jjakucyk

There's no demand by homeowners to have the gas mains replaced, but there is an EPA mandate to do it. Gas main breaks are very dangerous after all, and Duke has apparently not been proactive enough about replacing old gas mains on their own. Still, things like this should be looked at as opportunities. Old gas and water mains need to be replaced anyway. Mucking with the sewers is a chance to separate some of the storm and sanitary lines. If there aren't already fiber optics installed throughout OTR, Cincinnati Bell can get on that while their conduits are being affected. It's a chance to do new and better paving and street lighting. It's no different than Duke having to move utility poles for road projects. Yes it's work, but then those are brand new poles and wires and transformers that won't need maintenance for a long time compared to the old ones. Even aside from that, all these utilities are in the street only with permission from the City in the first place. They need to be good citizens and suck it up.

Sewer, water, gas, electric, are no more or less public utilities, nor are they any more necessary, than mass transit. The Amish get along just fine without them, for instance. Besides, historically streetcars and passenger railroads were under the authority of the Public Utilities Commission. To some extent they may still be, but I'm not sure how the legality has changed in more recent years. Regardless, there's nothing to suggest that mass transit, which has infrastructure and operator, and provides services to the public, is any less of a public utility than sewer, water, gas, electric, telecommunications, or postal services.

Handy yes, but a station like that shouldn't really be on a pedestrian-focused street. If it was closer to the sidewalk and had a bit more character, and only one or two bays (think Hyde Park Square or Ludlow and Clifton) then it'd be ok. The library is awesome architecturally, but it doesn't engage the sidewalk. Having a monumental building isolated on its site works in an urban environment only when it stands alone among the dense and more day-to-day fabric surrounding it. When you have more than one of those types of buildings in a single location (like the library, and a school, and also the fire station) it becomes more suburban in character. Above all, the point is that even if the school and the library are nice buildings, and they are, they along with the fire station basically mark the end of a good pedestrian zone because there's nothing there to engage the pedestrian's interest.

If the choice is between a new dense 5-story mixed use building and a repurposed school like the abomination of the old Walnut Hills High School on Burdett Avenue, I'll take the new building. I've not been impressed with the school/condo conversions I've seen around here. They have such low occupant densities for the most part that they tend to be dead weight on the neighborhood. The monumental way the buildings are put on their sites (one of the few urban buildings that actually work with a buffer of grass around them) made them very vulnerable to having that buffer zone paved for parking or play areas. When converted to residential use, that area either remains parking (like Chase School in Northside) or becomes a barren no-go land (like the Burdett Avenue school). If the old SCPA was to be converted to residential use, you can bet it would remain surrounded by parking, and that's no good. That doesn't mean an office would be any better, but they are difficult buildings to repurpose. In this particular case, the school as well as the library and fire station across the street have a marked deadening effect on the block. Something much more dense with a positive ground floor relationship to the sidewalk is necessary to help that stretch of Short Vine.

I don't disagree that the priorities of this project are rather out of whack, and that daylighting a creek in an urban neighborhood only serves to suburbanize it. That said, fixing the combined sewer overflow problem is nowhere near as simple as simply disconnecting downspouts from the system. Yes, it's a dumb situation that should have been taken out of the building code a long time ago, and the city (or should I say, all municipalities served by MSD) should be tackling it, but roof drains are a small part of the problem compared to all the drains on streets and parking lots. Besides, this really only works in places with enough yard that can absorb that water. It won't do much good in OTR or downtown where the water will just run over the sidewalks and into the drains in the street. A building on any sort of slope, not even a particularly steep one, need not apply either. In places like Queensgate, all those low wide warehouse buildings have their roof drains on the inside, so they can't just be disconnected, and that's a problem with any newer building. Back in the early part of the 20th century, when trying to deal with the horrible pollution of the Mill Creek, they tried to separate the sewers in the worst-offending areas. Even then, they found that the plumbing inside the buildings was just too difficult to change, with downspouts diving back inside to then be combined with the sanitary connection before leaving the basement. Again, I'm not saying it isn't a valuable thing to do, far from it. It looks like Portland managed to cut down their overflow problem by a significant percentage, but that was along with some new separated sewers, large underground storage tunnels, stream diversion, sumps, etc. Besides, they have different weather conditions, soil and topography, and building/ground/paving ratios. Just don't pretend it's such a simple solution.

Hey treesketcher, those are good ideas, and I think some sort of rail connection between Cincinnati and Dayton would be a great place to start. The thing about excursions/heritage rail trips though is that they sound easy, but the legal/logistical hurdles are immense. A little while back I got to have dinner with the owner of the Cincinnati Dinner Train, as well as the Midwest Regional Vice President of RailAmerica, and the General Manager of Indiana & Ohio Railway. I got some fascinating insight into just how difficult it is to plan an excursion route, due to the horribly fragmented ownership of the various rail lines. Even for a small regional operation like I&O, ownership is all over the place. They own the tracks and signals, structures, etc., but a different entity owns the actual land (whether SORTA, CSX, themselves, or a subsidiary) and leases it to them. In other instances, there are special trackage rights on unaffiliated railroads, sometimes as short as a few hundred feet, like through yards or at switching locations. What this all boils down to is that every single independent railroad owner and/or operator has different rules and regulations based on their insurance coverage and liability concerns. A single bridge owned by some stick-in-the-mud who's not covered for passenger liability and won't allow any passenger traffic over said bridge requires that the excursion train let off all their passengers and bus them to a point farther down the line. That's just one example of a problem situation, but there's also freight conflicts, and a plethora of other hurdles. Unless you can get a continuous route that's operated by a friendly parent railroad, it's a monumental task. It kind of makes the notion of nationalizing the rail system and leasing out operations to the private companies, like is done in many parts of Europe, seem like a decent idea.

It may look wide open now, but with all the stuff that's going to be built around it, I think it's going to be mostly closed off. Plus, even if it was wide open on one side, you'd have no airflow on the other where fumes would collect.

If I were to guess I'd say it's probably a ventilation shaft/fan housing for the parking garage below.

So they just rehashed the stuff the developed back in 2006? A lot has happened in the last 5 years. Above all else, I can't believe they intend to completely rebuild/relocate the stretch of Red Bank between Erie and Colbank through Fairfax, which was just rebuilt (in concrete no less!) a few years ago. And people wonder why our society is bankrupt?

It's a good piece, but the defeat of Issue 9 was 56% to 44% which is not "nearly 2-to-1" by any stretch of the imagination.

It's just that this "growth at all cost" mentality is what's gotten us into such a bind. If it's going to happen in Butler County or northern Kentucky, fine. That doesn't mean we should try to help it along, or try to encourage more of it in other locations. None of these places near I-275 are going to become urban in any meaningful way, so all the better that they remain "pathetically underdeveloped". Besides, Newtown, Round Bottom, and the Little Miami River corridor in general is about the closest thing to a rural landscape we have left anywhere near the city. The more that area gets developed, the harder it becomes for people who live in the city to actually get away. There's already a lot of exurban development and "rural sprawl" east of I-275, and if it stays at that lower level of development, it's unlikely to start leapfrogging farther out. With the future of gas prices and strength of the dollar and all that, there may simply not be the fuel or the capital for much more outward growth anyway, and in that case these major arterials and highways are going to be an even bigger liability than they already are.

^ Which just goes to show how this project is going to snowball out of control, creating more problems than it solves. I can see it also causing more traffic issues on Columbia Parkway as that will become more favored to reach Mt. Carmel and Eastgate instead of I-471/I-275.

Underdeveloped? The areas between Red Bank and I-275 are the way they are mostly because of floodplain issues and rugged hillside terrain. Think about it this way. How would this project actually benefit Cincinnati, Fairfax, Newtown? It'll just encourage more sprawl in Clermont County, while saddling the aforementioned cities/villages with more traffic, pollution, and road maintenance costs, at the same time depressing land values and tax revenue. The sort of development already along Red Bank is so low-density and auto-oriented that it's a net loss even now. It is NOT worth promoting development when that development requires so much infrastructure that it can't ever hope to pay for itself. While it's been slow in coming forward, evidence is showing that nearly all suburban development doesn't pay for itself at anywhere near the current tax rates.

Good points jacksparrow, but some people interpret it as a sign that OTR and downtown are doing just fine now and thus don't need the streetcar to help it along. Of course, there is development that's going on precisely because they expect the streetcar to happen, and it's unlikely anything is going to happen north of Liberty without it, but still. I just wouldn't get complacent about it. After all, as bad as Issue 9 was, it wasn't defeated by THAT much. As long as we at least maintain the same level of discourse as before, then it should be ok. It would be great to see someone from the "other side" like Bill Cunningham speak out against this ballot issue like he did for Issue 9.

Yikes, look at all the looping ramps and new traffic signals around Duck Creek and Madison. It's like some 1950s urban expressway nightmare. They might just as well say "we want to bring the character of South Fairmount, Lower Price Hill, and South Cumminsville to the east side of town."

Can anyone report on last night's meeting?

There may be condo glut, and retail glut, but there's certainly no apartment glut. As for upscale housing, I don't know. I want to say the neighborhood isn't quite ready for that yet, but it's getting there. The real trick is how to properly convert a building with 1st floor retail into residential. In the past, the wide open storefront was bricked up, which you see all up and down Race and Elm. That's of course not a good solution, but neither are wide-open windows into your living room right at street level. It's going to have to be dealt with though. I doubt we'll ever see a reality where Main, Vine, Race, and Elm can all support the extent of first floor retail that's in place. Those storefronts would make fine offices, but again, is there the demand for that?

Except that they don't. Not for the amount of tax dollars taken in for a given length of road. There's been a collective failure to do proper cost/benefit analyses for infrastructure in all levels of government. The main reason for that is because so much of the tax revenue used to pay for it is just mixed together in a big pot and then dolled out based on some arbitrary formula. The reality is that suburban taxes would need to be doubled or tripled just to cover the ongoing maintenance costs of the roads alone, never mind the sewers and water system.

1880 seems a little late, but not too much so. I'd say probably closer to 1870.

That's not really a bad idea. If the feds won't take any initiative, then state and local governments should. Most state gas taxes are already higher than the federal tax anyway. We're a long way off from this, but it would be nice for municipalities to be able to just pay for their own stuff rather than have to beg Washington to get their own citizens' taxes back.

I never said there's no room for modernity in historic fabric, but it should at least attempt to utilize the frameworks laid out for it by that context. The "look at me!" iconic starchitecture type buildings are best when they're standing somewhat alone. Whether that's the suburban or country house, the college campus building, or the civic building, they (like many of the best historical monumental buildings) are set apart from their surroundings somewhat. In the suburbs or the college campus, that's with green space between buildings. In an urban setting, it's the building occupying a whole block or central square, with the street acting as a buffer. Cincinnati's City Hall, St. Peter in Chains Cathedral, the Hamilton County Courthouse, Music Hall, and the old CPA/Woodward High School are such urban examples. Also, there's a big difference between members of society and society as a whole. Society is the collective response, which tempers or averages out the individual's preferences. Society's values are rarely the same as any particular individual's (take Tom Luken for instance). Let him run amok in some cornfield where he won't do too much damage, but those sorts need to be watched very closely when they start mucking with neighborhoods or whole cities. Back to the Bruges example, does it really do those things for the typical passer by? I don't think so. It will give them pause, I grant you that. Still, a respect for contrast and juxtaposition? It exemplifies contrast and juxtaposition, and might make people think about that, but they're just as likely to say "it's too different" or "it doesn't fit in, who does this asshole think he is building this?" The same argument goes for the appreciation of modern materials and style. Such appreciation only comes about for a reason. Just because it's there doesn't mean it will be appreciated. If that window ledge was made to be sat on (it looks too high to me) then we might have something. If the glass was more than just a huge blank expanse, then there'd be something worth appreciating. As it is, it seems more likely to say "don't touch me or you'll get your finger prints all over me!" There's definitely no celebration of entry here either. The entry is a blank void. All the other doors down the street celebrate entry more, but this building celebrates only the view out. I'd like to reiterate that I do think there is a place for modern or even wild buildings in a place like OTR. The thing is, there are some parameters that need to be respected, and as simple as they are, that's not happening. Think about it like this, we have rules of etiquette for social gatherings, dining out, basic interactions with other people. Buildings in cities are no different. The trouble is that while the rabble-rouser can be thrown out of the party and told to shape up, we're stuck with the building for a long time. We need to do them right from the get-go. If the new building isn't going to be better than what's lost, or worse, if the public would rather see a lot stay vacant, then we're definitely doing something wrong.

I figured you could point us to a Google street view that showed them, that's all.

But you see dlueg, you're writing off society's values in favor of your own. That's the crux of the problem right there. Regardless of what may be the desires of society, you say "don't constrain MY creativity! I need to express MYself." It's an ego trip, not only of the architect but also the client. Writing off the architectural and urban knowledge base of all human history before 1950 for being somehow stagnant is not only callous but narcissistic. The best modernist architects were the ones who had a classical architecture education. They may have broken away from it, but they were still grounded in the rules of scale, proportion, order, balance, not to mention how to actually construct a building that functions, and is durable, while not leaking or falling down. Nowadays it's just a free-for-all with blobs and titanium and fake stucco. Those early modernists are akin to writers breaking out of the mould to create a compelling new kind of story. But they still used words, sentences, and proper grammar. Now all we have are words scattered about randomly on the page in different colors and patterns. The layperson is admonished because he's "not sophisticated enough" to understand it, but it still wins AIA awards. That's why we have rampant NIMBYism, preservation ordinances, and restrictive zoning. Because society in general doesn't want these ego trip buildings that serve only to confound or even repel people anywhere near them.

They have them in Hartford. Show us.

There's a difference between respecting context and faux historicism. There's some very basic rules about building in an urban context that don't hinder, but which provide a framework for building a stronger architectural narrative. Sadly, even those most basic rules tend to be forgotten or dismissed. Building to the sidewalk with wall-to-wall frontage shouldn't need any explanation here. Still, another of the most important expressing verticality. Much modern infill, such as the Vine Street elevation of Mercer Commons, and the Bruges example as well, go for horizontality, and for little practical reason other than to be contrarian to their surroundings, and simply because most modern precedents are horizontal buildings in wide open fields. I will give the Vine Street building credit for one thing that's sorely missing from projects like The Banks or the Walnut Street elevation of Mercer, in that it doesn't pretend to be multiple buildings. That's a whole other can of worms for another day. Nevertheless, urban form is also about scale, detail, and relationships with people. Going back to that Bruges example, what does it give to the passer by? There's no detail to look at, to explore, to delight the pedestrian or even the passing motorist. It's just a huge expanse of glass to be passed by as quickly as possible. How much does that glass even benefit the homeowner? It's so exposed they have to keep the blinds shut all the time. It's more of an office building or retail typology than anything. It might even work ok in that sort of an environment, but really the only saving grace in this context is that it is right up against the sidewalk, which was probably only done begrudgingly.