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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

The Joseph - Pizzuti Short North Hotel - News & Updates

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development The Joseph – Pizzuti Short North Hotel – News & Updates

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 551 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #390178

    futureman
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>
    Why the animosity toward the commissions? Our historical architectural review process in both Victorian and Italian villages is what has made the Short North the beautiful area that it is today. Without those commissions, the Short North may have still gentrified (though I doubt it), but its High Street facades would look much like those of campus area today and beautiful historical architecture could easily be destroyed.

    It’s my understanding all three commissions (University Area Commission, Italian Village Commission and Victorian Village Commission) were all created around the same time 1972/1973. UAC being 1972 and the other two in 1973.

    You did know the university area has a commission right?

    #390179

    econJoe
    Participant

    The university area commission does not do historical architectural review the way the Victorian and Italian village commissions do. That’s why facades like those on the new Hungry Howie’s pizza (near Kroger at 7th) or Buckeye Donuts would never be seen in the Short North.

    #390180

    futureman
    Participant

    “The University Area Review Board (UARB) is an architectural review board with similar rules and responsibilities of historic & architectural review commissions.”

    http://columbus.gov/Commission.aspx?id=16464

    #390181

    JonMyers
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>
    Our historical architectural review process in both Victorian and Italian villages is what has made the Short North the beautiful area that it is today.

    Yeah I’d agree:

    #390182

    futureman
    Participant

    How could you forget the beautiful bollinger (pre-renovation) tower and the UDF?

    Granted if you look at the commissions, guidelines weren’t established until 1989/1990 so in all likely hood these were built beforehand.

    #390183

    dru
    Participant

    which parking lot facade are we trying to save?

    #390184

    JonMyers
    Participant

    MichaelC wrote >>

    JonMyers wrote >>
    Michael, unfortunately that’s the issue, neither commission operates that way.

    What can we do to help, then, as citizens in the area?

    Michael, you can show up to the meetings and get on the agenda to speak directly to the commission.

    Most of those whom I spoke to last night had done just that.

    #390185

    colrex7
    Member

    This is just my perspective…but in my urban design classes they teach us that historical architecture is in fact preserved more when located next to a new building that is more modern, rather than made to fit in. A lot of times, new buildings that try to fit in by mocking historical buildings in fact take away from the existing historical structures.

    So in my personal opinion the Short North would benefit from having some structures that have a more modern feel to them. And…it’s the Short North…so its okay to be a little out there with design. ;)

    #390186

    Mercurius
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>
    Why the animosity toward the commissions?

    Megalomania?

    #390187

    Roland
    Participant

    JoeMitchell wrote >>
    edit: everyone drives an audi?

    LOL I noticed that too. Audi’s and BMWs for everyone!

    #390188

    JonMyers
    Participant

    colrex7 wrote >>
    This is just my perspective…but in my urban design classes they teach us that historical architecture is in fact preserved more when located next to a new building that is more modern, rather than made to fit in. A lot of times, new buildings that try to fit in by mocking historical buildings in fact take away from the existing historical structures.
    So in my personal opinion the Short North would benefit from having some structures that have a more modern feel to them. And…it’s the Short North…so its okay to be a little out there with design. ;)

    I agree and you’re probably right.

    I’m all for historical preservation. I’m not at all for those faux historical facades imposed by the commissions to “help buildings blend in”, which look fake and tacky as hell. In fact, they probably drive value down rather than improve value.

    #390189

    Tigertree
    Member

    I wish I had this months dwell with me so I could scan a shot in and post it. If you have it, there is a shot of a German street that is a mix of old architecture and modern architecture and it looks amazing. Saving old buildings and allowing contemporary buildings to go up in vacant lots and parking lots can exist together.

    #390190

    econJoe
    Participant

    JonMyers wrote >>

    econJoe wrote >>
    Our historical architectural review process in both Victorian and Italian villages is what has made the Short North the beautiful area that it is today.

    What is your point? Those are pre-architectural review.
    Yeah I’d agree:

    #390191

    econJoe
    Participant

    JonMyers wrote >>

    colrex7 wrote >>
    This is just my perspective…but in my urban design classes they teach us that historical architecture is in fact preserved more when located next to a new building that is more modern, rather than made to fit in. A lot of times, new buildings that try to fit in by mocking historical buildings in fact take away from the existing historical structures.
    So in my personal opinion the Short North would benefit from having some structures that have a more modern feel to them. And…it’s the Short North…so its okay to be a little out there with design. ;)

    I agree and you’re probably right.
    I’m all for historical preservation. I’m not at all for those faux historical facades imposed to “help buildings blend in”, which look fake and tacky as hell. In fact, they probably drive value down rather than improve value.

    There is nothing wrong with modern architecture. In the guidelines of the Victorian and Italian village commissions, developers are told to make new architecture look new. It’s not about the modern look of the architecture, it’s that a parking garage would hover over the UCT building and would be perfectly visible in Goodale park; a cheap mesh-covered parking garage would be built where something truly wonderful could be built by a more cooperative developer; half of a perfectly usable historical structure (the UCT building) would be torn down; etc.

    #390192

    Mercurius
    Participant

    econJoe wrote >>

    JonMyers wrote >>

    econJoe wrote >>
    Our historical architectural review process in both Victorian and Italian villages is what has made the Short North the beautiful area that it is today.

    What is your point? Those are pre-architectural review.
    Yeah I’d agree:

    So what are the glaring problems of this hotel that it didn’t get approved? Seems like you need someone to work with developers instead of against them.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 551 total)

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

Ring in the decade in style! Join us for an all-inclusive NYE celebration!

CLICK HERE FOR TICKETS & INFO