Forum Replies Created
^^ but conversely, won’t the cost of a cab ride adapt to the (cheaper for now) cost of an Uber ride?
Not if the taxi companies realize it’s not profitable to compete with Uber, and that Uber’s current pricing is unsustainable.
None of that is to say that Uber won’t continue to be preferred by many over cabs for all sorts of legitimate reasons, just that they won’t be as cheap as they are now.
Prediction: within a couple of years, the price for an Uber ride won’t be that different for the price of a comparable cab ride. The only real cost efficiency I can see is the lack of need for a dispatcher, otherwise all of the other costs are very close to the same – car maintenance, cost of gas, income significant enough to make it worth working for them, etc.
Even the lack of benefits associated with being a ‘contractor’ will have to come from somewhere, and I doubt that government is going to be willing to allow such a high profile company set the precedent that it’ll come from the public coffers.
Sounds more like resentment toward the wealthy than whether or not columbus should have a 15 dollar minimum wage (which was the intended discussion)…
They are connected. The wealthy hoard money but the less well-to-do spend it – if you’re only making 30K a year (full time at $15/hour), you basically have to, even in an affordable city like Columbus. That’s good for the economy – money that’s circulated is far more beneficial to everyone than money that’s socked away.
The argument can be fairly made – why can’t the wealthy reap the rewards of their efforts? Do what they want with what they earn? And, it’s a fair point, but it brings up the question – what amounts to ‘fair’ rewards?
We know that one operation in one tax haven was hiding between $21 and $32 trillion dollars. We know the US GDP is just under $17 trillion dollars.
So… one law office in one tax haven hides more money than the entire value of all goods and services produced in the US in a year. How many tax havens are there? How many operations providing similar services within them?
To me, seeing that, the notion that wealth is in any way distributed fairly, and consistent with one’s contribution, is inconceivable.
That’s not to say that a $15 minimum wage is the perfect solution, but I strongly suspect it’d do more good than harm.
What’s interesting to me is while some Cleveland and Cincy partisans are dependably snarly in their digs at C’bus, I hear nothing but positives from Pittsburghers.
Same here. I don’t suppose it should be much surprise, though, that there’s mutual respect among similarly prosperous cities.
The interesting thing to me is that Pittsburgh seems like a strong counterpoint to Cleveland’s inability to prosper, seeing as how they both hit similar lows within similar timeframes, but only one recovered. What do Pittsburghers tend to think of Cleveland?April 2, 2016 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm in reply to: Two25 17 Story High Rise Proposed for SE Columbus Commons #1120993
Aaron Renn(Urbanophile) recently posted these:
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…
I read a book recently that suggested that Columbus is basically a Sun-Belt city, without the sun. In many ways, Columbus has more in common with Austin and Phoenix than with Cleveland (and other rust belt cities). For example, (unlike Cleveland) Columbus, Austin and Phoenix are all located in the center of their states, capitals, home to mega-universities, were relatively small during Cleveland’s population peak in 1950, and have very large square mileage. Population growth is huge in the city limits as well as the region surrounding, which includes lots of automobile-based sprawl.
I totally buy that. We’re what a thriving American city looks like when it’s not geographically or historically confined. There’s good and bad in that, but mostly there’s truth in that, I think.
I think you’re kind of going in circles in a way.
Less a circle than a continuum. It may be that, from a developer’s perspective, there’s opportunity in hot, opportunity in cold, but less in the middle. Or, could be that the political types in Columbus are unusually conservative regarding outside development. Could partially be a matter of our lack of national name recognition – I can imagine ego-driven developers hating to mention the latest city they’re targeting and hearing, ‘which one?’ in response. Or, could be some combination thereof.
It’d be nice to get more attention here, but I can’t envy economically distressed cities getting large scale developments that may ultimately add to their economic distress. I just can’t conceive of how the problems they face can even begin to be solved with more square footage.
Gee are cities like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Raleigh, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Nashville, Austin, Portland and many others in a ‘weak’ position and they are attracting all kinds of developers. I don;t get your argument at all. These cities are not economically distressed list at all.
You’re certainly right about the first point – not every city that is experiencing outside development is in a bad position. However, it doesn’t mean that the cities (read: the citizens of the cities, not the politicians) that are economically distressed aren’t potentially being taken advantage of by developers. Development is a bare knuckled sport, and there’s absolutely no consideration for the good of the city from outside developers. Probably far less than you’d hope for from insiders as well.
To be perfectly frank, I don’t believe that urban development is a virtuous end goal in and of itself. I believe the betterment of the city should always be the goal, and that urban development is one very useful tool in that toolbox. Some cities will thrive under expansion, and some will find rapid expansion to be a complete boat anchor as they move forward. Development is always a gamble, and the worse off a city is, the bigger the gamble it is. Also, the worse off a city is, the more they have to do to make sure the gamble isn’t too onerous for the developer.
Is it so hard to imagine that that’s not always a good thing?
I really think you all are missing the point. I strongly suspect that Columbus isn’t attracting attention from national developers specifically because it isn’t in a weak position like the other C’s are. Cleveland is the single most economically distressed city in the country. Cinci is #10 on that list. Even so, they both have significant concentrated wealth. They also both have huge disenfranchised and disengaged populations. No doubt they both have municipal governments that are hungry to look like they’re doing something.
Consider the possibility that developers could see opportunity in that mix, and consider why that would be and what the implications could be.
Maybe the Columbus power structure doesn’t want them.
I wonder that, too, and I wonder if they might have a point if it is true.
So many of the large buildings downtown that were sorely underutilized in the past always made me wonder why basic market mechanics wouldn’t lower the rental prices to the point that they’d be appealing. The answer I’d get was that they were owned by outsiders who held them as a tiny part of a huge national portfolio, and they didn’t really care if one or two buildings in Columbus were occupied. Occasionally there may even be benefits to businesses who own a building that shows a loss.
As such, there may be some valid arguments for not ceding swathes of the city to outside developers – if it’s to their benefit to leave a gaping hole of inactivity in the middle of our downtown, they’ll do it. I know that short term flashy development announcements are sexy, but I do think it’s a shame that long term sustainability isn’t more appealing. It’s certainly more important.
On a new build, LEED certification is nice but barely noteworthy. Getting the same certification on the restoration of a 142 year brick building is damned impressive.
Can anyone refresh my memory as to what 5xNW needs to be celebrating?
They do all of this work creating sidewalks, parks, incorporating bike racks into development and get none of the credit.
I drove through 5XNW and I did see a bike rack. So, yeah – lets party!
I can’t imagine the circumstances in which Grandview would be absorbed by Columbus, but I do like the thought experiment and the reasoning behind floating the idea. To my mind, questions about what is fair in a broad sense have been absent from our metro’s dialogue for too long, and I’m heartened to see that there has been some move away from the notion that if we just continue to ensconce, fortify, and expand the prosperous sections of the metro area it’ll be of benefit to all.
I do suspect that Grandview, on balance, gets more from it’s proximity to the city of Columbus than it gives, and that as an elite economic enclave it sits a bit too close to the downtown core to escape scrutiny. It should, at bare minimum, be expected that Grandview city government and Grandview’s population are aware of that.
Related to the question of how much of a burden Cleveland’s new developments may be on the populace, I thought it’d be interesting to consider it with this added to the mix.
The link’s worth a look for the read and the graphs, but the upshot is this: the referenced study found Cleveland to be the most economically distressed city in the nation.