Gay St. Neighborhood…Good for Downtown?
The buzz about the new neighborhood at Gay St. is almost deafening, so what’s one more blog post? Before we get started, here are the basics…
260 condos
9 city blocks
2-3 stories
2 blocks from the center of downtown
Here’s a direct quote from the developer that first got me thinking that something is off…
“Everyone kind of jumps up and down and thinks it’s wonderful that (projects are) going up,” Edwards said. “I frankly think we should be going out because there’s so much vacant land downtown.”
Going out? I’m sorry Mr. Edwards, but you sound like a developer who just scored a bunch of cheap land, free streetscape improvements, and a great financing package from the city. You sound like a developer who wants to throw up some (dare I say cheap?) wood frame housing to keep costs down, eat up NINE city blocks and turn around to make a huge profit.
Here’s a quote from the (very nicely designed) website…
“This is not a tower. Nor a collection of buildings. This is a neighborhood designed to fit naturally within the downtown landscape.”
I agree with the first part about it not being a tower. It’s the last part I really disagree with. Take a look at the picture and decide for yourself it you think it fits nicely within the “downtown landscape”.
I tend to see highrises and a suburban apartment complex.
Before you reach for that comment button, hear me out…
1) Yes, I’ll agree that this is an upgrade over the surface parking lots that are currently there.
2) Yes, as a downtown owner, I’m happy about a low-density development that eats up 9 blocks of land, thereby making all of the other land more valuable.
3) Yes, as a downtown owner, I’m happy about the possiblity of attracting a different demographic to see how much the city has to offer.
So why aren’t I doing backflips like everyone else about this project?
1) We only get one chance with all of our surface parking lots. They’re a blank canvas and leave us with huge potential. Residential doesn’t just go away. You don’t get any mulligans. You can’t just kick residents out and decide that you want to build something with more density.
2) The project is being pitched as “affordable”, which combined with the favorable city financing package (in addition to the tax abatements), makes me think that there might be some handshake deals going on here. Look at it this way, when is the last time you heard of a developer selling units below market rate? One bedroom units for $150k with private greenspace in a premium location don’t make sense. Developers letting things go below market rate doesn’t smell right.
3) Density brings amenities like corner markets, clothing shops, restaurants, etc… We’re not helping ourselves much in that regard by only adding 260 units on 9 city blocks.
I really want the best for this city, and I feel like we’re settling here. I feel like we buckled to a developer and are ignoring what is in the best interests of the city’s future. I feel like we’re being fast-talked with comparisons to Murray Hill. Something just doesn’t feel right to this urbanite.
Now you can reach for the comment button!
I am glad someone voiced disapproval and concerns about this project. I thought I was alone.
First let me say, its great that it is geared towards a different demographic that in the past hasn’t been the target of downtown developers. It is great that it feature green space which is so desperately needed in downtown.
However, it is clear to see that is nothing more than a very “safe” project. Its a suburban development in what is supposed to be a dense urban core. They don’t show it to you but there are just rows of parking spaces, as a safety net for buyers and Edwards.
They claim that it fits naturally into the downtown…I can’t disagree more. I am the only one who sees 10,15,20 story buildings around it. It would have been a much more attractive project had they attempted to build a modern mixed use complex, with some low-rise towers to help scale the project to its surroundings. It would have been more costly and might have had to been built in phases but it would have been a better long-term project that could have solved many of the problems downtown faces.
You hit it right on, that one of Columbus’ advantages is that the numerous surface lots allow for easier developments, and rather short sighted to allow 9 city blocks to be under-utilized.
Its great that surface lots will turn into 500 residents but it would have great if the development didn’t leave you demanding a better product.
I am working on a project that I would like your involvement on, will you please email. Thanks.
Maybe they should have done the rendering from the west side… Or better yet from the north side. I think we might see things differently that way. Heh.
I agree that low-density housing is not the be all end all to the problems with downtown housing, but the fact remains that all of the other housing going up downtown is high-density, and I think there is going to be a huge glut in the market when all of the projected units are complete. I think we need a combination of high density and low density housing (akin to Short North/Vic Village/Italian Village areas) and this will provide that.
As long as they put some mixed-use spaces in there too, (delis, markets, groceries, etc.) I’m behind it.
But also, I’m not a huge fan of building any more hideosities like the North Bank Tower.
This is an area that originally had single family homes and small apartment buildings. Those buildings were leveled to make parking for the 1960s and 1970s office buildings you see in the renderings. If you turned the rendering around 180 degrees, you would see buildings of a similar scale to what is being built. The fact is, the transportation system heavily influences building density. These blocks are not served by much accept a few buses. That means development money has to be spent to include sufficient parking for cars in the project. Until there is a real mass transit system in Columbus, there won’t be a lot of high-rise residential buildings accept in the most desirable locations such as along the riverfront.
I am happy to see someone voice a non-comformist opinion about downtown development, but I find the post misguided. Columbus’ downtown covers such a huge swath of land–somewhere I read that our downtown is larger even than the land within the Loop–that to expect all the surface lots to be replaced by 6-7 story buildings anytime soon is simply unrealistic.
Rob,
I wouldn’t say that I’m a non-conformist on downtown development…just this development.
If you find the post misguided, then I think it’s because you misinterpreted me. You’re right in that our downtown is geographically huge, but I never said that we need 6-7 story buildings “anytime soon”. If it takes 15 years, so be it. As the post mentioned, we only get one crack at developing these surface lots. Residential doesn’t just go away.
For comparison, here is a link to a sat image of the CBD of San Francisco - . The core of high rises is outlined in red. This next link shows the same outline imposed on an image of Columbus at the same scale -. The area of the new neighborhood is outlined in green. There are so many parking lots available within the red area, not to mention outside of the red area, I don’t think there is much to worry about from only have 2-4 story buildings in this new development. Columbus should really be worrying about getting all those parking lots filled in.
[...] of downtown condos, Cap City Savvy dissents from the hoopla surrounding the announcement of “the new downtown neighborhood“: So why [...]
Columbuser.com » On the downtown condo market said this on June 29, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I agree for the most part. Columbus seems to be so desperate to fill vacant parking lots with pretty much anything. Like you said, we only get one shot. I have a feeling that 25 to 50 years from now people will look back on this project and think we really missed the boat. In terms of highest and best use of the land, I’m not sure this is it. Plus, this is really suburban style construction with the wood framing and the projected life span is not all that long.
I’ve attended some of the Downtown Development review panels, and this project has flown through easily with a pat on the back. I could see this project working located on the downtown periphery, but it seems to locate this in downtown core is a little bit short sighted for the future of downtown.
I hope downtown does get to the point someday where we do look back and think these 9 blocks could have been used for something bigger and better.
As a former downtown Columbus resident (now living in Chicago) I think this is a big mistake for downtown Columbus…After this project is up, then what? we turn the rest of downtown into a suburb style neighborhood? Come one people! Columbus is one of the greatest cities in the country…they cant possibly let this project go forward!
sorry the links didn’t show up… weird
wow, i must be the only one who actually works down here, because no one has mentioned the fact that this project with eliminate the parking area for hundreds of people from numerous buildings/businesses in the area. i must say that i was thoroughly disappointed that this would not turn into a mixed use area with parking garages included in the build plan. i can’t speak for the open lots on High/Front streets, but these lots are full to capacity everyday with downtown workers like myself. i will end up walking for longer than i drive each day to get into the office when these lots have been taken over by modest, uninspiring housing.
i’m seeing a pattern here….it’s almost as if the city leadership is deferring to developers: “ah just go ahead and consume as much land as you want.” The Arena District to me is another example of this— to me it resembles a suburban office park, with the scale and size of the buildings and their distance from one another, and the really WIDE sidewalks and arcades.
What’s really problematic about this is that the city is either being terribly short-sighted, and that this land will be much-needed someday, or that they are actually quite prophetic and know it’s not likely to be used in any great capacity.
The aesthetic issues I’m afraid seem to be lost on the “city leaders” here though. Probably because they themselves all live in the burbs in cookie cutter houses, eat at chain restaurants and shop at WalMart, and see no problem with that.
The only thing I see in favor of this development is if it manages to generate some kind of livelihood, i.e., if people use the green space a lot and if the 500 residents’ presence pushes the issue for commercial/retail development that would serve downtown.
Gerard,
I see no reason to pick on the Arena District. Its one of the the best thing that Columbus has going for it. 5-8 story buildings is exactly what this city should be building right now.
There simply isn’t the demand to build office towers that are 20,40 stories high. If anything the fact that Nationwide is getting the entire district built now is amazing. If they had built just one tower there would have been nothing to walk around.
When the time comes, Nationwide would certainly have the money and the desire to build a taller building. If nothing else to serve as a replacement for their aging headquarters.
As far as complaining about wide sidewalks - I don’t see why thats a complaint. Its a heavy trafficked area, the need for wide sidewalks is to keep the people moving. It also gives the pedestrian a buffer from what is a very active road.
Greg,
I certainly agree with you. I work downtown, but I have the luxury of being able to take a simple bus ride downtown.
It should be clear to everyone. There is nothing wrong with having parking downtown. Its a requirement for a city, especially in Columbus where the citizens have no other choices than to depend on the car because there is no other option.
However what we don’t want is blocks and blocks of surface lots…the answer should be to create a simple parking garage with this development. Edwards could own and operate it and the money could be used for streetspace/green space maintence.
I have often suggested the idea of a land swap. High & Gay. There are is an entire block of surface parking that sits directly on High St. I suggest someone like CDDC(who lacks funds) or the city make a trade with the parking owner. City/CDDC builds a garage of X-height with more spaces than currently available on the ground. This garage would have small storefront retail shops. The parking owner would then own and operate this garage as their own and would turn over the remaining land to the City/CDDC - who can then sell it to a developer or build themselves(CDDC).
This is a great development for downtown. As long as this not the majority, that is. You’ll see that great cities have a wide variety of choices for housing. Heck, in downtown Toronto there are single family homes (minus yards and space inbetween them), so I don’t see why we in Columbus would be bothered. If it’s really as bad as everyone says then surely this can be just as easily knocked into the ground just like all of the homes that were demolished before this area was made for parking. Look at 5th St and you’ll notice a few of these still standing, but used as office space. The homes face the street and have hidden parking, just what an urban place needs.
Matt, no, the Arena district doesn’t need to be comprised of tall buildings, but the fact of the matter is, everything is really spread out and the individual retail/restaurant spaces have huge amounts of space and frontage. And plus, it DOES look like a suburban office park. Plastic, dull, architecture, way too much pane glass. Having the wide sidewalks only enhances the effect that it’s really a pretty low-density development, especially for a city’s downtown.
What’s not at all surprising to me is that the development has floundered during hockey off-season….if they had gone for more density and had more retail and restaurant tenants, maybe the Arena District would actually be a place people considered as a destination on its own, not just as a place to hang before or after the game.
You New York/Chicago/San Fran ect.. wannabes need to get your head out of the clouds when you wax poetic about all things “urban dense” and mass transit as a panacea for everything. Although I agree with taking steps to limit urban sprawl and downtown revitalization you need to realize that the automobile is an essential and convenient tool of everyday living. I’ve been to all of these supposedly great cities you all love so much - numerous times in fact. Every time I come back I realize how glad I am not to live there. The simplest chores become extremely tedious due to the simple facts that there are too many people in too small a space thereby negating the ability to use an auto effectively. If you want to live in a 40 story condo where you have to take an elevator every time you want to go outside then get on a crowded train or bus to get somewhere and then walk part way to get to your final destination - by all means move to one of these places. Otherwise, realize that the auto is an indispensable tool of modern lifestyle. A better approach is to continue pressing for the inevitable day when all autos can run on something other than gasoline. That day will come and all this hype over cars being evil will pass. Thats why I feel this project is a fine idea for our city (assuming they are well built). First, ANYTHING is better than what’s there now and second, multistory high rises have there place here but not at the expense of making this a mini NYC.
p.s. - If you think I’m going to ever walk to get a gallon of milk or go to the movie rental store in January when it’s 10 degrees outside you can kiss my ass. I’ve done this before in Chicago and it sucks!
Thanks for the really thorough analysis Mark. I especially like the part about kissing your ass. Well thought out, and classy.
BTW - I walk to the grocery store in January, but I typically only buy a half gallon of milk to leave space for other stuff. Throw on a jacket, and a hat and quit complaining. Most people walk further to their cars than I do to the grocery store. When we get more density in town, more people will be able to say the same.
I think it’s quite an amazing assumption to think that we will still have the “convenience” of driving cars everywhere in the future. I think it’s quite possible that the end of cheap oil could mean the end of car dominance. And if that happens, then columbus would not be in good shape.
Columbus will always have cars. America will. The power source will just change and then the only complaint left will be traffic. Overlaying a light rail system on the city would simply make give people an option other than dealing with rush hour traffic. Cars will still rule.
This new neighborhood will indeed take out parking. I think the city is looking at ways to deal with this. Inevitably, someone will build a garage and parking will become more expensive. Thats the way it goes.
I can’t believe anyone is harping on the Arena District. I have seen areas in other cities that were once derelict and have been redeveloped. Areas in cities that are supposedly more sophisticated. The Arena District kicks ass by comparison. If it seems sterile, that may be more of a comment about contemporary building standards than Columbus in particular