jim uber

That's slightly off my point. I'm not assuming that Cranley will negotiate in good faith. I'm saying, do to him what Monzel did. Develop the negotiating points. State them consistently and in response to any question that's asked. Put him on the defensive and having to answer questions like "The streetcar supporters say they will get behind a parking permit system for OTR, but in return they want assurances from you and council that the next phase of the streetcar will be planned now, in order to protect their investment." That's instead of sounding like whining babies in the press, cause all we do is answer questions about whether we want to pay $300 for parking, and we say that we don't want to. Waah.

This is a good idea. And there are others. All of this is showing, again, that Cranley has the mind of a negotiator. He thinks that in the end the residents will pay $300 for a parking permit in exchange for living in our beloved neighborhood, and he's right. It's a neighborhood increasingly in demand, and we are not voting for him, by and large. That's a potent combination for him. I wish that the prominent folks on "our side" were thinking more with a negotiator's mind, to match Cranley. We'd be asking for concessions in exchange for this high rate. A streetcar pass is a great one in my opinion. Another great one would be concessions that would ensure the neighborhood is a priority for enhanced sidewalks and street lighting (even if that includes nominal additional costs). But the biggest concession would be to proceed forward with funding the studies and writing the proposals for the next phase of the streetcar. The more the route is expanded, the less will that $300 parking permit seem. I'm big on taking over this conversation and these are some of the ways to do it. I wish that instead of complaining, some of our proponents on council and otherwise would negotiate. Otherwise we continue to sound like little kids wanting to have our cake and eat it too.

Yep that's us. Always interesting to figure out who you might have met in real life and match them online! I remember that day. That's the sort of plan that we'd have for 1527. It's really a great building -- not unique of course, as there are many -- but 1527 was "protected" by its previous owner against any 1970s era demolishing of the interior. All moldings are still there, many original doors, about the only historic items missing are the fireplace mantles and the balustrade for the center stairwell.

Yes, we are hopefully going to be starting to renovate the 1527 Elm building soon. Just me and my wife, an architect, and a GC. It will cost $96/sq. ft. including acquisition and stabilization costs. It will be 5 very nice, small 1BR residential units and 1 large residential loft. Plus a storefront. We are so lucky to have an organization like Cinci Development Fund who is willing to even contemplate such an investment in the form of a construction loan -- but they will and do, all the time. And this project will be profitable. Maybe even "retirement plan" profitable. I know there are people out there that will say this is not possible. The costs are waaayyy higher. Can't be done. Well, that's all bullshit, and my message, similar to jmicha's, is that it's what capabilities you have and how you do it. I'm saying that with facts on my side, having done it already, and not just with armchair opinions.

I found this article to be maddening. These grants are supposed to encourage regional air quality attainment. Attainment of air quality goals is a matter of getting people to drive less, which is a problem solved by policies that encourage jobs and housing to be near each other. It is obvious that higher density is one of the only ways to achieve this goal. The streetcar, as an important component of urban economic growth, encourages this, and that's the way that the streetcar helps with air quality attainment. My main point is that it's such a much more nonlinear and complex argument than what the above statements are admitting. It's disturbing that a director of the agency responsible for regional transportation policy either 1) only understands simple arguments that relate to the average density of vehicles on a few downtown streets, or 2) is willing to purposefully mislead the public with statements like these. Also, I haven't seen the original proposal made to OKI. If that proposal led people down the road of "we're putting a few more people on mass transit on a few downtown streets, and so we're taking a few cars off those same streets" - then they deserved the ranking they got. I assume, and hope, they were trying to paint a broader picture of the role of mass transit. That also includes how important it is for this first project to be spectacularly successful, so that it helps to lead us to develop a real network that gets people where they want to go. If not, then we need some new people in the drivers seat for these proposals. I just came back from 2 weeks in Seoul Korea. That place is just killing us in terms of every meaningful sustainability metric I could imagine. The density is amazing. It's not everybody's cup of tea for sure, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to compete directly with them. I'm worried about us sinking under the weight of our land use and transportation policies, if we can't somehow get a more enlightened public policy going. I mean, Seoul has legal double parking, just as a for instance. See the attached pic. They leave their cars in neutral and simply push them out of the way, instead of purchasing more land and concrete for parking garages. How are our suburban lifestyles gonna compete with that sort of efficiency, long term? We should dread the day when places like Korea wake up and decide they need a National culture for creative thinking as opposed to rote learning, cause that's the only thing holding them back.

I would suggest you contact attorney Michael Mann. He has an office downtown I think on 8th. Michael has experience with public nuisance cases and he knows that law. I've hired him from the other side to have a property declared a nuisance. He can give you objective and calm advice about what you would be getting into.

Really? I think it's the coolest building downtown.

I remember The ZinOver

You know, the weird thing about Liberty to me is, despite being massively wide, it operates terribly a connector between Central and Reading. The light timings are (purposely, I assume) awful; I'd say on any given trip from Elm to Reading, I'm stopped at a minimum 2, and often 3 lights. It's similarly bad in the opposite direction. A trip to Newport for a movie takes 10 minutes via 471, and 6 of those are on Liberty. I guess what I'm saying is, I wouldn't understand serious opposition to the road diet for Liberty, since present policy seems to have put that road on a throughput diet already. That means it's mostly being justified for parking, which is going to compare poorly with most any other use.

I think they should move the world peace bell to the bridge and put it atop the HRC.

I will vote no and vote against monzel. People exactly like him give engineers the reputation they have. They're everybody's parent.

Ya think? ;-) Personally I absolutely love the look of this building in the above pictures, with the vantage point from afar and maybe 8 stories in the air. The brickwork itself is just fascinating. I don't know I've ever seen brick laid this way without overlapping joints. I think the long vertical joints are cool and the quality of the mortar is amazing. That being said I do feel sad at street level. But, I really do think that in my case, I'm just sad for the building. I think I'd feel happy if it had the above mentioned mods for the first two floors and was full of active tenants. I mean, I don't need to be engaged by the street level architecture, without thinking, everywhere -- giving up my responsibility for how I feel to the architecture. Sometimes I think it's ok for the architecture to completely stand out and dominate, even if that means that it disturbs all motion and feeling around it. In my mind, it's a showpiece, worthy of being observed for what it is.

When I got the special assessment notice I emailed the responsible person at City Hall: Angie Strunc, Architect City of Cincinnati Department of Transportation and Engineering Office of Architecture and Urban Design City Hall 801 Plum Street, Room 450 Cincinnati, Oh 45202-5704 513.352.3310 She referred to this as a "lighting assessment." The letter referred to a very specific area: "Walnut street between 13th and 14th, on Mercer and 14th streets between vine and walnut." (Funny that my property was not actually in this area, which was the reason for contacting her - so read your special assessment announcements!) I infer that this is not the same as a SID, in that I assume it could overlap with a SID. In other words there must be something special about the ability of the city to purse special assessments for "lighting." Not sure what the actual constraints on this process are, in terms of what it can fund. Since it's 2014 now, maybe the statute that governs the lighting assessments should be amended to allow for "internet assessments" or "security camera assessments" or other such possibly important things that never existed before.

Yeah, as far as I am concerned as an owner, I think this sort of thing should be done via a special assessment, and in many cases it would pass. It's been done in other areas, like for example the 13th street lighting. At least I was asked to approve that assessment, about a year ago.

I hear you on the sandblasted brick needing to be painted. Plus it just plain looks better. I need to do that myself. but I'm confused on the whole subject of painting and soft brick. in my area of OTR, which I assume is not unique, it seems that almost every building is not painted on sides and rear, and has never been painted (meaning - it's definitely not been sandblasted, and I can't seen any remnants of even little paint flakes). And the main problem with these buildings seems to be the need for re-tuck pointed head joints, not the brick face. Also, just from memory, it seems that the times that sides of buildings were painted was often when it was on a corner facing a street or alley. One building I own had the front painted and the side facing an alley, but the rear was never painted. So I'm just confused about this being an issue of brick integrity.

Have a walk on my block of 1500 elm. I'm sure I am biased by my vicinity. But yes the new streetscapes on vine and elsewhere in OTR are great. But also I agree that the tiles in the CBD were a bad idea from the beginning. Never going to wear well.

I could be mistaken but I think that a lot of the disturbance of roads and sidewalks, other than streetcar, has been due to Duke gas line rehab. On the other hand I'd have assumed that somebody would have collected money to fix all of that. On the subject of sidewalk repair, I do not think they've done such a great job. But that may be due to the state things were in to begin with. Concrete can look nice when nicely done. But it needs to be consistent in terms of the joint placement and finish. When concrete looks like what it is - a patchwork - then it looks like crap. On the other hand, hell, it's a sidewalk. The biggest problem is really that even though things have improved tremendously, any picture you'd take in most of Cincinnati simply shows too much sidewalk cause there's still not enough people on them. With lots of people, it won't matter so much what the sidewalks look like. A lot of places in other parts of the world would look like hell without all of the people walking, but the vibrancy totally dominates these rather mundane and utilitarian infrastructure pieces.

Well gosh. I mean, I think I always assume that there is crime going on that I am unaware of. It seems difficult to figure out how much is "blissful ignorance" and how much is just needing to manage life and which things to be concerned about. You've mentioned "three consecutive days of gun battles" and "a serial armed robber on the loose" several times. What am I supposed to do about that to make me safer? Last year by this time, I had a bullet through the windshield of my car in broad daylight on Elm street. This year, I haven't seen any bullets. So, I guess things are getting better in my neck of the woods, right?

I have to say I am surprised that you've felt such a strong increase in crime. In the stars report you posted the total violent crime incidents declined this year to date compared to last, and to the previous 3 year average. But much more to the point, I live in the 15th block of Elm and I've not felt any discernible difference. Perception of crime is very individual, and very important. Don't take this the wrong way, please, but it might be possible that you are changing more than the real crime risk. Perhaps (and understandably) the raising of a child and continued exposure to certain behaviors can contribute to a sense of unease. But really - you are the first person I've heard this sort of visceral reaction from. Doesn't mean it's not real, but I'd be surprised if your perception was widespread amongst those living in DT or OTR.

To say that "Your time has a value" is sort of condescending and trite. An economist would probably say that if I _chose_ to put significant time into my rehab, then it was the personally optimal choice for me. So be it. The point is that you seem to be the one who is wanting to confuse the issue here. My suggestion that an OTR house could be rehabbed for $75/sq. ft. (nicely) by an individual was obviously meant to include a big time commitment from the owner. And has been said before, it's a choice that many will make, and many will not (or should not). Oh, and it took me two years for a duplex, not 6. And there's really not much that you can say to me about other experiences, because I've done it myself, and calculated the external labor and material cost myself. Yes, everything is hard. I'm quite familiar with renting bobcats and walk behinds, and the challenges of getting materials dumped in reasonable proximity to where the work is done. People who are afraid of such things, or who "value their time" as much as I apparently should, should just write a check.

This is it exactly. OCtoCincy I'm not that concerned about what a developer told you - I am certain they are correct if, for example, they were asked to do all of the work. The reason why my list included items about your capability to actually do rehab work, was because I'm assuming that you would do a significant part of it yourself, and hence the reduced out of pocket cost. That's the point of "doing it yourself" I think.

I'm agreeing with those who say that rehabbing can be done for much cheaper than 3CDC prices. I've done it. I've got a meeting with Cincinnati Development Fund folks tomorrow on an adjacent property. who knows if they will give a construction loan, but at least they are there, and very willing to talk to people who have a well formed plan. Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head test for new rehab owners. You need to answer 'yes' to all of these questions in my opinion. Or at least someone invested in your team needs to be able to. 1. Do you have $50-75K in cash to spend on acquisition and pre-development? (new roof, box gutter relining/repair, cornice repair, masonry repair, clean out, selective interior demolition, correcting safety issues, as-built drawings, written rehab plan) 2. Do you think someone will give you a construction loan? (Assuming you need one - if not, well what are you waiting for?) For example, can you handle an extra monthly payment of 0.005 x ($C) where C is the approximate amount of the rehab cost (above pre-development costs)? Example: $150K construction loan - .005 x 150000 = $750/month. This assumes a 6% annual interest rate, and you'd only pay this amount near the end of the construction period. You better be able to do this, cause your mortgage will be more than that. 3. Can you be organized and logical, when required? (Is a dinner for 6 fun to prepare, or an all-day freak-out?) 4. Can you recognize when a home project has been done the right way versus the easy way? I'm not talking about finishes here - those are easy. 5. Can you swing a hammer up to your eyeball level, and hit a nail on the head 8 out of 10 times? 6. Do you own a pair of work boots? 7. Do you have a tub of GoJo or similar hand cleaner somewhere around the house? You get the idea. If you can answer yes then I think you can do it, and for a lot cheaper than 3CDC. Maybe even just $65-75/sq. ft. If not, then you'd better either not do it, or buy a property already rehabbed, and feel good about paying the extra amount.

can someone explain the logic behind not continuing the two-way on 14th all the way to vine?

1875 Pine floors before and after refinishing. The small unfinished section is in my utility closet. These are my favorite floors in the house.

^ Yes. The only reason for not salvaging an old solid hardwood floor is that it has been sanded too many times and nails are showing, too much of it needs to be replaced because of water damage (maybe > 20%?), or that fixing structural issues requires one to remove large sections of the floor. On the other hand, stains, sun bleaching, filth, etc, add character that you can't buy.