The Tallman stop had been there since at least the early '80s.

On 3/27/2024 at 4:39 PM, ColDayMan said:

Downtown Columbus apartment building moves forward with commission approval

 

A downtown Columbus affordable housing project is moving forward following a redesign.

 

Lancaster-based Fairfield Homes plans to build an apartment complex at 340 E. Fulton Street, a property previously home to the offices of the Ohio Democratic Party.

 

The developer came to the Downtown Commission this week to get approval of the redesign, which Joseph Wickham, director of development, said was in part an effort to bring down the project's cost.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/03/27/apartments-affordable-columbus-fulton-downtown.html

 

 

A little movement at 340 Fulton St today...

 

 

2 hours ago, CbusOrBust said:

 

A little movement at 340 Fulton St today...

 

 

Ugly building, but glad to see more housing! Can’t wait for that entire area of downtown to start filling up. 

5 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Those renderings look great. Is it shorter than originally planned? Didn’t even notice the east side, is that also Edwards? 

Edited May 16, 20241 yr by VintageLife

19 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

 

Where did these renderings come from? I knew about the plan for the building between the YWCA and PNC Tower, but all the other buildings are new. 

1 hour ago, columbus17 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

1 minute ago, John7165 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

We aren’t going to get many more towers the size of Rhodes. That is okay, if the city actually focuses on density that is way more important. 

16 minutes ago, John7165 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

You do understand the only way a tall building gets built is if A. It has 0 parking. && B. It has dirt cheap land. OR C. It’s HEAVILY subsidized.

13 minutes ago, John7165 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

 

You were expecting a cluster of 3-4 600' towers? Why were you expecting that? 

 

Based solely on these renderings, and without knowing where these renderings came from or any details about the project, I think this looks really good. The architecture looks really solid, it appears that it will add a good amount of residential units to an area that has typically been a 9-5 area, and it also looks like there will be a decent amount of commercial space. 

 

Would I like a 20-30 story building? Of course. But I think this looks like a wonderful project based solely on the renderings.

Just now, columbus17 said:

You do understand the only way a tall building gets built is if A. It has 0 parking. && B. It has dirt cheap land. OR C. It’s HEAVILY subsidized.

 

And D. The lot is small. Hilton 2.0 is so tall because there was very limited space. Merchant Tower is tall because there is limited space. Highpoint is short because the foot print is huge; however, its square footage is similar to a typical 20-30 story tower. 

I'm still not sold on the Open areas facing the main roads. I think having the severe stepback at 2 stories looks... not great. I appreciate varied stepbacks for architectural variance and opening up the street wall but these street facing caverns are terrible to me. The occasional one, it is what it is. But Edwards now proposing so many in a small area.  I dont mind the way they were done on the LCs because they face the side street so even rotating one might help here. 

23 minutes ago, John7165 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

I’ll take a dozen of these over a single Rhodes-sized tower. Only way you’re going to force taller buildings is to limit the amount of developable land downtown

6 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

You were expecting a cluster of 3-4 600' towers? Why were you expecting that? 

 

Based solely on these renderings, and without knowing where these renderings came from or any details about the project, I think this looks really good. The architecture looks really solid, it appears that it will add a good amount of residential units to an area that has typically been a 9-5 area, and it also looks like there will be a decent amount of commercial space. 

 

Would I like a 20-30 story building? Of course. But I think this looks like a wonderful project based solely on the renderings.

The material is the same stone on the PNC tower. There’s high quality masonry in those facades. My only critique (and it could be as this is very early in design still) is that where the facade is inset, it needs more character and detail, along with in the windows. However I think this plays very well into the street scape, and I love the seamless integration of vegetation into the urban environment. Edwards does a great job with his projects (except the Gilbert - that building is ugly).

3 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

I'm still not sold on the Open areas facing the main roads. I think having the severe stepback at 2 stories looks... not great. I appreciate varied stepbacks for architectural variance and opening up the street wall but these street facing caverns are terrible to me. The occasional one, it is what it is. But Edwards now proposing so many in a small area.  I dont mind the way they were done on the LCs because they face the side street so even rotating one might help here. 

You do understand that is an architectural style not unknown to Columbus. Neil house did the same thing.

Just now, columbus17 said:

The material is the same stone on the PNC tower. There’s high quality masonry in those facades. My only critique (and it could be as this is very early in design still) is that where the facade is inset, it needs more character and detail, along with in the windows. However I think this plays very well into the street scape, and I love the seamless integration of vegetation into the urban environment. Edwards does a great job with his projects (except the Gilbert - that building is ugly).

 

Do you have a source for these renderings?

3 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

You do understand that is an architectural style not unknown to Columbus. Neil house did the same thing.

 

I'm well aware. I'm well aware of its purpose in design as well. It is also more commonly applied with those caverns facing the rear elevation. IG the Atlas Building as a local example.  

 

Doesn't change my opinion on whether I think it's a good design to be applied as regularly as it has been of recent, let alone 4 caverns within 2 blocks. I might change my mind if the street wall was 4 or 5 stories but 1 and 2 story street walls like this in high density areas don't look good to me.

Eh, tbh the 1-2 stories helps make it look less like a monolith than it being five stories up would. Which, don’t get me wrong, it still is a monolith. But that’s just the reality we’re gonna have to face until land becomes more scarce downtown. 
 

If all these get build, I kinda hope the elevated park gets expanded some too. 

The lot across from the YWCA is owned by the Athletic Club of Columbus, so I'm sure parking is going to be a must in that building to replace what they use for their members.  As for the height, I'm not in the camp that every single parcel on Capitol Square needs to be a skyscraper.  If they did build one on the lot by the old Dispatch, it wouldn't really impact the skyline all that much because all the other buildings are already along Broad and High.  If anything, I'm ready for some taller buildings away from Capitol square.

 

The density that these will add to fill in and connect at the street level is perfect.  My fiancé's office is on Capitol Square and we are downtown multiple evenings a week and weekends and the foot traffic has transformed immensely.  We find ourselves downtown more than we do the Short North, which even 5 years ago I wouldn't have said that.  The momentum can be felt every block you're on.

 

All of these will be connected by the "highline", which I know Edwards along with other art and downtown minded individuals want to expand to the river front and beyond to the art museum.  These will also be along the Capitol Line that is in the works.  It's been so refreshing to actually have more and more of the public in our downtown.

6 minutes ago, Gnoraa said:

The lot across from the YWCA is owned by the Athletic Club of Columbus, so I'm sure parking is going to be a must in that building to replace what they use for their members.  As for the height, I'm not in the camp that every single parcel on Capitol Square needs to be a skyscraper.  If they did build one on the lot by the old Dispatch, it wouldn't really impact the skyline all that much because all the other buildings are already along Broad and High.  If anything, I'm ready for some taller buildings away from Capitol square.

 

The density that these will add to fill in and connect at the street level is perfect.  My fiancé's office is on Capitol Square and we are downtown multiple evenings a week and weekends and the foot traffic has transformed immensely.  We find ourselves downtown more than we do the Short North, which even 5 years ago I wouldn't have said that.  The momentum can be felt every block you're on.

 

All of these will be connected by the "highline", which I know Edwards along with other art and downtown minded individuals want to expand to the river front and beyond to the art museum.  These will also be along the Capitol Line that is in the works.  It's been so refreshing to actually have more and more of the public in our downtown.

Now we need more people living (and owning) downtown! That way we have community regulars and more of a “neighborhood watch.” Safer, healthier communities thrive that way!

@columbus17 How did you come across these? Just curious how serious they are. Are these just renderings for what could be, or are they actually plans in motion?

Just now, smjjms said:

@columbus17 How did you come across these? Just curious how serious they are. Are these just renderings for what could be, or are they actually plans in motion?

From my understanding conceptual. I found them on a Google search in the suggested images.

10 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

From my understanding conceptual. I found them on a Google search in the suggested images.

I like them but I will admit I would like to see more height along 3rd.

14 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

From my understanding conceptual. I found them on a Google search in the suggested images.

 

Could you link to the website you pulled them from?

3 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Could you link to the website you pulled them from?

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/south-4th-street-study Here ya go!

1 minute ago, columbus17 said:

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/south-4th-street-study Here ya go!

 

Thanks! Seems pretty conceptual. This may even predate the news that came out back in January or February. 

That firm has some other pretty interesting conceptual designs. 

 

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/the-capital-line-riverfront-study

 

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/thecanaldistrict

 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

That firm has some other pretty interesting conceptual designs. 

 

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/the-capital-line-riverfront-study

 

https://www.augmentarch.com/work/thecanaldistrict

 

 

I like the first one and I remember when that second design came out during Covid. I’ve never been to Buckeye lake, but if they built something that great, I would check it out. 

Yeah, I don’t really care about super talk stuff anymore. If we get some, awesome, if not who cares. Cleveland is getting the Sherwin Williams tower but it isn’t going to help their stagnant growth so what’s the point?? Columbus is building for a growing population and sometimes a shorter well designed building is better for the area.
 

the project being built on lane right  now was supposed to be taller but the current layout actually has more housing and more retail space. It fills in the block better even with a shorter height. 

4 hours ago, John7165 said:

Not that anyone cares what I think, but thus is incredibly disappointing. Edwards is a small time with even smaller vision developer who has taken some very valuable properties and has condemned them to mediocrity. I was hoping that area where the Dispatch used to be be would be a cluster of buildings the height of the Rhodes Tower and  encircling the statehouse. I guess if you're one of those anything is better than nothing people, then this is your day. These building would have been fantastic further east towards the library, but not here.

 

Everyone wants to make excuses, but you're not wrong. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with the project, just the location. Everyone says we need more density, but then we get proposals like this on prime property and everyone's like "I don't understand why we should expect better?!" The guys proposing that 11-story out in the middle of Franklinton are the ones who we should be making excuses for, not this, because at least that is challenging the existing conditions in that neighborhood. Again, the proposal is fine, but I'm tired of low to mid-rise Downtown, especially when so many other cities near Columbus' size have multiple skyscrapers either planned or under construction. It feels like Columbus continuously punches well under its weight in terms of actual significant development projects, and I'm not sure why. 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Yeah, I don’t really care about super talk stuff anymore. If we get some, awesome, if not who cares. Cleveland is getting the Sherwin Williams tower but it isn’t going to help their stagnant growth so what’s the point?? Columbus is building for a growing population and sometimes a shorter well designed building is better for the area.
 

the project being built on lane right  now was supposed to be taller but the current layout actually has more housing and more retail space. It fills in the block better even with a shorter height. 

 

Columbus isn't even building enough to match existing demand, so isn't it a bit of a contradiction to say building low to mid-rise development is "building for a growing population", all with the hope that- decades from now- we might be able to fill in a few urban core sites with something truly dense if/when land values supposedly justify it? 

 

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Columbus isn't even building enough to match existing demand, so isn't it a bit of a contradiction to say building low to mid-rise development is "building for a growing population", all with the hope that- decades from now- we might be able to fill in a few urban core sites with something truly dense if/when land values supposedly justify it? 

 

I mean Paris is the perfect example for building smart density with lower rise buildings. You can do it and you can make it work. That’s what I’m saying Columbus should do. The massive towers just aren’t really possible in our market, at this time. Most of those are built for office and we don’t have the demand for that. A 31 story residential would be insanely expensive to build and rent and the Columbus market wouldn’t support that yet. 
 

There are so many empty lots in town, that it will take a bit before developers are forced to go a bit higher, but if they build smart design with less parking per building, the housing demand can catch up. 

16 hours ago, VintageLife said:

I mean Paris is the perfect example for building smart density with lower rise buildings. You can do it and you can make it work. That’s what I’m saying Columbus should do. The massive towers just aren’t really possible in our market, at this time. Most of those are built for office and we don’t have the demand for that. A 31 story residential would be insanely expensive to build and rent and the Columbus market wouldn’t support that yet. 
 

There are so many empty lots in town, that it will take a bit before developers are forced to go a bit higher, but if they build smart design with less parking per building, the housing demand can catch up. 

 

Wasn't most of the urban core of Paris built like 100-200 years ago and most of those older buildings have more units in them than what typically get built in comparably-sized buildings today? And either way, Columbus isn't building like urban Paris whatsoever- there's virtually nothing truly comparable anywhere in the United States- so I don't really get the comparison here. Yes, low-mid rise can be very dense, but Columbus isn't building those kinds of buildings, and the smaller household sizes necessitate more units to meet the same kind of density that existed historically. They're largely building low-mid rise projects with low-medium unit density, even in the heart of the city. Neighborhood Launch is a great project... for Dublin or Hilliard, not Downtown. We're never going to see a return to 30K-50K people Downtown at this rate, no matter what the stated goals are. We're not even to half of the lower end of that goal more than 20 years after Coleman started pushing for housing there. 

Again, I am not necessarily saying we need 30-story buildings for every lot. My concern is density, not height. 

 

I was under the impression housing demand in the city is already there. Is that not why prices continue to rise so quickly? 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Wasn't most of the urban core of Paris built like 100-200 years ago and most of those older buildings have more units in them than what typically get built in comparably-sized buildings today? And either way, Columbus isn't building like urban Paris whatsoever- there's virtually nothing truly comparable anywhere in the United States- so I don't really get the comparison here. Yes, low-mid rise can be very dense, but Columbus isn't building those kinds of buildings, and the smaller household sizes necessitate more units to meet the same kind of density that existed historically. They're largely building low-mid rise projects with low-medium unit density, even in the heart of the city. Neighborhood Launch is a great project... for Dublin or Hilliard, not Downtown. We're never going to see a return to 30K-50K people Downtown at this rate, no matter what the stated goals are. We're not even to half of the lower end of that goal more than 20 years after Coleman started pushing for housing there. 

Again, I am not necessarily saying we need 30-story buildings for every lot. My concern is density, not height. 

 

I was under the impression housing demand in the city is already there. Is that not why prices continue to rise so quickly? 

 

 

 

I don’t think we need that kind of density downtown to be successful - I think branching out into neighborhoods like KLB, SN, German Village, and Franklinton will bring enough of a downtown adjacent property that, if we bring back the trolleys, will bring everyone into the area anyways.

12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Wasn't most of the urban core of Paris built like 100-200 years ago and most of those older buildings have more units in them than what typically get built in comparably-sized buildings today? And either way, Columbus isn't building like urban Paris whatsoever- there's virtually nothing truly comparable anywhere in the United States- so I don't really get the comparison here. Yes, low-mid rise can be very dense, but Columbus isn't building those kinds of buildings, and the smaller household sizes necessitate more units to meet the same kind of density that existed historically. They're largely building low-mid rise projects with low-medium unit density, even in the heart of the city. Neighborhood Launch is a great project... for Dublin or Hilliard, not Downtown. We're never going to see a return to 30K-50K people Downtown at this rate, no matter what the stated goals are. We're not even to half of the lower end of that goal more than 20 years after Coleman started pushing for housing there. 

Again, I am not necessarily saying we need 30-story buildings for every lot. My concern is density, not height. 

 

I was under the impression housing demand in the city is already there. Is that not why prices continue to rise so quickly? 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize how much space is still available to built on in the downtown area? An insane amount. Building another Neighborhood Launch, or a few more 12 story mid-rises is not going preclude us from matching historical population numbers. Not even close.

 

We've added what, close to 10k people to the downtown area in the last 10-15 years? You could replicate the exact developments/redevelopments over the next 10-15 years, grow the population to 20-25k, and you would still have a ridiculous amount of space available to be developed or redeveloped. 

 

Another thing to consider is that those historical population numbers were reached by predominately having single family homes and 2-3 story buildings throughout downtown. Sure, the average household included more people at that time, but the low unit density resulting from single family homes and 2-3 story buildings largely offsets that.  

 

So let's say you want downtown to get to 40k people, or a population density of 16k/square mile. You are looking at a population density similar to that of the Weinland Park area, so pretty much the area east of High Street between Chittendon and 5th. How many high rise, or even mid rise buildings exist in that area? There's obviously some student housing in the area which has a higher than average density, but there's no reason that couldn't exist downtown with C-State and CCAD down there. 

 

Bottom line, you don't need a bunch of 30+ story towers to reach the downtown population you are hoping for. If we develop even half of the surface lots with 8-12 story buildings, convert some more existing office space to residential, and sprinkle in a few 20-30 story towers (which I think we'll get), we'll reach that 40k population pretty easily. Also, as you continue to lose surface lots, building heights will go up. We've already seen that happen within the last handful of years. 

 

Market-Mohawk alone is colossal and nearly empty.

15 minutes ago, GCrites said:

Market-Mohawk alone is colossal and nearly empty.

Yeah the entire southeast of downtown is crazy empty in reality. Hopefully they start moving that direction soon at least if they do it properly. That area is perfect for some density with some mid and low rise mix. 

2 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Do you realize how much space is still available to built on in the downtown area? An insane amount. Building another Neighborhood Launch, or a few more 12 story mid-rises is not going preclude us from matching historical population numbers. Not even close.

 

We've added what, close to 10k people to the downtown area in the last 10-15 years? You could replicate the exact developments/redevelopments over the next 10-15 years, grow the population to 20-25k, and you would still have a ridiculous amount of space available to be developed or redeveloped. 

 

Another thing to consider is that those historical population numbers were reached by predominately having single family homes and 2-3 story buildings throughout downtown. Sure, the average household included more people at that time, but the low unit density resulting from single family homes and 2-3 story buildings largely offsets that.  

 

So let's say you want downtown to get to 40k people, or a population density of 16k/square mile. You are looking at a population density similar to that of the Weinland Park area, so pretty much the area east of High Street between Chittendon and 5th. How many high rise, or even mid rise buildings exist in that area? There's obviously some student housing in the area which has a higher than average density, but there's no reason that couldn't exist downtown with C-State and CCAD down there. 

 

Bottom line, you don't need a bunch of 30+ story towers to reach the downtown population you are hoping for. If we develop even half of the surface lots with 8-12 story buildings, convert some more existing office space to residential, and sprinkle in a few 20-30 story towers (which I think we'll get), we'll reach that 40k population pretty easily. Also, as you continue to lose surface lots, building heights will go up. We've already seen that happen within the last handful of years. 

 

1000%. Plus, my hope is that as land becomes more scarce downtown, we begin to see more and more of the older office towers get connected to mixed use, and the really crappy land uses sold and redeveloped (gas stations, McDonald’s, etc). 

3 hours ago, columbus17 said:

I don’t think we need that kind of density downtown to be successful - I think branching out into neighborhoods like KLB, SN, German Village, and Franklinton will bring enough of a downtown adjacent property that, if we bring back the trolleys, will bring everyone into the area anyways.

 

I'm not sure I really get this argument. So we shouldn't want to maximize potential in all neighborhoods, including Downtown? If density equates to success, I don't think shooting for the bare minimum makes much sense. What level of density Downtown would be successful? In 2020, the density level was between 3K-4K. That was roughly 1/5th the density of the Short North and about half the density of main Franklinton. So if we want densities closer to that of the city's most successful urban neighborhood, we would need at least 5x the current population- or about 60,000. Does anyone believe we're going to reach anything close to that at this rate? 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Do you realize how much space is still available to built on in the downtown area? An insane amount. Building another Neighborhood Launch, or a few more 12 story mid-rises is not going preclude us from matching historical population numbers. Not even close.

 

We've added what, close to 10k people to the downtown area in the last 10-15 years? You could replicate the exact developments/redevelopments over the next 10-15 years, grow the population to 20-25k, and you would still have a ridiculous amount of space available to be developed or redeveloped. 

 

Another thing to consider is that those historical population numbers were reached by predominately having single family homes and 2-3 story buildings throughout downtown. Sure, the average household included more people at that time, but the low unit density resulting from single family homes and 2-3 story buildings largely offsets that.  

 

So let's say you want downtown to get to 40k people, or a population density of 16k/square mile. You are looking at a population density similar to that of the Weinland Park area, so pretty much the area east of High Street between Chittendon and 5th. How many high rise, or even mid rise buildings exist in that area? There's obviously some student housing in the area which has a higher than average density, but there's no reason that couldn't exist downtown with C-State and CCAD down there. 

 

Bottom line, you don't need a bunch of 30+ story towers to reach the downtown population you are hoping for. If we develop even half of the surface lots with 8-12 story buildings, convert some more existing office space to residential, and sprinkle in a few 20-30 story towers (which I think we'll get), we'll reach that 40k population pretty easily. Also, as you continue to lose surface lots, building heights will go up. We've already seen that happen within the last handful of years. 

 

 

You're basically advocating Downtown develops the next 20 years in the same way it has for the past 20 years- that added barely 10K people. I think without the large office conversions, there would be no hope at all for reaching 40K, and even with them I have serious doubts. No one has given me any good reason why that should continue. "Downtown has lots of space!" is not a good reason, because that just means, IMO, that Downtown is a blank slate that can be developed as great or as terribly as we push for. At what point do we start pushing for more? How many sites must go away before we should care about what goes in what's left? I don't understand the logic of wanting to wait for something better. 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 20241 yr by jonoh81

There was an engineering/street construction permit filed today for the lot next to the YWCA building. Wondering if he plans on starting it soon. 

Work Continues on Christopher Columbus Statue Replacement Project

 

On the south plaza of the Columbus City Hall building, on a plinth between two pine trees, there is a Christopher Columbus shaped hole. Most passers-by on West Broad Street probably don’t pay it much mind as they zip by (doing 45 in a 25), and pedestrians are nonexistent in this liminal space, which is neither an entrance to the building or a pathway to anywhere.

 

But that doesn’t mean that stakeholders and local leaders aren’t spending significant amounts of time and resources thinking long and hard about what to do with this empty pedestal and its former occupant. In the wake of the protests of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, the statue was removed, and an effort to replace it was immediately announced.

 

Last summer, the City of Columbus received a $3.5 million grant from The Mellon Foundation to assist with that replacement process, and CU spoke last month with several locals involved in the project — officially known as “Reimagining Columbus” — for an update.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/work-continues-on-christopher-columbus-statue-replacement-project-we1/

 

They could just put the Columbus statue back up. 

I'm less worried about filling the spot it once stood and more interested in where the city is on following through with reconsidering the flag and seal. 

12 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

They could just put the Columbus statue back up. 

Exactly.

Or we can get a classy bronze statue of Mister Flavortown himself

 

Who are we kidding, clearly this is the answer 

I propose the "anonymous insurance actuary" statue

 

Downtown Projects In Line for State Funding

 

The Ohio Senate introduced a bill this week that distributes a total of $700 million in capital funding to cities and organizations throughout the state. The bill, which includes allocations already approved by the Ohio House, hands out excess federal Covid relief dollars known at the statehouse as One-Time Strategic Community Investment Funding (OTSCIF).

 

Several Columbus area initiatives could receive a significant boost from the funding, including three high-profile Downtown projects:

 

...below!

https://columbusunderground.com/downtown-projects-in-line-for-state-funding-bw1/

 

A final site plan permit was filed for Edwards 4th street building next to the YWCA. Hopefully that means we might see movement on it sooner rather than later.