March 24, 20196 yr 13 hours ago, 17thState said: I don't know, it's seems like they can't build hotels fast enough. Why not this one, it's a good location. I agree, and I think it's a great location right by the statehouse. I based my thoughts on not hearing anything about that project at all, but maybe they just came up with the design. So we might be hearing about it in the future.
March 26, 20196 yr Strolled by the other day and snapped a few pictures of the new RISE HQ and the groundwork happening at Third & Long (Schottenstein Development) Edited March 26, 20196 yr by DevolsDance
March 26, 20196 yr On 3/24/2019 at 8:59 AM, 4N6science said: I agree, and I think it's a great location right by the statehouse. I based my thoughts on not hearing anything about that project at all, but maybe they just came up with the design. So we might be hearing about it in the future. Edwards Co planned on converting the PNC building into a mixed use of Office, Residential and a Hotel once OhioHealth and some other tenants moved out. Maybe this project will soon become a reality.
March 26, 20196 yr I forgot about Edwards purchasing the building. The Meyers hotel concept was probably put together for Edwards in an effort to attract a hotelier. https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2016/11/03/buyer-of-pnc-plaza-building-downtown-plans-to-add-housing-boutique-hotel.html
April 5, 20196 yr Updated from yesterday, looks like things are going up. Things are moving pretty quickly now on the site, they have been pouring concrete every day almost. Southwest corner looking up Long towards Neilston. Northwest corner looking towards Long St from 5th and Lafayette. Edited April 5, 20196 yr by DevolsDance
April 8, 20196 yr You can see two mast climbers being assembled on the lower floors of the west side of the building. For more information on the Rhodes Tower Modernization project Ohio DAS has posted a new newsletter for March 2019: The website can be found here and has more photos from their own Flickr account: https://das.ohio.gov/Divisions/General-Services/Properties-and-Facilities/Rhodes/Rhodes-Modernization#4897410-newsletter-
April 9, 20196 yr I've always been surprised that this surface lot at the corner of Gay and Third has not been developed. This seems like such a prime spot for mid/high-rise mixed-use building given it's location on Gay Street near numerous restaurants, it's proximity to both High and Broad, and it's location on Third allowing for a very easy trip into and out of downtown. I wonder if we could see this lot developed in the not too distant future.
April 9, 20196 yr Gay street could really be an awesome 'destination' area of downtown with restaurants, bars and retail. There is so much patio potential, yet, only a couple of restaurants utilize those massive sidewealks. As for retail, there are businesses like print shops that i believe are holding it back. It would be awesome to see Gay Street turn into a development like the 16th street mall in Denver.
April 9, 20196 yr There's a print shop in the space where one of my "cool stores" was immediately before. It does way better than my "cool store" did!
April 11, 20196 yr Developers see green in downtown’s historic ‘Red Brick District‘ The Red Brick District's revival began in earnest when Dirty Frank’s Hot Dog Palace opened its doors on 4th Street between Cherry and Rich. Other restaurants and bars followed, including Hadley’s, Mikey’s Late Night Slice and 16-Bit Bar+Arcade, giving the area a hip, late-night vibe. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/04/11/developers-see-green-in-downtown-s-historic-red.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 11, 20196 yr Take a tour of downtown's blossoming 'Red Brick District' Developers, restaurants and other businesses are transforming a sleepy section of downtown called the "Red Brick District" into a vibrant, growing neighborhood. The revival of the area – south of the heart of downtown around Main and 4th streets – began in earnest when Dirty Frank’s Hot Dog Palace opened its doors on 4th Street between Cherry and Rich. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/04/11/take-a-tour-of-downtowns-blossoming-red-brick.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 19, 20196 yr Update - 230 E Long is going up! View is down Lafayette looking south towards Long. Edited April 19, 20196 yr by DevolsDance
April 22, 20196 yr On 4/11/2019 at 3:04 PM, ColDayMan said: Developers see green in downtown’s historic ‘Red Brick District‘ The Red Brick District's revival began in earnest when Dirty Frank’s Hot Dog Palace opened its doors on 4th Street between Cherry and Rich. Other restaurants and bars followed, including Hadley’s, Mikey’s Late Night Slice and 16-Bit Bar+Arcade, giving the area a hip, late-night vibe. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/04/11/developers-see-green-in-downtown-s-historic-red.html Map and analysis of the Red Brick District from the above linked Business First story. For this article, they looked at an eight-block area bordered by Town Street to the north, 3rd Street to the west, Fulton Street to the south, and 5th Street to the east:
May 1, 20196 yr The Nicholas on High seems to be wrapping up. Streetscape has begun and glass railings are going in around the amenity decks.
May 1, 20196 yr Double Update The Mews II, Phase... IDK has broken ground. 230 East Long continues to rise.
May 1, 20196 yr 20 minutes ago, DevolsDance said: The Nicholas on High seems to be wrapping up. Streetscape has begun and glass railings are going in around the amenity decks. Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap.
May 1, 20196 yr 5 minutes ago, aderwent said: Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap. It does look pretty bad in this picture, although the few times I've driven past it I've thought that it looks pretty good in person. I still wish this block could have at least been split into two different lots to drive the height up. Having one developer for this entire over-sized block is what drove the height down in my opinion.
May 1, 20196 yr 32 minutes ago, aderwent said: Boy, not only did they skimp on height for this superblock project, they skimped on quality, too. This thing looks ultra cheap. I think its strange because the middle and far ends sections really turned out rather nice, however the south end of the building is just bad. Its very yuppie box/bridge street imho. I keep telling myself 'at least its no longer a massive surface lot', but man, this is not quality or contextual infill. Edited May 1, 20196 yr by DevolsDance
May 1, 20196 yr There are too many different styles and materials on one building for this one to look good. My biggest issue with it is how there's a gap on the north side for the parking deck and you can see the drop ceiling, parking lot lighting, and parking areas. That should have been screened with some type of perforated metal panel, it looks so trashy the way it is.
May 1, 20196 yr The cornices look so shoehorned in and pathetically useless architecturally. Like Cityscapes said way too many styles and materials, and it still looks like one building despite all those "differences". This should have been four "separate" buildings; 10-12 floors in the center and 6-8 on the ends. It should have included offices along with the residential and retail. What a disgusting waste of prime downtown property. I can't believe I just might prefer Highpoint... ? Edited May 1, 20196 yr by aderwent
May 2, 20196 yr This is why I will always argue against the "good enough" attitudes in Columbus, not matter how negative I come across. These mistakes will last many decades. Edited May 2, 20196 yr by jonoh81
May 2, 20196 yr I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus.
May 2, 20196 yr 49 minutes ago, Toddguy said: I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus. To me it's both a "good enough" issue on this project and more so that it doesn't fit with it's surroundings. I got put through the ringer for saying that High Point was fine because it fit in with its surroundings, especially now with the LC buildings finished. The "good enough" problem is my issue with most of Kaufman's developments throughout the city, yes a project is complete, but does it fit? And will it stand the test of time. Most of the time in my opinion on their projects and this one by Edwards that answer is no. Edited May 2, 20196 yr by wpcc88
May 2, 20196 yr Those who say "not good enough" see NYC as competition. Those who say "good enough" only see dying small-town Ohio as competition.
May 2, 20196 yr 4 hours ago, GCrites80s said: Those who say "not good enough" see NYC as competition. Those who say "good enough" only see dying small-town Ohio as competition. Maybe we should shoot for Chicago first; on the second part you're reaching. I'd say the "good enough" folks would be aiming to stay on par with similar cities(Indy, Nashville and Austins of the world) instead of breaking the norm. I personally expect a lot from builders when creating infill. It better fit it's surroundings or improve them(when it's feasible). Also give us good quality finishes that are going to add to the fabric of our community for the next 25-50-75 years.
May 2, 20196 yr 1 minute ago, wpcc88 said: Maybe we should shoot for Chicago first; on the second part you're reaching. I'd say the "good enough" folks would be aiming to stay on par with similar cities(Indy, Nashville and Austins of the world) instead of breaking the norm. I personally expect a lot from builders when creating infill. It better fit it's surroundings or improve them(when it's feasible). Also give us good quality finishes that are going to add to the fabric of our community for the next 25-50-75 years. I believe it is a fine line that has to be walked. I would say that context isn't "always" the most important but that depends on the design of the structure. The problem with designs that aren't contextually fitting is that many of them don't go far enough, they try to half blend and half be unique. If an architect isn't trying to fit a structure contextually then they need to go bold and go for an extreme juxtaposition, otherwise they need to just play save and go for contextual/simple. The most interesting neighborhoods in the world are a mix of traditional/historic with ultra modern/bold mixed in, but it's in that "kinda blend but stand out realm that things turn bad very quickly. I think that's what has happened here, Edwards tried to go "modern" but also keep context with some materials but also break the super-block feel and it just turned into, well... a mess. I do agree though that Chicago should be the bar we set for ourselves. You cannot convince me that it will ever hurt Columbus to reach for the architectural and design levels of one of the worlds architecture capitols.
May 2, 20196 yr Yes, Chicago is more realistic and similar. Trying to be something too Olde Worlde or be like a mountainous city isn't going to turn out.
May 2, 20196 yr There doesn't even need to be a specific example city in mind. The goal should just be that development is pushed to be the best possible in any given location. That means mixed-use, that means height, that means density, that means amenities, that means decent materials, that means quality design, etc. Columbus does a really bad job at this, even compared to its peers. Edited May 2, 20196 yr by jonoh81
May 2, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, GCrites80s said: Yes, Chicago is more realistic and similar. Trying to be something too Olde Worlde or be like a mountainous city isn't going to turn out. Chicago isn't realistic or similar, imo. The transit they have, the jobs and wages they pay within the loop and types of development they get as a result of that are totally different. I have a friend who is a planner there and from what I've heard it's not really a good city to emulate as far as progressive planning or development review. It seems like a very whatever the aldermen says goes type of place tinged with a lot of corruption. 1 hour ago, jonoh81 said: There doesn't even need to be a specific example city in mind. The goal should just be that development is pushed to be the best possible in any given location. That means mixed-use, that means height, that means density, that means amenities, that means decent materials, that means quality design, etc. Columbus does a really bad job at this, even compared to its peers. This. I don't know if any of you have gone to a Downtown Commission meeting. They're at a horribly inconvenient time for anyone who works normal hours, but applicants basically show up with renders and materials and if they like it, it gets approved. There's no thorough review, there's no report by actual staff planners that look at the project and determine whether the buildings actually meet any of the Downtown Design Guidelines. Same goes for the Historic Commissions, however, those neighborhoods usually have more residents that show up and care about how things look to push things in a better direction and the commissioners for those tend to be more thorough. We need to move away from that system and properly review the development so that it's good. Amsterdam has a lot of full block new buildings that try to break up the facade from being monotonous but rather than looking like a hot mess they try to use different massing, balconies, complimentary materials etc to accomplish this rather than multiple styles that don't work together. Sources: http://www.architectuur-fotograaf.eu/?feed=rss2&media-tags=blok-53 http://www.architectuur-fotograaf.eu/?feed=rss2&media-tags=blok-47 Going this route would have been way more successful.
May 3, 20196 yr 10 hours ago, Toddguy said: I agree with the above comments. The building is not horrible, but is sorely lacking for what should have been built in that space. And yes, the "good enough for Columbus" is and has been for decades a very bad "default" setting for city and urban development in Columbus. I think it is horrible. Total joke of quality and materials. Edwards usually builds much better stuff.
May 3, 20196 yr I wish I was a better judge of commercial building materials. I can spot crappy residential (as in single family/suburban apartment complex) materials and EIFS right away, but a lot of these things I can't tell right away. Now when the structure is 25 years old I can spot them just fine.
May 3, 20196 yr Every city that's building yuppie boxes right now is building horrible yuppie boxes. It's not just a Columbus thing. Denver has some of the absolute worst infill in the country, and even New York has been throwing up a lot of garbage lately. I'd love to start seeing some big Austin-esque apartment towers going up in Columbus just like I'm sure most of you would, but this problem is not unique to Columbus. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
May 3, 20196 yr 18 minutes ago, Zyrokai said: I don't really mind it........ *runs* I agree. Let's stand and fight the haters together.
May 3, 20196 yr 1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said: Every city that's building yuppie boxes right now is building horrible yuppie boxes. It's not just a Columbus thing. Denver has some of the absolute worst infill in the country, and even New York has been throwing up a lot of garbage lately. I'd love to start seeing some big Austin-esque apartment towers going up in Columbus just like I'm sure most of you would, but this problem is not unique to Columbus. It's an American crisis of architecture -- across the country no one is immune
May 3, 20196 yr Most apartment architecture in the US is currently Minecraftsman style or Fast Casual Architecture. Gay & High fits right in. https://www.curbed.com/2018/12/4/18125536/real-estate-modern-apartment-architecture Edited May 3, 20196 yr by Pablo
May 3, 20196 yr There's a lot of good insight in that article and the comments. Again it seems that there's a lot that developers can get away with due to supply issues and once again there is way too much in the way of Uncool in many cities and not nearly enough Cool. It's tough to convert large areas into Cool in a short period of time.
May 6, 20196 yr Brad DeHays (Franklin Park Trolley Barn, South 4th micro living, Long/Front micro living, and the Municipal Light Plant) is planning to turn the old Schottenstein idea that floundered (surprise, surprise with them) into mirco apartments. They're looking for $1.2million in historical tax credits for a $12million project. They already have a retail tenant lined up, and an office tenant for the small former auto dealership next door. There'd be 45 units between 300 and 700 square feet. https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/05/06/micro-apartments-proposed-for-vacant-6-story.html?iana=hpmvp_colum_news_headline
May 7, 20196 yr I just want better than this for such a prominent location. If we don't get the height we had better get good design and quality materials. This is downtown on our main historic commercial street(what is left of it anyway in downtown). It is more than just "any location" here..it is this very important location. This isn't out on Fourth or off Oak or anywhere...this is in the heart of downtown on High. It should be better than this...at least it is not Highpointe(which shows the very worst of what can happen in a prime location IMO).
May 8, 20196 yr More about the Fourth & Long (174 E. Long Street) renovation project from the Dispatch: https://www.dispatch.com/business/20190507/more-micro-apartments-could-open-downtown
May 9, 20196 yr On 5/3/2019 at 8:26 AM, BigDipper 80 said: Denver has some of the absolute worst infill in the country, Yes it does. I did some research and the architect of this project is actually from Denver which might explain the overall look of the project. I took some more photos of the project today. I'd argue it looks the best from this angle. The visible parking deck and dead wall against the sidewalk with the ventilation isn't the type of pedestrian experience a 2019 building should be providing. This should have also had an active frontage like on High, especially because as you'll see in the next picture, it would have been continuing the active frontages that are already there. The laundry vents sticking through the cornice... Very curious to see if that metal strip running down the building will be covered or painted to match. The materials don't look good now I don't want to think about how they're going to age. From the Downtown District Guidelines: MATERIALS Building materials used in the Downtown should be of high quality and durability. Traditional masonry materials are appropriate as they have proven durability and structural integrity. Front facing facades and facades facing public streets, parks and other civic spaces should demonstrate a higher level of design. Stucco and stucco-like products, synthetic stucco, vinyl, wood, and concrete block are generally not appropriate finish materials in the Downtown and should be avoided. So much for having guidelines.
May 9, 20196 yr Is the northernmost part (with the brick) a completely different project? It looks totally different from the rest of it and I don’t know what the developers were thinking if this is all one big yuppie box. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
May 9, 20196 yr 45 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said: Is the northernmost part (with the brick) a completely different project? It looks totally different from the rest of it and I don’t know what the developers were thinking if this is all one big yuppie box. It's all one building.
May 9, 20196 yr 9 hours ago, cityscapes said: From the Downtown District Guidelines: MATERIALS Building materials used in the Downtown should be of high quality and durability. Traditional masonry materials are appropriate as they have proven durability and structural integrity. Front facing facades and facades facing public streets, parks and other civic spaces should demonstrate a higher level of design. Stucco and stucco-like products, synthetic stucco, vinyl, wood, and concrete block are generally not appropriate finish materials in the Downtown and should be avoided. So much for having guidelines. Thanks for the pictures. Just the most horrific infill in Columbus. After that overview I believe I do prefer Highpoint. Unbelievable the Downtown Commission allowed them to construct this garbage in arguably some of the most prime land in Columbus. Edwards should be ashamed, and be scrutinized much more heavily going forward. We have so much great infill we've constructed and are constructing for the past 10-15+ years that it makes this look even worse.
May 9, 20196 yr Aside from the quality of the materials, and the few things that have been pointed out like the blank northern wall and stuff, it does not really look that bad to me it just is bad for the space it is in. If it were on Third of Fourth it would be more palatable and some things could be overlooked. But it is not ok for this prominent spot. Too short and too cheapo for this spot.
May 9, 20196 yr 9 minutes ago, tlb919 said: In a surprising/unexpected twist, Long Street now has dueling tower cranes! Mmmm crane porn! lol I don't really think it's unexpected though. It's a 6-story building with a large footprint. I was expecting some type of tower crane the whole time.
Create an account or sign in to comment