dglenn

This thing is hideous...just reiterates the need for design standards and controls

the student housing thing was just an idea.. buying buildings fair and square is fine...doing something with them that runs contrary to the public good (and I think most of us would agree a surface lot runs contrary to the public good) is not.

I'm definitely excited about this too

they could rehab the buildings and use as office space, or maybe even some form of (pre-college) student housing

There's no way, in my opinion, that demolition of part of the city's history (and 100 year old houses ARE part of our history) should be permitted for construction of a parking lot. A parking lot!! Summit is a wealthy school -- they could arrange parking some other way if they were forced to. Be innovative, find another solution, but don't just rip stuff down and pave over it.

you're right, that honor would go to Walnut Hills

I don't think so, because I'm pretty sure there aren't 14 wood frame or non-contributing infill structures in that area. These will be beautiful old Itallianates they're demolishing. And if that's the case, I'm gonna fight it HARD. You simply cannot demolish FOURTEEN buildings in a historic district like it's nothing. That would NEVER, EVER fly in Boston's Beacon HIll or Back Bay. I like the plan and potential for investment, but I'm pissed about the demolition aspect.

what an amazing building

So can anyone tell me if this is an above ground garage they're proposing, if if they're sticking to the original underground plan? I can't tell from teh article?

Cincy Kid, I totally agree with you... why rush into this...if the land values continue to rise, as they have been, the city can put all sorts of exactions and controls in place and still have developers on their knees. there is no reason to take the first thing that comes along, just because it's NOW and we don't feel like waiting

agree, disagree?

I'm not so thrilled about this... It goes back to the idea of not all development being good development. It's fine for people to get excited about a massive infusion of investment like this, but unless it's DONE RIGHT, it could be a major eyesore/liability 20 years from now. In this case, "done right" to me means designed well -- i.e. in a way that conforms to cincinnati's architectural heritage, enhances the aesthetic of the riverfront, and will not be a big ugly urban monstrosity down the road. (think of all the 60's-70's era projects that would've seemed "cool" then, but that you would love to have demolished now) Judging from the renderings, I'm just not sure the design of this project is won't end up the same way. City planning is about mitigating and controlling private development in a way that maximizes the public benefit. I hope the city doesn't screw up on this one.

Sparke, I commend you for taking the risk of living there and making it work. Your report was really encouraging. You've already sort of answered this, but what's your sense of how well a mixed income community can work? These types of developments are pretty novel -- Hope VI is the first publicly funded mixed income program, and private sector development tends to segregate itself naturally by income -- and I would be excited to know that mixed income communities can be attractive, vibrant, safe, and functional.

so now they want to build above ground garages? NO!!

i guess they could have made some of the market rate rental units into home-ownership units, though...don't really understand that, although I'm sure the developers did their homework on it.

The thing is, if you have too high a percentage of home-ownership units, it undermines the whole mixed-income concept. Even if a unit starts out "affordable", the owner is permitted to sell at market rate when he's ready to move, meaning the unit has just left the "affordable" category. As long as units remain rental, they can continue to be subsidized and thus remain affordable. It's a dilemma, and I don't have an answer for it. Does anyone know what percentage of City West is now occupied, and whether they're having any kinds of trouble?

those aren't even attractive developments...i can't believe there aren't any design standards

new renderings?? does this mean out with the existing, beautiful new urbanist designs on the port's website, and in with some some hideous newfangled things??

they could definitely hang on a little longer...no bricks have fallen or anything, so how can they claim imminent danger to the public?? Andrew -- the thing is there will be no new development on this parcel for a long time...it will not be a spark that starts a development frenzy. It will be one of the many vacant parcels that sits empty for years, while positive development slowly encroaches from the main st. area. For a developer to invest in a new property at the Kauffman site, which is pretty much a center of drug and crime activity, would be an INCREDIBLY risky investment.

this happened a few days ago

Update: After hearing a slew of testimony from residents and potential investors on why the Kauffman Brewery building should be saved, the Cincinnati Department of Buildings and Inspections nevertheless declared the building a public nuissance, to be demolished at public expense. This is why I have no faith in our city sometimes. Not sure when the demolition is scheduled for, if it has been scheduled....but it could still be appealed.

Riverviewer, I agree with you that UC's is experimenting with some bizarre and questionable fusions of architectural styles...and I don't like it. We're talking about a multi-million dollar budget that UC has for its buildings master plan, and yet they still can't come up with an integrated, innovative, aethetically appealing urban campus. And this is a school with one of the top architecture programs? It reminds me of MIT, where the design and architecture programs are stellar, while the campus is like a bleak industrial site.

ok, I can see how it would be part of Mt. Auburn

kendall, what about Milton's -- "your prospect hill tavern"?? It's gotta be one of my favorite bars in the city. I'm not sure I agree with the idea that prospect hills isn't its own neighborhood...it's certainly not part of OTR, at least if you follow OTR's technical boundaries (West=Ctrl Pkwy, North=McMicken and E. Liberty, East=Reading, South=Ctrl Pkwy). I would LOVE it if prospect hill were actually a part of OTR, and in terms of density and architecture they are essentially the same thing...but I'm pretty sure that technically they are separate. Pendleton is a different story...historically, pendleton WAS its own neighborhood, separate from OTR. Sycamore was the dividing line, I believe. Now Pendleton has basically been incorporated into OTR.

i agree, these places cater to kids who have money...so obviously they exclude students and others in the neighborhood who scrape by. I just don't think that's the way to create an integrated, vital neighborhood.