RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeHmmm....could it be that Columbusite actually writes for the Dispatch under the pen name of "Joe Blundo?" :wink:
His latest column is excellent!
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
Blundo nails it...
[25 posts] [14 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
It was awesome seeing this in the paper today. Well written and sums up the history of development in this city pretty well.
"There's no use trying to sugarcoat it," said an official who asked to remain fictitious. "We stood idly by while some company with vision saved a historic building. Now, instead of another soulless corner, we're stuck with something that's probably going to lend interest to the cityscape for years to come.
Posted 3 years ago # -
shroud
Polaris
Login to Send PM
Funny article, but this comment ticks me off a little:
Were it not for some timely work by bulldozers, they note, Columbus might still be saddled with people coming from hundreds of miles away to eat at the Kahiki.
The city didn't have anything to do with that - unless I didn't hear the whole picture - the Kahiki closed-up shop so that they could concentrate on the frozen food business.
I guess the city could've intervened & tried to stop them from selling the place to CVS (or whatever wound-up going in)?
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
How many of these historic buildings have actually been razed by the city itself rather than by private owners? Firestone Mansion was demolished by the Columbus Foundation, a nonprofit community foundation with no apparent connection to the city government. I honestly don't know who demolished the buildings Columbus lost in the past, but I'm guessing a solid number were by private parties because private parties have much stronger incentives for modernization than governments do ... the former have to pay taxes on the decaying properties, if nothing else, and have less insulation from the opportunity costs of "historic preservation."
Posted 3 years ago # -
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
Are we really going to nitpick a pretty funny piece of satire that hits it on the head pretty well?
Posted 3 years ago # -
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote I honestly don't know who demolished the buildings Columbus lost in the past, but I'm guessing a solid number were by private parties because private parties have much stronger incentives for modernization than governments do ... the former have to pay taxes on the decaying properties, if nothing else, and have less insulation from the opportunity costs of "historic preservation."
Could you explain what you mean by "opportunity costs"? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote I honestly don't know who demolished the buildings Columbus lost in the past, but I'm guessing a solid number were by private parties because private parties have much stronger incentives for modernization than governments do
This is sort of a small pet peeve of mine. People using "Columbus" as an interchangeable term to describe the local government, private businesses, and other bodies that performed some act in the past. "Columbus" didn't knock down any buildings.
I agree that the article was amusing... and it's great that the Seneca was saved (for now). But I still don't like to dwell too much on what was done decades ago, typically before any of us were even born. There's nothing you can do about it now, so to complain about the "what ifs" is usually a waste of time.
Posted 3 years ago # -
cab124
Downtown Columbus
Login to Send PM
I just assumed that when Blundo used the term "Columbus," he was referring to the prevailing culture of Columbus as a region, in the sense that, "the landscape reflects the culture," (as Kyle Ezell likes to state it). Our urban landscape is largely geared toward parking and moving cars. Very few of our old buildings and architectural landmarks remain. We have no museum of Columbus history. All of this must reflect the collective values of all of the entities, including government and various types of businesses, that have influenced what we have built, and what we have torn down. I don't think it is hard to make the case that the culture of this region does not seem to value preserving many connections to its past.
In the third paragraph he uses the term, "Columbus developers," which could refer to any entity that contributed to the development of our urban core, including private businesses, the city or even the county.
While many cities engaged in the practice of tearing down old buildings in order to re-purpose the land for surface parking, etc., it seems as though this practice was especially pronounced in Columbus, as a region. When I visit other cities such as Louisville or Cincinnati, I can't help but to note that their urban infrastructure seems to be much more intact than ours is. They have many, many more old buildings that are not only standing, but that have been meticulously restored.
Walker wrote But I still don't like to dwell too much on what was done decades ago, typically before any of us were even born. There's nothing you can do about it now, so to complain about the "what ifs" is usually a waste of time.
I think that the purpose of looking at our history is to try to understand it and to leverage what we learn from it to improve the present and the future, not necessarily to complain about what-ifs.
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
lifeontwowheels wrote Are we really going to nitpick a pretty funny piece of satire that hits it on the head pretty well?
No, but what piece are you referring to?
HeySquare wrote Could you explain what you mean by "opportunity costs"? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.
The difference between the costs-less-benefits of leaving it as it is and the costs-less-benefits of starting anew (or simply replacing it with a parking lot, which may convey fewer benefits but also greatly reduces costs). Maintaining historic buildings, particularly if their practical utility is limited, is expensive, and the regulatory hurdles often only make them worse.
If a building can be replaced with something better, then not doing so by definition incurs opportunity costs. "Something better" doesn't necessarily mean something more aesthetically pleasing, except to the extent that that translates into tangible benefits (e.g., people willing to pay more to live or work there, businesses willing to pay more to lease ground floor retail, cleaner air, lower crime, lower insurance rates, etc.).
It's good when old buildings can be successfully renovated with modern technology and repurposed for modern urban life. However, it's unwarranted to assume that that can be done for all old buildings--even those on the historic register, since that ("upgradeability" or whatever you want to call it) is not a criterion for getting on that register.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Columbusite
Minneapolis
Login to Send PM
Great article! Couldn´t have done better myself. I have to agree and disagree with Walker about bemoaning the loss of our historic urban spaces. Yes, there´s nothing you can do about the beauty we tore out of our city and the bland lego blocks and parking lots we replaced them with decades ago. But even now it (Camel Bell Inn - E Main) just (NE corner of Long & 17th) keeps (NW corner of Long & 17th) on (Firestone Mansion) happening (Lord & Brown Hall).
Next time you're sitting in Urban Spirit keep in mind that when you look out across the street at those two empty lots that there used to be buildings there. This is a serious setback for rehabbing a corridor like Long St because now that those buildings are gone you're going to have to wait for benevolent developers who want to build on the corner of Long & 17th. It's going to be a long wait, thanks to ripping out pre-existing infrastructure that could have been fixed up and made for an interesting, varied intersection.
Posted 3 years ago # -
shroud
Polaris
Login to Send PM
Columbusite wrote happening (Lord & Brown Hall).
I'm sure OSU would love to rehab Lord & Brown Halls, if someone were willing to fork over the cash to do so -- even if it were just gutting it & preserving the exterior like they did with Page Hall (I think you can thank John Glenn for that particular rehab).
But unfortunately, it's a heck of a lot cheaper for them to maintain a green area & a parking lot then it is to try and keep up two 100+ year old buildings. If some rich alumnus (or group of rich alumni) raised a stink and donated the cash, it's probably STILL not too late to save them - heck, Lord has been condemned since the 70s...
Posted 3 years ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
If I were a rich alumnus, I'd be all about building a new and better classroom building on the site of those decrepit buildings. Architecture be damned; I had class in Brown Hall, and I'd make a sizable donation to the school to be able to take the first swing with the wrecking ball at that thing.
Rich alumni typically want to be associated with more modern, forward-looking projects: Knowlton School of Architecture and Fisher College of Business are two more recent examples of where big donor money has gone. (And I don't think there's anything wrong with how either of those structures look.) Looking to the recent past instead of the imminent future, Robinson Laboratory was clearly an addition by deletion, and the old Union, much as I have sentimental thoughts about it given how much time I spent there, was more than a little past its prime.
I'd obviously be a lot happier seeing these buildings replaced with new buildings (like Scott Laboratory, the new MechE headquarters, that replaced Robinson, or the new Physical Sciences Research Bldg. (which they managed to get built without a naming-rights-level donor ... truly amazing ...) at 191 W. Woodruff, which was already a vacant lot when I started on campus in 2000. However, if buildings have outlived their usefulness, they've outlived their purpose; they don't exist merely to be decorative.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM
Columbusite wrote I have to agree and disagree with Walker about bemoaning the loss of our historic urban spaces. Yes, there´s nothing you can do about the beauty we tore out of our city and the bland lego blocks and parking lots we replaced them with decades ago. But even now it (Camel Bell Inn - E Main) just (NE corner of Long & 17th) keeps (NW corner of Long & 17th) on (Firestone Mansion) happening (Lord & Brown Hall).
I'm not saying people shouldn't fight the good fight at saving buildings in danger of being torn down. That's something that people CAN make a difference with (especially if you have giant wads of cash). But to complain about something that happened before you were born... that's usually a waste of breath.
Columbusite wrote Next time you're sitting in Urban Spirit keep in mind that when you look out across the street at those two empty lots that there used to be buildings there.
I guess that's just the difference between you and I. When I sit there and look out I imagine what will be there in 20 years. Not what was there 50 years ago. I'm optimistic about the future. Not pessimistic about the past.
Saving buildings = GOOD
Complaining about buildings lost decades ago = NOT AS GOOD
Posted 3 years ago # -
Columbusite
Minneapolis
Login to Send PM
Walker wrote
Columbusite wrote Next time you're sitting in Urban Spirit keep in mind that when you look out across the street at those two empty lots that there used to be buildings there.
I guess that's just the difference between you and I. When I sit there and look out I imagine what will be there in 20 years. Not what was there 50 years ago. I'm optimistic about the future. Not pessimistic about the past.
Saving buildings = GOOD
Complaining about buildings lost decades ago = NOT AS GOOD
But those were torn down just last year, the first being demolished in May and the 2nd during the rehabbing of the coffeeshop. The fact that such activities are still condoned is bad news especially in neighborhoods that are attempting to comeback. I don't even want to think of how many years these recent demolitions have set back Long St even further. Even with those buildings there were plenty of empty lots that have sat there for who knows how long without developers showing any interest.
This means that more buildings on such streets can be expected to come down and further prevent revitalization. Where would the SN be if it had half of its buildings demolished and had to rely on developers to build in an area where there was crime, drugs, and prostitution? Urban pioneers like artists need buildings to move into in order to aid the process and without those don't be surprised if it takes 20 years before something does fill in those lots on Long. I'm glad you're willing to wait, but I don't see the point if we're going to continue to allow demolition of the remaining infrastructure we have on streets like this which will make any sort of progress much more unlikely.
As usual in this city it's one step forward and two steps back. I'm glad we're rehabbing the Lincoln theatre and filled in the grass lot at the corner of Long & Hamilton along with the Hamilton Park condos and planned Whitney condos up on Hamilton, but then we allow demolition which takes away the potential that those buildings offered and now cannot. At the very least, we can learn from the "urban renewal", ie demolition, of Long St because where the buildings were torn town decades ago nothing more than grass still stands today.
Posted 3 years ago # -
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM
Keep in mind the availability of potential affordable housing plummets when buildings are demolished.
Instead, you get brand new construction and 400k condos.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kessler
Georgian Heights
Login to Send PM
When I was last at urban spirits sitting on the patio, I was looking at those 2 lots across the street and thought it would be a great idea to create a green space area especially directly across the street, maybe with a gazebo in the corner, to extend outside for jazz or something.
Posted 3 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.