jim uber

^ I can't recall exactly, but I think that the library floors are supported by normally spaced interior columns. I'd think that alone would be a deal killer.

Cincinnati/OTR has officially entered the 'bitching' phase of redevelopment. Progress!

My wife and I live on 1500 block of Elm, and we enjoy the variety walking on 15th from Elm four blocks over to Main. Vine does feel "touristy" a lot of the time, but that's OK - its supposed to be the entertainment center of OTR. You can tell even now that, when Elm street is fully redeveloped, it will retain its residential feel. There just isn't enough storefront space to do anything else. In one sense its amazing that OTR has progressed to the point where such obvious differentiation is possible. There are now pedal wagons on Elm, though, thanks to some of them taking the route all the way up to RhineGeist. It's hilarious to watch them when they pass the drug dealers at the Liberty and Elm streetcar stop, hootin' and hollerin' at each other.

Historic may have been thrown off by the angled roofline. What is the top, bottom, middle? How to measure height in order to ensure +/- 1 story from adjacent? Etc.

Well said. And anyway, complaining that a group "jumped on stage to claim credit" is just another way of saying "darn, I wanted to take the credit but they beat me to the stage." I'd imagine that the Pendleton council folks who actually spent the time, well recognize that a big part of getting it done was aligning with the self interests of those in line to secure funding, approvals, etc.

^ parking and residential in lower; hotel or more residential in tower (undetermined at this time, according to the article)

^ As for the "huge flat brick wall with large plain openings" - in all honesty I don't think that's the type of criticism that can generate much of a response. I guess that you are looking for articulation of some kind. For me, all I can say is the overall effect is pleasing. I think it looks luxurious. Now, the devil is in the details and the craftsmanship, especially for this type of building. The masonry needs to be done really well, and the brick selection is equally important. As for the light into the units, that was significantly reduced because the conservationists forced the designers to squash the building and, in an effort to keep the all-important density of the development (even though you seem not to value that highly), they eliminated a courtyard. All because conservationists stupidly have convinced themselves that adjacent buildings in OTR can only vary in height by one story. So, conservationists are to blame for this building not being everything it could be, and for holding up a good development that would add to the neighborhood. When it comes to infill development, they just always make things worse.

Yeah, I'm sure that music hall would be aggressively scheduling deliveries on the evenings of concerts. She goes on to complain about how it takes too long to cross the street at the lights, as if light timing is some immutable constant, as opposed to something humans decide. No mention, of course, of developing a lovely walking path along Grant street, parking at more distant garages and taking the streetcar, etc. Just a complete lack of imagination. It must feel so strange having enough money to give to such a worthy project, and then threatening to hold it out in order to get just what you want. I wonder what happens to that wonderful feeling of charitable giving, once you do something like that.

^ OK so I'm assuming that's the contributed app for Android that others have talked about. jmecklenborg[/member] I think the app would be quite useful, and if there was a stable and supported app then there would be tons of ways to let visitors know about it. Unfortunately, this is only Android, and so it's stupid to even think about advertising. You'd just end up pissing off half the people trying to ride.

Can you please be more explicit. What is "the app" you refer to?

^I don't think this is really an issue. Bustracker includes 45 bus routes in addition to the streetcar. That's more than enough cover for something like having a decent app for their riders. It's something they should have done a long time ago and I'd guess many of their riders would applaud it. And I think the non-riders would look at it as a sign that maybe SORTA can change into the forward-thinking agency that can make good use of additional tax payer money. It's my assumption that SORTA is itself a big part of the problem, in terms of perception, for getting a levy passed.

^ That's great. Having it for iOS is obviously important. And, it's even more mind-boggling now, why SORTA won't just pay this dude for the app, and figure out how to port and maintain it.

At least, we've heard that they finally will do the downtown traffic study. In the best case, the BSB and Lytle tunnel work will be finished, a good traffic study and recommendations for efficient transit will come next, and we'll kick Cranley out in November and have an administration that actually wants to do meaningful things for citizens - like improve traffic flows - instead of pandering to rich donors.

We have this too - its called bus tracker (http://bustracker.go-metro.com) It's been documented that the locations are not always correct, but they do seem to eventually correct themselves and it's still pleasing to be able to see car movement. The problem is that this is a barely passable app when used in a desktop web browser. It is nearly unusable on a phone. Thus, it is effectively useless. Why SORTA refuses to do the work to make a great mobile friendly app that features this, is mind-boggling. It has data for many bus lines too.

I honestly do not see any sort of relationship between this building, and the one proposed for Race st. I'm not going to try and fail to explain why in architectural terms, because I'm not an architect. But when I look at Race and the building referenced, I see apples and oranges.

I also am completely for the recessed facade that allows for street seating in nice weather. To say this building doesn't complement the area and the existing architecture is just more b.s. from the OTR foundation infill committee and the HCB -- being constrained by outdated requirements that should never apply to infill, in my opinion. We need different historic requirements for infill, period.

For the (N-1) of us who remain interested in actually discussing / learning about the process the auditor uses... Yeah that is really interesting. Above I had stated my example with a 4-story, 6 apartment + storefront rehab that was valued by the 2017 assessors at less than $200K. And this is in OTR where $800K+ townhomes are going up, so I'm like 'OK, but... that doesn't make any sense.' I can't even remember what I put down for a cost estimate on the original permit but ... I've got a sneaky suspicion that's exactly where the auditors valuation came from. When you fill out the building permit I wonder how many folks are thinking that the rough cost estimate is going to be used by the auditor? (As opposed to thinking that you're going to be paying a permit fee that is proportional to the cost estimate :wink:.) If it were me, I'd definitely say that Dusty's reliance on permit estimates is a bad idea, except only to trigger the application of a real valuation. What's interesting is that the folks doing the valuation spent some time looking around the building and even called me up to ask questions about it. But in the end they ended up just using the permit cost estimate!

Maybe Aftab can take over the auditors office next.

For those of you asking incredulous questions about fair market value, why anyone would care if they were assessed too little, etc -- this is about a transparent process that is very important to the funding of cities and school systems. I think it should be done accurately and with demonstrable standards. If it's too low sometimes, why wouldn't it be too high at others? At least, Dusty should be able to do as well as, say, Zillow.

Awesome! We all got insulted! Not only that, but his trivial copy/paste exercise added absolutely zero to the thread, except to force me to read a bunch of text in real-estate lawyer jargon that ended up saying nothing about how property values are determined by the auditor.

^ I have thought exactly the same thing.

We just had a newly renovated 5000 sq. ft., 6 apartment + storefront walkup be appraised by Dusty for $196,000. We didn't complain, but I have to say I was surprised. The way Cincinnati sets their rates they don't lose money, but it would seem that the schools certainly do (not to mention the streetcar). I assume that they either have a limit on how much of an increase can be imposed in any one 3-year cycle, or they very heavily discount properties that are in "emerging" neighborhoods, cause they don't know anything about the momentum in places like OTR.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city. Jim; do you really like the proposed façade? It looks a big brick wall with giant plain openings cut into it.. then a huge horizontal floating roof above. I don't get the attraction. No scale, no articulation. It's not really a matter of whether I like it or not, though I agree with CinciInTheKnow and many of the supportive letters that complain about faux historic (and the total pass that anything faux historic gets with the HCB). My romantic vision of OTR is to preserve and cherish all existing historic buildings, but release infill possibilities to a great extent to encourage modern design. Obviously not complete freedom - we don't want cheap materials, and we don't want completely out of scale buildings. Here are the main complaints from the HCB, in their words, that arise from enforcing the historic guidelines: 1. Emphasis: The building reads very horizontally and lacks a strong vertical emphasis. 2.Articulation at the openings: the building is very flat and does not have articulation or detailing around the windows or openings. 3.Setback: The first floor is not set at the street line but has an angular setback that is very rarely seen in the neighborhood, but for mostly historic corner doorway entrances that are canted. 4.Materials:The rear building façade is painted CMU. While this is an alley and not a primary street façade the alleys are important aspect of the character of Over-The-Rhine and a better quality material should be proposed. Aside from #4, I think the rest are b.s. For new infill, I can honestly say I do not care about any of these issues raised, and it annoys me to no end that people eager to bring in new investment and new people are harassed by them.

Yes - density and parking requirements, along with inappropriate design restrictions, need to be eliminated for small infill projects. Any new infill project meets so much needless resistance that it's hard to imagine it isn't impeding development. And by the way, this is NOT the way that HCB is leaning. In fact for the Platte project they state that, if a parking variance is granted, it will be the last one recommended for any OTR project that relies on proximity to Washington Park garage. The HCB is only following the zoning ordinance which requires parking. Until that requirement is removed, by law, they must enforce the requirements. Platte has come up with a 5 year lease of 20 parking spaces from the Washington Park garage. Since so many other are also doing this, is it any wonder that this garage of 450 spaces (I think) is full so often? Good point on the zoning ordinance. I forgive the HCB this and instead hope that they spur needed changes to zoning. Regarding the washington park garage, I don't think it is a bad thing that this garage is full. Cincinnati needs to feel pressure to invest in better transportation modes and make the existing ones more efficient. These silly rules generate inefficiency in spades by removing pressure on the infrastructure that should feel it, by restricting development. It's all anti-city anti-density to me, which is why I have no taste for it.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city.