Comments on: In Search of a City: Gowdy Field (Better Than a Landfill)

By: Walker Evans

Walker Evans — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:58:28 +0000

On the flip side of the railroad tracks…

Phase One of Grandview Yard is wrapping construction for a September Launch and includes three similarly sized buildings when compared to Gowdy Field: The New Hyatt Place Hotel, an Urban Active Fitness Center, and an Office building.

The big difference?

They all share a single parking structure:

http://www.grandviewyard.com/phase-i.html

By: Eric Martineau

Eric Martineau — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:35:55 +0000

I was amazed the contractor was permitted to fence-in the sidewalk/trail without making any accomodation for pedestrians. There is no sidewalk on the opposite side, so that totally shut down pedestrian access. The Time-Warner customer service center, which is at least oriented so it is visable and approachable to the sidewalk, was completely inaccessible by foot. Where else would a construction project be allowed to shut down pedestrian access completely? The Jackson shut down a section of N. High Street side-walk, but they had a crosswalk painted to enable people to go around. At other times or at other construction sites contractors have built scaffolding to sheild the sidewalk and protect pedestrians while keeping it open for use. Sadly, the Olentangy River Road area has horrible pedestrian/bicycle accomodation in general. The 3rd Ave. railroad underpass doesn’t have any sidewalks, nor does much of 3rd Avenue to the West of Olentangy River Road. Want to walk from Victorian Village to Grandview for dinner? Good luck.

As for the building design, yes, it is far from forward-thinking. I believe the Harrison West Society did obtain a number of design concessions, but its power is very limited. In total it is sad to see such an opportunity lost.

By: Eric Davies

Eric Davies — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:50:55 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. Even your photo brings to light a hostile-looking gap between the bikeway that exists on the left side of the picture, the crosswalk at the intersection and near the #3 bus stop and the buildings. The open highway-like “view” creates a visual invitation for motorists to increase speed.

By: Geoff Binkley

Geoff Binkley — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:48:46 +0000

This is clearly a case of “sell what the customer wants.” Unfortunately, these customers (the primary and commissioning tenants) of these buildings are rooted in a time period where we had the luxury of ignoring long-term sustainability. The 20th century was a period of truly spoiled excess and we are seeing many business entities fighting the inevitable return of that kind of responsibility. They are seeing their own needs quite clearly, but are not interested in contributing a building to the urban grid. This development fits their checklist of needs perfectly. In other words, it does not behoove them to care about the day when they vacate that structure. To make change, though, we will have to make the case directly to the decision makers rather than blab in a forum.
On a personal level, I keep looking at this development with the same eyes you have expressed so clearly.

By: Walker Evans

Walker Evans — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:26:15 +0000

Agreed! Those buildings are spaced extremely far apart, and each given a football field’s worth of parking in between. It looks like any other suburban office complex. Why couldn’t they have been placed a bit closer and shared a parking garage structure between the three of them? Oy vey.