columbus17

Columbus saw this and was like. Nahhh - let's go white and boring.

Don't sell. Do a ground lease and have it developed from there.

If it was a piece of furniture, I'd say kick dust. With that being a fixture, its considered real property and part of the condo. Now, they can put a disclaimer on renderings saying they may not match final results, but you can only get away with so much (i.e. you can't just remove half a kitchen). Furthermore, if its AT ALL denoted in the floorplan of the marketing material, it's almost a given it'll be in the unit.

This could not have turned out worse. The streetscape is abysmal, and the vinyl siding and flat facades make so many spots look like awkard 80s additions. I WAS excited about this project, but all I am now is disappointed.

Classical architecture and traditional styles does not cost much more than this style of building. Many architects have verified this. The city's architectural guidelines are abysmal. I WOULD NOT rent from any of these developments just because of how terrible they look - not a building I'd ever want to walk home to. The best one is ironically affordable housing - Topiary Park. It looks nice, charming, and has unique character unlike any other in the city, while utilizing color and interesting shapes to play off the greenery of the park.

Probably never given it will be a park and 7 story office.

High Street is a no-brainer. Alton-Darby is a dumb move.

The city needs to block any development over 4 stories utilizing cement panels, lap siding, or board and batten as cladding. It’s not appropriate for structures of that size and looks bad.

It was an opportunity to make an example of a bad developer to show the others bad development is not acceptable. But nope, let them lose their money and recover it in increased rents. Geis having a $1MM hole in their pocket from engineering and design would have been a fantastic lesson learned.

So, I read all of the above messages and amazing article by Ken. A few thoughts: - From an engineering perspective yes, the Burke spread design makes complete sense, as does the cost. - That being said, the infrastructure costs will be immense for the Brook Park site, which does sit on a brownfield and may encounter its own unique challenges. This is not “clean land” by any means. - The less spread out Burke Site eliminates the need for so much infrastructure and horizontal development work, which can balloon costs. - There’s millions of dollars of infrastructure money going into the riverfront (metro park, land bridge, etc) already - city of Cleveland needs to argue that is a contribution to the Burke site and pledge to NOT provide any money for infrastructure in BP. - I have yet to see a comprehensive traffic study on how game day will impact Hopkins. This is critical infrastructure set to undergo its own renovation and capacity increase. Is adding 1,000s of football cars going to have a positive impact on residents missing their flights? Will this lead to more people arriving early to the airport, resulting in increased capacity and, a greater budget (further pushing costs inadvertently onto taxpayers)? (This is part of the reason I believe we haven’t seen any sort of plan for the airport - they are waiting on more concrete information about this potential development) - Why can the city not go ahead and decline funding for the BP location and provide funding for Burke. Let’s say new stadium at BP costs $2.5MM, and BP costs $3.5MM. City has already come up with $600MM, with just $400MM left they can make the difference up for BP. This would exclude the millions of infrastructure projects in the works that HSG won’t be responsible for. They can also market improved rents from surrounding mixed use development due to the location off the river and in downtown (construction costs for these buildings will relatively be the same).

Vivek cannot become gov fast enough. Dewine will happily hand over taxpayer dollars to this madness!

No!!!

It’s cheaper and even cheaper when you consider its faster - especially beneficial in our climate and great for those variable-rate construction loans! I’m a huge supporter of this tech and excited to see the city being pro-modular. It’s the only way forward considering the MASSIVE labor shortage we’re going to encounter in a matter of years.

Looks like 70s architecture smh.

With 6BN in profit, they should be REQUIRED to build in the CLASSICAL architecture style. Modernism does not age well (most of the time) and does not contribute to human scale design that gives a community identity.

That and skylights in each concourse. The flat ceiling is depressing and makes it seem pancaked. PDX had really nice tall ceilings similar to Ft Lauderdale (I believe that's the one - it's been well over 10 years) and its always nice landing and having the sunlight streaming in and not feeling once again stuffed vertically like in the airplane. That simple change would make a world of difference.

Yeah that's been my point all along. I very rarely fly, but when there and was mind blown. PDX renovation was the same cost as CMH with a bigger airport, and a weird, phased construction plan around the existing operating terminal. Columbus can easily design things similar to PDX. Color does not age if done well and right - take their famous carpet for example.

Geis should stick to tilt ups if they want to keep value engineering.

Again, in full support, but does not need a $ of taxpayer dollars. Let's invest that into housing and programs to get more low-income families into the middle class, create jobs, an decrease the housing shortage. That would net much better than buying a stadium for a private entity.

The renderings could not have been worse. Once again Columbus allowing crappy modern architecture instead of classical design.

Yeah I didn't care that much about the house, more so just saving those beautiful trees. But yk - sustainability and CO2 and all. Let's just build an asphalt pad with a crap ton of cars and cut down the mature trees because we loooove the environment. Smh.

That's depressing its so boring and white and gray.

It was the trees. You could have created something like this there but choose to cut them all down for parking lots and giant grass islands with no use except pet piss spots. These would create new and exciting housing options and opportunities for first time homebuyers and empty nesters to obtain a house they can own at a low cost.

My point exactly. The developer literally admitted to using architect's stock drawings for the apartments. Nothing original at all. Furthermore, they got yelled at by the commission for not making one effort to meet with residents after they got a no vote the first go-around, and justifiably said the development made no sense there (not major thoroughfare, no proximity to public transportation, no amenities like shopping, office, and other things you could and would easily walk/bike to. This could have made a great park at the very least. Council saying "we need more housing" while letting loads of gravel lots sit vacant is foolish and dangerous, especially with a developer that had so little regard for the residents. It wasn't NIMBYism. There were local residents with design and development experience on projects across the city that came out against it with receipts. It was nothing more than a bad project and a bad idea that council allowed for whatever BS reason.

I think its horrible, should be scrapped, and serve as a lesson to developers looking to cut costs that they'll lose more in trying to do so than just doing the right thing to start.