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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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 - 121 through 135 (of 168 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1101644

    WJT
    Participant

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

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

    There is just no way it can remain as it is-the demand is too high and the city/area is growing too fast. I seriously wonder what is going to happen with this city when you have a regional growth rate of what, upwards of 20,000+ per year, but with many of the area residents not only seeming to not want growth, but actually wanting to shrink the city down to a Fort Wayne level.

    And people complain about rising rents. Why shouldn’t they rise, when you have an increasingly inadequate supply?

    Why should the Short North not change?-I remember when it was a ghetto-I remember a friend living in the Greystone and it was a damn dump! And it changed and evolved..and with this kind of growth and demand, it will continue to change and evolve. It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    #1101645
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

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

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

    I think you should attend some commission meetings before making assumptions about individuals based on your own city planning theories. I would also encourage you to check out some of the projects that were approved in the 80s and 90s and to see if more rigorous reviews are a positive or a negative.

    #1101647
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The rhetoric here is way over the top. The only war here is the false one created by folks on here who are never happy no matter what the outcome and don’t understand the dynamics of the actual process.

    #1101648

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

    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.

    Josh, from what I’ve seen in your own comments, both here and in agenda comments, you seem to value the urban form and the density required to make that a reality. I also understand that commissioners have some kind of guidelines to follow. However, they are not bound by them in any mandatory sense. So being on a commission is not quite the same as giving some kind of sacred blood oath to upholding them. So trying to make all these reductions strictly about following guidelines seems like a copout to me. If the commission wanted to, they could always approve these projects as proposed, and none of them would violate the existing conditions of the neighborhood given that there are already buildings at and above this height.
    I also think that’s what makes the preservation argument so suspect as well. Again, neither this nor the White Castle project would’ve threatened any actual historic buildings. There was nothing left at these sites to preserve. And if the argument is just about the “historic character” of the area (however that is defined), again those existing taller buildings have already broken that seal, and as far as I can tell, the historic character of VV, IV and the Short North in general remains completely intact, if not thriving. So how would either of those taller projects specifically detracted from that, if that is actually the argument? How does 9 stories at White Castle work but 11 stories does not?

    #1101649

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

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

    I think you should attend some commission meetings before making assumptions about individuals based on your own city planning theories. I would also encourage you to check out some of the projects that were approved in the 80s and 90s and to see if more rigorous reviews are a positive or a negative.

    I find it interesting that the assumption here is that I’ve never attended meetings like we’re discussing. I understand the process, but that isn’t the debate here. The debate isn’t that you’re not following the process, the debate is that the guidelines themselves and the thinking behind these reduction demands is itself, highly suspect.

    Do you believe that this project, in its 11-story proposed form, would’ve had reduction demands in 1980s Short North? We’re not talking about a UDF.

    #1101650

    jbcmh81
    Participant

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

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

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

    There is just no way it can remain as it is-the demand is too high and the city/area is growing too fast. I seriously wonder what is going to happen with this city when you have a regional growth rate of what, upwards of 20,000+ per year, but with many of the area residents not only seeming to not want growth, but actually wanting to shrink the city down to a Fort Wayne level.

    And people complain about rising rents. Why shouldn’t they rise, when you have an increasingly inadequate supply?

    Why should the Short North not change?-I remember when it was a ghetto-I remember a friend living in the Greystone and it was a damn dump! And it changed and evolved..and with this kind of growth and demand, it will continue to change and evolve. It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The Columbus region already grows by 25K+ a year, and the city by more than 12K a year, so those days are already here. And there is definitely not enough housing within the city to accommodate that sustainably, at least not without significant price increases, particularly on rents in urban neighborhoods like the Short North.

    However, I think the slow or no-growth philosophy really only exists in certain areas, not everywhere in the city (though sometimes it seems that way). If either 11 story project had been proposed for West Broad in Franklinton, particularly in East Franklinton, I think it would be far more likely that they’d sail through approvals, just like they would have been had they been proposed 25-30 years ago in the Short North. People are still really excited about what is possible in Franklinton- they are still in that pioneer stage.

    #1101651

    WJT
    Participant

    It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The rhetoric here is way over the top. The only war here is the false one created by folks on here who are never happy no matter what the outcome and don’t understand the dynamics of the actual process.

    Funny how the only ‘over the top’ rhetoric you are pointing out is that which you disagree with, as if there has been nothing else in this thread that has been over the top. Yes, ‘war’ is probably too strong a word, but what about the rest of it?

    Tell me, Josh, was a commission member saying on record about the White Castle proposal, ‘the current proposal seems Las Vegas size’ not over the top?

    I am just commenting on a messageboard, the above comment was from a commission member with actual power over development.

    Also, the Joseph is 11 floors. How the hell did it get approved and built? Did Pizzuti influence and money have anything to do with that?

    #1101652

    ohbr
    Participant

    I think we too often see the success of the Short North receiving the brunt of the ‘core’ conversation. We ask ‘why is the commission pushing this back?! They are an urban core and they need to accept that! As the most successful neighborhood, why don’t they want to be MORE successful for the rest of us who don’t live there to show off and brag about?’ We are projecting our desire for a truly vibrant downtown core so much on this one neighborhood it seems. We want the Short Nort to be more successful often demanding that they accept projects that may be better suited for downtown. We throw out the term ‘core’ so much for the Short North that sometimes it seems we forget that it is in fact a neighborhood and not downtown. (Yes, downtown is a neighborhood as well, but I hope you get the idea) Why do we celebrate everything that Neighborhood Launch does downtown but balk at the Short North when they would prefer 5-6 stories over 11 story office buildings? We demand more out of River South when they will likely have more density compared to Neighborhood Launch when NL and RS are equally as ‘core’ if not more ‘core’ than the Short North. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the NL but it seems A bit hypocritical sometimes.

    now, jbcmh has a point in that the commissions have already broken the seal as it were, but at the same time, that does not mean they want more. This project seemed more in line for the southern part of the SN than the White Castle proposal IMO but then again, I don’t live there so I don’t have much of a dog in the fight. Now, if any one of these proposals came to Old North Columbus, you’d bet I’d be for them whole heartedly, but still be happy with 5-6 stories in the end. Sure, 10 stories adds a more vibrancy than 6, but thats always the case. Why building a single family home on a lot in Italian Village when you could build a duplex and double the vibrancy? The logic gets pretty tired pretty fast.

    Again, as these projects in the Short North get reduced, that doesn’t mean that the SN won’t continue to be even better than it is. That also doesn’t mean that these developers will give up and leave the city. That doesn’t mean Columbus will be less attractive overall either. Developers will move elsewhere, and hopefully, as we’ve seen, that focus will be to downtown and the other surrounding neighborhoods.

    #1101654
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    I think there’s a certain level of agreement here about the ideals surrounding urban form…

    … but when it comes to implementation, there’s always going to be differences of opinion about the nuances of each individual project and situation. And that’s ok!

    It’s helpful when your viewpoint is not held too strictly to any rigid ideal so that compromise can be reached, and the outcome can make the most people happy in the end.

    If you hold too tightly to your ideals (with regard to any topic), and are unwilling to compromise, then you’ll end up finding yourself constantly unhappy in life. Extremism in unhealthy.

    We should always demand that things be better, but we should also be willing to work within realistic parameters of getting tasks accomplished and continue to move forward at the end of the day.

    #1101657

    ohbr
    Participant

    If either 11 story project had been proposed for West Broad in Franklinton, particularly in East Franklinton, I think it would be far more likely that they’d sail through approvals, just like they would have been had they been proposed 25-30 years ago in the Short North. People are still really excited about what is possible in Franklinton- they are still in that pioneer stage.
    [/quote]

    This. If the Short North isn’t willing, then it’s time for developers to go to those willing.

    #1101658
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    I find it interesting that the assumption here is that I’ve never attended meetings like we’re discussing. I understand the process, but that isn’t the debate here. The debate isn’t that you’re not following the process, the debate is that the guidelines themselves and the thinking behind these reduction demands is itself, highly suspect.

    Indeed I do value the urban form, and I am generally supportive of more dense and vibrant neighborhoods (I’m a member of the IVC). However, the whole basis of the commissions is historic preservation which in turn is the basis of the neighborhood’s success. Just because the neighborhood is successful does not mean that we can or should disregard our charge, or the guidelines.

    I tend to interpret the guidelines more liberally in regards to height and its affect on the historic character of the neighborhood but I understand why some of my colleagues do not. I also don’t question their motives for doing so. Large buildings in small more intimate historic neighborhoods do change the feel and character of the neighborhoods and there is a balance to be had between preserving that historic character and allowing development that positively impacts the neighborhood. Compromises are also often made when there is a particularly positive benefit.

    My biggest issues is the headed and often over the top rhetoric that I hear from both the pro and anti development crowds. The sky isn’t falling. Columbus is going through a great period of growth and development as well as figuring out what kind of city we want to be. In my opinion things are going well and we can all push for positive change and better design without being apocalyptic.

    #1101659

    ohbr
    Participant

    I think there’s a certain level of agreement here about the ideals surrounding urban form…

    … but when it comes to implementation, there’s always going to be differences of opinion about the nuances of each individual project and situation. And that’s ok!

    It’s helpful when your viewpoint is not held too strictly to any rigid ideal so that compromise can be reached, and the outcome can make the most people happy in the end.

    If you hold too tightly to your ideals (with regard to any topic), and are unwilling to compromise, then you’ll end up finding yourself constantly unhappy in life. Extremism in unhealthy.

    We should always demand that things be better, but we should also be willing to work within realistic parameters of getting tasks accomplished and continue to move forward at the end of the day.

    And if these commissions in the VV and IV had not been good at that, the SN would not be where it is today.

    #1101660

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    I think we too often see the success of the Short North receiving the brunt of the ‘core’ conversation. We ask ‘why is the commission pushing this back?! They are an urban core and they need to accept that! As the most successful neighborhood, why don’t they want to be MORE successful for the rest of us who don’t live there to show off and brag about?’ We are projecting our desire for a truly vibrant downtown core so much on this one neighborhood it seems. We want the Short Nort to be more successful often demanding that they accept projects that may be better suited for downtown. We throw out the term ‘core’ so much for the Short North that sometimes it seems we forget that it is in fact a neighborhood and not downtown. (Yes, downtown is a neighborhood as well, but I hope you get the idea) Why do we celebrate everything that Neighborhood Launch does downtown but balk at the Short North when they would prefer 5-6 stories over 11 story office buildings? We demand more out of River South when they will likely have more density compared to Neighborhood Launch when NL and RS are equally as ‘core’ if not more ‘core’ than the Short North. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the NL but it seems A bit hypocritical sometimes.

    now, jbcmh has a point in that the commissions have already broken the seal as it were, but at the same time, that does not mean they want more. This project seemed more in line for the southern part of the SN than the White Castle proposal IMO but then again, I don’t live there so I don’t have much of a dog in the fight. Now, if any one of these proposals came to Old North Columbus, you’d bet I’d be for them whole heartedly, but still be happy with 5-6 stories in the end. Sure, 10 stories adds a more vibrancy than 6, but thats always the case. Why building a single family home on a lot in Italian Village when you could build a duplex and double the vibrancy? The logic gets pretty tired pretty fast.

    Again, as these projects in the Short North get reduced, that doesn’t mean that the SN won’t continue to be even better than it is. That also doesn’t mean that these developers will give up and leave the city. That doesn’t mean Columbus will be less attractive overall either. Developers will move elsewhere, and hopefully, as we’ve seen, that focus will be to downtown and the other surrounding neighborhoods.

    I agree that the SN gets perhaps an underserved amount of pushback, but that’s probably because it received a lot more proposals than just about anywhere else. If Franklinton was seeing new proposals practically every month and demanding they be reduced, I would be putting for the same criticisms and asking the same questions- only with even more amazement considering the state of that neighborhood.

    You’re also engaging in the classic “good enough” philosophy here. Will these projects, even reduced, help increase the vibrancy and overall appeal of the Short North? Of course. Going from vacant lots to any kind of mixed-use project will do that. But are reduced projects going to have the same impact as the original proposals? No. I don’t want to strive for the lowest common denominator in development simply because some change is better than none at all.

    As for Neighborhood Launch, while I really like a lot of the design of those projects, I also think that they’re woefully undersized for Downtown. Only in that case, criticism is met by a chorus of “Well it’s infill, there are plenty of other lots left to do it right”. Only doing it right seems to always be few and far between.

    #1101663
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

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

    It is going to be a war between the developers and the no-growth/no change set, and who has deeper pockets/more influence/is more willing to grease the wheels so to speak?

    The rhetoric here is way over the top. The only war here is the false one created by folks on here who are never happy no matter what the outcome and don’t understand the dynamics of the actual process.

    Funny how the only ‘over the top’ rhetoric you are pointing out is that which you disagree with, as if there has been nothing else in this thread that has been over the top. Yes, ‘war’ is probably too strong a word, but what about the rest of it?

    Tell me, Josh, was a commission member saying on record about the White Castle proposal, ‘the current proposal seems Las Vegas size’ not over the top?

    I am just commenting on a messageboard, the above comment was from a commission member with actual power over development.

    Also, the Joseph is 11 floors. How the hell did it get approved and built? Did Pizzuti influence and money have anything to do with that?

    I would hesitate to read too much into the comments on the agenda. That was probably one phrase uttered during a 30 minute conversation. There is a lot of nuance at those meetings.

    The Joseph is in Italian Village and I would argue has a much different context than any of the buildings currently proposed.

    #1101664

    WJT
    Participant

    If either 11 story project had been proposed for West Broad in Franklinton, particularly in East Franklinton, I think it would be far more likely that they’d sail through approvals, just like they would have been had they been proposed 25-30 years ago in the Short North. People are still really excited about what is possible in Franklinton- they are still in that pioneer stage.<br>

    This. If the Short North isn’t willing, then it’s time for developers to go to those willing.
    [/quote]

    But the Short North is a completely different animal. It is located on a prime stretch that is between downtown and OSU. All of the neighborhoods around it are gentrifying(Weinland Park, South Campus). It is part of a north/northwest sector that is healthy and growing-extending out from downtown and up High to Delaware County, northwest through the Grandview area, up to Arlington, then Dublin. It seems that OSU and the downtown area are destined to be joined-and the joining element is the Short North.

    East Franklinton, however, is basically an island with few connections- those that do exist to the south and west do not extend into healthy growing areas. West Franklinton has even taken a hit with the hosptial moving. East Franklinton will thrive as it exists as an extension of downtown. The Short North is a major connector in the whole north-northwest sector. I don’t see the demand dropping because it really is in this case IMO about location, location, location.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 168 total)

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

Subscribe below: