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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Short North Design Guidelines

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Short North Design Guidelines

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #460624

    rory
    Participant

    HeySquare said:

    Personally I think that guidelines provide a creative framework that pushes architects and designers to think creatively.

    That’s a healthy perspective on it and who doesn’t to give that extra push every once in a while.

    #460625
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Pablo said:
    I read through the guidelines and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. Although brick and stone are encouraged it doesn’t outlaw titanium or glass. Stucco and stucco-like material “should be avoided” which is probably a good thing.

    Also, from the guidelines: New construction should be no less than two stories above grade. Currently, buildings from three to five stories are found in multiple locations and new construction in that height range will be considered in the context of its location. Buildings of six or more stories, thought not original to the district will be considered on a case-by-case basis

    It seems to me that, if it’s a “good” project, the developer can go taller than 4 stories. It depends on who sits on the design review board….

    Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t get a chance to read through them yet and had a couple of meetings and errands this afternoon.

    The allowance for exceptions is good news to hear. I’m in favor of having some design restrictions, minimum-allowable heights, and of course, concealed parking behind buildings rather than in front or beside.

    #460626

    Pablo
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t get a chance to read through them yet and had a couple of meetings and errands this afternoon.

    The allowance for exceptions is good news to hear. I’m in favor of having some design restrictions, minimum-allowable heights, and of course, concealed parking behind buildings rather than in front or beside.

    Yeah, the good news is that a developer with a compelling project won’t be automatically eliminated.

    #460627

    njbuckeye05
    Member

    So apparently Columbus wants to remain in the dark ages as an urban sprawl toilet. The most beautiful city in the world, Chicago, gets it. Rather than concentrate and build up, let’s just build boring communist bloc inspired buildings.

    #460628

    anillo
    Participant

    njbuckeye05 said:
    So apparently Columbus wants to remain in the dark ages as an urban sprawl toilet. The most beautiful city in the world, Chicago, gets it. Rather than concentrate and build up, let’s just build boring communist bloc inspired buildings.

    I love Chicago, but you’ve obviously never been to the south/west sides if you think it’s the most beautiful city in the world.

    Anyways, the guidelines don’t sound bad overall. We’ll have to see how they’re enforced in practice, but it seems like it’s just sort of putting into words what they’ve been trying to follow lately. Hopefully they won’t be too strict on the recommended 5-story limit.

    #460629
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    njbuckeye05 said:
    So apparently Columbus wants to remain in the dark ages as an urban sprawl toilet. The most beautiful city in the world, Chicago, gets it. Rather than concentrate and build up, let’s just build boring communist bloc inspired buildings.

    1. Chicago was bounded to one side by water, giving them at least one natural barrier and incentive for vertical growth (usually a common factor in the world’s densest cities).

    2. Chicago is a city of 2.7 million in a metro area of 9.4 million. To imply that Chicago has no suburban or sprawling areas isn’t entirely accurate.

    3. I don’t really see the connection between Chicago (a city) and the Short North (a neighborhood).

    #460630

    mbeaumont
    Participant

    njbuckeye05 said:
    The most beautiful city in the world, Chicago, gets it.

    Hahah, what? Love Chicago, but c’mon…

    #460631

    News
    Participant

    Approved via this article: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/09/19/city-oks-study-to-remove-main-street-dam.html

    The council also approved design guidelines for the Short North that limit future development to five stories and parking lots to the rear of buildings. Neighborhood leaders in adjoining Victorian and Italian villages wanted to ensure that future development fits with the area’s history.

    #460632

    Jim Lauwers
    Participant

    News said:
    Neighborhood leaders in adjoining Victorian and Italian villages wanted to ensure that future development fits with the area’s history.

    History of the Short North:
    80%: under water
    10%: barren rock
    9%: wooded grassland
    0.999%: gin joints, flophouses, immigrant shanties
    0.0001%: local tourist attraction for suburban families

    #460633

    Jim Lauwers
    Participant

    Future projection for development in the Short North:

    0.001%: vibrant, well-organized neighborhood featuring fine dining, live music, and abundant creativity; all served by ample public transport serving a mixed-income, ethnically-diverse population
    0.99%: gin joints, flophouses, immigrant shanties
    9%: abandoned due to ‘Battelle prototype retrovirus 113b’; thunderdome
    10%: under water
    80%: molten rock beneath the earth’s crust

    #460634
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    The height restriction doesn’t bother me as much although I do think more than 5 stories should be allowed. I’m more concerned with the overall look of the structures. I’ve seen some developments built and some that are planned that have been pretty watered down. If the buildings look good and lend to street activity, then is doesn’t matter how high the building is.

    You can already see the freedom afforded to developers just north of the SN with the proposed pharmacy/apt. building. (like it or not) Even though it’s a black and white rendering, it looks much more interesting to me by mixing it up with a more modern look. I’m just afraid that with the new SN guidelines, we will get more Dakota blandness and that is certainly not what the SN deserves or should be exemplifying to the rest of the country, let alone the people who live there.

    #460635

    Mercurius
    Participant

    Gag me with a spoon and call me Troy Miller. Come on council, you’re smarter than this — aren’t you?

    #460636

    Mercurius
    Participant

    jpizzow said:
    The height restriction doesn’t bother me as much although I do think more than 5 stories should be allowed. I’m more concerned with the overall look of the structures. I’ve seen some developments built and some that are planned that have been pretty watered down. If the buildings look good and lend to street activity, then is doesn’t matter how high the building is.

    You can already see the freedom afforded to developers just north of the SN with the proposed pharmacy/apt. building. (like it or not) Even though it’s a black and white rendering, it looks much more interesting to me by mixing it up with a more modern look. I’m just afraid that with the new SN guidelines, we will get more Dakota blandness and that is certainly not what the SN deserves or should be exemplifying to the rest of the country, let alone the people who live there.

    A big +1. Citizens Against Surface Parking Lots and Bland Buildings

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)

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

KEEP LOCAL JOURNALISM HEALTHY.

Local journalism is more important than ever. Please take a moment to read a bit about our mission and consider financially supporting our cause.

CLICK HERE