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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Proposed Campus Development

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Proposed Campus Development

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #423765

    rory
    Participant

    Antonio wrote >>
    Just the opposite is true based on surveys. College students are more likely to try new things more so than your typical person. The students that come from communities that do not have bus service are more apt to try out it to experience it. It doesn’t cost them anything.
    Where are you getting your bogus information ?

    rory wrote >>
    And I really don’t think that the bus is going to cut it for a college student from outside of Columbus. IMHO it’s a cultural issue for small to mid-sized town and suburban dwelling Midwesterners. They’ll push their car to the destination before they take the bus. Now a streetcar might be a different animal.

    It was my opinion! ;)

    #423766
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    labi wrote >>

    joshlapp wrote >>
    The people that need cars can live in areas that have plenty of space for cars (ie: 4th and Summit), while we can still let the High Street Corridor densify.

    4th and Summit only look like they have “plenty of space for cars” because about 25% of the residential units in Weinland Park are vacant AND because right now, you can’t park on the relevant one-way (Summit in the morning and 4th in the afternoon) during rush hour. Hopefully both of those things will change over the next few years. Certainly we’re trying, anyway.

    I live on 4th on North Campus, and I can certainly say that there is plenty of space for my car and many more if need be. The generic 1:1 ratio for parking actually gives students less options by requiring the price of parking to be built in to all units in the neighborhood.

    Although today I do need my car to make my daily commute, in the future if I don’t need it I would like to be given the option to live in a dense neighborhood that doesn’t have to accomdate everyones car. If the market calls for more density and less cars (I assume that Edwards would not try to build if the market didn’t call for it), then perhaps we should give it a chance.

    #423767
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Take Heed City Planners: Fewer Parking Spots Leads to Reduced Auto

    Through a number of different policies–from losing one on-street parking space for every off-street space available to trading minimum parking requirements in new developments for maximum limits–these cities saw rates of city traffic dropping, with people opting for more convenient methods of commuting such as biking or public transport. Amsterdam, one of the ten cities, saw as much as a 20 percent drop in inner city traffic.

    Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/25/take-heed-city-planners-fewer-parking-spots-leads-to-reduced-auto-emissions/#ixzz1C5hOlz3J

    #423768

    Antonio
    Member

    Having a car on Campuis is actually a pain in the ass. With finding the parking, vehicles being broken into, vandalism to cars The hit a runs on vehicles. If you don’t need to drive why bother with it if a bus can take you there.

    #423769

    econJoe
    Participant

    Damn right, I’ve moved on to that Oyo vodka from Middle West Spirits, and that shit ain’t cheap.

    Cookie wrote >>

    Walker wrote >>
    What’s the problem?

    There are students who live on campus who need to work for more than beer money, and their employment opportunities are limited if their transportation options are limited.

    #423770

    This is a great concept and project and can only improve the High street strip – This needs to be approved. The parking to unit ratios that Columbus continues to enforce are absurd in the twenty first century…better suited to a cornfield than a major city with valuable urban real estate. This is good and appropriate development. Edwards is spot on in concept and business plan. This will be a success and an asset to OSU, the City, The Univeristy District, yada, yada, yada… Grow up Columbus, get out of the Shoe and visit the East Coast for perspective!

    #423771

    econJoe
    Participant

    If there are huge numbers of people who can only reach their jobs by autos, we should not be demanding more parking sparks; rather, we should be asking these companies why they are locating off transit lines.

    For perspective, Chicago’s density is ~13,000 people per square mile. Ours is ~3500. That means that maintaining our city and providing public transit to it are much more expensive per resident. As well, look at Manhattan or Boston’s North End. There is definitely not a parking spot for every person, yet people dream to live in those places.

    #423772

    labi
    Participant

    joshlapp wrote >>

    labi wrote >>

    joshlapp wrote >>
    The people that need cars can live in areas that have plenty of space for cars (ie: 4th and Summit), while we can still let the High Street Corridor densify.

    4th and Summit only look like they have “plenty of space for cars” because about 25% of the residential units in Weinland Park are vacant AND because right now, you can’t park on the relevant one-way (Summit in the morning and 4th in the afternoon) during rush hour. Hopefully both of those things will change over the next few years. Certainly we’re trying, anyway.

    I live on 4th on North Campus, and I can certainly say that there is plenty of space for my car and many more if need be. The generic 1:1 ratio for parking actually gives students less options by requiring the price of parking to be built in to all units in the neighborhood.

    I should have been clearer in what I said. My main point was that the availability of parking now along those streets, at least in my neighborhood, is related to factors that will very likely be changing over the next year or two.

    Back to the main-er point – From what I hear, the Edwards project was pulled off the zoning agenda for last night.

    #423773

    melikecheese
    Participant

    I’ve visited campuses in the middle of nowhere that don’t allow students to have cars the first 2 years. Students made it just fine, even walked places that took them 45 mins. If you are living on campus, you don’t need a car at all unless you have some special needs.

    I think this is a good project, looking forward to it.

    #423774

    johnwirtz
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>
    If there are huge numbers of people who can only reach their jobs by autos, we should not be demanding more parking sparks; rather, we should be asking these companies why they are locating off transit lines.

    Maybe we should also ask local governments why they give companies tax incentives to locate in transportation inefficient locations?

    #423775

    econJoe
    Participant

    No argument here! :)

    johnwirtz wrote >>

    econJoe wrote >>
    If there are huge numbers of people who can only reach their jobs by autos, we should not be demanding more parking sparks; rather, we should be asking these companies why they are locating off transit lines.

    Maybe we should also ask local governments why they give companies tax incentives to locate in transportation inefficient locations?

    #423776

    osuhomebase
    Member

    I wonder how this fits in with Gee’s plans to have all 2nd year students in residence halls. To me, I see this happening:
    OSU tries to suck more students into campus housing
    + Edwards student housing development
    = low income families from Weinland Park start moving into the campus area… I lived on campus and I can tell you that my landlord would have sold his first born son before he would spend an extra dime improving the living conditions in my apartment. Why would landlords waste time and money competing with newer facilities that are closer to campus when they could just cater to a new audience that’s right down the street anyway?

    Also… just sayin… if you drive down 4th, you’ll see half of Weinland Park has been burnt down from arson… people have to move somewhere.

    #423777
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Cookie wrote >>
    If saying that students that felt they needed their cars to get to work created that need themselves isn’t another way of saying they don’t really need their cars, then I misread it.

    Let me try this again.

    Essentially, we have two types of students at OSU: Students who relocate to OSU who already have a car (A), and students who relocate to OSU who don’t have a car (B).

    This is all theoretical, but bear with me.

    Student A decides they want to find a job. They own a car, so their search includes job locations near and far. They find a job, perhaps only reachable by car, and now they’ve created a need for automobile transport in that decision.

    Student B decides they want to find a job. They don’t own a car, so their search includes locations nearby that are walkable, or easily accessible by public transit. They find a job within those parameters, and have not created a need for automobile transport.

    In the end, we have some students who need cars and other who don’t, but that need is one that is created by the ease of owning a car in the first place. Zoning and development laws over the past half-century have made it easier and easier to own cars, and while there are benefits to this, there are also real problems that should be addressed.

    What I’m getting at (as it relates to this specific topic on this specific project) is do we want to support development around OSU that encourages more cars or less cars in the future? I’m not saying that we need to push for existing car owners to give up their necessary modes of transit.

    #423778
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    rory wrote >>
    I’m not sure if the parking situation becomes really bad that people clamor for public transportation (which would be my wish). It certainly hasn’t worked in the Short North.

    If I recall correctly, some of the strongest support for the Streetcar came from within the service area, including the Short North. The opposition was external.

    #423779
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>

    For perspective, Chicago’s density is ~13,000 people per square mile. Ours is ~3500. That means that maintaining our city and providing public transit to it are much more expensive per resident. As well, look at Manhattan or Boston’s North End. There is definitely not a parking spot for every person, yet people dream to live in those places.

    Some people… not all.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)

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

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION