Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

New Three-Story Building Proposed for Prescott at Pearl in Italian Village

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion New Three-Story Building Proposed for Prescott at Pearl in Italian Village

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #548488

    Mercurius
    Participant

    mbeaumont said:
    A rendering was passed around at this week’s IVS meeting. Looks pretty nice, imo!

    Thanks Mike. It does look like it would fit in nice with that corner.

    #548489
    ntn
    ntn
    Participant

    As with all IV development, 90% of IVS were angered by it.

    #548491
    Caleb
    Caleb
    Participant

    IV – The neighborhood everyone wants to develop in, but are fought around every corner.

    #548492

    Mike88
    Participant

    This place looks fantastic, not sure why anyone would push back on it.
    It’s certainly better than a bare lot.

    #548493
    ntn
    ntn
    Participant

    Every resident would like a ~5/1* parking/unit ratio

    *slight exaggeration

    #548494
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I don’t think these types of things are really that unique to Italian Village. There seem to be people arguing in favor of and against projects in all neighborhoods. It makes for healthy debate and discussion.

    #548495

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    Yeah, the main issue that most people have at IVS is parking. A lot of these people live on streets where parking can be burdensome and they view any new development through that lens first, everything else second.

    Not a criticism, just an observation.

    But then, the whole Short North is becoming that way it seems. My view? Rather than asking the city to solve this issue by requiring so much parking for every new development, why don’t we push the city for better public transit?

    Valuing cars over people is what got Columbus into the mess we’ve been trying to climb out of for decades. Every survey I’ve seen on public transportation and rail have shown that young people desire it, prefer it as a lifestyle, and are making their choices on where to live and work based around that. So let’s do something that benefits residents, tourists and potential newcomers alike and start taking rail seriously.

    #548496

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    And to be fair, they’d probably say that I view new development through density first and everything else second, which isn’t totally untrue.

    The point is, we all have our priorities and it’s up to us as a community to make sure our voices are heard while also doing what is right for the neighborhood and city at large, not just ourselves.

    #548498

    Liner Notes
    Participant

    I’ll agree that many who live in Italian Village wear parking on their sleeves when it comes to new projects. As a former resident, I did not have off-street parking nor did I have permit parking. It was a complete hassle 80% of the time due to visitors, employees and neighbors alike. I included neighbors, because some don’t take kindly to you parking in front of their house (a block away from your own). So at this time, I think a 1:1 parking space per unit in new builds is necessary for everyone’s sanity. Is that the ideal situation when talking density in an urban neighborhood? Probably not. But until there is serious backing for better public transportation in the city AND within the Short North, resident’s shouldn’t be expected to ditch their cars all together.

    Having said that, I don’t think that parking is #1 when it comes to new 7 story apartment buildings. Many residents feel that actual homes might be a better fit for their community. So it seems to me that the debate is more about responsible development so that these large projects don’t overshadow the fabric of the historical neighborhoods.

    #548499
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Liner Notes said:
    But until there is serious backing for better public transportation in the city AND within the Short North, resident’s shouldn’t be expected to ditch their cars all together.

    Between improvements to COTA in the past few years and the addition of Car2Go, COGO, bike infrastructure, Uber, etc, I’d say we’ve already arrived at better public transportation. And BRT and a Downtown shuttle are also on the way.

    Besides, It’s not like every resident needs to go carless in some sort of extreme expectation. But there should be some degree of expectation that new development (especially right on High Street) can have a lower than 1:1 unit ratio for parking requirements. Maybe 10% of new residents should be anticipated to be multimodal? Or 20%? Or 30%? That sounds feasible to me.

    #548500

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    I have more sympathy for the single family homes vs. multistory apartment building argument when it is occurring within the residential part of IV. And in fact, the commission acts accordingly (see the parcel on 1st and Summit where the developer wanted a three story building and it is now looking like it will be town homes.)

    But the most recent multistory proposals have been less than a block off High, and within the Short North design guidelines, where these types of buildings are not only appropriate but encouraged.

    #548501

    Liner Notes
    Participant

    mbeaumont said:

    But the most recent multistory proposals have been less than a block off High, and within the Short North design guidelines, where these types of buildings are not only appropriate but encouraged.

    Actually, the SN design guidelines require at least two stories and any projects 6 or more stories are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. That isn’t necessarily discouragement for taller developments, but I think emphasizes the desire for smaller scale projects that fit the fabric of the neighborhoods. So it shouldn’t be considered odd that a community would want to weigh in on proposals of such height, even within the footprint set out by the SN design guidelines.

    #548502

    Liner Notes
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Between improvements to COTA in the past few years and the addition of Car2Go, COGO, bike infrastructure, Uber, etc, I’d say we’ve already arrived at better public transportation. And BRT and a Downtown shuttle are also on the way.

    It is getting easier, agreed. But I know from experience what it is like to live in a major city (SF) without a car, where I had to use public transportation to do my grocery shopping, laundry, take my cat to the vet, etc. It was a hassle there and Columbus doesn’t even come close in any community to the frequency and availability of its transit lines. But Car2Go, yeah I wish I had that option then.

    #548504
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant

    say goodbye to the full sun backyards and veggie gardens. The building looks like it escaped from the Arena District, has faux all over it. I did like the townhouse details from Hubbard Park.

    #548505
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    lazyfish said:
    say goodbye to the full sun backyards and veggie gardens.

    From a three story building? Not really that much taller than plenty of other homes in IV.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 60 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: