Yeah, I know I know... but I hate just about everything about this.  The loss of the historic buildings instead of incorporation, the extremely bland, boxy style, the hospital colors, the reduced density, the arrogance of the developer in trying to go around the variance process to build a cheaper, more mediocre project...  no thanks.  "Mixed bag" is far too kind.

The pedestrian experience on SE corner of the building is just awful. Weather protection at entrances would have made the ground floor seem more fleshed out and maybe if they included some street trees in the renders it would have helped but this is just brutal looking. 

11 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

 

I guess there are more than I realized when we start to name them. one could also partially include Pavey and i believe some of the other new building across from campus.

 

Interesting then that a majority of the new below grade garages are in the University District where as the Short North did not experience this. I wonder what drove such different approaches. 

 

Student housing is pretty lucrative so they can justify the cost - the Uncommon charges about $1K per bed.

6 hours ago, cityscapes said:

The pedestrian experience on SE corner of the building is just awful. Weather protection at entrances would have made the ground floor seem more fleshed out and maybe if they included some street trees in the renders it would have helped but this is just brutal looking. 

 

I believe the UIDRB has a say on architecture - hopefully they will address the High St frontage.

This is way too similar to the Uncommon. If they must do something like this, can't they do something similar to what they are doing with the hotel on Park downtown and having the new building recessed a bit to keep the facades and maintain some kind of continuity and interest with the street given the old building frontage on High/intersection of HIgh and King? The original proposal saved the King side...couldn't they make that work even if only a setback of ten or twenty feet?

 

And yeah what is up with the southeast corner of this on High? ?  Not to mention the part along King.  This thing is much more massive and bulky looking than the original proposal...and only 48 feet lower-with the height distributed all around it with much less variation..smh.  You just know they are going to cheap-out on the materials too and it will show. With all of the setbacks large and small on this I would actually prefer if this was built in brick.

 

I also have to blame the community for not wanting to get with the program and realize that compromises need to be made and the development needs are getting greater and greater given the economic and population growth of the region-and this is the heart of the growth on our main commercial street. Is this sort of a "throw up your hands in frustration" slap in the face from the developer?

 

*On a good note-good for the parking being underground! That is one thing that is right. Put it down there if at all possible.

 

*on a different note...what is up with the comment section of CU? Glad I don't post there anymore...it seems very toxic and antagonistic there.

Edited November 19, 20195 yr by Toddguy

16 hours ago, Pablo said:

 

I believe the UIDRB has a say on architecture - hopefully they will address the High St frontage.

Given how poorly so many (Luxe Belle, Uncommon, The Wellington) of the new projects under their purview have turned out and how little they've done to shape the look and feel of those buildings for the better I'm not expecting it to be addressed. 

 

7 hours ago, Toddguy said:

I also have to blame the community for not wanting to get with the program and realize that compromises need to be made and the development needs are getting greater and greater given the economic and population growth of the region-and this is the heart of the growth on our main commercial street. Is this sort of a "throw up your hands in frustration" slap in the face from the developer?

 

It sure as hell feels like it, they tried to preserve some of what was there and do an interesting building and after getting some push back it's like they've proposed something that says here's what your sh*tty code requires / allows are you happy now? 

6 hours ago, cityscapes said:

Given how poorly so many (Luxe Belle, Uncommon, The Wellington) of the new projects under their purview have turned out and how little they've done to shape the look and feel of those buildings for the better I'm not expecting it to be addressed. 

 

 

It sure as hell feels like it, they tried to preserve some of what was there and do an interesting building and after getting some push back it's like they've proposed something that says here's what your sh*tty code requires / allows are you happy now? 

 

In a way I hope it's a wake up call. I feel the same way as the developers. Code and zoning is so out of whack in Columbus that I've almost thrown my hands up as well, lol.

I might have missed it but what’s everyone’s issue with the Luxe Bell building outside of the name? 

On 11/20/2019 at 12:58 AM, cityscapes said:

Given how poorly so many (Luxe Belle, Uncommon, The Wellington) of the new projects under their purview have turned out and how little they've done to shape the look and feel of those buildings for the better I'm not expecting it to be addressed. 

 

 

It sure as hell feels like it, they tried to preserve some of what was there and do an interesting building and after getting some push back it's like they've proposed something that says here's what your sh*tty code requires / allows are you happy now? 

What's so bad about the Wellington? It's massive, but it'll be right in scale with the other developments to the south. It's nothing extraordinary but it seems to be of pretty high quality from the times I've passed it...

Any new news "related" to the Founders Park in Harrison West. Looking at one of the MI homes along 5th Ave for sale.  I am hoping that a restaurant, coffee shop and gym will be built so that I won't have to walk far.

On 1/18/2019 at 2:57 PM, ColDayMan said:

140-unit apartment project in the University District clears commission

 

A plan to redevelop a former city school property in the University District has cleared its first hurdle.

 

Brent Wrightsel's Vision Development has worked on plans for a mixed-use project on the site of the former Fifth Avenue Elementary in Dennison Place.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/01/18/140-unit-apartment-project-in-the-university.html

 

The elementary school has been demolished and it looks like the site is being prepped for construction. Here’s a shot from Highland looking west. 
 

^ That is going to be a major upgrade for that block.  Here is an aerial of that block when the circa 1975 elementary school occupied it:

 

And here's a rendering one of the new replacement buildings - as seen from Fifth Avenue:

According to the 2019 Business First article about this project at https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/01/18/140-unit-apartment-project-in-the-university.html:

 

"Vision Development wants to build a mixed-use project on the site of the former Fifth Avenue Alternative Elementary School at 1300 Forsythe Avenue in Dennison Place.  Plans call for two buildings on the block, bound by 5th and 6th avenues.  The development would have a pair of 3,000- to 5,000-square-foot retail areas with about 134 apartment units above.  Grass courtyards and parking spaces would go between the buildings.  Another part of the development will include some for-sale units."

It would be a great time for the 5th Ave road diet. Worst designed street in the city with a lot of potential.

51 minutes ago, Ted said:

It would be a great time for the 5th Ave road diet. Worst designed street in the city with a lot of potential.

 

I think Broad St from Downtown to Bexley may own that title haha but 5th is a close second. It's terrible from a pedestrian experience and really needs looked at as developments starts kicking off, I imagine this project is the first of many to come being it seems to be such a valuable property corridor. 

2 hours ago, DevolsDance said:

 

I think Broad St from Downtown to Bexley may own that title haha but 5th is a close second. It's terrible from a pedestrian experience and really needs looked at as developments starts kicking off, I imagine this project is the first of many to come being it seems to be such a valuable property corridor. 

I'd challenge this and say Broad street from 70 in Franklinton to Bexley ? So many vehicle lanes.. so few bicycle lanes.. so not pedestrian friendly

2 hours ago, NightNectar said:

I'd challenge this and say Broad street from 70 in Franklinton to Bexley ? So many vehicle lanes.. so few bicycle lanes.. so not pedestrian friendly

 

Valid point, I will agree on that now that I think about that stretch. I think the only redeemable piece of Broad through that is the tiny section by COSI/NVMM with medians and bike lanes. 

Broad Street is wide enough to land an airplane. Something needs to be done yesterday, imo. It's honestly ridiculous.

On 1/6/2020 at 11:37 AM, DevolsDance said:

 

I think Broad St from Downtown to Bexley may own that title haha but 5th is a close second. It's terrible from a pedestrian experience and really needs looked at as developments starts kicking off, I imagine this project is the first of many to come being it seems to be such a valuable property corridor. 

good point haha

On 1/7/2020 at 7:02 AM, Zyrokai said:

Broad Street is wide enough to land an airplane. Something needs to be done yesterday, imo. It's honestly ridiculous.

 

Well, it IS called Broad Street, lol.

It will have a lot more "broads" on it when it is pedestrian friendly!

So that 5th & Highland development:

 

There are now steel beams in the ground on the east side of the parcel. Things seem to be moving quickly now. They weren't there yesterday. I missed my chance to snap a photo when I passed by on the bus.

^Those steel beams are part of the shoring system. They are being driven into the ground to allow for excavation of what I assume is a below grade parking garage. Should start to see dirt moving in a few weeks. 

The King and High development is headed back to the UARB Commission this month for conceptual review with an updated design.

 

https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/tcrwl8zlp5p8a3bgc6u6am6sjxvnivkr

 

Looks like the developers are going to try and sway the commission to allow some height once again with the new design returning to 11 stories. Based on renders the site plan has been reworked to shift the tower massing to the southern-most portion of the site and maintaining/incorporating the townhouse facades along King Ave, along with an updated incorporation of the "Hippie Hut" building on the corner. The developer is asking for a variance from the current 72' to 120' 6".

 

I am curious if the renders released last month of the "no variance" option was to try and poke the commission a bit. Either way, this seems like a much better site plan and while I do have some material questions, I am absolutely in favor of the massing and heights shown in the new concept. 

 

Renders attached below! Enjoy all!

 

 

 

Okay I lied a bit, I don't love the incorporation of the old townhouses along King Ave but... I get it. 

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, DevolsDance said:

The King and High development is headed back to the UARB Commission this month for conceptual review with an updated design.

 

https://columbusohdev.app.box.com/s/tcrwl8zlp5p8a3bgc6u6am6sjxvnivkr

 

Looks like the developers are going to try and sway the commission to allow some height once again with the new design returning to 11 stories. Based on renders the site plan has been reworked to shift the tower massing to the southern-most portion of the site and maintaining/incorporating the townhouse facades along King Ave, along with an updated incorporation of the "Hippie Hut" building on the corner. The developer is asking for a variance from the current 72' to 120' 6".

 

I am curious if the renders released last month of the "no variance" option was to try and poke the commission a bit. Either way, this seems like a much better site plan and while I do have some material questions, I am absolutely in favor of the massing and heights shown in the new concept. 

 

Renders attached below! Enjoy all!

 

 

 

Okay I lied a bit, I don't love the incorporation of the old townhouses along King Ave but... I get it. 

 

 

 

I think this looks great. The color of the southern highest part looks better than in the initial renderings. Hopefully it gets approved. It looks good. 

Wow. I'm much more confident in this with the updated renderings. Agreed on material selection reservations. The earlier renderings were awful. 

 

I agree the incorporation of the townhomes is understandable but a bit awkward in the current form. (Perhaps different treatment of the set back portion above them might help).

 

Would be interesting to see some patio space on the roofs of the original structures. 

 

If the commission can approve this, I think we will see a continued expansion of similar density across the city. With the AC Hotel and this setting precedents of how to better (not necessarily perfect) incorporate new and old and add much needed density. 

I think it looks great!

It looks so good!

Now the Kroger parking lot will look even more out of place, lol

Edited January 17, 20205 yr by Zyrokai

This might be my favorite version so far 

CU's article on the 11-story proposal: https://www.columbusunderground.com/yet-another-plan-for-prominent-corner-to-be-presented-bw1

 

Hopefully it gets approved. The article notes the 11-story portion will be 120 feet tall while the 6-story portion will be just shy of 70 feet tall.

 

 

 

Nice! That's the first Anton Garm in the midwest!

51 minutes ago, Pablo said:

Nice! That's the first Anton Garm in the midwest!

 

Which is?

13 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

 

Which is?

It's the fake store name on the rendering.

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

Nice! That's the first Anton Garm in the midwest!

 

I'm going to camp out in front of it waiting for it to open.

1 hour ago, Pablo said:

It's the fake store name on the rendering.

 

I figured so after a google search 

I wish they were just keeping the town homes as-is...

Yet Another Plan for Prominent Corner to be Presented

 

 

The University Impact District Review Board (UIDRB) will soon weigh in on another proposal for the southwest corner of King Avenue and North High Street, continuing a saga that began last spring when St. Louis-based Collegiate Development Group first floated a redevelopment concept for the site.

 

According to documents submitted to the city in advance of the meeting – which takes place at 4 p.m. on Thursday, January 23 – the new plan calls for the preservation of the existing building on the corner, as well as portions of the Ohio Exterminating building on High and the row of townhomes on King. The submitted presentation also states that the developer would pay for the relocation of the former gas station building at 1331 N. High St.

 

More below:

https://www.columbusunderground.com/yet-another-plan-for-prominent-corner-to-be-presented-bw1

& https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/01/22/another-plan-emerges-for-proposed-development-at.html

 

This is probably as good as we're going to get here in terms of height and historic preservation, and so much better than the previous spite proposal.  I don't hold much hope it will be approved as is, though.  I expect a healthy group of NIMBYers to object.

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by jonoh81

9 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

This is probably as good as we're going to get here in terms of height and historic preservation, and so much better than the previous spite proposal.  I don't hold much hope it will be approved as is, though.  I expect a healthy group of NIMBYers to object.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe the 'Protect old North' has jumped on this proposal. They may be relaxing their position. 

11 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

This is probably as good as we're going to get here in terms of height and historic preservation, and so much better than the previous spite proposal.  I don't hold much hope it will be approved as is, though.  I expect a healthy group of NIMBYers to object.

 

I don't completely understand the NIMBY opposition here though since it's such a high renter area and neighborhood composition, where are the NIMBYs even coming from?

 

Either way, I hope the commission looks at the "spite" proposal and this proposal and sees the reality in front of them that High St is growing up... it's time they stop bickering over height, density, and traffic and start focusing on materials and architectural quality.

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by DevolsDance

1 hour ago, DTCL11 said:

 

If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe the 'Protect old North' has jumped on this proposal. They may be relaxing their position. 

 

There was at least one comment on FB suggesting that residents should do to this project what was done to the Kauffman project on 2nd in the Short North- meaning protest it into oblivion.  

Yeah, I don't fully understand what residents are complaining? I don't agree with them, but I at least can understand that for those who paid $400k+ for a house in German Village why there'd be a vocal minority. But who living in this area cares enough to complain. Isn't most everyone just renting? 

Among the concerns I just heard on the news was that they don’t need a giant monstrosity of steel and glass. And another person said the 11 stories was too much. 
 

If they don’t want to be around tall buildings move to the suburbs. You bought a house in a city, deal with it or move. 

Edited January 24, 20205 yr by VintageLife

6 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Among the concerns I just heard on the news was that they don’t need a giant monstrosity of steel and glass.

NOT ANOTHER STEEL AND GLASS MONSTER!! IT MIGHT CAST A SHADOW!! ?

I will never understand NIMBYs.

 

lol cast a shadow

 

And right?! Not steel and glass! If only it were made of cardboard and saran wrap, maybe then they'd approve!

Edited January 24, 20205 yr by Zyrokai

We got our so you can't have yours. Screw them all. I'm hopeful but I would probably still bet money on a rejection and watch the developer pull put. I honestly dont think the uncommon pt II was a serious proposal but a scare tactic. If they do follow through with the Uncommon pt II version the community will get exactly what it deserves to the detriment of the neighborhood. 

 

What's particularly funny about the shadow casting argument is the biggest area affected by the new shadow will be the rest of the same building, a couple properties behind and the freaking Kroger. Will somebody please consider the effect on Kroger after 3.30 pm in the summer?! What will they do with less sun?! Nooooooo

"How dare you continue to gentrify a neighborhood after I contributed to its gentrification!"

3 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

What's particularly funny about the shadow casting argument is the biggest area affected by the new shadow will be the rest of the same building, a couple properties behind and the freaking Kroger. Will somebody please consider the effect on Kroger after 3.30 pm in the summer?! What will they do with less sun?! Nooooooo

 

Sounds amazing. I hate roasting atop asphalt parking lots in the middle of summer.

3 hours ago, DTCL11 said:

We got our so you can't have yours. Screw them all. I'm hopeful but I would probably still bet money on a rejection and watch the developer pull put. I honestly dont think the uncommon pt II was a serious proposal but a scare tactic. If they do follow through with the Uncommon pt II version the community will get exactly what it deserves to the detriment of the neighborhood. 

 

What's particularly funny about the shadow casting argument is the biggest area affected by the new shadow will be the rest of the same building, a couple properties behind and the freaking Kroger. Will somebody please consider the effect on Kroger after 3.30 pm in the summer?! What will they do with less sun?! Nooooooo

 

 

Have their electric bill go down by thousands of dollars a month from April to October and massively reduce their carbon footprint, that's what.

A little late to this but to me there shouldn't be too many NIMBYs in this area like the Kaufman project.  This is also actually on High Street versus that project which was not.  This is a high renter area outside of condos on Clark, but those don't have a yard as is, so I'm not sure why they would complain.  In general 3 of 4 sides are either commercial or rentals, so I doubt the NIMBYs win this fight, especially with the changes to the on-street design.