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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development New 11-Story Office Building in The Short North

This topic contains 167 replies, has 38 voices, and was last updated by  Pablo 3 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 168 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1091754

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    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.

    It’s more a comment on the type of development being built, not a question of desirability.

    #1091757

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>MichaelC wrote:</div><br>
    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.

    The bottom line is that Downtown is being treated not as a Downtown, but as a standard residential, mostly low-rise neighborhood when it shouldn’t be. I get tired of hearing how a hundred more parking lots have to disappear before building appropriately dense. Is 250 High struggling to find tenants?

    What’s most ironic is that the excuse for the underwhelming density for the Gay/High project by Edwards was that there isn’t enough parking Downtown to accommodate larger projects, and yet the exact opposite is what others say… that there are far too many parking lots to create the demand for larger projects.

    #1091770

    ohbr
    Participant

    That’s all that downtown is right now and that’s ok. It seems, based on the popularity of the SN and the drastic turn around in IV, that’s the type of neighborhood people are clamoring to be in (low rise residential with the occasional big building). Why not take some of that model into Downtown to start the fire. Good for the Short North to be getting these bigger projects. So what that it’s the SN and not Downtown? Ultimately, it’s going to be good for downtown.

    While I love big buildings, if a developer is choosing between filling in a larger footprint with less height, so be it. Turning the LC building into 1 18 story building would have looked great but ultimately 2 buildings does more in a shorter time to be that catalyst for downtown. Sure, the Gay/High building is underwhelming but it’s not an egregious slap in the face to downtown. there isn’t much reason to complain about what has been proposed downtown recently. Even the Gay/High project is going to be a great addition to the neighborhood as originally proposed. I really wouldn’t be too bent out of shape about it.

    #1091772
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    It’s more a comment on the type of development being built, not a question of desirability.

    Sure, but I think it’s related. They’re both hot markets, so they’re both being developed at a similar pace. The fact that Downtown is getting some more residential and the SN is getting more office means that both are going more mixed in function as well.

    Good problems to have, right? ;)

    #1091773
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    I think this is pretty straightforward: The availability of land in the SN is much, much more sparse, while the demand is still…wait for it…sky high. So the buildings are stretching up more.

    The availability of land Downtown is still quite significant, so the buildings aren’t going as high as they will eventually, if growth continues. And there’s no reason to believe it won’t at this point.

    Our SN is much, much further along than Downtown is, IMO, and yet both are great strengths for us to enjoy as residents, and for us to sell to would-be residents. It’s only going to get better.

    #1091776

    ohbr
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    It’s more a comment on the type of development being built, not a question of desirability.

    Sure, but I think it’s related. They’re both hot markets, so they’re both being developed at a similar pace. The fact that Downtown is getting some more residential and the SN is getting more office means that both are going more mixed in function as well.

    Good problems to have, right? ;)

    This and the fact that some businesses want to move to the core but may not necessarily want to be in the big office buildings. They want to be in that thriving neighborhood. Without the focus on the residential downtown, it makes downtown as fun as a tall business park, even with big shiny buildings. SN is building the office infrastructure it lacked while downtown has plenty (enough for now) and is building the residential component that it lacked. The downtown office vacancy rates can withstand a focus on residential for the time being with some office mixed in here and there. As downtown becomes more attractive, I assume those vacancy rates will continue to decrease and at that point, we’ll see more of the mixed focus. The idea that because it is “downtown” the focus should be on office and business space and tall buildings is less attractive to me personally when you can have much more vibrant mix.

    #1091786

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    I think Columbus’ downtown is much different than, say, Cincinnati. Downtown and Short North are practically one neighborhood whereas most cities, neighborhoods are viewed as separate areas altogether. So what’s good for downtown is good for short north and vice versa.

    Couldn’t agree more with the commentary so far. Downtown has plenty of offices. So much so that the place becomes a dead zone after 5pm. Short North has lots of great restaurants that would benefit from a nearby office building that builds it lunch traffic. So I have no issue with downtown focusing on residential and SN focusing on office.

    #1091839

    WJT
    Participant

    I think Columbus’ downtown is much different than, say, Cincinnati. Downtown and Short North are practically one neighborhood whereas most cities, neighborhoods are viewed as separate areas altogether. So what’s good for downtown is good for short north and vice versa.

    Couldn’t agree more with the commentary so far. Downtown has plenty of offices. So much so that the place becomes a dead zone after 5pm. Short North has lots of great restaurants that would benefit from a nearby office building that builds it lunch traffic. So I have no issue with downtown focusing on residential and SN focusing on office.

    I don’t think anyone has a problem at all with downtown focusing on residential(and some ground floor retail). Most of what is going up downtown, or is proposed for downtown, is perfectly fine good infill. The problem is getting high density residential in key spots(along or close to High especially since it is the main transit corridor).

    There is an article about how there are only about 10 surface lots left in the Short North along High-I counted 9 of all sizes(including the Greek Orthodox parking lot) along all of High from 670 to 70 in downtown. There are not that many spaces left along High, and they need to be developed to the fullest potential.

    Downtown could learn from what is happening in the Short North-concentrate your residential density along High and in other important spots (good views, next to amenities, by natural transit corridors, etc) and let the huge remainder of downtown fill in with townhouse condos and five and six floor stick build residential.

    The Short North is maximizing High and Downtown should follow suit with residential and ground floor retail as much as it can. This is especially true given it is the main transit corridor, and that so much of High and the areas near High are already given over to office and government buildings.

    I want to see a Target Express or something similar along with more retail and restaurants along High, maybe a another grocery store(the idea for a small one in the Atlas building is a good start). The Short North needs what downtown has(office) to be more a full diverse neighborhood, and downtown needs the residential and some more retail(not the huge department store type, but the neighborhood type) to achieve the same thing- being a more diverse, true neighborhood rather than 9-5 highrise office district/special events district.

    And like the Short North, the focus is along and close to High-the main transit corridor, the spine of downtown, and the main connector to the Short North/OSU to the north, and German Village to the south.

    It is not about residential downtown, it is all about what key spots do you encourage the high density residential downtown.

    *sorry for the length of this thing.

    #1091847
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    There is an article about how there are only about 10 surface lots left in the Short North along High-I counted 9 of all sizes(including the Greek Orthodox parking lot) along all of High from 670 to 70 in downtown. There are not that many spaces left along High, and they need to be developed to the fullest potential.

    I fully agree that those remaining High Street surface lots Downtown need to be developed to their fullest potential.

    That being said, there’s a big difference between High Street Downtown and High Street in the Short North.

    In the Short North, it turns two-story residential as soon as you step off High Street a block in either direction. There’s very little opportunity for large scale development outside of High Street (with Fourth in IV being the only exception, and we’re seeing that fill in quickly too).

    Downtown on the other hand remains a place for dense development opportunities for blocks and blocks in *every* direction away from High Street. There are dozens upon dozens of surface parking lots that can accommodate density throughout the entire neighborhood, so the “crunch” to fill in those remaining spaces doesn’t hit as hard as it does in the Short North.

    #1091858
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Here’s two photos I took yesterday of the existing parking lot in IV. Just for context/visuals. ;)

    #1091880
    DC
    DC
    Participant

    The bottom line is that Downtown is being treated not as a Downtown, but as a standard residential, mostly low-rise neighborhood when it shouldn’t be. I get tired of hearing how a hundred more parking lots have to disappear before building appropriately dense. Is 250 High struggling to find tenants?

    First off- I agree.

    But

    Let’s not forget that San Francisco went from a row of tents to a city of roughly 40,000 people in a matter of a year. Yeah, developers and other “movers and shakers” have grown complacent and unambitious about taking Columbus to the next level, but slow, steady progress could open the door to much, much more at any moment.

    What surprises me is that now I am hearing more about Columbus from west-coasters and people from all regions, not just ‘priced-out-hipsters’ from Chicago and DC.

    And compared to the downtown that I remember as a kid from the 80’s and 90’s, Columbus has come a loooong way!

    #1091889

    Roger846
    Participant

    Admittedly, Columbus has grown and changed a lot in the last 20 years, but I think that what bothers people is the amount of recent and current change relative to other cities that we see in the news all the time that are roughly the same size as Columbus. When you hear about light rail and 30 story buildings going up in our competitor cities, it gets frustrating to see our lack of progress on transit and our focus on 6 story square brick buildings (with a few exceptions).

    #1091893

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>
    There is an article about how there are only about 10 surface lots left in the Short North along High-I counted 9 of all sizes(including the Greek Orthodox parking lot) along all of High from 670 to 70 in downtown. There are not that many spaces left along High, and they need to be developed to the fullest potential.

    I fully agree that those remaining High Street surface lots Downtown need to be developed to their fullest potential.

    That being said, there’s a big difference between High Street Downtown and High Street in the Short North.

    In the Short North, it turns two-story residential as soon as you step off High Street a block in either direction. There’s very little opportunity for large scale development outside of High Street (with Fourth in IV being the only exception, and we’re seeing that fill in quickly too).

    Downtown on the other hand remains a place for dense development opportunities for blocks and blocks in *every* direction away from High Street. There are dozens upon dozens of surface parking lots that can accommodate density throughout the entire neighborhood, so the “crunch” to fill in those remaining spaces doesn’t hit as hard as it does in the Short North.

    I agree that that pressure is not there for High Street downtown the way it is in the Short North. They are not analogous in that respect. I guess I really have taken to heart the “High Five” and the focus on High Street. Yes there are spaces within a quarter mile in either direction from High that could suffice for a larger development(that rendering of the fifteen floor parking garage topped with residential on recently posted shows that). I guess I just also really liked the 2010 plan and where it called for the highest densities.

    If we had better transit downtown I would not think it would be a problem, but I have lived in or near the city for over 50 years, and non automobile transit has always pretty much sucked, and I have little faith in the powers that be to be able to provide safe, clean, reliable public transport in Cbus, including downtown. The Circulator is a good start, but that also shows to me where any(if any) more developed transit will likely go-the High Street Spine…Front, High. I think if we get anything, it will be there and within a couple of blocks of those streets is where the real density should go.

    I just have little faith that the city will know to ‘do the right thing’ or follow it’s own guidelines.

    There are many neighborhoods that are struggling/have struggled. Downtown is to me the most vital neighborhood in the city, it is gaining momentum, and I just want the city to get it right.

    *The removal of the Main Street dam was a great move and I must give the city credit for that. What happens to the Scioto Peninsula development wise will be very important as well.

    *also density to me does not necessarily equal skyscraper. Look at Miranova, North Bank, they have maybe 200 units total between them with a combined total of 47 floors! Smaller rental units with less parking/undeground parking/shared parking would be better IMO along High- you can get more units in less space/height.

    Again it is not about height, it is about design and density to me. What do Miranova or NorthBank contribute to the street life on High? I am betting not much, even if they were on High itself.

    sorry again about length…putting off heading in to work.. ugh.

    #1091897

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div><br>
    There is an article about how there are only about 10 surface lots left in the Short North along High-I counted 9 of all sizes(including the Greek Orthodox parking lot) along all of High from 670 to 70 in downtown. There are not that many spaces left along High, and they need to be developed to the fullest potential.

    I fully agree that those remaining High Street surface lots Downtown need to be developed to their fullest potential.

    That being said, there’s a big difference between High Street Downtown and High Street in the Short North.

    In the Short North, it turns two-story residential as soon as you step off High Street a block in either direction. There’s very little opportunity for large scale development outside of High Street (with Fourth in IV being the only exception, and we’re seeing that fill in quickly too).

    Downtown on the other hand remains a place for dense development opportunities for blocks and blocks in *every* direction away from High Street. There are dozens upon dozens of surface parking lots that can accommodate density throughout the entire neighborhood, so the “crunch” to fill in those remaining spaces doesn’t hit as hard as it does in the Short North.

    I agree that that pressure is not there for High Street downtown the way it is in the Short North. They are not analogous in that respect. I guess I really have taken to heart the “High Five” and the focus on High Street. Yes there are spaces within a quarter mile in either direction from High that could suffice for a larger development(that rendering of the fifteen floor parking garage topped with residential on recently posted shows that). I guess I just also really liked the 2010 plan and where it called for the highest densities.

    If we had better transit downtown I would not think it would be a problem, but I have lived in or near the city for over 50 years, and non automobile transit has always pretty much sucked, and I have little faith in the powers that be to be able to provide safe, clean, reliable public transport in Cbus, including downtown. The Circulator is a good start, but that also shows to me where any(if any) more developed transit will likely go-the High Street Spine…Front, High. I think if we get anything, it will be there and within a couple of blocks of those streets is where the real density should go.

    I just have little faith that the city will know to ‘do the right thing’ or follow it’s own guidelines.

    There are many neighborhoods that are struggling/have struggled. Downtown is to me the most vital neighborhood in the city, it is gaining momentum, and I just want the city to get it right.

    *The removal of the Main Street dam was a great move and I must give the city credit for that. What happens to the Scioto Peninsula development wise will be very important as well.

    *also density to me does not necessarily equal skyscraper. Look at Miranova, North Bank, they have maybe 200 units total between them with a combined total of 47 floors! Smaller rental units with less parking/undeground parking/shared parking would be better IMO along High- you can get more units in less space/height.

    Again it is not about height, it is about design and density to me. What do Miranova or NorthBank contribute to the street life on High? I am betting not much, even if they were on High itself.

    sorry again about length…putting off heading in to work.. ugh.

    Well, I agree on a few things. The idea that we have to build a garage for every development is ludicrous. We need better public transportation. We need more income diversity downtown.

    But if we’re not getting it downtown I’m happy to take it in the short north for now. I just feel like cbus downtown is well connected to major neighborhoods in ways many cities are not. So I believe density in short north can significantly improve traffic downtown. Which is why I’m less worried about retail failing on high and Gay. If you build it, there is enough quality traffic that will come from surrounding neighborhoods.

    #1091898

    wpcc88
    Participant

    Well, I agree on a few things. The idea that we have to build a garage for every development is ludicrous. We need better public transportation. We need more income diversity downtown.

    I think what you really have to remember here is events such as comfest, gallery hop, doo-dah, pride attract people from more than just Columbus and the surrounding suburbs. This creates a need for parking which even a better metro transit system can’t even fix completely. Some have special needs and a train or park and ride bus situation just simply isn’t the answer to those. And our streets unfortunately do not provide enough for the residents(like myself) let alone several thousand guests who we want to keep attracting. Also you have to take into account that several of the workers who will fill the building won’t be living in the neighborhood either for various reasons.

    In conclusion I think you need to cite whoever came up with the genius response of essentially for now we need to continue with commercial development in the short north & residential downtown. Our city is going to turn out to be great if we continue that mindset as we grow. However I do agree that we need more income diversity in the direct downtown area if we truly want to be great.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 168 total)

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

Subscribe below: