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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Grandview Yard Giant Eagle

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Grandview Yard Giant Eagle

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 778 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #496531

    gramarye
    Participant

    local champion said:
    I think I have heard Walker say this many times, but it is not about Suburban vs. Urban, and having everyone live in an Urban environment, but it is about options. Right now the options for urban living, playing, etc. are much more limited in Columbus than the Suburban ones. As a person who really can’t stand the suburbs I of course would love to see Columbus as a city become more urban with some of its developments.

    This is a much better argument.

    The issue is that the economics of the project clearly didn’t support an urban design for all that space. (Remember that human-scale, urban development actually takes up fairly little space, which is one of its attractions in genuinely land-strapped urban cores.) What NRI would probably have need to do would be to parcel off a small piece of the land to build a more compact, urban design (Phase I) and convert the rest of the land into something like a park, which could then later be converted into additional developed urban space. That’s assuming that Phase I performed well and that there really was further demand for filling in the rest of that land in a similar style.

    #496532

    columbusmike
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Do you ever talk to suburbanites about their senses of place and community, about the places they go that they feel have meaning and importance? Do you really think that our senses of place and community are so inextricably bound up in our shopping centers, of all places? (There may be some truth to that, I admit, but I don’t consider it a particularly flattering comment on our civilization.) Not everyone shares your preferences. I think you’ll find that many suburbanites’ senses of place and community are far more entwined with their churches, their children’s schools, the local ballpark, or even their gym than their local shopping center. Now, you might say that’s because their shopping centers lack character, but I don’t necessarily think that you’d change that even if every suburban shopping center was reconfigured along lines that you personally consider more aesthetically pleasant.

    I think I understand what you’re saying. My argument is that there is a certain aesthetic that makes up what we know as “urban Columbus”, and there is a certain aesthetic that makes up what we know as “suburban Columbus”. My beef is that I don’t think either aesthetic necessarily belongs in the other place.

    If we continue to allow suburban style development to happen in the more urban areas of Columbus, then the urban portion of Columbus has lost its identity. I’d still argue there are many more reasons than just aesthetics; however, suburban style development belongs in the suburbs, and urban style development belongs closer to downtown.

    #496533

    gramarye
    Participant

    jpizzow said:
    The developers are getting away with it because they can: lack of form based code, replacement of blighted properties, lack of planning knowledge from local officials, etc.

    I imagine that if you talked to many local officials, you’ll find that many of them have more “planning knowledge” than you think. They may just simply appreciate that you cannot plan everything. Reality is not a Sim City game.

    #496534

    gramarye
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    I think I understand what you’re saying. My argument is that there is a certain aesthetic that makes up what we know as “urban Columbus”, and there is a certain aesthetic that makes up what we know as “suburban Columbus”. My beef is that I don’t think either aesthetic necessarily belongs in the other place.

    If we continue to allow suburban style development to happen in the more urban areas of Columbus, then the urban portion of Columbus has lost its identity. I’d still argue there are many more reasons than just aesthetics; however, suburban style development belongs in the suburbs, and urban style development belongs closer to downtown.

    I have a problem with the entire concept of using the word “allow” in this context; it vastly overstates the power of government to play backseat driver to developers who need to put many, many millions of their own dollars on the line to develop an area of that size and complexity. I would have loved to see GY be another Arena District, replete with midrise residential, office, and entertainment options, with some retail added on as well. In fact, given the success of the Arena District (even in spite of the struggles of the arena itself), I had hopes that that was exactly what NRI had in mind, since nothing sparks imitation like success. However, if NRI thinks that the market isn’t there for more development of that nature, I’m going to respect their judgment more than the judgment of would-be bureaucratic backseat drivers. NRI should not have to risk potentially catastrophic economic losses just to satisfy the aesthetic and quasi-spiritual desires of those with no tangible–I repeat, tangible–skin in the game.

    #496535

    Graybeak
    Participant

    On an entirely off topic and wholly personal post.
    Nice avatar gramarye.

    #496536

    gramarye
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    Nice avatar gramarye.

    Hah! I was going to say the same to you. (Except that in CU terms, I think I’m the greybeard … er, beak … sad to say.)

    #496537

    Mercurius
    Participant

    I’ll vote with my dollars. I shop a bit at GE on Neil because it is the closest grocery to me. However, the W.P. Kroger and North Market are also both walkable for me. However, walkability and good urban aesthetics are secondary when choosing where I will grocery shop. The most important factor for me is what’s in stock in the market. More regrettable for me than the aesthetics, is this isn’t going to be a GE Marketplace. I actually frequent the Kingsdale G.E.–because it has great selection.

    Luckily there is a new Hills Market being built downtown that seems like is going to have great selection and aesthetics. In truth, I’ve not been impressed with anything at the Grandview Yard development thus far. This ugly piece of crap seems to fit in fine with the rest of the development and my dollars will go elsewhere–which is fine by me.

    #496538

    columbusmike
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    I have a problem with the entire concept of using the word “allow” in this context; it vastly overstates the power of government to play backseat driver to developers who need to put many, many millions of their own dollars on the line to develop an area of that size and complexity. I would have loved to see GY be another Arena District, replete with midrise residential, office, and entertainment options, with some retail added on as well. In fact, given the success of the Arena District (even in spite of the struggles of the arena itself), I had hopes that that was exactly what NRI had in mind, since nothing sparks imitation like success. However, if NRI thinks that the market isn’t there for more development of that nature, I’m going to respect their judgment more than the judgment of would-be bureaucratic backseat drivers. NRI should not have to risk potentially catastrophic economic losses just to satisfy the aesthetic and quasi-spiritual desires of those with no tangible–I repeat, tangible–skin in the game.

    See, I disagree. I understand it might cost NRI additional dollars to make a more traditional development (zero setbacks, additional windows, better building form, etc). It very well could kill the project. However, I think we should be much more concerned with how the development/buildings enhance the community (by creating good aesthetics, walkability, windows to enforce safety, providing flexibility, etc) over the long term, rather than the 10-year profit of a developer. What happens 20 years from now when the developers’ tenants abandon the development? The city is stuck with structures that are geared towards one very specific use, and very well could go abandoned. There are a lot of issues we can’t put dollar amounts on — and I argue that there is the long-term risk to the community by allowing any development for the sake of growth.

    #496539
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    See, I disagree. I understand it might cost NRI additional dollars to make a more traditional development (zero setbacks, additional windows, better building form, etc). It very well could kill the project. However, I think we should be much more concerned with how the development/buildings enhance the community (by creating good aesthetics, walkability, windows to enforce safety, providing flexibility, etc) over the long term, rather than the 10-year profit of a developer. What happens 20 years from now when the developers’ tenants abandon the development? The city is stuck with structures that are geared towards one very specific use, and very well could go abandoned. There are a lot of issues we can’t put dollar amounts on — and I argue that there is the long-term risk to the community by allowing any development for the sake of growth.

    If the additional requirements kill the project, how does the lack of development impact aesthetics, walkability, etc.?

    #496540

    gramarye
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    See, I disagree. I understand it might cost NRI additional dollars to make a more traditional development (zero setbacks, additional windows, better building form, etc). It very well could kill the project. However, I think we should be much more concerned with how the development/buildings enhance the community (by creating good aesthetics, walkability, windows to enforce safety, providing flexibility, etc) over the long term, rather than the 10-year profit of a developer. What happens 20 years from now when the developers’ tenants abandon the development? The city is stuck with structures that are geared towards one very specific use, and very well could go abandoned. There are a lot of issues we can’t put dollar amounts on — and I argue that there is the long-term risk to the community by allowing any development for the sake of growth.

    Then we deal with the problem 20 years from now, when the city will hopefully be richer (having enjoyed the economic benefits of having that land in productive use for 20 years, after all) and when the economics of a more dense development on the site might be more favorable. In fact, based on the site plans posted earlier in this thread, the greater barrier to redevelopment of that site into something more like the Arena District won’t be the grocery store, but the gas station. (Redeveloping old gas stations poses health and environmental challenges that a grocery store does not.)

    In truth, though, your greater worry seems to be not that the project will fail in 20 years, but that it will still be successful in 20 years. After all, if it fails, you can knock it down and start over; as many have noted on this thread, most modern construction is not designed with the expected lifespan of the Sistine Chapel. If eager shoppers are still getting their groceries there in 2032, though, you’ll be stuck with that living, vital, vibrant, ongoing repudiation of your argument that only development that conforms to your aesthetics belongs close to Downtown.

    #496541

    columbusmike
    Participant

    rus said:
    If the additional requirements kill the project, how does the lack of development impact aesthetics, walkability, etc.?

    I understand, but with that approach you always get something that cheapens the community, and degrades it a little each time. I argue that if you maintain a character/enhance the character of a community, those places become more desirable, and more enticing to developers. Just because there are more strict requirements, doesn’t mean the site won’t get developed. Easton actually has some of the most stringent design guidelines in the region. However, this has been a pretty successful spot. Strict requirements can be for the better.

    #496542

    columbusmike
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    If eager shoppers are still getting their groceries there in 2032, though, you’ll be stuck with that living, vital, vibrant, ongoing repudiation of your argument that only development that conforms to your aesthetics belongs close to Downtown.

    It’s not my aesthetic. It’s the aesthetic of the neighborhood that has been built over 100+ years.

    Example: You wouldn’t want your neighbor to paint their house bright pink. Why? It doesn’t look very good, right? It’s new and shiny pink, it might look good on your wifes fingernails, but it just doesn’t fit against the backdrop of your house and your neighbors. Heck, it might even bring your property value down. What if they got a really good deal on the pink paint? Does that make the paint look any better? No, it’s still pink while the rest of your neighborhood is beige, green, and different shades of red brick. The same with the grocery store. It’s new and shiny, but it doesn’t fit with the surrounding community aesthetic that has been there for a really long time, which also has a lot of embodied investment, probably several hundred times more than the proposed development.

    #496543
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    I argue that if you maintain a character/enhance the character of a community, those places become more desirable, and more enticing to developers.

    Only if that character is appealing to enough people to make it profitable, though.

    If there’s not enough support for a mandated “character” in a particular area, then no developers would be interested. They’re not charities, after all.

    #496544

    columbusmike
    Participant

    rus said:
    Only if that character is appealing to enough people to make it profitable, though.

    If there’s not enough support for a mandated “character” in a particular area, then no developers would be interested. They’re not charities, after all.

    I agree. And as it stands in most of Columbus, there are no zoning regulations that enforce best practices in building form and design. Therefore, how does the developer know their neighbor isn’t going to put up a shack while they go through the pains to make their development “fit the neighborhood”? They don’t and I don’t blame them for doing what they do. That’s why the city needs to update their zoning code so there is a common goal and an guarantee that everyone will be required to uphold some set minimum design requirements for betterment of the community.

    #496545
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    columbusmike said:
    That’s why the city needs to update their zoning code so there is a common goal and an guarantee that everyone will be required to uphold some set minimum design requirements for betterment of the community.

    Right there you lost me.

    How is enforcing an arbitrary standard improving anything? What, some self selected group that knows better for everyone just needs it’s will enacted into zoning regs?

    It’s not like people like the zoning in some areas now. Thinking of gay street and some of the conflicts there.

Viewing 15 posts - 466 through 480 (of 778 total)

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

The Urban Living Tour returns (with strict safety guidelines) on Aug 30!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS