Largue

Kind of hilarious how the urban designer and planner are citing concerns that this would not "connect people" downtown or worries about creating "superblocks" where "you can't get through at all..." Are they missing the part where pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, etc. still have free reign to travel along Elm Street as they please? They forgot that cars are not the same as people! 😆 I've also heard that 3CDC is trying to make Race into a two-way street (perhaps Plum or Vine as well?) to accommodate the closure of Elm.

@RJohnsonYes there are active leaks in the building whenever it rains and signs of water damage throughout. There was an analysis done indicating the majority of the TPO roof needs replacement and cannot be repaired. The roof warranty expires in 2026 anyways. In addition, the existing insulation under the TPO has been compromised by water infiltration (but it's not like the old insulation would be up to energy code anyways). The 1984 expansion was done by the firm Harry Hake & Harry Hake Jr. & Associates (the firm now known as Champlin Architecture). I've never met them to know if they are personally idiots, but I'm comfortable calling their building design idiotic. If you think natural light is unnecessary in buildings (especially large civic buildings) then you're welcome to think that. Most people and studies would wholeheartedly disagree with you. In regards to the potential expansion... This is why the west facade is getting minimal work. If you have not seen yet, look up the Bridge Forward proposal about the I-75 Brent Spence work that is being planned.

I'm working close to this project and just want to clear up some of the questions about where all the money is going... Yes there is a major facade upgrade to "unify" the four sides, with the most invasive exterior work being along 5th and Elm. Central Pkwy gets very little attention and 6th St gets a facelift. The convos that I've seen so far are missing two major items: building repairs and interior daylight. Building Repairs... The CC has been horribly neglected for over forty years. The 2006 renovation did not address many of the repairs or underlying systemic concerns, so most of the building runs on MEP from the 80s. Things like switchboards, AHUs, plumbing lines, etc. need wholesale replacement. Not to mention the entire TPO roof area (90% of the building) is falling apart and needs to be replaced. There's also water infiltration throughout spots in the facade, both at the 80s addition and at the 2006 addition. These much-needed repairs and upgrades do absolutely nothing to make the building look better, yet they make up over half the budget. Interior Daylight... Along both main concourses of the building at 5th and Elm, the idiots who designed the 80s reno decided to place all the core space along the edges of the building, effectively blocking all the light and crowding the floor area with egress stairs towers, bathrooms, mechanical rooms, and other crap that don't even need windows. The cramped/dark concourses are in desperate need of daylight and more space, especially because they're supposed to be a much-needed break from the exhibition/ballroom spaces. Not to mention how people tend to get lost inside buildings with no windows... This is the main reason that most of the facade attention is along 5th and Elm, since that's where those dank, dismal concourses are located.

Love it, Pendleton could have it's very own miniature Flatiron Building.

A lack of direct sunlight does not mean lack of daylight (otherwise north-facing windows would basically be useless). The interior rooms behind the trees will still get plenty of indirect daylighting. Also, the trees in question are in front of a SW-facing facade, so during the summer they'll do wonders to block direct sun and prevent overheating in those rooms. On the flipside, during the winter they'll lose their leaves and allow passive heating of those same rooms when it's cold out.

Well the documents submitted to HCB had Proforma analysis with multiple scenarios showing that even in the unlikely event of them being awarded the state's 20% historic tax credit, there was still no positive return on investment for the property if the building in question was to remain. I am typically a staunch opponent of demolishing historic buildings (for many of the reasons you've mentioned). But if the math doesn't work and the building has been altered beyond recognition, I'm not sure what exactly is being "saved" by stonewalling the development...

For reference, this is what the building used to look like before alterations were made (note the lack of neo-Spanish details).

I believe part of the argument for demolition was that the structural analysis report said it would require around $1.8 million in repairs just to get it to comply with the structural building code. There were also reports from the urban conservator saying it was unlikely to receive historic tax credits to financially aid this because of the many changes it had undergone that have modified the building over the years.

Yesterday, the Historic Conservation Board voted to deny the demolition of the 2-story building at Magnolia & Central. The demo would have made way for a new 4-story hotel adaptive re-use project that spans the block. Images below of the building that was planned for demolition and then the new design proposed for the site.

Pretty nice units there, thanks for sharing. Do you know who the architect for the project was? I think that exposed rafters can look incredible in many situations, but for some reason this one just makes it look unfinished. Are they going to add more gyp board to the ceilings? Perhaps the small sizing of those existing structural members is what's making it look off. But maybe it's just me, and others will love the look.

Well the building is going to have a parking level below grade, so I believe they're just excavating the proper volume for that. It's possible that they were thrown off by the existing stone wall along Sycamore, and may have to do some tweaking to the foundation.

Not too long ago there was supposed to be a wine bar going on the first floor and basement. Maybe that's the neighborhood retail they're speaking of...

They haven't made the design public yet, I believe they're waiting until the litigation sorts itself out before they release anything. However, I've seen their design and was impressed with the historical sensitivity and their reasoning behind design/programming decisions. They also seem relatively far along. What they produced goes beyond just a rendering or a rough layout. That being said, the characterization of JNY as "buying property to hide money" is pretty ignorant. To me, they seem very invested in making the project happen. Anderson Birkla kept kicking the can down the road and not finalizing any deals, so JNY capitalized on their inactivity and snatched up the property.

The group out of Brooklyn also has a design for the building that they can implement once the court ruling is complete. Their design is done by SOM (original designers) that doesn't destroy the building's history. That being said, I also hate how long the legal proceedings are taking. Cranley getting involved certainly doesn't help the deal look legitimate.

This is very wrong. A lot of paint applications are extremely harmful to brick facades. Bricks have pores that need to breathe in order to maintain the brick's integrity. When painted, these pores are sealed off and freeze-thaw cycles can cause serious damage. Furthermore, the paint is next to impossible to remove once applied, so the natural brick facade is basically lost forever.