jim uber

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 most recent historic conservation board staff report is out, and the application for 1216-18 Race seems to be heating up as a defining case for OTR infill housing. It's worthy of rejuvenating this thread. The packet for this one application is 114 pages, including a 20 page staff recommendation (To table or deny), and 31 pages of outside letters. I've separated things out (why can't the HCB create a friendly format for distribution? This is 2017.) Application: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z61g18ll7nvsckp/HCB%201216%20Race%20Application.pdf?dl=0 Staff Rec: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wrtmzle4znaycf/HCB%201216%20Race%20Staff%20Rec.pdf?dl=0 Letters: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sycjh1h921jvqbh/HCB%201216%20Race%20Letters.pdf?dl=0 My interested observer opinion: Key elements of the existing guidelines on parking, density, and design are colliding full on with common sensibilities about what many people want OTR to become. It's time to separate the guidelines for OTR infill from the guidelines for historic preservation. If the HCB approves this design against the staff recommendation, it will force staff to admit that the existing guidelines have failed for infill. And that would be a very good thing. I don't see us moving forward on sensible infill guidelines until an event like that happens. The letters alone are a really interesting read. Some really smart folks with a way for words are interested in changing the status quo.

I found this bit from the article to be the most interesting and useful: "The city’s transportation director, Michael Moore, said a contract for a long-awaited study of downtown’s traffic and pedestrian grid, is expected to be awarded this summer. The goal of the study is to optimize downtown’s traffic signals to ease the flow of cars, people and transit through the urban core. Such a study has not been done in more than two decades. The work probably won’t be done until the fourth quarter of 2017, with implementation of changes coming in early 2018, a year behind schedule."

^ And, Cranley could ask the Police to ticket downtown drivers entering an intersection without a clear path to be able to exit that same intersection -- something that would help both the streetcar and people dealing with recent BSB-construction-related traffic backups. More generally, Cranley and Black could decide to use their considerable power wisely to provide real benefits, and not to pander for money and votes.

^ Huh - I see. I had asked an African American couple what was going on and why they were chasing everyone out, and they smiled and suggested that I could ask the police if I wanted, and that I'd probably have better luck than them (I'm white). I don't know - this sort of thing feels like an overreaction to me that reinforces tensions. I don't think Milton would have done it. This whole administration has too much starch in their shorts, IMHO.

My wife and I were having a good time watching the July 4 fireworks at the Eden park over look, like we've done the last 3 years. Always a large and very chill crowd, in my experience - predominantly African American. A great place and event to enjoy being an American with other Americans, and appreciating the Ohio river valley and all the crazy people in Northern Kentucky who love fireworks ;-). And then about 10 minutes till 10:00, right in the middle of it, here come two squad cars with megaphones, informing everyone that the park would be closing at 10:00 and the gates would be closed and locked. I asked one of the officers why this was being done this year, where it hadn't been the practice in years past (and why ruin a fun family event?). She told me that: 1) the parks hours are posted prominently in 5 different places; 2) she couldn't speak to what had or had not been the practice in years past; and 3) "the City Manager lives near hear, and instructed the department to strictly enforce the hours this year, no exceptions." I'm probably over-sensitive to this crap because of His Majesty in the white house, but it was a sad ending to independence day, for many.

Agreed. And on that topic, we should get rid of the weird few blocks of Central Ave that are 1-way. Central Ave should be two-way throughout (from Mehring Way all the way up through the West End). Yes. Central is a frustrating guess of which block is two-way or one way. Its a significant reason why almost nobody goes to that part of downtown, among others. You would think that Cincinnati downtown could benefit from a comprehensive traffic study by competent professionals.

^ A very cool addition (and future photo - hint, hint) is the restoration of the "black and blood" brick coloring scheme. The Enquirer had an interesting article that covered it a few weeks back. It was apparently sandblasted off during the last restoration (!). They originally used a mixture of hot tar to coat one side of certain accent bricks - they're now all around the window openings as well as some horizontal banding. What was most interesting is that this was an add-on item that only got included cause one person - I think a volunteer - who was digging into various aspects of the building history, argued that it was what defined this building as being of a particular style or class.

I was under the impression that this building has already sold, and that's why Leader's moved out all of their stuff.

^ I reluctantly agree. Rightly or wrongly (and it really doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong) a downtown grocery has sort of become part of the enabling infrastructure. Kroger is obviously sensitive to this perception and is exploiting it. I'd like to think that there could be some intelligent language in the agreement about monitoring of the usage of those 140 spaces and returning them to the paying pool under certain conditions, but I don't expect it.

Yeah, the gentrifying sidewalk superintendents are everywhere it seems, these days.

Sorry, but steel roll up overhead doors, unpainted window sashes and shutters, and the like, do not qualify as "charm" and a return to "place of historic importance". Give me a break about security concerns. And no I'm not a conservation snob. It's called taking proper care of stuff. You just don't spend money on a sign restoration before these things.

^the sign is great. Is Fred planning to do other things to the building to restore it's place of historic importance, such as removing the rollup steel overhead door framing the current entrance?

I must take issue with this. The goal in Over the Rhine is to increase integration in what was a pocket of concentrated poverty. The neighborhood was in such a state of advanced decay (parts of it still are) that it's possible for thousands of middle class people from move here while at the same time seeking to minimize displacement. I haven't met a single neighbor in Over the Rhine who would seek to block increasing the amount of affordable housing available in the neighborhood. That really can't be said about almost any other place. The issue is finding the money to pay for it. Affordable housing == small unit sizes. OTR was largely built for this, and I think about the issues of integration (economic+racial) every time a building that once housed 10-15 people gets carved up into 2-3 condos. In my opinion, rather than government subsidy, we could achieve integration goals through restrictions on the blend of unit sizes (perhaps in order to secure a tax abatement).

Exactly. Bringing up this discussion on the first day is plain dumb.

I welcome Haru and think it will be successful. Just wish it hadn't been at the expense of Istanbul cafe, which was very good (even though the decor was equally lousy for dinner). We need a good downtown Lebanese/middle eastern restaurant that goes beyond falafel. I long for the place that used to be in the north-west corner of the Terrace Hotel building.

when I was a kid living in the south chicago suburbs, we'd venture into the big city a few times a year for events. One would always be "Taste of Chicago" held on Navy Pier. Navy Pier is a, well, pier - a long narrow street, basically, that juts into Lake Michigan. In retrospect it was awful. Same as Taste here. But at the time we loved it. It was such a "city thing" and a big difference from our ordinary days.

This is a pretty great idea: A lunch club with discounts for streetcar riders: http://www.downtowncincinnati.com/exploring-downtown/downtown-cincinnati-restaurants/connector-lunch-club Had a write up in the Cincinnati Business Courier today.

most likely there has never been a project completed in the city that didn't first have its scheduled pushed back due to a delay at permitting.

Yesterday I entered the Fountain Square visitors center for the first time, to pick up some maps for a couple guests. The two nice ladies staffing the place told me to have my friends stop by for a chat. They could, for example, tell them how to "ride the trolly" up to over the rhine. I explained how that would be great, as I live "up there" right across from the Liberty and Elm streetcar stop. They blinked, and smiled.

Agreed, but I also want to point out it isn't restricted to the public at large or Flynn. At the council meeting yesterday, I got into a discussion with one of the key opponents about why I was speaking for Source 3. In part, I relayed to him how I had not seen one single instance of a recommendation from the "OTR Infill Committee" that I had agreed with. I said that I am a big fan of historic preservation (I've rehabbed two buildings, so it's not theoretical), but that I felt strongly that the same restrictive standards should not be applied to development of every vacant parcel. Which is exactly what they are emphatically insisting on. One of the guys turned to me then and said, with a lot of sarcasm, "well then why don't you just go live in Mt. Adams?" This issue is going to be a big fight with the preservationists.

^Yes. Infill versus preservation. A central issue is to get the public to agree that these should be distinguished, one from the other.

^Yes exactly. If the community would have consistently said: "Hey developer, we have concerns about the quality of materials and aesthetic design, and the unit size mix that you are proposing, which would seem to preclude folks affording to live there who are making $30K per year. Can we talk about that?" - I'd have been on board. But instead they lopped off an entire story of living spaces for people, and then proceeded to complain about EVERYTHING else. In the end, their "joint committee" coalition, thought to be their strength, ended up weighing them down, because they just couldn't narrow down what they wanted most. They also failed to synthesize their various views one bit. In other words, they presented an aggregation of standard arguments of what the advocates for the homeless wanted, and what the OTR foundation and preservationists wanted, without asking for creative solutions to get to some of their goals, without bankrupting the project.

Listening on citicable just now - Council has voted to support the Source 3 development. Young, Seelbach, and Simpson expressed reservations about the fit of the building with OTR, but supported it. Only Mann voted against passage. Simpson argued for making sure that this process didn't happen again. It sounds like maybe this could provide the impetus for some more sanity around all the issues surrounding OTR infill. Isn't that one of the things that form-based codes would have tried to accomplish?

Well, I'm pre-social media, so I don't usually trust people I don't know. But I did produce a version 2 of my previous letter, and sent that to council too. Anyone else who feels strongly about this - now's the time to speak up through your own statement. Council votes today, looks like finally the last step. --- Dear City Council Members, My wife and I live at 1529 Elm st, about 100 feet from the proposed development. We support it for the following reason. Over The Rhine needs high density infill development to support a vibrant and diverse community. Parking is important, but there are many who want to live in OTR that don’t need it, or don’t value it highly. The best path to affordable housing is through high density and small unit sizes, not inflated costs from parking and arbitrary height restrictions. Council must send a clear message to the development community about infill housing, after engaging the whole community, including but going well beyond the so-called “Joint Committee." But stopping Source 3 now would be a very wrong message. Jim Uber Over The Rhine