21 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I hope you are right and they preserve the three story building...if not at least maybe something like on Park Street where they keep the front. It does not go back far but keeping it and getting a 3 floor garage behind it will be a tight fit IMO.  If they had the parcel behind it as well(010-035143)it would have no problem fitting in. Weird since that parcel flows right into the other in the same parking lot.  I would never have thought it was a different parcel. 

 

The current building dates back to 1926 and was originally the Ohio State Life Insurance building.  Before that, it was an old house from 1870 on the site.  I hope they are able to incorporate this building, if the project is for the same parcel and not for the rear lots.

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by jonoh81

22 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

It would appear the same entity (336 E Broad) bought 3 parcels in May. The application does not reflect all the parcels but it continues back across Kelly Alley as well. May be a sizable infill project. 

OK...this is MUCH better.  ?   They had better leave the older building and build behind it!  That is a nice looking older building-really nice big windows.

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Toddguy

4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

The current building dates back to 1926 and was originally the Ohio State Life Insurance building. 

 

Ugh! Another plain box! Did these builders just share plans with each other and copy/paste? Why can't we get anything original or with character to stand out from everything else? Why do they all have to look the same? Talentless hacks ruining the fabric of the neighborhood!

 - Said some NIMBY in 1926... probably....

1 minute ago, DTCL11 said:

 

Ugh! Another plain box! Did these builders just share plans with each other and copy/paste? Why can't we get anything original or with character to stand out from everything else? Why do they all have to look the same? Talentless hacks ruining the fabric of the neighborhood!

 - Said some NIMBY in 1926... probably....

LImestone! lImestone!  I am so sick of these limestone boxes!!!! And they demolished a beautiful old house for THIS! We are losing the whole feel and character of our downtown!!!! 

 

2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

LImestone! lImestone!  I am so sick of these limestone boxes!!!! And they demolished a beautiful old house for THIS! We are losing the whole feel and character of our downtown!!!! 

 

I'm sure Ohio State Life has the money to go bigger and bolder with their building but again, they are an insurance company and always lean conservative. It's not like they don't have the pockets for it.

- Said some development nerd in 1926... probably....

 

?

Just now, DTCL11 said:

 

 

I'm sure Ohio State Life has the money to go bigger and bolder with their building but again, they are an insurance company and always lean conservative. It's not like they don't have the pockets for it.

- Said some development nerd in 1926... probably....

 

?

 

I don't know, I imagine that NIMBY was much less of a thing than it is now.  It was probably seen as an improvement over the single-family home.  

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't know, I imagine that NIMBY was much less of a thing than it is now.  It was probably seen as an improvement over the single-family home.  

I wonder when that pic was taken...and in what condition that house was by 1926?  I do wish they would have kept a few more of the very best old mansions along Broad. We have only a handful left. 

4 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

 

I'm sure Ohio State Life has the money to go bigger and bolder with their building but again, they are an insurance company and always lean conservative. It's not like they don't have the pockets for it.

- Said some development nerd in 1926... probably....

 

?

The Seneca Hotel is right across the street and it is 10 floors and almost ten years old and here we are stuck at 3 floors!!! Tear down that old dump of a house! Why can't Columbus keep up with other cities?

 

*fist fight ensues between 1926 NIMBY and 1926 Development nerd*

4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't know, I imagine that NIMBY was much less of a thing than it is now.  It was probably seen as an improvement over the single-family home.  

 

It would be interesting to see if there are any old articles on the demolition of some of the old homes and see whether there was some sort of opposition or if it was seen as a right of passage for a growing city back then. 

7 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I wonder when that pic was taken...and in what condition that house was by 1926?  I do wish they would have kept a few more of the very best old mansions along Broad. We have only a handful left. 

 

This photo is from 1901.  Keep in mind that the house wasn't all that old in 1924, the year it was actually torn down for the insurance building- only 54 years old- so the condition was probably good.  I guess the good thing in this particular case is that another building replaced it.  Next to the Key Bank tower, there is a parking lot that has existed for 90+ years after the home there was torn down.  

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by jonoh81

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

This photo is from 1901.  Keep in mind that the house wasn't all that old in 1924, the year it was actually torn down for the insurance building- only 54 years old- so the condition was probably good.  

Do you think it was worth preserving given some of the much larger and more ornate mansions along Broad(some of which should definitely have been preserved), or was it best to put up the(very nice)3 floor bank building(which obviously to me should be preserved now since they have that room behind it)?

 

*it does look like a nice house although I can't tell how large it really was..it looks like it might extend back aways.*

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Toddguy

I'm sure the cost of adding bathrooms was used as justification for lots of demo at the time.

2 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Do you think it was worth preserving given some of the much larger and more ornate mansions along Broad(some of which should definitely have been preserved), or was it best to put up the(very nice)3 floor bank building(which obviously to me should be preserved now since they have that room behind it)?

 

Well, we're looking at it from the perspective of 2019 vs. the mid-1920s.  A more relevant comparison would be- how do you feel about preserving a 1960s ranch home?  It would be great to have some of these homes still around, but at the time, they probably didn't see it as historically valuable.

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by jonoh81

6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Well, we're looking at it from the perspective of 2019 vs. the mid-1920s.  A more relevant comparison would be- how do you feel about preserving a 1960s ranch home?  

Well damn when you put it that way I would have been all "knock that s#%t down!"  

 

In fifty years they had better not be moaning about how awful we were to knock down all of the drive thru fast food joints on High street!-what were they thinking!!!!  lol

 

*A better question would be is this building landmarked and if not , why?  This is a nice little building which is appropriate in scale for pedestrians and there are parking lots galore around it waiting for development. It should be protected. 

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Toddguy

10 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

It would be interesting to see if there are any old articles on the demolition of some of the old homes and see whether there was some sort of opposition or if it was seen as a right of passage for a growing city back then. 

 

The Dispatch archives are a great resource.  It's fascinating to see how attitudes have changed on a variety of issues.

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Well, we're looking at it from the perspective of 2019 vs. the mid-1920s.  A more relevant comparison would be- how do you feel about preserving a 1960s ranch home?  It would be great to have some of these homes still around, but at the time, they probably didn't see it as historically valuable.

 

I mean, there are entire empires and cult followings built off that. #hgtv #farmhousesuburbanchic lol

 

 

People are already bent out of shape that the oldest functioning McDonald's is like the 10th one ever built. Though I think even that one closed a year or two ago so now it's like the 15th.

Here is when the building went up for sale:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/05/25/law-firm-puts-downtown-building-on-market-looks-to.html

 

It says it is historic..but is it protected in any way?

Quote

It was first owned by Ohio State Life Insurance Co. and was leased out for two decades before the law firm moved there. At the time, it underwent a substantial renovation and redesign, though most of the original features – including marble flooring, a carved plaster ceiling and a decorative brass stair rail – were preserved.

Save the old Ohio State Life Insurance Building!!!!!

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Toddguy

Seriously y'all I want this building to be preserved. Where are the preservationists/NIMBYS when you need them???

 

Someone needs to get Walker in on this so he can post in on CUfacebook and get the pitchfork and torch crowd ready if needed.

Edited December 4, 20195 yr by Toddguy

On 12/4/2019 at 12:48 PM, cbussoccer said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard that this building will be renovated and the taller new build will be located in the parking lot to the north.

23 minutes ago, Pablo said:

 

I've heard that this building will be renovated and the taller new build will be located in the parking lot to the north.

 

Best case scenario!

2 hours ago, Pablo said:

 

I've heard that this building will be renovated and the taller new build will be located in the parking lot to the north.

Good! (for the renovation of this but also the possibly ten floor building to go behind it!)

Edited December 16, 20195 yr by Toddguy

On 12/4/2019 at 12:48 PM, cbussoccer said:

I just saw this application on the city's portal and I don't remember seeing any articles about a potential development here. The description says "7 level residential building with 3 levels of parking garage" which sounds like a 10-story building to me. 

 

 

 

This is what is currently located on parcel 010047658:

 

 

The existing building actually looks pretty nice, but if you look on the Franklin County Auditor's website, you will see the parcel extends to the parking lot behind the building. Hopefully that means they will preserve the current building and build on the surface lot behind it.

 

 

 

It looks like this is being proposed to the commission tomorrow:

 

Proposal Calls for 11-Story Building Downtown

 

A three-story office building would be renovated and an 11-story apartment building constructed on the surface parking lot behind it under a plan submitted to the Downtown Commission.

 

The proposal calls for a total of 153 apartment units over a four-story, 206-space parking garage, in addition to about 30,000 square feet of renovated office space at 366 E. Broad St.

 

The law firm Carlile Patchen and Murphy occupied the building for decades before putting it on the market last year, and is now planning a move to a new building that is nearing completion at Grandview Yard.

 

More here: https://www.columbusunderground.com/proposal-calls-for-11-story-building-downtown-bw1

 

Edited December 17, 20195 yr by TH3BUDDHA

Awesome! The only issue is the parking decks fronting Grant. I know they are working in a pretty tight space here, but they need to figure out how to include some ground floor retail or something along at least a portion of Grant. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

Awesome! The only issue is the parking decks fronting Grant. I know they are working in a pretty tight space here, but they need to figure out how to include some ground floor retail or something along at least a portion of Grant. 

At the very least have some retail on the ground floor of the building facing Broad. Is this whole project going to be devoid of any retail whatsover?-not even a small coffee shop or something...anything?

 

*Also another minor complaint...I am not a fan of the dark gray/black part. Too dark for cloudy Columbus.

 

Overall very happy about this and the saving of 366 E. Broad!  And yes! for the green rooftop for 366... unusual for Columbus-would love to see more of this.

Edited December 17, 20195 yr by Toddguy

1 minute ago, Toddguy said:

At the very least have some retail on the ground floor of the building facing Broad. Is this whole project going to be devoid of any retail whatsover?-not even a small coffee shop or something...anything?

They haven't mentioned what the 3 story building will be have they?  We could have something there, right?

Just now, TH3BUDDHA said:

They haven't mentioned what the 3 story building will be have they?  We could have something there, right?

The building is about 30,000 square feet. And they said 30,000 square feet of office space... not office/retail space. Hope that is wrong though.

The city will approve it. I don't see them doing much of anything to push back. At the most they will push for some sort of wrapping or disguising. Heck, the city barely managed to do that with it's own garage on Front and I don't think they are going to do anything for the parking garage on the peninsula they will also own.  Maybe we will be pleasantly surprised but I'm fully expecting the city to fumble. 

So how much of this is about having an ugly open parking garage facing Grant? How much is about having something activated there(amenity space, office space, etc.). and how much is specifically about retail?

 

I know the "ground floor retail" is the go to phrase, but if we are talking about actual retail, it needs to be in nodes and along retail corridors downtown. How much does this stretch of Grant apply to that criteria?

 

I can get on board with not wanting dead blank spaces/walls/garages at ground level, but not so sure about "ground floor retail" specifically for every proposal. I would want retail more along Broad really. 

 

If you can't have actual "retail" along Grant, what reasonable alternative are there to just the dead space parking garage? And yeah, a long dead stretch of garage(especially the blank open concrete kind)is not a situation we need any more of downtown(or anywhere really).

 

 

I guess I am asking if people think that this is close enough to the stuff farther up Grant to be part of a node or is Grant considered a viable retail corridor?

 

*If every proposal has to have specifically "ground floor retail" then there will be a lot of empty ground floor retail around. 

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by Toddguy

I really like this proposal, particularly the preservation of the older office building. I think if they wrap the garage with something then we'll be in business. 

 

To everyone who complains about a lack of retail, everytime you buy something on Amazon a downtown proposal has retail square feet scratched off its blueprints. 

 

*Partially kidding, but in a world where you can have toilet paper delivered in 2 hours who needs retail. People can only drink so many cups of coffee or go to so many bars and even these types of things do well in clusters, not on islands. I'm so tired of hearing complaints about retail. 

^That's why tons of the new stuff in Seattle just has office at street level. It's actually not a very convenient city to live in if you don't want to order everything off Amazon. It's definitely not NYC.

Proposed 11-story tower could add artistic flair to downtown Columbus

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/12/18/proposed-11-story-tower-could-add-artistic-flair.html?iana=hpmvp_colum_news_headline

 

Below is an interesting comment relating the issue of the parking garage fronting Grant:

Quote

 

"We know (art) is a critical component to the success of this project," said Parish, which is why the development team hopes to link up with the nearby Columbus College of Art and Design to display local artwork on the garage's North Grant Avenue facade on a rotating basis.

 

That's something Downtown Commission Chairman Steve Wittmann applauded, as several commission members weren't excited about the appearance of the parking structure at the intersection of Broad Street and Grant Avenue.

 

 

The developers intend to return in January for approval. Based on that, they seem to be pretty serious about the project. 

12 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

Proposed 11-story tower could add artistic flair to downtown Columbus

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/12/18/proposed-11-story-tower-could-add-artistic-flair.html?iana=hpmvp_colum_news_headline

 

Below is an interesting comment relating the issue of the parking garage fronting Grant:

 

The developers intend to return in January for approval. Based on that, they seem to be pretty serious about the project. 

This makes me feel better. If they don’t do retail, as long as it’s covered with art it will look great. 

I know the term 'set back' is a bit of a dirty word sometimes but I wouldn't mind a small setback of the garage (leaving the residences hanging over) then with some sort of courtyard elements to compliment the art. A wall, sidewalk side, is still a wall on such a long stretch. Even art wouldn't help the long street side of the Edward's project, or the front street parking canyon IMO. For all intents and purposes, a rotating artist series sounds like billboards to me. I'd rather see a permanent, dimensional, creative installation to cover the garage than rotating panels for artists. 

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by DTCL11

51 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

I know the term 'set back' is a bit of a dirty word sometimes but I wouldn't mind a small setback of the garage (leaving the residences hanging over) then with some sort of courtyard elements to compliment the art. A wall, sidewalk side, is still a wall on such a long stretch. Even art wouldn't help the long street side of the Edward's project, or the front street parking canyon IMO. For all intents and purposes, a rotating artist series sounds like billboards to me. I'd rather see a permanent, dimensional, creative installation to cover the garage than rotating panels for artists. 

It looks like the width of the parcel is about 122-126 feet. That is close to the minimum for a garage or about 2/3's of a quarter lot(which are 187.5 feet in most of downtown.)  I don't think they could go much thinner or have a setback here. That would be for a garage with two inside lengths for car parking, two lanes for driving on either side of them, and then two more car parking lengths on either side of those.  The Motorists garage along Oak is about 100 feet wide I think, but the spaces are all angled so it would cut down on the number of spaces if they did something like that. Probably more expensive to to have a cantilevered residential part also

 

Maybe they could have some nicer material facing this side like brick along with the rotating art?

Quote

 I'd rather see a permanent, dimensional, creative installation to cover the garage than rotating panels for artists. 

I think something like this might work especially if it is along the pedestrian height level. Something with some interest for anyone walking by.

 

There also appears to be a nice line of trees along Grant right here-very close to the street. It would greatly help if they kept these and just trimmed the eaast sides of them as needed-the greenery/tree pattern would help.  

 

*Hello Great American Tower...good riddance nasty Rhodes Tower!  ?

Edited December 18, 20195 yr by Toddguy

On 12/17/2019 at 7:46 PM, Toddguy said:

So how much of this is about having an ugly open parking garage facing Grant? How much is about having something activated there(amenity space, office space, etc.). and how much is specifically about retail?

 

I know the "ground floor retail" is the go to phrase, but if we are talking about actual retail, it needs to be in nodes and along retail corridors downtown. How much does this stretch of Grant apply to that criteria?

 

I can get on board with not wanting dead blank spaces/walls/garages at ground level, but not so sure about "ground floor retail" specifically for every proposal. I would want retail more along Broad really. 

 

If you can't have actual "retail" along Grant, what reasonable alternative are there to just the dead space parking garage? And yeah, a long dead stretch of garage(especially the blank open concrete kind)is not a situation we need any more of downtown(or anywhere really).

 

 

I guess I am asking if people think that this is close enough to the stuff farther up Grant to be part of a node or is Grant considered a viable retail corridor?

 

*If every proposal has to have specifically "ground floor retail" then there will be a lot of empty ground floor retail around. 

I begrudgingly agree that not all proposals should have ground retail. I do wish there was a push from the city to encourage (or force) developers to building parking podiums that could be converted to future office/retail/residential space, like the Italian Village apts/garage. 

49 minutes ago, FudgeRounds said:

I begrudgingly agree that not all proposals should have ground retail. I do wish there was a push from the city to encourage (or force) developers to building parking podiums that could be converted to future office/retail/residential space, like the Italian Village apts/garage. 

 

I also think people get bogged down in thinking of retail space only in terms of shops, but restaurant space would be far more likely to be used at this point in time.  Or even office space of some kind.  There is no reason to be building a dead-space parking garage all the way to street level anymore.  We know better than this and it keeps occurring.

29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I also think people get bogged down in thinking of retail space only in terms of shops, but restaurant space would be far more likely to be used at this point in time.  Or even office space of some kind.  There is no reason to be building a dead-space parking garage all the way to street level anymore.  We know better than this and it keeps occurring.

That is why I wish there was a better word than the go to phrase "ground floor retail", since what we really want is ground floor activation of some kind whether it be shops, restaurants, office space, amenity space for residents, etc.  Anything but a concrete parking garage or giant blank wall. Even if the ground floor has no activity it can be livened up with art, green living walls, etc. 

 

I guess I get a bit tired of people complaining about a lack of "ground floor retail" when it really is much more than just that.   Ground floor 'activation" maybe? ...I don't know. 

'Ground floor flex space'. Can be commerical, retail, restaurant, residential etc. 

3 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

'Ground floor flex space'. Can be commerical, retail, restaurant, residential etc. 

That would do.  ?   That would also include parking that can be converted. I think we should officially adopt this phrase.  I just could not think of a good one but this sounds good.

Edited December 19, 20195 yr by Toddguy

There's more to blame than Amazon for not seeing as much retail space as in long-activated area -- there aren't things like hatters, butcher shops, shoe repair, flophouses, tailors etc. needed every three blocks like in the old days.

Here's when Borror's biggest downtown project yet will open 

 

 

The project includes 224 apartments and 15,000 square feet of commercial space and will be one of the largest residential projects in the Discovery District.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/01/08/heres-when-borrors-biggest-downtown-project-yet.html 

On 12/19/2019 at 11:28 AM, GCrites80s said:

There's more to blame than Amazon for not seeing as much retail space as in long-activated area -- there aren't things like hatters, butcher shops, shoe repair, flophouses, tailors etc. needed every three blocks like in the old days.

 

I kinda wish I could time travel to this era and just stay there, lol.

Maybe not live at the flophouse but at least eat at the flophouse restaurant 

13 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Maybe not live at the flophouse but at least eat at the flophouse restaurant 

 

Deadwood style.  

The Ohio Democratic Party building located at the northwest corner of Fulton Street and Grant Avenue is being purchased by Borror (aerial is below the article excerpt).  The block surrounding the building contains the Market Mohawk Apartments built in the 90's and the Commons at Grant residences built in the 00's are located across Grant Avenue from the building.  Also, considering that Borror has redeveloped the previous Ohio Democratic Party building at East State Street into 224-unit residential building, it seems that a Borror residential redevelopment at Fulton & Grant is likely in the future:

 

---

Borror to buy Ohio Democratic Party's downtown headquarters

 

The Ohio Democratic Party will sell its downtown headquarters to urban developer Borror for $2.7 million.  David Pepper, the state party's chairman, said the organization expects to close on the sale of the 13,300-square-foot building at 340 E. Fulton Street in January.  The property sits on the southern cusp of downtown near I-70 along a street that has seen recent roadwork.

 

Lori Steiner, president and COO of Borror, confirmed that the developer is under contract for the property, with the sale expected to close in 2020.  "Our team continues to explore all the possible alternatives for highest and best use of the site," Steiner said in an email.

 

The sale comes a little less than two years after party sold its 271 E. State Street building and co-located with the Franklin County Democratic Party in the Fulton Street building.  Borror also took control of that property, which is currently being redeveloped to an apartment complex.

 

MORE:  https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/08/28/exclusive-borror-to-buy-ohio-democratic-partys.html

 

This is the second time Borror bought out the Ohio Dem building? Talk about a political agenda! /s

A political group have got themselves into debt? Shocking!

 

It will be interesting to see what Borror comes up with here. There is a ton of potential in this area of downtown in terms of surface lots or 1-2 story office buildings that can easily be demolished. 

This part of downtown has always been strange to me. I can't really put a finger on it but I don't really like it. I hope some changes are in store.

There are a couple more images from the CU Construction Roundup January 2020, but wanted to share the couple of images of the Topiary Park "brownstones" -- they have such a phenomenal presence and are going to even improve the environment of the park space. Fingers crossed for some really nice craftsmanship on the masonry and we have ourselves a home-run here ?