RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
This massive 7.5 acre parking lot sits on prime real estate between the Convention Center and Ross Labs. This oblong parcel only has one entrance on Nationwide Blvd due to elevated roads along 3rd and 4th streets at it’s east and west borders. To the north, it’s blocked off by Railroad tracks, and beyond that a tangle of highway ramps for 670 and 71.
What makes this lot look so out of place is the mid-rise hotels next door, the massive convention center, and it’s proximity to both the Arena District and downtown office buildings.
With a footprint this large, a multi-story parking deck could be constructed on a portion of the land to keep the same number or parking spots available (or possibly add more) while also constructing a fairly large office tower, residential building, more hotel space, or possibly some combination of the three.
If you were in charge, what would you like to see in this spot instead of a flat parking lot?
Thought I posted, but anyway…yeah this is a difficult lot and an example of the fact that the caps won’t fix everything wrong with our haphazard urban fabric. The southern part is the only part that could be used for some mixed us development while the north is just cut off from the city. This northern part of downtown all the way east to CSCC is barren. One thing that could be used in the norther part is a new, high-tech parking garage like this one in Germany:![]()
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8814.0;attach=1648;image
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=8814.0
It takes up a lot less space than conventional parking garages and holds more cars. It would fit in with the whacky convention center. This “Wasted Space” series could, unfortunately, see many more entries.
it’s already been establsihed that if columbus wants to host the truly big conventions like the DNC or RNC, it needs one more large, 4-star hotel near the convention center. so toss in a hilton, sheraton, perhaps a moncaco or what have you with some restaurant space and parking attached. in a dream world, it would be nice if they could mirror architecture similar to the Smith Bros building.
now what really irks me is the flat lot on Goodale that runs alongside 670. with all the issues surrounding parking for the Short North and the cap, why in the world is that a flat lot? That should have at least two extra levels on it.
Ditto….perfect spot for a hotel.
Unless the 3rd and 4th street bridges connecting Italian Village to Downtown were made more pedestrian friendly and the second story to be built above the parking lot level became the street-level grade for those roads. Then mixed use could be worked into those side streets as well. It could be comparable to the High Street “bridge” over the railroad tracks by the convention center. Even some of the buildings were adapted to the new street level grade (like the Char Bar). It would pose a more complex problem with third & fourth though since both contain ramps on and off the highway as well.
I dunno… are we really hurting for parking space that bad? It seems like it would cost more money to build and maintain than it would be worth compared to a traditional garage. If it’s not even viable for parking companies to turn their flat lots into standard garages, I think it’s asking a bit much to turn their flat lots into futurama robo-garages. :lol: It definitely looks cool though and hopefully we’ll see other solutions like that when the time is right.
Oh, definitely. We have a lot of unused land downtown and in the immediate area surrounding downtown, and while it’s mentioned pretty frequently, it’s pretty rare when individual spots are discussed and ideas are tossed around. I thought this would be a fun way to get people talking and thinking and perhaps get some of our decision-making lurkers reading the input that everyone is willing to share. ;)
I agree with dru and Brewmaster. I think another large high-end high-capacity hotel would be perfect in this spot. Plenty of room for parking, retail, restaurant, additional conference rooms, and everything else. It was the reason we missed out on the 2008 Republican National Convention Bid and no matter what your politics are, that would be a lot of money and attention dumped into the local economy for us. This was a pretty highly publicized event too, so when you consider that other larger conventions may be passing us by more privately I think it could beneficial for more than just what makes it into the papers.
Hrmmm… I don’t know if that parcel was large enough to build a garage on. It’s not really a “parking lot”, but just diagonal street parking because they had 5 extra feet and diagonal parking means more cars that can fit instead of standard parallel parking.
Or there could be problems with the proximity to the highway to support that heavy of a structure (yes the caps are heavy too, so I’m not 100% sure on that one) or even the Victorian Village commitees could have frowned upon a garage. I really don’t know if it was on the table or if it could even have been possible.
I think the Short North still has quite a few spots for smaller parking garages or underground parking. But the real thing that’s going to help out with that situation is going to be improved mass transit. Let people park downtown where garages are aplenty and ride 5 minutes up to the Short North on a streetcar instead. But anyway, that’s a whole other can of worms.
A light rail hub on the north side of the lot would be nice. It could merge a North/South route with the I-670 route to the Airport and Easton.
I’ve thought about something like that too, but I think it could be more centrally located in the block along Nationwide between High & Front. The rail line is already there and down below street level. A station could be built above with a parking deck and retail facing all three streets. :D
I agree with dru and Brewmaster. I think another large high-end high-capacity hotel would be perfect in this spot. Plenty of room for parking, retail, restaurant, additional conference rooms, and everything else. It was the reason we missed out on the 2008 Republican National Convention Bid and no matter what your politics are, that would be a lot of money and attention dumped into the local economy for us. This was a pretty highly publicized event too, so when you consider that other larger conventions may be passing us by more privately I think it could beneficial for more than just what makes it into the papers.
Hrmmm… I don’t know if that parcel was large enough to build a garage on. It’s not really a “parking lot”, but just diagonal street parking because they had 5 extra feet and diagonal parking means more cars that can fit instead of standard parallel parking.
Or there could be problems with the proximity to the highway to support that heavy of a structure (yes the caps are heavy too, so I’m not 100% sure on that one) or even the Victorian Village commitees could have frowned upon a garage. I really don’t know if it was on the table or if it could even have been possible.
.
I think we’re referencing different flat lots, which is easy because there are so many. I’m thinking of the convention center lot that runs behind Lu Pon Xi over to the 3rd/4th street exit. At the back end it’s 6 rows deep, and although I lack a degree in architecture, engineering or anything even closely relevant, it seems deep enough for some sort of structure.
Oh… yeah, I was thinking of the wrong spot. If that case, I totally agree with you. A parking deck should go there if it could hold one. I was a little worried about you at first when I thought you were suggesting a parking deck next to Goodale Park! :lol:
Oh… yeah, I was thinking of the wrong spot. If that case, I totally agree with you. A parking deck should go there if it could hold one. I was a little worried about you at first when I thought you were suggesting a parking deck next to Goodale Park! :lol:
no, but I’ve sometimes wondered if they could bury parking under the park? put the entrance down on the corner with the underused softball field where there are no tree root systems to disturb. probably too expensive to dig in under there, but it has always intrigued me.
I remember reading an article on http://www.planetizen.com several months ago (I wish I still had the link) that described a very counter-intuitive aspect of urban planning relative to parking. The article explained that the data seems to indicate that cities that are the most vibrant also tend to be those that simply do not have much parking downtown, either surface lots or parking structures.
The reason that they gave was that when cities have lots of places to park cars, whether they be surface lots or elaborate parking decks, people tend to want to use their cars to move around the city. Pededtrian traffic remains relatively low, street-level retail suffers, and overall urban vibrancy remains low.
Cities like San Francisco, on the other hand, have a much lower density of parking structures, and practically no surface lots, yet sidewalk traffic and urban vibrancy is very high. The article cited the example of a new arts center that was built in SF recently with absolutely no regard for parking of any kind. The result is a ton of activity on the street just outside. They contrasted this with a new center in Downtown LA that was surrounded with parking decks. The result is that there is no street activity outide this center because everyone comes out of the building and runs right to their car.
I think it is definitely something to think about as we consider how to best develop the acres and acres of open land in Downtown Columbus.
Assume that we were to develop every single acre of surface parking lot in Downtown Columbus with all sorts of really cool, mixed-use developments, and then sprikle the whole thing with parking decks tucked into all of the nooks and crannies all over the city. Is is possible that plentiful parking might result in continued minimal pedestrian traffic and urban vibrancy???
The bottom line is that this article seemed to suggest that the most vibrant cities are those that have very little parking. Obviously these cities also have excellent public transportation between the city and the outlying areas which Columbus doesn’t have, which raises additional challenges for us.
Even so, is it possible to have too many parking decks??
Those are some really good points about the parking decks. I think oversaturation of anything is going to be a bad thing, so I’m not suggesting every flat lot should become a parking deck, but I don’t think ignoring them completely is the way to go. In the example with the SF art center, I’m sure many people use mass transit to get there, but anyone wanting to drive will just use parking where they can find it nearby. All it does it increase the distance the people are walking from their car to the art center. While it adds bustle to the streetspace, it doesn’t garuntee that people are actually doing additional shopping, dining, etc, but I’d say it does give a great chance of that occuring.
For building a hotel on this site mentioned in this thread, I’d say a parking deck would not be a detractor for conventioneers and people staying at a hotel there. Really I do think downtown has too much parking already (which puzzles me when people complain about it being difficult to park downtown) so I’m all about building new structures with less parking in mind. I’d also like to see many of our streets narrowed or converted back to two-way streets as they’ve already started to do with State Street and as planned for Gay St. The slowing down on the traffic flow makes things more pedestrian friendly and more convenient to park once and walk than drive everywhere.
I think the major factor to consider is what the parking decks are used for and how close amenities are to where people live or work or visit. A parking deck for a hotel or office is much different than an open public parking deck. And if someone lives in a downtown condo and has amenities within a reasonable walking distance I think they’d be more inclined to hit the street than drive just because of the abundance of parking decks.
If it’s more convenient to walk, then people will walk. But yeah, I think it’s a tough thing to balance properly. Good stuff to keep in mind. Thanks for sharing! 8)
One thing that could change the landscape of parking lots is a change to the way we tax property. Our current system taxes based on the value of the “improvements”, or basically, what is sitting on the land. In other words, if you’ve got a 50 story skyscraper taking up one block, and a surface parking lot on the adjacent block, the skyscraper pays millions in taxes, while the surface lot pays pennies in comparison.
If we change this to a system that taxes based on the value of the land, surface parking lots would be totally unprofitable for owners to sit on. They’d have to develop parking garages, or sell the land to a developer to build on. To complete the example above, the skyscraper’s taxes will be reduced, while the surface lot’s taxes will increase by an equal amount (tax revenue neutral).
The objection I’d raise to another hotel in this location is that there are already some there and a bunch of the same thing does not make a good interesting street. I’d think it’d better that a future hotel be integrated into the cityscape, unless anyone has some examples of a vibrant hotel-only street .
If we change this to a system that taxes based on the value of the land, surface parking lots would be totally unprofitable for owners to sit on. They’d have to develop parking garages, or sell the land to a developer to build on. To complete the example above, the skyscraper’s taxes will be reduced, while the surface lot’s taxes will increase by an equal amount (tax revenue neutral).
Surely the city knows this, so if that’s the case why would they be deterred from pursuing it?
I have to admit that I’m a skeptic about the hotel idea, particularly if you’re thinking of trying to bring a four-star marquee name in there. I’ve walked around that area, and it just doesn’t feel right for a four-star hotel, even with the convention center right there. You do also have Ross and CSCC and a bunch of older buildings to the south that definitely do not lend themselves to the ambience four-star hotels want to see before they take such an enormous financial plunge. I would think that several other buildings to the south and east would have to get substantial and successful facelifts before a hotel there would become viable. Even then, having an industrial plant–a very obviously industrial plant–right there is not exactly thematic.
Walking around this area, it’s odd just how much it feels cut off from the rest of the area, somehow, despite the fact that it’s so close to the convention center and the Arena District. (The same is even more true on the other side of Ross, along Neilston St.) Because of this, I actually kind of think light industrial would be viable in the area, possibly more so than commercial or residential. After all, there are certain things that communities do need, but need them to be a little bit cut off, too. This area might well be good for that kind of thing.
If the Convention Center area is going to get another hotel, it’s probably going to have to come in west of High.
I know they do…I sent the mayor’s office an email last year with links to other cities that are doing the same thing.
If you want to learn more about it…google “land value taxation”.
Here’s an article that does a decent job of explaining both sides of the argument… http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000099.html
And here’s the Wiki link…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
If you want to learn more about it…google “land value taxation”.
Here’s an article that does a decent job of explaining both sides of the argument… http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000099.html
And here’s the Wiki link…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Nice. Thanks for the read. I was just about to ask you if this was something that other cities have done. :)
Brewmaster: I am also an enthusiastic support of LVT, but the proposal is even more complicated than you’re suggesting. The problem is that switching to a system like that now would catch owners and developers in a whipsaw, with the tax pushing them one way (build more) and our current regulatory environment pushing them the other (build less); that’s the net effect of all our height restrictions, environmental-impact mandates, conservation mandates, and so on. In addition, there needs to remain some parking, but because parking lots are not exactly revenue streams, everyone would be wanting someone else to provide the parking, and no one would do it themselves. (In other words, we might well swing too far in the other direction.)
In practical terms, the city might well have to provide parking garages with public funds. In addition, it would be much more economically viable if developers were actually free to go in the direction this tax would push them, but the vast majority of the city of Columbus … in fact, pretty much everywhere save for the very core of Downtown … has regulations in place designed not to spur development, but to preserve the status quo.
I think most of the parking we keep should be patches in the outer-lying areas of downtown. Maybe they could draw up boundaries that could accomplish this.
Columbus Museum of Modern Art :D
or contemporary