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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Five-Story Mixed-Use Apartment Building Proposed at High & North Broadway

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Five-Story Mixed-Use Apartment Building Proposed at High & North Broadway

Viewing 14 posts - 226 through 239 (of 239 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1112686
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    I’m a pragmatist. I live in Clintonville and being in the next hot place means I can sell my house for more when I retire. Given the dismal state of pensions and the unreliability of stock market, it would be nice to have a house to fall back on if i should be unlucky enough to retire during a market down-cycle.

    #1112688
    whopper jr
    whopper jr
    Participant

    I have a simple question I’d like to pose regarding Clintonville development:<br>
    Why does it need to be 4+ stories of mixed residential/retail or, otherwise, it’s a failure? Why?

    This site in particular is an opportunity to develop a signature project. Not that taller is necessarily better, but I’m sure the developer would like to maximize density in order to achieve highest and best use of the site. And it would be nice if the neighborhood could get a signature development without it getting watered down by naysayers.

    #1112689
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    This intersection is basically the anchor of central Clintonville. It should be pretty spectacular, something that would eventually be the cover shot for the whole neighborhood.

    #1112739

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I have a simple question I’d like to pose regarding Clintonville development:<br>
    Why does it need to be 4+ stories of mixed residential/retail or, otherwise, it’s a failure? Why?

    With every proposal, I ask a few simple questions: 1. Is what is being proposed meeting the maximum potential of both the site and location? 2. Does it contribute positively to the goal of urban vibrancy and walkability? 3. Does the scale meet the existing demand? 4. Is it damaging to the existing fabric or historical character of the area?

    In terms of a 2-3 story building as per current Clintonville guidelines, the answers would go something like this:
    1. No, 2 or 3-story building would not meet the potential of the site, either for the site’s existing size or its location directly along High Street.
    2. This is debatable. While a 2-3 story would contribute *some* level of urban vibrancy/walkability, the scale would again not allow for the best possible result in this regard.
    3. No, absolutely not. Vacancy rates throughout the urban core are exceedingly low, and demand is already outpacing construction. Given Clintonville’s stability and popularity, and the site’s location along its most prominent corridor, any project would very likely fill up with residents very quickly. 2-3 stories would simply not allow for very many residential units in an area where demand calls for a lot more.
    4. This is also debatable, as everyone has their own idea of what might be damaging. From my POV, 2-3 stories would not exceed any existing precedent, so that scale would clearly not be damaging in any way. That said, on a major corridor like High, 5-8 stories would also be perfectly reasonable. If this was being proposed in the middle of a single-family neighborhood, there would obviously be other considerations, but we are talking about a significant commercial corridor. The area would not be negatively impacted by larger buildings.

    Clintonville isn’t the Short North or University District. It’s a community of single family homes with lots of 1-2 story (some higher) commercial and mixed development along High and Indianola. It also has a LOT of undeveloped and underdeveloped sites for said commercial activity and commercial property value rates that are much lower than in the more central, denser portions of the city.

    Actually, Clintonville, the UD and the SN all share very similar traits. They are urban neighborhoods mostly made up of single-family housing built along one of the city’s most highly visible and most important commercial corridors. The main difference is that Clintonville has, until now, built under the scale of the demand along its commercial corridors. Its deference to 1-2 story buildings and suburban outlets, especially now during a virtual urban renaissance, is severely outdated as a model, and was outdated long before that.

    I understand that people in here tend to like vertical, mixed development that conforms to their individual architectural tastes. Fine. But that doesn’t mean such development is correct or necessary everywhere. I go back to what I said last year when the Olympic project was finally approved: if the original proposal had been for 115 apartments and 6,000 sq ft or first floor retail, and that was what was approved, conventional wisdom among the CU intelligentsia would have been that it was a huge positive step forward for Clintonville, especially considering the generally positive comments in here about the architectural style of the development and the developer’s positive reputation for doing good work.

    Actually, I believe that had the revised scale been the original proposal, the size would’ve been reduced even further and we’d be talking under 100 units easily, or perhaps no retail at all. Even the original proposal didn’t truly maximize the potential of the site, as it still left an enormous amount of parking to placate car-first attitudes. The idea you’re seemingly suggesting here is the “better than nothing” belief system, of which I am most definitely not a part of.

    But no. The original proposal was 155 units and more retail. So what’s being built is, somehow, a shadow of what it might have been, a missed opportunity, just another NIMBY failure in stodgy old Clintonville.

    It’s further away from what it could’ve been now than it was when it was originally proposed. In that sense, it is a failure and one I am not sure requires a celebration. Is it “better than nothing”, yes. Is it better than what was originally proposed. Absolutely not. Again, I am of the belief that we should not be comparing projects to the absolute worst they could be, but from the absolute best.

    Bullshit.

    It’s bullshit only if you approach it from the idea that the project is better than a pool no one used and consider no other perspective.

    I see nothing intrinsically wrong with a 3-story development on High and N Broadway. I’d prefer 3 and 4 story development, but a 3 story, mixed development at that intersection would be a huge and transformative project on that site, were it a thoughtful, high-quality project (Northstar doesn’t have the same positive reputation as Crawford Hoying). Not to mention that nearly the same situation exists diagonally across the intersection from this area, and those plots are on the market.

    Ultimately, no matter what you and I believe, Clintonville will continue to get the type of development that it, as a community, believes is best for it. If the past is any indication of the future, projects even at the scale of the reduced Olympic will continue to be few and far between. That is a shame to me.

    Others might disagree. Well, welcome to the Internet.

    Of course.

    #1119411

    Just an Observer
    Participant

    Any rumblings on if the developer is planning to resubmit the proposed plans classifying the units as “extended stay hotel” units to try and reduce the number of variances needed to get the project going?

    #1119433
    whopper jr
    whopper jr
    Participant

    Haven’t heard anything, but the site is zoned C-4 which permits extended stay hotels as well as retail, bars, and restaurants.

    #1119452

    DouginCMH
    Participant

    Any rumblings on if the developer is planning to resubmit the proposed plans classifying the units as “extended stay hotel” units to try and reduce the number of variances needed to get the project going?

    Would that approach do anything to affect the number of parking spaces required by current zoning?

    #1119489

    WJT
    Participant

    I would snicker if they pulled a Pavey(initial plan) on Clintonvillains. Massive, ugly, and innappropriate but within the guidelines and needing no variances and beyond the control of anyone there.

    This kind of reminds me of New York and The Tower Verre they are building at MOMA. The neighborhood(and particularly Amanda Burden) fought the incredible design of the building and had it shortened from 1250 to 1050 feet. They thought they had a victory about ten years ago..but now much taller towers are sprouting up all around it and are planned-and they do not need any kind of approval as they are being built ‘as of right’-no approval needed from the neighborhood commission.
    They won the battle but the developers learned from it and they are winning the development war.

    The city of Columbus is growing and changing too fast and Clintonville is too hot for them to fight development and they need to get with the program and not be obstructionists and make the best of it by cooperating with developers. The ‘extended stay’ stuff they are getting now is a direct result of their stubbornness and lack of cooperation IMO. They need to go with the flow or face drowning in the strong currents.

    #1119542

    Just an Observer
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>

    Would that approach do anything to affect the number of parking spaces required by current zoning?

    Does anyone know if there is a difference in parking space requirements between apartments and extended stay hotels? Or for that matter are there any other zoning differences?

    #1119545

    Pablo
    Participant

    My understanding is that extended stay hotels only require one parking space per room (or suite) plus staff parking. I don’t know if there’s a difference in requirements between parcels zoned M like those on Indianola or parcels zoned C4 like Broadway and High.

    #1119551

    DouginCMH
    Participant

    It seems hard to imagine that a similar “extended stay” situation could emerge in this location. There were a fair number of variances that the previous project had to address, height and parking chief among them, it would seem. Not to mention, there are, what, eight separate parcels included in that area? It’s a complex project and, presumably, located on much more valuable real estate than a vacant industrial property on Indianola.

    #1119558

    Analogue Kid
    Participant

    Does anyone know if there is a difference in parking space requirements between apartments and extended stay hotels? Or for that matter are there any other zoning differences?

    Extended stay hotels now need 1.5 spaces, so it’s not really different. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/03/council_.html

    #1119570

    Just an Observer
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>

    Extended stay hotels now need 1.5 spaces, so it’s not really different. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/03/03/council_.html

    So all the complaining about the new development of the freight company property being an extended stay hotel instead of apartments is truly just people complaining just to complain because there is no difference in the zoning requirements.

    #1119593

    bob.os
    Participant

    So all the complaining about the new development of the freight company property being an extended stay hotel instead of apartments is truly just people complaining just to complain because there is no difference in the zoning requirements.

    Clutches pearls…

Viewing 14 posts - 226 through 239 (of 239 total)

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

Subscribe below: