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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 342 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1087385

    Smifth27
    Participant

    Very well said.. I am originally from Cincinnati. I really like Columbus, but its seems that Columbus always wants to do small projects. The city is happy with six floor buildings in the heart of downtown. Cincinnati has built a massive skyscraper and a light rail in the last ten years. The yare proposing a 20 to 30 story apartment building downtown. We get excited when someone builds a 12 story building. We should expect more if we want to be a major city.

    #1087387

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Let’s be honest, parking is not the real issue here. There are enough spaces Downtown. The real issue is that there is a small-town attitude about urban living. People want to live in the urban area, but they want it to be like an exurb where they still get free parking and can drive everywhere. And to top it off, we have no significant developers who are forward-thinking… and why should they be when city leadership and the general population considers parking to be the #1 priority to consider with every single development? For Edwards to state parking as the reason they can’t go higher is just so backwards and so ridiculous. Clearly they don’t get it, and neither does the Downtown Commission. As much as I like Columbus, the Clintonville-style aversion to true urbanity is widespread and pervasive. As long as that is true, the city will continue to go without other forms of mass transit and will continue to build underwhelming, disappointing projects like this and HighPoint.

    I love a lot of the development downtown but at some point we have to consider if it’s diverse enough. There are lots of lower-income residents, especially YPs, who would probably be willing to living downtown while not owning a car. Or who’d be much more open to public transit. Or who would own a car but would choose to give up their downtown parking spot so they can walk every day to work. It seems like every time we hear about a new development it’s targeting a really high price range.

    #1087388

    sruckus
    Participant

    Personally, I dislike stuffing parking under/inside a new building. Expensive to build and really hard to remove if/when we do get mass transit. I much prefer freestanding parking garages. So much easier to replace in the future.

    Really? I find it really an efficient use of space. Hidden from view and allowing density, but still providing the necessary parking. I also like the behind building approach and stuff too. I like the entire Hub development in the Short North.

    I want better transit options (and we can start at least by getting COTA out of the 90’s and supporting reloadable cards for multiple trips…even better using our phones and scanning QR or NFC codes, credit card support, live tracking, etc.), but I’m not sure cbus will ever become somewhere not majority car dependent so I think there can be better compromises made while still becoming more urban. Parking garages, especially underground seem like a good one.

    #1087390
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    The real issue is that there is a small-town attitude about urban living.

    I disagree.

    I think the issue is that the developer wants to be safe with their investment. They know that more people would prefer to have attached parking than not. Likely, this extends back to the funders of the project as well. They want to know that they’re making a safe/solid investment. When you start adding unknowns and risks (will there be enough residents without cars to rent apartments? who knows?) then the likelihood of getting funding drops.

    If Edwards built something with no parking (or less parking) with an assumption that they have enough buyers, and then it turns out that they can’t rent the units to enough residents, then they’re kind of screwed. Building a parking garage inside/underneath your building isn’t something you can add retroactively.

    Perhaps a different developer with a different financier might be more willing to take a risk and build something with no parking. But that’s just a theoretical scenario right now.

    I stand by my earlier opinion that the only real solution to any of this is for the city to invest in rail transit. Instead of dropping $30 million here or $50 million there on big parking garages in a whack-a-mole style as development opportunities arise, we need to just invest $100-250 million toward a long-term solution with rail transit.

    #1087399
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    As far as increased downtown density goes in relation to parking, retail and transit, we need to stop focusing on “luxury” apts only and start providing more “affordable”(or whatever you want to call it) housing. I’m talking $750-$900 one bedroom apts, not $1,000 – $1,200 apts – homes that are marketed to those not making $50,000 a year. There are ways to keep costs down – lower the quality a bit, stick builds (in locations that warrant stick builds), lower parking minimums, more efficient one-stop-shop permitting processes, city incentives, etc. At that lower price point, the largest segment of the market – those who really, reeeeally want to live downtown – can be satisfied. We are talking thousands of potential residents here folks! It’s a part of the market I’m surprised developers haven’t tried harder to focus on. They would have no problem whatsoever renting these units. 10,000 and even 15,000 downtown residents would come and go pretty quickly and then we wouldn’t be having this conversation about the need for so much residential parking space.

    #1087400
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    The argument for mass transit now writes itself.

    Just need the right people to champion it.

    #1087403
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    The argument for mass transit now writes itself.

    +1

    #1087405

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    The real issue is that there is a small-town attitude about urban living.

    I disagree.

    I think the issue is that the developer wants to be safe with their investment. They know that more people would prefer to have attached parking than not. Likely, this extends back to the funders of the project as well. They want to know that they’re making a safe/solid investment. When you start adding unknowns and risks (will there be enough residents without cars to rent apartments? who knows?) then the likelihood of getting funding drops.

    If Edwards built something with no parking (or less parking) with an assumption that they have enough buyers, and then it turns out that they can’t rent the units to enough residents, then they’re kind of screwed. Building a parking garage inside/underneath your building isn’t something you can add retroactively.

    Perhaps a different developer with a different financier might be more willing to take a risk and build something with no parking. But that’s just a theoretical scenario right now.

    I stand by my earlier opinion that the only real solution to any of this is for the city to invest in rail transit. Instead of dropping $30 million here or $50 million there on big parking garages in a whack-a-mole style as development opportunities arise, we need to just invest $100-250 million toward a long-term solution with rail transit.

    But there IS parking, plenty of it, in the area. What we’re really talking about is dedicated parking for every single project and every single resident within the same block, and if we’re talking about an urban area, that’s simply not sustainable. We don’t expect every resident or visitor in the Short North to have that amenity, yet we do Downtown with its 40,000 spaces? I don’t get it. People apparently can’t walk, can’t bike, can’t use the CBUS or car-share in Downtown, and for an urban area, that is a huge disconnect from what an urban neighborhood is. The city is growing by 12,000 people a year, and may even grow faster in upcoming years. I just don’t buy that there is not a market for a project with lower parking minimums (or none at all). Whether or not developers have the stomach to build such projects, to me, is the question, not demand.

    But yes, obviously transit would go a long way to help solve the skittishness of local developers and residents, but I see nothing on the horizon on that front.

    #1087408
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    But there IS parking, plenty of it, in the area. What we’re really talking about is dedicated parking for every single project and every single resident within the same block…

    Correct. But there’s a difference between a developer selling an apartment/condo with dedicated, attached parking, and selling an apartment/condo with “I dunno… there’s some spots within walking distance that you may or may not be able to rent on a month-to-month basis”.

    …and if we’re talking about an urban area, that’s simply not sustainable.

    Agreed.

    Whether or not developers have the stomach to build such projects, to me, is the question, not demand.

    It’s not just the stomach… it’s the financing. Few (if any) developments are funded out-of-pocket by a development company. They’re funded by a loan from a bank. And banks don’t take risks. If a developer wants to build a risky project, it’s less likely to be funded. And the sad unfortunate truth is that building housing without parking is perceived as a risk. Especially in a market where that model is practically unproven.

    I’m not saying I agree that these challenges can’t be overcome somehow or that there’s not a demand for housing without parking… but I do understand the challenges from a development perspective.

    #1087416

    WJT
    Participant

    As much as I know it would have huge opposition, I think that the city should ‘come up with something’ to help out to increase the parking. The site is just too good to not have greater density. Right on the spine of the city in a great spot downtown-almost equidistant to the Nationwide fortress…er…complex, AEP, The offices around the Statehouse, the Government cluster a short ride down High..the location seems so good.

    And there are so many good things about the development like the generous retail spaces that, along with what is happening across the street, could help pull what has happened along Gay street further west and around High.

    There is a greater downtown transportation need, but aside from that, nearly all other sites downtown would be fine with this development as it is, on it’s own with the parking built in and the planned density. It is a good project and would be fine as it is, almost anywhere else downtown.

    I think there are a few key sites especially along and within a block or two of High that really should be given extra consideration for financial support from the city because the increased density they would bring is in line with longtime city objectives(Mile on High, High Five, almost any transit/streetcar route) that it would be worth the expense.

    Almost every other city the size of Columbus has large projects moving forward, many with city help (One Light in Kansas City comes to mind). Cities much smaller than Cbus have larger, and more importantly, denser projects moving forward, completed, planned, under construction-why not Columbus?

    The One Light building in Kansas city (25 floors) had a 10 percent subsidy for both the building and parking (ten percent of total cost..it is a success and they are moving forward with another 25 story building, again with a subsidy for both the building and the parking).
    http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article22457766.html
    For a few key spots downtown along/adjacent to High, this kind of thing would be worth it. Adding a % of workforce housing would also help sell the subsidies, I would think.

    How are these other cities doing it? That is what Cbus officials and developers should be asking themselves.

    * I am not calling for ‘free city parking’ all over…most developments(this one included as is) are taking care of the parking themselves. I am talking about a few key sites. The greater problem of downtown parking will take a different solution(obviously involving public transit options).

    #1087418

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    But there IS parking, plenty of it, in the area. What we’re really talking about is dedicated parking for every single project and every single resident within the same block…

    Correct. But there’s a difference between a developer selling an apartment/condo with dedicated, attached parking, and selling an apartment/condo with “I dunno… there’s some spots within walking distance that you may or may not be able to rent on a month-to-month basis”.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    …and if we’re talking about an urban area, that’s simply not sustainable.

    Agreed.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Whether or not developers have the stomach to build such projects, to me, is the question, not demand.

    It’s not just the stomach… it’s the financing. Few (if any) developments are funded out-of-pocket by a development company. They’re funded by a loan from a bank. And banks don’t take risks. If a developer wants to build a risky project, it’s less likely to be funded. And the sad unfortunate truth is that building housing without parking is perceived as a risk. Especially in a market where that model is practically unproven.

    I’m not saying I agree that these challenges can’t be overcome somehow or that there’s not a demand for housing without parking… but I do understand the challenges from a development perspective.

    I still think it comes back to the culture. Do Cleveland/Cincinnati really have more urban demand then Columbus when one is barely growing and one continues to lose people, yet both are able to get much larger projects financed and built? And didn’t Cincinnati remove its parking minimums? There just seems to be a vastly different culture where many people have yet to really see Columbus as a big city and therefore continue to hold onto the “good enough for Columbus” philosophy on urban living and planning. I suppose it’ll get there eventually, but there’s going to be a lot of instances of wasted opportunity in the meantime that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to fix for many, many years to come.

    #1087420

    rory
    Participant

    Cincinnati reduced its parking minimums in the center city. The parking code in Columbus is killing us.

    I think it’s cultural in Cincinnati and Cleveland in that they have a different way of center city development. Their developers and banks are comfortable with reduced parking, historic redevelopment and just density in general. It freaks Columbus out. I just hope that the powers that be in Columbus be get a clue sooner than later. Columbus made the right bet with annexation in the 1950s but now it’s time for the city to bet again on a broad trend. I think we’re missing the boat or we’ve missed it already without having light rail to support a dense central city.

    #1087423

    WJT
    Participant

    I agree with Jbcmh81 and rory. ‘Good enough for Columbus’. ‘It would never work here’. ‘We have never done that before’. ‘But it is such a risk!. The list could go on and on.

    And we are so far behind already when it comes to the parking issue, and public transportation in general, compared to other cities our size or even smaller. :(

    I almost wish Cbus really did have a ‘good ole boys’ network of corrupt politicians(well we do have that) and big business leaders/developers where things were done in backrooms or at the country club with a wink and a handshake-at least things would get done instead of just study after study and much handwringing(and excuse making ala this project), but no action taken!

    #1087427
    Stephen43215
    Stephen43215
    Participant

    I find it very disturbing that a city with almost 900,000 people doesn’t have any means of major public transportation other than a bus system. We could talk about how Columbus needs mass transit all day but what needs to be done is COTA and the city need to come up with a plan to get the ball rolling! If we know streetcar/light rail is going to happen at some point down the road why settle for development that is low rise (adding under 200 new apartments) in the heart of the city just to fill an empty lot?

    #1087428

    Nancy H
    Participant

    We need to just start pushing for a 0.25 percent sales tax increase for the Columbus Metro area to fund light rail.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 342 total)

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

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION