Some cities have both skywalks and large groups of pedestrians on downtown sidewalks thanks to several blocks of destinations lining said sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there. Other cities were hit by a recession too and yet more 4+ story residential buildings in similar neighborhoods were built and people live in them today. A few streetview tours will bear that out. It's great that more dense apartments *will* be built, but Columbus needs to remember it doesn't exist in a bubble where the only competition is in Ohio, that other neighborhoods like the Short North in other cities nationwide already offer these units today thanks to previously recognizing and responding to the demand available in trendy neighborhoods accordingly, despite The Great Recession. I'm just saying that I'd go one step further than Ink and conclude that yes, we're not responding sufficiently to the demand for housing in our hottest neighborhoods. i.e. being a bit too conservative. Just look at the fact that Jeffrey Place was going to have 1,120 units delivered from 2005 onward and obviously was no longer going to respond to that demand years ago. Harrison Park offers the most out of newer development at 322 units and helped fill some of that void, but only recently are developments filling the unmet demand that both Jeffery Place and Ibiza never answered like the 46 units at The Jackson and 48 at The Dakota.

 

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers.  Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen.  But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail.  Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year.  Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant.  And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing.  Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest.  I don't.  Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus.  You moved because you couldn't handle it.  So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in.   

 

BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. 

 

Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious.

 

You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards.  Problem is, such a vote never took place.  Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied.  Which is it? 

 

And you continue to not understand how demand works.  In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market.  Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works.  I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow).  While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS.  And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.   

 

Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development.

 

In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more. I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action.

Some cities have both skywalks and large groups of pedestrians on downtown sidewalks thanks to several blocks of destinations lining said sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there. Other cities were hit by a recession too and yet more 4+ story residential buildings in similar neighborhoods were built and people live in them today. A few streetview tours will bear that out. It's great that more dense apartments *will* be built, but Columbus needs to remember it doesn't exist in a bubble where the only competition is in Ohio, that other neighborhoods like the Short North in other cities nationwide already offer these units today thanks to previously recognizing and responding to the demand available in trendy neighborhoods accordingly, despite The Great Recession. I'm just saying that I'd go one step further than Ink and conclude that yes, we're not responding sufficiently to the demand for housing in our hottest neighborhoods. i.e. being a bit too conservative. Just look at the fact that Jeffrey Place was going to have 1,120 units delivered from 2005 onward and obviously was no longer going to respond to that demand years ago. Harrison Park offers the most out of newer development at 322 units and helped fill some of that void, but only recently are developments filling the unmet demand that both Jeffery Place and Ibiza never answered like the 46 units at The Jackson and 48 at The Dakota.

 

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers.  Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen.  But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail.  Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year.  Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant.  And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing.  Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest.  I don't.  Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus.  You moved because you couldn't handle it.  So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in.   

 

BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. 

 

Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious.

 

You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards.  Problem is, such a vote never took place.  Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied.  Which is it? 

 

And you continue to not understand how demand works.  In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market.  Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works.  I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow).  While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS.  And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.   

 

Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development.

 

Quite the selective reading there, Keith.  In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be.  It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything.  Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them.  BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year.  I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are.  It's only a matter of time. 

 

In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more.

 

Okay, I'll bite.  What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done?  I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information.  I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities.  Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. 

 

I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action.

 

You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession.  I'll be waiting for your report.

Some cities have both skywalks and large groups of pedestrians on downtown sidewalks thanks to several blocks of destinations lining said sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there. Other cities were hit by a recession too and yet more 4+ story residential buildings in similar neighborhoods were built and people live in them today. A few streetview tours will bear that out. It's great that more dense apartments *will* be built, but Columbus needs to remember it doesn't exist in a bubble where the only competition is in Ohio, that other neighborhoods like the Short North in other cities nationwide already offer these units today thanks to previously recognizing and responding to the demand available in trendy neighborhoods accordingly, despite The Great Recession. I'm just saying that I'd go one step further than Ink and conclude that yes, we're not responding sufficiently to the demand for housing in our hottest neighborhoods. i.e. being a bit too conservative. Just look at the fact that Jeffrey Place was going to have 1,120 units delivered from 2005 onward and obviously was no longer going to respond to that demand years ago. Harrison Park offers the most out of newer development at 322 units and helped fill some of that void, but only recently are developments filling the unmet demand that both Jeffery Place and Ibiza never answered like the 46 units at The Jackson and 48 at The Dakota.

 

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers.  Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen.  But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail.  Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year.  Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant.  And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing.  Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest.  I don't.  Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus.  You moved because you couldn't handle it.  So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in.   

 

BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. 

 

Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious.

 

You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards.  Problem is, such a vote never took place.  Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied.  Which is it? 

 

And you continue to not understand how demand works.  In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market.  Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works.  I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow).  While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS.  And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.   

 

Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development.

 

Quite the selective reading there, Keith.  In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be.  It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything.  Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them.  BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year.  I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are.  It's only a matter of time. 

 

In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more.

 

Okay, I'll bite.  What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done?  I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information.  I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities.  Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. 

 

I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action.

 

You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession.  I'll be waiting for your report.

 

Not selective at all and Coleman is quoted that the city will be "worse off" without rail. Hell, the plain ole light rail system was shot down 55% vs. 45% on the ballot in 1999. Doing so much more "despite the recession" is not anywhere equivalent to "continued to build as if nothing happened": simple reading comprehension. Speaking of residential developments, there are 1301 residential units being added on top of existing projects in my Short North (Uptown) and you can count the number of present day developments and the number of floors of each residential building: the Short North should have a comparable ratio.

Some cities have both skywalks and large groups of pedestrians on downtown sidewalks thanks to several blocks of destinations lining said sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there. Other cities were hit by a recession too and yet more 4+ story residential buildings in similar neighborhoods were built and people live in them today. A few streetview tours will bear that out. It's great that more dense apartments *will* be built, but Columbus needs to remember it doesn't exist in a bubble where the only competition is in Ohio, that other neighborhoods like the Short North in other cities nationwide already offer these units today thanks to previously recognizing and responding to the demand available in trendy neighborhoods accordingly, despite The Great Recession. I'm just saying that I'd go one step further than Ink and conclude that yes, we're not responding sufficiently to the demand for housing in our hottest neighborhoods. i.e. being a bit too conservative. Just look at the fact that Jeffrey Place was going to have 1,120 units delivered from 2005 onward and obviously was no longer going to respond to that demand years ago. Harrison Park offers the most out of newer development at 322 units and helped fill some of that void, but only recently are developments filling the unmet demand that both Jeffery Place and Ibiza never answered like the 46 units at The Jackson and 48 at The Dakota.

 

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers.  Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen.  But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail.  Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year.  Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant.  And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing.  Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest.  I don't.  Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus.  You moved because you couldn't handle it.  So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in.   

 

BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. 

 

Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious.

 

You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards.  Problem is, such a vote never took place.  Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied.  Which is it? 

 

And you continue to not understand how demand works.  In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market.  Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works.  I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow).  While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS.  And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.   

 

Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development.

 

Quite the selective reading there, Keith.  In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be.  It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything.  Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them.  BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year.  I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are.  It's only a matter of time. 

 

In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more.

 

Okay, I'll bite.  What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done?  I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information.  I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities.  Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. 

 

I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action.

 

You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession.  I'll be waiting for your report.

 

Not selective at all and Coleman is quoted that the city will be "worse off" without rail. Hell, the plain ole light rail system was shot down 55% vs. 45% on the ballot in 1999.

 

Keith, I really wish you would put more effort into your arguments.  It took me all of 30 seconds to find this quote on an article about the 1999 vote: "Sadly, the people of Columbus are not even permitted to vote on the issue.  Only once has the business community allowed light rail on the ballot, in 1999.  In that election, COTA was required to split its request for a half-cent sales tax into two quarter-cent ballot issues, one for permanent funding and one for ten year funding.  COTA was not allowed to use the phrase “light rail” on the ten year funding issue.  Confused voters approved permanent funding, unaware that they defeated light rail."  Nice try, though.  And it's interesting that the link you provided lists much larger, supposedly much more progressive cities that had the issue on the ballot and defeated them often by even larger margins, and I am betting most of those ballots actually listed what it was for, unlike what happened in Columbus.

 

Doing so much more "despite the recession" is not anywhere equivalent to "continued to build as if nothing happened": simple reading comprehension.

 

Actually, it pretty much is the same thing, as you have maintained that most other cities with similar Columbus neighborhoods have continued building nonstop through the recession, and that they were universally able to do so at a much greater rate contrary to the economic demand.  You have made enough comments on the topic to not have been vague on the point.  If that's not what you meant, perhaps you shouldn't have repeated the same ideas so many times.

 

Speaking of residential developments, there are 1301 residential units being added on top of existing projects in my Short North (Uptown) and you can count the number of present day developments and the number of floors of each residential building: the Short North should have a comparable ratio. Here are a few of the larger ones:

 

 

 

 

More here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195465

 

First, why should Columbus be matching Minneapolis?  Minneapolis' metro is 2x larger and has a significantly larger amount of companies and demand than Columbus has.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  Hey, guess what, I bet Columbus also doesn't compare to NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami, etc.  Second, Columbus IS adding thousands of new units, but they are spread through the Downtown and the urban core ring neighborhoods.  Remember how you argued that the Short North was getting too much attention in comparison to others?  Well, now they pretty much are all getting attention with infill and revitalization.  Shockingly enough, all of the large increase in announced projects came within the last year as the recession has been ending.  Strange, huh?  In any case, you haven't really given me what I asked for.  I want to know what similarly sized cities have been doing, and I want more specifics, lists, etc.  If you'd like, I can repost what Columbus is doing to give you an idea of what I'm looking for.    

Some cities have both skywalks and large groups of pedestrians on downtown sidewalks thanks to several blocks of destinations lining said sidewalks, but that's neither here nor there. Other cities were hit by a recession too and yet more 4+ story residential buildings in similar neighborhoods were built and people live in them today. A few streetview tours will bear that out. It's great that more dense apartments *will* be built, but Columbus needs to remember it doesn't exist in a bubble where the only competition is in Ohio, that other neighborhoods like the Short North in other cities nationwide already offer these units today thanks to previously recognizing and responding to the demand available in trendy neighborhoods accordingly, despite The Great Recession. I'm just saying that I'd go one step further than Ink and conclude that yes, we're not responding sufficiently to the demand for housing in our hottest neighborhoods. i.e. being a bit too conservative. Just look at the fact that Jeffrey Place was going to have 1,120 units delivered from 2005 onward and obviously was no longer going to respond to that demand years ago. Harrison Park offers the most out of newer development at 322 units and helped fill some of that void, but only recently are developments filling the unmet demand that both Jeffery Place and Ibiza never answered like the 46 units at The Jackson and 48 at The Dakota.

 

As mentioned above, both Jeffery Place and Ibiza are moving forward, both with different plans and new developers.  Neither delay had anything to do with Columbus not attempting to make projects happen.  But you know this and just continue to be dishonest, just like lying about light rail.  Nor is the city holding anyone back when dozens of new projects are being announced representing thousands of new units through next year.  Whether or not you think it's late is really irrelevant.  And honestly, I don't care what every other city is doing.  Maybe you consider it all to be a giant contest.  I don't.  Like every city that moves at its own pace, so will Columbus.  You moved because you couldn't handle it.  So why not stay in the Minneapolis forum where you can pat other residents on the back on what a perfect, shining example of modern urbanism you now live in.   

 

BTW, the reason why Minneapolis has so many skywalks is because winters there are incredibly cold and miserable and no one wants to venture outside to cross the street. 

 

Lying? Prove it. Columbus residents don't want light rail or the streetcar otherwise I wouldn't have seen so few people at those meetings. Both were put out there to the public along with a hybrid of both and not enough people wanted it. I never said projects aren't going forward, but addressing demand in 2012 from back in 2005 leaves Columbus behind in addressing demand from 2010. Other projects did go forward but none brought the numbers that those two major developments would have done + others like the Jackson, Dakota, etc. I find it hard to believe that's so contentious.

 

You stated that Columbus residents voted against the rail proposal in one of your many attempts to malign the population as behind the times and backwards.  Problem is, such a vote never took place.  Hence, you either didn't know that and stated it anyway in ignorance, or you outright lied.  Which is it? 

 

And you continue to not understand how demand works.  In a down economy, there is much less of it, particularly when the down economy is because of a collapsed housing market.  Someone else mentioned SimCity, and that is absolutely how you seem to think it works.  I saw plenty of articles, especially since 2007, stating that the housing demand collapsed, certainly it completely died for condos (and is still very slow).  While you think every other city in the country continued to build as if nothing happened, it's just total BS.  And frankly, the Jackson and Dakota are small-scale compared to many of the projects under construction or in planning through the next year.   

 

Residents had a chance to "vote" by showing support: a simple email for example. Coleman was disappointed that residents didn't want a streetcar-light-rail hybrid line going through neighborhoods like the Short North, which would have spurred more development and attract more riders than the current bus system as highlighted in this streetcar economic impact study which gives an idea of the difference between the amount development with vs. without a streetcar. But a streetcar simply isn't going to be gracing the Short North anytime soon, so the city has to get it done without one and seek other measures to make the area highly desirable for more development.

 

Quite the selective reading there, Keith.  In the article it states that there was both positive and negative feedback on the NBC4 forum about the rail proposal, but that neither represents the city nor does it constitute any kind of citywide polling, no matter how loose your definitions may be.  It also said nothing about Coleman being disappointed about anything.  Once again you provide a complete and total mischaracterization of the facts, if not, again, a fabrication of them.  BTW, in case you missed it, Columbus has the #1 bus ridership increase in the country this year.  I guess people here aren't as opposed to public transit as you insist they are.  It's only a matter of time. 

 

In a down economy, I suppose other cities with trendy areas like the Short North must have been playing too much Sim City, because there is a lot of real life development in some of these areas where real people live that raises the question of why a similarly robust Short North did not see as much development in comparison: it deserves more.

 

Okay, I'll bite.  What specific cities have had not only no signficant downturn in residential construction the last 4 years, but can you be specific on what these other magical cities have done?  I'd like to see individual project lists, costs, and other pertinent information.  I have made a similar list of what Columbus has been up to and will be up to through 2015, so I'm sure you have all that information available at this very moment to share on these other cities.  Since Columbus' nearly $9 billion in projects through 2015 is not enough (and that was with my old list which hasn't been updated the last few months at least) in your opinion, I'm sure it will be no trouble to provide information on just how lame that looks in comparison to similarly sized cities. 

 

I never said nor insinuated that other cities just, "continued to build as if nothing happened", which absolutely is BS. I'm sure there would have been more projects built including more condos and greater numbers of units rather than scaling back or cancelling some developments, but even so apartments were being built while locally developers were on a higher-end condo kick at the expense of higher-end apartments which, I'm sure you'll agree, have proven wildly popular once they were given a chance to prove themselves. Some exceeded my expectation especially some Downtown where plenty of people are willing to spend 700+ on one bedroom apartments a bit removed from the action.

 

You haven't insinuated it, you have outright said that other cities have done so much more than Columbus in recent years despite the recession.  I'll be waiting for your report.

 

Not selective at all and Coleman is quoted that the city will be "worse off" without rail. Hell, the plain ole light rail system was shot down 55% vs. 45% on the ballot in 1999.

 

Keith, I really wish you would put more effort into your arguments.  It took me all of 30 seconds to find this quote on an article about the 1999 vote: "Sadly, the people of Columbus are not even permitted to vote on the issue.  Only once has the business community allowed light rail on the ballot, in 1999.  In that election, COTA was required to split its request for a half-cent sales tax into two quarter-cent ballot issues, one for permanent funding and one for ten year funding.  COTA was not allowed to use the phrase “light rail” on the ten year funding issue.  Confused voters approved permanent funding, unaware that they defeated light rail."  Nice try, though.  And it's interesting that the link you provided lists much larger, supposedly much more progressive cities that had the issue on the ballot and defeated them often by even larger margins, and I am betting most of those ballots actually listed what it was for, unlike what happened in Columbus.

 

Doing so much more "despite the recession" is not anywhere equivalent to "continued to build as if nothing happened": simple reading comprehension.

 

Actually, it pretty much is the same thing, as you have maintained that most other cities with similar Columbus neighborhoods have continued building nonstop through the recession, and that they were universally able to do so at a much greater rate contrary to the economic demand.  You have made enough comments on the topic to not have been vague on the point.  If that's not what you meant, perhaps you shouldn't have repeated the same ideas so many times.

 

Speaking of residential developments, there are 1301 residential units being added on top of existing projects in my Short North (Uptown) and you can count the number of present day developments and the number of floors of each residential building: the Short North should have a comparable ratio. Here are a few of the larger ones:

 

 

 

 

More here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195465

 

First, why should Columbus be matching Minneapolis?  Minneapolis' metro is 2x larger and has a significantly larger amount of companies and demand than Columbus has.  You are comparing apples to oranges.  Hey, guess what, I bet Columbus also doesn't compare to NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami, etc.  Second, Columbus IS adding thousands of new units, but they are spread through the Downtown and the urban core ring neighborhoods.  Remember how you argued that the Short North was getting too much attention in comparison to others?  Well, now they pretty much are all getting attention with infill and revitalization.  Shockingly enough, all of the large increase in announced projects came within the last year as the recession has been ending.  Strange, huh?  In any case, you haven't really given me what I asked for.  I want to know what similarly sized cities have been doing, and I want more specifics, lists, etc.  If you'd like, I can repost what Columbus is doing to give you an idea of what I'm looking for.    

 

I never said it had to match Mpls, the purpose of showing those is to prove the point that other cities managed to get things built in comparable urban neighborhoods while dealing with the none too ideal economy and they're already finished today rather than being in the rendering process or U/C. My point was that the Short North should have already seen more new builds already today, as Uptown offers just as much as the Short North, not 3x more and has around 20,000 residents in the area with Columbus having 17,000+ in walking-biking distance to the Short North, although an additional 2,000+ residents were added on or just off Lake St alone due to some of the heaviest residential development that occurred in the area and is now occupied with residents, boosting it to 22,000+. I'm not using NYC's SoHo as a comparison or Chicago's Boystown (there's probably a neighborhood that's closer to the SN than that, so correct me if I'm wrong), but I'm flattered that you list Mpls alongside of those cities: I think Columbus could likewise mentioned in the same breath but that's less likely when 2011 Short North is lagging years behind in new development vs similar neighborhoods in other comparable cities and so I do hope with more developments coming down the line that they'll catch up in the process and it's much more likely now than before. And yes it is very important to compete because a competitive city is a healthy city. I use Uptown is as a comparison because it's centered around a gentrified business district a bit over a mile long, there's no rail in the form of a streetcar to spur more development, and it serves as the major downtown adjacent urban showpiece, just like the SN except the major difference is completed residential units which already have added 2,000-3,000 new residents.

 

You said the issue was the poor economy, which has nothing to do with a metro population which in any case is a moot point since that's 3.2 million people who are not buying urban living in Uptown, just like how Cbus' metro, regardless of whether it's 1 million or 4 million is a population mostly living in sprawl and are by and large not going to be living in new developments in the Short North. Not to mention that in a rougher economy Cbus had the additional revenue of more than double the 380,000 Mpls residents at its disposal for encouraging urban development in the Short North and elsewhere, so even if you apply the city-metro comparisons which have no place in this discussion it would only gives Cbus a competitive advantage that Mpls does not have.

^^

This is great: I always biked by and in its present state it's a huge eyesore.

http://g.co/maps/rrq8x

Let's get off the Minneapolis/Columbus comparisons and just stick with development folks.

Developments were discussed and kept on topic. The Short North should easily have as many developments as numerous other cities including Mpls based on the fact that the bars in the Short North can kick Uptown's bars asses til next Tuesday: there's no Bodega, Barrel 44, Circus, Surly Girl, Betty's, Short North Tavern or even a Mike's Grill-like dive equivalent. If only Columbus residents realized what they have, they would have so much more.

While I may agree, I'd still like to keep this strictly development-oriented instead of "what Columbus could/should have."  Perhaps a separate thread for that could happen in City Discussions.

Found this notice about a theater group going into the Garden Theatre in the Short North as part of a general entertainment news rundown in Saturday's Dispatch.  This could be an extremely interesting project.  The Garden Theatre is probably the last large unrenovated building along High Street in the Short North.  It is located just north of the recently completed Jackson Condos and just south of Fifth Avenue - on the same side of the street as The Jackson:

 

Garden Theatre to get face-lift

Saturday, July 16, 2011

The Columbus Dispatch

 

A new theatrical troupe has signed a long-term lease to renovate and perform in the historic Garden Theatre, 1187 N. High Street, in the Short North.

 

The Short North Stage, a nonprofit company organized by Peter Yockel and Rick Gore, plans to convert the vacant structure into a 299-seat theater.  Initially, though, the troupe will build an interim 99-seat space.

 

"It's a natural fit with our mission of bringing performing arts back to the Short North," Yockel said.  "Structurally, it's in great shape, and it has so much atmosphere."  For more information, visit www.shortnorthstage.org.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/life/stories/2011/07/16/1aa-showtell16-july-art-gotdd69h-1.html?sid=101

 

---

Below is a link to an old theater website that contains an entry on the Garden Theatre in the Short North.  Good recap of the theater's history.  Many links to other articles about the Garden in the comments section.  The photo is also from the website:

 

Garden Theatre - 1187 N. High Street, Columbus, OH 43201

 

The Short North Stage is continuing to expand its productions within the Garden Theatre building at 1187 N. High Street.  They are opening “The Green Room”, a second performance venue located adjacent to the building’s main lobby.  More about this from Columbus Underground:

 

Garden Theater Opens Second Stage With The Green Room

Q & A from Columbus Underground with Mark Wood, President of The Wood Companies.  The Wood Companies are currently building a three-story addition to the one-story building at the corner of N. High Street and W. 2nd Avenue that contains Northstar Cafe and zpizza.  Below is also a photo of the project under construction and a rendering of the completed project.

 

Wood Companies New Short North Apartments Going Skyward

By Walker Evans, Columbus Underground

Published on December 14, 2011 7:00 am

 

If you’ve been to the Northstar Cafe or zpizza in The Short North lately, then you’ve probably noticed the construction occurring at 937-951 North High Street.  The Wood Companies are in the process of adding three additional stories of apartment units on top of the existing building in a manner somewhat unique to Central Ohio.  The ground floor retail businesses are able to stay open throughout the construction period, and the neighborhood will gain an additional 24 apartment units in 2012.

 

We spoke recently with Mark Wood, President of The Wood Companies, to find out more about this new neighborhood development.

 

Interview at http://www.columbusunderground.com/wood-companies-new-short-north-apartments-going-skyward

 

Q & A from Columbus Underground with two of the principals involved with the Hubbard Apartments.  The Hubbard Apartments are going to be built at the corner of N. High Street and Hubbard Avenue, the former Ibiza Condos site.  Below is also a rendering of the project.

 

The Hubbard Apartments to Rise Over The Short North

By Walker Evans, Columbus Underground

Published on December 13, 2011 7:00 am

 

The northeast corner of Hubbard Avenue and High Street has been one of the most widely discussed plots of land here on Columbus Underground over the past five years.  Originally proposed in 2006 as the home of the failed Ibiza condo development, the site is going through a change of ownership where local development firms Elford and Wagenbrenner are jointly working on a revised plan for the neighborhood.  The Hubbard will be a five-story mixed-use apartment building with ground-floor retail and a public parking garage located in the back.

 

For more details on the project, we spoke recently with Mark Wagenbrenner, President of Wagenbrenner Development, and Mike Fitzpatrick, President of Elford Development, Ltd.

 

Interview at http://www.columbusunderground.com/the-hubbard-apartments-to-rise-over-the-short-north

 

 

There's a quirky little three-unit development being built in the Italian Village neighborhood of the Short North.  It's located two blocks east of High Street at the southeast corner of Russell Street and Kerr Street.  In an otherwise fully developed part of Italian Village sits a trapezoidal lot that was left over when I-670 was originally laid out.  The lot is approx. 120' long x 45' at most wide to 20' at most narrow.  This lot is now being divided into three lots and developed into three condos.  Here is the website for the project: http://russellatkerr.com/

 

Below is an aerial photo and a site map for the existing lot at Russell and Kerr:

 

 

 

The above aerial photo and site map show the trapezoidal lot divided into three lots for the three condos under construction at Russell and Kerr.  Below is a site plan of the three condos from the Russell At Kerr website:

 

 

Here is an elevation view from Russell Street and a perspective rendering view from Russell and Kerr:

 

 

 

Here is a view of the project from the I-670 Freeway and a section thru the condo project showing its three levels:

 

More about this development in today's Dispatch:

 

Clever design saves challenging lot along I-670

 

PHOTO OF PROJECT FROM ITALIAN VILLAGE

 

PHOTO OF PROJECT ACROSS I-670 WITH DEVELOPER

 

An exception to the "lots of wide open spaces to sprawl on" mindset. Although it's too bad that she had "chip away" at the city's codes just to build a mixed-use development here and on top of that jump over yet another minimum parking space hurdle (minimum two parking spaces required with each single family home: as if every single-family home will house a "family" and every "family" always needs two cars) in order to get the lot developed, which plenty of people don't bother to deal with by not simply opting not going through the years long process this woman had to go through. You'd think after Jeffrey Place fell through that the city would be begging for new development in Italian Village, but for some reason they feel it unnecessary. Strange.

An exception to the "lots of wide open spaces to sprawl on" mindset. Although it's too bad that she had "chip away" at the city's codes just to build a mixed-use development here and on top of that jump over yet another minimum parking space hurdle (minimum two parking spaces required with each single family home: as if every single-family home will house a "family" and every "family" always needs two cars) in order to get the lot developed, which plenty of people don't bother to deal with by not simply opting not going through the years long process this woman had to go through. You'd think after Jeffrey Place fell through that the city would be begging for new development in Italian Village, but for some reason they feel it unnecessary. Strange.

 

Having a place to park is important to most people, and parking in IV is extremely limited as it is, so what would you suggest?  Force them to ride bikes whether they like it or not?  I certainly understand the hatred for surface parking lots, but the car culture is still the most dominant nationwide and probably will stay that way through our lifetimes.  In some cases like this, it probably makes rational sense for that policy.  Not all the time, mind you, but on occasion.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure the Jeffrey site has already been taken over by Waggonbrenner for future development.

What's wrong with just letting those who own and develop the land decide whether they feel residents of the Short North area require the same amount of parking spaces as a family in a suburban area rather than having the city default on a 2 space minimum policy? Which is rather suburban btw. Having one car space vs. two is hardly "forcing" people to ride bikes, as though that were the only alternative. There are mini cars like smart cars, a heavily used bus line, and dedicated scooter parking, so the options are a bit wider than a car-only setting. And residents could just have one car space each for a regular car.

What's wrong with just letting those who own and develop the land decide whether they feel residents of the Short North area require the same amount of parking spaces as a family in a suburban area rather than having the city default on a 2 space minimum policy? Which is rather suburban btw. Having one car space vs. two is hardly "forcing" people to ride bikes, as though that were the only alternative. There are mini cars like smart cars, a heavily used bus line, and dedicated scooter parking, so the options are a bit wider than a car-only setting. And residents could just have one car space each for a regular car.

 

It's interesting you advocate that builders get a choice, but suggest that residents be forced to buy smaller cars (which still need to be parked somewhere btw), ride the bus or use a bike.  Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this policy in most cases (I don't), but in areas that have very restrictive and limited parking to begin with, and given that the size of the project is so small, adding a few spaces is just not a big deal to me and the policy makes more sense than not.  Also, given the nature of the neighborhood, walking to restaurants and other amenities will likely still happen, but the commute to work is a different story.

No one is forcing anyone to live in the city; there are plenty of McTowns all around, even within Columbus city proper. A two-car minimum for development off of Sawmill Rd? I get that. Requiring that for a downtown adjacent neighborhood? No, there should be no requirement at all, one at most if there absolutely has to be one. Some cities have eliminated parking requirements for cars while adding requirements for alternate modes of travel in their urban neighborhoods such as downtowns. It's an unnecessary obstacle that shouldn't exist and after all, I believe on CU you were mentioning that Columbus 'isn't where it should be', to paraphrase, regarding bikes and rail, yet you favor the city requiring the allotment of two spaces for each home, which says to residents "you should have a car if you're going to live in Columbus" and with that message it's no wonder that alternate modes of transportation are so lacking.The city has already gone out of its way for decades to ensure that even if it were to remove parking requirements today there would still be no shortage of spaces for those wanting to live in the Short North area and commute to the suburbs for work. The simple fact is that while the city is requiring 2 spaces minimum 100% of the time, people living in neighborhoods like IV aren't occupying both spaces provided with cars 100% of the time because it's a policy that doesn't match the reality in walkable neighborhoods where there are less car-dependent residents.

 

And this doesn't even take into account all of the other hurdles mentioned which the owner had to overcome before even getting to the point of addressing the minimum parking requirement issue to develop the land: it further elucidates why developers are not even bothering in Columbus neighborhoods that aren't at the level where IV/SN is at. If you're going to go through the headache to develop on land, thanks to the city, it better be someplace like the Short North to make it worth the while. IV has plenty more land that could benefit from more development, so it would be nice to see the city scale back on some of these obstacles to encourage more shovels in the ground, that's all I'm saying.

... it further elucidates why developers are not even bothering in Columbus neighborhoods that aren't at the level where IV/SN is at.

Except for Columbus developer Wagenbrenner Company redevelopment projects in Harrison West, where even suburban home developer M/I Homes did some decent previous infill.  As well as Wagenbrenner's Weinland Park neighborhood efforts and their Columbus Grandview Avenue project.

 

Inaccuracies like that must be corrected lest the non-Columbus readers believe that you are giving them accurate information.  Please continue with your Short North development discussion.

Harrison West had become a sleepy Short North outpost with just a few revitalized commercial spaces on 3rd well before Wagenbrenner stepped into the picture. Developers, especially big ones like Wagenbrenner, aren't exactly clamoring to build infill in up-and-coming neighborhoods outside of the safe zone that is High St like Olde Towne East and Merion Village which would benefit the most from dense apartment buildings (builds a stronger case for decent retail options), let alone further removed hoods with less pluses like Hilltop and Livingston Park. Weinland Park: have you been down High St? It's a no brainer and then when you look at what has improved here and there on E 5th it's even more of a no brainer and Grandview has been a more than stable neighborhood for...I can't even remember how long, but it's not in the least a risky proposition. By the time they get around to Franklinton Weinland Park will be indistinguishable from neighboring Italian Village/Short North.

 

But sure I'll just agree with you both, let's just make developers jump through as many hoops as possible to ensure less development in urban Columbus; that's what you guys want, right? Hell, just send them up my way then: I'll even treat you to some local gems next time you're up here for a local development tour. I thought you'd both like to see lots more developments to post renderings, talk about them for pages, and update said threads with exciting progress photos. I thought that was kind of a big part of this site, one that I still like to check in on. Oh well, it's not like streets like 4th St in Italian Village could have used any more development than it saw the past decade. Just keep telling yourselves that the status quo has worked and will keep working juuuuust fine.

Exactly!  You're living in your damn paradise of Minneapolis, so why the hell do you care what is happening in Columbus?  All you do is bash the city, so what is it to you, why do you care?  We all know Minneapolis is everything you want and more, and Columbus is your sprawly, worthless POS city.  You can take your pictures and brag about Minneapolis and its awesome infill, while constantly putting down Columbus.  You're really a broken record at this point.  There is constructive criticism, and then there is just constant annoyance.  We get it, you hate Columbus, and it is a failure in your eyes.  Glad you're enjoying Minneapolis, but for crying out loud, get over Columbus!

Harrison West had become a sleepy Short North outpost with just a few revitalized commercial spaces on 3rd well before Wagenbrenner stepped into the picture. Developers, especially big ones like Wagenbrenner, aren't exactly clamoring to build infill in up-and-coming neighborhoods outside of the safe zone that is High St like Olde Towne East and Merion Village which would benefit the most from dense apartment buildings (builds a stronger case for decent retail options), let alone further removed hoods with less pluses like Hilltop and Livingston Park. Weinland Park: have you been down High St? It's a no brainer and then when you look at what has improved here and there on E 5th it's even more of a no brainer and Grandview has been a more than stable neighborhood for...I can't even remember how long, but it's not in the least a risky proposition. By the time they get around to Franklinton Weinland Park will be indistinguishable from neighboring Italian Village/Short North.

 

Weinland Park, especially east of 4th Street, has much going for it right now, but it is not going to be indistinguishable from the other Short North neighborhoods. The quality of housing stock, number of locked-in low-income units, and distance from High Street make the difference. And yet, that is where Wagonbrenner is investing. And it only works by using NSP, LIHTC, HTC, and Columbus Foundation funding.

 

Development costs money. It is a reality. A developer can have all the will in the world to develop high-density housing in Olde Towne East or Franklinton, but they have to be able to get the occupancy and rents/sales to pay off the construction debt and make a small profit. And they have to be able to convince a bank or investors to loan money in that neighborhood. Urban development deals are often a financing challenge in healthy neighborhoods; they are even more challenging in some of the neighborhoods you mention. I am not saying more cannot or should not be done, but you seem to suggest that things are so much easier than they are.

No one is forcing anyone to live in the city; there are plenty of McTowns all around, even within Columbus city proper. A two-car minimum for development off of Sawmill Rd? I get that. Requiring that for a downtown adjacent neighborhood? No, there should be no requirement at all, one at most if there absolutely has to be one. Some cities have eliminated parking requirements for cars while adding requirements for alternate modes of travel in their urban neighborhoods such as downtowns. It's an unnecessary obstacle that shouldn't exist and after all, I believe on CU you were mentioning that Columbus 'isn't where it should be', to paraphrase, regarding bikes and rail, yet you favor the city requiring the allotment of two spaces for each home, which says to residents "you should have a car if you're going to live in Columbus" and with that message it's no wonder that alternate modes of transportation are so lacking.

 

First, I can be for increased transportation alternatives and still recognize the reality that the car is still the dominant form of chosen transportation nationwide.  There are very few cities where a car is essentially unnecessary.  That's just the way it is, and I don't expect this to change overnight the way you do with all urban development.  Second, I don't see the car as an inherently evil thing, and in some rare cases, I don't really see the big deal with parking spaces, especially in neighborhoods that have very limited amounts of them to begin with.  This, to me, is far different than tearing down a building to put in a surface lot or having a giant lot for suburban style strip malls in an urban area.  This is 6 spots (which aren't even outside, but inside the building out of sight) for 3 buildings in an area that doesn't have room for more cars without added parking.  Not a big deal to me, and I don't think not having a problem with it indicates that I'm not following my general urban thinking.  And I really don't support your thinking that if you want to drive a car, you shouldn't live in an urban neighborhood.  That is ridiculous.  Urban neighborhoods should be built and planned with alternatives and walkability in mind, absolutely, but that doesn't mean there can't also be a place for the car.

 

The city has already gone out of its way for decades to ensure that even if it were to remove parking requirements today there would still be no shortage of spaces for those wanting to live in the Short North area and commute to the suburbs for work. The simple fact is that while the city is requiring 2 spaces minimum 100% of the time, people living in neighborhoods like IV aren't occupying both spaces provided with cars 100% of the time because it's a policy that doesn't match the reality in walkable neighborhoods where there are less car-dependent residents.

 

You have no idea how car dependent residents of IV even are, and you're making the assumption that where people live automatically dictate how they get around.  Having the availability of alternatives does not mean that everyone is going to give up their car.  People, the last time I checked, still drove in NYC. 

 

And this doesn't even take into account all of the other hurdles mentioned which the owner had to overcome before even getting to the point of addressing the minimum parking requirement issue to develop the land: it further elucidates why developers are not even bothering in Columbus neighborhoods that aren't at the level where IV/SN is at. If you're going to go through the headache to develop on land, thanks to the city, it better be someplace like the Short North to make it worth the while. IV has plenty more land that could benefit from more development, so it would be nice to see the city scale back on some of these obstacles to encourage more shovels in the ground, that's all I'm saying.

 

Your point is silly, because clearly the parking requirement did not prevent this project from moving forward at all.  Further, why is Weinland Park being redeveloped?  It's definitely not at the level of the SN.  Neither is East Franklinton or American Addition, but those areas are getting more attention as well.  Also, the desirability of a neighborhood has nothing to do with parking requirements.  If parking was the main concern, Downtown should have 30,000 residents again, as parking there is clearly not a problem. 

You're addressing points raised nowhere in my posts. I didn't say cars are inherently evil, only that there shouldn't be a requirement that two parking spaces have to be included for each home. If you read my post my main point was that it was all of the other obstacles that she had to "chip away" at *before* even facing the parking requirement, which was just a bonus hindrance. Less red tape to develop = a more welcoming environment for new development to occur. You really disagree with that? I doubt it, I think you just want to be a contrarian to everything I say. Sure, lots of people drive in NYC and wouldn't you know, they don't need a minimum parking requirement for that either. And as for parking Downtown we're talking about parking for residents, not commuters which is plentiful and doesn't prove whatever point you were trying to make.

 

Now, as far as Weinland Park I'm equating it with High St which has the new Kroger, Gateway, a few nightspots, and even a boutique, which is at the same level as the northern end of the Short North. Now Weinland Park off High isn't in the same league, you're right about that and I should have addressed that other 99% which really gets worse than other E 5th Ave neighborhoods (Milo-Grogan, Devon Triangle, Shepard, and Krumm Park in order from west to east) once you go east far enough into the neighborhood. I'm sure Wagenbrenner is likewise looking at High St first and foremost for where the neighborhood is at now and where it's poised to move rather than the rest since like you or me 99% of the Weinland Park we see as non-residents is High St which serves as the face of the neighborhood.

 

Franklinton and AA are very big exceptions to the rule as I believe both are developing based on receiving some serious city funding, whereas others will have to face hurdles *aside from the parking one* without seeing a dime from the city. The smaller developers who are doing projects in the SN and GV aren't about to do anything in Franklinton or AA.

 

 

Status quo good: different bad!!!!

 

There's settling for what's there and then there's appreciating what's there, but demanding more. I'm for the latter myself and again defending the city for putting up lots of hurdles for developers who, as Ink pointed out are already dealing with a rather large investment that they're risking, doesn't make sense. You can't say you want to see more development occur and at the same time be a yesman for city policy that hinders said development. Pure boosterism hurts our cities rather than helps: it holds back their potential and alienates others who aren't content with the city remaining where it's at, i.e. stagnating. Others want to see these cities reach their potential instead of just lowering the bar and proclaiming: success! Developers simply shouldn't have to "chip away" at the city to get their project to go forward. You know it, I know it. So, where exactly is that constructive criticism anyway?

Status quo good: different bad!!!!

 

There's settling for what's there and then there's appreciating what's there, but demanding more. I'm for the latter myself and again defending the city for putting up lots of hurdles for developers who, as Ink pointed out are already dealing with a rather large investment that they're risking, doesn't make sense. You can't say you want to see more development occur and at the same time be a yesman for city policy that hinders said development. Pure boosterism hurts our cities rather than helps: it holds back their potential and alienates others who aren't content with the city remaining where it's at, i.e. stagnating. Others want to see these cities reach their potential instead of just lowering the bar and proclaiming: success! Developers simply shouldn't have to "chip away" at the city to get their project to go forward. You know it, I know it. So, where exactly is that constructive criticism anyway?

 

No.  See, it is one thing to criticize a city, then there is what you do.  Clearly you hate Columbus, it is worthless in your opinion, and lacks any good urban environment/development.  You are now in MSP, stay there and stay focused on what is happening in that city.  I have seen you on SSP, and all you do is bash Columbus there, too!  Not only do you bash Columbus, but you praise Minneapolis for everything it offers.  You do not even talk about its bad qualities, but have no problem posting photo threads or discuss how Columbus lacks everything.  So, give up on Columbus.  If you hate it so bad and it does nothing right, then forget about it all together.  But you still come on here and waste your time talking about how Columbus sucks and why MSP is so great; at least that is the vibe I get here and at SSP.  Columbus clearly means nothing to you, you have moved away, and I would hope you moved on.  I left Florida, and I have no desire to know what is happening in Tampa, nor do I plan to join anything like Urban Ohio for Florida.  I have moved on, and I don't care.  But I also don't bash Tampa like you do with Columbus.  I also don't have an extreme hatred for Tampa like you do for Columbus.

 

No one here is proclaiming Columbus doesn't have its problems.  But even when something positive happens, it is never good enough for you.  Hell, Columbus could approve a streetcar system tomorrow and you still would find some reason why Columbus is America's worst city.

You're addressing points raised nowhere in my posts. I didn't say cars are inherently evil, only that there shouldn't be a requirement that two parking spaces have to be included for each home.

 

Why not?  Again, I could understand your point if there was a lot next door or if this requirement prevented the project from happening, but none of that is true.  And these aren't visible surface lots we're even talking about.  If you're going to complain about parking requirements, this is not the project to do so.

 

If you read my post my main point was that it was all of the other obstacles that she had to "chip away" at *before* even facing the parking requirement, which was just a bonus hindrance. Less red tape to develop = a more welcoming environment for new development to occur. You really disagree with that? I doubt it, I think you just want to be a contrarian to everything I say.

 

Not at all, but it's a fact of life that development, whether urban or suburban, has specific requirements that projects must meet.  I agree that they don't always make sense (such as the University Area Commission throwing a tantrum that the 5-story building on 7th is moving forward despite their obvious objection to density on High), but sometimes they are simply necessary.  On this project, given the circumstances and design, I don't see the problem with the parking requirement.  On other projects, I probably would.

 

Sure, lots of people drive in NYC and wouldn't you know, they don't need a minimum parking requirement for that either.

 

My point is that alternatives to cars does not equate to no cars and no need to adapt to their presence just because we personally don't like them.

 

And as for parking Downtown we're talking about parking for residents, not commuters which is plentiful and doesn't prove whatever point you were trying to make.

 

You stated that parking requirements are just more red tape that hold projects back.  Given the abundance of parking Downtown, shouldn't there be a lot more residents already living there?  My point is that the parking requirements, by themselves, are not significant enough to prevent or promote a specific project, and it wasn't ultimately a factor with this one.

 

Now, as far as Weinland Park I'm equating it with High St which has the new Kroger, Gateway, a few nightspots, and even a boutique, which is at the same level as the northern end of the Short North. Now Weinland Park off High isn't in the same league, you're right about that and I should have addressed that other 99% which really gets worse than other E 5th Ave neighborhoods (Milo-Grogan, Devon Triangle, Shepard, and Krumm Park in order from west to east) once you go east far enough into the neighborhood. I'm sure Wagenbrenner is likewise looking at High St first and foremost for where the neighborhood is at now and where it's poised to move rather than the rest since like you or me 99% of the Weinland Park we see as non-residents is High St which serves as the face of the neighborhood.

 

Fair enough.

 

Franklinton and AA are very big exceptions to the rule as I believe both are developing based on receiving some serious city funding, whereas others will have to face hurdles *aside from the parking one* without seeing a dime from the city. The smaller developers who are doing projects in the SN and GV aren't about to do anything in Franklinton or AA.

 

AA is probably getting more city funding than Franklinton, which seems to be coming around mostly from artists and entrepreneurs, much like the SN did in the 1980s.  And I'm not convinced that those neighborhoods won't eventually see these developers moving in, especially in Franklinton.  The question they have to ask is if a project in a certain area will provide a return on investment.  When the answer is yes, you will see those developers moving in. 

http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Development/Planning_Division/Boards_and_Commissions/Historic_Preservation/Italian_Village_Commission/Meetings/2012/2012%20IVC%20FEB.agd.pdf

 

Some good news on the Fireproof Building renovation and the related new construction.  Originally the talk was that the large surface lot just to the south would get a small 1-2 story building at most, but now it appears that it will be 5 stories and take up a larger chunk of the lot. 

 

Edit: There was also mention of the Jeffrey site east of 4th, of which there has apparently been a master plan submitted with buildings proposed.

http://columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Development/Planning_Division/Boards_and_Commissions/Historic_Preservation/Italian_Village_Commission/Meetings/2012/2012%20IVC%20FEB.agd.pdf

 

Some good news on the Fireproof Building renovation and the related new construction.  Originally the talk was that the large surface lot just to the south would get a small 1-2 story building at most, but now it appears that it will be 5 stories and take up a larger chunk of the lot. 

 

Edit: There was also mention of the Jeffrey site east of 4th, of which there has apparently been a master plan submitted with buildings proposed.

Thanks for posting this update.  That sounds like great news about the Fireproof renovation project.

 

It also looks like the five-story Hubbard Building project is also on the agenda.

The Pizzuti Short North Hotel project has been on the back burner for a while.  But it looks like it is ready to go, according to today's Business First article (linked below).

 

Pizzuti gets key OK for high-rise hotel, offices in Short North

 

According to the article, the project received its final zoning approval from Columbus City Council on March 5.  That approval clears the way for the following construction:

 

- An 11-story, 135-room hotel - to be named The Joseph - to be built on an existing parking lot on the east side of High Street. 

- A six-story, 55,000 square foot office building with ground-floor retail space to be built on an existing parking lot on the west side of High Street.

- A four-level, 313-space parking garage to be built behind the six-story office building.

- Renovation of the existing United Commercial Travelers Building at 632 N. Park Street.  The front part of the UCT Building would contain The Joseph Gallery, an art collection compiled by Pizzuti Company CEO Ron Pizzuti.  The rear part of the UCT Building would be demolished to make way for the parking garage.

 

According to the Business First article, the Pizzuti Company expects the $55 million project to begin construction this summer.  Pizzuti estimates the parking garage could open in the second quarter of 2013 with the adjoining office/retail building opening later in 2013.  The Joseph Hotel is estimated for an early 2014 opening.

 

Since it's been a while since the original postings, here's a recap of the project.  The Short North Civic Association posted a PDF of the developer's presentation.  Some of exterior materials have changed, but otherwise the project is the same.  And it is still the most detailed look at the total project available online.

 

Here is a general location map for the project:

 

 

Here is GIS street map with the project area outlined:

 

 

Here is that map with the different project parts hi-lighted.  RED: UCT Building to be renovated -- ORANGE: Parking Garage -- GREEN: Office/Retail Building -- BLUE: The Joseph Hotel

 

 

The UCT Building that will house the Joseph Gallery at 632 N. Park Street:

 

 

Current rendering of the six-story office/retail building on the west side of High Street:

 

 

Current rendering of the 11-story Joseph Hotel on the east side of High Street:

 

I'm really diggin' that hotel in the context of the Short North.

I'm glad that they won't be held to the 5-story limit that the area approved recently.  It gives hope that future large projects may be given the same exception.

Apparently there is one more City Council approval needed for the Pizzuti Short North Hotel project.  Business First has the details below:

 

Pizzuti seeks city deals to support hotel, offices

By Brian R. Ball, Business First staff reporter

Date: Friday, March 16, 2012, 6:00am EDT

 

Pizzuti Short North LLC, an affiliate of the Columbus developer, heads to City Council on March 19 to seek approval for a development agreement with the city on the project that straddles North High at Russell streets.

 

The Coleman administration has offered to sell a city-owned parking lot at 618 N. High Street for $1 so Pizzuti can build a $33 million, 135-room boutique hotel, according to an abstract of the development sent to council.  The city would collect $125,000 a year for five years from Pizzuti as a way to make up for lost revenue from the 40 meters at the surface lot.

 

Columbus also has agreed in principle to spend up to $1.9 million on a rebuilding of Millay Alley, along the southern edge of the office and garage section of the project.  The cost of upgrades and moving underground utilities at the development site will be covered as part of that financial commitment.  The agreement also calls for a 10-year, 75 percent tax abatement on Pizzuti’s construction of a $12 million office-and-retail building at 621-629 N. High Street.

 

MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2012/03/16/pizzuti-seeks-city-deals-to-support.html

Walker Evans of Columbus Underground interviewed Joel Pizzuti, President of The Pizzuti Companies, about their recently approved Short North Hotel project.  Mr. Pizzuti discussed why they became interested in a boutique hotel project in the Short North; why a mixed-use project on opposite sides of High Street made sense economically; the design review process in two separate historic districts; the re-use of the UCT Building facing Goodale Park; and the redesign of Millay Alley which runs from High Street to Park Street.

 

Along with the interview were a number of new renderings of the project.  One of these was a very striking view of the 11-story boutique hotel from nearby I-670.  Another was a rendering of a rebuilt Millay Alley next to the project's parking garage and office building.

 

Below is the link to the interview and the project renderings at Columbus Underground:

 

Short North Boutique Hotel to Begin Construction This Summer

Walker Evans of Columbus Underground interviewed Joel Pizzuti, President of The Pizzuti Companies, about their recently approved Short North Hotel project.  Mr. Pizzuti discussed why they became interested in a boutique hotel project in the Short North; why a mixed-use project on opposite sides of High Street made sense economically; the design review process in two separate historic districts; the re-use of the UCT Building facing Goodale Park; and the redesign of Millay Alley which runs from High Street to Park Street.

 

This was a really fun interview to do. They're obviously very committed to walkable neighborhoods and believe strongly that the best is still yet to come for the Short North.

Walker Evans of Columbus Underground interviewed Joel Pizzuti, President of The Pizzuti Companies, about their recently approved Short North Hotel project.  Mr. Pizzuti discussed why they became interested in a boutique hotel project in the Short North; why a mixed-use project on opposite sides of High Street made sense economically; the design review process in two separate historic districts; the re-use of the UCT Building facing Goodale Park; and the redesign of Millay Alley which runs from High Street to Park Street.

 

Along with the interview were a number of new renderings of the project.  One of these was a very striking view of the 11-story boutique hotel from nearby I-670.  Another was a rendering of a rebuilt Millay Alley next to the project's parking garage and office building.

 

Below is the link to the interview and the project renderings at Columbus Underground:

 

Short North Boutique Hotel to Begin Construction This Summer

 

Wow, this project looks awesome!  Can't wait to see it start to rise this year. 

Impressive new plans unveiled for the Fireproof building - the scale is so much better than originally proposed. The developers launched the project website with all the details - http://1024northhigh.com/

 

^I agree--the scale is much more appropriate. Looks like they are demolishing a significant portion of the rear of the historic Fireproof Building, but this is a good trade off for creating a streetwall all the way to 2nd.

MUCH improved.

^I agree--the scale is much more appropriate. Looks like they are demolishing a significant portion of the rear of the historic Fireproof Building, but this is a good trade off for creating a streetwall all the way to 2nd.

 

The frontage of High is great, but the entire orientation of the lot is terrible, imo.  There will be an even larger surface parking lot there when it's complete, the opposite of what should be there.  Most of the FP building will be torn down as well as another building behind it.  With the larger surface lot in their place, all the project is doing is moving buildings around and leaving more empty space on the entire site than exists right now.  This is the kind of thing that is very frustrating when it comes to Columbus projects.  While there are plenty that are a great use of space and design, there are these that defy all explanation on what people were thinking approving it as is. 

 

Another is the 5th and High building, and the new apartments announced at Columbus Commons.  They all leave something to be desired, and don't seem to match the goals neighborhood commissions claim. 

 

I know that not every project is going to please everyone, but there should be some basic, enforced principles in these urban neighborhoods, specifically dealing with minimum height, parking, design and overall how it fits in with the area. 

Here's another nicely dense project for High Street in the Short North.

 

Solid rental market in Short North spurs Wood Cos. project for new apartments

Business First - by Brian R. Ball

Thursday, November 11, 2010

 

Strength in the Short North retail and apartment markets is spurring a plan to dramatically expand the building that houses the Northstar Cafe.  Developer Mark Wood is moving forward on a $4.5 million project to add three floors to 937-951 N. High St., the building his Wood Cos. bought in 2002.  Wood plans to add 10,000 square feet of office space and two apartments on a second floor and 22 apartments on the third and fourth floors.  When Wood Cos. renovated the building for street-level retail eight years ago, it had the former medical lab strengthened with additional structural steel in preparation for eventually adding floors. 

 

The project will mean a temporary relocation of the Jazz Arts Group offices to Wood Cos. space across High Street.  Other tenants include the Zpizza gourmet pizzeria and the Kiaca gallery of African art.  Those businesses, as well as the Northstar Cafe, are scheduled to remain open during the construction.  Once the three-story addition is complete, Jazz Arts Group and Wood’s firm will move their offices to the building’s second floor.

 

Wood said the architectural design by Schooley Caldwell Associates Inc. features a 2,500-square-foot patio for office and apartment tenants on a first-floor roof toward the back of the complex.  The expansion also will include converting a portion of the property off Second Avenue into a 24-slot parking garage for residents and office tenants.  Construction should get under way by late November with completion set for next fall.

 

MORE: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2010/11/12/solid-short-north-rental-market-spurs.html

 

EXISTING VIEW OF 937-951 N. HIGH STREET

 

PROPOSED UPPER-STORY ADDITION TO 937-951 N. HIGH ST.

The three-story vertical addition to 937-951 N. High Street is moving along.  The addition is now up to its total height.  Photo from Columbus Underground:

 

Couple of items about the upcoming Pizzuti Short North Hotel, the Pizzuti Short North office building and the renovation of the UCT Building for the Pizzuti Art Gallery.  The first item was an article the Columbus Dispatch ran about the project that focused on the family-run development company behind those projects.

 

Dispatch: The Pizzutis honor their past, remake the future of the Short North

 

---

The second item was an announcement from the Pizzuti Companies that they selected Colliers International as their leasing agent for the 55,000 square-feet of office space and the street-level retail space in The Offices at The Joseph portion of the project.  This is the six-story building on the west side of High Street across from The Joseph Hotel.

 

Pizzuti Press Release: Pizzuti begins pre-leasing Short North office building

 

Columbus Business First: Pizzuti taps Colliers to lease Short North office, retail space

Over at Columbus Underground, Walker Evans just posted a compilation and analysis of some recently approved major mixed-use developments in the Short North.  A very good read.

 

Columbus Underground: The Short North’s Summer of Construction

 

---

And, though it wasn't included in the above compilation, another construction project caught by Walker at Columbus Underground was the rebricking of Pearl Alley in the Short North at Pearl Alley Renovations

 

 

Over at Columbus Underground, Walker Evans just posted a compilation and analysis of some recently approved major mixed-use developments in the Short North.  A very good read.

 

Columbus Underground: The Short North’s Summer of Construction

 

Thanks for sharing this! I posted it at 11am that day, which only gave 10tv a few hours to do a re-write for broadcast that night. Can you spot the similarities? ;)

 

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/05/14/columbus-short-north-loses-200-parking-spots-to-summer-construction.html

Over at Columbus Underground, Walker Evans just posted a compilation and analysis of some recently approved major mixed-use developments in the Short North.  A very good read.

 

Columbus Underground: The Short Norths Summer of Construction

 

Thanks for sharing this! I posted it at 11am that day, which only gave 10tv a few hours to do a re-write for broadcast that night. Can you spot the similarities? ;)

 

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/05/14/columbus-short-north-loses-200-parking-spots-to-summer-construction.html

No way!  10TV's piece is like totally different from yours ... cause its like on TV? :wink:

 

Actually, I saw the Dispatch did the same thing with your Hudson Street Market piece.  You should probably feel honored that they follow Columbus Underground closely enough for news ideas!

Q & A from Columbus Underground with two of the principals involved with the Hubbard Apartments.  The Hubbard Apartments are going to be built at the corner of N. High Street and Hubbard Avenue, the former Ibiza Condos site.  Below is also a rendering of the project.

 

The Hubbard Apartments to Rise Over The Short North

By Walker Evans, Columbus Underground

Published on December 13, 2011 7:00 am

 

The northeast corner of Hubbard Avenue and High Street has been one of the most widely discussed plots of land here on Columbus Underground over the past five years.  Originally proposed in 2006 as the home of the failed Ibiza condo development, the site is going through a change of ownership where local development firms Elford and Wagenbrenner are jointly working on a revised plan for the neighborhood.  The Hubbard will be a five-story mixed-use apartment building with ground-floor retail and a public parking garage located in the back.

 

For more details on the project, we spoke recently with Mark Wagenbrenner, President of Wagenbrenner Development, and Mike Fitzpatrick, President of Elford Development, Ltd.

 

Interview at http://www.columbusunderground.com/the-hubbard-apartments-to-rise-over-the-short-north

 

An update of sorts about the Hubbard Apartments planned for the northeast corner of N. High Street and Hubbard Avenue and site of the former Ibiza Condos project.  A bankruptcy court judge awarded the development site to the new Elford/Wagenbrenner development team to build the Hubbard Apartments (see the above article).  Last week, a Franklin County Common Pleas jury awarded a judgement against the previous Ibiza developers (see this article).  Hopefully these judgements now clear the way for the new development team to procede with the Hubbard Apartments project.

 

In the meantime, the Elford/Wagenbrenner development team has a website for the Hubbard Apartments project at http://www.830northhigh.com/.  On that website they have the High Street and Hubbard Avenue building elevations for the project with some neighboring buildings for context. 

 

Below is a High Street elevation of the Hubbard Apartments with neighboring buildings to the left.

 

 

Below is a Hubbard Avenue elevation showing the main apartment building - the connected parking garage with townhouse/brownstone units lining the garage that front Hubbard Avenue - and neighboring houses to the right. (Note: I combined the main building and garage/brownstone building elevations together for clarity.  This combined elevation is not on the 830northhigh website.)

 

An update via city press release posted at Columbus Underground about the reconstruction of Pearl Alley through the Short North.  And it sounds like good news for the Hubbard Apartment building and Parking Garage project.  Here's the press release from http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/pearl-alley-makeover-through-the-short-north:

Press Release:  The City of Columbus Department of Public Service has delayed the 2012 reconstruction of Pearl Alley between East Hubbard Avenue and East Prescott Street due to the planned Hubbard and High development of an apartment building and public parking garage.  In the interest of the public’s safety and to protect against damage to planned Pear Alley improvements, the Department of Public Service determined that the private construction project surrounding this section of Pearl Alley might adversely affect the condition of the reconstructed alley and therefore elected to delay reconstruction of the alley.  The City of Columbus is committed to the reconstruction of this section of Pearl Alley between East Hubbard Avenue and East Prescott Street.  The Department will work with the private development group to coordinate these public and private improvements, including completion of this segment of Pearl Alley, for the greater benefit of Columbus and the Short North community.

The portion of the Pearl Alley reconstruction they are delaying runs right through the future Hubbard construction site (between the apartment building and the parking garage).  Delaying it this year means that they believe the Hubbard construction is likely to be underway soon.  Which, based on a previous CU interview with the developers, would put it on schedule to begin in late spring/early summer.

 

More about the Pizzuti Project in the Short North from a little different perspective.  In addition to "The Joseph" boutique hotel, office building and parking garage, the United Commercial Travelers Building facing Goodale Park is being renovated for an art gallery to house an art collection owned by Ron Pizzuti.  Columbus Underground takes a look at an exhibition from the Pizzuti collection currently on view in the Gallery at Two Miranova Place (that's the office tower located next to the Miranova residential tower along the downtown riverfront - also a Pizzuti project).  Below is the CU article that's looks at the art collection and speculates about what this might mean for the future Short North gallery.

 

---

Teasers: Selected works from the Pizzuti Collection by Women Artists

By: Jeff Regensburger, Columbus Underground

Published on June 3, 2012 - 5:43 pm

 

The Pizzuti Companies are building a boutique hotel in the Short North.  There’s going to be office space, retail space, and a parking garage too.  This isn’t exactly news.  The project has been winding its way through commissions and boards for years.  It’s all part of what might charitably be referred to as “the approval process”.  It’s a process that’s generated opinions on aesthetics, urban planning, and everything in between.  What often gets lost in these debates regarding how tall, how modern, what material and what color is something called the Pizzuti Collection; the non-profit entity established to exhibit contemporary art and highlight works from Ron Pizzuti’s private collection.

 

You see, in addition to being a builder of boutique hotels (among other things), Ron Pizzuti is also a collector of contemporary art.  Over the last thirty years, through careful buying and diligent research, Mr. Pizzuti has amassed what’s become a world-class art collection (he’s a regular fixture in the ARTnews annual list of top 200 collectors).  Thanks to this passion for art, the Short North hotel plans also include a dedicated gallery space.  For art lovers then, the big news is this: later this year the Pizzuti Collection is expected to open its permanent home in the former United Commercial Travelers building at 632 North Park Street.  Central Ohio’s premier arts district is about to get a lot more arty.

 

READ MORE: http://www.columbusunderground.com/teasers-selected-works-from-the-pizzuti-collection-by-women-artists

 

The Short North Business Association (SNBA) is combining with the Short North Special Improvement District (SID) to form a new group called the Short North Alliance.  According to the reports on this, the SNBA will go dormant at the end of June while the SID will continue on as a separate legal entity when it is renewed by property owners this year.

 

The new Short North Alliance will have a 20-member board of directors to include business owners formerly represented by the SNBA and property owners represented by the SID.  The Short North Alliance will hold its initial board meeting June 28.  Former SNBA head John Angelo will become the new group’s executive director on June 15.

 

Columbus Monthly: New group to guide Short North

 

Columbus Dispatch: New group formed in Short North