Jump to content
Guest CMH_Downtown

Columbus: Downtown: Gay Street Development

Recommended Posts

The Citizens Building renovation is being done by the Edwards Companies.  This is the same company that has been building the Neighborhood Launch development along Gay / Long Streets east of 4th.  Edwards is also building a mixed-use development across Gay Street from the Citizens Building that will stretch along High Street to Long Street (85-111 N. High Street).  This 85-111 N. High Street development will contain 164 apartments on four floors above ground-floor retail storefronts and an underground parking garage.  The Citizens Building will eventually have access to that underground parking garage via a tunnel being installed under Gay Street.  Below is a day-time / night-time photo of that tunnel construction from http://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-february-2017:

 

gay-street-tunnel-02.jpg

gay-street-tunnel-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more note about the Citizens Building at the southwest corner of Gay & High.  When Columbus Monthly named their Top 10 restaurants in Nov. 2016, the top rated restaurant was a relative newcomer, Veritas Tavern:  http://www.columbusmonthly.com/content/stories/2016/11/best-restaurants-no-1-veritas-tavern.html

 

Veritas Tavern has only been open a few years in Downtown Delaware.  But it has gained a reputation for its molecular gastronomy razzle-dazzle and other kitchen wizardry during its brief existence.  In the Columbus Monthly article (linked above), Veritas confirmed that it will relocating from its Delaware location to the ground floor of the Citizens Building.  The restaurant would double in size from its current 1,300 square feet to 2,700 square feet in the ground floor of the Citizens Building.  A Spring 2017 opening was mentioned in the article:

 

downtown-construction-jan-2017-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more views of the Gay & High-to-High & Long construction site from CU.  Looks like foundation work for the underground parking garage is finished and the above-ground part of this mixed-use project (164 apartments on four floors above ground-floor retail) is underway.

 

Corner of Gay & High - posted July 31, 2017 at http://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-columbus-july-2017

construction-2017-july-01.jpg?resize=1024%2C630

 

 

Corner of High & Long - posted Sept. 3, 2017 at http://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-cranes-dot-the-skyline-in-downtown-columbus

construction-sept-2017-44.jpg?resize=1024%2C630

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.  Great angle there.


"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

The High and Gay project. The lot in front of the 667 wine ad is slated to be a twelve story hotel:

 

38732957370_e5c8336818_o.jpg

 

Last photo! That takes entirely too long on mobile, and now I'm going to be 2 hours late on dinner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be tall, but these photos really put into perspective how MASSIVE the footprint of this project is. That pool in the center rooftop courtyard is going to be cooooool. Thanks so much for sharing.

 

P.S. I still think it would have been more interesting to fully incorporate the Diamond Exchange building...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still kind of sad the entire block is only to be six stories.  Thought there was more potential there.

 

I think the problem was how large the parcel is. You could have fit two Riffe Towers side by side here.

 

If had been split into two or three parcels, I could have seen one or two developers going up to 20 stories, maybe even more. I have read that the amount of square footage in the building currently being built is equal to some of the tallest buildings in Columbus even though it's only 6 stories tall.

 

It certainly would have been nice to have some more height here, but I think this is going to be a great addition regardless. Now if only we could get the rest of the buildings across the street renovated and get that 12-story hotel built that was rumored to be going on the last surface lot over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43735021375_324138dd68_b.jpg

These two projects will seriously improve this part of downtown. I just wish the Downtown Commission would have demanded better for that dead concrete wall with garage ventilation along the sidewalk when everything else is active uses in that area.

 

44594567742_ae3868a3de_b.jpg

 

42834545370_69b69e3286_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice updates!


"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

While exploring I discovered some finishes are starting to be added to the Gay & High Edwards development. 

 

7B6A575B-3414-4346-9A7F-785255760939.thumb.jpeg.5604ff258a1fc427e03b877d6ff8757b.jpeg

 

I will say that while I wish this were taller, I absolutely am loving seeing a complete street wall here for the first time ever. However, parts of the finishes are starting to look really suburban (that cornice and cream color) which is  not something I'm excited to see. Oye. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more photos of The Nicholas project - 231 apartment units (CU's number) or 232 apartment units (Dispatch's number) above ground-floor retail along High Street from Gay Street to Long Street.  First photo is from Gay & High posted 2/21 at https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190220/millennials-moving-downtown-but-retail-slow-to-follow

46515471865_5780f1cd9d_b_d.jpg

 

Second photo is from Long & High posted 3/18 at https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-downtown-franklinton-we1

32488823667_634dc96e59_b_d.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been surprised that this surface lot at the corner of Gay and Third has not been developed. This seems like such a prime spot for mid/high-rise mixed-use building given it's location on Gay Street near numerous restaurants, it's proximity to both High and Broad, and it's location on Third allowing for a very easy trip into and out of downtown. I wonder if we could see this lot developed in the not too distant future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay street could really be an awesome 'destination' area of downtown with restaurants, bars and retail. There is so much patio potential, yet, only a couple of restaurants utilize those massive sidewealks. As for retail, there are businesses like print shops that i believe are holding it back. It would be awesome to see Gay Street turn into a development like the 16th street mall in Denver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nicholas on High seems to be wrapping up. Streetscape has begun and glass railings are going in around the amenity decks. 

 

IMG_2015.thumb.JPG.ffa7c4b0feb78549943e29dba81a6ed2.JPG

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

The Nicholas on High seems to be wrapping up. Streetscape has begun and glass railings are going in around the amenity decks. 

 

IMG_2015.thumb.JPG.ffa7c4b0feb78549943e29dba81a6ed2.JPG

 

 

Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap.

Share this post


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

Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap.

 

It does look pretty bad in this picture, although the few times I've driven past it I've thought that it looks pretty good in person. 

 

I still wish this block could have at least been split into two different lots to drive the height up. Having one developer for this entire over-sized block is what drove the height down in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, aderwent said:

Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap.

 

I think its strange because the middle and far ends sections really turned out rather nice, however the south end of the building is just bad. Its very yuppie box/bridge street imho.

 

I keep telling myself 'at least its no longer a massive surface lot', but man, this is not quality or contextual infill. 

Edited by DevolsDance
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are too many different styles and materials on one building for this one to look good. My biggest issue with it is how there's a gap on the north side for the parking deck and you can see the drop ceiling, parking lot lighting, and parking areas. That should have been screened with some type of perforated metal panel, it looks so trashy the way it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cornices look so shoehorned in and pathetically useless architecturally. Like Cityscapes said way too many styles and materials, and it still looks like one building despite all those "differences".

 

This should have been four "separate" buildings; 10-12 floors in the center and 6-8 on the ends. It should have included offices along with the residential and retail. What a disgusting waste of prime downtown property. I can't believe I just might prefer Highpoint... 🤢

Edited by aderwent
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I will always argue against the "good enough" attitudes in Columbus, not matter how negative I come across.  These mistakes will last many decades.

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus. 

Share this post


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

I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus. 

 

To me it's both a "good enough" issue on this project and more so that it doesn't fit with it's surroundings.  I got put through the ringer for saying that High Point was fine because it fit in with its surroundings, especially now with the LC buildings finished.

 

The "good enough" problem is my issue with most of Kaufman's developments throughout the city, yes a project is complete, but does it fit?  And will it stand the test of time.  Most of the time in my opinion on their projects and this one by Edwards that answer is no.

Edited by wpcc88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Those who say "not good enough" see NYC as competition.

 

Those who say "good enough" only see dying small-town Ohio as competition.

Maybe we should shoot for Chicago first; on the second part you're reaching. I'd say the "good enough" folks would be aiming to stay on par with similar cities(Indy, Nashville and Austins of the world) instead of breaking the norm.

 

I personally expect a lot from builders when creating infill.  It better fit it's surroundings or improve them(when it's feasible). Also give us good quality finishes that are going to add to the fabric of our community for the next 25-50-75 years.

Share this post


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

Maybe we should shoot for Chicago first; on the second part you're reaching. I'd say the "good enough" folks would be aiming to stay on par with similar cities(Indy, Nashville and Austins of the world) instead of breaking the norm.

 

I personally expect a lot from builders when creating infill.  It better fit it's surroundings or improve them(when it's feasible). Also give us good quality finishes that are going to add to the fabric of our community for the next 25-50-75 years.

 

I believe it is a fine line that has to be walked. 

 

I would say that context isn't "always" the most important but that depends on the design of the structure. The problem with designs that aren't contextually fitting is that many of them don't go far enough, they try to half blend and half be unique. If an architect isn't trying to fit a structure contextually then they need to go bold and go for an extreme juxtaposition, otherwise they need to just play save and go for contextual/simple. The most interesting neighborhoods in the world are a mix of traditional/historic with ultra modern/bold mixed in, but it's in that "kinda blend but stand out realm that things turn bad very quickly. I think that's what has happened here, Edwards tried to go "modern" but also keep context with some materials  but also break the super-block feel and it just turned into, well... a mess. 

 

I do agree though that Chicago should be the bar we set for ourselves. You cannot convince me that it will ever hurt Columbus to reach for the architectural and design levels of one of the worlds architecture capitols. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There doesn't even need to be a specific example city in mind.  The goal should just be that development is pushed to be the best possible in any given location.  That means mixed-use, that means height, that means density, that means amenities, that means decent materials, that means quality design, etc.  Columbus does a really bad job at this, even compared to its peers.

Edited by jonoh81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Yes, Chicago is more realistic and similar. Trying to be something too Olde Worlde or be like a mountainous city isn't going to turn out.

Chicago isn't realistic or similar, imo. The transit they have, the jobs and wages they pay within the loop and types of development they get as a result of that are totally different. I have a friend who is a planner there and from what I've heard it's not really a good city to emulate as far as progressive planning or development review. It seems like a very whatever the aldermen says goes type of place tinged with a lot of corruption. 

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

There doesn't even need to be a specific example city in mind.  The goal should just be that development is pushed to be the best possible in any given location.  That means mixed-use, that means height, that means density, that means amenities, that means decent materials, that means quality design, etc.  Columbus does a really bad job at this, even compared to its peers.

This. 

 

I don't know if any of you have gone to a Downtown Commission meeting. They're at a horribly inconvenient time for anyone who works normal hours, but applicants basically show up with renders and materials and if they like it, it gets approved. There's no thorough review, there's no report by actual staff planners that look at the project and determine whether the buildings actually meet any of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Same goes for the Historic Commissions, however, those neighborhoods usually have more residents that show up and care about how things look to push things in a better direction and the commissioners for those tend to be more thorough. We need to move away from that system and properly review the development so that it's good. 

 

Amsterdam has a lot of full block new buildings that try to break up the facade from being monotonous but rather than looking like a hot mess they try to use different massing, balconies, complimentary materials etc to accomplish this rather than multiple styles that don't work together. 

 

Blok-53_LHP7886-1024x682.jpg

 

Blok-47_LHP7862-Edit1-1024x682.jpg

Sources: 

http://www.architectuur-fotograaf.eu/?feed=rss2&media-tags=blok-53 

http://www.architectuur-fotograaf.eu/?feed=rss2&media-tags=blok-47

 

Going this route would have been way more successful. 

Share this post


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

I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus. 

 

I think it is horrible. Total joke of quality and materials. 

Edwards usually builds much better stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I was a better judge of commercial building materials. I can spot crappy residential (as in single family/suburban apartment complex) materials and EIFS right away, but a lot of these things I can't tell right away. Now when the structure is 25 years old I can spot them just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every city that's building yuppie boxes right now is building horrible yuppie boxes. It's not just a Columbus thing. Denver has some of the absolute worst infill in the country, and even New York has been throwing up a lot of garbage lately. I'd love to start seeing some big Austin-esque apartment towers going up in Columbus just like I'm sure most of you would, but this problem is not unique to Columbus. 

  • Like 4

“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Every city that's building yuppie boxes right now is building horrible yuppie boxes. It's not just a Columbus thing. Denver has some of the absolute worst infill in the country, and even New York has been throwing up a lot of garbage lately. I'd love to start seeing some big Austin-esque apartment towers going up in Columbus just like I'm sure most of you would, but this problem is not unique to Columbus. 

It's an American crisis of architecture -- across the country no one is immune

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...