Our City Online

Messageboard - Transportation

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Parking in the Short North

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Parking in the Short North

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1085750

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    I definitely have sympathy for residents. I have a garage now in my IV house, so it doesn’t really effect me anymore, but I lived in VV for years and definitely fought with on street parking issues. We can make all of VV and IV permit only and it wouldn’t be much of an issue if we had rail. But that’s why we should have started 10-15 years ago before it became a major headache. If rail was approved today it would be 5-10 years at the earliest before anything came online and imagine how bad it’ll be then.

    I would encourage visitors to utilize some combination of COTA/CoGo/Car2Go/Uber/Walking/Biking. But if we make it easy for visitors to park for free in the Short North, that’s exactly what they’ll do.

    #1085836

    Nancy H
    Participant

    I always thought they should just meter every parking space in IV/VV/SN. They put stickers on the meter for who can park there and when. Easy to change the stickers as needs change. The visitors pay and the permit holders are exempt from paying. Something simple like:

    No Public Parking
    Residential Permit “whatever” Only
    Enforced 24/7/365
    Violators ticked and/or towed

    9AM to 6PM Public Parking
    6PM to 9AM Residential Permit “whatever” Only
    Enforced 24/7/365
    Violators ticked and/or towed

    Public Parking Only
    No Residential Permit Parking *
    Enforced 24/7/365
    Violators ticked and/or towed

    The wording needs to be for the clueless visitors. If I am a resident (home, business, employee) I know if I have a permit and which zone(s) I can park in. They need to say it is enforced all the time, even if they use split shifts or sporatic enforcement. If the enforcement person put a ticket on a vehicle, say at noon, and the vechile is still there 4 hours later – then the vehicle should be towed.

    The meter money, tickets and towing income would more than pay for the meters and enforcement.

    * Residents, with local area permits, should not be allowed to park at the convenient spaces near High Street, even if they feed the meter. That helps keep those spaces available for people visiting the area businesses.

    #1085950

    Rory: The editorial says that if the city can find a solution for the parking needs of the bureaucrats downtown (and find the money to pay for it), the city can solve the parking problem in this tax-generating, nationally-recognized gem of a city neighborhood — and shouldn’t tell the residens, businesses, and visitors to be patient for a few more years. The hypocrisy is that the city tells the short north that it cannot do for it what it obviously knows how to do for itself. You see, when the mayor visits a restaurant in the SN, a city employee drops him and his bodyguard at the door and picks them up at the door when he’s done. To him: what parking problem?

    #1085954

    ohbr
    Participant

    It’s a little easier to find parking solution for the bureaucrats when they are surrounding by a plethora of parking garages and surface lots to build up on. Unless you’d like the city to start annexing a couple houses on each block to build garages for everyone, the Short North parking issue is FAR more complex You’re grasping at straws to compare apples to oranges.

    Perhaps you’ll fire back about the public lots that were given up. True, but a net gain of public spaces were gained. even if they stayed, would that have solved the problem? Or of each of the private lots (even the yet undeveloped parking lot next to White Castle) turned in to garages, would that have solved the problem? No. Again, the complexity is far greater. The only way to solve the Short North parking bitch fest, prevent further development staring about 10 years ago and limit the growth and make it a gated community.

    #1086129

    If the downtown bureaucrats are surrounded by available parking, why is more needed in the new city building?

    Seems there’s a greater need in the SN and over the years many sites have become available. The solution need not be a huge lot right on High Street, but off-High off-street parking could be increased for residents at appropriate scales, thus freeing up more High Street and nearby spaces for business employees and visitors. The millions spent downtown could go a long way towards creating numerous, small resident-only surface lots at strategic locations where parking issues are most accute to complement parking on street. In many cases, people may still have to lug groceries across the street, but not several blocks.

    The problem is complex, but not insurmountable. The city just needs to get on it as if the neighborhood matters enough. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in City Hall makes that unlikely.

    #1086131

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    If the downtown bureaucrats are surrounded by available parking, why is more needed in the new city building?

    Seems there’s a greater need in the SN and over the years many sites have become available. The solution need not be a huge lot right on High Street, but off-High off-street parking could be increased for residents at appropriate scales, thus freeing up more High Street and nearby spaces for business employees and visitors. The millions spent downtown could go a long way towards creating numerous, small resident-only surface lots at strategic locations where parking issues are most accute to complement parking on street. In many cases, people may still have to lug groceries across the street, but not several blocks.

    The problem is complex, but not insurmountable. The city just needs to get on it as if the neighborhood matters enough. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs in City Hall makes that unlikely.

    More parking is NOT needed for the new city building on Front. But that’s what you get when policy and opinion revolves around “car first”. Columbus is well behind the times on this thinking.

    I’m not even sure what the point of this discussion is. If the argument is that the SN is NOT an urban neighborhood, then sure, build as many garages and maintain as many surface lots and spots as possible. If it IS an urban neighborhood, then there should actually be 0 parking requirements, especially for new builds. People will still live there, but for once the city and residents will actually have to think outside of the car box for once. The CBus is a good start, but it’s not nearly enough.

    #1086138
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    The millions spent downtown could go a long way towards creating numerous, small resident-only surface lots at strategic locations where parking issues are most accute…

    So you want local government to subsidize parking for Short North residents by tearing down buildings for more surface lots? That’s the worst idea, ever.

    I’m glad you’re not in charge of anything.

    #1086142

    Ideally, you’re right. Columbus is car city; too much so.

    But I cannot tell you how many times I’ve suggested a SN place to meet friends only to be overruled in favor of somewhere with parking or heard horror stories from SN residents about parking trials and tribulations. A couple I know moved away from a SN house they loved due to parking frustration.

    There are not many places more urban than Manhattan, NYC but, even there, cars and public parking garages are numerous and some people continue to prefer to drive.

    If one is making large purchases, travelling with small children, disabled, etc., an auto may be the only reasonable option. Many SN businesses sell items for which a truck is not needed, but I sure wouldn’t want to try to get it home by bus, IF there were a COTA route serving my neighborhood — which there’s not.

    The secret is finding the right balance and given the amount of dissatisfaction being expressed by reasonable SN interests, that balance does not seem to have been yet found. I think the Dispatch is saying that the city needs to be more dedicated to finding balance. The neighborhood will remain urban, more parking or not.

    #1086147

    Walker, Walker, Walker. There have, over the years, been many missed opportunities to improve parking at proper scales without tearing down contributing buildings. Seem your adoration for the Coleman administration and my lack thereof has made you unable to be rational in response to anything I post. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m no expert, but I have reasonable ideas.

    #1086148

    ohbr
    Participant

    Walker, Walker, Walker. There have, over the years, been many missed opportunities to improve parking at proper scales without tearing down contributing buildings.

    So I may have been right in assuming what your plan would have been; the city should have restricted growth on vacant lots somehow knowing the neighborhood would take off to ensure there was ample parking when other vacant lots were filled in.

    Should a similar model be used in Franklinton as well, Weinland Park, Old North Columbus, OTE etc? Just section off no development zones in case parking ever needs to be addressed in the future?

    #1086151

    joev
    Participant

    It’s all Coleman’s fault that the Short North is so popular that it’s impossible to do your shopping via drive-through anymore.

    #1086155

    ohbr: The neighborhood took off decades ago. No need to over-restrict growth, just some strategic small-scale purchases or leases to address a growing concern of residents, businesses and visitors. The SN parking issues have been around a long, long time.

    I don’t think that consideration of the long-term needs of the other neighborhoods you cite is a bad idea, not the draconian way you (not I) describe it, of course.

    #1086168

    ohbr
    Participant

    ohbr: The neighborhood took off decades ago. No need to over-restrict growth, just some strategic small-scale purchases or leases to address a growing concern of residents, businesses and visitors. The SN parking issues have been around a long, long time.

    I don’t think that consideration of the long-term needs of the other neighborhoods you cite is a bad idea, not the draconian way you (not I) describe it, of course.

    I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the same thing, I just didn’t specify “strategic and small-scale” but maybe more clarification is needed as to the difference. Still the same idea, the city designates certain areas [strategic and small scale] as no development zones to be used for long term parking plans. Tomato, tomahto?

    Ultimately, isn’t this what parking requirements are for?

    By using the Short North’s parking “issues” post development, better comprehensive parking and public transportation(emphasis on public transportation) plans can be developed for future neighborhood plans.

    #1086169
    loudiamondtabs
    loudiamondtabs
    Participant

    Don’t almost all of the individual houses in the Short North have Alleys with garages or parking?

    #1086170

    Nancy H
    Participant

    @Discouraged Democrat – You might not like Mayor Coleman, but you would have loved Mayor M E “Jack” Sensenbrenner. (Mayor from 1955-59 and 1963-71) He bulldozed more buildings in the urban environment than any other mayor in our history. Under his Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Plan they completely leveled 60 acres in what is now called Market Mohawk (including bulldozing the Central Market). He also leveled numerous blocks of homes around OSU, Children’s Hospital an all of Flytown. There were numerous small leveling projects throughout the inner city. What is now IV Park was bulldozed (don’t remember how many houses sat there) and the land was sold to Winder’s Chevrolet so they could park used cars there. The City bought back the land when Jack Maxton’s (predecessor to Winder’s) closed that location and made it into a park (dedicated in 1982). We are still looking at some of the vacant lots Sensenbrenner created in the central business district.

    Ironically, his Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Plan later became best known as SCAR.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 101 total)

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

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

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE