Yves Behar

It would be interesting to see tiered regulation on building height in OTR. Say 4 stories max north of Liberty, 6 Stories Liberty to 12th, then like 10 South of that and along Central. The city already has a kind of stair stepped thing going on and regulations like this would accentuate that effect. Also I would love to see the juxtaposition of something sleek ,thin, tall and modern compared to all the brick down there.

Yes but calling Fred a bad person isn't a good thing either, perhaps he just has different priorities. I know the guy and I see a lot of good in him, but I agree, he should be held more accountable for his properties, but I also like that people like Fred exist.

Fred rents to poor and struggling artists. He's a very positive aspect to this city and one of the few people looking out for the little guy. Your idea of blight may differ from mine as well, but it's just a circumstance of the situation that allows Fred to own these places, and no one had a problem with him doing this until the properties values started to go up in OTR. Fred is the last bastion of hope for some people who need homes, but don't qualify for public assistance. But don't worry guys, Fred will eventually sell and we can continue this gentrifying.

I don't understand how it's permitted to construct with EIFS foam and metal panels that in no way have a reflection on the character of the community. I get that the new architecture shouldn't be copies of the old, however there is a significant lack of quality in new construction that is the real issue. We need to have laws set in place that require new construction to retain certain characteristics that are what define that neighborhoods architectural character. Some of these feature that I would like to see as required are as follows. - Buildings should be built within the bounds of existing property plot lines. - New construction must maintain the appearance of a street wall, regardless if its a parking lot or a private home. - Walkability should take precedence over parking and driving. Parking is a problem in OTR because people want to get out of their cars and walk around. Walkability is important. - Buildings should have a cornice, or some sort of cornice, be it modern or traditional. This is just off the head but I could probably think of more.

I'd like someone to go into detail on the "character" of the exterior of Dunhumby Centre. Cause I'm just not seeing it.

EIFS, done correctly, still looks cheap and terrible.

EIFS should be illegal, it's going to be a problem in 15 - 20 years when these places look moldy like DAAP did.

buncha yuppie b@stards probably petitioned the city for it.

Absolutely. I did some bids for this sign at work and we didn't get it. Once I saw the sign on the building I realized why.

How about run a good business and not worry about the dam sign.

LMFAO!!! I can't even. It's a great addition to the neighborhood in massing, but the materials are horrible and those garages are disgustingly ugly. All I can do is shake my head. Apparently people like this crap and are willing to pay for it, so I can't really argue. I could argue though, that on a global scale our local standards of aesthetics are plummeting out of relevancy. The public toilets in Korea are of higher quality than this. So harsh. It's student housing, it's better than a empty parking lot But c'mon, we all know it's shite

I agree, I feel that many posters here are too accepting of the sub-par designs that have been proposed lately. This design is just sad.

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. Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic sh!t than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century. I'm sorry, this post just made me laugh. If there's one poster on here who I would say complains (in a good way) the most about settling for mediocre (or worse) architecture and buildings in Cincinnati, it's jjakucyk. For me it goes beyond architecture, I personally feel that companies on the scale of Subway are in general a bad thing for society, and I would rather not see them be a part of OTR. I think we've been very fortunate for the strong grass roots efforts that have brought many awesome local businesses to OTR, and I think Subway would only take money from these people, and use a lot of it to perpetuate an unhealthy and corrupt factory farm system, and pay their board member way too much money. Also I'm not really part of the club on here, I don't know who you are, and I don't keep track of your post history, I responded to the comment.

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. Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic shit than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century.

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

Just like to say that I missed the part about this going in the bottom of a parking garage. In that case I have far fewer qualms, aside from the whole "uncool" argument, but hey, who am I to define that.

I think the general attitude is that Subway is not cool, and the food they sell isn't necessarily of the highest quality. That aside (and just my opinion) they also don't seem to have a good sense of design or quality in the build of their stores, which would do absolutely no justice to the historic interiors of the buildings of OTR. In fact, I feel that it would degrade the overall value of a property in OTR, and change its interior in a dramatically negative way.

I've been saying this for a while. I saw so many student architecture projects and a lot of them were often very monumental and isolated from their surrounding infrastructure. I think it's absurd, and I feel there should be a more humble approach to designing within the context of an urban environment, there needs to be some structure and cooperation. Look at the new casino for example, not only does it completely buck the style of any of the surrounding neighborhoods with it's Las Vegas adobe desert bs, and it's lack of ornamentation. But also, it's arbitrarily set back from the street, unlike anything else in the area.

I feel like that park space is pretty superfluous and won't see a lot of use with the park across the street and the fact that Vine is busy and noisy. And who would want to sit and look at the CVS??

Fries is a pretty alright establishment.

I'll be at Rohs Street on Saturday.

I know a lot of college students that would COMPLETELY disagree with you.

This happens a lot when a "creative" company hires an architecture firm. There are always lots of conflicts because various creative types tend to think they can also design buildings for some reason. So do Architects, for some reason, but we've all seen the results of that.

So how long will it be till all of these restaurants start to cannibalize themselves?

Why is it always these big promises that never seem to pan out. Everything starts as this grand plan, wins the hearts of the public so that we support and fund it, then along the way it's like "Hey, you know how we were going to do all these cool things? Well we can't, so now you're stuck with this mediocrity." It's really depressing sometimes.