Jump to content
Toddguy

Columbus: Downtown: North Market Tower

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2018 at 5:45 PM, Gino27 said:

Has there been any news on this project or is it stalled for the winter?

 

Nope, many big changes are happening but it's not stalled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tlb919 said:

 

Nope, many big changes are happening but it's not stalled. 

So can you give us some kind of idea of what these changes might entail? 

 

*Strange that Casey has not been back since he got mad at my response to his post on this!   C'mon back Casey we miss you! It was not an attack on you, but the building-if you were involved in the design-I did not know that!

 

*feels bad*

 

 

*I also now just think the design is "meh"...I guess it has grown on me but it is not so horrible to me as it was at first. Maybe I have reached the "acceptance" stage? lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Toddguy said:

So can you give us some kind of idea of what these changes might entail? 

 

*Strange that Casey has not been back since he got mad at my response to his post on this!   C'mon back Casey we miss you! It was not an attack on you, but the building-if you were involved in the design-I did not know that!

 

*feels bad*

 

 

*I also now just think the design is "meh"...I guess it has grown on me but it is not so horrible to me as it was at first. Maybe I have reached the "acceptance" stage? lol.

 

No, the newer design was just bad.  No way around it.  The original design wasn't my favorite, but at least it had some good height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 6:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

We will not see a fifty story tower in my lifetime, and probably not in yours either! lol. Just to get something over 400 feet would be a major accomplishment. Two buildings over 400 feet?-a  huge accomplishment. This is Cbus we are talking about, and as much as I hate to admit it, this city just has a hard time now going for  height. I really wish Nationwide had forsaken Grandview Yards for a new tower along Long at or not far from High. *sigh*  With building costs rising, I also don't see how Millenial Tower is going to get built for 150 million with 750.000 square feet of space either. I think $200.00 a square foot for 400 foot tall buildings is a thing of the past even for Cbus.

Edited by Toddguy
grammar naturally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross posting this from the Arena District thread:

 

I did not take photos, nor do I know if this is the correct thread (please point me to the correct one if there is one), but the buildings that were emptied last year on Park Street right next to Goodale and have been vacant for a year, have finally had work begin on them. This is the site for the hotel they're building while preserving part of the buildings currently being gutted. Glad to see work begin on them. It also gets me excited that North Market Tower might begin soon as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2018 at 6:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

Only a 9-story reduction from the initial unveiling (LOL).


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

I'm honestly still impressed it's going to be over 25 (assuming there isn't ANOTHER reduction at some point). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

Really disappointing.  We'd all better like the new design, or the guy who freaked out before when we hated the first updated design is going to be upset again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shocker.  They even went out of their way to promise the project wouldn't be reduced, only to see more than a quarter of its proposed height vanish.  As much as I like Columbus, sometimes it's such a lame *** city.  Can't wait to hear the excuses behind this, if they bother giving one at all.  I don't get it.  Columbus is one of the nation's fastest-growing cities with massive housing demand it's not even close to meeting, and developers there act like it's Lima.  There are no height restrictions at this location, and there are no development commissions telling them to reduce the scale.  There are no zoning regulations holding them back.  Parking concerns are addressed.  So the only thing that's going against it seems to be that the city has small-time developers with either a lack of vision or too few resources to do things right.  Or hell, maybe they didn't want to overshadow the new Hilton.  Who knows at this point. Ridiculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, it sucks that it was reduced but it's better than nothing. If Columbus keeps growing, there will be more proposals. This puts it at the same height as the Millenial Tower. Both will change the skyline. I think we'll survive.

 

Edit: Also, maybe it'll change again to be higher or something : p

Edited by Zyrokai
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

I mean, it sucks that it was reduced but it's better than nothing. If Columbus keeps growing, there will be more proposals. This puts it at the same height as the Millenial Tower. Both will change the skyline. I think we'll survive.

 

Edit: Also, maybe it'll change again to be higher or something : p

 

Sorry, but "good enough" is exactly the problem I'm talking about.  Columbus leaders, developers, etc. seem to always view things from that angle, that it's "better than nothing" or "good enough for Columbus".  That is not going to solve the lack of transit.  That's not going to address the rapidly growing housing crisis.  That's not going to stop Downtown from having one of the smallest resident populations of any city in the nation and having a distinct lack of vibrancy.  That's not going to stop people from putting "OH" after the city's name.  If this was just one project, sure, it would matter a lot less, but this has been a decades-long expedition into mediocrity, where we have seen the exact same situation play out time and time again.  Because of that, frankly, Cow Town attitude, very real problems are emerging and there is seemingly no one in any position to affect change that has any plans or ideas to do anything about it.

As for MT, we don't even know f that will ever be built.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

I'd imagine the lower height is due to skyrocketing construction costs. I'm surprised it hasn't been hasn't been put on hold.

 

I thought about that, but then you still see multiple similar or larger projects going up in countless peer cities.  This suggests that the problem is unique to Columbus.  Also, construction costs certainly don't seem to have affected the new planned Hilton, which is one of the very, very few examples of proposals that got larger in size before construction begins.  What makes that project different? 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I thought about that, but then you still see multiple similar or larger projects going up in countless peer cities.  This suggests that the problem is unique to Columbus.  Also, construction costs certainly don't seem to have affected the new planned Hilton, which is one of the very, very few examples of proposals that got larger in size before construction begins.  What makes that project different? 

 

I'm not an expert by any means, but isn't that being funded very differently? I thought the county and the Convention Center + Hilton are funding it? The North Market Tower seems to be all privately funded with the exception of only $1 million dollars being awarded to it from the state. I could be totally off here but I imagine it's all in how it's funded.

 

Maybe a recession would be good for building in Columbus, as odd as that sounds. Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

Edited by Zyrokai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

 

I'm not an expert by any means, but isn't that being funded very differently? I thought the county and the Convention Center + Hilton are funding it? The North Market Tower seems to be all privately funded with the exception of only $1 million dollars being awarded to it from the state. I could be totally off here but I imagine it's all in how it's funded.

 

Maybe a recession would be good for building in Columbus, as odd as that sounds. Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

 

Isn't Market Tower getting the land for ultra cheap/free? And being built on a lot with no underground parking/engineering to have to worry about? Columbus again takes what it can get with an RFP instead of choosing a capable developer. I'm glad the word is finally getting out about Columbus. Outside developers are starting to emerge, but they're not playing on even ground with city council insiders. The public-private partnerships that are so lauded in Columbus also have their disadvantages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

What a shocker.  They even went out of their way to promise the project wouldn't be reduced, only to see more than a quarter of its proposed height vanish.  As much as I like Columbus, sometimes it's such a lame *** city.  Can't wait to hear the excuses behind this, if they bother giving one at all.  I don't get it.  Columbus is one of the nation's fastest-growing cities with massive housing demand it's not even close to meeting, and developers there act like it's Lima.  There are no height restrictions at this location, and there are no development commissions telling them to reduce the scale.  There are no zoning regulations holding them back.  Parking concerns are addressed.  So the only thing that's going against it seems to be that the city has small-time developers with either a lack of vision or too few resources to do things right.  Or hell, maybe they didn't want to overshadow the new Hilton.  Who knows at this point. Ridiculous.

 

I feel like this is a common issue that most mid-sized Midwestern cities face.

 

There is still a strong hold on population growing densely within the urban core, versus outside the core. Millennials are slowly transitioning back into the urban core, but ultimately there are still far too many people who are suburban orientated and still intensely idolize the 3 story McMansion, with the 2 car garage, the picket white fence, and the lingering scent of freshly mowed grass.

 

It's hard to build tall or even super-tall in these cities, when the urban core population density just simply doesn't support these type of developments. 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aderwent said:

 

Isn't Market Tower getting the land for ultra cheap/free? And being built on a lot with no underground parking/engineering to have to worry about? Columbus again takes what it can get with an RFP instead of choosing a capable developer. I'm glad the word is finally getting out about Columbus. Outside developers are starting to emerge, but they're not playing on even ground with city council insiders. The public-private partnerships that are so lauded in Columbus also have their disadvantages.

 

As I understand it, yes. I don't know why I'm so shocked and disappointed by this because the writing was on the wall from what we've heard (or haven't) but this sucks. I don't understand why the developers in this city cannot make larger projects work. We keep seeing these articles about the low vacancies, high rents, and low stock but every project ends up on the chopping block. Does anyone who actually understands this all better care to explain these situations? It's disheartening going from a high-rise being proposed every other day when I lived in Charlotte to these constant axes here in Columbus when Columbus is growing so much faster and performing a lot better from what I've seen. 

 

I guess at this point we just hope this is the lowest it drops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, troeros said:

 

I feel like this is a common issue that most mid-sized Midwestern cities face.

 

There is still a strong hold on population growing densely within the urban core, versus outside the core. Millennials are slowly transitioning back into the urban core, but ultimately there are still far too many people who are suburban orientated and still intensely idolize the 3 story McMansion, with the 2 car garage, the picket white fence, and the lingering scent of freshly mowed grass.

 

It's hard to build tall or even super-tall in these cities, when the urban core population density just simply doesn't support these type of developments. 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

 

Sorry, but none of that is true.  Virtually every single one of Columbus' peers nationally are seeing at least one or more residential or mixed-use residential towers under construction right now.  Even several smaller cities have big projects in the works.  So again I question if this is as common an issue in other places as it is in Columbus.  Furthermore, the city all by itself attracts 52% of the entire metro growth, higher than almost every other major city in the country, including its peers and those with bigger city limits.  Columbus grew several times faster than any suburb and faster than every single other metro community *combined*.  The only thing holding up urban growth is crap like this, where developers either can't build larger due to opposition (the recent Vic Village fiasco) or continuously reduce the scale of proposals for other asinine reasons, like saying there isn't any market for bigger (as was said when the Commons project was reduced to 12 stories from 17).  These are excuses, IMO, because all these realities simply don't make sense together.  How can you have a rapidly growing city with massive urban demand, but zero demand for large-scale mixed-use or residential buildings?  How can Columbus be building at a fraction of the rate needed to satisfy population growth, but project reductions are citing a soft market?  These statements are contradictory, which means there are highly localized conditions that are stopping urban development, let alone large-scale development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zyrokai said:

 

Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

 

There is a massive labor shortage in areas like Columbus, look at any work truck or van and they have a "now hiring" signs on it.  That's even with illegals being on staff(and no that's not a guess or trying to make a political statement it's the truth in all industries but especially those involved in manual labor/service). 

 

Also the demand for structural steel is so high currently that even with tariff's removed on China supply would be and is an issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, troeros said:

 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

 

This is 2000s talk. The subdivision development dropped off sharply in 2008. Relatively, almost nothing happened with that stuff as compared to 1995-2008. Only since about 2016 did subdivision development resume - relatively sporadically - since builders generally have to sell the house before they build it in today's lending environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wpcc88 said:

 

There is a massive labor shortage in areas like Columbus, look at any work truck or van and they have a "now hiring" signs on it.  That's even with illegals being on staff(and no that's not a guess or trying to make a political statement it's the truth in all industries but especially those involved in manual labor/service). 

 

Also the demand for structural steel is so high currently that even with tariff's removed on China supply would be and is an issue.  

Yet the new Hilton will go up pretty quickly by all accounts.   Besides, a lack of workers would only mean a slower build, not necessarily a smaller project unless there is some kind of time this has to be built in.  I’m not aware there is a rush.  Second, the steel issue seems overblown. What was the reduction excuse before steel supplies were lower?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They swore it would not be reduced. *sigh*  If they can't keep their promises, then they need to stop making them.

 

We will probably not only have the height reduction, but a really s@@t design to go with it-"but it will be good enough for Columbus" and all. smdh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol the Short North is basically abutting downtown Cbus...certainly not as far away as Oakley or Norwood. Vibrancy and pedestrian activity is not as tied to population as you might think, though I think there is much room for improvement with additional residents. 

 

I, too, think it's odd that Cbus has seen little to no increase in its highrises despite growing at quite a healthy rate. It's growing as fast or faster than Nashville, but outside of the High Street corridor, you'd never know it. Maybe this is because Downtown Columbus is so large and sprawling, and there are still so many surface lots that can be developed, which causes developers to go for the low or mid-rise type of buildings that are cheaper and easier to build. When it seems like there is endless room to grow in all directions, it's hard to make the case to grow upwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, troeros said:

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

 

Netflix. You can't compare '90s street life with today's without thinking about all the screen stuff going on.

 

Same goes for the daytime as well really, though DT Columbus employers instituted to 30-minute lunches in the early 2000s since workers filled the Statehouse lawn every nice day lounging and playing kickball during the 45min-1hr lunches of the past. All that fun and relaxation gave government workers a bad reputation among budget hawks even if many, many of the people worked for the private sector. The 30 minute lunches that cripple the DT restaurant and shopping economy are probably unnecessary now since people would just get on Facebook or look at their phones with the extra time but would still allow commerce to take place during lunch. If restaurants and retail could make money around lunch they would be more likely to be able to be open at other times. Baloney sandwiches and Tupperware containers of cold stuff are just as much to blame as anything else as to why DT Cincinnati has a much higher occupancy rate for ground floor retail than DT Columbus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a cocktail of problems that leads less large scale activities Columbus. One is that some developers are less organized than others. Take the recent Nationwide towers in the Arena Districts. Nationwide is very precise and decisive in their builds, and likely have a better knowledge and relationship with the city and its zoning requirements. So when Nationwide builds somethings, its pretty quick. And while the frustration at the lack of activity downtown in warranted, I firmly believe one of the conundrums with downtown is that Columbus has focused so much energy and money in the Short North, that it sort of came at the expense of downtown. There's significantly more demand for housing in the Short North than downtown, and that's in part because Columbus' main focus was making the Short North a desirable place. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, troeros said:

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

 

I don't usually (well, lately) interject on foolishness...but what?  The Short North is literally next to downtown Columbus; much like OTR is literally next to downtown Cincinnati.  Clifton's location in Columbus would be roughly the University District (or in Columbus' scale, Old North Columbus).

 

And there is no "supposed" growth and residents.  There IS growth and new residents and a lot MORE are living downtown than they used to.  Downtown Columbus is massive and lacks a centralized plan on connecting all the "districts" (aka mini-downtowns) but CERTAIN districts are vibrant on a warm Saturday night like the North Market/Arena District and lately the Red Brick District.  But to see Columbus' vibrant corridors on a Saturday night, aside from the Short North or northern downtown, take a trip to Italian Village, University District, Franklinton, or Grandview/5xNW to get a sense.

 

Downtown is a long work in progress but it's a massive hole to fill in. 

  • Like 2

"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 blame the small time developers that dominate local development. Most have a suburban mindset and think there is no demand in Columbus for urban living. They're not willing to take the risk. The city seems ripe for an out of town developer to come in and make a splash. A Denver developer is building on E. Long across from Neighborhood Launch but it's a 5 or 6 story project. We need more out of town developers to challenge the locals to step up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, troeros said:

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

 

First of all, I didn't say most of the growth was happening Downtown.  I said within the city and greater urban core. Second, the reason Downtown still feels kind of quiet and empty at certain times is because it still has one of the lowest downtown populations of any city in the country, combined with the fact that it is relatively huge in area.  There has been a lot of new construction Downtown in recent years, but most of those projects have been 5 stories or less, or they have only involved renovations of existing buildings.  This construction has allowed the population to grow from just over 6,000 in 2010 to about 9000 now.  Current construction should allow the population to reach 11K-12K over the next few years.  Still, that is relatively low compared to peer and other major cities.  Residential vacancy rates Downtown are very low, so it's not like they're building a bunch of stuff no one is renting or buying.  They just aren't building enough to meet demand, so people move elsewhere.  You can't fill what doesn't exist, which is why getting larger projects is so important to building density, walkability and urban vibrancy. 

The Short North is directly connected to Downtown and literally across Goodale from the convention center and Arena District.  I'm not sure why you think it's so far away.  Maybe if you're measuring from Broad and High, but again, Columbus' downtown is pretty large.  And I would argue that's still very much within walking distance.  I've walked that many times.  As for why the Short North feels so different, its population density is now more than 10K psm.  Downtown's is about 3K. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

First of all, I didn't say most of the growth was happening Downtown.  I said within the city and greater urban core. Second, the reason Downtown still feels kind of quiet and empty at certain times is because it still has one of the lowest downtown populations of any city in the country, combined with the fact that it is relatively huge in area.  There has been a lot of new construction Downtown in recent years, but most of those projects have been 5 stories or less, or they have only involved renovations of existing buildings.  This construction has allowed the population to grow from just over 6,000 in 2010 to about 9000 now.  Current construction should allow the population to reach 11K-12K over the next few years.  Still, that is relatively low compared to peer and other major cities.  Residential vacancy rates Downtown are very low, so it's not like they're building a bunch of stuff no one is renting or buying.  They just aren't building enough to meet demand, so people move elsewhere.  You can't fill what doesn't exist, which is why getting larger projects is so important to building density, walkability and urban vibrancy. 

The Short North is directly connected to Downtown and literally across Goodale from the convention center and Arena District.  I'm not sure why you think it's so far away.  Maybe if you're measuring from Broad and High, but again, Columbus' downtown is pretty large.  And I would argue that's still very much within walking distance.  I've walked that many times.  As for why the Short North feels so different, its population density is now more than 10K psm.  Downtown's is about 3K. 

Don't forget certain "peer" cities, like Indianapolis, with an official downtown that is almost 6.5 square miles. Can you imagine what our "downtown" population would be if we, oh, let's say added the Brewery District, German Village, the Short North, Italian Village, and the University District south of Lane? 

 

Yeah we are lacking in new highrises(dammit!), but we are slowly but surely filling in...and even with 6-12 story infill downtown, if the trends continue, we will be just fine. We can do it with 6-12 floors if we have to, and it is the streetscape and street level activity that matters! (and with the Lord's help-which it may take-some better form of public transit.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Don't forget certain "peer" cities, like Indianapolis, with an official downtown that is almost 6.5 square miles. Can you imagine what our "downtown" population would be if we, oh, let's say added the Brewery District, German Village, the Short North, Italian Village, and the University District south of Lane? 

 

Yeah we are lacking in new highrises(dammit!), but we are slowly but surely filling in...and even with 6-12 story infill downtown, if the trends continue, we will be just fine. We can do it with 6-12 floors if we have to, and it is the streetscape and street level activity that matters! (and with the Lord's help-which it may take-some better form of public transit.)

 

I don't think anything lower than 10 stories is really acceptable on any of the following streets:

High

Broad

Spring

Town

Rich

Main

Front

3rd

4th

Gay west of 4th

Mound west of 4th

 

The outskirts closer to the highways, some of the smaller streets and main streets that don't already have historic housing (like Town east of Topiary Park) are the only places I think less than 10 is acceptable.  This is Downtown, it should look like it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't think anything lower than 10 stories is really acceptable on any of the following streets:

High

Broad

Spring

Town

Rich

Main

Front

3rd

4th

Gay west of 4th

Mound west of 4th

 

The outskirts closer to the highways, some of the smaller streets and main streets that don't already have historic housing (like Town east of Topiary Park) are the only places I think less than 10 is acceptable.  This is Downtown, it should look like it.

 

 

 

I agree that less than ten is not acceptable. But we are dealing with reality here, and we may have to settle. I still think we can do it with at least six floors(and a 80% of the existing surface lots/automotive centers/pawn shops/etc) filled in. The biggest letdown (to me)was 6 floors on the west side of High between Gay and Long. I guess hope Springs eternal. And speaking of Spring that street could use some damn height as you mentioned. Your parameters are good- but not what we will likely get, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I agree that less than ten is not acceptable. But we are dealing with reality here, and we may have to settle. I still think we can do it with at least six floors(and a 80% of the existing surface lots/automotive centers/pawn shops/etc) filled in. The biggest letdown (to me)was 6 floors on the west side of High between Gay and Long. I guess hope Springs eternal. And speaking of Spring that street could use some damn height as you mentioned. Your parameters are good- but not what we will likely get, unfortunately.

 

I think the large footprint of that lot is what kept the height down. I wish it could have been broken up into two or three lots for different people to develop. I think the Edwards development is going to be a great addition to that stretch, but if we wanted height it was much too large. It's the same issue that happened at Highpoint and the Normandy developments on Long. When you have one developer working with that much land, they are not going to be very likely to go vertical. It just doesn't make financial sense. These developments are really equal to about a 12-15 story building with a footprint the size of a normal city block. Highpoint is actually probably closer to a 20+ story building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I think the large footprint of that lot is what kept the height down. I wish it could have been broken up into two or three lots for different people to develop. I think the Edwards development is going to be a great addition to that stretch, but if we wanted height it was much too large. It's the same issue that happened at Highpoint and the Normandy developments on Long. When you have one developer working with that much land, they are not going to be very likely to go vertical. It just doesn't make financial sense. These developments are really equal to about a 12-15 story building with a footprint the size of a normal city block. Highpoint is actually probably closer to a 20+ story building. 

 

I will admit that this is something I often forget, its shocking how large some of these lots are here just simply from being combined over the years with surface lots.

It's very interesting to think about because in theory, eventually developers will have to go taller to get a profitable number of units on a desirable site location. In the meantime, yes we are getting lots of 5-8 story builds which is unfortunate but also I keep forcing  myself to remember just how much surface they are filling. I would guess that we will start seeing more high rises in the near future and these smaller builds pushed to some of the edges of downtown, which wouldn't be the worst thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...