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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 639 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The Arbor #1126365

    rory
    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).

    Too much parking should be against the code as far as I’m concerned. A lot of cities have gotten rid of parking minimums. Parking minimums aren’t exactly the neighborhood enhancement you’d like to think. Parking drives up rent and sets back public transportation. Columbus should have parking maximums.


    rory
    Participant

    Vacant houses are not good but a lot of time it’s impossible to figure out who owns it other than “blah blah LLC” The state should make some type of law so that owners can actually be tracked down. Then there are the houses that are grinding through probate or foreclosure which is another exercise in multi-year frustration. There was an asshole near me that let his house go into foreclosure, kept charging rent then made the bank prove they held the mortgage. That took years and he continued to rake it in then it was foreclosed and vacant after that. The bottom line is the state legislature could fix a lot of these problems but the hicks that are elected would rather make sure that you can carry guns to kindergarten classes or other such nonsense.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1118773

    rory
    Participant

    It’s hard to convince people in the University District that density can be good when it’s been so poorly executed in the past. Many parts have density problems but not the benefits.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1118454

    rory
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>

    Also, no one has been able to point to another neighborhood with a codified plan, so again, I’m left wondering why we’re up in arms when the city hasn’t codified the plan if it’s not the norm. I couldn’t find anything that indicated any of the other plans are codified on the city website.

    Just because the city hasn’t codified other plans doesn’t mean the University District Plan shouldn’t be codified. It addresses many of the current problems that decrease the quality of life in the district. It moves density out of the residential portions of the neighborhood and places it on High Street or Lane Avenue, increases green space requirements in residential parts and eliminates double stacked parking in some residential areas. It all points to making the district more desirable for a wider demographic. It’s really a win-win for a lot of groups. Developers can make quite large buildings in a lot of areas and it reduces housing pressure in residential portions. Not codifying the plan would be a disaster in the face of all the development pressure the area faces.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1118439

    rory
    Participant

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

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”><br>
    <br>

    I don’t even trust that any positive comments would be forwarded on to the developer as I know the commissioners are making sure they are doing with any negative comments.

    I don’t think comments of any kind, positive or negative, have been given to the developers by the commission. Since there are no variances required it’s solely in the purview of the University Area Review Board.

    I know that at least one of the commissioners is collecting emails and comments to provide directly to the developer. Whether or not it’s officially from the commissioner, there is a clear effort by a commissioner to get these opinions in writing and to the developer.

    Right, it’s a fine, but distinct line. That would be emails and comments from someone who is a commissioner not from the commission itself.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1118426

    rory
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>

    I don’t even trust that any positive comments would be forwarded on to the developer as I know the commissioners are making sure they are doing with any negative comments.

    I don’t think comments of any kind, positive or negative, have been given to the developers by the commission. Since there are no variances required it’s solely in the purview of the University Area Review Board.

    in reply to: SN's Bollinger Tower being bought, possibly converted to hotel #1116064

    rory
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rory wrote:</div><br>
    There is an incredibly well deserved spot in hell for the people who put together this deal. Poor people can live in decent neighborhoods too. Where will the new vouchers place them? No where as nice I’m sure.

    Weinland Park has space, wasn’t Wagenbrenner planning senior housing next to the tracks.

    Yes, Wagenbrenner is planning for senior living right off 5th Ave and N. Grant. There’s also that large vacant lot on the corner of 4th St and 5th Ave, which could use development.

    No, they didn’t get the tax credits needed for the affordable senior housing at Grant and Fifth for three years running. As far as I know they haven’t tried again for them this year and I don’t believe they have plans to do so again.

    in reply to: SN's Bollinger Tower being bought, possibly converted to hotel #1116019

    rory
    Participant

    There is an incredibly well deserved spot in hell for the people who put together this deal. Poor people can live in decent neighborhoods too. Where will the new vouchers place them? No where as nice I’m sure.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1115309

    rory
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>rory wrote:</div>
    So, rather than frame it as a homeowner vs. student it’s more University District vs. investors from Dublin, Powell, Upper Arlington and Bexley who treat the University District like a banana republic.

    I heard that concern at the meeting I attended, and I think it’s a bit of a scapegoat. I can understand locals having concerns with density or traffic (whether I agree or not), but if the developer lived next door and was *still* proposing the same project, I don’t think that would resolve any concern. It just makes for a convenient addition to the story if you can label your opponent as an outsider.

    Anyway, I’ve never been in favor of the original Pavey plan by any means, but to me (as someone who doesnt live there) the clear argument is about historic preservation. Not any of the “us versus them” chants that I’ve heard pop up in various forms.

    I guess I was commenting on homeowners vs. students reference. And of course it’s always easier just to point a finger and blame someone. Fortunately, there are a lot of student housing investors to blame. ;)

    But, yes, the Pavey backlash is a lot of things. Historic preservation, density, traffic, students. Essentially, what kind of neighborhood is it going to be and who decides. It’s the same all over the University District. It’s certainly not just a Ye Olde North Columbus thing.

    in reply to: Pavey Block Development #1115291

    rory
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ned23 wrote:</div>
    I agree. The “health and safety” claims are ridiculous. The ‘concerns’ are 99% aesthetic and 1% traffic.

    I thought it was 99% an owners-versus-renters battle? Established residents want fewer University students in the University district.

    I’m taking the bait. That’s way too simplistic. Students aren’t really the problem. It’s actually student landlords. Having three students in a house that was designed to have three occupants isn’t a problem. Having an investor, who usually never lives in the University District, buy a house, convert the basement, living room and attic into bedrooms so you can get eight or more students in a house is an issue. Throw in paving the back yard for parking some deferred maintenance and you’ve got a mess that no one wants to live near. The University District Plan addresses this problem by moving student density to High Street in tall, dense buildings. Throw in some code changes to increase green space and reduce people-packing and all ought to be good or at least a good start. So, rather than frame it as a homeowner vs. student it’s more University District vs. investors from Dublin, Powell, Upper Arlington and Bexley who treat the University District like a banana republic.


    rory
    Participant

    The next 24 months are going to transformational for development. I just hope it’s not only transformational in regards to what gets built but also for what gets saved. It’s too easy to look back at bursts of development like this and realize we’ve torn down a lot of nice buildings.

    in reply to: South Campus Gateway – News & Updates #1110547

    rory
    Participant

    http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/01/13/buckeye-hall-of-fame-closing-at-grandview-yard.html

    The Eddie George Grill is moving to Grandview Yard. I wonder what will be there next?

    in reply to: Campus Partners to Redevelop High from 17th to 14th #1110361

    rory
    Participant

    yeah, I know that higher is more expensive but all the stick-built, vanilla design, built-to-last-only-till-it’s-fully-depreciated projects are no substitute for a varied streetscape that include some historical buildings. I just wish there was a little more imagination in this project rather than just dozing a city block.

    in reply to: Campus Partners to Redevelop High from 17th to 14th #1110321

    rory
    Participant

    Why not incorporate density, development and historic preservation in one block? Instead a five-story mid-rise that takes up a whole block why not rehabilitation for some of the historic buildings combined with a 10-12 story student housing building? The proposed design not only wastes the existing buildings but it also wastes the space above the five-story building. Granted, not everything needs to be saved but some of the existing buildings could be quite nice if they were renovated. Not to mention, a taller building combined with rehabbed historic buildings offers a more interesting and organic streetscape and possibly a wider variety of retail spaces for local businesses. Instead of going for the bulldozer for the whole block let’s go up for some and save some.

    in reply to: Moving to Franklinton? #1110287

    rory
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>GeeDee wrote:</div>
    Here’s what you need to know about being an early pioneer in a neighborhood like this:

    How is one a “pioneer” when they move to an area where people already live & have for decades?

    RE: Franklinton — The condition of the housing stock is the biggest problem. Too many abused, neglected & previously-flooded homes.

    Maybe they’re building a new home? Maybe they like a project? Maybe they found a house they like already?

    And they are “pioneers” from the sense of moving TO the neighborhood, which has seen almost nothing but exodus and demolition for decades. They’re filling in the gaps that have been left, like pioneering plant species filling in a disturbed ecosystem. I thought the reference was obvious.

    From what I have seen “urban pioneer” seems to have been first used by middle class African Americans in the late 40’s and early 50s when they were the first to move to an all white neighborhood and referred to themselves as such. It just means that you’re the first of your racial or economic demographic to move to a particular neighborhood whatever that may be. It’s not that no one ever live there before.

    That being said, IMHO Franklinton is a young persons game it’s going to take a while.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 639 total)

Subscribe below: