Jump to content
Guest CMH_Downtown

Columbus: RiverSouth Developments and News

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

 

According to Street View, there actually is a tree in that location although the real tree is considerably smaller. It also looks like a Tree-of-Heaven, a junk tree.

For 30 years I've been calling that tree the Akron palm. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

What a sad little box that will probably keep something bigger and better from happening on the quarter block. Love the little da fuq? thing! lol

Build around it. Not every block needs to be an impersonal monolithic structure. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Build around it. Not every block needs to be an impersonal monolithic structure. 

Right, because something bigger and better is automatically an impersonal monolithic structure, lol. Look at the box-  I think that would qualify as the impersonal monolithic structure already present. To each their own I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with @surfohio on this one, I really have no issue with developers having to get a bit creative. Not every block needs to be one large super block development, if the value is there, a developer will find a way to make going around other structures work.

 

Anyway, yes to each their own but I don't mind little rehabs like this, they add a little quirk and a little life to what is literally nothing right now. 

Share this post


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

I'm with @surfohio on this one, I really have no issue with developers having to get a bit creative. Not every block needs to be one large super block development, if the value is there, a developer will find a way to make going around other structures work.

 

Anyway, yes to each their own but I don't mind little rehabs like this, they add a little quirk and a little life to what is literally nothing right now. 

 

Yep, and honestly, we've seen what happens when developers have too much space to work with.  We get disappointing, low-rise development like HighPoint and that cheap looking thing at Gay and High.  It's not like having more space means we're going to get a bigger development. And really, a renovation of this building doesn't really mean it can't come down at some point in the future. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Maybe y'all are right and something good can still come from the rest of the quarter block. I will say that this box is at least not fronting the streets but instead the alleys..and yeah this does not mean it will be there forever. I just think this corner would be so good for something with some decent height(and good design and street level presence). Who knows, it may still happen.

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renovation Planned for Downtown Building

 

A renovation is planned for 15 W. Cherry St., a former shoe warehouse that also once held the Nest Theatre and Art of Yoga.

 

The four-story, cinderblock building will get a new paint job, a rooftop patio and updates to the entryway. A former loading dock area will be replaced with storefront windows, and a glass garage door will be installed for a potential restaurant or bar user.

 

The new owner of the building, local developer RiverWest Partners, will also be the first tenant. The 15-person firm is moving its headquarters from Franklinton and plans to occupy one of the building’s upper floors.

 

More below:

https://www.columbusunderground.com/renovation-planned-for-downtown-building-bw1

 

Cherry-4-1150x550.jpg


"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 like the little 'boop' of a building that the old building has become. They could do something similar with the Main Bar and it would be just fine. 

 

There also appears to be a good canvas for a mural on the blank wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

Here's a good view of the River South District from above.

 

Looking South along S High Street, Columbus, OH

 

 

That darn city center garage. It's a perfect spot for a RFP to develop on top, update the facade etc. Some green space that lines up with the commons with apartments and/or offices above. Time to think outside and above the box. Some of our peers have been doing similar projects on top of existing garages. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

 

That darn city center garage. It's a perfect spot for a RFP to develop on top, update the facade etc. Some green space that lines up with the commons with apartments and/or offices above. Time to think outside and above the box. Some of our peers have been doing similar projects on top of existing garages. 

 

That garage is the bane of my urban existence, I know it will never go away but that doesn't mean it can't be updated or developed more.

It's just so bad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I've always thought you could peel away the first structural bay along Rich and face it with another 250 S High. It's a shame the City is allowing a parking garage to dictate that Main and Rich remain one-way streets.

Edited by Pablo
Clarification
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would love to see the garage torn down, you could fit at least 5 LC Matan sized buildings there, restore the street grid, and build the same amount of parking spaces if you had to in underground garages or in well designed parking podiums. While you're at it bring in the Greyhound station as part of a larger overall redevelopment and make River South and the Red Brick District a continuous stretch of solid urbanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cityscapes said:

I personally would love to see the garage torn down, you could fit at least 5 LC Matan sized buildings there, restore the street grid, and build the same amount of parking spaces if you had to in underground garages or in well designed parking podiums. While you're at it bring in the Greyhound station as part of a larger overall redevelopment and make River South and the Red Brick District a continuous stretch of solid urbanity. 

 

That's alot of work and cost to just build more parking and bus resources. The garage is already built in park to handle COTA buses so in theory, converting more of it to be a station may be feasible. One side is already ground level retail which is kind of amazing given the age of it and the fact that we can't convince many new garage builders to do the same. I think pablo has a point about potentially peeling away the exterior for more of the street side experience improvement. But why knock down an exorbitantly expensive structure to rebuild exorbitantly expensive structure with the same purpose? Also, building more Matans on underground parking gets you more 5 story buildings. For those looking for some height, now you've got a few extra stories built in. 

 

I've seen prior discussion on restoring the street grid before but I'm not sure what would be achieved by restoring the street grid on this block. Other than alleys that would be non-navigable anyway and a pedestrian walkthrough, it wouldn't contribute to additional vibrancy if Rich, Mound, and Main are revamped appropriately. 

 

For me, while acknowledging the sadness that comes with being auto focused and the reality of the city we love in, it's about identifying a resource and using it in the most cost effective and creative way without being overly wasteful while maintaining its usefulness to the surrounding area. By maintaining much if its use, it can potentially reduce pressure on surrounding developments to include parking and allow more flexibility for buildings in the surrounding blocks without having to add the cost of also building garages into their buildings on Main Rich or Mound if it was Lost. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, looks like the elevator cores are about finished for High and Cherry. Wasn't this originally supposed to match the height of the LC building next door? They're now missing out on some prime window spaceIMG_20191029_171045.thumb.jpg.0a3141eb17268bbf183762de3d5ecf6f.jpg

Share this post


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

Also, looks like the elevator cores are about finished for High and Cherry. Wasn't this originally supposed to match the height of the LC building next door? They're now missing out on some prime window spaceIMG_20191029_171045.thumb.jpg.0a3141eb17268bbf183762de3d5ecf6f.jpg

I believe that is the one that was supposed to be 11 floors and then got cut. And yeah, that blank wall will show(but maybe it would be a prime space for a mural/art-trying not to be accused of being a downer and all lol.)  There was major disappointment at the reduction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

^^^Yep. The reduction should never have been allowed considering LC built their building accordingly. Such crap.

 

I wrote an article about this development and how terrible it is, and the CEO of Crawford Hoying was not pleased.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

I wrote an article about this development and how terrible it is, and the CEO of Crawford Hoying was not pleased.  

 

Ha, well maybe if they weren't building such a trash project they wouldn't be subject to such scrutiny. 

 

Honestly, thank you! More developers need called out for the bs they pull in this city, they throw up half-baked projects or cheap out in the end and just expect us to be happy with what we get. The Crawford Hoying project is the perfect example of a bait-and-switch, and one the commission should have NEVER allowed. Now, regarding the article (guessing it was either Columbus Navigator or your blog), can you please spill what Crawford Hoying said? For what they did to us, we absolutely would love to hear about their temper tantrum after calling out their crap. Many thanks. 

Edited by DevolsDance
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

I wrote an article about this development and how terrible it is, and the CEO of Crawford Hoying was not pleased.  

Hahaha...good!  Did you write one about the Nicholas and send that to Edwards? That was such a prime location! Just like I feel that Main and HIgh is such a prime location. Also the one parcel fronting Bicentennial Park needs something big-and not just a six floor match to what is next door-that parcel was supposed to be the second phase of that and be a highrise, and it still needs to be that IMO. 

 

*six floors along High street downtown is an abomination and totally out of sync with the city plans for height along High(among other areas).

Edited by Toddguy

Share this post


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

 

I wrote an article about this development and how terrible it is, and the CEO of Crawford Hoying was not pleased.  

 

Link please.  Would love to read it.  Thanks.

Share this post


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

 

Ha, well maybe if they weren't building such a trash project they wouldn't be subject to such scrutiny. 

 

Honestly, thank you! More developers need called out for the bs they pull in this city, they throw up half-baked projects or cheap out in the end and just expect us to be happy with what we get. The Crawford Hoying project is the perfect example of a bait-and-switch, and one the commission should have NEVER allowed. Now, regarding the article (guessing it was either Columbus Navigator or your blog), can you please spill what Crawford Hoying said? For what they did to us, we absolutely would love to hear about their temper tantrum after calling out their crap. Many thanks. 

 

I just got an email from the owner of the site saying that the CEO had contacted him angrily demanding my personal contact information.  He was (politely) told to get lost.

  

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Hahaha...good!  Did you write one about the Nicholas and send that to Edwards? That was such a prime location! Just like I feel that Main and HIgh is such a prime location. Also the one parcel fronting Bicentennial Park needs something big-and not just a six floor match to what is next door-that parcel was supposed to be the second phase of that and be a highrise, and it still needs to be that IMO. 

 

*six floors along High street downtown is an abomination and totally out of sync with the city plans for height along High(among other areas).

 

I haven't written specifically about the Nicholas, but I have mentioned it.  The C-H project was the basis for saying that Downtown is being shortchanged on development.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


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

Great article. How exactly did the CEO of C-H respond?

 

That's basically all I know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design of Downtown Building Doesn’t Match Plans Approved by Commission

 

spacer.png

 

https://www.columbusunderground.com/design-of-building-downtown-doesnt-match-plans-approved-by-commission-bw1

 

Quote

The issue was first brought to the attention of the commission during its September meeting, when the city’s Urban Design Manager, Daniel Thomas, explained that a 311 complaint had been lodged noting discrepancies between the approved design and what was being built.

 

Which one of you knuckleheads called in the 311 complaint? 🤣

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

Design of Downtown Building Doesn’t Match Plans Approved by Commission

...

Which one of you knuckleheads called in the 311 complaint? 🤣

 

It was not I, but whoever it was, thank you. 

 

It's really an interesting situation because I have no clue what the city really can do to rectify the situation (a similar thing happened with Casto fon Highline at 9) aside from a fine that ultimately does nothing considering we're still stuck with a bad building for decades. I hope the city/commissions have some way to force a fix of this, however based on the article it sounds like they don't. It blows my mind that the LC has continued to find ways to value engineer the crap out of what started out as such amazing proposals/projects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to see a detailed side by side (which would have been helpful to include in the article rather than the original watercolor rendering) but I'm not sure the difference is worth getting upset over. The previous material change moreso perhaps but Arched vs right angle etc, maybe not so much.   Ultimately it seems the city is at fault but the developer is taking the heat for it. 

 

Glad to see some great investigative and breaking reporting from CU on something that wasn't already printed days earlier somewhere else (to my knowledge) way to go guys! 🙄

 

Quote

The developer did bring those changes to the city, and even marked them (as required), on drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Zoning Services. Those marked drawings should have been forwarded along to the city’s Planning Division, which administers the Downtown Commission. They never were, so the new plans were approved by the building department without ever going before the commission.

 

The end result is that the building going up now does not match the design that the commission voted to approve.

 

A city spokesperson declined to get into specifics about who was ultimately to blame for this discrepancy, but did say that the city is “in the process of notifying the developer that the building is out of compliance with the [Certificate of Appropriateness] and that they will have to return to the Downtown Commission to rectify the situation.”

 

Edited by DTCL11
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Design of Downtown Building Doesn’t Match Plans Approved by Commission

 

spacer.png

 

https://www.columbusunderground.com/design-of-building-downtown-doesnt-match-plans-approved-by-commission-bw1

 

 

Which one of you knuckleheads called in the 311 complaint? 🤣

It was me, I reported it after posting my comment on the previous page of this thread. 

 

I'm so sick of the lack of accountability in Columbus and the City needs to do better ensuring these projects match the architectural approval, otherwise what's the point of taking up city staff, commissioner, and development team time reviewing all of this only to put blinders on and let them to go and build something else. This isn't the first building to do it, but I thought if I pick something that gets some negative publicity it might push them to make some changes to prevent it from happening again and we'd start getting projects actually match the approved drawings and renderings like in literally every other city the size of Columbus. The residents truly deserve better governance and oversight from the city. 

 

I also reported the damn cornice on the Brunner building around the same time and hopefully that's what got them into high gear installing the thing A YEAR after the building was "finished". 

  • Like 11
  • Love 4

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...