The Olympic Mixed-Use Apartment Development - Former Olympic Swim Club
August 18, 2014 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm #1035333
Developers seeking rezoning for the project.August 20, 2014 6:42 pm at 6:42 pm #1035787
Personally, I think it’s a good idea to redevelop the area. More middle range apartments are what Clintonville needs. Though, the facade of that particular development looks garish and out-of-touch with what I believe long time Clintonville residents will respond positively too.
As a long time Clintonville resident myself. One thing I’ve noticed is how sharply rentals have spiked in the last 3-5 years. There are many that will echo this sentiment: another reason people such as myself have stayed in Clintonville for so long is that it’s a nice neighborhood that is also affordable.
Some of us are willing to deal with older kitchens and bathrooms in exchange for quiet nights, lots of windows and mature trees. “Nice” and “improvement” are relative terms in this case.August 31, 2014 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm #1037862
More “Clintonville-ing” – the Olympic proposal has been reduced in density from 152 to 138 units, in height by 2 feet, and the setback from Indianola increased to a 20 foot minimum from the curb.August 31, 2014 1:59 pm at 1:59 pm #1037865
I don’t have a problem with this. These seem pretty marginal changes in what will still be an important development for the community.August 31, 2014 6:35 pm at 6:35 pm #1037888
Hopefully the 20 additional feet allows for larger outdoor patio spaces and not just end-to-end grass and flowers along Indianola.August 31, 2014 6:50 pm at 6:50 pm #1037890
[quote=1037862]More “Clintonville-ing” – the Olympic proposal has been reduced in density from 152 to 138 units, in height by 2 feet, and the setback from Indianola increased to a 20 foot minimum from the curb.
All in all, those changes don’t sound too bad.September 1, 2014 3:53 pm at 3:53 pm #1037999
All in all, those changes don’t sound too bad.
True, so far. Lets hope it’s enough of an appeasement for the project to move forward.September 2, 2014 10:26 am at 10:26 am #1038114
End of An Era: Clintonville’s Olympic Swim Club Closes For Good
September 2, 2014
by Sam Hendren
89.7 NPR News Reporter
Yesterday’s Labor Day holiday marked the unofficial end of summer. It also marked the end of an era in Clintonville. For 76 years neighbors have cooled off at the Olympic Swim Club. But now it’s closed for good. And generations of Clintonville residents are saddened by the shutdown.
READ MORE: http://wosu.org/2012/news/2014/09/02/end-era-clintonvilles-olympic-pool-closes-good/September 2, 2014 11:58 am at 11:58 am #1038150
I am pretty new to Clintonville, and its history of protesting development. My main question is where is this energy coming from? With the “Save the Pool” protests its very difficult to really tell who is driving this campaign. With comments turned off on the Facebook page and not allowed on the Clintonville community webpage that has been created for the movement, it is very hard for me to tell if this is a widespread movement or just a few people whipping up a frenzy.
Honestly, it is a bit disconcerting to me when i look at the history of this anti-change movement and the results. I have heard of the Theatre debacle, the widening of North Broadway frenzy and now the Olympic pool and rusty bucket situations. It seems that this protest movement has either had a negative outcome or has whipped up a lot of fear and anger. While in non of these cases has the result of the movement been very effective or positive for the community in any way.
After multiple examples of the anti development movement making a situation worse or whipping up a useless frenzy, where is the continued energy coming from? From here, how does a community counteract a movement that seems to have endless supplies of negativity? I for one don’t have the energy to go to every community meeting and counter point by point all the “angry people logic”.
Are there any situations, in Clintonville, where this “pool type” anti-development movement has been ignored because it clearly isn’t a representative majority?September 2, 2014 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm #1038158
Outside of single-story strip centers, I’m not aware of any recent or past examples of development in the Clintonville area that did not ultimately suffer from what’s become clear is an anti-change attitude. I have no idea how widespread that attitude is, but it’s definitely enough that projects are continuously reduced/rejected/opposed because they threaten to bring too much change.September 2, 2014 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm #1038160
Well, I think in Clintonville it’s important to define what one means by “situations.” What you’re talking about, I think, are planned developments: the left turn lane in ENB, the California and High project, the Olympic project, whatever’s going on with the Rusty Bucket project, the on-going situation with the NB-High St intersection. It’s easy to paint with broad strikes, here, but I don’t think doing so results in an accurate picture.
For example, the old regulations related to alcohol permits on High Street in much of Clintonville have had more to do, in recent years, with the lack of decent dining options there than any particular resistance among the local population. Whenever liquor measures come onto the ballot in Clintonville (and a lot have in recent years), they now routinely pass with strong majorities (60-80%). Clearly, Clintonville has become a lot more interested in having places where one can get a drink than was historically the case here. But the old regulations remain on the books, which makes it hard for restauranteurs to move ahead with setting up shop here. Still, for a community that’s supposedly resistant to change, there’s been a lot of widely-supported change in the community in recent years. The community didn’t shoot down Lineage Brewing when I recently sought variance approval for that project. A business like The Crest has certainly brought much-needed change to that portion of Clintonville.
And, thankfully, the community came together to help shoot down the asinine proposal to build a 200 foot cell phone tower next to Studio 35 and nearby houses.
Still, in terms of the nature of new developments, yeah, it’s been frustrating to see the resistance. I don’t have evidence backing me up here, but I’ve always assumed that these movements are very limited and local in scope. The left turn lane on ENB, for instance, was, to me, a classic example of this. I’m reasonably sure that most of Clintonville didn’t have a problem with the project, and that many residents in the surrounding streets very much supported it (I used to live on two such streets and know that support there was very strong, since those streets bore the brunt of cut-through traffic because of the lack of a left turn option onto south bound High St). Residents of ENB managed to engineer a temporary take-over of a voting block on the CAC, which delayed the project by two years. Eventually, the community got fed up and voted out the resistors, which paved the way (so to speak) for the left turn lane to be built.
It was certainly a vocal minority in that situation, and I don’t see any reason why that’s not the case with other projects, as well. If I had to take a stab at identifying the core of the issue, it would be the historical nature of the CAC. My guess is that the political culture of that organization is lagging behind obvious attitudinal changes in the community. The CAC often comes across as presenting itself as gatekeepers to the community, rather than advocates for it, IMO. The truth is that Clintonville is already changing, a lot. So the choice before an organization like the CAC isn’t, do we change or don’t we? It should be, “how do we act in such a way that we encourage vibrant, desirable change in Clintonville?”
Anyway, I’ve been here over ten years and am more optimistic now about the future of this community than I was when I moved here. Some of the petty things drive me nuts (like, as I understand it, a CAC member managing to drive away the El Arepazo food truck based on a complaint from a local; or the tempest in a teacup that resulted from the farmer’s market’s decision last year to not allow dogs at the market). Step back, though, and for me anyway, I love the direction that Clintonville is going. The Olympic development is a big, big deal here, though. If it does go through (and I certainly support it), it’ll set a precedent for this kind of development here. It’s that kind of precedent we’ll need to build off of when the opportunity arises to finally develop NB and High. But if, for some reason, this project is shot down, pared way back or delayed, I do think it’ll be a big enough loss that it may cause other developers to think twice before trying again. The out-going pool is, of course, a unique aspect of this debate. I just hope the CAC (and I wrote to my commissioner about it) is smart enough to separate frustrations over losing the pool with the vital issue of what will come to this location now that it’s closed.September 2, 2014 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #1038186
+1 Thanks for the logical rundown. Like i said, i am new to the neighborhood, i am glad to hear from someone reasonable.September 2, 2014 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #1038203
I would love to see an initiative on the ballot to remove the dry status overall instead of on a case by case movement. There has been talk of this, but the feeling has been that that would be too much change at the moment for some of the older Clintonville residents.September 2, 2014 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #1038212
I am shocked that there hasn’t been nearly the hubbub over the Reynoldsburg Swim Club closing on the same day as the Olympic.September 2, 2014 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #1038257
The project made it through the Planing and Zoning committee with a 6-2 vote. It now goes in front of the CAC which usually passes what the P&Z committee recommends.
The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.