April 11, 201213 yr The seven-story warehouse building owned by Casto at the northeast corner of S. Front Street and W. Main Street has been the subject of redevelopment speculation for . . . let's just say a long time. The most recent speculation is hi-lighted in this Dispatch article from July 2011: City hopes for private development Thursday, July 7, 2011 - 06:03 AM By Marla Matzer Rose, The Columbus Dispatch As with the nearby Columbus Commons park project, city leaders hope money spent on improving the Scioto Mile will spark even more investment from the private sector. Although not readily visible, some changes have already begun. If not for the Scioto Mile, developer Don Casto said, a Casto family investment group would "still be sitting on" a now-vacant building it has owned for 25 years near the park at Main and Front streets. Most recently, he said, the property was used as a storage facility but made little money. It was shut down a couple of years ago. Now, Casto is studying renovation ideas for the seven-story former shoe factory, with a conversion to office space or luxury apartments most likely. READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2011/07/07/city-hopes-for-private-development.html?sid=101 Well, now it appears that redevelopment is speculation no more! From the Columbus Underground thread "Residential Development in Casto Building at Main & Front", Walker Evans posted this photograph of work being started at Casto's warehouse building at the northeast corner of Front & Main. It appears that workers are removing the blocked-up window infill material between the concrete frame structure of the building. Most likely as prep work for a gut renovation of the building. According to Walker at the CU thread, Casto is not quite ready to make a formal announcement. But hopefully we'll get some official word from Casto soon. This is one of the few remaining warehouse-type buildings remaining downtown. And it's in a great location. It really has alot of potential to be something special.
April 11, 201213 yr ^I believe this work is only investigatory at the moment, not the start of a rehabilitation.
April 13, 201213 yr ^I believe this work is only investigatory at the moment, not the start of a rehabilitation. I hope you're wrong about that. But I fear you might be right. A Casto spokesperson, when contacted by Columbus Business First, seemed to agree with your assessment. From the Business First blog post - "Casto begins work on Secur-It building downtown, but plans still forming": Casto spokeswoman Sarah Benson Heinrichs, while noting the developer is not ready to announce specific, said the demolition is part of “due diligence” ahead of formalizing a plan. It was more optimistically noted in that same article that Casto partner Don Casto suggested redevelopment of this building would advance this year at a Business First Commercial Developers Power Breakfast in February. However, it was also noted that Casto informally proposed a 70 loft apartment renovation of the building in 2002, when the city first began promoting residential development in downtown RiverSouth District. But whatever Casto is doing to the building, they're certainly doing it fast. Below is a photo from the Business First article linked above of the Front Street side and north side of the warehouse building at Front & Main. Quite a bit of progress in two days!
April 13, 201213 yr ^I believe this work is only investigatory at the moment, not the start of a rehabilitation. I hope you're wrong about that. But I fear you might be right. A Casto spokesperson, when contacted by Columbus Business First, seemed to agree with your assessment. From the Business First blog post - "Casto begins work on Secur-It building downtown, but plans still forming": Casto spokeswoman Sarah Benson Heinrichs, while noting the developer is not ready to announce specific, said the demolition is part of “due diligence” ahead of formalizing a plan. It was more optimistically noted in that same article that Casto partner Don Casto suggested redevelopment of this building would advance this year at a Business First Commercial Developers Power Breakfast in February. However, it was also noted that Casto informally proposed a 70 loft apartment renovation of the building in 2002, when the city first began promoting residential development in downtown RiverSouth District. But whatever Casto is doing to the building, they're certainly doing it fast. Below is a photo from the Business First article linked above of the Front Street side and north side of the warehouse building at Front & Main. Quite a bit of progress in two days! Rest assured that developers don't start doing this kind of work for no reason. If it was all just proposals on paper, this wouldn't be happening. Casto has serious plans already laid out, even if they have yet to formally announce them.
April 13, 201213 yr Even if it is super preliminary, it's a beautiful thing to see those blocked out windows open up.
April 13, 201213 yr Author Even if it is super preliminary, it's a beautiful thing to see those blocked out windows open up. Agreed. Very happy to see this work commence. Definitely hoping for a nice renovation of a handsome building.
April 14, 201213 yr Rest assured that developers don't start doing this kind of work for no reason. If it was all just proposals on paper, this wouldn't be happening. Casto has serious plans already laid out, even if they have yet to formally announce them. Of course, but it does not mean major construction activities are set to go. The mumblings I have heard indicate that they are performing structural and historic integrity investigation work.
October 3, 201212 yr A couple of reports about the AIA's Center for Architecture and Design moving into one of the Lazarus Building's ground floor storefronts along Town Street. Below the reports is a link to the Center for Architecture and Design's website, which has further information. Center for Architecture and Design Relocating to Lazarus Building By: Walker Evans, Columbus Underground Published on September 27, 2012 - 1:25 pm The Center for Architecture and Design announced plans to relocate from 380 East Broad Street to the Lazarus Building. The Center originally opened on Broad street in January of 2010. ... David Brehm, Vice Chair of The Center Board of Trustees, cites the new Lazarus Building location as a better opportunity to interact with Downtown workers and residents as well as visitors to Columbus. The new location is within close proximity to Columbus Commons, OSU Urban Arts Space and the Scioto Mile. “The Lazarus Building is a symbol of our Downtown’s renaissance,” said Guy Worley, President/CEO of the Columbus Downtown Development Corporation, which owns the building. “We’re thrilled to have The Center for Architecture and Design move to Lazarus. It fits with our goal to draw people to the center of our city and activate the street front with energy and vitality.” The Columbus Architecture Foundation oversees the Center for Architecture and Design, which was launched three years ago with the help of the American Institute of Architects Columbus Chapter. The two organizations will occupy the new space and collaborate on programming. READ MORE: http://www.columbusunderground.com/center-for-architecture-and-design-relocating-to-lazarus-building AIA's Center for Architecture has designs on Lazarus Building downtown Business First by Doug Buchanan, Managing editor Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 6:00am EDT The American Institute of Architects and its Center for Architecture and Design are moving closer to the heart of downtown. The institute’s Columbus chapter said it will move by the end of the year into 2,400 square feet at the Lazarus Building. The office at 50 W. Town Street. “will provide the opportunity to better interact and connect with downtown workers and residents, and people visiting for special events,” David Brehm, director at Braun & Steidl Architects and vice chairman of the center’s board, said in a statement. The center, whose mission is to “enhance public appreciation for architecture and design ... through lectures, exhibitions, tours, film series and collaborative programs,” is playing a role in the 11-day idUS innovation and design conference kicking off Sept. 28 with a series of events under the Design Week banner. READ MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2012/09/28/aia-center-has-designs-on-lazarus.html More information can be found online at www.columbuscfad.org.
November 20, 201212 yr Exciting news for RiverSouth & Cbus Commons! According to the agenda for the 11/27 Downtown Commission meeting a new 7 story development is up for approval at the northwest corner of Rich & High, the Trautman Building (RIP Artspace but I think this will be better) along with the building to the immediate south. Thank you CDDC & Lifestyle Communities! V.Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and New Construction Case #2 621-12 Address: 221 & 203 / 213 S High Street Applicant: Lifestyle Communities Property Owner: Columbus Downtown Development Corporation Design Professional: Melica Architecture (sp - should be Meleca) Zoning: DD (Core Sub-District) Request CC3359.27(D)3) CC3359.15 Certificate of Appropriateness for The demolition of two buildings, 203 / 213 S High Street & 221 S High Street Conceptual review for a seven story building on the northwest corner of High and Rich Streets. The building is comprised of Parking under rest of structure accessed by grade change along Rich Street. Street level commercial / retail along High Street. Six stories of apartments above street level.
November 21, 201212 yr Maybe too much optimism but as soon as the construction trailers for Cbus Commons apts vacate the parking lot on the southeast corner of that intersection it'd be awesome if Casto dusted off their old proposal for that entire strip on High between Main & Rich...
November 21, 201212 yr Maybe too much optimism but as soon as the construction trailers for Cbus Commons apts vacate the parking lot on the southeast corner of that intersection it'd be awesome if Casto dusted off their old proposal for that entire strip on High between Main & Rich... I wouldn't think it would be that far off to see that happening.
November 21, 201212 yr Hmmm...it's exciting but I wonder why they didn't chose, ya know, a parking lot like Main and High or something. I'm presuming for the Commons but still! Infill damnit! Bah, it's still great news overall. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
November 21, 201212 yr Hmmm...it's exciting but I wonder why they didn't chose, ya know, a parking lot like Main and High or something. I'm presuming for the Commons but still! Infill damnit! Bah, it's still great news overall. I think as long as we're adding residential, that's the important part. More people will ultimately lead to more projects down the line and all those ugly surface lots will gradually disappear. My one complaint about all the new construction proposed or ongoing is that the heights suck. It's High Street, the city's main corridor, and the most they can come up with are 6-7 story buildings along it with the new construction. The 2010 plan suggested (unfortunately, not mandated) that heights be minimum of 8 stories. I don't want to see the Downtown filled with low-mid rise buildings. Granted, it would be an improvement over so many surface lots, but come on. It's the freaking downtown. OSU campus is building much taller buildings right now, why can't the city's center do it? Every new building the past year from the Short North south to German Village has been 7 stories or less, most of them 5. The only exception has been the Joseph hotel. Oh, and I originally didn't think the 6-story building was historic given it's really ugly exterior, but I guess it was built in 1895. I would much rather see it restored than torn down if possible, the only time where I throw out the height frustration. The other building can go.
November 21, 201212 yr Meh, I care more about filling in the parking lots than building height. I understand your point that since it's a downtown it should have taller buildings but I just want the gaps filled in first and if height comes with it, it's an extra cherry on top :). "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
November 21, 201212 yr More about the proposed seven-story building at the northwest corner of Rich & High from Columbus Underground: CU: Seven Story Mixed-Use Apartment Building Proposed Downtown Existing view of the northwest corner of Rich & High looking northward up High Street. The two-story building at the corner and the adjacent six-story building with the metal front would be demolished to make way for the proposed seven-story building. The De-Novo restaurant building in this quarter-block would remain. Same view with a rendering of the proposed seven-story building. From the CU article: "The C-shaped building will house 23,000 square feet of ground floor retail, six stories including approximately 100 apartment units and a 60-space parking structure accessed from Wall Street. A courtyard space faces south toward Rich Street."
November 21, 201212 yr Wow, Columbus is so pathetic. A city full of parking lots and we tear down buildings, one of which is likely hiding a great facade underneath terrible cladding. Just pathetic.
November 21, 201212 yr The Trautman Building is hidden behind a 1963 facade, but the interior holds details like this stairwell: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/# Columbus, you are embarrasing.
November 21, 201212 yr Based on the way those 1960's metal claddings were done, there's no guarantee the original facade was saved. The Trautman Building is not nearly as substantial as it appears from High Street. The six-story portion is a U-shape with smaller additions going back to Wall Street. And it doesn't seem like its in great shape either. Walking down Wall Street you can literally smell the mold in the building. I know what is not pathetic or embarrasing, the design of the new seven-story building. Meleca Architecture does great work. If given the choice between this new building and this old building, I'll take this new building.
November 21, 201212 yr Mold...right...there is a good reason to demolish a building. Even if one disagrees that the buildings cannot be reused, we still have the issue that we are tearing down buildings when we have acres of parking lots haunting downtown.
November 21, 201212 yr Almost any building can be reused. And certainly the Trautman Building could be reused. But given the alterations to the front facade, the existing layout of the building and the current condition of the building, the question is should it be reused. And the proposal for a larger building to replace it - which would provide more apartments, retail and underground parking - should be factored into the question of an existing building's reuse. Certainly existing parking lots should be built upon. But a property owner can only build upon the lots that they own. And this property owner, the Columbus Downtown Development Corporation, has built upon the parking lots they owned. Previously, the CDDC built the two Annex residential projects on the two half-block surface parking lots they owned to the west of this Rich & High project. Below is a rendering from 2009 that shows those two residential projects that were built on the those two surface parking lots. The Annex building on the east side of Front Street ended up larger than the one in the rendering. It also shows an earlier version of the Columbus Commons redevelopment across High Street. And now that I compare this older aerial rendering with the new proposed project at Rich & High, a similar U-shaped building is shown at Rich & High. Apparantly it has been in the works for a while.
November 21, 201212 yr The Trautman Building is hidden behind a 1963 facade, but the interior holds details like this stairwell: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/# Columbus, you are embarrasing. Yeah, Columbus is probably the only city in the nation to ever tear down old buildings. :roll: BTW, I do agree that they should try to save the old building. I think it would be great to incorporate it into the design somehow, and build an 8-10 story building where the 3-story is right now. But your point, otherwise, is pretty silly.
November 21, 201212 yr Mold...right...there is a good reason to demolish a building. Even if one disagrees that the buildings cannot be reused, we still have the issue that we are tearing down buildings when we have acres of parking lots haunting downtown. I'm not really sure how this project would necessarily mean that surface lots won't be filled with other projects. It's not like this is the only project in the works. Neighborhood Launch is almost exclusively building on surface lots. The Arena District is losing just about all of it's surface lots right now. The Short North is seeing it's surface lots being filled. I understand your point, but I don't really think it means anything in the bigger picture about infill.
November 21, 201212 yr Almost any building can be reused. And certainly the Trautman Building could be reused. But given the alterations to the front facade, the existing layout of the building and the current condition of the building, the question is should it be reused. And the proposal for a larger building to replace it - which would provide more apartments, retail and underground parking - should be factored into the question of an existing building's reuse. Certainly existing parking lots should be built upon. But a property owner can only build upon the lots that they own. And this property owner, the Columbus Downtown Development Corporation, has built upon the parking lots they owned. Previously, the CDDC built the two Annex residential projects on the two half-block surface parking lots they owned to the west of this Rich & High project. Below is a rendering from 2009 that shows those two residential projects that were built on the those two surface parking lots. The Annex building on the east side of Front Street ended up larger than the one in the rendering. It also shows an earlier version of the Columbus Commons redevelopment across High Street. And now that I compare this older aerial rendering with the new proposed project at Rich & High, a similar U-shaped building is shown at Rich & High. Apparantly it has been in the works for a while. The new courthouse also was built on a surface lot. It's not like every last old building is being demolished to put this stuff up. In regards to the Trautman Building, I hope they do a feasibility study on the condition of it before just tearing it down. If the building is full of mold and beyond repair, that's one thing, but the mold smell also may be from the two newer 3-story additions that run along the alley and are not part of the main building.
November 23, 201212 yr Hmmm...it's exciting but I wonder why they didn't chose, ya know, a parking lot like Main and High or something. I'm presuming for the Commons but still! Infill damnit! Bah, it's still great news overall. I think as long as we're adding residential, that's the important part. More people will ultimately lead to more projects down the line and all those ugly surface lots will gradually disappear. But if we only add residential to locations that involve tearing down existing structures, it will take an extremely long time to fill in the surface lots. It is good that we are adding residential, but as it is now the downtown area population is very low for the size of the area. The official borders of downtown has what, just over 5,000 residents for 1.8 sq. miles? The population could increase five times over and still probably wouldn't be able to completely fill in the parking lots, especially if you are hoping for more than six story buildings.
November 24, 201212 yr Hmmm...it's exciting but I wonder why they didn't chose, ya know, a parking lot like Main and High or something. I'm presuming for the Commons but still! Infill damnit! Bah, it's still great news overall. I think as long as we're adding residential, that's the important part. More people will ultimately lead to more projects down the line and all those ugly surface lots will gradually disappear. But if we only add residential to locations that involve tearing down existing structures, it will take an extremely long time to fill in the surface lots. It is good that we are adding residential, but as it is now the downtown area population is very low for the size of the area. The official borders of downtown has what, just over 5,000 residents for 1.8 sq. miles? The population could increase five times over and still probably wouldn't be able to completely fill in the parking lots, especially if you are hoping for more than six story buildings. For the two census tracts that make up Downtown, or at least the CBD, the 2010 Census had the population just over 6,000. With the pace of announced or ongoing project, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rise to 9 or 10,000 by 2020. There have been about 8,000 residential units under construction or announced with new projects near the urban core in the past year (within 270), the majority of which have been within the 1950 city boundaries. Downtown really didn't start gaining momentum until about 2002-2003, and of course the recession slowed things down quite a bit. The population at one time was just over 1,000 people, so it has come a long way.
November 24, 201212 yr For the two census tracts that make up Downtown, or at least the CBD, the 2010 Census had the population just over 6,000. With the pace of announced or ongoing project, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rise to 9 or 10,000 by 2020. There have been about 8,000 residential units under construction or announced with new projects near the urban core in the past year (within 270), the majority of which have been within the 1950 city boundaries. Downtown really didn't start gaining momentum until about 2002-2003, and of course the recession slowed things down quite a bit. The population at one time was just over 1,000 people, so it has come a long way. The urban core is not at all synonymous with 'within 270'. I think it is awesome that Columbus is adding residential to downtown, and I realize as a perspective vs. now it sounds good, but having 10,000 people in 2020 is still an embarrassing number for a city of this size.
November 24, 201212 yr For the two census tracts that make up Downtown, or at least the CBD, the 2010 Census had the population just over 6,000. With the pace of announced or ongoing project, I wouldn't be surprised to see that number rise to 9 or 10,000 by 2020. There have been about 8,000 residential units under construction or announced with new projects near the urban core in the past year (within 270), the majority of which have been within the 1950 city boundaries. Downtown really didn't start gaining momentum until about 2002-2003, and of course the recession slowed things down quite a bit. The population at one time was just over 1,000 people, so it has come a long way. The urban core is not at all synonymous with 'within 270'. I think it is awesome that Columbus is adding residential to downtown, and I realize as a perspective vs. now it sounds good, but having 10,000 people in 2020 is still an embarrassing number for a city of this size. That's why I mentioned that the vast majority of the 8000 or so were within the 1950 boundaries, which most certainly IS the urban core. I just don't see the point in focusing on the negative. It's going in the right direction and quickly. It's going to take time to build up the population, though I think a lot of people believe that the Downtown population used to be significantly higher and it's just not the case. I once read a Dispatch article that stated about 30,000 people lived Downtown at the peak, but they must've been using a very broad definition. When I checked the census tracts all the way back to the 1930s, the peak population I found in the CBD was about 13,000, or roughly double what it is now. That number will easily be surpassed in the next 10-15 years, if not sooner. I just don't think the situation is as bad as suggested. Maybe it was at one time, but now?
November 26, 201212 yr The Trautman Building is hidden behind a 1963 facade, but the interior holds details like this stairwell: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritageohio/3525828478/# Columbus, you are embarrasing. Yeah, Columbus is probably the only city in the nation to ever tear down old buildings. :roll: BTW, I do agree that they should try to save the old building. I think it would be great to incorporate it into the design somehow, and build an 8-10 story building where the 3-story is right now. But your point, otherwise, is pretty silly. jbcmh81, you took the words right out of my mouth. It is a supremely silly point and delivered with hilarious hyperbole as if it's Columbus' fault and Columbus (as an evil entity) is out to destroy old buildings. I'm all for preservation and adaptive reuse when it makes sense, but this is a case of getting something much better, economically and socially, in return. The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street. These apartments more than make up for the demolition of the older building-even if it did have a...wait for it...staircase.
November 26, 201212 yr @jbcmh81 I think they still counted the prisoner population at the Ohio Pen still in any census conducted prior to 1960 - that would potentially inflate the downtown count by 5,000+ in 1950.
November 26, 201212 yr @jbcmh81 I think they still counted the prisoner population at the Ohio Pen still in any census conducted prior to 1960 - that would potentially inflate the downtown count by 5,000+ in 1950. Good point.
November 26, 201212 yr The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street. There are parking lots on High Street, one block over.
November 26, 201212 yr The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street. There are parking lots on High Street, one block over. And? The company doesn't own the lots to develop them. They can only build on what they own. From what I understand the thin lot between High and the City Center garage may have plans drawn up for development, but it hasn't been announced yet.
November 26, 201212 yr The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street. There are parking lots on High Street, one block over. And? The company doesn't own the lots to develop them. They can only build on what they own. From what I understand the thin lot between High and the City Center garage may have plans drawn up for development, but it hasn't been announced yet. My post about parking lots on High Street was in response to the other statement made about how 'obvious' the reason was for building on High Street, where it suggested that there are no parking lots.
November 26, 201212 yr The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street. There are parking lots on High Street, one block over. And? The company doesn't own the lots to develop them. They can only build on what they own. From what I understand the thin lot between High and the City Center garage may have plans drawn up for development, but it hasn't been announced yet. My post about parking lots on High Street was in response to the other statement made about how 'obvious' the reason was for building on High Street, where it suggested that there are no parking lots. I didn't suggest there were no parking lots on High Street. I said they obviously wanted to build on High Street, and perhaps I should have added, (as jbcmh81 noted) on property they own. They can't build on parking lots they don't own. I thought that was obvious.
November 27, 201212 yr I didn't suggest there were no parking lots on High Street. I said they obviously wanted to build on High Street, and perhaps I should have added, (as jbcmh81 noted) on property they own. They can't build on parking lots they don't own. I thought that was obvious. "The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street." You were attacking those of us that feel the empty lots should be developed before tearing down other structures. You state that the developer wants to be on High Street, and imply that the only way to do so would be to destroy buildings. And of course they can't build on land they don't own, but at one point in time they decided to purchase the lot they do own instead of the other.
November 27, 201212 yr If this were a private developer purchasing buildings from a private entity and proposing redevelopment, the story would be quite different. Here, however, we have the city's downtown development corp (technically private, I suppose, but they should have a comprehensive vision for downtown) buying buildings, emptying out the tenants, throwing some paint up on the faux facade, and then coordinating their demolition. I see that as unfortunate. I see that as lacking vision. What is more unfortunate is that no one seems to question this locally. The folks on Columbus Underground seem to be under a spell by the watercolor rendering (not that I do not like the new build design). If they removed the facade and truely investigated reuse of the building and then still determined that it could not be reused, that would be one thing, but I am not convinced redevelopment was fully explored. Historic buildings have significant incentives for redevelopment (like the historic tax credits the LeVeque, Atlas, and Seneca have all tapped) and they add to the character and sense of place of Columbus. Too much has been demolished in Columbus, so every building is that much more valuable. Here is a picture of the original facade--unique and imposing. I have seen many faux facades removed, and only once experienced a case where the original facade was not salvageable. Take a look at the Schofield Building in Cleveland; a thin 12-story building that had extensive ornamentation scrapped off during its 1972 cladding and yet developers press on with an impressive revitalization plan.
November 27, 201212 yr I didn't suggest there were no parking lots on High Street. I said they obviously wanted to build on High Street, and perhaps I should have added, (as jbcmh81 noted) on property they own. They can't build on parking lots they don't own. I thought that was obvious. "The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street." You were attacking those of us that feel the empty lots should be developed before tearing down other structures. You state that the developer wants to be on High Street, and imply that the only way to do so would be to destroy buildings. And of course they can't build on land they don't own, but at one point in time they decided to purchase the lot they do own instead of the other. You're implying that every lot along High and in the city is up for grabs, but many of them are privately owned or are owned by other developers who have yet to formulate specific plans. This is not Sim City where you can just build wherever you want at any time. The likely scenario was that they wanted to build near the park on High and this was the plot that was available at the time for purchase.
November 27, 201212 yr Not every lot, just the huge eyesore a block away. It sounds like the downtown development association ( or whatever the name is for it) isn't interested in saving a potentially awesome building. This is the kind of action I have issues with, where the city could do something.
November 27, 201212 yr Not every lot, just the huge eyesore a block away. It sounds like the downtown development association ( or whatever the name is for it) isn't interested in saving a potentially awesome building. This is the kind of action I have issues with, where the city could do something. Actually, from another forum's poster who attended a meeting of the commission related to this project, there was significant discussion about doing studies on the potential to save and renovate the building. Apparently there have already been studies on the building that suggest the facade has been damaged and there's not much left of the historical character inside either.
November 27, 201212 yr I didn't suggest there were no parking lots on High Street. I said they obviously wanted to build on High Street, and perhaps I should have added, (as jbcmh81 noted) on property they own. They can't build on parking lots they don't own. I thought that was obvious. "The lament that all of these open lots should be built on first doesn't fly because the developer obviously wants to build on High Street." You were attacking those of us that feel the empty lots should be developed before tearing down other structures. You state that the developer wants to be on High Street, and imply that the only way to do so would be to destroy buildings. And of course they can't build on land they don't own, but at one point in time they decided to purchase the lot they do own instead of the other. You're implying that every lot along High and in the city is up for grabs, but many of them are privately owned or are owned by other developers who have yet to formulate specific plans. This is not Sim City where you can just build wherever you want at any time. The likely scenario was that they wanted to build near the park on High and this was the plot that was available at the time for purchase. Summit, I'm not attacking anyone. There is no need to get so defensive. As was stated, this is not Sim City. You can't assume because this particular lot is going to be built upon, that all of the other empty lots were available and just ignored. That is not how things work. I just wish people knew a bit about planning and development before they commented as if all of Columbus just really wants to leave these lots open. Most of these lots are owned by private enterprises which have nothing to do with the city of Columbus. A brief internet search is all it takes to find out who the owners of the various properties are. It's a matter of public record. Then you can email them about their empty lots and stop railing on the City of Columbus.
November 27, 201212 yr ^^Those comments seemed to reflect studies for Lifestyle, a developer without experience with historic properties. Perhaps if the development corp engaged a developer with historic rehabilitation experience (not a Casto, Lifestyle, Puzzuti type), the outcome could have been different.
November 27, 201212 yr I don't understand all the complaining. They're replacing an eyesore with a bigger and nicer building. I'm all for it.
November 28, 201212 yr Summit, I'm not attacking anyone. There is no need to get so defensive. So you are seriously saying that you intended no derision when adding on to the reply towards ink about tearing down buildings? Most of these lots are owned by private enterprises which have nothing to do with the city of Columbus. A brief internet search is all it takes to find out who the owners of the various properties are. It's a matter of public record. Then you can email them about their empty lots and stop railing on the City of Columbus. As I understand it, the Downtown Development Corp. was created jointly with Mayor Coleman (http://mayor.columbus.gov/biography.aspx?id=974&menu_id=442). Thus, Columbus has a part in this. I feel Columbus allows too many historical buildings to be destroyed, and I understand that you don't, at least not as much. I also hate parking lots. (More than most people seem to hate football teams from other states.) I realize that most people don't care, but there is too much suburban mentality in this city.
November 30, 201212 yr The seven-story apartment building with ground floor retail and underground parking proposed for the northwest corner of High Street and Rich Street was approved at the City's Downtown Commission meeting this week. More about this meeting and more details about this project from Columbus Underground at the link below: CU: New LC Apartment Community Approved for Downtown
November 30, 201212 yr More about this week's Downtown Commission approval from today's Business First (linked below). Unfortunately it's a subscription-only full article read. But according to the article: "The commission voted 5-0 with two abstentions to conditionally approve the project’s design, pending a final staff review of materials planned for the apartment building. It also asked the developer to improve the design of a wall along West Rich Street with improved curb appeal and return for approval." Business First: Lifestyle Communities project gets conditional OK from panel
January 31, 201312 yr Casto’s home office heading to Bicentennial Plaza building this fall By Brian R. Ball, Staff reporter Business First - Jan 11, 2013, 4:51pm EST The Casto real estate company plans to sail down the Scioto River to a new home this fall. Casto will swap its offices at 274 Marconi Blvd. and 191 W. Nationwide Blvd. for about 38,000 square feet in the Bicentennial Plaza building at 250 Civic Center Drive in Columbus. The relocation is expected in October. Casto and Bexley real estate investor Bob Meyers of Lawyers Development Corp. in December purchased the 113,309-square-foot office building for $6.1 million. Readers may recall Casto joined Lawyers Development in the purchase of the LeVeque Tower in 2011. Casto has leased the Arena District offices – one is owned by Nationwide Realty Investors Ltd. and the Marconi building is the property of Arena One Inc. – for more than 10 years. It recently extended the leases totaling about 46,000 square feet through October as it weighed its office options. “Our goal was to A.) Have a downtown presence; and B.) Be all together (in one building) so we can operate more efficiently,” said Sarah Benson, Casto’s marketing director. Casto will put its offices on the fourth, fifth and sixth floors at Bicentennial Plaza. READ MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2013/01/castos-home-office-heading-to.html
August 1, 201311 yr Reposting some news wiped out by the July server crash. Lazarus building landlord seeks operator for restaurant planned across from Highpoint apartments By Brian R. Ball, Staff reporter Business First - June 19, 2013, 3:38pm EDT The city affiliate that owns the Lazarus building at South High and West Town streets downtown hopes to encourage a restaurant operator to set up in the building across from the HighPoint on Columbus Commons apartments under construction. The Columbus Downtown Development Corp. this week began seeking proposals from restaurateurs interested in leasing and operating a 4,000-square-foot “upscale, casual" eatery that the agency plans to build. Agency General Counsel Matt Lutz said providing a developed space for a restaurant operator to furnish and equip is meant to take the difficulty out of setting up in the former department store space. ... Grandview Heights-based M&A Architects designed the restaurant space, which could be turned over to a tenant/operator in February for an opening in April. Nearly 3,000 square feet remain in the retail space along South High that already has attracted Huntington Bank office and a Cup O’ Joe cafe and sandwich shop. The restaurant would set along the north edge of that strip. MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2013/06/19/lazarus-building-landlord-seeks.html
August 1, 201311 yr Lifestyle Communities buys downtown buildings – at steep discount – for Annex expansion By Brian R. Ball, Staff reporter Business First - June 3, 2013, 2:59pm EDT Lifestyle Communities Ltd. has nudged forward in its plans to expand its Annex at River South apartments by buying the Trautman Building and a neighboring site on South High Street. The multifamily developer’s Annex at River South II Ltd. affiliate in May bought the properties at 203-213 and 221 S. High Street for $750,000 from Columbus Downtown Development Corp. Lifestyle Communities CEO Michael DeAscentis Jr. said environmental remediation will get underway this summer before demolition of the buildings. Construction could get underway this fall with the first of 106 expected apartments ready by early 2015. MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2013/06/lifestyle-communities-buys-downtown.html
August 1, 201311 yr And some really great news about the warehouse building at the northeast intersection of Main Street and Front Street that CASTO owns is beginning to be worked on for a residential project. The warehouse has previously been called the Secur-It Building and the Alder Building. After renovation it will be called the Julian Building. Columbus Underground: CASTO Begins Historic Renovation of Secur-It Building Business First: Casto may pursue historic designation for Adler Building as exterior work continues Former shoe factory Downtown set for loft apartments Building at Main and Front would feature big windows By Jim Weiker, The Columbus Dispatch Thursday, June 27, 2013 A Columbus developer plans to convert a 92-year-old former Downtown shoe factory into loft apartments. The six-story building at the northeast corner of Main and Front streets was constructed in 1921 as the Julian and Kokenge Co., a maker of women’s shoes that closed in 1975. The L-shaped building, which has more than 120,000 square feet, including a 1932 addition, is designed in a classic Commercial style, with concrete framing and columns, high ceilings, wood floors and bands of large, square windows. Once refurbished, it will be called the Julian Building. ... Casto partner Bill Riat said a lobby and possibly a coffee shop would occupy part of the first floor, while the rest of the first floor and all of the second floor would be used for parking. MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2013/06/27/developer-wants-downtown-loft-apartments-in-former-shoe-factory.html This is a view of the warehouse building from Front & Main at workers beginning to unblock the windows on the building. This view looks north up Front Street. Further north of the Julian Building are some previous RiverSouth projects (Front & Rich Parking Garage, The Annex Apartments, Lazarus Building). This is a similar view from Front & Main looking north showing a rendering of the renovated building This is a view from Front Street showing a rendering of the renovated building
August 10, 201311 yr And the hits just keep on coming... Columbus Underground has an update on the seven-story building to be built at the northwest corner of Rich & High (previously posted here at UO). That seven-story building for 100 apartments, internal parking and ground floor retail is across High Street from the Columbus Commons Apartments and diagonally opposite the recently proposed 12-story office/apartment building. CU: LC RiverSouth Design Updated, Construction to Start in November The previously approved Rich & High northwest corner project has an official name - LC RiverSouth. It also has a updated architectural design and a slight expansion. The exterior has received a significant upgrade to its architectural detail from the 2012 version. It also looks like a new penthouse level was added - boosting the total apartments to 106 - and the overall height to 8-stories. Below is a comparison of the 2012 rendering with the newer rendering from the above linked CU report:
Create an account or sign in to comment