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NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard.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

Two25 17 Story High Rise Proposed for SE Columbus Commons

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Two25 17 Story High Rise Proposed for SE Columbus Commons

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 304 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1113493

    drew
    Participant

    Even if Columbus was not growing, the current vacancy rate suggests that demand is not being met. But Columbus is not stagnant. It is growing faster now per year on average than in any previous decade in over 200 years. The larger the city gets, that growth rate may very well increase even more, as Columbus remains an economic bright spot not only regionally, but nationally. How it has been able to stay under the radar as long as it has is the real question. If people think the city has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years, just wait because I think it truly is just getting started. And all that means that urban housing will continue to be in great demand for a long time to come. This is not some urbanite daydream, the facts support that.

    No doubt there’s a demand for housing in the city. But do you know that the demand leans towards what the CBD could provide rather than what Italian Village/Victorian Village/Grandview could provide? Clearly the developers are betting on the latter, and from what I’m seeing they’re not losing on that bet whatsoever.

    It strikes me that developers are building out what are currently the most desirable (to the market) and most cost effective (land price-wise) areas first, and once they’ve depleted that they’ll have nowhere to go but downtown proper. I’m OK with that.

    #1113498

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Even if Columbus was not growing, the current vacancy rate suggests that demand is not being met. But Columbus is not stagnant. It is growing faster now per year on average than in any previous decade in over 200 years. The larger the city gets, that growth rate may very well increase even more, as Columbus remains an economic bright spot not only regionally, but nationally. How it has been able to stay under the radar as long as it has is the real question. If people think the city has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years, just wait because I think it truly is just getting started. And all that means that urban housing will continue to be in great demand for a long time to come. This is not some urbanite daydream, the facts support that.

    No doubt there’s a demand for housing in the city. But do you know that the demand leans towards what the CBD could provide rather than what Italian Village/Victorian Village/Grandview could provide? Clearly the developers are betting on the latter, and from what I’m seeing they’re not losing on that bet whatsoever.

    It strikes me that developers are building out what are currently the most desirable (to the market) and most cost effective (land price-wise) areas first, and once they’ve depleted that they’ll have nowhere to go but downtown proper. I’m OK with that.

    I don’t think that is really a fair assessment. That there have been fewer projects there than in the Short North is probably to be expected, as the Short North is significantly further along the development path than Downtown is. Even so, have any Downtown projects struggled to fill up in recent years? It does not necessarily seem like there isn’t greater demand to be Downtown than the number of projects would indicate. Does anyone really think that the Short North couldn’t handle even more development due to demand? Is Downtown really any different?

    #1113501

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    First, that depends on your definition of “lofty.” I’d say densifying Columbus Commons, transforming Italian Village, campus, Parsons Ave, in the next few years Discovery District and hopefully Franklinton, and significantly densifying an already vibrant Short North and Arena District has more than surpassed most people’s expectations. All within basically 5 years. I want better, but I realize it’s asking for better than impressive.

    I don’t know. If you consider everything outside of the Short North, I am not sure “impressive” is the word I’d use. I think we are judging the amount of urban progress by what has largely happened in the narrow corridor between 670 and 5th Avenue, with Downtown a distant 2nd place, and all other neighborhoods combined an even more distant 3rd. I do think this is going to change, and fairly soon, but up until this point in time, the Short North boom has not translated to many other areas.

    You said change is slow and I agree. Height/density/major public transportation will take 10-20 years conservatively. If we complained about LC’s pace in development and struggles to find Columbus Commons retail, I can’t imagine that conversation if we focused primarily on high rise in a small narrow target area.

    When I said change was slow, I was more talking about attitudes rather than in the development sense. Development in Columbus has not necessarily been exceedingly slow. My worry is that a lot of the current projects, though, won’t translate into the long-term vibrancy goals.

    Sure, Columbus’ economic success has played a big part. But that’s a huge discredit to the terrific neighborhoods that are incredibly accessible to downtowners. I’m sure many like-sized cities would kill for a Short North or German Village that close. Columbus has some really unique strengths and I’d rather build around those. It’s be like asking Austin to develop in spite of Sixth St. People go to Austin because of Sixth St / Raney St, not downtown, and that’s perfectly okay. And to me that biggest strength is High St connecting multiple neighborhoods together. So yeah, I’m with everyone else. It’s not that I don’t want density, but for me… Columbus means nothing if we have a super dense downtown core and really weak, unconnected neighborhoods.

    Okay, but we already have connected neighborhoods. That reality isn’t going to change regardless of what kind of development goes in. The locations of the Short North or GV aren’t going to get worse if more density is added, but rather a lot more people will be able to take advantage of that connectedness by living in these areas. Neither will those neighborhoods be damaged or weakened by adding more people, and subsequently more amenities, in that corridor. I really just don’t understand that point at all, to be honest.

    The more exciting vision to me is a strong downtown core with really strong neighborhoods that are extensions to downtown. So yeah, even though I’d love height, I care a lot more about finishing up Italian Village, infilling Gay/Long, and transforming Franklinton. To me, those are much more transformative than downtown core high rises.

    And again, by most accounts, adjacent neighborhoods to Downtown- at least along High- are already strong. Downtown, quite frankly, is not. It is better than it used to be, but anything is better than 65,000 surface parking spaces like it had in the 1980s. We’re starting from a pretty much worst case scenario position, so I’m just not ready to pat ourselves on the back for no longer being rock bottom. That’s just not how I operate. The fact that Downtown was devastated by decades of demolition that destroyed so much of what once was could’ve been, and still could be, a fantastic opportunity. Because there are great and evolving neighborhoods surrounding Downtown already, we could take the blank slate that was left us and create something truly amazing. Right now, I just don’t see the drive to do that. The approach to Downtown has been, in many ways, how Columbus operates in general- checking the boxes with little regard to vision or imagination. In some ways, Columbus’ relative stability has perhaps encouraged this. Maybe there are just now too many people afraid to rock the boat.

    #1113506

    Shako
    Participant

    Have you ever heard the saying “let not perfect be the enemy of good?” Think about it in context of what you just wrote. The only reason anyone is building anything at all is because they recognize the opportunity. Do you like living here? I do, and I’m optimistic about the future. If I were angry, however, at the lack of pace, I might choose to go somewhere where I didn’t have to feel so angry and disappointed. I realize I’m digging in a little bit at your expense with my posts, but you have to see my point a little, right? Don’t worry; be happy!

    #1113543

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Have you ever heard the saying “let not perfect be the enemy of good?” Think about it in context of what you just wrote. The only reason anyone is building anything at all is because they recognize the opportunity. Do you like living here? I do, and I’m optimistic about the future. If I were angry, however, at the lack of pace, I might choose to go somewhere where I didn’t have to feel so angry and disappointed. I realize I’m digging in a little bit at your expense with my posts, but you have to see my point a little, right? Don’t worry; be happy!

    The misunderstanding of what I am saying is the belief that I am arguing for perfection rather than merely better than now. I do not expect perfection, because that is simply too subjective and vague. But I do think there can be a tangible measure that projects are not as limited in scale as they have regularly been. And no, I don’t think that opportunity is being recognized here. I think that development is happening largely and only because there is existing demand of any kind, but I don’t think people are really striving for much beyond the bare minimum result of meeting that demand.
    Like I said before, I have lived other places. I have lived in neighborhoods with greater than 80,000 people per square mile, almost 3x that of Columbus’ most dense census tract. Neighborhoods that were actually low-mid rise but built in a way that allowed for very high density. It’s amazing to be able to walk everywhere… to try out new restaurants on every block or be able to stroll to the local grocery. To take a train or BRT or bike share anywhere you need to go. You experience a city in a drastically different way like that than you ever can flying by in a car. I recognize that even Columbus’ most urban, walkable neighborhoods are still realistically a long way from that, and there is realistically going to be limitations on how close to that it can become. But the city can be a lot closer to than not, but it will take people- not just developers and bankers- to want to create something like that. All these comments, honestly, have been super disappointing. More disappointing, really, than the projects themselves, because it seems clear to me that most are perfectly happy with the status quo. They may want better, but are happy not rocking that boat. Living elsewhere is always going to be an option, and I have done that. Whether or not I live in Columbus will never change that I only want the best possible for my hometown. I will always argue that it reach for its potential. I am sure that I can be quite overbearing on that subject at times. But in my view, you should always want the best for things you love.

    #1113560

    drew
    Participant

    I don’t think that is really a fair assessment.

    What developers actually invest in will trump what internet quarterbacks call for every single time. Put some skin in the game and I’ll be interested to hear more.

    But in my view, you should always want the best for things you love.

    If only everyone could agree on what is best. It’s almost as though there’s no single path that everyone can agree on… on the internet, no less!

    #1113561

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    What developers actually invest in will trump what internet quarterbacks call for every single time. Put some skin in the game and I’ll be interested to hear more.

    So you’re saying no one besides developers are allowed to have opinions on or demand anything but what they themselves propose? Interesting, since that would basically make neighborhood commissions worthless and everything from the variance process to historic preservation districts essentially moot. I don’t think that’s what you really mean, so perhaps you could clarify exactly who gets to say what based on how many millions they invest.

    If only everyone could agree on what is best. It’s almost as though there’s no single path that everyone can agree on… on the internet, no less!

    Unless you hate the urban form or have no understanding of it, there are petty basic, tangible standards that have already been established. In the broadest terms, the better the density of population, the more walkable neighborhoods become because that population brings about increased levels of amenities in the area. The only question here is what level of density is acceptable, and that appears to be the basis of the disagreement. Is a general 4-6-story with the very limited 10-12-story neighborhood acceptable density Downtown? Or should it be a general 10-12 story neighborhood with a limited 4-6-story as well as the occasional 20-30-story? Right now, the consensus seems to be that the 4-6 is better, but then that also contradicts with stated goals. It will bring increased density, but not to even levels of the past. This doesn’t particularly strike me as doing anything but bare minimum.

    #1113568
    Josh Lapp
    Josh Lapp
    Participant

    Unless you hate the urban form or have no understanding of it, there are petty basic, tangible standards that have already been established. In the broadest terms, the better the density of population, the more walkable neighborhoods become because that population brings about increased levels of amenities in the area. The only question here is what level of density is acceptable, and that appears to be the basis of the disagreement. Is a general 4-6-story with the very limited 10-12-story neighborhood acceptable density Downtown? Or should it be a general 10-12 story neighborhood with a limited 4-6-story as well as the occasional 20-30-story? Right now, the consensus seems to be that the 4-6 is better, but then that also contradicts with stated goals. It will bring increased density, but not to even levels of the past. This doesn’t particularly strike me as doing anything but bare minimum.

    You are confusing height with density, and density with urban design. Both sets of things are related but don’t always correlate. Tall buildings can (and do) have much less ‘density’ than short ones. ‘Dense’ buildings can be badly designed or urban vitality.

    Miranova is a great example of a building that tickles the edifice complex but falls short on all other measures. Sure, its pretty, but it has less units (read: density) than 250 S High and no street presence adding basically no vitality to downtown. A similar story can be told of North Bank. Meanwhile 250 High, Highpoint, The Normandy & Neilson, the Julian, LC Projects, and even Gay Street condos add much more positive street presence, vitality, and meaningful population than any ‘towers’ that have been built in Columbus thus far.

    To bring it back around, Two25 will be a fantastic addition to the Commons and downtown at 12 stories and will only further enhance the already growing RiverSouth, S High, and S 4th node. The economics won’t work on taller buildings downtown until the demand is much stronger, which means we probably need to fill in 20 more parking lots with 5-10 story buildings.

    #1113580

    drew
    Participant

    So you’re saying no one besides developers are allowed to have opinions on or demand anything but what they themselves propose?

    No. Like, really: no.

    I’m saying developers have the best sense of customer demand, and that nothing gets built without them. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want to go higher if they thought they could find occupants for the additional space. Once they’ve purchased the land, adding more height is a good way to maximize return on the investment… unless they think there’s a real risk that the additional space will go unoccupied.

    Some well intentioned advice: Neither you alone, nor some imagined internet posse of concerned urbanists, is going to convince anyone to make a what they feel would be a bad investment. Stop talking to random people on the internet about why they’re wrong, and maybe try talking to someone who actually has the ability (if not the willingness) to build some version of what you want locally. Call up someone from Kauffman, someone from Edwards. Listen to what their concerns are, if only to refine your argument. You’re not breaking any new ground here, not changing minds, and ultimately it seems pretty clear that you’re making yourself miserable. There is no keyboard jockey solution.

    #1113615

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Unless you hate the urban form or have no understanding of it, there are petty basic, tangible standards that have already been established. In the broadest terms, the better the density of population, the more walkable neighborhoods become because that population brings about increased levels of amenities in the area. The only question here is what level of density is acceptable, and that appears to be the basis of the disagreement. Is a general 4-6-story with the very limited 10-12-story neighborhood acceptable density Downtown? Or should it be a general 10-12 story neighborhood with a limited 4-6-story as well as the occasional 20-30-story? Right now, the consensus seems to be that the 4-6 is better, but then that also contradicts with stated goals. It will bring increased density, but not to even levels of the past. This doesn’t particularly strike me as doing anything but bare minimum.

    You are confusing height with density, and density with urban design. Both sets of things are related but don’t always correlate. Tall buildings can (and do) have much less ‘density’ than short ones. ‘Dense’ buildings can be badly designed or urban vitality.

    Miranova is a great example of a building that tickles the edifice complex but falls short on all other measures. Sure, its pretty, but it has less units (read: density) than 250 S High and no street presence adding basically no vitality to downtown. A similar story can be told of North Bank. Meanwhile 250 High, Highpoint, The Normandy & Neilson, the Julian, LC Projects, and even Gay Street condos add much more positive street presence, vitality, and meaningful population than any ‘towers’ that have been built in Columbus thus far.

    To bring it back around, Two25 will be a fantastic addition to the Commons and downtown at 12 stories and will only further enhance the already growing RiverSouth, S High, and S 4th node. The economics won’t work on taller buildings downtown until the demand is much stronger, which means we probably need to fill in 20 more parking lots with 5-10 story buildings.

    No, I am not confusing them. In general, taller buildings in terms of residential are usually greater density. Obviously there are exceptions, but I didn’t think we were arguing from the perspective of exceptions rather than the rule. It is strange how again, I say something and then people respond with the worst case scenario to counter it, as if that should be the most reasonable expectation. As always, it comes to design, and design doesn’t have to suck. BTW, condo buildings, of which both North Bank and Miranova are, tend to have fewer units than apartment buildings. It is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

    How can demand actually be higher than it is now? Actual demand is far outpacing construction already.

    #1113616

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    So you’re saying no one besides developers are allowed to have opinions on or demand anything but what they themselves propose?

    No. Like, really: no.

    I’m saying developers have the best sense of customer demand, and that nothing gets built without them. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want to go higher if they thought they could find occupants for the additional space. Once they’ve purchased the land, adding more height is a good way to maximize return on the investment… unless they think there’s a real risk that the additional space will go unoccupied.

    Some well intentioned advice: Neither you alone, nor some imagined internet posse of concerned urbanists, is going to convince anyone to make a what they feel would be a bad investment. Stop talking to random people on the internet about why they’re wrong, and maybe try talking to someone who actually has the ability (if not the willingness) to build some version of what you want locally. Call up someone from Kauffman, someone from Edwards. Listen to what their concerns are, if only to refine your argument. You’re not breaking any new ground here, not changing minds, and ultimately it seems pretty clear that you’re making yourself miserable. There is no keyboard jockey solution.

    Actually, I think what I have learned is that Columbus really isn’t ready for this. I think everyone is pretty happy with the status quo, and I think that definitely applies to developers as well. I don’t see how a single person calling up Kauffman, who I can’t even imagine would have any reason to talk to some random person anyway, can do anything about that. So I’m giving it up. No more complaining about height in this or any other project thread. I was honestly way wrong about the direction things were going in and what people generally wanted. I don’t think I could’ve misread it any worse. And you’re right, instead of pestering people on an internet board about things no one else wants, I could be more productive doing something else.

    #1113619

    ohbr
    Participant

    I’m curious as to why we continue to perpetuate this “4-6,” “3-5,” or “5” story bubble theory. I’d like to see a timeline of the last 10 years. On that timeline, a graph representing the height of of each proposal. It seems to me that 50% of those in the last 2 years have clearly broken out of those bubbles. I see ourselves on the cusp of 10 stories being a standard height of most new proposals. I think it may be safe to say we’re out of the 3-5 bubble and even the 4-6 bubble. But then again, that’s my perception. Clearly there are others who feel very differently. It would be fun to see the numbers in a more scientific and graphic approach.

    #1113620

    Shako
    Participant

    This is a little like religion for you, isn’t it? Why are your density preferences inherently “right” and others’ preferences wrong? Notice that no one has chastised you for your preference for density. Why does every city have to match your worldview? There is a place for everyone– folks who live here and choose to remain (the majority of them) like it. Why is that inherently wrong and “not getting it”? I understand you are passionate about your own preferences, and you have every right to pursue those for yourself. But take a step back and look at how your are projecting your own personal preferences onto everyone else. Do you really believe this is a moral issue? If you do, to eachieve their own, but then there really isn’t any more point in continuing the dialogue.

    #1113636

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    This is a little like religion for you, isn’t it? Why are your density preferences inherently “right” and others’ preferences wrong? Notice that no one has chastised you for your preference for density. Why does every city have to match your worldview? There is a place for everyone– folks who live here and choose to remain (the majority of them) like it. Why is that inherently wrong and “not getting it”? I understand you are passionate about your own preferences, and you have every right to pursue those for yourself. But take a step back and look at how your are projecting your own personal preferences onto everyone else. Do you really believe this is a moral issue? If you do, to eachieve their own, but then there really isn’t any more point in continuing the dialogue.

    Can you point out where I said that only my preferences were right and everyone else was wrong? Or where I stated it was a moral issue? This is mainly about me being totally wrong about what I thought most wanted. That’s fine, I was just surprised by it. I am no longer going to bother trying to change anyone’s mind on the matter. It is what it is, I am accepting it.

    #1113686

    JMan
    Participant

    Why is height in Columbus a bad word?

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 304 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