I imagine that over the years as the individual businesses update their design or tenants change, you may begin to see more variety on the Columbus cap.

I really like the capping of High Street but think that both the structure and the businesses seem out of place, it being more of an extension of the Short North than downtown. It is cool to learn the reason for the architecture but it still seems a bit jarring from the brick of the Short North and I've never understood why there is so much high end retail in what was (from my understanding historically) a sort of artists enclave. I can't imagine how disconnected things used to feel since I still feel a very real seperation between the Short North and downtown (I'm not from Columbus so I apologize if I have neighborhood boundaries wrong)

I really like the capping of High Street but think that both the structure and the businesses seem out of place, it being more of an extension of the Short North than downtown. It is cool to learn the reason for the architecture but it still seems a bit jarring from the brick of the Short North and I've never understood why there is so much high end retail in what was (from my understanding historically) a sort of artists enclave. I can't imagine how disconnected things used to feel since I still feel a very real seperation between the Short North and downtown (I'm not from Columbus so I apologize if I have neighborhood boundaries wrong)

 

There really wasn't any high-end retail unless you call Quizno's or Mo Joe Lounge "high-end."  And if anything, the cap helped the transition between downtown convention center area and the Short North.  And the non-use of brick is a plus, I believe.

I recall some sort of nice steak house and at least one designer clothing store, but its been a couple years since I stopped by. I'm not sold on the transitioning since the architecture fits neither the convention center or short north, difference of opinion i suppose

The "nice" steakhouse just compliments the other "nice" restaurants in the Short North.  The designer clothing store compliments the other designer clothing stores in the Short North.  I don't see a problem with this.  Also, the architecture harkens back to the old Union Station for which the convention center currently sits atop of.

 

And really, does it matter if it's out of place or not (in this case it isn't, but still)?  I mean, do we really care if Zaha lol'd at Walnut & 6th and decided to put an "architectural masterpiece" across the street from gaudy chain restaurant with flying cars?  Context is opinion, afterall.

Why don't we keep this on topic.  :-D

Well right now there is still an overall financing problem along with a related lack of a lease near the site. 

Somebody with a Nightmare Before Christmas icon sure has his panties in a bunch. I find it laughable that at first you don't acknowledge the existence of high end retail on the cap and then say it's there but you don't see a problem with it. Further still, you failed to recognize the context of the problem presented, that of filling your grass roots art district with high end retail. I already said that the historical connection does add a new dimension to the architecture but that doesn't mean that it fits in well with the surroundings. Just because something is old (or wants to look old) doesn't mean that it is inherently good.

 

The CAC certainly fits into the landscape of 6th & Walnut, though it is modern architecture, the materials used and scale of the building works into the surroundings, even before considering the fact that it was built long before the flying car. (But this is all besides the point)

 

To appease Rando, and bring it all back home, the types of shops/restaurants on the 670 cap may work really well a decade or so from now over FWW. And I will fully endorse them if they do, because The Banks isn't going to be some grass roots neighborhood, it is going to be a destination/vacation/tourist spot. I'm ready for my ESPNZone, but would rather it be a Bootsy's Bengals and Funk Emporium.

Somebody with a Nightmare Before Christmas icon sure has his panties in a bunch.

 

Yes, and someone with a Michael Jackson fetish shouldn't talk.

 

I find it laughable that at first you don't acknowledge the existence of high end retail on the cap and then say it's there but you don't see a problem with it.

 

What on EARTH are you talking about?  The Short North has high-end retail and budget retail.  It's not hard to understand that, even in an arts district.

 

Further still, you failed to recognize the context of the problem presented, that of filling your grass roots art district with high end retail.

 

You fail to understand that the grassroots art district has been a collection of "high end" to "grass roots" stores for a while.  Thus, a "high end" steak house (re: bootleg Morton's) isn't really going to be proving any point you're trying to make.

 

I already said that the historical connection does add a new dimension to the architecture but that doesn't mean that it fits in well with the surroundings. Just because something is old (or wants to look old) doesn't mean that it is inherently good.

 

Again, context is opinion.  I appreciate the back history of the project and for the budget, context, and engineering, I feel that the cap is just fine.  Now you, Randy, and Jesus can all disagree, I really don't care, I'm just stating what I have to say.

 

The CAC certainly fits into the landscape of 6th & Walnut, though it is modern architecture, the materials used and scale of the building works into the surroundings, even before considering the fact that it was built long before the flying car. (But this is all besides the point)

 

It can also be argued that the CAC is perhaps a sharp contrast to the overall brick structures it sits adjacent unless you want to compliment it with the hideous Fountain Square garage (pre-psycho cars).  Sure, you could argue that the concrete materials brings the sidewalk into a vertical scale but you can also argue that the "out of scale" Cap (1 story arches) compliments the neighboring Greek Orthodox Church.  Again, context is opinion, no need to get your panties into a bunch.

 

Next.

Oh, and let's stay on topic (which I have to...agree...with Rando).

Who cares if the Cap is out of context? It's at the district's edge. It's different and more dramatic than anything in the Short North but it has a right to be. Surely, if you like Cincinnati, you would value such complexity.

Like we've both said, difference of opinion and that's cool. I took a cheap shot at you, you take one back at me. I was ready to end this the first time I said we had a difference of opinion which was during a very civil stating of my opinion which you decided to come back at with lots of cute little ""s and things. I hope your "next." was a decision to move past this and not some pat on the back for how well you put me in my place. Because I could turn around and break down each comment you said and we could perpetuate this on and on and on, but hopefully you're as tired of the argument as I am, and we can all be one big happy city loving family again. The kids don't like it when mommy and daddy fight. I get to be daddy.

Actually, at 8,446 posts, he gets to be daddy. And mommy.

Can I at least be the creepy uncle?

"uncle oneglove"...that sounds like a child molester lol. I really think the riverfront park will provide more than adequate greenspace. I say up the price on the caps a little for a return investment on higher density...of course thats just me speculating at what would succeed since I don't really have access to city budgets and economic returns on real estate on the riverfront but I know as a citizen that I think it would show more character and regional appeal if we fit as much into a walkable area as possible. if we want to get people downtown we have to maximize how much we have to offer per unit of area...remember these suburbanites are often people who detest walking more than the size of one of their malls. then the streetcar will allow more walkable units to be spurred from this. I say bury 71 all the way back to broadway commons and cap it all haha. caps all around! (but ones that dont collapse like bostons.

I hope your "next." was a decision to move past this and not some pat on the back for how well you put me in my place. Because I could turn around and break down each comment you said and we could perpetuate this on and on and on, but hopefully you're as tired of the argument as I am, and we can all be one big happy city loving family again. The kids don't like it when mommy and daddy fight. I get to be daddy.

 

You're lucky it wasn't a "NEXT" as in moving on to ban the next pretentious pseudo-intellectual. This is ColDayMan's website that you're on here enjoying. Christ, show some respect and leave your arrogance at the door.

Like we've both said, difference of opinion and that's cool. I took a cheap shot at you, you take one back at me. I was ready to end this the first time I said we had a difference of opinion which was during a very civil stating of my opinion which you decided to come back at with lots of cute little ""s and things. I hope your "next." was a decision to move past this and not some pat on the back for how well you put me in my place. Because I could turn around and break down each comment you said and we could perpetuate this on and on and on, but hopefully you're as tired of the argument as I am, and we can all be one big happy city loving family again. The kids don't like it when mommy and daddy fight. I get to be daddy.

 

Yes, and I could turn around and "put you in your place" again.  Again, let's move on, this is done, focus on FWW, and next.  And you get to be "cousin," Uncle is Rando.

Can I be the Godfather somewhere in this?

Yes, and I could turn around and "put you in your place" again.  Again, let's move on, this is done, focus on FWW, and next.  And you get to be "cousin," Uncle is Rando.

 

Exactly my point, and true, Rando should be the creepy uncle

 

You're lucky it wasn't a "NEXT" as in moving on to ban the next pretentious pseudo-intellectual. This is ColDayMan's website that you're on here enjoying. Christ, show some respect and leave your arrogance at the door.

 

I don't think there was anything pseudo-intellectual or pretentious about my posts, I thought one thing, ColDayMan thought another, both of us got out of line with the way we handled the discourse. I'm not an arrogant person but expect respect on both sides when having a conversation, even if I'm still a lowly surface lot.

 

We should take bets on the number of years before the beginning of construction of the decks on FWW.  I call 13

Rando should be the creepy uncle

 

:lol:

We should take bets on the number of years before the beginning of construction of the decks on FWW.  I call 13

 

Actually, I think it will happen quickly or not at all.  Depending on the plan, I wouldn't be surprised to see construction start on this before the final phase of The Banks.  Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still uncovered 20 years from now either.

I think this is an afterthought despite the recent press, for at least another year.  However, when  it does get built.  I advocate a sort of boutique row along a continuous stretch of decking.

As long as we keep the same people in council, EVERYTHING will take years lol...and I think there's is an over abundance of proof for that;)

I step away from the forum for no more than 48 hours and this is what happens.  And of course I'm the creepy uncle...I don't even know why that would be a debated issue.  I'm kind of the weird uncle that ruins family functions (forum meets) and embarrasses everyone (with my shear knowledge obviously).

 

As for the cap...I'm a bit partial to the Florence, Italy train of thought:

You can get a lot of overpriced gold on that bridge along with getting your pocket picked.

^^I like it!

^^^That's what you do on the Purple People; if you build on the cap it should be indistinguishable from the rest of the city.

^That would be a great compliment to other activity on the river by adding some shopping to the Purple People Bridge.  But on the subject of the FWW capping I would love to see some shops there.

They should cap the top of the purple people bridge and have shops on platforms too..that way it could be a double-decker shopping bridge.  Saaaweeeeeeeeeeeet.

Not that it wouldn't be cool, but the problem with those ideas is that there are so many undeveloped lots in Newport, Cincinnati, and Covington that would be much cheaper to develop.  I've not yet been to Florence, but it seems that the reason that the development on that bridge works is because shops desperately wanted to be located in that vicinity, but there was no other space available for development.  For the economics of that to work out here, it would require a massive reinvestment in the riverfront, using up all of the "cheap" land.  We'd also have to seriously curtail the demolition of historic buildings, encouraging re-development of existing structures and fill-in of vacant lots and surface parking.  All of which I personally would love to see happen (or if our current building boom is the beginning of this, continue).  Basically, yes it is very cool, but no, it wouldn't work here.  Not currently anyway.

^Party pooper.

:-D  I'm just sayin'...

It's a nice idea but it would probably work better if we managed to build the Banks first  :wink:

Well, the former 6th Street Bridge carrying WV/OH 527 over the Ohio River between Huntington, W.Va. and Chesapeake, Oh. was demolished a little over ten years ago. It was a cantilever span, gothic in nature, and when the new four-lane span opened IIRC in 1995, some preservationists wanted the old span to remain -- to be converted into an antiques/flea market.

 

Yeah, right. On a narrow two-lane span, with a considerable grade at both ends and little flat ground.

Can the caps support the weight of small stores?

Yes, the two end bridges (nearest GABP) are engineered to carry more weight.  This is part of the reason why the streetcar was routed over those particular bridges.  It avoids additional costs to add structural support to the other bridges.

Channel 5 is running a segment on how this is "back on the table" Monday at 5.

Finally.  This is definitely in the city's best interest.

 

I'd be curious to know exactly how much weight a cap could handle.  I'm wondering if it could ever hold actual structures on it.  Of course finding a way to run utilities and sewer would be a challenge.

^ I actually asked that question before and I was told it will have supports for buildings up to 5 stories.  Pretty cool eh?

I've heard 4 stories

Either way, I see that as being crucial to connecting Downtown to the riverfront.  Sure, I'd be nice to have yet another public park area in the city, but I don't think that would do much for eliminating corridor barrier.

Heck, that would be a good opportunity to install some green roofs.

^ I like the idea of rowhouses.  The more residents we can get near/in downtown, the better.

Rowhouses next to the banks/downtown? Sign me up.

 

Might be a little disconcerting if I heard traffic under my house all of the time.

It's no different than people hearing subways under their homes.  That cap won't be paper thin and since it'll be a tunnel basically, all the sound could be absorbed by soundproof stuff.  I'm sure they'd put it there.

Housing on the caps seems like an odd choice and unlikely.  I think the idea of living above the highway on a cap would be unappealing to people.  I bet it will be mostly greenspace, similar to Lytle Park.

 

Anyway, does anyone have any details on how or why it is "back on the table?"

I bet it will be mostly greenspace, similar to Lytle Park.

 

I've been thinking that Cincinnati's solution to land area they don't know what to do with is:  build a park.

 

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it.  We have plenty of riverfront parks (with another in the pipeline), and now it's being suggested (although I'm aware that it's no new proposal) to have several more blocks of park space across an entire row?

 

Come on.

I don't think its that far out of the question at all. There a lot of people who live above buried highways, subways, etc. in places like NY and especially Europe.

 

you are talking about areas where the demand for housing is extremely high.  Places where all of the ideal sites are already developed so people looking for a bargain live in less-than-ideal sites. 

 

That's not Cincinnati.

I bet it will be mostly greenspace, similar to Lytle Park.

 

I've been thinking that Cincinnati's solution to land area they don't know what to do with is: build a park.

 

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it. We have plenty of riverfront parks (with another in the pipeline), and now it's being suggested (although I'm aware that it's no new proposal) to have several more blocks of park space across an entire row?

 

Come on.

 

I disagree.  There isnt that much greenspace in the CBD and the little that there is fits in well.  There is Garfield Park, Lytle Park and P&G's gardens (which I believe is owned by P&G) and that's about it.  Sawyer Point isnt really in the CBD and neither will be the new Riverfront Park.

 

It would be great if a Furtune 500 company wanted to build its new HQ on the caps or if demand for housing was so high that developers couldnt wait to get a hold of that property, but we all know that isnt the case.  After the Banks gets going, One River Plaza is built, the Edge is built and QCS goes up etc., we are going to have a vast surplus of housing and offices.  More greenspace is a nice alternative and it may be the only practical alternative.  A talented designer could make greenspace over the caps fit in well with the area.

That is pretty much the de facto solution for every community who has land they don't know what to do with. I've seen some parks in some very odd/bad locations for that exact reason.

 

I'd agree with that.  I guess I just haven't seen very many *engaging* new parks in place.  It needs to correspond well with its surroundings.  To have a seven or eight block park--that sounds like a challenge.  In Chicago, of course there's Grant Park. But the width of this potential cap park is no comparison to the size of Grant Park.  I don't anticipate a design nearly as memorable either.

 

What I'm say is that we have so many parks in the city already.  I understand the argument about the need for public space near new development.  I just think that for an area so expansive as the Ft. Washington stretch, it seems unreasonable to construct such a long park considering its width.

 

As with anything though, seeing a design model can make or break, sell or discourage.

 

They should look at the Kessler plan...