jim uber

Any idea that the Cincinnati streetcar doesn't go to places where people want to go is complete nonsense. People coming into town and staying at our OTR Airbnb have consistently made comments that appreciate the streetcar: "I would buy day passes on the City Connector streetcar to get around. I did not rent a car and did not miss it." "We were able to leave the car parked and take the streetcar or walk everywhere we wanted to go." "This apartment was right across from a streetcar stop. Upon arriving, we used public transit for the majority of our stay." How many times does the point need to be made that the streetcar has connected OTR and downtown and made them essentially the same, especially for visitors to downtown (including from Cincy suburbs). Is that valuable? My gosh, that is a fundamental role of transportation systems. Just fix the freaking real-time arrival and tracking systems, the fare collection system, and help balance the north/south traffic patterns with the existing emphasis on east/west. The route itself, and the vehicles, are sound.

OTR Foundation sponsoring infill design competition with a $5,000 first prize.

Both, also to promote economic development. Their is also great value in making your place visable too particularly if you aren't a coastal city. Almost everyone knows what Pittsburgh is, but go onto a national level city discussion group and people will say, I don't know much about Cincinnati... or I've never been there, that's a problem. :/ Also as a safety net, yes Amazon will be, frankly given Cincinnati's current leadership and trend of making bad decisions if it looses P&G it will turn into a place like Dayton just with prettier buildings. Oh for goodness sake. I don't know what I find more distasteful: the overzealous optimism that an HQ2 is something we should be counting on, or the typical cincinnati "the sky is falling... again" refrain.

Well, something like this is bound to feel bad. But I also remember when the City bowed down to Saks in order to get them to stay, and that was sadder, in the same way that the stadium deals were sad. So I can't be hypocritical. Bottom line is that the city's "retail strategy" should have always been a "housing strategy". If we're going to put any resources toward this Macy's event, it should probably be to help a development like 4th and Race get off the ground.

I think I posted those numbers at some point before. Annexation didn't really start until the late 1950s, but I'll go back a few decades earlier. 1930: 290,564 1940: 306,086 1950: 375,710 1960: 389,222 1970: 348,808 1980: 287,089 1990: 268,265 2000: 246,713 2010: 234,582 2016: 243,432 Change by decade 1930-40: 15,522 1940-50: 69,624 1950-60: 13,512 1960-70: -40,414 1970-80: -61,719 1980-90: -18,824 1990-00: -21,552 2000-10: -12,131 2010-16: +8,850 All the numbers are based on the census tracts that existed in the core around 1950, the peak year for urban populations before any annexation or mass suburban movement. The 2016 number is an estimate and is probably too low given that the estimates have places like the Short North losing population for some reason, which is ridiculous. Needless to say, though, Columbus went through the same urban cycle that most major cities did mid-century, though to a somewhat lesser degree than Cleveland or Cincinnati. The urban core likely began to turnaround in the 1980s (as shown by the much slower loss rate) when areas of High Street/Downtown began to be revitalized, but it took a few decades more for that process to spread far enough to other neighborhoods to see overall growth. Sure the core went through the same smaller version of the urban decay cycle. Yet the region as a whole consistently expanded despite what happened at the core. Not the ebb and flow Cincy or C-land regions went through. Focusing on the core for a moment, I just wanted to point out that in comparing Columbus "core" versus Cincinnati, the former lost 37.6% of its population from 1950-2010, while the latter lost 41%. That's a significant difference, I guess, though the first observation to be made is that both lost a whole lot of their core population in the same time. The most interesting thing, to me, is the (projected) populations in both cities from 2010 onward. There, Columbus clearly has opened up an advantage, with 3.8% projected growth from 2010-2016, while Cincinnati's growth is only 0.6%. If those numbers hold up in 2020, then I think it will have to be said that Columbus core is truly rebounding at a much faster rate, and it will be useful to find out why.

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely. However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is. That's interesting - I have the exact opposite reaction from living in Cincinnati since 1990. I'm frequently happy that we've not diluted the opinions of folks who desire to live in the densest parts of our counties. Even without such dilution, it's still very hard to pursue progressive urban-oriented policies (and funding for them), so I can't imagine how hard it would be with significant annexation of mostly suburban portions of Hamilton county. This could be a Cincinnati issue alone - I don't know, but I'm certainly very happy to trade off the tax dollars for greater autonomy. For example, I very much doubt that an organization like 3CDC could have existed (with it's stated mission), had we pursued an annexation agenda. As a result, I think Over The Rhine would have succumbed to the bulldozers and big-block developments, instead of being preserved. Doesn't Cincy have a well-established somewhat combative relationship between its city and suburbs, though? Columbus doesn't really have that. It has generally good relations between both private/public and urban/suburban interests. That is not to say that having countywide votes can't run into opinion divides or that things like job poaching can't occasionally be an issue, but generally most people (at least leadership) seem to agree on a common vision of a continuously progressing Columbus, as there is an understanding that a strong core city makes for strong suburbs. I wouldn't know how to separate out the two issues - annexation and the degree of "combativeness" - since annexation would seem to have an affect on the discord, by bringing folks together. That isn't bad of course. But there's reasons why geopolitical boundaries exist, and it's not completely clear to me how Columbus or Cincinnati would have evolved differently under different policies that affect where those boundaries are.

Annexation was the smartest move Columbus ever did. It kept the tax dollars flowing in the lean urban years mid-century and it continued the perception of a growing, healthy city even when maybe it wasn't completely. However, annexation stopped being a significant source of growth back during the Reagan administration, so this can no longer be pointed to as the reason for the growth of the last 30-some years. Also, the fact that Columbus probably would've lost population at some point mid-century without annexation suggests that perhaps being the capital with OSU isn't the panacea some think it is. That's interesting - I have the exact opposite reaction from living in Cincinnati since 1990. I'm frequently happy that we've not diluted the opinions of folks who desire to live in the densest parts of our counties. Even without such dilution, it's still very hard to pursue progressive urban-oriented policies (and funding for them), so I can't imagine how hard it would be with significant annexation of mostly suburban portions of Hamilton county. This could be a Cincinnati issue alone - I don't know, but I'm certainly very happy to trade off the tax dollars for greater autonomy. For example, I very much doubt that an organization like 3CDC could have existed (with it's stated mission), had we pursued an annexation agenda. As a result, I think Over The Rhine would have succumbed to the bulldozers and big-block developments, instead of being preserved.

They are obviously related, but I think the causation here is backward.

^ Yes. I remember when first watch was actually a great place to have breakfast.

The last story I heard was that yes, their financing that they had cobbled together fell through by the time they got through all of the fighting with OTRCC. I don't understand the details, but apparently there are some constraints that banks have in terms of their funding mix, and by the time this was ready to go, they no longer could be supported, at least not this year. They had still been hoping to break ground by the end of this year but that isn't happening. So, looks like it might be effectively dead.

Ever since he became the Enquirer click-bait politics reporter, coming off of his click-bait streetcar assignment, he has developed this odd habit of referring his thoughts to the inanimate agency "PX" (Politics Extra). Like "PX thinks..." or "PX has heard...". As if "PX" was scouring the landscape for local insights and information, and not just existing wholly within Jason's tiny brain.

I have very low expectations from the Enquirer, of course, but I just found this article: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/12/11/lacheys-bar-manager-shooting-search-justice-and-fair-trial/939240001/ sort of amazing. Am I just losing my bearings or is this an unusually terrible example of journalism? The "journalist" Byron McCauley refers to the woman who got shot coming out of Lachey's bar as an anonymous "pretty blonde," uses sensationalism like "pow!" to refer to a gunshot, and touts over the rhine as "Cincinnati's most important party neighborhood." He asserts that the coming trial will receive a lot of attention because "... sadly, the simmering undercurrent of race." Oh and not just because an innocent person was shot in the face to end an argument? I don't know what the point of the article even is, and I'm pretty sure McCauley doesn't either. I was just going to write this off as another example of poor journalism by an Enquirer intern, but McCauley is listed as being on the Editorial Board! I just find this to be embarrassing. Why must Cincinnati be subjected to the lowest journalistic standards. I don't think it's hard to find people who write better or at least more objectively and intelligently. The Enquirer must be training their writers in this sort of style? Frustrating.

Where does this idea of 7' ceilings come from again? The bizcourier picture (https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/27/get-a-look-inside-the-former-terrace-plaza-hotel.html#g/362822/2) indicates that the ceilings are at least 8' (if not more), based on the assumption the doorways are standard 6'8".

Yeah, but, note that the three board members pushing this were nominated by the last Republican controlled Ham County commission, and their appointments are up January 20.

The republican tax plan currently calls for elimination of the Federal historic preservation tax credit (http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/gop-tax-plan-kills-historic-tax-credit-driving-philly-revival-20171109.html). This would be bad news.

Yes, and the Enquirer published a very visible apology for that smear campaign, and said that as a result they would be reviewing and modifying their internal procedures for how they communicate in code to their white suburban audience.

Wow - so they'll finish all of the exterior cladding in a little more than a week. Amazing.

There's no disagreement given the (significant) caveat "in that situation". Where city officials come into play is, why are we in this situation, and how do we get out of it. That is their job to ask and answer such questions, and propose solutions. You just can't run a city by implying that important decisions need to be initiated at the level of volunteer community councils.

^They are clearly far from innocent. I could also add, by the way, the OTR Foundation and their prestigious "infill committee". But I believe that if the City - the bureaucrats who work for us and implement policy, along with the appropriate political actors - proposed a meaningful set of reforms that were intended as an initial play to move us in a significant direction, then you'd start to see more of a chorus of voices to "complement" those from the OTRCC. Right now, OTRCC is really the only voice in an echo-chamber, so they are able to create their own narrative and individuals can easily rise up to "represent" the neighborhood. And, I mean, seriously - blame a volunteer community council? I have a real problem with any statement that our paid-for City government bureaucracy is being blown away by the shear force of the OTRCC. No, they've just supported the vacuum that allows them to persist.

^ I stand corrected on that, but frankly whether they are from historic guidelines or zoning, the conservation purists will exploit whatever rules exist to further their interests with regard to infill development. And in that sense I would just say that they and the HCB effectively collaborate in a way that stops useful avenues for high density development. Further, I do believe that the egregious "height difference" restriction is a part of the historic guidelines, correct? And that in particular has been damaging and used repeatedly by the preservation purists. So I won't completely give HCB a pass on this. In addition, they are a part of the city bureaucracy, and have a right and responsibility to work with other organizations and even elected leadership to make the rules what they should be, in order to ensure that logical development occurs. Yvette Simpson said as much at the end of the whole Freeport Row fiasco (which now appears to be dead, if at least temporarily), yet nothing happens. And I've been told - 3 years ago - by HCB leadership that those necessary zoning changes had to happen, and were "in the works" - but nothing happens. So sometimes you just have no choice but to single out a person or an organization and blame them, because even if they are not "the problem" and are just "doing their job" -- it's the only way to leverage change.

^ I completely agree. We recently put one of our small-ish (500 sq. ft.) OTR apartments on the market - on Elm just south of Liberty. After two days and 25 showings, I removed it before even responding to 25 other requests. And I'm not inflating these numbers. Other than being mentally exhausted, my overall feeling from this experience was sadness. There are a LOT of good people who so want to live here in a nice and affordable space, and we just don't have them. And we have made it so that a developer who could actually bring lots of units online, would have to be nuts to even propose it. Our infill rules are the same as those we apply to 150 year old architecture. It's crazy. We're lopping off entire floors of proposed multi-unit buildings because we think that a two story difference in building height is going to offend people more than telling them to go live somewhere else. We're getting prepped to start denying permits for larger developments because of our arcane parking requirements, not caring that the artificial mitigation of parking pressure will be what ensures that we don't get the parking we need. Meanwhile you can do pretty much whatever crappy faux-historian stuff you want, so long as it's an expensive, low density, single family townhouse. Sorry to all of the die-hard, stick-to-the-script historic conservation folks (from someone who has rehabbed two historic structures in OTR), but people want to move here more because of the social contract than the architecture. And the HCB and its rules for infill are setting us on a path to destroy that social contract, not strengthen it.

I purposely put figuring out if it was geographically correct out of my head because if it wasnt it would have bugged me. Haha, glad you did the checking. I did not check - Just making myself feel good because it would have bugged me too. But I hope/assume that SW was smart enough!

Ahem. I just wanted to point out that the porch does seem to be in the south-west of the park. so this makes perfect sense to me ;-)

I also noted in the last OTRCC meeting notes, they mentioned $2.2M had been allocated for the "Liberty St. construction project". Does anyone know any details about what this is for? I don't have a clue what the entire road diet plan entails, and so what portion of that 2.2M could cover.

I used to own this "Montgomery style townhouse" on Boal, as 1400 Sycamore[/member] puts it. In the realm of infill housing, I'd put this squarely in the middle. Far from terrible, and far from what I love. One nice thing about these homes that's hidden - they're built on a structural reinforced concrete foundation supported by 15 drilled piers. Being on a Cincinnati hillside (yes, with fabulous views), its nice not to have to worry about sliding downhill, masonry cracking, etc.