Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

LC RiverSouth - Two 8-Story Apartment Buildings Proposed at High & Rich

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development LC RiverSouth – Two 8-Story Apartment Buildings Proposed at High & Rich

This topic contains 265 replies, has 52 voices, and was last updated by  tonloc620 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 266 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #520783

    Stephen43215
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I feel like this will really become a shopping destination in the area of Columbus Commons after the 2 projects are completed. The retail space will appeal to retailers being shiny & new…not to mention over 700 residents living within a block. Hopefully we can get some clothing stores or something along those lines mixed in with the restaurants.

    #520784

    jbcmh81
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Why does the Dispatch have the height at 8 stories?

    #520785
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    jbcmh81 said:
    Why does the Dispatch have the height at 8 stories?

    The architect told me 8 as well, but the commission meeting agenda says 7, and reiterates with ground floor retail with six floor on top. The rendering itself looks like a smaller 8th floor on top, but maybe it’s just roof access? Or there’s underground parking that some are counting as a floor, and some aren’t.

    I’ll get all of the specifics from LC next week. ;)

    #520786

    ink
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    If this were a private developer purchasing buildings from a private entity and proposing redevelopment, the story would be quite different (although my feelings would still be the same about the result). Here, however, we have the city’s downtown development corp (technically private, I suppose, but they should have a comprehensive vision for downtown) buying buildings, emptying out the tenants, throwing some paint up on the faux facade, and then coordinating their demolition. I see that as unfortunate. I see that as lacking vision.

    If they removed the facade and truely investigated reuse of the building and then still determined that it could not be reused, that would be one thing, but I am not convinced redevelopment was fully explored. Historic buildings have significant incentives for redevelopment (like the historic tax credits the LeVeque, Atlas, and Seneca have all tapped) and they add to the character and sense of place of Columbus. Too much has been demolished in Columbus, so every building is that much more valuable.

    Here is a picture of the original facade–unique and imposing. I have seen many faux facades removed, and only once experienced a case where the original facade was not salvageable. Take a look at the Schofield Building in Cleveland; a thin 12-story building that had extensive ornamentation scrapped off during its 1972 cladding and yet developers press on with an impressive revitalization plan.

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b316/inkaelin/TrautmanBldg.jpg[/img]

    #520787

    mrmann
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Cool facade…if that still exists then we are losing something. My guess is that the low relief means it is there waiting to be uncovered. Looks like the original cornice would also be intact.

    #520788
    Pablo
    Pablo
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Stephen43215 said:
    It looks like the 7 story building was in their plans from the beginning..if you look in the top right hand corner the project is in Lifestyles original renderings.

    That’s an older rendering – maybe 5 years old? It still shows the old Columbus Commons layout. My guess is that the removal of the Trautman building was decided at that time and that CDDC has never had the desire to restore the building.

    #520789

    Stephen43215
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The downtown development corp should definitely look into saving the building first. What about the surface lot at Front & Rich? Wasnt Lifestyle looking into buying it?

    #520790
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    CDDC bought the building in 2007 and studied a reuse that year for an artist live/work project. I’m not sure of the reason(s) but that idea was cancelled:

    http://www.columbusunderground.com/gcac-releases-artspace-report-for-columbus-project

    #520791

    ink
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    The Artspace study was specific to the support of an Artspace community in Columbus, not necessarily the building. I have watched Hamilton, Ohio follow Artspace’s long process and it involved several expensive (and community funded) studies prior to selection of a building for feasibility study.

    Interestingly, the Hamilton Artspace project will rehabilitate a historic building that was covered in the 1970′s as well:

    http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/19932

    #520792
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    ink said:
    The Artspace study was specific to the support of an Artspace community in Columbus, not necessarily the building.

    True. There were multiple cites and buildings being studied for feasibility. The Trautman building was a contender in that, and if what I heard was correct, it was a strong contendor that local leaders were pulling for.

    #520793
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster
    Login to Send PM

    I attended the portion of this morning’s Downtown Commission Meeting where The LC and CDDC were seeking a certificate of appropriateness for the design of the new development and a demolition permit for the existing structure.

    The design was met with near unanimous enthusiasm from the Commission with some minor concerns about the Rich Street “wall”, but approved the concept with requests for possible revisions to make a better pedestrian environment from that side. The courtyard sits a story up behind that wall with the apartment’s fitness center most likely being behind it on the main floor.

    The Commission expressed much concern with the demolition of the historic building, and several members of the public from the Columbus Landmarks Foundation and Victorian Village Commission spoke and shared their concerns. Representatives from The LC and CDDC and others said that they’ve done due diligence on inspecting the building for repurposing and found little historic character to salvage. It was said that the building is full of asbestos inside and out and that the installation of the facade has damaged the historic front of the building. The Commission said that they would like to review reports from a third party to have the building inspected for possible historic preservation, but it was pointed out that historic preservation is outside of the purview of the Commission. Reps from CDDC said that reusing the building would cost millions more and would yield fewer units and lower density than what The LC is proposing with their new project. The Rep from The LC said that they’ve looked at the building and are not interested in a reuse due to cost inefficiencies. It was also pointed out that The Trautman building is not on any historic register, rendering it “an old building, but not a historic building”.

    The meeting was a bit feisty in places, so I have to say that I was entertained as a fly on the wall there. ;)

    In the end, the demolition permit was approved on the condition that financials are in order prior to the start of demolition to ensure that the new development would begin construction afterward so that Downtown is not left with a vacant lot.

    #520794

    ink
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Thank you for the recap. I am glad to hear the debate was held.

    #520795

    Neutzy
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Thanks for the recap. According to the city’s website, the Downtown Commission is a special BZA + Graphics Commission + Planning Commission that is just for downtown. I understand the first two components, but what is a Planning Commission? Does the rest of the city have those?

    #520796

    geoyui
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Walker said:
    The meeting was a bit feisty in places, so I have to say that I was entertained as a fly on the wall there. ;)

    How hard was it to not say “stop the bickering people, stay on topic”?

    #520797

    surber17
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I’m really liking the design of this building. The only thing that is going to bring better design to this city is competition and I think this building just moved the bar up.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 266 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?