Michael L. Redmond

One is married to the other in my opinion that is why I feel strongly about use of various properties, especially Rothenburg. Perhaps we could have a world wide headquarters for Hampton Architects located there.

I see a much higher cost on residential vs (especially single tenant) office. Efficiency of the floorplate may be lower but that efficiency is the same in residential or office but I believe that there may be more flexibility in the office due to the setup of a school that already fits an office type design. Usable area is usable area regardless of the product but the quality of an area can be lower for a work environment vs a live environment. I see office as the most reasonable for reasons of bathrooms, and the common areas in a school that lends itself to that type of conversion. Also, what is the difference in economic impact? Cannibalism from existing residential projects to possibly feeding current developments or better yet, spurring more residential development to meet the new demand initiated by the tenant vs injecting excess residential supply. That being said, I certainly have the minority opinion on this topic. Is this going to be more of a problem, depending on const materials found for a residential project? Aren't we dealing with two vastly different building code requirements? Which brings me to const cost of residential that would include gas lines, additional electric, fire separations, and a whole host of building issues that are not as prevalent in office.

That would be a bigger issue if there were not other like properties in the immediate area to help dilute that risk, so if Pendleton was truly concerned with this, then they should advocate for the sale of Rothenburg as well. (Always looking for the angle :wink:) Steve, what are some of the change of use issues with either SCPA or Rothenburg to condos, vs another adaptive use such as office?

You may want to look at Mt. Adams. It is in your price range, safe, close to downtown, views of river and or city. My wife and I moved from Mt Adams to probably the same streets that you are looking at in Mt. Auburn and feel absolutely safe but Mt. Adams may be best for you.

Yeah, were professionals. :wink2:

True but I found a more definitive answer in this part of the sentence.... working with Duane on the project.

I agree, we had over an hour wait last night at Palominos.

11.5 actually and only on his left foot. Duane Donohoo owns the Clyffside building and I am only asking if he has made any headway in developing the building...or am I? Well yes, that is all I was asking.

How did Gary Indiana not make this list!

I hear things but the things I hear raise more questions than answers. :|

I swear it was in my OTR bathtub in late 2007. Any word on what Duane is planning to do now with the building or is he still pushing the condos?

I believe it was also the Red Top Brewery (aka Wunderbrau Brewing Company, 1954-55) Address: 1747 Central Avenue Opened: 1863 (pre-Prohibition John Hauck Brewing Company) Modern Origin: Red Top Malt Company, beginning in 1904 Purchased Clyffside Brewing Company for use as second plant, 1945 Closed: 1955 Primary Brands: Red Top Beer/Ale, Barbarossa Beer, Wunderbrau Beer

Holly and I were going to purchase this before we decided on Mulberry. The upstairs front right room had the nicest, greenest grass I had ever seen growing indoors. It actually looked like it had been mowed. Roof was shot, but the safe's are amazing. Karen Domine had redone the residence next door. I believe they store items for tall stacks inside of the ice house. Isn't the Hussman building built on Kauffman storage rooms, or was that a different brewery?

Actually it already has changed and this is why I put my faith behind a lasting redevelopment of inner cities, not just ours, around the country. That change was a HUD rule change and ended project base section 8 and moved to vouchers. This had more to do with not just the demise of the inner cities, but the trapping of low income people in an area where property owners were encouraged to stop making any real investment into their property other than the minimums described by HUD. And if a building in a place like OTR fell into disrepair and no longer met HUD requirements, a mathematical decision had to be made as to whether it was worth bringing it back for section 8 or was it cheaper to tear it down or abandon it all together. Neighborhoods have its ups and downs but it was the hand of the Federal gov in this case that kept it down. "high input and high risk" without the interference of HUD would have meant high reward as well as we are now seeing with a rule change. And why? Not because of the color of their skin or their origin (my family was one of the appalachians) it was because of a funneling of poverty into one small, contained area which allowed for easier management by the local gov to allocate services and police to a segment of the population that statistically had a higher crime rate. It was a failure, not for the outer lying areas but for the inner city community and a failure to the people it was meant to help "black folk and appalachians". This is why you see Denhart go bankrupt in 2000 because a person holding that voucher makes the decision to stay in a neglected buidling in OTR or the West End or exercise the voucher in a suburb. He could not fill his buildings and neither could a lot of "slum lords" and this signaled a mass migration of lower income people allowing for the market to do its work. Places like Gateway or here on Mulberry will sink or swim by the quality of product they put out and we no longer have the foot of Gov on our face keeping us down any longer.

Depends on where in the market cycle you are when the question is asked.

Is the last pic a duct? oops, never mind, I just saw the description.

I have some mixed feelings about this statement. Brownfields absolutly, but it is in many cases the influence of the fed and local intities that has made "old property" redevelopment a free market looser. HUD section 8 rules that have caused major shifts in urban areas across the nation to historic guidlines or taxing incentives or disincentives have greatly affected places like OTR and its "old property" redevelopment. The biggest reason that the city has to have the level of involvement now in areas like OTR or the west end is because of the Federal rules that have been in place for so long that allowed areas like this to deteriorate to a level that makes it both extrodinarily expensive as well as the effort necessary to purchase such large amounts of land and buildings to cause a sea change in not just the area, but a perception that has been ingrained in an entire generation of people. They are basically paying to undue the damage that they in large part caused.

I could not agree more however our definitions of the neighborhood may differ. I define it as all of OTR not just Broadway Commons. Broadway Commons should be treated as part of the larger neighborhood and not just one of its own. I am interested in positively affecting the greatest area possible. That authentic urban experience is only gained by living in an authentic urban area, which already exist.

That is why I mentioned cannibalization of CBD projects also that does offer this as well as new const infill throughout OTR that will hopefully continue to grow. Here is an example of what I am talking about.. "I would hope that some neighborhood services (dry cleaners, laundrymat) could be mixed with a few restaurants, and some other small-medium sized businesses for the area" This means that these business went to this new site instead of an existing site such as Main etc that still would have a service area that would include any dev around the periphary of Broadway commons. It needs to be just more than your everyday park. In my mind it is a Lincoln Park or a Lake Eola in Orlando that is a city wide draw but has all development that started privately around the periphary. The Eden Park example is a huge draw for people wanting to live in Mt Adams, Ault Park is a huge draw for Hyde Park but they really only lend an advantage to the near proximity properties. Downtown and OTR does not benefit from saying you can take a bus from your house or business to Eden Park. What would be even cooler than that is to see residential that matches OTR's old stuff actually mixed into empty lot sites that sit next to OTR's old stuff. Bottom line, you have x number of people who are going to purchase in an area at any given time. We are seeing that x grow exponentially however why compete with the infills within the community when you can do something to promote it? And I am talking new construction infill as well as rehabs. I understand that just doing a design layout that shows a bunch of green space isn't as fun as throwing in a bunch of new commercial and residential buidlings but just being practical, why further saturate an area with buidlings that is already saturated? Economic impact of the whole community is what would be first and foremost in my mind and not just the site itself. I have been preaching this for years! It makes so much sense to wrap the entire downtown area from east to west starting with the coliseum then the ball park then the football stadium and Museum center to the west. What a layout!

I do not know if that is the best scenerio. I say that because why develop something that will attract 1 when you can possibly dev something that will attract several as well as help retain existing. A first rate park does this. As far as complimenting it with additional offices, businesses and residential, that will take care of itself. Pendleton and especially Prospect Hill would explode with redevelopment of existing buildings. By not building the new, we encourage the redevelopment of the existing.

the only commercial dev that ever really got me excited at this site would have been the arena, but seeing how that did not happen, why do further const dev that could possibly cannibalize from other dev both in the CBD and OTR? A value added component such as a park that had entertainment attractions like a cirque du soleil (and I am really dreamin here) or at very least a first class amphitheater. Give back to the residents and businesses who right now are taking the chance down here as opposed to presenting them with just another thing to compete against them.

“How do you have schools keeping rainy day funds when you’re in the financial situation we’re in?” When they sit on the amount of unused land that they do and are unwilling to sell it, then the financial situation is in part their own doing. And their unwillingness to unload this is a double hit on them as they do not pay property tax that a regular property owner would pay that would in large part go to the school system.

This was not entirely done by choice, but forced, or at least incentiviced by HUD. Now those incentives are being dispersed, and this is why the change we are seeing in urban cores throughout the US are lasting changes.

they are now, yet they stated their wish was to remain downtown.

well considering the city does not take into consideration proximity to schools in their decisions to fund such programs, Rothenburg doesn't help us there either.