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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 has 167 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by Pablo.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 168 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1091935

    Nancy H
    Participant

    Unless it is somehow subsidized, I don’t think we will get much low (lower) income housing downtown. Land costs downtown are higher. Building costs are pretty much the same everywhere, regardless of the end user. You can skimp on the finish in cabinetry, fixtures, flooring, etc, but only so much.

    Rather than a small one bedroom at $1500 to $2000 per month, we would end up with tiny units that actually cost a whole lot more per square foot. Living in a dorm room size apartment gets old quickly, so there is high turnover and lots of maintenance.

    Building more affordable housing in the Hilltop, Old Town, King Lincoln and other areas surrounding the central business area makes more sense. You can pretty much forget about GV, SN, IV & VV as those areas already have higher land values.

    #1091936

    jbcmh81
    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.

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown.

    My issue is that most people seem to be arguing the typical “good enough” philosophy. They argue that 6 stories on High Downtown is “good enough” because there are so many lots to fill in, rather than trying to get the best possible development on a lot that will be significantly better for the area long-term. And then they argue that demand is super high, but that Downtown couldn’t possibly handle any taller projects because it would diminish demand and reduce development on other lots. That just makes no sense to me. HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    #1091950

    ohbr
    Participant

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown. … HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    Yes, Highpoint could have been the Nucleus at a cost of $430 million vs $50 million.

    We’re not saying that smaller projects reduce demand. We’re simply saying it’s ok to have some smaller projects. In the grand scheme of things, requiring grander projects could stall development and push some developer who don’t want to spend that much on a single, smaller footprint, structure away from downtown. 1 Nucleus, or multiple 250s and Lcs (I won’t include highpoint in that because no one wants more of those)? That doesn’t mean the commission shouldn’t push for more. Even without all this, with the most recent projects, with the exception of High/Gay, along High street all prove the demand is there. That one disappointing project shouldn’t be a doom and gloom forecast over the future of High Street Downtown and the Highpoint Project at this point is moot. Just because the SN is getting the White Castle Proposal and the newest proposal does not mean downtown won’t be getting them. Downtown is growing up. Maybe not 20 stories at a time, but the average height of new proposals on the corridor is still significantly more than they used to be. It will only go up. I really don’t think that any significant stress is due at this point.

    #1091957

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown.

    My issue is that most people seem to be arguing the typical “good enough” philosophy. They argue that 6 stories on High Downtown is “good enough” because there are so many lots to fill in, rather than trying to get the best possible development on a lot that will be significantly better for the area long-term. And then they argue that demand is super high, but that Downtown couldn’t possibly handle any taller projects because it would diminish demand and reduce development on other lots. That just makes no sense to me. HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    I just disagree it has to be on high st. It took Commons and highpoint to create interest in the two Kaufman buildings and two lc buildings. It took neighborhood launch to create movement on that potential large building on 4th and long.

    Right now, the bigger issue in downtown is infill. If that high and Gay St development has good retail, that will essentially create a gateway from high st to Gay St and to the Commons. Badly needed. If that gateway becomes more vibrant hopefully that also stimulates density along the river and in discovery district because there’s tons of room for highrises that would all benefit the downtown core.

    Knowing Columbus, it sometimes takes a small first move to get the dominos falling on the bigger moves. At least… That’s my hope, and maybe a naive one.

    #1091986

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown. … HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    Yes, Highpoint could have been the Nucleus at a cost of $430 million vs $50 million.

    We’re not saying that smaller projects reduce demand. We’re simply saying it’s ok to have some smaller projects. In the grand scheme of things, requiring grander projects could stall development and push some developer who don’t want to spend that much on a single, smaller footprint, structure away from downtown. 1 Nucleus, or multiple 250s and Lcs (I won’t include highpoint in that because no one wants more of those)? That doesn’t mean the commission shouldn’t push for more. Even without all this, with the most recent projects, with the exception of High/Gay, along High street all prove the demand is there. That one disappointing project shouldn’t be a doom and gloom forecast over the future of High Street Downtown and the Highpoint Project at this point is moot. Just because the SN is getting the White Castle Proposal and the newest proposal does not mean downtown won’t be getting them. Downtown is growing up. Maybe not 20 stories at a time, but the average height of new proposals on the corridor is still significantly more than they used to be. It will only go up. I really don’t think that any significant stress is due at this point.

    I brought up the Cleveland project not to say that projects on High need to be 30 stories, only that the equivalent has already been built and it didn’t diminish demand. The ability of a developer to build larger may be the issue, but suggesting that demand will be reduced for other surface lots if individual projects go larger doesn’t seem to be supported at this time. Not with occupancy above 95% and not with 25,000 people a year moving into the metro, more than half of which move to the city itself. In fact, I would suggest that larger, greater density projects would actually increase demand in the neighborhood, because those projects promote more activity in the area and create more demand for amenities, which in turn creates more demand by people who want to live there.

    Again, if the developers we have can’t build appropriate projects on prime sites, perhaps they’re not the right developers. It’s not about making it too difficult to build, it’s about building the right project for the right site because you want to maximize the potential of the neighborhood. If standards don’t matter because they create difficulties for developers, then we should have no problem with single-story buildings or retail outlets with drive-thrus on prime lots. They’re a lot cheaper and easier to build than 6 stories, right?

    HighPoint, Gay/High and the joke at the Convention Center are all prime examples of thinking small when there is an opportunity to do something better. This is not a doom and gloom forecast, because overall, these areas are getting better, but every project like this is a wasted opportunity that will take decades to potentially fix. Why do it half-assed if it can be done right? The “good enough” way of thinking is evident in many areas of Columbus development, and I would prefer not to see the city fall behind peers because it allows poor, short-term decisions.

    #1091987

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown.

    My issue is that most people seem to be arguing the typical “good enough” philosophy. They argue that 6 stories on High Downtown is “good enough” because there are so many lots to fill in, rather than trying to get the best possible development on a lot that will be significantly better for the area long-term. And then they argue that demand is super high, but that Downtown couldn’t possibly handle any taller projects because it would diminish demand and reduce development on other lots. That just makes no sense to me. HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    I just disagree it has to be on high st. It took Commons and highpoint to create interest in the two Kaufman buildings and two lc buildings. It took neighborhood launch to create movement on that potential large building on 4th and long.

    Right now, the bigger issue in downtown is infill. If that high and Gay St development has good retail, that will essentially create a gateway from high st to Gay St and to the Commons. Badly needed. If that gateway becomes more vibrant hopefully that also stimulates density along the river and in discovery district because there’s tons of room for highrises that would all benefit the downtown core.

    Knowing Columbus, it sometimes takes a small first move to get the dominos falling on the bigger moves. At least… That’s my hope, and maybe a naive one.

    You’re kind of assuming that if/when that demand takes place, the same type of projects won’t get built in those lots too, for the same reasons. What’s stopping every lot in RiverSouth from getting low rise development from this point on? Especially when everyone is saying that’s perfectly okay so long as the lots get filled.

    And I agree to a point about High, though I would amend it to say “Not just on High”. High is the backbone of the city and should have its space maximized, but I’d certainly argue that that should happen just about everywhere else as well.

    #1092072

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

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

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

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown.

    My issue is that most people seem to be arguing the typical “good enough” philosophy. They argue that 6 stories on High Downtown is “good enough” because there are so many lots to fill in, rather than trying to get the best possible development on a lot that will be significantly better for the area long-term. And then they argue that demand is super high, but that Downtown couldn’t possibly handle any taller projects because it would diminish demand and reduce development on other lots. That just makes no sense to me. HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    I just disagree it has to be on high st. It took Commons and highpoint to create interest in the two Kaufman buildings and two lc buildings. It took neighborhood launch to create movement on that potential large building on 4th and long.

    Right now, the bigger issue in downtown is infill. If that high and Gay St development has good retail, that will essentially create a gateway from high st to Gay St and to the Commons. Badly needed. If that gateway becomes more vibrant hopefully that also stimulates density along the river and in discovery district because there’s tons of room for highrises that would all benefit the downtown core.

    Knowing Columbus, it sometimes takes a small first move to get the dominos falling on the bigger moves. At least… That’s my hope, and maybe a naive one.

    You’re kind of assuming that if/when that demand takes place, the same type of projects won’t get built in those lots too, for the same reasons. What’s stopping every lot in RiverSouth from getting low rise development from this point on? Especially when everyone is saying that’s perfectly okay so long as the lots get filled.

    And I agree to a point about High, though I would amend it to say “Not just on High”. High is the backbone of the city and should have its space maximized, but I’d certainly argue that that should happen just about everywhere else as well.

    I’m not perfectly okay with lots being filled just because. Only in this one instance. And only because that lot badly needs good retail and toward Riversouth / toward Discovery District has so many opportunities for good density to draw people to High & Gay. I mean, we’re already talking about a 12-story hotel and a 15-story building in Discovery District so we’re on the right track. But yeah, would agree that it will be concerning if too much focus goes away from density… Just pointing out that density opportunities off High St but within a stone’s throw are very strong.

    #1096238

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    This building is getting its second review on Thursday in front of the VVC, and the proposed height is the same (11 stories). From last month’s meeting it sounds like the initial design was relatively well received,

    Commissioner Comments
    – Commissioner Hissem: The style of the building and its design are very good. Understands that the proposed building is tall; however, the design is exciting for the location. The designers will need to work with the neighborhood and the Commission on the building massing. Façade detail will be important.
    – Commissioner Kotheimer: The initial design is a good start that will need some work. A unique element of the site is its narrowness. Each of the elevations are cleverly designed. The use of quality materials “all the way up” the building will be important. Perhaps all of the parking should be moved to the other site.
    – Commissioner Conyers: Agrees with other commissioner comments. The initial design of the building is attractive. The technique is good, appreciates the masking of stories with the articulation of masonry with larger openings. There will need to be a discussion of the height of the building, instead of the number of stories, and how that height impacts contextually within the area.
    – Commissioner Borchers: The initial design and the “masking of stories” are good. The design is perhaps a story or two too tall. Future submissions should include siteplan and traffic pattern information. The rear of the building will be very important; views of the building from Goodale Park should be included as well.
    – Commissioner Decker: There are issues with the current massing of the building. The pedestrian experience walking north and south on High Street will see a lot of building. The building is probably 2 stories too tall. The south and west façades need more work.

    #1096268
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

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

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

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

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

    I think there’s some misunderstanding in my complaint. I think it’s great the SN is getting taller buildings and it’s great that there’s demand for that outside of Downtown.

    My issue is that most people seem to be arguing the typical “good enough” philosophy. They argue that 6 stories on High Downtown is “good enough” because there are so many lots to fill in, rather than trying to get the best possible development on a lot that will be significantly better for the area long-term. And then they argue that demand is super high, but that Downtown couldn’t possibly handle any taller projects because it would diminish demand and reduce development on other lots. That just makes no sense to me. HighPoint is the equivalent of a single 30 story building if there were 10 units per floor (like Cleveland’s Nucleus project). If we are to believe that larger projects reduce demand, how did 250 High, the LC project, etc. ever get proposed?

    I just disagree it has to be on high st. It took Commons and highpoint to create interest in the two Kaufman buildings and two lc buildings. It took neighborhood launch to create movement on that potential large building on 4th and long.

    Right now, the bigger issue in downtown is infill. If that high and Gay St development has good retail, that will essentially create a gateway from high st to Gay St and to the Commons. Badly needed. If that gateway becomes more vibrant hopefully that also stimulates density along the river and in discovery district because there’s tons of room for highrises that would all benefit the downtown core.

    Knowing Columbus, it sometimes takes a small first move to get the dominos falling on the bigger moves. At least… That’s my hope, and maybe a naive one.

    You’re kind of assuming that if/when that demand takes place, the same type of projects won’t get built in those lots too, for the same reasons. What’s stopping every lot in RiverSouth from getting low rise development from this point on? Especially when everyone is saying that’s perfectly okay so long as the lots get filled.

    And I agree to a point about High, though I would amend it to say “Not just on High”. High is the backbone of the city and should have its space maximized, but I’d certainly argue that that should happen just about everywhere else as well.

    I’m not perfectly okay with lots being filled just because. Only in this one instance. And only because that lot badly needs good retail and toward Riversouth / toward Discovery District has so many opportunities for good density to draw people to High & Gay. I mean, we’re already talking about a 12-story hotel and a 15-story building in Discovery District so we’re on the right track. But yeah, would agree that it will be concerning if too much focus goes away from density… Just pointing out that density opportunities off High St but within a stone’s throw are very strong.

    I think something that people are missing is the fact that high rises do not imply good urbanism. Good urbanism is about the pedestrian experience — walking through wind-tunnels and overly-shaded areas created by skyscrapers is not a pleasant experience. What is positive is consistent density — many 6-12 story buildings creating a perpetual street-facade is much better than a single high-rise. Look at Paris or London (neglecting the financial district) — those are amazing cities not because of their skylines, but because they have pleasant pedestrian experiences with consistency of blocks of of lower-rise buildings. High-rises are also not environmentally sensitive — smaller building massing is much more capable of achieving less of an environmental impact, as well as FAR better from a safety standpoint. Columbus is a quaint Midwestern city — yes we want it to grow, and sure a GOOD, WELL THOUGHT-OUT addition to our skyline would be nice looking into the future, but what we need is to densify downtown so that people want to be there at all hours — that means fill in the holes. Stop worrying about skyscrapers. A few will fill in later when it makes sense. They’re the last piece to our puzzle.

    #1096317

    WJT
    Participant

    Columbus is a quaint Midwestern city

    *facepalm*

    NO NO NO!!! What kind of thinking is this?

    #1096358
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    Columbus is a quaint Midwestern city

    *facepalm*

    NO NO NO!!! What kind of thinking is this?

    It means that our people are friendly, our city isn’t overwhelming, and that we have minimal risk for natural disaster… I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. You can be cosmopolitan yet quaint.

    #1096383

    aculbie
    Participant

    I think WJT’s problem with your comment is the definition of quaint revolves around being old fashioned, which is the exact opposite of the direction most of us want this city to go.

    #1096385
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    I think WJT’s problem with your comment is the definition of quaint revolves around being old fashioned, which is the exact opposite of the direction most of us want this city to go.

    quaint: picturesque, charming, sweet, attractive, old-fashioned, old-world, cunning

    I see your point. “Quaintly contemporary”?

    #1096389

    WJT
    Participant

    Actually I was just intentionally overreacting. I certainly would describe certain neighborhoods(or parts of neighborhoods)as quaint-and that is a good thing), but I would not want to describe the city as a whole that way.

    Actually the city is a combination of friendly, welcoming, not too overwhelming, fairly safe, good place to raise a family, big old college town-while at the same time continuing to evolve into an increasingly cosmopolitan, diverse, sophisticated metropolis.

    The city is kind of the best of both worlds in a sense-and it should market itself that way. Acknowledge and appreciate the best things of the past while embracing modernity, diversity and the future.

    We kind of have a unique niche-we are not an old ‘legacy’ rust belt city, but we are not really a sun belt boom city either but still are a growing, increasingly important city. We need to find a way to exploit our ‘best of both worlds’ position.

    #1096392
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    We kind of have a unique niche-we are not an old ‘legacy’ rust belt city, but we are not really a sun belt boom city either but still are a growing, increasingly important city. We need to find a way to exploit our ‘best of both worlds’ position.

    Nailed it.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 168 total)

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

Subscribe below: