Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

Jeffrey Park - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Jeffrey Park – News & Updates

This topic contains 90 replies, has 31 voices, and was last updated by  CMH2579 4 days, 15 hours ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 91 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #522235
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    I think a lot of it comes down to what kind of area you want the neighborhood to be. Do you want to create an urban area where people can walk to a majority of their daily needs or do you want an area where people primarily drive to their primary destinations but have the ability to occasionally walk to a few local restaurants and shops?

    Bet then from a planning perspective your going to start getting crowing problems. Look at the Short north area. If you basically build nothing but residential to the east and west of High street and focus all the retail/commercial up and down along the main thoroughfares then as some point you’re going to get congestion problems.

    There are more than enough opportunity sites around this project, and in fact, vacant retail spaces. There is a large vacant retail space directly across the street from where the first units are being built. There are also numerous vacant parcels along 4th Street, 1st Ave, 2nd Ave. Beyond that it would make more sense to me to have neighborhood retail spaces.

    I’m not sure what amenities people would be giving up from moving from the suburbs to this area? The ability to drive to large destination retail in 15 minutes? Not everyone will be living within walking distance of Macy’s no matter what. Primary destinations are work, school, grocery. A corner store, a few restaurant spaces, and a few neighborhood retail spaces should fulfill most people’s daily needs.

    I also take issue with the fact that there is absolutely 100% no chance that the project won’t become denser or add a retail component. From the original article: “The future phases are still somewhat speculative, but we’ve been trying to lay out a course of action,” said Wagenbrenner.” If there is demand, plans will most likely be adjusted accordingly.

    Also from their website: The Jeffrey Place project is in the Italian Village neighborhood, located immediately north of downtown Columbus and adjacent to the vibrant Short North area. This urban, master-planned, mixed use development on approximately 40 acres is expected to include over 700 units of high-end rental and for sale housing, Class A office and neighborhood-serving retail along the N. 4th St. corridor. http://wagdev.com/projects/mixuse/jeffrey-place.aspx

    Sounds to me that if the right tenets come along then there are other possibilities.

    #522236

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    joshlapp said:

    I’m not sure what amenities people would be giving up from moving from the suburbs to this area? The ability to drive to large destination retail in 15 minutes? Not everyone will be living within walking distance of Macy’s no matter what. Primary destinations are work, school, grocery. A corner store, a few restaurant spaces, and a few neighborhood retail spaces should fulfill most people’s daily needs.

    I never said anything about people giving up amenties to move here from the suburbs. I was talking about all the people who have been moving into the urban areas over the last few years. Once these people who now live downtown start having kids they is going to be a push for these people to leave downtown. From the USA article they said in years past usually about 90% of the people who live near downtown areas move back to the suburbs once they have kids. So what I’m saying is that if you create the current plan that Jeffrey has now it could be an option for these people to move to because they don’t want to move to the suburbs and LOSE the amenities that are being created downtown.

    And everyone doesn’t need to be withing walking distance of a Macy’s. But if you wan’t a urban walkable neighborhood then you need to be able to walk to daily needs. A grocery store or at least a neighborhood corner store, dry cleaners, day care, a couple places for simple clothing needs, etc.

    Again I understand that not everyone wants a walkable neighborhood. Some people just want a neighborhood where they drive to 90% of their needs and occasionally walk to the local bar or restaurant or boutique store. But you can recreate these areas mostly anywhere. Let’s take Upper Arlington. You can live in Upper Arlington and occasionally walk to Lane Ave. And that’s a great suburban lifestyle. But it’s not an urban walkable neighborhood.

    joshlapp said:
    I also take issue with the fact that there is absolutely 100% no chance that the project won’t become denser or add a retail component. From the original article: “The future phases are still somewhat speculative, but we’ve been trying to lay out a course of action,” said Wagenbrenner.” If there is demand, plans will most likely be adjusted accordingly.

    I’m arguing that retail should be built into the fabric of the community. So while yes they could build phase 1 and then 2 years later decided to change later phases to include retail but they wouldn’t be able to go back to phase 1 and add retail.

    If you build phase 1 with a 3 story apartment building and houses on fee simply lots then you cant go back and raise that 3 story building up one level to put retail/commercial/office on the ground floor.

    So yes the plans for this 41 acre development could change over time. I can’t imagine any development of this size not changing overtime. But if you don’t approach it as a walkable urban area from the onset then it will never become one.

    And as I pointed out that’s not the end of the world. In fact many people would prefer it that way. Some people have no desire to actually walk to a majority of their needs. But it will also make the area more expensive. It’s simply supply in demand. If you went into Upper Arlington and tried to start replacing the houses with mixed use development so you maintained or increased the number of residents and added retail/commercial within the same space they would go nuts. But on the other hand you have people who can afford the high property values.

    #522237
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    You’re essentially saying you want the retail/commercial to be stretched out along the main thoroughfares like 4th or Summit with everything filled in between with residential. This is basically the failed model that we built our suburbs around.

    That’s kind of a stretch.

    #522238

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Walker said:
    That’s kind of a stretch.

    Maybe a little. But if you look around the country no one is building this way in the urban areas anymore. Most cities are building more dense in the suburbs than this project right out side of downtown.

    #522239
    dru
    dru
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore

    And everyone doesn’t need to be withing walking distance of a Macy’s. But if you wan’t a urban walkable neighborhood then you need to be able to walk to daily needs. A grocery store or at least a neighborhood corner store, dry cleaners, day care, a couple places for simple clothing needs, etc.

    So yes the plans for this 41 acre development could change over time. I can’t imagine any .

    I think everyone needs to keep in mind that is that directly across the street there is already:
    – Frutta del Mondo – a coffee shop and specialty retailer of imported oils, vinegars, etc….
    – an available 2400sf restaurant space in the Wonderbread conversion
    – a 7000sf event space in the Wonderbread conversion
    – an unused roughly 5000sf retail space at Kramer Place
    – a assumed small vacant retail/carryout spot on the SW corner of 1st and 4th
    – a dry cleaners on the NW corner of 1st and 4th
    + a ton of potential space in between and several opportunies in the one block stretch north on 4th between 1st & 2nd

    Not quite the mixed use density being talked about here, but it factors into the overall development.

    #522240
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    Maybe a little. But if you look around the country no one is building this way in the urban areas anymore. Most cities are building more dense in the suburbs than this project right out side of downtown.

    Jeffrey Park is a very dense development. It sounds like it’s just not mixed-use like you’d prefer to see it.

    While there’s always an ideal model for urban development, it doesn’t mean that anything less than that ideal is worthless. It sort of sounds like you’re holding Jeffrey Park up to the ideal model and calling it a 90% failure because it misses your mark by 10%.

    #522241

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Walker said:
    Jeffrey Park is a very dense development. It sounds like it’s just not mixed-use like you’d prefer to see it.

    While there’s always an ideal model for urban development, it doesn’t mean that anything less than that ideal is worthless. It sort of sounds like you’re holding Jeffrey Park up to the ideal model and calling it a 90% failure because it misses your mark by 10%.

    Where did I say it was worthless???? I’ve even highlighted that it could be a good option for people when they want to leave downtown but still be close.

    My problem with Jeffrey park is that I don’t think it’s dense enough giving the location of the site. Imaging if they put two story townhouses along High st.

    And Density isn’t restricted to residential. I’ve stated that I think the number of units for this area isn’t bad. What makes it bad is that the entire projects has the density of something you would find in the suburbs.

    There is something called floor to lot ration (FLR) or floor to area ratio (FAR). In an urban area like this most planners would recommend an FLR of between 2 and 3. So with 1,780,000 sf of area you should be creating between 3,500,000 and 5,350,000 square feet of buildable space depending on the specific needs. What’s being proposed is less than 1,500,000 square feet. This is severely less dense then what is needed. They’re not proposing to build the 1,350 units on a portion of the land leaving the rest to be developed later. They’re planning to build these units covering the whole 41 acres. If you want to make it more dense later you’ll have to come back, demolish and rebuild.

    Again look to the west of High st. These area provide great homes in more of a suburban feel. But this area will never be a true walkable neighborhood, because you’d have to walk to far to get to enough daily needs. You can’t go back in and build anything without ripping out the homes that are already there.

    Then as the area gets more and more desirable, the land is going to be worth considerably more. So with only a house on the land the only people who are going to be able to afford it is going to narrow (think upper arlington).

    So let me be clear. I think if they go through with this plan I think it will be a great area. I just think by building less dense you’re going to limit the walkablity of the area and create an area that will eventually very expensive.

    #522242
    Lu
    Lu
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    I just think by building less dense you’re going to limit the walkablity of the area and create an area that will eventually very expensive.

    I don’t understand what this means.

    #522243

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Lu said:
    I don’t understand what this means.

    If you build less dense then you have to fit less things within that space. So then these other uses have to be farther away thereby decreasing walkability. So as I mention look to the neighborhoods west of High st. These areas really aren’t that walkable. Sure you can walk 15 to 20 minutes to High st. but that’s at the upper level of what people are willing to walk. What’s more the entire 15 minute walk was spent walking past houses. In a traditional walkable neighborhood you would be able to get to multiple uses within that same 15 minutes.

    So as a result who moves into the neighborhood? Well if I were moving into Jeffrey place as planned I know I would be driving to work, driving to the grocery store, driving to Easton to shop, but I’ll have a shorter commute to most places and be able to walk to High st. occasionally. So me and my wife move in with our 2 cars. So basically it’s a suburb that’s closer.

    Now let’s look at the cost factor. A huge part in determining the price of anything is the cost of land. It’s why single family homes are in the suburbs and skyscrapers are downtown. Let’s say the price for just land is $30 per square foot. So if you wanted to put a regular single family home on a single 5000 sf lot you would be looking at $150,000 in just land costs. So if it’s $150,000 to build the house you’re looking at $300,000. So maybe you put a duplex on the lot and now you’re looking at maybe $200,000 to build the structure for a total of $350,000 for two houses or $175,000 each with is clearly more affordable.

    So the more uses you put on the land you gain value because that land cost is distributed among the multiple uses.

    The whole area is up and coming and growing. As it gets more and more popular the land value is going to increase. Let’s say the land value goes from $30 to $50. Now in an urban dense area it isn’t going to affect the cost of the existing product that much because that $20 per sf increase is going to be split over multiple uses. But if you have a townhome on a 3,000 sf lot that’s going to be an increase of $60,000.

    So the $20 per square foot increase in land cost is going to be sustainable on High st. because that increase is split between the retail on the ground floor and the residential units above. But the less dense areas off High st. are going to go up fast. And you cant just say well quick building out because the more you build out the farther you get away from high st. which is the selling point.

    Spreading the uses into the fabric of the community is the most affordable and sustainable way to build the community.

    #522244

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Here is a chart showing the average property values in Columbus and Italian Village:

    Notice the how the gap between the average of Columbus and the average of Italian Village is widening. That’s the gentrification happening over the last decade as is going to continue to happening. So while people will continue to say that Columbus is affordable it going to be because places like this in urban areas are going up and places in the suburban areas are flat or declining. When I left Columbus 5 years ago I was paying $750 for a 1/1 in what was considered a very nice apartment complex. Now if I wanted to come back and live in these up and coming urban areas I would be looking at $1100 1/1.

    So I know many people will say there’s Weinland park and a host of other areas. And thats great and what will happen. But then in time those areas will get gentrified as well. So you’ll continue to push reasonable prices homes further and further out. It’s just not conducive for long lasting communities.

    #522245

    Analogue Kid
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    So I know many people will say there’s Weinland park and a host of other areas. And thats great and what will happen. But then in time those areas will get gentrified as well. So you’ll continue to push reasonable prices homes further and further out. It’s just not conducive for long lasting communities.

    You’re suggesting that a high priced area isn’t a long lasting community? Or you just don’t like gentrificaiton? I’m not really sure what you’re saying here other than you like mixed use (which is fine).

    #522246
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    My problem with Jeffrey park is that I don’t think it’s dense enough giving the location of the site.

    Perhaps the problem lies with how boundaries and definitions are placed then. In general, I agree with the urban-rural chart you linked to, though there’s no specific definitions as to when boundaries are crossed between the different types of zones, and I imagine it varies greatly from city to city:

    Some cities have multiple T5 zones that aren’t adjacent. Some have larger T6s than others. Twin cities have multiple T6s. There’s no universal set of rules to plan by.

    Downtown Columbus is in a peculiar situation because we generally define its boundaries by man-made dividers (highway overpasses and trenches) rather than natural or historic built environemtn dividers. Our Central Business District (T6) is a much smaller section of Downtown as a whole, loosely defined by a several-block radius from Broad & High. The Arena District by our own definition is a part of the Downtown boundary and we consider it a sub-neighborhood, but it’s naturally more of a T5 zone adjacent to Downtown. Riversouth might be considered similar. The Discovery District could be considered similar. There are parts of Downtown that are even T4, such as Franklin Avenue, which has more in common with German Village or Victorian Village:

    http://goo.gl/maps/YOd55

    It doesn’t look at all like the rest of Downtown, but because of the highway, we call it Downtown.

    So what I’m getting at is that while the Jeffrey Park site is adjacent to our man-made boundary (I-670) of Downtown, it’s not technically adjacent to the Central Business District (T6). If Jeffrey Park is more of a T4 zone, then that works because the “Warehouse District” (if anyone still calls it that) in between the CBD and Italian Village is the T5.

    And while I agree with you (and others here) that walkability is key with any new development, I’m surprised no one has bothered to bring up WalkScore’s take on this site:

    http://www.walkscore.com/score/n-6th-st-and-neruda-ave-columbus-oh-43215

    72 is a decent score, and I imagine it will be improved over the next decade, as Jeffrey Park is likely to take 10 years to build out fully and I’d put money on some new neighborhood-centric retail popping up along Fourth and Summit in the meantime.

    #522247

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Walker,

    You have to think of this in the context of planning. The different transects represent building guidelines for the intended residential density and the context of the area. So for example let’s say an area has the residential density of 15 units per acre and the area is growing. You expect the area to eventually achieve a residential density of 40 units per acre in let’s say 20 years.

    Now it would make much sense to build out the area at a rate of 20 units per acre and then 10 years later comeback and start to tear things down and in order to build at 40 units per acre.

    And also keep in mind these different transect have to take the context of the area into consideration. So for example you can build at 35 units per acre in the urban areas and also in the suburbs. But 35 residential units per acre in the urban areas is a lot more dense because in general the jobs need to be closer together so you have to make room for other uses.

    So I’m talking about the long term infrastructure of the neighborhood. Many people are saying we can build here, add retail here and they are correct. That is what will happen. But developers don’t sit down and think about what’s in the best long term interest of a neighborhood.

    So planners sit back and study history, other cities, etc. and come to the conclusion that in order to have a residential density of 40 units per acre and enough retail, commercial and office space to adequately fit the needs of those residents then we need a certain amount of buidable area.

    Now what developers are going to do without the right guidelines is build as much residential as cheaply and profitable as possible right now because it’s in demand. Then the retail will be in demand and they’ll begin to build that. Then all of as sudden we’ll need more space to for office, but we used up the land without looking ahead. So they go out a little bit further and build an office complex to capture the land. So now instead of having space within the community you now have to drive instead of walk to you local dentist.

    #522248

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    OK so here is a great example of how developers in general don’t look ahead and why you need solid planning to develop an area to the best potential.

    Many people here have been saying we can always build retail along 4th st. Now let’s go look at some of the recent developments along that street. When I look 4th between Neruda and Auden I see the newer developments on both sides of the street.

    Now the project on the east side at least has residential units facing the street but the project on the west side has visible parking along the ground floor. In most newer zoning codes this isn’t allowed because people don’t want to walk up and down a street past parking garages.

    But none the less when they built these developments that had no ideal that 4th st would ever really need retail. They were just simply fulfilling the need for residential in the area. So now all of a sudden Jeffrey park is announced and having retail up and down 4th makes sense.

    But you can’t go back and put retail along the street where these projects are so the retail has to go further north. Had the zoning code been similar to what it is here the developer of the project on the west side would have simply build a couple retail bay’s on the ground floor and left them empty or better yet rented them at a low rate encouraging newer business to come to the area.

    #522249
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    You have to think of this in the context of planning.

    While, I’m not a planner, I do understand the need for proper planning.

    That being said, no plan is foolproof. Eventually you have find some sort of middle ground between what is ideal and what is achievable. And you have to take a gamble based on what you think the future might hold and where trends are headed and take a shot in the dark.

    InnerCore said:
    Now what developers are going to do without the right guidelines is build as much residential as cheaply and profitable as possible right now because it’s in demand. Then the retail will be in demand and they’ll begin to build that. Then all of as sudden we’ll need more space to for office, but we used up the land without looking ahead. So they go out a little bit further and build an office complex to capture the land. So now instead of having space within the community you now have to drive instead of walk to you local dentist.

    I understand the situation you’ve described, and I can tell you that it doesn’t apply at all to the situation that we’re discussing here.

    If Jeffrey Park is built out entirely residential and a demand for office space spikes, there’s plenty of room to grow inward into vacant or underutilized space in Downtown before needing to go further out (beyond 270?). Even if new office space were built further out from Jeffrey Place (Weinland Park? Milo-Grogan?) it would still be urban infill and not sprawl.

    And again, planning is great, but sometimes you have to think about this in the context of actually living in a place on a day to day basis and not from the 40,000 foot view that city planning consultants often take. My dentist is in German Village, near where I used to live. I kept using the same dentist even though I moved into a different neighborhood. When I go in for dentist appointments twice a year I either ride the bus or drive my car. And it’s not a big deal because it’s twice a year and only two miles away from home. If my dentist were located on my street, I wouldn’t visit them anymore often than I do now.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 91 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?