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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

250 High - New 12-Story Mixed-Use Building Downtown

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development 250 High – New 12-Story Mixed-Use Building Downtown

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 264 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1023882

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    [quote=1023816]

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>NerosNeptune wrote:</div>
    Personally I’d rather see 4 5-story buildings than a lone 20 story.

    +1

    The intersection of Rich and High is a good example. We’re getting all four corners filled in with a six-story, two eight-story, and one 12 story building at roughly the same time.

    The theoretical alternative of consolidating all of that into one 34-story building and leaving the other 3 corners empty doesn’t sound like a better scenario to me.

    Unless you measure the success of a city by the way its skyline postcards look. ;)
    [/quote]

    That’s the point… would a single 34-story building erase all the demand at that intersection if we’re already getting the equivalent anyway and using every lot to reach it? I don’t think so. That would suggest that the area cannot support anymore projects beyond what is currently being built. I don’t think you’d support that view. But now, there are no more lots to build there. Something else would have to come down, like what LC did with the Trautman building, or developers would have to get off of High.

    #1023887
    Josh Miller
    Josh Miller
    Participant

    [quote=]
    That’s the point… would a single 34-story building erase all the demand at that intersection if we’re already getting the equivalent anyway and using every lot to reach it? I don’t think so. That would suggest that the area cannot support anymore projects beyond what is currently being built. I don’t think you’d support that view. But now, there are no more lots to build there. Something else would have to come down, like what LC did with the Trautman building, or developers would have to get off of High.
    [/quote]

    Not sure where you’re getting the idea that the corridor is tapped out, looks like plenty of potential left… A tall tower doesn’t require a huge footprint, e.g. North Bank

    downtown development potential

    #1023892

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    [quote=1023887]

    That’s the point… would a single 34-story building erase all the demand at that intersection if we’re already getting the equivalent anyway and using every lot to reach it? I don’t think so. That would suggest that the area cannot support anymore projects beyond what is currently being built. I don’t think you’d support that view. But now, there are no more lots to build there. Something else would have to come down, like what LC did with the Trautman building, or developers would have to get off of High.

    Not sure where you’re getting the idea that the corridor is tapped out, looks like plenty of potential left… A tall tower doesn’t require a huge footprint, e.g. North Bank

    [/quote]

    Actually, I’m saying the opposite. The suggestion was that if developers built higher, it would reduce demand enough to cancel out smaller projects that would remove more lots. I’m saying that demand is high enough for both to happen. Walker correctly pointed out that the projects at High and Rich make the equivalent of a single, 34-story tower. Even so, it’s clear that the development going into this intersection right now is not actually reducing demand to the area (all that much, anyway, if at all), so theoretically much taller buildings could’ve been built here and still retained the demand of the area for other projects on more lots.

    Not only that, but I would say that if the goal is to get more people in Downtown, and to use those people to create more demand for retail and other amenities, it’s going to take far longer to reach that goal by filling the hundreds of surface lots with 5-story buildings than it would by building taller, which from my pov, would actually create even more demand for housing in the long run. Those vacant lots would be in even greater danger.

    #1023896
    Stephen43215
    Stephen43215
    Participant

    I personally like when a downtown is clustered together with high rises and not spread out. Take Atlanta for example, they have 20 and 30 story towers mixed in with 5 and 6 story new builds all throughout downtown and it looks like a totally scattered mess.

    #1023901

    CB_downtowner
    Participant

    [quote=1023896]I personally like when a downtown is clustered together with high rises and not spread out. Take Atlanta for example, they have 20 and 30 story towers mixed in with 5 and 6 story new builds all throughout downtown and it looks like a totally scattered mess. [/quote]

    I don’t agree that you can compare Columbus to Atlanta. Columbus is pretty dense where we have one street that pretty much connects everything together. Atlanta, on the other hand, is enormous. As long as CBus has an easy circulator that connects short north to German village, any kind of density in those areas impacts. That’s different from Atlanta where creating separate areas with density means spreading out the density.

    I want height too. I’m glad we have people questioning every development if it could go higher. But when you have well designed, beautiful developments with decent height in an area that can use it, I don’t agree that we should be too critical of it if the only objection is that it should have been a few stories higher.

    #1023906
    Caleb
    Caleb
    Participant

    [quote=1023879]

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>NerosNeptune wrote:</div>
    Personally I’d rather see 4 5-story buildings than a lone 20 story.. lots of empty spaces downtown left to be filled. Cincinnati is already a lot more compact than Columbus,, I can see why they would be more inclined to build taller buildings even when they’re growing less.

    We don’t need tall buildings to be bigger than Cincinnati.. DC is a lot bigger than both combined and they don’t have anything over 15.

    I don’t think it has to be an either/or scenario, which seems to be the consensus view. We can have height with the occasional project and still fill in lots with a bunch of 5-story projects. True, a single 20-story building is not going to fill up a lot of vacant lots, but then it will still provide the same potential residents in a single lot than 4 or 5 smaller buildings spread out, and there is no rule saying those other lots can’t still be developed. With demand as high as it is, there’s really no reason both can’t happen outside of an unwillingness by developers to take that chance. I personally didn’t think anything under 10 stories should ever be allowed along High or Broad, but that’s just me. Most seem fine with less than that, but I see it as making the best use of the most-prime lots. 4-5 stories is better served over on Fourth.
    [/quote]

    + 1

    I don’t see why, at this point in time, both can’t happen. We obviously have the demand to fill all the projects being built. I thinking riskier developments are beginning to make sense to developers, such as the proposition of the two 15-story buildings near the convention center.

    #1023908

    geoyui
    Participant

    [quote=1023906]
    I thinking riskier developments are beginning to make sense to developers, such as the proposition of the two 15-story buildings near the convention center.
    [/quote]
    Unfortunately that may not happen.

    #1023921

    NerosNeptune
    Participant

    I imagine if someone thought they could put up a 50 story tower and fill it up with residents cheaper than they could build 5 10-story towers, they would do it. I’m no developer, but there’s a pattern here and I’m guessing theres a good reason they’re all deciding to build about the same height for these projects.

    I’m not sure what the point of complaining about it is.. what could be done? Does anyone expect the city to start forcing developers to build skyscrapers? Are there current regulations that make 10 story buildings more attractive to build than 30 that could be changed?

    #1023922

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    [quote=1023921]I imagine if someone thought they could put up a 50 story tower and fill it up with residents cheaper than they could build 5 10-story towers, they would do it. I’m no developer, but there’s a pattern here and I’m guessing theres a good reason they’re all deciding to build about the same height for these projects.

    I’m not sure what the point of complaining about it is.. what could be done? Does anyone expect the city to start forcing developers to build skyscrapers? Are there current regulations that make 10 story buildings more attractive to build than 30 that could be changed?
    [/quote]

    There seems to be a belief that discussion of anything other than the status-quo amounts to pointless complaining. I would think that if no one is demanding anything else, that might be a big part of the reason why developers aren’t building taller… or perhaps Columbus just doesn’t have a lot of developers that have the resources or influence to build larger.

    #1023929

    NerosNeptune
    Participant

    I understand wanting to see it happen.. but it *is* pointless to sit on the internet and complain about it, especially without talking about why smaller buildings are going up, or what you would like to see done to encourage builders to go more vertical. Of course, it’s just as pointless for me to talk about how I think it’s pointless, so don’t take that as an insult, just an observation.

    Demand is probably a big reason for it. For one, I don’t think many people have “living in a 30-story tower rather than a mid-rise 12-story tower” high on their list of demands when apartment searching, so why bother building something so large when a smaller project might be much easier to complete, and there are so many empty lots to chose from right now? It would be interesting to see the economics of it,, is it cheaper to build and maintain one 20-story building or 4 5-story buildings?

    #1023933
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    [quote=1023896]Take Atlanta for example, they have 20 and 30 story towers mixed in with 5 and 6 story new builds all throughout downtown and it looks like a totally scattered mess. [/quote]

    So your problem is that the postcard skyline view of Atlanta doesn’t look as nice as you’d like it to?

    How does that affect day-to-day life living there?

    #1023984
    Caleb
    Caleb
    Participant

    [quote=1023908]

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Caleb wrote:</div>
    I thinking riskier developments are beginning to make sense to developers, such as the proposition of the two 15-story buildings near the convention center.

    Unfortunately that may not happen.

    [/quote]

    Its a dispatch article that completely sides steps the issue. As has been pointed out in that forum topic, there is still much cause for hope.

    #1023987
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    [quote=1023882]That’s the point… would a single 34-story building erase all the demand at that intersection if we’re already getting the equivalent anyway and using every lot to reach it? I don’t think so.[/quote]

    That’s really difficult to know, but we can both speculate away. I would speculate that the cost of building taller would mean units would be even more expensive for the project to remain profitable. So while there may be a larger demand for apartments in general, the demand decreases when the prices go too astronomically high.

    [quote=1023882]That would suggest that the area cannot support anymore projects beyond what is currently being built. I don’t think you’d support that view.[/quote]

    True, I don’t support that view. But I also don’t think that enforcing building height minimums would automatically mean that all development would proceed as planned except taller. If there were minimums of 12 stories, then it’s likely that Highpoint or the 2 LC buildings wouldn’t have happened at all. You’re going to lose some things in the process if you set the minimum point of entry too high.

    [quote=1023882]But now, there are no more lots to build there. Something else would have to come down, like what LC did with the Trautman building, or developers would have to get off of High.[/quote]

    I’m ok with the replacement of smaller buildings with taller buildings.

    I’m also ok with developers building off of High Street. That actually sounds preferable. Downtown has more than one street in it, you know. ;)

    #1024047

    SteveKZ087
    Participant

    [quote=1023987]I’m also ok with developers building off of High Street. That actually sounds preferable. Downtown has more than one street in it, you know. ;)[/quote]

    +1

    As a Columbus transplant, I’ve always thought that it was strange that much of the downtown density was focused on a single street, while two blocks over was often almost unrecognizable. We seem to have a pretty solid north-south corridor in the works from German Village through Short North. Time to start looking east-west to fill in the grid. We’re in a moment where we can truly begin to expand out from the central core.

    #1024054

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    [quote=1023987]

    That’s really difficult to know, but we can both speculate away. I would speculate that the cost of building taller would mean units would be even more expensive for the project to remain profitable. So while there may be a larger demand for apartments in general, the demand decreases when the prices go too astronomically high.

    If that’s the case, I still have trouble understanding how Cincinnati and Cleveland are getting larger projects then. Columbus has a higher average income combined with significantly higher population growth. I don’t think it’s necessarily about cost per unit. I think it’s probably that we just don’t have developers yet willing to invest in larger projects, and the city guidelines don’t really push for them.

    True, I don’t support that view. But I also don’t think that enforcing building height minimums would automatically mean that all development would proceed as planned except taller. If there were minimums of 12 stories, then it’s likely that Highpoint or the 2 LC buildings wouldn’t have happened at all. You’re going to lose some things in the process if you set the minimum point of entry too high.

    But most, if not all, cities have height guidelines. And we’re only talking about a few streets here. The concern is not that there aren’t enough places to build shorter buildings, because there are, but that we’re allowing those buildings on the most prime lots within Downtown. Is it possible that a few projects would be sacrificed? Perhaps, but that’s no different than instituting any other kind of building guideline for a neighborhood. Perhaps some single-story projects have not moved forward as well.

    I’m ok with the replacement of smaller buildings with taller buildings.

    For me it depends. I would not want to see the tear down of a historic building just for height. The buildings for the LC project were old, but they were not in great shape, so I’m less disappointed by that. Across the street, there are several buildings in good shape and in use that were constructed in the 1800s. But they’re only 2-4 stories. I would not want to see those go just to build taller. That’s what I meant when talking about more buildings coming down for height.

    I’m also ok with developers building off of High Street. That actually sounds preferable. Downtown has more than one street in it, you know. ;)

    As am I, and that will happen regardless. My point was not that I have a problem with developers getting off of High, but that High is a prime street. It is, perhaps, the defining one of the city, and I think being so requires a bit more restrictions as to what is built along it. I also feel this way generally about Broad, and along the riverfront. Off of these areas, I’d be far less concerned about a low-mid rise project.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 264 total)

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