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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 518 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Sidewalks coming to W. 3rd Ave in 5xNW #1127565

    ohbr
    Participant

    Perfect timing. Nationwide moves its first several hundred employees in Monday and is phasing in a couple thousand more over the next 6-8 months… Needs to be done, wish it had started 6 months ago.

    in reply to: Idea: Relocating Crew Stadium to the Arena District #1127347

    ohbr
    Participant

    No development is going to be squeezed in the gap between the tracks, 71 and the fairgrounds.

    I don’t think *squeezed* is the right term. The area described is about 5 times the size of Jeffrey park. Plenty of space to *squeeze* in surrounding development.

    in reply to: Idea: Relocating Crew Stadium to the Arena District #1127259

    ohbr
    Participant

    ^ Know what brings in far more money than Crew soccer, the All American Quarter Horse Congress. In less than one month it pumps in about $200m to the local economy. The proposal above would effectively kill that off.

    Sorry for the confusion. The fairgrounds would remain in tact, with a better overall layout. I loathe our state fairgrounds. It’s so haphazardly put together and frankly unappealing. I’m well aware of the impact of the quarter horse congress and in fact, a better plan for everything in the area I’m talking about could even improve the experience for that event. I’m essentially playing Sims with that area. The “Stadium Village” would essentially be north of the fairgrounds property but the rest would be redeveloped with the fairgrounds and expo center as central points. The area immediately surrounding the crew stadium is several Jeffrey Parks alone.

    in reply to: RiverSouth District – News & Updates #1127230

    ohbr
    Participant

    Having spent time in places with these ooh and ahhhhh factors, I can still say that the best neighborhoods in these cities are the ones growing like Italian village, short north, soon to be river south. Oohs and ahhs create great skylines but the restaurants and shops and bars you like to go to regularly aren’t going to always be found among the 40 story buildings. IMHO.

    in reply to: Idea: Relocating Crew Stadium to the Arena District #1127229

    ohbr
    Participant

    I’ve said it alot, but there are very few reasons I would support a move downtown. The proposal would have to be just right. I want the city, state, and private entities involved to come up with a comprehensive plan to redevelop the whole area where it currently sits. A stadium village as it were. Everything south of Hudson and north of 17th can be torn down with the exception of the fairground facilities and the Ohio Historical Center. you could even leave the highway patrol academy but I lean toward moving it. Redevelop all the lots and parking and add thousands of residents to the other thousands of residents just west of the railroad tracks. A grand entrance off Hudson welcoming you to this distinct area and viola, stadium village.

    The idea of “If you bring it downtown you get more foot traffic” may apply to workers but it’s current location already serves well for proximity to the densest district in the city and adding more residential units to the east of the tracks furthers that. Not to mention, if rail is ever a possibility, whether the line is on the 71 ROW, Rail ROW, Summit or 4th, they are all easily accessible from it’s current location.

    *Edit: Frankly, everything north of the railroad tracks south of 11th to Hudson needs to be rethought, including the fairgrounds themselves. We could bulldoze most of these fairgrounds and start over with a real master plan for the whole area and I’d be happy.


    ohbr
    Participant

    Drove by today and notice the framing for the first floor windows and facade were being installed. interesting. Wonder if they are trying to get the first floor or two operable ASAP

    in reply to: Short North Tax Abatements #1126767

    ohbr
    Participant

    I brought this up in the Millenial Tower discussion. In February, dispatch Ran an article that didn’t seem to get much attention about the slowing tax revenue. Particularly pertinent to this discussion in that for 2015, the property tax revenue is down by $9million. That number did not appear out of nowhere so that number has certainly been growing over the last few years and will probably grow if we don’t start to rethink our abatement system. Perhaps incremental is the way to go. Fully Abated for 5, paying full by year 10, but with so much money influencing city hall from developers, that’s not likely to happen. I’m glad this study is being done but I don’t see anything changing unless the developers want the change.

    As for the OSU article, I’d love to see some more direct questioning of the mayor like this, but I don’t think he’ll be doing many more interviews for away. Especially with WOSU.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/02/15/slower-revenue-growth

    in reply to: The Arbor #1126436

    ohbr
    Participant

    There are places with parking caps, yes. The ones I’m aware of are around Philadelphia. But some of those places have minimums as well.

    As for this project. If it didn’t have this underground deck, I suppose it would have just been a green lawn so I’m not quite sure what concern there is to have here. First you argue to get rid of minimums which has been the case for awhile now and now you want caps. Enter this:

    Saying people shouldn’t have automobiles so that it forces the need for a train is logically backwards.

    The chicken and egg. Reducing parking for a heavily car dependent city is not going to force enough people to live closer to work. It’s not going to force enough people on to buses and it certainly won’t force better mass transit. IMO, as has been discussed thousands of times here, we need the mass transit infrastructure before we can really start to reduce our car centric core development. Forcing a massive parking shortage is not the answer to some of these perceived issues.

    in reply to: Cleveland's beautiful, modern apartment proposal for downtown #1126299

    ohbr
    Participant

    The OSU development, not all funded by the state. Much of that also comes from endowments and donations they are required to spend. Believe it or not, people donate lots of money and designate it only to be used on housing.

    I think youre missing the point. It’s not the exact same way other projects get public funding. Tax incentives are one thing. Nucleus, University Circle Condos and other projects are getting direct funding from tax payers for private buildings. That’s what is happening in CLE. Very different from public venues potentially getting funding, garage access, tifs, and abatements. The Nucleus project may even be getting casino tax revenue to help with construction costs. Can you imagine diverting casino tax revenue to the construction of a private development here?

    in reply to: The Arbor #1126298

    ohbr
    Participant

    If the current lot services Nationwide Children’s Hospital employees, I too guess that the added spaces are not necessarily for residents only and will be like other projects with parking components that are made to serve residents and the public. I don’t see anything ridiculous about a below grade deck with great amenities and lack of massive surface lots for residents. The proposed millennial tower will have roughly 500% more spaces compared to residential units yet the argument that it is for public and nearby employees seems to be well accepted. (That is if i remember the numbers correctly) Why is 50% more so absurd here? Perhaps because it’s not contributing to the mass of the structure or height? By your argument, we should be advocating for less parking at the M resulting in a shorter tower, no?

    in reply to: Cleveland's beautiful, modern apartment proposal for downtown #1126189

    ohbr
    Participant

    Islander is correct in that many of these major Cleveland projects come with direct public funding beyond abatements. Nucleus even petitioned for money from the state budget to get completed so not only CLE taxpayers would be on the hook, we would be too. While I have frustrations with tax abatements, I am happy to see Columbus Developers are putting forth the money on their own even if that has cost us some larger projects.

    I can see where this moated building may have an opportunity for public finding being connected to and off the main waterway. We’ll see what kind of public/private deal they work up here.

    in reply to: Millennial Tower #1126151

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wpcc88 wrote:</div>
    Isn’t Arshot the same developer that’s in charge of Cooper Stadium?

    Yes. They are also responsible for many strong builds downtown.

    I’ll reiterate what I said in the article

    As for the other projects, I had not realized Arshot was behind those. My Bad. Regardless, it is not unreasonable to be cautiously optimistic when one of their largest projects is years upon years delayed with a promise that something is coming. When they throw out another ambitious project with an equally ambitious deadline for completion, one can be understandably skeptical.

    Just like the projects across from Highpoint, you can have a large portfolio of successes, but you mess up a large, visible, well praised project and your reputation, understandably so, is going to take a hit.

    in reply to: Millennial Tower #1126146

    ohbr
    Participant

    yeah… that name…. I’ll support the name if there is a GenX tower and Baby Boomer tower… otherwise, a petition for a name change sounds good.

    in reply to: COTA Updates in 2016 #1125609

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ohbr wrote:</div>
    I highly doubt it too, but I’m still overly cautious. And if it’s anything like real time tracking I’ve experienced in other cities, the bus will pass you multiple times according to the real-time map when in fact, no bus has passed by or vice versa. While I generally trust real time tracking, I’m curious to see what kind of flaws the system will have.

    I disagree. I use the CABS (Campus Area Bus Service) bus system every day and it has real time tracking and I have never had a problem with the tracking. It’s always refreshing and if there is a delay, you are told so by the system. Although OSU runs a 6 line system, it’s very easy expandable. I just think COTA bite off more than it could chew at the point in time they announced it.

    I have also used CABS and their system with no issues but I can tell you that there are issues with larger systems in other cities at times. Sitting and waiting for a bus for 45 minutes that supposedly passed you twice before you give up and get in an Uber is not exactly a fun way to spend a portion of the day. Or your bus arrives and the tracking marker says it’s somewhere else. It happens. As you said, CABS is a 6 line system. Larger systems are much more prone to errors and with COTA’s track record, I think it’s acceptable to be cautiously optimistic.

    in reply to: The Scioto Greenways Riverfront Redevelopment #1125425

    ohbr
    Participant

    Has anyone seen the COSI steps on lately? I drive by around 11 and either they are off by then or the just haven’t been on?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 518 total)

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

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFO