1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Hopefully Eden Burger finds another location. 

Interestingly, they just posted a "Future of Eden Burger" post on Instagram.  I thought it might be related to the sale of the building, but it was just coincidental timing.  Actually, they were recently sued for trademark infringement by Eden Foods and now have to rebrand the whole restaurant after paying thousands in legal fees. They also mention staffing issues and inflation causing them to have to possibly close temporarily. Very bad timing for their building to also be sold.

 

Here's the post: https://www.instagram.com/p/CbsyOG-OFpm/?utm_medium=share_sheet

Edited March 29, 20223 yr by TH3BUDDHA

The Old Urban Outfitters is getting a Walgreens Makeover. Interesting they would choose this space and not a new build with ample parking [side eye to CVS]

 

https://columbusunderground.com/university-district-new-walgreens-unique-renovation-discussed-by-board-bw1/

^bUt ThIs TyPe Of BuSiNeSs NeEdS a DrIvE-tHrU!

33 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Interestingly, they just posted a "Future of Eden Burger" post on Instagram.  I thought it might be related to the sale of the building, but it was just coincidental timing.  Actually, they were recently sued for trademark infringement by Eden Foods and now have to rebrand the whole restaurant after paying thousands in legal fees. They also mention staffing issues and inflation causing them to have to possibly close temporarily. Very bad timing for their building to also be sold.

 

Here's the post: https://www.instagram.com/p/CbsyOG-OFpm/?utm_medium=share_sheet

I saw that, seems like bullsh*t they would have to rebrand. 

I'm glad Walgreens is repurposing the building. There's enough foot traffic that a parking lot is unnecessary. If the Target just up the street can go without a lot, so can this.

I watched the UAIRB meeting on the new Lane and High Proposal and Susan Keeney (?) Is still up there opposing it in entirety. 

 

I'm not used to listening to these so I'm not sure how to fully understand it. It sounds like the commission, is conflicted with the height on the corner but they consistenly want better step downs and at least one wants full preservation with no alterations.

 

One member has specifically asked for a proposal that meets the district guidelines with ZERO variances 'to compare it to.' Developer says that's what they tried with the original. And because they are trying to preserve half the site, they have to condense the parking garage to meet reqirement to half the surface area which results in the addition of several floors at Lane and High. 

 

One called this a spite proposal because it doesn't incorporate the old buildings better. They are just juxtaposed with no interaction. 'Like they were left there as a remnant of the past' (no self awareness detected)

 

Another questions how it is even good urban design. 'We have to ask and question How does this enhance the urban neighborhood?'

 

The next one laments the whole project seems disconnected and HATES the courtyard tunnel. Actually offers it was probably be better to just cap the end. 

 

Lots of bickering and cross talk about density. The commission wants to know what the site allows with no variances in terms of beds, parking, commercial, heights etc. They are putting the onus for presenting that on the developer and not having those baseline numbers readily available as the entity that makes approvals. At one point, they seemed to admonish the developer for not having the baseline readily available. There was a tit for tat over this for some time. Should a developer have that available, probably. But the commission should 100% have those number to throw out to support their position IMO. 

 

There was talk about whether it's even appropriate to combine all the density across the block and allow it to be placed on the corner even if it's within space and use requirements etc. 'We probably shouldn't allow the transfer of density from one half to the other. The massing to accomplish that doesn't seem appropriate'

 

Here's the most interesting bit. There was a bit of dodging on both sides TBH. The developer wouldn't disclose how many beds the prior proposal was. 'We threw it out based on your feedback so I dont even remember'. But eventually someone got the developer to outline how many beds the 17 story proposal is. 732 beds with the current proposal. The prior proposal had 154 units. Even at those numbers of units, the old proposal would have had 4.75 beds per unit. At 4 beds per unit, 732 is 183 units. And so on. The commission basically said, yeah, don't try to pull one over like that. That seems like you're trying to exceed the allowance. AND YET NO ONE CAME PREPARED WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ALLOWED IS to even come forth with an inkling of how it compares. So we don't know if 732 is a little over or a lot over but the commission believes it sounds like a lot. 

 

The developer did come back and threw a couple points back and asked if what the commission is requesting are zoning rules or guidelines and the commission had to admit they were pushing hard on guidelines. And the developer even pointed out that the 17 story proposal requires less variances (3) than other concepts that spread it out more. 

 

The main take away is, this is probably going to be a lengthy process like King and High. 

 

Another take away is how freaking trivial so much of this is. For the old Trolley Barns one commissioner took issue with the awning being slightly too high and the project doesn't feel 'homey enough' for a residential proposal. 

 

These folks would not want me on that board for sure. They'd be looking for ways to kick me off when I sit there and basically support the developer or call them out on whether it matters that an awning appears to be a little too high. And the way I would just want to tell Susan Keeney so sit down at every meeting lol

Thanks for sitting through that for us! I usually can’t make it through any of them very long, since so many of the comments end up sounding like a Facebook thread come to life 😂

Just now, amped91 said:

Thanks for sitting through that for us! I usually can’t make it through any of them very long, since so many of the comments end up sounding like a Facebook thread come to life 😂

 

I usually just wait for minutes but I saw it on the agenda and was too interested to wait for them. I'm not sure I'll do it again. 

So, did the UAIRB vote on the project? What was the result of the meeting?

No vote. The meeting abruptly ended after the tit for tat. Specifically after the developer forced the board to specify if they were pushing for rules or guidelines. There was a silence and then someone said unless there's any other questions the meeting is over. They didn't even go as far as to review an action plan for the developer. 

 

It was pretty odd as a first time listener. No wrap up. No 'lets make sure we are all on the same page on what you need to come back with' none of that. So the developer is taking the 20 minutes of back and forth and supposed to just come back with something. 

 

Which sounds like is the issue to begin with. The developer said this proposal was based on feedback from the last meeting but they weren't specific so they tried to meld the comments into something new to present. And now they have to take 20 minutes of comments flying back and forth and come back with something else I guess. 

 

Another reason they would hate me. I'm the person in the meeting who will hold everyone over to 'recap' lol 

1 hour ago, DTCL11 said:

No vote. The meeting abruptly ended after the tit for tat. Specifically after the developer forced the board to specify if they were pushing for rules or guidelines. There was a silence and then someone said unless there's any other questions the meeting is over. They didn't even go as far as to review an action plan for the developer. 

 

It was pretty odd as a first time listener. No wrap up. No 'lets make sure we are all on the same page on what you need to come back with' none of that. So the developer is taking the 20 minutes of back and forth and supposed to just come back with something. 

 

Which sounds like is the issue to begin with. The developer said this proposal was based on feedback from the last meeting but they weren't specific so they tried to meld the comments into something new to present. And now they have to take 20 minutes of comments flying back and forth and come back with something else I guess. 

 

Another reason they would hate me. I'm the person in the meeting who will hold everyone over to 'recap' lol 

I wonder if they could just take it to the city, since the board isn’t telling them what they have to do. 

12 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

I watched the UAIRB meeting on the new Lane and High Proposal and Susan Keeney (?) Is still up there opposing it in entirety. 

 

I'm not used to listening to these so I'm not sure how to fully understand it. It sounds like the commission, is conflicted with the height on the corner but they consistenly want better step downs and at least one wants full preservation with no alterations.

 

One member has specifically asked for a proposal that meets the district guidelines with ZERO variances 'to compare it to.' Developer says that's what they tried with the original. And because they are trying to preserve half the site, they have to condense the parking garage to meet reqirement to half the surface area which results in the addition of several floors at Lane and High. 

 

One called this a spite proposal because it doesn't incorporate the old buildings better. They are just juxtaposed with no interaction. 'Like they were left there as a remnant of the past' (no self awareness detected)

 

Another questions how it is even good urban design. 'We have to ask and question How does this enhance the urban neighborhood?'

 

The next one laments the whole project seems disconnected and HATES the courtyard tunnel. Actually offers it was probably be better to just cap the end. 

 

Lots of bickering and cross talk about density. The commission wants to know what the site allows with no variances in terms of beds, parking, commercial, heights etc. They are putting the onus for presenting that on the developer and not having those baseline numbers readily available as the entity that makes approvals. At one point, they seemed to admonish the developer for not having the baseline readily available. There was a tit for tat over this for some time. Should a developer have that available, probably. But the commission should 100% have those number to throw out to support their position IMO. 

 

There was talk about whether it's even appropriate to combine all the density across the block and allow it to be placed on the corner even if it's within space and use requirements etc. 'We probably shouldn't allow the transfer of density from one half to the other. The massing to accomplish that doesn't seem appropriate'

 

Here's the most interesting bit. There was a bit of dodging on both sides TBH. The developer wouldn't disclose how many beds the prior proposal was. 'We threw it out based on your feedback so I dont even remember'. But eventually someone got the developer to outline how many beds the 17 story proposal is. 732 beds with the current proposal. The prior proposal had 154 units. Even at those numbers of units, the old proposal would have had 4.75 beds per unit. At 4 beds per unit, 732 is 183 units. And so on. The commission basically said, yeah, don't try to pull one over like that. That seems like you're trying to exceed the allowance. AND YET NO ONE CAME PREPARED WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ALLOWED IS to even come forth with an inkling of how it compares. So we don't know if 732 is a little over or a lot over but the commission believes it sounds like a lot. 

 

The developer did come back and threw a couple points back and asked if what the commission is requesting are zoning rules or guidelines and the commission had to admit they were pushing hard on guidelines. And the developer even pointed out that the 17 story proposal requires less variances (3) than other concepts that spread it out more. 

 

The main take away is, this is probably going to be a lengthy process like King and High. 

 

Another take away is how freaking trivial so much of this is. For the old Trolley Barns one commissioner took issue with the awning being slightly too high and the project doesn't feel 'homey enough' for a residential proposal. 

 

These folks would not want me on that board for sure. They'd be looking for ways to kick me off when I sit there and basically support the developer or call them out on whether it matters that an awning appears to be a little too high. And the way I would just want to tell Susan Keeney so sit down at every meeting lol

This sounds like an absolute nightmare. Are meetings usually like this? I am starting to feel for the developers. Does the city needs to revamp these commissions and exactly what they are able to do? 

 

Why are they like this? It really sounds like they don't know what they are doing. 

 

*I will say that over 700 beds does sound like a lot. Other than that... How could you just sit there and not stand up and start taking them to task and get thrown out? lol.

 

The developer should give them their setbacks, condense the site more, and go to 25 floors.  Reach out to former mayor Coleman to gather city(not commission)support for it. 

15 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

I watched the UAIRB meeting on the new Lane and High Proposal and Susan Keeney (?) Is still up there opposing it in entirety. 

 

I'm not used to listening to these so I'm not sure how to fully understand it. It sounds like the commission, is conflicted with the height on the corner but they consistenly want better step downs and at least one wants full preservation with no alterations.

 

One member has specifically asked for a proposal that meets the district guidelines with ZERO variances 'to compare it to.' Developer says that's what they tried with the original. And because they are trying to preserve half the site, they have to condense the parking garage to meet reqirement to half the surface area which results in the addition of several floors at Lane and High. 

 

One called this a spite proposal because it doesn't incorporate the old buildings better. They are just juxtaposed with no interaction. 'Like they were left there as a remnant of the past' (no self awareness detected)

 

Another questions how it is even good urban design. 'We have to ask and question How does this enhance the urban neighborhood?'

 

The next one laments the whole project seems disconnected and HATES the courtyard tunnel. Actually offers it was probably be better to just cap the end. 

 

Lots of bickering and cross talk about density. The commission wants to know what the site allows with no variances in terms of beds, parking, commercial, heights etc. They are putting the onus for presenting that on the developer and not having those baseline numbers readily available as the entity that makes approvals. At one point, they seemed to admonish the developer for not having the baseline readily available. There was a tit for tat over this for some time. Should a developer have that available, probably. But the commission should 100% have those number to throw out to support their position IMO. 

 

There was talk about whether it's even appropriate to combine all the density across the block and allow it to be placed on the corner even if it's within space and use requirements etc. 'We probably shouldn't allow the transfer of density from one half to the other. The massing to accomplish that doesn't seem appropriate'

 

Here's the most interesting bit. There was a bit of dodging on both sides TBH. The developer wouldn't disclose how many beds the prior proposal was. 'We threw it out based on your feedback so I dont even remember'. But eventually someone got the developer to outline how many beds the 17 story proposal is. 732 beds with the current proposal. The prior proposal had 154 units. Even at those numbers of units, the old proposal would have had 4.75 beds per unit. At 4 beds per unit, 732 is 183 units. And so on. The commission basically said, yeah, don't try to pull one over like that. That seems like you're trying to exceed the allowance. AND YET NO ONE CAME PREPARED WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ALLOWED IS to even come forth with an inkling of how it compares. So we don't know if 732 is a little over or a lot over but the commission believes it sounds like a lot. 

 

The developer did come back and threw a couple points back and asked if what the commission is requesting are zoning rules or guidelines and the commission had to admit they were pushing hard on guidelines. And the developer even pointed out that the 17 story proposal requires less variances (3) than other concepts that spread it out more. 

 

The main take away is, this is probably going to be a lengthy process like King and High. 

 

Another take away is how freaking trivial so much of this is. For the old Trolley Barns one commissioner took issue with the awning being slightly too high and the project doesn't feel 'homey enough' for a residential proposal. 

 

These folks would not want me on that board for sure. They'd be looking for ways to kick me off when I sit there and basically support the developer or call them out on whether it matters that an awning appears to be a little too high. And the way I would just want to tell Susan Keeney so sit down at every meeting lol

Welcome to the exciting world of local politics where personal opinions affecting big decisions and stubborn board members are the norm! It's an absolutely infuriating process, it's a major reason why I had to get out of government work.

Construction on Ohio State's new lacrosse stadium is now vertical

 

 

 

Energy Advancement and Innovation Center (Lane and Kenny)

Take a look at Ohio State's University Square event space, Vitria
 

 

“The first few buildings at the 15th and High development opened last summer. The event space will follow in early 2023, said Amanda Hoffsis, president of Campus Partners, the school's real estate offshoot.
 

The 5,500-square-foot grand ballroom will fit more than 300 people. The terrace ballroom, which features a glass balcony, will span 2,000 square feet and hold about 100 guests.
 

On the first floor of the building, Roots and Bubbles Tea and Juice Company are currently open. Barrio is working on their space now and will open in the fall. 
 

The second office building planned, University Square South, will be completed later this year. Plans are also still in the works for a hotel, a 500-car garage and a potential third office building.”

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/04/15/15th-and-high-event-space.html

residential on East 9th

 

 

Couple from yesterday evening of West Campus Innovation District.

(near Carmack and Kenny)

 

 

 

2 hours ago, CbusOrBust said:

Couple from yesterday evening of West Campus Innovation District.

(near Carmack and Kenny)

 

 

 

This is the West Campus Outpatient facility -- the webcam has great context of the two other West campus projects (Interdisciplinary Research center and Energy center) as well as Arlington Gateway on Lane in the distance. There is a drone video of one of the pieces of machinery for the specialty cancer treatment that this facility will offer (first of its kind in OH): 

 

No new solid development plans for the Innovation District, but former economic development leader for Dublin was brought on for her experience with Bridge Park. Which may give an idea for where OSU is going with the residential/retail portion of the district. President Johnson also recently hinted at future uses for the build out. 
 

Colleen Gilger leading business attraction for Ohio State's Innovation District

 

“After nearly 20 years leading economic development for the city of Dublin, Colleen Gilgerhas joined Ohio State University to attract businesses to its Innovation District.
 

Land-use planning is still under way for the 270 acres – the size of nine Bridge Parks – on west campus southwest of Kenny Road and Lane Avenue. The $3 billion to $4 billion in development will take up to 30 years.
 

OSU President Kristina Johnson last week announced the creation of research centers for gene therapy – which will be located in the district – and quantum computing. They'll join eight other dedicated centers, including one for using the human immune system to fight cancer.
 

Ohio State also could build offices, laboratories and cleanrooms that could be rented by university spinoffs or other growing startups that graduate from incubators but aren't yet ready for a full headquarters.“

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/04/27/ohio-state-colleen-gilger-innovation-district.html

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

the size of nine Bridge Parks

Can this be our new unit of measurement?

54 minutes ago, PizzaScissors said:

Can this be our new unit of measurement?

 

One Intel = +/-13 Innovation Districts = 120 Bridge Parks

9 Bridge parks = +/- 63 Skywalks. Better place that order now. 

OSU's new Natural Gas Plant 

 

 

 

Ohio State area adding 400-unit apartment development from Austin firm

 

 

"Austin-based LV Collective this week closed on its purchase of 222 W. Lane Ave., where it plans to build a 400-unit apartment development.

 

The project, intended to appeal to Ohio State University students, was first proposed last fall.

 

The seven-story multifamily, student-oriented building the firm plans to develop will consist of 379 units and 885 beds. It should be ready for occupants in the fall of 2025, according to a media release.

 

Demolition work at the site will start late this summer.

 

Five floors will be residential units, including two-level townhomes. There will also be an indoor-outdoor cafe on the ground floor and a private study area. Amenities will include a gym with indoor-outdoor fitness areas and a third-story pool deck with a jumbotron and a view of Ohio Stadium."

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/05/19/ohio-state-apartments-lv-collective.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_10&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

 

1 hour ago, Luvcbus said:

Ohio State area adding 400-unit apartment development from Austin firm

 

 

"Austin-based LV Collective this week closed on its purchase of 222 W. Lane Ave., where it plans to build a 400-unit apartment development.

 

The project, intended to appeal to Ohio State University students, was first proposed last fall.

 

The seven-story multifamily, student-oriented building the firm plans to develop will consist of 379 units and 885 beds. It should be ready for occupants in the fall of 2025, according to a media release.

 

Demolition work at the site will start late this summer.

 

Five floors will be residential units, including two-level townhomes. There will also be an indoor-outdoor cafe on the ground floor and a private study area. Amenities will include a gym with indoor-outdoor fitness areas and a third-story pool deck with a jumbotron and a view of Ohio Stadium."

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/05/19/ohio-state-apartments-lv-collective.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_10&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

 

Are they demolishing the already existing apartment building right there or would this be more of an add on and renovation of the existing structure?

4 minutes ago, TIm said:

Are they demolishing the already existing apartment building right there or would this be more of an add on and renovation of the existing structure?

I believe the old building will be tore down

2 hours ago, Luvcbus said:

I believe the old building will be tore down

Wow, that's going to be significant. The current apartment is likely quite outdated I would imagine and it was a fairly poor use of space. Like why do they have all that pavement out front when there aren't even parking spots there? It's just all dead space leading up to the sidewalk.

 

Not relevant at all, but the Columbus Fire Department was doing some kind of big training at that building yesterday. There were a ton of trucks and what not on the premise with ladders going up to various windows. It was kinda cool, just made a ton of traffic on Lane.

 

EDIT: Went on their website as well, they are no longer even leasing apartments. Makes a lot more sense why they were using it for training now, I thought that would annoy some residents.

Edited May 19, 20223 yr by TIm
Spelling and Edit

It's okay, but the previous proposal for the site was so much better.

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

It's okay, but the previous proposal for the site was so much better.

I agree, although I think this new development is bigger in overall sq ft, which will make the area feel more dense. There are so many open lots along lane that hopefully the next few developments are higher. 

Edited May 19, 20223 yr by VintageLife

2 hours ago, VintageLife said:

I agree, although I think this new development is bigger in overall sq ft, which will make the area feel more dense. There are so many open lots along lane that hopefully the next few developments are higher. 

 

In this case, it's not about density or height, I just think it's painfully boring architecturally.  

I'm really excited for this! I just wish they'd build it taller 😁

 

I live close-by and it always bothers me how underutilized West Lane is. It should be just like High Street considering how much foot traffic the street has. I dream of a dense uninterrupted-streetwall all the way from High Street to the Olentangy River...

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

In this case, it's not about density or height, I just think it's painfully boring architecturally.  

It could be more unique, but at least it’s an improvement on the Soviet era-looking building it’s replacing 😆

 

 

Vertical construction has begun on the new Ohio State Lacrosse Stadium

 

 

What a huge disappointment this is. Not only is it half the size has the original proposal, it looks horrendous. Sick of the commissions having so much power.  

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

What a huge disappointment this is. Not only is it half the size has the original proposal, it looks horrendous. Sick of the commissions having so much power.  

No. Way.

 

This is just a travesty. Not only is the height completely knocked down, but so are the original buildings on High St. that were to be preserved in this development. The rendering is also horribly ugly with one, giant, Soviet-esque building block with weird gray squares in a feeble attempt to break up the monotony. This is now the reigning poster child of how area commission can completely f*ck up a decent proposal. I for one am not happy. 

Edited May 21, 20223 yr by CMHOhio

1 hour ago, CMHOhio said:

No. Way.

 

This is just a travesty. Not only is the height completely knocked down, but so are the original buildings on High St. that were to be preserved in this development. The rendering is also horribly ugly with one, giant, Soviet-esque building block with weird gray squares in a feeble attempt to break up the monotony. This is now the reigning poster child of how area commission can completely f*ck up a decent proposal. I for one am not happy. 

I’m curious if they are throwing this out to say, if you want us to preserve those buildings in a certain way, we need the height we wanted, or else those buildings are gone. 
 

it looks exactly like the 15th and high building that has target in it. 

This proposal is essentially identical to their first proposal for the site, which the commission was very set against. There is no way they will vote in favor of this. From the letter at the beginning of their application, it seems the developer is anticipating a denial and gearing up for a lawsuit based on the fact that this project "meets the zoning code"

 

For all of you guys bashing the commission, they have been the ones pushing for preservation of the existing building in favor of more height this entire time. If there was no commission at all, or they had less power - the hideous proposal in front of us now would already be under construction

Edited May 21, 20223 yr by NW24HX

2 hours ago, NW24HX said:

This proposal is essentially identical to their first proposal for the site, which the commission was very set against. There is no way they will vote in favor of this. From the letter at the beginning of their application, it seems the developer is anticipating a denial and gearing up for a lawsuit based on the fact that this project "meets the zoning code"

 

For all of you guys bashing the commission, they have been the ones pushing for preservation of the existing building in favor of more height this entire time. If there was no commission at all, or they had less power - the hideous proposal in front of us now would already be under construction

The commission was not in support of a taller building. There was only 1 that said a 12 story wouldn’t be out of the question. Then said they want something more along the height of buildings in the short north, which are mostly under 10 stories.

 

pretty sure the commission pissed off the developer, that changed designs to incorporate the historic buildings, and the developer will now go back to their original design that meets code and build it. They don’t have to follow the commission if what they are proposing fits the code. 
 

one of the commission members said they didn’t believe the height should be over 72 ft. So the developer is now proposing a 7 story building and can do whatever they want with the historic building. It’s called compromise and the developer did their part to incorporate a historic building. The commission still complained. 

Edited May 21, 20223 yr by VintageLife

Man, this sucks. The nod to the row houses in the façade on the north end of the west elevation are just a slap in the face. 

6 hours ago, VintageLife said:

I’m curious if they are throwing this out to say, if you want us to preserve those buildings in a certain way, we need the height we wanted, or else those buildings are gone. 
 

it looks exactly like the 15th and high building that has target in it. 

Thats exactly what I thought when I read the letter detailing each iteration that the commission essentially struck down. 

Damn just let the developer put a nice 20 story building on the south side of this area with parking in a garage at the bottom above the ground level retail etc. and have them leave the rest alone. Hell there are buildings over 12 floors just down the street off Lane. What is the problem?

 

A 20 story building would have much less negative problems regarding anything compared to the 7 story Sovietesque building taking up the entire site. I blame most of this on the stupid commission.  And now look what the area is facing. smdh.

 

They could ask for a 20 floor building with nice design and good materials to be an iconic landmark for the area, but no.... If they were willing to go 17 floors they would probably be willing to go taller and add more floors and settle for that and the retail addition along Norwich and Pearl.

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by Toddguy

University District: New Proposals Submitted for Two Sites on High Street

 

New proposals for two prominent sites on High Street will be presented to the University Impact District Review Board this week.

 

At the corner of High and North Street, a new owner of the long-vacant site that once held Patrick J’s bar and a White Castle restaurant wants to build a six-story building on the property. A previous plan for the site, from Borror Properties, called for a three-story, 56-unit apartment building with first floor retail. That plan was approved in 2018 but never built, and the site was later put up for sale.

 

A company called Stark Capital Ventures LLC, which is connected to the Columbus-based hotel and retail specialist Sintel Properties, bought the parcel in March for $1.95 million, according to Franklin County Auditor records. The new plan calls for an 80-unit building featuring five floors of apartments over first-floor commercial and amenity space. A parking lot with room for about 70 cars would sit behind the building and to its north, in the Clintonville portion of the site (the southern portion sits in Old North Columbus).

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/university-district-new-proposals-submitted-for-two-sites-on-high-street-bw1/

 

The 9th Ave project has a pretty massive presence. That shaft tho!

 

 

High and 8th project continues to rise:

 

King and High also continues to rise (try telling the two pics apart!):

 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

That shaft tho!

Tell us more!  🤣😂

Georgia developer continues to push for Lane and High project near Ohio State

 

A Georgia-based developer that wants to change the look of the intersection at Lane and High says it will keep working after the University Impact District Review Board sent its designs back to the drawing board.

 

"The process has been difficult at times due to varying opinions of the members of the design review board, but we appreciate both their and the city’s efforts to come to an agreement regarding what a successful project looks like in this location," Jason Doornbos, executive managing director of development for Landmark Properties, said in an emailed statement.

 

"We look forward to continuing our work with both of these entities as we move the project through the entitlement and permitting process."

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/06/08/lane-high-osu-development.html

 

16 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Georgia developer continues to push for Lane and High project near Ohio State

 

A Georgia-based developer that wants to change the look of the intersection at Lane and High says it will keep working after the University Impact District Review Board sent its designs back to the drawing board.

 

"The process has been difficult at times due to varying opinions of the members of the design review board, but we appreciate both their and the city’s efforts to come to an agreement regarding what a successful project looks like in this location," Jason Doornbos, executive managing director of development for Landmark Properties, said in an emailed statement.

 

"We look forward to continuing our work with both of these entities as we move the project through the entitlement and permitting process."

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/06/08/lane-high-osu-development.html

 

They are just going to do a sh*tty 6 story at the corner and leave the historic part alone. 

2 hours ago, VintageLife said:

They are just going to do a sh*tty 6 story at the corner and leave the historic part alone. 

Yeah that's the "read between the lines" message I got out of this as well. Developer wants to do something cool but the review board is all over the place so they'll likely just put out the most bland development proposal they can think of and that's what will get accepted.

This is such a shame. It's such a prominent intersection deserving of a better building than a run-of-the-mill 6-story block. Really disappointed in the University Impact District Review Board and how this project proposal has played out thus far.

 

Harrison House is about to get Loewendicked. Equipment on site and a giant earth ramp is installed on the north side. I guess they need the ramp so their equipment can reach the top?