I hope this is not it. Ugly as sin and shorter too.

 

This will just feed the chorus we so often hear about "everything being reduced in height in Cbus". I am beginning to think they are on to something.

And damn this looks like a bunch of crap like some assorted unrelated blocks thrown together by a five year old.

 

Also these images are a jumble as many do not seem to have any of the same design elements, colors, etc. as the others(the first image presented compared to the "embrace the market" image.) All together the different images do not coalesce or make a coherent whole-I will wait for official word I think.

 

Wow. Tough crowd lol. I get that you guys are obsessed with height, but come on...

 

1) Market Tower is clearly alive and well, and in the capable hands of NBBJ and Wood/Schiff. That alone is GREAT news

 

2) These slides may reveal the latest direction of the project, which was no doubt motivated by economic reality, but they're not by any means final public/publicity renderings, or exactly what the details of the end product will end up being

 

3) Everyone tripping over themselves to trash the design as "ugly" are premature and also look pretty immature IMO. Maybe you simply don't like contemporary architecture (fine), but you should at least understand the amount of hours that it takes being poured into this day and night by a whole team of people working hard to make a project of this scale happen

 

4) Toddguy[/member] re: the "embrace the market" slide, those are clearly inspiration/precedent images of other work the designers were looking at, everything else is consistent and is the actual project

I hope this is not it. Ugly as sin and shorter too.

 

This will just feed the chorus we so often hear about "everything being reduced in height in Cbus". I am beginning to think they are on to something.

And damn this looks like a bunch of crap like some assorted unrelated blocks thrown together by a five year old.

 

Also these images are a jumble as many do not seem to have any of the same design elements, colors, etc. as the others(the first image presented compared to the "embrace the market" image.) All together the different images do not coalesce or make a coherent whole-I will wait for official word I think.

 

Wow. Tough crowd lol. I get that you guys are obsessed with height, but come on...

 

1) Market Tower is clearly alive and well, and in the capable hands of NBBJ and Wood/Schiff. That alone is GREAT news

 

2) These slides may reveal the latest direction of the project, which was no doubt motivated by economic reality, but they're not by any means final public/publicity renderings, or exactly what the details of the end product will end up being

 

3) Everyone tripping over themselves to trash the design as "ugly" are premature and also look pretty immature IMO. Maybe you simply don't like contemporary architecture (fine), but you should at least understand the amount of hours that it takes being poured into this day and night by a whole team of people working hard to make a project of this scale happen

 

4) Toddguy[/member] re: the "embrace the market" slide, those are clearly inspiration/precedent images of other work the designers were looking at, everything else is consistent and is the actual project

 

I think maybe reading Jman's incessantly negative commentary on CU is beginning to rub off lol.

 

I am not necessarily obsessed with height, but I do get damn sick and tired of nearly everything getting reduced. Especially after a tease of it possibly going up a bit, and from the repeated assertions from the entities responsible for this tower that it absolutely would not get a floor reduction-they repeated said that it would stay at 35 floors. If it has been reduced, they should not have repeatedly written a "it will absolutely be 35 floors" check that they could not cash.  That is the part that bothers me-don't make repeated promises as a developer that you cannot keep.

 

If it is going to be hideously ugly I would almost hope that if falls through. I would rather have a smaller but nice looking project eventually get built at the site. This thing looks ugly as it stands from these renders(which is of course, what I am going by here).  If it turns out that it will be different than this, and will look halfway decent but be reduced in height, I can deal with that. Again I posted I will wait for the "official story".

 

I do NOT want Market Tower built just for the sake of it being built if it is ugly as sin.  We have had enough of the "well it looks like sh*t-but it is good enough for Columbus". We already have a much more likely candidate for that-in Millennial Tower. We don't need two additional highly visible POS buildings going up when with Arshot, we are probably doomed to at least one anyway(if that even gets built). JMHO

 

 

I also do not appreciate the comment about "immaturity" and of not having an appreciation of contemporary architecture-those were cheap personal shots that I nor anyone else commenting on this project deserved. It is my personal opinion that these renders show an ugly building. That has nothing to do with "immaturity" or a lack of appreciation for modern architecture, especially since my opinion is apparently shared by more than a few people. JMHO as well.

 

I also don't care how much time was put into this if the result is so unsatisfactory. A person can put a huge amount of work and effort into something, and it can still be a failure-regardless of effort or amount of effort.

I don't usually weigh in on Columbus project threads but ugh - you deserve so much better than a mashup of the convention center Hilton and 250 South High.

 

Well obviously you have no appreciation for the amount of work and effort put forth on this project and have no understanding or appreciation of contemporary architecture you philistine! lol /sarcasm.

 

*I will admit this response may indicative immaturity.

I don't usually weigh in on Columbus project threads but ugh - you deserve so much better than a mashup of the convention center Hilton and 250 South High.

That is almost literally what it looks like. One stacked on top of the other.

If we had countless other examples of good modern architecture in the city it would be one thing, but for such a visible (and in this case almost solitary) tower, in such a heavily visited part of downtown, we really do deserve a showpiece. If this group isn't going to follow-through on providing a new architectural icon for Columbus then there are a number of other competition entries that could...

"3) Everyone tripping over themselves to trash the design as "ugly" are premature and also look pretty immature IMO. Maybe you simply don't like contemporary architecture (fine), but you should at least understand the amount of hours that it takes being poured into this day and night by a whole team of people working hard to make a project of this scale happen"

 

I'm happy to cite some amazing contemporary work but let me guess - you're on that whole team of people?  ;)

The PS1 Tomb Raider fog on the renderings is a little distracting.

If we had countless other examples of good modern architecture in the city it would be one thing, but for such a visible (and in this case almost solitary) tower, in such a heavily visited part of downtown, we really do deserve a showpiece. If this group isn't going to follow-through on providing a new architectural icon for Columbus then there are a number of other competition entries that could...

 

This.

Again I think a wait and see approach should be taken, but yes, if this is the final design, it and those pushing it deserve all the criticism they’re getting and more. 

I'll readily admit my opinion can be non-standard - but I like it.  I like the revised tower concept as well, as I think Columbus needs some new building 30+ stories. 

 

But this looks awesome to me:

I'm going to jump in on the dislike side. I liked the first rendering and really liked the random one that was found on the Schooley Caldwell site, but this newer version is my least favorite.  It's not because I dislike modern architecture as it can be done well, I think 250 South High is great and fits its site perfectly. But on the flip side I feel like modern architecture can sometimes just be a lazy excuse to stack boxes and offset windows. And to use the cheapest materials possible (i.e. 600 Goodale, which was apparently made with papier-mâché) . At the end of the day I'm not going to be sad if they build this version, but I think it's the most boring of the 3.

That last rendering is interesting.  Is the bottom part meant to fit in with the neighborhood more closely, and the upper level is meant to be more modern?  I guess those combinations can work, but when they don't, they really don't.  (That's how I feel every time I see Soldier Field in Chicago these days...)

 

Other than that, can someone who is an architect or designer (I am definitely not) explain the appeal of offset windows?  I am fully prepared to accept that it's something I just don't get, or that there's some practical aspect to it that I don't understand. 

Can someone who is an architect or designer (I am definitely not) explain the appeal of offset windows?  I am fully prepared to accept that it's something I just don't get, or that there's some practical aspect to it that I don't understand. 

 

There are a handful of instances where it works with the overall aesthetic. A lot of times (most times) however it's just a relatively easy and affordable way to add variety to a simple form. I personally don't hate them quite as much as most, but they definitely wouldn't be my first choice for a tower. There are a handful of times where it's regular enough to feel appropriate (The Beacon being built in Cleveland for instance handles them well I think) but in most it just ends up looking messy and fussy in my mind.

 

Overall I actually don't dislike this proposal. There are some things I'd change for sure, but I think it will actually be a pretty good looking building once built and in a real environment, not the PS1-fog and white blocks environment it's rendered in currently.

 

If they're sending this design out to bid, you can bank on it being fairly close to what they intend to build. Things will definitely change, but if they have drawings to a point of doing a full bid then you won't be seeing any major massing changes.

On 10/4/2018 at 6:49 PM, casey said:

 

 

3) Everyone tripping over themselves to trash the design as "ugly" are premature and also look pretty immature IMO. Maybe you simply don't like contemporary architecture (fine), but you should at least understand the amount of hours that it takes being poured into this day and night by a whole team of people working hard to make a project of this scale happen

 

 

 

Ugly, badly designed projects (looking at you, Brutalist)  the world over take many "hours...being poured into night and day" by teams of people, but that doesn't excuse lazy, bad design.  The amount of effort put into something should not be the metric by which we judge it's success as a building.

On 10/6/2018 at 12:04 PM, jmicha said:

Overall I actually don't dislike this proposal. There are some things I'd change for sure, but I think it will actually be a pretty good looking building once built and in a real environment, not the PS1-fog and white blocks environment it's rendered in currently.

 

If they're sending this design out to bid, you can bank on it being fairly close to what they intend to build. Things will definitely change, but if they have drawings to a point of doing a full bid then you won't be seeing any major massing changes.

 

First off, your statement about the light fog is incredibly accurate, but hey, clients love it.

We always laugh when "renders that highlight the design" are requested because that basically means they want muted background colors and fog, a-la PS1.

 

Anyway, something about the leaked design feels more like a design exercise and less like an actual plan for some reason. 

I'm hoping its more along the lines of the webpage that leaked as opposed to this more modular feeling design. I'm not sure what to think because i've never seen a bidding package that's so render and inspiration focused... contractors just don't care about those things. Unless there are 100 pages of schematics missing, this doesn't read like a bidding packet.

 

 

21 hours ago, DevolsDance said:

 

First off, your statement about the light fog is incredibly accurate, but hey, clients love it.

We always laugh when "renders that highlight the design" are requested because that basically means they want muted background colors and fog, a-la PS1.

 

Anyway, something about the leaked design feels more like a design exercise and less like an actual plan for some reason. 

I'm hoping its more along the lines of the webpage that leaked as opposed to this more modular feeling design. I'm not sure what to think because i've never seen a bidding package that's so render and inspiration focused... contractors just don't care about those things. Unless there are 100 pages of schematics missing, this doesn't read like a bidding packet.

 

 

I actually omitted around 300 pages of schematics...

Yikes, those renders on the pamphlet being handed out do NOT look very good to me. How disappointing ?

 

I hope they announce this soon to put the rumors to rest.

 

Also, if the state-funded arcade is gone, wouldn't that mean they won't get the money? Why would they pass that up? I feel like the state would require what they're paying for actually be built....right? Am I crazy for thinking that? lol.

12 hours ago, Zyrokai said:

Also, if the state-funded arcade is gone, wouldn't that mean they won't get the money? Why would they pass that up? I feel like the state would require what they're paying for actually be built....right? Am I crazy for thinking that? lol.

 

It looks to me like the "Market Hall" pictured in this post would be the arcade/atrium:

Damn, a lot happens when you go on vacation. 

 

On 10/15/2018 at 8:01 AM, .justin said:

 

It looks to me like the "Market Hall" pictured in this post would be the arcade/atrium:

 

This is nowhere near the type of atrium they were claiming to build when their design was chosen. It was supposed to be part of expanding the North Market, and ran North/South between the new and existing buildings. This thing is ugly, bare bones, and basically looks useless.

 

Everything about this new design screams, "Cheap!" This should be a showpiece of Columbus, and they've stripped this thing to bare minimum. If you can't afford to do it right, give the chance to someone else. This place will be a center point of Columbus tourism. Let's get it right.

Edited October 16, 20186 yr by aderwent

Yeah, it really is disappointing if it's real.

 

So.....what is everyone thinking? Do you guys think this is truly how it will be? Or do you think this is older/alternative version?

 

Good signs:

• That this company recently updated their website and it still shows the original concepts. Would they really want to miss-advertise in a recent update to their site if they likely know what's actually going to be built?
• The state gave $1 million.
• They kept reiterating that the height will not be reduced from 35 stories and the city chose it largely because of this.
• We don't truly know what's going on.

Bad signs:

• Some posters in this thread have stated that if this is truly what's being handed out to bidders and contractors, it's likely a close-to-finalized version of the project.
• Economic reality of such an ambitious project.
• We don't truly know what's going on (this is a pro and a con haha)

 

This is one of the most exciting things proposed since I moved to Columbus and I'll be very sad if it's......this instead : \

 

Has there been any news on this project or is it stalled for the winter?

On 10/30/2018 at 5:45 PM, Gino27 said:

Has there been any news on this project or is it stalled for the winter?

 

Nope, many big changes are happening but it's not stalled. 

47 minutes ago, tlb919 said:

 

Nope, many big changes are happening but it's not stalled. 

 

Good changes or bad changes?

1 hour ago, tlb919 said:

 

Nope, many big changes are happening but it's not stalled. 

So can you give us some kind of idea of what these changes might entail? 

 

*Strange that Casey has not been back since he got mad at my response to his post on this!   C'mon back Casey we miss you! It was not an attack on you, but the building-if you were involved in the design-I did not know that!

 

*feels bad*

 

 

*I also now just think the design is "meh"...I guess it has grown on me but it is not so horrible to me as it was at first. Maybe I have reached the "acceptance" stage? lol.

6 hours ago, Toddguy said:

So can you give us some kind of idea of what these changes might entail? 

 

*Strange that Casey has not been back since he got mad at my response to his post on this!   C'mon back Casey we miss you! It was not an attack on you, but the building-if you were involved in the design-I did not know that!

 

*feels bad*

 

 

*I also now just think the design is "meh"...I guess it has grown on me but it is not so horrible to me as it was at first. Maybe I have reached the "acceptance" stage? lol.

 

No, the newer design was just bad.  No way around it.  The original design wasn't my favorite, but at least it had some good height.

Are we accepting that "newer design" as a sure-fire thing? Even their official website was updated without that rumored rendering.

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

On 11/28/2018 at 6:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

We will not see a fifty story tower in my lifetime, and probably not in yours either! lol. Just to get something over 400 feet would be a major accomplishment. Two buildings over 400 feet?-a  huge accomplishment. This is Cbus we are talking about, and as much as I hate to admit it, this city just has a hard time now going for  height. I really wish Nationwide had forsaken Grandview Yards for a new tower along Long at or not far from High. *sigh*  With building costs rising, I also don't see how Millenial Tower is going to get built for 150 million with 750.000 square feet of space either. I think $200.00 a square foot for 400 foot tall buildings is a thing of the past even for Cbus.

Edited November 30, 20186 yr by Toddguy
grammar naturally

Cross posting this from the Arena District thread:

 

I did not take photos, nor do I know if this is the correct thread (please point me to the correct one if there is one), but the buildings that were emptied last year on Park Street right next to Goodale and have been vacant for a year, have finally had work begin on them. This is the site for the hotel they're building while preserving part of the buildings currently being gutted. Glad to see work begin on them. It also gets me excited that North Market Tower might begin soon as well.

On 11/28/2018 at 6:18 PM, jonoh81 said:

 I hope “big changes” means 50 stories instead of 20 and a story about how “the market just isn’t there for larger” 

like we saw with the Commons project reduction.

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

5 minutes ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

Only a 9-story reduction from the initial unveiling (LOL).

3 hours ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

I'm honestly still impressed it's going to be over 25 (assuming there isn't ANOTHER reduction at some point). 

5 hours ago, tlb919 said:

 

I come with some rough news today... Looking at a solid 26 as its stands. 

The project is alive, updates soon, but I figured it's maybe best to prepare you all. 

 

Sorry guys.

 

Really disappointing.  We'd all better like the new design, or the guy who freaked out before when we hated the first updated design is going to be upset again.  

What a shocker.  They even went out of their way to promise the project wouldn't be reduced, only to see more than a quarter of its proposed height vanish.  As much as I like Columbus, sometimes it's such a lame *** city.  Can't wait to hear the excuses behind this, if they bother giving one at all.  I don't get it.  Columbus is one of the nation's fastest-growing cities with massive housing demand it's not even close to meeting, and developers there act like it's Lima.  There are no height restrictions at this location, and there are no development commissions telling them to reduce the scale.  There are no zoning regulations holding them back.  Parking concerns are addressed.  So the only thing that's going against it seems to be that the city has small-time developers with either a lack of vision or too few resources to do things right.  Or hell, maybe they didn't want to overshadow the new Hilton.  Who knows at this point. Ridiculous.

I mean, it sucks that it was reduced but it's better than nothing. If Columbus keeps growing, there will be more proposals. This puts it at the same height as the Millenial Tower. Both will change the skyline. I think we'll survive.

 

Edit: Also, maybe it'll change again to be higher or something : p

Edited January 30, 20196 yr by Zyrokai

8 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

I mean, it sucks that it was reduced but it's better than nothing. If Columbus keeps growing, there will be more proposals. This puts it at the same height as the Millenial Tower. Both will change the skyline. I think we'll survive.

 

Edit: Also, maybe it'll change again to be higher or something : p

 

Sorry, but "good enough" is exactly the problem I'm talking about.  Columbus leaders, developers, etc. seem to always view things from that angle, that it's "better than nothing" or "good enough for Columbus".  That is not going to solve the lack of transit.  That's not going to address the rapidly growing housing crisis.  That's not going to stop Downtown from having one of the smallest resident populations of any city in the nation and having a distinct lack of vibrancy.  That's not going to stop people from putting "OH" after the city's name.  If this was just one project, sure, it would matter a lot less, but this has been a decades-long expedition into mediocrity, where we have seen the exact same situation play out time and time again.  Because of that, frankly, Cow Town attitude, very real problems are emerging and there is seemingly no one in any position to affect change that has any plans or ideas to do anything about it.

As for MT, we don't even know f that will ever be built.

I'd imagine the lower height is due to skyrocketing construction costs. I'm surprised it hasn't been hasn't been put on hold.

8 minutes ago, Imwalle said:

I'd imagine the lower height is due to skyrocketing construction costs. I'm surprised it hasn't been hasn't been put on hold.

 

I thought about that, but then you still see multiple similar or larger projects going up in countless peer cities.  This suggests that the problem is unique to Columbus.  Also, construction costs certainly don't seem to have affected the new planned Hilton, which is one of the very, very few examples of proposals that got larger in size before construction begins.  What makes that project different? 

Edited January 30, 20196 yr by jonoh81

12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I thought about that, but then you still see multiple similar or larger projects going up in countless peer cities.  This suggests that the problem is unique to Columbus.  Also, construction costs certainly don't seem to have affected the new planned Hilton, which is one of the very, very few examples of proposals that got larger in size before construction begins.  What makes that project different? 

 

I'm not an expert by any means, but isn't that being funded very differently? I thought the county and the Convention Center + Hilton are funding it? The North Market Tower seems to be all privately funded with the exception of only $1 million dollars being awarded to it from the state. I could be totally off here but I imagine it's all in how it's funded.

 

Maybe a recession would be good for building in Columbus, as odd as that sounds. Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

Edited January 30, 20196 yr by Zyrokai

13 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

 

I'm not an expert by any means, but isn't that being funded very differently? I thought the county and the Convention Center + Hilton are funding it? The North Market Tower seems to be all privately funded with the exception of only $1 million dollars being awarded to it from the state. I could be totally off here but I imagine it's all in how it's funded.

 

Maybe a recession would be good for building in Columbus, as odd as that sounds. Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

 

Isn't Market Tower getting the land for ultra cheap/free? And being built on a lot with no underground parking/engineering to have to worry about? Columbus again takes what it can get with an RFP instead of choosing a capable developer. I'm glad the word is finally getting out about Columbus. Outside developers are starting to emerge, but they're not playing on even ground with city council insiders. The public-private partnerships that are so lauded in Columbus also have their disadvantages.

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

What a shocker.  They even went out of their way to promise the project wouldn't be reduced, only to see more than a quarter of its proposed height vanish.  As much as I like Columbus, sometimes it's such a lame *** city.  Can't wait to hear the excuses behind this, if they bother giving one at all.  I don't get it.  Columbus is one of the nation's fastest-growing cities with massive housing demand it's not even close to meeting, and developers there act like it's Lima.  There are no height restrictions at this location, and there are no development commissions telling them to reduce the scale.  There are no zoning regulations holding them back.  Parking concerns are addressed.  So the only thing that's going against it seems to be that the city has small-time developers with either a lack of vision or too few resources to do things right.  Or hell, maybe they didn't want to overshadow the new Hilton.  Who knows at this point. Ridiculous.

 

I feel like this is a common issue that most mid-sized Midwestern cities face.

 

There is still a strong hold on population growing densely within the urban core, versus outside the core. Millennials are slowly transitioning back into the urban core, but ultimately there are still far too many people who are suburban orientated and still intensely idolize the 3 story McMansion, with the 2 car garage, the picket white fence, and the lingering scent of freshly mowed grass.

 

It's hard to build tall or even super-tall in these cities, when the urban core population density just simply doesn't support these type of developments. 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

1 hour ago, aderwent said:

 

Isn't Market Tower getting the land for ultra cheap/free? And being built on a lot with no underground parking/engineering to have to worry about? Columbus again takes what it can get with an RFP instead of choosing a capable developer. I'm glad the word is finally getting out about Columbus. Outside developers are starting to emerge, but they're not playing on even ground with city council insiders. The public-private partnerships that are so lauded in Columbus also have their disadvantages.

 

As I understand it, yes. I don't know why I'm so shocked and disappointed by this because the writing was on the wall from what we've heard (or haven't) but this sucks. I don't understand why the developers in this city cannot make larger projects work. We keep seeing these articles about the low vacancies, high rents, and low stock but every project ends up on the chopping block. Does anyone who actually understands this all better care to explain these situations? It's disheartening going from a high-rise being proposed every other day when I lived in Charlotte to these constant axes here in Columbus when Columbus is growing so much faster and performing a lot better from what I've seen. 

 

I guess at this point we just hope this is the lowest it drops. 

3 hours ago, troeros said:

 

I feel like this is a common issue that most mid-sized Midwestern cities face.

 

There is still a strong hold on population growing densely within the urban core, versus outside the core. Millennials are slowly transitioning back into the urban core, but ultimately there are still far too many people who are suburban orientated and still intensely idolize the 3 story McMansion, with the 2 car garage, the picket white fence, and the lingering scent of freshly mowed grass.

 

It's hard to build tall or even super-tall in these cities, when the urban core population density just simply doesn't support these type of developments. 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

 

Sorry, but none of that is true.  Virtually every single one of Columbus' peers nationally are seeing at least one or more residential or mixed-use residential towers under construction right now.  Even several smaller cities have big projects in the works.  So again I question if this is as common an issue in other places as it is in Columbus.  Furthermore, the city all by itself attracts 52% of the entire metro growth, higher than almost every other major city in the country, including its peers and those with bigger city limits.  Columbus grew several times faster than any suburb and faster than every single other metro community *combined*.  The only thing holding up urban growth is crap like this, where developers either can't build larger due to opposition (the recent Vic Village fiasco) or continuously reduce the scale of proposals for other asinine reasons, like saying there isn't any market for bigger (as was said when the Commons project was reduced to 12 stories from 17).  These are excuses, IMO, because all these realities simply don't make sense together.  How can you have a rapidly growing city with massive urban demand, but zero demand for large-scale mixed-use or residential buildings?  How can Columbus be building at a fraction of the rate needed to satisfy population growth, but project reductions are citing a soft market?  These statements are contradictory, which means there are highly localized conditions that are stopping urban development, let alone large-scale development. 

4 hours ago, Zyrokai said:

 

Are construction costs skyrocketing because of the "trade war" with China?

 

There is a massive labor shortage in areas like Columbus, look at any work truck or van and they have a "now hiring" signs on it.  That's even with illegals being on staff(and no that's not a guess or trying to make a political statement it's the truth in all industries but especially those involved in manual labor/service). 

 

Also the demand for structural steel is so high currently that even with tariff's removed on China supply would be and is an issue.  

4 hours ago, troeros said:

 

 

In Columbus particular case, it's growing at a rapid rate, but so much of this rapid growth has been concentrated miles away from the urban core itself. 

 

This is 2000s talk. The subdivision development dropped off sharply in 2008. Relatively, almost nothing happened with that stuff as compared to 1995-2008. Only since about 2016 did subdivision development resume - relatively sporadically - since builders generally have to sell the house before they build it in today's lending environment.

1 hour ago, wpcc88 said:

 

There is a massive labor shortage in areas like Columbus, look at any work truck or van and they have a "now hiring" signs on it.  That's even with illegals being on staff(and no that's not a guess or trying to make a political statement it's the truth in all industries but especially those involved in manual labor/service). 

 

Also the demand for structural steel is so high currently that even with tariff's removed on China supply would be and is an issue.  

Yet the new Hilton will go up pretty quickly by all accounts.   Besides, a lack of workers would only mean a slower build, not necessarily a smaller project unless there is some kind of time this has to be built in.  I’m not aware there is a rush.  Second, the steel issue seems overblown. What was the reduction excuse before steel supplies were lower?  

They swore it would not be reduced. *sigh*  If they can't keep their promises, then they need to stop making them.

 

We will probably not only have the height reduction, but a really s@@t design to go with it-"but it will be good enough for Columbus" and all. smdh.

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

lol the Short North is basically abutting downtown Cbus...certainly not as far away as Oakley or Norwood. Vibrancy and pedestrian activity is not as tied to population as you might think, though I think there is much room for improvement with additional residents. 

 

I, too, think it's odd that Cbus has seen little to no increase in its highrises despite growing at quite a healthy rate. It's growing as fast or faster than Nashville, but outside of the High Street corridor, you'd never know it. Maybe this is because Downtown Columbus is so large and sprawling, and there are still so many surface lots that can be developed, which causes developers to go for the low or mid-rise type of buildings that are cheaper and easier to build. When it seems like there is endless room to grow in all directions, it's hard to make the case to grow upwards. 

1 hour ago, troeros said:

Ok, so if the majority growth is occurring in the urban downtown core of Columbus, how come every time I've been down town when the sun has gone down, even on weekends mind you, the entire area looks like an even worse ghost town than Cincy.

 

I'm talking very, very little pedestrian street traffic, alot of vacant buildings with for lease signs as well, many parking lot craters just scattered about.

 

Every time I've visited Columbus downtown it's been dead. Short North definitely has way more pedestrian traffic and feels much more alive but this active node is a further away than Cincy CBD is to Clifton (I guess maybe Norwood or Oakley would be a better comparison which is our outer urban neighborhoods.)

 

So I'm ultimately not trying to attack...but I hear this alot, where folks will say that the growth has been occuring in the downtown area, but I don't understand where since Everytime I'm in Columbus, especially on a warm summer Saturday night, it's so dang dead and ghost town like. Where are all of these supposed growth and residents?

 

 

 

Netflix. You can't compare '90s street life with today's without thinking about all the screen stuff going on.

 

Same goes for the daytime as well really, though DT Columbus employers instituted to 30-minute lunches in the early 2000s since workers filled the Statehouse lawn every nice day lounging and playing kickball during the 45min-1hr lunches of the past. All that fun and relaxation gave government workers a bad reputation among budget hawks even if many, many of the people worked for the private sector. The 30 minute lunches that cripple the DT restaurant and shopping economy are probably unnecessary now since people would just get on Facebook or look at their phones with the extra time but would still allow commerce to take place during lunch. If restaurants and retail could make money around lunch they would be more likely to be able to be open at other times. Baloney sandwiches and Tupperware containers of cold stuff are just as much to blame as anything else as to why DT Cincinnati has a much higher occupancy rate for ground floor retail than DT Columbus.