Our City Online


New Design for Two25 Commons Submitted to Downtown Commission

Brent Warren Brent Warren New Design for Two25 Commons Submitted to Downtown CommissionRendering via NBBJ.
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

The Daimler Group and Kaufman Development have submitted a new design to the Downtown Commission for their Two25 Commons development. The project — which was originally announced as a 17-story tower but was scaled back to 12 stories in March — features a mix of retail, office, and residential uses.

Kaufman Development CEO Brett Kaufman told Columbus Underground at that time that “inflationary construction costs and the economics of high rise construction” were the primary reasons for pursuing the shorter option.

The new building would occupy a one-acre site at the northwest corner of South Third and East Rich streets.

The latest plans show ground level retail divided into three spaces – one large, 12,000 square foot space fronting Rich Street and looking out onto Columbus Commons, a smaller 2,500 square-foot space on the corner of Third and Rich, and a third spot next to that labelled as a potential gym space.

A mix of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would occupy the top five floors of the development. That translates into a total of 118 residential units, with sizes ranging from 427 square-foot micro-units to a 2,500 square-foot, three-bedroom penthouse. Offices are planned for the middle floors.


The submitted plans also provide the first detailed view of a walkway over Rich Street that would connect the new building to the 3,600-space parking garage at 55 East Rich.

The Downtown Commission will review the proposal conceptually at their meeting tomorrow morning, meaning no vote will be taken on the project.

Update: CLICK HERE to read more about project input at the Tuesday May 24th Commission Meeting.

Renderings via NBBJ.

Print Friendly


  • I do like the design but wish they stayed with the original height proposal. I’m skeptical about the walkway to the parking garage. How long will the garage be there until that area is redeveloped?

    • ohbr

      That garage will be the last thing to go away. If anything, the will build on top of it, but with the abundance of surface lots downtown, I have no fear of this deck ever being taken away.

    • Ned23

      I think everyone reflexively always proposes higher than they actually want now with the intention of cutting back as the negotiating process moves along.

      • ohbr

        That theory doesn’t make a lot of sense here as downtown wouldn’t have any need to negotiate shorter buildings. Yes, this tactic would make sense in the short north but no developer would have a reason to propose taller downtown knowing it will need to be shortened.

  • Taz Devil

    Get out that rubber stamp downtown commission.

  • traviscols

    Is that a giant concrete wall behind the two trees to the left?

    • Jason Powell

      Yea, I’m not sure why they included what looks to be a concrete wall separating the building from the park. I’m hoping that doesn’t make the cut. Other than that, this looks great.

    • heresthecasey

      That looks like the back of the existing entrance to the underground garage.

      • Josh Lapp

        yes, I think it is all already existing.

  • JMan

    I like this design. All points considered, they’ve done a nice job.

  • UrbanLegend

    Get the elevated walkway out of here! They should be banned downtown and everywhere else. They are street level activity killers and absolute eyesores, and there is no place for them here.


      I agree on a couple counts. Sky bridges are (1) elitist in nature–keeping the gentry from the street people–and (2) funnel foot traffic into an unnatural 2nd story entrance to a building, which would have an effect on elevator efficiency, security, etc.

      • bwitty92

        I really don’t see how they are elitist in nature. They exist to make it efficient for people to get from their car to the building, allow traffic to flow easier while keeping pedestrians safe above the traffic, and allow people to be sheltered from the winter cold or rain. I think your idea that they exist to keep “the gentry from the street people” is very dramatic. Also, to your second point, the building is designed with the walkway in mind from the flow of foot traffic to the security. They don’t just design the building expecting everyone to enter through one entrance on the first floor and then decide to plop the walkway on the second floor and just hope everything works out.

    • Ned23

      The pedestrian arguments are valid in most cases, except that in this case there isn’t really any street-level pedestrian activity in this area. IIRC, it’s just residential or parking for a couple blocks in each direction.

  • substance

    No walkways. Ugly, dirty and creates darkness


    I liked the original design better. This one looks like a short building resting upon another short building.

    But…both designs are much better than the present grass lot.

  • Zyro

    Skywalks are always a terrible, terrible idea. Decrease foot traffic at the street, look ugly, and are straight from 1950s “future city” ideas. Bleh.

  • dalias

    I am sure the future high paying renters at their first attempt at crossing the street with bags of groceries in a thunderstorm or the employees of the firms inside are forced to wait for the crossing on a -2 degree day they will unanimously thank God that they are activating the urban streetscape and increasing the pedestrian experience. They will be very happy that the online urban planners dictated the they should have no elitist attached parking.

    Also, the building looks ok but looked better when it was taller. At this level, the offset architecture makes it look somewhat squat. However it still makes up for the design across the park.

    • Zyro

      This isn’t an issue in colder cities with more people returning from grocery shopping without skywalks. Any city in Europe….Minneapolis, Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago, New York, Seattle. All of these cities are as cold or colder than Columbus in winter yet are much more walkable and bikeable cities where people bike and walk in the dead of winter without a problem. If you design for it, it’s not an issue.

      And everything the developer is saying about it is such crap. In the name of safety they put that in? Please. More pedestrians in the city and streets designed for them will ultimately force drivers to, you know, actually realize they aren’t the most important thing on the street.

      Here’s the developer’s statements: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/26/two25-developers-very-nervous-about-pedestrian.html?ana=twt

      “The pedestrian movement”…..aren’t we trying to crawl out of the “vehicular movement”? On these streets, it’s clear to me that cars come first. Terrible.

      • dalias

        I won’t lie, I thought the developers response was not very convincing. Perhaps it is because the real reason – people still prefer attached parking – does not resonate with the downtown commission so they went with the safety angle which can be mitigated. In the end I think attached parking is still desirable. I also think that when the workers and residents want to go to the park or grab lunch/dinner/drinks at Salt & Pine or 16-Bit they will hit the streets and bring life to the sidewalks.

        I have also been to each of the cities mentioned, they have buildings with skywalks. In the case of Minneapolis, you can walk miles indoors on Level 2. Yet it is one of the leading biking cities. I do not think the two are mutually exclusive.

  • …if only there was a forum of some sort to discuss this on.

  • Ned23

    There’s a long wait list for that parking garage, anyway, and that list will just get crazy-long when this building is built, so I don’t really see the walkway getting used that much. They should save their money.

  • ColumbusTravis

    Just went by this a couple hours ago.
    Dirt is finally moving!
    It appears early foundation work is underway!

metro categories