1400 Sycamore

Yes, I think the issue here was whether the May St. "orchard" (which is really a community garden) is a good idea. I still think it is despite the analogies to other cities and other types of amenities. Anyone who is sticking it out on May St. deserves some type of amenity that they don't have to wait 10, 20 (or maybe never) years to enjoy. Playgrounds usually devolve into trouble spots in these types of areas, so what is left? I think the orchard is a good idea.

Yes. Its 13' wide. Nothing could be built there anyway. Lol, says who? There was a building there previously so obviously something fits there. And as an architect, 13' of width is more than enough to make something. Hehe. I stand corrected.

I am not a fan of Indian hill, but the idea that an enormous village has land use controls that limit development to 3 acres or 5 acres does not bother me. This isn't Paris. And, if one goes out into the French countryside as I have done, many times, one finds endless villas with much more green area devoted to a single family residence than folks in Indian Hill ever dreamed of. And, I've been to Venice which you linked above, and it is a complete toilet. I would rather live at a minimum security federal prison in the US than in central Venice.

With regard to little infill pocket parks which is what we were talking about (not 3 acre minimums and 100 foot setbacks) the countries you mention (except for Japan) are rather famous for them.

Yes. Its 13' wide. Nothing could be built there anyway.

OK. but isn't that the definition of a good neighborhood amenity? One the neighbors think should stay? You won't have that problem with a vacant lot with a bunch of tires and mattresses piled up, but then is that a better plan for the next 20 years for that lot?

My comments were addressed to the claim of a embedded pocket park at Orchard and Main, which is on the east side of OTR. And, shouldn't existing residents be allowed to have amenities of their choosing that might make them stay in an area which most sensible people would leave the keys in the mailbox and get out?

The east side of OTR is not analogous to May St. There is almost zero green space in east OTR. That is because the building were not torn down like they were in that part of Walnut Hills. and, there is much less really crappy infill in east OTR. And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

Why would anyone want to build a new, single family, house on May St.?

They must have got their certificate of occupancy. People were moving in today. The security guy said people were living there last night. Place looks great. Is 142 units the biggest private residential project in OTR?

I walked over there. They were dropping off stuff for tenants. I don't know what the CO problem is. Could have been from the rain. Monday they had a major amount of water going right out the front door and down the steps and down the street. Big pump, big hose, lots of water. If there were to be inspections in the basement, I doubt those occurred. But, the project is being very professionally run and I'm sure Michael Cox has it well under control.

I lived in East Walnut Hills. 50 years ago I tried to squander my hard earned college tuition on a lovely 8 unit building on Alpine which was eventually (25 years later) sold for less than I had offered for it and the building torn down. I was sure then that EWH was on the cusp of a boom. And, this has repeated itself periodically over the last 50 years with progress on some fronts (see the Verona and Cooper) and deterioration on others (see the Alms e.g.). Anyone watching this process over decades would have healthy skepticism.

I don’t know if an older person such as myself can ever become accustomed to the remarks about one’s friends posted on these forums with very little regard for the facts or the consequences of the postings. But, at least I can contribute the following to this discussion. As for Court St., Fred paid a fair price and owned the building for all of 182 days before the building collapsed. It is absurd to say that his lack of care contributed in any way to the collapse. Thank God the building was vacant. And, the building on the other side of the parking lot collapsed before that perhaps from the same cause. And, since the problem has not been addressed by the parking lot owner, nothing is going to happen there for the time being. As for Fred’s other properties, I am not aware of any in-fill buildings he has constructed or habitable properties he has demolished, which are themselves the biggest obstacle to future development in most urban areas. And, for those who think vacancy is an obstacle to development, think again. Bringing a building up to Section 8 inspection standards is a huge obstacle for future development. Once an owner has put $30,000 to $50,000 per door into a building to have it occupied by what are usually the only available tenants, Section 8 tenants, it is far more difficult for a renovation to take place that will truly transform the property and the neighborhood. The affordable housing advocates may be rightfully put off that owners do not settle for creating marginal housing for low income tenants, but the development community should applaud vacancy while the neighborhood catches up with the available housing which can then be meaningfully improved. I could be more explicit about what actually impedes development in these areas, specifically Pendleton and lower Main St., but I am reluctant to join in the chorus of criticism. Suffice it to say that there are actual reasons and they don’t have anything to do with Fred.

Your gratuitous, personal insult is the last refuge of a loser's argument. I am communicating exactly as I should: Standing up for a friend and a person of integrity against poorly informed Internet bullies.

I think I understood exactly the implication of your remark. Everyone else did too. You implied the statements above were true. Fred is a friend of mine so i called you out. Glad you withdrew your snide remark. And, although I think Fred is well acquainted with your firm, as is he with every other person of consequence in the Cincinnati development community, I think i will not point out this dirty little mess to him because it would hurt his feelings. i am new to this forum and new to forum posting in general. I am shocked that a person of Fred's integrity and contributions to the community would be publicly dragged through the mud by a bunch of people who know very little about him or his projects. And, I'm not the least bit put off by the code of snideness evidenced above. When I figure out who the author of these defamations is I'll see if I can give back as good as they did. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Jeff: That's a pretty snide way of affirming a bunch of nasty remarks above. Just to be clear - are you asserting the truth of the statements about Fred Berger in this thread? I'm pretty sure that the partners at Architects Plus would not support you on that.

Almost two years after the Court Street collapse, and it still looks like this... . . . Just to set the record straight. The Court St. building collapse was caused by the neighboring parking lot draining its surface water into the foundation (hidden) of Berger's building. Read about it here: A 1602610 HISTORIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs. KANU INVESTMENTS LLC. It hasn't been fixed by the neighbor, yet. As for the Bay Horse, they were excited to have the original sign and to have it renovated. It may take a while but, perhaps it won't be a truck turnaround for the Aronoff after all. As for the defamatory remarks about Fred above, I wonder if this forum is actually moderated?

I doubt that the City has plans to upgrade the 1300-1500 block. We have not been even able to get the new LED post lighting up there that everyone else seems to have. But the garage is going along very well.