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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 - 31 through 45 (of 718 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Why Urbanism Is Considered to be ‘Liberal’ #1102524
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Eugene_C wrote:</div>
    I think because mostly liberals like to live in urban areas, now. Conservatives prefer to live out in lower-tax areas, like townships.

    Yes, population density strongly and reliably correlates with political leanings:

    http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/09/if-you-live-near-other-people-youre-probably-democrat-if-your-neighbors-are-distant-republican/7047/

    Urban density is driven by principles to be conservative and efficient with space, resources, public infrastructure and tax dollars.

    You would think there would be a relationship between conservative, and conservationist, but in practice –not so much.

    Its not a RahRah type of thing… As the image above shows (and the study associated with that image) density was one of the few factors that can truly predict voting preferences. This isn’t dependent on red state/blue state, its on density of where you live. The question is, how can this be explained.

    Here was the original: http://davetroy.com/posts/the-real-republican-adversary-population-density

    in reply to: Why Urbanism Is Considered to be ‘Liberal’ #1102487
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    I grew up in “the country” and recognize the smell of bull shit when I stumble upon it. Your comments reek.

    Of course you did, almost all urbanites in columbus did. If you grew up in columbus and wanted an ” urban experience” you leave and go to nyc. Only those from the country consider columbus a great urban experience. Those from the city looking for that leave for larger cities as columbus is boring to them.

    This is also the reason you think what I say is a lie. You also probably think there aren’t whiteboys with ak47 in the bottoms selling crack calling each the “n” word. I mean whiteboys don’t shoot each other and sell drugs that never happens on the south side either. These whiteboys are Also super educated so you know they are progressive liberals, lol.

    Are those the people called out in the study that this forum was addressing. Because the question was not whether or not its true, it was why.

    I think Mike is right on the money and (the one nugget of good info from the above poster) is that there is obviously quite a bit of self-select. It seems that if you’re somewhat pre-disposed to liberalism, that probably drives you to the city, which in tern ends up making you more liberal as you are exposed to new people and ideas.

    in reply to: COTA Transit System Redesign – News & Discussion #1102486
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Moving buses around still imposes hardships on people, even if the goal is to improve the system. For example, what if I have difficulty walking or driving and I just signed a lease on an apartment that’s near a bus stop. Moving the bus a few blocks away could theoretically make it inaccessible to me.

    Then inevitable expansion of that logic is that everyone gets a bus stop in front of their house, which can’t happen. As Ned23 said, for those who are unable to use the regular bus, Mainstream service is provided. The reality is that it is a bus system and the system needs to be improved as a whole.

    in reply to: COTA Transit System Redesign – News & Discussion #1102445
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Josh Lapp wrote:</div>
    You are correct that the #16 is ‘going away’ but really it is combining with the #6 to create a frequent route that in the end provides better service and is only a block away. The #10 is definitely not leaving and provides some of the best frequency in the city. The end result is that the near east side still has arguably the best service in the city.

    I’ll try not to take the narrow view on this, but a block can make a big difference in this neighborhood. I definitely wouldn’t personally feel as comfortable waiting at a bus-stop on Mt. Vernon as I do on Long –there’s a very different feel to the two streets.

    Still, I’m sure no matter what routes get changed, someone will feel inconvenienced.

    I’m definitely sympathetic. I used to take the bus often to the KLD and always took the #16, but like you said, at the end of the day everyone has to give up a little to make a better system overall.

    in reply to: COTA Transit System Redesign – News & Discussion #1102310
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Josh Miller wrote:</div>
    It’s still quite a ways away from going live – “This website will continue to be updated as we finalize the plan and prepare for its full launch between May and September 2017.”

    http://www.cota.com/Projects/Transit-System-Redesign.aspx

    Thanks for the link, it led me to this: http://www.cota.com/COTA/media/TSR/Line-Change-Chart_Complete_Oct-2015.pdf

    It looks like yes, the 16 is going away!

    Obviously I have strong personal feeling about that, since I ride it every day, but it also seems like a strange decision. It’s always packed, and even the numbers on COTA’s site indicate it has strong ridership. Why target that line for elimination? I’m guessing because it parallels lines on Mt Vernon and Broad Street?

    You are correct that the #16 is ‘going away’ but really it is combining with the #6 to create a frequent route that in the end provides better service and is only a block away. The #10 is definitely not leaving and provides some of the best frequency in the city. The end result is that the near east side still has arguably the best service in the city.

    in reply to: Why Urbanism Is Considered to be ‘Liberal’ #1102298
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    I would submit that density promotes liberalism as well. When people are constantly exposed to new ideas, different ways of life, different ethnicities, different socio-economic backgrounds, different music, different art, food, etc, etc, etc, it tends to make people more open-minded since that type of exposure tends to breed more understanding and empathy.

    THIS! Plus, when you live in a dense area, you tend to want more action from the government, not less. In an urban area you see the positive benefits of the government and tend to encourage not fear or distrust it.

    in reply to: COTA Transit System Redesign – News & Discussion #1102177
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    So the rumor today on the bus was that COTA is closing down the #16 and #10 buslines, and building a huge new parking lot out in New Albany (as reported by a community member who attended the COTA community meeting at Neighborhood House last week).

    I don’t know if this is true, but if so, it’s the opposite of what was promised. The premise was that infrequently used buslines would be phased out in favor of more frequent coverage in the center city. Phasing out two of the most heavily used buslines in Olde Towne and the KLD would seem to be the exact opposite of that. The sentiment on the bus, rightly or wrongly, was that COTA is planning on shafting the poorer and darker citizens of the center city in favor of pursuing wealthy suburbanites.

    So –can anyone confirm or deny this report?

    Whoever told you that was not accurately reporting. If anything the richer and whiter northwest side is getting shafted vs previous plans for the TSR.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101748
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Okay, but here is something that gets lost- there is finite space to build in the Short North. At some point, every single vacant lot will be filled, or at least every reasonably buildable one. What happens then? Does the neighborhood become a time capsule where change essentially ceases and the neighborhood potentially stagnates, or does the demand for housing there remain so high that it threatens the very older structures you’re trying to protect? That’s why limiting density on these surface lots especially is so backwards. When they’re gone, something smaller will inevitably be sacrificed. So why wouldn’t the push be the best use of space? There’s also the consideration that intentionally limiting these projects will only serve to inflate prices in the area. Good for homeowners, I guess, but terrible for everyone else.

    I can’t argue that historic districts often become the most expensive neighborhoods in any given city, for one, because they are often the most interesting and vibrant areas and for two because development is often limited. But often that is the price to pay for good preservation, otherwise, that historic character is wiped away. German Village is a great example. Much of the area north of 70 had similar characteristics as what remains to the south, but it was eventually demolished without protections in favor of larger ‘better’ buildings.

    Eventually yes, when an area is built out, it is built out, but isn’t that the nature of development? The development momentum will move somewhere else I assume as is the case all over the country, and is already happening locally.

    A big question is, why would we allow the character that makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place to be wiped out? I would have a difficult time arguing that there are a lot of structures that are ripe for demolition in the Short North, which I can tell you is the fear of everyone in the preservation movement. The standards that were developed for the historic districts, including high street, didn’t just come out of thin air. There are national standards for preservation that are then adapted locally and height (not density, we don’t regular interiors) and its affect on neighboring structures is a big consideration.

    If I could snap my fingers and build a bunch of underground parking or transit that would eliminate the need for the parking that seems to be the guiding issue in a lot of the development, I would. And so would most others I’m sure. But we can only review whats in front of us, and if they numbers don’t work then it probably won’t happen.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101701
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Also it is very very selective ‘preservation’. What about preserving the suburban-style fast food joints along High? What about the Dollar stores and the UDF and the parking lots facing High street? Are they not also part of the ‘sense of place’ that is(soon to be was as they are being phased out)the Short North? Do they not reflect part of the history of the place? So so selective.

    Is it? There are actual standards and classifications, done by professionals as to what should and shouldn’t be preserved. If you really believe any of this that you aren’t paying any attention to what is really happening. There is a period of significance of buildings in the districts and some have more integrity than others. In Italian Village there are some auto-oriented uses that merit preservation and some that don’t. No one wants a static neighborhood, but that does not mean that development can ignore the historic context it is becoming a part of, especially in a district that is on the National Register and is one of the few preserved neighborhoods in Columbus.

    There are also other considerations that are often thrown in the mix. Is it better to preserve an old but insignificant building or loose a major curb cut on high street? IVC decided recently that loosing the curb cut is more important.

    There are plenty of other neighborhoods that ignore the historic context and historic buildings. Just in the past year or two we have seen a number of historic buildings demolished downtown because there are not historic protections in place. And maybe thats ok? But the reason IV, VV and GV are the way they are is because of that historic context and as they, grow new buildings should at least have some association with it.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101663
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

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

    It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The rhetoric here is way over the top. The only war here is the false one created by folks on here who are never happy no matter what the outcome and don’t understand the dynamics of the actual process.

    Funny how the only ‘over the top’ rhetoric you are pointing out is that which you disagree with, as if there has been nothing else in this thread that has been over the top. Yes, ‘war’ is probably too strong a word, but what about the rest of it?

    Tell me, Josh, was a commission member saying on record about the White Castle proposal, ‘the current proposal seems Las Vegas size’ not over the top?

    I am just commenting on a messageboard, the above comment was from a commission member with actual power over development.

    Also, the Joseph is 11 floors. How the hell did it get approved and built? Did Pizzuti influence and money have anything to do with that?

    I would hesitate to read too much into the comments on the agenda. That was probably one phrase uttered during a 30 minute conversation. There is a lot of nuance at those meetings.

    The Joseph is in Italian Village and I would argue has a much different context than any of the buildings currently proposed.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101658
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    I find it interesting that the assumption here is that I’ve never attended meetings like we’re discussing. I understand the process, but that isn’t the debate here. The debate isn’t that you’re not following the process, the debate is that the guidelines themselves and the thinking behind these reduction demands is itself, highly suspect.

    Indeed I do value the urban form, and I am generally supportive of more dense and vibrant neighborhoods (I’m a member of the IVC). However, the whole basis of the commissions is historic preservation which in turn is the basis of the neighborhood’s success. Just because the neighborhood is successful does not mean that we can or should disregard our charge, or the guidelines.

    I tend to interpret the guidelines more liberally in regards to height and its affect on the historic character of the neighborhood but I understand why some of my colleagues do not. I also don’t question their motives for doing so. Large buildings in small more intimate historic neighborhoods do change the feel and character of the neighborhoods and there is a balance to be had between preserving that historic character and allowing development that positively impacts the neighborhood. Compromises are also often made when there is a particularly positive benefit.

    My biggest issues is the headed and often over the top rhetoric that I hear from both the pro and anti development crowds. The sky isn’t falling. Columbus is going through a great period of growth and development as well as figuring out what kind of city we want to be. In my opinion things are going well and we can all push for positive change and better design without being apocalyptic.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101647
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The rhetoric here is way over the top. The only war here is the false one created by folks on here who are never happy no matter what the outcome and don’t understand the dynamics of the actual process.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101645
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nancy H wrote:</div><br>
    @WJT – There are some “commissions” aroumnd town that are advisory. The German Village, Victorian Village and Italian Village Commissions are not advisory. They were established by City Ordinances and have some specific authorities. There are probably some others too, but GV, VV & IV I am positive about.

    The City also approved the commission’s guidelines via City Ordianace.

    So, I guess in theory, a developer could go to City Council seeking a “go around” but since the City established the commission and approved the guidelines, the chances are almost non-existant that the City would side with the developer.

    There are seperate guidelines for the commercial area along High Street. So both VV and IV have two sets of guidelines: one for the “residential” part of the neighborhood and The Short North Design Guidelines for High Street.

    Thank you for a civil, informative, reasonable response. I guess my problem would then be with the specific guidelines for High. And I guess ‘going around’ the commissions in those three cases would be more difficult than I thought.

    I don’t want High street lined with highrises, but I think in appropriate places there is room for greater density and I just do not get this automatic rejection based on height alone-isn’t that why variances can be granted? Didn’t you yourself state that height in this area might not be such a bad idea since it would help draw attention away from the hideous 80′s setback highrise near this? (or was that someone else?)

    You seem reasonable. Where is this automatic knee-jerk reaction to almost any development along High that is not a 6 story or less brick box coming from?

    Personally, I think it probably comes from some who live in the neighborhood, and perhaps even helped in its revitalization, that are now worried that there’s too much change happening. I think this happens a lot in gentrified areas. The first people are the pioneers. They get the process started and help begin building the area into a magnet for others who are perhaps not so adventurous. They are more open to the possibilities of what the neighborhood could be and where it could go. As time goes on and neighborhood property values rise, those pioneers are gradually replaced with people attracted to how nice the area has become, but they are far less open to more change. For them, they moved there because it was already good and are perfectly happy with how the neighborhood is at that moment. They start to worry about parking, and how new projects might hurt their home values or somehow detract from some historic value. Essentially, it becomes like some kind of gated community with an HOA. If this proposal had been made 30 years ago, does anyone believe it would’ve been seriously rejected or forced to reduce in size? Not a chance. It would’ve been welcomed with open arms as a sign of the SN’s emergence from the run down ghetto it used to be. But that ghetto is gone, and now any change is maybe too much. But the SN is too hot to stop growth and preserve it how it is now, so the only option is to limit and contain.

    I think you should attend some commission meetings before making assumptions about individuals based on your own city planning theories. I would also encourage you to check out some of the projects that were approved in the 80s and 90s and to see if more rigorous reviews are a positive or a negative.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101641
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Thank you for a civil, informative, reasonable response. I guess my problem would then be with the specific guidelines for High. And I guess ‘going around’ the commissions in those three cases would be more difficult than I thought.

    I don’t want High street lined with highrises, but I think in appropriate places there is room for greater density and I just do not get this automatic rejection based on height alone-isn’t that why variances can be granted? Didn’t you yourself state that height in this area might not be such a bad idea since it would help draw attention away from the hideous 80′s setback highrise near this? (or was that someone else?)

    You seem reasonable. Where is this automatic knee-jerk reaction to almost any development along High that is not a 6 story or less brick box coming from?

    I don’t think you are seeing an automatic knee-jerk reaction by the commission, you are seeing other people insinuate that without actually attending the meetings. The architectural review commission meetings in Columbus are one of the few places where I have seen actual civic discussion, discourse, and disagreement.

    By accepting a seat on the commission you are tasked with upholding whatever guidelines were created for the preservation and future development of that neighborhood. And those guidelines are not crafted lightly. They are a result of a long process with many different stakeholders and with many different viewpoints. That includes the developers of many of the projects that are now in front of the commissions.

    The review process is sometimes slow, with a lot of give and take (including height) but even developers will tell you that it often results in better buildings. Height is rarely the only concern and a key point is that sensitivity to historic buildings includes paying attention to what are built around them.

    There is a reason that Italian, Victorian, and German Village are the most desirable neighborhoods in the city. They are some of the few areas that retain the majority of their building stock and built environment, oftentimes as a direct result of the commissions focus on historic preservation.

    Also note: In order to develop a project in an area with an architectural review commission, you must get approval. This is separate from the zoning variance process for which there is limited involvement from the commissions.

    in reply to: New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North #1101568
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    If this gets reduced to 6 stories, the commission needs replaced. I’m tired of small town thinking preventing this city from moving forward, and the constant reduction in density is holding us back. People are making a lot of snide and sarcastic comments recently about the height complaints, but height is less the issue than the number of units in each building. Columbus already has a huge housing supply problem that is WAY underserving the actual population growth, let alone the population that may want to move into the city. This keeps prices higher than they need to be for everyone and prevents urban neighborhoods from reaching their potential vibrancy. Shame on the members for only considering the hurt feelings of neighbors who think anything taller than a super Wal-mart is bad for the neighborhood.

    Whether or not you like it, the commissions are put in place to preserve and protect the historic nature of the neighborhoods as well as uphold the standards that have been put in place with community, developer and historic preservationist input. It shouldn’t come as a concern that height is frequently an issue as it is addressed specifically in the standards. The reduction of a few stories in height on this building or any other does not spell the end to Columbus.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 718 total)

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

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE