jim uber

That's really great. I was just looking at that building the other day and wondering what in the heck was going on with it. I guess that the sale just a month ago for $300K sort of justifies the strategy of owners holding onto OTR properties.

Unfortunately, I think they will see that nearly all buildings on the south side of Liberty, have an orientation to the street just like what they propose. With the exception (somehow?) of the Salem united church of Christ at Sycamore street. I assume that's because of the historic realignment of the street grid when Liberty street orientation was changed.

Oh my goodness. Yes, the urban design goal should absolutely be to highlight the fountain as one is driving past it in a car on 5th street. Maybe you'll get lucky and be stopped at the light for 30 seconds so you can gaze upward at its majesty through the windshield.

I understand that you can't implement a plan based on performance, without spending some money to continuously validate performance. But, Phase 1 of MSDs wet weather program has cost the community $1.5B; Phase 2 was estimated to cost $2.3B and was deemed to be "unaffordable" by the community. This is a serious problem with serious money flowing into it. The talk is all about a holistic approach but the reality, it seems, is that doing the right thing - preventing or reducing runoff due to parcel level development - is just not getting the serious attention it deserves, IMHO. And it's impacting folks wallets a lot more than the price of eggs.

One of my neighbors on Wade Street is converting a vacant lot to parking. I don't love this sort of development, but the level of grey infrastructure (and presumably costs) required is pretty amazing. The land and development costs, plus the forever ongoing property taxes plus sewer payments must make this a pretty pricey way to park. What also astonishes me is the disconnect between the rules for creating impervious surfaces and related incentives or disincentives, and the high costs that we all are paying (in our sewer bills) for mitigating combined sewer overflows that still occur all over Cincinnati whenever we have a significant rainfall event. To the best of my knowledge, we still operate under an old set of rules for determining sewer/stormwater rates for developed parcels. I don't think there are any incentives for the developer to install pervious pavement, for example. Why use anything but asphalt, if my sewer/stormwater rates are going to be the same? I know that, for a new residential build, you will get zero credit on your sewer/stormwater bill from installing a green roof, or a large rainwater storage tank, both of which would significantly reduce and delay runoff from hitting the sewer network. Why this has not been fixed by now, defies any logic that I can supply.

I mean, it obviously depends on how many garages there are and how far I have to walk to get to/from my car. There are benefits to garage parking, even if it isn't private. Protection from the sun, less likelihood of break-ins and side-swipes than on narrow OTR side streets. And, in the future, actual feasibility of buying an EV.

The whole live-work-play thing has seemed a little overworked for a while now, but whatever. This is such a prominent spot, great to see. I was surprised and happy to see that they have entry work space plans for an individual at $75/month. I know that would still be a lot for some folks to bear and enough to keep people in their home desks. But I was expecting much more than that. The amenities they offer are pretty significant - free wifi and coffee with beer on tap. I imagine you probably have to pay extra to use their meeting spaces, though.

What I meant was, you don’t have to choose “I want Airbnb hotels everywhere “ or “I want no Airbnb units anywhere” there are many options that could be policy.

Sorry but your consistent zero-sum-game argument is failing to land.

I've enjoyed this discussion! If I had anything else to add, it's that this is not about "either you have airbnb, or you don't" - it's about thinking and having a debate about whether there are sensible rules to follow. I stay in Airbnb frequently - they used to be better when you had actual property owners running them, but whatever. I even ran an airbnb in one unit of my 7 unit apartment building next door, until I got tired of cleaning toilets. Also, if you live in OTR and are paying attention, you probably know that this is far from just a one building or one owner or "one night" issue. The building operated by this one entity - ES Rentals - owns at least 4 OTR properties I can point to that are run according to the same model. It's a scalable business. I get that. But before virtual-ness of everything became a virtue, scalability just meant efficiency. You still had a human being somewhere. The lobby was staffed. This is just a building with an app allowing virtually anyone to walk in or out, and do whatever they want until someone complains. Sorry, but that sort of thing just didn't exist before. It's a stretch to connect this to anything larger, but I'm willing to try! To me, it's just a continuation of the degradation of humanity. Virtual friends, virtual social networks, virtual work, virtual hotels. And no, I'm no luddite; I develop software. Some of my software is going to eliminate jobs. It's a struggle, and it should be.

The issue is what is acceptable in terms of land use in OTR. If you are on the side of "land ownership is the sole determinant of land use" (I'm not saying that you are), then you get what that evolves into. If you are on the side of "land ownership is finite and virtually unlimited uses and renters is incompatible with maintaining community health" (I am) then you ask for rules on land use. I am saying that renting out units, and indeed entire buildings, by the day or weekend, to renters that nobody has any interest in vetting cause they are visitors and only represent $$$, will eventually degrade society for those people that choose to live there. I think what @1400 Sycamorewas saying is that, in the absence of those rules, then here come the cops. I agree, that can turn out badly. All the more reason for City Council to debate rules on short term rentals that go beyond just trying to get tax dollars.

Thanks - It is owned by Ean, whom I know. I have interacted with him for years, and certainly did so after this event. I am running into an unavoidable conflict between homeowners, and his chosen business model. I think we need regulations, to put it bluntly. I have nothing against someone renting a unit short term, but Ean's and others model is to take this to the extreme. They buy properties in OTR, minimally rehab / maintain them, and rent them out 100% for anything more than a day with only the checks that Airbnb etc can provide. Contrast that with my apartment building that is rented for minimum 12 month leases, and with prior background and credit checks on everybody. If you're interested in what ES properties does specifically - These properties are rented through multiple outlets including FurnishedFinder, VRBO, Airbnb, and a real estate grouping called "Drew and Ingrid". Some of what they offer? You can rent the entire building that is “ideal for any team or traveling group.” "Events" are specifically allowed, including “family gatherings, birthday parties, and weddings” Their advertising focuses on proximity to TQL stadium, the casino, as well as OTR attractions. Put all of that together, and does it sound like a building that would make a good neighbor? I can assure you that it is not. My main point is that they are running virtual hotels and event centers where nobody meets anybody, and there is no on site manager with everything "touchless". This seems to be an amazing thing but in the end you get a degradation of the community because of the invisible revolving door of renters.

Last night a 31 year old man died next door. From our home at 1529 Elm, the shots were loud and literally about 10 ft away in the adjoining building. 1531 Elm, the building next door to it, and many, many others in the neighborhood, are Airbnb hotels. See the entrance door and its telltale lockbox jewelry. I think these Airbnb hotels are ruining OTR as a neighborhood for those of us who make it our home. We don’t know who comes and goes. We don’t get the pleasure of getting to know who lives next to us. Just suitcases and parties. All of this in service of greedy owners who don’t care about providing good homes for good people.

Or, "Hueber" homes on Elm. I never noticed that unusual spelling of the name.

Real construction at Liberty and Elm. Taken today.

I was moved to borrow some of the outrage above, and write to council ([email protected]). It's not great, and who knows if the message gets across, but maybe we can make a dent if those of you who feel strongly about this can do the same. --- Dear Council-Members: I have lived in OTR for 14 years. I bought one of the earliest condo developments on Vine street in 2009. My wife and I have rehabbed two derelict historic properties on Elm, which together now house 11 residents plus a small design business. I am beyond tired of hearing Margy Waller and Danny Klingler pretend to speak for the neighborhood. They single-handedly killed the large development at Elm and Liberty, which would have turned a blighted area into much needed housing for hundreds of new residents, who would support neighborhood small retailers and restaurants. Now they are coming for the very well designed infill project that would provide a much needed hotel in OTR. Just where is my council in this argument!? Please hear me – I am not a lone wolf railing at my screen. Many, many people are fed up with progress that gets slowed down or stopped completely due to one individual who pretends to know what’s best for all of us. This needs your urgent attention so that OTR can continue to grow and serve its residents and the City of Cincinnati. Thanks, -Jim Uber 1529 Elm St., 45202

I live nearly next door to the OTRCH Jimmy Heath house which seems to be a model for the Dunlap project (but about half the size). Folks who live there are constantly drinking and using drugs in public. This seems to be fine with OTRCH. I’ve had an adjacent property broken into by a resident; he was caught on camera and went to jail. My understanding is these are not addiction treatment facilities; they are housing for addicts who often have a variety of other problems. They wouldn’t be denied treatment options if they asked for them, but participating in them is not required for continued residency. i really couldn’t care less if someone thought me a Neanderthal Boomer for not wanting a facility like this as an immediate neighbor. Most people would agree with me if in my shoes. Once after talking about the problems with OTRCH, a senior staff member suggested that maybe I should move. So from their perspective I guess I am a type of blight on their vision.

I would just start with shining the light of day on this whole process, which seems to have begun. OTR Adopt has a board and an operating set of bylaws, and I wonder if they are informed of these actions, or if Danny Klingler believes he is operating here on his own and doesn't need their approval. He and OTR Adopt has also had the support of the OTR foundation, and has received grants from the Haile foundation and others. And then there's always the (small) possibility that so many of us who have grown tired of participating in the OTR neighborhood council, where OTR Adopt/Danny and others find a megaphone - might rethink our participation if we knew that there were significant numbers of others. I wonder how strong all of this support is, or whether it would all whither under more careful scrutiny and understanding that there are contrary opinions.

I think it's helpful to be irritated - thanks @1400 Sycamore There needs to be a greater level of outrage from the OTR community, and City Council, about this sort of crap that places responsibility for community planning (essentially) in the hands of one overzealous, impossibly self-righteous activist, and his Dad who funds him. I've said it before - who does Danny think will build workforce housing in meaningful amounts and repopulate OTR, if it isn't large scale developers and developments? He doesn't care.

FYI the following is public information about Danny Klingler and OTR Adopt. OTR Adopt has received Community Development grants from the Hale Foundation. For example as recently as 2020 OTR Adopt received a $12,500 grant. I believe that OTR Adopt has actively sought and received other grants for its work from local philanthropic organizations. I can't remember who they were. Grants were mostly received for support of OTR Adopt's work to get dilapidated properties into better hands and save them. OTR Adopt is listed as the owner of three properties on Walnut, McMicken, and Colerain. However Klingler or his interests own several other properties. He is a co-owner of three properties on Magnolia, and I believe two properties on E Thirteenth st. There are probably others. I'd be curious to know if the OTR Adopt board of trustees approved of the recent legal actions regarding Liberty and Elm - or even if they know about it. This guy and his various organizations own a lot of highly valued properties; he is not some low level cast-off working in the trenches for the aggrieved. His creation of OTR Adopt was a good idea for its time, but now he's used that good will to subvert important development in the region, because he doesn't like it.

The motives of Danny Klingler and OTR Adopt are not primarily about affordable housing. I know him and served on his board, before resigning with the liberty and elm fiasco being the final straw. The mission of OTRA was to save buildings that were being ruined by neglect and thus help save the neighborhood. His buildings did not ever turn into affordable housing to my knowledge. Somewhere along the way the business model got harder to work (he used to literally get people to donate buildings) and he became a significant landlord and property owner with a romantic vision of OTR being rooted in the 1800s. His main angle then became to oppose all new development that didn’t meet his personal definition of historical development. He was a main driver and architect of the new historical board standards. He just plain has never seen a new development that he likes. Basically he is aligning with and hiding behind affordable housing advocates to satisfy his personal romantic architectural vision.

I personally like the Jose Garcia design. I think it's fun and very interesting and would dramatically change the feel of that corner (for the better). On the other hand the project (Item 7) on Race just north of Liberty has been downgraded from previous plans, and in a negative way IMO. I think the storefront treatment on the existing building is much worse than before, the new front door treatment on the new structure is weird, as is the brick treatment on the upper floor windows, and I'm disappointed that an entire floor was lopped off the original design of the new structure.

Glad to hear; we will see what the vote is. (Or did you mean that they’d voted to support?) Anyway, I’m happy if they support it of course. That would settle the silly issue of whether we should have 6 story buildings built on central parkway.

Well, they’d be going against their own past statements in that case. Any pressure that helps keep them honest will be good for OTR and good for affordable housing.

I LOVE this. Finally, a project that will force the question "so do you actually care about affordable housing, or do you care about fostering a museum community based on height restrictions?" For a lot of the folks in the awkward coalition of OTRCC, OTR foundation, etc, I'm betting on the latter.