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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Two25 17 Story High Rise Proposed for SE Columbus Commons

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Two25 17 Story High Rise Proposed for SE Columbus Commons

This topic contains 303 replies, has 60 voices, and was last updated by  Mike88 2 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 304 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1120637

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

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

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

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

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Stephen43215 wrote:</div><br><br><br><br>
    What about building garages with private developments underground like other cities? It doesn’t have to be a 6 story parking garage taking up thne entire block!

    Probably because it is more expensive to dig underground than building a block-sized garage. Minimum parking requirements just need to go away.

    There are no minimum parking requirements downtown.

    If so, then the focus by the city and the development community would be even more frustrating. A forward-thinking policy like that is undermined by a continued focus on providing parking for every single person.

    Maybe, but maybe not. Providing ample parking infrastructure buys the city time to chip away at the problem without delaying development. I agree with your premise, just don’t agree with the idea that it has to happen immediately. And I do like that the city is seemingly trying hard to chip away, between cogo and cbus, bike lanes, Uber and lyft, Cars2go, this Cota pilot, and the recent grant request I would hope these help improve the problem. As many have mentioned here, the bigger pivot needs to be encouraging more nondriving residential and in my opinion that means more affordable housing downtown.

    Except I don’t really see where the city is making an effort to chip away at the real problem, which is transit. CoGo and the CBus are great, but their footprint is just too small to be effective in this regard, especially with people coming into Downtown from outer areas. Lyft and Car2Go are not mass transit and they are private companies, so Columbus really can’t be given credit for them. The only sort of discussion on mass transit is MORPC’s potential project list for 2016-2040, and many of those transit routes are probably at least 5, if not many more years away from being up and running, and that’s provided that funding is secured and the population doesn’t reject any proposals- not to mention that any routes will have to be studied over and over again. With the airport’s new terminal potentially having a multi-modal station, it would make sense to have at least a few lines connecting to it by the time it is completed, but who knows at this point. That wouldn’t be until 2030, anyway. So the city could very easily go another 14-15 years without a single additional mass transit option (and no, I still don’t count the CMAX which, despite how it is being sold, is really just another regular bus line). By then, Columbus will literally have been left behind by every major, or even not major, city in America. Not a great place to be, and certainly not a selling point for future growth.

    The pilot with 4 companies on free COTA ridership will get there. And the grant request for driverless cars shows we are thinking outside the box. I would love rail too, but these are alternatives that go beyond local commuting.

    And even if cogo, cbus, etc… Are there for local transit, they are solutions that could free up parking spots for outside transit. Because if you want employers downtown, you have to have adequate parking. There just isn’t a way around it short term.

    #1120698

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

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

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

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Stephen43215 wrote:</div><br><br><br><br><br>
    What about building garages with private developments underground like other cities? It doesn’t have to be a 6 story parking garage taking up thne entire block!

    Probably because it is more expensive to dig underground than building a block-sized garage. Minimum parking requirements just need to go away.

    There are no minimum parking requirements downtown.

    If so, then the focus by the city and the development community would be even more frustrating. A forward-thinking policy like that is undermined by a continued focus on providing parking for every single person.

    Maybe, but maybe not. Providing ample parking infrastructure buys the city time to chip away at the problem without delaying development. I agree with your premise, just don’t agree with the idea that it has to happen immediately. And I do like that the city is seemingly trying hard to chip away, between cogo and cbus, bike lanes, Uber and lyft, Cars2go, this Cota pilot, and the recent grant request I would hope these help improve the problem. As many have mentioned here, the bigger pivot needs to be encouraging more nondriving residential and in my opinion that means more affordable housing downtown.

    Except I don’t really see where the city is making an effort to chip away at the real problem, which is transit. CoGo and the CBus are great, but their footprint is just too small to be effective in this regard, especially with people coming into Downtown from outer areas. Lyft and Car2Go are not mass transit and they are private companies, so Columbus really can’t be given credit for them. The only sort of discussion on mass transit is MORPC’s potential project list for 2016-2040, and many of those transit routes are probably at least 5, if not many more years away from being up and running, and that’s provided that funding is secured and the population doesn’t reject any proposals- not to mention that any routes will have to be studied over and over again. With the airport’s new terminal potentially having a multi-modal station, it would make sense to have at least a few lines connecting to it by the time it is completed, but who knows at this point. That wouldn’t be until 2030, anyway. So the city could very easily go another 14-15 years without a single additional mass transit option (and no, I still don’t count the CMAX which, despite how it is being sold, is really just another regular bus line). By then, Columbus will literally have been left behind by every major, or even not major, city in America. Not a great place to be, and certainly not a selling point for future growth.

    The pilot with 4 companies on free COTA ridership will get there. And the grant request for driverless cars shows we are thinking outside the box. I would love rail too, but these are alternatives that go beyond local commuting.

    And even if cogo, cbus, etc… Are there for local transit, they are solutions that could free up parking spots for outside transit. Because if you want employers downtown, you have to have adequate parking. There just isn’t a way around it short term.

    The pilot program actually suggests you DO NOT need tons of new parking, just companies willing to at least use the existing resources.
    As far as transit goes, the bottom line there is that if the city leadership won’t act on its own, it will take vocal support from area residents to get things moving. That’s part of the reason I get annoyed with underwhelming projects in places like Downtown, because it minimizes the number of residents that could actually be living there and putting demand on alternatives. I kind of feel like that’s really the only way the city is going to take it seriously at this point.

    #1120706
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    If so, then the focus by the city and the development community would be even more frustrating. A forward-thinking policy like that is undermined by a continued focus on providing parking for every single person.

    The focus on providing parking Downtown is not by the city, it’s by private developers.

    City sez: You don’t need to building parking for your residential units.

    Developer sez: I can’t sell an apartment without a parking spot. So I’m building them anyway.

    One of the few exceptions to this thus far is Borror, with their Main & Front building providing 35 parking spots for 89 units:

    https://www.columbusunderground.com/downtown-apartment-proposal-adds-units-reduces-parking

    If these units lease quickly, then it could set the tone for other developers to follow suit. If it fails to lease quickly, then other developers will claim it a failed experience and will continue to over-accommodate parking.

    We shall see.

    #1120713

    ohbr
    Participant

    I’d like to see the numbers for commuters from Delaware county to downtown and also include Dublin and Worthington. Clearly it’s significant enough to redo 3 interchanges. I just can’t help but think that maybe one of the first major regional investments should be getting those outside the city on the north and west sides into the city more efficiently. Of course light rail is probably the option to achieve this. I would much rather throw my hat toward that investment vs a streetcar. You’re more likely to be able to increase downtown office bus ridership from those near downtown anyway, but ultimately, tackling those masses who under no circumstances can efficiently take public transit downtown should be a major goal. Imagine if all that money for 33, 23, and 315 went to a rail system. But anyway, now that this thread has been derailed…

    #1120896

    Mike88
    Participant

    I’d like to see the numbers for commuters from Delaware county to downtown and also include Dublin and Worthington. Clearly it’s significant enough to redo 3 interchanges. I just can’t help but think that maybe one of the first major regional investments should be getting those outside the city on the north and west sides into the city more efficiently. Of course light rail is probably the option to achieve this. I would much rather throw my hat toward that investment vs a streetcar. You’re more likely to be able to increase downtown office bus ridership from those near downtown anyway, but ultimately, tackling those masses who under no circumstances can efficiently take public transit downtown should be a major goal. Imagine if all that money for 33, 23, and 315 went to a rail system. But anyway, now that this thread has been derailed…

    I agree with this quite a bit, a commuter rail to suburban centers and the airport would be the way to get things rolling. Once you get downtown an expanded Cbus service can get people around and maybe one day be replaced by the old street car lines. But if we’re going to start somewhere start with commuter rail.

    Also while the conversation maybe off the rails, I feel like most of us would like to be on them! (Sorry had to)

    #1120903
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I agree with this quite a bit, a commuter rail to suburban centers and the airport would be the way to get things rolling. Once you get downtown an expanded Cbus service can get people around and maybe one day be replaced by the old street car lines. But if we’re going to start somewhere start with commuter rail.

    I’ve often thought that Nashville’s “Music City Star” line would be a good starter model to emulate in terms of a suburban commuter line. It was their first rail service of any kind since Amtrak ceased operations in the 70s (sound familiar) and runs a 32 mile stretch between suburban communities where the stops are essentially barebones park-and-rides and terminates Downtown.

    http://www.musiccitystar.org/Middle-TN-RTA-stations.asp

    Ridership has steadily grown, and at an initial cost of $41 million ($1.3 million per mile), it’s noted as the cheapest start-up rail line in the United States. They used refurbished trains instead of brand new rolling stock, and updates existing lines instead of building anything new, requiring land acquisition.

    I could see something similar being beneficial for implementation along either of the north-south existing tracks that run somewhat parallel to both 71 and 315.

    More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_City_Star

    #1120965

    JMan
    Participant

    We probably won’t have rail service here, until there is a major new innovation in rail (or something rail like) nationally. Then, twenty years after everyone else has it in their city, we’ll get it here, maybe.

    #1120973

    WJT
    Participant

    Aaron Renn(Urbanophile) recently posted these:

    http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/03/18/why-you-should-think-twice-before-building-a-rail-transit-system/

    http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/03/24/in-praise-of-plain-old-bus-service/

    He does make some good points about rail-especially being fixed in place, high cost to implement, high cost of maintenance, and the need for REAL density to make it feasible. I honestly cannot think of anywhere in Columbus that has the density besides the OSU area down to Downtown.

    And even if it is extended to suburbs, I don’t think it would get the ridership because the density could not come along with it. Think about it-a link north to Polaris. Downtown will densify, so will the OSU area. But even the Short North is hesitant about anything over 8 floors, and nothing much outside of a block or so of High(mostly).

    Then once past OSU, into Old Short North you may have some success…but Clintonville, Beechwold, Worthington? FORGET IT. Those places want to be stuck in time. There not only has to be a dense node to end the route, there has to be dense nodes along the route as well.

    I really think we should find out what the people riding the buses like, what they want, and then find out what the people who do not ride the bus but might consider it want, why they do not ride the bus, what they would like the bus experience to be like, what misconceptions they might have, and then give what people want to them. It would be less expensive than rail, not fixed in place and easy to change routes with time and change in development patterns.

    You could have express buses that run from suburb to suburb and avoid the downtown altogether. Upgrade certain lines to have a bus experience that is like a streetcar experience- cleaner running, better styling, better access, quieter, etc.

    I just think we should focus on fixing what is broken(COTA)before looking at other very costly alternatives just because ‘other cities have them, even smaller ones’ and ‘they bring development'(only if the areas allow it) and because it is the ‘in thing’ to do.

    It is kind of like OSU vs Pro Football. As good of an experience, yet OSU is not going to demand that Cbus/Franklin County cough up 1.5 billion for a new stadium or they will become the Memphis Buckeyes or the Portland Buckeyes.

    If there must be light rail or a streetcar let it start with one fairly short line, use existing rights of way as much as possible, and see how it does. And then evaluate it.

    *Also did people forget that study that listed Cbus as one of the cities with the shortest commute times? Our overbuilt freeway system has kept us from having the crushing traffic that other cities our size often have-that cuts into the possible ridership of public transit as well.

    JMHO

    *I am usually pro everything, but with expensive fixed rail service, I think we really need to think about it.

    #1120993

    drew
    Participant

    Aaron Renn(Urbanophile) recently posted these:

    http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/03/18/why-you-should-think-twice-before-building-a-rail-transit-system/

    http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/03/24/in-praise-of-plain-old-bus-service/

    He does make some good points about rail-especially being fixed in place, high cost to implement, high cost of maintenance, and the need for REAL density to make it feasible. I honestly cannot think of anywhere in Columbus that has the density besides the OSU area down to Downtown.

    It’s amazing how something as simple as a basic lifecycle cost-benefit analysis goes out the window for most lowercase-u urbanophiles when it pertains to urban enhancements of any kind. That’s really all Aaron is getting at.

    I like the idea of additional forms of public transportation, but it seems self-evident that it has to pass a basic test – would it be biting off more than we can chew?

    We’re about as sprawling as a city gets, and it seems like we need to be more honest with ourselves about that fact. And, in doing so, perhaps also understand that our current development patterns that favor neighborhood infill are probably preferable to pushing for massive CBD density.

    Who knows… one day it may lead to a uniform level of density that justifies a train or two…

    #1120996

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I agree with the general idea that any rail routes need to be well thought out and put in areas that make the most sense in terms of potential ridership. However, I greatly dislike the idea that it has to be making money to be worthwhile. While that would be great, very little infrastructure is actually profitable. It is considered to be a public good, and I view transit the same way. There are ways to mitigate expenses, but it is infrastructure every bit as much as a road is. The constant double standards are annoying.

    #1121014

    Shako
    Participant

    You know who gets to be the arbiter of what a public good is and whether it should be funded? The public. So far we’ve chosen roads and not trains. There are many logical reasons why people don’t want to pay a public subsidy for a train. But probably the main reason is that the majority of people will not use it. See all of the previously mentioned factors (density, etc). But you seem to believe that society owes you a train (and a skyscraper). Please correct what I’m sure is my misinterpretation of your comments (because you couldn’t actually believe that your own opinion matters more than that of a civic process).

    #1121024

    dcariens
    Participant

    Love sarcasm–does a lot to address real problems.

    #1121026

    Shako
    Participant

    Most central ohioans don’t view this as a problem. So the onus isn’t really on folks like me to message my position as particular way. On the other hand, if you are in the minority of individuals who feel that we need a train, or in the minority (smaller yet) who bielieve that it ought to be publicly subsidized, then griping about how most others don’t agree with you isn’t going to do much to change their (our) perspective. So you can get defensive whenever someone like me comes around to gently chide (which I admit is not the most useful thing I could be doing with my time), or you can see feedback as a gift and reminder that the views typically shared on this message board do not reflect that of the population at large. So in a way I am actually doing a favor to your cause by offering this reminder– free of charge :)

    #1121030

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Most central ohioans don’t view this as a problem. So the onus isn’t really on folks like me to message my position as particular way. On the other hand, if you are in the minority of individuals who feel that we need a train, or in the minority (smaller yet) who bielieve that it ought to be publicly subsidized, then griping about how most others don’t agree with you isn’t going to do much to change their (our) perspective. So you can get defensive whenever someone like me comes around to gently chide (which I admit is not the most useful thing I could be doing with my time), or you can see feedback as a gift and reminder that the views typically shared on this message board do not reflect that of the population at large. So in a way I am actually doing a favor to your cause by offering this reminder– free of charge :)

    Many Central Ohioans also complain about sharing roads with bikes and not being able to drive 50 miles per hour in what should be a walkable stretch of downtown. My guess is most didn’t anticipate the demand for the Cbus. The reason Central Ohioans don’t use public transportation is because we haven’t been creative about how to get them to use it. The rise of Cars2go, Uber/Lyft, Cbus, Cogo shows that the demand is certainly there for the right type of transportation.

    And then we just do it, we fix it, and surprise! People use the infrastructure we built. Alternative transportation will require a cultural change, but it’s a very important one if we want this city to thrive. I’m not a rail or bust guy. But if we don’t go with rail, we better have a very good alternative.

    #1121031

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    You know who gets to be the arbiter of what a public good is and whether it should be funded? The public. So far we’ve chosen roads and not trains. There are many logical reasons why people don’t want to pay a public subsidy for a train. But probably the main reason is that the majority of people will not use it. See all of the previously mentioned factors (density, etc). But you seem to believe that society owes you a train (and a skyscraper). Please correct what I’m sure is my misinterpretation of your comments (because you couldn’t actually believe that your own opinion matters more than that of a civic process).

    The public isn’t exactly voting on every new road project that it is insisted be the case for every transit issue, like funding buses. People drive because, in most cases, the tiny bit of alternatives are not practical. They drive because they have to, and the question of whether or not they want to or even should in all cases, never really comes up. The most important question of all, whether the road system’s actual costs be passed along to those who use it, also never seems to be very popular. The hundreds of thousands of miles of sprawling cul-de-sacs where every house gets practically its own road is not exactly using public dollars for the best possible outcome, but it is tolerated by most because they either don’t think about those costs or they consider roads to be a basic public good in which it is not required to be profitable.
    Bottom line is… why does society owe you a road in which you don’t actually pay for, or only pay for partially? The “civic process” in regards to roads is that there is none. There is an automatic expectation that they get built, expanded and maintained at any cost. It is not transit advocates that are smugly milking an inefficient system for personal gain and then bemoaning alternatives that are already held to significantly higher standards of success.

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 304 total)

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

subscribe_email Get Columbus News Updates in Your Inbox!

Stay in the know! Enter your email address to subscribe to the latest news: