jim uber

In response to "RestorationConsultant" - let me first say that I'm just an ordinary guy, albeit an engineer by training, who is rehabbing an 1875 home on Elm st. (And, no, I'm also not doing exposed brick and ductwork, either.) It's a complete renovation, saving whatever I can, but suffice it to say that all utilities and finishes are new. So is the roof and box gutters. I did the demo and framing, and I've got a general contractor with subs doing all the rest. It's going to be a great place, with two separate units, one for me and one to rent to my brother. I'm spending more than $20K alone on tile in three bathrooms. Total cost for this place is about $200K for $3000 sq. ft. of living space plus a full basement. That's about $67/sq. ft., which is very reasonable. RestorationConsultant talks about "30-50k in additional legal fees, reports and other hoops" -- it that's true, then he's doing things in a pretty strange way. I paid $5000 for my architect and less than $1000 for permits. Sure, I didn't like the permit process, and we had to jump through some hoops. For instance, they made me increase the height in a hallway on the first floor which was too low, for which I had no choice but to lower that section of the floor. That cost an extra few thousand, and I was pissed off at first, but you know the house is tons better in the end for it. I also am no big fan of the current Historic Conservation Board, and know I'm not alone, but you can get through it. My main concern with RestorationConsultant is that he is so excessively negative and presents a biased picture of what it takes to do a renovation on one of these great old homes. I assume it's a temperament issue - everyone has problems in their job, for example - dealing with bureaucracy - but some people manage to get by quite nicely, while others spend energy flailing about. Bottom line is that if you're an individual or a couple, you don't shy of being dirty, you can use a hammer and a circular saw, you have some extra cash or access to loans, and you like OTR then... sure you should look for a good place that has good bones, hire an architect, dig in for a couple of years and have fun doing it (while living somewhere else).

I went (or tried) to go to the Morlein Lager House last evening (Wednesday) about 6:30 with 3 other guys for dinner. TWO HOUR wait for a table. I really couldn't believe it. I know it'll settle down after the newness wears off, but still, that place is big.

Exactly. Even though many of us don't love the Banks development, in terms of architecture (and maybe tenant selection), at least they started with a street grid and it was all based on the very hard work by many to get FWW narrowed and minimize the disconnect to downtown. The planner from "Urban California" (what a name...) who is taking money from NOTL - and promising them an Apple store once they add signage - has desperation as part of his business model.

Perhaps their long-term strategy is to set a restrictive precedent while they march up Vine with redevelopment, then see how everything turns out when the neighborhood is substantially repopulated. I can see how this is a prudent thing to do, when I look at things like the CURRENT AT THE BANKS sign. I mean, who needed that? Totally agree on that. Although I don't think they necessarily have that long-term strategy - the document I found above is from 2003. Again, I think they should need approvals. Hopefully we'd get people on that board that could distinguish between signage that was fitting with the historic character, and disapprove anything that wasn't -- like that 'current...' sign.

OK not that this is an OTR sign thread, but it does deal with signage, so... I looked and found this at http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3717.pdf "Wall and projecting signs should be located above the storefront or first story and below the second story sills. The size of wall signs shall be limited to one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage. Projecting signs should be no larger than 3 feet, 6 inches in width or height. Small projecting signs such as symbol signs are appropriate. Billboards and internally illuminated signs are not permitted. Neon signs may be approved on a case-by-case basis." In my opinion sections like this is the guidelines should just be removed. I'm fine with signs needing to be approved, but let's trust the process and the people in it.

Many would decry if the new owners of the "Color building" in OTR would remove it's namesake HUGE C-O-L-O-R sign, even though that same sign would not be allowed if it were proposed new today. That's when you know you've got too many rules.

This is exactly right - though I would have no idea about whether there "had to be" better qualified businesses. Better qualified is a term that takes in a lot of things beyond the bank account. If over the next decade OTR and the Banks become white playgrounds then this is a disaster for Cincinnati. The City is certainly right in making it a priority to lure businesses - and spend money to do it - to try and engage the sizable black population who seem to have given up on the City. Good soul food sounds like a reasonable prescription to me.

I have a lot of trust in Milton Dohoney. Ever since he's been in cincinnati I have noticed the quality of his decision making. If he says it's the right choice I'll tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. His sticking his neck out is meaningful.

Hey it's really no different in a lot of places. I grew up in the south suburbs of chicago in an "idyllic" post WWII development. We went downtown once or twice a year and said we were "from chicago." I also migrated to dense urban hoods that have nothing to do with where I grew up, but lots of friends live in the same suburbs- 35 years later. And they love it! My point is that Cincinnati often thinks its an unusual place (often in a negative way) but it's really just typical.

One of the saddest comments ever.

I think that the Mercer Commons situation actually illustrates the point. The Historic Conservation Board would have not allowed the development to go forward, and 3CDC, being big and resourceful, got around them by going straight to the planning commission (is that a correct recollection?). The latter step was allowed, as I recall, only because the project received a special designation as a "big A$$ project" (sorry, I forget the actual term!). Anyway, I can tell you that contractors and developers uniformly deride the HCB and will do anything else possible to avoid putting their project at risk by going in front of them. I believe this includes changing the design. I personally have done things like avoided putting glass block in a rear facing window that looks into a shower, because my architect said that the HCB probably wouldn't allow it. Another case I know of the guy wanted to put in a rooftop deck by opening up a portion of the roofline. This deck could not be seen from even the opposite side of the street while at street level - obviously the cornice was unaffected - but it was disallowed. Maybe these aren't good examples, but I'm sure others will have better ones. The bottom line is that not many people are going to spend $15K on architects and other fees specific to an OTR infill lot to propose something of high quality but "risky" from the HCB review perspective. The community and its agencies must do much more than allow "exceptions" in order get that sort of investment - they must show tolerance and be inviting to different architectural styles.

I also completely agree. Will the new form based codes possibly be able to address this?

Exactly. I'm surprised at the relatively strong emotions it seems to bring out in some. It's hardly important anymore and any damage it has done to the street retail/vibrancy is long in the past. Enjoy it for the oddity that it is, tear it down as it makes sense. The reason that it brings out emotional discussion isn't because it's thought to be "important" in current day cincinnati. It's because the particulars of transportation systems have a lot to do with the city experience. So, it's relevant in that sense.

Sorry but cincy has nowhere near the pedestrian density to support a separate second level city. It never was going to and it never will. These things were the kind of gift that keeps on taking. They were a mistake made as much to isolate suburban shoppers from the homeless as they were to keep warm and dry. Folks like Jane Jacobs and John Altschuler are right - they should come down. I remember altschuler (who was the planner hired for the fountain square renovations) talking about how the first thing he'd do would be to 'scrape clean' all the junk that cluttered the old square (which was done) and rip down the skywalks.

^ Oh come on. I can find people complaining about pretty much anything. You're hurting your own argument.

^ It takes people off the street, and vibrant street life is essential to a successful urban area.

^ Huh? OK, I'm willing to give in to LIG and others who seem to be so bothered by our lack of sense of humor (no, I wasn't born here). But are you actually saying we are lamenting flying pigs? For goodness sake, we had big fiberglass pigs scattered about the city a few years ago, then there is the hugely successful flying pig marathon, and Barrelhouse used to make a flying pig pilsner (before they closed). I mean, we CELEBRATE pork and pigs in this city, and our attachment to them.

Is there something weird going on here? On my iPhone app this is supposed to be the gateway Q thread?

^totally agree. When I moved there in 2009 there were questions about whether it would be sustained. People were afraid something bad enough would happen to ruin their investment. There werent many people around and it was easy to park. None of those things are true now. That's a real measure of progress in my opinion.

^ Perhaps, at the groundbreaking, Mallory will announce an agreement with Duke. I'm sure that's what he has imagined.

^ OK, first all you have to do is read the letter from Duke to the City to clarify what they want (http://news.cincinnati.com/assets/AB18487328.PDF): "the current design does not include the minimum eight feet distance between the edge of the streetcar and company's underground system..." Probably the "edge of the streetcar" isn't that much different from the edge of the concrete slab poured for the rails. Second, I couldn't disagree more with Eighth and State's "analysis" here. The city isn't backpedaling due to a bad estimate due to a lack of communication; they are raising the intensity of negotiation to make their case that an 8 foot distance is a waste of taxpayer money. That's called responsible government in my book.

I don't think it's foolish. I consider it interesting.

The $750 figure seems wrong. Looking at the site mentioned, it says 1BR units start at $850. That's probably the price of the 650 sq. ft. unit. 7 out of 9 1BR units are more than 800 sq. ft. and I'm guessing they are renting for more than $1000/month. And yes, I think that's appropriate - even cheap. I paid $14 for two goose island draft beers last weekend in Chicago.

Paying far more than the property is worth has been a continual criticism is 3cdc. It hurts the ability of the little guy by inflating the prices of all properties.

^ OK, so I guess what you are saying is that Cincinnati is a small city in a larger county, and Portland is a bigger city in a county of about the same size. I am wary about assuming that dominating the county would unleash us from our presumed shackles. If City boundaries were suddenly made equal to County boundaries, what then? I see as many potential negatives as I see positives (and, yes, I think I do understand the obvious positives). With regard to racial undertones to arguments, Portland's very small black population is an obvious reason -- more than a "I guess". Portland feels a lot "whiter" and more homogeneous than 75%, just walking the streets. To me, that feels as unnatural as the Chicago suburb that I grew up in, which is probably the main reason why I'd never consider moving there; it seems that I'd be adopting the same stick my head in the sand attitude that my parents generation had. Heck, even the homeless people in Portland seem like hipsters who felt it would be cool to leave their parents homes for a couple of weeks.