DTCL11

I wouldn't put any stock in to this graphic. I agree that the grayed out building on the right is actually the Hilton Garden Inn. This graphic shows alot of property redeveloped that they don't own, including the Motel 6, Roosters, Sonic, Premier Tire, and El Vaquero etc. It even shows an expansion of the HGI as well. So it's, for all intents and purposes, one of those pie in the sky concepts that non controlling entities throw out there. Much like alot of the stuff we see in the LinkUS and Rapid5 literature. While conceivable, sure, it was not done with any true planning. Speculation based on this graphic is as good as any speculation any of us could draw up.

This was, last I recall a few years pre-pandemic, the highest grossing Kohls in Central, Ohio. But I don't know if that held up since. Big box stores are what they are in terms of goods. They will always serve a purpose and be popular. What they don't have to be is big box stores. Even suburban Houston has more urban big box stores than our urban core so ideally, I don't think it would be bad to aim to keep them, but just get them incorporated into better development, especially along this corridor. If we could shift some of Lennox tennants to this place and the The City, I think that will further push for better development. Just have to convince the big box stores to take the chance.

Today's 10 Projects to Watch article in the Dispatch highlights the following: What to watch: 2024 won't bring a new terminal to the airport but the year could be critical nonetheless for the project. Look for the Columbus Regional Airport Authority to make a decision, likely this summer, on whether to move forward on the project. If so, work could start by the end of the year, and be completed within five years. Which I thought it was a go, but then I went back and read their article from last August. "We made significant progress in the last year," Nardone said. "It’s not a go yet. There's still a lot of work to do before the (airport authority) board makes a final go or no-go decision." I guess I was under the impression it was full steam ahead but these articles make it seem like it's not a given yet. The August article said the decision should be made early this year and the 10 Projects article says likely summer.

A bit more background I found. The Fink piece was commissioned at the same time as Brushstrokes in Flight and another by Aretha Tacha. All three were installed and dedicated in the same ceremony. It appears the Tacha and Fink pieces were installed in the grassy areas where the great hall and A gates now stand. Based on the type of installation the Fink and Tacha pieces were and their location, my guess is they were not preserved in the expansion that would start just a handful of years later. I'd have to do more archival digging for certainty but I think it's a solid bet they are both gone. Also learned that Rinehart hated it and tried to give Brushstrokes to Genoa Italy as a thank you for the 1955 giant Columbus Statue formerly at city hall.

I was trying to find confirmation that a new Sheetz approved at Morse and High to the East of the new Chic-Fil-A. I had heard it was approved a week or two ago. The traffic on that corner is going to be such a bigger nightmare than imagined. And far worse than any dense apartment build would ever create. In that, I found this tidbit 8:35 Consideration of Resolution 2023-05, Requesting the City to pursue a plan to solicit proposals for redevelopment of the City-owned property at 3500 and 3568-70 Indianola Avenue – Chair Vottero Seems like the commission wants the city to redevelop the municipal electric site. Which would be interesting after all the community pushback about the other Indianola apartments. Also. The renovation fo the office building at High and North Broadway has removed the high street curb cut and installed a wall in its place. Haven't been able to snag a decent picture because the sun sets at 1.30pm these days.

I hear they are adding shoulder pads to the scrubs to match the 1980s aesthetic

I *think* it's pending the city redoing the streetscape design. Not worth putting permanent installations in to be torn up in the near future I believe.

Yeah, but I wonder how those logistics work out. It's easy to say that but when push comes to shove, will Financials be different. Browns stadium holds 67000 people. Going with the second largest stadium, Progressive Field is 34000. Akron Infocision 30,000. Stay in NE ohio where you can only accept half the attendance for 2-4 years or travel for a stadium you can put more people in and potentially expand the market. I have no care either way but there's a compelling argument for it even if they've initially dismissed it. In the end, numbers may dictate it

That's more or less what I meant. They don't care about it being updated because they like it the way it is. But also, the true historic stadium has been bastardized time and time again. So it's just like campus bars. Natstalgia for the version they knew. There's so much that can be done to enhance the actual historic stadium, keep the same design style exterior with better material, enhance and light the archways etc etc.

I was imagining the additional seating could be built into the remaining non arena space. Like a temporary stadium for such an event.

That seems insane to me for hockey, especially in Central Ohio but I guess if they build it, they will come. More power to them. But still think they want more. Honestly, I want more. Winterize it. Reclad it. Light it up with dynamic lighting. Redo and expand the main plaza if not more of the lots as well. Bring in some really innovative developer and design minds to make it more than what it is. Especially with the money they have, they really can start thinking about large scale modernization inside and out. Not just a piecemeal approach they have had for decades. But I get it. They don't *need* to because there's enough fans that don't care about that stuff and they rest on that handily selling out.

I'll be curious to see what else OSU has in mind. Assuming it is a potentially costly endeavor to make the stadium useful year round, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't consider such an expensive endeavor for the sole purpose of hosting a single exhibition game of an unaffiliated team. Other teams use baseball stadiums for the same purpose and I'm sure Huntington could also be used or even the new Crew Stadium. They aren't aiming for 100,000 or even half that for a hockey game. Huntington and Crew can easily hold a reasonable crowd. There's SURELY more to this than a single NHL game, right? Or a playoff game? Concerts? Or.... To my knowledge, the Browns have not announced where they intend to play while their stadium in Cleveland is out of commission 2026-2028. Watch that space for potential influence.

Be careful. That position is blasphemous around here anymore. 🫠

Just trying to keep in the neighborhood architectural precedent Lincoln and Morril set before they are gone.

I didn't hate the prior version but hopefully turning the east bump out in to a gable roof mimicking and scaling up from the neighboring property will help appease the commission.

So the angled glass atrium at the top of the AEP building ends almost flush with the roof. No parapet. Just a 2 or 3 rail open railing. And looking down that is... daunting. One slip of the step and it's a glass slide to... well, anyway. They also provide great sound tunnels so you can hear conversations in the plaza clear as day when the weather is still.

The issue comes in the fact that Hometeam manages most of properties on this block but only owns a couple plots, mostly mid century apartment buildings. They own more further west than this as well. The question then becomes whether or not they are also going to be able to collect more properties. But they also manage many of the historic homes that would be a shame to see go. There's definitely opportunity for Pavey type development but getting to know the neighbors and the opinions may be more than they expect if they get Pavey and High/Lane type opposition.

That's quite literally my point in saying the smaller companies, along with individuals, get disproportionately stuck with the bill while the fat cat Intel sits back and enjoys the heavy subsidies. I didn't miss that at all. But it further exemplifies my point in that you're excusing it because the others will take care of it. The trickle down tax benefits. And we should take it personally because the fact that there has been a decades old race to the bottom for taxing major corporations is part of what has decimated tax revenue streams that could help pay for things like better schools, infrastructure, transit, etc. We scratch our heads as to why we can't relive American Post War expansion and investment all while throwing money at the major companies leaving the burden on the smaller players. You, namely, also take any criticism of companies way too personal but I suppose that's the name of the game here. It's an anonymous public forum largely playing Sim City with urban centered projects and goals. Let us not forget the outright SHELACKING you gave the forum community in DARING to push back against Indianola business owners who proposed sharrows instead of dedicated bike lanes. I believe you told us, in no uncertain terms, we have no right to criticize them because we have never owned, worked for, or known anyone who owns a business. Or that we have no room to criticize developers spending their own money when we literally have commissions and review board for exactly such a purpose. We all have our hills to die on and mine is for the good of the people, community, and being less grateful for getting anything at all just for the sake of getting attention from a corporation.

Not nearly what they should. And not as directly as they should. A huge part of the venture is being subsidized in the same way eastern Ohio hung its hats on fracking. Giving the breaks and allowances to the big companies and then being thankful for the jobs and hoping the revenue from taxing the workers, residents, drivers, and smaller companies fill in the gap. We can't forget the influx of restaurant business that always goes mentioned in these projects. But we should be thankful for the jobs and the disproportionate roll the individual tax payers play in funding the infrastructure while the big corporation gets to sit back, collect record profit, and say thank you watching all the cogs below foot the bill. But I suppose we should be 'thankful' for the investment at all, because otherwise we wouldnt have the jobs, drivers, businesses, and residents to pay off the infrastructure like good little tax payers and residents.

*maybe

Campus Hotels are difficult. Let alone multiple. Sure there's demand for some sporting events, graduation, etc, but that's not usually enough to sustain them. If univerosty demand enough was enough to sustain it, the Blackwell wouldn't need tomarket for hosting non-university related events like weddings, conferences, etc. But they need that to fill the gaps. Many campus hotels cost more to run than the revenue generated. So having one successful hotel is great, pushing for more than that might be pushing luck. There were once large hotels on Lane already that investment and continued operation wasn't feasible and I'm sure by now other hotel operators and or developers would have scooped up property and started one. It's also likely a factor in the slow walk for the 15th St hotel. If the demand was hot, it would be a higher priority but my guess is they want it, but can live without it while they wait out to see if it's worth building while construction costs are high.

The towers don't fit in to the long term plan. They serve a purpose visually and that's about it. Modern campus life I'd driving OSU to rethink towers in an isolated part of campus and push residential to High, Lane, and south campus where university and private development will lead to more vibrant residential districts. I've said it before, even renovated, the function of high density residential towers away from restaurants, bars, stores, etc is dwindling quickly. I support renovations in to other purposes perhaps but what is the demand for that much other space. Maybe a hotel but even then, is that viable? Fun aside. OSU has a ton of empty rooms this year. Not beds. Rooms. As in enough that they could mothball at least one full residential building this academic year, potentially up to two. There are a number of factors but still mind boggling to learn.

I know the spot. The map isn't going to change my mind and it shouldn't. I reject the notion that this isn't important or an urban neighborhood. Being tucked into adjacent single family homes is most of Franklinton, German Village, Victorian Village but you want to say this is not an urban neighborhood? The biases are clear. Again, if 2 blocks from a major thorough fare and transit route and 5-10 minutes from a current CMAX and future rapid transit is excuse enough to say its not close enough to be that important, that encompasses so much of this city. That literally contradicts trying to invest in these corridors when things eaily walkable to these corridors and transit lines are given suburban go aheads and identified as non urban neighborhoods... what? The premise that because it's not 'on' a thoroughfare but is easily within walking distance, that a surburban land use is fine, well, thats just nuts. That's literally half of Jeffrey Park. 2 blocks from 4th. Bound by railroad and highway. 5-10 minutes walk from a second thoroughfare. And heck, 4th only gets you transit North. So it's accessibility is even more limited because of the distance you have to go to get southbound transit. And 2nd is not nearly the transit, public or private Corridor for job centers that 5th is either. In fact, it's probably easier to get to downtown, Easton, and Polaris among other major job centers from the location than Jeffrey Park. So yeah, not apples to apples, but that's my point. There are excuses as to why it's OK to have bad land use over much of these inner neighborhoods but they aren't nearly as relevant as to why it's important to prioritize better land use. And we shouldn't be limiting our idea of urban neighborhoods to those that are popular or directly adjacent to downtown or what side of 71 it fall on. Good urban development, whether that be higher density, or single and multifamily homes like Grant Park should all be important for using the land properly across the city. Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Poor. Developments. In. The. Core. Period. Being thankful for trash, claiming to call back to reality, you let the trash win. That doesn't have to be reality. The 'reality' of it implying that this is what should be expected and accepted. Poppycock. The reality can be and should be the city says, 'hey, use this land better. Yeah its in it a weird spot but we don't want to be stuck with this if more infill is viable later. It won't cost you a dime different right now but it may put you and the city in a better spot as this area grows.' Why is that an 'unrealistic' concept? That we should just be thankful for what we get and not question it or ask for better? The idea that we dare question or challenge private investment or business decision is so offensive?

Your point is contradictory to good urban design. That point can fly somewhere else but this is another example of people giving excuses to a place that is wholly inappropriate and saying we should be thankful to corporate overlords instead of holding them accountable to responsible community development. We could have applied this same logic to Jeffery Park. And any reason as to why Jeffrey Park would can be applied to 12 acres here. If we had accepted this type of development 15-20 years ago in Italian village we'd be kicking ourselves today. Let's not make those same mistakes in our other core neighborhoods. They all deserve the same expectations of responsible land use. And there is a difference in not building dense and preventing future density. This is practically a literal stone throw from 2 major commuter routes, blue collar jobs, etc. Railroad tracks on a dead end street in an unpopular neighborhood (for now) shouldn't override the litany of other reasons this is precisely where density should be prioritized. Cleveland and 5th being ripe for a neighborhood hub. Practically down the street from some of the fastest growing and most popular neighborhoods in the city. Come on, the excuses are just trash. And I will die on that hill for the betterment of the city as it grows. And no excuses of its their money. The request is simple. Put the same investment in at the same cost. Just rearrange the land use to allow future development. Not that hard and not demanding.

It's another 'well, it's by the railroad line and not a major or popular road so it's finneeeeeee' set of excuses like the south side ones. What makes this different than awkward Land with railroad There's no excuses. The city needs to adopt reasonable standards for land use. This is an outside of 270 style development. Not remotely appropriate for an inner core neighborhood. Beyond that, it's within 5 minutes walking to Cleveland and 5th. One of which is intended to be a major mass transit Corridor. They can build the same units but maximize land for future use and that's what the city needs to push. Fine, you can't fill the land now, but don't c*** block future infill with trash developments. The core neighborhoods are littered with odd rail or highway adjacent properties. We wouldn't accept it in Franklinton. We wouldn't accept it in Italian Village. Milo and the south end should be no different. Stop justifying poor development. It enables more poor development.