RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The Dispatch wrote
River park might expand
Saturday, November 22, 2008
By Mark Ferenchik
The new Scioto Audubon Metro Park on the Whittier Peninsula might attract more than birds and their binocular-toting followers. It also might draw wall climbers, ice skaters and dog owners.
Metro Parks is considering expanding the 84-acre park hugging the Scioto River just south of Downtown by an additional 40 acres. Parks officials are considering whether to build a climbing wall, a skate park, a disc golf course, a dog park and other attractions — perhaps even a sledding hill.
The expansion, in addition to expenses already budgeted for the park, would cost $20 million, making the total cost $30 million. Metro Parks Executive Director John O’Meara said that’s why the parks board might ask voters to pass a 10-year, 0.75-mill levy in May.
Besides expanding the Scioto park, the financially strapped city of Columbus has asked that Metro Parks pick up some of the city’s expenses for the new park. That might force Metro Parks to scale back the size of its planned parks near New Albany, Groveport and along the Scioto River in southern Franklin County.
Comments
- cheap: i highly recommend the Millersport sweet corn festival of course,the cor
- Jimmy Mak: Thanks for the write-up! Just to clarify - this is the third year we've do
- Briana Henry: Well, eventually they plan to add more bands from the region...gotta start
- bucki12: I like the business model, but the internet sales part seems like something
- racheltb: I don't see the Ohio Shrimp Fest on the list. It is truly a good time. h
Top Stories
- Grandview Yard Seeks Retail Anchors for Next Phase of Development33
- Studio 35 Re-Opening is a Revelation17
- Attn: Columbus Creatives!14
- Philanthropy Friday: Bicentennial Towers 14
- More Downtown Public Artwork Coming to Scioto Mile11
- Liberty Place Adding Over 200 New Apartment Units to The Brewery District11
- Columbus Ranks #22 on List of Best Large Cities for Jobs in 201210
- The Short North's Summer of Construction10
- The Hudson Street Market Renovates, Faces Construction Woes10
- Wonder Bread Lofts will be Home to Mixed-Use Redevelopment10
Scioto Audubon Metro Park might expand
By: Walker
Related Posts:
This expansion is partly due to the lack of interest in creating a mixed-use development on the site. Plans to build a golf course and housing both fell through.
I have a question Metro parks is not run by the city right? I mean what input does that city have on this do they give money? or Land? I am asking because I don’t know and would like to.
Birds come to this section of green space because it sits directly along two major migratory corridors between Central America and Canada. It’s basically a one-stop convenience store: water, shelter, wetlands, plenty of insects and berries.
Light and noise pollution are bigger concerns than a disc-golf course, and the biggest threat to wildlife is the proliferation of honeysuckle and, to a lesser extent, garlic mustard.
That said, we should always push for responsible use of green space.
Like I said, I wasn’t complaining about birds not being able to roost in the disc golf course. I just think wilderness area is preferable to a disc golf course in this instance. Whether that helps birds or not.
One of the only negatives about living near downtown Columbus is that wilderness is hard to get to. Some cities, like Portland, have done a great job of creating/maintaining pristine wilderness close to downtown. Columbus has a big opportunity- and it’s the only opportunity landwise, really, to create that, and I’m disappointed the plans for this park are so developed. Just my two cents.
The problem with creating a mixed use development wasn’t a lack of interest but because the site is essentially unbuildable.
The problem with creating a mixed use development wasn’t a lack of interest but because the site is essentially unbuildable.
Yes, there was a lack of interest in building on a former brownfield. Still, lack of interest.
The problem with creating a mixed use development wasn’t a lack of interest but because the site is essentially unbuildable.
Yes, there was a lack of interest in building on a former brownfield. Still, lack of interest.
the whole “sitting on a flood plain” thing didn’t help much either.
The problem with creating a mixed use development wasn’t a lack of interest but because the site is essentially unbuildable.
Yes, there was a lack of interest in building on a former brownfield. Still, lack of interest.
the whole “sitting on a flood plain” thing didn’t help much either.
No kidding. In the list of problems with that site, contamination was near the bottom.
What’s so hard about driving 20 minutes in almost any direction?
What’s so hard about driving 20 minutes in almost any direction?
I agree. My main argument in support of Columbus is that I can get from the Statehouse to my favorite fishing spot in 20 minutes.
What’s so hard about driving 20 minutes in almost any direction?
It’s not hard, it’s just inconvenient. I’d love to see it closer to home. I don’t normally drive 20 minutes out of my way to take a walk in the wilderness. But I would walk with the dog 20 minutes.
What other parcel of land close to downtown (or within 270 for that matter) could be this type of natural greenspace? This is the one chance we have – I just don’t want to see it turn into a “development.” Sometimes undeveloped land is just as attractive as developed land. Cleveland has the Cuyahoga Valley National Park basically jutting into it. What do we have? Lots of nice developed parks, but nothing like that to compare. Plenty of Columbus is already zoned for people. Is it so hard to leave a portion for nature?
First of all, near the bottom of what?
About 75 percent of the peninsula is in the Scioto’s 100-year flood plain, and it would cost $10 million (just in dirt) to fill in the land to a safe building height. Revitalizing a brownfield of any size over there also costs several million dollars.
Yes, there are many reasons for a lack of interest.
I’m over on the peninsula about four or five times a month, and I don’t see an opportunity for creating a pristine wilderness environment on top of what’s now the impound lot and a collection of city buildings.
The best use of the land is to remove as much of the infrastructure there now and expand the wetland and prairie expanses already taking shape near the Audubon building. Those are the wildlife habitats in greatest need in Ohio, and the Whittier land is never going to become a national forest.
First of all, near the bottom of what?
Near the bottom of the list of problems with the site. See above sentence.
What I’m saying is that even if the contamination was not an issue, the place still wouldn’t be feasible. You technically could build on that site but it would be so expensive that it’s not worth it. Like you mentioned, you would have to build quite a bit of fill to get out of the flood plain. Which only makes one of the other problems worse – the peninsula is already a lot of fill. There are places on the peninsula where you would have to go very deep to get solid bearing for a foundation. So deep that it’s not worth it.
I think you are (intentionally or unintentionally) playing a game of semantics here that I’m not really interested in playing. There were a couple of national developers interested in developing Whittier Peninsula despite the contamination and the flood plain issues. After finding out about the foundation issues, they were no longer interested. So I guess you could say that there was a lack of interest from that point on but initially there were interested parties.
You are incorrect. Message boards are for messages. That’s what I posted.
Yeah, I mentioned the plans that fell through. See previous posts.
You guys agree with each other, right? Otherwise my comprehension skills are completely shot.
I’d just like to throw my two cents in here and say that you’re both wrong and I totally agree with both of you.
You’re very snarky today. I’m liking it.
Pretty much, thats why I stopped. I think I was playing a semantics game too.
I agree with the cost associated with brownfield redevelopment, or deep pile foundation construction, which mixed use would probably need. In terms of fill, what about the bazillions of cubic feet of fill that can likely be gotten from the 70/71 split project? We are putting a pretty deep trench in portions of that project; where will that fill go?
I had heard there was once an artist’s proposal for the Whiiter Peninsula to build an artificial mountain on the peninsula by getting everyone in the metropolitan area to donate a cubic yard of fill from their individual backyards. Might make for a serious sledding hill…..
What’s so hard about driving 20 minutes in almost any direction?
WHAT!? You have to drive to West Virginia or Idaho to find wilderness.
20 minutes outside of town is a cornfield, and those are no more wilderness than a skyscraper or a guitar amp.
I have only been to a few wildernesses in my life. Guatemala jungle, Idaho mountain forest, Sonoran Desert and Nuevo Leon desert, and Chiapas jungle. This park will not likely render any wilderness for 1000′s of years.
It looks like a sweet civic amusement park. I think they should tear out 70/71 there and connect that to the Scioto Mile project.