Zoe Rader
The University District wants to focus more intensely on making High Street denser with various programs (recreation, work, housing, etc.) in order to take pressure off of areas that are hoped to be lower density areas. This in turn allows for the surrounding neighborhoods, and the people that occupy them, to stay in tact without much disruption. By making the area more dense with various programming, they’re hoping to cut down on parking to promote walking, biking, etc. This could be a good implementation or a bad one. For instance, when it’s a beautiful day out, everyone should definitely be encouraged to get outside. However, when the temperatures are below freezing, most are likely to drive, and there should be ample amounts of parking to accommodate these people and conditions.
The low- and medium-intensity areas are reserved for residential structures, mainly single- and two-family homes, and anything more than that won’t be permitted. The lot size allows for an ample amount of living space along with enough room for a yard and parking. The main difference here is that medium-intensity areas are allotted more space to build (0.6 maximum floor area, with low-intensity at 0.4). Higher-intensity areas are also very similar but are allowed 45’ of height whereas low and medium are capped at 35’. Higher-intensity areas are also occasionally permitted to extend the 0.6 maximum floor area to 0.8 or 1.0 depending on what it’s replacing and/or conserving.
Neighborhood mixed use areas are fairly self-explanatory, for example, an apartment on top of a retail store. Areas such as this ad regional mixed use are what they’re looking to continue implementing through High Street. Overall, I think their land use plan is well thought out and will work out well. My main argument would be over the parking because being a commuter, I understand the difficulties in finding a parking spot when I just need to have a 30-minute meeting. I do however agree with having a low intensity residential area compared to the mixed use areas, because families, young children mainly, wont always do well in mixed use areas.
Morgan Mackey
I think the comprehensive plan is smart for the city of Columbus in the long run because it will only benefit the economy if students want to stay in the area after they graduate. However, the plan does not address the residents who are already living around the university, who may have been there for a long time. When our team walked through the neighborhood located along Norwich Avenue, one resident who worked in real estate started telling us how the city recently rezoned the lots to commercial. She seemed very upset because people might be pushed out of their homes, and the tall towers next to them look out of place and could decrease property values. The plan benefits college students by providing more places to live off campus, but it disregards the residents who are already living there.
The last few times our team has walked along Lane Avenue, we found that the height of the buildings are very inconsistent, with the tall Harrison apartment building being placed next to some two-story homes. The variety of styles and sizes causes OSU visitors to just pass through the area, instead of feeling comfortable enough to take a stroll along the sidewalk. The comprehensive plan does not put in place any height restrictions to address these issues, nor does it try to create a more cohesive environment along Lane Avenue. In fact, the plan encourages buildings to be built taller to create a smaller footprint. The plan also does not require existing buildings to expand upward. One way to improve the appearance would be to tear down old buildings and build all new structures, which would cost a lot of money, time, and disrupt traffic along busy Lane Avenue.
The University District Plan could be improved by implementing specific height restrictions and providing more details of campus. At the moment, the streets are a jumbled mess of old houses and new stores and restaurants. The plan only calls for new development to match the height of the surrounding area, but no numbers are provided for maximum height. Height restrictions would create a uniform style along Lane Avenue and High Street, which would look more appealing and create a sense of belonging that visitors would more likely remember. Campus is not clearly represented on the map, which is understandable because it is not subject to the same planning rules. However, even understanding the style and layout of its buildings might influence how buildings look on the other side of High Street and Lane Avenue. One of the main goals of a comprehensive plan is to create an area that makes sense practically and aesthetically, so the university should be included in any new changes.
Imani Watson
A primary feature of the University District Plan that seems to be consistent with prior plans is the focus of centering the concentration of development around the actual university and gradually decreasing the intensity of development further away from the university into more single-family areas. Looking at a zoning map of the University District, the distribution of spaces according to their respective zoning district is fairly vivid and almost tier like. There is the university itself, zoned as “research park”, which expands to commercial area, primarily along High Street and Lane Avenue, which then expands to multifamily residentially zoned areas that then flow into 1-4 family residential areas.
One thing the plan addresses that could very well be just as much a part of the plan in terms of its actual implementation and realization, but also a potential issue as the area continues to develop is density. In terms of yielding the greatest capital development, increasing the density of the area and concentrating the development of the area closer to the university would appear to be a great plan. However, density can also create a considerable amount of problems that would lead one to question whether the capital gain from increasing the density of the area surpasses its cost. The more density an area has the more the area becomes congested, the more the natural environment of the area becomes depleted.
One of the bullet points under the guiding principles of the UDP states: “Highest densities in the form of mixed-use buildings should be focused on High Street between Fifth Avenue and Lane Avenue, and Lane Avenue west of High Street. Higher densities in these areas ensure that future development strengthens neighborhood retail and the walkable, transit supportive nature of the area. Focusing density in these areas also reduces development pressure in areas where lower densities are preferred and recommended” (UDP 41). Walking along High St., you can definitely see the physical translation of the plan, however, though the “walkable, transit nature” of the area is emphasized in the text, the area is so congested and so busy, it arguably undermines that intended nature. Greater density can also complicate the actual application of measuring density. In the text, it mentioned density was measured in terms of dwellings per acre, however, people per acre was proposed as an alternative as the measurement was not fully applicable because a lot of residences in the area though they may have a specified number of living space, for example a four bedroom house, may not have the same number of actual residents. That four-bedroom home, is more likely to house 8 people.
Also, higher density can come at a cost to preserving the historical layout and respecting the historical design and context of a space as well as the physical space/environment itself. Preservation of the historical context of the University District is mentioned several times throughout the plan as well as environmental considerations. However, for instance while we were doing our observations for Blog 5, we came across a realtor in the Tuttle Park Neighborhood who mentioned that the zoning of the area was changed as the university and city became more involved in its development. The realtor said the area had previously been a residential neighborhood, designated AR-4 (Apartment Residential District) and was changed to commercial in a push to make the area more high-density. Design wise, the neighborhood is all over the place and as more buildings and structures go up, the more trees and actual greenery that is depleted within that space.
If a large part of the focus of the plan is increasing density such as to increase development in proximity to the University, I would suggest for every so many structures built there should also be an allotted green space within that area, respective to the size. The realtor we spoke to in the Tuttle Park Neighborhood actually suggested that there should be more tress built with each established development. In addition, more considerations should be taken into account for how to decrease the generated congestion of the area because of its high density nature.