New project proposed for Short North/Italian Village
New project proposed for Short North/Italian Village
I attended the Italian Village Society’s regular monthly meeting to hear about Rajesh Lahoti’s (developer of The Dakota) latest project which is proposed for the north east corner of E. Hubbard St. and N. High St. directly to the north of Haiku in the Short North, currently home to AAA Rental.
The project as presented, temporarily named “Urban Oasis”, is to be 170+, 10 story until of 1 and 2 bedroom condominiums. The main building which fronts High Street will also have a 2 level underground garage. At street level there will be retail (16 foot ceiling) along High and Hubbard Street, with residential on the 2 floors immediately above it with I believe approximately 10 foot ceiling. The facade design will be masonry to match much of existing architecture in the Short North with levels 4-10 being mostly glass and metal with balconies for every unit with about 9 foot ceilings.
To the east of the main building will be an above ground parking structure which has 10(?) 3 story live/work townhomes planned that will face the Italian Village Park.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 12th, 2006 at 11:44 am and is filed under Development.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Related Tags: condos • Development • ibiza • Italian Village • rajesh lahoti • residential • Short North
October 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I can’t see 10 stories getting approved in that area. I’ve heard about projects there getting crapped on for being 4 stories!
Good news though!
October 12th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
The Dakota is five. I don’t know why they shouldn’t be allowed to make this 10. The fact that the upper floors are recessed and they’re building ample parking should keep it from being a problem. 8)
October 12th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
I agree that 10 story buildings are good for this town, but even the Dakota had a hard time getting approval. I think the developer had to push back the 5th floor so it would make it less “imposing on the street”. It sounds like they’re planning on doing the same thing with this one, but it’s gonna be more difficult to hide floors 5-10.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Am I the only one who finds it funny that a 10 story building is “too high” in a city of 700,000? It’s actually the perfect size for this city and we should have plenty more (I’m looking at you, eastern downtown). And what’s the deal with that Bollinger tower on the southern end of the Short North? Why is that OK, but anything else isn’t? I’m sure there will be public meetings, so if you live in the area give your support.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
It’s not too tall for Columbus, it’s too tall for the Short North committee/associations/etc. I think Bollinger was built when the Short North was a slum.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
That makes sense, it certainly doesn’t have that Short North look to it.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
I’m completely with Columbusite here; 10 stories doesn’t seem unreasonable at all (never mind that the only way that many of these neighborhoods will become more affordable for middle-class residents is if supply is allowed to increase … supply goes up, price goes down, ceteris paribus). Assuming that the physical infrastructure of the city (roads/water/sewer/electricity) can handle it, they should be allowed to build however high they want. Village associations could have important roles to play in developing a successful urban neighborhood, but no one should have the authority to play Skyline Police.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:32 am
I dunno. I could see the point of not allowing a 10-story tower in the middle of German Village, since it’s a historic area… but the Short North… along High… it’s already been pretty modernized as is. There’s a lot of newer construction mixed with old, which makes it look unique. Plus the building that this tower will replace is FUGLY and needs to be ripped down regardless of what they want to build there.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:28 am
I toured the Yukon condo’s and the builder was talking about the zoning restriction and how it effected their construction.
One example was the windows. They had to use old windows with none of new efficiency types. You buy a new condo and get “old and busted.” What seemed odd is that he was saying they were under the jurisdiction of the Victorian Village standards.
I didnt think it reached into Short North?
October 13th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Per the Victorian Village Handbook, which sets out all the rules:
If High is the “boundary,” I guess that means High is included in the area subject to the rules? Or at least the west side of High?
October 13th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The Victorian Village Commision controls the west side of High Street, and the Italian Village Commission controls the East side. The same rules apply to the High Street structures, as they would to any home in the historic district. The Dakota and the Jackson both had to get approval through the VVC, just as Mona Lisa Lofts, Kramer Place and Jeffery Place had to with the IVC.
I would love to see 10 stories on High Street, but it does set a bad precedence. Every land owner would gladly tear down their historic structure (not that this building is) to build a 10 story tower.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
And this would be a bad precedent how, exactly?
“Historic” is hardly synonymous with “good.” Only a small minority of historic properties are really worth preserving, and even then, preventing people from renovating and upgrading as they wish drags down their value and quality.
I’ve always believed that we should have no more allegiance to 50- or 100-year-old buildings than 5-year-old nightclubs. Very few were really built with permanence in mind, particularly garden-variety residential and commercial structures. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be letting people replace old 3-story places with newer, higher-quality 10-story (or higher) places; if the market is there for them, then the more, the merrier. The Yukon Studio Lofts windows are just one example.
Neighborhood associations are no more immune than any other institution with political power to getting too fond of using that power.
Keep in mind that every time you force someone to only build 3 stories where 10 would fill, you’re contributing to suburban sprawl, because builders will simply build out, not up, and not by their own free choice.
October 13th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
I think we’ll see more higher density development in the future when we have a streetcar line along Broad, mostly because poorer neighborhoods tend to get ignored, so whether they want a bunch of 10 story buildings or not they ‘d get built.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Maybe. There’s some truth to the fact that poorer neighborhoods tend to be less politically powerful, even within their own borders. However, there’s also the more basic issue of supply and demand to consider. The reason these developers want to put up 10 stories of residential along High St. in the Short North is that there are that many people that really want to live along High St. in the Short North. That corner is a very marketable address. Streetcar or no streetcar, random corners on the East and West side don’t have the same potential.
Supporters of neighborhood governments on these issues can tell euphonic stories about “preserving neighborhood character,” etc., but there’s usually a darker side: by creating government-mandated supply shortages (forcing there to be 3 stories where there’s demand for 10), insiders (those who’ve already bought in) can artificially increase the value of their own properties in elections where they wield all the power because the interests of prospective residents are unrepresented. It’s the same principle underlying exclusionary zoning. You get to effectively soak the “outsiders,” those on the outside looking in, by making sure there’s not enough housing for everyone who wants in, forcing them to bid up prices to buy into the neighborhood … at which time, they become the next “insiders” because they paid the supply-shortage premium to get in, and will want everyone else to have to do so, too (and will need to keep that premium in place to recover the price they paid, ceteris paribus), perpetuating the cycle. It’s a hard cycle to break, and often requires action by a higher authority (i.e., state government, which represents a broader sphere, placing limits on exclusionary zoning by local authorities), but this is very difficult to accomplish.
October 14th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Thanks for the insight. And you’re right about streets going east/west vs Highh St, but if/when shops/retail/etc are vying for locations on the streetcar route on those streets the residential demand will be there too, though not necessarily for 10 story buildings. It will certainly be quite some time before that happens if it does, but it looks like a streetcar route would speed up gentrification. Sure, the area may not offer much in the way of interesting things nearby, but just being on the route to places that do have a lot to offer is quite an incentive.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Here’s a rendering from CRM:
http://columbusretrometro.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/urbanoasis.jpg
October 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
In the words of Borat: “NIIICE!”
8)
October 18th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
I do not know this Borat.
But he seems to me to be a wise man.
NIIICE indeed.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
READ MORE
November 21st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Certainly looks like a good spot to me … from the diagram in that Dispatch article, it looked like it was set about a half-block back from High St., enough to be nearly completely hidden from view by the tower but close enough to be an effortless walk.
I was lucky while I was at OSU; COTA was free and it was an easy ride down the #2 to get to the Short North. Most folks who wanted to go to Gallery Hop (or, heaven forbid, just to shop or grab an overpriced cup of coffee) didn’t have it so well; the few times I drove down there with others, it often took a darn long while to find a parking spot.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:32 pm
It’s really not too bad to park when you know where to look. Anne & I hit the gallery hop nearly every month and we’re always parked within a few minutes, and just have a short walk to high. 8)
But yeah, I’d love to see this new development happen. I’ve been a fan of tearing down that FUGLY building for a long time. It’s always looked like such a waste of space.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:28 am
Did anyone go to the Italin Village Commission meeting last night to see of this got approved?
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:11 am
That spot was used to house a buisness that never relied on a storefront identity. They were a banquet service company that rented equipment for large events. The owner is a dear friend of my family and organizer of OSU best tailgate for years. He recently became very ill and is now bound to a wheelcair. His service and tailgate will be missed by many, but I’m quick to agree that it would help the face of the short north to improve to cosmetics of that storefront.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:21 am
I actually remember seeing some equipment in there that looked like catering equipment when I peeked in when walking by awhile ago, but I wasn’t sure if it was a business, or just being used for storage space since I don’t ever remember seeing the lights on in there (or are the windows just THAT dark?). Either way, I’m not wishing for the business to go away, just the ugly building. If the business could stick around and just relocate that would be cool. Sorry to hear about your family friend though.
:?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
did anyone else notice that the AAA rental service has finally moved out of this building? we walked by saturday afternoon during the hop, and all of the brass candelabras, popcorn machines and other inventory was gone.
looks like demolition might be in the near future? i hope it comes soon, if we have a few more harsh storms, and that overhand might collapse on its own.
oh, and 1st floor - yeehah.