jim uber

When we rehabbed our 6 unit apartment building in OTR we got a tax abatement from the City. One of the requirements - I’d say the most significant - was to achieve LEED silver status. I’d estimate this cost at least an extra $30K. This money had nothing to do with high energy appliances or good windows cause I was going to do that already. IMO LEED is mostly a sham that ends up spending money on bureaucratic silliness instead of putting it into solid building features to be enjoyed. The city could do better, and instead of asking me to increase the balance sheet of LEED architects, ask me to put that toward affordable housing for the tax abatement period. In my case I would be indifferent to paying for LEED or paying $30K into a rent subsidy pool. That would be enough to reduce the rent of 1 unit by $3900/year for 10 years (5% interest). My point is, we should be a lot more intentional about what our policies are requiring or incentivizing, and there’s money on the table that might be used in different ways.

^Even what 3CDC has done to date is depressingly small compared to what still needs to be done. I read recently from them they have rehabilitated something like 170 buildings (IDK if that is only in OTR)? I mean, that's a lot, but it's not a LOT. My perspective is that somebody with money to spend, and to lose, had to get into the game. That meant big businesses like P&G and Kroger finally linking their futures in Cincinnati, to the success of OTR as a community. I don't know 3CDCs balance sheet but I'd imagine that the funding model was to lose money for a significant period of time. The good news (to me) is that now you have several major players (e.g. Model, and dare I mention the Liberty and Elm folks) that mean North of Liberty probably won't take as long as South did, and the most at risk buildings won't fall.

Hey @1400 Sycamore - I'm very aware of the OTR history back to 1990. Spent a lot of time on Main st and I remember the shock when Michael Bany was killed. I don't think it denies the important work of the pioneers (you might be one) to say, that in order to save OTR as a community you needed to scale up those efforts massively. In the case of Cincinnati and OTR, that scale up power came from 3CDC. Unequivocally. Without that organization or something like it, the rate of decay would continued to outstrip the pitiful rate of renewal, and you'd end up bulldozing most of it.

^ If 3CDC had never been formed, or something like it, we wouldn't have a whole lot to argue about right now, when it comes to OTR - either gentrification or affordable housing or parking or streetcar or... anything.

The 'original' versus modified proposals at this last stage had nothing to do with broad architectural features. It was the number of units that would be set aside to meet affordability criteria (and how to pay for them).

^ In our apartment building (LEED silver) we were required to have continuously running fans in each bathroom, in part for the fresh air requirement. We all thought that was funny in an 1870s masonry building where we didn't do anything special (and expensive) to isolate the units vertically.

Yeah this is really out of date information about mini-splits. I own an apartment building next door with 7 units and all of them use Mitsubishi mini-splits for heat and A/C. It's true that they are more efficient for a/c than heat, but they are excellent overall. The newer models like the Mitsubishi "hyper-heat" is totally appropriate for our climate (and colder). And it's not twice the maintenance. The technology allows multiple interior heads to be run by the same exterior compressor, which is where the guts are. The main downside is that each of the interior units require a condensate drain, so you don't literally recoup all of the savings from having to run ductwork.

^The folks in the "OTR as museum" camp are deceiving the folks who advocate for affordable housing, that they are on the same side. In reality, when pressed to take sides, the Museum folks will always choose the infill architecture that they want, and are only using the affordable housing angle in order to kill projects that aren't in sync with their vision.

Yeah I'm not sure why they're not used more, either. They are perfect for these old buildings created without chases to run duct work in. And, for 600 sq. ft. units, their Duke bill should average about $50/month including A/C. I know some folks living in OTRCH housing where their Duke bill can be more than half their rent - crappy old HVAC, leaky windows, no insulation - so from an affordability perspective this matters.

I can't remember the details, but I think there was an economic development director in Cincinnati in the 1990s that thought street food was unsightly and unsanitary and made the city look unsavory. I think it was the same person who loved the old fountain square and wouldn't allow tables and chairs with umbrellas cause, again, it offended her sense of orderliness. I still remember feeling joy when they put actual real tables and chairs with umbrellas out on the rebuilt fountain square.

Council's economic development committee just voted this project out of committee 4-0, and so my understanding is that it goes in front of the entire council tomorrow. BTW, one thing of note was that some of the speakers against the project - in particular one person who is on the current OTRCC board - claimed without evidence that the entire project was shrouded in secrecy and shady administrative dealings. Even mentioning that "more indictments" from the FBI were coming. This was singled out by Smitherman and Goodin and roundly dismissed, which it should have been - there's no place in public decision making for making these specious claims.

That depends, I think. The hypocritical advocacy of the "'neighborhood character' NIMBYs" as @jjakucyk called them, has been expensive for development. It's lopping off entire floors of this building and others, and making the building process more expensive in other ways, all to serve their personal romantic notions of what OTR should "feel" like. The absurd thing is, these exact same folks (literally) will stand on Josh Spring's soapbox and rail against "big business" leverage and "gentrification," all while eliminating any cushion in the balance sheet that might have allowed discussions of affordable housing units. It's absurd, but they see no hypocrisy in it.

It goes both ways. I know people who's productivity has dropped off a cliff during the pandemic, largely cause they're at home with spouse and kids and can't concentrate. Essentially it's like having a work day filled with useless meetings - nothing meaningful gets done. They're put in a position where in order to be productive, they have to tell their kids to stop asking them questions, please go play outside, and understand that their a parent not a best friend. Not everyone can deal with that - so some people will love to go back to the office, not just the middle managers.

Does anyone know the HCB decision on the proposed building at 553 13th St. in Pendleton, which was in the December 21 HCB packet? This was an interesting building for new OTR infill - 6 stories and 10 units - with many novel features. I thought it struck a balance, but of course was subject to the same "it's too high" and "it's too dense" complaints from the usual OTR/Pendleton cohort.

Yes, it is two units/floor -- they added the rear addition so that could be a bedroom and make the 2 units more comfortable. The bad part is that they simultaneously took the adjacent lot and are making it a parking lot. I still think that sort of development is not forward looking, although I understand its impact on the unit value in our current parking/transit environment.

Yes, the two buildings next to me both converted the storefronts to residential. They kept the original storefront architecture, presumably cause it would have been impossible to not do so, and get through the HCB process. But they replaced the large glass panes with that wavy glass, and it's just weird to walk on the sidewalk feet away from huge wavy glass panes backed by curtains, with the occasional peek at a corner of someones bedside table. I know that the future of office space in general is murky right now, but OTR storefronts are usually modest-sized spaces, with huge ceiling height and tons of natural light, at least in the front half. Combined with a walkable neighborhood, they make great small office spaces - you just have to build the costs of parking into the equation.

well, it hasn't been that long for the current owners. The planning commission packet linked to above by @JYP indicates start of construction before end of 2020 -- assuming they get approved, of course. And keep in mind that above the architectural changes to the liberty & elm parcel, the major difference here is the more than doubling of the project size, in terms of number of units, by the addition of adjacent land to the planned development. So one way to make sense of the recent delays is that basically they've gone through planning of an entirely new development, to be added to the original.

Does anyone know what happened at the August 3 HCB meeting, where the proposed new OTR historic district development guidelines were discussed?

The new guidelines are absurd. They start out by (appropriately) mourning the loss of 50% of the historic fabric since 1930, through decay and teardowns. Then the guidelines are totally hinged on restricting deviations from the average massing, height, rhythm... (by various metrics) from what buildings currently exist on the "block face". I think it's stupid to have those sorts of absolute restrictions (especially as they are severe - e.g. 10% deviation from average height), but it is completely nonsensical to try to preserve historical context, by only counting the 50% of history that you currently have. I'm trying to get a foothold here for a simple argument. I think, at minimum, if we're going to have averages taken on these various features, then they should be computed from what was there historically. And I also think that 10% deviations from an average block face height (for example) is unworkable and the deviation must be increased. So, you have a block face with 10 buildings, 5 of them 3 story (40 ft) and 5 of them 4 story (52 ft). So the average height is like 46 feet, and your allowable infill height becomes 41.4' to 50.6'. So you can't actually build either a 3 story or 4 story building, with the exact historical dimensions. It's always dangerous to use too much math in guidelines like this. These are just too specific and narrow, and the result is going to be many cases where they're proven to not make any sense. This is a good example of non-expert but well-meaning volunteerism, run amok.

I hadn't paid attention to Willkommen. Wow I am amazed and so pleased that this infill has been approved by HCB. It seems like this project will raise our level of expectations for what's possible (not to mention feasible to get approved). Which has been needed for some time now.

I appreciate that they used white letters that blend in.

"'It’s one of the most exciting things I’ve ever done in my work,' Mr. Cranley said." For the mayor of a major US city to make such a statement should be astounding, no matter what you think of the stadium development.

If Joe's Diner could have managed to make a decent hamburger, they would still be open.

I just posted a nice 500 sq. ft. 1BR @ 15th and Elm for $800/month at 11:00 on Zillow and Craigslist, and by 11:18 I have three people requesting tours.

I can't argue with that logic - moving functions to home means more pressure on space at home. Maybe the sweet spot is converted high-rise office space where the old parking space perk is replaced by free access to well designed / efficient in-building flex office space. What society could gain from that is a lower carbon footprint and increased productivity. but I guess this is also off-topic...!