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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Retrofitting the Suburbs to be More Sustainable

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Retrofitting the Suburbs to be More Sustainable

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 89 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #455162
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    It’s not the point of gentrification it IS gentrification.

    So… OK?

    That seems to be what people actually want.

    Look at the map you posted; the near east side is pretty walkable. Solid street grid as well.

    People left in droves for other areas, to include the short north, victorian village, etc.

    #455163
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Getting back to the point of this article while also touching on a point Nancy made (below) my personal feeling is that it is totally acceptable to be building some areas in this sort of ‘Suburb(an culture) in a City’ fashion simply because there is a substantiation portion of the population that would be willing to live in neighborhoods like that.

    Its one thing to convince someone who lives or grew up in the burbs to move to a whitewashed urban development (like the new Bridge Street Corridor) but its much more difficult to convince the same person to move to a redeveloping neighborhood. So if the choice is young people and empty nesters moving to a SFH on 1 acre or a dense urban neighborhood that happens to be suburban in culture, then I’m all for those types of developments because they are better for the environment, economy, social cohesion, ect.

    I also truly believe that if all things were the same many if not most people would choose a walkable neighborhood if they were given the choice. The housing values of the walkable neighborhoods in Columbus is are proof of that (German Village, Short North, Bexley, Grandview, Clintonville, UA ect). The problem is that most people aren’t given a choice. Its not as if the choice is either large lot single family homes or glass tower, it more about the placement of streets, inclusion of alleys ect. Italian Village is a great example.

    Nancy H said:

    “More recently, to combat sprawl, many cities are re-zoning large swaths of industrial or commercial land into high-density residential.  But what gets built in many ways resembles the suburbs in character.  Buildings and units look very similar; everyone buys in at the same time so will tend to be of similar backgrounds; and the large retail chains scoop up the retail spaces.  Put all this together and you get a suburb in the city, even if the residents take transit to work and live in condos.”…

    Too much planning by too few individuals makes for a boring neighborhood.

    #455164
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    joshlapp said:
    The housing values of the walkable neighborhoods in Columbus is are proof of that (German Village, Short North, Bexley, Grandview, Clintonville, UA ect).

    OTE / KLD aren’t walkable neighborhoods?

    Or are they not gentrified?

    #455165
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    InnerCore said:
    Part of the problem is that you have people discussing issues while others are conflating or confusing issue unintentionally and intentionally.

    Yep.

    #455166
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    joshlapp said:
    Its not as if the choice is either large lot single family homes or glass tower, it more about the placement of streets, inclusion of alleys ect. Italian Village is a great example.

    Reminded me of this article:

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/space-syntax-china/

    #455167

    InnerCore
    Participant

    rus said:
    So… OK?

    That seems to be what people actually want.

    Again you seem to arguing against what you thing people want without understanding the issues.

    Gentrification is the process of restoring/upgrading deteriorated urban areas which results in increased property values and displaces lower income people. Gentrification is a process. Just because you wan’t to bake a chicken for 1 hr doesn’t mean that baking it for 10 hrs is better. I don’t see anyone on CU arguing to completely gentrify everything. Then there are other issues involved. So for example many people who want gentrification in these deteriorated urban spaces also want inclusionary zoning to address the displacement of lower income people.

    rus said:Look at the map you posted; the near east side is pretty walkable. Solid street grid as well.

    People left in droves for other areas, to include the short north, victorian village, etc.

    The near east side isn’t walkable although it has the potential to be so. You can take plenty of locations in the near east side and when compared to Dublin there are more jobs and commercial spaces located closer to the residential in Dublin than the near east side. The layout in Dublin is however inefficient. Which is why in the new proposed plan in Dublin they are trying to reconnect the street grid. The near east side has a good grid but not a good enough combination of uses in close proximity to one another.

    I’ve noticed you seem to argue a lot about what developers want and then conflate those desires with what regular people want. Developers like neighborhoods constantly transitioning where they can go in buy incredibly low, turn the neighborhood around and sell incredibly high. Then move on to the next neighborhood and repeat the process. I’m sure 10 years from NRI wouldn’t care if the AD fell to crap for 20 years and then could come back 40 years from now and buy up all the land cheap again, get loads of tax money and repeat the process all over again. However this isn’t best for the city in the long term.

    #455168
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    Again you seem to arguing against what you thing people want without understanding the issues.

    Not arguing anything, really. We’re just talking here. Or at least I am.

    Pretty sure I don’t understand what it is you want at all; it seems to be all over the place.

    InnerCore said:

    I’ve noticed you seem to argue a lot about what developers want and then conflate those desires with what regular people want.

    Maybe? I was thinking of individuals who bought homes in OTE / KLD to gentrify them, kinda like those who bought homes in victorian village / harrison west and gentrified them.

    Once the neighborhood improves you can sell out and bail, or at least that’s what happened in a few cases back when.

    #455169

    InnerCore
    Participant

    rus said:
    Not arguing anything, really. We’re just talking here. Or at least I am.

    You’re understanding of the english language seems different from most.

    ar·gue
    1.give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.

    rus said:Pretty sure I don’t understand what it is you want at all; it seems to be all over the place.

    It’s not all over the place, as you pointed out you simply don’t understand.

    rus said:Maybe? I was thinking of individuals who bought homes in OTE / KLD to gentrify them, kinda like those who bought homes in victorian village / harrison west and gentrified them.

    Once the neighborhood improves you can sell out and bail, or at least that’s what happened in a few cases back when.

    If you buy something, (re)develop it and then sell it then you are a developer. Again you seem to be arguing from the point of view of developers. Were talking about people who want a neighborhood to live in.

    If neighborhoods are sustainable then there isn’t any point of buying/selling often because there is not huge swing in prices.

    #455170
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    You’re understanding of the english language seems different from most.

    ar·gue
    1.give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.

    Right. I’m not trying to persuade you to do or not do anything.

    Every single criticism I’ve brought up you’ve said, in effect, “that’s not what we’re talking about”.

    So what the hell are you talking about?

    #455171
    derm
    derm
    Participant

    InnerCore said:
    Yes, that’s pretty much the definition of sustainability.

    What does that make a farmer?

    #455172
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    derm said:
    What does that make a farmer?

    Apparently an evil parasite.

    Must not have a nurturing community. Or something. Wait, I got it! Farms aren’t walkable, so they suck!

    Wait, no. You can walk easily.

    #455173
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    rus said:
    Reminded me of this article:

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/space-syntax-china/

    That’s a great article. Its interesting if you look at a density map of Columbus, the Northwest (Bethel/Henderson/Sawmill) Area has a lot of very dense pockets but I don’t think it could be characterized as ‘walkable’ simply because the way the buildings are laid out. So for me, its not so much about the density as it is the layout and design.

    rus said:
    OTE / KLD aren’t walkable neighborhoods?

    Or are they not gentrified?

    I’d say they they are designed in a walkable way but most of the areas in these neighborhoods lack the necessitates to make them walkable (grocery, restaurants, ect). I think you could certainly have walkable neighborhoods that aren’t gentrified but frequently ‘retail follows rooftops’.

    #455174
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    joshlapp said:
    That’s a great article. Its interesting if you look at a density map of Columbus, the Northwest (Bethel/Henderson/Sawmill) Area has a lot of very dense pockets but I don’t think it could be characterized as ‘walkable’ simply because the way the buildings are laid out. So for me, its not so much about the density as it is the layout and design.

    I’d say they they are designed in a walkable way but most of the areas in these neighborhoods lack the necessitates to make them walkable (grocery, restaurants, ect). I think you could certainly have walkable neighborhoods that aren’t gentrified but frequently ‘retail follows rooftops’.

    Yeah, not a lot to walk to outside of Oak. Few places on Long, but don’t usually see a lot of foot traffic around there. More up the street to those convenience stores.

    #455175

    News
    Participant

    Density Isn’t a Dirty Word
    BY: WALTER CHAMBERS | JANUARY 29, 2014

    Funny thing about density: The groups for and against growth in their communities generally want the same things. They want a “livable” community. They want pleasant, walkable streets. They want restaurants with outdoor cafes, lots of great little shops, lots of available services and they like to run into friends on the street. They want great, human-scaled architecture. Neither group wants more traffic and congestion. Most would like to see a streetcar or some form of decent transit.

    READ MORE: http://voiceofsandiego.org/2014/01/29/density-isnt-a-dirty-word/

    #455176

    Achekov
    Participant

    joshlapp said:
    That’s a great article. Its interesting if you look at a density map of Columbus, the Northwest (Bethel/Henderson/Sawmill) Area has a lot of very dense pockets but I don’t think it could be characterized as ‘walkable’ simply because the way the buildings are laid out. So for me, its not so much about the density as it is the layout and design.

    “Density + Mixed-use” is what you’re aiming for, I think. It’s a zoning thing. Over the years we tended to zone things into separate areas (residential over here, commercial & retail over there). At one time it was what people wanted, I guess.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 89 total)

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

URBAN LIVING TOUR 2020

This year’s Urban Living Tour event has been postponed due to COVID-19, but will be returning later this summer!

CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when tickets go on sale!