Starling Yard

 

 

 

 

 

I think they did a good job matching the old brick on the new builds. 

Gravity Phase D is rising!

 

Neighborhood bar that's part of transformational Franklinton project to open soon

 

"Sweeney's Walnut Street Tavern will be the first to open in a project that's transforming a street of small homes in Franklinton.

 

Sweeney's Walnut Street Tavern will open this fall at 500 W. Walnut St.

 

Sweeney and Blake Compton, owner of Compton Construction, are working to transform the street of small homes into a quirky commercial corridor. There are eight houses slated for renovation in total: 494, 500, 510, 514, 530, 532, 536 and 544 W. Walnut St.

 

Sweeney's Walnut Street Tavern will be the first of several new businesses on the block, and there are plans for the other houses to become a music hall, restaurant and other small retail shops. One of the homes also would have an artist in residency space. There's potential for some of the homes or backyards to be connected."

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/08/08/walnut-street-update.html

 

 

Vertical at Westrich (formerly River and Rich 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gravity Greenhouse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mt Carmel West redevelopment

 

 

 

 

Greenhouse (8-25-24)

 

 

 

 

Fire Station 10 renovation

 

River and Rich Phase 2

 

 

 

Pilot Dogs campus improvement project at Grubb and Town

 

Pilot Dogs building addition at 625 W Town

 

Mt. Carmel Redevelopment apartment building

 

464 W Town single family home demolition

 

Finance Fund townhomes project at the NE corner of Grubb and Sullivant

 

 

Finance Fund townhomes project at the SW corner of Skidmore and Rich

 

New features at Dakota Avenue park south of Town

 

 

 

Sounder Ave shared use path bridge / Broad Street connector

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couple quick ones as I passed by Westrich 

 

From Rich

 

 

 

Gravity Greenhouse

 

From W State 

 

 

 

Couple more quick ones of Westrich 

 

 

 

Local Developer Completes First of 50 New Homes Planned for Franklinton

 

Work has wrapped up on a new single family home at 94 Wisconsin Ave. The house is part of a larger project – from developer New City Homes – to build 50 new homes on scattered sites, all of which are located north of West Broad Street, between Yale Avenue and Guilford Avenue.

 

Sarah Gellner, Marketing Coordinator for New City Homes, said that most of the homes will be completed by the end of 2025, although construction on some may extend into early 2026.

 

That’s a big influx of new homes over the next 18 months into a part of Franklinton that has seen relatively little new development in recent years, especially compared to the eastern portion of the neighborhood, where hundreds of new apartment units have been built.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/local-developer-completes-first-of-50-new-homes-planned-for-franklinton-bw1/ & https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/09/13/new-city-homes-franklinton.html

 

A higher resolution picture from the Innerbelt thread. You get a good view of West Rich and Gravity Greenhouse. Also visible are the Madison, and Merchant's cores rising above Nationwide Arena.

 

how bout no…….
 

Plan to demolish Spaghetti Warehouse building to go before Downtown Commission

 

The developers are hoping to demolish the existing building and put compacted gravel at the same level as the existing parking lot with plans to eventually redevelop the site. The plan also includes demolishing a brick wall that runs along State Street between the railroad tracks.
 

Ownership proposes to hire a landscape company to manage the lot and hire LAZ Parking to operate and maintain the lot for non-accessory public parking use until future redevelopment plans are confirmed, according to the submission.
 

Plans were floated this winter to redevelop the site of the restaurant's former home into a 15-story tower with 534 residential units, a 577-space parking garage and about 15,000 square feet of retail space. What plans may be presented to the commission by the end of this year, and if they'd differ from that proposal, wasn't clear.

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

how bout no…….
 

Plan to demolish Spaghetti Warehouse building to go before Downtown Commission

 

The developers are hoping to demolish the existing building and put compacted gravel at the same level as the existing parking lot with plans to eventually redevelop the site. The plan also includes demolishing a brick wall that runs along State Street between the railroad tracks.
 

Ownership proposes to hire a landscape company to manage the lot and hire LAZ Parking to operate and maintain the lot for non-accessory public parking use until future redevelopment plans are confirmed, according to the submission.
 

Plans were floated this winter to redevelop the site of the restaurant's former home into a 15-story tower with 534 residential units, a 577-space parking garage and about 15,000 square feet of retail space. What plans may be presented to the commission by the end of this year, and if they'd differ from that proposal, wasn't clear.

 

Shame to lose that building, but having density right along the rail road tracks begs for a intercity rail stop at Station 67. 

Just now, KyleofColumbus said:

 

Shame to lose that building, but having density right along the rail road tracks begs for an intercity rail stop at Station 67. 

I hate to see the building go, but they shouldn’t be able to turn it into a parking lot. I’m sick of this crap happening, when it goes against the development plans of downtown.
 

I get that it is already basically used as just a parking lot, but make them have their renderings and financing in place before they demo the building. 

1 minute ago, VintageLife said:

I hate to see the building go, but they shouldn’t be able to turn it into a parking lot. I’m sick of this crap happening, when it goes against the development plans of downtown.
 

I get that it is already basically used as just a parking lot, but make them have their renderings and financing in place before they demo the building. 

This is just stupid. It’s giving them a free pass and incentive to sit on the lot for 10+ years.

Just now, columbus17 said:

This is just stupid. It’s giving them a free pass and incentive to sit on the lot for 10+ years.

If they’re holding out for rate reductions, than just wait.

2 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I hate to see the building go, but they shouldn’t be able to turn it into a parking lot. I’m sick of this crap happening, when it goes against the development plans of downtown.
 

I get that it is already basically used as just a parking lot, but make them have their renderings and financing in place before they demo the building. 

100% agree. Building should be saved with the parking lot around it to be developed. There's plenty of parking garages within easy walking distance. 

11 minutes ago, KyleofColumbus said:

100% agree. Building should be saved with the parking lot around it to be developed. There's plenty of parking garages within easy walking distance. 

This could be a great mixed use, walkable development. There’s garages not far that can help with the parking load.

I literally provided a potential layout that preserves the building and allows the 15-story, etc.

Future redevelopment of Spaghetti Warehouse site could include apartments

 

The former home of the Spaghetti Warehouse could become apartments.

 

Columbus developer Robert Weiler Co. is working with Falco, Smith & Kelley Ltd. and the owners of Spaghetti Warehouse to bring a proposal for the site to Downtown Commission next week.

 

That proposal calls for the demolition of the existing building and putting compacted gravel at the same level as the existing parking lot the prepare the site for future redevelopment. The plan also includes demolishing a brick wall that runs along State Street between the railroad tracks.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/09/18/spaghetti-warehouse-demo-apartments.html

 

52 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

The former home of the Spaghetti Warehouse could become apartments.

I mean if it doesn’t what’s the point?? Pretty sure they are just trying to get some goodwill after people trashed the post yesterday. 
 

The article also says any type of building wouldn’t happen for 4-5 years. That is dumb and I am 100% convinced it will sit as a parking lot for 10-15 years. 

4 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I mean if it doesn’t what’s the point?? Pretty sure they are just trying to get some goodwill after people trashed the post yesterday. 
 

The article also says any type of building wouldn’t happen for 4-5 years. That is dumb and I am 100% convinced it will sit as a parking lot for 10-15 years. 

With Weiler involved, most definitely.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, are there ways the City can permit the demo and parking lot use for a set period of time with the condition of development starting by a certain date? Is there a way the City could impose penalties for not adhering to an agreed-upon timeline like that?

23 minutes ago, PizzaScissors said:

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, are there ways the City can permit the demo and parking lot use for a set period of time with the condition of development starting by a certain date? Is there a way the City could impose penalties for not adhering to an agreed-upon timeline like that?

The city is supposed to not approve a demo without detailed plans presented. This is the 3rd time I think they will most likely allow it without a plan, within the last few years. 
 

The developers have been getting reports that the buildings are unsafe and need to come down, which may or may not be 100% true. That is the workaround to get a demo permit without having set in place plans. 

Edited September 18, 2024Sep 18 by VintageLife

Reminder that we've been waiting like 3-4 years for any kind of development proposal where The Main Bar was, and we were told that demolition was absolutely necessary immediately. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Reminder that we've been waiting like 3-4 years for any kind of development proposal where The Main Bar was, and we were told that demolition was absolutely necessary immediately. 

 

 

 

Here was my idea back in January. 

On 1/17/2024 at 10:38 AM, jonoh81 said:

 

The Goodale parking garage is what, 6-7 levels with like 700 spaces, and it takes up just 0.8 acres, which would be less than 1/3rd of the SW site. 250 High is 12 stories and takes up only about 0.7 acres. The parking lots in front of and behind the SW building are both larger than either of those sites, at about 0.9 acres each. You could actually wrap part of a 15-story around part of the SW building and get a full acre or more, which would be larger, again, than the adjacent 12-story site for Gravity 2.0. 

 

Here's a pretty easy site plan: 

-Use the front parking lot and part of the west parking lot for a 1-acre plot for the 15-story. This building would have retail-restaurant-bar space along Broad.

-A Broad Street auto entrance would go on the east side along the railroad tracks leading to the back where the large parking garage could go. The garage would have access from both Broad and State.

-There is actually enough room in the large State Street lot to even build housing or retail to hide the garage behind it, thereby activating that section of State Street.

-Furthermore, I believe the tunnel under the railroad tracks still exists, which would connect the Peninsula garage to this site as well, providing potential for even more accessible parking.

-The SW building would be fully renovated into event, restaurant or bar space. Perhaps even some kind of West Side market, with the remaining west side parking lot be converted into a large patio/bar area similar to what they did at Jackie O's. 

 

Some of you are really underestimating the size of this site and the obvious potential. There is no reason the warehouse building must be torn down, and if anything, keeping and renovating it would create an asset. 

 

On 1/17/2024 at 11:04 AM, jonoh81 said:

 

There is no probably about it, it could absolutely happen that way in some form with the space they have even with the existing building. Demolition is lazy, and the building itself does not stand in the way of either proposed project with the right layout. I am not overestimating the southern lot size. It is larger than the Goodale Garage site, which again is like 700 spaces, well over 100 more than what is being proposed. 

But this is not really an argument of what could be done or what should be done, but whether the city will once again roll over and just allow whatever is being proposed. God forbid Columbus maintain more than a handful of its old buildings and incorporate them into architecurally interesting projects. 

Here is the basic layout I was just talking about. Red is the 15-story, Green is the parking garage, yellow is the patio/outdoor event space, Orange is the SW building, Pink is the Broad entrance and Black are garage entrances. 

 

57 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

The city is supposed to not approve a demo without detailed plans presented. This is the 3rd time I think they will most likely allow it without a plan, within the last few years. 
 

The developers have been getting reports that the buildings are unsafe and need to come down, which may or may not be 100% true. That is the workaround to get a demo permit without having set in place plans. 

Every building is salvagable. That is a lie by the finance overlords.

8 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Every building is salvagable. That is a lie by the finance overlords.

They’re the ones with the money. Especially in Franklinton, I can believe that there are some buildings that aren’t salvageable. I know of a few that were previously occupied that have to come down for that reason.

17 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

They’re the ones with the money. Especially in Franklinton, I can believe that there are some buildings that aren’t salvageable. I know of a few that were previously occupied that have to come down for that reason.

 

I don't know, I've seen enough shows, read enough articles and seen enough before and after pictures to know that's just not true. Anything can be saved if there is a will and a budget for it. The SW building is not beyond saving just like countless other buildings in the urban core weren't before they were torn down. They argued the same thing about Union Station, about the old Hilltop sanitorium, about the old courthouse, Central Market, the Annex, etc. etc. etc. In every case, it's simply an excuse because the people making the decisions don't want to mess with it. 

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by jonoh81

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't know, I've seen enough shows, read enough articles and seen enough before and after pictures to know that's just not true. Anything can be saved if there is a will and a budget for it. The SW building is not beyond saving just like countless other buildings in the urban core weren't before they were torn down. They argued the same thing about Union Station, about the old Hilltop sanitorium, about the old courthouse, Central Market, the Annex, etc. etc. etc. In every case, it's simply an excuse because the people making the decisions don't want to mess with it. 

I've spoken directly with the companies that specialize in this stuff. There's always a cost. Personally I don't think that's a good site for a massive supertall. I think a "village" approach with 1-2 taller structures is much better and will help showcase the culture of Franklinton. It will also thrive with the introduction of passenger rail.

16 hours ago, columbus17 said:

I've spoken directly with the companies that specialize in this stuff. There's always a cost. Personally I don't think that's a good site for a massive supertall. I think a "village" approach with 1-2 taller structures is much better and will help showcase the culture of Franklinton. It will also thrive with the introduction of passenger rail.

 

Yes, there's a cost, but that's not exactly saying much because there is also a cost to building new. There's a cost to all types of building standards and zoning codes, but we still have them for a reason.

The site is more than large enough to save the building and create something unique with it and still get a couple tall buildings there. 

 

5 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yes, there's a cost, but that's not exactly saying much because there is also a cost to building new. There's a cost to all types of building standards and zoning codes, but we still have them for a reason.

The site is more than large enough to save the building and create something unique with it and still get a couple tall buildings there. 

 

Yes but can that get funded, remember this is more than just development, it’s investment. Investors want an ROI and developers want/need investors. It goes much deeper than can or should this building be saved. 

2 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

Yes but can that get funded, remember this is more than just development, it’s investment. Investors want an ROI and developers want/need investors. It goes much deeper than can or should this building be saved. 

Someone will play the fiduciary duty card

12 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

Yes but can that get funded, remember this is more than just development, it’s investment. Investors want an ROI and developers want/need investors. It goes much deeper than can or should this building be saved. 

 

Yea, the financing piece of development is what makes or breaks it, as much as some of us around here want to ignore that piece. Many developers don't have the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cash laying around to make our sim city dreams come true. The projects must be financed, and the investors have to be confident they will get a return on their investment before they invest. 

 

Can any building be saved, like many people around here like to talk about? Yes. With enough money, you can do just about anything. But that's the problem. You need the money. I'm all for maintaining as much history as possible, but I can also acknowledge that sometimes it's just not feasible. With that said, the city should be very careful with the demos they approve, and no demo should be approved with an approved replacement for the lot. 

Whatever happened to the planned peninsula II tower here? Apologies if i’m in the wrong thread. Wasn’t it supposed to be 20+ stories?

15 minutes ago, Jd1137 said:

Whatever happened to the planned peninsula II tower here? Apologies if i’m in the wrong thread. Wasn’t it supposed to be 20+ stories?

Different area, that phase hasn’t really been announced yet. They still have the other apartment complex to build. I would guess we will see something about it next year 

Spaghetti Warehouse building demolition stalled, but Robert Weiler Co. floats plan for redevelopment

 

The application for demolition was tabled at the Tuesday meeting.

 

Commissioners asked the developer to come back in October with a conceptual rendering of what could be developed on the site, to study if any part of the building could be saved and submit documentation from an engineering study done by the previous owner showing the building is unsafe.

 

Bob Weiler, chair of the board for the Robert Weiler Co., said the developers do not intend to keep the site a parking lot for long if demolition were approved. Weiler told the board the developers are tentatively planning a seven-story apartment building with 250 units.

 

Plans were floated this winter to redevelop the site of the restaurant's former home into a 15-story tower with 534 residential units, a 577-space parking garage and about 15,000 square feet of retail space. Weiler cited rising construction costs as the reason for the building shrinking in units and height.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2024Sep 24 by VintageLife

Seems pretty awful to go from 15 to 7 and not add retail, unless they still plan on that. It seems like a 7 story 250 unit building would be pretty small for that lot. 

On 9/19/2024 at 6:45 PM, wpcc88 said:

Yes but can that get funded, remember this is more than just development, it’s investment. Investors want an ROI and developers want/need investors. It goes much deeper than can or should this building be saved. 

 

Having a unique, historic amenity that could be used for everything from bar/restaurant/patio space to gym to retail or all of the above would not be good ROI for a residential complex in one of the city's fastest-revitalizing neighborhoods directly adjacent to a brand new residential and entertainment district and on a potential rail line in the heart of one the nation's fastest-growing cities in recent times? If the developer can't make that work financially, they're a crappy developer.  

 

It'd be one thing if Weiler was going after historic tax credits and other programs and consistently failing, but there's absolutely no effort whatsoever. 

Edited September 24, 2024Sep 24 by jonoh81

On 9/20/2024 at 6:52 AM, cbussoccer said:

 

Yea, the financing piece of development is what makes or breaks it, as much as some of us around here want to ignore that piece. Many developers don't have the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cash laying around to make our sim city dreams come true. The projects must be financed, and the investors have to be confident they will get a return on their investment before they invest. 

 

Can any building be saved, like many people around here like to talk about? Yes. With enough money, you can do just about anything. But that's the problem. You need the money. I'm all for maintaining as much history as possible, but I can also acknowledge that sometimes it's just not feasible. With that said, the city should be very careful with the demos they approve, and no demo should be approved with an approved replacement for the lot. 

 

You've essentially argued that every building ever proposed for demolition is too costly, insignificant or not historic enough to save. I'm not sure how that squares with the call for the city to be careful with demos they approve. Demolition arguments from the 1960s continue to be the primary factor in the destruction of Columbus' historic buildings. 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Seems pretty awful to go from 15 to 7 and not add retail, unless they still plan on that. It seems like a 7 story 250 unit building would be pretty small for that lot. 

 

Absolutely. I would argue that such a significant size reduction would necessitate the demoliton of the SW building even less. Chances are, though, that it would be a horrendous layout either featuring a giant surface lot and setback from the street, or the entire site would be covered in one large Soviet block. Clearly, Weiler doesn't have the finances to make anything of interest from this site, and the downgrade is another bad sign that this is going to be a huge waste of a prime location.

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Absolutely. I would argue that such a significant size reduction would necessitate the demoliton of the SW building even less. Chances are, though, that it would be a horrendous layout either featuring a giant surface lot and setback from the street, or the entire site would be covered in one large Soviet block. Clearly, Weiler doesn't have the finances to make anything of interest from this site, and the downgrade is another bad sign that this is going to be a huge waste of a prime location.

100% they just seem like a terrible company that needs to just focus on the suburbs. I really hate that so many companies in Columbus are building suburban style in downtown and surrounding. Casto is doing basically the same crap, and should also stay the hell out of downtown construction. 

2 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

100% they just seem like a terrible company that needs to just focus on the suburbs. I really hate that so many companies in Columbus are building suburban style in downtown and surrounding. Casto is doing basically the same crap, and should also stay the hell out of downtown construction. 

 

These companies want a piece of the urban action, but can't figure out how to make an urban project work because they're so used to cheap, greenspace development and don't have the funding for anything different. So they attempt to force suburbia where it doesn't belong and rely on neighborhood and city leaders to roll over- which they largely do. There should be way more pushback of this across the city, but especially in the urban core. The zoning changes will help, but that only allows better urban projects. They do not prevent site underutilization. 

49 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Absolutely. I would argue that such a significant size reduction would necessitate the demoliton of the SW building even less. Chances are, though, that it would be a horrendous layout either featuring a giant surface lot and setback from the street, or the entire site would be covered in one large Soviet block. Clearly, Weiler doesn't have the finances to make anything of interest from this site, and the downgrade is another bad sign that this is going to be a huge waste of a prime location.

I can get Weiler a building 30% cheaper than what he’s budgeting for right now - allowing him to go taller. I’ve got connections doing awesome things in the space that would love to break into the Columbus market.

46 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

100% they just seem like a terrible company that needs to just focus on the suburbs. I really hate that so many companies in Columbus are building suburban style in downtown and surrounding. Casto is doing basically the same crap, and should also stay the hell out of downtown construction. 

You’re going to love when I start doing my own projects…

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

You've essentially argued that every building ever proposed for demolition is too costly, insignificant or not historic enough to save. I'm not sure how that squares with the call for the city to be careful with demos they approve. Demolition arguments from the 1960s continue to be the primary factor in the destruction of Columbus' historic buildings. 

 

No I haven't. Stop being dramatic, and stop lying about me.

 

I've supported certain redevelopments because the old building was just an old building, not remarkable or high quality in any way, and the proposed new building would be a massive net positive for the city.

 

I've opposed other demolitions because I felt the existing building featured quality architecture and would be a loss for the city, and/or the proposed the redevelopment would be a net negative for the city.

 

Other times, I've wanted to see the facade saved an incorporated into a new development because I felt the facade was important architecturally while acknowledging the the rest of the building was structurally unsound and could be vastly improved via redevelopment while maintaining the facade.

 

And still there have been other times that I have outright opposed demolition because there was no solidified plan for replacement. I will always oppose such situations unless the current building is somehow a threat to public safety. 

 

Look no further than the post I made on July 16th in The Estrella thread where I stated my opposition to the demolition of the buildings. At the very least, I said I wanted to see the facades maintained. 

41 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

No I haven't. Stop being dramatic, and stop lying about me.

 

I've supported certain redevelopments because the old building was just an old building, not remarkable or high quality in any way, and the proposed new building would be a massive net positive for the city.

 

I've opposed other demolitions because I felt the existing building featured quality architecture and would be a loss for the city, and/or the proposed the redevelopment would be a net negative for the city.

 

Other times, I've wanted to see the facade saved an incorporated into a new development because I felt the facade was important architecturally while acknowledging the the rest of the building was structurally unsound and could be vastly improved via redevelopment while maintaining the facade.

 

And still there have been other times that I have outright opposed demolition because there was no solidified plan for replacement. I will always oppose such situations unless the current building is somehow a threat to public safety. 

 

Look no further than the post I made on July 16th in The Estrella thread where I stated my opposition to the demolition of the buildings. At the very least, I said I wanted to see the facades maintained. 

 

I think we've been on opposite ends of the preservation argument the vast majority of times. If you don't place any value in old or historic structures (there's not much difference in the terms, IMO), fine, but it just seems to me that when you make arguments that the city should be more careful regarding demolitions, that there's not really any intent or care to hold them accountable if they don't. It rings hollow. 

I would also not agree that most of the recent demolitions we've seen have necessarily led to better development. Some modern, cheaply constructed stuff that won't last nearly as long as what they replaced, or in some cases empty lots, but not a lot of what I would call high-quality replacements. 

Yes, I didn't understand your argument about the Dirty Frank's building when you argued for the demolition of arguably much nicer buildings, like the ones on High Street next to the old bank, or even Main Bar. And the SW building has significantly more potential overall than any of those. The SW building is arguably far more architecturally interesting and historic than either of the buildings proposed for demoltion for Estella. So that just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

And saving a facade is not building preservation anymore than saving a single archway from Union Station was. It's the "better than nothing" philosophy that I have come to despise regarding development attitudes in Columbus. That should not be our attitude. 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2024Sep 24 by jonoh81

14 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think we've been on opposite ends of the preservation argument the vast majority of times. If you don't place any value in old or historic structures (there's not much difference in the terms, IMO), fine, but it just seems to me that when you make arguments that the city should be more careful regarding demolitions, that there's not really any intent or care to hold them accountable if they don't. It rings hollow. 

I would also not agree that most of the recent demolitions we've seen have necessarily led to better development. Some modern, cheaply constructed stuff that won't last nearly as long as what they replaced, or in some cases empty lots, but not a lot of what I would call high-quality replacements. 

Yes, I didn't understand your argument about the Dirty Frank's building when you argued for the demolition of arguably much nicer buildings, like the ones on High Street next to the old bank, or even Main Bar. And the SW building has significantly more potential overall than any of those. The SW building is arguably far more architecturally interesting and historic than either of the buildings proposed for demoltion for Estella. So that just seems a bit inconsistent to me.

And saving a facade is not building preservation anymore than saving a single archway from Union Station was. It's the "better than nothing" philosophy that I have come to despise regarding development attitudes in Columbus. That should not be our attitude. 

 

 

The number of high quality buildings recently built in Columbus is very, very low. Step 1 is rule out anything stick framed...