Michael L. Redmond

You can see these from Liberty. Basically between Pendleton and Liberty.

I will ride it right along with you Max, all the way to the northern reaches of Downtown at Inwood. :wink:

Been my point all along!

Your first statement didn't read that way. "First of all the Gateway has only introduced a fifth of those 500 total units. Another fifth will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most)". But that is neither here nor there as Gateway is one of the leading Project in the city. My point is that Gateway is actually far ahead of its sales projections and the newness, considering a new building is brought on every couple of months, may actually not wear off and do not think it wise at all to leverage the streetcar off a projects hurting, because they just ain't. Otherwise we look at this as what is bad for development is good for the streetcar. That is not unclear to me, simply misguided by those who wish to continue in this line of thinking. One statement after another shows this and whether it is a consious effort or not does not change the message. The streetcar is usesless without these developments and that includes those condos in OTR, Inwood Village and all of the others that hard working Developers like Pauline have poured everything they have into. The streetcar should take a back seat to putting both individuals and families into these previously forgotten structures like Inwood because if we do not do it now, there will not be an Inwood or OTR to save, streetcar or not.

Ok, I'll bite. Lets do the math. 1/5 of total 500=100. Another 1/5 or 100 will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about 1/5 of that or 20. 500*.2=100 100*.2=20 (at most) I disagreed and rebutted with...well its all there. "I think it is a better option to look at investing in something that the government will see multiple returns on instead of investing in things that show singular returns at best." "For those who believe that it would be more prudent to subsidize the construction of more downtown and OTR condos instead of investing in the public realm by building the streetcar, read this:" John Schneider "it is more purely a government role to pay for infrastructure than it is development...Wouldn't it be great if we could pay for something that will in turn help development and fit within government's more pure duties?" "In all honesty the newness of the Gateway Quarter will start to wear off soon and to think that the credit crunch won't hurt sales at all will be bad move." And the last one plus the "inching along" comment didn't help me "take it easy" at all. Just like you probably wouldn't take it easy if I said that getting the 132 million in todays economic climate for a streetcar has little to no basis in reality. (of course I would never say such a thing) And keep in mind what thread this is. Is it Streetcar? NO, it is the Inwood Village thread. The benefit of Inwood is not going from 0 to development. As I mentioned above Inwood is a crime magnet and safe haven for drugs, prostitution and overall blight that has hendered other smaller developments in Mt. Auburn and has a ripple effect both negative and eventually positive straight down that hill and all the way back to Clifton. I retract nothing, I still say that to diminish any other project, whether it is Gateway or Inwood Village in the hopes of making a case of need for the streetcar is fundamentally flawed and will get you little favor in the eyes of the development community.

I do not think we are talking about the same street. There are two ways to get into Inwood Village-Auburn Ave to Glencoe on the East and the Western entrance that I believe is Valencia. I am talking about closing the Western entrance. Inwood Park is to the north of this street and I believe you are referring to the two parallel streets, Glencoe and Le Roy Ct., but those would of course be left open. And she may or may not close the western entrance. I know it was talked about and permissions had been granted but no closures yet.

It would be high if it were for the units alone. If you walk around Inwood you will see small concrete parks next to many of the buildings and those were made without adequate drainage that has caused run off to go into the buildings. Those "parks" are city owned and have to be redone. There has been a lot of back and forth as to who will do the work on the cities land, the city or Pauline. So when you back out the city land portion, the subsidy is much more in line with the other projects. Pauline has a great comparison sheet of Inwood cost vs the other major projects in and around downtown. She already has permission to block that side of the project and this will have a positive ripple effect all the way down to Mulberry as it is currently used as a means of egress for drug traffic. I believe that the Sycamore side will remain open but there is no real reason to ever go down Glencoe unless you live there or are visiting. The model is already complete and with the new way of selling off shells to the builders instead of only one builder doing the whole project, I believe you will see this come together much more quickly now.

20% at most? Gateway I-55% Duncanson-69% Breman-100% Duveneck-73% Trideca-66% Centenial-13% Goodfellows-20% and other presolds waiting for contracts to be produced by the developer at Trinity (many of the above never made it to the MLS except as "sold before sent"). Once again you try and put the streetcar forward because of a forcasted weakness that has proven to be nothing but an ever strengthening Gateway. This is the quickest way to get people to speak less than favorably about the streetcar project as I am wildly less enthusiastic about it now due to comparisons like these. Talking down projects is not the way that you will get further support. I am much more confident in mine, they are exact, they do not "ballpark" or hit a fly ball out of the ballpark which is what I would call Streetcar=7994 new units. Did you miss the part about the City owned land improvements that must be made on this Development?

"[glow=red,2,300]7994[/glow] new units" Uhhh, yeah I can. Lets put that into perspective. Gateway Quarter will be almost 500. So this is 16 times a Gateway impact by just having a streetcar. Hotels, business, residential demand out the ying yang all because I have a cool way of getting from point A to B. Really?

Does anyone take this serious? How disappointed do you think everyone will be when this number 7994 just doesn't pan out (at least round it off). Who can say this, who would say this and imply that a streetcar line alone is what will bring people to an area? You are forcasting specific demand in a given area based solely on a streetcar line. I know a bit about real estate, I know a bit about what drives demand in specific types of units and this is just a terrible way to present the streetcar as you loose all credibility with such claims (I don't care who did the "study"). Inwood would simply be 75K plus 16K per unit with the streetcar. A large part of that per unit investment is going towards improvements of city owned property that is necessary for the success of Inwood. That problem, such as the drainage issues on the City property does not go away because there are tracks laid nearby. Just to throw out numbers based on other cities with a different set of circumstances than we face in OTR and Mt. Auburn with the exactness of "$132 million for the streetcar for 7994 new units= $16,512 per unit" just doesn't hold water with me and when I see it presented as "this is a pretty solid investment...the streetcar is that much better" I, and I am sure the developer and the associate builders would disagree. As I said, this is not the way to make friends in the development community. What frustrates me is that this is a good day for Inwood (after years of work) and here we are talking about the streetcar. Money is alloted for Gateway several months back and I read that it should go to the streetcar (John Schneider said it himself). The streetcar advocates are becoming myopic in their thinking and it will do nothing but hurt their efforts in the long run.

I have heard "take money from 3CDC development" for Streetcar. I have now heard that Inwood money would be better served on streetcar. This is not a good way for Streetcar to make many friends in the development community that says we are bringing people now. The streetcar may bring development, but development absolutly brings development. Do not pit one Development against another project because both ultimately loose.

Plus it is stakeholders that will be living, investing, participating in making Mt. Auburn and greater downtown a better, safer place. It will introduce 68 new families, and countless friends who will visit those families to a grand community that has been forgotten for a very long time. We can not equate supply (streetcar gives you about 4280 more housing units) and especially not demand over any given period of time to any one project that is not a housing development itself. Streetcar does not necessarily bring development, but development may bring a streetcar. Inwood Village is a great investment.

Streetcar promises to bring what Inwood delivers. By that I mean that we talk about the development that will happen when the streetcar comes, but this is development NOW. This project lends to the argument for a streetcar, not the other way around.

"Transition", that is definetly the word to describe OTR and several other commuties in Cincinnati right now. But when looking at a transitioning neighborhood when determining where to invest or live, one must take into consideration what it is transitioning into. A community that may be deemed as historically safe may be transitioning into an unsafe area. I would say that much of the westside and other communities including Deer Park or even sections of Pleasant Ridge are transitioning into something worse but still deemed safe today only by historical definitions. OTR on the other hand is burdened with an unsafe historical definition but is transitioning into a much safer area and if trends continue may actually become one of the safer places in Cincinnati. So which community do you choose, one on the way up, or one on the way down? The answer is simple and if we are to believe in the trends, then OTR is a good bet.

My mother visited me in OTR today, and yesterday (she comes down too much in fact). Its not just mothers visiting, there are mothers who live here, whole families in fact, children and all who call OTR home today. OTR has its safety issues as does everyplace else but I can tell you my car was broken into more times living in Mt. Adams than in OTR so does that mean that Mt. Adams is unsafe? No. It almost always depends on who you are, not simply where you are and if I happen to come down to OTR for illegal activities, chances are I will be a victim of one. However those who move down here and take ownership in the area are here to be part of the change and are some of the most proactive and engaged residents of any neighborhood in Cincinnati which should give you and everyone even more faith in the future of all of Downtown. Be vigilant, regardless of where you live. Lock your doors, look both ways before crossing the street and chances are you will be OK in OTR or Hyde Park.

I would think that load capacities of buildings like Goodfellows, Duvenck and Trideca would be much higher than what we would get in a new construction building that wasn't purposed for having a green roof. And what constitutes a green roof percentage wise? Although there are rooftop decks, they do not take up the entire rooftop in most cases. Could there be both and still qualify as a "green roof" by the city therefor being eligible for the grants?

Kevin went a bit more in depth than I did in his article on Building Cincinnati. Two OTR projects in LEED pilot program Two redevelopment projects underway in Over-the-Rhine's Gateway Quarter are seeking to become the first LEED-certified residential buildings in the neighborhood, according to a media release. Both Urban Sites' Belmain project at 1202 Main Street and Northpointe Group/B2B Equities' Mottainai Lofts at 1222-1224 Republic Street are part of a LEED-certified pilot project for mid-rise, multi-family buildings. LEED, a third-party certification program administered by the U.S. Green Building Council, promotes sustainable and healthy building practices by recognizing - and rewarding - sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. The Belmain will open next summer with 16 residential lofts; Mottainai Lofts will open next spring with eight loft condos. Certification will be determined after both buildings have opened. Currently, the Art Academy of Cincinnati building at 12th and Jackson streets is the only LEED-certified building of any type in Over-the-Rhine. Both the Belmain and Mottainai Lofts are part of Phase III of the Gateway Quarter, a $30.3 million project that includes 106 for-sale housing units and over 15,000 square feet of commercial space. Gateway Quarter Phases I and II resulted in 86 for-sale units and nearly 23,000 square feet of commercial space. http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/09/two-otr-projects-in-leed-pilot-program.html

Mottainai, B2B and Northpoints Group's newest building on Republic is going for their LEED Certification including cork and bamboo floors and energy star appliances. Urban Sites is also going green on the BellMain building on Main (Kaldis building) None are going for green roofs that I know of yet but not to say that they will not in future buildings as the Q is really going in that direction more and more.

Corryville>Gary, Indiana. I'm just saying... I don't like Gary! Stay at the Symphony Hotel one night and see what you think of the area. Walk down to Lavamatic around 6:30, 7, and see for yourself. Call Holly at 479-0413 (tell her I told you to call) and she may be able to get you a better rate for a single night and she can show you any condo you would like.

Sitting next to me is the person who you would be talking to at the Q and the definition that I described to you above was how she stated it to me. All buildings south of Liberty are not part of the Q, but all buildings in the Q are south of Liberty (my house on Mulberry an exception Max, that too is part of the Q and downtown. I am special that way. Hell, I may even fly a fricken Q and Downtown flag just so people know) But that is up to the Developer and 3CDC as to what to include and what not to. 3CDC has to see the project or building as an appropriate fit for the Q, it isn't as one sided as to say that developers alone want to be part of the Q because it is a win for them to be associated with the brand, it also has to make sense for the brand itself. For instance, and I do not know if this will happen or not, would the Meiner building be a fit for the Q? If so, why? Proximity? Style? Developer? Product Type? What would or would not make that a Gateway Quarter building? The same is true for Main and City Home etc. 3CDC and the Developers decided that it was an appropriate fit for all of those reasons above. I think that you are looking at existing concentrations of Q buildings and therefor assigning a geographical definition however that becomes equally confusing when you look at the number of buildings that are not part of the development at all. But rising tides raise all ships and those outside of the development but withing the same proximity certainly benefit from that same branding but do not share style, developer, sales team, marketing, or even product type. This isn't like a suburban type development or even a typical urban development that is neatly contained. There are many moving parts to the Q and as I stated above, everyone, whether they are part of the Q or not, benefit from the Q through proximity. A muddled definition in peoples mind who visit the Q as to what is and what isn't may be a good thing as they associate all of OTR with the same excitement and outlook for the future that the Q brings. It may be confusing at first, but the end will justify the means here in that everyone will ultimately benefit.

It isn't that simple as saying that everything south of Liberty because there are a tremendous number of projects that are south of Liberty that are not part of the Q. Buildings, not geography is what describes the Q.

I completely disagree. Both are part of the Gateway Quarter. They share the same marketing, they attend the same weekly developer meetings, they have the same sales team (as demonstrated during the Blogger tour when not just the sales team presented City Home and Main as part of the Q, but also you had other developers like Bobby Maly and Brandon Smith in Tow), the sales numbers will be reported with the rest of the Q, they are all part of the Q by any and all defintion. Just because they are the newest developers to join under 3CDC does not make them any less than B2B, Urban Sites etc and Main was a discussion as part of the Q as part of the Urban Sites deal with 3CDC. "Disingenuous" is not the word, "fact" is and if we want to parse buildings as to whether or not we consider them part of the Q, the fact remains that they are.

Don't forget about the City Home phase that is Eber and OTRCH.

There is the Gateway site. Do you mean a site for each building? If you would like to see some of the pics you can find them on the various post from this past weekends blogger tour.

Urban Sites has been working around the clock as I am sure the rest of the Dev. are as well.