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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

122 Olde Towne - New Apartment Development Proposed on Parsons Avenue

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion 122 Olde Towne – New Apartment Development Proposed on Parsons Avenue

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #996171
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Wasn’t about citywalker, but the downtown parking garage thread.

    Well, a double-standard is when one single person has a conflicting viewpoint on two different topics.

    If different people have different opinions, then it’s just a discussion.

    #996175
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Well, a double-standard is when one single person has a conflicting viewpoint on two different topics.

    Such as advocating building standards in one thread then happy a variance was issued in another.

    #996212

    InnerCore
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walker Evans wrote:</div>
    Well, a double-standard is when one single person has a conflicting viewpoint on two different topics.

    Such as advocating building standards in one thread then happy a variance was issued in another.

    You seem to not have a good grasp on what double standards are. I don’t think you can find anyone on the planet who is either for or against ALL standards. Or pretty much anything (laws, regulations, etc.). Being for a particular variance and against another (different) variance isn’t a double standards.

    A double standard would be wanting developer A to have a variance and developer B to not have the SAME variance.

    #996236
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Being for a particular variance and against another (different) variance isn’t a double standards.

    Bullshit.

    If the idea is a community should set their standards and developers should follow those standards, supporting a developer who seeks to go against community standards is hypocrisy.

    hypocrisy |hiˈpäkrisē|
    noun ( pl. -sies)
    the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.

    If you advocate for a community to set their own standards, then you accept those standards even if you don’t like them because it’s about community, not your own goals.

    On the other hand, if you really want a particular set of standards that meets your own goals, then you’re advocating for self interest. The rest is just window dressing.

    #996241

    InnerCore
    Participant

    If the idea is a community should set their standards and developers should follow those standards, supporting a developer who seeks to go against community standards is hypocrisy.

    That’s ridiculous. Allowing a variance isn’t going against community standards if the variance process IS PUT IN THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. If people didn’t want any variances of any kind granted they there should be no variances.

    If someone here argued that NO ONE should get a variance and is now arguing that this developer should get a variance because they like the plan then THAT would be a double standard. But I don’t recall anyone being 100% against all variances.

    #996247
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    But I don’t recall anyone being 100% against all variances.

    Of course not. Because it’s not about community standards, but the right standards; just so long as you get what you want, it’s OK. Good thing someone carved out a loophole.

    What grinds my gears is the pretense of caring what people want when it’s self interest that motivates.

    #996293
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    I wish this apartment building could be more like Skyview Towers and the Mt Vernon post office.

    #996311

    c_odden
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rus wrote:</div>
    Wasn’t about citywalker, but the downtown parking garage thread.

    Well, a double-standard is when one single person has a conflicting viewpoint on two different topics.

    I dunno… seems like a double-standard is applying a inconsistent standard across cases that we otherwise think fall in the same topic. That comes from a disagreement about whether objects to which standards are applied are really in the same category. This is why chauvinists, racists, whatever, don’t find their attitudes problematic, since their typology is discriminatory.

    So, are the parking garage and 122 Parsons in the same category of thing, or not?

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rus wrote:</div>
    If the idea is a community should set their standards and developers should follow those standards, supporting a developer who seeks to go against community standards is hypocrisy.

    That’s ridiculous. Allowing a variance isn’t going against community standards if the variance process IS PUT IN THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. If people didn’t want any variances of any kind granted they there should be no variances.

    This confuses variances and the variance process.

    #996362

    InnerCore
    Participant

    Of course not. Because it’s not about community standards, but the right standards; just so long as you get what you want, it’s OK. Good thing someone carved out a loophole.

    That loophole goes both ways. The BZA has the authority to vote the other way and often does depending on how many nimby’s come out and say they won’t vote for the commissioner who appointed them. We constantly get denied the right to build things ALLOWED in the zoning code because the people who live nearby don’t want it even though its in the community standards.

    The variance process cuts both ways and therefore there will always be a group who doesn’t get what they want.

    What grinds my gears is the pretense of caring what people want when it’s self interest that motivates.

    But that’s an absurd position because there are so many different people with so many different wants that you can actually care about what people want, follow your self interest and be against what people want all at the same time.

    I don’t think people who are for this project are for it 100% because of their own self interest. What are my self interest that guiding me to be for this project???

    I have no desire to live here however I think the structure isn’t bad an overall will be a benefit for Columbus, while acknowledging that many people in that specific neighborhood don’t like it. It’s not that I don’t care about what they want, but instead think more people want different.

    #996398
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    So, are the parking garage and 122 Parsons in the same category of thing, or not?

    That’s an interesting question. I’d say yes because they’re both private property covered under building regulations, but they are different sorts of buildings covered under different area / neighborhood commissions.

    #996401
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Such as advocating building standards in one thread then happy a variance was issued in another.

    Citywalker did that?

    #996403
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    What are my self interest that guiding me to be for this project???

    I have no desire to live here however I think the structure isn’t bad an overall will be a benefit for Columbus, while acknowledging that many people in that specific neighborhood don’t like it.

    Answering your own question. You like the design, for whatever reason, so there’s your self interest.

    #996405
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rus wrote:</div>
    Such as advocating building standards in one thread then happy a variance was issued in another.

    Citywalker did that?

    https://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/new-ote-apartment-complex-proposal-parsons-gustavus/page/7/#post-995330

    #996451

    DavidF
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>InnerCore wrote:</div>
    But I don’t recall anyone being 100% against all variances.

    Of course not. Because it’s not about community standards, but the right standards; just so long as you get what you want, it’s OK. Good thing someone carved out a loophole.

    What grinds my gears is the pretense of caring what people want when it’s self interest that motivates.

    Sure, since you ascribe all actions of any kind, in any context of being self interested. It gives you the wonderful moral high ground of being the only honest person in the world.

    It’s bullshit of course, but gratifyingly self affirming I’m sure.

    #996476
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Sure, since you ascribe all actions of any kind, in any context of being self interested.

    Absolutely. People act in self interest, even if the only benefit they get is something intangible such as a good feeling.

    Not saying there’s anything wrong with that, mind you. People working together in common self interest is a good thing.

    being the only honest person in the world.

    That’s certainly not true.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 140 total)

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

Subscribe below: