing part to me is how many people hate it and it is only 10% completed, and the plans for it have changed over time and probably will continue to change and adapt over time. Also the 10% that has been completed is completely what the haters want to have happen. High density, buildings right on the street,mixed use, parking garages instead of lots,parking behind the street, not in front, improved sidewalks, nice plantings, re-use of a wasteland and very pedestrian friendly(at least according to this pedestrian, who actually goes there). Giant Eagle plans non withstanding, so far it is pretty cool.

    #496428

    heresthecasey
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    leftovers said:
    To be fair the Weinland Park Kroger is probably in the most population dense area in Columbus and on Columbus’ main drag. I have seen a ton of people walking/biking with groceries from it. Though it would be nice, I do not think the Grandview GE is going to get that same type of traffic.

    The Grandview Yard GE is going to be replacing two other stores that are both on the “main drags” of dense, urban neighborhoods: Victorian Village, and Grandview/5xNW. Many people walk/bike to the current stores, it would be nice to encourage this to continue with the new one, since the city dropped the ball and this isn’t going downtown. There will be plenty of traffic no doubt in any case.

    #496429

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    He’s got a point, though. Presuming the benefits from adherence to a set of aesthetics are difficult to quantify, sacrificing quantifiable benefits for the sake of them is a hard sell to those who doubt the value of those aesthetics ( read: the wider public ).

    Why would urban design be a harder sell to the wider public, specifically? I haven’t seen anyone suggest there not be any auto parking, just that the configuration of the lot be better oriented to an urban landscape, something the developer has been promising from the beginning. Also, what benefits would necessarily be automatically sacrificed with an urban vs suburban layout?

    #496430

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    derm said:
    The most amazing part to me is how many people hate it and it is only 10% completed, and the plans for it have changed over time and probably will continue to change and adapt over time. Also the 10% that has been completed is completely what the haters want to have happen. High density, buildings right on the street,mixed use, parking garages instead of lots,parking behind the street, not in front, improved sidewalks, nice plantings, re-use of a wasteland and very pedestrian friendly(at least according to this pedestrian, who actually goes there). Giant Eagle plans non withstanding, so far it is pretty cool.

    The criticism is not for the residential parts of GY, but for the retail which has little resemblance (from the plans) to the density/walkability of the residential phase. The designs are changing, but they are changing from a dense urban layout to Hilliard-Rome.

    #496431
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    jbcmh81 said:
    Why would urban design be a harder sell to the wider public, specifically?

    Most people don’t bike or walk for groceries, they drive. Designing so driving is more difficult doesn’t make sense.

    Unless your goal is to try to force more people to give up their cars, I suppose.

    That what you mean by “better oriented to an urban landscape”?

    #496432

    Cole
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Most people don’t bike or walk for groceries, they drive.

    Is that a product of groceries being outside of biking/walking distance or a product of buyer preference? I saw a non-nominal amount of people walking to the VV Giant Eagle when I lived in the area.

    #496433

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    rus said:
    Most people don’t bike or walk for groceries, they drive. Designing so driving is more difficult doesn’t make sense.

    Unless your goal is to try to force more people to give up their cars, I suppose.

    That what you mean by “better oriented to an urban landscape”?

    No, that’s not what I mean. First of all, you’re acting like the people who move to an urban core want to continue to rely on driving, but that contradicts a lot of the reasoning why people move there. Even if they do still prefer to drive to the grocery store, this idea that only a suburban surface lot and box store with a huge setback is the only way to build this is absolutely ridiculous.

Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 736 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?