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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 168 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1101601

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Pablo wrote:</div><br>
    ^^It’s an office building, not housing.

    I know that, but it’s still a reduction in density and therefore vibrancy. It’s not like this isn’t happening with residential projects. Look no further than down the street.

    While I liked the 11 story proposal, it is up to the commission and the commission has a duty to serve its community and its goals, not the goals of those outside of it. I doubt that the reduction in height in this office building is going to affect the vibrancy of the Short North in a detrimental way. Now, the loss of a rooftop bar/restaurant, that we can lament about if it is removed from this proposal. So, they couldn’t build this in the Short North. They can try again downtown where vibrancy is needed significantly more.

    It is the combination of projects, not just one single one. Is one project going to significantly change anything, no. Are 10, 20, 30+ over time? You bet. Let’s say every 6-story proposal is forced into just reducing by a single story ever time. For residential projects, perhaps that could be 10 units per floor. That would be 10-20 fewer people living there. Over just 10 projects, that could be 200 fewer people walking the streets or shopping at local businesses, and this is within census tracts that have just a few thousand people to begin with. And that’s just with a 1 floor reduction. On the flip side, Columbus has a problem of proposing projects that are already underwhelming, like almost every single one in RiverSouth these days. By themselves, they wouldn’t be a problem, but combined into the future, they will make the difference between getting back to 30,000 people or 15,000, and this will inevitably affect how much retail and commercial business there is as well. Maybe I am just arguing for a version of Columbus most residents don’t actually want, though. It seems to be a race to be how few people the city can gain with the most amount of infill, which is completely strange and backwards.

    #1101602
    dalias
    dalias
    Participant

    The commission is technically an advisory board, is it not? Could a developer just go around them-isn’t it ultimately up to city council? If so, has this been done before? When was the last time the ‘standards of the community’ were defined?

    Also, I would think that this really should not be a decision for a Victorian Village commission anyway. High Street along the Short North should really be a separate entity-not part of VV, not part of Italian Village either.

    Doesn’t matter what you “think.”
    VVC has purview over the west side.
    IVC has purview over the east side.
    The city takes into account the recommendation of the committees.
    This is all easy stuff to find, but sure, lets just speculate because we want tall buildings.

    Also, read the Short North Guidelines. The standards of the community were defined in 2011. This isn’t hard if you take enough time to stop crying about tall buildings and actually read.

    #1101617

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    If this gets reduced to 6 stories, the commission needs replaced. I’m tired of small town thinking preventing this city from moving forward, and the constant reduction in density is holding us back. People are making a lot of snide and sarcastic comments recently about the height complaints, but height is less the issue than the number of units in each building. Columbus already has a huge housing supply problem that is WAY underserving the actual population growth, let alone the population that may want to move into the city. This keeps prices higher than they need to be for everyone and prevents urban neighborhoods from reaching their potential vibrancy. Shame on the members for only considering the hurt feelings of neighbors who think anything taller than a super Wal-mart is bad for the neighborhood, while the only reason their neighborhood can attract any projects at all is because it is not built like Hilliard-Rome Road. And yes, this is a bit hyperbolic, but come on.

    Have you ever read the Short North Guidelines? You should seriously read them because a lot of people, including residents, developers, architects and others put a lot of non-interwebs time into them? It is the guidelines that the committees are actually charged with adhering to. Every developer who enters the neighborhood is aware of them. Just because the committees do not give you your demand for height does not mean they are not doing their job. They are responding to the guidelines, the residents and other factors in the neighborhood. Their job is not to prevent you from lying in a fetal position crying because you once again did not get your tall building.

    I have read them, but are they mandatory? Isn’t that why there is a variance process? I also think the guidelines, quite honestly, are short-sighted in a lot of ways. It seems that the imaginary threat to the existing historic character of the residential sections of the area are now preventing very good projects from being realized on High. While I was disappointed in the reductions for say, the Jerome, etc, it didn’t bother me nearly as much as this does. I could at least understand that since it was semi off of High, but I don’t understand this whatsoever. This wasn’t 30 stories, this was as tall as existing buildings in the area, so trying to make this about guidelines seems like bs to me.

    #1101618
    dalias
    dalias
    Participant

    For reference in what the VVC actually has oversight over…
    https://www.municode.com/library/oh/columbus/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT31PLHIPRCO_CH3119HIARREDIPUOR

    3119.41 – Victorian Village district created.
    There is hereby created in the City of Columbus a historical district subject to architectural review to be known as the Victorian Village district (commonly referred to as “Victorian Village”) bounded and described as follows:

    Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of High Street and Fifth Avenue;

    Thence southerly along the centerline of High Street to the centerline of Goodale Street;

    Thence westerly along the centerline of Goodale Street to the centerline of Neil Avenue;

    Thence northerly along the centerline of Neil Avenue to the centerline of Buttles Avenue;

    Thence westerly along the centerline of Buttles Avenue to the centerline of Harrison Avenue;

    Thence northerly along the centerline of Harrison Avenue to the centerline of Fifth Avenue;

    Thence easterly along the centerline of Fifth Avenue to the point of beginning.

    #1101621

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>
    The commission is technically an advisory board, is it not? Could a developer just go around them-isn’t it ultimately up to city council? If so, has this been done before? When was the last time the ‘standards of the community’ were defined?

    Also, I would think that this really should not be a decision for a Victorian Village commission anyway. High Street along the Short North should really be a separate entity-not part of VV, not part of Italian Village either.

    Doesn’t matter what you “think.”<br>
    VVC has purview over the west side.<br>
    IVC has purview over the east side.<br>
    The city takes into account the recommendation of the committees.<br>
    This is all easy stuff to find, but sure, lets just speculate because we want tall buildings.

    Also, read the Short North Guidelines. The standards of the community were defined in 2011. This isn’t hard if you take enough time to stop crying about tall buildings and actually read.

    Well if the city does create a ‘Short North Commission’ to deal directly with North High, it really would not matter what you think either. Nothing is set in stone.

    It is about density not height.

    The city should take into account the recommendations, and REJECT them where it is seen to be appropriate.

    Thanks so much for your mature, polite response. /sarcasm.

    #1101622

    Nancy H
    Participant

    @WJT – There are some “commissions” around town that are advisory. The German Village, Victorian Village and Italian Village Commissions are not advisory. They were established by City Ordinances and have some specific authorities. There are probably some others too, but GV, VV & IV I am positive about.

    The City also approved the commission’s guidelines via City Ordianace.

    So, I guess in theory, a developer could go to City Council seeking a “go around” but since the City established the commission and approved the guidelines, the chances are almost non-existant that the City would side with the developer.

    There are seperate guidelines for the commercial area along High Street. So both VV and IV have two sets of guidelines: one for the “residential” part of the neighborhood and The Short North Design Guidelines for High Street.

    #1101623

    WJT
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div><br>
    If this gets reduced to 6 stories, the commission needs replaced. I’m tired of small town thinking preventing this city from moving forward, and the constant reduction in density is holding us back. People are making a lot of snide and sarcastic comments recently about the height complaints, but height is less the issue than the number of units in each building. Columbus already has a huge housing supply problem that is WAY underserving the actual population growth, let alone the population that may want to move into the city. This keeps prices higher than they need to be for everyone and prevents urban neighborhoods from reaching their potential vibrancy. Shame on the members for only considering the hurt feelings of neighbors who think anything taller than a super Wal-mart is bad for the neighborhood, while the only reason their neighborhood can attract any projects at all is because it is not built like Hilliard-Rome Road. And yes, this is a bit hyperbolic, but come on.

    Have you ever read the Short North Guidelines? You should seriously read them because a lot of people, including residents, developers, architects and others put a lot of non-interwebs time into them? It is the guidelines that the committees are actually charged with adhering to. Every developer who enters the neighborhood is aware of them. Just because the committees do not give you your demand for height does not mean they are not doing their job. They are responding to the guidelines, the residents and other factors in the neighborhood. Their job is not to prevent you from lying in a fetal position crying because you once again did not get your tall building.

    I have read them, but are they mandatory? Isn’t that why there is a variance process? I also think the guidelines, quite honestly, are short-sighted in a lot of ways. It seems that the imaginary threat to the existing historic character of the residential sections of the area are now preventing very good projects from being realized on High. While I was disappointed in the reductions for say, the Jerome, etc, it didn’t bother me nearly as much as this does. I could at least understand that since it was semi off of High, but I don’t understand this whatsoever. This wasn’t 30 stories, this was as tall as existing buildings in the area, so trying to make this about guidelines seems like bs to me.

    I think you are wasting your time as you are dealing with classic NIMBYISM at it’s finest here and reason and logic go out the window.

    #1101624

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    The commission is technically an advisory board, is it not? Could a developer just go around them-isn’t it ultimately up to city council? If so, has this been done before? When was the last time the ‘standards of the community’ were defined?

    Also, I would think that this really should not be a decision for a Victorian Village commission anyway. High Street along the Short North should really be a separate entity-not part of VV, not part of Italian Village either.

    *OMG, reading the comments from the commissioners on this proposal and the White Castle proposal..who are these people? They should not be making any decisions about development on the hottest Corridor in Columbus with remarks like these!:

    The current proposal seems Las Vegas size

    Is not sure that all these functions (residential, retail, office, and parking) can occur on the same lot.

    • Commissioner Conyers – Design improvements have been made at the base of the building. The amount of transparency at the dock still requires more work. In looking at the existing buildings throughout the district and this location, the building is tall. It is probably between 2 and 3 stories too tall. The office space use is very good. The project is going in the right direction, but the height needs to be addressed. • Commissioner Borchers – Is excited about the architectural design, but the massing needs discussion. The proposed height is taller than the Jackson, which is too tall. Multiple stories need to be removed from the design. Some of the glass that wrapped the corner of the building should be returned to the design. • Commissioner Kotheimer – The curtain-wall is not there yet, needs more work. The cleanness of the front design is better, but the additional mullions on the side create a “plaid” look that is not good. The building needs to be designed and constructed with high-quality materials that will ensure the building holds up to the future. • Commissioner Hissem – The existing design is too tall. The finishes and materials can be worked out later, but at least 2 stories need to be removed from the building design. • Commissioner Decker – Agrees with other Commissioner comments. The majority of changes to the current design are good. The Shirt North Design Guidelines are important, and looking at this proposal it is clear that the building is probably 2 stories too tall. Supports the concept of the project; daytime commercial workers are important for the neighborhood, but the new building should not overwhelm the surrounding historic structures

    ok…so it is too tall by 2 floors…but now it will be even smaller?

    The Las Vegas comment made me laugh. It reminded me of the people on the CU Facebook comments that always say “Columbus is not NYC!” It’s like even they don’t believe they live in an urban neighborhood in a major city. To me, it feels like the classic disregard for Columbus as significant in any way, but on a smaller scale. God forbid we strive for more.

    #1101625
    dalias
    dalias
    Participant

    Well if the city does create a ‘Short North Commission’ to deal directly with North High, it really would not matter what you think either. Nothing is set in stone.

    But there is no SN Commission currently or pending. There are 2 commissions that have already been given the charge and they have developed the guidelines across multiple stakeholders. People keep on making arguments about what if this, or what if that, or in your case what if someone said screw it and just built their building anyway. I don’t see anything about that being polite or mature.

    I am fairly much in favor of certain elements of density in the neighborhood and you can find threads on here where I’ve defended certain controversial projects. Moreover, I’ve actually done the footwork of going to society meetings and commission meetings in support of various projects (and voiced displeasure with some others). If this particular project went to 11-stories in this place it would not particularly bother me. I do however find it grating how much commentary on some of these projects exists with no attachment to the guidelines. Calling for entire commissions to be fired or their role to be ignored because they are following the community standards is ridiculous and puerile. There is the lack of your reason or logic.

    #1101626

    WJT
    Participant

    @WJT – There are some “commissions” aroumnd town that are advisory. The German Village, Victorian Village and Italian Village Commissions are not advisory. They were established by City Ordinances and have some specific authorities. There are probably some others too, but GV, VV & IV I am positive about.

    The City also approved the commission’s guidelines via City Ordianace.

    So, I guess in theory, a developer could go to City Council seeking a “go around” but since the City established the commission and approved the guidelines, the chances are almost non-existant that the City would side with the developer.

    There are seperate guidelines for the commercial area along High Street. So both VV and IV have two sets of guidelines: one for the “residential” part of the neighborhood and The Short North Design Guidelines for High Street.

    Thank you for a civil, informative, reasonable response. I guess my problem would then be with the specific guidelines for High. And I guess ‘going around’ the commissions in those three cases would be more difficult than I thought.

    I don’t want High street lined with highrises, but I think in appropriate places there is room for greater density and I just do not get this automatic rejection based on height alone-isn’t that why variances can be granted? Didn’t you yourself state that height in this area might not be such a bad idea since it would help draw attention away from the hideous 80’s setback highrise near this? (or was that someone else?)

    You seem reasonable. Where is this automatic knee-jerk reaction to almost any development along High that is not a 6 story or less brick box coming from?

    #1101631

    WJT
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>
    Well if the city does create a ‘Short North Commission’ to deal directly with North High, it really would not matter what you think either. Nothing is set in stone.

    But there is no SN Commission currently or pending. There are 2 commissions that have already been given the charge and they have developed the guidelines across multiple stakeholders. People keep on making arguments about what if this, or what if that, or in your case what if we someone said screw it and just built their building anyway. I don’t see anything about that being polite or mature.

    I am fairly much in favor of certain elements of density in the neighborhood and you can find threads on here where I’ve defended certain controversial projects. Moreover, I’ve actually done the footwork of going to society meetings and commission meetings in support of various projects (and voiced displeasure with some others). If this particular project went to 11-stories in this place it would not particularly bother me. I do however find it grating how much commentary on some of these projects exists with no attachment to the guidelines. Calling for entire commissions to be fired or their role to be ignored because they are following the community standards is ridiculous and puerile. There is the lack of your reason or logic.

    First of all do not put words in my mouth, I did not say those things. I said the city should reject the commission when the city felt appropriate, and apparently, while it is not likely, the city can do just that. I did not say ‘fire’ anyone. Are these people who are actually paid a salary, are city employees, and can be ‘fired’ anyway? And just because there is not Short North Commission current or pending does not mean there could not be one in the future. Certainly there was a time when neither the VV or IV commissions existed or were ‘pending’, but they came about anyway. You cannot simply rely on the status quo to determine the future in a growing city attempting to densify, IMO.

    And again, my comments were not ‘ridiculous and puerile.’ Let’s just stop responding to eachother’s comments if we cannot be a little more civil, ok?

    #1101632

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div>
    Well if the city does create a ‘Short North Commission’ to deal directly with North High, it really would not matter what you think either. Nothing is set in stone.

    But there is no SN Commission currently or pending. There are 2 commissions that have already been given the charge and they have developed the guidelines across multiple stakeholders. People keep on making arguments about what if this, or what if that, or in your case what if we someone said screw it and just built their building anyway. I don’t see anything about that being polite or mature.

    I am fairly much in favor of certain elements of density in the neighborhood and you can find threads on here where I’ve defended certain controversial projects. Moreover, I’ve actually done the footwork of going to society meetings and commission meetings in support of various projects (and voiced displeasure with some others). If this particular project went to 11-stories in this place it would not particularly bother me. I do however find it grating how much commentary on some of these projects exists with no attachment to the guidelines. Calling for entire commissions to be fired or their role to be ignored because they are following the community standards is ridiculous and puerile. There is the lack of your reason or logic.

    I guess it just depends where one believes Columbus and neighborhoods like the Short North should go. There are obviously a lot of people who want it to stay the same. There are some who value limited density, or perhaps a point where density has reached a point where no more is desired. Others, and I would put myself into this category, believe that if someone wants low density, there are plenty of options for that. If they want stable areas that likely won’t change much, there are also plenty of options for that. The urban core of Columbus is neither of those things, and shouldn’t be pigeonholed into something it isn’t and was never meant to be. So people can throw the SN guidelines at me like they’re the definitive end-all to debate, but that is nonsense. If there is one place where density should be celebrated, it is on the central urban corridor of one of the nation’s largest cities. There is nothing wrong with liking low density, or the “just enough” density that seems to be at play here. But not on High in the Short North, and if commission members aren’t getting that, then maybe there needs to be a change. These decisions have very long lasting consequences.

    #1101634

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nancy H wrote:</div>
    @WJT – There are some “commissions” aroumnd town that are advisory. The German Village, Victorian Village and Italian Village Commissions are not advisory. They were established by City Ordinances and have some specific authorities. There are probably some others too, but GV, VV & IV I am positive about.

    The City also approved the commission’s guidelines via City Ordianace.

    So, I guess in theory, a developer could go to City Council seeking a “go around” but since the City established the commission and approved the guidelines, the chances are almost non-existant that the City would side with the developer.

    There are seperate guidelines for the commercial area along High Street. So both VV and IV have two sets of guidelines: one for the “residential” part of the neighborhood and The Short North Design Guidelines for High Street.

    Thank you for a civil, informative, reasonable response. I guess my problem would then be with the specific guidelines for High. And I guess ‘going around’ the commissions in those three cases would be more difficult than I thought.

    I don’t want High street lined with highrises, but I think in appropriate places there is room for greater density and I just do not get this automatic rejection based on height alone-isn’t that why variances can be granted? Didn’t you yourself state that height in this area might not be such a bad idea since it would help draw attention away from the hideous 80′s setback highrise near this? (or was that someone else?)

    You seem reasonable. Where is this automatic knee-jerk reaction to almost any development along High that is not a 6 story or less brick box coming from?

    Personally, I think it probably comes from some who live in the neighborhood, and perhaps even helped in its revitalization, that are now worried that there’s too much change happening. I think this happens a lot in gentrified areas. The first people are the pioneers. They get the process started and help begin building the area into a magnet for others who are perhaps not so adventurous. They are more open to the possibilities of what the neighborhood could be and where it could go. As time goes on and neighborhood property values rise, those pioneers are gradually replaced with people attracted to how nice the area has become, but they are far less open to more change. For them, they moved there because it was already good and are perfectly happy with how the neighborhood is at that moment. They start to worry about parking, and how new projects might hurt their home values or somehow detract from some historic value. Essentially, it becomes like some kind of gated community with an HOA. If this proposal had been made 30 years ago, does anyone believe it would’ve been seriously rejected or forced to reduce in size? Not a chance. It would’ve been welcomed with open arms as a sign of the SN’s emergence from the run down ghetto it used to be. But that ghetto is gone, and now any change is maybe too much. But the SN is too hot to stop growth and preserve it how it is now, so the only option is to limit and contain.

    #1101636
    dalias
    dalias
    Participant

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

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>WJT wrote:</div><br>
    Well if the city does create a ‘Short North Commission’ to deal directly with North High, it really would not matter what you think either. Nothing is set in stone.

    But there is no SN Commission currently or pending. There are 2 commissions that have already been given the charge and they have developed the guidelines across multiple stakeholders. People keep on making arguments about what if this, or what if that, or in your case what if we someone said screw it and just built their building anyway. I don’t see anything about that being polite or mature.

    I am fairly much in favor of certain elements of density in the neighborhood and you can find threads on here where I’ve defended certain controversial projects. Moreover, I’ve actually done the footwork of going to society meetings and commission meetings in support of various projects (and voiced displeasure with some others). If this particular project went to 11-stories in this place it would not particularly bother me. I do however find it grating how much commentary on some of these projects exists with no attachment to the guidelines. Calling for entire commissions to be fired or their role to be ignored because they are following the community standards is ridiculous and puerile. There is the lack of your reason or logic.

    First of all do not put words in my mouth, I did not say those things. I said the city should reject the commission when the city felt appropriate, and apparently, while it is not likely, the city can do just that. I did not say ‘fire’ anyone. Are these people who are actually paid a salary, are city employees, and can be ‘fired’ anyway? And just because there is not Short North Commission current or pending does not mean there could not be one in the future. Certainly there was a time when neither the VV or IV commissions existed or were ‘pending’, but they came about anyway. You cannot simply rely on the status quo to determine the future in a growing city attempting to densify, IMO.

    And again, my comments were not ‘ridiculous and puerile.’ Let’s just stop responding to eachother’s comments if we cannot be a little more civil, ok?

    I did conflate your comments and jbchm81’s comments – he was the one who said they should be fired. You did talk about going around the commissions. You have also proposed a new commission which might take away the role of the current commissions. As for their role, they are unpaid, volunteers appointed by the Mayor.

    #1101641
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Thank you for a civil, informative, reasonable response. I guess my problem would then be with the specific guidelines for High. And I guess ‘going around’ the commissions in those three cases would be more difficult than I thought.

    I don’t want High street lined with highrises, but I think in appropriate places there is room for greater density and I just do not get this automatic rejection based on height alone-isn’t that why variances can be granted? Didn’t you yourself state that height in this area might not be such a bad idea since it would help draw attention away from the hideous 80′s setback highrise near this? (or was that someone else?)

    You seem reasonable. Where is this automatic knee-jerk reaction to almost any development along High that is not a 6 story or less brick box coming from?

    I don’t think you are seeing an automatic knee-jerk reaction by the commission, you are seeing other people insinuate that without actually attending the meetings. The architectural review commission meetings in Columbus are one of the few places where I have seen actual civic discussion, discourse, and disagreement.

    By accepting a seat on the commission you are tasked with upholding whatever guidelines were created for the preservation and future development of that neighborhood. And those guidelines are not crafted lightly. They are a result of a long process with many different stakeholders and with many different viewpoints. That includes the developers of many of the projects that are now in front of the commissions.

    The review process is sometimes slow, with a lot of give and take (including height) but even developers will tell you that it often results in better buildings. Height is rarely the only concern and a key point is that sensitivity to historic buildings includes paying attention to what are built around them.

    There is a reason that Italian, Victorian, and German Village are the most desirable neighborhoods in the city. They are some of the few areas that retain the majority of their building stock and built environment, oftentimes as a direct result of the commissions focus on historic preservation.

    Also note: In order to develop a project in an area with an architectural review commission, you must get approval. This is separate from the zoning variance process for which there is limited involvement from the commissions.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 168 total)

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

Subscribe below: