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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 81 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: HighPoint at Columbus Commons #490413

    Wickham
    Member

    columbusmike said:
    This is too?

    The pool in this rendering appears to be at “park level”.

    The most enticing part of those renderings to me were the appearance of roof top patios. Columbus could definitely benefit from more of those!

    in reply to: HighPoint at Columbus Commons #490412

    Wickham
    Member

    jpizzow said:

    It should be one of the main design concerns in this project. In the end, it’s all how the buildings interact with the street.

    Agreed. My personal preference would be for no residential on ground level. This would help make the immediate areas around the structures feel like a part of the public space. From my current understanding I get the impression that going near the East side of the apartments with the town homes, I will feel like I am infringing on a residents foyer.

    Plus could you imagine the popularity of retail/commercial space with a patio facing east (the park)? The space will draw in huge crowds for events without even having to organize/pay for the events.

    in reply to: HighPoint at Columbus Commons #490400

    Wickham
    Member

    columbusmike said:
    Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, this is a pretty poor project. The design violates many design standards and the footprint/site plan was poorly done to in respect to the park. For being the number 3 developer in the nation, I’m extremely disappointed; however, maybe they will surprise us with some design changes.

    “Fiberglass cornices” are really all you need to know about this project to understand that every corner that can be cut, will be cut. Unbelievable.

    I agree. A closed off pool at ground level facing the park seems totally out of place to me. This project is only special because it is an “extension” and amenity of the park that serves to add to the commons. Otherwise it is just a multifamily housing unit that could be placed elsewhere in Cbus. Any private space that cuts off the residents and buildings themselves from the park essentially just turns the residents back on the park.

    In my opinion retail/restaurant patio space extending along the whole eastern side of the buildings would better serve to integrate the buildings into the park and create a more “european square” type setting for boh residents and the public to enjoy.

    The CDDC is getting blinded by the excitement of a developer being interested so soon for the 2nd phase that it is sacrificing quality in my opinion.

    in reply to: New Columbia Gas HQ Building in The Arena District #438600

    Wickham
    Member

    I understand the need for more parking, but I wish they added a floor to the structure and so the 1st floor good house some retail. At least have the East side of it, which faces the arena, available for future restaurants or cafes.

    in reply to: Riverfront Development in Cincinnati #462285

    Wickham
    Member

    Great development. Hopefully one day they will cap the freeway and really connect the downtown to “The Banks”.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340066

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    True. But then again…since the same spending would exist other than on the Blue Jackets, that income would be made elsewhere around the city and those people/businesses would pay taxes on it.

    Plus, as I mentioned, local folks earning money has higher multiplier effects that rich non-locals. So you get more secondary economic effects.

    Blue Jackets marketing department, game operations management, media types are all local people employed by this company as well.

    I am also not sold that the same spending would just be spent elsewhere in the city. I for one know I would have a lot more in the bank right now if the team weren’t in Columbus.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340064

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    They don’t, though. Players only pay 50% of their income taxes here, because only 50% of their income is earned here. Owners probably use some Florida home as their official residence to avoid income taxes at all. Property taxes, sure…but someone else would own that property if they weren’t here. So no gain.

    “Offset” insomuch as while Philly gains when we travel there, we lose because the money’s not spent here. Likewise, Philly loses when their fans travel elsewhere for games. Plus, there’s just frankly not that much money in traveling fans. Sorry.

    Yes they only pay income taxes when they play home games, but you are forgetting the other team! Those players also have to pay when they are playing in Columbus. So the city is still receiving revenue it otherwise wouldn’t if the team weren’t here.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340060

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    I would say again: by using that revenue for this, you’re specifically not using it for other projects. Including schools, infrastructure, etc. that provide the area with good investment and human capital that is needed for long term growth. It can be better allocated. Bonds are also designed to create revenue…in theory. The allocation of their funding is often poor, though, such as spending on stadiums and sports.

    I LOVE sports. But pro teams are a private enterprise. There are better things to spend money on.

    Pro teams are a private enterprise, I agree and no money should go to them. But an arena in my opinion is a social/cultural asset to a city much like the Ohio Theatre and Columbus Art Museum.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340058

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    Yes. It’s based on the original study I posted, as well as the cumulative studies which it summarizes.

    I’m sure Philadelphia will be thankful for your money. However, it’s offset by a) the times that Philadelphians leave Philly to attend their own team’s away games, and b) the fact that when we spend money on sporting events instead of at local establishments, there is a much smaller economic multiplier. Local bar, theater, and restaurant owners and employees re-spend your money locally. Rich hockey players (the bulk of the Blue Jackets’ payroll) and rich owners both save more and spend less, and spend elsewhere much, much, much, much, much more often.

    These millionaire players also pay income taxes to the city, and property taxes as well. Don’t think you discount that.

    Strike that, I got now that you meant the fans traveling.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340056

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    The point is that we’ll have debt for as long as it lasts, regardless of whether the arena does, or whether the Blue Jackets actually stay til 2039 (which…being from Cleveland, I don’t take a team’s ‘guarantee’ as such!)

    Don’t forget we aren’t taking out bonds on this or incurring more debt. This is supposed to be paid from a revenue source whose dollars haven’t been allocated yet. Meaning, unless the casino tanks, the city/county should be fine.

    I brought up that “guarantee” in an earlier post too. I know for example in Phoenix if the team wanted to break their agreement early, they had to pay damages to the city. I believe the amount was around 500 mil. So in other words, the city would get the money back. Can’t say I know for sure that is how this plan is structured, but I would think it would be.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340052

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    More here, here[/url], here, here[/url], here, and here[/url].

    As for the first link, I hope our stadium isn’t getting demolished by 2039! That would be incredibly wasteful.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340050

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    Read the referenced studies for individual cases.

    What’s the difference between new builds and taking control? It’s investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on something that doesn’t generate economic activity–it only shifts it from one area of town to another.

    You probably won’t get specifics on Columbus–the people that tend to fund these studies are folks like Nationwide, the teams themselves, and interested parties. Nobody funds them on behalf of citizens. My guess would be that there are bars and restaurants that are entirely dependent on the Blue Jackets, but that’s pretty much it. And so what if they go under? Other bars and restaurants around town would benefit.

    Nobody thought we should put up tens of millions of dollars to save the bars and restaurants around campus and in the Brewery District that went out of business after the Arena District took their business. And that’s fine. And we shouldn’t spend those millions and millions to help the bars and restaurants around the AD to keep the Blue Jackets there. The economic activity will still exist. It’s not government’s role to encourage substitute spending at the detriment of other more viable, sustainable businesses around town. Especially not when government budgets are finite and should be used for projects that either help needy people or actually generate economic activity.

    I don’t think public subsidy of Nationwide, the athletes, or the Blue Jackets’ owners is in the city’s best interest. But maybe that’s just me.

    Valid argument, but using that logic no study anywhere will ever be completely unbiased. On a microeconomic scale, I for one know I have injected much more money into the economy due to the arena and its surrounding district :). This is honestly really just a philosophical argument now, determining the extent government should be involved in a free market economy. Never a concrete answer as both sides always have valid points.

    I do have to wonder though, what about all the tax breaks and incentives that are given to other businesses in the region so they don’t move and jobs remain in our local economy. To me, the situation is very similar only we are actually getting to own an asset. Just a thought I guess.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340046

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    Public money should NOT go to sports stadiums/arenas. It does not add to the local economy, and by diverting money from projects that could actually help people, it promotes negative social welfare.

    http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/CoatesHumphreys_LitReview.pdf

    That report was very vague. Seemed to me the only “proof” it used on the matter was that stadiums/arenas shouldn’t be supported because “economists agree” they shouldn’t be. Plus a lot of the reasoning was based off of “new construction” and the idea of just taking away an asset from another part of the city.

    I would be more interested to see what economists, looking specifically at our situation here in Columbus, would think is the best solution. Thanks for the additional information on the subject though.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340042

    Wickham
    Member

    Jefe said:
    Public money should NOT go to sports stadiums/arenas. It does not add to the local economy, and by diverting money from projects that could actually help people, it promotes negative social welfare.

    http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/CoatesHumphreys_LitReview.pdf

    Doesn’t add to the local economy? Link

    By the way, your link didn’t work. Just sent me back to the beginning of the thread.

    in reply to: The Sale/Purchase of Nationwide Arena #340041

    Wickham
    Member

    Mister MooCow said:
    I don’t know where to start– “civic leaders” who took up the “mantle” and are now walking away, foisting a white elephant on the public that voted against such a travesty. “An old Ohio prison” that was a phenomenal historic structure (that could have been preserved and used for a variety of purposes), torn down by the same “civic leaders” that destroyed the old Union Station (another phenomenal historic structure). The lack of a white elephant arena “tremendously backtrack[ing]” a downtown revival that was going along just fine, thanks.

    Seriously, are you working for (or otherwise acting as a sock puppet for) one of the parties in this fiasco?

    I can’t agree that anyone is walking away, as this deal still includes all the parties that initiated the project. As for the Pen, just take a look at buckeye54’s previous comment that is a good enough response.

    I also don’t understand how you can refer to this as a “white elephant”, when the benefits of the arena/team have been clearly stated beforehand. I look at the arena as a central social/entertainment/convention drawing asset to the city/county to which they now have control of from here on out.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 81 total)

The Columbus Coffee Festival Returns!

The 6th Annual Columbus Coffee Festival returns on Saturday September 25th and Sunday September 26th!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFORMATION