Our City Online

Messageboard

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 271 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Idea: Relocating Crew Stadium to the Arena District #1127267

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    I think it’s a long shot. But I’d still prefer Crew Stadium be close to downtown:
    1) Mapfre Stadium may host events, but it’s still terrible for big crowds. Terrible traffic out, not enough bathrooms, huge bottlenecks at the entrance
    2) If we’re bringing 10-20K, it’s a waste to me to not drive pre/post game retail. And that foot traffic would really benefit downtown retail
    3) I’ve seen too many big games with empty seats. At the current location, they’ll always struggle to pull in casual fans. It’s a hassle to get there and anyone not within walking distance is going to drive there… often drunk.
    4) Seems like a great opportunity to bring more outdoor events/festivals downtown

    I get why people like the stadium. It pulls in diehards, tailgating is awesome, and the psychological international advantage. It’s not a terrible option. I just think we’re wasting opportunities for Crew Stadium to benefit Columbus and I look at the wild success of Portland/Kansas City and even Huntington Park, and feel Columbus could easily do the same.

    in reply to: The Arbor #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.

    in reply to: Millennial Tower #1126279

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mbeaumont wrote:</div><br>
    Looks like the name is temporary, from Business First:

    Q: There was some confusion about the name Millennial, is that about the generation?

    A: It’s about the generation. Ultimately we’ll hopefully have an anchor tenant that’s going to want the naming rights to the building. We would hope it would be (in place before the building opens).

    I would hope it’s more than a name and in reality a serious push at finally trying to reach a badly missed demographic for downtown. I’m not talking about dirt cheap housing. There are plenty of millennials and YPs who can afford a decent place but are completely priced out by downtown inventory. I will be unbelievably disappointed if we hear that this is yet another option that completely prices out most of this generation.

    And no, I am not a millennial but I understand they’re a key piece to building a better downtown.

    I would bet this is going very high end. With all of the amenities and with only 90-110 units this is going to be expensive housing. If they did try to make it less expensive they would cut amenities and value engineer the hell out of this-and they might value engineer the hell out of it anyways and we will get something much less bold. If you look at new proposals across the nation in a variety of cities and see the original proposal and then see what is built, this is quite common and disappointing-the redesigns, cutbacks, value engineering.

    As someone mentioned somewhere, those huge cantilevered balconies will likely be cut back, and I would bet that screen for the parking will be replaced with something much more mundane-and cheaper.

    I have a feeling that’s how it will be built too. Which would make this a bizarre PR move. As if millennials will feel flattered for building a technologically advanced building that almost none of them could possibly afford.

    in reply to: Millennial Tower #1126269

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Looks like the name is temporary, from Business First:

    Q: There was some confusion about the name Millennial, is that about the generation?

    A: It’s about the generation. Ultimately we’ll hopefully have an anchor tenant that’s going to want the naming rights to the building. We would hope it would be (in place before the building opens).

    I would hope it’s more than a name and in reality a serious push at finally trying to reach a badly missed demographic for downtown. I’m not talking about dirt cheap housing. There are plenty of millennials and YPs who can afford a decent place but are completely priced out by downtown inventory. I will be unbelievably disappointed if we hear that this is yet another option that completely prices out most of this generation.

    And no, I am not a millennial but I understand they’re a key piece to building a better downtown.

    in reply to: Uber to End Surge Pricing, Allow Tips #1125462

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    ^^ but conversely, won’t the cost of a cab ride adapt to the (cheaper for now) cost of an Uber ride?

    It would be a bummer to have prices raised on Uber. But let’s be real… the main reason people use Uber is because of the technology and the app, especially in Columbus. Even if the prices are the same, I’d still much rather use an Uber where I can track my car and pay through my phone.

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1125253

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    jbcmh81… Cutting out much of our above exchange from block quotes since it’s getting lengthy.
    The driverless grant would provide “first mile/last mile” transport to mass transit. It solves a huge problem in today’s system. In this case, the objective is to plug in a current weakness in today’s mass transit. One of many interesting ways driverless can revolutionize mass transit and I’m excited this kind of innovation is even on our radar.

    We’ll agree to disagree on the other points which I know we’ve discussed at length.

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1125154

    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”>MichaelC wrote:</div><br><br>
    We’ve had a lot of discussion of parking in this thread, so this seems like a decent place to drop this new article from Business First on downtown’s parking situation.

    “The central point, however, is that we’re not going to park our way to prosperity,” Schoeny said. “More car storage is not the solution.”

    Giving drivers alternative transportation options will be a focal point in coming years, he said. Columbus is a finalist for a $50 million U.S. Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge grant – Columbus’ application includes a number of alternative transportation improvements.

    Convincing more downtown commuters to leave their cars at home is ultimately what it will take for growth to continue, Ricksecker said.

    “The basic question is, do we really want to be a city? If you want to have density, and a vibrant downtown, you can’t have unlimited parking – that parking is a tremendous waste of good real estate.”

    It’s all well and good to talk about car alternatives, but that has literally been the extent of things for 40 years. The city has made zero moves towards changing the reality of how its residents get around.

    Zero moves is a pretty big exaggeration. The city has made some bold steps and seems inviting to private solutions like Uber. And their grant request shows they’re interested in innovating. Sure, I wish we were further along. I wish we’d develop more property for downtown residents who don’t need cars. But given how far we need to go, we can’t expect this to happen overnight.

    If it’s an exaggeration, it is a slight one. Uber is fine if people don’t want to drive themselves, but it is basically a taxi service which is made up of cars. More cars on the road are not alternatives to cars, and taxis have never been considered to be alternative transit as far as I can tell. They provide zero of the economic development benefits of transit and still contribute to traffic. As for their grant request, it’s about, shockingly, cars. Self-driving cars do absolutely nothing to dispel the car-first mentality that saturates Columbus. It is also out of reach of many people who could not afford them.<br>
    What other “bold steps” have been made, exactly? The city can’t even get BRT right, which has been watered down to a regular bus despite there being great examples worldwide to emulate for many years now. Anything else?<br>
    Recreational bike paths are not alternative transit, and even if they were, they lack the connectivity to biking infrastructure once you exit them. Most of Columbus’ existing biking infrastructure otherwise is made up of sharrows, which studies have shown to be essentially useless and perhaps even more dangerous than having nothing at all.<br>
    It’s not just the lack of rail and the lack of any actual plan to change that reality, though that is embarrassing enough as it is. It is that the city has managed to do only the very barest minimum, and even its “bold” ideas ensure that the status quo is maintained in terms of a majority car culture. COTA is getting better, but that’s not exactly saying a lot considering the state it was in. It would be one thing if the lone alternative form of transit in Columbus was one of the best nationally, but it is not. Ultimately, Columbus IS being compared to other cities, and on this front, it continues to fall further behind. I don’t expect things to happen overnight, but there needs to be a serious plan to even begin the multi-year process of adding more transit options, and there isn’t even that at this point. MORPC’s proposed “high-capacity” transit routes are unfunded without any details on type or time frame for implementation, other than they may happen by 2040. Yay?

    Well, really the primary focus is on downtown, right? I know you’re more frustrated with suburb-to-downtown transit and vice versa, not suburb-to-suburb. And I think your frustration is that commuters lead to downtown parkers, moreso than traffic congestion (which isn’t a key problem… yet). Maybe not moving fast enough. But we have a new airport circulator. And we read that we’re testing partnerships with private and hopefully public sector downtown firms to get easier access to COTA passes.

    And the grant request isn’t there to encourage driverless cars on highways. It’s there because public transport stops aren’t always conveniently located so it gives transporters ability to drive to and from a more convenient spot. Makes it less necessary to build new routes and stops. Incidentally, downtown transportation infrastructure does the same. The mix of alt transit allows you to basically access anywhere downtown through public transit, even if there isn’t a convenient COTA spot.

    But we also need to make downtown more attractive for downtown residents which will increase # of people who live where they work. I live downtown. Uber is a huge upgrade in a city like CBus where taxis aren’t always easy to find. I don’t park in public garages much because I now walk to work, Uber or Cbus to Short North. I don’t bike much but the bike lanes are there if I wanted to. I’d have to imagine these options have significantly cut down car use between German Village all the way to campus. I wish development would do a better job targeting residents who are more likely to go car-less, but the infrastructure is certainly there in a big way that it wasn’t a few years ago.

    in reply to: Uber #1124934

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    If for some reason you can’t find an Uber, try Lyft…the have a promotion for $5 off your first 10 rides within 14 days.

    Yup. I used Lyft for the first time a few weeks ago because of that promo. Was interesting to hear that many Uber drivers are also Lyft drivers. Best thing to do is use both apps. I start with Uber and if there aren’t any cars or if surge pricing is too high, I check out availability on Lyft.

    To the original poster… you should have no problem finding an Uber by the Newport on a weeknight. You’re by campus so there will be plenty of Ubers. Only issue is when all the crowd leaves at once so you might want to find a spot away from the crowd so the driver can find you and someone doesn’t accidentally take your car. And beware of surge pricing which can sometimes get high after a show.

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1124929

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div>
    We’ve had a lot of discussion of parking in this thread, so this seems like a decent place to drop this new article from Business First on downtown’s parking situation.

    “The central point, however, is that we’re not going to park our way to prosperity,” Schoeny said. “More car storage is not the solution.”

    Giving drivers alternative transportation options will be a focal point in coming years, he said. Columbus is a finalist for a $50 million U.S. Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge grant – Columbus’ application includes a number of alternative transportation improvements.

    Convincing more downtown commuters to leave their cars at home is ultimately what it will take for growth to continue, Ricksecker said.

    “The basic question is, do we really want to be a city? If you want to have density, and a vibrant downtown, you can’t have unlimited parking – that parking is a tremendous waste of good real estate.”

    It’s all well and good to talk about car alternatives, but that has literally been the extent of things for 40 years. The city has made zero moves towards changing the reality of how its residents get around.

    Zero moves is a pretty big exaggeration. The city has made some bold steps and seems inviting to private solutions like Uber. And their grant request shows they’re interested in innovating. Sure, I wish we were further along. I wish we’d develop more property for downtown residents who don’t need cars. But given how far we need to go, we can’t expect this to happen overnight.

    in reply to: Neighborhood Launch – News & Discussion #1124927

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    I really like the idea of fast-tracking more of the Mews projects because they seem to be going up so much quicker. Because they don’t have to build below-ground. This also looks like a beautiful project. I hadn’t seen updates but the pictures and floorplans on the NL site help put a picture together. I can kind of see how garages are incorporated in but I’m not fully piecing that together yet.
    http://www.neighborhoodlaunch.com/floorplans

    Also… the self-storage building looks really close to done. The wall facing NL is a bit of an eyesore, but the sides facing Long St and 4th St are at least a little interesting. But pretty cool to see that development go up lightning fast.

    in reply to: Nationwide Realty buys more land in Franklinton #1123157

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    My guess is that it will look a lot like Grandview Yard and the Arena District when it’s done. That is the ‘period design’ of the ‘right now’ period.

    Think earlier in this thread someone specifically said it would be different.

    I would hope the area will go for industrial and affordable. With Brew Dog, Strongwater, and Rehab, I’d think NRi knows better than to reinvent the neighborhood.

    in reply to: Condado – Tacos, Tequila & Margaritas – Short North #1123156

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Really damn excited for this. What a great injection of vibrancy. It seems like taco joints are “if you build it, they will come” with the success of Local Cantina and Condado. That area really needs a jolt of vibrancy.

    That’s turning into a nice little stretch with Condado, Chintz, Salt & Pine, and the new De Novo. And just a stone’s throw from the Red Brick District.

    in reply to: White City:The new urban blight is rich people #1121985

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Just wondering why we need affordavle housing in a particular neighborhood? Isn’t that why one goes to school and works hard so they can live where they want? I really don’t understand why everything has to be equal.

    You think people who want affordable housing don’t work hard? I live downtown. If I want downtown to be vibrant, we need better retail diversity and density, both of which would be achieved through income diversity. We need residents who would give up their cars. We need more younger people who can build vibrancy to the neighborhoods.

    Why in the world would anyone want our downtown to only be accessible to rich people?

    in reply to: White City:The new urban blight is rich people #1121974

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Everyone wants the same things; a nice roof over one’s head in a safe area where one can walk around the block w/o interrupting a drug purchase, or being accosted, or having your car constantly mined for loose change. There is no pragmatic way to live well below one’s means and not find one’s neighbors conducting their lives in a manner that does not conform to one’s expectations as one educates one’s self and becomes a bit more affluent. It’s economic,not race; live in any poor small town, especially in southern or western Ohio and you’ll be longing for the “gentrification” of 43215. Tis the reason for the realtor’s song “location x 3″; It’s always surprising to me that the “section 8 landlords” hold on as long as they do, when a sale or some rehab would dramatically increase their investment. I’m good with the simple life but when the “entrepreneurs” bring violence to your block it’s time for change.

    Problem is, Columbus isn’t just talking about section 8 housing. We are talking about affordable places to buy or rent. There are some in the surrounding neighborhood. But I’m constantly disappointed by how every single build downtown is extremely expensive and/or high square footage. Let’s start first with affordable housing and from there see what housing diversity issues still remain.

    in reply to: White Castle Headquarters Development #1121603

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div>
    My guess is that we’ll see White Castle keep its HQ on location, that we’ll see a White Castle restaurant open up, and that the rest of the acreage will be mixed use residential, office, retail, etc.

    That view could be nice for a hotel, too.

    I predict six story stick builds, max. Oh well. Such is life. Hopefully whatever they build is well designed and with quality materials.

    I’m not too worried about height at this location. Function is much more important to me here.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 271 total)

Ring in the decade in style! Join us for an all-inclusive NYE celebration!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFO