22 minutes ago, amped91 said:

CBF with a little more info:

 

Rogue Fitness connected to plans for apartments, commercial space on Cleveland Avenue in Milo-Grogan
 

 

“A group of entities tied to Rogue Fitness are working to build a mixed-use building on Cleveland Avenue in Milo-Grogan. 

 

The proposed plans include a five-story building with 90 apartments, 3,600 square feet of commercial space and a 274-square-foot patio. When Columbus City Council comes back into session on Sept. 12, the zoning committee will consider a variance for the 986 Cleveland Ave. site.

 

Tony Celebrezze III, assistant director of the building and zoning services department, said the July 2021 ordinance rezoned the site, but after further planning, the applicants couldn't make some elements work so they're now asking for a variance. 
 

Once the variance is approved, the city will have to approve a site plan and building permits, Celebrezze told Columbus Business First.”

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/09/06/rogue-fitness-related-entities-plan-apartments-in.html

Thank god they are adding some commercial space! 

Columbus developer Arch City Development is bringing small warehouse space to Milo Grogan

 

 

Arch City Development's Brian Higgins is in the rezoning process to build a 13,500-square-foot speculative warehouse in Milo Grogan, his first industrial project.

The warehouse would be located at 776 E. 1st Ave. on currently vacant land. Higgins said he hopes to start construction in the spring, Construction would last about six months.

This warehouse would be smaller than many recently completed in other parts of Central Ohio, which could attract a different kind of tenant.

That address shows up as next to Jeffery park, and shows a building, so not sure if that is correct, or what. 

E 1st does run in front of Jeffrey Park, but there’s a section of it a little further east. This is the vacant land:

 

 

I like the pops of color  in the rendering. And looks like it’s probably a good space for a small warehouse. 
 

I also thought his rendering at the bottom of the article for the East Side apartment building looked good. 

31 minutes ago, amped91 said:

E 1st does run in front of Jeffrey Park, but there’s a section of it a little further east. This is the vacant land:

 

 

I like the pops of color  in the rendering. And looks like it’s probably a good space for a small warehouse. 
 

I also thought his rendering at the bottom of the article for the East Side apartment building looked good. 

Thank you, mine was showing up on the west side of 71 and I knew it was the right location. 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

E 1st does run in front of Jeffrey Park, but there’s a section of it a little further east. This is the vacant land:

 

 

I like the pops of color  in the rendering. And looks like it’s probably a good space for a small warehouse. 
 

I also thought his rendering at the bottom of the article for the East Side apartment building looked good. 

There is absolutely a need for small warehousing space like this as well. Plenty of small companies operating out of small facilities they've outgrown quickly and need extra storage/warehousing space for materials and whatever their final product is. Not every warehouse needs to be 800,000sq ft.

In fact, demand for warehouse space under 400k sqft is even higher than that of larger spaces currently.

28 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

In fact, demand for warehouse space under 400k sqft is even higher than that of larger spaces currently.

I feel like it’s the same thing with retail space. I hate that everything is so big, small businesses don’t usually want 5,000 sq ft and would much rather have some more option under 1,000, so they can afford it. Hopefully some of the downtown resurgence includes pushing developers to add smaller retail spots. 

39 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

In fact, demand for warehouse space under 400k sqft is even higher than that of larger spaces currently.

I have a few clients who operate 800,000 sq ft+ facilities, one of them being exclusively a warehouse. 800,000sq ft is SO MUCH SPACE. Hundreds of people working in there at a time and there is so much extra room. Some businesses only need a few thousand sq ft of warehouse space at most.

I agree this is a nice little project in a central but very underutilized location, and I like the pops of color 🌈

 

On 11/17/2021 at 4:13 PM, amped91 said:

Exactly what this corridor needs: another gas station and an AAP right across from Auto Zone 🤮 

 

Gas Station, Auto Parts Store Planned for Milo-Grogan

 

“An auto parts store is currently under construction at the northwest corner of Fifth and Cleveland Avenues, and a gas station is planned for a 1.3-acre parcel on the east side of the intersection. 

 

The gas station, a Thorntons, would have access driveways on both Cleveland and Fifth, but would be built around the existing Church’s Chicken store on the corner. 

 

The project received a vote of approval from the Development Commission in May and has been submitted to City Council, according to staff, but has yet to scheduled for a vote. The approval was conditioned on brick piers and fencing being added to the edges of the site.

 

The Development Commission approval came despite a recommendation of disapproval from city staff. A staff report cited the location of the Thorntons store as the primary issue – it sits back on the site, removed from both Cleveland and Fifth, whereas the city’s Urban Commercial Overlay requires new buildings to be constructed close to the street. 

 

The project will require the demolition of an existing, two-story office building at 638 E. Fifth Ave., as well as a one-story building at 1104 Cleveland Ave. that is occupied by Kingdom Life Church.”

 

https://www.columbusunderground.com/gas-station-auto-parts-store-planned-for-milo-grogan-bw1/?fbclid=IwAR35gYW0AJl1XbDTk1UlzlKjYoreqH_cMSZ02RDZbd_pY6LyfD9HX7qIyOo
 

Apparently these are okay, but the Rogue stadium is just too much 🙄

The two story office building is also gone, so the gas station must be moving forward. 
 

it also looks like the empty Wendy’s building will be demoed to make room for a new Moo Moo. 

16 minutes ago, amped91 said:

The two story office building is also gone, so the gas station must be moving forward. 
 

it also looks like the empty Wendy’s building will be demoed to make room for a new Moo Moo. 

This area should be used to make a little retail/restaurant corridor, but no, let’s add a bunch of dumb s**t. It is more of a suburban feel than some suburbs. 

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by VintageLife

Another flippin moo moo?! They just put one on Silver at Hudson. 

I mean...

Hmmm

 

6 minutes ago, amped91 said:

Hmmm

 

Will be an interesting one to watch. I don’t expect it to be a separate retail space, but part of the office space. 

13 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Will be an interesting one to watch. I don’t expect it to be a separate retail space, but part of the office space. 

You mean like the current retail space? It'll probably remain there, but be 15k square feet larger.

 

Seeing as Rogue owns all the buildings south of them along Starr, and the project is titled Rogue South, it doesn't appear anything will happen with the Fifth Ave frontage. Perhaps they still want to do their arena? 

I believe this is new. Near Camden and Leona Avenues, just south of the train tracks. The land is currently zoned manufacturing, and most of it looks vacant. Three hundred twenty four units dubbed Camden Avenue Apartments. Too bad this one is so surface lot dominated too. 
 

 

2 hours ago, amped91 said:

I believe this is new. Near Camden and Leona Avenues, just south of the train tracks. The land is currently zoned manufacturing, and most of it looks vacant. Three hundred twenty four units dubbed Camden Avenue Apartments. Too bad this one is so surface lot dominated too. 
 

 

 

Nice find. Agreed, it'd be preferable if they made pedestrian access to 5th better to encourage use of COTA routes 9 and 22. It seems like such a car-centric development in an urban part of the city would lead to a lot more congestion in this neighborhood.

New Apartments Proposed, Renovation Project Moves Forward in Milo-Grogan

 

 

A proposal to build a 217-unit apartment complex in Milo-Grogan will be heard by the Columbus Development Commission next week.
 

The project, from the Bellevue, Washington-based firm Devco, calls for three four-story buildings to be constructed at 1160 Camden Ave.

The property is located in the northeast corner of the neighborhood and bordered by train tracks on two sides – it’s a 12-acre site that is mostly vacant and is currently zoned for manufacturing. 

 

A different plan for the site, which would have seen a collection of commercial and light industrial buildings constructed on the parcel, was announced in early 2021 but never came to fruition

217 units in 12 acres would be an offensively poor use of land in Reynoldsburg, let alone in the heart of the city. When there's like 2x-3x more asphalt than building, there's a problem. Also, the enormous edge lawns could fit a few more buildings all by themselves. 

Edited November 3, 20231 yr by jonoh81

42 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

217 units in 12 acres would be an offensively poor use of land in Reynoldsburg, let alone in the heart of the city. When there's like 2x-3x more asphalt than building, there's a problem. Also, the enormous edge lawns could fit a few more buildings all by themselves. 

Exactly what I said in the article comments. I’ll take housing either way,  but it’s a giant waste to only fill it that much. 
 

it seems developers (and the city) are trying to treat the milo area like a suburb and it’s going to be awful if it’s continued to be viewed like that. 

Edited November 3, 20231 yr by VintageLife

50 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

217 units in 12 acres would be an offensively poor use of land in Reynoldsburg, let alone in the heart of the city. When there's like 2x-3x more asphalt than building, there's a problem. Also, the enormous edge lawns could fit a few more buildings all by themselves. 

As a reply to this comment and the other below it’s completely land locked and not on a Main Street. I’m ok with this especially the buffer from the tracks. 
 

Just because the land is available doesn’t mean it’s completely available to develop.

3 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

As a reply to this comment and the other below it’s completely land locked and not on a Main Street. I’m ok with this especially the buffer from the tracks. 
 

Just because the land is available doesn’t mean it’s completely available to develop.

 

Not getting your point. So we can only have density if it exists on a main corridor? Also, there are literally 4 streets that intersect the site, and if planned correctly, another outlet could lead directly to 5th Avenue, so if this is a concern about traffic being concentrated on small streets, that seems wildly misplaced. 

It's another 'well, it's by the railroad line and not a major or popular road so it's finneeeeeee' set of excuses like the south side ones. 

 

What makes this different than awkward Land with railroad 

 

There's no excuses. The city needs to adopt reasonable standards for land use. This is an outside of 270 style development. Not remotely appropriate for an inner core neighborhood. Beyond that, it's within 5 minutes walking to Cleveland and 5th. One of which is intended to be a major mass transit Corridor.  They can build the same units but maximize land for future use and that's what the city needs to push. Fine, you can't fill the land now, but don't c*** block future infill with trash developments.  The core neighborhoods are littered with odd rail or highway adjacent properties. We wouldn't accept it in Franklinton. We wouldn't accept it in Italian Village. Milo and the south end should be no different. 

 

Stop justifying poor development. It enables more poor development.  

Edited November 3, 20231 yr by DTCL11

My point was that density does not need to be everywhere. In the specific instance it’s not needed. Be thankful a company not based here is looking to invest in a community that needs it.

18 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

My point was that density does not need to be everywhere. In the specific instance it’s not needed. Be thankful a company not based here is looking to invest in a community that needs it.

 

Your point is contradictory to good urban design. That point can fly somewhere else but this is another example of people giving  excuses to a place that is wholly inappropriate and saying we should be thankful to corporate overlords instead of holding them accountable to responsible community development. We could have applied this same logic to Jeffery Park. And any reason as to why Jeffrey Park would can be applied to 12 acres here. If we had accepted this type of development 15-20 years ago in Italian village we'd be kicking ourselves today. Let's not make those same mistakes in our other core neighborhoods. They all deserve the same expectations of responsible land use. 

 

And there is a difference in not building dense and preventing future density. This is practically a literal stone throw from 2 major commuter routes, blue collar jobs, etc. Railroad tracks on a dead end street in an unpopular neighborhood (for now) shouldn't override the litany of other reasons this is precisely where density should be prioritized. Cleveland and 5th being ripe for a neighborhood hub. Practically down the street from some of the fastest growing and most popular neighborhoods in the city. Come on, the excuses are just trash. And I will die on that hill for the betterment of the city as it grows. 

 

And no excuses of its their money. The request is simple. Put the same investment in at the same cost. Just rearrange the land use to allow future development. Not that hard and not demanding. 

Edited November 3, 20231 yr by DTCL11

5 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

 

Your point is contradictory to good urban design. That point can fly somewhere else but this is another example of people giving  excuses to a place that is wholly inappropriate and saying we should be thankful to corporate overlords instead of holding them accountable to responsible community development. We could have applied this same logic to Jeffery Park. And any reason as to why Jeffrey Park would can be applied to 12 acres here. If we had accepted this type of development 15-20 years ago in Italian village we'd be kicking ourselves today. Let's not make those same mistakes in our other core neighborhoods. They all deserve the same expectations of responsible land use. 

 

And there is a difference in not building dense and preventing future density. This is practically a literal stone throw from 2 major commuter routes, blue collar jobs, etc. Railroad tracks on a dead end street in an unpopular neighborhood (for now) shouldn't override the litany of other reasons this is precisely where density should be prioritized. Cleveland and 5th being ripe for a neighborhood hub. Practically down the street from some of the fastest growing and most popular neighborhoods in the city. Come on, the excuses are just trash. And I will die on that hill for the betterment of the city as it grows. 

 

And no excuses of its their money. The request is simple. Put the same investment in at the same cost. Just rearrange the land use to allow future development. Not that hard and not demanding. 

It’s not in an urban neighborhood or on a main thoroughfare so it’s not apples to apples with the Jeffrey in any sense of the word. It’s tucked in the very back of an existing single family home neighborhood which at best is going to get you what’s going on at Grant Park.

I too would love it to spur this neighborhood. So again let’s come back to reality a bit and be at least somewhat thankful that someone is willing to invest on that side of 71 in MG.

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by wpcc88

2 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

be at least somewhat thankful that someone is willing to invest on that side of 71 in MG.

 

 

I know the spot. The map isn't going to change my mind and it shouldn't.  I reject the notion that this isn't important or an urban neighborhood. Being tucked into adjacent single family homes is most of Franklinton, German Village, Victorian Village but you want to say this is not an urban neighborhood? The biases are clear.  Again, if 2 blocks from a major thorough fare  and transit route and 5-10 minutes from a current CMAX and future rapid transit is excuse enough to say its not close enough to be that important, that encompasses so much of this city. That literally contradicts trying to invest in these corridors when things eaily walkable to these corridors and transit lines are given suburban go aheads and identified as non urban neighborhoods... what? The premise that because it's not 'on' a thoroughfare but is easily within walking distance, that a surburban land use is fine, well, thats just nuts. That's literally half of Jeffrey Park. 2 blocks from 4th. Bound by railroad and highway. 5-10 minutes walk from a second thoroughfare. And heck, 4th only gets you transit North. So it's accessibility is even more limited because of the distance you have to go to get southbound transit. And 2nd is not nearly the transit, public or private Corridor for job centers that 5th is either. In fact, it's probably easier to get to downtown, Easton, and Polaris among other major job centers from the location than Jeffrey Park. So yeah, not apples to apples, but that's my point. There are excuses as to why it's OK to have bad land use over much of these inner neighborhoods but they aren't nearly as relevant as to why it's important to prioritize better land use. And we shouldn't be limiting our idea of urban neighborhoods to those that are popular or directly adjacent to downtown or what side of 71 it fall on. Good urban development, whether that be higher density, or single and multifamily homes like Grant Park should all be important for using the land properly across the city. 

 

Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Poor. Developments. In. The. Core. Period. 

 

Being thankful for trash, claiming to call back to reality, you let the trash win. That doesn't have to be reality. The 'reality' of it implying that this is what should be expected and accepted. Poppycock.  The reality can be and should be the city says, 'hey, use this land better. Yeah its in it a weird spot but we don't want to be stuck with this if more infill is viable later. It won't cost you a dime different right now but it may put you and the city in a better spot as this area grows.' 

 

Why is that an 'unrealistic' concept? That we should just be thankful for what we get and not question it or ask for better? The idea that we dare question or challenge private investment or business decision is so offensive? 

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by DTCL11

5 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

 

I know the spot. The map isn't going to change my mind and it shouldn't.  I reject the notion that this isn't important or an urban neighborhood. Being tucked into adjacent single family homes is most of Franklinton, German Village, Victorian Village but you want to say this is not an urban neighborhood? The biases are clear.  Again, if 2 blocks from a major thorough fare  and transit route and 5-10 minutes from a current CMAX and future rapid transit is excuse enough to say its not close enough to be that important, that encompasses so much of this city. That literally contradicts trying to invest in these corridors when things eaily walkable to these corridors and transit lines are given suburban go aheads and identified as non urban neighborhoods... what? The premise that because it's not 'on' a thoroughfare but is easily within walking distance, that a surburban land use is fine, well, thats just nuts. That's literally half of Jeffrey Park. 2 blocks from 4th. Bound by railroad and highway. 5-10 minutes walk from a second thoroughfare. And heck, 4th only gets you transit North. So it's accessibility is even more limited because of the distance you have to go to get southbound transit. And 2nd is not nearly the transit, public or private Corridor for job centers that 5th is either. In fact, it's probably easier to get to downtown, Easton, and Polaris among other major job centers from the location than Jeffrey Park. So yeah, not apples to apples, but that's my point. There are excuses as to why it's OK to have bad land use over much of these inner neighborhoods but they aren't nearly as relevant as to why it's important to prioritize better land use. And we shouldn't be limiting our idea of urban neighborhoods to those that are popular or directly adjacent to downtown or what side of 71 it fall on. Good urban development, whether that be higher density, or single and multifamily homes like Grant Park should all be important for using the land properly across the city. 

 

Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Poor. Developments. In. The. Core. Period. 

 

Being thankful for trash, claiming to call back to reality, you let the trash win. That doesn't have to be reality. The 'reality' of it implying that this is what should be expected and accepted. Poppycock.  The reality can be and should be the city says, 'hey, use this land better. Yeah its in it a weird spot but we don't want to be stuck with this if more infill is viable later. It won't cost you a dime different right now but it may put you and the city in a better spot as this area grows.' 

 

Why is that an 'unrealistic' concept? That we should just be thankful for what we get and not question it or ask for better? The idea that we dare question or challenge private investment or business decision is so offensive? 

I'm thankful for the investment in the neighborhood that is addressing needs.
 

When you actually look at the plans it includes amenities like playgrounds which that neighborhood currently has ZERO! I agree and think the city should show them Grant Park and say “this is what we envision neighborhoods like this looking like, help us out.”

 

My main problem with your point of density is the developer could just walk away and then you get nothing. But Grant Park works here I just don’t believe that this current plan is as far off as you’re making it out to be and fits the neighborhood.

16 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

My point was that density does not need to be everywhere. In the specific instance it’s not needed. Be thankful a company not based here is looking to invest in a community that needs it.

 

Who determines whether it's needed in this or other instances? A lot of people in Clintonville say we don't need density on High Street. Are they right? This isn't specifically about density, anyway. It's about good land use. Having 6 acres of a 12-acre site be surface parking is a very poor use of valuable- and limited- urban land, even if there wasn't a housing and affordability crisis. The fact that there is makes this layout even more embarrassingly bad. It's also just bad environmentally to have so much impermeable surface that increases runoff.

Also, if we want more transit options than just a bus, we need to build the kind of neighborhood density that can support it.

We should be thankful for good development, not just any development.

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by jonoh81

16 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

 

Your point is contradictory to good urban design. That point can fly somewhere else but this is another example of people giving  excuses to a place that is wholly inappropriate and saying we should be thankful to corporate overlords instead of holding them accountable to responsible community development. We could have applied this same logic to Jeffery Park. And any reason as to why Jeffrey Park would can be applied to 12 acres here. If we had accepted this type of development 15-20 years ago in Italian village we'd be kicking ourselves today. Let's not make those same mistakes in our other core neighborhoods. They all deserve the same expectations of responsible land use. 

 

And there is a difference in not building dense and preventing future density. This is practically a literal stone throw from 2 major commuter routes, blue collar jobs, etc. Railroad tracks on a dead end street in an unpopular neighborhood (for now) shouldn't override the litany of other reasons this is precisely where density should be prioritized. Cleveland and 5th being ripe for a neighborhood hub. Practically down the street from some of the fastest growing and most popular neighborhoods in the city. Come on, the excuses are just trash. And I will die on that hill for the betterment of the city as it grows. 

 

And no excuses of its their money. The request is simple. Put the same investment in at the same cost. Just rearrange the land use to allow future development. Not that hard and not demanding. 

 

Yep. Here's the thing, if the developer doesn't have the finances to fill in the site currently, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from building out only part of the site now and part later. It sometimes feels like these developers are just rushing to develop their sites and using a lot of useless filler- like parking lots and unusable green space- without any real thought to the actual potential or even the amount of money they could earn back if they waited to develop the full site. Here, they could still build the 3 residential buildings, but in a better configuration that would allow more development at a later date. And if for some reason they didn't have the finances later to do so, the site would not already be filled, so a later developer could finish it out. It's just so illogical the way we allow land to be wasted like this when there are win-win solutions for everyone.

11 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

It’s not in an urban neighborhood or on a main thoroughfare so it’s not apples to apples with the Jeffrey in any sense of the word. It’s tucked in the very back of an existing single family home neighborhood which at best is going to get you what’s going on at Grant Park.

I too would love it to spur this neighborhood. So again let’s come back to reality a bit and be at least somewhat thankful that someone is willing to invest on that side of 71 in MG.

 

Milo-Grogan is absolutely an urban neighborhood. The fact that most of it is single-family homes is irrelevant to that. The single-family sections are actually also ripe for redevelopment. There are a lot of underused, relatively large lots filled with small, single-story, mid-century bungalows. There's a lot of infill potential for those specific lots with small apartment buildings, duplexes, etc. And honestly, that's exactly what we should be encouraging- to replace low-density, non-historic housing development. 

 

Also, the map really emphasizes how this is the largest tract of vacant land in the entire neighborhood. 217 units and 6 acres of surface parking is a joke. 

This is all a little moot. We know this isn't Sim City and it's not our money being spent. Density is typically driven by land value. Policies help, but at the end of the day it's return on investment. This is a map of Columbus property value. There's your answer. 

 

This could be the last developable piece of land in the county, but if it's not valuable land then you aren't going to be able to justify spending the money to build super densely. 

 

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Milo-Grogan is absolutely an urban neighborhood. The fact that most of it is single-family homes is irrelevant to that. The single-family sections are actually also ripe for redevelopment. There are a lot of underused, relatively large lots filled with small, single-story, mid-century bungalows. There's a lot of infill potential for those specific lots with small apartment buildings, duplexes, etc. And honestly, that's exactly what we should be encouraging- to replace low-density, non-historic housing development. 

 

Also, the map really emphasizes how this is the largest tract of vacant land in the entire neighborhood. 217 units and 6 acres of surface parking is a joke. 

So basically you want that entire neighborhood to be wiped out and replaced by an urban density fantasy land? Good luck!

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Yep. Here's the thing, if the developer doesn't have the finances to fill in the site currently, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from building out only part of the site now and part later. It sometimes feels like these developers are just rushing to develop their sites and using a lot of useless filler- like parking lots and unusable green space- without any real thought to the actual potential or even the amount of money they could earn back if they waited to develop the full site. Here, they could still build the 3 residential buildings, but in a better configuration that would allow more development at a later date. And if for some reason they didn't have the finances later to do so, the site would not already be filled, so a later developer could finish it out. It's just so illogical the way we allow land to be wasted like this when there are win-win solutions for everyone.

You really need to look at that land again, there are active railways and industrial that surrounds it on two sides. Creating a buffer in this case is not a bad thing.

 

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Who determines whether it's needed in this or other instances? A lot of people in Clintonville say we don't need density on High Street. Are they right? This isn't specifically about density, anyway. It's about good land use. Having 6 acres of a 12-acre site be surface parking is a very poor use of valuable- and limited- urban land, even if there wasn't a housing and affordability crisis. The fact that there is makes this layout even more embarrassingly bad. It's also just bad environmentally to have so much impermeable surface that increases runoff.

Also, if we want more transit options than just a bus, we need to build the kind of neighborhood density that can support it.

We should be thankful for good development, not just any development.

Where the hell are you getting this 6 acres from!?

2 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

So basically you want that entire neighborhood to be wiped out and replaced by an urban density fantasy land? Good luck!

 

Where did I say that? I said that underutilized properties and vacant land could be infilled with greater density, the same thing happening in all of Columbus' more popular neighborhoods. A lot of the houses in this area are century-old 2-story fourquares, which I am not advocating be demolished, but there are also plenty of other lots that could be replaced with better development. 

 

Why so opposed to using land more efficiently in an urban area where there is high demand for housing, yet relatively few options? 

3 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

You really need to look at that land again, there are active railways and industrial that surrounds it on two sides. Creating a buffer in this case is not a bad thing.

 

Half of Gravity is located beside an active rail line. So are parts of Downtown and the Arena District. So is Grandview Yard. There are tons of examples of brand new, dense multi-use development or otherwise vibrant neighborhoods built right next to active rail lines with little to no buffer. And I fail to understand why 217 units next to active railways and industrial sites is fine, but 2x-3x that would be a problem? In both cases, the situation would be the same. 

 

3 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

Where the hell are you getting this 6 acres from!?

 

You're right, I'm probably actually underestimating the total amount of wasted land, whether for parking or unusable green space. 

It's about a 12.6 acre site. A previous plan for the site called for 324 units across 12 3-story buildings, or an average unit count per building of 27. With that plan, the land used for buildings only covered about 2.816 acres of the 12.6-acre site. This is based on the square footage given for the building footprints. The current plan only has 3 buildings and contain just 217 units. The buildings themselves are larger, with an average unit count of about 72 units and 4 stories instead of 3. The article doesn't specify- and I couldn't find- the plan for the amount of land each building takes up, but it's obviously larger than any of the 12 buildings from the previous plan. However, given the extra floor of height, the maximum size they could be is probably about 3x the size of the 12 previous buildings, or about 0.63 acres each. I would even grant up to 1 acre each for a total of around 3 acres of land being used for actual residential development. Which leaves 9.6 acres that is either green space or parking. Parking/roads and greenspace look roughly equal from the rendering with perhaps a slight edge to greenspace, which suggests that just under 5 acres of parking/road are part of the project. So I may have slightly exaggerated the amount of asphalt, but not by all that much. And the overall part of the site being used for housing is less than 25% of the total acreage of the site. That's terrible. 

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by jonoh81

This is what this development should really look like. 

https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0

 

It took me all of 10 minutes to make. 

Extend the existing street grid east to the railroad tracks with a new north-south connect for the 4 existing roads. 2-4 acres of new parks/playground areas spread across 2-3 accessible locations that provide a buffer to the railroad lines. Build a parking garage in the NE corner that could handle at least 500 cars. I even made it so the space is large enough to be built as a surface lot to save money, that way it could be developed later. Build 2 transition zones of single-family housing/townhomes or duplexes with 30-40 homes. And then 5 4 to 5-story apartment buildings with 100-150 units each. This would result in closer to 600 units across the 12 acres. So instead of 18 units per acre as the current plan provides, it would instead be closer to 48. 

 

With this fairly straightforward plan or some iteration of it, all needs are satisfied. Parking is available, there's new park space for Milo-Grogan, transitions between the single-family section and higher density apartments, an extended street grid that eliminates dead-ends, and triple the residential units for what will eventually be a much more popular neighborhood given its proximity to Downtown. 

 

I know this isn't Sim City, the mention of which seems to imply that such development is merely fantasy instead of completely realistic and what should be expected of a site of this size and location. There is no reason we should be allowing any developer, local or otherwise, to build like this. It's arguably disrespectful to say long-ignored Milo-Grogan deserves less simply because it's not already a popular, thriving neighborhood. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, but this thinking annoys me to no end. 

 

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

This is what this development should really look like. 

https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0

 

It took me all of 10 minutes to make. 

Extend the existing street grid east to the railroad tracks with a new north-south connect for the 4 existing roads. 2-4 acres of new parks/playground areas spread across 2-3 accessible locations that provide a buffer to the railroad lines. Build a parking garage in the NE corner that could handle at least 500 cars. I even made it so the space is large enough to be built as a surface lot to save money, that way it could be developed later. Build 2 transition zones of single-family housing/townhomes or duplexes with 30-40 homes. And then 5 4 to 5-story apartment buildings with 100-150 units each. This would result in closer to 600 units across the 12 acres. So instead of 18 units per acre as the current plan provides, it would instead be closer to 48. 

 

With this fairly straightforward plan or some iteration of it, all needs are satisfied. Parking is available, there's new park space for Milo-Grogan, transitions between the single-family section and higher density apartments, an extended street grid that eliminates dead-ends, and triple the residential units for what will eventually be a much more popular neighborhood given its proximity to Downtown. 

 

I know this isn't Sim City, the mention of which seems to imply that such development is merely fantasy instead of completely realistic and what should be expected of a site of this size and location. There is no reason we should be allowing any developer, local or otherwise, to build like this. It's arguably disrespectful to say long-ignored Milo-Grogan deserves less simply because it's not already a popular, thriving neighborhood. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, but this thinking annoys me to no end. 

 

Send this to the commission and tell them they need to push for something similar. 

22 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Send this to the commission and tell them they need to push for something similar. 

Honestly

43 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Send this to the commission and tell them they need to push for something similar. 

 

20 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

Honestly

 

Done: Here's what I wrote. 

 

Hi, I recently read about the proposal to build a residential complex at 1160 Camden Avenue in Milo-Grogan. I have some concerns, but perhaps not what you might usually hear regarding new development. My concern is that the proposal for the roughly 12.6-acre site is vastly inferior for the potential of such a large, vacant site so close to Downtown. 

The current proposal calls for 217 units in 3, 4-story buildings, giving a density of just over 17 units/acre. From what I can tell, the total footprint of these buildings represents less than 25% of the total acreage, leaving 3/4s as either asphalt or largely unusable grass space. Even if my math is slightly off, the very low density being proposed for the site is an embarrassment when Columbus is experiencing a housing crisis and rapidly-rising housing costs. Every news article that comes out says that Columbus has to build many more housing units than it currently is to match existing and future demand, so I would hope that the city and the Development Commission would push back against such a shocking waste of land in the urban core of the city. 

Additionally, the proposal misses several other opportunities. For example, Camden Avenue, Leona Avenue, Shoemaker Avenue and Olmsted Avenue all currently terminate in dead-ends. The proposal does not seek to really do anything about this despite all 4 streets connecting to the site. In fact, from the renderings I've see, at least one of the residential buildings sits right in the path of Leona Avenue and displaces the street slightly north for no apparent reason. The rest of the streets seem to just terminate in surface parking lots. Overall, it's a terrible layout. 

In about 10 minutes, I created a layout that would solve all potential issues that I hope at least some elements would be considered when reviewing whether the current iteration of the project moves forward. Here is that layout: https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0
The new layout would do all of the following: 
Creates 2-4 acres of new park space for the neighborhood. These parks would provide a buffer for new housing and the active rail lines on the north and east. The parks could contain any necessary retention ponds for the development, increasing their potential recreational use. 
Consolidate the massive amount of surface parking across the site into a single location in the NE corner, which could be either a parking garage or large surface lot that could later be developed. Or the large single site could be divided into two smaller, strategic locations in the development. 
Adds 5 new 4-5-story residential buildings with 500-700 new units. 
Creates 2 zones for about 30-40 single-family homes, townhomes or duplexes, depending on lot size and style. These would offer a transition from the largely single-family neighborhood to the greater apartment density to the east. 
Extends the 4 existing streets further east to the railroad tracks, with a new north-south connector to eliminate all existing dead-ends. The streets would remain in a more traditional grid pattern rather than adding unnecessary suburban-style curves and offsets. 
Obviously, the current developer may balk at any such changes to their layout, but it would be deeply irresponsible for the project to be allowed to move forward as-is. Milo-Grogan deserves better, and the site is more than large enough to create a truly transformative development for this long-neglected area. The City is currently working on updating zoning across the city to encourage better development, but we shouldn't allow poorly considered projects like this to get a pass in the meantime. 

Thank you for your consideration and time,

 

I encourage anyone else who wants this to be better to write to the Commission as well. 

Edited November 5, 20231 yr by jonoh81

13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

 

Done: Here's what I wrote. 

 

Hi, I recently read about the proposal to build a residential complex at 1160 Camden Avenue in Milo-Grogan. I have some concerns, but perhaps not what you might usually hear regarding new development. My concern is that the proposal for the roughly 12.6-acre site is vastly inferior for the potential of such a large, vacant site so close to Downtown. 

The current proposal calls for 217 units in 3, 4-story buildings, giving a density of just over 17 units/acre. From what I can tell, the total footprint of these buildings represents less than 25% of the total acreage, leaving 3/4s as either asphalt or largely unusable grass space. Even if my math is slightly off, the very low density being proposed for the site is an embarrassment when Columbus is experiencing a housing crisis and rapidly-rising housing costs. Every news article that comes out says that Columbus has to build many more housing units than it currently is to match existing and future demand, so I would hope that the city and the Development Commission would push back against such a shocking waste of land in the urban core of the city. 

Additionally, the proposal misses several other opportunities. For example, Camden Avenue, Leona Avenue, Shoemaker Avenue and Olmsted Avenue all currently terminate in dead-ends. The proposal does not seek to really do anything about this despite all 4 streets connecting to the site. In fact, from the renderings I've see, at least one of the residential buildings sits right in the path of Leona Avenue and displaces the street slightly north for no apparent reason. The rest of the streets seem to just terminate in surface parking lots. Overall, it's a terrible layout. 

In about 10 minutes, I created a layout that would solve all potential issues that I hope at least some elements would be considered when reviewing whether the current iteration of the project moves forward. Here is that layout: https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0
The new layout would do all of the following: 
Creates 2-4 acres of new park space for the neighborhood. These parks would provide a buffer for new housing and the active rail lines on the north and east. The parks could contain any necessary retention ponds for the development, increasing their potential recreational use. 
Consolidate the massive amount of surface parking across the site into a single location in the NE corner, which could be either a parking garage or large surface lot that could later be developed. Or the large single site could be divided into two smaller, strategic locations in the development. 
Adds 5 new 4-5-story residential buildings with 500-700 new units. 
Creates 2 zones for about 30-40 single-family homes, townhomes or duplexes, depending on lot size and style. These would offer a transition from the largely single-family neighborhood to the greater apartment density to the east. 
Extends the 4 existing streets further east to the railroad tracks, with a new north-south connector to eliminate all existing dead-ends. The streets would remain in a more traditional grid pattern rather than adding unnecessary suburban-style curves and offsets. 
Obviously, the current developer may balk at any such changes to their layout, but it would be deeply irresponsible for the project to be allowed to move forward as-is. Milo-Grogan deserves better, and the site is more than large enough to create a truly transformative development for this long-neglected area. The City is currently working on updating zoning across the city to encourage better development, but we shouldn't allow poorly considered projects like this to get a pass in the meantime. 

Thank you for your consideration and time,

Your issue is these small-time developers are trying to get into prime real estate but are too small to make a project like this feasible.

3 hours ago, columbus17 said:

Your issue is these small-time developers are trying to get into prime real estate but are too small to make a project like this feasible.

 

Columbus leadership hands out incentives and tax breaks like candy. If they're going to do it, I would rather see them do it to get better projects like this accomplished. Also, as I said earlier, the developer isn't obligated to build out the entire site all at once. We have see the same thing in GY and Jeffrey Park, where the developer has only gradually filled in the site over a number of years. There would theoretically not be much, if any, difference between them building the 3 buildings in their proposal vs. 3 buildings in a more dense, mixed-use layout that could be filled in when finances supported it. It would just take the City pushing and promoting that kind of outcome, and at this point, they've basically just been allowing whatever gets proposed. 

Edited November 5, 20231 yr by jonoh81

So as a counterpoint to this project is the redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center, where the developer is being denied for being too dense and is being forced to include greenspace and is being criticized about the quality and feel of that greenspace. 

 

Proof it all comes down to land value and desirability. I guess you could throw city incentives at this project to make up for the gap... 

10 hours ago, 17thState said:

So as a counterpoint to this project is the redevelopment of the Dublin Village Center, where the developer is being denied for being too dense and is being forced to include greenspace and is being criticized about the quality and feel of that greenspace. 

 

Proof it all comes down to land value and desirability. I guess you could throw city incentives at this project to make up for the gap... 

 

Why is that a counterpoint? It seems to be a symptom of the same problem, a general lack of push/support for mixed-use density in the region, which seems to be the case regardless of land value. I get what you're saying in that developers might be more willing to push for more significant projects with higher land values, but they're still getting shut down in a lot of locations. But as I argued earlier, lower land values doesn't prevent a higher density project if it's built in smaller phases. The current developer is already proposing 3 buildings. It should not affect financing to build those 3 in a bit different configuration that would allow other phases in the future, especially when the first phase would significantly raise land values and raise desirability in the entire neighborhood, both creating greater momentum for those next phases. I'm not blind to the challenges- including financial- of developing these types of sites. I just don't think we're utilizing all the potential options to do so in a better way.

Edited November 6, 20231 yr by jonoh81

On 11/4/2023 at 5:58 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

 

Done: Here's what I wrote. 

 

Hi, I recently read about the proposal to build a residential complex at 1160 Camden Avenue in Milo-Grogan. I have some concerns, but perhaps not what you might usually hear regarding new development. My concern is that the proposal for the roughly 12.6-acre site is vastly inferior for the potential of such a large, vacant site so close to Downtown. 

The current proposal calls for 217 units in 3, 4-story buildings, giving a density of just over 17 units/acre. From what I can tell, the total footprint of these buildings represents less than 25% of the total acreage, leaving 3/4s as either asphalt or largely unusable grass space. Even if my math is slightly off, the very low density being proposed for the site is an embarrassment when Columbus is experiencing a housing crisis and rapidly-rising housing costs. Every news article that comes out says that Columbus has to build many more housing units than it currently is to match existing and future demand, so I would hope that the city and the Development Commission would push back against such a shocking waste of land in the urban core of the city. 

Additionally, the proposal misses several other opportunities. For example, Camden Avenue, Leona Avenue, Shoemaker Avenue and Olmsted Avenue all currently terminate in dead-ends. The proposal does not seek to really do anything about this despite all 4 streets connecting to the site. In fact, from the renderings I've see, at least one of the residential buildings sits right in the path of Leona Avenue and displaces the street slightly north for no apparent reason. The rest of the streets seem to just terminate in surface parking lots. Overall, it's a terrible layout. 

In about 10 minutes, I created a layout that would solve all potential issues that I hope at least some elements would be considered when reviewing whether the current iteration of the project moves forward. Here is that layout: https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0
The new layout would do all of the following: 
Creates 2-4 acres of new park space for the neighborhood. These parks would provide a buffer for new housing and the active rail lines on the north and east. The parks could contain any necessary retention ponds for the development, increasing their potential recreational use. 
Consolidate the massive amount of surface parking across the site into a single location in the NE corner, which could be either a parking garage or large surface lot that could later be developed. Or the large single site could be divided into two smaller, strategic locations in the development. 
Adds 5 new 4-5-story residential buildings with 500-700 new units. 
Creates 2 zones for about 30-40 single-family homes, townhomes or duplexes, depending on lot size and style. These would offer a transition from the largely single-family neighborhood to the greater apartment density to the east. 
Extends the 4 existing streets further east to the railroad tracks, with a new north-south connector to eliminate all existing dead-ends. The streets would remain in a more traditional grid pattern rather than adding unnecessary suburban-style curves and offsets. 
Obviously, the current developer may balk at any such changes to their layout, but it would be deeply irresponsible for the project to be allowed to move forward as-is. Milo-Grogan deserves better, and the site is more than large enough to create a truly transformative development for this long-neglected area. The City is currently working on updating zoning across the city to encourage better development, but we shouldn't allow poorly considered projects like this to get a pass in the meantime. 

Thank you for your consideration and time,

 

I encourage anyone else who wants this to be better to write to the Commission as well. 

 

I got a response to this. My letter and map will apparently be included as part of the development commission's packets for this project's review on November 9th. I'm sure just standard procedure, but it's nice that they'll at least see it and have something to consider for comparison.

Well done!

Unique Properties for Sale: The Cleveland & Second Building

 

For the second installment in this series, we’re taking a short trip north of Downtown to the Milo-Grogan neighborhood. A prominent building located at 876 Cleveland Ave. is currently for sale, and while it’s been vacant for quite awhile, it’s probably best known for its politically-charged graffiti. Recent messages have stated “End the War on Drugs,” “F**k the Crew, Save the Schools,” and “In 2015, Columbus was Named the 2nd Most Economically Segregated City.”

 

The 4,250 square foot two-story building is 109 years old, it’s listed for sale at $399,000 ($94/sqft), and based on the interior and exterior photos on the property listing, it doesn’t appear to be in great shape. A sign affixed to the building reads “Summit Grill,” but the windows in the building have been boarded up since at least 2007, and Googling for information about a bar or restaurant by that name in that address doesn’t yield much information.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/unique-properties-for-sale-the-cleveland-second-building-we1/

 

Rogue Fitness plans to expand in Milo-Grogan

 

Rogue Fitness has plans to expand its Milo-Grogan presence.

 

Plans submitted to the city show the fitness equipment company's intent to expand behind its existing Cleveland Avenue facility onto East 2nd Avenue.

 

The site is three parcels – one is vacant and the others have single-family homes on them. Rogue wants a driveway and manufacturing access at the site, the city documents show. The documents don't say whether the houses would be razed.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2024/06/05/rogue-fitness.html