New Five Story Building at High & Seventh
February 19, 2012 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #90384
Five-story apartment building proposed for N. High St. in Weinland Park
By Mark Ferenchik
The Columbus Dispatch
Sunday February 19, 2012 5:45 AM
A five-story apartment building geared toward graduate students and young professionals might go up along N. High Street between the Short North and Ohio State University this year. City leaders hope that the building will spur other projects to fill in the gaps along High Street, but some neighborhood leaders and residents fear that the building might make too big of a statement.February 19, 2012 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #482123
This probably belongs back in the original thread as that thread has a ton of useful info that would be watered down by multiple threads.
I think it would be plain foolish to think that density would be an issue in that area of High St. The other issues also seem a bit frivolous.
from the article:
The developer would tear down a building housing a Dollar Tree store and a laundry, and eliminate a large surface parking lot to make way for the project.
Laura Bidwa, vice president of the Weinland Park Community Civic Association, said some Weinland Park residents are concerned about losing those businesses and that the new units would cost too much for many in the neighborhood.
As to the comments in the article about losing the Dollar Tree and Wash & Tan. I personally shop at that Dollar Tree. I will miss it. But businesses get displaced all the time. It’s sister Dollar Tree store in the Walmart plaza off of Trabue Rd was also recently pushed out by another business. I think there is plenty of room to develop retail in WP. I do not see why people are not courting these businesses to move in along the much more vacant retail East 5th Ave corridor or in other parts of WP? I think it could be an opportunity for further retail growth away from High St.
As far as current WP residents not affording to live in the new development. What!? I am pretty sure it will be too expensive for a lot of people, including my wife and I, – but so is the Jackson. There are still plenty of inexpensive rents in WP. I looked at a place a couple of blocks away on Hamlet St. that was $600 for half a double. I like diversity of incomes and having some expensive rents will only help the neighborhood in my opinion.
Of all the things to find trouble with in our urban neighborhoods I am surprised this project is one of them.February 19, 2012 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm #482124
As what many consider THE commercial spine of this city, a five story building should be of no concern. I can’t believe the UAC plan calls for one story buildings on this stretch of High st. Did someone slip and hit their head that day? It needs taken out immediately. Plain and simply, it is High St., density is warranted, land is becomming scarce, Highest & best use, more residents = more street feet = more retail = more transit ridership = more overall neighborhood vitality.February 19, 2012 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #482125
As what many consider THE commercial spine of this city, a five story building should be of no concern. I can’t believe the UAC plan calls for one story buildings on this stretch of High st. Did someone slip and hit their head that day? It needs taken out immediately. Plain and simply, it is High St., density is warranted, land is becomming scarce, Highest & best use, more residents = more street feet = more retail = more transit ridership = more overall neighborhood vitality.
Exactly.. 1 story building. Yuck. We need character and mix used 5 story buildings down High Street, and fill every parking lot along the road.February 19, 2012 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #482126
Concerns about density by the UAC are patently absurd. You’ll find very few places in Columbus with better walking and transit connectivity than this corner. Are they trying to outdo Clintonville in opposing development?February 19, 2012 5:53 pm at 5:53 pm #482127
If campus partners wants it, it will happen. No way UAC is going to start a war with CP.
And seriously, worried about losing a payday loan shark and a laundry for the “expensive” housing for OSU graduate students (that make a whopping $1500-$2000/month)? That would imply that WP should only have businesses and housing that serve the impoverished/welfare recipients.February 19, 2012 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #482128
I also find the UAC’s concern of a 5-story building on High baffling.February 19, 2012 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #482129
The UAC must not get out very much.February 19, 2012 8:51 pm at 8:51 pm #482130
It sounds like this all is the problem of a crappy plan in the first place. Why in the world does the city’s plan even allow 1 story buildings on high street? There are 5 and 8 story buildings within a few blocks of this site. Sigh.February 20, 2012 3:12 pm at 3:12 pm #482131
Never! I think no building should be under five stories. It’s a waste of space.
Higher density for all!February 20, 2012 3:26 pm at 3:26 pm #482132
One story buildings make me cry.
I forget why exactly, now, but I remember hearing during a WP presentation that the WP residents have a big issue with the Walgreens that wants to go in ground floor, something about how that company is classist or racist or something along those lines, and it’s drawing extra ire to the development.
I don’t like seeing a laundry place disappearing because it’s a needed thing, but like someone else said, couldn’t it move to some of the vacant retail space within WP? I was walking around there the other day and there seems to be a fair amount of commercial space that desperately needs used.February 20, 2012 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #482133
Is it April 1st already!?February 20, 2012 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #482134
Issues like this make some of these area commissions look less and less relevant. That a group of people actually sat around and decided that less density was a good thing for the WP part of High St. makes me sad.February 20, 2012 4:00 pm at 4:00 pm #482135
I agree. The entire area is fairly dense to begin with, and a one or 2 story building would honestly be a waste of space. The last thing we need is another one story. Plus, there are several vacant spaces in the area- so these stores really wouldn’t need to be displaced very far.February 20, 2012 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #482136
As a WP resident and WPCCA muckety-muck, allow me to provide a different point of view. Please note that my opibnions are my own, and no one else’s, and anything I write should not be taken to imply that I am speaking for anyone else in WP, in the WPCCA, or anyone else on CU.
An important thing for people to consider is that most of the opposition to this building from neighborhood residents has little or nothing to do with its height. Opposition seems to be mainly because of the loss of the laundromat and the possible effect on the church next door, which uses the parking lot that would disappear should the building be erected. However, it’s not really possible to mount an effective opposition on zoning grounds based on the loss of a neighborhood business. So, people are opposing it for a different reason, one that might actually be effective. I don’t think most WP residents care that the building will be five-story; the South Campus Gateway is of similar height and no one seems to care much about that. What they care about is losing a business frequented by a large number of neighborhood residents, a business that would be replaced by a pharmacy that’s across the street from a Kroger with its own pharmacy. But you can’t stop a developer from putting in a business they want to put it, even if you think it’s redundant. So, people are opposing it on ‘artificial’, yet potentially effective grounds.
As far as the introduction of market rate housing, there seems to be a lot of opposition to this sort of thing in WP – possibly due to fears of gentrification – and I’m personally at a loss to understand it. Those people who are actively working to make WP a better place to live need to understand that it’s not going to happen without an influx of higher income (for the neighborhood, no one who lives in WP is wealthy or close to it, and that’s not going to change even with this development) residents to drive these changes. I’m clearly in the minority among my neighbors concerning this issue.
As far as the UAC, I think some of them are idiots, and I think others are simply doing what they think neighborhood residents want them to do.
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.