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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 2,143 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: 2015 Columbus Metro and County Population Estimates #1127440

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    It’s slower than the last few years, but I suspect that that number will be revised upwards in the next estimate, so it’s likely more steady in the 13K range.

    in reply to: Ward System for Columbus City Council – News & Updates #1126669

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Aside from the corruption discussion, I also see another potential problem. While the idea of more representation for all neighborhoods is a good one, I worry that this would just turn into each one fighting for a piece of the pie for their own agendas rather than supporting any true unified direction for the city at large. I’m not really sure the goal should be pitting one neighborhood against another for attention. The tone of the debate in media has already been that way to some extent, with the arguments against Downtown projects.

    in reply to: The Arbor #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.

    in reply to: The Arbor #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.

    in reply to: The Arbor #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.

    in reply to: The Arbor #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.

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1125237

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

    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.

    Transit matters to the whole metro, not just the Downtown area, but since you have to start somewhere, around Downtown is a good start, and connecting Downtown to highly populated areas, whether they be inner or outer suburbs.
    As I said before, I do think COTA is making improvements, and I do think the live tracking, circulators and system redesign will help dramatically. It’s just that this is literally it in Columbus, as I stated before, I don’t count taxis and recreational bike paths as really forms of alternative transit. There is a rapidly shrinking list of cities that have this issue. Should Columbus really be the very last one? That’s not being competitive or forward-thinking.

    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.

    Driverless cars have few actual benefits, as far as I can tell, over regular cars. They’re likely to be safer because of the reduction of accidents, and they’ll help reduce traffic congestion. Beyond that, I’m not so sure. If we’re talking about the ability of everyone to have one, obviously that’s just not going to happen. If we’re talking about a reduced need for road and parking infrastructure, again, probably not. 100 people taking a driverless car requires the same number of parking spots as 100 people in regular cars. They still can’t carry large quantities of people at once. They still will have no impact on economic development because there are no fixed routes. Essentially, I am not sure they do anything but promote even more car use at the end of the day, at the potential expense of walkability and transit. If Columbus wants to be a pioneer city for this technology, fine, but let’s not act like this is really an investment in an alternative to car culture because it absolutely is not.

    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.

    Downtown is already attractive in many ways. The occupancy figures show that already. The issue for me, and something people always seem to fight me on, is that I don’t think there is nearly enough push to build on a grander scale to accommodate the necessary density that makes transit more likely. Downtown has less than 1/3rd the density of the Short North, and at least half the density of every other surrounding area, but there is no real concern with having standards that push for more than 5-6 stories on prominent corridors like High. This is troublesome in the long run because concentrated density along transit routes is a big part of the ridership formula. We should be seeking to maximize this whenever possible. Instead we’re in the “Hey cool, that parking lot is going away” mentality, seemingly still so pleasantly surprised that we see urban development in a major, growing city that we’re reluctant at times to be critical of pushing the envelope.
    Yes, Uber is a positive, no argument there, but it’s a bonus that doesn’t address the transit issue within the city.
    As for bike lanes, yes, there are more of them now, and that is good too. Something else I have noticed, however, is that when I did my biking map for the metro, the vast majority of infrastructure consisted of just 2 types: Off-road multi-use paths and sharrows. Sharrows I have already commented on. Multi-use paths are great and all, but I get the feeling that Columbus and surrounding communities have embraced them for the most part because they do not interfere with roads. Meaning that instead of making roads multi-use and friendly to more types of users, they’re just being separated entirely instead. Maybe I am just seeing this too negatively, but this seems like more evidence of putting the car first and making sure that their ability to navigate public roads remains unquestioned.

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1125070

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div><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.
    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?
    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.
    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?

    in reply to: Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High #1124777

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Marconi Parking Garage is Closing #1124774

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I really disagree that any redevelopment, if something beyond more parking is actually going to take its place, shouldn’t include residential because of the location. While it is not surrounded by other residential, it is still in the middle of Downtown and fairly close to amenities. Any residential here would have absolutely no problem filling up.
    All that said, if anything’s going here, it probably will be something along the lines of more city offices.

    in reply to: John Travolta / I Am Wrath – Filming in Columbus #1124259

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    So yeah, I watched it.

    As far as the story goes, it is a very by-the-numbers revenge plot, but not the absolute worst example of it. The funniest parts for me were the opening credits which had Columbus on the “news” for its rapidly escalating violent crime and how it seemed to be descending into chaos, how the Short North was like South-Central and Axis was a straight gentleman’s club. The absolute worst thing about the movie, though, was Travolta’s painfully obvious wig. You could literally see the edges along his forehead throughout the movie.
    The best part was in the credits, where it thanked Columbus and “all its fantastic people”, so that was nice, and the fact that they actually used Columbus instead of trying to change it to another city was cool.

    in reply to: Nationwide Realty buys more land in Franklinton #1122645

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div>
    In terms of timelines, they’re waiting for “the right thing.”

    Doesn’t sound like they are wanting to be the catalyst or trend setter here. I get the feeling they just want to sit on a bunch of land in case Franklinton does become very popular. Interesting.

    At the very least, I would expect that a few thing happen before construction in Franklinton, such as the finishing of the new HQ in GY. The other thing is that they still have that big site in the Arena District that they have yet to announce any plans for. I think this gets developed before anything happens in Franklinton.

    in reply to: Wexners have major plans for Scioto riverfront #1122383

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Maybe both will happen?? Seems like a stretch, though. If a separate satellite location was going to come, why would COSI get anything from them instead of dinosaurs just going into the new building? So yeah, if that’s all it ever was, that’s incredibly disappointing. Hardly “major plans”. It would basically be the equivalent of the Smithsonian, for their part of the news story, just donating some old military flags for the new Vets. Hugely misleading article from Columbus Monthly if true.

    in reply to: Columbus $15 Minimum Wage #1122110

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ehill27 wrote:</div><br>
    ^ But workers often DO pay the price for the mistakes of upper management, in the form of mass layoffs.

    Yep. We just had a presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, who completely ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground and cost 30,000 workers their jobs. Not exactly a shining example of the “job creators” mantra.

    I bet when she lost her job at HP, she wasn’t financially screwed like all the people she laid-off. It’s easy to “be a tough manager” when you’ve got a big golden parachute to take home and deposit in the bank.

    She’s worth north of $50 million, so yeah, she’s doing fine.

    in reply to: Columbus $15 Minimum Wage #1122104

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    ^ But workers often DO pay the price for the mistakes of upper management, in the form of mass layoffs.

    Yep. We just had a presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, who completely ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground and cost 30,000 workers their jobs. Not exactly a shining example of the “job creators” mantra.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,143 total)

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE