Toddguy

They may not have much water, but something they do have is very large areas that are empty and lots of sun. Solar renewable energy that can be used to power desalination plants along the Cali coast. Saudi Arabia and the UAE do it and use water for irrigated farming along with providing water for their cities. It may be costly at first, but it could work-especially when you consider that Cali as an independent nation would be number 5 in GDP in the World. If there was a will, they could do it. LA ran water pipelines hundreds of miles to steal Sierra water. I don't see why they can't run some lines from the coast to Las Vegas/Phoenix-if the will is there to do it, they fork up the money, and they can all agree on it(Cali regulations alone would be a nightmare.) Or they could all just start moving to areas where the climate will actually be getting better, where rainfall will be increasing, and where there is already plenty of water-like Ohio :)

Wow. What a beautiful building. Who wouldn't want to live in a building like this if you were looking for an apartment.

Any chance that something could go in on that little triangle between the tracks and south of Reynolds I believe?

Well it does look great but part of that is the perspective. Now we need a shot looking back west from over COSI to see how the other perspective looks to compare. But either way, It is a huge development from when it was just nothing but parking lots and some derelict low buildings. *praying for some more height to really make this look like part of downtown*

It is close. I think the second part of that project is between Armstrong and School streets. I guess this does not include the part along Spruce street?

I swear that is at least how I remember it. We do need a proper investigation though. Maybe a whole thread-what is the real reason our buildings look so ugly?-separating facts from fiction!

The bolded needs to be plastered on billboards everywhere well, because of stupid people. uh..the second bolded part. that I did. lol

When this building opened (or right about that time) Columbus Monthly wrote a review of it and IIRC it was all about 'the climate crisis" and "energy crisis"(when we had gone through those severe 70's winters) and they did not want windows on the northwest side because that was the direction of the coldest winter winds or some such stuff. They seemed to believe that these things went into the design, and why it looks to me like a 32 floor parking garage. Maybe someone has access to CM's archives or something?

The helipad is no excuse-LA has a ton of buildings with them and none of them look this awful. It is just a horrible bland design with a special ugliness to the top. There are no excuses. And that other 700 foot atrocity that would have been right next to our lovely Leveque Tower? A dodged bullet. I remember coming down Broad as a child and seeing the evil skeleton of this thing rising up behind the Leveque Tower...can you tell I really really hate it? lol The only thing I like about it is the name. Ugliness for ugliness.

The first pic looks like such a nice view down a little urban lane. We need much more of them(maybe with just a bit more color or diversity of construction?) It looks like such a nice little street to live on where you can amble down to a shop or restaurant. Will look even better when the trees/greenery grows in.

That was my first thought. A swirly thing would look better than the long run staircase and could provide some visual contrast. It will certainly have visibility with the darker glass.

Too bad they can't save it. But I guess it must come down within 90 days as it is an imminent danger to the public, even though it has been standing for 138 years. If the building is unstable it is because they building was left to rot for 30 years. The building was murdered by neglect. And it is a nice building with some character too. Ugh.

So we have now know that there was no "150 feet" taller for the Rhodes Tower, so if it has not been done already will someone please adjust the wiki article. We can put the "supposed to have been 150 foot taller" tower tall tale to a rest. *The worst thing, on the first article posted by DCTL11 was the "possible matching tower on State Street on the opposite side of the Statehouse..." OMG we could have been stuck with two of these monstrosities. And "handsome addition to the skyline"? Man the 70's were jacked up.

Yeah and that has (citation needed). I might look some more. It really is perplexing that the top of the building, mainly the northeast corner, is so weird-I cannot believe they planned that. There has to be at least an explanation of why the top is so awful and exceptionally ugly, and I kind of want to know what the reason is. The top is the worst of any tall building in the city. The top makes it look unfinished.

I have heard this frequently but I have never seen anything that is actual proof of this. I went back into the Dispatch archives before this was built and there was nothing about it being significantly taller. Can you link to anything that actually states this was supposed to be that high and is an actual source from that time and not just speculation/a blog/? I have heard this for decades and also that was the explanation for the weirdo stick-topped northeast side being the way it is. But I have yet to see concrete proof from that time that it was supposed to be 750 feet. I have not been able to find it.

Well I really would respect them, but his is Arshot lol. Respect? I just can't do it. If they prove me wrong with a good development here, then they will have earned it back. Till then, when a good development is open and completed, I just can't.

That eastern strip may be better for some kind of non-residential purpose as it is getting close to some "negative externalities" like the homeless shelter, mental heath facility, lower income apartments with crime problems, etc. I am not sure why they feel they need shipping containers along the cemetery, but along that eastern strip I get it. I think that may be a bit of an overstatement as this company has just shown plans for residential to be included and there is more than 'industrial' planned here. We need to temper out expectations not only because of the location, but also because of the developer, but I don't think that means just expecting "industrial'. Of course we cannot forget who is proposing this development-you never know with them. i think it is possible to have an "island' of development here since it is close in to downtown and right exactly at a freeway entrance and exit. Maybe at some time it may be able to open up more to the west if changes happen with the community, but again that is a what if.

I think they really don't know what they are doing at this point and it is very hard to figure out what changes have happened given how we have been up and down with this Covid thing, and they were significantly off especially in urban areas because they admittedly undercounted blacks and hispanics. Taken with a huge amount of salt here. Since Trump is out, can we PLEASE get some immigrants here? How about Ukrainians for instance to Cleveland-they already have established slavic communities. Others to other Ohio cities. Also if there are a ton of jobs in Central Ohio that are not being filled, and a flatlined population(hard to believe), then can we get some immigrants who would work those jobs and some housing so they have a place to live? Damn Ohio just seems to love shooting itself in the foot on so many things.

They should maximize the site and get rid of the stadium part-it is just dead to me as an idea at this time. Much of it is torn down, it is pretty much forgotten. It does not need to be memorialized like it was the twin towers or something. Time to move on. Make a central park area(maybe with a pond?)and surround it with dense mixed use development. Given the freeway access it can even function like an island(like the Goodale island)until the surrounding area eventually transitions. And the views would be great. The cemeteries aren't really a problem IMO-just quiet greenspace really serving as a sort of buffer. And throw in some affordable housing please. We have a housing shortage, we are going to continue to grow with Intel(and assorted other companies associated with it)and we. need. housing and will continue to need it.

If nothing else, the pool will add to the 'feel' of it all. Just the views and maybe the 'ambience' of the place should be great. 320 units is wonderful-more than the hideous Columbus Commons brick Khrushchyovka. Will there be any firepits or anything like that in the rooftop area?

This ... the bolded part.

Yes it is looking good. And I have not been down there recently but from the pics it seems to go very well with the buildings surrounding it. It fits in well. I cannot wait for Market Tower(and any other big time developments).

Yes we know it is coming, but just how enormous will it be and what can be done to at least try to limit it? I don't think we can count on New Albany or any township areas to do much. Columbus can do somethings, like trying to get height, density, and infill mixed use developments in the spare areas up that way that are within city limits and not already developed. And this applies to Easton as well-a perfect chance to get a more mixed use Easton with less reliance on retail and much more residential and maybe some spinoff Intel business development. There are huge areas that are not developed and large areas that could be redeveloped with residential on top of other ground floor uses. It is such a good time to take advantage of it all...why do I still think Easton will disappoint us?

The height is gravy as I said. But if gravy happens to be on the menu, I will be very happy and not turn it down! Gravy is good lol. Gravy can be desired and requested of course. Why not? We can still push for the gravy too-but just not get to the point of a Jman where we are posting pics of Austin or Nashville(and ignoring the skylines of other peer cities like KS, San Antonio, Sacramento, Portland, Indy, Baltimore, etc. etc. )and whining and other such bulls**t.

Look for progress instead of perfection. We have more buildings over 100 meters being built now than since the late 80's early 90's- in over 30 years. And again, it should not be about height, but density, livability, walkability, transit, etc.-so many more important things. "Skylines" are just gravy really. I love skyscrapers myself but perspective is needed-especially when you love skyscrapers. I want people to drive/walk/bike/take mass transit through downtown and see lots of mixed use buildings, people, activity, transit as in light rail/streetcars/better advanced busses-and very few surface parking lots. The real difference is on the ground, not seen in a view.