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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Cincinnati Development News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Cincinnati Development News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 183 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1118491

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>GCrites80s wrote:</div>
    Maybe the Columbus power structure doesn’t want them.

    I wonder that, too, and I wonder if they might have a point if it is true.

    So many of the large buildings downtown that were sorely underutilized in the past always made me wonder why basic market mechanics wouldn’t lower the rental prices to the point that they’d be appealing. The answer I’d get was that they were owned by outsiders who held them as a tiny part of a huge national portfolio, and they didn’t really care if one or two buildings in Columbus were occupied. Occasionally there may even be benefits to businesses who own a building that shows a loss.

    As such, there may be some valid arguments for not ceding swathes of the city to outside developers – if it’s to their benefit to leave a gaping hole of inactivity in the middle of our downtown, they’ll do it. I know that short term flashy development announcements are sexy, but I do think it’s a shame that long term sustainability isn’t more appealing. It’s certainly more important.

    To be fair, though, a lot of the older larger buildings are single-use, specifically office. I would think that a more mixed-use structure would be a lot better in ensuring that it stays at least semi-occupied. This theory also goes against the fact that other cities ARE being considered by national developers, many of which, including Cincinnati, have higher vacancy rates in their downtowns than Columbus does in terms of both office and residential.

    #1118497

    WJT
    Participant

    I wish it was Columbus that was getting a Skyhouse. Damn. I tend to agree that the powers that be in this city are very skittish of outsiders and maybe just want to be the one’s to call the shots. Why is Cincy getting two buildings around 15 floors each, luxury, plus a 25 floor luxury Skyhouse? What do they have to support this that we do not have?

    I shudder to think what the local ‘powers that be’ have in store for the Wolfe property area at the southeast side of the Statehouse square. What are the chances for a six floor stickbuild? 50/50? smh.

    #1118500

    JMan
    Participant

    Let’s hope the Wolfes can deliver on something more substantial for us.

    #1118518

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I wish it was Columbus that was getting a Skyhouse. Damn. I tend to agree that the powers that be in this city are very skittish of outsiders and maybe just want to be the one’s to call the shots. Why is Cincy getting two buildings around 15 floors each, luxury, plus a 25 floor luxury Skyhouse? What do they have to support this that we do not have?

    I shudder to think what the local ‘powers that be’ have in store for the Wolfe property area at the southeast side of the Statehouse square. What are the chances for a six floor stickbuild? 50/50? smh.

    Nah, there’s a better chance it will be a parking garage, just like with the lot Nationwide just purchased. Thinking big.

    #1118519

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>

    Nah, there’s a better chance it will be a parking garage, just like with the lot Nationwide just purchased. Thinking big.

    We have no confirmation of that. And if it is, it’s undoubtably related to a larger plan including offices and not just a park in deck for current offices. NW isn’t going to just buy a plot for a parking deck when they’ve been telling employees for a few months to be expecting an announcement about a new downtown office building.

    #1118525

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>

    Nah, there’s a better chance it will be a parking garage, just like with the lot Nationwide just purchased. Thinking big.

    We have no confirmation of that. And if it is, it’s undoubtably related to a larger plan including offices and not just a park in deck for current offices. NW isn’t going to just buy a plot for a parking deck when they’ve been telling employees for a few months to be expecting an announcement about a new downtown office building.

    They have been telling employees that? If so it will probably be five floors like the last one-and about as street friendly as well.

    *just about ready to give up on Cbus after these Cincy announcements.

    #1118526

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ohbr wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>

    Nah, there’s a better chance it will be a parking garage, just like with the lot Nationwide just purchased. Thinking big.

    We have no confirmation of that. And if it is, it’s undoubtably related to a larger plan including offices and not just a park in deck for current offices. NW isn’t going to just buy a plot for a parking deck when they’ve been telling employees for a few months to be expecting an announcement about a new downtown office building.

    They have been telling employees that? If so it will probably be five floors like the last one-and about as street friendly as well.

    *just about ready to give up on Cbus after these Cincy announcements.

    I’m not sure how big the building will be, but they are moving more employees downtown than they initially thought. based on the employees remaining in the suburbs and the size of the buildings there of, it could be taller than 5 depending on footprint. How much taller I’m not sure. The timeline hasn’t been announced either. As for office buildings, I really love the new Granview Campus and 10 West NWB. While they may not have street interaction in terms of commercial, they did do a great job with architecture and landscape so you don’t feel as though you’re walking through a completely barren office dead zone. but even if it included retail, it probably would be like many of the other businesses in the AD, During normal business hours until the area gets more residents.

    My long shot hope, though, is with so much happening and so much potential on the block where they just putprchased land, they adopt a live, work, play mentality with the new building like 250.

    #1118534

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>drew wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>GCrites80s wrote:</div><br>
    Maybe the Columbus power structure doesn’t want them.

    I wonder that, too, and I wonder if they might have a point if it is true.

    So many of the large buildings downtown that were sorely underutilized in the past always made me wonder why basic market mechanics wouldn’t lower the rental prices to the point that they’d be appealing. The answer I’d get was that they were owned by outsiders who held them as a tiny part of a huge national portfolio, and they didn’t really care if one or two buildings in Columbus were occupied. Occasionally there may even be benefits to businesses who own a building that shows a loss.

    As such, there may be some valid arguments for not ceding swathes of the city to outside developers – if it’s to their benefit to leave a gaping hole of inactivity in the middle of our downtown, they’ll do it. I know that short term flashy development announcements are sexy, but I do think it’s a shame that long term sustainability isn’t more appealing. It’s certainly more important.

    To be fair, though, a lot of the older larger buildings are single-use, specifically office. I would think that a more mixed-use structure would be a lot better in ensuring that it stays at least semi-occupied. This theory also goes against the fact that other cities ARE being considered by national developers, many of which, including Cincinnati, have higher vacancy rates in their downtowns than Columbus does in terms of both office and residential.

    There’s reasons for that Cincinnati DT/OTR/Uptown vacancy though. A lot of the Cincinnati stuff is totally trashed and then the new Great American tower got built on the commercial side. Nobody’s talking all-new 30+ story tower in Columbus, yet Cincy got a new tower despite the amount of already vacant office space there. I feel Columbus is at an advantage since there is plenty of room for less expensive 5-12 story buildings on vacant lots as infill in the core. Companies don’t have to commit to towers.

    #1118536

    drew
    Participant

    I really think you all are missing the point. I strongly suspect that Columbus isn’t attracting attention from national developers specifically because it isn’t in a weak position like the other C’s are. Cleveland is the single most economically distressed city in the country. Cinci is #10 on that list. Even so, they both have significant concentrated wealth. They also both have huge disenfranchised and disengaged populations. No doubt they both have municipal governments that are hungry to look like they’re doing something.

    Consider the possibility that developers could see opportunity in that mix, and consider why that would be and what the implications could be.

    #1118581

    WJT
    Participant

    I swear we should start some kind of petition or something to get a Skyhouse Columbus. You can get a 350 plus unit 25 floor building approximately 80 by 200 footprint = about 400,000 square fee, and with parking garage for about 500 cars, for only about 90 million. We got Highpoint garbage with no parking and 300 units for 50 million.

    The units in the Denver Skyhouse are only 1500 to 2500(700 to 1100 sq foot units) a month-not outrageous in this town for a luxury quality highrise with good amenities. Hell I think the rents for The Atlas building and the Julian are close to that. Stick one in in Riversouth. Hell there are a ton of places for one. They use the same building plans for each one pretty much and can pass on saving because of that.

    So they have expanded into Ohio in Cincinnati..let them continue North! lol. A Skyhouse is a sign that a city has arrived in a way. Some cities have two or three. They obviously work or there would not be so many of them. Hell even Raleigh has one.

    But no, the local developers(Casto, Pizzuti, Nationwide, etc.) and their cohorts would never allow an outsider into the Columbus development arena..oh yeah they did that one time-and we got Highpointe!
    When it comes to developers this city is is just stuck in ‘middle city mode’. There is just a distinct history of ‘thinking behind the very safe and very moderate-thinking that big cities just don’t have.

    LOL…rant over

    #1118582

    WJT
    Participant

    I really think you all are missing the point. I strongly suspect that Columbus isn’t attracting attention from national developers specifically because it isn’t in a weak position like the other C’s are. Cleveland is the single most economically distressed city in the country. Cinci is #10 on that list. Even so, they both have significant concentrated wealth. They also both have huge disenfranchised and disengaged populations. No doubt they both have municipal governments that are hungry to look like they’re doing something.

    Consider the possibility that developers could see opportunity in that mix, and consider why that would be and what the implications could be.

    Gee are cities like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Raleigh, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Nashville, Austin, Portland and many others in a ‘weak’ position and they are attracting all kinds of developers. I don;t get your argument at all. These cities are not economically distressed list at all.

    We need concentrated populations in downtown ‘nodes’ to make the holy grail of ‘ground floor retail’ work. Look at the empty storefronts on High Street. We need not only workers but residents in decent numbers nearby to get those storefronts filled, and scattered six story stickbuilds are not the answer.

    Does this city government have any kind of outreach program to outside developers to even try and lure ‘outsider’ developers into this supposedly thriving city?

    #1118614

    drew
    Participant

    Gee are cities like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Raleigh, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Nashville, Austin, Portland and many others in a ‘weak’ position and they are attracting all kinds of developers. I don;t get your argument at all. These cities are not economically distressed list at all.

    You’re certainly right about the first point – not every city that is experiencing outside development is in a bad position. However, it doesn’t mean that the cities (read: the citizens of the cities, not the politicians) that are economically distressed aren’t potentially being taken advantage of by developers. Development is a bare knuckled sport, and there’s absolutely no consideration for the good of the city from outside developers. Probably far less than you’d hope for from insiders as well.

    To be perfectly frank, I don’t believe that urban development is a virtuous end goal in and of itself. I believe the betterment of the city should always be the goal, and that urban development is one very useful tool in that toolbox. Some cities will thrive under expansion, and some will find rapid expansion to be a complete boat anchor as they move forward. Development is always a gamble, and the worse off a city is, the bigger the gamble it is. Also, the worse off a city is, the more they have to do to make sure the gamble isn’t too onerous for the developer.

    Is it so hard to imagine that that’s not always a good thing?

    #1118632

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>
    Gee are cities like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Raleigh, Orlando, Dallas, Denver, Nashville, Austin, Portland and many others in a ‘weak’ position and they are attracting all kinds of developers. I don;t get your argument at all. These cities are not economically distressed list at all.

    You’re certainly right about the first point – not every city that is experiencing outside development is in a bad position. However, it doesn’t mean that the cities (read: the citizens of the cities, not the politicians) that are economically distressed aren’t potentially being taken advantage of by developers. Development is a bare knuckled sport, and there’s absolutely no consideration for the good of the city from outside developers. Probably far less than you’d hope for from insiders as well.

    To be perfectly frank, I don’t believe that urban development is a virtuous end goal in and of itself. I believe the betterment of the city should always be the goal, and that urban development is one very useful tool in that toolbox. Some cities will thrive under expansion, and some will find rapid expansion to be a complete boat anchor as they move forward. Development is always a gamble, and the worse off a city is, the bigger the gamble it is. Also, the worse off a city is, the more they have to do to make sure the gamble isn’t too onerous for the developer.

    Is it so hard to imagine that that’s not always a good thing?

    I think you’re kind of going in circles in a way. You suggest national developers are taking bigger risks with large projects in some cities, and less so in others, but Columbus is currently a city in which ZERO national developers are taking any risks. Economics does not seem to have anything to do with where projects are going, as they are going into cities that are in both worse and better shape than Columbus.
    This is not really about the virtues of urban development. It’s about the basic question of, all things being equal, why is Columbus virtually the only city in its class that is not being considered?

    #1118664

    CbusIslander
    Participant

    Don’t worry Cbus considering how Skyhouse is taking over a dozen cities so far across the country with the same glass box. This appears to be a taller version of highpoint. Do we really want this? Generic design that damages a skyline view for decades.

    #1118675

    JMan
    Participant

    Our skyline hasn’t been updated for decades.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 183 total)

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

The 6th Annual Columbus Dessert Festival Returns!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFO