Tag Archives: Columbus development projects

More Historic Building Preservation Results

Posted on by
Reply




More historic building preservation results

A few years back, I wrote about the outcomes of Columbus Landmarks’ historic buildings under threat from development or demolition. A few of the buildings had already been lost, a few had been saved, but several had no resolution. Since then, however, the list has seen more historic building preservation results arrive.
Additionally, other buildings that were not on the Columbus Landmarks list of endangered buildings have recently come under threat.

Columbus Landmarks List Buildings

Indianola Junior High School
Address: 420 E. 19th Avenue
Built: 1929
Status as of April 2022: Existing, with a Renovation Plan

Indianola in 2015.

Some good news for the very first Junior High building in the United States. An independent STEM school chain, Metro Schools, announced in May of last year that they will be renovating the old school for grades 6-12. Through April of this year, renovation does not appear to have started, however.

Bellows Avenue Elementary
Address: 725 Bellows Avenue
Built: 1905
Status as of April 2022: Existing, with a Renovation Plan

In November of 2021, Columbus City Council approved redevelopment plans that would renovate the school into a mix of office space and apartments. Additionally, the remaining school site land would be filled with new townhomes. Work has yet to begin on this project, however.

Near East Trolley Barn Complex
Address: 1600 Oak Street
Built: 1880-1900
Status as of April 2022: Renovated

The main trolley barn and grounds in 2019.

The old trolley barn as of April 2022.

A renovation to turn the trolley barn into East Market has more or less been completed, and the surrounding grounds have also been rebuilt.

Kessler’s Corner Grocery
Address: 553-555 W. Town Street
Built: 1884
Status as of April 2022: Existing, but to be Demolished

Kessler’s in 2019.

The building had been vacant for more than 30 years, with a slew of owners not spending a dime on maintaining the structure- and apparently the city doing nothing about it. Ironically, the current owner has some history with restoring buildings like this, but claim the building is too far gone to save. The reality, however, is that only very rarely can a building not be saved. It largely comes down to the cost-return analysis, meaning that restoring this building would likely cost more than the return the owner wants to get out of it. They will say it’s beyond saving, but really it’s just beyond what they want to spend. And so, another piece of Columbus history is lost.

The Main Bar
Address: 16 W. Main Street
Built: 1880s
Status as of April 2022: Demolished

The Main Bar building in 2016.

This one really irks me. The Main Bar building was a small, historic building that was in great condition. It was demolished in 2021 not because of a proposed development project or because it was unsafe or in poor condition. Nope, it was torn down… for parking. The Downtown Commission allowed the demolition despite the fact that their own development standards forbid demolition without a replacement project planned, and also forbids it solely for surface parking space. Yet it happened, anyway. Why? At this point, who knows. Downtown development standards are rarely enforced by the Downtown Commission. Half the recently-built projects along High Street shouldn’t have been allowed as built, so the fact that they weren’t followed here, either, is no surprise. The owner promised that there would eventually be a development proposal for the site, but they didn’t have one at the time of demolition and still don’t.

Macon Hotel Building
Address: 366 N. 20th Street
Built: 1888
Status as of April 2022: Existing, with a Renovation Plan

The Macon in 2019.

This old building, famous for its jazz history, has been vacant for decades. Various redevelopment and renovations proposals have come and gone. A new one from the summer of 2021, and hopefully one that we see finally come to fruition, wants to renovate the structure back into a hotel with first-floor retail and restaurant space. No movement, however, has occurred on this project.

Kroger Bakery Building
Address: 457 Cleveland Avenue
Built: 1914
Status as of April 2022: Existing, with a Renovation Plan

A proposal from last spring seeks to renovate the structures into a mix of uses with apartments and retail, with more apartment buildings proposed around the historic bakery buildings. This project has been approved, but work has yet to begin.

Threatened Buildings Not on the Columbus Landmarks List

South Dormitory
Address: 240 Parsons Avenue
Built: 1935
Status as of April 2022: Existing, likely to be Saved

The South Dormitory in 2021.

This building was one of the dormitory buildings that were part of the old Institution for the Blind building that is now used by the City of Columbus. The City had been using it for offices, but claimed that it no longer functioned well for their purposes, so they proposed tearing it down for expanded parking space. Ironically, the complex already has a very large parking lot and garage that could be expanded upwards without requiring any demolition. Because the building itself is in good condition and because of the reason for the proposed demolition, there was immediate and heavy criticism of the plan. So much so that funding was pulled. While a new parking proposal hasn’t been released publicly, given the outcry, it seems unlikely that the City will move forward with the demolition itself.

South Side Learning Center
Address: 255 Reeb Avenue
Built: 1927
Status as of April 2022: Existing, but with Demolition Plan

255 Reeb in 2019.

The former South Side Learning Center is being proposed to be demolished as part of Nationwide Realty’s Healthy Homes affordable housing company. The existing building is in good condition, but Healthy Homes says that it can be best renovated only into 1 bedroom units and efficiencies, but they prefer to build 2-3 bedroom units. That’s it… that’s the reasoning. So as with the Main Bar, there is nothing really wrong with the historic building other than that it can’t accommodate the specific desired unit size. If Healthy Homes only owned this specific lot, I could see how that may be an issue. However, they also own the few vacant lots to the west along Reeb and the land back to the rear alley. The overall site is more than large enough to build 3-4 multi-unit new buildings each with 2-3 bedroom units in addition to renovating the existing structure into 1-bedroom units, creating a dense pocket of necessary housing for all potential parties. In fact, such a proposal could potentially more than double the units actually proposed. Yet for some inexplicable reason, Healthy Homes doesn’t want to do that despite the claim that they need more housing.

Jersey Farm Bakery Building
Address: 1826 E. Livingston Avenue
Built: 1949
Status as of April 2022: Existing, but with Demolition Plan

The bakery building in 2021.

While not as old as some of the other buildings on this list, this large art-deco style factory building still has some architectural interest and history attached. Woda Companies initially planned to renovate the building into residences, but now want to tear it down and replace it with a 4-story affordable housing complex with some retail space. Unfortunately, the latest proposal is fairly generic and somewhat garish with the choice of colors. A project that would’ve at least incorporated the Livingston-facing part of the building would’ve gone a long way to make this project more interesting. The overall site is very large at nearly 3.3 acres, so there was plenty of space to do something unique here. This seems like a huge missed opportunity.

Columbus and the greater region are set to change significantly in the coming years, with its trajectory of population growth only meaning greater pressure to build. But as those projects come, more and more old buildings could be lost if forward thinking fails.

To explore other proposals around Columbus, the best place is here.



July’s Missed Opportunity of the Month

Posted on by
Reply




July’s missed opportunity of the month is just one more entry into the list of dumb ideas, but it isn’t about something bad with the development itself. Rather, it’s instead about the unfortunately common plague of NIMBYism that festers in so many urban neighborhoods, and how it can kill good urbanism because some people have delicate sensibilities that need stroking.

A while back, Kaufman Development proposed a 10-story, mixed-use project at 23 W. 2nd Avenue that spanned part of the block between Price and 2nd, most of which was already a vacant grass lot. The project proposed renovating the 91-year-old IBEW building and incorporating it into the overall project, which included a mix of apartments, retail and office space.


—Last rendering in July 2018.

Victorian Village, the neighborhood of which the project fell under, was of course completely apoplectic about it. After the first neighborhood commission meeting, at which commission members and neighborhood busybodies expressed deep concerns about the design and size, Kaufman went back to the drawing board. Over time, Kaufman redesigned the project more than 20 times, the height changing from 10 to 9 to 14 and then back to 10 stories, with the number of apartments, uses, scale, etc. being changed over and over again to please the fickle nearby residents. These residents (and let’s not forget commission members, which admittedly, faced a 4-4 tie in the vote because the commission was lacking its 9th member, something the City hopes to rectify in the near future) complained about traffic and that the project would “block the sun”, among other roll-of-the-eyes nonsense. It was the kind of shenanigans that even Clintonville might suggest had gone too far.

So after 7 straight months of trying to please those that cannot be pleased, the actual preferred outcome inevitably occurred:
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/07/12/kaufman-walks-away-from-contested-mixed-use.html

Instead of continuing to deal with unreasonable people, spending more time and money for something they couldn’t make work, Kaufman decided to walk away from the project altogether. Though they still own the property and may eventually come back to the table with another proposal, it seems unlikely to be anywhere near the scale originally proposed. The NIMBYism aside, this speaks to the disconnect between the real estate conditions in Columbus and the pushback on building new development that would actually help resolve some of the existing problems. Columbus is currently in the midst of a housing crisis. Population estimates show that the city has become one of the nation’s fastest-growing. This growth, combined with a historically-low inventory and record sales, has put a huge strain on the housing market, including pushing prices to ever-higher levels. Simply put, residential construction hasn’t been keeping pace with the influx of population into the city, and this has been the case since at least the 2009 recession. Instead of intentionally limiting developers to go smaller in prime locations- such as in the very-high-demand Short North off of High Street- development commissions across the city should be welcoming more housing. Instead, projects are being downsized or rejected by local populations left and right. Let’s look at a few reasons why commission members and some residents opposed this particular project.

Traffic!!!!
The argument that traffic would be a problem is silly and misguided for many reasons, but I’ll just review a few of them. First, the project plan provided parking in a garage for its residents and at least some for retail customers/visitors, and the extra cars driving around wouldn’t have been significant enough to make any noticeable difference in an already busy area. Second, Price Avenue was said to be too small and narrow to handle cars going in and out of the garage entrance per the project, but it’s clearly wide enough for 1-way traffic (its 1-way already) and 2 more lanes of curbside parking, so that reason seems equally bunk. And entrance/exit from the project would not have taken up many existing curb spots, and no configuration changes to the street would’ve been needed except for perhaps a very small end section of Price.


—Price Avenue looking toward High, about where the Kaufman project would’ve gone on the left.

Third, traffic and parking shouldn’t be used as a hammer to squash development, but as the catalyst to demand better transit and pedestrian options. Whether those include buses, rail, bikes, better sidewalks, etc. can be debated, but transit is an important part of the picture in urban neighborhoods, whether people like it or not. Furthermore, this area is already highly served by bus and bike, as well as car-share and Uber. The idea that people even have to drive here, or even to the Short North in general, is simply not true. Given that the Short North is highly walkable, many of the residents that would’ve lived here would’ve been less likely to use their cars for all trips, anyway, thereby further reducing the impact on local roads.

It’s Too Big for the Neighborhood!!!
To this, I say, bullshit. Multiple projects just as big or larger have already been built or are under construction on both sides of High Street, including in Victorian Village, which this site falls under. To say that the Kaufman site is not appropriate is completely arbitrary, even if the site is not on High itself, but set back slightly. To the east is the High commercial corridor and to the west is an alleyway. 4 single-family homes exist to the east of the alleyway, and would’ve been the only ones really directly near the project. The complaint that there would be significant “sun blocking” is ridiculous. It wasn’t a 50-story tower, and the orientation of project meant that any sun loss would have been minimal at worst.

The Historic Character of the Neighborhood is Being Lost!!!
This one comes up with virtually every single development in this particular neighborhood. Victorian Village is indeed a beautiful neighborhood with some of the city’s best-preserved historic housing. But the Kaufman project would’ve had no impact on that, whatsoever. No demolition would’ve taken place, as this particular land lost all of its historic buildings before 1980. It’s just a vacant lot now. More importantly, the proposal would’ve renovated an actual historic building, the IBEW, helping to preserve it for the future. The histrionics on preserving the neighborhood rings hollow when nothing was actually under threat.

In any case, the project is probably dead. Whatever might be proposed in its place will likely do that much less to help address the housing crisis or to keep the neighborhood progressing. It’s a shame that some people can hold entire neighborhoods hostage with outdated thinking, and how a 40-year-long vacant lot- and counting- can be preferable to the fear of change.