jjakucyk

Could another factor be that we might be nearing a sort of peak-suburb situation? Sprawl has been marching outwards for so long now that even in relatively small cities cars are no longer about "freedom" and "escape" but mere necessity. Everything has gotten so far away from everything else, and what's in between is so unpleasant that there's just no point in dealing with the hassle anymore. It's like the saying, "a car is a great servant but a terrible master." Well we've become so enslaved by cars that there's little point in expanding their dominance any further, so it's causing shifts in behavior. All this is on top of everything else discussed of course.

That windowless block of floors at the base of the building does present quite a challenge. I'm at a loss to come up with any ideas for what might go in there.

^ Exactly. Sure SOME people move to sprawling suburbs because they want to live in that kind of place. However there's also people who move there due to factors that aren't based on the built form, such as proximity to a job, schools, friend or family networks, or any number of other things.

The courthouse is a bit of a monolith, and the jail and county sheriff's office don't help. There's a pretty toxic amount of surface parking all around there. That hurts Court Street more so because it's so wide and open to begin with, especially with Central Parkway just a block away. If some of the smaller lots get built up then I don't think it would be too hard to get a critical mass going that might then spur development of the larger lots.

^ What old victorians? There's two sort-of-ok row houses on Euclid, and a mish-mash of early 20th century bungalows and 1 1/2 story row houses on Charlton. There's some nicer houses on the OTHER side of Euclid, but that's not part of this project. It looks like they're tucking the larger building inside the block and surrounding it with some lower-profile townhouses, which isn't so bad. This block is woefully underbuilt for its location as it is. I do find it sad that these projects all come with a large parking garage. Maybe if they did actual townhouses with their own independent garages they wouldn't need to build a whole separate parking structure which then requires the rest of the project to be scaled up to yield a reasonable return on investment.

I'd say read back on some of my posts about U Square and other projects, which make it pretty clear that I am not satisfied with mediocrity or generic shit. Most of those were lost in the Great UO Crash however. I also don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on what I said. How does a restaurant chain leasing space in a historic building water down the neighborhood's fabric? We're not talking about them building some cheap freestanding building anew, or slapping their large corporate-standard sign on one of those historic buildings, which they couldn't do anyway. Retail tenancy is all about redoing the interiors to fit the brand, so any space they or Skyline, or Graeters, or Chipotle would occupy has very likely already been goobered up on the inside by the many past tenants. Certainly those chains are going to put at least a modicum of effort into redoing their interior spaces compared to what you'd get at Smitty's or Alabama Fish Fry. Even Deveroes on Race Street is pretty nondescript. Ultimately as long as the building exterior is respected, then the programming of the space inside really doesn't matter. It can and has changed multiple times in the past anyway, all within the same bones. Go to any world class city...London, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, and you'll see McDonalds on the priciest main streets, Seven-Eleven on many corners, and any number of cheaper chain businesses. That's ok, because they're in old buildings just like all the other businesses, and they aren't allowed to run roughshod over the building exterior. They're also usually pretty well mixed in among everything else, not in some crap hole cheap-ass district where only chain stores are allowed. They provide cheaper alternatives for when you don't want to shell out $10 for a hot dog, making the neighborhood more affordable for those who aren't quite so wealthy. Really though, the idea is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and diversity includes chain stores and cheaper places too.

^ Sounds like you're stretching to look for a problem. The wires for streetcars are no lower than most traffic signals, which also limit the height of floats. Nor are they all that much lower than the general purpose secondary distribution wires serving buildings. 18 feet is typical for trolley wire, 17 feet is the minimum to the bottom of traffic signals in Cincinnati (I think it's usually more like 15 or 16 feet in other places). And since when are the big flag wavers and baton twirlers on top of floats? They're the ones marching out in front on the street.

The only two options shouldn't be "no-build" and "the crappy plan already proposed." This is why I say the community council should go to the developers and dish out some tough love.

It's important to note that houses like that have made way for bigger and usually better development in many cities throughout history. Central Park West, Lake Shore Drive, and many inner-city streets used to be littered with such houses. In the case of some of the Central Park West mansions, they were demolished after only 20 or 30 years to make way for some of the treasured Art Deco apartment buildings that now stand. It's what I've said before about making the situation a net positive in the end. If they were wanting to tear the Goetz House down for a parking lot or freestanding McDonalds then that would be a much different situation. I have to agree with Sittenfeld that going after landmark designation so late in the game, just to prevent redevelopment, really isn't the way to do things. It's a knee-jerk reaction on the one hand, and really isn't the right use for the historic designation process. That said, the Clifton Heights Community Council now has an opportunity to hold the developer's feet to the fire. The tradeoff for losing the Goetz House should be that the developer has to provide a better product to help compensate for the loss. They can and should be held to a higher standard of design and build quality.

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is. Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation. In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings. That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused. After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway. Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements. Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse. Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside. It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares? It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

It's been recognized by some urbanist and architectural commentators that we as a society have managed to figure out how to do decent urbanism again, which really isn't particularly difficult when you think about it. That said, the architectural world still has some catching up to do to get the quality of building design and construction up to par. In the end, I'd rather have mediocre urban than mediocre suburban, and with the exception of a handful of buildings, much of that corridor had devolved into a pretty crappy suburban typology.

This data is getting kind of old, but I can't imagine the breakdowns being all that much different in relative terms today. Disposition of State Motor-Fuel Tax Receipts - 2008 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/mf3.cfm In 2008 the States had just under $38 billion in State gas taxes to distribute. 49% ($18.8 billion) of State gas taxes go to pay for State administered highways. 29% ($11.1 billion) pay for local roads and streets. 12% ($4.5 billion) pays for mass transit The rest goes to State non-highway uses, the State's general fund, and other things. Funding For Highways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2008 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm Disposition of Highway-User Revenue (State and Federal gas taxes, I think also vehicle registration): 67.06% ($122.1 billion) in receipts available for distribution as percent of total disbursement for highways [$36.6 billion Federal, $80.1 billion State, $5.4 billion Local] -4.56% (-$8.3 billion) for non-highway purposes -8.38% (-$15.2 billion) for mass transit -2.35% (-$4.2 billion) for collection expenses -0.06% (-$103 million) for territories 51.72% ($94.1 billion) net total remaining So this means that the total receipts for user fees, most of which are State and Federal gas taxes, only cover 67% of of the amount spent on highways. Other uses for those funds decrease the amount available to road projects to just under 52%. That means the remaining 48% must be subsidized from other sources as shown below. Revenues Used for Highways 51.72% ($94.1 billion) from user fees (gas taxes and tolls) 4.57% ($8.3 billion) from local property taxes 22.19% ($40.4 billion) from general fund appropriations [$10.6 billion Federal, $6.8 billion State, $23 billion Local] 6.84% ($12.4 billion) from other taxes and fees 9.60% ($17.5 billion) from investment income and other receipts 10.95% ($19.9 billion) from bond issue proceeds -5.86% (-$10.7 billion) to intergovernmental payments 100% ($182 billion) net total Note that the above statistics are only for State and Federally operated roads and highways, which are Interstate and US highways and numbered State routes. A few select local streets are included in some states. This mainly includes non-interstate highways through municipalities. The remainder of the local street network, is entirely funded out of local sources, mostly property taxes. User fees do not fund most streets at all.

^ You can walk to the one in a high rise.

Oh come now jmicha, even the most beautiful European downtowns have the occasional McDonalds or 7-11. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. If a chain wants to go in, that's fine, they just have to play by the rules of the neighborhood (obey the sign ordinances, occupy one of the existing buildings tastefully, etc.).

^Turn your street view about 90 degrees to the right...the already existing entrance to that parking lot.

^They did that for some large areas that needed patching, like there was a particular stretch near Eli's where the pavement was shoving due to the weight of vehicles (called plastic deformation). But they did not do a traditional mill and fill on the whole street. You can see some places where the underlying tar crack sealant is telegraphing through to the surface, and the aggregate is way too fine compared to traditional hot mix asphalt. http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/dote/news/beechmont-riverside-improvements/ You can also see in the Google Street view that was shot in the same month the surface was laid (they didn't have the stencils down yet) there's the slight washboard appearance you see in the new surface they just put down. That's smoothed itself out over the last year. http://goo.gl/maps/CIejw

^I don't think Duke replaced any of their little square/rectangular gas valve covers. Those are pretty bad, but at least they're easier to avoid due to their small size. I'm not sure if there is a technical term for them.

^This is the exact same overlay treatment they did with the rest of Riverside a year or so ago.

"...a new curb cut and ramp about 50' or so away that is a 90-degree s-curve. Practically have to come to a stop to get back on the road." Sherman, I rode that sidewalk ramp yesterday, and I didn't see anything like what you describe. It's still a dumb situation, but you just get back on the street at the driveway curb cut for the Barge and Rail Terminal and Joseph Beth's headquarters http://goo.gl/maps/L7Z1i Is there something farther down that you're referring to? Also, microsurfacing does flow a bit after it's laid down, so it smooths itself after being driven on. Duke has nothing to do with it.

^ It makes sense in a low-density subdivision with a single point of entry. It doesn't make much sense in a city neighborhood with connected blocks and people walking by the mailbox all the time.

^It's just a micro-surfacing, so it's maybe 1/4" thick, like what they did on the rest of Riverside a year or two ago. So while they did adjust some manholes and fill some potholes, there's still things that they can't really cover up with such a thin overlay. Overall it looks good, but I think they really botched the handling of the railroad overpass near Cincinnati Barge & Rail Terminal. Going towards downtown they squeeze the bike lane right next to the retaining wall, where you usually want to swing kind of wide before going under there. Going away from downtown, they actually ramp the bike lane up onto the sidewalk and behind the guardrail. I haven't seen yet how they dump you back onto the street.

They're using porous pavers under a highway overpass that will shelter the pavers from rain?

There's nothing anti-urban about one-stop-shopping. One of the quintessential city institutions, with a very urban building typology, is the downtown department store. No it isn't for "grocery" shopping, but especially before many of these stores decanted out to the suburbs they provided just about everything besides food you could ever want to buy. They've gotten a bit more specialized today into clothing, electronics, appliances, or furniture, depending on the particular company, but they were the Wal-Marts or Targets of their day, and they did so in large multi-story buildings without parking lots. To extend that paradigm to food buying isn't really any stretch at all. Findlay Market is an example of agglomeration of merchants already. It's not quite one-stop-shopping, but it's much closer than having a butcher shop on Elm Street, a produce vendor on Race, a bakery on Vine, and a florist on Walnut.

^ There's an enormous amount of information in the actual data that's not available online. For instance, underground utilities, including pipe sizes and what treatment plant they go to/from, telephone poles, street lights, and who owns them, what they're made of, etc. While CAGIS online has zoning information, the "offline" version also has actual land use, whether property is vacant or not, and a bunch of other things I'm sure I don't even know about.