Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Campus Partners to Redevelop High from 17th to 14th

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Campus Partners to Redevelop High from 17th to 14th

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 171 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1110106

    indyout
    Participant

    Fantastic! This stretch of High is a cheap slapped together insult to students and residents of one of the countries largest Universities. Slowly but surely High St is becoming a truly great American boulevard.

    #1110108

    rory
    Participant

    I’d like to see some of the buildings retained. Granted, like Walker said not all of them need to be kept. But the Wellington could be renovated. I’m also a fan of the Huntington Bank building. I’ve always thought that would make a great restaurant. But buildings of that vintage are the first to go nowadays. I’m all for density and development but razing a whole city block and plopping a bland rectangle down shows a lack of imagination that just makes a boring streetscape. How about mixing old and new and still getting some density. It’s not impossible but this design is just the easy way out.

    #1110128

    dashboard2002
    Participant

    I’d like to see wider sidewalks and more green space (trees, lawns) along High Street, and maybe some carefully planned 5′ to 10′ setbacks to break up the feeling of a 3-block-long solid wall.

    I’m also wondering why the developers can’t think creatively and carve out some unique commercial spaces.

    How about building in some street level (or even 2nd story) outdoor patios along 15th where the “O Patio” is now? Some pub/restaurant operator (maybe them, maybe a different establishment) would want to be there. There’s a market for that kind of space.

    In the ’70s into the ’90s campus area architects built a lot of funky buildings that had terraces, commercial on the second floor, commercial in basements and half-basements… construction that included some unique smaller spaces would encourage smaller, creative, lower-budget commercial uses, like record stores, art galleries, small coffee shops and bars, sole proprietors. I think it would be cool to have those kinds of unique spaces which would be a nod to the history of High Street.

    #1110134

    Zekequinn89
    Participant

    Sorry if I missed this but this will remove the old Steak and Shake/Chumley’s building right? That building seems perfectly fine for preservation and they seem to do a fair amount of business.

    #1110135
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    Sorry if I missed this but this will remove the old Steak and Shake/Chumley’s building right? That building seems perfectly fine for preservation and they seem to do a fair amount of business.

    It isn’t an exercise of preservation or buying out failing businesses — it’s getting greater density and more money out of these prominent parcels. Chumleys, I bet for sure, will be coming back and inhabiting a space or moving elsewhere on High

    #1110136
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    I don’t know why it’s so hard to incorporate at least one of the older facades in, just to break it up.

    Most of the facades on this block are horrible hack-jobs plonked down in front of the older buildings in back. Keeping the facade of the Charley’s Philly Steaks is not something I’d want to see. Would you?

    That being said, I do think The Wellington and the taller building behind it (photo below) should be saved and incorporated to the new design. I’m sure that would complicate things on Edwards’ end, but I would think they should even push taller (8 stories? 10 stories?) with the rest of it if it meant preserving those two three-and-four story buildings in the process…

    This building should most certainly be saved. Developers do not build them like this anymore instead opting for mundane McPartment buildings that lack any memorable character. Any responsible developer – especially one as reputable as Edwards – should respect what developers before them left and find ways to preserve that legacy, if that legacy is worth being preserved, which, in this case, it is.

    #1110137
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    Highpoint II

    #1110139

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    Yuck. A completely bland, monolithic, imposing fortress of a building.

    This should be rejected by UARB IMO.

    Didn’t Campus Partners say the crux of their rezoning effort was to build more office and retail space, not residential, on these blocks?

    The demolition of the historic building at 16th and Pearl should definitely be disallowed as well.

    Also, Pearl alley was supposed to contain additional, smaller retail spaces for quirky, local businesses. This proposal includes no retail along Pearl.

    Did they even read the supposed plan they are purporting to follow?

    Not impressed whatsoever with Edwards projects in the campus area.

    #1110151

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    In the ’70s into the ’90s campus area architects built a lot of funky buildings that had terraces, commercial on the second floor, commercial in basements and half-basements… construction that included some unique smaller spaces would encourage smaller, creative, lower-budget commercial uses, like record stores, art galleries, small coffee shops and bars, sole proprietors. I think it would be cool to have those kinds of unique spaces which would be a nod to the history of High Street.

    This. Exactly this.

    #1110160

    nohio
    Participant

    The building in back of the Wellington on Pearl Alley and 16th was the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity house for a very long time-hasn’t been in that location for quite some time however.

    #1110169
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Didn’t Campus Partners say the crux of their rezoning effort was to build more office and retail space, not residential, on these blocks?

    I think the crux of the plan was for Campus Partners to provide a plan for a cohesive and complimentary overview before private developers started running ahead and doing whatever they individually thought was best.

    #1110170

    indyout
    Participant

    Yea, it is pretty bland, but much better than what is currently there. Also, since this is the first proposal, hopefully, the final plan will add some interest.

    #1110172

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    I think the crux of the plan was for Campus Partners to provide a plan for a cohesive and complimentary overview before private developers started running ahead and doing whatever they individually thought was best.

    Yes, and as a crucial part of that overview they repeatedly and directly told the public that they would ensure the site: is “not loaded up” with student housing, that it would include only a “small amount” of residential, and that there would be no net increase in beds in the area.

    Campus Partners also assured the community that it would not be a big, monolithic mega-project like Gateway – that they would demand thoughtful and creative plans from developers, and that they would control the quality and design.

    Now, with this proposal alone – the number of beds in the area is more than doubling. An entire city block is being demolished for a massive and monolithic student housing mega-project. This building, as proposed, would in fact be the single largest and densest concentration of student housing anywhere along the High St strip (445 beds).

    Not to mention that the design is also less varied and more bland than Gateway. So much for getting things “right” on this go-round.

    I dare anyone to look at these plans and say with a straight face that they are either thoughtful or creative.

    If Campus Partners does not stand up and challenge this design as it stands, then the community was sold a bill of goods – plain and simple. Either they are honest and accountable to what they promise, or they aren’t. Which is it?

    #1110178
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    @heresthecasey – I wan’t disagreeing with that contrast at all.

    #1110191

    Pablo
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Walker Evans wrote:</div>
    I think the crux of the plan was for Campus Partners to provide a plan for a cohesive and complimentary overview before private developers started running ahead and doing whatever they individually thought was best.

    Yes, and as a crucial part of that overview they repeatedly and directly told the public that they would ensure the site: is “not loaded up” with student housing, that it would include only a “small amount” of residential, and that there would be no net increase in beds in the area.

    Campus Partners also assured the community that it would not be a big, monolithic mega-project like Gateway – that they would demand thoughtful and creative plans from developers, and that they would control the quality and design.

    Now, with this proposal alone – the number of beds in the area is more than doubling. An entire city block is being demolished for a massive and monolithic student housing mega-project. This building, as proposed, would in fact be the single largest and densest concentration of student housing anywhere along the High St strip (445 beds).

    Not to mention that the design is also less varied and more bland than Gateway. So much for getting things “right” on this go-round.

    I dare anyone to look at these plans and say with a straight face that they are either thoughtful or creative.

    If Campus Partners does not stand up and challenge this design as it stands, then the community was sold a bill of goods – plain and simple. Either they are honest and accountable to what they promise, or they aren’t. Which is it?

    I agree that the community was sold a bill of goods. I’ll bet complete demolition was the goal from the beginning. I guess that in order to get student housing developers interested all existing structures need to be removed. Check out the site plan for the Edwards project and you’ll notice a similar footprint just south of 16th. The next building south will be more of the same. Instead of one project like Gateway you’ll have several separate projects with the same homogeneous result.

    I like the density and a lot of what’s existing on the site is not worth saving. But wouldn’t it have been a better project if the two southern buildings were renovated and perhaps two or three buildings were built to the north with different heights and varied architectural styles? Most successful urban spaces have a mix of old and new.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 171 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: