RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The redevelopment of the “UCT Block” in the Short North was originally announced back in February 2008, and after some recent updates and expansions, the proposal may be moving closer to reality tonight.
The Victorian and Italian Village Commissions will have a joint special meeting tonight at 6pm to review the latest version of the mixed-use proposal from The Pizzuti Companies. The development is primarily situated on land currently occupied by two surface parking lots along High Street between Russell Street and Poplar Avenue.
The development includes a 130-room 10-story boutique hotel located east of High Street, a 46,000 square-foot 6-story office building and 500-space 9-story parking garage, both located west of High Street, and ground-floor retail in both buildings facing High Street and Millay Alley.
A portion of the historic United Commercial Travelers (UCT) building will need to be demolished to make room for the parking garage required to accommodate on-site parking. The rest of the UCT Building will be preserved and will house a portion of the Pizzuti family art collection, which may be open to display to the public as a cultural asset to the neighborhood.
Additional renderings of the proposed development can be found below.
Talcott Says: I’d like to be excited by this, but I’m (at best) underwhelmed by the images above. The architecture looks like a blend of the Gateway and the Convention Center.
As with anything, the outward design is always subjective to personal preferences or tastes. I think they’d be hard pressed to design a building that would be universally praised. Personally, I don’t think it’s that mind-blowing either, but I don’t think it looks bad.
econJoe Says: Why isn’t anyone upset that the plans call for tearing down half of the UCT building?
I’m sure a lot of people are concerned about this, and I’m willing to bet that a lot of discussion is being had about it within the Victorian Village Commission. Personally, I think it’s great that they’ve incorporated the historic building into the design. Many developers would propose tearing it down completely. I’m not sure what the UCT building is currently being used for (anything?), but if we can preserve the park-facing half of the building and turn it into some sort of art museum, then I personally don’t have much of a problem with losing the alley-facing half to a new development that will have functional uses.
JackieC Says: Is there any link I am missing that shows a map of this project in relation to city streets? I am having a hard time picturing this in my head.
Here’s a link to a google map I just created, if it helps: LINK. It’s essentially taking over the public parking lot next to Utrecht, the reserved parking lot next to Marcellas, and part of the ground where the UCT building is located along with the back half of that building, to be demolished.
cbustransit Says: Also, just saw a study that said density in itself isn’t necessarily going to make a good urban district…mixed uses will. So, following that…who cares if its tall? and really, its not like the parking garage is just going to suddenly make parking down there really easy.
I agree that a balanced mixed-use is what creates a good urban district. That being said, a denser development applied with a balanced mixed-use should be a good fit for this area. Essentially, this development is providing 3 things that the area lacks: hotel rooms, office space, and parking spots. I think that the nearby shops, restaurants and art galleries all stand to greatly benefit from those types of neighboring uses.
heresthecasey Says: @Walker, can you post a link to the last image (the plan) in full size?
Sorry, I didn’t post the original PDF that was sent to me, as it’s a bit large. I will email it to you, as it contains a couple of other (slightly less interesting) elevation blueprints of the interiors of the parking garage and such. If anyone else wants it, send me a note to walkerevans@columbusunderground.com and I’ll email it to you. I didn’t want to post up a 5MB PDF and have 5000 people download it all at once from our server tonight. ;)
@cbustransit: I can’t tell you how many times my friends from the burbs have either decided not to come down for a certain event due to parking a mile away or, if they do park, bitch and complain about trying to find a meter, getting a parking ticket or getting broken into. A garage provides a safe, well lit, inexpensive option close to the action. And yes, parking is needed to attract business. This is part of the reason the Front St. and Fourth St. garages were built…..also to replace those spaces that were lost due to development. As for transit, people coming from the burbs, who incidentally make up a huge portion of the short north/downtown crowd on the weekends, drive their cars to get here.
I’m disturbed by the whole cold mess. I’m curious about the loss of the murals and the Short North aesthetic. It definitely changes a unique setting to a same ol’ same ol’ any city feel. I’m fine with mixed use, higher rise, and forward advancement. I guess cheap and urban minimalism is the word… emphasis on minimal excitement.
That’s a really good point, Richard. I hadn’t thought about the murals that face the parking lots on those existing buildings, as those visual cues are lacking from the renderings. I wonder if they could be re-purposed somehow.
Yeah, I hadn’t thought about the murals either. That’s definitely something to consider. However, I still believe there are far more pros than cons to this project. And getting rid of two parking lots for new mixed-use development is always something great to see in this city.
I don’t have a problem with mixed use. In fact I think it’s necessary. The Ibiza, the Dakota and the Jackson (somewhat) got that… but they also got something that this Pizzuti plan doesn’t. They gave consideration to the neighborhood that brought them here, and either inhanced or played off of the existing infrastruture. This has no connection other than commercial… the Short North is more than commercial, other wise people would just go to Easton, Polaris or some other commercial venue. And they come here in spite of the parking… who doesn’t want parking! The murals are gone… but I’m talking about design that could mesh with the culture of the neigborhood …and this doesn’t. We’re losing our distinct culture that the the murals are part of.
I will also miss these murals. They were part of the character of the Short North. However, this just opens up the opportunity for murals on other buildings. There are plenty of blank canvases up and down High St. I don’t think we can have enough of them.
Btw, did anyone attend the meeting last night. I’m anxious to hear what the commission had to say about the plans. I just hope this doesn’t sit in limbo and we get a “potential” ground breaking 3 years from now.
I didn’t think about the murals either. Honestly, that’s enough to make me much more opposed to this project. Replacing some of the most iconic images of the neighborhood with a generic glass building (my issue isn’t that it’s modern, my issue is that it isn’t a particularly interesting design) just doesn’t sit right with me at all.
Man… that’s a lot to think about. The scale doesn’t necessarily bother me and modern architecture doesn’t bother me in general, but this just doesn’t feel appropriate to the site.
I could deal with the west side section by itself… maybe even appreciate it for adding to/diversifying the character of the district, but both sides together serve to redefine the feel of the whole south end of the Short North. These new buildings will demand the viewers attention, but they won’t reward it… and that’s a net loss, since there’s so much else in the south of the SN that is worth a look.
Those murals have become pretty iconic in the SN. I hope they keep them in some form.
Walker,
I know the developer is Pizzuti, who is the architect working on the project?
I’m really surprised by all the concern for the murals. I think that if the murals are what someone tells all their friends about after a day/evening in the Short North, the Short North failed.
Someone was talking to me about this project a few months ago and was telling me how the plans were to bring in some amazing chefs and other notable people from around the country to make this attractive.
Please, I implore anyone working on this project: DON’T DO THAT. We have tons of amazingly talented chefs in this city. Just because they don’t have publicists getting their name out doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If we are going to start putting ourselves on the map, we must embrace our own talent and reward them for staying here in Columbus.
The “celebrity” chef experiment just up the street from this project should be proof that bringing someone in who is clueless about our city isn’t the best formula for a successful restaurant or business in general.
Dense development! I love it! I dont get the height restriction of 3 to 4 story buildings. Most of these buildings were built 100 years ago. Times have changed..a 10 story building is not that tall anymore.
“I’m really surprised by all the concern for the murals. I think that if the murals are what someone tells all their friends about after a day/evening in the Short North, the Short North failed. ”
I think the murals are part of the thread that holds the fabric of the Short North quilt together. If they are not saved I hope others are commissioned. Most of the people who I have brought in from out of town have commented on them. I place a high value on public art and the Short North’s heritage as an arts district. It is sad if that is not valued or recognized.
i.r. murals
1.) are only there because we have left over flat lot parking lots. there’s not an either/or here. we either develop infill for the parking lots and lose the murals, or we keep the murals and live with small, metered parking lots as a valuable gathering area for panhandlers.
2.) most were only painted in the past decade. the Union Station mural is older than that, but the Bellows (which is the awesome mural on the side of the Burgundy Room) is definitely new within the past decade. i find it hard to believe that anyone painted a mural in the past decade and did not consider that the space could be developed in the near future.
3.) SN still has plenty of murals (Mona Lisa, American Gothic, Starry Night, Urban Scrawl) and can add more in several locations.
and as for art being part of the neighborhood fabric, there has been serious talk of Pizzuti using all local art to fill the lobbies, public spaces and even rooms of this hotel. there has also been mention of a museum to house some of the family’s personal collection of modern art, which is internationally recognized. so factor out 2 murals, and factor in a whole lot of art in the building.
I like the murals. And I think they should be preserved in some fashion. However, buildings fill in the urban fabric better than a mural.
If the commissions didn’t like it, I’m hoping Pizutti will still be willing to build it. I’m looking forward to their alternative design. :)
“i.r. murals
1.) are only there because we have left over flat lot parking lots. there’s not an either/or here. we either develop infill for the parking lots and lose the murals, or we keep the murals and live with small, metered parking lots as a valuable gathering area for panhandlers.
2.) most were only painted in the past decade. the Union Station mural is older than that, but the Bellows is definitely new. i find it hard to believe that anyone painted a mural in the past decade and did not consider that the space could be developed in the near future.
3.) SN still has plenty of murals and can add more in several locations. ”
+1 to all of that. I was just post my reply along those lines but you beat me to it! Between dense infill and surface lot with mural painted on the adjacent building I think most would prefer infill and recreate the murals somewhere else.
I agree that buildings are better then murals, I just disagree with lack of understanding how they have been used to give the short north some character and cohesion. As others have said, there are plenty of outlets for public art, I hope they are implemented.
@cc – i’ll leave it to my avatar to do some of the speaking for my understanding, concern and appreciation for the murals in the SN. i still bemoan the loss of the infamous ‘art pole’ on Buttles, as these are symbols of the neighborhood. there is perhaps the outside chance that they could become part of the internal wall scape of the new buildings, but I don’t see that being highly feasible. h/e the only real solution to saving them for eternity is flat surface lots for eternity.