Author Topic: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons  (Read 8986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Columbo

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 16087
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #90 on: April 29, 2018, 01:20:46 PM »
Mid-April photo of the '80 on the Commons' from https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-april-2018-part-1-we1



I hate to say it, but I despise this building to the extent that it makes the glass box next to it appear to be an architectural masterpiece lol. Damn it is ugly and squat and dark and cheap looking to me-like it is a nightmare made out of cardboard. lol. Oh well. It appears that most people like it or are ok with it.

  resistance is futile

#SaveTheCrew -- https://savethecrew.com/

Online wpcc88

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #91 on: April 29, 2018, 10:22:13 PM »
Mid-April photo of the '80 on the Commons' from https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-april-2018-part-1-we1



I hate to say it, but I despise this building to the extent that it makes the glass box next to it appear to be an architectural masterpiece lol. Damn it is ugly and squat and dark and cheap looking to me-like it is a nightmare made out of cardboard. lol. Oh well. It appears that most people like it or are ok with it.

*So strange to me how I love the 12 story building on High that is against the parking garage, but can't help but detest this one.

And that's why I am so against Kaufmanns proposal behind Northstar in the Short North... this is quality that they produce

Offline GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9012
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #92 on: April 30, 2018, 01:05:44 AM »
You know, black buildings are kind of unprecedented... anywhere and everywhere. Sure, there are buildings that have turned black but...

Offline ck

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 429
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #93 on: April 30, 2018, 04:18:13 AM »
I'm not sure about the quality of the materials, but I don't feel the building itself looks bad at all.  The problem is that it's in a funky area and stands out.  If the blocks around it would fill in, I think it'll be right at home.  And of course, from the park's side, it's a bit more complex and pleasant to look at.

Offline aderwent

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #94 on: April 30, 2018, 08:25:17 AM »
I'm not sure about the quality of the materials, but I don't feel the building itself looks bad at all.  The problem is that it's in a funky area and stands out.  If the blocks around it would fill in, I think it'll be right at home.  And of course, from the park's side, it's a bit more complex and pleasant to look at.

I drove up High yesterday and peeked down Rich as I passed by, and I could swear the panels on that park side are white. Also, the original 17 floor proposal may have looked better. This is pretty stocky if you ask me.

Offline cbussoccer

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #95 on: April 30, 2018, 10:07:12 AM »
I think the side facing the park actually looks really nice. It's kind of a unique look. Unfortunately, it kind of seems like they didn't even try for the rest of the building. If we could get some 8+ story buildings to go up on the surface lots surrounding it, especially the surface lot diagonal from this building, it would kind of soften the blow of how bad it looks on the other sides. 

Offline casey

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #96 on: May 01, 2018, 01:06:18 PM »
Since we're all throwing out our opinions on this I'll add mine too ;)

I don't think 225 80 on the Commons looks "bad" necessarily from any side. Yes, it's clearly the Borg Cube on 3rd, but I don't mind that actually. A solid, 12-story streetwall is a pretty good addition anywhere in downtown Columbus as far as I'm concerned. Having no other buildings on 3 sides is what makes it look somewhat awkward IMO. Add something of a similar size and scale (or larger!) on the NE and SE corners as well and we'll really be in business

The one design choice I question is going with protruding balconies vs recessed for the apartments... I just think I'd feel very overexposed and wouldn't enjoy spending much time out on my little windswept concrete ledge living here versus the inset balconies at 250 High. I suppose anything is better than HighPoint's 'Juliet' doors though...
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 01:12:48 PM by casey »

Offline GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9012
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #97 on: May 01, 2018, 02:38:04 PM »
^Yeah, for whatever reason I don't mind flashcubes in moderation.

Offline Gnoraa

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2018, 04:48:28 PM »
Updated recent view of 80 on the Commons from the Columbus Commons viewpoint....

Offline Pablo

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #99 on: June 14, 2018, 08:57:09 AM »
^I think it looks terrific on the Columbus Commons side!

Offline cbussoccer

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #100 on: June 14, 2018, 09:07:32 AM »
^ Totally agree. I think it looks great from the Commons side, but sub par from the other side. Hopefully we can get some infill moving East on Rich Street to kind of cover it up. We already have that 15-story building proposed next to the Holiday Inn so that's a start.

The surface lot at the corner of Rich and Third desperately needs to be developed though. It could be a great spot for a hotel given it's proximity to the Commons, Ohio Theater, Millennial Tower (hopefully) and the rest of the River South District, German Village, and the Greyhound station (though I don't know how many people taking a Greyhound would be staying in a hotel right there).

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4046
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #101 on: June 14, 2018, 09:11:51 AM »
The sidewalk is back in along 3rd street, though pedestrians are still walking on the street in that path.

Also, Root Insurance will be moving in to the building when it's ready - https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2018/05/18/digital-auto-insurer-root-to-move-to-columbus.html

Offline Toddguy

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 368
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #102 on: June 14, 2018, 09:16:16 AM »
^ Totally agree. I think it looks great from the Commons side, but sub par from the other side. Hopefully we can get some infill moving East on Rich Street to kind of cover it up. We already have that 15-story building proposed next to the Holiday Inn so that's a start.

The surface lot at the corner of Rich and Third desperately needs to be developed though. It could be a great spot for a hotel given it's proximity to the Commons, Ohio Theater, Millennial Tower (hopefully) and the rest of the River South District, German Village, and the Greyhound station (though I don't know how many people taking a Greyhound would be staying in a hotel right there).

Yeah, the saving grace for 80 on the Commons is that the only really good side is the side that will always be exposed the most-the Commons side.

And do you think that they will ever get the Greyhound station to move? Filling in that and the lot directly south of it would help immensely. I know it serves a need, but increasingly Greyhound is a blight. Couldn't it work on the perimeter somewhere?

Offline cbussoccer

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 258
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #103 on: June 14, 2018, 09:23:43 AM »
^ I think the airport would be a good location to move the Greyhound station to. We already have the AirConnect COTA route that Greyhound riders could hop on if they need to get downtown. There is also plenty of parking infrastructure available at the airport that Greyhound could tap into. I have no idea what Greyhound ridership is like so it's difficult for me to guess where a good location would be.


Offline Pablo

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #104 on: June 14, 2018, 11:05:02 AM »
The pedestrian bridge is staged on Rich St. I imagine it will be lifted into place soon.

Offline casey

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #105 on: June 14, 2018, 07:32:01 PM »
^^ Greyhound absolutely needs to stay downtown IMO. I think ideally it would work best in a consolidated facility with Amtrak/commuter rail near the convention center

Pittsburgh has a beautiful, state-of-the-art, really very very nice Greyhound station on the ground floor of a parking garage across the street from their Amtrak stop. It works extremely well and is so convenient. I wish we could just copy-paste the same thing over here to Columbus

Offline Columbo

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 16087
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #106 on: June 19, 2018, 07:02:12 PM »
Late May view of 80 on the Commons from a slightly different angle.  This view is from the 12th floor roof of the recently completed and similarly tall 250 High mixed-use office/residential building.  The Greyhound bus station that has been mentioned in previous posts is visible in this view - across Third Street from the 80 on the Commons:  https://www.columbusunderground.com/construction-roundup-may-2018-we1

#SaveTheCrew -- https://savethecrew.com/

Offline tlb919

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #107 on: June 25, 2018, 09:46:21 AM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.


Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4046
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #108 on: June 25, 2018, 10:21:03 AM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Online wpcc88

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #109 on: June 25, 2018, 10:32:25 AM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

Offline tlb919

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #110 on: June 25, 2018, 11:02:28 AM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Offline aderwent

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #111 on: June 25, 2018, 12:04:58 PM »

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

Does the Downtown Commission have any guidelines to base decisions off of other than parking and height requirements? The Victorian Village commission, via the Short North Design Guidelines, would never allow such hideous materials. The worst you're going to get is the Castle. That isn't nearly as bad as this thing. Did the Downtown Commission know what these EIFS panels look like before they approved their use? If not, why didn't they ask for samples? If so, what horrible taste. Why couldn't they go with how they clad 250 High?

Offline Pablo

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #112 on: June 25, 2018, 01:22:33 PM »
^I thought both 250 and 80 were clad with pre-cast concrete panels.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #113 on: June 25, 2018, 01:26:03 PM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Is it possible they skimped on the bridge because the parking garage is not long for this world?

Offline tlb919

  • Dirt Lot 0'
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #114 on: June 25, 2018, 01:42:51 PM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Is it possible they skimped on the bridge because the parking garage is not long for this world?

Every single ounce of hope and reason inside of me wants that to be the case, but my brain knows it's absolutely not.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7604
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #115 on: June 25, 2018, 01:46:09 PM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Is it possible they skimped on the bridge because the parking garage is not long for this world?

Every single ounce of hope and reason inside of me wants that to be the case, but my brain knows it's absolutely not.

Yeah, I actually felt a little bit stupid typing that.

Online wpcc88

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #116 on: June 25, 2018, 04:30:02 PM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Is it possible they skimped on the bridge because the parking garage is not long for this world?

Every single ounce of hope and reason inside of me wants that to be the case, but my brain knows it's absolutely not.

Yeah, I actually felt a little bit stupid typing that.

Hopefully the garage gets built on eventually.  With the bus garage being a part of it though I highly doubt that ever happens.

Offline casey

  • Rhodes Tower 629'
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #117 on: June 25, 2018, 09:02:57 PM »
They honestly need to do something with the garage, it looks terrible from every angle. It's weathered like crazy all along the sides, the 3rd street retail arcade is decrepit and abandoned, they screwed some generic vinyl tarps into random parts advertising "courthouse/columbus commons parking" which are now faded and torn, there's a bunch of mall signage inside that was never removed/replaced, etc etc...

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4046
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #118 on: June 26, 2018, 08:57:41 AM »
the 3rd street retail arcade is decrepit and abandon

There's a yoga studio and a few bail bonds or something like that.

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
Re: Columbus: Downtown: 80 on the Commons
« Reply #119 on: June 26, 2018, 10:20:34 AM »
Update - Looks like the catwalk went up over the weekend!

While I do enjoy the angular design, I am honestly disappointed that it's not a fully enclosed walkway. It's just a bridge with steel grating on the sides and a solid "roof" directly above the walkway, why was this honesty needed? If you're going to force a catwalk downtown, why go with a design that barely even gets you out of the elements. Ugh.

It looks like a complete waste.

Kind of like the whole building... and people want to let Kauffman take up a large space in Short North with this crap just for the sake of infill

I have to admit that I do actually love the building (especially the commons side) haha, however the catwalk is just unnecessary on all levels. 

Is it possible they skimped on the bridge because the parking garage is not long for this world?

What's kind of ironic about the garage is that back in the mid-1980s when it was being planned, there were competing proposals to build up to 20-story mix-used towers on top of it.  They were never built due to the expense of required sprinklers.  I'm not sure if the garage ended up being built with possible upward development in mind.  Now, we'd all prefer to see that topside development or the garage be replaced entirely, the latter of which seems really unlikely.