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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 342 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1085560

    drtom1234
    Participant

    How much power does the DT commission actually have? Do they have any history of sending developers back to the drawing board, or are they a rubber stamp commission?

    #1086871

    News
    Participant

    High Street Mixed-Use Development Received Well by Downtown Commission
    July 28, 2015 10:20 am – Walker Evans

    https://www.columbusunderground.com/high-street-mixed-use-development-received-well-by-downtown-commission

    #1086917

    WJT
    Participant

    The Downtown Cowlumbus..er..Columbus Commission strikes again! Another ‘Well..it’s good enough for Cowlumbus, right?’ decision.

    #1086931

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    #1086934

    WJT
    Participant

    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    They should name this building ‘The Elsie’. Or give it a ‘Columbus take on California Mediocrity’ by giving it a stucco covering and call it the ‘Elsie-gundo Arms’ lol. Fred G. Sanford would approve!

    #1086935
    Josh Miller
    Josh Miller
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    They should name this building ‘The Elsie’. Or give it a ‘Columbus take on California Mediocrity’ by giving it a stucco covering and call it the ‘Elsie-gundo Arms’ lol. Fred G. Sanford would approve!

    There’s no shortage of small footprint lots scattered all over downtown that could accommodate significant height… Let’s fill in the massive gaps with mid-rise to justify demand, the towers will follow.

    #1086938
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    So FWIW, the Business First article sings a different tune on the height question:

    What the developer didn’t show during the conceptual review of the proposal is what may go above the retail and parking section of the complex at the corner of High and Long streets.
    “There’s a tower on that north corner that could be a hotel or more apartments,” President Jeff Edwards told the panel. “It could be a combination of both.”
    Most of the commission’s six present members focused on the comparative height of the project at six levels in a central business district where most of the buildings are taller. Edwards said three of the apartment floors will be nine feet tall versus eight feet typical of its other downtown residential projects. The top floor would offer tenants 12-foot-high ceilings.

    As to the hotel, Business First got him on the record saying:

    “If it goes as a hotel, it will be taller” than the other three connected buildings reviewed by the commission, he said. Should the developer not go with a hotel, the number of apartments would grow to 300 units from 200 to 225 units.

    #1086941

    WJT
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br>
    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    They should name this building ‘The Elsie’. Or give it a ‘Columbus take on California Mediocrity’ by giving it a stucco covering and call it the ‘Elsie-gundo Arms’ lol. Fred G. Sanford would approve!

    There’s no shortage of small footprint lots scattered all over downtown that could accommodate significant height… Let’s fill in the massive gaps with mid-rise to justify demand, the towers will follow.

    There is a reason the 2010 downtown plan calls for most of the higher buildings along High street or very close to it. I suggest you revisit it.

    “…The Downtown District should be revised by the City to better direct high density
    development to the Mile on High (as well as reflect the density recommendations of this Plan…”

    http://downtowncolumbus.com/docs/downtown-strategic-plan/2010-dcsp-10-principles-ideas-1-6.pdf

    The area along High is district A, where ten floors (or more) is acceptable, . eight (plus) is preferred for new development.

    http://downtowncolumbus.com/docs/downtown-strategic-plan/2010-dcsp-8-strategies-to-implementation-update.pdf

    Look at the maps, the diagrams, the explanations. There are valid reasons for wanting the highest density along or within a block of High.

    And as to other post, higher ceilings will make for more $$$ unit prices, but will not increase density. And if it does go to 300 units, it will still have only the same density as Highpoint, which has the same number of units, at the same height, covering about the same land area.

    #1086946

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br>
    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    They should name this building ‘The Elsie’. Or give it a ‘Columbus take on California Mediocrity’ by giving it a stucco covering and call it the ‘Elsie-gundo Arms’ lol. Fred G. Sanford would approve!

    There’s no shortage of small footprint lots scattered all over downtown that could accommodate significant height… Let’s fill in the massive gaps with mid-rise to justify demand, the towers will follow.

    Again, this is really a false argument, because it assumes that height in one place means height can’t go in elsewhere. A tower on this site, or even something upwards of 250 High’s size (a far better representation of “mid-rise”- this is more like low-rise to me), would not detract from the possibility of height in projects off of High Street whatsoever. It’s not even the height of the project that is the problem, but the height of the project in this particular location. This project would be perfect for E. Long or something, but not the center of Downtown on High.

    #1086948

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    So FWIW, the Business First article sings a different tune on the height question:

    What the developer didn’t show during the conceptual review of the proposal is what may go above the retail and parking section of the complex at the corner of High and Long streets.<br>
    “There’s a tower on that north corner that could be a hotel or more apartments,” President Jeff Edwards told the panel. “It could be a combination of both.”<br>
    Most of the commission’s six present members focused on the comparative height of the project at six levels in a central business district where most of the buildings are taller. Edwards said three of the apartment floors will be nine feet tall versus eight feet typical of its other downtown residential projects. The top floor would offer tenants 12-foot-high ceilings.

    As to the hotel, Business First got him on the record saying:

    “If it goes as a hotel, it will be taller” than the other three connected buildings reviewed by the commission, he said. Should the developer not go with a hotel, the number of apartments would grow to 300 units from 200 to 225 units.

    A tower with 200-300 units would soften the blow for me, but then it would also make the 6-story section even smaller in comparison to what’s around it. It would look even more out of place.

    #1086949

    Nancy H
    Participant

    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. …snip…
    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    The Commission evaluates applications based on their compliance with the provisions of City Code and the Downtown Design Guidelines. They don’t get to tell people what to build or inflict their personal (or collective) tastes on property owners.

    So don’t blame the commissioners. It is a thankless, non-paying job as it is. They can only decide if a design someone presents complies with the design guidelines.

    #1086950

    WJT
    Participant

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

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br><br>
    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. You know the ones… “Columbus really exceeded my expectations. They have Indian food and everything… and it’s in Ohio!!”

    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    They should name this building ‘The Elsie’. Or give it a ‘Columbus take on California Mediocrity’ by giving it a stucco covering and call it the ‘Elsie-gundo Arms’ lol. Fred G. Sanford would approve!

    There’s no shortage of small footprint lots scattered all over downtown that could accommodate significant height… Let’s fill in the massive gaps with mid-rise to justify demand, the towers will follow.

    Again, this is really a false argument, because it assumes that height in one place means height can’t go in elsewhere. A tower on this site, or even something upwards of 250 High’s size (a far better representation of “mid-rise”- this is more like low-rise to me), would not detract from the possibility of height in projects off of High Street whatsoever. It’s not even the height of the project that is the problem, but the height of the project in this particular location. This project would be perfect for E. Long or something, but not the center of Downtown on High.

    Totally agree. This is a great project, but exactly at the wrong location-almost any other location downtown would be great. And it is only about height, because it is about density. You cannot get the kind of density most desirable at this location at six floors-especially with having to include structured parking.

    Interesting that the tall buildings we have gotten/have been proposed, 250 South High at 12 floors, and the Two/25(whatever it is) at 17 floors proposed, do not have the problem of spending millions of dollars on structured parking-it is already provided by the giant garage they will be connected to.

    #1086951

    drtom1234
    Participant

    Ugh. Such a disappointment from the Downtown commission. The quote from Edwards that the apartments are going to have high ceilings so it will actually feel like an 8 story building just reeks of “good enough”. The entire block looks like it was pulled right out of the suburbs, no sign whatsoever that they’re designing for the middle of a city. Just the essence of mediocrity. No inspiration whatsoever.

    To me, the numbers here suggest why this is such a mediocre development. 99% of apartments in the city are rented. Healthy cities have 1-2% of their populations downtown, suggesting that Columbus could support between 20,000-40,000 people downtown. And yet we have under 8,000 people downtown. Here we have a massive opportunity to build up an entire block, and what are they going to do with it? 160 apartments and 6 stories. In an entire, freaking, downtown city block. I know Edwards is in this to make money, but you can’t tell me that if they built a 500 apartment, 18 story building, with high quality finishes and amenities, that they wouldn’t be able to fill it and make a ton of money.

    Outside of Kaufman, are there any developers of new buildings in town that are inspired to build tall, architecturally interesting buildings? It sure doesn’t seem like it.

    #1086953

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Sometimes I think that most of the Columbus area development commission members are the same people interviewed in national articles that reference the city. …snip…<br>
    I hate that so much development in the city always seems to be measured by the lowest possible bar.

    The Commission evaluates applications based on their compliance with the provisions of City Code and the Downtown Design Guidelines. They don’t get to tell people what to build or inflict their personal (or collective) tastes on property owners.

    So don’t blame the commissioners. It is a thankless, non-paying job as it is. They can only decide if a design someone presents complies with the design guidelines.

    Because the city failed to do this: “Update height standards and adopt density standards to ensure the appropriate
    build out of downtown consistent with plan recommendations” -see the 2010 Downtown Plan

    #1086956

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Why even come up with development standards if the city is going to roll over every time they’re challenged? How much do such studies and the reworking of standards cost, because I bet it wasn’t free. Yet they’re often totally ignored or have no actual binding power, which essentially makes them all but worthless.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 342 total)

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

Subscribe below: