Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons

Recommended Posts

I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters.  I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there.  Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence.

 

See, this is the problem that a lot of people, including obviously the developers, don't seem to get.  Not every type of development is going to be for every type of person.  This particular development really isn't for people who can't imagine walking across a street to their car without climate control, nor should it be.  This is an urban location, and there is no reason to expect that such a location should be completely convenient either to drive or park.  If people need to have their car right outside their door, the suburbs offer that.  I see absolutely no reason to demand that in Downtown, where owning a car is less and less necessary given car share, transit, bike share and the general increase of walkability in the area.  Not a single urban development has had any trouble filling up with residents in Columbus regardless of the parking convenience, and this would be no different.  What the developer and the city should do instead is to create a safer pedestrian crossing, including perhaps new signals, a raised street section, etc.  It would probably end up being cheaper for the developer to do that, it would increase safety and pedestrian access to all- not only residents- and it would maintain the urban form that outdated skywalks take away from.  Ultimately, it is about 2 different mindsets- one that values urban living and all that successful urban vibrancy needs to exist, and one that really doesn't care about that so long as you can stay warmer for 30 feet.  Given that Gallery Hop in the dead of winter still seems pretty busy, I suspect that all the worry about cold and rain is overblown anyway.  People walk longer distances to get into WalMart. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters.  I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there.  Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence.

 

I guess you've never lived in an area where you had to rely on street parking? I often have to park 2-3 blocks away from my apartment in Mt. Adams (Cincy), and while it's sometimes a pain in the ass, I've just accepted it as a part of urban living. The trade-off, of course, is that I can walk to several restaurants, bars, and shops, and I have access to public transit (limited and crappy as the Cincy metro may be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters.  I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there.  Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence.

 

Understandable. But if that's the case, downtown might not be for you. The surrounding neighborhoods are practically downtown and there are plenty of options available for you that have an attached garage or nearby parking. We should be encouraging more people in downtown Columbus to live this way. Even better, maybe they won't find the parking worth it and many will choose to ditch their cars. The more carless residents downtown, the better. Or at least 2-car households cut down to 1.

 

If you live here, you're probably eating out a lot so most places are easily accessible without a car. If you're dining out all the time, what little groceries you need you can easily get to CVS by walk or Kroger by CBus or Cars2go. Hopefully as downtown densifies, we'll get even more options, like a mini Target. But the goal should be to get less, not more, people downtown who don't use cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lived in plenty of places with poor parking and multiple cities' downtowns.  While I get that it's perfectly doable to have parking not at your residence, the argument is that it's not a positive in any way - as anyone who has lived with poor parking can certainly attest to.  Most people would rather have their parking in their building or at least next to it.  Developers and people interested in selling the property understand they will have an easier time selling these with convenient parking.  I'm of the view an elevated & covered walkway would be more convenient, and if I was paying a boatload of money to move into a luxury building, I would expect to have convenience.  That's the whole argument.  I don't think anyone here can actually say it's not more convenient - all that can be said is that enough people will suck it up and deal with it.

 

I don't think it's being demanded either.  The demand seems to be the other way around - not incorporating it into the design.  The premise being that it will add street activity.  Apparently the activity they're looking for is residents crossing the street.  I think the impact (economic or otherwise) of forcing that might be overestimated.  However, I could be mistaken - It could be open to the public and a way for people to get to the commons from the public garage, in which case there would probably be a bit more impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lived in plenty of places with poor parking and multiple cities' downtowns.  While I get that it's perfectly doable to have parking not at your residence, the argument is that it's not a positive in any way - as anyone who has lived with poor parking can certainly attest to.  Most people would rather have their parking in their building or at least next to it.  Developers and people interested in selling the property understand they will have an easier time selling these with convenient parking.  I'm of the view an elevated & covered walkway would be more convenient, and if I was paying a boatload of money to move into a luxury building, I would expect to have convenience.  That's the whole argument.  I don't think anyone here can actually say it's not more convenient - all that can be said is that enough people will suck it up and deal with it.

 

I don't think it's being demanded either.  The demand seems to be the other way around - not incorporating it into the design.  The premise being that it will add street activity.  Apparently the activity they're looking for is residents crossing the street.  I think the impact (economic or otherwise) of forcing that might be overestimated.  However, I could be mistaken - It could be open to the public and a way for people to get to the commons from the public garage, in which case there would probably be a bit more impact.

 

It is a positive if you want a vibrant streetscape.  And again, for those people who place exceptional value over parking convenience, urban development like this probably isn't for them.  It is so frustrating to see people constantly trying to pigeonhole suburban amenities into urban development.  Downtown Columbus had huge amounts of parking for decades, and yet it was completely dead after 5pm.  You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability, or you can have abundant, convenient parking.  You cannot have both of them. 

And I find the whole discussion of convience to be somewhat dishonest anyway.  Go to any large box retail in the suburbs and you have huge parking lots in which people are forced to walk from their cars to the store, often at a much greater distance than what the parking garage will be from Two25.  And those people do it in every single type of weather, all without any demand for covered space and climate control.  Or even safety, for that matter, as shopping center parking lots are often poorly designed for pedestrians.  So this idea that people absolutely need these amenities is just not true, because they don't even demand them in suburbia. 

The bottom line is that if you expect that convenience, you don't buy an apartment in Two25.  Everyone has the choice of where to live, and if certain things are important to you that a particular development or location doesn't offer, then you can choose to live somewhere else.  Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in.  They are outdated in their concept of urban design and in the goal of getting more people on the street.  Worse, they seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether.  In every way, they are a bad choice.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, some of the points you make are valid.  More people would absolutely walk on the street if that was their only option.  Would this create the vitality you're looking for?  That's up for debate.  I don't think a skywalk will make or break a downtown area, but I do agree having them all over the place will detract from street level activity.  However, as with most things in life, there is nuance. 

 

Your points:

-You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability or you can have abundant, convenient parking.  You cannot have both of them.

--why not?  what prevents it? I don't see an inherent clash here. I guess that hinges on your definition of vibrant, convenient, and abundant though.

 

-Large suburban stores have inconvenient parking

--some do, however the person going to the store makes the decision when and if they go there.  You will also often find people circling those parking lots trying to get the most convenient parking space... lending credibility to the notion people like convenient things (thus a developer certainly would want to include convenience where they can).  And if it's raining or very cold, you will see people dropping people off at the store front and picking them up when they're done.  Creating a mess right in front of the entrance.

 

-"The idea people absolutely need these amenities is just not true"

--I don't think it was said to be needed.  It was very clearly stated it's a nice to have that would make it easier to attract tenants

 

-Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in.

--There are more than one type of skywalk and certainly not all are ugly.  As for making the streetscape feel closed in, I imagine you're right; however, doesn't density in general do the same thing?

 

-They are outdated in concept of urban design

--They are still being used and developed worldwide with dozens of different use cases.  They might be outdated for our particular goals, but they definitely still have lots of very valid uses.

 

-They detract from getting more people on the street

--Agreed.  However, I would argue just simply putting people on the street shouldn't be the goal (maybe in Columbus we need to start somewhere, so I could be wrong on this one).  We do want to create more activity and we don't want people isolating themselves - But is forcing residents to cross the street from a parking garage to their condo really the activity we're looking for?  Do we really not make any distinction in the activity we're looking for?

 

-They seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether

--They do bypass street safety.  But I wouldn't think the 2 go together - They should be separate issues.  If a street is unsafe, it should be addressed as well.  In this particular case, it is right next to a very public space and would therefore still have a big need to ensure the streetscape is safe and pedestrian friendly.

 

-In every way they are a bad choice

--I'm sure you can think of one good reason for them if you tried :)

 

 

Look, I'm not pro skywalks all the time - I'd say most of the time I think they're inappropriate as well.  But I do feel the seemingly automatic refusal to even explore the idea is a bit close-minded.  Things are usually not black and white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
author=jking222222 link=topic=29960.msg804603#msg804603 date=1464710791]

Yes, some of the points you make are valid.  More people would absolutely walk on the street if that was their only option.  Would this create the vitality you're looking for?  That's up for debate.  I don't think a skywalk will make or break a downtown area, but I do agree having them all over the place will detract from street level activity.  However, as with most things in life, there is nuance. 

 

It's really not up for debate.  What is the point of trying to increase residents Downtown if you also build infrastructure to keep them off the sidewalk?  Why even move Downtown if you don't value the uban form that creates walkability?  No, this single skywalk is not going to destroy Downtown's improving street vibrancy, but it will absolutely be detrimental to it in this particular area.  I just don't think intentionally creating dead zones should be something to praise.

 

Your points:

-You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability or you can have abundant, convenient parking.  You cannot have both of them.

--why not?  what prevents it? I don't see an inherent clash here. I guess that hinges on your definition of vibrant, convenient, and abundant though.

 

Because pretty much every study done on the matter concludes the same thing- that building for the car only gets you the car and everything that goes with it- traffic, pollution, noise, etc., all things that create an unfriendly, unnattractive environment for pedestrians.  Downtown in 1985 had about 65,000 surface and garage parking spaces.  Today that number is closer to 40,000.  Do you think Downtown has more street activity now or in 1985?  There is, contrary to what may seem logical, a pretty direct correlation between a reduction in auto-centric infrastructure and a more vibrant streetscape. 

 

-Large suburban stores have inconvenient parking

--some do, however the person going to the store makes the decision when and if they go there.  You will also often find people circling those parking lots trying to get the most convenient parking space... lending credibility to the notion people like convenient things (thus a developer certainly would want to include convenience where they can).  And if it's raining or very cold, you will see people dropping people off at the store front and picking them up when they're done.  Creating a mess right in front of the entrance.

 

First, most suburbs are built for the car, so when people drive to these large parking lots, they obviously have to park somewhere.  Of course they are going to park as close to the entrance as they can, that should go without saying.  The fact that parking in these lots is usually completely free is only more of an incentive to drive, so the choice isn't exactly unbiased to begin with.  There is a built-in, nearly mandatory necessity to drive in the suburbs, as development patterns have made it the only really logical choice. 

Second, you're not really making an argument against what I said.  Sure, some people get dropped off, but the reality is that most people are still willing to put up with the weather and walk whatever distance through the lot.  Considering that the vast majority of car-based trips, even to the store, are done alone, the situation you describe represents only a very small % of the people shopping.  So why are most people willing to put up with walking sometimes longer distances in bad weather like that?  I think the answer to that is pretty simple- because the perception is that the destination offers a greater benefit than the inconvenience to get there.  When that principle is applied to Two25, when then is the perception of benefit?  Is the benefit of living in a walkable, urban area greater than the lack of convenience of abundant free parking or having to walk 40 feet across a street?  I would certainly think that the attractiveness of the former is far superior to the supposed negative of the latter, or at least to the demographic of people that would be interested in living there. 

 

-"The idea people absolutely need these amenities is just not true"

--I don't think it was said to be needed.  It was very clearly stated it's a nice to have that would make it easier to attract tenants

 

I think this kind of assumes that there would be any hardship in attracting residents to begin with, so there is a need, or at least a desire, to provide such extra conveniences.  However, the urban market in Columbus has a greater than 96% occupancy with residential units.  There has not been a single project in the last 5 years at least that has had any trouble finding tenants, many of which with far less parking convenience than Two25 will have even without a skywalk.  And again, there is also the assumption that every potential resident will not only own a car, but will want to drive everywhere even if they did.

 

-Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in.

--There are more than one type of skywalk and certainly not all are ugly.  As for making the streetscape feel closed in, I imagine you're right; however, doesn't density in general do the same thing?

 

Skywalks can certainly be better designed, like the one that goes from the Hilton to the convention center, but they're ugly in the way that they detract from the view along the street.  Does South High look better or worse without the City Center skywalk? 

To me the comparison would be like having 7ft ceilings and 20ft ceilings in your home.  At least buildings on either side of the street leave an open view to the sky and for long distances in front of you, something that skywalks directly interrupt. 

 

-They are outdated in concept of urban design

--They are still being used and developed worldwide with dozens of different use cases.  They might be outdated for our particular goals, but they definitely still have lots of very valid uses.

 

I am not saying that no skywalk can ever again be useful, but if they're not contributing to the goal of activating Downtown steets, they need to be heavily scrutinized.  If it's just going to be built to provide a selling point to a few residents, the cost is too high and its actual usefulness is too limited.

 

-They detract from getting more people on the street

--Agreed.  However, I would argue just simply putting people on the street shouldn't be the goal (maybe in Columbus we need to start somewhere, so I could be wrong on this one).  We do want to create more activity and we don't want people isolating themselves - But is forcing residents to cross the street from a parking garage to their condo really the activity we're looking for?  Do we really not make any distinction in the activity we're looking for?

 

I remember reading about a study that showed that skywalks didn't just impact how people crossed a street.  The study was about impacts to local businesses before and after construction, and that those businesses actually saw declines as it removed the casual shopper element.  When people were on the street, they were more likely to window shop and patronize businesses, but when they could simply cross the street above it all, that aspect disappeared because it forced those businesses into the destination role. So it isn't just that skywalks only impact how people cross the street, but how they interact with the street and whatever businesses may be near it. 

 

-They seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether

--They do bypass street safety.  But I wouldn't think the 2 go together - They should be separate issues.  If a street is unsafe, it should be addressed as well.  In this particular case, it is right next to a very public space and would therefore still have a big need to ensure the streetscape is safe and pedestrian friendly.

 

The developer, however, specifically stated that safety was a key factor in why they wanted to build it.  So why wouldn't they just partner with the city to upgrade the crossing?  Even if there is a safety issue, building the skywalk makes those pedestrian improvements less likely.  The improved safety literally only benefits the small number of residents and no one else.

 

-In every way they are a bad choice

--I'm sure you can think of one good reason for them if you tried :)

 

Crossing a river filled with crocodiles?

 

Look, I'm not pro skywalks all the time - I'd say most of the time I think they're inappropriate as well.  But I do feel the seemingly automatic refusal to even explore the idea is a bit close-minded.  Things are usually not black and white.

 

I agree it is not always black and white, but in this case, I see no reason to be supportive of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have these studies available (or references) that you're using to prove your points?  I'd be interested in reading them and seeing what they're applicable to. 

 

I get that the conventional wisdom nowadays is that skywalks are bad.  I also have seen time and time again people getting on a bandwagon and then putting the blinders on, which is what I try to stay vigilant against.  I do play devil's advocate more than I probably should.  But often we get a snippet in the news or an article on a forum like this and then apply the general notion of the study to an area the study didn't cover or in a way that was unintended.  And I'm certainly skeptical when it comes to conventional wisdom - which it seems is being applied to a few areas in your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have these studies available (or references) that you're using to prove your points?  I'd be interested in reading them and seeing what they're applicable to. 

 

I get that the conventional wisdom nowadays is that skywalks are bad.  I also have seen time and time again people getting on a bandwagon and then putting the blinders on, which is what I try to stay vigilant against.  I do play devil's advocate more than I probably should.  But often we get a snippet in the news or an article on a forum like this and then apply the general notion of the study to an area the study didn't cover or in a way that was unintended.  And I'm certainly skeptical when it comes to conventional wisdom - which it seems is being applied to a few areas in your argument.

 

I will do some searches for links on the matter.  The particular study I'm referencing was a few years ago, but I will look for it.  In the meantime, in my search I am learning more about how skywalks came about. As expected, they came into favor to keep people out of the street due to the danger of traffic.  In Cincinnati, for example, skywalks there were first proposed in 1957, but city leadership repeatedly rejected them until the federal government began offering "urban renewal" funds to build them (yes, those two words that have come to symbolize the very destruction of the urban city) in 1971.  They also rose for retailers in the core to compete with the growing options of enclosed suburban malls.  If there isn't a more clear signal as to how outdated skywalks are to the concept of rebuilding urban vibrancy, I am not sure what is.  Still, I will provide some links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here are a few links.

 

The first is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/realestate/rethinking-skyways-and-tunnels.html.  This 2005 article from the NYT had this to say:

 

Two dozen cities across the country pursued similar plans over the last 30 years, building skywalks and underground retail catacombs to keep businesses and stores from fleeing to suburbs and shopping malls. They ensconced shoppers and office workers in well-lighted, climate-controlled environments and insulated them from crime, cold and urban blight.

 

But now, many of these cities are gripped with builders' remorse. They say the skyways and tunnels have choked off pedestrian traffic, hurt street-level retailers and limited development in the city core.

 

The article highlights several cities nationally who, at the time, were recognizing their skywalk systems as complete failures in terms of getting people on the street.  At the time of the article, the full-scale revitalization of downtowns was just beginning, but all of these cities had recognized long before that that they were hurting their efforts. 

 

More recently, the fight against the Cleveland casino skywalk: http://www.citylab.com/design/2013/04/if-other-cities-are-demolishing-skywalks-why-does-cleveland-want-new-one/5291/

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0886779813000941

Here is an extensive study globally of skywalks and other pedestrian grade separation systems.  You will have to pay for it though. 

 

In my searches, I have also noticed that skywalks are really only getting praise where they are still relatively new: Asia, particularly as a safety measure alone in extremely congested cities like Mumbai.  Otherwise, in the US or North America in general, their defense seems limited almost exclusively to locations that have very harsh winters- Minneapolis, Montreal, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - I do appreciate you looking into it and posting what you found.  I read what was available and I do find it interesting.  I need to point out that these are not scientific though and I don't think they support the argument all that well.  The one in the science journal from the Australian university states in the highlights that there needs to be more research done and the existing research needs updated.  It also stated it found positive and negative impacts in its review of implementations of these systems globally.

 

The nytimes article seemed to be referencing much more extensive networks built around keeping people contained in retail.  A simple skybridge from a parking lot to a residential building isn't the same and won't affect the area the same.  We're also talking about an area that's dominated by a parking garage and a greyhound bus station - but perhaps that will change.

 

The citylab article was just opinion.  A 26 year old guy, with no advertised credentials in anything related to this topic, started a group to oppose the skybridge a casino wanted and was interviewed about why he didn't want it.  He said basically verbatim what has been mentioned here.  And again the scenario there involves a much longer bridge in a very different setting (casino patrons).  I think I would probably be opposed to that as well.

 

Basically years ago everyone thought one thing, nowadays everyone thinks something else, in 20 years it'll be something else. Nobody is putting real numbers behind anything, it's all fluffy conventional wisdom stuff and until we do real research into it, it'll continue to be up for debate what the actual effect is aside from the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 12-story Two25 Commons project is scheduled to be heard by the Downtown Commission on Tuesday.  The Dispatch article linked below didn't have any new renderings, or much new information from the previous conceptual review.  However, it appears that the bridge over Rich Street connecting the new building with the existing parking garage is still in the proposal.  The project developer said of the bridge:  "(it) will be light and attractive to blend with the lively cityscape outside.":

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/06/26/1-columbus-commons-poised-for-final-piece.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich Street Pedestrian Bridge Approved by Downtown Commission

 

timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbusunderground.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2Fpedestrian-bridge.jpg&q=90&w=650&zc=1&

 

Representatives from NBBJ, Kaufman Development and The Daimler Group returned to the Downtown Commission this morning to review an updated design for the proposed pedestrian bridge over Rich Street that will connect the Columbus Commons parking garage with the new 12-story Two25 Commons mixed-use building that will be located adjacent to the park.

 

More below:

http://www.columbusunderground.com/rich-street-pedestrian-bridge-approved-by-downtown-commission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I'm generally not for any new skybridges.  But that one doesn't look bad at all.

 

CU also just released the results of a reader's survey for their favorite architectural design of 2016.  Two25 Commons finished first.  Below is a parkside rendering of the building under the article link:

 

http://www.columbusunderground.com/the-best-architectural-design-of-2016-two25-commons-by-nbbj

 

two25-commons.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with the skybridge for this project. Hopefully they can get underway ASAP - it will really add a lot to the area and help the Commons finally feel 'complete.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ HighPoint has looked like a colossal mistake from Day 1. But, really glad to see progress moving so quickly on 225. This is really going to be a huge addition to the area. Hopefully it can also spur some interest in redeveloping the properties further east between 3rd and 4th - parking lots, Greyhound, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ HighPoint has looked like a colossal mistake from Day 1. But, really glad to see progress moving so quickly on 225. This is really going to be a huge addition to the area. Hopefully it can also spur some interest in redeveloping the properties further east between 3rd and 4th - parking lots, Greyhound, etc.

 

Honestly it fits with the fabric of that block with the commercial space being filled out and the LC buildings finally coming along.  225 fits with the modern fabric of it's side of the commons, I think all is going to be well once this neighborhood is finished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ HighPoint has looked like a colossal mistake from Day 1. But, really glad to see progress moving so quickly on 225. This is really going to be a huge addition to the area. Hopefully it can also spur some interest in redeveloping the properties further east between 3rd and 4th - parking lots, Greyhound, etc.

 

Honestly it fits with the fabric of that block with the commercial space being filled out and the LC buildings finally coming along.  225 fits with the modern fabric of it's side of the commons, I think all is going to be well once this neighborhood is finished.

HighPoint isn't great architecturally especially where it's most visible - on the Commons side. It does however create a nice continuous wall along High St. Most of the retail spaces are filled in so that's a positive (took a long time...). Let's hope Plaza Properties will rent out the empty storefronts across High.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't think I've seen this mentioned anywhere here, but it appears this project has a new name: "80 on the Commons".

 

http://www.80onthecommons.com/

 

I drove past tonight and it appears the steel framing is six-stories high and they should be starting on the seventh-story very soon. I entered downtown from 70 on the east side traveling west, and it is just now tall enough to see when driving over the bridge into downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7th story is up. Looks like they're finishing up floor/ceiling between 6 and 7. Framing starting to go up for the 8th story.

 

A picture from this afternoon:

 

36228694816_bac895eab7_k.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The newly named '80 on the Commons' is going up fast:

 

July 31 photo posted by CU from http://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-columbus-july-2017

35646921544_866f6d9afd_c_d.jpg

 

 

Two '80 on the Commons' construction photos posted today by the Dispatch in their downtown development article at http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170810/downtown-development-boom-seems-endless-experts-say

36482257935_5e3a992515_c_d.jpg

 

36344914451_e208cb0de6_c_d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already love the way this is filling in the park and adding to the street wall. However they have sparked my intrigue with the steel structure having that inward angle... I'm fascinated to see how that'll work for the shape once they start building out the exterior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That was the goal when the park was initially designed - provide developable parcels along High St. (Highpoint) and the corner or 3rd and Rich to help defer the cost of mall demolition and park construction. What is surprising is how quickly the parcels were sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That was the goal when the park was initially designed

 

Oh yeah, I knew that. My bad for not clarifying.

 

I meant these pieces of the actual structure. A very unique design for a steel structure of a midrise... I'm intrigued on how that will add to the final product.

 

jsvfblE.jpg

 

Also yes.... These parcels sold super rapidly and I love it. The density and design is perfect for downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the columns are at the edge for the lower floors to maximize the floor plate for office. They taper back for the residential floors to allow for balconies. I don't believe we will be able to see the angle once the exterior walls cover the steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good timing, Pablo!

 

12-story downtown tower tops out, starts tenant hunt

 

Topping out a planned 12-story high rise downtown, a pair of developers say they're on the hunt for tenants to fill six floors of commercial space space.

 

80 on the Commons, 80 Rich St., topped out in a ceremony this week. The 12-story, $60 million project – formerly known as Two25– is being developed by the Daimler Group and Kaufman Development on the last vacant lot overlooking Columbus Commons.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/09/14/12-story-downtown-tower-tops-out-starts-tenant.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The building really makes the park space seem smaller. It's a nice addition to the park, now if something could be done with the Rich St. facade of the garage!! The activity in the foreground in the first photo is preparations for a private event.

 

23786075348_55d2baa172_z.jpg

 

37380451080_252aaaf47c_z.jpg

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.

×