7 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

If they can manage to get past 15 stories, I would be ecstatic. I'll believe it when I see it though as this still sounds very conceptual. 

Yeah, I have a feeling it will be reduced to 10-12, but hopefully I am wrong. Exiting to see the renderings though and honestly wouldn’t be mad if they just sold it to the Chicago developer to do the whole thing. 

Edited January 24, 20232 yr by VintageLife

I wonder if Schiff owns the parcels in front of the weird box building with the night club and office too? Be nice to have the new tower wrap around that. 

Bahaha. Glad we started putting his feet to the fire now!

 

This quote speaks to his usual M.O. on capital for big projects and it usually doesn't work out. Interesting that selling is on the table. I WISH HE WOULD SELL THE MILLENIAL SITE. 

 

"Columbus' Schiff Properties plans to either co-develop the site with Chicago-based Mavrek Development or sell it to the firm, Scott Schiff said. The project is expected to cost between $50 million and $70 million, he said, depending on its ultimate height."

 

Looks like Mavrek's bread and butter is residential rehab and 5 over 1 but they are actively building their first (?) Mid-Rise at 21 stories in Streeterville. Seems like a solid partner. It's also good to see a Chicago developer dip their toes in Columbus. 

 

 

Edited January 24, 20232 yr by DTCL11

Millennial Tower 2.0? 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

I wonder if Schiff owns the parcels in front of the weird box building with the night club and office too? Be nice to have the new tower wrap around that. 

He doesn't. He owns from the back of that building to Main between Wall and High. Doesn't mean he can't partner with who does own them though. 

On 1/24/2023 at 1:07 PM, DTCL11 said:

Bahaha. Glad we started putting his feet to the fire now!

 

This quote speaks to his usual M.O. on capital for big projects and it usually doesn't work out. Interesting that selling is on the table. I WISH HE WOULD SELL THE MILLENIAL SITE. 

 

"Columbus' Schiff Properties plans to either co-develop the site with Chicago-based Mavrek Development or sell it to the firm, Scott Schiff said. The project is expected to cost between $50 million and $70 million, he said, depending on its ultimate height."

 

Looks like Mavrek's bread and butter is residential rehab and 5 over 1 but they are actively building their first (?) Mid-Rise at 21 stories in Streeterville. Seems like a solid partner. It's also good to see a Chicago developer dip their toes in Columbus. 

 

 

Based on this small tidbit from CBF today, I think you’re right. It will be better if Schiff just sells the project outright to Mavrek. 
 

“Schiff told me that Mavrek has pushed to build a taller building, but both groups want the project to be dense.”

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/01/30/main-bar-proposal-tower-density-apartments-density.html
 

Also, I thought the Schottensteins owned the Millennial property? Or did Schiff buy it from them?

21 minutes ago, amped91 said:

Based on this small tidbit from CBF today, I think you’re right. It will be better if Schiff just sells the project outright to Mavrek. 
 

“Schiff told me that Mavrek has pushed to build a taller building, but both groups want the project to be dense.”

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2023/01/30/main-bar-proposal-tower-density-apartments-density.html
 

Also, I thought the Schottensteins owned the Millennial property? Or did Schiff buy it from them?

I wonder if they mean mavrek wants to go taller than 18 or if that’s what mavrek wants and Schiff isn’t as on board. Hopefully the commission pushes for more height. we need more outside developers, who don’t own a ton of property. 
 

I haven’t heard anything about millennial selling, so no idea. 

I am not in real estate, but I know some folks who are in Central Ohio and they always tell me not to get my hopes up for any dense build with Schiff. So we will see. 

26 minutes ago, amped91 said:

 

 

Also, I thought the Schottensteins owned the Millennial property? Or did Schiff buy it from them?

 

You're right. Got my schiffty and schotty developers mixed up. 

4 minutes ago, clippersandyank said:

I am not in real estate, but I know some folks who are in Central Ohio and they always tell me not to get my hopes up for any dense build with Schiff. So we will see. 

I think the outside developer that wants to go taller, can be a good push, so hopefully. 

22 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I wonder if they mean mavrek wants to go taller than 18 or if that’s what mavrek wants and Schiff isn’t as on board.

Hopefully taller than 18!

How did I miss this?

Historic downtown Columbus building on South High Street changes hands

 

Harsax is a development, property management and construction firm, Sacks said. This is the firm's first Columbus property. 

Harsax bought the properties under Town High Plaza LLC. According to mortgage documents filed with the Franklin County Recorder's Office, the firm took out a $4.9 million loan to help pay for the building. A sale price was not registered with the Franklin County Auditor. 

Harsax bought the properties from TH Plaza LLC, which had owned them since 2015.

 

This is the old bank at W Town and High. Hopefully they redevelop the property instead of wanting to demo it. The pictures of the inside of the building are awesome. 

21 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

This is the old bank at W Town and High. Hopefully they redevelop the property instead of wanting to demo it. The pictures of the inside of the building are awesome. 

It says they plan to demolish the buildings next to the bank. Depending on what they plan to replace the demo with, I’m okay with it. 
 

Im glad to hear it’s changing hands though. Idk anything about Harsax, but I’m hoping they actually do something with the property, rather than let it sit vacant for years. 

9 minutes ago, amped91 said:

It says they plan to demolish the buildings next to the bank. Depending on what they plan to replace the demo with, I’m okay with it. 
 

Im going to hear it’s changing hands though. Idk anything about Harsax, but I’m hoping they actually do something with the property, rather than let it sit vacant for years. 

Thank you, I couldn’t see the whole article at the time. 
 

I do disagree that those other buildings aren’t historic, and would rather a remodel of some kind happen with those, but I don’t have the money to buy stuff, so I don’t have a say. 

Edited March 29, 20232 yr by VintageLife

Looking at Harsax's portfolio, it's pretty exclusively suburban rentals properties. I can't find anything urban in their portfolio that they promote so hard to tell. Maybe they have a partnership. 

 

I will again probably die on the hill that recommends against demolition, at least of the front portions. I know that LC got away with it because the additions were haphazard, various sizes and levels etc. And LCs replacements look great. These building have been listed as dangerous for some time but again, even if it's just those two buildings, that's HALF A BLOCK of pre-war structures/facaces to be lost yet again. I know we aim to be Charlotte sometimes, but I'd like to take a lesson from them in working to save more and more. There will be no way preserving the front 20 ft with a stepped back modern building above is cost prohibitive. 

 

I was in DC again for the first time in a few years and again, it's like standard protocol to save facades or the front portions of buildings and here, it's like pulling teeth to do the bare minimum. 

Edited March 29, 20232 yr by DTCL11

1 minute ago, DTCL11 said:

Looking at Harsax's portfolio, it's pretty exclusively suburban rentals properties. I can't find anything urban in their portfolio that they promote so hard to tell. Maybe they have a partnership. 

 

I will again probably die on the hill that recommends against demolition, at least of the front portions. I know that LC got away with it because the additions were haphazard, various sizes and levels etc. And LCs replacements look great. These building have been listed as dangerous for some time but again, even if it's just those two buildings, that's half a block of original facade to be lost again. I know we aim to be Charlotte sometimes, but I'd like to take a lesson from them in working to save more and more. There will be no way preserving the front 20 ft with a stepped back modern building above is cost prohibitive. 

 

I was in DC again for the first time in a few years and again, it's like standard protocol to save facades or the front portions of buildongs and here, it's like pulling teeth to do the bare minimum. 

Yeah I just looked through their portfolio and didn’t see anything urban at all. I hope that isn’t a bad sign for something terrible, and hopefully downtown commission doesn’t bend on anything, this go around. 
 

They could surprise everyone and build something urban and great. I also agree there shouldn’t be any demo of the historic facade

1 minute ago, VintageLife said:

Yeah I just looked through their portfolio and didn’t see anything urban at all. I hope that isn’t a bad sign for something terrible, and hopefully downtown commission doesn’t bend on anything, this go around. 
 

They could surprise everyone and build something urban and great. I also agree there shouldn’t be any demo of the historic facade

 

Yeah. I don't want to make any assumptions on whether they can do a good urban project til we see it. If this is their first splash into more urban projects, maybe they have something pretty great up their sleeves. As long as they can work with the historic piece. 

The bank building will never be torn down, it's way too significant.  I'm all for saving at the minimum the facades of the neighboring buildings (similar to how AC hotel on Park Street did) but based on the location of this stretch of buildings, this has major opportunity to go vertical and truly fill in a gap in the skyline between Rife and the justice tower.

Always wanted this to be a museum of some sort or maybe a second location of Marble Room in Cleveland 

7 minutes ago, 614love said:

Always wanted this to be a museum of some sort or maybe a second location of Marble Room in Cleveland 

That’s kind of the vibe of The Citizens Trust, but doesn’t have full meals.  

Maybe @KJPcan work some angles for us since it's a Cleveland based developer 😜

I hope the buildings are incorporated into whatever the new owner has planned. This comment by the new owner is concerning. Sounds like they're thinking of tearing the buildings down first and then think about what to do later.

 

Quote

Randall Sacks, CEO of Cleveland-based Harsax Management Company, said the firm is still deciding what to do with the site, but does plan to demolish the non-historic buildings and potentially redevelop after demolition.

 

41 minutes ago, Pablo said:

I hope the buildings are incorporated into whatever the new owner has planned. This comment by the new owner is concerning. Sounds like they're thinking of tearing the buildings down first and then think about what to do later.

 

 

I know the downtown commission doesn’t always stick to their rules, but I see them not allowing a demo without a building already to go. If it was a side road maybe, but it being right on high, I don’t see them approving demo. 

1 hour ago, DTCL11 said:

Maybe @KJPcan work some angles for us since it's a Cleveland based developer 😜

 

Nyet!

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

I hope the buildings are incorporated into whatever the new owner has planned. This comment by the new owner is concerning. Sounds like they're thinking of tearing the buildings down first and then think about what to do later.

 

 

 

Which are the non-historic buildings, though? The buildings next to the bank arguably have more character to them than anything built on High Street Downtown in decades. 

40 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Nyet!

Awe, Shucks! Worth a shot 😉

3 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

Looking at Harsax's portfolio, it's pretty exclusively suburban rentals properties. I can't find anything urban in their portfolio that they promote so hard to tell. Maybe they have a partnership. 

 

I will again probably die on the hill that recommends against demolition, at least of the front portions. I know that LC got away with it because the additions were haphazard, various sizes and levels etc. And LCs replacements look great. These building have been listed as dangerous for some time but again, even if it's just those two buildings, that's HALF A BLOCK of pre-war structures/facaces to be lost yet again. I know we aim to be Charlotte sometimes, but I'd like to take a lesson from them in working to save more and more. There will be no way preserving the front 20 ft with a stepped back modern building above is cost prohibitive. 

 

I was in DC again for the first time in a few years and again, it's like standard protocol to save facades or the front portions of buildings and here, it's like pulling teeth to do the bare minimum. 

I agree. save the facades and push it all back 20 feet.  And if anyone even thinks about a demo for that bank building they should get the death penalty.

If they get demo approval, this is what will have been lost in less than 10 years.

 

And there was some cool potential for a little alleyway development on Wall Street that has been obliterated. 

 

The LC buildings are good buildings so I want to give credit where credit is due. But again, we fall in to this trap of whether what we are losing, is worth it for the ease of a developer.

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 20232 yr by DTCL11

As a side note, anyone know why LC tore out their pool?

 

 

4 hours ago, 614love said:

Always wanted this to be a museum of some sort or maybe a second location of Marble Room in Cleveland 

I love the idea of a museum there. Either that, or some sort of destination/specialty cafe. 
 

As for the other buildings, I don’t see anything that makes them any different from the dozen+ other 3-4 story bricks from early 20th century that you can find on High downtown and in the SN. Being old doesn’t mean it needs preserved. Save the facade or put up a damn plaque if they want, but as long as the replacement is better, more dense dev, then I don’t care. 

1 hour ago, DTCL11 said:

If they get demo approval, this is what will have been lost in less than 10 years.

 

And there was some cool potential for a little alleyway development on Wall Street that has been obliterated. 

 

The LC buildings are good buildings so I want to give credit where credit is due. But again, we fall in to this trap of whether what we are losing, is worth it for the ease of a developer.

 

 

 

They're going to tear down LC? Why??? Its such a good development - arguably one of the best new construction projects in the area.

The great thing Is the city can demand both. But find me some of the best, most vibrant urban neighborhoods across the country and a vast majority aren't going to be the ones where everything has been wiped out with placards showing the old to cater to left brain desire for more density being the end all to beat all. While that sounds wonderful in theory, always out with the old in favor of more density is not where we tend to gravitate. I dont think the Short North would be as successful if it had been cleared out for more density. And I dont think that's enough to say 'well, the short north has a few, and a few more around downtown are all we need'.   A downtown nearly void of early 1900s structures is a boring downtown. 

 

Again, I will die on this hill where we become complacent in wiping out entire blocks solely for the ease of developers. It isn't hard. We shouldn't be taking them at their word. We should be demanding better. Both are achievable. Heck, even Austin is trying to preserve what they have left and alot of that includes single story buildings. Sure, a 40 story building may be rising out of the back third, but they also recognize the value in saving what's left, even if it isn't the most remarkable architecture.  There's an asthetic nature that draws people more than simply the numbers in density. 

 

8 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

They're going to tear down LC? Why??? Its such a good development - arguably one of the best new construction projects in the area.

 

That's highlighting what was there before. LC also got away with tearing down nearly an entire city block for their new builds. 

 

Again, that's not to say what is there now isn't nice, but what's gone is gone. And now we are talking about another significant part of downtown to be wiped out for 'we haven't decided what to do yet'

9 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

And I dont think that's enough to say 'well, the short north has a few, and a few more around downtown are all we need'.   A downtown nearly void of early 1900s structures is a boring downtown.

This is also the reason why Gay St and the red brick district are the more happening places downtown. They have that old architecture that was made for community. 
 

I'm all for density, I just want it done right. There is no reason developers cannot save historic facades and they 100% be required to do it. 

I take issue with that being an intentional misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say a few buildings here and there is all we need. I’m saying the historically/architecturally significant part is being preserved. There’s no reason nearly an entire city block on the most heavily traversed street downtown needs to remain low density just because something is “old.” This board as of late seems to be in freak out mode over conjecture. We have no idea what the plans are, so there’s no use in getting all worked up. 

16 minutes ago, amped91 said:

There’s no reason nearly an entire city block on the most heavily traversed street downtown needs to remain low density just because something is “old.” 

 

Correct. And no one here is advocating for it to remain low density. You can have high density AND preserve old which is what I assume most of us are advocating. Austin, Chicago, DC, etc are building great density out of old buildings. You can't get much more density from an old building than the Hearst Tower in NYC.  We just don't see it here often enough because we don't demand it. As mentioned upthread, the AC hotel is one of the best we've had and should be applied generously around the city but instead, we leave it up to developers to decide.  These things add to the neighborhood scale and timeless aestetic of an area as well. 

 

And your implication is pretty clear. Why save these when there are others that look the same elsewhere and we can have more density? Which ultimately results in just a few being left. So while it might not have been your direct statement, that is the outcome of that approach so you can call it a misrepresentation, but the result will be the same. 

 

And why has it become so impassioned lately? Because time and time and time again the city is letting stuff get bulldozed. So what's left should be passionately protected. Whether or not we have proposals in hand, a developer stating their intent to raze structures is worth sounding alarms now before its too late. Even if they come back with a stunning proposal, here, as well as where the LC buildings stand now, and the potential loss of the old Ice House in the 'warehouse district' aren't even just stand alone. These are entire blocks gone. 

It's like Coleman says -- if we taxed surface lots differently we wouldn't have to tear down buildings in order to get another, somewhat larger building while the surface lots all around march on.

18 hours ago, amped91 said:

I love the idea of a museum there. Either that, or some sort of destination/specialty cafe. 
 

As for the other buildings, I don’t see anything that makes them any different from the dozen+ other 3-4 story bricks from early 20th century that you can find on High downtown and in the SN. Being old doesn’t mean it needs preserved. Save the facade or put up a damn plaque if they want, but as long as the replacement is better, more dense dev, then I don’t care. 

 

What makes German Village special? It's filled with a bunch of squat-looking, lookalike brick boxes. We could technically lose most of them and replace the neighborhood with highrises, and just put up a plaque and call it a day. Being old doesn't make it special, right? 

 

There are thousands upon thousands of early 20th Century American Foursquares and Victorians in Columbus too. What's the point of saving most of them when there are so many? 

 

Sarcasm aside, this argument that "It's old, not historic" is total semantics. We're always lamenting all the lost architectural history in the city, but we're still willing to look the other way with the exact same reasoning that every other loss was based on. A building doesn't have to be arbitrarily deemed "historic" to have value. The last thing we should want is for the city to have no architectural variety or interest because everything older than 1950 has been demolished. You can have density with preservation. You can have height with history. It's not one or the other. 

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by jonoh81

47 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Sarcasm aside, this argument that "It's old, not historic" is total semantics.

 

Yes, it is, but it's also shortsighted to oppose any demolition just because something is "old". The building below is "old", nearly 75 years old, but I think we would all be happy to see it demolished and replaced with something more useful and architecturally attractive.

 

 

53 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

We're always lamenting all the lost architectural history in the city, but we're still willing to look the other way with the exact same reasoning that every other loss was based on.

 

We lament the loss of quality architecture and the loss of livable, mixed-use areas of the city. But there are plenty of buildings that have been demolished over the years that actually led to positive additions to the city. 

 

55 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

A building doesn't have to be arbitrarily deemed "historic" to have value.

 

Similarly, a building does not necessarily have much value to the city just because it's old. 

 

57 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

The last thing we should want is for the city to have no architectural variety or interest because everything older than 1950 has been demolished.

 

Nobody here is arguing in support of this.

 

57 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

You can have density with preservation. You can have height with history. It's not one or the other. 

 

I think we all agree with this. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Yes, it is, but it's also shortsighted to oppose any demolition just because something is "old". The building below is "old", nearly 75 years old, but I think we would all be happy to see it demolished and replaced with something more useful and architecturally attractive.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone opposes all demolitions just due to age alone. The building above is a good example of a renovation- not a restoration- that has ultimately destroyed any original character to the point where it no longer contributes to any architectural variety or historic value. The damage was already done a long time ago. 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

We lament the loss of quality architecture and the loss of livable, mixed-use areas of the city. But there are plenty of buildings that have been demolished over the years that actually led to positive additions to the city. 

 

Sure, you can point to sites where demolitions happened where something "better" went in. That said, you seem to be arguing from the standpoint that demolition had to happen in every case to create something positive, and I think that's a false narrative. My example about German Village is a perfect example. We could replace the entire neighborhood with massive amounts of mixed-use density or multi-level housing and plenty of people would say that it would be an improvement because "it's just old and we can do better". In fact, that's pretty much what city leadership wanted to do at one time. 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

Similarly, a building does not necessarily have much value to the city just because it's old. 

 

Not much value in what way, though? The ability to provide a greater tax return? Again, there's no reason that dense, mixed-use projects that both address housing and increase local walkability and vibrancy can't coexist with preservation. The only 2 reasons it doesn't happen is because developers want to maximize profits at all costs and there's a general lack of imagination on what is possible. 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Nobody here is arguing in support of this.

 

I'm not sure I agree. If the only consideration for an old building is whether the proposed project to replace it is larger or has more density, then I think we are in fact saying that anything built before 1950 is largely expendable in the name of progress. If the developer wanted to replace the corner bank with a 50-story building, almost everyone would immediately drop all preservation talk. 

 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

 

I think we all agree with this. 

 

And yet some are ready to see the buildings in question torn down without even seeing a theoretical replacement. 

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by jonoh81

11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

If the developer wanted to replace the corner bank with a 50-story building, almost everyone would immediately drop all preservation talk. 

 

I disagree here. People would push for an alternative location for the skyscraper. I love skyscrapers and I would be at the barricades with pitchfork(I actually have one)and torch ready. Losing that building is not worth a skyscraper to and I am sure I am not the only one who holds that belief.  There are way too few of these buildings that are this nice leftover and way too many surface lots to allow something like this to happen.

 

13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

And yet some are ready to see the buildings in question torn down without even seeing a theoretical replacement. 

Who? I believe one person mentioned a "plaque" but that was also in the context of also suggesting keeping the facades, as in setbacks like the hotel on Vine. The facades are what matters to the streetscape. We can keep the historical street level look and greatly increase density as well-a win-win. 

 

The great majority seem to be on the same page on this.  
Save the facades, build up. Do you think anything more than the facades should be saved? Should they just be remodeled as is with no height increase or density? I don't think most people want that, nor do most want full on demolition.

 

We should absolutely come together on this and push and put pressure on the city and the developers to do what they did with the hotel on Vine. Use it as an example of how it can work. And also remind the city of it needing to actual stick to the city plans(you know, the ones that have minimum heights for High and that keep getting ignored.) *looking at you sad lowered /should have been 11 floors thing between that alley and the large blank wall of the one LS building. *

 

* The Nicholas as you well know is another example of the failure to follow the plans.

 

.

 

2 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I disagree here. People would push for an alternative location for the skyscraper. I love skyscrapers and I would be at the barricades with pitchfork(I actually have one)and torch ready. Losing that building is not worth a skyscraper to and I am sure I am not the only one who holds that belief.  There are way too few of these buildings that are this nice leftover and way too many surface lots to allow something like this to happen.

 

I did say almost everyone, not everyone. I just think a lot of people become blinded by something shiny and new. I'm a huge proponent of density, mixed-use, height and better development. I'm just not willing to sacrifice every pre-War building to get there, especially when there are alternative options. 

 

2 hours ago, Toddguy said:

Who? I believe one person mentioned a "plaque" but that was also in the context of also suggesting keeping the facades, as in setbacks like the hotel on Vine. The facades are what matters to the streetscape. We can keep the historical street level look and greatly increase density as well-a win-win. 

 

Saving the facades is better than nothing, but it's also bare minimum. It's the equivalent of saving a single arch from Union Station.  The developer doesn't seem to be proposing even that, though. And the plaque comment was if the buildings were demolished, and that there were plenty of other old buildings on High Street, so it wouldn't matter if a few more were torn down. 

 

2 hours ago, Toddguy said:

The great majority seem to be on the same page on this.  
Save the facades, build up. Do you think anything more than the facades should be saved? Should they just be remodeled as is with no height increase or density? I don't think most people want that, nor do most want full on demolition.

 

I would like to see 187-189 saved entirely, and at least the front half of 175-177. That would leave about 1/3 acre combined with the parking lot and skinny building section of 175-177 and the 1-story addition behind 187-189 removed. that's more than enough for an L-shaped project that could get some decent height to it. If we absolutely have to lose one of them, I'd rather it be 175-177 because it's much smaller overall. If we lost it, the site would be 0.4 acre. Part of the project could even include turning part of 187 into some restaurant space where the adjacent section of dead-end Walnut is opened up to some kind of large patio/pedestrian space. The backdrop of the old building with its great stone foundation would create a very nice space with frontage on High.

 

2 hours ago, Toddguy said:

We should absolutely come together on this and push and put pressure on the city and the developers to do what they did with the hotel on Vine. Use it as an example of how it can work. And also remind the city of it needing to actual stick to the city plans(you know, the ones that have minimum heights for High and that keep getting ignored.) *looking at you sad lowered /should have been 11 floors thing between that alley and the large blank wall of the one LS building. *

 

* The Nicholas as you well know is another example of the failure to follow the plans.

 

 

Vine's hotel to me is somewhat of a missed opportunity, but regardless, I think 175-189 has far more potential overall than just putting up another low-rise new build that the developer is almost certainly going to propose based on their portfolio. 

 

The city doesn't even stick to its own development standards on High. The Nicholas and HighPoint certainly don't come anywhere close, and they have allowed demolitions for parking lots even though they supposedly don't like it. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 20232 yr by jonoh81

25 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I did say almost everyone, not everyone. I just think a lot of people become blinded by something shiny and new. I'm a huge proponent of density, mixed-use, height and better development. I'm just not willing to sacrifice every pre-War building to get there, especially when there are alternative options. 

 

 

Saving the facades is better than nothing, but it's also bare minimum. It's the equivalent of saving a single arch from Union Station.  The developer doesn't seem to be proposing even that, though. And the plaque comment was if the buildings were demolished, and that there were plenty of other old buildings on High Street, so it wouldn't matter if a few more were torn down. 

 

Tbh, the plaque comment was somewhat of a joke, in reference to the United Way campus. I’m in favor of maintaining the facade if there’sa redevelopment, but my point is I’m not losing any sleep over over 171-91 either way. One sixty seven is what’s architecturally significant. 
 

And we have no idea what the developer is proposing, aside from some form of demo. 
 

Regardless, your comments are definitely in toxic territory, with the whole “all the plebes are distracted by something shiny, while I know the right way to do development” attitude. 

1 hour ago, amped91 said:

Tbh, the plaque comment was somewhat of a joke, in reference to the United Way campus. I’m in favor of maintaining the facade if there’sa redevelopment, but my point is I’m not losing any sleep over over 171-91 either way. One sixty seven is what’s architecturally significant. 
 

And we have no idea what the developer is proposing, aside from some form of demo. 
 

Regardless, your comments are definitely in toxic territory, with the whole “all the plebes are distracted by something shiny, while I know the right way to do development” attitude. 

The buildings LC replaced had some character, but they don't have the same impact/statement as the current build. Unless its a significantly unique structure, tall buildings should be at as many street corners as possible.

17 hours ago, amped91 said:

Tbh, the plaque comment was somewhat of a joke, in reference to the United Way campus. I’m in favor of maintaining the facade if there’sa redevelopment, but my point is I’m not losing any sleep over over 171-91 either way. One sixty seven is what’s architecturally significant. 
 

And we have no idea what the developer is proposing, aside from some form of demo. 
 

Regardless, your comments are definitely in toxic territory, with the whole “all the plebes are distracted by something shiny, while I know the right way to do development” attitude. 

 

If you want to be offended by that, that's on you because I didn't say that. All I'm saying is we can actually have something new, dense and exciting while still maintaining a lot of what's already there, which I absolutely would consider historic buildings. If the option exists to have both, why wouldn't it make sense to support both? And that option absolutely exists here, as it does in most cases of demolition. 

What makes the bank building so special, exactly? Because it has more details? Because it is more aesthetically pleasing? I think this is part of what I was talking about before. IMO, there's a problem in the thinking that only the prettiest old buildings deserve preservation. A Victorian house is certainly nice looking, but I don't think it has more inherent value than a turn of the century Foursquare that may not have the same curb appeal. 
As for there being a "right way" to do development, aren't we all basically arguing that point to some degree? Don't we all want better urbanism and mixed-use density with some height? I want the same thing as you, but I also want old buildings saved too.

42 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

If you want to be offended by that, that's on you because I didn't say that. All I'm saying is we can actually have something new, dense and exciting while still maintaining a lot of what's already there, which I absolutely would consider historic buildings. If the option exists to have both, why wouldn't it make sense to support both? And that option absolutely exists here, as it does in most cases of demolition. 

What makes the bank building so special, exactly? Because it has more details? Because it is more aesthetically pleasing? I think this is part of what I was talking about before. IMO, there's a problem in the thinking that only the prettiest old buildings deserve preservation. A Victorian house is certainly nice looking, but I don't think it has more inherent value than a turn of the century Foursquare that may not have the same curb appeal. 
As for there being a "right way" to do development, aren't we all basically arguing that point to some degree? Don't we all want better urbanism and mixed-use density with some height? I want the same thing as you, but I also want old buildings saved too.

The bank building is great, has great materials and is great on the inside as well as the outside. If these other buildings had particularly nice interiors or something special about them that would make a difference. But if they are totally "meh" on the inside then I don't see why we should not just save the facades and get more density/height that way? If these were not on High I would be more open to just preserving them, or maybe if they had more of a visual impact or made more of a "statement" to me like the Madison stuff further up High. I do think that the facades deserve to be saved, and I think what they did on Vine was good and that they could do that here. 

 

I just don't get the push to save the entire building if it is just a few floors and meh inside. I do think that there should be a height requirement demanded along with saving the facades(and enough-like 20-30 feet)that it makes a difference). If it is just going to be another Nicholas then I understand that and would favor no demolition. What we would get would not really be worth it. 

 

I hope they don't get to just knock these down or sit on them and let them rot.  Anybody caring about this is a small minority voice but we need to make that voice louder to developers, the city, commissions, etc.  

 

I am not familiar with any groups in the city who might be allies but I am sure some on here know of some.

 

JMHO

 

 

4 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I just don't get the push to save the entire building if it is just a few floors and meh inside. I do think that there should be a height requirement demanded along with saving the facades(and enough-like 20-30 feet)that it makes a difference). If it is just going to be another Nicholas then I understand that and would favor no demolition. What we would get would not really be worth it.

 

That I can agree with. There’s really no sense, IMO, in doing demo if the replacement is the same or just slightly higher (or even worse, lower ☠️) density. But if you’re going bigger, then you can provide hundreds of places for people to live and spaces for people to work, which I think is a positive (sorry if that’s a controversial statement! 😑). 

3 minutes ago, amped91 said:

That I can agree with. There’s really no sense, IMO, in doing demo if the replacement is the same or just slightly higher (or even worse, lower ☠️) density. But if you’re going bigger, then you can provide hundreds of places for people to live and spaces for people to work, which I think is a positive (sorry if that’s a controversial statement! 😑). 

Worst case scenario is they level it all and put up something like the CC across the street to make it all blend together in utter banality. Ugh!

15 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Worst case scenario is they level it all and put up something like the CC across the street to make it all blend together in utter banality. Ugh!

Aren’t all buildings along the main corridors supposed to be no lower than 10 stories? Obviously the commission has let this slide way too many times, and hopefully they start holding that up. If people need to show up or send emails, reminding them, I am willing to do it.