Michael L. Redmond

J-Hall!!!!!!

There is one building that is owned by Stoney Brooks that is for sale and then one occupied building direclty behind the shell station but there are no plans. The plan was to abandon Vine and use only Rothenburg, what I am saying is that the plan will change to abandon Rothenburg for sale and only use Vine.

To much to know out there, but I did know you were kidding. I realize it is off topic but if anyone wants a tour, call Holly up. 80,000 sq ft building, the better question to ask on here is who needs a 80,000+ building that is looking to move right now but wants to stay downtown/ish? What or who could go into this space that would make a positive impact, not just for Mulberry/McMicken, but for Main as well? Now what sort of a fight do you think they would recieve if they chose to tear it down? Or if they want to keep it....it is loose loose for CPS. *The Ohio Historic Society has listed the Rothenberg School to be located within the Over-the-Rhine Historic District on the National Register - NR#83001985 *The ventilation system of the building is inadequate to meet the needs of the users. *The classrooms are undersized to meet current standards established by the State of Ohio. *The building does have an automatic fire-alarm system but does not contain a sprinkler system. *The building is not ADA compliant. And all of this according to CPS themeselves. 11 million to renovate in 02 dollars, even if they can get that cheaper, get the place torn down, rebuilt, and for what...to house kids that are no longer here?

The Gateway Urban Living Quarter.....The Q......The 100 plus condos a year for 4 years pushing up through the heart of OTR.....and I know nothing of the housing market in the downtown area? :wtf:

Gather round my children...... So so mean, but on that note I would like to announce that my wife is now on Gateway! So if I need insight, I guess I will ask her from now on. Max has the answer...."They should stay at the current location on vine, no need to waste our money and destroy beautiful buildings. Enrollment is decling anyway" Keep in mind, I am not looking at the situation as what I want to happen, but what I believe makes sense for CPS going forward. 1st and most important-WAY overbudget 2nd Declining enrollment 3rd they can now fit Rothenburg and Vine into a 60,000 sq ft space and are proposing to temporarily fit Wash Park into the same space so that makes three.... Wash Park gets built, leaving 2 with still declining enrollment, still overbudget and now you want to spend the money to move them into a 89,000 sq ft space? It simply doesn't make sense, it hasn't made sense all along. Both true and not so true, Larry Rhodes building lost a lentile onto the sidewalk last year (you can see it in the pic above on the far window on the second floor), has no roof in the front or the back and if you listen next to the front door, freeflowing water is pouring into the basement. But next to that Vernon has his 5 buildings that are coming along nicely, Steve Krimer has the Blue building and the red one and they are in great shape, and there just isn't much else that I know of that is coming down.

Thats why they call me the oracle of Mulberry. Actually, here is my bet, no rehab, no teardown, but it will hit the NAI Bergman sales sheet. Even Tarbell thought I was wrong on this one. :wink2:

Is it a Christine Schoonover sign from her Coldwell days? There are a few of those floating around (and a few of mine as well)

Well my wife and I may be the exception but you are correct. So what does that mean to Main then? People from the outside need a reason to venture into OTR. Main needs to be a destination, and not just bars, but restruants, shops, galleries. There should always be a reason to come to Main. And I have a dollar in my pocket says that they all live north of 13th as well. The "bar dist" is for the most part isolated to 2 blocks and there is no residential above it. Should we have Kaldis limit its traffic as it may interfere with the peace and quiet of the residential above? People smoking outside their front door? Of course not. Or an empty Jhall with broken windows that sends a signal of a lifeless street. Many do not, but Mt. Adams seems to cope with it, Northside seems to cope with it, Mt Lookout seems to cope with it, and so do the residents I know on Main.

Well I hear differently. No Pitifuls? No Vinyl? No Harry's to reopen? No sushi at Mix? Let Neons (soon to be Jardin) stay closed? No reopening of Japs or RBC's? Let them sit empty? Well that is one possibility I suppose, but we are exploring other routes at this time. Well some have to be a little large by design but I agree with the red carpet glitzy crap. I live in OTR, I work on Main, I am on Main right this second and trust me, I want the best for it as well but this is a big street, lots of different spaces to fill of all sorts of different sizes. There is no one fit, it can all work together. Send me a art gallery that will fill JHall, send me a small bar that will fit Davis, there is a highest and best use for each space, Main is not cookie cutter.

But it is striving to overcome perception of safety and yes we do survive off people coming in from the outside to support not just bars, but retail and residential. We will overcome this negative percetion in some, not in others, and I am not just speaking of Main. But Main is not simply a bar district, and this is not what we are intending it to be in the future. It will be a mix of everything I mentioned above and the closing down of Dream is a positive step towards improving not just perception, but a limitation of the type of programming (18 and up) that sets the environment for safety problems. Moving forward, we have several new bars that will be opening with an across the board mix of offerings but this is not our total focus. Our focus is on a sustainability model that will ensure a safe and clean environment for all who live, work and play on Main. Should Main be an entertainment dist? not entirely, it should simply be a place that people feel they want to be morning, noon, or night and we will get it there. True, but why limit to just that? It has always been my dream to make OTR a place that people want to live, not where they have to live. But the only way that we will get it there is to familiarize people with OTR, bring them in from other places and having unique venues of all types is one way to do that. As for the entertainment part of Main it will differ from 4th, 6th, and 7th in that they will not necessarily be the familiar chain that you can find in any city USA (but that serves a purpose as well) Main will be more of the local, true Cincinnati flavor. We are not trying to compete with CBD, it will be different, they are not our rivals, they bring people who otherwise would not give downtown a chance, Main is the next step.

Agreed, and plan B, will include the dropping of Rothenberg from the rehab list which will be a good thing if we have someone waiting in the wings to purchase. I say someone should put a call out to American Red Cross, but I have said it all before.

Can we make it mandatory for council members?

Wrong. I was at the meeting with all venue owners where the captain explained to all club owners that they needed to make changes and singled no club out. This was done by the property owner (who he himself was not even at the meeting with the captain), not the police department. The captain has stood behind the property owners and venue operators in their efforts to turn things around internally and has pressured no one, especially not someone like Mike Stough. Here is the important facts in the article.... "two people were killed outside the controversial nightspot in recent weeks". "past due rent" This is without a doubt our biggest obstacle, but do not count us out just yet because if you say that about Main, then we say that about all of OTR

You had me at "Nick Spencer complained quite a bit" Bottom line is we are not adding anything, just an improvement in the structure that they are already in.

One thing at a time. The biggest problem has been that these very same people have been living here in buildings that are falling apart. At least this is a forward step. Same is true with low income, I have no problem with a diverse ecomomic community, but I do have a problem with a "slum" and now we are seeing building after building redone and contributing to the betterment of the community. So long as the people are law abiding (and the ones who are not will be arrested) they should have a right to live here as well. It never said fellons, although I am sure some are but if they are actively seeking help and keep out of trouble, then if someone wants to help them, let them. Just fix the building.

well then I am all for Crowley! We can't have too much peace, people will get the wrong idea. (For you homegamers, this was just an inside jab at Max about the steps, I follow him from thread to thread because he sneaks in a step comment here and there)

So what would his stance be Max on the rape we had about 3 weeks ago on the 29 Steps? Along with the armed robbery of 6 months ago? And the multiple breakins from 1 and a half years ago? Just curious as to whether he will be a supporter in helping us remedy and ongoing problem or not. :wink:.

The hold up is that the city has already agreed to provide funding for improvements of their property (city property) which are the small concrete parks that are overgrown and an eyesore. They now do not want to release that money until after the project is completed which we say will hender the sales. The model is already complete and the project is ready to go, we just need to get over this one hurdle.

Yes

I hear Roxanne Qualls

As Cincy Rise said, this happens all the time. I see the upside on this deal as possibly attracting in someone from outside of the CBD of Cincy as well. Plus providing an opportunity for some to move from B to A or expansion. Trust me when I say that rental rates across the board will not come crashing down. This building had an opportunity to attract new tenants because of a tax issue allowing for flexibility, thats all.

Are you still searching for any thread of evidence that the markets are all crashing?

I am telling you that his drop in leasing rates does not mean "demand is not supporting current rent numbers." It means that this one building owner made a wise move in a competitive marketplace, hence "prices attract two tenants to 600 Vine." And because I do work in the industry I can't imagine having a conversation with this owner and saying not to do this. Other building owners will not take the hit on yield and therefor will not follow this one owners lead simply because he found a savings where others may have not. He dropped rates and can maintain his yield, others can not, and therefor will not.

Or it could mean Hertz realized that they could lower rates while still producing their desired yield. Now I am no rocket surgeon, but if I can have an occupied building by offering a lower lease rate and at the same time lower my expenses, it seems to me that building has a higher value than having held out for a higher rate while sitting on an empty building, especially in a competitive leasing market like we have in CBD. Good move if you ask me. Rental Rates alone to get financing means little, it is just a piece of the equation-- yield is king. Not necessarily. You are assuming that there is no increase in space or that the money saved in the lease doesn't get allocated to increasing other operating expenses, such as additional employees or perhaps both.

oops...