Jump to content

Featured Replies

Seems like the 4th St buildings could forgo the parking portion and utilize the giant garage that serves the PNC building. They could all be connected to the elevated park. 

  • ColDayMan changed the title to Columbus: Downtown: Edwards Co. Capitol Square Renaissance
  • Replies 515
  • Views 44.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • CbusOrBust
    CbusOrBust

    In-depth look at the Elevated Park                         

  • Our winters here aren't miserable enough to warrant that kind of system. It's kind of counter intuitive general urban practices these days. skybridges pull from street activation year round to make it

  • CbusOrBust
    CbusOrBust

    Elevated Park Walk extension has reached Third St

Posted Images

How Edwards Cos. plans to make Capitol Square more vibrant

 

The Edwards Cos. is vying for Transformational Mixed-Use Development tax credits for an expansive downtown Columbus project that aims to stem a problem many downtowns are facing post-Covid – how to pivot.

 

There are several Central Ohio projects seeking tax credits through the program that combined could bring nearly 5,000 apartments and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial space to the region. However, this downtown Columbus project tops the list in Central Ohio, seeking $33 million in tax credits. In fact, only one developer in Cleveland is seeking more in this round of the program.

 

In this week's Punch List, our deep dive into the region's real estate trends, we'll take a closer look at how the "Capitol Square Renaissance" development could transform several blocks around the Statehouse.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/11/18/the-punch-list.html

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

  • ColDayMan changed the title to Columbus: Downtown: Capitol Square Renaissance (Edwards Cos.)
4 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

nearly 5,000 apartments and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial space to the region

Every other article has 1000 units, is this a typo? 

22 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Every other article has 1000 units, is this a typo? 

 

I believe that's the total for all the TMUD applicants. 

40 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I believe that's the total for all the TMUD applicants. 

Yeah I didn’t read it properly again, my bad. 

22 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Yeah I didn’t read it properly again, my bad. 


I had the same thought as you initially haha. I was like, “that seems excessive”, and then re-read it to make sure I was reading it right. 

22 hours ago, Pablo said:

Seems like the 4th St buildings could forgo the parking portion and utilize the giant garage that serves the PNC building. They could all be connected to the elevated park. 

100%. Seems like there's plenty of lots/garages around the area that parking shouldn't be needed in these new buildings, unless they decide to remove that monstrosity of a parking garage then I vote for underground parking for these buildings. 

2 hours ago, KyleofColumbus said:

100%. Seems like there's plenty of lots/garages around the area that parking shouldn't be needed in these new buildings, unless they decide to remove that monstrosity of a parking garage then I vote for underground parking for these buildings. 

 

I will say, that garage is in pretty rough shape. I was in there a few weeks ago and there is quite a bit of crumbling concrete and exposed rebar. They were repairing sections of it when I was in there. 

3 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I will say, that garage is in pretty rough shape. I was in there a few weeks ago and there is quite a bit of crumbling concrete and exposed rebar. They were repairing sections of it when I was in there. 

That's because every parking company doesn't understand maintenance until it hits them in the butt and costs 10x more.

Multi-Building Development Would Transform Parking Lots Near Capitol Square

 

Edwards Companies is seeking state tax credits for a multi-building development that would fill in several large surface parking lots near the center of Downtown.

 

Under the plan – which was outlined in an application for the state’s Transformational Mixed-Use Development (TMUD) tax credits – a 10-story building would be built directly across Third Street from the Statehouse, and two 11-story buildings would be constructed across from one another on Fourth Street, just south of Capital Street.

 

The project would bring hundreds of new apartment units and street-level retail to a part of Downtown that has been dominated by parking lots for decades.

 

Columbus Underground obtained the application for the project from the Ohio Department of Development, although some of the information in the document was redacted.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/multi-building-development-would-transform-parking-lots-near-capitol-square-bw1/

 

Edwards-TMUD-rendering-2-1536x864.jpg

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

View from Broad Street today

20241120_150814.jpg

It doesn't get any better, does it...

 

...I miss Superchef.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

4 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

It doesn't get any better, does it...

 

...I miss Superchef.

At least at street level when complete, and walking by it, the old facade will make it better, just remember to not look up. 

58 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

It doesn't get any better, does it...

 

...I miss Superchef.

Best pancakes ever!!!

They need to stop making storefronts so sterile. Geez.

Well, the good news is that once Edwards moves forward with the plans for the lot at Fourth and Oak, effectively covering up the PNC Garage, we will always have this beautiful build to remind us of the architecture. 🙃🫠 Neat. 

On 11/19/2024 at 12:10 PM, cbussoccer said:

 

I will say, that garage is in pretty rough shape. I was in there a few weeks ago and there is quite a bit of crumbling concrete and exposed rebar. They were repairing sections of it when I was in there. 

Those are actually rustic features, you will get to pay extra for those as a renter in the area.

20 hours ago, sono4315 said:

View from Broad Street today

20241120_150814.jpg

I'm usually one of the more outspoken "let's try not to be so negative" types on here but...... it looks like a toddler designed this building. At least it serves a useful function, but sadly we have to look at it with our eyes.

1 hour ago, TIm said:

I'm usually one of the more outspoken "let's try not to be so negative" types on here but...... it looks like a toddler designed this building. At least it serves a useful function, but sadly we have to look at it with our eyes.

I just don't get why an architect would even come up with this design. It really falls back on the downtown commission for approving it! 

I'm still of the opinion this looks miles better than 80 on the Commons. It also functions better.

3 minutes ago, aderwent said:

I'm still of the opinion this looks miles better than 80 on the Commons. It also functions better.

Not a chance.

30 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Not a chance.

 

I beg to differ. The South and East facades of 80 are absolutely hideous, and the design at street level is laughably bad. The facade facing the park is ok, but only compared to the atrocity on the other sides of it.

At least 80 on the Commons has a good side.  I don't see any side redeeming with this structure.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

15 hours ago, sono4315 said:

I just don't get why an architect would even come up with this design. It really falls back on the downtown commission for approving it! 

Probably a soon to be former architect because I don't know if anyone will ever hire them again.

20 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

At least 80 on the Commons has a good side.  I don't see any side redeeming with this structure.


The good side isn’t even good. It’s mediocre. You just think it’s good because the other sides are so bad. And the street level interaction is just so much worse than the Gilbert. The Gilbert is perfectly acceptable at street level. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:


The good side isn’t even good. It’s mediocre. You just think it’s good because the other sides are so bad. And the street level interaction is just so much worse than the Gilbert. The Gilbert is perfectly acceptable at street level. 

 

This...

 

80-OTC-Exterior-1365-x-1536.jpg

 

...is far more interesting than this...

 

IMG_9320.jpg

 

They should've kept Superchef and brought in a new design to NOT compliment the brutalist parking garage next door.

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

52 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

This...

 

80-OTC-Exterior-1365-x-1536.jpg

 

...is far more interesting than this...

 

IMG_9320.jpg

 

They should've kept Superchef and brought in a new design to NOT compliment the brutalist parking garage next door.

I was hoping they'd knock that garage down, not try to make it more obvious. It's hideous.

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

 

This...

 

80-OTC-Exterior-1365-x-1536.jpg

 

...is far more interesting than this...

 

IMG_9320.jpg

 

They should've kept Superchef and brought in a new design to NOT compliment the brutalist parking garage next door.


My man, you used a picture of the back of an unfinished building and compared it the only moderately decent part of a finished building with a park in the foreground. 
 

The way 80 interacts with the commons is despicable. It’s nonexistent. It’s unacceptable. 
 

The Gilbert isn’t good, but at least it interacts with the street level in an acceptable manner. It has a bit of character. It’s somewhat welcoming. 
 

80, at the street level, is cold, unwelcoming, and sterile. 
 

At any rate, these are the two worst buildings, from an architectural standpoint, that have been in the downtown area in quite some time. 80 ticks me off so much more because it’s a bigger lost opportunity. It’s right there on the commons, yet makes no attempt to create any relationship with the park. Such a shame. 

37 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

It’s right there on the commons, yet makes no attempt to create any relationship with the park. Such a shame. 

I like 80 overall, but I can agree that it missed an opportunity to connect with the park. It should have been lined with some townhomes or retail facing the park. Same gripe I have with the crappy Highpoint apartments, there isn’t enough interaction with the commons. 

Edited by VintageLife

23 hours ago, VintageLife said:

I like 80 overall, but I can agree that it missed an opportunity to connect with the park. It should have been lined with some townhomes or retail facing the park. Same gripe I have with the crappy Highpoint apartments, there isn’t enough interaction with the commons. 


Highpoint actually interacts far better than 80, and Highpoint doesn’t even interact well. 

On 11/22/2024 at 9:24 PM, cbussoccer said:


My man, you used a picture of the back of an unfinished building and compared it the only moderately decent part of a finished building with a park in the foreground. 
 

The way 80 interacts with the commons is despicable. It’s nonexistent. It’s unacceptable. 
 

The Gilbert isn’t good, but at least it interacts with the street level in an acceptable manner. It has a bit of character. It’s somewhat welcoming. 
 

80, at the street level, is cold, unwelcoming, and sterile. 
 

At any rate, these are the two worst buildings, from an architectural standpoint, that have been in the downtown area in quite some time. 80 ticks me off so much more because it’s a bigger lost opportunity. It’s right there on the commons, yet makes no attempt to create any relationship with the park. Such a shame. 

 

As much as I enjoy the massing of 80 above ground level and loathe entirely that of the Gilbert, I agree with your point about street-level engagement and hope that the Gilbert will be better. 

Architecturally, it was doomed the moment they decided to "do Brutalism" with metal panels.

On 11/21/2024 at 3:48 PM, TIm said:

Those are actually rustic features, you will get to pay extra for those as a renter in the area.

Fencing going up along the elevated park today. 

20241125_151636.jpg

1000022418.jpg

  • 3 weeks later...

Maybe they should add a green wall or a large mural to the eastside of the building so it's not just a large black wall. 

1000022876.jpg

1000022872.jpg

1000022875.jpg

Looks like 70s architecture smh. 

On 11/7/2024 at 1:39 PM, cbussoccer said:

According to their website, there are currently 88 available units. So you aren't too far off. 

Looks like it is down to 83 now, so moving along ha, I do hope once some more amenities open in the area, these units fill up. I get it’s a hard sell, but they look great and the location is awesome. 

2 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Looks like it is down to 83 now, so moving along ha, I do hope once some more amenities open in the area, these units fill up. I get it’s a hard sell, but they look great and the location is awesome. 

 

Look at them go! Hopefully as we get into spring/summer we'll see more movement. People tend to move during the warmer months. 

It’s insane that this had financing secured and never happened.
 

In 1990, the Columbus Dispatch, in partner with Galbreath Interests, proposed a $150 million, 42-story office tower for the parking lot at 50 S 3rd just south of the 34 S. 3rd Street Dispatch offices. Over the next few years, architectural designs were completed, financing was secured and a construction timetable called for groundbreaking in the fall of 1993. That summer, however, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York, the financiers, abruptly pulled out of the project. When no other financing partners stepped forward, the project was eventually canceled.

 

Edit: this is from https://allcolumbusdata.com/canceled-development/

 

IMG_5890.gif.0a75fe369af54b8e535c91ecfd4e675d.gif

Edited by VintageLife

1 minute ago, VintageLife said:

It’s insane that this had financing secured and never happened.
 

In 1990, the Columbus Dispatch, in partner with Galbreath Interests, proposed a $150 million, 42-story office tower for the parking lot at 50 S 3rd just south of the 34 S. 3rd Street Dispatch offices. Over the next few years, architectural designs were completed, financing was secured and a construction timetable called for groundbreaking in the fall of 1993. That summer, however, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York, the financiers, abruptly pulled out of the project. When no other financing partners stepped forward, the project was eventually canceled.

 

IMG_5890.gif.0a75fe369af54b8e535c91ecfd4e675d.gif

It's ugly, so not unhappy. Every skyscraper except Hilton and Laveque are ugly (of the major ones - 5/3th isn't bad looking just smaller). 

7 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

It’s insane that this had financing secured and never happened.
 

In 1990, the Columbus Dispatch, in partner with Galbreath Interests, proposed a $150 million, 42-story office tower for the parking lot at 50 S 3rd just south of the 34 S. 3rd Street Dispatch offices. Over the next few years, architectural designs were completed, financing was secured and a construction timetable called for groundbreaking in the fall of 1993. That summer, however, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York, the financiers, abruptly pulled out of the project. When no other financing partners stepped forward, the project was eventually canceled.

 

IMG_5890.gif.0a75fe369af54b8e535c91ecfd4e675d.gif

 

Well, they had the financing lined up until the financers backed out haha. Sucks it didn't happen though. 

25 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

It's ugly, so not unhappy. Every skyscraper except Hilton and Laveque are ugly (of the major ones - 5/3th isn't bad looking just smaller). 

Huntington isn't ugly nor is the William Green Building. Looks like a classic late 80's/early 90's skyscraper. 

1 minute ago, KyleofColumbus said:

Huntington isn't ugly nor is the William Green Building. Looks like a classic late 80's/early 90's skyscraper. 

I can agree about Huntington, but I’m not really a fan of the William Greene building. 

I'd argue Huntington is Columbus' most recognizable skyscraper, even more than LeVeque.  Much like the Wells Fargo Center in Denver is their most recognizable building, Huntington is unique and distinctive. 

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

6 minutes ago, KyleofColumbus said:

Huntington isn't ugly nor is the William Green Building. Looks like a classic late 80's/early 90's skyscraper. 

 

I like the Continental Center too. It's pleasantly simple. 

47 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

It’s insane that this had financing secured and never happened.
 

In 1990, the Columbus Dispatch, in partner with Galbreath Interests, proposed a $150 million, 42-story office tower for the parking lot at 50 S 3rd just south of the 34 S. 3rd Street Dispatch offices. Over the next few years, architectural designs were completed, financing was secured and a construction timetable called for groundbreaking in the fall of 1993. That summer, however, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of New York, the financiers, abruptly pulled out of the project. When no other financing partners stepped forward, the project was eventually canceled.

 

IMG_5890.gif.0a75fe369af54b8e535c91ecfd4e675d.gif

 

Source: https://allcolumbusdata.com/canceled-development/ 😉

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

I'd argue Huntington is Columbus' most recognizable skyscraper, even more than LeVeque.  Much like the Wells Fargo Center in Denver is their most recognizable building, Huntington is unique and distinctive. 

Huntington replaced something that should have never been replaced.

2 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Huntington replaced something that should have never been replaced.

 

Well, the 1925 Neil House destroyed the 1842 one which I much preferred.  The 1925 one can rest in Hell🔥

"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

The 1925 Neil house was nice enough, but I really hate losing the Deshler Hotel at Broad and Main. 

 

She was a classic beauty... 

 

 

Deshler-Gray-Drug-GVH-696x392.jpg

55 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

 

Well, the 1925 Neil House destroyed the 1842 one which I much preferred.  The 1925 one can rest in Hell🔥

Both are better than what we have today!

3 minutes ago, ink said:

The 1925 Neil house was nice enough, but I really hate losing the Deshler Hotel at Broad and Main. 

 

She was a classic beauty... 

 

 

Deshler-Gray-Drug-GVH-696x392.jpg

Same! The architecture of the city back in the day made a huge difference!

14 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Same! The architecture of the city back in the day made a huge difference!

I've never heard a good reason why we can't build these today. Some say the cost, but they weren't rolling in dough back then either but managed. Some say a societal shift in the 60's when the cultural marxist began taking over and indifference and disdain to beautiful architecture has became the rule really ever since.

Edited by John7165

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.