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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Columbus: Get ready for the Tall North

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Columbus: Get ready for the Tall North

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1099936

    taxguy17
    Participant
    #1099971
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    A great article that speaks to our ongoing discussions on here — and whether we can preserve historic character and charm while heading in a more responsible and walkable urban direction… Height and volume along High will only improve the argument for better mass transit along the corridor and hopefully rationalize a quicker re-introduction of light rail (as that would be a reference to the “historic character”, no?)

    #1100088
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant

    Borror Properties CEO Doug Borror said redevelopment of the White Castle site at 965 N. High….

    He said the project rises so high because of the need to provide parking for office and apartment tenants as well as the extra public parking.

    “The need for parking is driving this,” Borror said. “Then you have to build around that (with the office space and apartments) so that the project makes economic sense.

    that translates into i gotta get mine, as the height wars continue all those great views from the 4-7 story buildings will be marred

    #1100124

    welkstar
    Participant

    that translates into i gotta get mine, as the height wars continue all those great views from the 4-7 story buildings will be marred

    Great views of the parking lot?

    #1100127

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    Ugh. So developers want to build tall and our commissioners are telling them to think lower? Ugh.

    #1100177

    Mike88
    Participant

    Ugh. So developers want to build tall and our commissioners are telling them to think lower? Ugh.

    This isn’t downtown, this is the Short North. This isn’t the place for Skyscrapers. It’s a historic neighborhood.

    I have no problems with Developers thinking a bit taller than the historic structures that are there, but to do so in a way that is disruptive to the character of the neighborhood is bad. 11 story structures that run up against peoples backyards, and 3 story structures make no sense.

    The trouble is none of these developers want to dig down to put in parking. I get it can be cost prohibitive but still at some point the commission needs to flex their muscles a bit. For example that site next to Donatos wants a variance in parking from 104 cars down to 38.

    #1100185
    Josh Miller
    Josh Miller
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CB_downtowner wrote:</div>
    Ugh. So developers want to build tall and our commissioners are telling them to think lower? Ugh.

    This isn’t downtown, this is the Short North. This isn’t the place for Skyscrapers. It’s a historic neighborhood.

    At some point, and likely already for many outside of 270, a trip to “downtown” implies any of the urban neighborhoods. High St. has always been a commercial corridor, I don’t see the detriment of infill where a 4 or 5 story commercial building likely stood 100 years ago but was shortsightedly torn down in the 50’s or 60’s to make way for an auto repair shop… All that’s happening now is creative rebuilding imo.

    Alas, so much parking drama could have been avoided through bolder transit planning long ago.

    I have no problems with Developers thinking a bit taller than the historic structures that are there, but to do so in a way that is disruptive to the character of the neighborhood is bad. 11 story structures that run up against peoples backyards, and 3 story structures make no sense.

    Requiring developers to use landscaping and appealing 1st-3rd floor design approaches should make for much better views than an overgrown and unkept surface parking lot.

    #1100203
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lazyfish wrote:</div>
    that translates into i gotta get mine, as the height wars continue all those great views from the 4-7 story buildings will be marred

    Great views of the parking lot?

    Views of Downtown, RWB, the beautiful houses and tree lined streets. and parks. I’m OK with building up as long as the giants don’t dwarf the streetscape. There are parts of High St. now south of 4th? or 3rd that feel like being in a canyon, one must strain to find the sky. From 7-11 stories up, the character of the surrounding blocks is greatly impacted. If developers want to build up they should also build down. The parking garage monstrosity on Kerr next to where Nancy H lived is an example of modern day brutalism.

    #1100210

    WJT
    Participant

    There are parts of High St. now south of 4th? or 3rd that feel like being in a canyon, one must strain to find the sky.

    Really…I mean really? LOL!!! ‘One must strain to find the sky.’ Howling with laughter!

    #1100214
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Views of Downtown…

    …There are parts of High St. now south of 4th? or 3rd that feel like being in a canyon, one must strain to find the sky. From 7-11 stories up, the character of the surrounding blocks is greatly impacted…

    So it sounds like you’re saying tall buildings are great when viewed from a distance, but not up close?

    Other than a couple of narrow alleyways, there’s nowhere Downtown where one must “strain to find the sky”.

    #1100217
    Josh Miller
    Josh Miller
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lazyfish wrote:</div>
    Views of Downtown…

    …There are parts of High St. now south of 4th? or 3rd that feel like being in a canyon, one must strain to find the sky. From 7-11 stories up, the character of the surrounding blocks is greatly impacted…

    So it sounds like you’re saying tall buildings are great when viewed from a distance, but not up close?

    Other than a couple of narrow alleyways, there’s nowhere Downtown where one must “strain to find the sky”.

    And even in the Short North, thanks to upper story setbacks and street trees, there isn’t a single place where I get that impression nor even notice towering buildings (the exception being Bollinger but that predates this discussion).

    #1100229

    Pablo
    Participant

    Underground parking is more expensive but not unusual here in Columbus. Recent projects include the View on High (two levels below grade) and I believe the developer of the project at North Broadway and High is considering underground parking.

    #1100249

    Nancy H
    Participant

    I don’t see the detriment of infill where a 4 or 5 story commercial building likely stood 100 years ago but was shortsightedly torn down in the 50′s or 60′s to make way for an auto repair shop.

    You are rewriting history there.

    Yes, there were buildings torn down to build new buildings over the years, but not in that height range. Most of what got built along High in the mid-1800’s was residential houses. The common street wall everybody loves arrived in roughly 1910-1920 when they widened High Street. They cut anywhere from 10 to 20 feet off of the fronts of buildings on High. Neighboring property owners got together and had their facade rebuilt together. If you look – really look – at many of the older building you will notice their upper windows don’t match or line up.

    And even in the Short North, thanks to upper story setbacks and street trees, there isn’t a single place where I get that impression nor even notice towering buildings.

    Take a walk off of High Street sometime and you sure notice them.

    I have always found the step back from High to be backwards. The shorter part of the building should be facing the shorter historic residential housing which is mostly 2-1/2 stories.

    The parking garage monstrosity on Kerr next to where Nancy H lived is an example of modern day brutalism.

    I think you mean the HUB Garage, which is actually on Hubbard.

    The real brutal part was the headlights that bounced off the second floor bedroom ceilings as people drove up the ramps. Listening to car alarms all night long was unpleasant too. Two of the many reasons why I sold the place after my husband passed away.

    #1100411

    sruckus
    Participant

    The Hub is one of my favorite newer developments for the area.

    #1100423

    Nancy H
    Participant

    I too like any number of things about the HUB project, especially the High Street part. But, they should have made them put one more level of the garage below ground and the garage should have maintained the common setback along Hubbard Avenue. That would have made it fit in better with the surrounding older residential housing.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

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

Subscribe below: