Edwards Co Planning Apartments at Gay & High
- June 11, 2013 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #544395
Yes, a garage has already been built on 4th and near gay to compensate for the loss of surface spaces in the Neighborhood Launch development.June 11, 2013 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #544396
What are plans for accommodating the Gay Street developments like Neighborhood Launch?
The new apartment building currently being built will have underground parking, if memory serves. I can’t speak to the other phases of the development.June 11, 2013 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm #544397
I find it amusing how many posts are going towards bashing a ‘rumored’ parking garage.
Yep. It’s just a rumor at this point.June 11, 2013 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #544398
A garage won’t be so bad if it was tucked into the back of the block accessed via alleys. The garage could be wrapped with retail/office/housing and basically disappear.June 11, 2013 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #544399
Word on the street is that they purchased the parking lot across Gay Street (the one mentioned in the Wasted Space article) and there is talk about a new parking garage…not exactly the best use of that land, in my opinion, but the developers were apparently asked to provide evidence that they could provide adequate parking for the apartments.
If that’s true, there is something seriously wrong with our downtown development commission. Downtown can’t possibly provide parking for every single resident.
If done right, a parking garage could be a lot better than the surface lot currently there. For example, ground floor retail, a non-traditional design, and perhaps built to handle the addition of residential or office floors on top. But of course, the likelihood of that happening over the standard brick or concrete-faced utility garage is pretty slim. But you’re right, I can’t believe the commission would make that a concern. Downtown has tons of garages and surface lots already, and now with on-street parking on High. Do residents really expect easy parking in an urban area… and should the commission demand it? Dumb and totally short-sighted.June 11, 2013 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #544400
I would hope they would contract instead with the rarely-crowded, massive LeVeque garage located directly behind the building.June 11, 2013 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #544401
also helps that the LeVeque to has high office vacancy, which could change if the planned apartment and hotel renovation shape up.
Still though, I’d think they could come to some sort of arrangement for at least some of the parking spots an that garage.June 12, 2013 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #544402
InnerCore said:But as of now I’d rather have a secure garage that attracts new residents to downtown and some retail/commercial space to encourage street level activity.
As a downtown resident I can say that more parking garages is not what attracted me to living downtown. Before moving here I looked at google images for Columbus and all I saw was parking garages and lots – quite depressing. It just makes downtown a “drive-in from the burbs/go-home at dusk” kind of place which seems contradictory to current trends. I hope it stays just a rumor.June 12, 2013 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #544403
Luke Streetwalker said:
As a downtown resident I can say that more parking garages is not what attracted me to living downtown. Before moving here I looked at google images for Columbus and all I saw was parking garages and lots – quite depressing. It just makes downtown a “drive-in from the burbs/go-home at dusk” kind of place which seems contradictory to current trends. I hope it stays just a rumor.
I think you’re missing the point of what I’m saying. Pretty much the only residential getting built is class A. The target market for this product is going to have a car (or two) and demand a safe, secure, convenient place to park it. I don’t think we should cut off our nose to spite our face. So providing a parking garage (provided it’s lined with retail) is a necessity toward getting large amounts of people to live downtown now.
Now as the residential density increases and the retail and commercial follow, then you can attract more people without cars as there will be plenty of options to walk to. I studied urbanism at the graduate level, I’m pretty much as pro transit, anti car as you can get. But working in development I have to be practical. You can scream no cars/garages all day long but it won’t mean much if nothing gets built.
Take downtown projects like Annex on the River or High Point under construction now. If you remove the parking then the vast majority of those people wouldn’t be there. The units would rent for a lot less than what they are. So then other developers would be looking to build anything new because the current projects would be failing.October 25, 2013 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #544404
Square One Salon Relocates from Gay Street to Hartman Building
Published on October 25, 2013 1:55 pm
If all goes according to plan, Square One Salon will be packing up this Saturday evening and relocating their Downtown business from 51 North High Street to 275 South Fourth Street with a reopening scheduled for Monday. The quick move isn’t exactly by choice, but has ended up becoming a serendipitous opportunity for continued business growth.
“Our building was sold in July and we were basically handed an eviction letter saying that we had to vacate by a certain time,” explains Doug Henderson, Co-Owner and Stylist at Square One. “It typically takes us 12 to 18 months to build out a new store, but fortunately the space in the Hartman Building became available the same week we found out we had to move.”
READ MORE: https://www.columbusunderground.com/square-one-salon-relocates-from-gay-street-to-hartman-buildingDecember 20, 2013 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #544405
Patrick H said:
Edwards Company just won $3 million in tax credits to redevelop the Citizens Building (51 N High Street) into apartments, as well as developing the adjacent parking lot into parking and residential.December 20, 2013 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm #544406
Its great the surface lot is getting new use but I really hope they don’t miss the mark by adding something low rise in the space. Something mixed use with retail, green space, and maybe a plaza would be perfect for this location.December 20, 2013 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #544407
Per the tax credit award sheet the total development cost is $34.8M for at least 65 units; that should be a key indicator to the scope of the development. To put that figure into perspective, the total development cost of Highpoint (300 units) was $50M+/-, and 250 S. High (135K SF of office + 120 apts.) is also $50M+/-. I’d guess that the “additional unit” figure for the adjacent lot should be substantial considering the total development cost.December 20, 2013 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #544408
Since the money was already awarded, does that speed up the timeline? ……. innercore, looking to you on this oneDecember 20, 2013 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #544409
Per the tax credit award sheet the total development cost is $34.8M for at least 65 units; that should be a key indicator to the scope of the development. To put that figure into perspective, the total development cost of Highpoint (300 units) was $50M+/-, and 250 S. High (135K SF of office + 120 apts.) is also $50M+/-. I’d guess that the “additional unit” figure for the adjacent lot should be substantial considering the total development cost.
Yes and with parking below, hopefully fronted by retail, this building could reach 8-12 stories. I would think, anyway.
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.