Walker said:
I think the infill development phase of Columbus Commons is still pretty liquid at this point, no? I was under the impression that the renderings provided were ideas of what they want, but there's no developer on board yet with concrete plans.
I know that there are no firm plans for it now, but I think making a significant investment that would impede those plans from being implemented in the future isn't really that great of an idea. As in, "We can't build a building here, it would get rid of that nice plaza I just paid for."
I think a similar argument was made by many for the somewhat-bland, basically grass lawn, approach to the park at Columbus Commons, no? Something along these lines is why I'm taking issue with the plan for the plaza:
Walker said:
Yeah... I've said it before, but I really don't want a super stellar park that people will fall in love with. I'll be pretty pissed off if the day comes for the next phase of development to occur there and we have anyone protesting the destruction of our beautiful sacred downtown park.
When there's a blank wall and a harsh edge facing the park like the 5/3 building does now, it kind of screams out "Put a building here!" Whereas when there's a new plaza, windows, doors, etc, that some building owner just spent good money on in the same spot, not so much...
Which is really a shame because I think that location and over where the Macy's used to be are really the prime development spots for the whole park. I would hate to see one of them killed off with a tacky plaza that actually doesn't help very much of anything, even aesthetics-wise.