4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

There's also a mini park going in with the PNC building conversion.  I'm much more concerned with them putting some mixed-use elements along the street.  This should not be like the Coleman center, creating a dead zone because there is nothing but an entrance.  Government buildings in Columbus are almost universally horribly designed when it comes to adding to the streetscape.

 

They do that nationwide for security purposes.  Post 9/11 the Celebrezze Federal Building on E 9th in Cleveland had concrete construction barriers up to the side walk for years until they retrofitted it.

2 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

 

They do that nationwide for security purposes.  Post 9/11 the Celebrezze Federal Building on E 9th in Cleveland had concrete construction barriers up to the side walk for years until they retrofitted it.

 

Not sure that makes much sense.  If someone was going to attack one of these buildings, they could certainly do it regardless of what was on the first floor.  The 2011 building and the Coleman building have no barriers if say, someone wanted to drive into them with a car bomb or walk in with an arsenal.  What would change if there was a restaurant or shop?  And the problem goes back much further than 9/11.  They've always been designed that way.  

4 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Not sure that makes much sense.  If someone was going to attack one of these buildings, they could certainly do it regardless of what was on the first floor.  The 2011 building and the Coleman building have no barriers if say, someone wanted to drive into them with a car bomb or walk in with an arsenal.  What would change if there was a restaurant or shop?  And the problem goes back much further than 9/11.  They've always been designed that way.  

 

Coleman isn't a courthouse and if it stems back before 9/11 then look at OKC.  No government building will ever have street interaction or a restaurant, simple as that.

Is it that governments look at public buildings and don't want to be landlords? Pedestrian presence should definently be a priority but to what extent and what form is difficult to gauge. The other thing you run into is the fine line between functional and extravagant use of tax payer funds. I would not anticipate any new government building to more than functional. The hope would be that they avoid blank walls like the Coleman center which I agree is definitely poor planning. 

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by DTCL11

How would a government agency even go about leasing out space? Anytime they undertake a project they issue an RFP and select the applicant who can sufficiently accomplish the project for the best possible price. This is done with the thought that it will eliminate preferential treatment and kick backs and all that good stuff that still manages to happen anyway. How would they do something similar with retail space though? Award the space to whatever entity offers them the highest monthly rent? That makes no sense.

 

I get where people are coming from that want retail space included in these projects, but it's simply not appropriate. 

^Sodexho's got dibs!

8 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

 

Coleman isn't a courthouse and if it stems back before 9/11 then look at OKC.  No government building will ever have street interaction or a restaurant, simple as that.

 

It's a government building.  Still not sure how retail space would make it more dangerous.

12 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

Is it that governments look at public buildings and don't want to be landlords? Pedestrian presence should definently be a priority but to what extent and what form is difficult to gauge. The other thing you run into is the fine line between functional and extravagant use of tax payer funds. I would not anticipate any new government building to more than functional. The hope would be that they avoid blank walls like the Coleman center which I agree is definitely poor planning. 

 

I think such concepts of government buildings are really outdated.  Regardless of having retail space on the ground floor, you're still talking about money being spent on maintenance.  If all we cared about was functional, all government buildings would just be blank boxes with zero architectural style, but that's not the case.  Having office, retail or restaurant space on ground floors could at least provide some subsidy instead of taxpayers.  

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by jonoh81

9 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

How would a government agency even go about leasing out space? Anytime they undertake a project they issue an RFP and select the applicant who can sufficiently accomplish the project for the best possible price. This is done with the thought that it will eliminate preferential treatment and kick backs and all that good stuff that still manages to happen anyway. How would they do something similar with retail space though? Award the space to whatever entity offers them the highest monthly rent? That makes no sense.

 

I get where people are coming from that want retail space included in these projects, but it's simply not appropriate. 

 

I think you answered your own question. Government issues contracts for projects all the time.  Why couldn't they contract a company to manage office or retail space?  Is there not a single government building anywhere that doesn't have office or retail space?  How are those managed?

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, aderwent said:

Columbus is now 52nd (2019). But, have you ever looked at ParkScore's map for Columbus? Zero Ohio State parks are included. The Oval, South Oval, Lincoln Tower Park, Chadwick Arboretum, The Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park, Fred Beekman Park, and the Bloch Cancer Survivors Plaza are not included. This would add not only acreage, but ball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc. Even looking at the Scioto Audubon Metro Park it's not mapped properly. Only half the acreage is mapped, and it's missing the dog park and obstacle course. Walnut Woods Metro Park isn't even close to being mapped properly. It's missing probably over 1,000 acres and at least a playground and dog park. My guess is the cities more highly rated have much better rates of accurate mapping. I agree Columbus should be doing better with urban parks, but ParkScore should be taken with a large grain of salt.

 

Do you think their data may be outdated? Walnut Woods and Scioto Audubon are fairly new or at least have newer acerage and features.

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I think you answered your own question. Government issues contracts for projects all the time.  Why couldn't they contract a company to manage office or retail space?  Is there not a single government building anywhere that doesn't have office or retail space?  How are those managed?

 

They contract for projects that are necessary for the purpose of their department. Ground floor retail is totally irrelevant to the courthouse being able to accomplish what they are meant to accomplish. 

5 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

They contract for projects that are necessary for the purpose of their department. Ground floor retail is totally irrelevant to the courthouse being able to accomplish what they are meant to accomplish. 

 

Who said it had to exist as a necessity of its overall function?  We complain about buildings of all types being built with crappy designs that don't encourage a better streetscape, so why should government buildings be exempt from that?  I don't really buy the safety argument, and I don't think it would be some inevitable financial loss to taxpayers.  If having retail/office space in buildings was such a financial burden, there wouldn't be a single developer adding it anywhere Downtown.

On 1/23/2020 at 11:55 AM, DTCL11 said:

I am curious about one part of the article indicating dorian commons was the location of the old courthouse. Was the demolition of the old courthouse another unfortunate byproduct of the overzealous demolition mindsets of the 1970s with a lack of foresight into the benefits of historical structures?

 

Here's some of photos of the courthouse from oldest to right around when it was demolished. As you can see, they really let the place fall apart over the years ? The first photo is particularly heart breaking ....

 

 

Edited January 29, 20205 yr by futureman

What's a bit fascinating to me is the attempt at saving the facade with an all new structure on the interior? That would explain an earlier comment about all the interior historical integrity being stripped as well. What an absolute shame. 

Franklin County is planning to build a surface parking lot at 50 E Mound St (Franklin Commons). They also own the parking lot to the east.

 

 

(Taken from slide 23 here)

That's infuriating. And chances are there won't be any attempt to make it a [forgive me] 'decent looking' parking lot with trees and islands and streetscaping etc. I wish the city could deny this from happening. 

24 minutes ago, DTCL11 said:

That's infuriating. And chances are there won't be any attempt to make it a [forgive me] 'decent looking' parking lot with trees and islands and streetscaping etc. I wish the city could deny this from happening. 

I'm against adding surface parking by all means, I feel it is a step in the wrong direction from what downtown has been trying to achieve, however I'm going to attempt to see this from a different perspective and play devils advocate.  The only thing I can think of is, yes they may need more parking, and given what is to come in the coming years, perhaps they are anticipating using their land and portions of this parking as the staging/equipment area for the future building that will be going up across the street where the fenced off park is?  Again, not defending it, but just trying to wrap my head around what logic/planning they may have in mind.

The county seems to be somewhat behind the times, similar to ODOT. 

1 hour ago, Gnoraa said:

 Again, not defending it, but just trying to wrap my head around what logic/planning they may have in mind.

 

That's alot of benefit of the doubt. I can sell them a gravel lot for staging for half that. Save the county money, make a bunch of money. Win win for me ?

Wow. Green space taken away for a parking lot. Should be illegal. 

What is the story of "Franklin Commons?" 

 

I've always seen it as a vacant lot, not a park/greenspace.

I wonder if that lot goes before the downtown commission? If so, it might be worth a bit of an opposition campaign. At least to push them toward a landscaped lot or reconfigure a pocket park along mound. As the main entry to the campus for many people, it seems like a perfect place for a pocket park with signage, etc to hide the llot. The Justice Park on broad would be a decent inspiration. You could even keep the park and use it for an entrance into a future government building on the lot some day.

 

I agree it has appeared as a vacant lot for a long time. It, to me, isnt so much about lamenting the loss of an underutilized green space, just that it's going to be a freaking surface lot. 

 

 It seems that in the 2012ish area the county branded it as franklin commons for events and a community garden. More like a hobby project as a way to maintain a vacant lot IMO and never actually reaching any true potential (likely for a reason).

 

37 minutes ago, ink said:

What is the story of "Franklin Commons?" 

 

I've always seen it as a vacant lot, not a park/greenspace.

 

It is vacant lot for the most part honestly.

Overall seems like some Franklin County employees may use it for a team garden but mostly it's underutilized green space in an awkward location. I don't think a parking lot is a best use at all, however I don't necessarily see it as a cause worth organizing over. The "park" has little to no landscaping, lighting, or frequent use that I have ever seen. Personally I am open to the parking lot with contingencies of hardscaping, a potion reserved for the community garden, and actual lighting that isn't just a wood utility pole with some utilitarian AEP light arm in one corner. My guesS is this pad will ultimately be developed but right now is just part of a reshuffling, I am more focused on finding a way to push NRI to redevelop the surface lot it created on Marconi. 

Edited January 31, 20205 yr by DevolsDance

I saw this photo posted today on the historic photos of Columbus Facebook group. You can see a portion of the doomed old courthouse behind the "new" county jail.

 

Here's the caption they posted "I-70 under construction looking east from the old Whittier St bridge. The old Mound St. bridge is at the right and the new bridge for the West Freeway is at the left. A small section of the doomed old court house can be seen behind the instantly drab new county jail. Photo dated Feb. 6, 1974. CML"

^Nice cars!

Although the interstate system did a lot of damage to the urban core of Columbus (and many other cities), it would have been cool to be around while they were under construction. The amount of construction in Columbus during the 50s and 60s - both infrastructure and housing - must have been pretty impressive. 

1 hour ago, cbussoccer said:

Although the interstate system did a lot of damage to the urban core of Columbus (and many other cities), it would have been cool to be around while they were under construction. The amount of construction in Columbus during the 50s and 60s - both infrastructure and housing - must have been pretty impressive. 

 

Its how my family escaped Appalachian poverty. They were never like the ones depicted in the media of the day but by no means well off. My great grandfather a was the head of the state road district and primarily a farmer.

 

My grandfather and his brother were able to secure a job building a dam in southern WV, which turned into them building 70 from Columbus to Washington, PA. This lead to various other projects throughout the country for several years for my great uncle, my grandfather passed in the late 70’s after he’d divorced my grandmother.

 

My dad remembers living through the move from the hills to the sprawling metropolis that was Columbus in the early 60’s and then eventually onto eastern Ohio as the project progressed. 

From https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/f3tkun/rip_courthouse_employees_will_appreciate_the_rip/

 

The elevated walkway that hovers six stories above High Street closed for good after Friday's workday.  County employees are noting its passing:

Signs are up saying High St will be closed Nov 6 for 3 days between Fulton and Mound. Looks like the elevated walkway will be coming down this weekend:

 

So the existing downtown county jail should theoretically be getting ready for demolition as soon as the new complex opens. Wouldn't it make sense to wait on demolishing Dorrian Commons and focus any new construction within the existing parcel? 

2 hours ago, jebleprls22 said:

So the existing downtown county jail should theoretically be getting ready for demolition as soon as the new complex opens. Wouldn't it make sense to wait on demolishing Dorrian Commons and focus any new construction within the existing parcel? 

Is anything replacing the jail? I couldn’t find anything about it. Also is there a chance they will move the juvenile detention center out of downtown? 

On 11/5/2020 at 10:30 AM, .justin said:

Looks like the elevated walkway will be coming down this weekend:

(Sat. 11-7-20)

 

^^^^YESSSSS

^^ Bad memories!!! Tear it all down! Including the tall gray slab thing. 

Edited November 9, 20204 yr by Toddguy

I hear the old jail (the one that was there before the current one) was a real gulag.

aaaand it's gone (Mon. 11-9-20)

7 minutes ago, NorthShore647 said:

aaaand it's gone (Mon. 11-9-20)

Looks incredible! 

Wow that was fast! Good riddance!

Looks like the Franklin County Court Complex has filed plans with the DT Commission to build a surface lot on the existing green space at 50 E Mount St.

 

The application mentions the ultimate plan for structured parking as they have identified a roughly ~850 space parking shortfall once the campus is built out. With the upcoming redevelopment of Dorrian Commons for the new municipal courthouse, this was picked as the most convenient and available piece of land until funds are made available down the line for a new garage. 

 

Overall it looks like your pretty standard surface lot with some screening and landscaping. Not ideal in my opinion, but I doubt the commission will put up much of a fuss as they never do when it matters. 

 

Cheers to another 85 surface spots downtown!

 

 

Edited March 18, 20214 yr by DevolsDance

10 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

Looks like the Franklin County Court Complex has filed plans with the DT Commission to build a surface lot on the existing green space at 50 E Mount St.

 

The application mentions the ultimate plan for structured parking as they have identified a roughly ~850 space parking shortfall once the campus is built out. With the upcoming redevelopment of Dorrian Commons for the new municipal courthouse, this was picked as the most convenient and available piece of land until funds are made available down the line for a new garage. 

 

Overall it looks like your pretty standard surface lot with some screening and landscaping. Not ideal in my opinion, but I doubt the commission will put up much of a fuss as they never do when it matters. 

 

Cheers to another 85 surface spots downtown!

 

Yuck, and I see the future phase never happening, so there will just be a sh*tty giant lot for years. 

13 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Yuck, and I see the future phase never happening, so there will just be a sh*tty giant lot for years. 

 

After reading the letters from the Board of Commissioners and Pizzuti, it sounds like they are already pretty strapped for parking, and the situation will continue to get worse as the county population continues to grow and various county departments are relocated to the FCCC. With that being the case, I think we can be fairly confident that a parking structure will be built on this lot and the pre-existing surface lot next door in the near future. 

7 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

After reading the letters from the Board of Commissioners and Pizzuti, it sounds like they are already pretty strapped for parking, and the situation will continue to get worse as the county population continues to grow and various county departments are relocated to the FCCC. With that being the case, I think we can be fairly confident that a parking structure will be built on this lot and the pre-existing surface lot next door in the near future. 

Thank you for that, it would be even better if it had retail or restaurant space in the bottom, at least along mound. Don’t know if they can do that for a government building, but it would be nice. 

I would say that any parking garage should be built so that it could handle addition development over top at some point, or the potential to be converted to other uses, but who am I kidding.  

Sometimes.......I really hate this city. Not the news I wanted to see.

1 hour ago, DevolsDance said:

Looks like the Franklin County Court Complex has filed plans with the DT Commission to build a surface lot on the existing green space at 50 E Mount St.

 

The application mentions the ultimate plan for structured parking as they have identified a roughly ~850 space parking shortfall once the campus is built out. With the upcoming redevelopment of Dorrian Commons for the new municipal courthouse, this was picked as the most convenient and available piece of land until funds are made available down the line for a new garage. 

 

Overall it looks like your pretty standard surface lot with some screening and landscaping. Not ideal in my opinion, but I doubt the commission will put up much of a fuss as they never do when it matters. 

 

Cheers to another 85 surface spots downtown!

 

 

This is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing over there. The city recently released its' Urban Forestry plan and then the county decides to pave over green space? Ridiculous!

That's where the actual mounds were until the '30s, '40s?

It was the juvi jail location until the late 80s

39 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

That's where the actual mounds were until the '30s, '40s?

According to this, the mound was in the intersection of Mound and High:

https://radio.wosu.org/post/curious-cbus-how-mound-street-got-its-name#stream/0

The downtown commission needs to fight this one like German village fought the hotel. 

From the March 23, 2021 Columbus Downtown Commission Meeting (the following is paraphrased):

 

Lot details: It will be staff and public parking, containing 85 spots. The entrance and exit to the lot is on Noble, so no curb cuts onto Mound Street. It'll include bicycle parking, gates, hedges, iron fencing and brick columns.

 

Timeline: The intention of the county administration and commissioners is to have new structured parking within 2 years of the new courthouse being constructed at Dorrian Commons (across from where the proposed surface lot is). The structured parking would include the lot directly to the east which is owned by the county, and currently used by the Sherriff's Office. The city is building the courthouse, and the county is building the future parking structure.

 

They viewed the parking situation as "critical" for the past 10 years, and a burden on the public. No ones intent is to have a surface lot here. The commissioners did not have doubt that this would be for only interim use. Motion carried without opposition.