Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Columbo

Columbus: North Market Developments and News

Recommended Posts

First of wow, the fact the city garnered this level of interest is exciting. Its a major piece left in a dense and diverse area.... that said, this specific proposal (I cant believe i'm about to say this) seems a bit awkward for that spot.  It seems a little tall and very Texas circa 2005? anyone? Granted if it moves forward I will not be upset at all buuuuut it really needs refinement.

 

I cant say i'm surprised NRI had the dense proposal... let me guess... 5 story red brick and grey steel? Cool. Next.

 

I'm super intrigued to see Pizzuti's though, they're are a developer who seems to know how to build dense, modern, appropriate. I would argue office and residential is an amazing in this spot. Why not a hotel component? It seems 15-20 floors could be a solid height as well so lets see how it all unfolds.

 

Either way this is very exciting. Progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the kind of proposal I was expecting.  Was thinking/hoping for Markthal from Rotterdam or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

 

That tower would certainly change the area - there's mainly just bars down Park Street and more restaurants to the east on High Street.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renderings of the Wood/Schiff proposal for a 35-story 'Market Tower,'

 

NolnmMM.jpg

 

 

I love how the Nationwide building looks like a vertical slice of the Death Star.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renderings of the Wood/Schiff proposal for a 35-story 'Market Tower,'

 

NolnmMM.jpg

 

 

I love how the Nationwide building looks like a vertical slice of the Death Star.

 

Haha I have never noticed this.... you're not wrong. This is awkward.

Yay brutalist skyscrapers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the kind of proposal I was expecting.  Was thinking/hoping for Markthal from Rotterdam or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

 

 

I was thinking the exact same; not what I was expecting or wanted. These proposals are ridiculous and will kill the character of the North Market. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the kind of proposal I was expecting.  Was thinking/hoping for Markthal from Rotterdam or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

 

 

I was thinking the exact same; not what I was expecting or wanted. These proposals are ridiculous and will kill the character of the North Market.

 

Did you actually look at these proposals? I know at least for The Wood Company's proposal they specifically stated that they are leaving the North Market exactly as is. If you want to argue that building something on a parking lot is going to kill the character of the North Market then be my guest. If anything, these proposals will add to the vibrancy of this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the kind of proposal I was expecting.  Was thinking/hoping for Markthal from Rotterdam or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

 

I was thinking the exact same; not what I was expecting or wanted. These proposals are ridiculous and will kill the character of the North Market. 

 

I do not agree that these proposals would kill the character of North Market, as the development is simply occupying the adjacent parking lot and the outdoor stalls that might be lost are not heavily used or long-standing/unique vendors. Its not like we are tearing down the open-air stalls at West Side Market.

 

There is perhaps, however, an opportunity to do something greater in terms of extending the physical market space. That would likely involve some significant public funding as markets are not lucrative or easy to finance (shorter term leases, non-credit tenants, etc.). The city's approach has been to see what the private development community can do with this site, so I am not too surprised with what has been proposed.

 

An incredible expansion of Seattle's Pike Place Market is now underway, with substantial city, parking revenue, private fundraising, and tax credit funds. You can read more here: http://pikeplacemarket.org/marketfront

 

If we want something like that, government and philanthropy will need to come to the table with capital.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the kind of proposal I was expecting.  Was thinking/hoping for Markthal from Rotterdam or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia.

 

 

I was thinking the exact same; not what I was expecting or wanted. These proposals are ridiculous and will kill the character of the North Market. 

 

I think this is more the natural progression of not only the market but the area that it is in. It's a chance to not only expand the market but capitalize on its location; which all these proposals do in spades. I can see how the proposals take a simple, hometown, independent marketplace and warp it into another high-end, trendy, residential complex. However the parking lot has to go, and adding a large-scale residential complex not only capitalizes on its incredible location, but increases the potential usage of an expanded market. Something I truly like about the Wood/Schiff proposal is the indoor atrium planned to bridge the current market with the expansion over the lot. It would be nice to have it convertible to open-air during the summer months and glassed-in during the winter. Again, overall I personally am excited about the transformative nature of these proposals and eagerly await their completion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rejected: Four North Market Development Proposals That Didn’t Make The Final Cut

 

Kaufman Development

 

The proposal submitted by Kaufman Development and designed by NBBJ, imagines a contemporary six-story tiered structure that steps down to lower levels of retail and 23,000 square feet of roof-top greenspace. The proposed building included 65 apartment units, 32,000 square feet of retail space designated as an expansion for the North Market and restaurant use, as well as a 310-space parking garage underground.

 

timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbusunderground.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2Fnm-kaufman-01.jpg&q=90&w=650&zc=1&

 

 

Flaherty & Collins

 

The Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins was the only non-local developer to submit a proposal for the North Market parking lot redevelopment site. Their proposal called for the construction of a 26-story tower on the site, containing 297 residential units ranging in size from 500 to 1,100 square feet, with amenities including a fitness facility, lounges, a business center, game room, and two “amenity decks”. The building would also include a 470-space parking garage, 26,000 square feet of retail space, and a central outdoor plaza.

 

nm-indy-04.jpg

 

 

CASTO

 

Local developer CASTO proposed an 18-story structure for the North Market parking lot site that would include a mix of 129 for-rent apartments and 82 for-sale condo units for a total of 211 new residences on the property. A three-story parking structure within the building was planned to accomodate 327 parking spaces while the ground floor contained 6,200 square feet of new North Market retail space and a two-story 8,500 square foot “North Market Food Lab” facing Spruce Street. Two different upper levels would be utilizes as amenity decks for residents.

 

nm-casto-04.jpg

 

 

Full article below:

http://www.columbusunderground.com/rejected-four-north-market-development-proposals-that-didnt-make-the-final-cut


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

 

Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential.  It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide.  It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential.  Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold?  You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

 

Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential.  It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide.  It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential.  Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold?  You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix.

 

I'm sorry, your argument is that the city might get too dense?  My gosh, don't ever go to NYC or Chicago, your head might explode! In all seriousness, I've lived downtown for 16 years now, and I would hardly call traffic by the North Market or in the Short North gridlocked, not by any stretch of the imagination. And increased density is actually a good thing, by any measure. Will there be days where it's kinda crazy down there?  Sure, and I bet every single vendor in the market, and every single business in the area, will be absolutely thrilled every single time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

 

Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential.  It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide.  It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential.  Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold?  You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix.

 

I'm sorry, your argument is that the city might get too dense?  My gosh, don't ever go to NYC or Chicago, your head might explode! In all seriousness, I've lived downtown for 16 years now, and I would hardly call traffic by the North Market or in the Short North gridlocked, not by any stretch of the imagination. And increased density is actually a good thing, by any measure. Will there be days where it's kinda crazy down there?  Sure, and I bet every single vendor in the market, and every single business in the area, will be absolutely thrilled every single time.

 

I have zero problem with density where it is appropriate. The Schottenstein's flat lot paradise on 3rd and 4th for example need these proposals more than this location does is all I am saying. That lot needs filled in but it should be an entertainment destination, not a place to live for that many people.  Plus I'm probably going to win this in the end because there is zero chance that Wood/Schiff have the money to see this through.  Something like Kaufman's proposal should've been selected.  I love Chicago btw and don't particularly care for NYC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Flaherty's proposal the best, but it didn't make the cut.  I think of the finalists, without seeing NRI's, that Wood's is the best design and best for the area.

 

LOL at "too dense."  It's Columbus.  It's not going to be too dense.  The Convention Center will become more accessible now off of Goodale, so not ALL the traffic will spill out onto High Street.

 

http://614now.com/2016/business-2/north-markets-parking-lot-may-turn-into-a-skyscraper - More details on two of the finalists here.  The recent growth of Columbus and potential for this space makes me think Wood/Schiff will get the nod.  A spokesperson for the City (or North Market) mentioned an emphasis on residential, not so much office.  I think that will lean in favor of the Woods/Schiff proposal.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Columbus does have to worry about "too dense" right now. Too dense leads to surface lots and empty land elsewhere in Columbus as it stands. 6-12 story development is what is needed now to kill those surface lots. Then we go back and knock down the 1-2 story '50s crap and put a 20 story up. We really don't want to disturb anything nice that's 3 stories plus either. Then after the city is actually dense we can wipe out the cheaply done 6-story stuff for 30+.

 

Of course, this is all Sim City talk. We don't get to have it our way. Landowners and developers make these decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Columbus does have to worry about "too dense" right now. Too dense leads to surface lots and empty land elsewhere in Columbus as it stands. 6-12 story development is what is needed now to kill those surface lots. Then we go back and knock down the 1-2 story '50s crap and put a 20 story up. We really don't want to disturb anything nice that's 3 stories plus either. Then after the city is actually dense we can wipe out the cheaply done 6-story stuff for 30+.

 

Of course, this is all Sim City talk. We don't get to have it our way. Landowners and developers make these decisions.

 

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back it up?  Because I've seen nothing about "empty land" elsewhere in Columbus due to companies and people moving downtown. If anything, with 25K people/year moving to Columbus, increasing jobs, and increasing interest in people already here living downtown, developers should be building far higher than they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly there is a corollary in Cincinnati since Findlay Market has one large parking lot immediately north of the market, another one about a block west, and a small one about a block south.  So if this breaks ground it's going to give the City of Cincinnati a lot of ideas and we might end up with a ridiculously tall tower (or two) in the center of the historic district. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Columbus does have to worry about "too dense" right now. Too dense leads to surface lots and empty land elsewhere in Columbus as it stands. 6-12 story development is what is needed now to kill those surface lots. Then we go back and knock down the 1-2 story '50s crap and put a 20 story up. We really don't want to disturb anything nice that's 3 stories plus either. Then after the city is actually dense we can wipe out the cheaply done 6-story stuff for 30+.

 

Of course, this is all Sim City talk. We don't get to have it our way. Landowners and developers make these decisions.

 

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back it up?  Because I've seen nothing about "empty land" elsewhere in Columbus due to companies and people moving downtown. If anything, with 25K people/year moving to Columbus, increasing jobs, and increasing interest in people already here living downtown, developers should be building far higher than they are.

 

Columbus' Downtown is larger than Cleveland's and Cincinnati's combined. It is a LOT of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

 

Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential.  It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide.  It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential.  Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold?  You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix.

 

It's not actually densely occupied.  Except right on High, almost all the surrounding buildings are only 1-4 stories.  That is NOT dense.  Most of the area is going to be redeveloped at some point with much taller, mixed-use development.  It's inevitable given the location.  This part of Downtown actually has low density.  In 2010, there were only 2,293 ppsm in this census block that include the North Market neighborhood, along High and the eastern sections of the Arena District.  It's probably come up a few hundred since then, but this would be considered low density population-wise. 

And for the love of god, the idea that bigger development should be stopped because there is a lot of traffic is complete nonsense.  It's Downtown... in a major city.  Vibrancy is the entire point.  If parking your car is the primary concern, perhaps urban discussion is not for you.  I don't mean to be flippant, but you present the very contradiction of what a walkable, urban environment should be.  Throwing up a tower in RiverSouth is fine, but what happens when that area gets too much traffic?  Back to low-rise?  Maybe 6 more parking garages on Front Street?  Come on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

Really disagree with those who say this is the wrong site for a tower.  Why?  It's Downtown, and so long as it takes the market into account and is mixed-use, there is no reason it won't work.  Most of this area is currently low-mid rise, but that won't always be the case.  A project of this scale would likely spur additional development in the immediate area.  It's not just about the current state, but the future as well.  I'm tired of Columbus playing it safe with low-mid rise projects and bland design, exactly what I think Pizzuti's proposal is.  They've done some decent projects in the past, but I hate their proposal.  It's very underwhelming considering how much grander some of the other proposals were.  Kaufman's is certainly outside the box, but just too small and would be the least impactful.  Without knowing anything about NRI's proposal, it's hard to say.  Their "historic" description is a tease, because they're not well known for significant projects of late.  They built a 5-story brick on High Street not that long ago, and their other recent project at Parks Edge should've been much larger given the prime location.  In some ways, I think they play it the most conservative of all, so I remain skeptical that their proposal will be "historic" in any capacity, but I'm open to surprise.   

 

Also, keep in mind that all the proposals are just that.  Between now and actually breaking ground, all of them are likely to go through design changes, perhaps significant ones.  We don't know what the neighborhood/historic commissions are going to say about it.  The relative lack of parking with the Wood proposal is not really a problem (from an urban development standpoint), but even if so, it is not impossible for them to add a larger garage.  I mean, if they're willing to go 30+ stories, they can add 100 more spaces.

 

A thousand times this!  I mean, this site is just one block off High Street, for goodness sakes!  If not here, then you might as well say that there is NO good place to put a tower in this city. I don't remember hearing anyone arguing against the Millenium tower proposal on Front, again, just a block off High Street. Both projects are exactly what Columbus needs right now, tall towers which hopefully will spur further development near their respective locations, and architecturally new for Columbus. Good on Wood/Schiff for this proposal, and lets hope this is just the start of many such exciting proposals for the downtown.

 

Riversouth is better suited for a tower, this area is already densely occupied and you really could've created something special without a tower here with residential.  It's an already gridlocked area that will be an absolute nightmare during a big convention or a large event at Nationwide.  It should've been entertainment and focused towards food, retail and the market itself instead of residential.  Could you imagine a large space for vendors during say the recent NHL All-Star Game or the Arnold?  You could've put another hotel on the lot and accomplished all of that without adding a ton of residents to the mix.

 

I'm sorry, your argument is that the city might get too dense?  My gosh, don't ever go to NYC or Chicago, your head might explode! In all seriousness, I've lived downtown for 16 years now, and I would hardly call traffic by the North Market or in the Short North gridlocked, not by any stretch of the imagination. And increased density is actually a good thing, by any measure. Will there be days where it's kinda crazy down there?  Sure, and I bet every single vendor in the market, and every single business in the area, will be absolutely thrilled every single time.

 

I have zero problem with density where it is appropriate. The Schottenstein's flat lot paradise on 3rd and 4th for example need these proposals more than this location does is all I am saying. That lot needs filled in but it should be an entertainment destination, not a place to live for that many people.  Plus I'm probably going to win this in the end because there is zero chance that Wood/Schiff have the money to see this through.  Something like Kaufman's proposal should've been selected.  I love Chicago btw and don't particularly care for NYC.

 

Why in the world would they propose something they couldn't build?  The city didn't ask for fantasy proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Columbus does have to worry about "too dense" right now. Too dense leads to surface lots and empty land elsewhere in Columbus as it stands. 6-12 story development is what is needed now to kill those surface lots. Then we go back and knock down the 1-2 story '50s crap and put a 20 story up. We really don't want to disturb anything nice that's 3 stories plus either. Then after the city is actually dense we can wipe out the cheaply done 6-story stuff for 30+.

 

Of course, this is all Sim City talk. We don't get to have it our way. Landowners and developers make these decisions.

 

Is this your opinion, or do you have facts to back it up?  Because I've seen nothing about "empty land" elsewhere in Columbus due to companies and people moving downtown. If anything, with 25K people/year moving to Columbus, increasing jobs, and increasing interest in people already here living downtown, developers should be building far higher than they are.

 

Columbus' Downtown is larger than Cleveland's and Cincinnati's combined. It is a LOT of land.

 

And if vacancy rates were high or population growth was stagnant or low, maybe your point would make more sense.  Neither of those things is true, though.  Residential vacancy is very low throughout Central Ohio, let alone just in the city or Downtown.  Both the city and metro are growing the fastest they have in 50 years.  A single 30+ story mixed-use tower (with maybe 100-250 units) is not going to saturate the market and kill projects in other parts of the city.  Consider that that architectural ugly duckling HighPoint was the equivalent of a 30-story and yet since then, there have been multiple other projects to start construction or be proposed within a block of it- most of them not on existing surface lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Flaherty's proposal the best, but it didn't make the cut.  I think of the finalists, without seeing NRI's, that Wood's is the best design and best for the area.

 

LOL at "too dense."  It's Columbus.  It's not going to be too dense.  The Convention Center will become more accessible now off of Goodale, so not ALL the traffic will spill out onto High Street.

 

 

Wow. If you read the comments after the article you get the idea most people don't want anything at all built there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downtown Columbus could support a population of 100,000+ at an average of 8-10 stories. Look at all that unutilized/underutilized land north of Spring. Downtown includes Franklinton. The SE side of Downtown is a bunch of warehouses. If you really know Columbus and have been in and out of Downtown since I first started remembering things in oh 1982, you recognize these areas that are far from the well-known parts. Neilston. 5th STREET. Hocking. How about that entire "peninsula" that only holds the ramp from West Mound to the bridge over the Split that hasn't been used since 1972? We are blessed and cursed by the sheer amount of land. I could build a motocross track Downtown and nobody would care.

 

It was long enough ago that when you went to the doctor, you went Downtown. Shopping at the malls was OK, but if you wanted the good stuff you went Downtown. Lawyers were all Downtown. Wanted to invest in the market? Downtown. 400 West Rich? How about 400 EAST Rich, the crazy building with all the levels? You couldn't walk 15 feet without climbing a staircase. Main Library for everything since branches were like 2,000 square feet. I suppose a lot was going on on Morse and 161 but we never went up there since we lived in Groveport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why in the world would they propose something they couldn't build?  The city didn't ask for fantasy proposals.

 

I'm willing to bet good money that this does not get built.  Schiff is too new in the game to get funding for something like that, hell most if not all developers in Columbus would be hard pressed to get that kind of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not actually densely occupied.  Except right on High, almost all the surrounding buildings are only 1-4 stories.  That is NOT dense.  Most of the area is going to be redeveloped at some point with much taller, mixed-use development.  It's inevitable given the location.  This part of Downtown actually has low density.  In 2010, there were only 2,293 ppsm in this census block that include the North Market neighborhood, along High and the eastern sections of the Arena District.  It's probably come up a few hundred since then, but this would be considered low density population-wise. 

And for the love of god, the idea that bigger development should be stopped because there is a lot of traffic is complete nonsense.  It's Downtown... in a major city.  Vibrancy is the entire point.  If parking your car is the primary concern, perhaps urban discussion is not for you.  I don't mean to be flippant, but you present the very contradiction of what a walkable, urban environment should be.  Throwing up a tower in RiverSouth is fine, but what happens when that area gets too much traffic?  Back to low-rise?  Maybe 6 more parking garages on Front Street?  Come on.

 

I know and understand that it is not "dense" per se, but it is compact and does not need 1,000 permanent residents.  I think the city is playing this wrong and should focus on this being an entertainment district is basically all that I've said.  I live and love living in walkable neighborhoods, currently that is IV for me. I've lived in the suburbs for only one year of my 10 in Columbus.  I again view the area in which the North Market is located as an entertainment district period.  I think once the Park Street Complex is redeveloped into hotel and office space it will spur development of the flat lots behind it into hopefully more residential then that will create your dream of an actual walkable neighborhood in that area.  This particular space however should not be the one to do that.  You can't just throw sh*t at a wall and expect it to stick, this tower is proverbial sh*t and won't get built in my opinion. Just like the tower on the convention center did not get built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire existing North Market building would stay there, and I think even be expanded in Wood/Schiff's proposal.  And "entertainment district??"  What exactly is the rest of the Arena District?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire existing North Market building would stay there, and I think even be expanded in Wood/Schiff's proposal.  And "entertainment district??"  What exactly is the rest of the Arena District?

 

Well if you ask jbcmh, a two story none dense hell.  I agree with GCrites, this tower is not going to "add" to the walkability of this area.  Hell I walk it right now; to and from Jackets games, concerts, Clippers games to the occasional adult beverage at R Bar or Three Legged Mare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towers themselves do not necessarily add to walkability, but if they are done right, you can mitigate any negative impact to the street and make the surrounding area more walkable by adding additional density that brings additional amenities.

 

1000 more residents could mean more businesses, such as conventional retail or restaurants. Destinations breed walking and people walking to those amenities breeds more walking.

 

Some of the restaurants in the Arena District only open for lunch or events; adding residents will make the area function more like a neighborhood instead of like a 1990's-era CBD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towers can add or detract from walkability based on their design just like any other structure. The wood proposal's base is actually very well-designed for enhancing walkability. It's lined with retail, restaurants, active plaza spaces, balconies, etc that are all right up against the curb. Compare that to the design of Miranova - which adds nothing to the neighborhood at street-level.

 

Also for all the height, the wood/schiff tower still only has 185 units - a good amount for increasing the residential density of the area, but hardly some obscene quantity that is going to flood the market, unleash any kind of traffic nightmare, kill other projects, or leave us with anymore surface lots elsewhere than we would have anyway.

 

You can certainly agree or disagree with whether or not a tower, this tower, etc, on this site aligns with your aesthetic preference for the area, but why not keep that discussion grounded in some kind of reality otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not actually densely occupied.  Except right on High, almost all the surrounding buildings are only 1-4 stories.  That is NOT dense.  Most of the area is going to be redeveloped at some point with much taller, mixed-use development.  It's inevitable given the location.  This part of Downtown actually has low density.  In 2010, there were only 2,293 ppsm in this census block that include the North Market neighborhood, along High and the eastern sections of the Arena District.  It's probably come up a few hundred since then, but this would be considered low density population-wise. 

And for the love of god, the idea that bigger development should be stopped because there is a lot of traffic is complete nonsense.  It's Downtown... in a major city.  Vibrancy is the entire point.  If parking your car is the primary concern, perhaps urban discussion is not for you.  I don't mean to be flippant, but you present the very contradiction of what a walkable, urban environment should be.  Throwing up a tower in RiverSouth is fine, but what happens when that area gets too much traffic?  Back to low-rise?  Maybe 6 more parking garages on Front Street?  Come on.

 

I know and understand that it is not "dense" per se, but it is compact and does not need 1,000 permanent residents.  I think the city is playing this wrong and should focus on this being an entertainment district is basically all that I've said.  I live and love living in walkable neighborhoods, currently that is IV for me. I've lived in the suburbs for only one year of my 10 in Columbus.  I again view the area in which the North Market is located as an entertainment district period.  I think once the Park Street Complex is redeveloped into hotel and office space it will spur development of the flat lots behind it into hopefully more residential then that will create your dream of an actual walkable neighborhood in that area.  This particular space however should not be the one to do that.  You can't just throw sh*t at a wall and expect it to stick, this tower is proverbial sh*t and won't get built in my opinion. Just like the tower on the convention center did not get built.

 

You simply don't get the concept of walkability.  A city full of single-use development can be densely built, but there would be no real walkability.  Walkability requires a mixed-use development pattern.  This is how buildings were built 100 years ago, with apartments, offices and retail.  People don't just work in the area, or go to restaurants in the area, but they actually live there too.  Saying that the city doesn't need 1000 new residents is frankly, asinine.  Of course this area needs residents.  Residents increase the buying power of a neighborhood, therefore increase retail options, which in turn make the area more attractive to offices, entertainment and other amenities.  It's all connected and feeds off each other.  A solely entertainment district would not be vibrant at all times, only during events.  That's not what makes for a good, walkable neighborhood.  Retail doesn't do well in such environments and the streets would be largely dead otherwise.  The Arena District needs residents.  So does all of Downtown.  And it needs a LOT more of them.

The reason the proposals at the convention center did not get built had nothing to do with the area being some kind of entertainment-only district where such a project wouldn't work.  That is ridiculous.  It didn't get built likely because the convention center's commission didn't want hotel competition so soon after the completion of the publicly-financed one they built across from it.  That was probably one of the worst decisions ever made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Towers add little to walkability.

 

If we are talking about a single one, sure, but we are not.  We're talking about adding to the collective.  It's not some tower out in a field.  It has far more potential to add localized vibrancy than some 2-5 story ever would, and it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods.  It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size.  Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods.  It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size.  Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

 

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do.  This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care?  I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city.  There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there.  The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wood Co. proposal is so much more than just the tower. The first two stories are additional space for the NM, then there are four stories of office which will add more foot traffic for the Market throughout the week and during work hours. It includes the atrium space which the Market can utilize for a variety of functions, and of course it adds ~30 stories of residential. The tower itself, along with the Park Street hotel project will catalyze denser development of the entire area.

 

Additionally, the inclusion of a two-story pharmacy and sixth floor restaurant space further enhances the impact that this project can have on the neighborhood, and that's not even mentioning the Spruce St. re-design that provides even more space for walkability, farmer's markets, etc. It's a very well thought out proposal.

 

Columbus needs to be bold, and this proposal is bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods.  It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size.  Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

 

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do.  This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care?  I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city.  There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there.  The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree.

 

So you're worried about how this tower may adversely affect traffic and parking availability?  So no, you are actually demonstrating the very opposite of what a dense, walkable neighborhood is.  Parking is difficult in truly vibrant neighborhoods because there is less physical space used for parking.  Instead, it is used for residential units, offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, parks, etc.  It is NOT used for another 10-story parking garage.  Have you seen Front Street?  There are an abundance of parking spaces, but it's completely dead.  Even with the addition of a few residential projects down by Main Street, the majority of that stretch will continue to be dead regardless of the hour.  Yet you're arguing that what the AD needs is more parking rather than people and things to do.  And you think that is an example of your understanding of walkability?  Come on. 

And DC is not Columbus.  There is no danger in the next 50 years of Columbus reaching anywhere close to DC or SF or NYC or Chicago average density, even if that entire time, there were 30+ story towers going up.  Downtown is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the entire city.  Most of the suburbs have tracts that are 2-5x more dense.  That's pathetic.  There is plenty of room to grow, and plenty of ways to make it a true destination.  Sorry that parking is your primary concern, but that's not what makes a city, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wood Co. proposal is so much more than just the tower. The first two stories are additional space for the NM, then there are four stories of office which will add more foot traffic for the Market throughout the week and during work hours. It includes the atrium space which the Market can utilize for a variety of functions, and of course it adds ~30 stories of residential. The tower itself, along with the Park Street hotel project will catalyze denser development of the entire area.

 

Additionally, the inclusion of a two-story pharmacy and sixth floor restaurant space further enhances the impact that this project can have on the neighborhood, and that's not even mentioning the Spruce St. re-design that provides even more space for walkability, farmer's markets, etc. It's a very well thought out proposal.

 

Columbus needs to be bold, and this proposal is bold.

 

Exactly.  The #1 question that continues to hold back Columbus is "Shouldn't we be making it easier to drive and park?"  #2 is "And where will the parking lot/garage go?"  #3 is now "Why build transit when we can just use a technology not tested on the large scale based on the car?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods.  It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size.  Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

 

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do.  This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care?  I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city.  There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there.  The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree.

 

So you're worried about how this tower may adversely affect traffic and parking availability?  So no, you are actually demonstrating the very opposite of what a dense, walkable neighborhood is.  Parking is difficult in truly vibrant neighborhoods because there is less physical space used for parking.  Instead, it is used for residential units, offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, parks, etc.  It is NOT used for another 10-story parking garage.  Have you seen Front Street?  There are an abundance of parking spaces, but it's completely dead.  Even with the addition of a few residential projects down by Main Street, the majority of that stretch will continue to be dead regardless of the hour.  Yet you're arguing that what the AD needs is more parking rather than people and things to do.  And you think that is an example of your understanding of walkability?  Come on. 

And DC is not Columbus.  There is no danger in the next 50 years of Columbus reaching anywhere close to DC or SF or NYC or Chicago average density, even if that entire time, there were 30+ story towers going up.  Downtown is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the entire city.  Most of the suburbs have tracts that are 2-5x more dense.  That's pathetic.  There is plenty of room to grow, and plenty of ways to make it a true destination.  Sorry that parking is your primary concern, but that's not what makes a city, sorry.

 

That is where you lack any reading comprehension.  I never once said I was concerned about parking and I want that lot gone and have stated it several times.  My primary concern was congestion because of the size of the streets and roads in the area.  As a matter of fact I wouldn't expect this project to even have parking involved. However when it involves residential it has to have parking because you cannot put that many people in one area in a city of our size and not expect someone to have a car.  And you're calling me crazy, what suburb of Columbus is 5x as dense as downtown!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus' biggest problem continues to be so many people who have no idea how urban development works or how it is used to enhance walkability in neighborhoods.  It's the same reason why the lack of transit is such a huge elephant in the room compared to other cities of its size.  Sometimes I wonder how Columbus doesn't sprawl out another 500 miles given the attitudes that are so pervasive.

 

This is my last response to you because you are constantly belittling me about not understanding what walkability is when I've clearly demonstrated that I do.  This tower is unnecessary in my opinion and it is in yours, you probably live in Clintonville or Worthington any way so why in the world do you care?  I live in the area/neighborhood so I care a great deal about convenience for myself and visitors to our city.  There is no need for this in that area or the short north for that matter. DC is dense and there are height restrictions there.  The sprawl will not extend out 500 miles because if you look at how much land is available within 270 it will take at minimum 2 decades to infill that, I would know because I did a project on it while in school at tOSU. Learn how to agree to disagree.

 

So you're worried about how this tower may adversely affect traffic and parking availability?  So no, you are actually demonstrating the very opposite of what a dense, walkable neighborhood is.  Parking is difficult in truly vibrant neighborhoods because there is less physical space used for parking.  Instead, it is used for residential units, offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, parks, etc.  It is NOT used for another 10-story parking garage.  Have you seen Front Street?  There are an abundance of parking spaces, but it's completely dead.  Even with the addition of a few residential projects down by Main Street, the majority of that stretch will continue to be dead regardless of the hour.  Yet you're arguing that what the AD needs is more parking rather than people and things to do.  And you think that is an example of your understanding of walkability?  Come on. 

And DC is not Columbus.  There is no danger in the next 50 years of Columbus reaching anywhere close to DC or SF or NYC or Chicago average density, even if that entire time, there were 30+ story towers going up.  Downtown is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the entire city.  Most of the suburbs have tracts that are 2-5x more dense.  That's pathetic.  There is plenty of room to grow, and plenty of ways to make it a true destination.  Sorry that parking is your primary concern, but that's not what makes a city, sorry.

 

That is where you lack any reading comprehension.  I never once said I was concerned about parking and I want that lot gone and have stated it several times.  My primary concern was congestion because of the size of the streets and roads in the area.  As a matter of fact I wouldn't expect this project to even have parking involved. However when it involves residential it has to have parking because you cannot put that many people in one area in a city of our size and not expect someone to have a car.  And you're calling me crazy, what suburb of Columbus is 5x as dense as downtown!?

 

I included traffic in my response, and you're not disproving the point.  Traffic/parking should be the LAST concern when addressing the concept of urban walkability, not a primary one.  You're never going to be able to build enough auto-centric infrastructure to keep traffic minimal and parking abundant and cheap and yet at the same time, create a pedestrian-friendly, walkable environment full of dense development.  That's just not realistic.  The Short North has a big parking problem (according to some, although I've never had a particular problem with it), but it still continues to thrive, arguably more every passing year, even as public lots continue to be lost to development.  There have been some garages built, but there are definitely fewer places to park now than 5-10-15 years ago.  Why do you think that is?

The area of Tract 30, which includes everything north of Broad Street Downtown, had a density of about 2900.  There are suburbs with tracts with 10-12K density.  So more like up to 4x, my bad.  There are almost no other urban tracts in the core that have such a low population density.  The area south of Broad is not much better, although it should improve dramatically with all the residential projects around High and Main and High and Front. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reason for loving the Pizzuti proposal is the exact reason I don't; I don't want another rehashed Aquatechtonica(sp?) building. If they used a different architect, perhaps I would like it more, but I still think the Wood proposal is the best one. As you say, it would be an iconic update of the Columbus skyline, and a fantastic addition to this area, IMO. Unfortunately, I think Pizzuti will indeed get the nod(assuming the mysterious NRI project doesn't), for the most Columbus reason ever; the 475 spot underground parking lot. The lack of parking built into the Wood proposal will, I think, sadly scuttle it. If they were to somehow add the underground parking from the Pizzuti propsal to their tower, I think it would win in a landslide.

 

I am very interested in the Pizzuti proposal. I am already concerned about Park Street going high-rise, and adding a 35-story tower to the North Market will endanger every non-significant historic building for future high-rises, especially as height pressure is spilling over from the Short North.

 

Wood's tower proposal would be perfect for 3rd or 4th, but absolutely not the North Market. For what it's worth, I really like the neoclassical modern aesthetic of Wood's new builds.

 

I think Pizzuti needs to upgrade the street-level in their proposal, but otherwise I think their project fits best. I love the design that's basically a high-rise version of the Joseph. Reminds me of a lot of developments in Rotterdam, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Tallinn, et al.

 

My impression of the proposals:

 

Casto - too plastic-looking, but probably the best concept

Kaufman - best design, not a big enough proposal

Flaherty - carbon copy of one of their Indy projects

Wood - the iconic Class A tower Columbus is screaming for, on the wrong site

Pizzuti - the best overall mix of high design, context, concept, and just enough height

 

The Pizzuti proposal, to me, is truer to Pizzuti's brand than just that of Arquitechtonica. It's actually a very unique design for that firm, which almost never uses brick. I love it because it's the blending of their pizazz with Columbus' dominant neoclassical aesthetic. It belongs, but it elevates.

 

I also chuckled when I read your prediction based on the parking. You're probably right there, and that's a shame that their strength isn't their elegant design, but rather the sheer volume of proposed parking.  :roll:

 

If a domineering office tower, no matter how beautiful, is built on this site - especially one without parking - I will give all of Park Street 4 years before every last bar with character is replaced with parking garages. They will first start with Brother's, and people will say "oh it's just this one, and Brother's was never that good anyway, and the building isn't that unique" and then one by one, the rest of Park Street will fall like dominoes.

 

I have always loved these intimate, human-scale streets wedged between more towering properties. Gay Street is kind of like this. If Wood proposed their tower on Gay Street, let's say on the site of the Modern Finance Bldg and Tiptop, that proposal would have ALL of the same supporters. They would say why on earth preserve some small junky old buildings when we could have this magnificent tower. Yet those "junky old buildings" on Park Street and Gay Street are superior to almost all of downtown, meanwhile the truly perfect sites for skyscrapers on 3rd and 4th remain as surface parking lots operated by Schottenstein.

 

I find there to be tremendous value in declaring certain parts of the core off-limits for high-rise development. If you want skyscrapers on those 3rd and 4th parking lots, declare the North Market off-limits for towers, and they'll naturally end up where they do belong instead. I also think it's a very good thing that Columbus is churning out some really solid, walkable, mid-rise urban fabric right now. No point in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be the first person in Columbus to refer to the bars on Park Street as "bars with character".

 

I would love it if Brothers and Gaswerks were bulldozed and replaced with businesses that compliment the North Market and continue to create a true Market District. I don't particularly care how tall they are, but 3-4 story mixed-use buildings with ground floor businesses that add to and compliment the North Market would be a huge improvement over what currently makes up most of Park St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Touche on "bars with character," which is ironic bc the building stock is perfect, which is the only point I was making.

 

It reminds me of Rainey Street in Austin or NW 16th in OKC, both of which are fiercely preserving their quaint/cottage-like character while getting hemmed in with medium/high-density infill. It's that contrast that says "oh, this is cool and different."

 

Dallas also has a ton of these really cool one-story/patio bars (like the Ginger Bread Man) that are totally dwarfed by adjacent condo high-rises. In that instance, the bland condo high-rise sort of depends on those old hole in the wall bars next door to ground them amongst the surrounding eclectic urban fabric. Unfortunately, you know those bars aren't long for this world, and that's what I'm afraid is going to happen to the North Market area, which was already under development pressure before Wood wanted to build a tower that belongs on 3rd.

 

This is why downtowns are made up of suitable areas for towers distinctly separate from the historic districts. Otherwise how do you arbitrarily decide how to weight those priorities, and what is really your goal with a building code and design standards?

 

I'm just saying right now Wood does not have vested rights to build an over-bearing tower here, so that's outside the realm of higher and better use as currently defined. However, once you let Wood build that big of a tower, then anyone may as well have investment-backed privileges to demolish ALL of Park Street. For all we know that could be the plan for all the parking we know the Wood tower will need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be the first person in Columbus to refer to the bars on Park Street as "bars with character".

 

I would love it if Brothers and Gaswerks were bulldozed and replaced with businesses that compliment the North Market and continue to create a true Market District. I don't particularly care how tall they are, but 3-4 story mixed-use buildings with ground floor businesses that add to and compliment the North Market would be a huge improvement over what currently makes up most of Park St.

 

When they're replaced, it won't be for 3-4 stories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...