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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Short North Parking Garages - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Transportation Short North Parking Garages – News & Updates

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 12 posts - 46 through 57 (of 57 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #470740

    bucki12
    Member

    I agree that it is confusing to someone not thinking about other forms of transportation or considering density who will be driving to the SN. I think that in taking public dollars the developers should come out with a well worded explanation to that effect. Having no comment seems a little inexplicable.

    #470741

    Likes Old Houses
    Participant

    I attended an information meeting about the Joseph, atleast a year or so ago. The developer kept talking in circles everytime folks would try to nail them down on the net parking gain. Once you subtracted out the lost surface spots, and added in the needed spots for all of the new development, there really didn’t seem to be anytype of gain. This article seems to state the same thing. I understand that there are other transportation options, but at the end of the day, the goal is to add more car parking spots. If there is nothing to hide, just lay out the math. Between the two public lots, I count 79 spaces lost, and the garage is suppose to have 313 spaces, which nets 234 spaces. BUT what is the extra demand created by the 135 hotel rooms and all of the staff, and the 55,000 sq feet of office space. It is hard to see how this garage will really benefit anyone but the developer.

    #470742

    susank
    Member

    You would think the that the people spending or receiving the money should be able to give a straight answer. I don’t think it is up to 10tv to do that for them.

    #470743

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Parking should probably be the very last concern for development in an urban, dense neighborhood. You cannot have that if you develop like you’re on Hilliard-Rome Road. Personally, I’ve never had a parking issue in the Short North. I may not have been able to park right in front of where I wanted to go, but neither did I have to walk miles to get there. Both the Joseph and Hubbard projects add public parking beyond what their developments will likely use, so not seeing the issue here.

    If anything, this is just an argument for increasing mass transit options, but god forbid Columbus get serious about this instead of attacking developers for not catering to cars.

    #470744
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    jbcmh81 said:
    Parking should probably be the very last concern for development in an urban, dense neighborhood. You cannot have that if you develop like you’re on Hilliard-Rome Road. Personally, I’ve never had a parking issue in the Short North. I may not have been able to park right in front of where I wanted to go, but neither did I have to walk miles to get there. Both the Joseph and Hubbard projects add public parking beyond what their developments will likely use, so not seeing the issue here.

    If anything, this is just an argument for increasing mass transit options, but god forbid Columbus get serious about this instead of attacking developers for not catering to cars.

    Well said.

    #470745

    billbix
    Member

    I assume it comes down to simple math where the square footage of the new developments, the number of required spaces (include the variance) and (subtract) the lost spaces from the city lots are taken into consideration. What is the net gain of spaces and how much was given for them? Anyone have those numbers?

    The argument isn’t about the need for density and multi-modal transportation. It is about whether the SN Parking TIF is being appropriately applied.

    #470746

    goldenidea
    Participant

    I assume it comes down to simple math where the square footage of the new developments, the number of required spaces (include the variance) and (subtract) the lost spaces from the city lots are taken into consideration. What is the net gain of spaces and how much was given for them? Anyone have those numbers?

    The argument isn’t about the need for density and multi-modal transportation. It is about whether the SN Parking TIF is being appropriately applied.

    +1

    I haven’t done that math, but it appears that the developers may be under-assuming or under-allocating the number of spaces needed for their new residential units, be they apartments or hotel rooms. Taking the Hubbard for example, if I recall correctly, they will be adding around 200 new spaces above what they’ve allocated for their apartments. I believe they are allocating one space per residential unit(?) which may be optimistic, the need may be greater. Also, you have to figure that businesses opening in the Hub’s new retail spaces will draw traffic that will fill most if not all of those non-allocated new spaces at least a times of peak parking demand. Also, just one recently opened new business, The Pint House might take a significant number of those additional non-allocated spaces at peak demand times. So my admittedly inexact and cursory view doesn’t indicate how the Hub’s new garage will add much new parking to fill *existing* demand.

    Some have commented that parking is available if one is willing to walk a bit. I think there’s merit to that. It’s true that if you drive around and are willing to walk from say Summit or Neil back to High St. you can probably find parking.

    There is also some unused land and under-utilized private parking lots not far from High Street that could be used for new parking, at select times and at least temporarily. For example, the IBEW has a very nice paved lot and an unpaved field on the north side of Price Street behind the Local Bar/Salon Lofts strip center. It seems like they’re missing an opportunity to offer that parking at times they are not using it. Similarly, there’s significant vacant land and under-utilized lots on the south side of 3rd Ave behind Bodega, between High and Summit. Also, there are two good sized lots adjacent to the 5th Alternative school, one west of Apollo/east of Dennison and one on the north side of W.4th Ave. Both are within easy walking distance to High Street. I assume both are vacant weekend evenings, the times of peak Short North parking demand.

    Perhaps the SNBA and the city could approach various lot and landowners and offer incentives to make these spaces available to the public at times when they are not being used by the owners? I imagine costs for liability insurance, any needed staffing, and upkeep would be affordable and could be covered by user parking fees. The lot owners could profit from this and the public and Short North businesses and residents could benefit.

    (egads! sorry for this long post!)

    #470747
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    goldenidea said:

    I assume it comes down to simple math where the square footage of the new developments, the number of required spaces (include the variance) and (subtract) the lost spaces from the city lots are taken into consideration. What is the net gain of spaces and how much was given for them? Anyone have those numbers? The argument isn’t about the need for density and multi-modal transportation. It is about whether the SN Parking TIF is being appropriately applied.

    The Pint House might take a significant number of those additional non-allocated spaces at peak demand times. So my admittedly inexact and cursory view doesn’t indicate how the Hub’s new garage will add much new parking to fill *existing* demand.

    Wasn’t the TIF money allocated circa 2007 when Ibiza was originally planned?

    If there’s any discrepancy in spaces that were supposed to be built, you need to use the information from the time it was allocated.

    #470748

    mrmann
    Member

    My question is how many non-required parking spaces does the public get (minus the ones that were lost) for $25,000,000?

    #470749

    peter
    Participant

    Parking should probably be the very last concern for development in an urban, dense neighborhood. You cannot have that if you develop like you’re on Hilliard-Rome Road. Personally, I’ve never had a parking issue in the Short North. I may not have been able to park right in front of where I wanted to go, but neither did I have to walk miles to get there.

    Right on.

    #470750

    pez
    Participant

    jbcmh81 said:
    Parking should probably be the very last concern for development in an urban, dense neighborhood.

    Unless you don’t want businesses to flock to Easton, Polaris, Dublin or Powell.

    #470751

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    pez said:
    Unless you don’t want businesses to flock to Easton, Polaris, Dublin or Powell.

    Seems to me that with the dominant form of development the past 60 years… they already have been. Yet in the same time, the argument can be made that the SN has steadily improved while parking ease has steadily dropped. Sorry, but parking lots did not make the SN what it is, nor are they what attract people to the area today. It would seem to be a mistake to try to turn the SN into suburbia now.

Viewing 12 posts - 46 through 57 (of 57 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