DTCL11

Behind it. The square building.

My biggest interest is in the long term. Show me their intended expansions. Even if they are 20 years down the road or more, I want to know that all they have to do is plug and play when it comes time. I also wouldn't mind another 5 ft on those ceilings. Tall ceilings make all the difference in the world.

Lolz. The commission and city don't care. If the developer decides to tear down they'll get approval.

There was a plan floated for these before. I don't recall who proposed it though.

I learned yesterday the material on the outside is Portuguese Limestone, specifically chosen for it's warm aesthetic.... I like my prison bars better when they are quality materials chosen for warm aesthetic. It will also be interesting to see how it ages as well depending on finish treatment. Maybe it will grow algae and turn green to match the green tinted windows.

I would disagree. NRI might not venture much outside the [brick] box but their builds are *generally* solid with good materials and not EIFS or crappy composite panels that warp and deteriorate on day 1. Sure, not striking, but I would say NRI is not a really bad developer by any means. And with some exceptions, they do use the land they develop efficiently, even if it's not truly maximized in terms of height.

Just a mere 2.5x the cost of the original $192 mil proposal that was originally awarded. Honestly, the longer this goes on, the bigger of a mess it is. Having a big RFP contest to choose the original Wood-Schiff proposal because of its iconic structure only to modify the project to actually resemble 2 other proposals submitted by other developers that were rejected, a massive increase in cost, public subsidy, and still uneasy about funding... I'm ready for it to be done and just turn a blind eye to the drama of this all and then eagerly await for similar processes for the peninsula and old Greyhound site as we grapple with the balance of private and public development in search iconic and transformational projects... Even the crew stadium was a smoother process which is rare for stadiums.

The agreement for $5 mil was with the county. The County will likely have more incentive and tolerance for them to build it further out of the city where dollars go further. I vant really see it being applied to a core project.

Oh yeah! I TOTALLY forgot that part! And it has a public parking garage anyone can use! That changes EVERYTHING and I take back any support of people skeptical of such significant direct public funding. Can't believe I never took that in to account or any of these leaders that voted against it didn't even consider that! Funds are limited. That's the reason it can't be both. That and Columbus literally doesn't know how to implement best practices without reinventing the wheel.

I'm not disagreeing on whether Merchant Tower will have a positive impact. But thats IS my point. The project can almost certainly be a home run project and while also acknowledging the complexities and detractors of direct public funding. We shouldn't be surprised or act indignant about people or leaders who are holding back on outright support. I can spin why Gravity should have garnered $54 million in public funds or why Easton should which is a better comparison than the Hilton which is a publicly owned asset. The list is endless when it comes to projects that we can say draw visitors, improve business customer base, serve as a catalyst, etc. We have to understand that this is not black and white net positive for the ages where public funding is absolutely warranted and should be praised. That some hesitation is not unwarranted or should be shamed.

Waiting on the checks to clear 😅

I'm not. Direct funding is very different than incentives. Many cities draw the line at this or prohibit it. Let alone this level of direct funding. There are ways that people can tell themselves they can justify it but it's hard to sell such massive investment into a largely private venture on the promise of being transformational or being a catalyst. Those are hard concepts to get buy in on. And they aren't as guaranteed as the tangible aspect of having a completed park or bridge etc. The origin of TMUD is a project that couldn't get direct buy in for a 'transformational' project so legislators, also squeamish on direct funding, worked with developers to build a massive incentive plan from the state to spur these projects and yet, it wasn't enough. Direct funding like this is really a rarity. At the highest end of costs, the same city and county investment could create over 100 miles of barrier protected bike lanes. Hundreds more at lower cost options. And that's what some of these leaders see. How do we apply these funds to a more equitable set of projects versus a project that is largely going to benefit a small section of the city population. If there's discretionary spending of this magnitude, what other projects should benefit from it and that's why it was close. Edit. I should specify outside of sports stadiums which are a whole different can of worms but alot of that frustration also overlaps.

My theory is that in the renegotiation of their tax benefits with the city, they promised to finally build housing and begrudgingly committed to that building and then the pandemic hit. That gave them an out and because they found another way to get around the cities frustration with lack of housing by donating a plot of land and getting other organizations to build the mixed income housing to the south, it makes me even more skeptical about their committment to the live part of live, work, play. I still contest that the powers that be at Easton never really cared about housing as clearly demonstrated in 20 years of development. Now, there are Easton apologists who will gladly reason why they haven't built any housing in 20 but the excuses are pretty thin at this point. And even if they announce some great development tomorrow, it really doesn't excuse 2 decades of ignoring housing and the promise of what they might build in 20 years with zoning variances to build taller isn't enough for me to forgive them for it. And let's be honest, any *potential* residential tower won't have street activity. It will be a dead zone for a vertical gated community and not integrated into a walkable neighborhood.

Every era has its beauties and beasts. And every beauty and beast is subject to interpretation over time. We as a society spent decades undoing much of the brutalist era and many have come to regret it as replacements are often less iconic and/or renovations and modifications have become more inventive. I personally think it's OK to have beasts if they have a feasible function and purpose. Therein lies the issue. OSU will always go with ease over anything else and a 2 in one shot at new residence halls more attractive to student recruitment closer to the amenities at High St and/or Lane that OSU has been fundamental in changing while also greatly improving law school facilities closer to highway access (presumbaly) for a larger commuter population is too good to pass up. Then it is comes down to what to do with 2 towers that aren't really needed for residences anymore. And what can they be repurposed for? There's no doubt they can be repusposed, at a cost, but then what for? Staff apartments? Married student apartments? Medical offices? Mixed use? Sure they can be completely redone for student residences but then we continue to have students in buildings away from the most walkable part of campus, or the city for that matter, for the sake of saving the buildings. Perhaps saving and repusposing one can be achievable but it's going to be a stretch. I really love the idea of OSU having its own mini skyline but the obscelense of the towers for reason after reason becomes more apparent each year.

The old Level.

So.... rumor has it the parking deck for the new outpatient center was incorrectly built and the clearance for each level is 2 inches less than intended... which wouldn't be a big deal except to large vehicle owners. So they are working with the contractor and state to shave the concrete where needed to correct the clearance issue.

This isn't just 54 and 39. Or even 47 and 39 (of you remove the cost to relocate bodies) There is also the separate funding for infrastructure. The land was transferred to the developer for free. So the city lost out on 9 million for the sale of the parking lot alone. The tax abatements. The TMUD. I think we will come to find out over time that it is still more publicly supported than what has been released. Ultimately, an expanded market would have cost the city less to just fund it directly. And the original agreement was that the developers were going to pay the market 300k a year in perpetuity AND a 500k boost during construction to support the vendors. now is that just the city taking over that too? I think I would be more ok with it if the city clawed back abatements. The city and schools are already losing out on millions of dollars over the next 15 years, if it doesn't get extended, while also supporting the project directly. I think it should also be noted as an indicator as to how difficult it will be to get major projects like this done. And it does validate those with concerns over whether the Merchant Building was indeed facing significant financing issues and it was. They brought in some serious players and investors too and didn't get it across the finish line. We saw it with Millenial as well. A property can be as attractive as Merchant but still need significant public buy in to make viable to investors. We can see it as invaluable but those crunching numbers didn't. Millenial didn't work because it couldn't get buy in from the city. Private investment alone probably isn't going to yield more of these without a major corporate buy in or building of headquarters. I think we will see a similar struggle with the concept of a Penninsula tower. Why we have never seen anything with Wolfe properties on Capitol Square. Then we will have to assess, how many reasonings can we justify public investment to make for various projects. It's a transit hub, or a garage, or services museums, etc etc etc. It is what it is and I'll enjoy it as it is built but I'll still think I'd have been perfectly OK with and expanded market and less direct funding of a private venture and have concerns over what it means for future large scale projects.

Funding issues isn't a conspiracy. It's a far more likely scenario than a sick day in the major development world. Im not saying it's one way or the other, but rather that calling out potential funding issues as a possibility isn't a conspiracy but rather a valid reality for many big projects. I've been eviscerated for suggesting funding issues before and well... many of those projects are on the heap of never-builts. Suggesting funding issues isn't a slight, just a statistically grounded guess. It could also be they were waiting on another engineer report they thought would be ready beforehand or documents to support demolition etc etc etc. It's all guessing but none of them are conspiracies.

Looks like the lots are big enough to squeeze another building or townhomes on in the future though so there is hope that a long term infill is possible

This sale is for the hotel portion only. The two towers are owned by completely separate entities. At most, I could see a new hotel brand, but I think the success of the hotel combined with the state and city powers that be, there will be little interest in a residential conversion.

A Lazarus Pit, perhaps?

Don't worry. Its just a study. Because in traditional Columbus fashion, we will study everything on our own adding time and money to projects instead of taking a wealth of studies and knowledge from other cities across the world and implementing best practices.

If you're going to fake a second story, why not just put a second story? I'd have been annoyed but a proper 2 story with this style and a corner entrance would have been just enough to meet the bare minimum. Or why not have 2 entrances like the CVS at High and Dodridge? Blargh...

You can see the masonry is reused when you start to look closely. It's looking quite sharp.