Our City Online

Metro

69-Unit Dennison Avenue Project Gets Conditional Approval

Brent Warren Brent Warren 69-Unit Dennison Avenue Project Gets Conditional ApprovalAll renderings provided by Berardi + Partners.
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Borror Properties has cleared another hurdle in their efforts to develop a 1.2-acre parking lot on Dennison Avenue, receiving conditional approval for a 69-unit project at the July meeting of the Victorian Village Commission.

The latest design is similar to one presented to the commission in May; 53 apartments in a four-and-a-half-story building at the corner of Dennison and Starr, with 12 townhomes and four carriage houses on the southern portion of the site, which extends to West Second Avenue. The townhomes and carriage houses would be for-sale products.

Jeff Baur of Borror Properties expressed excitement at the conditional approval, but stressed there is still plenty of work to be done before any ground is broken.

dennison-apartments-05

“This is definitely a good step, which will allow us to start with the pre-development activities, the civil engineering,” he said. “But there are still some architectural details to be worked out; the commission had some tweaks and ideas so we’re going to go back and work on those.”

Borror Properties received final approval at the same meeting for another of their projects – a new 16-unit apartment building next to a 100-year-old building at 40 West Third Avenue. Baur said they hope to start renovation of the historic house and demolition of a one-story office addition within the next 45 days, depending on how quickly they can get the necessary permits.

Construction of the new building on Third could begin as soon as September 1st, which is also the potential start date of another Borror Properties project – the Prescott and Pearl apartment building in Italian Village. Baur said that the plan is to work on both developments simultaneously.

For ongoing discussion on this development, CLICK HERE to visit our Messageboard.

All renderings provided by Berardi + Partners.

dennison-apartments-02

dennison-apartments-03

dennison-apartments-04

dennison-apartments-06

Print Friendly

Tags:

17 Responses to 69-Unit Dennison Avenue Project Gets Conditional Approval

  1. Mercurius July 14, 2014 9:21 am at 9:21 am

    I think Borror Properties just needs to get a new architect. I like the density of all his projects but they all just look bad. It’s like a mish-mash of suburban styles with zero setback.

    • Walker Evans
      Walker Evans July 14, 2014 9:27 am at 9:27 am

      What’s suburban about the style? Victorian Village homes typically don’t have a very large setback.

      I think it looks like a great fit for that corner, which already has a mix of styles in place.

      • Mercurius July 14, 2014 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm

        Faux balconies? 25 different kinds of windows? Random mansard roofs? There is just no cohesion. It’s like berardi shit out 25 different styles and is seeing what sticks. You can’t just keep adding pointless details and multiple styles and hope it comes out. Compare this to anything from Jonathan Barnes Architecture, DesignGroup, Meyers + Associates, Schooley Caldwell and/or GRAD and tell me it doesn’t look like shit.

        • Lisa Craig Morton
          Lisa Craig Morton July 14, 2014 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm

          Exactly!

          • Lisa Craig Morton
            Lisa Craig Morton July 14, 2014 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm

            Also have seen some good infill projects designed by Lincoln Street Studios, Urban Order and Baker-Henning in Italian and Victorian Village. The problem is when you have a developer who is used to building crap in the suburbs and they don’t seem to get it. I think you either have to go completely out of the box like some of the stuff that Lincoln Street Studios has done for Connie Klema in Italian Village or you have to do an authentic historic approximation like the townhouses that Baker-Henning designed at 104-119 Buttles Avenue on Goodale Park just west of Park Street.

    • Lisa Craig Morton
      Lisa Craig Morton July 14, 2014 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm

      I agree with Mercurius. The architecture is horrible. Looks like some really bad suburban condo development in Naples, FL or something. I do like that they finally got a nice mix of “for sale” its (which have the potential to be owner-occupied) and “for rent” units. And I do appreciate that Borror has been willing to work through the process, listen to neighborhood input and make the project better. I just hope that the recommendations of the Victorian Village Commission and the “final tweaks” that Borror has alluded to will get rid of the super-tacky, completely irrelevant to Columbus’ historic Victorian Village neo-Mediterranean style architecture.

      • Lisa Craig Morton
        Lisa Craig Morton July 14, 2014 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm

        oops! meant “for sale” units.

      • heresthecasey July 14, 2014 1:47 pm at 1:47 pm

        +1

        I also like the inclusion of for-sale units alongside rentals, and the general progression of the design. I agree that some of the details look out of place (Cocoa Manor-esque) and will hopefully be tweaked before final approval.

  2. WJT July 14, 2014 11:06 am at 11:06 am

    I think it is going to depend on the materials-cheap materials and shoddy workmanship will make this look awful-but on the other hand, quality materials and workmanship will make it look great. JMHO. I wonder what the siding material is?

    As for the size and design of it, it fits in well I think. There is only one brick house that faces this anyway. It appears that the rest is side/back yards, non-residential buildings, parking lots. I am surprised somebody has not stuck a house on that corner lot just southeast of this project.

  3. jldeenstein July 14, 2014 11:10 am at 11:10 am

    It seems as though Mercurius is an architect or a developer, judging from pasts CU posts. And one who may be afraid of a bit of competition!

    • drew
      drew July 14, 2014 11:26 am at 11:26 am

      I assure you he’s not – just someone who appreciates good design.

      I’m less than completely enthusiastic about the design of the building myself, but otherwise feel as though it’s a good fit for the location (as was the nearby Aston Place before it).

      Quality exterior materials may make it better in reality than the renderings suggest.

    • Mercurius July 14, 2014 4:49 pm at 4:49 pm

      I’m trying to help the developer. A better architect will make it easier for them to market and sell these things and in 50 years they won’t be remembered for shit.

  4. Jason Powell
    Jason Powell July 14, 2014 11:11 am at 11:11 am

    Much, much better.

  5. mbeaumont July 14, 2014 11:11 am at 11:11 am

    I agree, the materials used will make a big difference on this one. Very excited about this in general though. That’s a mighty big parking lot that will be going away. Win!

    • Mercurius July 14, 2014 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm

      It is better than a surface parking lot.

  6. jldeenstein July 14, 2014 12:03 pm at 12:03 pm

    Ditto my brother. And all I heard previously was brick, brick and brick.

    • Lisa Craig Morton
      Lisa Craig Morton July 14, 2014 1:39 pm at 1:39 pm

      Well brick, brick, brick is better than cheap stucco, stucco, stucco with faux stone, which is what this looks like. As several others have pointed out, this could be really tacky if the right quality building materials are not used. And as the Aston Place and Aston Row project shows, brick doesn’t always have to mean traditional red brick.

Want to comment?

Login or register first.

Lost your password?

metro categories