Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

The Arbor

This topic contains 22 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  CB_downtowner 2 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1126222

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/11/163-unit-apartment-complex-planned-for-parsons.html

    A new residential project for the Near South Side at 482 South Lane. Although the project will replace a large chunk of the surface parking in this area, 245 spaces for 163 units is ridiculous.

    #1126274

    Shako
    Participant

    Many households need one vehicle per working adult. Why is it absurd that a developer would accommodate market expectations?

    #1126275

    WJT
    Participant

    http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/11/163-unit-apartment-complex-planned-for-parsons.html

    A new residential project for the Near South Side at 482 South Lane. Although the project will replace a large chunk of the surface parking in this area, 245 spaces for 163 units is ridiculous.

    The alternatives transportation options are just not good enough in Columbus at this time it seems. We have a bus system that is not that great, if only the city would decide to start with that and try to have one of the best bus systems in the country that would be a start.

    Many people may be ready for something other than a private car(or cars) but until there is an alternative that is acceptable this is what we are going to get. Even if people would accept less parking, if the developers provide it, the residents are probably not going to complain-are the developers responding to the consumers, or are they just assuming this is what the potential residents want?

    At least much of it is covered and not provided as a huge surface lot-that is actually progress here lol.

    #1126276
    Eridony
    Eridony
    Participant

    http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/11/163-unit-apartment-complex-planned-for-parsons.html

    A new residential project for the Near South Side at 482 South Lane. Although the project will replace a large chunk of the surface parking in this area, 245 spaces for 163 units is ridiculous.

    Looking at the site plan most of the parking seems to be in a structure under one of the buildings so I really don’t think the number of spots is a big deal. I think the plan is well suited for this site.

    #1126277

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/11/163-unit-apartment-complex-planned-for-parsons.html

    A new residential project for the Near South Side at 482 South Lane. Although the project will replace a large chunk of the surface parking in this area, 245 spaces for 163 units is ridiculous.

    The alternatives transportation options are just not good enough in Columbus at this time it seems. We have a bus system that is not that great, if only the city would decide to start with that and try to have one of the best bus systems in the country that would be a start.

    Many people may be ready for something other than a private car(or cars) but until there is an alternative that is acceptable this is what we are going to get. Even if people would accept less parking, if the developers provide it, the residents are probably not going to complain-are the developers responding to the consumers, or are they just assuming this is what the potential residents want?

    At least much of it is covered and not provided as a huge surface lot-that is actually progress here! lol.

    * I wonder if there are any really in-depth recent studies of what people moving into the central areas of the city expect or want in terms of public transit and what attitudes are towards the private car, existing public transit, future options, etc? Also, why did the developer think they needed to provide 245 spaces? Has anyone asked?

    #1126287

    Shako
    Participant

    They own the land. The dude has worked on the site for 30 years and had this idea for 8. He is the one putting his capital at risk. Unless what he is doing is in violation of city code, give him a break and let him build his project in peace. This, along with the other development he has completed, is obviously a positive for the community. He frankly doesn’t owe any of you an explanation as to why he is choosing the number of parking spots. Go secure capital and build your own probject if you think it should be done differently.

    #1126293

    wpcc88
    Participant

    I would assume he would make some of the spots public for other use much like the Hub in Short North. Also he said they will be affordable places so I’m not sure what the fuss is all about. So many people on here complain there isn’t enough affordable housing around downtown; finally someone proposes a new build that will be and all they can do is sit at their keyboards and complain.

    #1126295

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    They own the land. The dude has worked on the site for 30 years and had this idea for 8. He is the one putting his capital at risk. Unless what he is doing is in violation of city code, give him a break and let him build his project in peace. This, along with the other development he has completed, is obviously a positive for the community. He frankly doesn’t owe any of you an explanation as to why he is choosing the number of parking spots. Go secure capital and build your own probject if you think it should be done differently.

    This is kind of a silly argument when you consider all the people that actively make decisions and offer views about development projects in the city that have no actual financial investments at stake. Pretty much every neighborhood development commission fits that description. You seem to basically be arguing that a developer has the right to act unilaterally, and that the public at large should have no say. Even I, being as critical as I sometimes am about resident NIMBYism and poor decisions from commissions, would not argue that.

    #1126296

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I would assume he would make some of the spots public for other use much like the Hub in Short North. Also he said they will be affordable places so I’m not sure what the fuss is all about. So many people on here complain there isn’t enough affordable housing around downtown; finally someone proposes a new build that will be and all they can do is sit at their keyboards and complain.

    I didn’t see any complaints about it being affordable. I just personally think that having 50% more parking spots than residential units is excessive for any urban project.

    #1126297

    wpcc88
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wpcc88 wrote:</div>
    I would assume he would make some of the spots public for other use much like the Hub in Short North. Also he said they will be affordable places so I’m not sure what the fuss is all about. So many people on here complain there isn’t enough affordable housing around downtown; finally someone proposes a new build that will be and all they can do is sit at their keyboards and complain.

    I didn’t see any complaints about it being affordable. I just personally think that having 50% more parking spots than residential units is excessive for any urban project.

    Before I moved back to the Short North I always tried to park at the Hub. Once it was filled the emphasis was on “tried.” I saw a few people on the facebook post for the article say that they use the lot to park in for work and that’s where my point lies.

    #1126298

    ohbr
    Participant

    If the current lot services Nationwide Children’s Hospital employees, I too guess that the added spaces are not necessarily for residents only and will be like other projects with parking components that are made to serve residents and the public. I don’t see anything ridiculous about a below grade deck with great amenities and lack of massive surface lots for residents. The proposed millennial tower will have roughly 500% more spaces compared to residential units yet the argument that it is for public and nearby employees seems to be well accepted. (That is if i remember the numbers correctly) Why is 50% more so absurd here? Perhaps because it’s not contributing to the mass of the structure or height? By your argument, we should be advocating for less parking at the M resulting in a shorter tower, no?

    #1126322

    Mike88
    Participant

    This seems like a solid plan.
    I don’t get the gripe about parking, we’re replacing lots without losing spaces and not adding cars to an area that can be tough to find spots already.

    I think the fact that these are slated to be more affordable units and will add more density are much bigger wins, than the oversized lot “loss”.

    #1126332

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    I think this is a great proposal. Hoping we see similar infill/density continue to pop-up along the Parsons and Livingston Ave corridors in future years. It will help revitalize both the adjacent single-family residential neighborhoods and the main commercial corridors.

    With regards to parking – looking at the site plan, there are only ~50 surface parking spots devoted to the residential portion of the development. The rest of their dedicated supply is underground. All other surface parking on-site is pre-existing and serves the commercial and retail buildings along Parsons and Livingston. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

    #1126341

    WJT
    Participant

    If the current lot services Nationwide Children’s Hospital employees, I too guess that the added spaces are not necessarily for residents only and will be like other projects with parking components that are made to serve residents and the public. I don’t see anything ridiculous about a below grade deck with great amenities and lack of massive surface lots for residents. The proposed millennial tower will have roughly 500% more spaces compared to residential units yet the argument that it is for public and nearby employees seems to be well accepted. (That is if i remember the numbers correctly) Why is 50% more so absurd here? Perhaps because it’s not contributing to the mass of the structure or height? By your argument, we should be advocating for less parking at the M resulting in a shorter tower, no?

    You can’t forget that the parking for the new tower will serve the approximately 100 units(and they will be high end and demand not only one but possibly two spaces, especially for the condos) plus the ground floor retail, and most importantly, almost 200,000 square feet of office space. The five floor new Nationwide building downtown has about that amount of square footage, and I think has about 1,000 employees. 180,000 square feet of office space should have over 500 employees easily.

    Also with the Two25 planned to take up much of the huge City Center garage, there will be more pressure on existing garages, like the one next to this planned tower, so they have to include a decent amount of parking until we can get our public transit together(if ever).

    Regarding this Arbor project, given how it is handled(mostly underground with amenities on top) and that it will serve probably not only residents but others nearby, I am ok with it really. They can always plop some more apts. on the smaller surface lot later if they have too much parking(LOL! in Columbus-too much parking!!! as if.)

    #1126363

    Shako
    Participant

    Not at all. I said as long as codes are not violated. To my knowledge there aren’t any restrictions on having “too much parking”– as it doesn’t impact you or anyone else whatsoever. On the other hand, not having enough parking can impact the quality of life for neighbors– which is why there are minimums (and a reasonable process for seeking exceptions to those minimums, for situations where the developer recognizes the market doesn’t require as much parking as the code does).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

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