1 minute ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Oops...forgot about the Millennial Tower thread lol

Looks like @CMHOhiobeat us both to it in that thread

22 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

You guys ready to hear a joke?

 

And the long-proposed 28-story, $150 million Millennial Tower pitched by Arshot Investment Corp. is still on the table, said Andy Mills of Elford Realty, who is representing the project.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/07/21/high-rise-proposals-moving-ahead-in-pandemic-times.html

Ok...so this thing was dead and buried and apparently someone visited the grave and heard some pitiful knocking so it was disinterred and is now on life support in the hospital. It has a 1% chance of recovery but most likely will succumb to, if nothing else, Covid-19. 

 

*This is basically how I am looking at this particular proposal.

1 hour ago, WagHills said:

What am I missing in this photo? Is it highlighting the growth of the area? Not being condescending just honestly trying to figure it out.

Edited August 11, 20204 yr by 614love

21 minutes ago, 614love said:

What am I missing in this photo? Is it highlighting the growth of the area? Not being condescending just honestly trying to figure it out.

Photo update of The Matan project - which unfortunately is partially blocked by the '303' building on another corner of Main & Front.  But we'll take all the photo updates we can get!

My bad! I guess I should’ve mentioned this was a picture of the Matan 

I thought it was a millenial tower update ?

3 hours ago, WagHills said:

Great photo! I had to look at the photo several times in order to figure out from where it was taken. I remember when basically every building from the foreground to 200 Civic Center Dr was a parking lot. ?

I used to work in that white building! I miss commuting to RiverSouth each day on my bike using the trail ?

 

Now I'm working from home, out of town, until the pandemic is over if it ever will be : (

Work finishing up on the Crawford Hoying Tower. (Thur. 8-20-20)

 

The gap above the tower in the revised plans didn't seem as bad as it showed the LC RiverSouth Beatty building's southern facade as being brick. 

 

That's what was done with the northern facade of LC RiverSouth Trautman building. 

 

Its almost like they expected something taller than a 7-story building

It was supposed to be 11 stories I think. 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:10 AM, cbussoccer said:

Design of Downtown Building Doesn’t Match Plans Approved by Commission

 

 

https://www.columbusunderground.com/design-of-building-downtown-doesnt-match-plans-approved-by-commission-bw1

 

 

Which one of you knuckleheads called in the 311 complaint? ?

So...looks like all the complaining paid off. The entries have been rebuilt. 
 

 

The Tower is about finished (Sat. Oct. 17, 2020)

 

 

8 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

The Tower is about finished (Sat. Oct. 17, 2020)

 

 

 

I hate Crawford Hoying, I hate them so much.  

^Well, that is dramatic.

On 10/19/2020 at 9:15 AM, NorthShore647 said:

The Tower is about finished (Sat. Oct. 17, 2020)

 

 

There are many wonderful things being built in Columbus. This is not one of them. 🤦🏼‍♂️🤷

Is there still a chance of some artwork or a mural along the upper south side of the Beatty building? I wonder if they left it non-brick because they expected the 11 story version of this thing?  This building itself is not bad at all to me, it is just too short for the site.

Edited October 20, 20204 yr by Toddguy

25 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Is there still a chance of some artwork or a mural along the upper south side of the Beatty building? I wonder if they left it non-brick because they expected the 11 story version of this thing?  This building itself is not bad at all to me, it is just too short for the site.

Would agree, the building looks nice, but a 6 story building in that area is horrible. 

Downtown's Main Bar closing, building set for demolition

 

The Main Bar is in its last days.

 

The downtown watering hole at 16 W. Main St. will close for good Feb. 28. No new operator will be moving in as the building is set to be demolished to make way for new development.

 

“We’re exploring our options for what we can do there,” local attorney and developer Scott Schiff said. “We’re not in a hurry, but we expect to announce something this year.”

...

“We have about a 21,000-square-foot rectangle,” he said. “We’re going to get it development ready.”

 

Schiff said he expects a mix of either residential and medical use or residential and retail use to be built.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2021/02/17/downtown-bar-closing-building-set-for-demolition.html

 

7 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Downtown's Main Bar closing, building set for demolition

 

The Main Bar is in its last days.

 

The downtown watering hole at 16 W. Main St. will close for good Feb. 28. No new operator will be moving in as the building is set to be demolished to make way for new development.

 

While I'm glad a new development is in the works and yet another sea of parking is on the way out, I'm sad this little gem of a building can't be part of the new structure or at least have the new building built around it, similar to the Matan. 

22 minutes ago, CMHOhio said:

 

While I'm glad a new development is in the works and yet another sea of parking is on the way out, I'm sad this little gem of a building can't be part of the new structure or at least have the new building built around it, similar to the Matan. 

Hopefully it’s something that is taller than 10 stories or it will be a waste. 

I hate hate hate demolition without a plan.  Demolition should not take place without a specific proposal already in the planning stages.  So many demolitions in the past have been done this way, only for the parking lot to remain.  I would also prefer any future project to at least try to incorporate the facade into the new project.  I assume that they're not going to propose anything major here- a 4-6 story building rather than any tower (lol), so there is no reason the facade of the Main Bar couldn't be incorporated.  

The Main Bar building seems to be pretty old.  It looks like it appears in maps at least back to 1891, if it's the same building.  

1 hour ago, ColDayMan said:

Schiff said he expects a mix of either residential and medical use or residential and retail use to be built.

 

A mix of residential and medical? That seems a bit...odd. Either way, they better do something at least 10 stories tall. The downtown commission should push them for something at least 15 stories tall, in my opinion. There are only so many lots left along High Street and we can't have another Crawford Hoying debacle. 

4 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

A mix of residential and medical? That seems a bit...odd. Either way, they better do something at least 10 stories tall. The downtown commission should push them for something at least 15 stories tall, in my opinion. There are only so many lots left along High Street and we can't have another Crawford Hoying debacle. 

 

The Downtown Commission will instantly roll over for whatever the developer proposes.  They've not remotely fought back against any projects.  That's how we got HighPoint and the Swan Cleaners site tragedy and the Nicholas and... 

I don't think that Main Bar building would be all that special if it wasn't on its own like that. Thank you 1970s

2 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

A mix of residential and medical? That seems a bit...odd. Either way, they better do something at least 10 stories tall. The downtown commission should push them for something at least 15 stories tall, in my opinion. There are only so many lots left along High Street and we can't have another Crawford Hoying debacle. 

Schiff did good work on their building in the short north, so hopefully they don’t mess around with this one. 

With as much medical that has moved out to the suburbs it might be time for more medical downtown -- also considering the huge growth in medical. When I was a kid in the '80s most medical was in the core or at St. Anthony (OSU East). Pretty sure Groveport didn't have a doctor at all while now it has at least 6. There were dentists in the suburbs though.

 

Also there were a lot of totally non-ADA compliant medical buildings that had all kinds of narrow stairs and levels that you had to traipse like the one that was at 400-ish East Rich Street. Like you literally walked in there, had to decide whether to go up or down stairs the minute you got in there (you couldn't stay at street level) then you'd be walking along, have to go back down a set of stairs, walk for a bit then go up a set of stairs again and find yourself back up to the level you were before 3 doors ago. It was nuts. I think if you went in the back you could take an elevator up to some of the levels. It was almost like the old Benchmark building at Kenny and Henderson.

 

There was also a medical building at Hamilton Road and Winchester Pike (behind the Thornton's gas station when it had a smaller footprint) where you could not enter at street level and was like an old motel that was all outside entry. I had a root canal redone about 6 years ago on Riverside Drive and the building was still one of those "up or down?" deals but still not as intense as the other two I described.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by GCrites80s

I consider myself a pretty strong preservationist but I never understood the strong appreciation for the Main Bar. The building is just a two story plain brick facade. 

5 minutes ago, ink said:

I consider myself a pretty strong preservationist but I never understood the strong appreciation for the Main Bar. The building is just a two story plain brick facade. 

I think people like it, because it is the only building like that in the area. Anywhere else, I don’t think anyone would really care. It wouldn’t be worth incorporating it into anything now. 

There's no way demolition should be approved without an approved replacement. And to be quite honest, there is no way that they can't incorporate this in some way or another. It's just lack of creativity. And I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be cost prohibitive. I get that not everything should be preserved but we really are so terrible at keeping very much prewar in the face of new decelopelment. Let alone pre 1900. And we often say 'it's alone' or 'the new project will be better' or 'it's just a bland brick facade' but really, that's most of pre-war buildings. So we really need to decide as a city when and where we draw lines and stop doing a piecemeal approach. If we keep approving demolition in all these spots on an individual basis, more and more will be gone before we know it. That's how we got to where we are and how it gets worse from here. 

 

Here's a creative idea: keep everything from the base of the front slope and then use that as the main entrance to a new restaurant establishment. Maybe call it The Main Bar? Just Spitballing really outlandish ideas here. *eye roll* 

 

but seriously. It really isn't that hard. And you can mix modern and vintage all day and it just adds to the character of a building. Would tearing it down to build a copy paste NBBJ style building be criminal, not quite. But it would be pretty darn lazy. We have some great examples but not enough developers are willing to follow that lead. 

 

And while we are on a similar topic, how has no one taken up the bank across from the commons? I swear, if any developer proposed to tear it down, THAT would be criminal. 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by DTCL11

11 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Schiff did good work on their building in the short north, so hopefully they don’t mess around with this one. 

Different Schiff. The Shorth North developer is Michael Schiff (Schiff Capital). This is the personal injury lawyer Scott Schiff (Schiff Properties). I'm assuming they're related? Schiff Properties built the Wilson at Lane and High.

 

That's too much schiff to keep track of 😜

1 minute ago, Pablo said:

Different Schiff. The Shorth North developer is Michael Schiff (Schiff Capital). This is the personal injury lawyer Scott Schiff (Schiff Properties). I'm assuming they're related? Schiff Properties built the Wilson at Lane and High.

 

That's too much schiff to keep track of 😜

Well today I learned something. Thanks for pointing it out. Now I have less hope that this will be good. Although the size of the Wilson isn’t bad, it’s incredibly ugly. 

2 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

And while we are on a similar topic, how has no one taken up the bank across from the commons? I swear, if any developer proposed to tear it down, THAT would be criminal. 

Most of that block is owned by Plaza Properties. I'm afraid they are waiting for an offer to come along and cash out...

2 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

And while we are on a similar topic, how has no one taken up the bank across from the commons? I swear, if any developer proposed to tear it down, THAT would be criminal. 

 

I think that building would be a great option for some sort of public use. I've never been in the building so I don't know how it's set up, but I think it would be cool to use it as a branch of the Art Museum. Currently, the Art Museum is somewhat isolated from where most of the activity in downtown is. Having a branch location between the Commons and the Scioto Mile would be a great way to keep the Art Museum on people's radars. There's a lot of pedestrian activity between the Commons and the Scioto Mile, especially during Christmas or on weekends during the summer, so you could have a lot of people stopping in to check it out. 

 

I could also see it being used an event space for weddings/receptions, corporate events, small concerts, etc. sort of like the Bluestone or Athenaeum. Again, not know the layout of the building I don't know if this would be possible, but I think it could be a great option. For weddings/receptions, there are many great picture options within a very short walk, and I would argue it's in a better location for smaller corporate events than the Athenaeum.

 

Regardless, I don't think we need to worry about the building being torn down.

^I used to bank there in the late 90s when it was a Ohio National Bank. Classic bank lobby.

 

 

 

There's a huge vault at the back of the lobby.

More photos here: https://www.ohioexploration.com/structures/ohionationalbank/ 

 

There's always a chance it will be torn down, this is Columbus after all

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by Pablo

^ That would be a great event space. 

 

9 minutes ago, Pablo said:

There's always a chance it will be torn down, this is Columbus after all

 

When was the last time a building of this historical quality was torn down in Columbus? 

It would be a cool event space. 

 

52 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

^ That would be a great event space. 

 

 

When was the last time a building of this historical quality was torn down in Columbus? 

 

Maybe the 1990s with the State Penitentiary? The bank was on the Columbus 2017 endangered landmarks list. 

 

9. Ohio National Bank (1914)
167 S. High Street, Columbus, Ohio

…finest examples of neo-classical architecture

Owner: The Plaza LLC
One of the finest examples of neo-classical architecture in downtown Columbus, the original home of Ohio National Bank (c 1914) stands at High and Town streets – a testament to a time when financial institutions first began to prosper along High Street. While this stretch of High Street has retained its importance in the financial services industry, Ohio National Bank was acquired by National City Corporation and this branch was closed in 1999. Still listed in good condition by the auditor, the building has an even more impressive interior. Inside this gem, a breathtaking marble-enshrined banking lobby displays the quality craftsmanship of its era, conjuring an image of the lives and dollars that flowed through this building way back when. Just off to the side of the remarkable banking lobby is an impressive vault.

Despite signage indicating its availability for lease, the Ohio National Bank building has been vacant for almost 20 years and is showing signs of deterioration and water damage. As downtown Columbus continues its remarkable resurrection as a mixed-use urban core, this property and other low-rise historic adjacent properties are threatened with development of larger buildings with broader footplates and streamlined (lesser) architectural detail. However, despite the importance of encouraging further infill of downtown’s southern flank, it is even more important to retain this magnificent architectural jewel. Doing so will anchor the future of downtown with its rich and storied past.

This building speaks to you.

 

 

Main Bar was on the 2015 list. 

 

From Columbus Landmarks. 

 

The Main Bar

Year Built: 1890
Address: 16 West Main Columbus, OH 43215
Style/Significance:
The Main Bar is the last surviving late 19th century commercial structure on West Main between S. High and Wall Street. Originally flanked by two similar structures, the building has been used as both a residential and commercial structure, but was listed as the “Hare and Corbin” saloon in 1890. The building has an uncertain future due to a disputed 1836 lease and potential future development on the site.

2 hours ago, Pablo said:

Different Schiff. The Shorth North developer is Michael Schiff (Schiff Capital). This is the personal injury lawyer Scott Schiff (Schiff Properties). I'm assuming they're related? Schiff Properties built the Wilson at Lane and High.

 

That's too much schiff to keep track of 😜

 

Almost positive they're brothers.

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

When was the last time a building of this historical quality was torn down in Columbus? 

 

Brown and Derby Halls at Ohio State (~2008), Clinton Theater (~2010), and the Wellington Building opposite OSU (~2018) are a few quality buildings that came down more recently.

 

We were close to losing the Maennerchor, South Columbus Antique Mall, and Ingram Mansion in Marble Cliff in the last couple of years as well, but the community rallied to keep them standing.

 

I do think there would be outcry if plans were announced to demolish the Ohio National Bank, but there are also looser protections on that building than the designated historic districts/landmarks in town.

 

Columbus has a decent preservation ethic these days (very strong in some neighborhoods), but it also faces more pressures from new development because the population is growing. Thus you end up with challenges like the project at King and High, which adds nice density but would take out a couple nice two story buildings. These buildings are not significant landmarks individually, but they do provide character to the overall neighborhood and High Street corridor.

 

14 hours ago, VintageLife said:

I think people like it, because it is the only building like that in the area. Anywhere else, I don’t think anyone would really care. It wouldn’t be worth incorporating it into anything now. 

 

There wasn't really anything architecturally special about the buildings on Park Street that the hotel project was going to fully demolish, either, but it sure does look better with at least the facades incorporated.

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There wasn't really anything architecturally special about the buildings on Park Street that the hotel project was going to fully demolish, either, but it sure does look better with at least the facades incorporated.

I agree that the Park St project looks great, but that’s multiple buildings. I think the bar could be incorporated, but it wouldn’t really do much for the overall building. I don’t like demolishing old buildings either, and would love for it to stay, but it won’t. 

4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There wasn't really anything architecturally special about the buildings on Park Street that the hotel project was going to fully demolish, either, but it sure does look better with at least the facades incorporated.

 

Right, but the facade of the Main Bar building is like 10 feet wide. The Park Street buildings were an entire block. Even if someone incorporated the facade of the Main Bar building into a new building, it would barely be noticeable. It's just not a good looking facade and it's too small to even matter. I'm all for preserving buildings that add to the fabric and character of the city, but the Main Bar building doesn't really do that, in my opinion. 

2 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

I agree that the Park St project looks great, but that’s multiple buildings. I think the bar could be incorporated, but it wouldn’t really do much for the overall building. I don’t like demolishing old buildings either, and would love for it to stay, but it won’t. 

 

Just down the street they built around a similar standalone building and connected it to the project.  There are ways to do it without sacrificing anything.  The Pavey project on High incorporated multiple buildings.  Over on Long, there is a project that tied old buildings with new.  Developers need to think outside the box, literally.  Regardless of the aesthetics of the Main building, it's become somewhat of a landmark and just tearing it down for what will most likely be an underwhelming low-rise project that looks like everything else built recently seems like a waste to me.  

9 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Right, but the facade of the Main Bar building is like 10 feet wide. The Park Street buildings were an entire block. Even if someone incorporated the facade of the Main Bar building into a new building, it would barely be noticeable. It's just not a good looking facade and it's too small to even matter. I'm all for preserving buildings that add to the fabric and character of the city, but the Main Bar building doesn't really do that, in my opinion. 

 

It doesn't matter how wide it is, it would serve to break up the design, something few modern projects ever do.  Every single old building ever demolished had people saying the exact same things about it- that it was ugly, insignificant, wasn't worth saving, etc., and every year there are fewer and fewer of them.  The idea that we should only care about older buildings when they have some kind of obvious or highly-detailed design like Victorian is too short-sighted.  They are all part of the unique history of the city and all deserve more consideration.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by jonoh81

6 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Every single old building ever demolished had people saying the exact same things about it- that it was ugly, insignificant, wasn't worth saving, etc.

 

That's because, for a lot of those buildings, it was true. It just so happens to be true for this one as well.

13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Just down the street they built around a similar standalone building and connected it to the project.

 

Yea, because that was actually a good looking facade.

 

 

 

The Main Bar could have been built in the 1960s and you wouldn't know the difference. The other building is beautiful and clearly a product of its time. 

1 hour ago, ink said:

 

Brown and Derby Halls at Ohio State (~2008), Clinton Theater (~2010), and the Wellington Building opposite OSU (~2018) are a few quality buildings that came down more recently.

 

We were close to losing the Maennerchor, South Columbus Antique Mall, and Ingram Mansion in Marble Cliff in the last couple of years as well, but the community rallied to keep them standing.

 

I do think there would be outcry if plans were announced to demolish the Ohio National Bank, but there are also looser protections on that building than the designated historic districts/landmarks in town.

 

Columbus has a decent preservation ethic these days (very strong in some neighborhoods), but it also faces more pressures from new development because the population is growing. Thus you end up with challenges like the project at King and High, which adds nice density but would take out a couple nice two story buildings. These buildings are not significant landmarks individually, but they do provide character to the overall neighborhood and High Street corridor.

 

 

Yep.  Most of the buildings in German Village are very similar looking and quite plain. If any of them were standalone somewhere, and there was a proposal to replace it was something larger, many would argue that it wasn't worth saving too.  But because there's a neighborhood of them, they have value.  I don't really like this very selective view of historic preservation or not caring because a building doesn't exactly meet a certain arbitrarily pleasing aesthetic. 

Putting it another way, the most common type of old home design in Columbus is the American Foursquare, most now a 100 year old or more.  These homes dominate all the inner core neighborhoods.  Because they are so plentiful, no one cares when they're torn down.  But try to tear down some Victorian and there'd be outrage.  Not because Victorians have more intrinsic value as historic buildings, but because there are fewer of them and more people associate value with their far more excessive design details.  So every year, we lose dozens and dozens of the simple AF in urban neighborhoods without anyone even noticing.  I think that's terrible, personally, so I have no problem arguing that we should also fight for the less glamorous old buildings.    

 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by jonoh81

28 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

That's because, for a lot of those buildings, it was true. It just so happens to be true for this one as well.

 

Yea, because that was actually a good looking facade.

 

 

 

The Main Bar could have been built in the 1960s and you wouldn't know the difference. The other building is beautiful and clearly a product of its time. 

 

Your mentality is exactly what I'm talking about.  The other building has been subjectively deemed prettier, so it deserves to be saved, while the Main building doesn't.  Historic preservation is not just about saving buildings that have more design features.  If that's all we care about, why should any of these types of buildings have any protection?  They're all relatively plain and, on their own, it could easily be argued that they have low relative value if a developer comes along with a proposal for their locations.  

 

 

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by jonoh81

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Your mentality is exactly what I'm talking about. 

 

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

 

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

If that's all we care about, why should any of these types of buildings have any protection?

 

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