March 21, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, amped91 said: Someone had started a thread for it last year, but one of the mods folded it back into this one 😂 I believe this is the proposal that @cbussoccerwas talking about: https://the-cwd.com/260-e-naghten-street/ I really like the look of that. Even if most of the warehouse were demolished and just the front facade were preserved, I think it could look really handsome. This is pretty much the best of both worlds here. Get to retain the old facade and gives the building some character while not having to deal with 100+ year old building nonsense on the interior. Looks old but is modern on the inside is exactly what a lot of people are looking for.
March 21, 20232 yr Got a response from Columbus Landmarks and the Downtown commission. Neither one was aware of the demolition so I sent over a screenshot of the permit filing. Columbus landmarks send me a link to nominate the building for their most endangered list. https://columbuslandmarks.org/endangered-nomination-form/
March 21, 20232 yr Let's, uh, come back to Discovery District / CSCC Developments and News. Thanks! "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 21, 20232 yr Just now, ColDayMan said: Let's, uh, come back to Discovery District / CSCC Developments and News. Thanks! Is there a warehouse district thread?
March 21, 20232 yr There is now. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 21, 20232 yr Also to post an update CU has received the info and is doing their research. I was told to reference the 2019 article posted above though - so who knows what is driving this. They seem to believe it is just moving forward with the proposal.
March 21, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Also to post an update CU has received the info and is doing their research. I was told to reference the 2019 article posted above though - so who knows what is driving this. They seem to believe it is just moving forward with the proposal. In fairness the permit does say 6 story building demo, and the back is the only 6 story. Still think it’s good to make sure and find out more info. If they are just going forward with the original design, that is fine, and it will look great.
March 21, 20232 yr 36 minutes ago, columbus17 said: Also to post an update CU has received the info and is doing their research. I was told to reference the 2019 article posted above though - so who knows what is driving this. They seem to believe it is just moving forward with the proposal. I hope you are right.
March 22, 20232 yr 13 hours ago, VintageLife said: In fairness the permit does say 6 story building demo, and the back is the only 6 story. Still think it’s good to make sure and find out more info. If they are just going forward with the original design, that is fine, and it will look great. That's what gave me pause initially, but the six story portion has a footprint of just 8,285 square feet. So six floors comes nowhere near 100,575 square feet. The footprint of the four story portion is 12,256 square feet. So 4 x 12,256 + 6 x 8,285 = ~100,000 square feet. Now, maybe their intention was always to demolish the whole thing and then reuse façade materials like they did at Verve?
March 22, 20232 yr In all the pending confusion, there's also the other side of the building to be concerned about as well. Arguably the more architecturally detailed portion.
March 22, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, DTCL11 said: In all the pending confusion, there's also the other side of the building to be concerned about as well. Arguably the more architecturally detailed portion. Yep. That building is also older. 1909 or 1911. It has a different address so I'd think it'd need its own demo request. There's no request for 245 Mt Vernon.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, DTCL11 said: In all the pending confusion, there's also the other side of the building to be concerned about as well. Arguably the more architecturally detailed portion. They want to remove this in the design plan. They said it has to go due to structural issues it causes on the main building.
March 22, 20232 yr By the way the portion of brick that fell off was newer - and I don't see many cracks on the exterior or bowed walls. The brick may not have bonded well to the structure and that's why its so unstable. Really seems like things are getting blown out of proportion here.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, columbus17 said: By the way the portion of brick that fell off was newer - and I don't see many cracks on the exterior or bowed walls. The brick may not have bonded well to the structure and that's why its so unstable. Really seems like things are getting blown out of proportion here. Developers will dramatically exaggerate so-called structural issues just because they don't want to mess with renovation/rehabilitation as it generally takes more time to deal with than a simple tear down and new build. It's entirely about money, not whether a structure is actually in any serious structure danger. Neither of the early 1900s buildings should be demolished. Edited March 22, 20232 yr by jonoh81
March 22, 20232 yr 33 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Developers will dramatically exaggerate so-called structural issues just because they don't want to mess with renovation/rehabilitation as it generally takes more time to deal with than a simple tear down and new build. It's entirely about money, not whether a structure is actually in any serious structure danger. Neither of the early 1900s buildings should be demolished. Wobbly doorknob on the back door? Might as well demolish the entire building! /s
March 22, 20232 yr 40 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Neither of the early 1900s buildings should be demolished. How can any of us say anything like this without having any actual info from inspectors/architects/engineers regarding the integrity of the building? I'm not saying I want the buildings to be demolished, but it's a bit useless for us to make such affirmative statements without having any relevant info other than what we can see on Google Street View.
March 22, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, cbussoccer said: How can any of us say anything like this without having any actual info from inspectors/architects/engineers regarding the integrity of the building? I'm not saying I want the buildings to be demolished, but it's a bit useless for us to make such affirmative statements without having any relevant info other than what we can see on Google Street View. I get what you’re saying, but as people that live in the city, it is our right to question why a developer is choosing to demolish another historic building, something Columbus already lacks. It’s also important to bring it to peoples attention so we can get answers, because if people don’t make noise, they will just push it through without much hesitation. I also don’t trust developers and owners that sit on empty old buildings for years, without doing any work on them. It seems they have plans to tear it down and are just waiting for it to deteriorate enough to be able to claim it isn’t salvageable.
March 22, 20232 yr 42 minutes ago, cbussoccer said: How can any of us say anything like this without having any actual info from inspectors/architects/engineers regarding the integrity of the building? I'm not saying I want the buildings to be demolished, but it's a bit useless for us to make such affirmative statements without having any relevant info other than what we can see on Google Street View. Because 99% of buildings can be saved. Unless the building has already totally collapsed, there are ways to save and salvage any building. We don't need to look at an engineers report from a developer or the city to know this. Commercial. Residential. Warehouse, etc. We aren't exposed to such efforts in Columbus because many of our city officials and developers treat so much as disposable where other places go to much greater lengths and expense to save buildings way beyond this. And compared to Europe, we have developers that struggle to save 100 year old buildings when they have buildings hundreds of years old. And frankly, a developers opinion on cost benefit should be irrelevant to the preservation of contributing buildings. Sorry, then you better secure it and shore it up and put it on the market. But again, the city also struggles with that at times too. In the end, these folks don't care one bit about preserving or restoring the city. It's fluff. They are looking for the cheapest solution to obtain maximum ROI. Pass this building to Lykens and they may spend some time on it but it will be restored right and proper as they seem to value preservation over maximum ROI as we've seen time and time again.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, VintageLife said: 1 hour ago, cbussoccer said: How can any of us say anything like this without having any actual info from inspectors/architects/engineers regarding the integrity of the building? I'm not saying I want the buildings to be demolished, but it's a bit useless for us to make such affirmative statements without having any relevant info other than what we can see on Google Street View. Expand I get what you’re saying, but as people that live in the city, it is our right to question why a developer Questioning a developer and flat out saying "these buildings shouldn't be demolished" without any info are two very different things and @cbussoccer was speaking to the latter.
March 22, 20232 yr 32 minutes ago, DTCL11 said: Sorry, then you better secure it and shore it up and put it on the market. But again, the city also struggles with that at times too. That happens, though. And then the building falls even more into disrepair until the city condemns it and demolishes it anyway. I'd rather the land just be developed sooner rather than playing this game for years on building that nobody wants to save. Not everything is special just because it's old. Edited March 22, 20232 yr by TH3BUDDHA
March 22, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said: Not everything is special just because it's old. Not saying that it is. But that they can be saved. And these are both able to be saved and significantly contributing structures. There isn't much left downtown. Even less in other parts of the city. And with each loss, the scrutiny for anything remaining should be even greater but we don't do that. We say, 'well, it's OK. It's not like it's this other building so it's fine. Its nothing special. Age doesnt automatically warrant preservation'. Or 'well, its isolated so its probably better to just tear it down and have all the land to develop instead of making them incorporate it.' Part of the draw, pitch, excitement etc for this contrived warehouse district is how much of a concentration of original structures are left. The developer talks about it. But they don't have the drive and desire to do it right IF they are seriously considering demolishing half or more of it.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, VintageLife said: I get what you’re saying, but as people that live in the city, it is our right to question why a developer is choosing to demolish another historic building, something Columbus already lacks. I'm not saying we shouldn't question them. But we don't have any actual data about the structural integrity of the building, so making definitive statements such as "neither building should be torn down" is a bit pointless. 57 minutes ago, DTCL11 said: Because 99% of buildings can be saved. Unless the building has already totally collapsed, there are ways to save and salvage any building. We don't need to look at an engineers report from a developer or the city to know this. This is a ridiculous premise though because it blatantly ignores the economic aspect. You could also argue that 99% of buildings could be built taller or have their design improved, but you simply can't ignore the economic aspect which is something many of us around here tend to do when talking about developments. With that said, I don't want to see this building demolished if it can be reasonably avoided, but I'm not going to ignore the financial realities either. We could tell developers "no more buildings under 20-stories can be built downtown", and completely shoot ourselves in the foot by being completely unrealistic just as we could shoot ourselves in the foot by telling developers that they have to spend outrageous sums of money to salvage crumbling buildings which are architecturally inconsequential.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, DTCL11 said: Because 99% of buildings can be saved. Unless the building has already totally collapsed, there are ways to save and salvage any building. We don't need to look at an engineers report from a developer or the city to know this. Commercial. Residential. Warehouse, etc. We aren't exposed to such efforts in Columbus because many of our city officials and developers treat so much as disposable where other places go to much greater lengths and expense to save buildings way beyond this. And compared to Europe, we have developers that struggle to save 100 year old buildings when they have buildings hundreds of years old. And frankly, a developers opinion on cost benefit should be irrelevant to the preservation of contributing buildings. Sorry, then you better secure it and shore it up and put it on the market. But again, the city also struggles with that at times too. In the end, these folks don't care one bit about preserving or restoring the city. It's fluff. They are looking for the cheapest solution to obtain maximum ROI. Pass this building to Lykens and they may spend some time on it but it will be restored right and proper as they seem to value preservation over maximum ROI as we've seen time and time again. I've worked on a wood frame building that was literally leaning towards the road. Client had me basically recreate the entire building in 3D in case it was lost. There were talks of demo. Engineers wouldn't even walk inside. Fast forward three years and the building was restored and home to a very successful restaurant. So yes, the structural report is bs. You're telling me a concrete building built for manufacturing is falling in on itself when some loose bricks fall off? I may not be all the way through engineering school but I ain't stupid.
March 22, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, cbussoccer said: This is a ridiculous premise though because it blatantly ignores the economic aspect... but I'm not going to ignore the financial realities either. We could tell developers "no more buildings under 20-stories can be built downtown", and completely shoot ourselves in the foot by being completely unrealistic just as we could shoot ourselves in the foot by telling developers that they have to spend outrageous sums of money to salvage crumbling buildings which are architecturally inconsequential. Unless there is an impending sinkhole under this property, nothing about a full renovation would be cost prohibitive. And the developers don't argue that. They simply argue it's not able to be saved. And then when all the buildings are gone because we just take a developers financial ability at their word we just move on. I'm sorry, but a developer that might not get as good of an ROI is not enough economics for me to decide demolition is warranted. We've done it too much. Architecturally inconsequential perhaps as a brick box with a few adornments but that pretty much allows for the premise to demolish most pre-war builds throughout the city. Again, then adding in the developers own selling point of having so many original structural structures in an area increases the architectural significance as a whole rather than individually. It shouldn't be the rare go get em developer with with a mission to save structures that are the exception. It should be an expectation for developers. Engineering reports usually are only worth the person that paid for it. You will always find engineers who will say it's condemable. You have to seek out the ones who will provide a plan to actually save a structure that is in dire straights. And this, is not one of those. So let's hope it's a precision demo to allow expansion, otherwise it's another loss for downtown. The Julian, Architecturally insignificant. 2/3rds of Madison block, architecturally insignificant. Most of North 4th, Architecturally insignificant. The Lykens projects on North 4th, just brick warehouses, single stories. Most of the Short North, Architecturally insignificant. Trolley Barns? Literally 4 Brick walls and a gable roof with some Chip and Joana Gaines barn doors. Now, imagine we keep playing Russian roulette and where we would have been if the wrong developers bought those properties? Preservation should not be at will and control of a developers ROI. Edited March 22, 20232 yr by DTCL11
March 22, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, DTCL11 said: Unless there is an impending sinkhole under this property, nothing about a full renovation would be cost prohibitive. And the developers don't argue that. They simply argue it's not able to be saved. And then when all the buildings are gone because we just take a developers financial ability at their word we just move on. I'm sorry, but a developer that might not get as good of an ROI is not enough economics for me to decide demolition is warranted. We've done it too much. Architecturally inconsequential perhaps as a brick box with a few adornments but that pretty much allows for the premise to demolish most pre-war builds throughout the city. Again, then adding in the developers own selling point of having so many original structural structures in an area increases the architectural significance as a whole rather than individually. It shouldn't be the rare go get em developer with with a mission to save structures that are the exception. It should be an expectation for developers. Engineering reports usually are only worth the person that paid for it. You will always find engineers who will say it's condemable. You have to seek out the ones who will provide a plan to actually save a structure that is in dire straights. And this, is not one of those. So let's hope it's a precision demo to allow expansion, otherwise it's another loss for downtown. So true. An engineer/architect is more like a lawyer than a designer on these types of projects. It's all a he said/she said game. If someone's paying you 100s per hour you're not going to work against what they want.
March 22, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, cbussoccer said: How can any of us say anything like this without having any actual info from inspectors/architects/engineers regarding the integrity of the building? I'm not saying I want the buildings to be demolished, but it's a bit useless for us to make such affirmative statements without having any relevant info other than what we can see on Google Street View. I mean, we can't know with 100% certainty. That said, we've seen this same song and dance played out for literally decades, so claims of irreversible structural problems should be taken with extreme skepticism.
March 22, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, cbussoccer said: I'm not saying we shouldn't question them. But we don't have any actual data about the structural integrity of the building, so making definitive statements such as "neither building should be torn down" is a bit pointless. This is a ridiculous premise though because it blatantly ignores the economic aspect. You could also argue that 99% of buildings could be built taller or have their design improved, but you simply can't ignore the economic aspect which is something many of us around here tend to do when talking about developments. With that said, I don't want to see this building demolished if it can be reasonably avoided, but I'm not going to ignore the financial realities either. We could tell developers "no more buildings under 20-stories can be built downtown", and completely shoot ourselves in the foot by being completely unrealistic just as we could shoot ourselves in the foot by telling developers that they have to spend outrageous sums of money to salvage crumbling buildings which are architecturally inconsequential. But developers not going higher or denser is partly because zoning codes allow for the opposite. Put higher base standards in place and there wouldn't be so many projects we lament for not meeting site potential. It's the same with historic preservation. The standards are lax and weak in Columbus. Put better protections in place, and you will magically have far more restorations rather than teardowns, as if structural problems all solved themselves.
March 23, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, columbus17 said: I've worked on a wood frame building that was literally leaning towards the road. Client had me basically recreate the entire building in 3D in case it was lost. There were talks of demo. Engineers wouldn't even walk inside. Fast forward three years and the building was restored and home to a very successful restaurant. So yes, the structural report is bs. You're telling me a concrete building built for manufacturing is falling in on itself when some loose bricks fall off? I may not be all the way through engineering school but I ain't stupid. Im not telling you anything. None of us know anything about the structural integrity of the building and the potential cost to bring it up to code. That was my initial point.
March 23, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, jonoh81 said: But developers not going higher or denser is partly because zoning codes allow for the opposite. Put higher base standards in place and there wouldn't be so many projects we lament for not meeting site potential. It's the same with historic preservation. The standards are lax and weak in Columbus. Put better protections in place, and you will magically have far more restorations rather than teardowns, as if structural problems all solved themselves. I don’t disagree. I’m just saying you have to find the balance. If you go too far with your codes, you risk being stuck with empty lots or crumbling buildings for far too long. Again, I want to see the building saved just as I want to see taller and denser developments, I’m just trying to view these situations with a bit of reason. We don’t know much about the internal situation of this building so I’m not going to get my panties in a bunch just because someone has entered the preliminary stages of maybe possibly demolishing this building is way, shape, or form.
March 23, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, cbussoccer said: I don’t disagree. I’m just saying you have to find the balance. If you go too far with your codes, you risk being stuck with empty lots or crumbling buildings for far too long. Again, I want to see the building saved just as I want to see taller and denser developments, I’m just trying to view these situations with a bit of reason. We don’t know much about the internal situation of this building so I’m not going to get my panties in a bunch just because someone has entered the preliminary stages of maybe possibly demolishing this building is way, shape, or form. I do think we have reached a certain point where we can have some 'demands' when it comes to downtown development. If they can't make it work, maybe someone else can. There should be an independent study and if they can at least keep the facade only without Ungodly costs they should be required to do it. There is a reason they are eying this warehouse district- because of the existing warehouse buildings. With the growth continuing, we can at this point just. say. no. JMHO. And we need that surface lot "tax" and standards in place so they can't just throw anything up if needed. We have 20 years of downtown plans with guidelines that are not enforced about heights and density-we need(the city officials)to start referencing their own plans. If they only would bring in more outside developers and get rid of the old boy developer network. I really hope something can be worked out and these buildings can be saved and maybe have additional height added. Once you knock down older buildings, especially of this size, you just can't get the "feel" they bring back.
April 3, 20232 yr They should put a turret on every yuppie box going up. "Put a turret on it!" - Portlandia "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 3, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, ColDayMan said: They should put a turret on every yuppie box going up. "Put a turret on it!" - Portlandia “You can turret that!”
April 4, 20232 yr Genesis Downtown to open this month on the corner of 4th and Long streets “Downtown Columbus will gain a new event space at the end of April. Genesis Downtown will open at the end of April and is booking events starting in May. Genesis Downtown is the first tenant in the building in nearly a decade, Keene said. The building is being redeveloped by Connect Real Estate. Floors three through six will have micro apartments and the second floor will feature offices for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. The 2,700-square-foot space can fit about 150 people, depending on the event. The first floor has 14-foot ceilings, which showcase some parts of the original crown molding. The space is a mix of historic and modern, with simple light fixtures and flooring that mimics what would have originally been there.” https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/04/04/genesis-downtown.html
April 4, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, amped91 said: Genesis Downtown to open this month on the corner of 4th and Long streets “Downtown Columbus will gain a new event space at the end of April. Genesis Downtown will open at the end of April and is booking events starting in May. Genesis Downtown is the first tenant in the building in nearly a decade, Keene said. The building is being redeveloped by Connect Real Estate. Floors three through six will have micro apartments and the second floor will feature offices for the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. The 2,700-square-foot space can fit about 150 people, depending on the event. The first floor has 14-foot ceilings, which showcase some parts of the original crown molding. The space is a mix of historic and modern, with simple light fixtures and flooring that mimics what would have originally been there.” https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/04/04/genesis-downtown.html Damn, that's dispassionately small. Not going to get any serious talent to put on a show here if capacity is capped at 150 people. We have enough tiny venues in the city, we needed more mid and large sized indoor event venues. We go from tiny venues to arenas with barely anything in between. Need more in that 500-5000 range.
April 4, 20232 yr Was this supposed to be a venue where 'serious talent' would come in and put on a show? I thought they were pretty clear from the beginning it was more for weddings, cocktail events, birthdays, bar mitzvahs, etc Edited April 4, 20232 yr by NW24HX
April 4, 20232 yr 31 minutes ago, NW24HX said: Was this supposed to be a venue where 'serious talent' would come in and put on a show? I thought they were pretty clear from the beginning it was more for weddings, cocktail events, birthdays, bar mitzvahs, etc You’re correct. Weddings, grad parties, etc. Seems to be the appropriate size for something like that.
April 4, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, TIm said: Damn, that's dispassionately small. Not going to get any serious talent to put on a show here if capacity is capped at 150 people. We have enough tiny venues in the city, we needed more mid and large sized indoor event venues. We go from tiny venues to arenas with barely anything in between. Need more in that 500-5000 range. This was mostly for weddings and those types of events. I don’t think this was planned to be a concert type space.
April 4, 20232 yr 46 minutes ago, NW24HX said: Was this supposed to be a venue where 'serious talent' would come in and put on a show? I thought they were pretty clear from the beginning it was more for weddings, cocktail events, birthdays, bar mitzvahs, etc Damn that's a terrible use of space for this location, what a huge disappointment. Streets full of bars and other businesses that would seriously benefit from this being an actual entertainment venue. This is a net nothing for the neighborhood. Edited April 4, 20232 yr by TIm
April 4, 20232 yr If the existing space is around 2,700 sf, you're not getting much more than 150 occupants per code. There's no way this was ever going to be a significantly larger event space without more square footage.
April 4, 20232 yr 25 minutes ago, TIm said: Damn that's a terrible use of space for this location, what a huge disappointment. Streets full of bars and other businesses that would seriously benefit from this being an actual entertainment venue. This is a net nothing for the neighborhood. Yeah, I’ll be curious to see how long it can work as an event space. I was sad when I heard it was going to be a venue. Although all kinds of spaces are needed in vibrant areas, but this one might be a little early. Connect doesn’t do a great job with their restaurant spaces, so I’m not super disappointed.
April 4, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, PizzaScissors said: If the existing space is around 2,700 sf, you're not getting much more than 150 occupants per code. There's no way this was ever going to be a significantly larger event space without more square footage. Hear me out..... they could have added more square footage. A private event venue where all the people visiting the facility are not going to be walking around the neighborhood and spending money does nothing positive for the area. Who wants to have their wedding in a kinda beat up parking lot filled urban neighborhood anyways?
April 4, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, VintageLife said: This was mostly for weddings and those types of events. I don’t think this was planned to be a concert type space. Agreed. The intent for this space was always to be an event space catering to weddings and similar gatherings. Maybe people are confusing it with the plans for the Kee in the Warehouse District? https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/12/06/the-kee-warehouse-district.html From the article covering the opening of Genesis, it sounds like they also plan to serve as somewhat of an incubator for small, local businesses looking to get in to the events industry: Quote The space has no preferred vendors. Keene and Crawford said they hope this policy gives small businesses downtown an opportunity to showcase their crafts. "Our hope is that someone's cousin who is just looking to get their name out there can showcase their skills here," Keene said. That's definitely a concept I can get behind. Wishing them all the success in the world and thanking them for choosing a downtown location that fill another street-side storefront. 2 hours ago, TIm said: Hear me out..... they could have added more square footage. A private event venue where all the people visiting the facility are not going to be walking around the neighborhood and spending money does nothing positive for the area. Who wants to have their wedding in a kinda beat up parking lot filled urban neighborhood anyways? I dunno. I attended a wedding reception in a similar space in downtown Peoria, Illinois. The after party spilled into several nearby bars where I (and others) spent way too much money on additional drinks, lol! I have no problem with others doing something similar in this area of downtown Columbus. 🙃
April 4, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, CMHOhio said: I dunno. I attended a wedding reception in a similar space in downtown Peoria, Illinois. The after party spilled into several nearby bars where I (and others) spent way too much money on additional drinks, lol! I have no problem with others doing something similar in this area of downtown Columbus. 🙃 Exactly. A family member is getting married just a little further up N 4th in IV, and we’re already making plans on bats/places to walk to afterwards. Having a venue like this within walking distance of Jackie O’s, Wolf’s Ridge, Kee, etc. is a great idea, imo.
April 5, 20232 yr For a being a pretty standard 5 over 1, I think the exterior of this turned out nice The floor to ceiling windows add a lot, and I like the dark metal panel contrasted with pops of color Edited April 5, 20232 yr by NW24HX
April 5, 20232 yr 10 hours ago, TIm said: Damn, that's dispassionately small. Not going to get any serious talent to put on a show here if capacity is capped at 150 people. We have enough tiny venues in the city, we needed more mid and large sized indoor event venues. We go from tiny venues to arenas with barely anything in between. Need more in that 500-5000 range. I'm suspecting this is why the Athenaeum is starting to get a lot more shows.
April 6, 20232 yr On 4/4/2023 at 9:03 PM, GCrites80s said: I'm suspecting this is why the Athenaeum is starting to get a lot more shows. They do shows at the Athenaeum? I'm surprised, that place has the absolute worst acoustics, every wedding I've been to there it sounds like the speeches and the music are coming through a broken drive-thru speaker unless you're directly in front of the sound equipment.
April 6, 20232 yr 11 minutes ago, 17thState said: They do shows at the Athenaeum? I'm surprised, that place has the absolute worst acoustics, every wedding I've been to there it sounds like the speeches and the music are coming through a broken drive-thru speaker unless you're directly in front of the sound equipment. They actually have some pretty well known bands play there. I haven’t been, but I haven’t heard anyone say the shows sound bad. Might be using different sound equipment for bands. Edited April 6, 20232 yr by VintageLife
Create an account or sign in to comment