Something tells me Main Bar is not in danger of imminent collapse.  It's a case of they got the opinion they paid for.

Edited May 22, 20214 yr by jonoh81

Only the Chief Building Official can declare a building "an imminent danger to the public", not a structural engineer hired by a property owner that has a motivation to demolish said building.  So, after a month's postponement, it looks like the below 4/22 report is still valid:

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

 

 

 

 

And also my analysis of the facts of the case:

On 5/21/2021 at 4:46 PM, Columbo said:

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.

 

It will be interesting to see just how far each side - Schiff and the Downtown Commission - are willing to push this case.  It's really more the principle of the demolition/new construction process for this site then anything else.  The Downtown Commission would not oppose the demolition if the new construction proposal was presented at the same time.  But thus far, Schiff's ask is this:

 

- Demolition of a building not under CBO orders for removal; and

- No new construction proposal to replace it; and

- Replacement with surface parking; and

- Located within the core downtown

 

Personally, that seems like too many "and's" for the Downtown Commission to just issue a straight demo approval.  But we'll see how this plays out at next week's meeting.

The Downtown Commission tabled the demolition of the Main Bar building to next month's meeting. The city is having a third party assess the building and should have the report from that review back before the next meeting.

 

 

On 5/18/2021 at 10:57 AM, 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've passed by the LC building a couple times in the past few days and it definitely is not completely finished yet... it looked to me like they hadn't installed the mailboxes yet in the lobby. The entrances to the parking garage still have chain link fence in front of them (no gates/garage doors have been installed) and a few other things on the exterior weren't finished.

14 minutes ago, .justin said:

The Downtown Commission tabled the demolition of the Main Bar building to next month's meeting. The city is having a third party assess the building and should have the report from that review back before the next meeting.

 

 

 

I've passed by the LC building a couple times in the past few days and it definitely is not completely finished yet... it looked to me like they hadn't installed the mailboxes yet in the lobby. The entrances to the parking garage still have chain link fence in front of them (no gates/garage doors have been installed) and a few other things on the exterior weren't finished.

Damn that’s crazy that project has been in construction for like 5 years now it feels like. I could be exaggerating but still!

On 5/22/2021 at 11:50 AM, Columbo said:

Only the Chief Building Official can declare a building "an imminent danger to the public", not a structural engineer hired by a property owner that has a motivation to demolish said building.  So, after a month's postponement, it looks like the below 4/22 report is still valid:

 

And also my analysis of the facts of the case:

 

It will be interesting to see just how far each side - Schiff and the Downtown Commission - are willing to push this case.  It's really more the principle of the demolition/new construction process for this site then anything else.  The Downtown Commission would not oppose the demolition if the new construction proposal was presented at the same time.  But thus far, Schiff's ask is this:

 

- Demolition of a building not under CBO orders for removal; and

- No new construction proposal to replace it; and

- Replacement with surface parking; and

- Located within the core downtown

 

Personally, that seems like too many "and's" for the Downtown Commission to just issue a straight demo approval.  But we'll see how this plays out at next week's meeting.

All of this almost seems personal to me. I know that Schiff and the owner were going at it over price for some time and there appeared to be some bad blood there and some legal proceedings if I remember correctly.  It almost seems like now that he finally has the property he cannot possibly raze it soon enough. And I will be right there to swing the first sledgehammer for him, as long as he has a nice tall building lined up with financing and ready to break ground that is.

So yeah.... [insert words of choice]

 

Edit:  I really don't have much hope for anything anytime soon. Why go through all this trouble to not have a plan presented and why invest as much as they plan to into redoing the parking lot if they are going to build anytime soon?  Seems like a total farce. 

 

Edited June 23, 20213 yr by DTCL11

11 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

So yeah.... [insert words of choice]

 

Edit:  I really don't have much hope for anything anytime soon. Why go through all this trouble to not have a plan presented and why invest as much as they plan to into redoing the parking lot if they are going to build anytime soon?  Seems like a total farce. 

 

 

The Downtown Commission approved demolition with a condition that within 2 years the property owner must come back with a plan to redevelop the site or, if they don't have a redevelopment plan by then, they must reconstruct the entire parking lot to meet current downtown standards (fencing/screening, landscaping, lighting, etc). 

 

Jared Schiff said they hoped to have a redevelopment proposal before the commission within the next 6-12 months or so. They also agreed to the 2 year restriction as being acceptable.

6 minutes ago, .justin said:

 

The Downtown Commission approved demolition with a condition that within 2 years the property owner must come back with a plan to redevelop the site or, if they don't have a redevelopment plan by then, they must reconstruct the entire parking lot to meet current downtown standards (fencing/screening, landscaping, lighting, etc). 

 

Jared Schiff said they hoped to have a redevelopment proposal before the commission within the next 6-12 months or so. They also agreed to the 2 year restriction as being acceptable.

This makes things a bit better-especially the last paragraph.  I just hope the proposal is a bold one. 

4 minutes ago, .justin said:

 

The Downtown Commission approved demolition with a condition that within 2 years the property owner must come back with a plan to redevelop the site or, if they don't have a redevelopment plan by then, they must reconstruct the entire parking lot to meet current downtown standards (fencing/screening, landscaping, lighting, etc). 

 

Jared Schiff said they hoped to have a redevelopment proposal before the commission within the next 6-12 months or so. They also agreed to the 2 year restriction as being acceptable.

Hopefully they get something proposed that quickly. Not holding out hope it’s going to be anything good. It seems the only project they have developed is at high and lane, and that building isn’t the greatest. Hopefully they bring someone on who has a great vision. 

Wasn't there also a stipulation that NRI develop the old Marconi garage site within 5 years?  4 years and 9 months later.... 

 

I'll be happy if everyone follows through as planned. But I'm going to remain skeptical. The developer has owned the land since summer of 2018. Nothing about the presence of this building would have prevented even conceptual plans in the last 3 years. And the city hasn't been that great at following or enforcing their own rules. 

 

And what kind of incentive is 'if you don't have a plan within two years for the massive parking lot, you just have to upgrade a parking lot?'  Can we attach some greater financial burden so it forces them to move forward or sell it? 

 

It's reminiscent of when North Market changed parking vendors and adding pay machines. In the midst of promising a new tower, they put investment into the existing lot which, correctly, signaled it was going to be present longer than anticipated, now almost 2 years after the fact. 

Edited June 23, 20213 yr by DTCL11

Woof.  No idea what the Downtown Commission is doing.  They look just as bad as the Schiffs here, imo.

Commission Approves Plan to Demolish Main Bar Downtown

 

The Downtown Commission yesterday approved a plan to tear down a historic two-story building at 16 W. Main St., the longtime home of the Main Bar.

 

The building will be replaced – at least for now – with parking, adding seven new spots to the large surface lot that has surrounded the building for decades.

 

The owner of the building, an LLC associated with Schiff Properties, also owns the adjacent parcels and has been working on a redevelopment plan for the larger site, which sits at the corner of South High Street near the center of Downtown.

 

Schiff Properties’ Jared Schiff told the commission that, although he can’t say exactly when they’ll be ready to present a plan for the corner, “I don’t think it’s too far away…I’d say within the next six to 12 months we could potentially have plans in front of the city to review.”

 

More below:

https://www.columbusunderground.com/commission-approves-plan-to-demolish-main-bar-downtown-bw1 & https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/06/23/main-bar-demolition-approved-but-city-wants-a-red.html

 

The confidence this statement exudes is just astounding....

 

Jared Schiff told the commission that, although he can’t say exactly when they’ll be ready to present a plan for the corner, “I don’t think it’s too far away…I’d say within the next six to 12 months we could potentially have plans in front of the city to review.”

I saw they tore the Main Bar down today, but didn't have a fence up. Not sure if I've ever seen a structure tore down without fencing up.  I assumed they had to have one up for safety reasons?  No?

1 minute ago, Luvcbus said:

I saw they tore the Main Bar down today, but didn't have a fence up. Not sure if I've ever seen a structure tore down without fencing up.  I assumed they had to have one up for safety reasons?  No?

This is great! I'm so excited for the parking lot upgrades that this dumb, non contributing, dilapidated, underutilized, building was preventing. One more eyesore gone. These extra spots will be vital for downtown events. All hail more parking! 

8 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

This is great! I'm so excited for the parking lot upgrades that this dumb, non contributing, dilapidated, underutilized, building was preventing. One more eyesore gone. These extra spots will be vital for downtown events. All hail more parking! 

I see a lot of green grass in this picture. Looks like a prime spot to put a surface lot to me!

13 minutes ago, TIm said:

I see a lot of green grass in this picture. Looks like a prime spot to put a surface lot to me!

 

 

Worth pointing out that it used to be parking lot...pretty much the entire RiverSouth area used to be parking lots.

 

(also I will forever hate Crawford Hoying for downsizing that building, it looks ridiculous)

Don't worry guys, I'm sure the long term plans include a stunning 4-story building with 3 levels of parking and a blank wall along the street.  I hope they get really creative with the choice of pre-fab panels and visible garage fluorescents.   

1 hour ago, .justin said:

 

 

Worth pointing out that it used to be parking lot...pretty much the entire RiverSouth area used to be parking lots.

 

(also I will forever hate Crawford Hoying for downsizing that building, it looks ridiculous)

 

One of my personal highlights was writing an unflattering article about that awful project and angering CH to no end.    

49 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

One of my personal highlights was writing an unflattering article about that awful project and angering CH to no end.

They really need to put a mural above at least.  That piece of blank wall looks absolutely horrible.

51 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

They really need to put a mural above at least.  That piece of blank wall looks absolutely horrible.

Someone get in touch with Orange Barrel. Even one of their banner ads would look better than a blank wall.

What is up with this LC building? Appears to be finished or like 99.9999% done for the past handful of years and no one seems to be moved in yet. Have they just abandoned the project or are they out of money to finish? I couldn’t even find a site online to look at the interiors of the apartments for leasing. 

Edited November 17, 20213 yr by 614love

Fascinating. 

 

Any chance they are in some sort of dispute with the city before they can get the all clear? I know there was some reporting about how they weren't following approved plans. Not sure it should hold anything up like this though. 

 

Property records are all the same and didn't see anything pop up for courts under the address, LLC etc. 

 

By now, any excuse of supply chain seems like it would be well beyond reasonable. Although, I do know Ford is behind 6+ months of more on corporate fleet vehicles so maybe it is something silly like not being able to get hundreds of refrigerators from their chosen supplier? But why not partially open then? 

 

A conundrum for sure. 

Honestly all the LC has achieved here is showing how much of a mess their development arm must be internally. Respectively, baby developers have moved in, set up larger shop, and started turning profit before LC has been able to get 3 average projects up and running. 

 

Years ago I was at CMH waiting for a flight to Nashville and listening three LC reps discuss the RiverSouth projects. Even back then, they were calling the projects the company money pit. I don't know exactly where or when these went wrong, but they really have never seemed to regain their footing.

9 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

Honestly all the LC has achieved here is showing how much of a mess their development arm must be internally. Respectively, baby developers have moved in, set up larger shop, and started turning profit before LC has been able to get 3 average projects up and running. 

 

Years ago I was at CMH waiting for a flight to Nashville and listening three LC reps discuss the RiverSouth projects. Even back then, they were calling the projects the company money pit. I don't know exactly where or when these went wrong, but they really have never seemed to regain their footing.

Yet they just broke ground on a 1,000+ unit project in suburban Austin. I don’t disagree that these three have been a mess but they also were a massive undertaking in a new segment for them.

5 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

Fascinating. 

 

Any chance they are in some sort of dispute with the city before they can get the all clear? I know there was some reporting about how they weren't following approved plans. Not sure it should hold anything up like this though. 

 

Property records are all the same and didn't see anything pop up for courts under the address, LLC etc. 

 

By now, any excuse of supply chain seems like it would be well beyond reasonable. Although, I do know Ford is behind 6+ months of more on corporate fleet vehicles so maybe it is something silly like not being able to get hundreds of refrigerators from their chosen supplier? But why not partially open then? 

 

A conundrum for sure. 

 

Chip shortage affecting security system install?

11 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Chip shortage affecting security system install?

 

I'm pretty sure this project was visibly stalled even before the chip shortage.

I have noticed that they installed a temporary garage door (it's literally a standard garage door that you would install at a house with a plywood surround to fill the opening) and a few vehicles have been parked in the garage overnight. That could just be overflow parking from their other buildings though.

There are several cars regularly parking in the Matan, and there appear to be some occupied apartments based on lights at night. Could they finally be moving in residents?  

3 hours ago, drtom1234 said:

There are several cars regularly parking in the Matan, and there appear to be some occupied apartments based on lights at night. Could they finally be moving in residents?  

 

I also saw UPS delivering a couple of packages there a week or so ago.

Their website says 'Now Leasing' at 275 S Front Street.

 

 

Edited December 20, 20213 yr by Imwalle

Interesting news. Casto just sold off Bicentennial Plaza to a Chicago-based firm:

 

Bicentennial Plaza sells for nearly $13M

 

By Bonnie Meibers  –  Staff reporter , Columbus Business First

 

Chicago-based Ravinia Capital Group paid $12.8 million for Columbus' Bicentennial Plaza, according to the Franklin County Auditor.

 

The office building, located at 250 Civic Center Dr. downtown, is six stories with about 105,000 rentable square feet. The building is about 75% occupied. Tenants include Casto, Pace Financial, Taneff Law and law firm Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

 

Casto was the seller. The firm has committed to a long-term lease which was attractive to Ravinia, said Colliers' Ross Lanford, who represented Ravinia along with Daniel Dunsmoore and Michelle Fude.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/03/15/bicentennial-plaza.html

 

Probably not even on the radar, but it would be incredible if the new company could dust off the original plans for this development and proceed with the second and third phases as proposed years ago.

8 minutes ago, CMHOhio said:

Interesting news. Casto just sold off Bicentennial Plaza to a Chicago-based firm:

 

Bicentennial Plaza sells for nearly $13M

 

By Bonnie Meibers  –  Staff reporter , Columbus Business First

 

Chicago-based Ravinia Capital Group paid $12.8 million for Columbus' Bicentennial Plaza, according to the Franklin County Auditor.

 

The office building, located at 250 Civic Center Dr. downtown, is six stories with about 105,000 rentable square feet. The building is about 75% occupied. Tenants include Casto, Pace Financial, Taneff Law and law firm Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote.

 

Casto was the seller. The firm has committed to a long-term lease which was attractive to Ravinia, said Colliers' Ross Lanford, who represented Ravinia along with Daniel Dunsmoore and Michelle Fude.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2022/03/15/bicentennial-plaza.html

 

Probably not even on the radar, but it would be incredible if the new company could dust off the original plans for this development and proceed with the second and third phases as proposed years ago.

I don’t remember seeing anything about the plans. Can you update me? 

25 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I don’t remember seeing anything about the plans. Can you update me? 

I believe it was called Bicentennial Plaza 2 and it would have been a 21 story building. 

 

It is listed as Bicentennial Plaza Apartments on Emporis Columbus highrises and was supposed to be 21 floors and approximately 270 feet tall.

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by Toddguy

Those were slated on the parking lots to the East of Ludlow. They don't appear to be part of the sale. Bicentennial Plaza LLC appears to be maintaining ownership of all the surrounding lots. Looks like the sale is for the office building and the small service lot up to Ludlow. 

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by DTCL11

2 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

Those were slated on the parking lots to the East of Ludlow. They don't appear to be part of the sale. Bicentennial Plaza LLC appears to be maintaining ownership of all the surrounding lots. Looks like the sale is for the office building and the small service lot up to Ludlow. 

Thanks very much for the additional information and clarification. Is Bicentennial Plaza LLC an arm of Casto? I wonder if they still have any plans for those lots other than resurfacing them. 

I should clarify that it is technically 'Bicenntenial Plaza Holding Company, LTD'.

 

It seems that it is a subsidiary of the Schottenstein Group. Which would be in line with the Millenial Tower proposal from Arshot (another Schottenstein venture). What always confused me about the Millenial Tower is Schottenstien doesn't own the entire block to begin with. And there hasn't been any transfer of of the parcels anytime recently. 

 

Another interesting tidbit. Looks like Arshot owned the Bicentenial Plaza office building at one time as well. 

 

 

 

 

Blue: Bicentennial Holdings

Yellow: Other Entities

Green: CASTO sale 

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by DTCL11

1 hour ago, DTCL11 said:

I should clarify that it is technically 'Bicenntenial Plaza Holding Company, LTD'.

 

It seems that it is a subsidiary of the Schottenstein Group. Which would be in line with the Millenial Tower proposal from Arshot (another Schottenstein venture). What always confused me about the Millenial Tower is Schottenstien doesn't own the entire block to begin with. And there hasn't been any transfer of of the parcels anytime recently. 

 

Another interesting tidbit. Looks like Arshot owned the Bicentenial Plaza office building at one time as well. 

 

 

 

 

Blue: Bicentennial Holdings

Yellow: Other Entities

Green: CASTO sale 

 

Actually it looks like the Schottensteins do own that last parcel on the Millennial Tower block... the auditor has its owner listed as The Oar House Corporation, which, when originally established in 1986, appointed William Schottenstein as its statutory agent. He also signed a document filed with the secretary of state in 2009 changing the domestic agent to the King Agent Corporation. The auditor also lists the owner address as 21 E State St, which I believe used to be where the Arshot offices were.

 

Hmm... you'd think they'd have combined them anytime over the last 30 years of so lol. 

 

That is ultimately good news. The city needs to get whatever Schottenstien entity is going to take responsibility for the parcels to build something or start turning the screws to make it less desirable to sit on a parking lot. Especially large areas owned by the same entities. The effects of that could be tremendous. 

13 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

Hmm... you'd think they'd have combined them anytime over the last 30 years of so lol. 

 

That is ultimately good news. The city needs to get whatever Schottenstien entity is going to take responsibility for the parcels to build something or start turning the screws to make it less desirable to sit on a parking lot. Especially large areas owned by the same entities. The effects of that could be tremendous. 

Even more so, for such a prime location right by the river. 

4 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

Hmm... you'd think they'd have combined them anytime over the last 30 years of so lol. 

 

That is ultimately good news. The city needs to get whatever Schottenstien entity is going to take responsibility for the parcels to build something or start turning the screws to make it less desirable to sit on a parking lot. Especially large areas owned by the same entities. The effects of that could be tremendous. 

This is Schottenstein we are talking about and I doubt if they do anything in good faith. Arshot, Schottenstein, anything to do with them-just throw it all away. They have left us with an abandoned half demolished baseball stadium, threw a hissy fit over Their own dumb Central Crossing proposal, did nothing with Millennium Tower which was probably not in good faith anyway. I would not count on them to do anything, so turning the screws is the only thing left to do. And even if they come up with some proposals for those sites,, expect them to not be real or in good faith, and if they are, expect whatever is built to be subpar, cheap, and underwhelming.

 

That association of groups has dropped the ball to many times for me.

 

I would love for them to prove me wrong, but I am not counting on that. The best thing they could do is sell it all to someone or some group who will do the sites justice.

 

*sorry for being so negative but I am just tired and worn out today.

Not sure if this would fit into the river south development section but noticed that the land to the west of the old covermymeds building was just listed for sale. It would be an amazing place for a 20+ story riverfront condo building. 

This site might have a bit of an issue. I can find where there were major environmental concerns in 1994 but can't find where it was ever remediate or awarded a brownfield grant as alluded to. The owner is still the Handwell Co. and they don't seem to have a price. Just make in offer according to the listing I saw. 

 

"Since the site at 304 W. Mound St. was rejected for the [EPA Superfund] program, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency now must decide what to do with it.

 

It has what one recent Ohio EPA report characterized as "extremely elevated levels" of lead, hexavalent chromium and nickel in the soil. Lead and chromium are considered extremely toxic.

 

Inspectors also have found lead in the ground water, though none has been found leaching into the nearby Scioto River.

 

The property is owned by the Handwell Co. Now vacant, it has housed scrap metal, car battery recycling and metal plating businesses over the past 70 years.

 

Handwell has sued previous owners and tenants of the property, and responsibility for the cleanup is being sorted out in U.S. District Court in Columbus. Handwell officials were not available for comment.

 

The most recent tenant - Gilbert Plating and Bumper Exchange - left in January 1990. The company cleaned up its area, President Irwin Gilbert said. However, he and his company are among those being sued by Handwell.

 

Despite rejecting it for Superfund, the U.S. EPA commissioned a study completed in September that reported the site poses "an imminent and substantial risk of human exposure by direct contact with highly contaminated surface soil." Consultant PRC Environmental Management of Chicago urged the agency to clean up the site as soon as possible.

 

None of the contamination appears to have crossed the property line.

 

It could be the first site in Columbus to take advantage of the state's new "Brownfields" law. That law, pushed through this year by Gov. George V. Voinovich and Attorney General-elect Betty Montgomery, is aimed at making it more attractive to redevelop old, abandoned industrial zones."

 

It may have been taken care of already, but if not, might make it a hard sell. 

 

 

Here's a PDF of their listing packet:

 

https://images1.showcase.com/d2/yY8KYrn-13wWFDgHd-4F6QgkOqob4DvEE7s_uOZUNpQ/document.pdf

7 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

This site might have a bit of an issue. I can find where there were major environmental concerns in 1994 but can't find where it was ever remediate or awarded a brownfield grant as alluded to. The owner is still the Handwell Co. and they don't seem to have a price. Just make in offer according to the listing I saw. 

 

"Since the site at 304 W. Mound St. was rejected for the [EPA Superfund] program, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency now must decide what to do with it.

 

It has what one recent Ohio EPA report characterized as "extremely elevated levels" of lead, hexavalent chromium and nickel in the soil. Lead and chromium are considered extremely toxic.

 

Inspectors also have found lead in the ground water, though none has been found leaching into the nearby Scioto River.

 

The property is owned by the Handwell Co. Now vacant, it has housed scrap metal, car battery recycling and metal plating businesses over the past 70 years.

 

Handwell has sued previous owners and tenants of the property, and responsibility for the cleanup is being sorted out in U.S. District Court in Columbus. Handwell officials were not available for comment.

 

The most recent tenant - Gilbert Plating and Bumper Exchange - left in January 1990. The company cleaned up its area, President Irwin Gilbert said. However, he and his company are among those being sued by Handwell.

 

Despite rejecting it for Superfund, the U.S. EPA commissioned a study completed in September that reported the site poses "an imminent and substantial risk of human exposure by direct contact with highly contaminated surface soil." Consultant PRC Environmental Management of Chicago urged the agency to clean up the site as soon as possible.

 

None of the contamination appears to have crossed the property line.

 

It could be the first site in Columbus to take advantage of the state's new "Brownfields" law. That law, pushed through this year by Gov. George V. Voinovich and Attorney General-elect Betty Montgomery, is aimed at making it more attractive to redevelop old, abandoned industrial zones."

 

It may have been taken care of already, but if not, might make it a hard sell. 

 

To the bolded, I would have to think so at some time. They would not offer some glitzy PDF over a contaminated site, would they? 

I wonder if they would be able to access the Miranova parking garage or would have to have their own parking? Would be great site for a tall residential on a parking podium to bring it up higher from the tracks/freeway. 

 

Whatever they build I hope the south side is more than a giant concrete wall like Miranova. Maybe someone can borrow some ideas from the proposal for the Whitter Peninsula and have something cantilevered toward the river, something dynamic and interesting?

 

One can hope.

21 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Whatever they build I hope the south side is more than a giant concrete wall like Miranova. Maybe someone can borrow some ideas from the proposal for the Whitter Peninsula and have something cantilevered toward the river, something dynamic and interesting?

 

One can hope.

I know a lot of people took issue with it, but I really liked the design of Millennial Tower. This site would be an even better location for a tower with a similar design, given its visibility from both the park/river and the freeway. 

That site might be problematic to access once ODOT is finished with the next phase of 70-71. The rendering below (sorry for the low res) shows a bridge over Mound St. at the southwest corner of the Miranova garage. This is the new ramp to 315 and 71 south. The bottom rendering is the view south from the southeast corner of the Miranova garage. Mound is at the bottom. I circled the bridge that will carry westbound traffic to 315 and 71 south.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

I know a lot of people took issue with it, but I really liked the design of Millennial Tower. This site would be an even better location for a tower with a similar design, given its visibility from both the park/river and the freeway. 

Well...you are entitled to your opinion lol. I really did not like it. 

12 minutes ago, Pablo said:

That site might be problematic to access once ODOT is finished with the next phase of 70-71. The rendering below (sorry for the low res) shows a bridge over Mound St. at the southwest corner of the Miranova garage. This is the new ramp to 315 and 71 south. The bottom rendering is the view south from the southeast corner of the Miranova garage. Mound is at the bottom. I circled the bridge that will carry westbound traffic to 315 and 71 south.

 

 

 

 

As long as it is a bridge I would imagine you would be able to get under it. They have that bridge going over the street directly in front of one of the exit/entrances to the garage. I also think they would have to show the street as terminated if that was the case(no access)on the map.

 

It would require a parking podium to lift anything above the freeway which would be elevated and right there very close. It would not be over the property but right next to it.

 

Can ODOT just block off access to a property that is wanting to be developed? Could there be a fight? 

 

Too bad they can't have the end of Mound just turn south along the tracks under the freeway and continue South to connect to Short street around Liberty. I don't like that big parking lot there.

Edited March 29, 20223 yr by Toddguy