RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
On Tuesday, Capital South will be presenting a revised plan for the Columbus Commons development at the former City Center site to the Downtown Commission. The new plans provide more detail on what the nine-acre greenspace will look like, which includes a space for outdoor music and other performances.
The demolition of the empty City Center mall may happen as soon as late September. The park is scheduled to be completed in the Fall of 2010 and planted and finished in the Spring of 2011. Additional discussion can be found here.
Below are several new renderings of the park space:
The long term plans still include the gradual addition of private development to fill in some of the greenspace with multi-story buildings that will contain a mix of residences, street-level retail, offices, and entertainment destinations. Current estimates say that the area will be home to an additional 435,000 sq ft of office space, 70,000 sqft of retail space and 400 new residential units. The parking garage will remain to the south of the project, and underground parking will be preserved below the park.
Below is a site plan for the long term development plans for the area. Click to enlarge:
Cool. Almost French-style park. I like it.
Now that they’ve decided to add the amphitheater it seems to me that this will steal some thunder from the new Bicentennial Park.
Between this, Scioto Mile, and the Topiary Park how much greenspace is that per downtown resident? Has to be a pretty significant number
I think the buildings will frame the park nicely, but I wonder if there should be a more grand entrance from High St.
It’s nice but not much of a wow factor.
As far as the buildings, I would like to see some more modern Moody Nolanesqe buildings instead of more brick boxes.
jpunkster Says: Between this, Scioto Mile, and the Topiary Park how much greenspace is that per downtown resident? Has to be a pretty significant number
Currently, probably kind of high per resident, but I over time, I think setting these spaces aside will be appreciated. I’ve often heard the Metro Park system in Central Ohio touted as one of our largest assets, and that wouldn’t exist if those parcels of park land weren’t designated as such as the outerlying areas continued to grow.
Personally, I’m looking forward to a new place to play kickball. ;)
johnwirtz Says: I think the buildings will frame the park nicely, but I wonder if there should be a more grand entrance from High St.
I thought about the same thing. A bit odd to have the main “entrance” facing Rich Street. But then again, none of our other parks have grand entrances to High Street, and it doesn’t seem to hurt them at all.
I’d agree with the wow factor to an extent. I wonder how open Capitol South would be to just letting people do fun stuff?
I’m kind of thinking of something like Key West with street performers. Or let some of our local artists do some sidewalk chalk art. Maybe contract with one of the local pedicab companies to bring people down to the park during lunch hour in the summer?
I would love to see the built out renderings similar to the first round inorder to get a feel of the context with the suggested height of each building. The signature building is on “rich and third”, wonder what the max height could be?
I imagine the final phase renderings are pretty limited as it all depends upon the private partnerships that are yet to be formally established.
My suggestions remain the same. A signature fountain and some chess tables, which I don’t see in the renderings. Bike rack is a nice touch, but how about the buildings facing the main entrance having curved corners to increase visibility of the park? In any case, the renderings seem to assume it’s still possible to build all around the park, while in the other thread I read there were issues with the underground garage meaning only buildings lining High St, nowhere else.
Hopefully the little amphitheater is geared for smaller, lesser known performances. If possible, it would be nice if it were possible for vendors to setup shop and sell booze during said performances. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that there’d be some architectural variety in the buildings here. To me, it looks like there is too much focus on office space (weren’t we battling a high level of vacant office space in Downtown a short while ago?) and retail (70,000 additional sq ft when so much is already not utilized?), while the residential component should be higher (10,000 residents is the figure thrown around for reaching critical mass). After all, if this and the Scioto Mile are so great, why wouldn’t you aim for a high number of residents right in between the two?
@johnnwirtz
I agree I’d be concerned a lot of people would walk/drive/bike right by the park w/o ever seeing it unless there is a very very wide prominent entryway on the High Street side.
I guess we will have ample time to find out for sure though as I anticipate the buildings aren’t going to be built for quite some time and may never be if the park becomes a big hit.
Still truly sad, as I was a former employee at City Center when it first opened. Would of like to see the former site (at least part of) returned to what it once was in the late 70s-early 80s, and outdoor ice rink, which was then-known as The Centrum. Personally, I think someone has got to come up with a better idea than a park. Everything south of Broad St. downtown is dead.
I replied in the original Columbus Commons thread when this announcement was made.
I think there seem to be some confusion and questions as this plan differs from the original. Liz L. responded to my post with some great insight (as she’s on the downtown commissioners) Also, I have been following this project (like many of us from the demise of City Center) and can clear a little up.
1) The parking garage prevents building above ground:
TRUE, however the garage is only under a portion of the building. The underground garage stands under the city center mall portion and did not sit under the southern and western part of the mall site. So the previous Macy’s building, once removed, could allow for building.
2) Buildings will only be on High St. False.
If you notice there are buildings along 3rd st., but all of those but one are already there. The NE corner is the Hyatt, then a midrise office building. These will not be touched by the project and will remain they are privately owned.
However, the garage does not sit under the Macy’s building so the plan shows an eventual building at the SE corner of 3rd and Rich St.
The other :”new” buildings are along High St, the western portion, of the space.
In conclusion the main difference between this plan and the original is that the original was going to rebuild the street grid through the project.
This rebuilt street grid, I thought, was a major asset to the project as it would allow for buildings behind the existing major Streets of 3rd and along a newly opened Town St.
Modern urban planning is focusing on reopening street grids to allow for economic growth and a better “flow.” This part of the plan would then allow for a brand new urban/mixed use street along Town St.
Because of the garage this part of the plan now calls for Town St. to be a pedestrian only sidewalk. The garage exists below Town St. and wouldn’t permit building upon this portion of the garage.
After some thought I realize that without closing the garage and rebuilding it (which is an option but I assume too costly) this is the plan we will have to agree to.
The mayor, rightfully so, wants retail/office/and residential on High St. This is prime real estate and people say we need our central park/millennium park/etc. but first we need our Michigan Ave.
In many cities High Street’s equivalent would have ground floor retail on both sides, but because of the state house, demolitions on side streets such as long, Spring, Broad, High, etc. We lack a truly intact retail strip downtown. Yes Gay St. is a step in the right direction, but by putting more ground floor retail buildings along High St. we can create a strip with retail on the west and east sides on St. High St.
I think we all should remember that City Center was once a grand retail hub. Just a year ago Walker and many on this forum had impressive, and cohesive plans for the site. Many wanted to see it mix use and almost all plans wanted to keep some form of retail/housing/office growth incorporated.
I do not think a park is a bad idea, but I think we should try our best to replace what was once a bustling commercial center for the Columbus metro into something that functions as more than park land.
I think this plan does try its best to allow for some park space while finding room for new buildings working around the limitations of an underground parking garage. I urge that this project remain dedicated to being more than park space (in lue of the now missing planned town st. retail corridor)
Columbusite: regarding the office space issue. Newly built office space with attached parking (before the recession) has been in very high demand. Look at the Arena District. The issue has been outdated office space, often called Class C or below. Especially those buildings that do not have parking.
This plan is looking at the LR (the economy improved), there is an underground parking garage, and the buildings would be new and modern.
I think having that section of Town left pedestrian is great, provided that we can take advantage of that space. Having a true pedestrian mall will be wonderful if it can be used creatively.
I think I would beg to differ with the idea that urban planning is focusing on reopening existing street grids. There have been several recent examples-think of the recent closure of Broadway/Times Square in NYC-that run counter to that. I think what you are seeing is a recognition that we need to utilize our spaces better than we have. This is a wonderful example of reclaiming space and opening it to a very new demographic and use. If anything, making it too easy to get in and-probably more importantly-out of downtown has done far worse in long term growth than closing that section of Town off has or will.
Um…… does anyone watch “Parks & Recreation”??
City officials should take a page from Quincy Market in Boston. There are several buildings there where the retail space wraps around the buildings to face both roads and the pedestrian market. Additionally, while a big building might not be supported structurally, Quincy Market also makes significant use of small, glass buildings with light steel frames that provide boutique-like space, as well as carts and vendors.
I do agree, a more grand entrance from High Street should be a high priority, as you don’t want to bury the park behind buildings.
My first thought was also that it should open up to High Street. But then again, High Street will always be the main vein of this city and needs no help in pulling attention toward it. I like the idea of opening up the park toward Rich Street – it gives new life to a new street, rather than adding more to High. Completing the physical corridor on High is probably more important anyway. From the look of it, there is potential for a gateway feature at the park entrance from High (Town St. continued), and like others, I do hope it is grand.
i would have liked the pedestrian path across between the paths of Town Street to be a little grander. more of a pedestrian mall versus a small alley path. maybe it will be more inviting than it looks, but it would have been a nice since the street couldn’t be reconnected.
@dmk4118
No, I quit watching after about three or four episodes
@ScottUlrich
Maybe there could be a way to add to the streetwall on High Street and create a nice entrance to the park at the same time? I’mt thinking a big arch passing through the ground level of a building would be cool.
Something kind of like this, but bigger:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&ie=UTF8&ll=40.052371,-82.914966&spn=0,359.990945&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.052469,-82.914958&panoid=urARgyUeTWsrjvuqPcHeSw&cbp=12,99.33,,0,-4.52
I’m really disappointed in these plans – I personally think they really stink from an urban standpoint. I thought the initial watercoloring plans worked better to form the park edges. The first images also gave High Street more interest by promoting more street oriented retail options that focus on the street & the park. This plan places the park in the “back” of the buildings which worries me because the park will lack high visability from the street.
Let’s pray they go back to the drawing board (computer?) and revise this master plan. Do we know if this master plan was developed by MSI? I can’t imagine they would do a plan like this…??
Unimaginative and unimpressive. I think we should take additional time to do something bold for once in this town. I’m tired of all these plain vanilla, suburban-like projects that are the same from city to city.