Parking garage development plan gets OK

Parking garage development plan gets OK

There are 11 comments on the ThisWeek Community Newspapers story from Jul 8, 2009, titled Parking garage development plan gets OK. In it, ThisWeek Community Newspapers reports that:

Council President Ted A. Berry on Monday questioned the timing of building a city-financed parking garage as the first step in the lumberyard redevelopment project, but before a vote came up on the structure he had to leave the session.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ThisWeek Community Newspapers.

Bodie

Columbus, OH

#1 Jul 8, 2009
The parking garage idea for Town Center in Grove City is a long overdue project. Without it there would be no use to move forward with any other plans to develope the area. I hope the old Tosoh and 3M area can be redevolped in accordance with what the city envisions and nopt for some ugly industrial use.
Council & The Mayor should be thanked for moving forward on this.
CRob87

New Albany, OH

#2 Jul 12, 2009
I agree that Now is the time for the construction of the garage, Not later.

It really can't hurt to finally do what should've been done long ago. And "IF" they can get a cheaper price for it now because the economy is down, then also...why not ???

In the meantime (After it's completion) the rest of the community can use it for whatever other needs there are. And by doing it before the other buildings are constructed they will get a really good idea of whether the 282 total spaces will be enough or not.

Which is the only thing that I disagree on. I don't believe that 282 is going to be anywhere near enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

Since: Jul 09

Nashport, OH

#3 Jul 12, 2009
Here is the reason for concern re: garage.
There is land adjacent to the garage and development available for sale for surface parking. The city has been approached re: these properties but have not done their homework. The recomendations made by the architect who created the plan for the downtown specifically said that there should be integrated surface parking and that the plaza is misplaced. The administration chose to ignore his recomendations.
The garage is estimated to cost 5 million, vs. available surface parking that would allow for far more spaces that would cost about 40% of the garage cost.
Better placed/more spaces for parking, less tax dollars being spent (about 3 million). That is the reason why the delay was being suggested, to look at the other possibilities. Seems like it is worth looking into for $3 million savings.
CRob87

New Albany, OH

#4 Jul 13, 2009
Don't forget what city your talking about here...GC. The same city that Gave a $600,000 last minute Donation to the YMCA when all other donations for it's pre-construction stalled at the $1.4 million mark. And they just Couldn't be beat out for it by Hilliard...God forbid.

Also...IMO...Ground level lots are a big part of what's wrong with downtown Columbus, and why it's so hard for Columbus to attract anything new to the city. Too many lots, Not enough Greenery.

Those things are the real eyesore. An actual parking Garage just seems to be the right way to go. Sort of like the future of how things "Should Be" done or how they should have Always been done from the start.

Since: Jul 09

Nashport, OH

#5 Jul 13, 2009
The difference is that downtown Grove City will never have any building over 3 stories tall vs Columbus who has 20 stories or more. I wouldn't have a problem with the garage if the developer were paying for it. I'm just saying it is not necessary now on our dime. The cost of the land is cheap, there is ample land for parking that could be used by the surrounding businesses. In the event development in downtown becomes that dense (not likely)a parking garage can be built in the future on the same property. In the mean time you get more parking, far less money, more businesses served.
Another issue:
coming next $4 million plaza facing Grove City Rd. Space was planned for condos, now it is plaza. Have you ever sat next to grove city rd and tried to have a conversation or sat outside at Nora's or Roll's and had lunch. It's loud as ****, sirens coming by on a regular basis. Plaza should be green space or moved to Park Street side.
Another city sponsored space, poorly located, created as an afterthought by the developer when condo market caved in.
CRob87

New Albany, OH

#6 Jul 14, 2009
I agree with the need for Green Space and would be all for it anywhere.

But, if your complaining about how loud it is sitting outside at Nora's or Rolls, then maybe it's just a bad choice of locations for Nora's or Rolls to be. "IF" the sirens and such happen that frequently that is ???

And besides, if you open a business that's only a block away from a Police Dept. and 1/2 a mile away from a Fire Station...AND you don't expect any sirens...then somebody needs to get a clue.

Remember the real estate motto....Location, Location, Location !!!

Since: Jul 09

Columbus, OH

#7 Jul 14, 2009
CRob87 wrote:
I agree with the need for Green Space and would be all for it anywhere.
But, if your complaining about how loud it is sitting outside at Nora's or Rolls, then maybe it's just a bad choice of locations for Nora's or Rolls to be. "IF" the sirens and such happen that frequently that is ???
And besides, if you open a business that's only a block away from a Police Dept. and 1/2 a mile away from a Fire Station...AND you don't expect any sirens...then somebody needs to get a clue.
Remember the real estate motto....Location, Location, Location !!!
I can't speak to why those businesses chose to locate there. That's up them. I suppose their whole business doesn't hinge on the outdoor seating.
You just made my point about why the plaza is poorly located. Bad location to spend $mil. I'm not interested in having all of the town center activities relocated to this very loud location. You can bet after they spend $4 mil on it they will want to use it for everything. It would be better placed on the North side and the office building along Grove City Rd.
CRob87

New Albany, OH

#8 Jul 14, 2009
I'm not so sure that the idea of the Office building facing the Grove City Road side is such a good idea...Aesthetically that is.

It "Might Have" been better "IF" South of Grove City Road would've already been more newer developed like the Park Street side is (Mostly referring to Graeters).

And I think that's why the city planned it the way that they did.

Also because Grove City Road connects to Broadway at such an awkward angle instead of running parallel to Park Street.

It "Might" look a little more professional if things are more squared up.

Since: Jul 09

Columbus, OH

#9 Jul 14, 2009
CRob87 wrote:
I'm not so sure that the idea of the Office building facing the Grove City Road side is such a good idea...Aesthetically that is.
It "Might Have" been better "IF" South of Grove City Road would've already been more newer developed like the Park Street side is (Mostly referring to Graeters).
And I think that's why the city planned it the way that they did.
Also because Grove City Road connects to Broadway at such an awkward angle instead of running parallel to Park Street.
It "Might" look a little more professional if things are more squared up.
It is actually planned as a double faced building. The reason why it has ended up this way is because originally this developer had condos lining Grove City Rd, when the market for condos caved, he pulled them and covered the space with pavers instead. There are actually two buildings being planned, one along Park St, one parallel with the garage in the rear of the property. Long term the buildings on either side, either GC Rd (wedding chapel, commercial space) or Park st.(4 rental homes)will probably see some changes.
The City didn't plan this, the developer created this plan. Neither the administration or the council has had much input. The plan is virtually unchanged, with the exception of the elimination of the condos. The design is the same as when it was submitted over three years ago for the RFP.

You are right though, it would be better to have it squared up.There were two other plans that were submitted that looked at options such as squaring up GC Rd to allow the whole development to be square or squaring up GC Rd and cutting the square in half, corner to corner, effectively making two triangle.
Not sure why, but both have been completely ignored. One of them was actually picked by the selection committee as the development of choice 3 years ago. Three council members overturned the recommendation of the committee.
CRob87

New Albany, OH

#10 Jul 15, 2009
Ah...makes it sound like the 3 council members got a kickback "To" overturn it !!!

Since: Jul 09

Columbus, OH

#11 Jul 15, 2009
CRob87 wrote:
Ah...makes it sound like the 3 council members got a kickback "To" overturn it !!!
That's funny, I think just at the effect of a good sales pitch.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

ThisWeek Community Newspapers Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Spotlight back on Patricia Adkins case (Jan '11) Apr '16 heidi 171
News Canal Winchester man charged with cultivating pot (Aug '11) Feb '16 eye to the sky 5
News City police chief Wise announces retirement (Mar '11) Dec '15 Truthsayer 28
AVCHD to Android Phone converter - Convert MTS/... (Jul '10) Oct '15 grabbetterlife 8
News Gahanna's assets aren't tied to Creekside forec... (Mar '11) Oct '15 A tax payer 20
News Bike lanes for Muirfield clear hurdle, await fu... (Sep '11) Oct '15 philglassfan 11
News Oktoberfest organizers like idea of diverse foo... (Apr '11) Jun '15 Doc 21
More from around the web