Columbus continues to develop rapidly as the population grows. Demand is high and homes have been in short supply for years. Unimaginative developers creating poor projects and proposals seems to be the norm, however. Some of these proposals sacrifice historic buildings, others promote an entirely car-centric environment unfriendly to transit, bikes and pedestrians, while still others are a massive waste of site space.

Here are just a few recent examples of proposed projects that are baffling in their lack of creativity, access, accommodation and site potential.

167-191 S. High Street

The Plan
The 3 buildings pictured on this Downtown block of High Street are all in imminent danger. In a recent Columbus Business First article, it was reported that the 3 buildings were purchased by Cleveland-based Harsax Management Company, a construction and development firm. While the 1914 Ohio National Bank building at 167 S. High is supposedly the most likely to stay, the other two early 1910s buildings at 171-177 and 181-191 S. High are already likely to be demolished according to the company’s CEO.
No specific reason is given for the demolition proposal, only that the company plans to develop the site at some point afterwards. So the suggestion is that these buildings may be demolished without any actual plan in place to replace them, so they’d end up- at least for a short time- as an empty lot or parking.
The Problem
Not incorporating the southern two buildings into a new development is an entirely unnecessary wasted opportunity, and High Street and Downtown lose at least 2 more of of their old streetscape for no good reason. While the prospect of new development is exciting, the fact of the matter is that preservation can take place while still getting a new dense, mixed-use project for the site even if most or all of the existing buildings are saved.

A Few Potential Solutions
The site is more than large enough to accommodate the existing buildings with new development, and there are 3 potential configurations that show this.
Option 1- The Least Destructive

The red area in the above map shows the best possible option. The main part of 171-177 is saved, along with the entirety of 181-189. The small parking lot, the skinny section of 171-177, and the later, smaller addition behind 181-189 would all be replaced with a new development. The area would encompass about 1/3 of an acre, plenty of space to build something fairly significant on. With the renovations of the existing buildings and the new, taller development in back, it would be a potentially spectacular addition to the RiverSouth part of Downtown.
In fact, a new project and renovation could incorporate the adjacent dead-end Walnut Alley into the plan, turning it into a market space, restaurant/bar patio, or both. It would be a shame to lose the addition as it is a cool little building itself, but if it allowed the other main buildings to be saved, it would ultimately be worth it.
Option 2- The Compromise

The second option would fully replace 171-177 S. High and the rear parking lot with a new build. The site would offer just under 1/3rd an acre, so it would be the smallest available option, but would still allow a taller, dense, mixed-use project with High Street frontage. It would also allow both 181-189 and its rear addition to be saved and renovated, which are arguably more important.
Option 3- The Greatest Sacrifice

Option 3 would require the demolition of 171-177 and the rear addition. This would allow the developer to build an L-shaped project with the new building having direct High Street frontage. It would be a greater loss than Options 1 and 2, for sure, but still a potential compromise versus full demolition. Furthermore, the new building could maintain 171-177’s facade so that the old streetscape look is still maintained. This would be similar to what was done with this hotel project on Park Street.

The fact that the developer either hasn’t considered such options, or isn’t interested in them, is unfortunate. Given its prime location, the potential for this site is extremely high, both in terms of a new build and preservation. It would be incredibly short-sighted of the Downtown Commission to allow full demolition of the site to take place, even if the developer ultimately proposes something significant for the site.

45 W. Barthman Avenue

The Plan
This 8.2-acre South Side site is a former industrial area that has been mostly vacant and abandoned for many years. The NRP Group, another Cleveland-based development company, wants to turn this site into a residential complex with 200 apartments in 3 buildings.

The Problem
The 8.2-acre site is one of the largest single development sites available anywhere on the South Side. 200 units is an insultingly low density for the space. Furthermore, the layout is absolutely awful. The 3 proposed buildings are completely surrounded by surface parking lots, and the positioning of the buildings make it virtually impossible to ever add additional housing on the site later on. It’s also entirely unfriendly to pedestrians, as the site plan shows no sidewalks or pathways along Wall Street and no connections across it. There are only small sections of sidewalk between the buildings and the parking lots, but they do not connect with each other between the 3 buildings. This is about as poor of a plan as it gets.
A Potential Solution

A new layout is desperately needed for the site. In 5 minutes, I created this potential one. The blue box is a large parking garage- or surface lot alone if any of the buildings have parking underneath- that could easily accommodate hundreds or 1000+ cars. The black lines are new streets, including extensions of Reeb and Barthman Avenues. The yellow line is a new sidewalk along the entire site on Wall Street, and each new street would have connecting sidewalks. The orange boxes are potential buildings, each between 1/2-1.2 acres in size. For comparison, the entire HighPoint project on High Street Downtown is about 1.3 acres. That’s more than large enough to accommodate 100-300 units each depending on the number of floors. That means the 6 buildings could potentially provide 6x-9x the housing units that the original proposal provides, even with just 3 or 4-story buildings.
Furthermore, any of the buildings could incorporate retail/restaurant space, something this part of the South Side really doesn’t have outside of strip centers. Those spaces would be particularly attractive facing the 1.5-acre park carved out in the center of the site. I noticed in the original plan that they have retention ponds. If they are necessary, a central retention pond could be the key feature of this pocket park and event space.
You might say, however, that the developer might not have the financing to build all of this, and that’s true. However, just like Jeffrey Park in Italian Village, building one or 2 buildings at a time, letting them fill up and then building more over several years would not be out of the question. The site doesn’t have to be developed all at once. The developer can build the 3 buildings originally planned and then fill out the rest of the site over time. The point is to do it right, not fast.

329 Loeffler Avenue

The Plan
Another proposal that seeks to demolish a part of old Columbus is the 7-townhome proposal from, it seems, an R and R Construction. Most of the land for the proposal is vacant and has been for years, but there is a lone brick house at the corner of Loeffler and Carrie Avenue that the company wants to demolish for the project. The house dates back to between 1890-1905.
The Problem
There is, quite plainly, no reason the house needs to be demolished. While it is vacant, auditor records list the house in fair condition, so it’s hardly beyond saving. It can be renovated. Furthermore, the location on the corner means that it is not actually in the way of the project overall. The proposed layout below shows the location of the house in the red box.

The Solution
There is no reason that the new building on Loeffler needs to extend to the corner. It could just be a 3-unit building on that section instead of 4, with the house being renovated on the corner. It’s location does not interfere with the other 3 units facing the back alley whatsoever and the overall number of units for the project would still be 7. The house is a part of the neighborhood’s history. Regardless of how it may look at the moment, it’s condition means that it is not structurally deficient, so it can remain and should. Brick homes like this are being lost for all sorts of reasons- neglect, arson, new development- but this is a perfect example where location makes it a great candidate for saving.

While these are recent, the fact is that such poor project proposals come out almost every month, and there is often little to no pushback from neighborhood commissions or the city to do better. While solutions and better options exist, we’re missing out on creating better, richer neighborhoods that both embrace new development while encouraging preservation and higher standards for residents. I encourage anyone who can to contact these companies, the city and neighborhood commissions to speak out. Even if you disagree with my particular take on these proposals, collectively more voices should be heard in the direction that development in Columbus takes.