greatgooglymoogly

I love visiting the Taft House and it is stately as hell from the outside, but relative to the modern real estate market, I'd argue it never even belonged in the same class as the house you shared earlier in the thread. Just on account of how narrow and janky (read: well-preserved) the interior layout feels.

By and large, I don't believe this to be accurate.

Looking through their website, they've really made an effort to use as many chic urban buzzwords as possible in describing the apartment options. I giggled when I saw they've named each floor plan option in the 'Live@580' section after a style of wine. The one and two bedroom options range from Zinfandel to Riesling to Pinot Noir. The corner units are referred to as the Prosecco option, and the studio units are being called the Cava floor plan. Trying too hard aside, these look promising!

I LOL'd when I saw his opening sentence. What an odd way to begin a letter.

Ordinarily, I would completely agree with what you've said regarding windows. But the practical necessities of a Coroner's office on the scale of Hamilton County's with a budget of just $40 million represent one of the few times that those types of design principles just aren't very important. A Coroner's office really only has two components; large refrigerated chambers and sealed laboratories containing extremely expensive and sensitive scientific instruments. Saying a lack of windows on a county-level morgue is a parody of bad design is like saying a lack of windows on the International Space Station is a parody of bad design. In a perfect world, more windows would improve the user experience of both structures, but the concept is entirely unrealistic because it would make each simultaneously (much) more expensive AND more challenging for them to perform their functions efficiently. Edit: parody of design changed to parody of bad design.

I agree that the current building is unattractive, but in regards to the windows - keep in mind it is a morgue. Windows probably aren't going to be too prominent on the replacement either!

Correct me if I am wrong but these renderings are just being recycled from the early phases of the GE Global Ops project, right?

From the front page of The Daily Beast today: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/10/could-trains-ever-run-on-cincinnati-s-secret-subway.html Very cool, jmecklenborg[/member]

Also consider Mita's on the corner of 5th and Race. Really good Latin food and impossible to miss from the entrance to the Hilton.

is that place good? I've been hankering for chinese recently and would love to find a place downtown It's not downtown, but Ameriasia in Covington is worth the trip. Best Chinese in the region, in my opinion. Never been a huge fan of Ameriasia myself, but Riverside Korean is directly across the street and has always been my favorite Asian spot in the city. Lots of options on that particular block.

And Barney Stinson!

I'm veering off-topic, but the funny thing here is how Friends painted an image of the city that was almost too positive. For the majority of the series, there was really only one white collar job between the 5 friends who split what seemed to be about 5,000 square feet of living space in Greenwich Village (Ross being the 6th friend with his own living situations). The struggling actor, food service worker, masseuse, and newly-independent Rachel lived a pretty charmed life, and I always wonder how that affected the big city dreams of people who grew up with the show.

I'm sure this is premature, but I actually preferred the architectural stylings of the original renderings quite a bit to these new renderings. This layout is definitely better than the original, but yikes, this looks like The Banks Phase I all over again. Can someone smarter than me chime in and tell me if there is a name for this architectural style where they use a bunch of different materials to create a hodgepodge faux-diverse facade?

It's not on them. They were there first. This applies to any project, not just the streetcar. If you want someone else to move to accomodate your project, you can ask them politely, but you can't expect them to move out of your way, at their cost, every time. As others have mentioned, this statement is about 180 degrees from correct. The festival organizers rely on citizens granting them the use of our public property each year, and as such, have absolutely no authority to dictate how public transit will be operated to accommodate their event. In fact, they really don't even have a right to be involved in the discussion, much less a right to be asked politely. A street festival does not take priority over a several hundred million dollar transit system merely because it was 'there first'. We built a public transit system on public roads, and if you'd like to organize a street festival in a way that may interfere with the operation of our transit system, your street festival should be working around the public institution. You don't get grandfathered into anything that negatively affects a system that exists to serve the greater public. In a world beyond the 275 loop, I guess.

Council just passed everything a few minutes ago according to J. Williams. Festivals take priority over streetcar operations for the safety of our drunken citizens. 7 events per year in total will take precedence. Cranley rejoices.

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments. My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories. While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded. Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create. It is this sentence that really stood out to me. While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing additions to our high-rise district. Not everyone likes dogs either, but it would be unreasonable for those people to go to a dog park and complain about the barking. Edit: I'm dumb and couldn't figure out how to quote two posts at once, so I put your earlier quote in bold to clarify.

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments. My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories. While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded. Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create. It is this sentence that really stood out to me. While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing additions to our high-rise district. Not everyone likes dogs either, but it would be unreasonable for those people to go to dog parks and complain about the barking. Edit: Duplicate post with incorrect quote formatting - mods, feel free to delete this one as I can't seem to figure out how to myself.

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create. The footprints of the two sites aren't that large either. Of course constructing a 29-story building could likely be an option, but IMO the mid-rise height proposed for the two developments seems better for that location. Two 29-story buildings would be even worse. I disagree that scale would be an issue on 8th street. We're talking about a location that is only 3 blocks north and 2 blocks east of what was the tallest building in the city for 80 of the past 85 years. If scale is an issue for you at 8th and Main, you're really entrenching yourself in an anti-height position, which is the type of attitude that left us with an antiquated handshake-agreement height limit for most of 20th century.

I thought that the first floor was retail space no? That is where Cheapside Ice Cream was supposed to be going in. This unit is directly adjacent to the retail space. The retail is on the corner of Main and 12th, and this unit is sort of behind the retail space, between it and Neon's and directly on 12th.

One of the units in this building is on street level on E. 12th, with the bedroom windows looking directly out onto the sidewalk about 15 feet from the front entrance to Neon's. When I lived next door in the Belmain, weekends could be pretty miserable - and I lived 4 floors above street level. I cannot imagine how awful Saturday nights will be in that bedroom. I have a feeling some poor somebody who is new to the neighborhood is going to come tour that unit and sign a lease before anyone tells them to come back and check it out on a Saturday evening. They really squeezed in the units on this one.

Your point is correct (but only when targeting areas technically defined as cities), but your numbers are way off. The population density of Mumbai is over 53,000 per square mile, which still lags behind Macau's at over 54,000 per square mile. Macau is technically a Special Administrative Region of China, but in reality it is essentially a single city situated on a peninsula that is only 11 square miles. Now the size of Hyperabad (251 square miles) dwarfs Macau - you were accurate in calling it relatively tiny, but you still included it on the list instead of Macau because it is technically defined as a city by its national government. The point I'm making here is that comparisons of population density are dramatically shaped by how we choose to define what gets included in our lists. The borough of Manhattan has a population density of over 71,000 PSM at night, before swelling to almost 170,000 PSM as people commute in on weekdays. If we simply compared Mumbai to NYC according to Wikipedia, however, we would be comparing Mumbai's 53,000 PSM to 26,000 PSM for all five boroughs.

This post confuses me a bit, as Macau is already notoriously devoid of charm and over-developed at historic levels. It is the single most densely populated territory on the planet and it isn't even close, dwarfing Hong Kong (and Singapore, and Bangladesh, and any other high-density autonomous or semi-autonomous area you can think of). There are quite literally zero arable plots of land on the entire peninsula. The gambling industry on Macau is typically likened to Las Vegas on mega-steroids, and in my personal experience, it is one of the grubbiest and least charming places on Earth. The concept of rapid development destroying Macau is on par with the concept of the three-point line destroying basketball, in that the debate would only have been worth having half a century ago. If anything, Hong Kong is the only area at risk of losing any 'charm' at the hands of this bridge, as it has significantly more undeveloped land and its population density is less than a third that of Macau. Edit: its' to its

If you don't mind me asking - that price point is for a unit in the American Building?

Gee, a Queen theme would never work in Cincinnati... In fairness, a Queen theme would work on two levels for our market only, and they seem set on operating Detroit and Cleveland under the same brand. It would still ring pretty generic at the other locations.

2.5 hours for Dewey's - or any pizza place - is definitely nuts. I do have to say though, I still consider Dewey's to be the best local pizza chain by a mile. On a side note, you gotta get back to Wild Mike's at some point if you haven't yet. Pretty divey but the wings are truly the best in the city, and the crowd has been anything but sparse the handful of times I've been to the Delhi location. Must've been a very off night.