Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

Easton Gateway

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Easton Gateway

This topic contains 245 replies, has 59 voices, and was last updated by  pez 1 month, 1 week ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 246 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #513038

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    somebuckeye said:
    Columbus is full of empty shopping centers. Town and Country opened in 1956 on E broad st. Much of it is empty now, with thousands of cars driving past daily. The Casino district features a depressing expanse of football stadium sized parking lots amid deteriorating stores. Over Christmas the wife and I wanted to go to Big Lots, so we traveled to the Berwick Plaza shopping center and were thoroughly depressed. It’s all sprawl and it’s all terrible.

    Does it ever get redeveloped? I’m thinking of the Morse rd corridor. The city (public) put some buildings where the old Northland mall was demolished. Menards built a store there. I wouldn’t call Morse rd a success story though, it’s still a terrible, unpleasant stretch of road. The bright spot there is that immigrants have been able to open up some nice groceries and restaurants in buildings that white people have abandoned.

    In the short term it makes some people money. In the long term it says we don’t really care about our city.

    It’s kind of ironic because the strip center was basically born in Columbus, and now so many of them are dead. There is just no legitimate reason to build more of them. The people arguing that this is better than an empty field and that it will eventually be densified in 20 years should take a look at Great Southern, Great Western, etc. Those places are 60 years old and show no signs of being redeveloped. And there are tons of more recent examples.

    #513039
    stephentszuter
    stephentszuter
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    We all want the same thing, like I said before, but it’s not going to start with a single development.

    You have to encourage legislation to promote the vertical growth of development, increasing density.

    Columbus offers cheap land with opportunities for developers to make a quick buck. This is capitalism.

    They’re going to jump on the opportunity.

    That’s all I’m saying here. Where supply exists and demand exists, action will be taken, and if we don’t have the Portland-like (or Manhattan-like, for that matter) legislation to encourage the sorts of developments WE ALL WANT, they’re not going to provide the developments we want.

    All I see here is “Let’s build high density in a sprawling area (an area that no one can access without a car or bus)!”

    It just doesn’t add up. Easton is in suburbia http://goo.gl/maps/1bhKg

    #513040

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:
    This has been part of my argument about what is going wrong. I have been looking at it from more of a macro perspective. And I know people get tired of me and others harping on rail, but its a big issue.

    Columbus being a secondary market only has small local developers. Without the financial backing you get projects like this that will make a profit in the short term but wont be sustainable in the long term. Its like the poor family that relies on fast food because its cheap and easy.

    National investors right now are going into cities with solid public transit and investing in dense mixed use developments near the transit stops. These areas garner higher rates. It’s why SN is doing so good.

    So imagine a rail line to Easton or Polaris. You would have national developers coming in building/redeveloping these areas into more dense mixed use walkable neighborhoods. Then you would have stops all along the line that where investment is targeted as well.

    Without this fundamental change the local developers are going to continue down the same road. Easton is a destination where 100% of the people get there by car. So why not pave acres of asphalt, throw up single story buildings at minimal cost and capitalize on the high retail rates. It’s not like people are fighting to live out there.

    SN is doing great but you cant expect it to carry the entire city on its shoulders.

    While I agree that this project is terrible from a design perspective, I disagree that this has wider implications about Columbus. There is this exact type of design in every city in America, and they’re still getting built everywhere, though maybe a bit less than before. Significantly larger metros than Columbus, like Atlanta, Houston, etc have seemingly half of their landscape as this type of development, and yet I bet they also have a significant number of national developers.

    #513041

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    jbcmh81 said:
    While I agree that this project is terrible from a design perspective, I disagree that this has wider implications about Columbus. There is this exact type of design in every city in America, and they’re still getting built everywhere, though maybe a bit less than before. Significantly larger metros than Columbus, like Atlanta, Houston, etc have seemingly half of their landscape as this type of development, and yet I bet they also have a significant number of national developers.

    You’re so quick to defend that you’re not listening to the argument.

    1) There is this exact type of design across America because this is the dominant building style over the last 50 years. However within the last 10 – 15 years we’ve realized this isn’t the best way to build nor what people currently want. So we are no longer building this way across America, except for a few places that are behind the curve like here.

    2)It’s not necessarily the size. Sure Atlanta is almost three times the size, but it also has rail. But look at Charlotte, it’s smaller than Columbus and has almost triple the amount of proposed residential developments. And the vast majority of them are clustered around rail. And their development are much more dense. It makes more sense to build densely around rail lines and that’s what developers are doing.

    Here is the a report on the emerging trends in real estate for 2013. It puts the national view in perspective;

    Emmerging Trends 2013

    Here is the section on adapting the suburbs;

    Adapting the ’Burbs
    The world “rethinks the suburbs” in the wake of population gains in the major gateway markets and growth in urbanizing suburban nodes at the expense of fringe areas. “It’s a secular trend driven by where many young people want to live,” and it
    will have a “very material impact on how real estate is used.” Some “biotech and pharmaceutical companies break up their suburban campuses and move back into cities because they can’t convince PhDs to go to the suburbs.”

    Despite “suburban office: who wants it!” scorn, “everyone isn’t going back to the cities,” and aside from the prominent 24-hour meccas, many long-forlorn downtowns continue to struggle. The majority of Americans, meanwhile, still live outside
    urban cores or in suburban agglomerations. But developers and investors need to realize future success may rest in identifying prime locations suitable for densification in suburbs and linking into transit-oriented hubs as more communities seek car alternatives to relieve traffic congestion “and avoid choking to death.”
    [b]“Anything near suburban rail is gold. We’re seeing superior rent growth compared to buildings away from light rail; it’s no longer hypothetical.”[/b]

    [b]Separating land uses from each other—housing, retail strips, office campuses and regional malls—loses traction to more compact development with mixed-use, urban concepts.[/b] Many suburban parcels stand ready for makeovers—whether a ghost
    mall, an empty formerly grocery-anchored neighborhood center, or that nearly vacant office park or low-density business park.

    Under any circumstances, investors wisely bet on infill, especially around the 24-hour cities where most of the nation’s economic activity concentrates. The housing crisis pushes more families into apartments from houses, spurring suburban multifamily projects. Real rental growth and population gains occur “on a more broad-based level” in the major metropolitan areas and urbanizing suburbs embedded around them. The localized exceptions occur where urban gentrification effectively transfers endemic poverty into inner-ring suburbs.

    Here is from the section best bets for 2013:

    Concentrate acquisitions on budding infill locations. Top 24-hour urban markets outperform the average, bolstered by move-back-in trends and gen-Y appeal. But the top core districts in these cities have become too pricey. “Find buildings where tenants want to be,” typically in districts where hip residential neighborhoods meet commercial areas and “not necessarily the top, most expensive buildings.” [b]“You can’t get enough of anything near mass transit stations,” especially apartments.[/b]

    [b]Use caution investing in secondary and tertiary cities.[/b] Focus on income-generating properties, and partner with local operators who understand tenant trends and can leverage their relationships. If you feel uneasy about overpaying, listen to your gut and back off. Markets grounded in energy and high-tech industries show the most near-term promise (but can be volatile), while places anchored by major education and medical institutions should perform better over time. Leading secondary markets include Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, and San Jose.

    #513042
    zp945
    zp945
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    You are preaching to the choir. I want a train, Walker wants a train, I bet the vast majority of posters on this site see rail as something that would benefit Columbus. I bet if you put half the energy you put in to converting the believers, you might be able to help push that agenda forward.

    I really like a lot of the contributions you add to posts. You clearly know what you are talking about and have data to back it up. Sadly, I don’t have the money to build commuter rail.

    #513043
    zp945
    zp945
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    As a business owner that would happily open a new location in Gahanna/Easton area, I would much prefer a mixed use design. The lack of residents is the exact reason we don’t have a location there already.

    #513044

    MFRONE
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Thing is, the main tenants (Costco, Whole Foods) in this area don’t need residents around to have success and they are what is driving this project. People will travel to shop here and both will be very successful.

    #513045
    zp945
    zp945
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I get that and I would love to be near both for that reason, they draw people to the area. But having people living nearby and traveling in to the area is ideal for MY business. Which is why I do well in the Short North and in the only power center in between Clintonville and Worthington. This could quite simply be designed better. I’m sure Whole Foods and Costco will be successful there but why are these “conscious” capitalists choosing to profit in such an unsustainable way? I bet Costco and Whole Foods could flex some muscle and get the developers to build something much better.

    #513046

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    InnerCore said:

    You’re so quick to defend that you’re not listening to the argument.

    1) There is this exact type of design across America because this is the dominant building style over the last 50 years. However within the last 10 – 15 years we’ve realized this isn’t the best way to build nor what people currently want. So we are no longer building this way across America, except for a few places that are behind the curve like here.

    Who is the “we” in this? Urban lovers, definitely. And certainly the market for this type of development is not as strong as it used to be, but you’re still dealing with developers who care about the bottom line far more than building better neighborhoods, and given the state of much larger cities, I have significant doubt that national developers would necessarily build differently. As usual, you just want this situation to fit into your mantro that Columbus is behind everywhere else. We were on the same page until this. It’s a bad design, but I’m pretty sure bad design is not Columbus specific, and I’m very certain that there’s not a city in America, even now, that’s not building something similar.

    2)It’s not necessarily the size. Sure Atlanta is almost three times the size, but it also has rail. But look at Charlotte, it’s smaller than Columbus and has almost triple the amount of proposed residential developments. And the vast majority of them are clustered around rail. And their development are much more dense. It makes more sense to build densely around rail lines and that’s what developers are doing.

    And Atlanta also has several times the area size in suburban sprawl filled with strip centers. How is this possible if it has rail? And Charlotte is actually one of the top sprawl cities in the nation. Columbus doesn’t hold a candle to it in that regard. It’s really the last city you should ever want Columbus to be like if you like urbanity. Its rail does not suddenly make it an urban, dense city. Your rail-solves-all platform is kind of silly. I support rail as much as the next urban person, but rail would not reverse 50 years of development trends, nor would it magically make all developers design better buildings.

    Here is the a report on the emerging trends in real estate for 2013. It puts the national view in perspective;

    [url=http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Emerging-Trends-in-Real-Estate-US-2013.pdf]Emmerging Trends 2013[/url]

    Here is the section on adapting the suburbs;

    [quote]Adapting the ’Burbs
    The world “rethinks the suburbs” in the wake of population gains in the major gateway markets and growth in urbanizing suburban nodes at the expense of fringe areas. “It’s a secular trend driven by where many young people want to live,” and it
    will have a “very material impact on how real estate is used.” Some “biotech and pharmaceutical companies break up their suburban campuses and move back into cities because they can’t convince PhDs to go to the suburbs.”

    Despite “suburban office: who wants it!” scorn, “everyone isn’t going back to the cities,” and aside from the prominent 24-hour meccas, many long-forlorn downtowns continue to struggle. The majority of Americans, meanwhile, still live outside
    urban cores or in suburban agglomerations. But developers and investors need to realize future success may rest in identifying prime locations suitable for densification in suburbs and linking into transit-oriented hubs as more communities seek car alternatives to relieve traffic congestion “and avoid choking to death.”
    [b]“Anything near suburban rail is gold. We’re seeing superior rent growth compared to buildings away from light rail; it’s no longer hypothetical.”[/b]

    [b]Separating land uses from each other—housing, retail strips, office campuses and regional malls—loses traction to more compact development with mixed-use, urban concepts.[/b] Many suburban parcels stand ready for makeovers—whether a ghost
    mall, an empty formerly grocery-anchored neighborhood center, or that nearly vacant office park or low-density business park.

    Under any circumstances, investors wisely bet on infill, especially around the 24-hour cities where most of the nation’s economic activity concentrates. The housing crisis pushes more families into apartments from houses, spurring suburban multifamily projects. Real rental growth and population gains occur “on a more broad-based level” in the major metropolitan areas and urbanizing suburbs embedded around them. The localized exceptions occur where urban gentrification effectively transfers endemic poverty into inner-ring suburbs.

    Here is from the section best bets for 2013:

    Concentrate acquisitions on budding infill locations. Top 24-hour urban markets outperform the average, bolstered by move-back-in trends and gen-Y appeal. But the top core districts in these cities have become too pricey. “Find buildings where tenants want to be,” typically in districts where hip residential neighborhoods meet commercial areas and “not necessarily the top, most expensive buildings.” [b]“You can’t get enough of anything near mass transit stations,” especially apartments.[/b]

    [b]Use caution investing in secondary and tertiary cities.[/b] Focus on income-generating properties, and partner with local operators who understand tenant trends and can leverage their relationships. If you feel uneasy about overpaying, listen to your gut and back off. Markets grounded in energy and high-tech industries show the most near-term promise (but can be volatile), while places anchored by major education and medical institutions should perform better over time. Leading secondary markets include Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, and San Jose.

    [/quote]

    I’m not sure why you copied and pasted all of that. It’s not a secret as to what the trends are. This forum regularly discusses them, and there’s a reason most people have already stated that this design doesn’t work in that regard. But to suggest that every project is going to follow these trends is ridiculous. During the suburban flight, did that mean that there weren’t any developers building density in the urban core? Of course not, so why expect there not to be developers building suburban, low-density development now that trends favor urbanity?

    #513047

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    zp945 said:
    I get that and I would love to be near both for that reason, they draw people to the area. But having people living nearby and traveling in to the area is ideal for MY business. Which is why I do well in the Short North and in the only power center in between Clintonville and Worthington. This could quite simply be designed better. I’m sure Whole Foods and Costco will be successful there but why are these “conscious” capitalists choosing to profit in such an unsustainable way? I bet Costco and Whole Foods could flex some muscle and get the developers to build something much better.

    Neither Whole Foods nor Costco are in the business of building density for cities. They’re there to put out a product and run a business, and this big box platform has served them well. There is little to no incentive for them to spend more money on better design when it won’t ultimately benefit their bottom line.

    #513048
    zp945
    zp945
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    jbcmh81 said:
    Neither Whole Foods nor Costco are in the business of building density for cities. They’re there to put out a product and run a business, and this big box platform has served them well. There is little to no incentive for them to spend more money on better design when it won’t ultimately benefit their bottom line.

    “We believe that business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence, and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity. Free-enterprise capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress ever conceived. It is one of the most compelling ideas we humans have ever had. But we can aspire to something even greater.” —From the Conscious Capitalism Credo

    In this book, Whole Foods Market cofounder John Mackey and professor and Conscious Capitalism, Inc. cofounder Raj Sisodia argue for the inherent good of both business and capitalism. Featuring some of today’s best-known companies, they illustrate how these two forces can—and do—work most powerfully to create value for all stakeholders: including customers, employees, suppliers, investors, society, and the environment.

    These “Conscious Capitalism” companies include Whole Foods Market, Southwest Airlines, Costco, Google, Patagonia, The Container Store, UPS, and dozens of others. We know them; we buy their products or use their services. Now it’s time to better understand how these organizations use four specific tenets—higher purpose, stakeholder integration, conscious leadership, and conscious culture and management—to build strong businesses and help advance capitalism further toward realizing its highest potential.

    As leaders of the Conscious Capitalism movement, Mackey and Sisodia argue that aspiring leaders and business builders need to continue on this path of transformation—for the good of both business and society as a whole.

    At once a bold defense and reimagining of capitalism and a blueprint for a new system for doing business grounded in a more evolved ethic.

    From here http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Capitalism-Liberating-Heroic-Business/dp/1422144208

    It seems a guy on a book tour promoting ideas such as these could put his money where his mouth is and push for the very ideas he stands to profit from. No? He also uses Costco as a major example of another company (outside of Whole Foods) doing the same thing.

    #513049

    InnerCore
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    jbcmh81 said:
    I’m not sure why you copied and pasted all of that. It’s not a secret as to what the trends are. This forum regularly discusses them, and there’s a reason most people have already stated that this design doesn’t work in that regard. But to suggest that every project is going to follow these trends is ridiculous. During the suburban flight, did that mean that there weren’t any developers building density in the urban core? Of course not, so why expect there not to be developers building suburban, low-density development now that trends favor urbanity?

    I posted it because its a national report from a highly reputable source that highlights my points of what national investors and developers are doing.

    Does every project need to follow these trends, of course not. But the problem is here don’t have ANY projects following these trends in the suburbs. You seem to keep associating high density with urban and low density with suburbs. Whereas in other places they are building more dense and mixed use in the suburbs. Name one place where we are doing that here.

    The only thing I have seen are the plans for Dublin. And from the way it sounds you’ve already got a builder ready to begin and ignore those plans.

    Let’s face it, Easton is the most popular suburban destination in all of Columbus. If we can’t get local developers to bring mixed use, more dense, walkable neighrborhoods to Easton then its pretty much not going to happy to any of our suburbs any time soon.

    Here is what they have been building over the last few years in a suburb of Charlotte:

    Here’s a shot down the street:

    Were talking about outside of the city, suburban development. And that has been there for years. This is the type of design that should’ve been at Easton. Water under the bridge, OK. But you’d think they’d at least recognize the mistakes going forward.

    Meanwhile here they’re talking about outlet malls and this horrible project.

    #513050

    MFRONE
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The project only seems horrible to a dozen people posting here. I can bet there are thousands of people thrilled with any shopping area that brings another Costco and Whole Foods to Columbus.

    #513051

    myliftkk
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    To be fair, they built one of those years ago in Orlando[/url] before the real estate crash and it failed generally as a concept. It’s the faux town concept, and while certainly better looking than the mall fortress concept, I’m not sure it’s proven its staying power long term.

    Before we go all ga ga over Charlotte. There’s also an ever expanding boatload of cookie cutter suburban development around Charlotte too. I’ve family on Lake Norman and the drive out to them is about as straight up suburbia as it gets nowadays. I don’t doubt there’s better infill going up in Charlotte somewheres, but to say that it somehow dwarfs the standard suburban growth pattern there might be a bit much.

    #513052

    MFRONE
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Also, that Charlotte project as posted lacks the amount of parking needed for Costco and Whole Foods and with the space they have here in Columbus I just don’t see how something like that would be possible to have a mixed use center.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 246 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?