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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 Garage Condemned on Long Street

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Parking Garage Condemned on Long Street

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 169 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1109373
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    A big take away from the article above is a possible phase 2 of the Atlas. 80-90 units, ground floor retail along high street and a parking garage behind. The renovated Atlas has 98 units.

    We heard several years ago that this project was originally considered, but never came to fruition because the financials of building the garage didn’t make sense and the city wasn’t willing to fund/abate it to make it work. Unless something has changed (and the article didn’t make it sound like it had), I wouldn’t take this news as gospel just yet.

    #1109397

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    There seems to me to be an odd inconsistency in the article’s tone. More than once, you have quotes about how parking shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t) for an urban neighborhood and how Downtown is moving past being an area where people will need to own a car. Yet at the same time, there is mention of multiple parking garages being built or renovated and how these are simply wonderful for the projects and all their new residents, the idea seemingly being that not only would the projects not be able to happen without abundant parking, but no one would live there without it. Based on actual results rather than rhetoric, Downtown is not actually moving beyond being car-centric at all.

    #1109405
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Based on actual results rather than rhetoric, Downtown is not actually moving beyond being car-centric at all.

    I don’t think it’s quite that black-and-white.

    If a new garage is being built with the idea that it will serve multiple purposes (workers by day, residents by night, retail all the time) and it’s built to accommodate a lesser need (not every worker or resident gets a spot) then that’s a pretty big departure from yesteryear when garages (and more often, surface lots) were built to accommodate 200% of actual demand, and with only single-uses in mind.

    #1109407

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    There seems to me to be an odd inconsistency in the article’s tone. More than once, you have quotes about how parking shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t) for an urban neighborhood and how Downtown is moving past being an area where people will need to own a car. Yet at the same time, there is mention of multiple parking garages being built or renovated and how these are simply wonderful for the projects and all their new residents, the idea seemingly being that not only would the projects not be able to happen without abundant parking, but no one would live there without it. Based on actual results rather than rhetoric, Downtown is not actually moving beyond being car-centric at all.

    I didn’t get that impression. It sounded to me like the developers are realistic that you need baby steps to get there. And that it’s hard to talk about that progressive development until you take big steps toward infill and vibrancy in that area. I was just happy to hear that this kind of development was on the horizon but can understand why developers might think this is a couple years out.

    We’ve seen the outcry when we knock out parking spaces from surface lots. So I can understand why developers want to ease it in.

    #1109538

    Robertsd937
    Participant

    Yeah, there’s a handful of garages that I feel could crumble into dust at any moment. This is one of them, along with the short one (3 stories?) on Marconi between Long & Spring (next to AEP):

    Edit: kmg67 beat me to it by 60 seconds! ;)

    I used this garage a few weeks ago and there are potholes on the TOP LEVEL. POTHOLES. How do potholes form on the top of a garage or any building? Time to knock that thing down.

    #1109545

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walker Evans wrote:</div>
    Yeah, there’s a handful of garages that I feel could crumble into dust at any moment. This is one of them, along with the short one (3 stories?) on Marconi between Long & Spring (next to AEP):

    Edit: kmg67 beat me to it by 60 seconds! ;)

    I used this garage a few weeks ago and there are potholes on the TOP LEVEL. POTHOLES. How do potholes form on the top of a garage or any building?

    I’d imagine it’s no different than any other concrete or asphalt surface exposed to elements. The question isn’t how do they form but how do they get away with them allowing them to stay there. I’d be surprised to see that garage gone in the next 5-10 years. The family that owns it is going to do everything they can to hold on to that guaranteed income as long as they can.

    #1109547
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I used this garage a few weeks ago and there are potholes on the TOP LEVEL. POTHOLES. How do potholes form on the top of a garage or any building? Time to knock that thing down.

    The potholes don’t scare me nearly as much as the crumbling concrete that drops from the ceiling on the lower level. There’s exposed rebar in spots, and some very shoddy patch jobs and reinforcement bars. The whole thing looks incredibly dangerous. There’s also some rock crystal type formations in one spot that I noticed last time I was in there. Stalactites? What?!?

    #1109548

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    There seems to me to be an odd inconsistency in the article’s tone. More than once, you have quotes about how parking shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t) for an urban neighborhood and how Downtown is moving past being an area where people will need to own a car. Yet at the same time, there is mention of multiple parking garages being built or renovated and how these are simply wonderful for the projects and all their new residents, the idea seemingly being that not only would the projects not be able to happen without abundant parking, but no one would live there without it. Based on actual results rather than rhetoric, Downtown is not actually moving beyond being car-centric at all.

    I didn’t get that impression. It sounded to me like the developers are realistic that you need baby steps to get there. And that it’s hard to talk about that progressive development until you take big steps toward infill and vibrancy in that area. I was just happy to hear that this kind of development was on the horizon but can understand why developers might think this is a couple years out.

    We’ve seen the outcry when we knock out parking spaces from surface lots. So I can understand why developers want to ease it in.

    Here’s the problem with that- the idea is still that people won’t live there without attached parking, even though there are still tens of thousands of parking spaces throughout Downtown. If developers don’t believe there are enough people to go car free or to walk a block from one of the abundant garages or surface lots that already exist, then the type of culture we’re talking about is far more than a few years out, imo, and there’s really nothing being done to change that mindset currently.

    #1109558
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    If developers don’t believe there are enough people to go car free or to walk a block from one of the abundant garages or surface lots that already exist, then the type of culture we’re talking about is far more than a few years out, imo, and there’s really nothing being done to change that mindset currently.

    Keep in mind that most real estate developers are generally risk-averse companies run by risk-averse people. Many of them are still wary of urban development in general, as it hasn’t been the norm in Columbus for the better part of the past half century. For many of them, just the act of building in an urban environment is straying from their standard business model.

    Beyond that, real estate developers rely upon financing provided by banks and other lenders who are even more risk-averse than the developers themselves, and even more grounded in “traditional” (ie: suburban) development proposals. Going to a bank and asking for a loan to build homes with no parking is a red flag for a financial lender and could be one of the reasons to make or break a financial package to actually get something built.

    In the end, it’s all a lot more complicated on the business side of things. It’s not as easy as claiming that there’s a general generic mindset issue across the board.

    #1109573

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    If developers don’t believe there are enough people to go car free or to walk a block from one of the abundant garages or surface lots that already exist, then the type of culture we’re talking about is far more than a few years out, imo, and there’s really nothing being done to change that mindset currently.

    Keep in mind that most real estate developers are generally risk-averse companies run by risk-averse people. Many of them are still wary of urban development in general, as it hasn’t been the norm in Columbus for the better part of the past half century. For many of them, just the act of building in an urban environment is straying from their standard business model.

    Beyond that, real estate developers rely upon financing provided by banks and other lenders who are even more risk-averse than the developers themselves, and even more grounded in “traditional” (ie: suburban) development proposals. Going to a bank and asking for a loan to build homes with no parking is a red flag for a financial lender and could be one of the reasons to make or break a financial package to actually get something built.

    In the end, it’s all a lot more complicated on the business side of things. It’s not as easy as claiming that there’s a general generic mindset issue across the board.

    Okay, I get that Columbus was doing the opposite of urban development for 50 years, but the current urban building boom has been ongoing for the better part of a decade now, and there’s not been any projects, save for those that were exclusively condos, that have had any trouble filling up rapidly. Shouldn’t the idea be dead by now that things are not the same now as they were in 1970 and that building in an urban environment is actually a pretty safe bet? Development groups and banks are run by people, so it is fair, imo, to call it a mindset, especially when they still seem to be betting against the urban movement. As the article mentioned, and other articles have mentioned in the past, Columbus is actually behind the curve on urban development, especially compared to peers, so in the 13th fastest growing city in the country in an urban environment with occupancy rates in the high 90s, Columbus still has to deal with an unconvinced demographic who has the most power to change the entire picture. That’s very frustrating to me. Are developers and banks in Columbus simply much more risk averse than average?

    #1109576

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CB_downtowner wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br>
    There seems to me to be an odd inconsistency in the article’s tone. More than once, you have quotes about how parking shouldn’t be a requirement (it isn’t) for an urban neighborhood and how Downtown is moving past being an area where people will need to own a car. Yet at the same time, there is mention of multiple parking garages being built or renovated and how these are simply wonderful for the projects and all their new residents, the idea seemingly being that not only would the projects not be able to happen without abundant parking, but no one would live there without it. Based on actual results rather than rhetoric, Downtown is not actually moving beyond being car-centric at all.

    I didn’t get that impression. It sounded to me like the developers are realistic that you need baby steps to get there. And that it’s hard to talk about that progressive development until you take big steps toward infill and vibrancy in that area. I was just happy to hear that this kind of development was on the horizon but can understand why developers might think this is a couple years out.

    We’ve seen the outcry when we knock out parking spaces from surface lots. So I can understand why developers want to ease it in.

    Here’s the problem with that- the idea is still that people won’t live there without attached parking, even though there are still tens of thousands of parking spaces throughout Downtown. If developers don’t believe there are enough people to go car free or to walk a block from one of the abundant garages or surface lots that already exist, then the type of culture we’re talking about is far more than a few years out, imo, and there’s really nothing being done to change that mindset currently.

    Kind of a chain reaction thing. I don’t think walking residents will show up until you achieve walkability. Walkability won’t happen until you have residents in the area and walkable options, especially at night. Walkable options won’t happen until there’s density. Density won’t happen in the short-term if we don’t focus on parking — too many downtown businesses/employees complaining, residents hesitant to live in an area that has no parking and no walkable options.

    So I like the idea of tearing the band-aid right off. Let’s infill this area quickly, appease the car-dependent crowd and the conservative low-height developers for now so they don’t reduce pace of development, and hopefully that makes the area more attractive for aggressive height development and alternate transit. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but that’s how I’m looking at it. Even if that will take more time to achieve.

    #1109672

    Robertsd937
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Robertsd937 wrote:</div>
    I used this garage a few weeks ago and there are potholes on the TOP LEVEL. POTHOLES. How do potholes form on the top of a garage or any building? Time to knock that thing down.

    The potholes don’t scare me nearly as much as the crumbling concrete that drops from the ceiling on the lower level. There’s exposed rebar in spots, and some very shoddy patch jobs and reinforcement bars. The whole thing looks incredibly dangerous. There’s also some rock crystal type formations in one spot that I noticed last time I was in there. Stalactites? What?!?

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Robertsd937 wrote:</div>
    I used this garage a few weeks ago and there are potholes on the TOP LEVEL. POTHOLES. How do potholes form on the top of a garage or any building? Time to knock that thing down.

    The potholes don’t scare me nearly as much as the crumbling concrete that drops from the ceiling on the lower level. There’s exposed rebar in spots, and some very shoddy patch jobs and reinforcement bars. The whole thing looks incredibly dangerous. There’s also some rock crystal type formations in one spot that I noticed last time I was in there. Stalactites? What?!?

    I noticed that as well. Which is why I parked on the top level. The idea is if it collapsed, my car would have a chance of surviving…but probably not.

    #1109673

    Robertsd937
    Participant

    Here’s the problem with that- the idea is still that people won’t live there without attached parking, even though there are still tens of thousands of parking spaces throughout Downtown. If developers don’t believe there are enough people to go car free or to walk a block from one of the abundant garages or surface lots that already exist, then the type of culture we’re talking about is far more than a few years out, imo, and there’s really nothing being done to change that mindset currently.

    Attached parking (or at least on-property parking) is a given for condos in a high price range. I would have a hard time spending 500k on a condo and I have to walk 2 blocks to a garage. That simply isn’t going to fly.

    #1109680
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    That piece, RobertsD, is one thing about Neighborhood Launch that folks really like.

    #1109862

    Robertsd937
    Participant

    That piece, RobertsD, is one thing about Neighborhood Launch that folks really like.

    Columbus is not a large city like New York or LA where they can get away with a garage two blocks away or even no car. Ohio residency requires a car for 99.9999% of residents. I can understand if some people want to change that mindset. If they do, get public transit fixed. That would be the first thing. Not reducing parking on purpose in the hopes people will stop driving. That will drive suburb growth.

    Side note: Those Neighborhood watch units are a) horrible overpriced and b) the people who seem to get their hands on one seems to “know about it” before everyone else does, which is typical for this type of housing.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 169 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