DTCL11

Blink once for under 15-20 Blink twice for over 20

I'm looking forward to some yahoo trying to sue the city *if* they follow through with overriding the old community zoning and guidelines in some of these places.

How beautifully suburban to completely surround the building with a sea of parking lots. It's not even designed in a way for any potential addition of units in the future either.

Correct. And no one here is advocating for it to remain low density. You can have high density AND preserve old which is what I assume most of us are advocating. Austin, Chicago, DC, etc are building great density out of old buildings. You can't get much more density from an old building than the Hearst Tower in NYC. We just don't see it here often enough because we don't demand it. As mentioned upthread, the AC hotel is one of the best we've had and should be applied generously around the city but instead, we leave it up to developers to decide. These things add to the neighborhood scale and timeless aestetic of an area as well. And your implication is pretty clear. Why save these when there are others that look the same elsewhere and we can have more density? Which ultimately results in just a few being left. So while it might not have been your direct statement, that is the outcome of that approach so you can call it a misrepresentation, but the result will be the same. And why has it become so impassioned lately? Because time and time and time again the city is letting stuff get bulldozed. So what's left should be passionately protected. Whether or not we have proposals in hand, a developer stating their intent to raze structures is worth sounding alarms now before its too late. Even if they come back with a stunning proposal, here, as well as where the LC buildings stand now, and the potential loss of the old Ice House in the 'warehouse district' aren't even just stand alone. These are entire blocks gone.

The great thing Is the city can demand both. But find me some of the best, most vibrant urban neighborhoods across the country and a vast majority aren't going to be the ones where everything has been wiped out with placards showing the old to cater to left brain desire for more density being the end all to beat all. While that sounds wonderful in theory, always out with the old in favor of more density is not where we tend to gravitate. I dont think the Short North would be as successful if it had been cleared out for more density. And I dont think that's enough to say 'well, the short north has a few, and a few more around downtown are all we need'. A downtown nearly void of early 1900s structures is a boring downtown. Again, I will die on this hill where we become complacent in wiping out entire blocks solely for the ease of developers. It isn't hard. We shouldn't be taking them at their word. We should be demanding better. Both are achievable. Heck, even Austin is trying to preserve what they have left and alot of that includes single story buildings. Sure, a 40 story building may be rising out of the back third, but they also recognize the value in saving what's left, even if it isn't the most remarkable architecture. There's an asthetic nature that draws people more than simply the numbers in density. That's highlighting what was there before. LC also got away with tearing down nearly an entire city block for their new builds. Again, that's not to say what is there now isn't nice, but what's gone is gone. And now we are talking about another significant part of downtown to be wiped out for 'we haven't decided what to do yet'

As a side note, anyone know why LC tore out their pool?

If they get demo approval, this is what will have been lost in less than 10 years. And there was some cool potential for a little alleyway development on Wall Street that has been obliterated. The LC buildings are good buildings so I want to give credit where credit is due. But again, we fall in to this trap of whether what we are losing, is worth it for the ease of a developer.

Awe, Shucks! Worth a shot 😉

Maybe @KJPcan work some angles for us since it's a Cleveland based developer 😜

Yeah. I don't want to make any assumptions on whether they can do a good urban project til we see it. If this is their first splash into more urban projects, maybe they have something pretty great up their sleeves. As long as they can work with the historic piece.

Looking at Harsax's portfolio, it's pretty exclusively suburban rentals properties. I can't find anything urban in their portfolio that they promote so hard to tell. Maybe they have a partnership. I will again probably die on the hill that recommends against demolition, at least of the front portions. I know that LC got away with it because the additions were haphazard, various sizes and levels etc. And LCs replacements look great. These building have been listed as dangerous for some time but again, even if it's just those two buildings, that's HALF A BLOCK of pre-war structures/facaces to be lost yet again. I know we aim to be Charlotte sometimes, but I'd like to take a lesson from them in working to save more and more. There will be no way preserving the front 20 ft with a stepped back modern building above is cost prohibitive. I was in DC again for the first time in a few years and again, it's like standard protocol to save facades or the front portions of buildings and here, it's like pulling teeth to do the bare minimum.

Yeah, well here's Chicago's Easton! [Insert Picture of The MAGNIFICENT Mile] 😅

The board can be so bad about minutes and meetings being timely and throrough so it's hard to tell for sure but the last meeting notes just posted, oddly enough, and Genssler et al has been at the Jan and March meetings. Looks like the March meeting they discussed desired features. Honestly seems like part of the hold up is CRAAs schedule. They only met 7 times last year. No board meetings between October and January. None in February. I'm sure that if a proper subcommittee was created to tackle this, ideally with community members as well, it could be moving faster but if Gennsler is coming to every meeting and brainstorming there, then it's an issue on our end.

I wonder of the proposal to build over axis, or another variant, will ever come back. Especially if we can get the Greystone lot redeveloped, that's quite the cluster of mid-rises if/when they all come to be.

But isn't the reason we have Greenhouse the commission? So concerns over massing and quality and materials isn't necessarily Kaufman regressing?

Unless there is an impending sinkhole under this property, nothing about a full renovation would be cost prohibitive. And the developers don't argue that. They simply argue it's not able to be saved. And then when all the buildings are gone because we just take a developers financial ability at their word we just move on. I'm sorry, but a developer that might not get as good of an ROI is not enough economics for me to decide demolition is warranted. We've done it too much. Architecturally inconsequential perhaps as a brick box with a few adornments but that pretty much allows for the premise to demolish most pre-war builds throughout the city. Again, then adding in the developers own selling point of having so many original structural structures in an area increases the architectural significance as a whole rather than individually. It shouldn't be the rare go get em developer with with a mission to save structures that are the exception. It should be an expectation for developers. Engineering reports usually are only worth the person that paid for it. You will always find engineers who will say it's condemable. You have to seek out the ones who will provide a plan to actually save a structure that is in dire straights. And this, is not one of those. So let's hope it's a precision demo to allow expansion, otherwise it's another loss for downtown. The Julian, Architecturally insignificant. 2/3rds of Madison block, architecturally insignificant. Most of North 4th, Architecturally insignificant. The Lykens projects on North 4th, just brick warehouses, single stories. Most of the Short North, Architecturally insignificant. Trolley Barns? Literally 4 Brick walls and a gable roof with some Chip and Joana Gaines barn doors. Now, imagine we keep playing Russian roulette and where we would have been if the wrong developers bought those properties? Preservation should not be at will and control of a developers ROI.

Not saying that it is. But that they can be saved. And these are both able to be saved and significantly contributing structures. There isn't much left downtown. Even less in other parts of the city. And with each loss, the scrutiny for anything remaining should be even greater but we don't do that. We say, 'well, it's OK. It's not like it's this other building so it's fine. Its nothing special. Age doesnt automatically warrant preservation'. Or 'well, its isolated so its probably better to just tear it down and have all the land to develop instead of making them incorporate it.' Part of the draw, pitch, excitement etc for this contrived warehouse district is how much of a concentration of original structures are left. The developer talks about it. But they don't have the drive and desire to do it right IF they are seriously considering demolishing half or more of it.

Because 99% of buildings can be saved. Unless the building has already totally collapsed, there are ways to save and salvage any building. We don't need to look at an engineers report from a developer or the city to know this. Commercial. Residential. Warehouse, etc. We aren't exposed to such efforts in Columbus because many of our city officials and developers treat so much as disposable where other places go to much greater lengths and expense to save buildings way beyond this. And compared to Europe, we have developers that struggle to save 100 year old buildings when they have buildings hundreds of years old. And frankly, a developers opinion on cost benefit should be irrelevant to the preservation of contributing buildings. Sorry, then you better secure it and shore it up and put it on the market. But again, the city also struggles with that at times too. In the end, these folks don't care one bit about preserving or restoring the city. It's fluff. They are looking for the cheapest solution to obtain maximum ROI. Pass this building to Lykens and they may spend some time on it but it will be restored right and proper as they seem to value preservation over maximum ROI as we've seen time and time again.

In all the pending confusion, there's also the other side of the building to be concerned about as well. Arguably the more architecturally detailed portion.

There's no way the building isn't salvageable. Even if it means standing the exterior up with a steel frame and reconstructing the interior. I dont think we've ever seen it here because the developers are lazy and the standards are low and the commission usually rolls over but there are ways to do this right. Demolition is far from it. Period.

The historic buildings along East Broad will only benefit from a well done road diet and proper grand boulevard treatment. While an 8 lane road doesn't do many buildings any favors, it really is an injustice to the time and architecture of the area.

Wow. 1. Great news. 2. I feel like it's been forever since CU got an early scoop instead of being a week+ behind.

My Sim City dreaming but the State Auto garage is an important piece. I had at one time also thought they should move the plans for the eastern half of the lot and allow even more green space. Orange is priority redevelop for better, more aestetic facilities for CCAD. Ideally including exhibit space. Expand CMA even more (teal). And redo 9th and Washington to match Gay. Edit. And work with the church to do a similar pocket park along gay like they did on Broad with the Justice Park I feel like this is a reasonable size appropriate concept plan for Columbus without dreaming up or expecting some major, massive expansion and plan. And still waiting to see where all Wexner's art goes... I'm a bit of an art museum junkie and a collection like his, (purportedly one of the largest piccasso collections in the world, among the many other modern art) has the potential to result in wings dedicated to these collections in other places. We shall see where it goes though... OSU, CMA, its own facility, or another institution, etc...anywho...