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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Jeffrey Park - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Jeffrey Park – News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 226 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #522220

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    @Inner Core, you’re basically asking for an open air shopping mall.

    A real city does not have wall-to-wall retail on every street, it just doesn’t (nor should it). Look basically anywhere. Different types of streets have different characters, that it what makes for a successful urban environment. Variety.

    A one-sized-fits-all approach of complete adaptability of space to any use is also architecturally a very poor way to plan space. The British ‘High Street’ mode of city planning, which most of traditional American development patterns have been based on, works very well for creating dynamic and interesting urban environments.

    And not to denigrate your friend’s school project, but putting 700,000sf of retail onto a site like this is ridiculous, unsustainable overkill.

    #522221

    wpcc88
    Participant

    there are several existing businesses and lots just to the north of Jeffrey that may be able to be developed in the future as well..

    #522222

    InnerCore
    Participant

    heresthecasey said:
    @Inner Core, you’re basically asking for an open air shopping mall.

    A real city does not have wall-to-wall retail on every street, it just doesn’t (nor should it). Look basically anywhere. Different types of streets have different characters, that it what makes for a successful urban environment. Variety.

    A one-sized-fits-all approach of complete adaptability of space to any use is also architecturally a very poor way to plan space. The British ‘High Street’ mode of city planning, which most of traditional American development patterns have been based on, works very well for creating dynamic and interesting urban environments.

    And not to denigrate your friend’s school project, but putting 700,000sf of retail onto a site like this is ridiculous, unsustainable overkill.

    No where did I suggest wall to wall development. Even with 700,000 sf of retail you still wouldn’t have wall to wall retail. But I explain better. In planning areas are usually broken down into what we call transects. With the most dense transect being T6 and natural land T1.

    As you can see Jeffrey park, located just outside of downtown (T6) would be T5 general urban. From a planning perspective building in this transect should be between 2 and 5 stories. At least 10% dedicated to open space and should only contain structures on 80% of the lot. The density should be a max of 65 units per acre.

    So were dealing with a site that is 41 acres. That 1,786,000 sf but we’ll take out 80,000 sf for roads and round down to 1,700,000 sf. Now of that building should only be on 80% of the lot area so that’s about 1,360,000 sf.

    We obviously want park space and a minimum of 10% is recommended so let’s go with 20%. That results in about 350,000 sf of open park space.

    So were left with about 1,350,000 of buildable land. The building should be between 2 and 5 stories. So we’ll be conservative and use an average of 3. So an average of 3 stories across the buildable space would result in about 4,000,000 of development.

    Earlier I mentioned that the density in this transect should be a max of 65 units per acre. The next lowest transect is 36 units per acre. So depending on the environment there should be between 36 and 65 units per acre. I’ll use the average of 50 for comparisons sake. So were talking about 2000 units.

    So 2000 units at an average of 1,000 sf results in 2,000,000 of residential. Parking requirement require you to provide 1.5 parking spaces for every unit. So that’s 3000 parking spaces. It takes about 400 square feet of space to provide for 1 parking space in structured parking. So you’ll need a total of 1,200,000 sf of space for parking.

    That’s 4,000,000 square feet of buildable space, minus 2,000,000 square feet for the residential, minus 1,200,000 for the parking which leaves 800,000 sf of additional space for another use whether it be retail, office, warehouse, etc.

    So the 700,000 is definitely not overkill. Especially considering this is multi phase project that would be completed over many years. And as I mention earlier the ground spaces are adaptable. If you want to make it residential because that’s more popular right now then just rent the spaces out. Of you could do live work units where someone can purchase the ground floor unit and use it as their office space and live above it.

    These are general planning guidelines for urban development. Without these sort of density you wont be able to hit a critical mass of enough desnity to sustain an urban environment.

    What Wagenbrenner is proposing is essentially 1,350 units and a lot of surface parking. So what you get is about maybe 1,500,000 sf of buildable space in an area that should have closer to 4 million.

    The residential density isn’t that bad but you’re spreading it with no other uses mixed in like your in the suburbs. It’s fine if you’re going to drive from place to place, but your not going to be able to fit enough retail and office in close enough for the required amount of people to walk to.

    The British “high street” model only works with cars. From Wagenbrenner’s Jeffrey park sure you’ll be able to walk to High st. And sure they can add additional retail along 4th. But what happens when you need to walk 20 mins to the grocery store, then another 15 minutes in the opposite direction to the day car and then 10 minutes the other way to the dry cleaner. It’s not a sustainable model for a walkable community.

    Take Harrison park for example. This is essentially building to the west of high st what is being proposed here to the east. Harrison park may seem walkable but on a daily basis it simply isn’t. Most studies show people are willing to walk 5 -15 minutes which is usually 1/4 to 1/2 mile. That get’s you to Giant Eagle and 5th avenue. The problem is that they’re in opposite directions. There is going to be no way to configure enough retail in any one location so that it can draw enough traffic.

    So the model will remain, drive to Easton for you major shopping, drive to the grocery store and then maybe walk every once in a while out to have drinks on high st. If you want a true urban walkable environment you need a certain density to sustain it.

    #522223

    wpcc88
    Participant

    mrsgeedeck said:
    I think the neighborhood (most really) needs a true bodega. Kroger and Giant Eagle are close enough for shopping trips, and freeway access out to big box stores is readily available, but sometimes you just wish you could run into the corner store real quick grab your generic aspirin and get out. Perhaps we can see some redevelopment of the S&K or Saveway sites…

    I have to agree 100% especially with the redevelopment that may be happening at the old Timken site which more than likely will be spurred by this development

    #522224

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I hope every thread doesn’t start turning into this.

    #522225

    bucki12
    Member

    wpcc88 said:
    I have to agree 100% especially with the redevelopment that may be happening at the old Timken site which more than likely will be spurred by this development

    The rumors are that Walmart has plans for Timken. I imagine this will speed that along.

    #522226

    wpcc88
    Participant

    bucki12 said:
    The rumors are that Walmart has plans for Timken. I imagine this will speed that along.

    I don’t think there is any question about that, I’m kind of hoping for a couple of medium height office buildings in that area as well

    #522227

    goldenidea
    Participant

    JMHO, and I’m not a planner or developer, but I think InnerCore’s ideas merit consideration. Isn’t his model kind of an urban version of The Continent, only with a lot more residential units? The Continent was a successful development until the bigger and better Easton came along. It probably could have sustained itself had more residential units been built there originally. And of course neither The C nor Easton have the present-day appeal of being located in the urban core.

    There’s nothing wrong with encouraging commercial development along 4th Street too except that, at least presently, it’s a high speed one-way traffic conveyor. It’s workable for some types of commericial, but it’s not ideal.

    #522228

    susank
    Member

    bucki12 said:
    The rumors are that Walmart has plans for Timken. I imagine this will speed that along.

    A Walmart? uggh.

    #522229

    wpcc88
    Participant

    goldenidea said:

    There’s nothing wrong with encouraging commercial development along 4th Street too except that, at least presently, it’s a high speed one-way traffic conveyor. It’s workable for some types of commericial, but it’s not ideal.

    after looking at it a two way street starting at Goodale is completely feasible if they redo the off ramp at 4th

    #522230

    goldenidea
    Participant

    < after looking at it a two way street starting at Goodale is completely feasible if they redo the off ramp at 4th >

    I agree, that conversion would help a lot, but will it happen in our lifetimes?

    #522231

    goldenidea
    Participant

    A Walmart? uggh.

    Yeah, a Walmart isn’t ideal, but given the state of that area, I wonder if we can realistically expect more. If nothing else, a Walmart will at least draw more people into the area that do more than just commute through it up and down Cleveland and 5th Ave. Aso, if the Walmart has groceries, that’s a plus. It might also provide jobs for people living around it. It will be handy for everyone living in the near north and near east sides.

    #522232

    wpcc88
    Participant

    goldenidea said:
    < after looking at it a two way street starting at Goodale is completely feasible if they redo the off ramp at 4th >

    I agree, that conversion would help a lot, but will it happen in our lifetimes?

    It was mentioned in the original story and the city has been making an effort to get rid of its useless two way streets. I think it is completely realistic for it to happen within the next five years. A longer ramp like that at Neil could be completed at 4th within a summer construction season without question.

    #522233

    InnerCore
    Participant

    I think a lot of it comes down to what kind of area you want the neighborhood to be. Do you want to create an urban area where people can walk to a majority of their daily needs or do you want an area where people primarily drive to their primary destinations but have the ability to occasionally walk to a few local restaurants and shops?

    I’m not saying one way is better than another it’s just that if you want an urban walkable environment this is not the way to do it. You cant build at a density that doesn’t put a good portion of an individuals needs (live/work/play) within walking distance and then expect them to walk. Especially in a norther climate where part of the year the weather is not conducive to walking, and minimal public transit.

    Now with that said there is definitely a need for this product. You’re going to have a lot of people who moved back to urban areas starting to leave in a few years once they start getting older and having kids. Many of these people are not going to want to move to far away from the amenities they’ve become accustomed.

    Bet then from a planning perspective your going to start getting crowing problems. Look at the Short north area. If you basically build nothing but residential to the east and west of High street and focus all the retail/commercial up and down along the main thoroughfares then as some point you’re going to get congestion problems.

    #522234

    bucki12
    Member

    goldenidea said:

    A Walmart? uggh.

    Yeah, a Walmart isn’t ideal, but given the state of that area, I wonder if we can realistically expect more. If nothing else, a Walmart will at least draw more people into the area that do more than just commute through it up and down Cleveland and 5th Ave. Aso, if the Walmart has groceries, that’s a plus. It might also provide jobs for people living around it. It will be handy for everyone living in the near north and near east sides.

    I agree with this. It will draw people in from the Discovery District, KLD, OTE, IV, SN, WP, Campus and Olde North Columbus. I imagine it more of a mirror of Lennox, but hope for a better design. Given the size of Timken and Walmart in general I imagine it will be a Supercenter with a large grocery.

    Despite the crappy parking lot, I think most people see Lennox as an amenity in that area. It is not ideal, but I can see a lot of people shopping there. Milo Grogan needs attention.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 226 total)

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

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE