Jump to content


Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

123 Excellent

About DTCL11

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In the video they so mention 'kayaking to work' as well. I wonder if it's going to include a renewed effort to remove more low head dams... otherwise mentioning that seems kind if moot. I hope it's not a hype campaign for modest changes and actually transformative.
  2. You get hung up on that race track each time. I'm comparing patterns of announcements and vague plans over periods of years vs outcomes. Whether it's a race track, mixed use tower, residential expansions, etc. I'm not sure I can specify or clarify it another way. Let's replace Arshot with any other company that has vague promises. That's just the one that comes to mind as a prominent example. I'll leave it at that. Fair. Let's just hope they want to play catch up on residential just as quickly as they like to build out retail....
  3. We're not on the same page here. I'm not talking about Easton as a mall. Yes, they built a successful mall. I'm not disputing that. To your point, that's the only reason many people come to Columbus from other places and that's the only part of Columbus they know. They have not built a successful community despite saying that's the goal. It's a specific element of Easton (residential) I'm referring to as being arshot'esque. The parallels are even similar when you bring up the original Easton Commons in the early 2000s as I believe Arshot had a successful tower project then too people used to show they are capable of big tower projects. Or even that the new residential building was discovered online and still not formally released by Easton (like mini-Millenial) I don't believe there is an actual equivalency between those two coincidences there but it is a bit funny in the parallel. My equating the two is specifically related to vague language on the future of a particular element of Easton. Easton was happy to tell us the exact square footage of every element of the retail and office and simply state 'residential' without putting any numbers or renderings to the residential portion, to this day. Putting the comparatives aside between Easton residential plans and Arshot, the skepticism is not unwarranted. Other than the 2008 downturn, it's not as if residential hasn't made any sense until now for such a 'visionary' group of developers. And perhaps they are seeing the error in failing to develop residential for so long and catching up. I'll be happy to see the 300 Units as outlined in the permit but I'm waiting, cautiously, on how much more we are going to see anytime soon, particularly on any of the grand visions of Georgetown or Wexner, or if we are going to see it stop there with a master plan that shows future residential and wait another 5 or if it will be 20 years. I hope its 5, but won't be surprised if its 20.
  4. And some of us acknowledged that and want to see a greater push. That contentment isn't what we want to see. That's how this conversation started. My original statement was just that. That one potential residential building is not enough to convince me at this point. Which is a valid concern IMO. We can talk In circles all day but some of us want more and more pressure from the city to get it done.
  5. Im aware. 750 units if I remember correctly. But that's where it began and stopped. Followed by 20 years of 'future residential'... if that doesn't sound like Arshot, I'm not sure what else does. Again, let's see plans and then believe they are serious about it.
  6. FWIW. The 2015 master plan released with the Easton Gateway project listed the area now being developed as future residential and people were excited for that too. Yes, master plans change. But that's pretty much my point, is residential continues to get bumped for retail.
  7. I'm not ignoring it, just treating it like an Arshot project. I guess I'm going on the idea that from its inception, Easton promise of Live, Work, Play has been promising more residences for 20 years with little to show for talking about future residential phases for, what is now, 2 decades.
  8. That's a fair assessment and a legit sentiment I have. Heck, Easton could probably accommodate 20,000 units if done correctly and become it's own city. Easton should be pushed to be more than it is. We shouldn't only be concerned when downtown and downtown adjacent developments don't realize full potential, Easton should face just as much scrutiny IMO and not treated as an 'oh well, it's a suburban mall' mentality. It can still contribute to the health of the city in more ways than it does. They should have never been permitted to build Easton Gateway the way they did. The city needs housing. Easton has the Land. It can get the capital. It has the draw. It has the infrastructure. It has the potential to be a bridge park x20. To be like developments seen in Texas (mentioned above). Even better if they are able to achieve true mixed income residential. But the focus is clear, maximize profit on retail and maybe consider some residential aspects while promising residential to obtain financial benefits from the city and the city is willing to let them do pretty much whatever they want. It really does say something when Polaris is venturing more into residential focus than Easton.
  9. Meh. I find very little about this Exciting or 'in the right direction.' They're still largely neglecting residences. One potential building is still less than even Polaris has built in the Last few years. It's hardly a 'hold my beer's to Bridge Park as Bridge park's goal of residency has been ever present and a major part of the build out. Easton's Vague implications of more down the road while only building out retail is the general MO for the last 20 years. When they get serious about adding significant residential and perhaps a mid-rise or five, then it might be exciting. It was Feb of 2017 when Easton got the big tax deal with Linden and announced a 10 year abatement on over 1million SF of residential that has yet to appear. That doesn't kick in until its built and there appears to be no deadline so Easton seems to have gotten a tax break to cash in whenever, if they ever follow through with it. Until then, it's just a variant on a shopping mall. Albeit a successful one from that standpoint, but I'm still hesitant to celebrate anything regarding urban density about it. Tear down the out lots, including across Morse Road, front the retail on Morse and build 10,000 residences across the whole area, THEN they might be onto something game changing for urbanism.
  10. Not quite. Franklinton takes out a chunk up to the railroad tracks. This is the adopted city code for downtown. Some of the peninsula is included as of 2013. I'm not sure if it was prior or not. Edit. Also note that even though this is the boundary, the Franklinton review board has jurisdiction over the peninsula to the river according to the neighborhood commissions map.
  11. The closer Pavey gets to completion, the more I fear they won't be painting the dryer vents. The white vents in a non symmetrical patterns all over the facade kill me each time I pass by.
  12. 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....
  13. I mean, there are entire empires and cult followings built off that. #hgtv #farmhousesuburbanchic lol
  14. It would be interesting to see if there are any old articles on the demolition of some of the old homes and see whether there was some sort of opposition or if it was seen as a right of passage for a growing city back then.
  15. Not likely, but the value of parking is significantly greater. The other part of the equation is simply land transactions. Franklinton got bought up and is being built up because 1. Space is limited and 2. There is no inherent revenue to the empty land in the same way it is downtown. The perpetual struggle will be getting owners to sell the lots. Empty lots, long paid for, are a big money for both mom and pop owners and big parking companies. They don't have to do anything to make money. The price has to be high, not simply for the inherent value of the land but the lost passive revenue. That does not ring true in Franklinton where the price reflects land value and not lost revenue. If the price for a surface parking lot isn't right, it doesn't hurt the owner because they will still make tons of money and can afford to wait for the right price. I've always advocated for some sort of incentive by the city to make surface lots less attractive and profitable but I'm not sure what that solution would look like.
  • Create New...