DTCL11

Agreed. If someone is able to find the numbers to better support that but my imoression is that overall, while there is a height reduction, there will be more space in terms of square footage, usage etc. But that would have to be verified

The overall updated mix of components is much better too. People get a little over emotional about the number of floors a building is rather than the use and pedestrian experience. I've never really subscribed to caring what the skyline postcard looks like.

Re: 'Protect Old North!' At one point today, a resident said the developers should be rounded up and killed for such monstrosities... and then continued to lament how steel and glass is inappropriate for anywhere except for Morse road and 'give an inch and they'll tear down a whole neighborhood.' Blah blah. So that went as well as to be expected. Its time we get together with shovels and hammers in support of these projects to counteract those with pitchforks and torches. I've been making sure to email my commission each time it's relevant and I cant attend.

I can see the nod to a star destroyer but I just see folded metal roofing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It looks good but I'm not sure I would have called it space ship like.... or whatever the quote was. My interpretation of that was much different than the final lol.

The 'Protect Old North!' Nimby group just firing up their engines... because this is clearly relevant to that community and protecting the 1980s carryout that's been empty for years, or the 1970s apartment etc etc... It's kind of maddening the lack of context, thought, and foresight these people have. I would argue it's more of a gated community mindset. We have our exclusive community as it is. If you can't fit in to it as is, we don't want you or your monstrosities. I also love the concept of 'you can't build that modern thing here. It has no place in a historical area!' Where the heck are you supposed to build anything modern if the only precedent for a new building should always be the oldest building(s) within a few block radius?! 'Keep that riff raff architecture outside 270'

I just assumed instead of creatively building around and/over with the remaining 85% of the lot, the developer packed his toys and went home because he couldn't have his way for that building.

A fair point. If only the city and state had the vision to cap 70 all the way from Front to at least 71 or beyond, a denser Livingston would be even more of a no brainer.

I'm gonna say GV and Clintonville are tied. While VV has pushed back on that awesome proposal, they have allowed some other decent projects to move forward that would NEVER see the light of day in the others. One would he hard pressed to find anything like what VV has approved in GV or CV. (Excluding the massive suburban complexes on Indianola) I Just read the article in full. What a bunch of nuts.

It's like a nice hotel with direct access to one of the most recognized neighborhoods in the city, possibly state, is somehow going to suffer with an influx of tourists dollars ??? I agree with other sentiments regarding Livingston should be denser and hold many of the commodities that the core of the neighborhood can not hold. (Hotels, large new commercial space, etc etc)

Looks like NRI has some pretty tough demands on releasing the land if it still hasn't been inked. Hearing that the deal is 'close' for a couple months indicates that it's much more than a simple transaction of selling land in the effort to save the team and makes me believe they are looking for a long term financial benefit rather than a one time transaction. It harkens back to a brief reference in a thread of NRI holding land. NRI and Kaufman have an 'agreement to acquire' rather than 'purchase' or stating that Kaufman is buying the land as articles at the time reported for the non-NRI parcels. Could be semantics but the word choices seem pretty specific. The article also goes on to talk about the fact the city still has not transferred their land and won't until the final private land deal is signed. No one has stated the deal is in trouble but someone is definitely playing some hardball to squeeze out benefits.

I'm aware. Regardless, I'd rather see the city build a bigger modern school or expand in place to meet the needs of a growing and adapting learning environment and sell off North High for private development. Just my preference though.

I appreciate the improvements and the value of the space but part of me will always be a bit sad it wasn't scooped up years ago to complete the park.

Next up.... selling and redeveloping North High School....*fingers crossed*

I was envisioning a Detroit style elevated people mover as a fantasy. I hope they at least follow through with a shuttle system but its success will be largely determined on whether they create a dedicated right of way during events.

[Insert improbable fantasies of a 'people mover' to get people from garages, transit lines, etc to the multitude of event spaces]

I'm not sure. They haven't boasted or posted much about it then other than this dispatch article. I hadn't looked into the dispatch articles. None of the CU articles mention affordable housing and according to an early interview with CMHA, the plan was all market rate and if there was going to be affordability, it seems the city was going to have to subsidize it. Perhaps the dispatch article (which is newer) has additional information but it's the only place It appears that a number has been attached to the initial phase. If there are affordable units there, the city and Casto and press have made little to no mention of it. And if so, then that's very welcome news.

The less than 5% includes the original 230 units from phase 1. I could have specified that better. The entire River&Rich project, to my understanding, is a collaboration between Casto and CMHA. The initial phases that were completed earlier this year included no affordable housing which would then support a calculation of 3.7% affordable for the entire 534 unit complex thus far. The last phase may very well drive that down even lower. But again, no matter how you run the numbers, it doesn't meet the 10% that I believe to be a reasonable amount for such a large development. Which goes back to my original thought as to understanding it's supposed to be a money maker for CMHA to use the funds elsewhere but is there also a responsibility to set a standard for in place affordable housing in the fabric of these projects and neighborhoods?

We'll be lucky to see a 12 foot highrise out of Arshot anytime soon. ?

So, in theory, a full riverwalk/board walk was actually feasible through Franklinton. It's a project I had always pondered and I'm sure others too. A diversion in the Scioto could be cut in the north and exit somewhere around dodge park. The flow would be heavily regulated and would not allow flooding much like san antonio. It's far too late for such a project to take place given the amount of development but at one time, it may have been possible. And with the focus on returning the scioto to it's natural state, I don't anticipate a true commercialization/utilization of the river in the form of shops and restaurants along the banks at any point in the future. (Bridge park doesn't count)

And I just caught the '20 affordable units.' Not even 5% of the total 500+ development as a whole. In an area that was largely impoverished to begin with. And while I understand the development is meant to be CMHA's money maker to provide additional services and funds from the profits, I feel as though they have a duty to still hit that 10% mark to allow affordability in these large complexes.

That's why I said it goes both ways. All have their own merits and different things to boast and things that are shortcomings. Yes, there are things to scoff about all the cities including Columbus. Even as a resident of Columbus I find some of our developments and boasts laughable compared to our peers. Rather than a rabbit hole of discussion I'll leave it at the idea that each city can easily find things to laugh about the others and not be entirely wrong. But that's where the strength in realizing that the success and growth of the 3Cs and different things that each offer is something to promote and work on as a state. Not many states can boast that.

That makes more sense then. The other requirements should still come from the city for the hopeful day when not as much parking is required.

That's an incredible amount of parking. It's a 2:1 ratio (understanding there is am office component) but it still stands out. I really wish the city would start requiring any stand alone decks be built to allow 1st floor conversion and additional structures on top in the future. Would seem a natural expansion of many of these areas would be to build on top of decks. Or at least green space to promote a more sustainable city. I also hope there is space included for more public art. A giant mural would be great. Otherwise, it looks great.

Not going to lie but it is a bit frustrating that a private entity donated the fountain and not long after the city spends 150,000 to repair the pond from issues related to it, then a few years later another 330,000k. The city has spent almost half a million dollars as a result of this fountain. I feel as though there should be some responsibility put on the group that funded the initial installation. That's alot of money that can be put to good use for better park projects than elephants shooting water out of their noses.