12 minutes ago, TIm said:

The people who need the housing live in the city. They should build it where the people who need it live. How are they going to get to work when there isn't a reliable bus route from Reynoldsburg to where they work downtown? It's really that simple, plus let's not pretend like we all spend so much time on this street corner or anything. This will have 0 impact on you and will be a massive benefit to dozens of people. The people who work at the colleges in facilities, maintenance, custodial etc. all need places to live to.

There are other sites. Don’t put it here. There’s bus lines, bike paths, and sidewalks. It doesn’t need to be right at their doorstep. That lot is prime for a 6 story development with ground floor commercial including dining, an art gallery, and some other local business storefronts. Then put the housing on top. Nice little pocket park on the corner, include public art elements throughout, and then make the above units affordable. They’re already saving $$$ not building structured parking - they can put more into it and make this a true ammenity for everyone. If not, get it off Cleveland avenue and tuck it in an alleyway. 

13 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

There are other sites. Don’t put it here. There’s bus lines, bike paths, and sidewalks. It doesn’t need to be right at their doorstep. That lot is prime for a 6 story development with ground floor commercial including dining, an art gallery, and some other local business storefronts. Then put the housing on top. Nice little pocket park on the corner, include public art elements throughout, and then make the above units affordable. They’re already saving $$$ not building structured parking - they can put more into it and make this a true ammenity for everyone. If not, get it off Cleveland avenue and tuck it in an alleyway. 

Yes yes, let's tuck the poors into the alleys. They don't deserve to live on street corners!

 

Come on now...

I agree that the issue shouldn't be so much the height or location but the overall design is very much an issue.

 

The right to build affordable housing anywhere is important. Understanding it isn't always going to meet other potentials is also a part of any development, affordable or not. I dont have a problem that it isn't including a bunch of different elements, my biggest concern is design. I also acknowledge there is significant value in advocating for at least some sort of commerical space to be realized in the future, a pocket park for community and family use, etc. These are not ideas incompatible with affordable housing and should be advocated for. They could also be a partnership with other organizations for business incubators or charity organizations that align with committments to affordabilty and job and family services. There should be pushback for design, or massing, to meet neighborhood goals for aestetics, walkability, community etc. Anything that takes up an entire block, affordable or market rate, should have the same eye toward building community and not just units per SF. Things such as a pocket park or a retail space are going to enrich the residents, visitors, and overall area. We shouldn't expect that affordable housing be a block of housing and that's all you get.  That being said, pushback because it isn't meeting some idea of the true potential of the site based on land value or location is less appropriate.  I really don't like this idea of send them to the suburbs or alleys because it's prime real estate. That they can deal with managing a lacking public transit system because this land is too valuable. Affordable housing should be interwoven with all our communities, hard stop. Just make sure that when you're passing by, the average person doesn't automatically assume or know that it's affordable housing only, furthering the perception of 'projects' of days gone by and that a city block worth of housing has what it needs to meet resident and community needs more than a bland structure.  

 

Also keep in mind the downtown guidelines state that any building should be a minimum of 3 stories unless it is along High, Broad, Third, Marconi, etc where they want taller.  We can bemoan about it being taller, but in reality, it meets the downtown guidelines.

 

Just need to make sure it checks a few more boxes in terms of design and community goals. Cbussoccer is really good about bringing attention to our lack of park amenities for children as well which in an affordable housing project that takes up an entire city block, is ripe for a partnership with the city and or school for a park to help meet the city goals on that as well while helping to break up the mundane behemoth.  

Edited March 6, 20241 yr by DTCL11

15 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

I agree that the issue shouldn't be so much the height or location but the overall design is very much an issue.

 

The right to build affordable housing anywhere is important. Understanding it isn't always going to meet other potentials is also a part of any development, affordable or not. I dont have a problem that it isn't including a bunch of different elements, my biggest concern is design. I also acknowledge there is significant value in advocating for at least some sort of commerical space to be realized in the future, a pocket park for community and family use, etc. These are not ideas incompatible with affordable housing and should be advocated for. They could also be a partnership with other organizations for business incubators or charity organizations that align with committments to affordabilty and job and family services. There should be pushback for design, or massing, to meet neighborhood goals for aestetics, walkability, community etc. Anything that takes up an entire block, affordable or market rate, should have the same eye toward building community and not just units per SF. Things such as a pocket park or a retail space are going to enrich the residents, visitors, and overall area. We shouldn't expect that affordable housing be a block of housing and that's all you get.  That being said, pushback because it isn't meeting some idea of the true potential of the site based on land value or location is less appropriate.  I really don't like this idea of send them to the suburbs or alleys because it's prime real estate. That they can deal with managing a lacking public transit system because this land is too valuable. Affordable housing should be interwoven with all our communities, hard stop. Just make sure that when you're passing by, the average person doesn't automatically assume or know that it's affordable housing only, furthering the perception of 'projects' of days gone by and that a city block worth of housing has what it needs to meet resident and community needs more than a bland structure.  

 

Also keep in mind the downtown guidelines state that any building should be a minimum of 3 stories unless it is along High, Broad, Third, Marconi, etc where they want taller.  We can bemoan about it being taller, but in reality, it meets the downtown guidelines.

 

Just need to make sure it checks a few more boxes in terms of design and community goals. Cbussoccer is really good about bringing attention to our lack of park amenities for children as well which in an affordable housing project that takes up an entire city block, is ripe for a partnership with the city and or school for a park to help meet the city goals on that as well while helping to break up the mundane behemoth.  

Please send this to the downtown commission when the project is brought to them. This is worded perfectly and is what I have been trying to say, but just can’t get out properly ha. 

43 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

I agree that the issue shouldn't be so much the height or location but the overall design is very much an issue.

 

The right to build affordable housing anywhere is important. Understanding it isn't always going to meet other potentials is also a part of any development, affordable or not. I dont have a problem that it isn't including a bunch of different elements, my biggest concern is design. I also acknowledge there is significant value in advocating for at least some sort of commerical space to be realized in the future, a pocket park for community and family use, etc. These are not ideas incompatible with affordable housing and should be advocated for. They could also be a partnership with other organizations for business incubators or charity organizations that align with committments to affordabilty and job and family services. There should be pushback for design, or massing, to meet neighborhood goals for aestetics, walkability, community etc. Anything that takes up an entire block, affordable or market rate, should have the same eye toward building community and not just units per SF. Things such as a pocket park or a retail space are going to enrich the residents, visitors, and overall area. We shouldn't expect that affordable housing be a block of housing and that's all you get.  That being said, pushback because it isn't meeting some idea of the true potential of the site based on land value or location is less appropriate.  I really don't like this idea of send them to the suburbs or alleys because it's prime real estate. That they can deal with managing a lacking public transit system because this land is too valuable. Affordable housing should be interwoven with all our communities, hard stop. Just make sure that when you're passing by, the average person doesn't automatically assume or know that it's affordable housing only, furthering the perception of 'projects' of days gone by and that a city block worth of housing has what it needs to meet resident and community needs more than a bland structure.  

 

Also keep in mind the downtown guidelines state that any building should be a minimum of 3 stories unless it is along High, Broad, Third, Marconi, etc where they want taller.  We can bemoan about it being taller, but in reality, it meets the downtown guidelines.

 

Just need to make sure it checks a few more boxes in terms of design and community goals. Cbussoccer is really good about bringing attention to our lack of park amenities for children as well which in an affordable housing project that takes up an entire city block, is ripe for a partnership with the city and or school for a park to help meet the city goals on that as well while helping to break up the mundane behemoth.  

This! Excatly!

1 hour ago, TIm said:

Yes yes, let's tuck the poors into the alleys. They don't deserve to live on street corners!

 

Come on now...

I never once said that. My issue is with the design and underutilization of the lot, which is currently designed for a use much like that. There's no reason for all of that prime frontage under the current design.

38 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

I never once said that. My issue is with the design and underutilization of the lot, which is currently designed for a use much like that. There's no reason for all of that prime frontage under the current design.

It's all about how what you say is perceived, intention is meaningless if the public perception is different than whatever your intention was. And you're entirely missing my point that the design is meaningless and it's all about functionality. That's priority #1. If a more generic design allows these places to be more affordable, I say let's build even more. 

16 minutes ago, TIm said:

It's all about how what you say is perceived, intention is meaningless if the public perception is different than whatever your intention was. And you're entirely missing my point that the design is meaningless and it's all about functionality. That's priority #1. If a more generic design allows these places to be more affordable, I say let's build even more. 

We want this to become part of the community fabric not just a building for the sake of having a building. So yes, design matters. Also I'm tired of the throwaway culture around buildings - let's make an investment in something to serve the community for as long as it can!

4 minutes ago, TIm said:

It's all about how what you say is perceived, intention is meaningless if the public perception is different than whatever your intention was. And you're entirely missing my point that the design is meaningless and it's all about functionality. That's priority #1. If a more generic design allows these places to be more affordable, I say let's build even more. 

 

Then you end up with the same results of 'projects'. 

 

Design is not meaningless. Design and affordabililty are not mutually exclusive and developers that stress that are lazy and are really about making the same profit they do off market rate, just with cheaper materials and designs. Don't be fooled in to thinking the developer is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and taking a profit hit. Any loss in profit is made up in bad design and materials and they walk away still making plenty of money. 

 

Indicating design being meaningless for affordable housing to me is just as bad as saying affordable housing shouldn't be relegated somewhere else. While some may imply relegating affordable units to less desirable areas, you're relating those living I affordable developments to be ok with living in sub par buildings and residential blocks. Two sides of the same coin. Sure, one can't be too picky but some level of scrutiny is for the betterment of all. 

 

We have to learn from the lessons of decades past. Building mass, bland, cheap, structures maximizing value and as many units as are achievable simply for the sake of putting people in units labeled as affordable invites longer term issues. Especially when we are facing a mass bland structure with materials that are EIFS, MDF, Hardie etc that notoriously lack longevity. Isolating folks from walkable communities and so on. 

 

I understand the urgency, however, there needs to be some increased level of scrutiny or we end up tearing them down in 20 years and end up with these all over town. The developer isn't going to suffer much from being asked to make changes. Even if it's only to materials and exterior design. 

5 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

We want this to become part of the community fabric not just a building for the sake of having a building. So yes, design matters. Also I'm tired of the throwaway culture around buildings - let's make an investment in something to serve the community for as long as it can!

We are investing in the community.... by giving them affordable places to live. Believe me, the guy who has been living out of his car for over a year does not care what the exterior of the building he gets to live in looks like. If you have to look at a building you perceive to be ugly when you drive by once every few years, so be it.

Edited March 6, 20241 yr by TIm

18 minutes ago, TIm said:

We are investing in the community.... by giving them affordable places to live. Believe me, the guy who has been living out of his car for over a year does not care what the exterior of the building he gets to live in looks like. If you have to look at a building you perceive to be ugly when you drive by once every few years, so be it.

The problem here is, this project is being partially funded/supported through public funds. Therefore, because myself and others pay into the tax pool that makes these projects possible, we do have a right to have a voice in what is done with that money. I think there's a great opportunity for this project, just the current form needs some changes. Going off the suggestions made above about street activation, better materials, and public parks/arts would make a world of difference.

14 minutes ago, TIm said:

We are investing in the community.... by giving them affordable places to live. Believe me, the guy who has been living out of his car for over a year does not care what the exterior of the building he gets to live in looks like. If you have to look at a building you perceive to be ugly when you drive by once every few years, so be it.

 

Bodies in units does not a healthy community build. The person who lived in his car will care about whether he needs to keep said car or if he can find most of what he needs within walking distance. He will care if (like Highpoint) water starts penetrating in to the unit causing water and mold issues because the exterior materials were poorly chosen and dont withstand to weather. If it's just about roofs over heads, in the words of Scrooge, 'are there no poor houses, are there no prisons?' 

26 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

The problem here is, this project is being partially funded/supported through public funds. Therefore, because myself and others pay into the tax pool that makes these projects possible, we do have a right to have a voice in what is done with that money. I think there's a great opportunity for this project, just the current form needs some changes. Going off the suggestions made above about street activation, better materials, and public parks/arts would make a world of difference.

I hear everything you are saying but I'm just happy people are getting homes. Would nicer be better? Of course. But let's not vilify the development when it's going to be providing a massively necessary service to the community. 

19 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

Bodies in units does not a healthy community build. The person who lived in his car will care about whether he needs to keep said car or if he can find most of what he needs within walking distance. He will care if (like Highpoint) water starts penetrating in to the unit causing water and mold issues because the exterior materials were poorly chosen and dont withstand to weather. If it's just about roofs over heads, in the words of Scrooge, 'are there no poor houses, are there no prisons?' 

Have you ever talked to someone who has lived outdoors against their own wishes? They will not care about any of that man, a dry bed with a roof and a door you can lock is everything. They want to feel safe, they aren't focusing on being part of a community or worrying about how far they need to walk to get eggs. They are looking for a little stability and this could be the place they find it.

I think it's best to pause and remember that we're all on the same team here. Maybe a compromise can be had? What about using modular construction to cut down on the costs and deliver the project sooner, providing that much needed housing, but in exchange upgrade the architecture and add some street activation and placemaking components into the project. There could be a great partnership with recent CSCC grads looking to start businesses by giving them space below (on prime real estate) for a good price, and incentivize them (if not require) to hire recent CSCC grads as employees to help shape their careers and experience further.

1 hour ago, TIm said:

Have you ever talked to someone who has lived outdoors against their own wishes? They will not care about any of that man, a dry bed with a roof and a door you can lock is everything. They want to feel safe, they aren't focusing on being part of a community or worrying about how far they need to walk to get eggs. They are looking for a little stability and this could be the place they find it.

 

Nope. Never talked with the unhoused or volunteered with organizations who assist, or sat on a park bench with them just to chat or anything. I don't stop to chat with John in Old North when we are both out late at night or walk him across the street or over to Portal Park in his wheelchair when he inevitably asks me. Never had a friend who lived couch to couch or anything. Totally clueless. 

 

That aside, that doesn't mean these things aren't important whether or not the person is seeking only to have a roof over their head. Providing one need only is doing a disservice simply for the sake of a body in a room. Sure, it may not be their priority but building affordable housing blocks without applying good community building practices is checking a single box in a multi-faceted approach to the needs of all residents. Folks in transitional housing might only care about a bed, but does it not do good to have other goods and services available to them to help stabilize them further? Sure, a bed might be all they need to feel stable for a moment, but is it not better to immerse them in a community and nearby services and amenities that help further that? He may not be directly caring about how far he has to walk to get some basic needs, but in the end, needing to have a car, or rely on ineffective mass transit may cost him more than if he can run to the corner store. So whether or not it's on his mind, these decisions can impact him. 

 

We can't build sustainable communities and just ignore other factors that are important, whether or not they are a concern to the tenants themselves. Would these tenants care whether or not there is a fire system? No. Given a cheaper option, how many would choose apartment buildings without them if it saved on building costs and rent? Would these tenants care whether or not they have to be moved out when the cheap siding and windows start leaking in? 

 

Poor design and poor construction is not a value for anyone, affordable units or not.

 

And I'm not one who thinks that every building needs to be mixed used and have commerical space and such, but when it is not present or reached a saturation point, it shouldn't be much to ask for consideration to help build those foundations. 

 

It kind of goes back to the arguments some of us had on the south side developments. We need to stop excusing poor developments and poor designs for the sake of housing and affordability. When the concessions being raised are a redesign for longevity and future growth, that is not a cost prohibitive expense. We need to stop associating any pushback as being detrimental to affordability and we need to stop rubber stamping things because they are advertised as affordable. Again, it's a way for a developer to still make bank and receive little questioning.  

 

There's much more that can be discussed specifically about land use prioritization and how even just asking for a site rearrangement can draw so much backlash but if the city is serious about long term growth and affordability, it needs to stop allowing poor use of land now. Sure, there's space now. But poor land use block after block leads to entire sections of the city that are locked out of good land use in the future. And not even taking in to account the specific location, the sheer amount of land is worthy of scrutiny alone. If this were a one off building on .2 acres or something, it would be a very different scenario from nearly an entire city block. 

 

 

Edited March 6, 20241 yr by DTCL11

On 3/6/2024 at 12:39 PM, GCrites said:

With how much "urban renewal" took place east of 4th you wonder what land values are like. At some point the surface lots and single story buildings full of car exhausts would get redeveloped. Such a shame that a massive neighborhood was lost.

71/670 destroyed an entire neighborhood and then we razed the rest of the neighborhood for parking lots and a small section for Columbus State's campus. 

 

If I was playing Sim City I would remove the S Loop of 670 and try and have it merge with the Northern Loop (it'll lose it's capability to go S on 71). and then bury 71 from the 70/71 Split up to Jack Gibbs Blvd/Old Leonard Ave. 

Out-of-town roadgeeks think it's weird that there are two full 670s but it had to do with 670 west of I-71 being 71 first so at least one route is superfluous. Most people here just take the phenomenon at face value without thinking about it. In fact, they might not even notice when they take the north route one day and the south the next.

670/71 was highlighted on a cities skyline/brain rot content creator recently - https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR3okB3L/

On 3/8/2024 at 9:26 AM, FudgeRounds said:

670/71 was highlighted on a cities skyline/brain rot content creator recently - https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR3okB3L/

That interchange is ridiculous but I don’t think it’s probably even top 10 worst in the country. 

Edited March 10, 20241 yr by VintageLife

 

8 hours ago, FudgeRounds said:

670/71 was highlighted on a cities skyline/brain rot content creator recently - https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR3okB3L/

Love that we got New Found Glory as our soundtrack, guess I my weekend playlist will be early 2000's pop punk. 

 

Also, that interchange is an abomination, the shear amount of land it consumes is insane. 

As an aside, A fun and sad bit of transportation Americana is the days of highway postcards. 

 

The 70/77 interchange was once called the world's largest. Which seems incredible compared to what cities have now. 

 

 

Which is incredibly more exciting than those like this.

 

 

Of course none of it measures up to the peak of highway pennants 

 

Edited March 9, 20241 yr by DTCL11

I appreciate the Ohio State colors on that pennant but...uh...

I mean... we could be New Jersey... or Pennsylvania... at least Ohio highlighted toll booths and not ramps 🤣

 

 

Edited March 9, 20241 yr by DTCL11

3 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

As an aside, A fun and sad bit of transportation Americana is the days of highway postcards. 

 

The 70/77 interchange was once called the world's largest. Which seems incredible compared to what cities have now. 

 

 

Which is incredibly more exciting than those like this.

 

 

Of course none of it measures up to the peak of highway pennants 

 

 

OMG, killer finds. I never even thought about the 70/77 at Cambridge being "big" and I remember first going through there in the early '80s. I'd love to have gone to an old baseball game where everyone else was holding up team pennants on sticks and I bust out the turnpike ones to freak everyone out.

Edited March 9, 20241 yr by GCrites

On 3/8/2024 at 9:30 AM, VintageLife said:

That intersection is ridiculous but I don’t think it’s probably even top 10 worst in the country. 

Agreed completely, it’s really not that bad. I found it pretty amusing that Columbus made that video. 

Another parking lot could bite the dust soon:

 

 

 

 

https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/lhtpqepie61dcencw7bgriejjj9vzni0

I was expecting the Columbus State development to be on this month’s agenda but it isn’t there. Maybe this is a good sign they are reworking the crap that they showed us. 

Columbus College of Art and Design plans new center at downtown Columbus site

 

The Columbus College of Art and Design plans to redevelop a downtown surface parking lot.

 

CCAD wants to turn what is now Battelle Hall into the new Center for Creative Collaboration at the intersection of Gay Street and Washington Avenue. The existing building would get interior renovations and technology updates, while a two-story, 10,000-square-foot addition would be built on the adjacent parking lot. An urban park would also added.

 

The Columbus Downtown Commission will review the project this week.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/03/24/downtown-parking-lot-ccad.html

 

54 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Columbus College of Art and Design plans new center at downtown Columbus site

 

The Columbus College of Art and Design plans to redevelop a downtown surface parking lot.

 

CCAD wants to turn what is now Battelle Hall into the new Center for Creative Collaboration at the intersection of Gay Street and Washington Avenue. The existing building would get interior renovations and technology updates, while a two-story, 10,000-square-foot addition would be built on the adjacent parking lot. An urban park would also added.

 

The Columbus Downtown Commission will review the project this week.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/03/24/downtown-parking-lot-ccad.html

 

They should restore the building to the original with the brick, sloped roof, and large windows. Had way more character.

8 hours ago, columbus17 said:

They should restore the building to the original with the brick, sloped roof, and large windows. Had way more character.

They are restoring the original building, then adding this in front of part of it. 

CCAD Wants to Uncover Historic Building, Fill in Parking Lot

 

The Columbus College of Art & Design has submitted a proposal for a major renovation and addition to Battelle Hall, an 80-year-old building located at 101 N. Washington Ave.

 

The proposal calls for a two-story addition that would extend the building into an existing parking lot, and for the rest of the parking lot to be converted into a greenspace with paths, trees and a variety of seating options.

 

The Downtown Commission will get its first chance to weigh in on the idea at its meeting on Wednesday, March 27.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ccad-wants-to-uncover-historic-building-fill-in-parking-lot-bw1/

 

14 hours ago, VintageLife said:

They are restoring the original building, then adding this in front of part of it. 

I don't see any brick or the pitched roof in the rendering.

28 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

I don't see any brick or the pitched roof in the rendering.

In the pictures of the original building it didn’t show a pitched roof. It did show a little design at the top, that would look good added again. Yeah the rendering is super detailed, so it’s possible it will be brick, or they might be just renovating the windows. 
 

Edit: it does appear they are just repairing the stucco and painting the building. You’re right, it would look better as the original brick. 
 

 

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by VintageLife

2 hours ago, VintageLife said:

In the pictures of the original building it didn’t show a pitched roof. It did show a little design at the top, that would look good added again. Yeah the rendering is super detailed, so it’s possible it will be brick, or they might be just renovating the windows. 
 

Edit: it does appear they are just repairing the stucco and painting the building. You’re right, it would look better as the original brick. 
 

 

I hate stucco with a passion - especially on small-scale projects.

On 3/25/2024 at 9:54 PM, ColDayMan said:

CCAD Wants to Uncover Historic Building, Fill in Parking Lot

 

The Columbus College of Art & Design has submitted a proposal for a major renovation and addition to Battelle Hall, an 80-year-old building located at 101 N. Washington Ave.

 

The proposal calls for a two-story addition that would extend the building into an existing parking lot, and for the rest of the parking lot to be converted into a greenspace with paths, trees and a variety of seating options.

 

The Downtown Commission will get its first chance to weigh in on the idea at its meeting on Wednesday, March 27.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/ccad-wants-to-uncover-historic-building-fill-in-parking-lot-bw1/

 

The commission really like this project, and asked about why they weren’t restoring it to the original brick. They said they did study it and the brick is in pretty bad condition and would have been cost prohibitive. The stucco was their best option for now. 

 

Maybe this is the best option for now, and who knows maybe in the future they could restore it to brick eventually. 

On 1/3/2023 at 10:43 AM, amped91 said:

I know some folks aren’t fans of the aesthetics of this project, but I’m thrilled to see the Jaycee Arms expansion is moving forward. Over 100 more affordable housing units downtown and less surface parking is a win in my book.

 

Hopefully this is one of multiple new construction projects we’ll see get started Downtown this year. 
 

Jaycee Arms apartment project lands necessary funding to start on second $33M phase

 

 

“Affording housing nonprofit NCJC Housing & Development Foundation and Sunset Development Co. have landed the necessary funding to start construction on a [120]-unit downtown apartment project. The $33.5 million addition will add 120 units to the existing Jaycee Arms Apartments development at 266 E. Main St. The existing apartments have 223 units of rent-subsidized apartments for seniors.
 

This project was one of the 22 projects awarded funding through the Ohio Housing Finance Agency's latest gap financing round. The project was also awarded grant funding from Columbus' Department of Development Rental Housing Program and the Franklin County’s Affordable Housing Magnet Program. 
 

The new units would be a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units of affordable workforce housing, spread across two five-story buildings. There are also plans for covered parking and about 10,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor.

 

The developers hope to attract commercial tenants for both the multifamily and senior tenants, like a small grocer, restaurant or pharmacy. The developers have already started planning for a third phase, which would include a five-story building with community event space, a workforce training center and 18 market-rate apartments.“

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/01/03/jaycee-arms.html

 

Movement at Jaycee Arms!

 

Crews removed trees on site this week-

 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, CbusOrBust said:

 

Movement at Jaycee Arms!

 

Crews removed trees on site this week-

 

 

 

 

Is this the senior living building? 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Is this the senior living building? 

 

Those were just showing all the trees on site are down now 

 

If you're asking about the apartment building that will remain- it's this one

 

 

13 hours ago, CbusOrBust said:

 

Those were just showing all the trees on site are down now 

 

If you're asking about the apartment building that will remain- it's this one

 

 

Is this project now a go?

22 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Is this project now a go?

I wanna say it got approval last year. 

1 hour ago, columbus17 said:

Is this project now a go?

I’m blanking on where, but I remember reading an article that said it was supposed to start this Spring, so this is right around the time I’d expect to see movement. 

6 hours ago, amped91 said:

I wanna say it got approval last year. 

 

Here's what CU said about it in August:

 

"The Downtown Commission this morning approved a plan to build a five-story, 120-unit mixed-use development at 266 E. Main St.

 

The new building will sit on what is now an under-utilized parking lot for the 11-story Jaycee Arms complex, which has held affordable senior housing since the early 1970s and would remain intact (continuing to serve that population) under the plan.

 

The development has been before the commission twice previously, with changes to the design made each time based on the board’s feedback. When it was first presented in December of last year, plans called for two separate buildings. Now a single building, the apartments will be located on the upper floors, over first-floor commercial space and a rear parking lot will be partially covered by a raised amenity deck for residents."

 

 

https://columbusunderground.com/downtown-commission-new-apartments-approved-restaurant-planned-for-high-street-bw1/

 

The office building and surrounding parking lot at 179 E State street was sold. Hopefully we see something great come out of this. The company that bought it is called Real Estate Advocacy Center LLC, can’t find anything else about them. 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

The office building and surrounding parking lot at 179 E State street was sold. Hopefully we see something great come out of this. The company that bought it is called Real Estate Advocacy Center LLC, can’t find anything else about them. 

If I had to guess I'd say an affordable project.

It's a Law Firm. Don't expect anything more than what it is. They're moving from rented space at 175 S 3rd to their own space. 

 

https://www.sikoralaw.com/contact-us/

2 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

It's a Law Firm. Don't expect anything more than what it is. They're moving from rented space at 175 S 3rd to their own space. 

 

https://www.sikoralaw.com/contact-us/

Lame, do we know if the zoning updates will include charging a ton of tax for parking lots downtown?? 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Lame, do we know if the zoning updates will include charging a ton of tax for parking lots downtown?? 

Zoning doesn’t regulate taxes. 

5 hours ago, cityscapes said:

Zoning doesn’t regulate taxes. 

Why did you have to kill my dreams? Haha 

 

I thought I remembered an article at some point talking about how they were considering something while doing the rezoning, but I probably was just hoping I saw that and it’s probably not real. 

A district on the edge of discovery

 

Racine said that the firm wants to bring more retail to the area, but knows it must first attract residents.That’s why it is planning to build apartments on one of the parking lots and is talking with potential partners to bring multifamily to the district.

“Bringing multifamily, mixed-use will encourage retailers, office tenants and it will really create that ecosystem we’re trying to achieve,” Racine said.

Other apartments are gearing up for construction.

 

Jon Riewald, of Riewald Development, plans to start construction on a seven-story building with 131 apartments at 281 E. Spring St. in the coming months.