MANSFIELD — Historic preservationist, Steve McQuillen believes his proposed $4 million downtown apartment building could be the spark that further ignites redevelopment in downtown Mansfield.
McQuillen explained the potential impact of his proposed building, which would be an exterior replica of the 1871 county courthouse, to the Richland County Land Bank’s board at a Friday meeting.
“If this happens, I think other projects will come forward,” McQuillen said.
At a mid-February Richland County Commissioners meeting, McQuillen proposed a public/private partnership that could provide space for 27 apartments and 2,300 additional feet of retail, office and/or meeting space.
Since then, he’s expanded upon his idea. His proposal now includes up to 35 units, each comparable to those that cost $6 to $8 million in large cities. He’d also like to include an atrium, inspired by The Beekman in New York City.
“I thought with a few adjustments, our project could have the same size, almost to the inch, atrium. And that’s a magnificent, beautiful space,” McQuillen said.
He made a point to visit the luxury hotel while attending a recent conference at his alma mater, Columbia University.
“What I want to do is create the absolute best housing possible for this site,” McQuillen said. “Each of the units with the 18-foot ceilings, with the tremendous windows that they have and the tower — which will be a visible centerpiece for all of downtown — will really help us to do the best we can with getting the rents we need.”
He’d like to receive more than $1 per square foot in rent, as similar spaces often rent for $1.50 to $1.75 per square foot in Cleveland and Columbus, according to his experience.
“We know it will rent for something, but we don’t want it to rent for the $500 to $700 that is the norm right now. We want to rent it for more,” McQuillen said.
What needs to happen next?
Land Bank board member and Richland County Commissioner, Tony Vero says a feasibility study is needed to determine how this type of apartment building would be received.
“If you’re going to sell the taxpayers that on taxpayer property, you’re going to put a giant building next to another giant building, you better have something that says, ‘this project is worth its weight,’ is where we’re at with that,” Vero said.
He noted that this opinion shouldn’t be confused with disapproval for the idea.
“If you want us to buy in, we’re requesting you spend some money on the study,” he said.
Parking & Positioning
Other land bank board members expressed concerns about parking and the proposed building’s proximity to the current Richland County Courthouse.
“This has generated a lot of discussion, more favorable than nonfavorable … but even those in favor are saying, ‘Don’t you think it will look weird to have a building on top of a building?’ especially with the architecture of an older building beside what we have as our courthouse,” Vero said.
McQuillen noted a belief that there’d be “some space” between, so it “won’t be right on top of it” and he referenced an example in Florida where there’s a similar situation that he believes works well.
Land bank manager Amy Hamrick expressed concern about parking. The current proposal includes one covered space per unit, but Hamrick felt the proposed rent might be more fitting to two-person, two-car families.
McQuillen was confident that parking will “work out” and cited how he’s seen other locations reduce parking.
