dglenn

FYI, I haven't made any posts on this issue recently because our group has decided it is best for us to keep our hand close right now, and not make anything public until we are totally prepared and organized. But I appreciate the support I've heard from you all, and hope you'll be willing to continue to show it when we really need it in the future!

2 or 3 properties aren't owned by the school board yet...but they claim they're about to close on them. And with the recent New London decision, I couldn't conceive of them having any difficulty if they needed to use eminent domain.

thanks jimmy

Can either or Grasscat or RichNCincy tell me whether it's possible to delete a phrase or sentence from within a post? TY.

Jimmy, you make a very good point about state guidelines for parking... This was brought up at our last meeting, and it was noted that, even though they are just guidelines, CPS is pointing the finger at the state as the reason for the large amount of surface lot area that they have proposed next to the school. Has anyone at CPS ever thought about the fact that this is a dense urban area that is highly walkable? Does Beacon Hill in Boston have a giant surface lot (or ANY surface lot) anywhere in the neighborhood?? (rhetorical question) What about the Back Bay? Greenwhich Village? etc. etc??

thanks guys for your letters and emails...keep it up!

Please pardon the sarcasm in the following post...I don't wanna come across as some leftie anarchist, but this whole situation is making me sick with the realization of how power can lead to a completely ridiculous (and disastrous) development project... Why is it that just as OTR is experiencing investment and perhaps turning the corner toward revitalization, a few outsiders with little respect for the neighborhood's architecture and history decide they're going to rip out a block? Last Wednesday I became aware of and attended a meeting of local preservationists to discuss the Cincy School Board's plan to build a new Washington Park Elementary School in a block bounded by Vine, Walnut, 14th, and 13th. Now for whatever reason, I didn't realize they were going to demolish 22, yes twenty two!, buildings in order to make room for the modern monstrosity (see http://www.3cdc.org/content.jsp?articleId=132). But this is in fact the plan, and apparently the historic district status of the neighborhood is of no help in this case, because it is a public and not a private development, and schools take precedence over a neighborhood's historic fabric. The school board acquired the property from Eagle Realty in November of last year (old news, I know) for $3.9 million, giving the real estate company a nice little windfall of $1.7 million (they acquired the property a year or two back for $2.2 million...although they claim, perhaps with justification, that they spent about $1.7 million for improvements, demo and such, and that they sold to CPS at cost). The school board's original plan was never to build on this site, rather they are simply following 3CDC's Washington Park plan, and the causal chain runs something like this: a new garage needed to be built next to music hall, because, said Mr. Leeper, the Corbett garage across the street wasn't big enough, adding another level would be "cost prohibitive", and anyways, suburbanites can't be expected to walk across central pkwy after they park, for heaven's sakes! (see page 7 of this link for the transcript of Leeper's justification: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf9139.pdf). Placing the garage next to music hall meant that the new SCPA building had to change its proposed site (see http://www.moodynolan.com/project_info.asp?id=30&type=edu# for rendering of SCPA as it would have been next to Music Hall, incorporating the old Pipefitters building as a ticket office), so 3CDC suggested they move over to the surface lot on Central Pkwy and Elm. This was all well and good, except that CPS had planned on using this exact site to build a new Washington Park Elementary. So the question became, where would WP elementary go? 3CDC made some kind of assessment of various sitres in the neighborhood, and determined that it'd be best to plop the school down right in the heart of the neighborhood at a site with little vacant land. Showing amazing autonomy, CPS deferred to 3CDC, accepting the plan and subsequently acquiring the sight for a mere $3.9 million. So now we're left with the current situation. 22 buildings, many of them "contributing" (i.e. part of the historic building stock), are scheduled for demolition as soon as CPS can get its act together (their website lists construction as commencing spring of '05), and there's never been one bit of community input into this from preservationists, residents, investors, developers, etc. etc. And it's all been catalyzed by 3CDC (don't get me wrong, I'm generally a fan of 3CDC, just not in this instance). Things are made even more disturbing by the fact that neighborhood demographics are changing, school enrollment is dropping, and enrollment projections for the new school have already dropped from 600 to 450. 350 students are needed for a school to even stay open, so its not inconceivable to imagine a scenario where, 5 years down the road, we're left with an empty space station in the middle of the largest collection of Itallianate architecture in the U.S. Moreover, there is a recently vacated old school building up at Main and McMicken -- the Rothenberg School building (http://www.cps-k12.org/general/facilities/schools/UpdatedProf/uRothenberg.pdf) -- that would cost less to renovate than it will to construct the new school, and would easily accommodate 450 students CPS had already received permission from the Ohio School Facilities Board to renovate this building, but has since abandoned these plans and just shut the Rothenberg school down altogether. The question now, is, what can be done? As I said, a bunch of us are beginning to meet to figure out a way to fight this, and based on the first meeting my hunch is that there WILL be a fight if CPS tries to go through with this. I'm making this post really to just raise awareness, and to enlist any avid OTR-ophiles to join the battle. Any of you who have any ideas, information, or any of you who would like to attend the next meeting (wednesday at 2.pm. at the OTR foundation on Main) -- that would be awesome. I wanted to provide pics of the threatened buildings, but don't feel like getting all the links from the auditor's website now. Anyone with pics, please post. Whew!...thanks for letting me rant.

that's the type of innovative thinking that officials don't seem to engage in enough here

That's a very good idea...you're right about parking requirements in the zoning code. Unfortunately, it seems about everyone with power in this city is too myopic and narrow minded to think of city buildng without gaping parking lots for the beloved automobile

Does anyone know who determined the mix of market rate and rent restricted units in City West? I'm doing research for an internship and trying to figure this out. Was it the Community Builders? CMHA? HUD? Drees?

does anyone know if the fountain has, historically, ALWAYS been more or less where it is now?? my understanding was that it's been moved before, but please correct me if I'm wrong

PhattyNati, you raise valid points and I'm definitely not trying to diss your point of view. I also don't wanna drag the conversation on. Let me just make one other point though...because you raised the issue of the "creative class", and I think you're right on there. I just finished reading Florida's book though, and what's interesting is that the creative classes, according to him, are congregating in center city neighborhoods that have charming old architecture. So from an economic point of view, I guess I'd be concerned about pushing the envelope on the Banks too far, because it might actually dissuade people from living there. I definitely see your point though, and I can't claim that I'm necessarily right. It's an interesting debate.

I don't think it becomes a lost dream as more and more time passes. What matters is not that this project happens in the next 2 years, but that it is done RIGHT. Sure, it'd be nice to have it sooner rather than later, especially for those of us who love Cincinnati and want to see it rebound. But I think this attitude of hastiness is what often gets us (and other cities) in trouble. Would you rather have a beautiful, thriving Banks in 10 years, or a poorly done shithole next year that's destined for failure? Would you rather have a half-ass, unsustainable light rail system in our lifetimes, or a well-planned, financially viable system in our children's lifetimes? I think too often politicians, planners, and citizens get caught up in this kind of selfishness and short-sightedness.

that was in response to C-Dawg

amen

first of all, I totally agree with Monte and in response to this: hello, this WOULD be original, and in no way would it be an indication to the world that we are "lame". What's unoriginal or lame about a mixed use, pedestrian scale riverfront development with quality neo-traditional architecture? And if it ends up a magical, special place -- as you admitted it appears in the renderings -- isn't that all that matters? look at the most thriving urban neighborhoods across the country, and they tend to be dense historic districts...people are seeking that type of experience, that type of ambience, that type of aesthetic -- and its greatly facilitated through architecture that has old world charm.

on the contrary, I would argue that it's our stock of beatiful historic buildings that helps make Cincinnati great. I think the renderings for the Banks are pretty amazing -- they pay homage to our great architectural history, and to the fact that the Banks site is the "cradle" of Cincinnati's history. My concern is that the buildings won't end up looking very much like this. Wouldn't the selected developer(s) just contract out their own design and architecture work? Or would they be tied to these renderings? Anyone know?

yeah, what's up with that?

Of the 3 renderings in grasscat's post, only one does not leave me profoundly worried and disappointed. The SCPA building at least makes an attempt to fit in with the architectural beauty of the neighborhood, while the parking garage and new Washington Park school will only detract from what makes OTR great in the first place. I hope some serious design review kicks in before these things get built, although I don't have much confidence given the way the "Gateway" project has turned out.

You're really close, Mojo. The "please" phenomenon is a direct descendant of Cincinnati's German immigrant heritage. In German, the word "bitte" can be used to mean "please", and the German phrase "wie bitte?" means "come again, please?" So Cincinnatians left out the "come again" part and started saying "please?" when they didn't understand someone. It seems to me that it's dying out, though, and it makes me sad. I keep telling myself I need to make a conscious effort to use it, even though its more natural for me to say "pardon?" or "excuse me?"

Monte, Ok, very good point. But it does seem that trees are a good idea if you want people to sit and stay awhile, rather than just pass through. I'm no expert on urban landscape design, though.

In response to Lincoln... Reasons TO move the fountain: 1) History -- if we want to talk history, there's no reason NOT to move the fountain. It's only been in its current location for 35 years, and prior to that it was on an entirely different block at the center of a beautiful boulevard. History would in fact warrant that we move the fountain in order to make it a centerpiece again. 2) The view down 5th street -- it's interesting how people hold so tightly to what they're used to. Yes, some of the aesthetic enjoyment of seeing the fountain from 5th will be lost under the current plan, but as Mr. Leeper has pointed out, the new location also opens up NEW views that we don't even realize we've been missing. Are we THAT beholden to this 5th street view?? 3) As a counterbalance to the short building on the northern side of the square -- I see what you mean here, but does the fountain really balance the 5th/3rd building, and perhaps more importantly, is that truly its function?? I don't think so. The fountain isn't there to "balance" or enhance the square....rather, the square is there to enhance the fountain. Moreover, having a "noisy and wet" fountain nearby will absolutely benefit the restaurants on the northern edge. In fact, it will automatically increase commercial property values because there will be increased demand for outdoor dining. Imagine having the option of dining next to a sea of concrete versus dining next to a peaceful, glowing fountain. I think most people would choose the latter, as it's simply an experience you can't get elsewhere. Why an extra fountain? First of all, the square as it is now suffers from areas of underutilization -- e.g. the southwestcorner at 5th and vine. Having a small satelite fountain there would create a subsidiary area of activity that would enliven that part of the square. Secondly, it's in keeping with the water theme that 3CDC now seems to be going for. And why not make water the focal point of the square? Why all the trees? Look at most any urban public space and an abundance of trees and landscaping seem to be key ingredients. They help soften the hard, cold feel of concrete -- and who wants to sit in a concrete jungle? I think the trees are absolutely key. Finally, I'd like to respond to the comments of so many people about how this money should be spent elsewhere -- e.g. on schools, infrastructure ect. The thing that people don't understand is that 90% of this money is PRIVATE DOLLARS that has been earmarked for fountain square. In other words, it CAN'T be used elsewhere, because the city doesn't control it. It's the money of various private companies and corporations, and they want to spend it to revitalize the square. It's not a matter of choosing between the square and our public schools. City council can't just say "well, we're gonna reject this plan because we think this money is better spent on an increased police presence in over-the-rhine. It's not theirs to spend!! True, the city is being asked to put in $4 million, and that money could be spent elsewhere. But paying $4 million to leverage $42 million is a pretty damn good deal, especially when you're talking about a project at the city's heart that could have a catalytic effect and help make downtown vital again. That's my two cents.

I agree with Monte and Edale here...the severity of the appalachian accent varies according to which side of the river you're on, and which neighborhood in Cincinnati you're in. However, having lived in Boston all year and just returned home, I have noticed some striking differences in accent between northeasterners and cincinnatians IN GENERAL.

And thank goodness for Maggie Downs, the one person on the enquirer staff who represents urban interests

thanks for the update... good to know that council can block a demo permit, didn't know that now as long as OTR's revitalization picks up a bit, we'll have a chance of saving this building