New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North

[Nancy H]

jbcmh81 wrote:

That really seems unlikely that the project as proposed would’ve been turned down at a time when the Short North was better known for its crack than its galleries or restaurants, especially at a time, we’ve been reminded, when strong guidelines didn’t even exist.

You have either been misinformed or are speculating without knowing the facts.

The Victorian Village Commission and Historic District were established by City Ordinance in 1973. Lots of people were buying old houses in VV and IV back in the 1960’s and renovating them. Those are the real pioneers, and the ones who banded together to get the areas designated as Historic Districts along with getting the City to protect the character of the neighborhood via City Ordinances.

The VVC’s guidelines are even more strict with regards to new construction. IVC’s as well. I can tell you that with absolute certainty because I was on the IVC at the time and chaired the committee that wrote the the IVC guidelines.

That was why new guidelines were written in 2011 for the High Street commercial area. The Short North Design Guidelines make it easier to build new structures in the commercial corridor.

As a bit more history… that vacant lot would not exist if White Cross Hospital had not been torn down in 1970. The Victorian Gate project now occupies the hospital site. The demolition of significant buildings was one of the reasons why the neighborhood wanted the Commissions back in the 1970’s.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/02/protestant-hospital-grew-into-riverside.html

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[jbcmh81]

Nancy H wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
That really seems unlikely that the project as proposed would’ve been turned down at a time when the Short North was better known for its crack than its galleries or restaurants, especially at a time, we’ve been reminded, when strong guidelines didn’t even exist.

You have either been misinformed or are speculating without knowing the facts.

The Victorian Village Commission and Historic District were established by City Ordinance in 1973. Lots of people were buying old houses in VV and IV back in the 1960’s and renovating them. Those are the real pioneers, and the ones who banded together to get the areas designated as Historic Districts along with getting the City to protect the character of the neighborhood via City Ordinances.

The VVC’s guidelines are even more strict with regards to new construction. IVC’s as well. I can tell you that with absolute certainty because I was on the IVC at the time and chaired the committee that wrote the the IVC guidelines.

That was why new guidelines were written in 2011 for the High Street commercial area. The Short North Design Guidelines make it easier to build new structures in the commercial corridor.

As a bit more history… that vacant lot would not exist if White Cross Hospital had not been torn down in 1970. The Victorian Gate project now occupies the hospital site. The demolition of significant buildings was one of the reasons why the neighborhood wanted the Commissions back in the 1970’s.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/02/protestant-hospital-grew-into-riverside.html

You’re talking about historic preservation guidelines and this doesn’t seem to fall under that category. Nothing historic is under scrutiny or threat. What would this project, either currently or in the 1980s, threaten in terms of the historic nature of the existing neighborhood? And while you may very well have been against such a project then as you are now, I wonder if everyone would’ve shared that view in far more desperate times. Considering some of the other projects approved during that era, I have my doubts.

[rory]

jbcmh81 wrote:

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

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br>
That really seems unlikely that the project as proposed would’ve been turned down at a time when the Short North was better known for its crack than its galleries or restaurants, especially at a time, we’ve been reminded, when strong guidelines didn’t even exist.

You have either been misinformed or are speculating without knowing the facts.

The Victorian Village Commission and Historic District were established by City Ordinance in 1973. Lots of people were buying old houses in VV and IV back in the 1960’s and renovating them. Those are the real pioneers, and the ones who banded together to get the areas designated as Historic Districts along with getting the City to protect the character of the neighborhood via City Ordinances.

The VVC’s guidelines are even more strict with regards to new construction. IVC’s as well. I can tell you that with absolute certainty because I was on the IVC at the time and chaired the committee that wrote the the IVC guidelines.

That was why new guidelines were written in 2011 for the High Street commercial area. The Short North Design Guidelines make it easier to build new structures in the commercial corridor.

As a bit more history… that vacant lot would not exist if White Cross Hospital had not been torn down in 1970. The Victorian Gate project now occupies the hospital site. The demolition of significant buildings was one of the reasons why the neighborhood wanted the Commissions back in the 1970’s.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/02/protestant-hospital-grew-into-riverside.html

You’re talking about historic preservation guidelines and this doesn’t seem to fall under that category. Nothing historic is under scrutiny or threat. What would this project, either currently or in the 1980s, threaten in terms of the historic nature of the existing neighborhood? And while you may very well have been against such a project then as you are now, I wonder if everyone would’ve shared that view in far more desperate times. Considering some of the other projects approved during that era, I have my doubts.

It’s the historic setting that is under threat. Historic guidelines can serve to protect individual buildings but those individual protections also protect those buildings and the development pattern in aggregate. Build enough buildings that aren’t in the same scale and mass and you’ve removed the overall historic setting and very association with the past that the neighborhood development pattern imbues. The problem is that by the time everyone notices that the historic charm is gone it’s too late. There are plenty of other neighborhoods, downtown specifically, that could use this type of infill. I don’t see why it’s necessary to think that progress entails revamping the same neighborhood over and over. It’s working now, leave it alone or at least treat it in a sensitive manner.

[Nancy H]

rory wrote:

And while you may very well have been against such a project then as you are now, I wonder if everyone would’ve shared that view in far more desperate times. Considering some of the other projects approved during that era, I have my doubts.

No developer ever presented a high rise building to the IVC when I was a member, so there were no projects to be for or against.

And, I am not against THIS project. If you look back at the beginning of this thread you will find where I said “Yes, very nice infill. Although the renderings are lacking in any number of details, the overall feel is good.”

I have not attended a single presentation of this project to the VVC, or seen any renderings beyond what was shown in this thread. So, I could not tell you my opinion on the appropriate height. A big concern for this specific building, as it relates to height, would be how it impacts Goodale Park.

Bollinger Tower aside, what “other projects approved during the era” do you consider architectural blunders?

[ehill27]

Josh Lapp wrote:

The development momentum will move somewhere else…

Right, and there are plenty of near-SN/Greater Downtown areas that could use this momentum.

The SN will be a force regardless of another few floors on these new developments. I wasn’t particularly concerned about the original height of this project, but I’m also not concerned about it being scaled down. I’d much rather see the remaining non-contributing properties redeveloped (e.g. UDF, Checksmart, Family D), and see downtown and other areas get a piece of the pie.

[And before anyone tries to lob an unfair accusation… I’ve Z-E-R-O desire to see these businesses pushed out, but their buildings are terrible and never should have been built (thank goodness we now have historic commissions). I’d be perfectly happy seeing these businesses take up residence in their replacement developments, as White Castle plans to do. Of course, unless Family D owns that property that may not be possible for them, but I believe the other two DO own.]

[Stephen43215]

Just to put my two cents in but if you have a problem with this building being 9,10,or even 11 stories in the middle of one of the largest cities in the country and one of the most urban neighborhoods in Columbus you have serious problems! This is not Williamsburg..STOP slowing down progress!

[lazyfish]

Stephan43215, maybe Progress should move to another neighborhood, building up is a way for the johnny come lately speculators developers to capitalize on a neighborhood they should have gotten into years ago. Their lack of foresight and abundant greed has jeopardized the hardwork and neighborhood vibe that folks began to cultivate decades ago, Columbus is not Houston, though it may soon be SOHO and the East Village if we are not mindful that not all change is good.

[Walker Evans]

lazyfish wrote:

…building up is a way for the johnny come lately speculators developers to capitalize on a neighborhood they should have gotten into years ago…

Uh… this proposal is coming from The Wood Companies…

http://www.woodcompanies.com/who-we-are

The Wood Companies have been pioneers in redevelopment of the Short North Arts District since the 1980s. “Urban pioneers,” home owners who bought and fixed up their own homes and the Wood Companies purchased and renovated residential properties and High Street commercial properties beginning in 1982.

[Nancy H]

@ Walker – have you or staffers been able to find out any of the details from this past Thursday’s VVC presentation on this project?

The City, is slow at putting the minutes of the meetings on their website and we never get visuals.

[Josh Miller]

Nancy H wrote:

@ Walker – have you or staffers been able to find out any of the details from this past Thursday’s VVC presentation on this project?

The City, is slow at putting the minutes of the meetings on their website and we never get visuals.

Re the minutes question, because I’ve pestered the city about it before :)
The minutes have to be approved before they can be posted, a process which always happens at the beginning of the next month’s iteration.

I haven’t heard if the IVC or VVC already do this and not sure who to ask but I signed up for a GVC monthly email that includes the agenda and corresponding images for any proposals.

[Nancy H]

Thanks Josh!

Will check into that.

[Walker Evans]

Nancy H wrote:

@ Walker – have you or staffers been able to find out any of the details from this past Thursday’s VVC presentation on this project?

I know Brent’s looking into it, but haven’t heard anything myself.

[lazyfish]

Walker Evans wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>lazyfish wrote:</div>
…building up is a way for the johnny come lately speculators developers to capitalize on a neighborhood they should have gotten into years ago…

Uh… this proposal is coming from The Wood Companies…

2nd generation with their new besties Schiff capital.

[Nancy H]

The apples didn’t fall far from the tree.

Wood Companies has always had a loosely defined philosophy that what is good for the neighborhood is good for them too, in the long run. I see no indication that that has changed.

[News]

New, Shorter Design Presented for Short North Office Building
November 27, 2015 6:00 am – Brent Warren

The Wood Companies and Schiff Capital Group have scaled back their proposal to build on the city-owned parking lot at 711 North High Street in the Short North. The developers originally presented an 11-story concept for the site, but now will move forward with plans for a nine-story building after taking the latest iteration to the Victorian Village Commission on November 12th.

READ MORE: https://www.columbusunderground.com/new-shorter-design-presented-for-short-north-office-building

[Author]

Posts