The Madisons Building Downtown

[joev]

Regardless of the parking issue, the buildings are an embarrassing eyesore, and it’s time that something be done to fix that.

[goldenidea]

The façade on the northern building looks very attractive. Both buildings would look nice restored.

“This is one of the two worst properties in downtown,” says Ricksecker.

Just curious, anyone know the other worst property Cleve refers to here?

[News]

City Takes Action Against Owner Of Several Vacant Downtown Buildings Amid Safety Concerns
By Kevin Landers
Thursday June 19, 2014 4:36 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Overgrown weeds. Tumbling bricks. Neighbors of a southwest Columbus vacant building want it gone. 10TV took their concerns to the city and tomorrow, they’ll see action.

READ MORE: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/06/19/columbus-vacant-buildings-anger-neighbors.html

[substance]

Walker Evans wrote:

Bobbie Root had no title in the article, so I assume he was just a man-on-the-street interview? I’ve never understood the point of asking random passersby how they feel about something that they know absolutely nothing about.

Awful, just to get the quote they want.

The city needs to figure out a way to make it more expensive for the owner to sit on the building in the current condition.

[Achekov]

If the buildings pose a safety hazard, can’t the city use eminent domain to take them?

The ironic thing is that the better the rest of downtown starts to look from all the new development, the worse these buildings look by comparison.

[News]

City Considers What to do with Vacant High Street Properties
June 24, 2014 1:25 pm – Jesse Bethea

Columbus has development on the brain and a low tolerance for vacant buildings, particularly Downtown and particularly on coveted High Street. So it’s no wonder the vacant buildings at 72 North High have become such a topic of interest that 10TV devoted not one but two stories to the buildings and their owners last week.

READ MORE: https://www.columbusunderground.com/city-considers-what-to-do-with-vacant-high-street-properties-jb1

[Walker Evans]

Just noticed this up on a front window a few days ago…

[heresthecasey]

Hrm. I really hope these buildings are not headed for demolition…

[Josh Miller]

Walker Evans wrote:

Just noticed this up on a front window a few days ago…

We must’ve walked by within minutes of each other because I snapped the same pic during lunch…
Really, really hope this isn’t the last requirement needed to proceed with a demolition permit.

[Walker Evans]

heresthecasey wrote:

Hrm. I really hope these buildings are not headed for demolition…

+1

[drtom1234]

Demolition for a new parking lot would be disastrous. Demolition for a new build, that I would be ok with.

[wpcc88]

drtom1234 wrote:

Demolition for a new parking lot would be disastrous. Demolition for a new build, that I would be ok with.

Honestly a developer trying to get a good deal would not surprise me

[King Gambrinus]

Does this allow the city to take control over the property on public safety grounds or anything?

[columbusmike]

I believe it just means the city has revoked their occupancy permit…which, to the deadbeat owner, probably doesn’t mean a whole lot to them, except their property value is pretty much worthless now, and their insurance coverage is probably through the roof.

[jbaker544]

These are really cool historic buildings and if saved could keep that historic look of the block, however I would settle for anything then parking lots. There are already large surface lots across the street. Being only a block from city center and creating a “dead zone” between the Short North, Capital and the Commons, I believe it in the city’s best interest to do something with these buildings. Lets keep our fingers crossed!

[Author]

Posts