But how many buildings look like Main Bar? How many are stand alone or near standalone? Where do we draw a line for size of an old building before declaring isn't condemned?  When have we continued to go too far in the 'does it provide historical value' before its too late. If that is the standard, that it's relatively plain, we can keep bulldozing entire sections of the city. That's how entire sections of the city were wiped out to begin with for parking lots and highways. We are missing a third of German Village because it was deemed commendable and boring at one time.  In fact, this may have been part of the German Settlement of the South side. I'd have to do more research to determine historical boundaries but it would be close.  St John's just close by was. Why go through the effort of the Madison complex if only one of the buildings has any architectural flare? What we are headed to is a self fulfilling prophecy. A bland new city with a lack of visual and historical interest compared our in state counterparts. 

 

I wasn't even thinking about campus. As much as I approve of the new development, there were a few buildings that should have been preserved and incorporated too. 

 

In a city (Vancouver) where they were in the practice of literally moving the heritage homes to make room for development, this developer wanted to make sure that the history of the site was maintained in some way so people could realize what was once there. A neighborhood. So they got creative. It's actually similar to what I hoped would happen to the service station at king and high. And those developers ever tried a decent amount of preservation in some versions. 

 

I'll stand by this again. Is it a crime? Nah. Is it a shame? Yeah. But the absolute biggest issue is approving demolition without an approved plan. And I'd fight for that being the minimum standard all day long. And I'll put my money on something bland replacing it with little in the way of architectural flair. 

 

It could even be the pedestrian entrance to the parking deck or something for all it matters. It's just a total lack of imagination to want to clear it out before council has seen any plans. I think in this case, the ask would be a bare minimum. 

 

And I understand facade preservation is different than historic preservation. But both have their places and purposes. I wish there was something more than a 'contributing' standard for Columbus when it comes to fighting to save something. I wish the city could specify a developer present plans that include facades or they must prove they are unusable and the standard should be high. 

 

 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by DTCL11

5 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

My mentality is that we should save buildings with historic value that add to the fabric of our city. Your mentality seems to be that we should preserve every building built before an arbitrarily decided year simply because they are old, ignoring all aspects of the buildings' appearance and usefulness. Our mentalities are very different, so we are never going to see eye to eye on this.

 

 

The buildings you posted are part of an overall historic neighborhood. Demolishing them would erode the historic fabric of those neighborhoods. The Main Bar was, for years, surrounding by parking lots, and is now surrounded by contemporary buildings. It's really not a fair comparison. If the Main Bar building was in the middle of German Village, I would ardently support it's preservation. But that's not the case here. I would rather allow a developer to start from scratch at this location and build a good building the way they want to, rather than have to work around being forced incorporate a 10 foot wide bland brick wall into their design. 

 

Only 2 are technically in a protected district.  The last one isn't, and the last one is a type of home that I was referencing making up most of the urban core and the type that gets bulldozed on the reg without any care, in neighborhoods where they're surrounded by equally old buildings.  You kind of missed the point, though.  All 3 are relatively plain looking buildings.  If we're not supposed to factor in age, then aesthetics is all we're judging them on.  So if we are to apply the same logic that Main Bar isn't pretty enough to be saved, why should any of those others?  The fact that 2 of the 3 are in protected historic districts kind of undermines the belief that they have no value simply because of how they look.  In the 1950s, the city wanted to tear down all of German Village because they viewed the buildings as eyesores.  We only appreciate them now because some people saw value where others didn't.

And it shouldn't matter whether they're the last survivors on their street or in a complete neighborhood.  The building has survived for 131 years.  No matter how you think it looks, it deserves better.   

 

And now my imagination has been triggered where it could easily be incorporated to the back 1/3 with a section that can tie visually between Main Bar and the Julian and the front 2/3rd is literally anything. And that breaks it up visually as well instead of another monolithic structure on a corner where there is 250. The Courthouse, the Parking Deck, and even to some respect the Julian and Southern. It's a sea of buildings a half to a full block long with little to break it up. At least the southern has bump outs and set backs etc. . But again, we are looking for easy. Who knows. Maybe Schiff will surprise and I'll feel less badly. But show us the plans first. 

 

16 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

But how many buildings look like Main Bar? How many are stand alone or near standalone? Where do we draw a line for size of an old building before declaring isn't condemned?  When have we continued to go too far in the 'does it provide historical value' before its too late. If that is the standard, that it's relatively plain, we can keep bulldozing entire sections of the city. That's how entire sections of the city were wiped out to begin with for parking lots and highways. We are missing a third of German Village because it was deemed commendable and boring at one time.  In fact, this may have been part of the German Settlement of the South side. I'd have to do more research to determine historical boundaries but it would be close.  St John's just close by was. Why go through the effort of the Madison complex if only one of the buildings has any architectural flare? What we are headed to is a self fulfilling prophecy. A bland new city with a lack of visual and historical interest compared our in state counterparts. 

 

I wasn't even thinking about campus. As much as I approve of the new development, there were a few buildings that should have been preserved and incorporated too. 

 

In a city (Vancouver) where they were in the practice of literally moving the heritage homes to make room for development, this developer wanted to make sure that the history of the site was maintained in some way so people could realize what was once there. A neighborhood. So they got creative. It's actually similar to what I hoped would happen to the service station at king and high. And those developers ever tried a decent amount of preservation in some versions. 

 

I'll stand by this again. Is it a crime? Nah. Is it a shame? Yeah. But the absolute biggest issue is approving demolition without an approved plan. And I'd fight for that being the minimum standard all day long. And I'll put my money on something bland replacing it with little in the way of architectural flair. 

 

It could even be the pedestrian entrance to the parking deck or something for all it matters. It's just a total lack of imagination to want to clear it out before council has seen any plans. I think in this case, the ask would be a bare minimum. 

 

And I understand facade preservation is different than historic preservation. But both have there places and purposes. I wish there was something more than a 'contributing' standard for Columbus when it comes to fighting to save something. I wish the city could specify a developer present plans that include facades or they must prove they are unusable and the standard should be high. 

 

 

 

That's an interesting design and a perfect example of expanding one's expectations of design.  It's the type of project that makes things so much more interesting while embracing both the future and the past.  

 

And yes, unless a building is a public danger or something, there should not be any demolitions without a plan in place to replace it.  In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the Downtown development standards is that there shouldn't be any future demolitions for parking lots.  Yet that is exactly what they're proposing happen.  

Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

That's an interesting design and a perfect example of expanding one's expectations of design.  It's the type of project that makes things so much more interesting while embracing both the future and the past.  

 

It breaks up visual monotony of blocks of retail or office fronts too. And there is so much potential for similar projects in the eastern parts of downtown and franklinton. We have alot of these stand alones that can add so much to a design for more than even preserving for the sake of preserving. And it's something very few places actually do so Columbus could be a model for that if we pushed hard enough. 

 

I fear what the stand alone mentality will do for those buildings. 

4 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

It breaks up visual monotony of blocks of retail or office fronts too. And there is so much potential for similar projects in the eastern parts of downtown and franklinton. We have alot of these stand alones that can add so much to a design for more than even preserving for the sake of preserving. And it's something very few places actually do so Columbus could be a model for that if we pushed hard enough. 

 

I fear what the stand alone mentality will do for those buildings. 

 

Everyone forgets that it only became a stand alone because no one cared about protecting all the buildings around it.  

30 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

 

 

 

If this is what you and jonoh81 think should be done with the Main Bar and the northwest corner of Main & High, then you can log off now(!)  This is not the hill you want to die on(!)

1 minute ago, Columbo said:

 

If this is what you and jonoh81 think should be done with the Main Bar and the northwest corner of Main & High, then you can log off now(!)  This is not the hill you want to die on(!)

 

I'm not saying it should look like that at all.  I'm saying that there are tons of ways to incorporate it in tasteful, interesting ways.  

21 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I'm not saying it should look like that at all.  I'm saying that there are tons of ways to incorporate it in tasteful, interesting ways.  

 

No.  There are not "tons of ways" to incorporate a 2-story 10-foot wide facade into a 15-story piece of new construction (which is what you would like to see at Main & High) without it looking exactly like that ridiculous example posted above(!)

Between 35-80 years old is the big danger zone for buildings being considered expendable it seems.

1 minute ago, Columbo said:

 

No.  There are not "tons of ways" to incorporate a 2-story 10-foot facade into a 15-story piece of new construction (which is what you and everyone else would like to see at Main & High) without it looking exactly like that ridiculous example posted above(!)

 

It's almost definitely not going to be 15 stories, for one thing.  Or 12 or 10 or probably even 8 if we're being honest.  But there are tons of examples out there of relatively small buildings being incorporated into large towers.  I think you guys are making the size of the building too much of an issue.  It can be worked into the project if they really wanted that to happen.  

37 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And yes, unless a building is a public danger or something, there should not be any demolitions without a plan in place to replace it.  In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the Downtown development standards is that there shouldn't be any future demolitions for parking lots.  Yet that is exactly what they're proposing happen.  

 

You're right - generally, the Downtown Commission does not approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolitions unless there is also an approved redevelopment plan in place. From the Downtown Guidelines (available here):

 

Requirement for Demolition Approval

A replacement use/building has been reviewed and approved by the Downtown Commission, and Historic Resources Commission, if applicable. Such review can occur concurrently with the COA application for a demolition. However, a COA should be issued for the replacement use/building prior to issuance of the demolition permit.

17 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Between 35-80 years old is the big danger zone for buildings being considered expendable it seems.

 

Or 131-year-old buildings that aren't pretty enough.

6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

You kind of missed the point, though.  All 3 are relatively plain looking buildings.  If we're not supposed to factor in age, then aesthetics is all we're judging them on.  So if we are to apply the same logic that Main Bar isn't pretty enough to be saved, why should any of those others?

 

No, I didn't miss the point. You apparently missed my point of factoring in the surrounding neighborhood. I clearly explained why those others should be saved. 

 

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

In the 1950s, the city wanted to tear down all of German Village because they viewed the buildings as eyesores.  We only appreciate them now because some people saw value where others didn't.

 

Yea, we were able to save the entire neighborhood. If the city would have had the foresight to save the neighborhood around the Main Bar many decades ago, then the Main Bar would be worth saving. Unfortunately, the city did not have that foresight, so now the Main Bar is nothing more than a tiny plain building engulfed by a parking lot. If someone wants to somehow incorporate it into a new development, great! I'm just saying the building isn't worth it to force someone to do that.

 

10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

The building has survived for 131 years.  No matter how you think it looks, it deserves better.   

 

This building has survived for 75 years. If someone wanted to tear it down to build a 15-story mixed use building, would you try to stop them?

 

 

This is 115 years old. Do we have to save the facade because its age is in triple digits now?

 

 

Do we have to incorporate this lovely 75 year old facade into a new building? It's old after all!

 

 

 

This beauty is over 100 years old! Don't you dare tear it down to build something else, it's historic!

 

 

 

 

Yeah... lots of examples. Endless possibilities, really. Claiming it cannot be done tastefully is pretty inaccurate. Like I said, a back third could easily play off it and step back leaving modern. Char Bar is another example. A small wooden structure in a sea of modern and old significantly larger than itself but still seeming to fit in. 

 

Does it need to be like the Vancouver project? No. But also, read the entirety of the thread. I think our point was missed. 

 

I don't think jonoh81 and I are willing to die on the idea to preserve this at all cost. If I might summarize our stance it is this:

 

 - absolutely no demolition without seeing what replaces it. 

 - think outside the box and at least play with the idea of some sort of preservation

 - how long before we decide that any number of buildings is too much to deal with and just tear them down for the sake of new and bigger. 

 

Let's also not put the cart in front of the horse and expect anything large or showstopper. Which speaks to the prior point. Show us. Then we can make a difference decision. If the quality of the project is along the LC buildings, I might be swayed. It's its another 250... I'd want it sent back with or without that building. 

12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's almost definitely not going to be 15 stories, for one thing.  Or 12 or 10 or probably even 8 if we're being honest.  But there are tons of examples out there of relatively small buildings being incorporated into large towers.  I think you guys are making the size of the building too much of an issue.  It can be worked into the project if they really wanted that to happen.  

 

We are very aware of the fact that you can build a building around another building. The point some of us are making is, the Main Bar building is not worth this treatment. If someone wants to do it, awesome! But nobody should be forced into one of these ridiculous designs so that we can save a 10 foot wide brick wall just because the bricks were stacked up 130 years ago.

18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's almost definitely not going to be 15 stories, for one thing.  Or 12 or 10 or probably even 8 if we're being honest.  But there are tons of examples out there of relatively small buildings being incorporated into large towers.  I think you guys are making the size of the building too much of an issue.  It can be worked into the project if they really wanted that to happen.  

 

Whether 15, 12, 10 or 8-stories, you are talking about shoehorning a 2-story, 10-foot wide facade into a major new construction because you feel like it would atone for past historic preservation sins or something.

 

Much like others have rather patiently tried to explain to you in past posts - every facade/building saving example you show features much larger buildings or much larger facades - not a 10-foot wide facade(!)  And a pretty ordinary looking 10-foot wide facade at that.  (If you can't get ink's support for saving the Main Bar, that's your cue you're on the wrong side of this issue!)

 

Since we have a Columbus Historic Preservation thread in the Architecture section, you will want to continue this conversation there.

 

As for this thread, it is getting completely off-topic and becoming repetitive (especially with jonoh81) and needs some time to cool down.

 

Columbus Partnership buys empty state building downtown, plans to create mixed-use development

 

After a decade of sitting empty, the riverfront office building that once was home to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services has been sold for $3 million.  The Columbus Partnership closed on the deal Monday and took control of the 200,000-square-foot, seven-story office building at 145 S. Front Street.

 

CEO Alex Fischer said the partnership will work with developer Brad DeHays to create a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and office space and residential units above it.

 

DeHays' Connect Realty specializes in redeveloping troubled historic buildings. ... The partnership and Connect Realty will spend the next six months working on designs for the project. Fisher said that means the project could finish in late 2022 or early 2023.

 

MORE:  https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/03/29/odjfs-riverfront-headquarters-sells.html

Edited March 29, 20214 yr by Columbo
Change from full article to excerpt of article

Let's hope they do something with the windows and just add some character.

28 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Let's hope they do something with the windows and just add some character.

Yeah I was hoping it would maybe be replaced. I think it would be great to add some new height to it. It’s basically right on the River and could have great views.

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Yeah I was hoping it would maybe be replaced. I think it would be great to add some new height to it. It’s basically right on the River and could have great views.

 

I would imagine adding more height would be pretty expensive because they'd have to reengineer the building to be able to handle the extra weight.  It'd probably be easier to just tear it down and start over.  It would be a great location for something iconic, but I'm betting they just do a more standard renovation/conversion. 

I don't know about tearing it down. I like the symmetry of this block facing the river even if this building is 1 floor shorter than the state building at Broad and Front.

Working with Brad DeHays, it could end up being a historic tax credit project, which could limit major changes to the exterior.

 

As this building is a near twin to the Ohio Department of Education building and is part of the symmetry with the Ohio Supreme Court/old Ohio Departments of State building, I hope it does retain a similar character.

2 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I don't know about tearing it down. I like the symmetry of this block facing the river even if this building is 1 floor shorter than the state building at Broad and Front.

 

I agree. I think they can make good use of the building without tearing it down and starting over. I would love to see a restaurant take up some of the first floor space facing the river. They could have retractable glass doors in the corner and open it up to some patio space when the weather is nice. It would provide some really great views.

 

 

Since we are on the subject of tearing things down though, I would love to see the Civic Center garage demolished and redeveloped into something more useful. That is some prime real estate that is being totally wasted. 

 

4 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I agree. I think they can make good use of the building without tearing it down and starting over. I would love to see a restaurant take up some of the first floor space facing the river. They could have retractable glass doors in the corner and open it up to some patio space when the weather is nice. It would provide some really great views.

 

 

Since we are on the subject of tearing things down though, I would love to see the Civic Center garage demolished and redeveloped into something more useful. That is some prime real estate that is being totally wasted. 

 

This is going to sound really "dumb", and don't shoot the messenger, but some how, that parking garage has some quirky "historic designation".  I believe it may have had something to do with the Lazarus company but I'd have to dig into it more.  I just remember reading about it in the past and being shocked that a garage could be "historic" like that.  Perhaps someone else with more knowledge can provide some insight???

 

Edit:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2011/04/historic-parking-garage-led-to.html

Edited March 30, 20214 yr by Gnoraa

The garage was built in 1948

12 minutes ago, Gnoraa said:

This is going to sound really "dumb", and don't shoot the messenger, but some how, that parking garage has some quirky "historic designation".  I believe it may have had something to do with the Lazarus company but I'd have to dig into it more.  I just remember reading about it in the past and being shocked that a garage could be "historic" like that.  Perhaps someone else with more knowledge can provide some insight???

 

Actually, I can try to provide some insight here as I used to work in 200 Civic Center Drive. But no more post-pandemic....my company ended our lease with the three floors we had :' (

 

It's true the garage has a historical designation, as I believe it was the first one parking garage built in the city, however this was even before Lazarus gained ownership. I was working there when it went through the sale to Lazarus and the entire way the garage operated changed, and I am pretty sure it was already designated as one.

 

And yes, it's stupid. That garage is the creepiest, scariest, weirdest, parking garage in the world and it should be torn down :p 

 

(seriously, the lowest level of the garage is horror movie material!)

 

(it's not quite that bad but it's definitely a weird ass garage, lol)

Edited March 30, 20214 yr by Zyrokai

1 minute ago, Zyrokai said:

 

Actually, I can try to provide some insight here as I used to work in 200 Civic Center Drive. But no more post-pandemic....my company ended our lease with the three floors we had :' (

 

It's true the garage has a historical designation, as I believe it was the first one parking garage built in the city, however this was even before Lazarus gained ownership. I was working there when it went through the sale to Lazarus and the entire way the garage operated changed, and I am pretty sure it was already designated as one.

 

And yes, it's stupid. That garage is the creepiest, scariest, weirdest, most stupid parking garage in the world and it should be torn down :p 

 

(seriously, the lowest level of the garage is horror movie material!)

I am aware of this weird designation also. Leave it to Columbus to have a historically protected concrete parking garage...lol.

12 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

That garage is the creepiest, scariest, weirdest, parking garage in the world

 

I used to work in 200 Civic Center as well. Can confirm.

53 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I am aware of this weird designation also. Leave it to Columbus to have a historically protected concrete parking garage...lol.

Old cars use to park there! Of course it's historic! If those bland concrete walls could talk... they'd probably tell us about how old cars use to park there.

1 hour ago, ink said:

Working with Brad DeHays, it could end up being a historic tax credit project, which could limit major changes to the exterior.

 

As this building is a near twin to the Ohio Department of Education building and is part of the symmetry with the Ohio Supreme Court/old Ohio Departments of State building, I hope it does retain a similar character.

 

What character?  It's a 1960's plain box with tiny windows. Downtown has several of these buildings that all have almost exactly the same look.  It doesn't even have the weird ugliness of brutalism going for it. I really appreciate the effort to convert these mid-century office buildings to mixed-use and update them, but I'm not sure I agree with the use of historic tax credits to do so.  I guess it depends on the definition of what is "historic", but I still generally think of them as WWII and earlier.  Columbus has tons of those that could use the money more.  

 

BTW, I am not suggesting the building be torn down.  I was just responding to the suggestion that more floors could be added, and that it would probably be more expensive to do that than just tear it down and start over.

Edited March 30, 20214 yr by jonoh81

Re 145 S. Front: I don't know if you want a really tall building that close to the river. Sure Chicago does it because they have to, but isn't it tougher to stabilize that close to water?

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

What character?  It's a 1960's plain box with tiny windows. Downtown has several of these buildings that all have almost exactly the same look.  It doesn't even have the weird ugliness of brutalism going for it. I really appreciate the effort to convert these mid-century office buildings to mixed-use and update them, but I'm not sure I agree with the use of historic tax credits to do so.  I guess it depends on the definition of what is "historic", but I still generally think of them as WWII and earlier.  Columbus has tons of those that could use the money more.  

 

BTW, I am not suggesting the building be torn down.  I was just responding to the suggestion that more floors could be added, and that it would probably be more expensive to do that than just tear it down and start over.

I agree the building is not that great but it is the symmetry argument that gets me. I am used to it matching the other one on the other side of the Supreme Court building. If they did something to one, I would want them to do something to the other to match. I think the restaurant thing facing the river at the lowest floor is a good idea. Not sure about the rest-and yes it does have those tiny-@ss windows so I don't know how well that would work for residential? I think the base/lower floors could be worked with much more without having that symmetry with it's twin messed up too much. 

 

And just like the parking garage, it is really hard to think of this building as "historic".

3 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I agree the building is not that great but it is the symmetry argument that gets me. I am used to it matching the other one on the other side of the Supreme Court building. If they did something to one, I would want them to do something to the other to match. I think the restaurant thing facing the river at the lowest floor is a good idea. Not sure about the rest-and yes it does have those tiny-@ss windows so I don't know how well that would work for residential? I think the base/lower floors could be worked with much more without having that symmetry with it's twin messed up too much. 

 

And just like the parking garage, it is really hard to think of this building as "historic".

 

A good way to remove the symmetry argument is to do something with the other building too.  Personally, I've never been a big fan of multiple buildings with the exact same design, especially so close together.  It's architecturally pretty boring.  But I'll reserve judgement until we see the proposal.

Columbus Partnership Buys Vacant Downtown Building

 

The Columbus Partnership has bought a prominent building Downtown and plans to work with a local developer to renovate it.

 

Some combination of retail, office and residential uses is likely for the seven-story building at 145 S. Front St., according to Alex Fischer, President and CEO of the Columbus Partnership.

 

The organization first signed a purchase agreement for the building in 2019, but a shifting of priorities due to the pandemic delayed the transfer.

 

Home to the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services until 2006, the State of Ohio made several attempts to renovate the building before eventually initiating a process to sell the property.

 

More below:

https://www.columbusunderground.com/columbus-partnership-buys-vacant-downtown-bw1

 

Downtown Commission packet has been posted.

 

One of the more interesting, and disappointing requests is the demolition of 16 W Main St. Schiff is requesting permission to demo the old Main Bar building and replace it with 7 parking spaces, no mention of planned/future development. Schiff is stating the building is a danger/liability, which is a statement being opposed by the Chief Building Official following an inspection. 

 

Good news though is the downtown commission seems to be pushing back in their response, but I curious to find out more in the meeting. 

 

Staff Analysis

The guidelines state that while demolition sometimes makes way for projects of greater significance, it has often led to empty lots used for surface parking.The long term effect has been the loss of continuity in the architectural fabric of many Downtown streets. While the commission should consider if the building is in a deteriorated state such that it cannot economically be rehabilitated, it is the general intent of the guidelines to encourage the preservation of Downtown’s building stock. With regards to the surface parking proposed, the guidelines state that surface parking has had a detrimental impact on the character of Downtown. Surface parking should be located to the rear of buildings, parking should be screened, and limiting the amount of new surface parking will ensure a responsible approach to the provision of parking Downtown.

 

More here - https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/zj2wb2h12ilxnmyrkx8umi1h943wkyuj/file/802319229958

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 20214 yr by DevolsDance

Unless it is really in danger of falling apart, it should remain until there is a viable proposal with backing.  Just how is it a "danger and a liability"?  And wow it will add a whole whopping 7 parking spaces. smh.

👏👏.Show.Us.The.Proposal.👏👏

 

 

On 4/22/2021 at 6:01 PM, DevolsDance said:

Downtown Commission packet has been posted.

 

One of the more interesting, and disappointing requests is the demolition of 16 W Main St. Schiff is requesting permission to demo the old Main Bar building and replace it with 7 parking spaces, no mention of planned/future development. Schiff is stating the building is a danger/liability, which is a statement being opposed by the Chief Building Official following an inspection. 

 

Good news though is the downtown commission seems to be pushing back in their response, but I curious to find out more in the meeting. 

 

Staff Analysis

The guidelines state that while demolition sometimes makes way for projects of greater significance, it has often led to empty lots used for surface parking.The long term effect has been the loss of continuity in the architectural fabric of many Downtown streets. While the commission should consider if the building is in a deteriorated state such that it cannot economically be rehabilitated, it is the general intent of the guidelines to encourage the preservation of Downtown’s building stock. With regards to the surface parking proposed, the guidelines state that surface parking has had a detrimental impact on the character of Downtown. Surface parking should be located to the rear of buildings, parking should be screened, and limiting the amount of new surface parking will ensure a responsible approach to the provision of parking Downtown.

 

More here - https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/zj2wb2h12ilxnmyrkx8umi1h943wkyuj/file/802319229958

 

This application was withdrawn from this month's meeting. They may be back next month.

Curious if anybody knows why there hasn’t been anyone moving into The Matan LC apartments yet. They have looked to be finished for close to a year now but I haven’t seen any movement there at all. 

 

Edited May 9, 20214 yr by 614love

Bueller Bueller? lol

No one has been living in there at all? I'm tempted to call LC and see when they are opening.

5 minutes ago, Zyrokai said:

No one has been living in there at all? I'm tempted to call LC and see when they are opening.

 

I drove by about a week ago and it looks like they are still doing work on the inside of the building. I couldn't tell if there's been active work or if the work has been stalled because it was about 8pm when I drove by. 

3 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I drove by about a week ago and it looks like they are still doing work on the inside of the building. I couldn't tell if there's been active work or if the work has been stalled because it was about 8pm when I drove by. 

I mean, in true LC fashion they need to somehow draw out the construction into infinity...

The project at Wilcox and High in Old North also seems to have stalled for interior work as well. That's not to say there aren't workers but the building has been sealed up for awhile and general lack of progress beyond that. I'm curious if there are some supply chain issues affecting interior materials. 

 

Also. If it is completed, I wonder if they've made the econimic decision to keep it closed if the downtown rental market has been soft lately and are waiting until things heat up again. 

On 4/22/2021 at 6:01 PM, DevolsDance said:

Downtown Commission packet has been posted.

 

One of the more interesting, and disappointing requests is the demolition of 16 W Main St. Schiff is requesting permission to demo the old Main Bar building and replace it with 7 parking spaces, no mention of planned/future development. Schiff is stating the building is a danger/liability, which is a statement being opposed by the Chief Building Official following an inspection. 

 

Good news though is the downtown commission seems to be pushing back in their response, but I curious to find out more in the meeting. 

 

Staff Analysis

The guidelines state that while demolition sometimes makes way for projects of greater significance, it has often led to empty lots used for surface parking.The long term effect has been the loss of continuity in the architectural fabric of many Downtown streets. While the commission should consider if the building is in a deteriorated state such that it cannot economically be rehabilitated, it is the general intent of the guidelines to encourage the preservation of Downtown’s building stock. With regards to the surface parking proposed, the guidelines state that surface parking has had a detrimental impact on the character of Downtown. Surface parking should be located to the rear of buildings, parking should be screened, and limiting the amount of new surface parking will ensure a responsible approach to the provision of parking Downtown.

 

More here - https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/zj2wb2h12ilxnmyrkx8umi1h943wkyuj/file/802319229958

 

 

 

 

This demolition is back on the agenda for this month's meeting, the plans appear to be unchanged.

1 hour ago, .justin said:

 

This demolition is back on the agenda for this month's meeting, the plans appear to be unchanged.

 

It looks like city staff tried to dissuade Schiff from bringing this demolition request to the Downtown Commission.  But after postponing it a month, Schiff decided to plow ahead(!)

 

It will be interesting to see how the Downtown Commission reacts to this request.  It's not so much that this building can't be demolished for a larger development at Main & High - it's that the Commission normally wants to see the new development proposal before granting the demolition request.  Typically, the demolition approval is granted along with the new construction approval.

 

And it sounds like this was communicated to the applicant.  However, if an applicant wants to bring a request to the Downtown Commission, city staff can't stop him.  So the Downtown Commission could do a simple rejection of the demolition request and tell Schiff to return when there is a development proposal.  Or, they could try to finesse this by granting the demolition with a ton of conditions that might keep Schiff on the hook for developing this property.

 

I don't know what those conditions might be, or if that is even wise, I'm just saying it might be an option.  However, a straight "no, come back later with your development proposal" might serve the Downtown Commission better.  Even though this building almost 100% won't be part of any new development at Main & High, the principle of allowing a demolition in such a core location without associating it with a replacement development, could set a bad precedent for future applications the Downtown Commission might hear.

Well, after writing all that in my previous post, I came across Business First's article about it:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/05/21/commission-will-rule-on-main-bar-building-demoliti.html

 

And it appears there is something new in Schiff's demolition application from the previous month.  Schiff hired a structural engineer and filed a report with the city, calling the building "an imminent danger to the public" and recommended putting a safety barrier around the structure until it can be demolished.

5 minutes ago, Columbo said:

Well, after writing all that in my previous post, I came across Business First's article about it:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/05/21/commission-will-rule-on-main-bar-building-demoliti.html

 

And it appears there is something new in Schiff's demolition application from the previous month.  Schiff hired a structural engineer and filed a report with the city, calling the building "an imminent danger to the public" and recommended putting a safety barrier around the structure until it can be demolished.

 

Actually the same report was included in their submission last month as well.

1 hour ago, .justin said:

 

Actually the same report was included in their submission last month as well.

 

Okay then.  You're right - same submission as last month.

 

(The Business First article made it sound like it was something new.)