jonoh81

If your argument is that someone believing that historic preservation is both financially possible and architecturally preferable equates to somehow not living in or accepting reality, we are absolutely on opposite ends because that claim is ridiculous. And the idea that preservation cannot coincide with new development, let alone can't make for a good business decision, is also just going to be something we are opposites on.

Yep. Just because it's new does not mean it's quality, and just because something is old doesn't mean it's beyond saving and should be torn down. The value of architecture, over preservation and what should be preserved, is certainly subjective in many ways. But there's just no way that any of the 5-over-1s built in the city the last 10 years are still going to be here in 130 years like the SW building has lasted. I'd be surprised if many lasted half that long just from a quality standpoint.

I think we've been on opposite ends of the preservation argument the vast majority of times. If you don't place any value in old or historic structures (there's not much difference in the terms, IMO), fine, but it just seems to me that when you make arguments that the city should be more careful regarding demolitions, that there's not really any intent or care to hold them accountable if they don't. It rings hollow. I would also not agree that most of the recent demolitions we've seen have necessarily led to better development. Some modern, cheaply constructed stuff that won't last nearly as long as what they replaced, or in some cases empty lots, but not a lot of what I would call high-quality replacements. Yes, I didn't understand your argument about the Dirty Frank's building when you argued for the demolition of arguably much nicer buildings, like the ones on High Street next to the old bank, or even Main Bar. And the SW building has significantly more potential overall than any of those. The SW building is arguably far more architecturally interesting and historic than either of the buildings proposed for demoltion for Estella. So that just seems a bit inconsistent to me. And saving a facade is not building preservation anymore than saving a single archway from Union Station was. It's the "better than nothing" philosophy that I have come to despise regarding development attitudes in Columbus. That should not be our attitude.

Yeah, Rocc's argument makes no sense. Even if his premise were true about something that happened in the early '80s, the argument in 2024 would be to support the Yes on 1 vote and take this anti-democratic power away from both parties. We should keep in mind that Democrats and many others want this to pass, and should they ever manage to gain power again, also wouldn't be able to unfairly gerrymander to their advantage. Democrats are clearly far more willing to sacrifice their own power for fair elections than Republicans are.

Columbus didn't consistently start voting Democratic until the mid-1990s. It's now the 2nd strongest blue city and second strongest blue county in the state. And will likely end up being #1 eventually, especially from a vote total perspective.

These companies want a piece of the urban action, but can't figure out how to make an urban project work because they're so used to cheap, greenspace development and don't have the funding for anything different. So they attempt to force suburbia where it doesn't belong and rely on neighborhood and city leaders to roll over- which they largely do. There should be way more pushback of this across the city, but especially in the urban core. The zoning changes will help, but that only allows better urban projects. They do not prevent site underutilization.

Maybe they expect that to be covered at some point with another building.

Absolutely. I would argue that such a significant size reduction would necessitate the demoliton of the SW building even less. Chances are, though, that it would be a horrendous layout either featuring a giant surface lot and setback from the street, or the entire site would be covered in one large Soviet block. Clearly, Weiler doesn't have the finances to make anything of interest from this site, and the downgrade is another bad sign that this is going to be a huge waste of a prime location.

You've essentially argued that every building ever proposed for demolition is too costly, insignificant or not historic enough to save. I'm not sure how that squares with the call for the city to be careful with demos they approve. Demolition arguments from the 1960s continue to be the primary factor in the destruction of Columbus' historic buildings.

Having a unique, historic amenity that could be used for everything from bar/restaurant/patio space to gym to retail or all of the above would not be good ROI for a residential complex in one of the city's fastest-revitalizing neighborhoods directly adjacent to a brand new residential and entertainment district and on a potential rail line in the heart of one the nation's fastest-growing cities in recent times? If the developer can't make that work financially, they're a crappy developer. It'd be one thing if Weiler was going after historic tax credits and other programs and consistently failing, but there's absolutely no effort whatsoever.

Every time I see these pics, I can't help but think how much of a rail network could've been built instead.

Yes, there's a cost, but that's not exactly saying much because there is also a cost to building new. There's a cost to all types of building standards and zoning codes, but we still have them for a reason. The site is more than large enough to save the building and create something unique with it and still get a couple tall buildings there.

Total suburban Karen developer.

I don't know, I've seen enough shows, read enough articles and seen enough before and after pictures to know that's just not true. Anything can be saved if there is a will and a budget for it. The SW building is not beyond saving just like countless other buildings in the urban core weren't before they were torn down. They argued the same thing about Union Station, about the old Hilltop sanitorium, about the old courthouse, Central Market, the Annex, etc. etc. etc. In every case, it's simply an excuse because the people making the decisions don't want to mess with it.

Here was my idea back in January.

Reminder that we've been waiting like 3-4 years for any kind of development proposal where The Main Bar was, and we were told that demolition was absolutely necessary immediately.

I literally provided a potential layout that preserves the building and allows the 15-story, etc.

In Columbus, parts of Olde Towne East were seeing an influx of wealthier people fixing up houses for the better part of 30 years before its population decline finally reversed between 2010 and 2020. It takes quite a while for these types of changes to manifest into true population growth.

That doesn't support Moreno's position, though. Nor does it support Vance or Trump's position of making up vile claims about them that are currently causing terroristic threats against the people of Springfield.

If I remember correctly, there was also an 8-line rail system proposal in the late 1980s-early 1990s, and I believe the cost for that was maybe $500 million at the time. Obviously it would be higher now with inflation adjustment, but still. COTA and MORPC, quite frankly, have been continuously dropping the ball on this issue for decades because the leadership has never been serious about rail- or for that matter- expanding transit beyond the standard bus. I feel like they've been dragging their feet on even BRT, because the CMax didn't have to be as crappy as it was. There were already numerous examples of good BRT to copy from at the time. It's always been the safe and "good enough" philosophy rather than "doing it right the first time".

It's really amazing to me how expensive such transit projects are in the US. $340 million for like 8 miles for BRT is insane to me, especially when it can be done so much more cheaply in other countries. We just don't know how to do these things efficiently, anymore.

I'd really be interested to see any kind of report on the density requirements- and necessary density location- for federal funding. I've not found anything, but I keep seeing this claim. Columbus has more density than Cincinnati and and will eventually pass Cleveland despite being 3x larger in area. It has the highest density neighborhoods in the state and density greater than 5K ppsm exists all the way out to the city boundaries in many cases.

Are there very many examples of these types of apartment complexes later seeing their surface lots being developed? I can't think of any in Columbus off-hand. I also think the layout itself and the way the apartments are designed would make it hard to fill in all that parking. You could maybe see a few more buildings along McKinley, but you'd still have to maintain space between them, which would still be surface lots. The layouts are just not designed for good expansion or density.

It would look at least a little better with just some normal sized windows. It has no curb appeal whatsoever.

I wish the city would actually get serious about this stuff and create better standards for apartment complexes like this. It should be illegal for 1/3rd or more of any site to be surface parking. It's just such a huge waste of space, and the layouts are just incredibly unimaginative and lazy.