Ram23

Records show its owned by "Carrie L Moller" who purchased it in 2004. The building tothe north was recently purchased by "Elm Street Aquisition" in January & the building to the south is owned by "James & Waline Sloan", was purchased in 2001 & has $2k in delinquent taxes. 3CDC recently bought out the entire corner of Walnut and Liberty. I'm sure their purchase of buildings on the corner of Vine and Liberty is only a matter of time. They just have to talk the seller down to something reasonable.

What are you talking about? It's from a 54 page discussion paper that details it's findings, not some random list compiled on a reporters desk. Just because it's long and wordy doesn't mean it's not complete BS. Richard Florida is famous for that type of stuff. I've read enough of his works to know that. One can decide what results they want to have and write 50+ pages about it pretty easily.

^ The list is only loosely based on actual crime and violent offenses. It uses "police presence, and availability of small arms," as components, so the fact that a place like Camden, NJ actually has strict gun laws and few cops bumps it way up on the list. If you applied this list on a global scale, I'd bet places like Pyongyang are in the top 20. "The Atlantic Cities" tends to be completely out of touch, in my opinion.

Did someone say that somewhere? My argument still stands, there isn't much architecturally to be fond of regarding that building. For what it cost per square foot, it should be beautiful, but it isn't even close. It's a hodgepodge of bad ideas and poor execution. As for the "interior use of space by a non-profit" is exactly what the building should have been designed for. Most museums built in the last 30 years or so integrate exhibits flawlessly. The Freedom Center doesn't have the basic necessary provisions for that. That's beside my original point, though. I was mostly speaking of the volume of the interior; it's cavernous for no real reason at all.

Wow, a lot of unjustifiable love for the Freedom Center in here. The only redeeming qualities it has are the materials. The detailing is horrible everywhere - a lot of connections between materials weren't thought through. The interior is set up poorly - the size of the spaces don't coordinate with the type of exhibits. I could go on, but it'd probably be in vain because the politics around the building are more important than the quality of the building; it could look like a WalMart and everyone would still love it.

This is a depressing start, exemplified by the fact that I got cable TV just to watch the Reds. The bats will wake up at some point. Hopefully they don't fall behind too far too quickly, though. 5 games back is a lot to be back already.

^ Show me a single example of an aesthetically pleasant area that has come out of a form based code. Seaside, Florida is generally regarded as aesthetically horrendous by architects, yet paraded as a model of urban design by planners. I used UPA and The Banks as examples because they are local and exactly the type of form that FBC's call for. Why would anyone want to fill a city up with that is beyond me. I also don't know where I ever said zoning should be eliminated. I said parts of the current code should be trimmed back. No parking requirements, more neighborhood overlays, fewer zone types/more mixed use, etc. are just a few examples. The code should be simple and succinct, requiring certain density and setbacks, it shouldn't spell out glazing percentages and floor heights. Put very simply: people like lots of flavors, but if you try to force everyone to have one single flavor, it's going to be vanilla. FBC gets you exactly that, vanilla cities.

And it was all designed and built with only a handful of zoning codes. No one needs to be legislating what every street should look like. Form based codes don't result in neighborhoods that look like OTR, they result in things that look more like The Banks and University Park Apartments. OTR came about because nothing was legislating form and style.

Really? I, and most people on the forum, would argue the complete opposite. It results in walkable urbanism that has continuity and consistency in design. It doesn't have to mean superblocks of homogenous structures, though. Could you explain and possibly provide examples of where form-based code has resulted in "sterile, ugly environments"? I'm genuinely interested. "Continuity and consistency in design" is one way of saying sterile and homogenous. I'm not challenging the fact that it provides for and encourages walkable, dense, urban communities, but they are far from attractive, aesthetically. Form-based codes are descendents of New Urbanism, and thus encourage very conservative, safe, and traditional architecture. That is fine for some people, but a lack of diversity is considered ugly by most in my field. To me, form based codes are in the same ballpark as HOA's and planned subdivisions, and will yield the same results, just at a denser scale. For buildings to really be attractive, they have to be designed with respect to surroundings. Form based codes restrict that, and in fact, they forcibly create artificial surroundings. You can regulate urban density, setbacks, etc. without transcending into the primary attributes of architecture (form, space, order, etc.).

It replaces a 3500 calorie diet with a 3500 calorie diet that is a bit more appetizing. We need a 2000 calorie diet. It depends on how the code is done; but if done correctly, the form-based code is the 2000-calorie diet. Eliminating a variety of different use restrictions, setback restrictions, height restrictions, etc., and replacing them with just a few transect zones. If that isn't a code diet, I'd like to know what is. The code may seem simpler from the perspective of the people legislating it, but it's far more complex and difficult to apply from the perspective of someone in the architecture field. A few sections of the current code (speaking of Cincinnati specifically) need to be axed, and a few need to be trimmed down, but it doesn't need to be replaced entirely. Form based codes almost always result in sterile, ugly environments.

I was a block away watching this, couldn't find myself in the background anywhere though! I had my camera out, but only took a few photos.

Most cities have parking maximums, Cincinnati does not. I recently worked on a building in a small North Carolina town and they had requirements for maximum allowable parking. It replaces a 3500 calorie diet with a 3500 calorie diet that is a bit more appetizing. We need a 2000 calorie diet.

These are getting ridiculous. What I want is a big cart/trailer that sells chicken shawarma and falafel for $5 ala the classic NYC food trucks, not $12 hamburgers and $8 cookies like we're getting.

"Cities are recognizing that allowing the market to function will produce a better result," Well, that's a very good way to word it. You could axe a lot of the zoning code and allow the market to achieve better results, but I don't know how she can say that with a straight face and then advocate form based codes. What the city really needs to try is a code diet.

I'm usually against eminent domain, but the property in question is vacant, has been for awhile, and the owner has no plans to change that. Plus, the tax info on the property lists the owner has being in California. I think this is the type of situation eminent domain was made for.

Cincinnati is one of the 30 largest metros in the country. Lexington isn't in the top 100, and Bentonville is a very small city. The first two 21C's seemed to be heading in the direction of creating a chic, urban brand. These latest two will have a much different feel. It seems as if there isn't a comprehensive direction or strategy.

THere's a bus line that goes to the gun range? WHERE? The 67 and 23X run right by the only range I've ever been to in Cincy. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a few others. I don't own a gun though, so I don't really frequent them.

It looks like running the I-75 light rail line in the subway is still on the boards.

^ My masters of architecture thesis was on an alternative reuse of the Crosley Building. I focused on the overall lifespans of buildings and proposed a slow reoccupation of buildings like Crosley that are so far gone. I designed snapshots of what it could be in 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. The first five years proposed something along the lines of the art colony you linked to. If anyone is really bored, here's a link: http://zfein.com/architecture/thesis/index.html

States that allow conceal and carry permits should absolutely allow those in possession of them to carry their properly licensed firearm on public transit. There's no logic behind this; in this case, what makes a bus any different than any other crowded place? What's the point of allowing concealed carry if you can't carry a weapon anywhere? How would one take their weapon to a gun range?

I never quite understood the use of racing bikes in an urban setting. I think they're more at home on a designated bike trail, as a leisure vehicle rather than in a city as a commuting vehicle. You wouldn't fare too well driving a race car on racing slicks in the city, so I don't really see justification behind the complaints.

That makes sense, I thought the fist banner was OTR Ale when I just glanced at it. It'll be interesting if they rotate those big banners every season.

Moerlein Barbarossa has a black label, so hopefully so.

If I told my realtor I wanted to spend $250,000 on a home in this economy and they showed me those options, I'd fire them whether they knew the difference between a city and a metro area or not.

All those shoulders... There are four separate roadways over the river, 3 of 2 lanes and 1 of 3 lane, all with shoulders. That's 8 shoulders, so from a technical standpoint the bridges are only carrying half the design capacity at any time. Another way to look at that would be to say the bridges are overbuilt by double. I wonder how much cheaper it'd be to not have shoulders, but instead have someone monitoring a camera with control of traffic alert signs and a phone to call for a tow? NYC has that type of setup on their bridges.