New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North

[ohbr]

Ok. My apologies. I did not see the part about the dedicated commercial parking spaces. Was that in a different article from CU? That definitely makes more sense given the renderings.

As far as the set back goes, while it would reduce the total Sq Footage, I wouldn’t complain too much if they kept it at 11 stories. In fact, it may fit in better with the other large scale projects having the set back and be more cohesive to the neighborhood.

[WJT]

ohbr wrote:

Ok. My apologies. I did not see the part about the dedicated commercial parking spaces. Was that in a different article from CU? That definitely makes more sense given the renderings.

As far as the set back goes, while it would reduce the total Sq Footage, I wouldn’t complain too much if they kept it at 11 stories. In fact, it may fit in better with the other large scale projects having the set back and be more cohesive to the neighborhood.

I think it was in the Columbus Business First article.

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2015/09/02/developers-plan-high-rise-in-short-north-with.html

*That is just the way I read it and by looking at the renderings. I could be mistaken of course.

[jbcmh81]

Good project… but it’s a reminder that the SN is getting the same number of 10+ story buildings than all of Downtown in the past few years. Something seems wrong with that.

[ohbr]

WJT wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ohbr wrote:</div>
Ok. My apologies. I did not see the part about the dedicated commercial parking spaces. Was that in a different article from CU? That definitely makes more sense given the renderings.

As far as the set back goes, while it would reduce the total Sq Footage, I wouldn’t complain too much if they kept it at 11 stories. In fact, it may fit in better with the other large scale projects having the set back and be more cohesive to the neighborhood.

I think it was in the Columbus Business First article.

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2015/09/02/developers-plan-high-rise-in-short-north-with.html

*That is just the way I read it and by looking at the renderings. I could be mistaken of course.

I thought the same things looking at the rendering but the BizFrist article clears it up to confirm it. That’s great because then the parking deck off Pearl is a true public deck rather than a public deck that is going to be taken up mostly by office workers during the day. Still leaves plenty of space for the public to park during office hours.

[MichaelC]

The Short North is drawing the sorts of projects that downtowns usually attract (the Joseph, the Hilton, etc.), which isn’t a great surprise since the Short North’s rise has been a step or two ahead of our downtown’s rise. It would be one thing if our downtown were failing to attract any development, or nominal development, but we know that’s not true. The SN and Downtown are both growing at a healthy clip, and that’s good for everyone, IMO.

[jbcmh81]

MichaelC wrote:

The Short North is drawing the sorts of projects that downtowns usually attract (the Joseph, the Hilton, etc.), which isn’t a great surprise since the Short North’s rise has been a step or two ahead of our downtown’s rise. It would be one thing if our downtown were failing to attract any development, or nominal development, but we know that’s not true. The SN and Downtown are both growing at a healthy clip, and that’s good for everyone, IMO.

Yes, but my point is that a lot of the development going into Downtown is actually better suited for a neighborhood like the SN rather than Downtown. I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but there shouldn’t be anything shorter/less dense on High Street Downtown than what is getting built on High Street in the SN, yet there are several examples of just that.

[ohbr]

jbcmh81 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div>
The Short North is drawing the sorts of projects that downtowns usually attract (the Joseph, the Hilton, etc.), which isn’t a great surprise since the Short North’s rise has been a step or two ahead of our downtown’s rise. It would be one thing if our downtown were failing to attract any development, or nominal development, but we know that’s not true. The SN and Downtown are both growing at a healthy clip, and that’s good for everyone, IMO.

Yes, but my point is that a lot of the development going into Downtown is actually better suited for a neighborhood like the SN rather than Downtown. I know it’s beating a dead horse at this point, but there shouldn’t be anything shorter/less dense on High Street Downtown than what is getting built on High Street in the SN, yet there are several examples of just that.

Most of the development early on in the SN was also the lower rise buildings when there were abundant parking lots and empty lots. We are now seeing the large scale projects as real estate space for new builds dwindle. That’s a natural progression. We will see the same downtown as a whole and we are seeing this in the immediate area around the commons/river south. Alot of the development going downtown is suited for a large area with expansive open space more than say the designation of a particular neighborhood.

[Walker Evans]

jbcmh81 wrote:

Good project… but it’s a reminder that the SN is getting the same number of 10+ story buildings than all of Downtown in the past few years. Something seems wrong with that.

Why? Real estate is about location, location, location. The Short North is just as hot of a real estate market as Downtown.

Sounds about right to me.

[mbeaumont]

From the Biz First article:

Cameron Mitchell Restaurants LLC as an office anchor and the operator of a street-level restaurant and rooftop bar connected by an express elevator.

So sounds like CM will run both of the restaurant/bars.

Would love to see them do something like Eataly/Birerria in New York City:

[Nancy H]

Jason Powell wrote:

I see a nice big mural space on the back of that building. That might help convince the NIMBY’s as well.

The Mona Lisa mural is on the south wall of the building that faces the backside (north side) of the proposed parking garage at Lincoln & Pearl. So, don’t know if another mural would be good there or not. For what it is worth, most of the surrounding residents were apposed to the Mona Mural (I was on the IVC at the time it was proposed/installed).

Walker Evans wrote:

That lot is currently a big surface lot, so it wouldn’t change the use much as far as neighbors are concerned.

The lot at Lincoln & Pearl is not public, it supports any number of Wood Company’s surrounding properties. Housing on Lincoln will most certainly make it fit in better with the older housing. 50 Lincoln, a bed & breakfast, is immediately to the east of that lot. It is a massive old house, with a huge occupied attic/third floor. So the garage could easily be three floors, or four if it is partially below grade. I know this lot well because I park there on the rare occasions I need to take a vehicle to my shop (my retail shop is in one of the WC properties). It will probably need to be three floors to get 125 public spaces and what they need for their existing tenants (currently about 55 spaces). One of the objections will be increased traffic in the residential area. Lincoln is a rather narrow street and Pearl Alley (in that area) is too narrow for two cars to pass.

I would love to see them take Warren Street back to two way traffic and add a traffic light at Warren and High. That would help tremendously with traffic in and out of this garage and maybe some at the Hub garage.

Eridony wrote:

Yeah, I know the VV Commission didn’t like the 11-story White Castle site proposal, and the upper floors on that were setback pretty far.

I do hope they get approval for the 11 story building. The 10 story CMHA is diagonally across the intersection. We need some tall buildings to hide that ugly thing. If not 11 stories, I always thought some of the commenters on CU had it backwards. Everybody talks about stepping back or down from High Street so the building doesn’t look as tall. What the residents (NIMBY) want is stepping down TOWARDS the residential side rather than High Street. They don’t care if the building looks tall on High Street. They want it to look shorter next to their 2-1/2 story late 1800’s home.

The way I read it, they are hoping for a restaurant and retail on the first floor and a restaurant on the top floor. I hope I misread that and we get all retail on the first floor and a restaurant on the top floor. We have an abundance of restaurants and bars in that area already. We need more retail businesses. The 70 to 80 “office parking spaces” would work nicely for evening restaurant parking – for one restaurant, but not two.

[mbeaumont]

For what it is worth, most of the surrounding residents were apposed to the Mona Mural (I was on the IVC at the time it was proposed/installed).

Unreal. Seriously?!!

[OSUGrad]

Nancy H wrote:

I do hope they get approval for the 11 story building. The 10 story CMHA is diagonally across the intersection. We need some tall buildings to hide that ugly thing.

Ah yes, we need buildings to hide the public housing residents. How dare they live in the Short North. Of course the willingness of the Short North Block Watch to blame those utilizing Section 8 vouchers (to, you know, better their lives like the law intends) for violence in the Italian Village makes prejudice like this sadly unremarkable.

[mbeaumont]

I’m pretty sure Nancy was simply commenting on the architecture of the building itself. Chill, man.

[I_am_Father_McKenzie]

OSUGrad wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nancy H wrote:</div>
I do hope they get approval for the 11 story building. The 10 story CMHA is diagonally across the intersection. We need some tall buildings to hide that ugly thing.

Ah yes, we need buildings to hide the public housing residents. How dare they live in the Short North. Of course the willingness of the Short North Block Watch to blame those utilizing Section 8 vouchers (to, you know, better their lives like the law intends) for violence in the Italian Village makes prejudice like this sadly unremarkable.

She called the building ugly, not the people living in it.

[Nancy H]

She called the building ugly, not the people living in it.
[/quote]

I was indeed referring to Bollinger Tower (the CMHA high-rise) itself and not the building occupants.

@OSUGrad – I know any number of Bollinger residents as well as some of the residents in other Section 8 housing in that part of IV. Never had any objections to or problems with any of them in 30+ years of being their neighbor. I like having elderly and low income people in the neighborhood mix. Variety is a good thing.

Although the residential mix changes from time to time, the CMHA building has always been predominately seniors with limited mobility. There used to be a group of them in wheelchairs and hoverounds playing checkers and chess in IV park every afternoon. They put the SN Block Watch to shame, with what they quietly observed going on during the day and early evening hours.

[Author]

Posts