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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Two 8-Story Buildings Proposed for Park Street

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Two 8-Story Buildings Proposed for Park Street

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1101905
    Josh Bauman
    Josh Bauman
    Participant

    The monotony of the addition is fine from this side but I hope the view from 670 is more interesting and the back building has more architectural variety. Glad they’re saving the historic streetfronts

    #1101906
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    It’s not terribly dissimilar from the Hampton Inn on High Street, IMO, just with a more modern feel, IMO.

    #1101907

    JMan
    Participant

    This rendering is a good compromise. But IMO, we need more innovation, even if it’s just an unexpected detail now and then. Would that really cost so much more I wonder.

    #1101908

    Nancy H
    Participant

    Found another sketch on BF’s website.

    It looks like they are adding something that “looks like it could have been an old building” on the west building’s south elevation.

    @ Josh – I suspect the I670 side of the west building will have lots of windows. Unless their plans have changed, that building would be offices sitting on top of the parking garage. Although 670 is no visual prize, the view into Goodale Park would be sweet.

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #1101914
    MichaelC
    MichaelC
    Participant

    Great find, Nancy.

    With the hotels at or exceeding national vacancy rates, the prospect of adding great new hotels to these desirable locations is awfully exciting. #GoCBus

    #1101923
    Jason Powell
    Jason Powell
    Participant

    Much, much better! And, it looks like they will still have that huge side outdoor patio space.

    #1101924
    lazyfish
    lazyfish
    Participant

    Found another sketch on BF’s website.

    It looks like they are adding something that “looks like it could have been an old building” on the west building’s south elevation.

    @ Josh – I suspect the I670 side of the west building will have lots of windows. Unless their plans have changed, that building would be offices sitting on top of the parking garage. Although 670 is no visual prize, the view into Goodale Park would be sweet.

    I’m glad the historic facades are being preserved, I’m glad that CU seems to have found a useful vetting purpose, albeit for erections, but am a little nervous with all the dark metal, death star materials looming above our streetscapes. We say we don’t want the new builds to dominate the historic quality of the neighborhood and then we drop a campus partners like spaceship behind the facades and seem to think that makes it OK. Beware the Empire, they lurk behind period materials.

    #1101932

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Great that the old building facades are staying, and of course, great that the new design is not being reduced in height. Hallelujah, it is possible!

    The new front above the old facades is a little monotonous, but I’ll call it a win anyway.

    #1101937
    Eridony
    Eridony
    Participant

    I’m glad the historic facades are being preserved, I’m glad that CU seems to have found a useful vetting purpose, albeit for erections, but am a little nervous with all the dark metal, death star materials looming above our streetscapes. We say we don’t want the new builds to dominate the historic quality of the neighborhood and then we drop a campus partners like spaceship behind the facades and seem to think that makes it OK. Beware the Empire, they lurk behind period materials.

    The Death Star was white.

    #1101938
    _calebross
    _calebross
    Participant

    Brownie points for the developer for trying to preserve the old buildings.

    #1101940

    Nancy H
    Participant

    Remember folks… this is what they plan to present. It is still in one of the Historic Districts and the HRC might feel differently about it. So far from a “done deal.”

    As a preservation minded soul I have never liked keeping just the facade of an old building. Old buildings are either worth saving or not. Keeping the facade only just sort of grates me the wrong way. Kind of tokenism.

    I also question the addition of what looks like an new/old facade on the south side of the west building (garage and offices). Fake old is a definite no-no in historic districts. New builds should be a product of their own time.

    #1101947
    King Gambrinus
    King Gambrinus
    Participant

    I think this is a much better proposal. I generally like to see historic buildings actually saved rather than carved out, but I tend to think that these buildings don’t have much historic character left inside, unless the cowboy theme was original. I think most of character of these buildings is in the fascades and saving them is a fair compromise. I especially like how the new construction is set back from the original buildings allowing them to stand out a bit more than how the Hampton is setup. I think the ultimate example of this is the Hearst Building in NYC.

    I don’t also don’t take issue with the fake old addition to the southern fascade of the garage. Garages can be tough to cover in an interesting way that doesn’t feel like a metal grate over a parking garage. If they mask it with a brick fascade that adds pedestrian level scale I think that’s a benefit not a detriment.

    #1101948

    Roger846
    Participant

    New builds should be a product of their own time.

    If historic preservation prevents any new builds, there won’t be any historic buildings from our time. If there are any new buildings from our time, they’ll be historic buildings someday, too.

    I know there’s an ongoing battle between historic preservationists and new build people that’s probably been going since the dawn of civilization (at one point the pyramids in Egypt were new build skyscrapers and probably faced opposition), and this is a good thing, but it seems to me that sometimes, we here in Columbus fall too much on the keep-the-building-short side of things. Even in the downtown area, there seems to be a focus on keeping it small as shown by that 6 or 7 story apartment proposal by Gay and High area that got people here riled up. Personally, I like to see a mixture, in the same area, of taller, more modern buildings and historic buildings. And, liking to see taller buildings isn’t a phallic obsession. It’s more just exciting to see things get built and see activity happening. Kind of more like an engineering, let’s build something type perspective. But, even with me, I do see the need for balance and give and take, on both sides of the debate.

    #1112136

    TunedUpRyan
    Participant

    Any updates to this project?

    #1112150
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Any updates to this project?

    It hasn’t come back to the Downtown Commission yet.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 63 total)

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

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE