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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 3 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1126365

    rory
    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).

    Too much parking should be against the code as far as I’m concerned. A lot of cities have gotten rid of parking minimums. Parking minimums aren’t exactly the neighborhood enhancement you’d like to think. Parking drives up rent and sets back public transportation. Columbus should have parking maximums.

    #1126378

    jbcmh81
    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).

    All this is really showing is the rampant car-first culture in Columbus, and frankly, a fairly significant misunderstanding of how urban neighborhoods should function. So many pay lip service to “walkability”, but then defend mass quantities of parking. If there is ever to be serious transit in Columbus, this is pretty much the absolute worst way to get it. Granted, this particular project is hardly the worst offender, but from my pov, having a consistent position on creating a true urban environment is really important. I will never be a “better luck next time” kind of guy.

    #1126398

    phaedrus
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Shako wrote:</div>
    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).

    All this is really showing is the rampant car-first culture in Columbus, and frankly, a fairly significant misunderstanding of how urban neighborhoods should function. So many pay lip service to “walkability”, but then defend mass quantities of parking. If there is ever to be serious transit in Columbus, this is pretty much the absolute worst way to get it. Granted, this particular project is hardly the worst offender, but from my pov, having a consistent position on creating a true urban environment is really important. I will never be a “better luck next time” kind of guy.

    Awww. It’s cute that Shako didn’t realize he was posting in the Sims Super-User forum :)

    #1126404

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Shako wrote:</div><br>
    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).

    All this is really showing is the rampant car-first culture in Columbus, and frankly, a fairly significant misunderstanding of how urban neighborhoods should function. So many pay lip service to “walkability”, but then defend mass quantities of parking. If there is ever to be serious transit in Columbus, this is pretty much the absolute worst way to get it. Granted, this particular project is hardly the worst offender, but from my pov, having a consistent position on creating a true urban environment is really important. I will never be a “better luck next time” kind of guy.

    Awww. It’s cute that Shako didn’t realize he was posting in the Sims Super-User forum :)

    Can you explain how it is unrealistic to push for the best use of space in development and urban form? Is it impossible to have development standards that, as mentioned above, remove parking minimums or implement maximums instead? Is it pure delusion to believe that Columbus can do things that many other cities are already doing? People can mock me all they want, but the real fantasy is that the status quo is always the best that can be done. I do think this project is more positive than negative, but that is setting the bar pretty low.

    #1126423

    Shako
    Participant

    Saying people shouldn’t have automobiles so that it forces the need for a train is logically backwards.

    #1126424

    Shako
    Participant

    Are there really cities where it is against the law to develop a parking lot into a residential community with too much parking? If you can cite an example I will concede part of my argument. But even then it would be on you to demonstrate that a comparable standard is appropriate right now in Columbus. Absent that, you ought to not lose so much sleep over the fact that someone is improving a neighborhood that you don’t live in :)

    #1126436

    ohbr
    Participant

    There are places with parking caps, yes. The ones I’m aware of are around Philadelphia. But some of those places have minimums as well.

    As for this project. If it didn’t have this underground deck, I suppose it would have just been a green lawn so I’m not quite sure what concern there is to have here. First you argue to get rid of minimums which has been the case for awhile now and now you want caps. Enter this:

    Saying people shouldn’t have automobiles so that it forces the need for a train is logically backwards.

    The chicken and egg. Reducing parking for a heavily car dependent city is not going to force enough people to live closer to work. It’s not going to force enough people on to buses and it certainly won’t force better mass transit. IMO, as has been discussed thousands of times here, we need the mass transit infrastructure before we can really start to reduce our car centric core development. Forcing a massive parking shortage is not the answer to some of these perceived issues.

    #1126480

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Should we really worry about parking on Parsons/Livingston? It’s not like this is on High St. I would imagine the big driver of this development is to give a housing option for workers at the hospital. Not to drive residents who prefer a certain mode of transportation.

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)

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

 

Got 5 minutes? Please take our 2019 demographic survey and tell us a bit about yourself and share your thoughts on how CU can improve!