Jump to content

.justin

Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by .justin


  1. On 7/8/2020 at 4:56 PM, 614love said:

    It looks like they are starting to install the exterior materials on the AC Marriott in the arena district.

     

    I wonder if they plan on having a rooftop bar similar to Vaso at bridge park in Dublin. No articles on the project mentioned it. 

     

    They are planning on a rooftop bar - their signing package, which was heard at the downtown commission meeting last month, included a couple of signs for it:

     

    image.png.b427b37aa5ebe9267c3bd1f17f55724d.png

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  2. 8 hours ago, VintageLife said:

    The building that is being renovated reminds me of the Cosecha building just down 4th a bit. It could be a cool restaurant with the front part maybe being an outdoor patio space 

     

    I passed by here on a run this morning; from what I could tell, most if not all of the area in front of the small building will be parking and driveway access to what appears to be a garage on the left. Curb had already been built and gravel had been laid for paving.

     

    street view from July for context:

    1865601227_ScreenShot2020-04-22at7_55_48AM.thumb.png.1bf99e0c3edd5c6a13b07fc6df34c669.png

    • Like 1

  3. Mayor Ginther announced yesterday the City of Columbus is officially taking steps to become a Vision Zero community.

     

    Columbus Underground and The Dispatch both have articles on the announcement and the city has launched a website with a survey, a public input map, and more information: columbus.gov/visionzero

     

     

    I'm hopeful this means we may see some meaningful progress on improving the walkability and bikeability of more streets in Columbus. It remains to be seen how many resources the city actually puts behind the "Action Plan" that they will be creating as part of this process.

    • Like 1

  4. Just now, Zyrokai said:

     

    This picture is great to me. The juxtaposition of an old-school *car* rental service using a surface lot in front of a building filling up an old surface lot. Love it. Out with the old and in with the new. Budget's gotta be next 😛

     

     

    So at one point the developer mentioned they had tried to buy the Budget lot but had been unsuccessful.

     

    I just looked up the property records and the Budget property changed hands to "THIRD & LONG SRR II LLC" in September 2018. The property being developed now is owned by "THIRD & LAFAYETTE SRR II LLC." Both have the same owner address, which is Schottenstein Property Group's office.

     

    So it seems Schottenstein was eventually able to buy that corner property but must be planning a second phase to finish up the block.

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 4

  5. 6 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

    The architecture firm Edge is their design partner. Their portfolio doesn't particularly excite me. This seems like it will be a joint first time venture into mid-rise for Casto and Edge. Everyone has to have their first so we will see what they bring. 

     

    I think Edge is probably only providing land use planning services, which would make sense considering this project is still in the very early planning stages. Based on Edge's website they don't seem to do building architecture.


  6. 6 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

    https://columbus.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1452868&GUID=B6612FD3-3C14-4E6A-BD6E-74B3A159AD26&Options=ID|Text|&Search=CV13-021

     

    https://library.municode.com/oh/columbus/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT33ZOCO_CH3303DE_3303.05LEE

     

    "Eating and drinking establishment" means a, restaurant, bar, tavern, cabaret, fast-food business, nightclub, pub, dining room, dinner theater, and similar uses.

     

    Their location already has a variance to permit an "eating and drinking establishment" at their location.

     

    So if we're taking this literally and not in a "GV residents don't want a drag show or two in their neighborhood" type of way, it seems Wunderbar went wrong when they had "performers dance, sing, or engage in plays for patrons."  This triggered the antiquated "cabaret" ordinance or whatever.  The property manager even notes they may request a zoning variance - which is something they should have just done from the start.

     

    On the ordinance violation, it seems like Wunderbar just didn't do basic research on what they needed to operate it legally and GV got super strict about it.  As for the neighbors who don't like the noise or whatnot in the area...don't live in one of the densest urban areas of the city that is specifically designed to have shops, restaruants, and other businesses interspersed in the community.  I haven't been, but from reading the article it sounds like Wunderbar typically shuts down their shows by 11 pm Thursdays-Saturdays - which I believe would be in compliance with any noise ordinances.

     

    *Note: I'm not a lawyer, just friends with many.

     

    Doesn't the variance permitting an "eating and drinking establishment" mean the "cabaret" use is already permitted? Cabaret is included in the definition of an "eating and drinking establishment" in city code.

     


  7. On 12/3/2019 at 6:32 PM, DTCL11 said:

    -Is the moxy hotel going to have the wall of frosted glass facing high street or will that change pending the restaurant opening? If not, that's disappointing. As it is now, it's a bit offputting but the big wooden doors make me think those will be entrances in the future. 

     

     

    Looks like there are plastic tarps covering the glass while they work on the restaurant build-out. A couple of them are hanging more loosely now -- it definitely made it look like the glass was frosted before.


  8. On 12/14/2019 at 5:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

     

    I assume by "connections", they mean more multi-use trails?  The video makes it sound like something a lot more substantial is in the works than that, though.  

     

    It seems like that's the main intent -- an expansion of the existing greenways as well as additional east-west connections. The map on the Rapid Project website shows existing and future planned greenway trails, which seems similar to the other greenway trail plans I've seen.

     

    There's actually a list of trail projects the city plans to build in the next 5 years on their website, but I can't find it right now as it looks like the city's website is down.


  9. There's definitely a culture (and honestly I think training/education) issue in DPS regarding crosswalk markings...

     

    I had reported the crosswalk at Thurman and City Park Ave in German Village (where they had added basic parallel line markings over the summer) asking for ladder style markings to be added and the response I got back referenced NCHRP guidelines for uncontrolled crosswalks from 2006. I looked through those guidelines and they don't say anything about the style of markings used. More recent guidelines from FHWA, NACTO, etc all recommend using higher-visibility markings like the ladder style markings that Columbus uses in some places but not most places.


  10. 13 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

    There is one line from CBF that gives me pause:

     

     

    It seems to imply that the fact that CSX owns the land as still being a big hurdle itself. It makes no mention of actually being in an agreement with CSX, but surely if they are looking for zoning changes and engineering plans, it is because they already have an agreement and not just an attempt to persuade CSX....

     

    The Dispatch article yesterday says CSX has been trying to sell the land but has had difficulty due to the challenges at the site:

     

    Quote

    The land is owned by rail company CSX Transportation, which has been trying to sell it.

     

    But despite its attractions — proximity to Downtown, adjacency to a park, river frontage — the site has challenges that have kept developers away.

     

    • Like 4

  11. 51 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

     

    1545.12 states that the board can sell the land at their will. There is a public process for offering the sale of the land but if the board ever decides that land is no longer needed for preservation purposes or there is a greater public interest, they can get rid of it. There is nothing that actually prevents sale. It just outlines the process for sale, most notably that it has to be offered to public entities (city, county, state) first before going to public sale. If the public entities don't want it, it goes up for market value. Then, they get to decide which bid is 'in the best public interest' which to some, is a project like this. Like I said, it's all a matter of leadership and priorities can change. The best public interest could be millions of dollars for land to fund a general fund or park expansion elsewhere at the expense of this park. Honestly, it would most likely affect the lower portions close to 70 including the dog park, mowed field, etc. Again, it's not about now, it's about who may be leaders in the future. 

     

    Edit: under the 1545 statute, Summit Metroparks just sold off 140 acres 'in the public interest' for light manufacturing becuase the county lacked sufficient land zoned for light manufacturing. The land was previously acquired in 2016 but since, the park has acquired other lands it would rather spend time and money on and use the value of the 140 acres to achieve goals elsewhere. 

     

    What further protections do you suggest? Couldn't any protections passed by the city council, the Metro Parks board, or anyone else be overturned in the future if leaders change and priorities shift?


  12. 10 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

     

    Has there ever been an interest for such development next to an existing metropark? It's not whether a precedent has been set, but preventing one. Like I said, chances are slim but city leadership can change, priorities can change, a sale can be more attractive at some point. I'd rather have a bit of added protection. Lord knows city council passes plenty of frivolous, symbolic resolutions that they could afford to spend a bit of time to protect it. 

     

     

    Keep in mind Metro Parks are a wholly separate government entity from the City of Columbus. Metro Parks primary mission is to conserve open space. There is already language in the Ohio Revised Code adding some protections for land that has been acquired by Metro Parks - see ORC 1545


  13. 26 minutes ago, Robuu said:

    ^ Right, check my edit. I first misread the "not at intersections" part.

     

    Main Street is a good example of the treatments intersections are getting in the urban core these days:

    https://goo.gl/maps/oufcYqd77dv25TaHA

     

    Yeah that's a good example of what Columbus should be doing but isn't.

     

    Even in the Short North on the section of High St that was just rebuilt, they have put down standard parallel lines at signalized intersections and no markings or signage at most unsignalized intersections. (There are only two crosswalks at unsignalized intersections that do have markings and signs, and one of those has a rapid flashing beacon)


  14. 11 hours ago, Zyrokai said:

     

    Good luck with the crosswalk markings. I've talked about this before, but I'm literally disgusted with the crosswalks in this city. Even in the Short North they don't use the striped, clearly marked crosswalks. It's all the two lane "standard/type A" crosswalk and it seriously pisses me off. I actually want to start a petition to make the standards higher.

     

    I don't want to take this thread off-topic so I started a separate thread to discuss this: 

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  15. Starting a new thread on this so as to not take a separate thread in the Columbus development forum off topic:

     

    11 hours ago, Zyrokai said:

     

    Good luck with the crosswalk markings. I've talked about this before, but I'm literally disgusted with the crosswalks in this city. Even in the Short North they don't use the striped, clearly marked crosswalks. It's all the two lane "standard/type A" crosswalk and it seriously pisses me off. I actually want to start a petition to make the standards higher.

     

    This bothers me so much.

     

    An anecdote:

     

    The city added crosswalk markings along Thurman Ave in German Village this summer after repeated requests from the south side commission, but they only added basic parallel lines. I requested through 311 they add high-visibility markings at one intersection (and signs, but I'd be happy just with the markings) and after two months they responded saying that upon further review, the Division of Traffic Management recommended no changes.

     

    What's ridiculous is that the city joined NACTO last year and specifically did so to show its commitment to implementing best practices from the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide -- it says as much on their Complete Streets page. The problem they haven't actually implemented even the most basic best practices, because a critical recommendation for crosswalks in the guide is to use "high­-visibility ladder, zebra, and continental crosswalk markings" over standard parallel lines.

     

    I for one would absolutely support any means of pressuring the city to actually paint proper crosswalks.


  16. 46 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

    I do not have pictures because it was very dark out, but on my commute today on the bus, High Street directly in front of where this will be built is primed and ready with a bunch of orange barrels moving traffic out of the way for construction.

     

    Convention Center Drive by the construction site is also now closed.

     

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  17.  

    3 hours ago, DevolsDance said:

    For those interested, below is a breakdown of the land and who owns it for these last pieces of Capitol Square. The proposal being discussed is the land owned by Capitol Square LTD. I believe which would actually leave a pretty large surface lot along the square still. I am curious to see how they piece together the development being that it's spread pretty uniquely on the block. Personally, I would like to see 25-35 story range on the 3rd + State Lot and something in the 12-15 floor range along 4th. Residential to boost the local population with office and hotel, maybe even a cultural arts or theatre space to round out the square. Hopes and dreams, hopes and dreams.

     

    Blue - Owned by 34 South Third LTD. 

    Red - Owned by Capitol Square LTD.

     

    So the Columbus Underground article says that the proposal includes the parking lots both north and south of the bank building: "Included within the footprint of the proposed development is a former bank building at 66 S. Third St., the two parking lots to the north and south of that building, and a large parking lot on South Fourth Street, north of the YWCA." It also says the development will be 3 acres (as does the Dispatch), which would have to include that parking lot.

     

    (34 South Third is owned by Capitol Square)

×
×
  • Create New...