Meanwhile, the LC Annex website shows condo prices ranging from 135k to 370k.

Were these people actually standing inside of two units at once and planning on buying them both? Is the Dispatch just trying to scare people out of living Downtown by making up pricepoints that are way higher than the listed price range? Or is this just a case of sloppy journalism/editing/factchecking?

Walker wrote

jpizzow wrote You and Walker are taking me too literally.

Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood what you meant.

Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Its a pet peeve of mine when urban advocates talk smack about the suburbs. You never win converts to your team by insulting them into agreeing with you. ;)

I agree with you Walker. Sometimes my enthusiasm for urban living clouds my judgement when I’m trying to get a thought out too fast. My disdain for the burbs isn’t going to help convert anyone so I should just keep that to myself (although I have convinced some friends that it is a good idea.) I just get really impatient when certain processes, whether it be development, public awareness, anything urban oriented, just creeps along. I want Columbus to be as competitive as it can be and then some. I see on a daily basis what other cities are doing and I just have the perception that they are doing them faster and governments are more efficient in getting things done. To me, it’s a race. I know we have alot of great things happening down here that alot of cities would be envious of. The things I really want to see happen are the things that are not happening; affordable housing units, public transportation, public art, public spaces, corporate expansions, CITY CENTER.

p.s. I still don’t like the burbs.

jpizzow wrote You and Walker are taking me too literally.

Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood what you meant.

Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. Its a pet peeve of mine when urban advocates talk smack about the suburbs. You never win converts to your team by insulting them into agreeing with you. ;)

Columbusite wrote

Walker wrote

jpizzow wrote Downtown is not the burbs and therefore these units should not replicate the crap they have in the burbs.

Not everything built in the suburbs is crap. Saying things like this do not help convince people that downtown is a better place to live.

As a general statement it’s pretty hard to defend, unless you’re talking about older suburbs like Bexley. Some of what’s built in post WWII suburbs aren’t crap, but they’re no where near the same league as say, the historic homes in Town Franklin or any of the refurbished condos Downtown like the Brunson or Carlyle’s. I prefer function over form. If those unsightly vinyl homes were up against the street with parking in the rear or along the curb and had amenities that are laid out in an urban fashion to encourage alternatives to driving, then aside from aesthetics they’d be very functional with little to complain about. As it is, they’re set up so that residents drive everywhere. It’s built for people to become too lazy to walk at all (walking is a purely recreational activity in sprawling burbs, expect when visiting a mall). I’m just hoping that like the development on Gay St. that these will look much better in real life than in the renderings.

You and Walker are taking me too literally. I tend to exagerate things that I say, sort of a not supposed to be a joke way. I’m just speaking in generalities. Their is nice looking stuff in the burbs but I personally don’t like the burbs so the development has to be really nice for me to say something nice about it. Easton, yes. Creekside, yes. I just don’t like the suburban “crap” in the downtown area.

The One Neighborhood development on Gay is really nice and I’m going to let this one slide. But these Lifestyles are just hideous and uninspiring. Downtown is the cultural and (should be) architectural center of the city. If I want “plain” I’ll move to Hayden Run or Albany Park. In the end, they are affordable (+1) and it’s one less parking lot (+1) but that doesn’t mean I like them.

CDS sherman wrote

Columbusite wrote Aesthetics and density of this are really non-factors. What is a factor is the wood frame instead of steel, etc. There are other ways to reduce the cost of units instead of going this route. We don’t all want or need granite countertops and glossy hardwood floors.

nothing wrong with a 2 to 3 story wooden structure… i dont know why everyone thinks its a poor construction method….. there will be steal integrated into the floor system im sure. its all fire treated and rated. now from a sustainable stand point….. i think steal and concrete construction is a better way to go.

I will take pics tomorrow………..its chip board construction and 2×4 framing.

Mercurius wrote

CDS sherman wrote 2 inch thick old growth wood for the framing and the brick and stone

Now we’re excited to find fir 2″ by 4″ rather than pine.

honey, im always excited to find some fir rather than pine…. :shock:

Walker wrote

jpizzow wrote Downtown is not the burbs and therefore these units should not replicate the crap they have in the burbs.

Not everything built in the suburbs is crap. Saying things like this do not help convince people that downtown is a better place to live.

As a general statement it’s pretty hard to defend, unless you’re talking about older suburbs like Bexley. Some of what’s built in post WWII suburbs aren’t crap, but they’re no where near the same league as say, the historic homes in Town Franklin or any of the refurbished condos Downtown like the Brunson or Carlyle’s. I prefer function over form. If those unsightly vinyl homes were up against the street with parking in the rear or along the curb and had amenities that are laid out in an urban fashion to encourage alternatives to driving, then aside from aesthetics they’d be very functional with little to complain about. As it is, they’re set up so that residents drive everywhere. It’s built for people to become too lazy to walk at all (walking is a purely recreational activity in sprawling burbs, expect when visiting a mall). I’m just hoping that like the development on Gay St. that these will look much better in real life than in the renderings.

CDS sherman wrote 2 inch thick old growth wood for the framing and the brick and stone

Now we’re excited to find fir 2″ by 4″ rather than pine.

my only gripe from working on old houses is sometimes things can be real funky. i guess after 100 years of either people working on them or just being funky to begin with, i grown to like having those occasional westerville or dublin basement jobs. suburban houses are a dream to work on sometimes after being stuck in victorian village for a few years working. but i have done some very beautiful work on older homes. and i would say that all the high dollar work that ive done has been on victorian homes.

heresthecasey wrote

Walker wrote Not everything built in the suburbs is crap.

Well, not everything. But these things, maybe…

http://www.lifestylecommunities.com/images/communities/65.jpg

But they used brick on the front! Of the garage!

Walker wrote Not everything built in the suburbs is crap.

Well, not everything. But these things, maybe…

http://www.lifestylecommunities.com/images/communities/65.jpg

http://www.lifestylecommunities.com/images/communities/40.jpg

http://www.lifestylecommunities.com/images/communities/5.jpg

http://www.lifestylecommunities.com/images/communities/8.jpg

:roll: :roll:

i know going off on tangents like this is kind of counter-productive and i really am hoping for the best with these but i just hope lifestyle communities goes for a somewhat higher quality finish than vynal siding on these. but either way, more residents downtown is better for everyone. :D

edit: check out more of lifestyle communities work: here :shock:

Motorist wrote

CDS sherman wrote

Motorist wrote

Brewmaster wrote :shock:

I can’t believe how quickly this has gotten thrown up! Impressive.

A speed which will only be matched by how fast they fall apart.

now now cant be any worse than that brick balloon framed house you live in OTE. people its not the wood framing thats bad, its the vinyl siding in the back and the acrylic bath tubs…… and the sheet goods flooring. i just dont understand all the attitude towards the wood framing. there are houses in columbus 100+ years old that are wood framed. at least these will be 60% or so wrapped in brick. and 100 years ago the framing method was balloon not deck. dont let the height fool you and just because there a “suburban” builder doesnt make the framing quality any worse. its the finishes that will tell the tale. instead of using vinyl siding in the rear they could use cement siding. its more affordable than wood and will last for ever. and looks like wood too. at least 60 years from now the floors wont be sloped or sagging. or it will be gone and something new in its place. or the world will have become all mad maxish and stuff.

Short of a fire or natural disaster, I have no doubt that my house will outlast these. :wink:

I agree with what you’re saying though, there’s nothing wrong with stick framing. Most of my career so far has been with stick framing. As you stated, the problem is going to be everything else (unless they decide to save on some framing and go 24″ o.c. everywhere). And the design; these things look like poop.

any structure that is maintained will last for ever. your house has solid brick exterior walls. they arent going anywhere. looking at the pics the framing looks to be 16oc. the floors will be 2x8s im sure and they wont glue anything so sqeeks will be common in these units. well they might use those engineered joists made out of OSB and 2×4′s. not sure hows those hold up.

jpizzow wrote Downtown is not the burbs and therefore these units should not replicate the crap they have in the burbs.

Not everything built in the suburbs is crap. Saying things like this do not help convince people that downtown is a better place to live.