Reimagining Columbus Book 6: City Hall Art Plan by Designing Local

BOOK # 6

CITY HALL ART PLAN

Over the course of six books, this report fully details the activities and outcomes of the Reimagining Columbus project, through which the City of Columbus, Ohio reckoned with its relationship to the explorer Christopher Columbus.

THE SIX BOOKS IN THIS SERIES INCLUDE:

BOOK # 1

provides insights into how the City of Columbus came to display a Christopher Columbus statue on the grounds of its City Hall, why that statue was removed in 2020, and how the Reimagining Columbus project was designed to help the city determine what to do with it going forward.

BOOK # 2

describes research the project team undertook to discover the many stories that have played out among the people of Columbus, Ohio since long before it became a city, the truth of Christopher Columbus and his conduct in the New World, and how an explorer who never reached the United States became a symbol of all its promise.

BOOK # 3

outlines the community engagement methodologies employed throughout this project and chronicles the events and activities offered by the Reimagining Columbus project team, as well as findings from these conversations.

BOOK # 4

connects the project team’s research findings and community engagement results to the design principles that informed concepts for a new space in which residents might one day experience the reinstalled Christopher Columbus statue.

BOOK # 5

applies the design principles developed from research and community conversations, and best practices in placemaking, to articulate how a new statue site should look and feel, how visitors should be able to interact with it, and how it could engender profound experiences that reverberate for generations.

BOOK # 6

offers an Art Plan for City Hall Campus to guide the implementation of future public artworks there.

QR CODE

Original materials developed through this program are available at reimaginingcolumbus.com , or upon request.

Reimagining Columbus is funded by the Mellon Foundation’s Monuments Project, a multi-year commitment aimed at transforming the nation’s commemorative landscape to ensure our collective histories are more completely and accurately represented.

INTRODUCTION

Since July 2020, the plinth at Columbus City Hall where a Christopher Columbus statue stood for 65 years has remained empty, and city leaders are clear that it will not be reinstalled there. Through the Reimagining Columbus project, design recommendations for a new space in which to install the statue were developed (see Books 4 and 5). The project further called for an art plan to inform how the city might develop an art collection to activate City Hall's various exterior spaces. In 2023, the city pledged $1.5 million towards new public art for the campus, with Councilmember Emmanuel V. Remy saying at the time, "I believe this investment...will help move our city forward while creating thoughtful, interactive spaces for our community to share history, stories, and truth." Indeed, the community conversations that occurred through Reimagining Columbus affirmed residents' desire for such spaces.

Book 6 of the Reimagining Columbus Final Report — the Columbus City Hall Campus Art Plan — channels insights from the Reimagining Columbus project, as well as an analysis of the campus' history, site characteristics, and current usage, into recommendations for art that meaningfully reflects all who call the city home. Though it provides examples from other cities for inspiration towards that end, it does not prescribe particular artworks, public art typologies, or artists; the city will need to undertake a process to make these determinations when it is prepared to invest in a new piece or pieces. Next steps to guide this process are provided at the book's conclusion.

All photos, maps, drawings, and renderings in this book were generated by Designing Local from 2024–2025 unless otherwise sourced.

BOOK 6 MAIN IDEAS

• Art in publicly accessible spaces at City Hall will reflect community engagement findings from the Reimagining Columbus project and be consistent with its goals and outcomes.

• Art on City Hall's Campus will respond to the unique functional and aesthetic conditions of the site and offer a range of experiences for viewers. It will balance weighty topics with those that inspire joy, energize the public, and encourage civic engagement.

• The Art Plan for City Hall builds on the original intention for City Hall to be a welcoming civic space for all Columbus residents.

• The implementation of art at City Hall should be based on national best practices and facilitated through a community-focused process led by experts in the arts, design, landscape architecture, urban planning, historic preservation, and arts administration.

SITE CONTEXT

DOWNTOWN COLUMBUS, OHIO

TOFRANKLINTON

BROADST

SCIOTO RIVER

BROAD STREET BRIDGE

TODISCOVERYDISTRICT

BROADST GAYST

HIGH ST

FRONT ST

PROPOSED CAPITAL LINE TO GERMAN VILLAGE

THE HISTORY OF CITY HALL

FIGURE 1.0. Columbus City Hall at right, and the old U.S. Post Office & Courthouse at left. (c.1936–1943).

COLUMBUS CITY HALL

Since 1928, City Hall has been the City of Columbus’ most significant cityowned building, in terms of its function and symbolism. The historic building houses offices for elected officials and city staff, but it is also the primary public space in which democracy unfolds in the city. Symbolically, City Hall represents the city’s democratic government and underscores the importance of Columbus as Ohio’s capital. Designed in the Greek Revival style, City Hall’s architecture and material choices convey democratic values such as prosperity, civic idealism, and symmetry. The building was not the first of Columbus’ administrative buildings, but it has proved the most enduring.

Past City Hall Locations

Historical sources are not specific about the location(s) of Columbus’ administration offices prior to 1850, noting only that its first permanent location was on the second floor of Central Market beginning that year. That was also the year that the railroad connected Columbus with Cleveland and Cincinnati, making Ohio a major player in the national economy. Population figures help tell the story: Columbus had just over 6,000 residents in 1840 and more than 51,000 by 1880.

Such growth soon caused the city to look for larger and better accommodations. A site fronting onto Capitol Square, Columbus’ primary urban design element, seemed only appropriate for such an up-and-coming place. Construction began in May 1869 and the new City Hall opened in March 1872. Reflecting tastes of the time — which eschewed the Greek Revival Style of the Ohio Statehouse — the building had a High Victorian Gothic design featuring pointed-arch window and door openings and numerous towers and turrets on all four sides of its stone exterior.

City Hall housed the various functions of municipal government but also had public gathering spaces that hosted meetings, galas, receptions, inaugural balls, and banquets. It even provided a venue for basketball practice, the activity taking place on January 21, 1921 when the building was found to be on fire. Despite valiant efforts by firefighters, the next morning revealed a smoking stone shell. The city weighed repairing the building, but its Gothic charms had apparently faded — even before the fire, it had been considered an aging eyesore. It was time for a new city hall, and a generous invitation from the main library to use their second floor gave the city time to think about what it wanted for its seat of government.

Top: FIGURE 1.1. Riches, William. Central Market. 1873. Engraving. In Columbus, Ohio, by Jacob Studer; last modified November 25, 2021.

Bottom: FIGURE 1.2. “The City Hall, South Capitol Square,” in Centennial History of Columbus and Franklin County by S. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1909; last modified November 25, 2021.

Planning the New City

The benefits of rapid growth enjoyed by Columbus in the second half of the nineteenth century was accompanied by a number of ills — overcrowding, unplanned sprawl, shoddy construction, smog, and heavy traffic, particularly along its riverfront — that cities everywhere were experiencing at the time. Like planners in other cities, those in Columbus were inspired to address these ills by the City Beautiful movement that arose from the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893–94, a landmark global event that changed how people thought about urban development. City Beautiful adherents believed that well-designed cities could accommodate high density, if there was a proper balance among streets, public spaces, and new, classically-inspired architecture that inspired people to be engaged, caring citizens.

Taking its cue, Columbus began a modest planning effort with a grant of $350 from the Board of Trade to engage professional services to evaluate parks and other improvements. This was followed in 1906 by City Council’s appropriation of $5,000 to create a plan “to make a study of the streets, alleys, parks, boulevards, and public grounds of the City of Columbus, Ohio and suggest such extensions and additions thereto as may be necessary; and to make a report thereof for the purpose of promoting the future welfare of said city and beautifying the same.” The 1908 Report of the Plan Commission, Columbus Ohio , stated “the importance of Columbus as the capital city of one of the richest states, and as an educational center, especially invited and fully justified a comprehensive scheme of carefully designed improvements.”

Further:

“It is notable that the Centennial of the establishment of Columbus as the capitol [sic] of Ohio is at hand. In 1912, a hundred years will have passed since that event. Surely there could be no worthier celebration, appealing alike to State and city, than the realization of the vision of this city as the most beautiful and best ordered State capital of the Union."

The plan proposed a new Civic Center, calling for a complete remake of all the land west of Capitol Square between Broad and State Streets and across the river to the west bank:

“The Civic Center will be naturally placed...The design worked out for Columbus proposes an approach to the Capitol from the river — a Mall, which shall be a dignified green, ultimately to be adorned with sculpture...On the east side of the Capitol, there will be a square surrounded by public buildings, municipal and county, here grouped partly for convenience and partly to stand for the civic worth and pride of the municipality.”4

It addressed three elements — first, the State Capitol and its immediate grounds; second, an enlarged business center fronting a parkway or mall leading to the Scioto River; and third, a national and municipal administrative center with City Hall, a future government building, other state buildings, an art gallery, and a music hall.5

Alas, it was not to be. Apparently political and business interests in Columbus did not share the planners' dreams.

A New Opportunity

As it turned out, Mother Nature forced the issue. The devastating flood of March 23–27, 1913 was the city’s worst natural disaster. Statewide, more than 450 people perished in the flood, and 40,000 homes were destroyed. In Columbus, the entire west side was underwater, leaving 93 dead; all the downtown river bridges failed, and 500 buildings were destroyed. Much of downtown Columbus, however, was spared due to its elevation above the river. The city immediately began to plan flood-proofing efforts that included widening the river channel, constructing upriver dams, and removing buildings along the banks.

It is likely that memories of the 1908 Civic Center plan, along with those flood-control efforts, revived the idea of creating a civic center, this time with a north–south orientation along the Scioto River. A new commission led by renowned Columbus architect Frank Packard took on the task of developing a design. With so much existing riverside development destroyed, it was logical to use the river’s east and west banks as the sites of new public buildings.

On the north end of the east bank was the (now-demolished) Ohio Penitentiary, a grim place but one with a compelling architectural presence. The 1861 Ohio State Arsenal stood at the south end of the river’s crescent. In between these anchors, a significant collection of public architecture would grow, as much of what Packard’s commission proposed manifested. City Hall was built on the river's east side in 1928, then the Columbus Police Headquarters (1929); the Ohio Departments Building (1933); and the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse (1934). The new Town Street (1917), Broad Street (1921), and Main Street (1935) bridges were concrete arches — unique, yet complementary in their designs, and intended to forge a permanent linkage of the east and west banks. Less development was proposed for the west bank; indeed, there arose only Central High School in 1922. The entire composition extended from Neil Avenue on the north to Main Street on the south.

An artificially elevated site protected Central High School, and a high retaining wall with a balustrade, completed in 1918, protected the east bank. Ground level in this area was filled, raising the east bank building sites and lessening the change in grade from High Street. A new street, Civic Center Drive, connected West Broad and West Main Streets.

Above: FIGURE 1.3. Howe, Henry. Ohio Penitentiary and Scioto River. 1856. Engraving. In Goodale Park Centennial, 1851–1951, published by Columbus Division of Parks & Forestry, 1951; last modified January 5, 2022.

Right: FIGURE 1.4. “Ohio State Arsenal.” 1861-1870; last modified January 5, 2022.

Designing a New City Hall

Upon widening the riverfront and adding dams, new development, including a new city hall, could proceed. The city's challenge now was to determine who would design a new city hall building. In November 1922, City Council authorized the Director of Public Service to consult with the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) for advice about the “best and cheapest method, consistent with proper standards to be pursued by the city in procuring architectural services for the construction of a new city hall.” 6 In response, a committee of Columbus AIA chapter members and City Council members outlined three possible methods of architect selection, including direct selection, a competitive process, or the creation of a city department to handle the project and others like it.7 City Council considered the pluses and minuses of all three and then rejected them, suggesting that the local AIA chapter instead work together to complete the project.” 8

The AIA chapter took the challenge and noted that Los Angeles had created an “Allied Association of Los Angeles” in a similar situation. They decided to form such an organization in Columbus — The Allied Architects Association (AAA) of Columbus. AAA was structured with the intention of bringing the best designers into the project, building on Los Angeles’ approach. The organization was a legal entity under Ohio law with a maximum of 25 members. It was open to all Columbus AIA members and those qualified to become members, and had capital stock of $5,000 to be raised from members by a $200 subscription. Their stated purpose was:

“...to provide, by professional cooperation and collaboration, architectural services for the design and construction of a City Hall for Columbus, Ohio and for such other public buildings or improvements in Columbus and Franklin County which because of their civic importance seem to merit the efforts of a group of architects in such a manner as to advance the art of architecture and to contribute to the public good.” 9

Association members included Howard Dwight Smith, a prominent local architect and designer of Ohio Stadium; W. J. Richards, J.E. McCarty and George Bulford, designers of the Ohio School for the Deaf, Lazarus Store, and U. S. Post Office and Courthouse; Robert R. Reeves; Charles St. John Chubb, head of The Ohio State University's Department of Architecture; and Ray Sims, who had a large practice in designing residential buildings.

There was an internal competition among association members for the position of chairman of a Committee on Design. The first stage of the competition called for small-scale pencil drawings showing possible relationships for multiple buildings in the civic center and a general style of exterior design; the second stage involved just three designers, who developed larger-scale drawings of the city hall building only.

The jury was chaired by Professor Charles St. John Chubb and included Harvey Wiley Corbett (New York) and Howard Van Doren Shaw (Chicago). The winner was responsible for overseeing the preparation of contract drawings, working drawings, and scale and full-size models. The competition was handled entirely within the Allied Architects Association, with no input from city officials; City Council was presented with their final design. No record of which Association member won the competition has been found.10

FIGURE 1.5. This view of the model of City Hall looks south at its north elevation. At this time the city had not acquired the entire site. A row of 19th century buildings lined Front Street, making it impossible to build the east elevation. When these properties were acquired, the east wing was built as designed, resulting in a symmetrical composition centered on the landscaped site. The river-facing colonnade and monumental steps (now removed) are on the right side of the model. Photo by Dean Rager (1926); last modified December 23, 2021.

An Appropriate Site for an Appropriate Building

The site selected for City Hall ensured that the building’s stature in the public eye would be raised significantly. No longer would it be just another building in the Capitol Square streetscape like its late predecessor. It would be situated just west of the city’s Broad and High Streets intersection — the city's busiest, and where its East–West and North–South streets meet — and have a presence appropriate to its purpose. Surrounded by a broad paved plaza and landscaped grounds, it would be elevated several steps above West Broad Street, with its main entrance facing that street.

City Hall was designed in the Neo-Classical Revival style and employs elements from architectural history. It features eight two-story Ionic columns supporting a stone entablature on the west elevation. Stone pilasters and engaged columns with carved stone entrances and classical detailing adorn the other elevations. Exterior architectural features include elements visible from any of the four streets that surround the site, and evoke the building’s imposing form, scale, and height: the limestone surfaces and decorative finishes; the pattern, size, and placement of windows; the carved stone entrances on all elevations; and the paved plazas around the building.

1.6. This aerial view of City Hall under construction shows the AIU Citadel (later the LeVeque Tower) in the foreground nearing completion. Also visible in the upper left corner is open space along the riverfront where the retaining wall would soon be built. Source unknown.

FIGURE 1.7. Construction of the east wing completed the four-sided design. Source unknown.

FIGURE 1.8. A view of City Hall shortly after the completion of Phase 1 shows the massive stone columns that mark this imposing elevation facing the riverfront. A large paved plaza with steps leading to the riverfront was an integral part of the design; the steps were later removed. Source unknown.

FIGURE

The building was constructed in two stages. The original portion of the building consisted of the west, north, and south wings, which gave the building the form of a “C,” with a central courtyard; this was completed in 1928. Construction of the east wing in 1936 completed the four-sided composition originally proposed; the central court was roofed over around 1950 to create additional indoor space.

City Hall housed a large number of offices. In addition to the mayor’s office in the southeast corner of the building and the City Council chamber on the west side (both on the second floor), other major spaces included the treasurer’s office on the first floor of the west side and the law library on the north side of the second floor. One of the most elegant features of the building was — and still is — the graceful cantilevered and curved marble staircase on the west side leading to the corridor outside the city council chamber. The open court on the interior of the original U-shaped building allowed all offices to receive natural light. A widely-displayed scale model promoted the new City Hall to the general public; it made it clear that the design was always intended to have four elevations and a generously-sized site compared to the former building on Capitol Square.

Above: FIGURE 1.9. A fountain was originally located in the building’s interior court. (1945).

Right: FIGURE 1.10. Infill construction converted the interior court into office space in the 1950s. Photographers unknown.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

With the removal of the Christopher Columbus statue that had graced the steps of City Hall since 1955, the campus no longer features public art. This section shows the monuments and public art nearby, and the site characteristics that informed the art intervention recommendations in this plan.

Columbus City Hall is a centerpiece of downtown’s public places, greenways, and recreational spaces. Despite its proximity to public art — including sculpture on private developments, art in parks, and numerous murals — City Hall does not feature its own exterior public art collection. Current public artworks and monuments displayed in the vicinity of City Hall memorialize historic events or honor local leaders, leaving space for future public art that uplifts richly diverse histories of the Columbus community and celebrates residents' lived experiences today.

CITY HALL

MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS — WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

While they may seem interchangeable, public artists working today often understand the words "monument" and “memorial” to have subtle but meaningful differences. Both are tributes to an event, person, idea, or story that can take any number of forms, from statues to buildings, landscaped plazas, murals, and more. The key difference is that monuments are considered to be more triumphant and celebratory in nature — for example exploring themes of military heroism — while memorials are spaces of introspection in which to honor loss or sacrifice. The most successful monuments and memorials are those that thoughtfully reflect a society's most treasured narratives and devastating losses. These critical pieces of public infrastructure help a community tell the story of who they are, where they have come from, and where they are going in the future.

Monument

A monument celebrates a heroic person, a significant event or victory, or a social ideal. Its purpose is to stand as a lasting tribute to something considered triumphant. Monuments are typically built to be grand and highly visible, and to inspire a sense of pride or admiration.

Memorial

A memorial commemorates an event or a person or group, often for their loss or sacrifice. Its purpose is to evoke remembrance and grief or respect for that which has been lost. Memorial spaces are designed to encourage visitors to pause, introspect, and pay tribute to who and what is being memorialized.

FIGURE 2.0. The 9/11 Memorial's south pool. Photo by NormanB, (2012).

Key Differences at a Glance

MONUMENT MEMORIAL

Primary Goal

Intended Tone

Thematic or Narrative Focus

Intended Experience

To celebrate and honor

To remember and revere

Triumphant, grand, majestic, powerful Somber, reflective, poignant

An achievement, heroism, celebration, honor Loss, sacrifice, commemoration, remembrance, tribute

Inspiring awe and pride Encouraging reflection and remembrance

Examples Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, equestrian statues of military leaders Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 9/11 Memorial & Museum, Lincoln Memorial

EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS

“Statement piece” of the campus

Historically significant architecture

Ceremonious, official characteristics

Public face of the city, often in photos and national news reports

Functional

Utilitarian

Daily operations

Informal

WEST

1" = 80' N

0' 40' 80'

NORTH

Proximity to the street

Pedestrian-level entry point

Official, yet welcoming

CITY HALL

EAST

SOUTH

Site for public demonstration

Mixed opinions on the Columbus statue

Entry barriers

W BROAD ST

Deepest setback from the street

W BROAD ST

Sloped elevation

THE EMPTY PLINTH

The Christopher Columbus statue that stood at the building's south side for 65 years was the only piece of public art on the grounds of City Hall. When it was removed in 2020, city leaders were clear that it would not be reinstalled there. In 2023, the city announced a $1.5 million commitment to replace the statue with new public art. Through this plan, the process to fulfill on that promise can commence. In the meantime, the plinth where Columbus stood will remain empty, and there is no art to be experienced on Columbus City Hall Campus.

A wreath placed by a community member in honor of Columbus Day 2025, in front of the plinth where the Christopher Columbus statue once stood.

A VISION FOR CITY HALL CAMPUS

What is now a grand but underutilized space has the potential to enliven downtown Columbus and better serve city residents. This section offers the goals for this plan and a bold vision for what public art could allow City Hall Campus to become.

PLAN GOALS

The City Hall Art Plan will leverage a range of public art and placemaking typologies in order to:

• Revive the original intention for City Hall to serve as the central civic plaza for Columbus

• Provide spaces for public engagement, recreation, cultural expression, civic interaction, and gathering

• Respond to City Hall’s historic architecture and invigorate underutilized spaces

• Support the needs of city staff and operations, while expanding the site’s symbolic role in the community

• Propose processes and policies that support the long-term care, maintenance, and growth of the City Hall Campus Art Initiative

PLAN VISION

Columbus City Hall Campus is an active public space reflecting residents' shared civic values with temporary and permanent public art and placemaking elements that foster belonging, honor complex histories, and invite exploration.

The following pages break this vision out into its parts to provide clarity about each.

CITY HALL CAMPUS IS��

An Active Public Space��

City Hall Campus art declares "there is something to see here" and creates a hub of activity where there had been none.

Reflecting Residents' Shared Civic Values��

City Hall Campus art may explore controversial themes and content, but foremost emphasizes that which brings about community connection and, through that, civic engagement.

With Temporary & Permanent Public Art & Placemaking Elements��

City Hall Campus art offers a dynamic collection, with both permanent and rotating pieces, augmented by programming and placemaking elements such as landscaping, architectural features, and custom lawn furniture.

That Foster Belonging��

City Hall Campus art is welcoming to all and, in its totality, allows everyone to feel they are represented in the space.

Honor Complex Histories��

City Hall Campus art unflinchingly connects people to the true stories of their ancestors' hardships and resilience.

And Invite Exploration�

City Hall Campus art offers multiple types of experiences that people can choose to enjoy as they wish.

ART INTERVENTIONS

FIGURE 4.0. Columbus Dispatch (1959).

With the Columbus statue no longer standing at City Hall, the campus is devoid of public art. This section recommends art interventions for the building's exterior spaces that respond to the unique functions and characteristics of each side of City Hall, the site's broader history, and the call for more inclusive public art, as expressed through the Reimagining Columbus project.