Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

The Scioto Greenways Riverfront Redevelopment

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development The Scioto Greenways Riverfront Redevelopment

This topic contains 294 replies, has 88 voices, and was last updated by MichaelC MichaelC 2 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 295 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #362199

    From the picture it appears as though they extended, built onto the promenade.

    #362200
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    alexs wrote >>
    Well, you only have a certain amount of flow, so there’s a tradeoff – if you want it to look big, then it will also be slow and mucky and stagnant, as it is now. If you can get over size issues, you can have a fresher and more variable stream.

    +1

    I’d rather have a smaller, cleaner, usable river rather than the big, dirty, unusable river we have right now.

    It’s not about the size… it’s how you use it. ;)

    #362201

    And so it begins…

    http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/17/copy/cost-fuels-skepticism-about-dam-removal.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

    “Our conservative estimate today is that it would cost at least $60 million,” said George Zonders, spokesman for the Columbus Department of Public Utilities.

    The city already is spending $2.5 billion over 40 years to end sewage spills into the rivers under orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Now, gravity moves sewage through the pipes in the dams. Adding pump stations, which would be necessary if the pipes were run under the river, Zonders said, also would add potential sites for spills.

    “It would be difficult to justify the work,” Zonders said.

    #362202
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    dsigner wrote >>
    I think some commercial use along the riverspace would be nice and draw more people but I’m not looking for a San Antonio type experience. I think a handful of restaurants / bars would be good.

    Yes. I think the new restaurant at Bicentennial Park will be a great addition, and would hope that if a Hotel is built at Vet’s Memorial it would include river-facing restaurant & cafe space.

    #362203
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Displaced Columbusite wrote >>
    I am curious how the Scioto Mile works into this plan; would it then need to be moved closer to the riverfront, no longer used, or embedded with the new plan?

    It sounds like you’re just adding extra greenspace. I’m sure it could be done in a way that would compliment the Scioto Mile.

    #362204
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Core_Models wrote >>
    And so it begins…

    Meh. $60M is nothing. Federal grants could help fund it as well as Public/Private Partnerships (AEP kicked in $10M for the Scioto Mile).

    The project could also be done in installations to spread the spending over multiple years. It was mentioned at the meeting that the Main Street Dam carries no utilities inside it, so its removal would be cheaper than some of the others that do.

    #362205

    You say 60M is nothing, and yet I can already hear the callers on 610.

    #362206

    Bear
    Participant

    Core_Models wrote >>
    You say 60M is nothing, and yet I can already hear the callers on 610.

    Hmm. Maybe the best solution would be to start by buying 610.

    #362207

    Bear wrote >>

    Core_Models wrote >>
    You say 60M is nothing, and yet I can already hear the callers on 610.

    Hmm. Maybe the best solution would be to start by buying 610.

    heh…you aren’t all wrong Bear. At the end of the day, that listening audience is extremely good at representing the people you have to ultimately convince that something like this is a sound investment. If you don’t convince them, it becomes politically inconvenient…and then it becomes a distant memory of an idea. Convincing that group of people that 60 million dollars to tear stuff down so that you can have more grass downtown isn’t an easy sell.

    #362208

    Walker wrote >>

    Displaced Columbusite wrote >>
    I am curious how the Scioto Mile works into this plan; would it then need to be moved closer to the riverfront, no longer used, or embedded with the new plan?

    It sounds like you’re just adding extra greenspace. I’m sure it could be done in a way that would compliment the Scioto Mile.

    Agreed, I am just curious if it was brought up or taken into account. The money that the city spent on it and then talking about completely re-doing the idea is worrisome, so just wondering if it was part of the discussion, you being at the meeting know far more than I.

    #362209

    Bear
    Participant

    Core_Models wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    Core_Models wrote >>
    You say 60M is nothing, and yet I can already hear the callers on 610.

    Hmm. Maybe the best solution would be to start by buying 610.

    heh…you aren’t all wrong Bear. At the end of the day, that listening audience is extremely good at representing the people you have to ultimately convince that something like this is a sound investment.

    Yup. There’s a reason that people who initiate coups often start with the radio stations…. ;-)

    #362210
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Displaced Columbusite wrote >>
    Agreed, I am just curious if it was brought up or taken into account. The money that the city spent on it and then talking about completely re-doing the idea is worrisome, so just wondering if it was part of the discussion, you being at the meeting know far more than I.

    There wasn’t really a “discussion” during the presentation portion of the meeting. Each idea was presented back-to-back for 5-10 minutes and then attendees dispersed to walk the room from station to station to talk with folks one-on-one and leave feedback.

    The ongoing conversation is what is taking place right now and feedback is being requested here:

    http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/plan/greenway-corridor

    #362211

    futureman
    Participant

    Walker wrote >>

    anillo wrote >>
    so will the eventually redo the bridges too?

    I don’t think they’d have to. The lower levels could have walking and biking paths that go under the bridges where they cross land.

    alexs wrote >>
    I’ve heard that because Greenlawn Dam has a sewer line in it, it would be cost-prohibitive to remove it and re-route the sewer.

    It wasn’t mentioned as one of the Dams to remove. The Main Street Dam was the southernmost one.

    Actually, according to the dispatch the Greenlawn damn is to be removed as well –

    Cost fuels skepticism about dam removal
    At best, Olentangy, Scioto work would be $60 million, city says

    Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:51 AM
    By Doug Caruso and Spencer Hunt
    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
    ERIC ALBRECHT | DISPATCH

    It’s a big idea with a big price tag: Remove dams along the Olentangy and Scioto rivers and gain acres of Downtown parkland.

    Columbus utilities officials say it would cost at least $60million to remove just five of the seven low-head dams that consultants for the Columbus Downtown Development Corp. say stand in the way of a safe, natural river where people would want to paddle canoes and kayaks.

    Engineers told the city in 2005 that removing each dam, burying the sewer lines that the dams carry over the river, and adding pump stations would bring the total cost to at least $44 million.

    “Our conservative estimate today is that it would cost at least $60 million,” said George Zonders, spokesman for the Columbus Department of Public Utilities.

    The city already is spending $2.5 billion over 40 years to end sewage spills into the rivers under orders from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Now, gravity moves sewage through the pipes in the dams. Adding pump stations, which would be necessary if the pipes were run under the river, Zonders said, also would add potential sites for spills.

    READ MORE

    #362212

    futureman
    Participant

    Anyone know which low level dams have sewer lines running through them? I recall the one at 5th ave doesn’t, but that’s about it.

    #362213
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Some extra information about possible costs of the project…

    From Here: https://www.columbusunderground.com/planning-downtown-with-msi-design-part-3

    Andrew Overbeck: What a lot of people may not realize is that we as a city are already spending $2.5 billion in our “Wet Weather Management Program” which is solving the combined sewer overflow problem… or at least minimizing it significantly. So we’re spending that money to bury those pipes underground to arguably make our river cleaner, but it’s still not usable. The dams will still block the ability to canoe or kayak on it for any real distance. If the dam removal program ends up being $60 million or whatever the Dispatch said it would cost, in the context of $2.5 billion, that’s not a big stretch to make the river navigable. That’s around 2 percent.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 295 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: