RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
This Week News is reporting that the Clintonville Area Commission rejected a proposal last week that called for a four-story building at the corner of High Street and California Avenue. The building would contain 6,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor and 26 apartment units on the floors above it. Commissioners and Clintonville residents who are opposed to the project stated concerns about lowered property values, a reduction of their “sky view” and parking issues. The full article can be read here.
 |
 |
| View more Spirit of Columbus photos here. |
 |
Comments
- NEOBuckeye: You don't even have to go as far as Brooklyn to find a Target with cart esc
- anillo: Two story is a lot nicer. The cart elevators aren't awkward at all, and it
- efilsitra: The Dudely Lama, I assume they are saying "til close" because they don't kn
- Walker: I'm completely in favor of a two-story format. Not just for this location,
- Setham17: Walker-Two-story is the way to go...look at Boston. Our architectural desig
Top Stories
- New 504-Unit Apartment Project Coming to Westerville Near Polaris18
- The Flapper Room and The Blackberry Patch Opening Downtown in 201417
- The List: 10 More New Apartment Developments Around Columbus16
- The Sycamore Relaunching as New German Village Restaurant13
- Bexley Mayor Excited about New Two-Story Giant Eagle on Main Street13
- Plans Advancing for City Campus, New Building on Front Street11
- Travel: Washington DC via Amtrak10
- School Issues: Surveys10
- Restaurant Review: Portia's Cafe8
- At Home: Falling in love with a neighborhood8
Clintonville Rejects Mixed-Use Development
By: Walker
Related Posts:
If anyone needed proof that Clintonville doesn’t live up to it’s progressive facade, well here you go. And of course, there was no such vocal opposition for existing sprawl along High St. Here’s the “view” (look to the left for the McDonalds).
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=10+E+California+Ave,+Columbus,+OH&sll=40.025774,-83.014069&sspn=0.009727,0.031972&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=10+E+California+Ave,+Columbus,+Franklin,+Ohio+43202&ll=40.031821,-83.013983&spn=0.009726,0.031972&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=40.025776,-83.013936&panoid=5qS6q01ApML7y4iVJgSuTg&cbp=12,310.49,,0,5
And where did they get the bogus notion that mixed-use=lower property values?
I don’t think a 4 story structure along High at that corner, that appears to be two separate buildings, would overpower the surroundings. I do think its a tough spot to hand out parking variances with the current apartment density West of High.
I find the argument that, “any reduction in the “sky view” of nearby residents would reduce the value of their properties,” interesting.
While you may own the airspace above your land, there is no guarantee of a view when you buy your property.
man. seems like kind-of a bummer. Parking can get tricky, so if they didn’t have a good plan for that in place, I can see the opposition. The rest seems silly. Unless only 3 people showed up at the meeting and all 3 had their ‘sky view’ blocked.
@Columbusite – I’m not sure what the rejection of a mixed use project has anything to do with a neighborhood’s political leanings.
Sounds like the developer didn’t sell the project to the community. Some people like multi-story buildings, others don’t. I have not seen the renderings – maybe the buidling was just plain ugly. I think most of the east side of High could easily support 3-4 story buildings and that the grade helps to hide the building mass from the neighborhood to the east.
@ JoePeffer. Actually you can guarantee your view through a viewshed protection ordinance or district. It protects your historic or scenic rural view. Napa Valley has one. But I don’t think Clintonville has one. I think it might be a stretch to make a vacant lot on High St. one too but it’s their neighborhood and more power to them for it.
However, I always enjoy Jonathan Barnes designs and if he and Mr. DeVere are dying to build something I’d like to suggest the corner of 4th and 5th where that nasty-ass state liquor store is located. Weinland Park needs a better view.
Super disappointing.
I’m going to hope that this project isn’t completely off the table. It sounds like a bit of community outreach might be in order to sell it to them, but I can’t imagine it’s completely a no-go at this point.
The lowered property values comment is downright laughable though. Neighborhoods that are walkable,dense, and well maintained generally have higher-than-average property values. If anything, the neighbors should be more likely to complain that adding this development will increase their property values and potentially their property taxes. But depending on what sort of retail goes in, it should increase their quality of life in the neighborhood to match.
i m taking the news pretty hard. Sky views? sky views?
This is at the end of my street and I have been waiting for someone, anyone to develop it. Does a vacant lot help home values in some way?
Clintonville is a great neighborhood with a lot going for it but decisions like this will only slow down the momentum. I had no idea this was even under consideration. Now that I do hopefully I can do something to change peoples minds.
Seems like a lot of NIMBYism to me. I second Rory’s idea. My “sky view” would be enhanced greatly if something like this were at 4th and 5th. Come on over developers.
Knowing and living in the area – a few tweaks are needed to get the community on board. The apartment to parking ratio (1 space per apartment is not good for the surrounding area, especially if the spaces are smaller) is not good and needs to change. The retail is a good concept but I would like to see a restaurant slot in there as well (with a liquor license). Four stories just does not work in that area (think of the obnoxious high building at Grandview and 3rd), three stories might work with a good design. Add in a bit more green space and he has it. Or he can move down to High and East North Broadway and do the same concept with less grief.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Jim. Abundant parking is not necessary to make a development like this (or a neighborhood in general) great. And four stories is hardly obnoxious either here or in Grandview or any other urban neighborhood. Or at least you’re the first person I’ve ever heard refer to something of such a small height in such an overly drastic way.
I love the building on Grandview and 3rd. Go to any other major city and you will see many many building like that in metro neighborhoods that surround the city core.
It reminds me of some of the neighborhoods in Seattle like Fremont or Ballard.
Grandview should aspire to be like those neighborhoods.
For this Census Tract, the 2000 Census shows an average of 1.8 cars per owner-occupied housing unit and 1.5 cars per renter-occupied housing unit. Of course that number may have changed since 2000 and it could vary by size of the housing unit. Nevertheless, if the 1.5 number is accurate, there might be something like 39 cars for the 26 apartments. If there are 26 spaces, then there would be 13 cars left over. Could they park on side streets? Could we reduce the demand for parking/auto ownership at all? Is there adequate bike parking included in the building? What if the developer bought every buyer a transit pass for one year? What if there was a ZipCar included in the lot? Just some ideas.
Parking is an issue that intercity Columbus is going to have to learn to deal with. One spot per apartment is pleanty!I know we are not Chicago but alot of the apartments and condos in Chicago dont even offer a parking space with the unit. Columbus should welcome and development that is brough to the table.
johnwirtz Says: For this Census Tract, the 2000 Census shows an average of 1.8 cars per owner-occupied housing unit and 1.5 cars per renter-occupied housing unit.
You bring up a really interesting point. Initially it would seem as if the parking would be inadequate based on those numbers, but I can’t help but wonder if those numbers are a result existing parking conditions or specific lifestyles of the folks who already live in the neighborhood.
I think that if this development moves forward with one spot allowed per apartment unit, then it’s going to attract a different demographic than the average one that already exists in the neighborhood. If owning 2 cars is essential, a potential tenant is going to pass this apartment up for somewhere else. If owning 1 car works, then a potential tenant will consider living here.
I don’t know if the existing neighborhood figures necessarily mean that this new development has to fit the needs of the folks who live nearby. They’re not the ones who are going to be living here, right?
High St. here is even wider than it is in the Short North where they are building 8 stories high (and hopefully more in the future), yet people are complaining that 4 stories is too tall on the main urban strip in one of the nation’s largest cities? This kind of NIMBYism is clearly anti-progressive/liberal. It’s an extremely insular, conservative attitude to say, “Who cares about what’s good for the neighborhood? My view of the McDonalds drivethru is at stake!”.
I happen to know two people who live on that street. They’re both kind of “old guard” Clintonville types if you will. They grew up in the neighborhood and have lived there pretty much their whole lives. Given that a 4 story building is a dramatic change, at least to them, I’m not surprised to see the opposition.
The neighborhood folks might not be the ones living there but this development will have an impact on the surrounding neighbors. Parking in these parts of Clintonville, like the Short North, is a big issue. Many of the houses do not have dedicated driveways/parking areas and the residents park on the streets. If you have ever been up some of these streets in the winter, it can be downright a dangerous proposition. Especially, since the city leaves these hilly streets unplowed most of the time. Some of these folks that are fighting it are looking at the other developments that have promised to have enough parking for their needs but it never seems to be enough. I live next to the Cup O’ Joe and on busy evenings, Tulane can become a bumper car track. Cars are parked bumper to bumper through most parts of lower Clintonville.
I would love more good development of this area, especially this section of High Street between Weber to Broadway. It needs to a little sprucing up. By the way, these “insular conservatives” have been fighting that McDonalds for a number of years. But doing this smartly is what is needed. I love walking our neighborhood here, we love having C O J, Lavash, Giorgio, Aladdins, the Co-Op market, even Giant Bear all within walking distance. But because of my work and my wife’s work, we have to own two cars.
In San Diego, all new build apartment/condo buildings since the 80′s have underground parking garages. Why isn’t this something we can’t consider for these types of developments in Columbus? It always seems to be “where do we put the parking lot?”
Wouldn’t underground parking really drive up the construction costs? Plus if there is redevelopment over time of parts of Clintonville with high-density housing and parking garages all those cars have to battle down Summit and North Fourth to get downtown and that just exacerbates the traffic problems in the University District, Italian Village, and Weinland Park. Interestingly, we’ve gotten to the point where parking becomes the deciding factor for development. Maybe it’s really time for a streetcar. Leave cars out of the equation.