Jump to content

DTCL11

Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

71 Excellent

About DTCL11

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thats alot of skybridges.... starting to look like NW/Convention Center, Crown City or Des Moines with that many elevated connectors.... not sure how I feel about it.
  2. I'm both surprised and not surprised that Delaware hasn't taken a lesson from Dublin and worked to make their downtown denser. While there is something to be said for main street USA, if the smaller towns, even the tiny ones, would work to invite some moderate density in their own cores, that would help too. As much heck as I give Dublin, they are central Ohio's bar for urbanizing the core of a suburb.
  3. I was shocked to see the 1-1.5 unit per acre restriction. That's mind boggling to me. I get it. Some people want that but these communities aren't allowing for those that don't mind being use to each other and like chicago style housing to come in. They act like its going to be the end of the world that someone might choose to live in a denser community in Delaware rather than Columbus or that they will eventually be forced to move Into them. They treat them as mutually exclusive in many cases and not seeking to diversify the community for a broader group of people. But I agree with JohnOh that there is a bit of a disingenuous nature to developers pushing for this as a ways to prevent sprawl. Heck, even just getting rid of bad streets would make them seem more genuine. Even in those other markets they mention sprawl is even more rampant than here. But planning for regional sprawl with a unified development plan is too much to ask. If you've ever been to texas, while it fails to address sprawl, one of the most interesting things was to see miles and miles of 4-6 lane boulevards through farmland because they've pre-planned the infrastructure years before construction even starts in some areas so they aren't playing catch up.
  4. I don't disagree. Reduce all the lanes! More bike lanes! Less parking! Etc etc. The problem is that Grandview doesn't really have to care about that in the grand scheme of things as long as they control their own density on their little island. They may care more if ORR can become a super dense, transit heavy corridor, but even then, they'll still be their own island.
  5. While the sentiment is true, the landlocked nature of Grandview and limited ways in and out was a SIGNIFICANT concern at the time as well and persisted throughout the development. The complexity of navigating around the rail lines to the east barred any easy solution for road expansion (we see how long it's taken just to get 3rd through the system and construct) and that bottle neck as brutal as it is now at times, was feared to be worse with every additional apartment building. Sure, they could have gone much denser with a handful of 10 story buildings but It was a struggle to get started if I remember correctly. And part of the compromise, albeit it was still controversial, was the chicago style homes buffering the new and old. Upper Arlington Pushing for density along lane or Dublins Bridge Park is different as they have much more flexibility in that the road system there allows for much higher traffic volumes and it's not affecting a well established community in the same way. And while that sucks to have to seriously take into account, that's the reality of it. Do I agree? No. I'd love to see additional 10ish story buildings there but I can see where the reality of a suburb not wanting to shake up the status quo. Whether that is good or bad for them, that remains to be seen. Could plans have been changed or developed, I'm sure but I doubt grandview was willing to push or consider more, even from a revenue standpoint to avoid traffic. And as GCrites beat me to it, Grandview probably does not see the argument of additional tax dollars as being as attractive. If they feel their tax base is stable, happy, and draws in enough income to maintain the area with nominal improvements, additional tax dollars probably are not a huge sell to add density there.
  6. I agree. I would certainly bet money on them trying to acquire them if they havent already but those lots have been owned by the same operators for decades, some back to the 1970s. I dont see NRI doing anything on spring until they acquire more and they will certainly run into opposition if they attempt to demolish that building anyway. The only pricing I can find was a sale of one lot in 1997 for $1.3 million. The investment for those lots is likely going to be significantly higher than what they spent on even the Marconi garage. Maybe the sale to the Crew will push some of those purchases along.
  7. While I'm a little disappointed in the physical appearance of 2.0 buildings, the overall gravity experience needs to be the bar for Franklinton. It is and going to be something unlike any other part of the city and frankly, many (not all) of our peers, particularly in the midwest. I hope the commission puts pressure on other developers to take notes when it comes to developing the other large plots owned by others nearby in terms of materials, shapes, public spaces, art, etc. Franklinton needs to be the most original part of the city IMO.
  8. They redid 4th more recently and they just added a pedestrian bump out, lighted, and lined crosswalk at the IBEW/Jeffrey Park crosswalk with two flashing signs. I'd bet money on at least one or two more going in near seventh son/buddy dairy as well. Seems like It's most likely a matter of where things (ie. Development) is happening. Hopfeully a project or two with increased pedestrian activity will convince the city that this very intersection as well as perhaps around Tompkins is worthy of something better. This area is also known for pedestrian/vehicle incidents so you would hope that would hold some weight too.
  9. The overflow tunnel does not improve the infrastructure to allow for greater density. That still needs to be done at the street level. It only comes into play during significant rainy. Ideally, if the proper upgrades are done at the street level, the overflow tunnel becomes less important. (I.e. blueprint columbus) We could build 3 or 5 or 10 of them and it won't help get more density where its needed. Water and sewage main upgrades are what's most important.
  10. Does anyone know if there are plans to bring the street improvements in the Short North and campus up through Old North? I'd particularly like to see the better marked crosswalks, and pedestrian bump outs at those popular crossing locations between traffic lights. Also, have Patrick Js and the 2500 N high projects stalled out? I'm itching to see some new density in Old North.
  11. https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/01/28/nationwide-realty-buys-spring-street-office.html They bought this and the old marconi garage across from AEP quietly in 2016. Edit: For clarification, it appears that it is only the building that NRI bought. My money is they are betting to be able to buy the lots in the future. But as if now, none of the surrounding lots are NRI. https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/09/06/nationwide-realty-buys-downtowns-marconi-garage.html These are the two locations I referenced above. IF I was going to bet money on a new Tower from NRI, these locations would be it. I won't actually make that bet right now but they are tight plots that will hopefully dem wa and height and density to maximize profit. But they could also just sit on them for 20 years doing nothing. Before the committment to move the jobs to Grandview Yard, Nationwide planned on building a single claims office 'downtown' to consolidate their claims operations into a single building. No specifics were ever released and then grandview yard came along.
  12. It's a tongue in cheek reference to committee meetings/discussions that go in endless circles with no conclusion that can be summarized by those two lines.
  13. A thought experiment was proposed. Alternative opinions were shared. *end of meeting minutes* We will have to agree to disagree. Could it be done. Sure. To your original question, How would I feel. It doesn't seem worth it to me. I don't feel it would add anything other than density for density sake and I don't believe that's necessarily the way to go.
  14. Yes. The same tracks that are immediately adjacent to the current tower and lower portion of NW. They also go under and through the parking deck. They also are immediately adjacent to the substructure of the hyatt and convention center and within spitting distance of the new Hiltons, the AEP tower and garage etc. I'm not seeing where this location is prohibitive in anyway with proper engineering. From a safety standpoint, the precedent is already there to have significant structures within feet of the railroads. The lot, though differently shaped, is not much different than the remaining lot on Goodale along 670. Mixed use or not, the value added just doesn't seem that it would be there. I don't think there is anything to be gained that can't be achieved in a dozen other adjacent locations. A far better thought experiment IMO would be adding to the acres and acres of parking decks along front street. Even just a few floors of mixed use above each of those is a much better use of resources than to try to squeeze a building into those green spaces for the sake of urban value. They could even hollow out the main lower portion and built a tower up from it and I think it would be a better option. I would argue that the main plaza is not what is redundant. The lot on NW and High is.
×
×
  • Create New...