RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
In the rendering it looks like the courtyard is blocked off to Rich St by a big, blank wall?
Hope this isn't the case... Any plans floating around out there, Walker? ;)
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Development
Seven Story Building Proposed for High & Rich
[73 posts] [25 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
heresthecasey
Funkytown
Login to Send PM
Posted 6 months ago # -
Neutzy
North Side
Login to Send PM
Historic buildings (the 1960s panels are historic now too) make downtown the unique place that it is. When we rebrand our city as fast as a fast food chain or a mall the result we get is something as disposable and uninteresting as a fast food chain or a mall. We need to slow down and consider if this type of development is really worth it. Personally, I don't think so.
Posted 6 months ago # -
jpizzow
Above the American Apparel building
Login to Send PM
Pickerington_Kyle said:
I'd take this any day, but doesn't the 2010 action plan "suggest" a minimum of 10 or 12 story buildings along High Street?I'm guessing the building was limited to 7 stories because they might not have been able to accomodate more parking spaces in the garage on site.
Posted 6 months ago # -
futureman
Grandview Heights
Login to Send PM
Those 1960's panels are absolutely horrendous, are you honestly saying you want to keep them?
I'd would have liked seen the Trautman building restored, rather then demolished tho. But given this development would add density, continue with ground retail and be designed in more traditional style I'm regrettably OK with demolition of the existing structures.
Posted 6 months ago # -
surber17
Login to Send PM
I have to agree with futureman, most the buildings from the 60's and 70's are designed so poorly that they actually depress me to be inside them (or to look at them). In contrast, good design lasts and can be appreciated. I think an excellent example is the new Pizzuti art collection building. The piece they saved deserved to be saved. The construction was made of excellent products and was visually stimulating to look at. The piece they knocked down was a crappy looking box.
Posted 6 months ago # -
ink
Login to Send PM
This project is truely disappointing. A city full of parking lots and we tear down two perfectly good buildings. The Trautman Building might not look too great with its present 1960′s cladding, but I am not convinced there is not potential hidden behind. The interior holds details like this stairwell:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/Posted 6 months ago # -
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM
ink said:
This project is truely disappointing. A city full of parking lots and we tear down two perfectly good buildings. The Trautman Building might not look too great with its present 1960′s cladding, but I am not convinced there is not potential hidden behind. The interior holds details like this stairwell:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/I do agree that it's always better to see development on surface lots rather than demolishing existing buildings, but the reality is that it takes the right combination of property owners, developers, financiers and other partners to make these types of projects happen... so that's not always going to happen in the ideal space for armchair urban planners like you and me. ;)
Posted 6 months ago # -
Lifestyle Communities
Ohio, Kentucky, & Tennessee
Login to Send PM
We're excited the word is getting out and can't wait to share more as it develops!
Posted 6 months ago # -
surber17
Login to Send PM
ink said:
This project is truely disappointing. A city full of parking lots and we tear down two perfectly good buildings. The Trautman Building might not look too great with its present 1960′s cladding, but I am not convinced there is not potential hidden behind. The interior holds details like this stairwell:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/I just don't see this building as worth saving. If the old building still stood I'd be in, but even then, High Street is different to me. Other streets I like to see more preservation, but High Street is our main "spine" and I expect it to constantly change and improve.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Neutzy
North Side
Login to Send PM
I really do think a 19th/early 20th century building with a 1960s storefront has more character and civic value than a newly-built condo tower on top of a parking garage. A faux-historic facade in "traditional styling" destroyed the real historic character of the original Wendy's in downtown. I have no desire to see any more buildings be covered with fake historic exteriors. Its okay to build new buildings in new styles in the 21st century. However, I think it is a mistake to tear down some of the few remaining actually-historic buildings in our downtown. Vibrant and interesting downtowns have a mix of new and historic buildings. If we want to achieve that mix for our city, I'm afraid downtown really can't afford to tear down any more historic buildings.
futureman said:
Those 1960's panels are absolutely horrendous, are you honestly saying you want to keep them?I'd would have liked seen the Trautman building restored, rather then demolished tho. But given this development would add density, continue with ground retail and be designed in more traditional style I'm regrettably OK with demolition of the existing structures.
Posted 6 months ago # -
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM
I too would prefer to see surface lots developed first. I also fear that building on occupied space MAY actually prolong the life of these surface lots.
There are a t-o-n of apartment projects in the works in the greater downtown. I hope they feed off each other and create more demand, but we could actually reach the tipping point.
Posted 6 months ago # -
geoyui
West Side
Login to Send PM
-
Walker
The KLD / Downtown / Gay Street
Login to Send PM
ehill27 said:
There are a t-o-n of apartment projects in the works in the greater downtown. I hope they feed off each other and create more demand, but we could actually reach the tipping point.From what I've been reading on national demographics lately, we won't be reaching the tipping point anytime soon. Only the very first of the Baby Boomer generation is hitting the retirement age, which means the downsizing "empty nest" wave has only recently begun. Couple that with the large Millennial Generation, which half of is still college age or younger, and you've got a second wave of the population shifting toward urban living.
The demand for urban housing is likely to continue to grow all across the US for at least another 10-20 years. We're not going to reach a tipping point anytime soon.
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/August/NewbergMultifamily
Posted 6 months ago # -
NerosNeptune
Goodale Park
Login to Send PM
Walker, I think he was using tipping point to mean the point where residents bring commerce brings residents brings commerce.. not the high point of the market/number of residents.
Posted 6 months ago # -
cbustransit
Login to Send PM
i am as big a preservationist as they come...ok, maybe not the biggest...but still, I like to save stuff...but the talk about saving the trautman building? really? it's historic character is gone. we're not getting it back. What would we be saving? a box? I'm more concerned about the really cool bank building on the corner than\ trautman
Posted 6 months 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.