jonoh81

Or 131-year-old buildings that aren't pretty enough.

It's almost definitely not going to be 15 stories, for one thing. Or 12 or 10 or probably even 8 if we're being honest. But there are tons of examples out there of relatively small buildings being incorporated into large towers. I think you guys are making the size of the building too much of an issue. It can be worked into the project if they really wanted that to happen.

I'm not saying it should look like that at all. I'm saying that there are tons of ways to incorporate it in tasteful, interesting ways.

Everyone forgets that it only became a stand alone because no one cared about protecting all the buildings around it.

That's an interesting design and a perfect example of expanding one's expectations of design. It's the type of project that makes things so much more interesting while embracing both the future and the past. And yes, unless a building is a public danger or something, there should not be any demolitions without a plan in place to replace it. In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the Downtown development standards is that there shouldn't be any future demolitions for parking lots. Yet that is exactly what they're proposing happen.

Only 2 are technically in a protected district. The last one isn't, and the last one is a type of home that I was referencing making up most of the urban core and the type that gets bulldozed on the reg without any care, in neighborhoods where they're surrounded by equally old buildings. You kind of missed the point, though. All 3 are relatively plain looking buildings. If we're not supposed to factor in age, then aesthetics is all we're judging them on. So if we are to apply the same logic that Main Bar isn't pretty enough to be saved, why should any of those others? The fact that 2 of the 3 are in protected historic districts kind of undermines the belief that they have no value simply because of how they look. In the 1950s, the city wanted to tear down all of German Village because they viewed the buildings as eyesores. We only appreciate them now because some people saw value where others didn't. And it shouldn't matter whether they're the last survivors on their street or in a complete neighborhood. The building has survived for 131 years. No matter how you think it looks, it deserves better.

Your mentality is exactly what I'm talking about. The other building has been subjectively deemed prettier, so it deserves to be saved, while the Main building doesn't. Historic preservation is not just about saving buildings that have more design features. If that's all we care about, why should any of these types of buildings have any protection? They're all relatively plain and, on their own, it could easily be argued that they have low relative value if a developer comes along with a proposal for their locations.

Yep. Most of the buildings in German Village are very similar looking and quite plain. If any of them were standalone somewhere, and there was a proposal to replace it was something larger, many would argue that it wasn't worth saving too. But because there's a neighborhood of them, they have value. I don't really like this very selective view of historic preservation or not caring because a building doesn't exactly meet a certain arbitrarily pleasing aesthetic. Putting it another way, the most common type of old home design in Columbus is the American Foursquare, most now a 100 year old or more. These homes dominate all the inner core neighborhoods. Because they are so plentiful, no one cares when they're torn down. But try to tear down some Victorian and there'd be outrage. Not because Victorians have more intrinsic value as historic buildings, but because there are fewer of them and more people associate value with their far more excessive design details. So every year, we lose dozens and dozens of the simple AF in urban neighborhoods without anyone even noticing. I think that's terrible, personally, so I have no problem arguing that we should also fight for the less glamorous old buildings.

It doesn't matter how wide it is, it would serve to break up the design, something few modern projects ever do. Every single old building ever demolished had people saying the exact same things about it- that it was ugly, insignificant, wasn't worth saving, etc., and every year there are fewer and fewer of them. The idea that we should only care about older buildings when they have some kind of obvious or highly-detailed design like Victorian is too short-sighted. They are all part of the unique history of the city and all deserve more consideration.

Just down the street they built around a similar standalone building and connected it to the project. There are ways to do it without sacrificing anything. The Pavey project on High incorporated multiple buildings. Over on Long, there is a project that tied old buildings with new. Developers need to think outside the box, literally. Regardless of the aesthetics of the Main building, it's become somewhat of a landmark and just tearing it down for what will most likely be an underwhelming low-rise project that looks like everything else built recently seems like a waste to me.

There wasn't really anything architecturally special about the buildings on Park Street that the hotel project was going to fully demolish, either, but it sure does look better with at least the facades incorporated.

The Downtown Commission will instantly roll over for whatever the developer proposes. They've not remotely fought back against any projects. That's how we got HighPoint and the Swan Cleaners site tragedy and the Nicholas and...

The Main Bar building seems to be pretty old. It looks like it appears in maps at least back to 1891, if it's the same building.

I hate hate hate demolition without a plan. Demolition should not take place without a specific proposal already in the planning stages. So many demolitions in the past have been done this way, only for the parking lot to remain. I would also prefer any future project to at least try to incorporate the facade into the new project. I assume that they're not going to propose anything major here- a 4-6 story building rather than any tower (lol), so there is no reason the facade of the Main Bar couldn't be incorporated.

Probably also why people are freaking out about Sheets.

I don't think Clintonville has allowed even a single project that follows those guidelines since they were first drawn up, but I could be wrong.

Oh the site should absolutely get more than a fast-food restaurant, but this is Clintonville. This is the height of development there. My comment about Chic-fil-A in general is that it really is just fast food. Even disregarding their past, and likely present, horrific social stances, treating it like as if it's somehow refined eating is why America has an obesity epidemic.

It's chicken. There are better, less controversial options.

I was under the impression that the land has been for sale for some time and that Zimmer, last we heard, hadn't actually purchased it yet.

I'm fairly certain the Driving Park track lasted into the 1930s at least, but it never had any buildings like that. It was pretty primitive in comparison, so yeah, probably the fairgrounds. Edit: I was able to find a photo of the Driving Park track to 1929 also. It just had a simple bandstand.

This photo just says "Race Track", also taken in 1919. Could this have been at the state fairgrounds?

Here are some even earlier aerials, though not of the city overall. Ohio State's main campus and the old Campus armory in 1919.

Here is a fantastic aerial shot of Franklinton and Downtown looking southeast. This may be one of the oldest, if not oldest, aerials of the city ever taken. It was taken in May 1929, the same year that Columbus opened the airport. If you download it, you can open it larger for a lot more detail. You can see that the riverfront wall isn't finished, that the city basically ends after Merion Village, etc.

So these came out for Ohio on the 26th. Here are maps for the 3-C counties that include the 2010 census tract divisions, as well as new census tract divisions for the upcoming 2020 release. Census tract boundaries almost always change when there is strong population growth. In those circumstances, tracts tend to break up into smaller areas. Cuyahoga County: https://arcg.is/1qviHi I didn't really see any changes between 2010 and 2020, but I didn't spend much time going through it. Franklin County: https://arcg.is/LKqCG Lots of changes. Large tracts have been broken up throughout the outer burbs, but also in some urban areas, including Downtown. Perhaps a few dozen new tracts overall. Hamilton County: https://arcg.is/naSK40 Some changes here and there.

Related, Trump didn't get his wish on the Census regarding counting undocumented immigrants. https://us.yahoo.com/news/trump-appointees-pressure-census-report-144949540.html