DTCL11

It's also all concrete construction I believe so it won't go as fast as stick build

And CU just did a piece on her and her restaurants this week. We all have her on the brain. I used to check in occasionally but she fell off the face of the earth recently.

Nah. When you own a few suburban strip malls and an office building, you sit on land you've owned since 1985 and either wait out an unsolicited offer for more than it's worth or take the tax write off and parking fees. That's where city regulations would really come in handy to get folks to turn over underutilized land. I used to think it was owned by family dollar corporate but I guess not. The same owner owns the Weiland Market strip mall. BIBIbop outlot on Henderson and the Wesbanco tower up there too interestingly enough. I wouldn't put much stock in anything happening unless they cash out.

Nope. Never talked with the unhoused or volunteered with organizations who assist, or sat on a park bench with them just to chat or anything. I don't stop to chat with John in Old North when we are both out late at night or walk him across the street or over to Portal Park in his wheelchair when he inevitably asks me. Never had a friend who lived couch to couch or anything. Totally clueless. That aside, that doesn't mean these things aren't important whether or not the person is seeking only to have a roof over their head. Providing one need only is doing a disservice simply for the sake of a body in a room. Sure, it may not be their priority but building affordable housing blocks without applying good community building practices is checking a single box in a multi-faceted approach to the needs of all residents. Folks in transitional housing might only care about a bed, but does it not do good to have other goods and services available to them to help stabilize them further? Sure, a bed might be all they need to feel stable for a moment, but is it not better to immerse them in a community and nearby services and amenities that help further that? He may not be directly caring about how far he has to walk to get some basic needs, but in the end, needing to have a car, or rely on ineffective mass transit may cost him more than if he can run to the corner store. So whether or not it's on his mind, these decisions can impact him. We can't build sustainable communities and just ignore other factors that are important, whether or not they are a concern to the tenants themselves. Would these tenants care whether or not there is a fire system? No. Given a cheaper option, how many would choose apartment buildings without them if it saved on building costs and rent? Would these tenants care whether or not they have to be moved out when the cheap siding and windows start leaking in? Poor design and poor construction is not a value for anyone, affordable units or not. And I'm not one who thinks that every building needs to be mixed used and have commerical space and such, but when it is not present or reached a saturation point, it shouldn't be much to ask for consideration to help build those foundations. It kind of goes back to the arguments some of us had on the south side developments. We need to stop excusing poor developments and poor designs for the sake of housing and affordability. When the concessions being raised are a redesign for longevity and future growth, that is not a cost prohibitive expense. We need to stop associating any pushback as being detrimental to affordability and we need to stop rubber stamping things because they are advertised as affordable. Again, it's a way for a developer to still make bank and receive little questioning. There's much more that can be discussed specifically about land use prioritization and how even just asking for a site rearrangement can draw so much backlash but if the city is serious about long term growth and affordability, it needs to stop allowing poor use of land now. Sure, there's space now. But poor land use block after block leads to entire sections of the city that are locked out of good land use in the future. And not even taking in to account the specific location, the sheer amount of land is worthy of scrutiny alone. If this were a one off building on .2 acres or something, it would be a very different scenario from nearly an entire city block.

Bodies in units does not a healthy community build. The person who lived in his car will care about whether he needs to keep said car or if he can find most of what he needs within walking distance. He will care if (like Highpoint) water starts penetrating in to the unit causing water and mold issues because the exterior materials were poorly chosen and dont withstand to weather. If it's just about roofs over heads, in the words of Scrooge, 'are there no poor houses, are there no prisons?'

Then you end up with the same results of 'projects'. Design is not meaningless. Design and affordabililty are not mutually exclusive and developers that stress that are lazy and are really about making the same profit they do off market rate, just with cheaper materials and designs. Don't be fooled in to thinking the developer is doing this out of the goodness of their heart and taking a profit hit. Any loss in profit is made up in bad design and materials and they walk away still making plenty of money. Indicating design being meaningless for affordable housing to me is just as bad as saying affordable housing shouldn't be relegated somewhere else. While some may imply relegating affordable units to less desirable areas, you're relating those living I affordable developments to be ok with living in sub par buildings and residential blocks. Two sides of the same coin. Sure, one can't be too picky but some level of scrutiny is for the betterment of all. We have to learn from the lessons of decades past. Building mass, bland, cheap, structures maximizing value and as many units as are achievable simply for the sake of putting people in units labeled as affordable invites longer term issues. Especially when we are facing a mass bland structure with materials that are EIFS, MDF, Hardie etc that notoriously lack longevity. Isolating folks from walkable communities and so on. I understand the urgency, however, there needs to be some increased level of scrutiny or we end up tearing them down in 20 years and end up with these all over town. The developer isn't going to suffer much from being asked to make changes. Even if it's only to materials and exterior design.

I agree that the issue shouldn't be so much the height or location but the overall design is very much an issue. The right to build affordable housing anywhere is important. Understanding it isn't always going to meet other potentials is also a part of any development, affordable or not. I dont have a problem that it isn't including a bunch of different elements, my biggest concern is design. I also acknowledge there is significant value in advocating for at least some sort of commerical space to be realized in the future, a pocket park for community and family use, etc. These are not ideas incompatible with affordable housing and should be advocated for. They could also be a partnership with other organizations for business incubators or charity organizations that align with committments to affordabilty and job and family services. There should be pushback for design, or massing, to meet neighborhood goals for aestetics, walkability, community etc. Anything that takes up an entire block, affordable or market rate, should have the same eye toward building community and not just units per SF. Things such as a pocket park or a retail space are going to enrich the residents, visitors, and overall area. We shouldn't expect that affordable housing be a block of housing and that's all you get. That being said, pushback because it isn't meeting some idea of the true potential of the site based on land value or location is less appropriate. I really don't like this idea of send them to the suburbs or alleys because it's prime real estate. That they can deal with managing a lacking public transit system because this land is too valuable. Affordable housing should be interwoven with all our communities, hard stop. Just make sure that when you're passing by, the average person doesn't automatically assume or know that it's affordable housing only, furthering the perception of 'projects' of days gone by and that a city block worth of housing has what it needs to meet resident and community needs more than a bland structure. Also keep in mind the downtown guidelines state that any building should be a minimum of 3 stories unless it is along High, Broad, Third, Marconi, etc where they want taller. We can bemoan about it being taller, but in reality, it meets the downtown guidelines. Just need to make sure it checks a few more boxes in terms of design and community goals. Cbussoccer is really good about bringing attention to our lack of park amenities for children as well which in an affordable housing project that takes up an entire city block, is ripe for a partnership with the city and or school for a park to help meet the city goals on that as well while helping to break up the mundane behemoth.

They shouldn't though. That's part of the stigma and cheap materials increase maintenance costs or lead to greater overall appearance degradation over time. Affordable housing shouldn't be so easily spotted. The more it blends in aestetically, the more it contributes to a healthy community. By accepting or advocating for distinctly different exterior appearance, it contributes to overall perceptions of communities and unconscious biases from things like other builders and people renting etc. The stigma of affordable housing and more historically misidentified as 'section 8' housing is still present. It's important that we promote greater integration of affordable housing in our communities, even when it comes down to design.

There once was a cold storage facility with more space than they could imagine. 👀

At worst, they could honestly benefit from even switching to an old storefront on south high or by the casino as part of those attractions and revitalization efforts. Not that that's what I'd advocate for, but it would have been better than where they are now. The good news is they have established themselves as quite an attraction even given the current location. There's only going up from there no matter where they choose.

Know what would been perfect?! An old cold storage building.... 👀

So... we still get to figure out where Otherworld is going.

I'm going to disagree on ORR being better urban design. It's just bigger. Doesn't front the road. Has a big drop off area. It really doesn't contribute to any sense of urban vibrancy other than being a big building. Much in the way that many office buildings around 270 are situated too.

I'm going to write the commission and say it overwhelms the Trinity Episcopal Church and that should get them to nix it.

My guess would be they'd start fresh. It's not far enough along that they'd seem to save a ton by trying to salvage it.

Steiner makes money on rent. Their retail spaces were not decimated. They had a few tenants they had to go after but most paid up and vacancy did not significantly rise for them. So, even if things are shut down, they were making money on most rents. They were also able to recover, whether or not they did, financial hits through the government. I say early I can see where they were likely impacted by a lack of a diverse portfolio but I can't see where it hit them beyond the ability to build an in progress building or be recovered enough to restart it 4 years later. That's not ignoring the impacts of covid. Covid can't simply be used as an excuse without reasonable questioning this far away. It's questioning whether the excuse of covid is valid for a company with over $2 billion in physical assets, significant retail growth, and 4 years of recovery. It also calls in to question what Financial footing they had going in to covid as well. Ultimately, I'll stand behind they are no better than Arshot in delivering residential and say the same thing we say about NRI, stop sitting on land and give it to folks who can get it done.

You say worst time. Easton developers say best time. How many other juggernaut developers let Covid stop and abandon an in progress building? While housing demand is still at an all time high nonetheless. I really am not convinced they were ever really committed with how fast they packed up and never restarted. Sure, they may have gotten them done but it would have stopped there. The idea that they would have definitely done one possibly two when they haven't even picked up the first is just as lofty as any quotes. Here we are 4 years later and development in the city is rapidly growing and Easton? Looking at 20-25 year plans while not bothering to finish the apartment building? The excuses are paper thin 4 years on. It's always the same excuses. And there's no results. I have no more patience for Easton. Let's go back to 1999. All they had to do, at the very least, was copy and paste their southern end apartments east, west, and south, at any point and it never happened. They can't restart the in progress housing 4 years on? Housing that wouldn't need to go through any additional engineering, approvals, etc? We can all talk about what could have been and yet there's nothing there for 25 years, now, or in the near future. So quotes and Covid and Yada Yada all amount to a big dud for housing goals. It's time to stop excusing Easton for a lapse due to covid. How much longer are we going to say, 'well, if it wasn't for covid, we'd have some apartments?' Another year? Two? Five? The fact is, there aren't any, and they haven't mustered the energy to move forward as the rest of the region has largely rebounded and then some. I wonder how many other developers would be chomping at the bit to develop the north end on a similar time frame of Gravity or Jeffrey Park?

Again, it's been 25 years of the same lofty goal to be a true Live, Work, Play district. At what time do we stop taking them seriously. That's my point, that's always my point. And there will always be recent quotes that Easton apologists will throw back but until we see action, I have zero faith they are truly serious. We can literally pull almost 30 years of articles talking plans for residential from its inception. For all intents and purposes, Easton is just about as good with residential as Arshot. Promises promises. Even moved dirt. Then nothing. Then more promises. Then nothing. Time to stop making excuses and talking grand visions and get to work and the city needs to push them to do more in a housing crunch. What they're doing is no different than when we lament NRI and others sitting on acres and acres of land with no real plan for them.

Park upgrades was always part of the plan with Parkside on Pearl. The extent of which has gone back and forth as the development of the site has taken the better part of a decade but there has long been an agreement that Wood Companies would help update the park along with the development of Parkside on Pearl. At one point in 2015 there was a competition for building a pavilion and the last number I found was Wood Companies would give 100k to an expected 250k renovation. Some of which may have been done a few years ago but not the larger renovation?

Easton hasn't been serious about residential since its inception. It was pushed that direction in its tax restructuring but the pandemic gave them the excuse to abandon those plans and with the partnership of Homeport, it allowed Easton to pawn the cost and liability of building residences off on other entities while not really dipping in to their own pockets to do so, keeping residences relegated to the non commercial area, and keeping their tax benefits. At this point, that has become even more clear. There aren't any viable excuses other than Easton is not willing to say they took a some huge financial hit, which I could see being the case. But then also lends itself to the idea that perhaps diversifying the portfolio to include alot more residential over the last 30 years may have been helpful. I don't buy any hope that they're changing direction and waiting to do a tower or something more spectacular. They have so much land that finishing the North quarter wouldn't impede any other potential development. If anything, it might push them to start reconsidering developing the western portions of the site that boast seas of empty parking lots. Especially with the potential impact of [shudders to say this] Intel, you'd think they'd be chomping at the bit to get a piece of that housing market being, potentially, the most dense and walkable environment nearby for folks that prefer that but maybe not the commute from further in town, but ...crickets. I fully recognize Easton's significance on many levels, but I hate Easton with most of my being but I LOVE the North district they started. But then I get back to hating Easton again because they have clearly abandoned what was going to be a new model for how the rest of Easton should be built out. It's a model for how other small lifestyle centers should be built out too. It felt more organic with the inclusion of different scales, architectural styles, etc compared to most of the rest of Easton and similar projects that are often glorified strip malls. I've largely refrained from ranting about Easton since the earlier days of the pandemic because there's alot of Easton apologists but at this point, I'm pretty confident this holds up as much as it did 4 years ago and even before. Who knows, maybe this will finally be the time I say this and they announce a new massive residential project next week.

There's 2 reasons the parking lot exists. 1. The Glen Echo Culvert is there. No structures can be built on it. That's a hard and fast rule. Technically, there are ways to re-engineer it to accomodate but for a mid project, not worth it the cost and process. 2. Nobody wants to deal with the CAC. When Borror was trying to develop the land, the CAC got their hands involved in the process early but was eventually left out and was very upset because essentially, Borror was being nice. Every public statement was all about being a good fit and and partner for Clintonville and 'working to determine what's best for the Clintonville Community and Neighbors' and no mentions of Old North or UD. Basically wining and dining CAC. Before they even technically bought the land, they reached out to the CAC and realized the CAC was going to call anything they tried too much. If I recall correctly, someone on the CAC even went as far as to say it was their right to be involved since the property bordered Clintonville after they were dropped from the process later on. You *could* probably bridge the gap with a curb cut entrance and building on both sides, but then you'd be before the CAC and they won't accept anything that's not a strip mall anyway. So really, the building up to the line and no further is the best outcome. Other than some tweaking, the Sintel site use is really about as good as it gets within the current confines of zoning, cost effectiveness, etc. Especially compared with the Borror proposals.

Wait til folks see how far along Indy is on BRT too

The right 'structural damage' is just a matter of paying the right 'structural engineer'. The right developer gives the the right amount of money and it's gone. A chip in the marble and a corroborating report saying it's unsound and the demo will be approved. The city only cares about whether the developer who eventually owns the land can afford to restore it. If not, get the engineer report, get stamp of approval for demo and done. It's not about excusing what the city has approved for demo, or is about to. They have clearly shown that it takes very little for them to fold. Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, and Talent doesn't matter to them. If a developer wants it gone, it goes. That's the track record. That's the observation. So unless the city plan stipulates it must be preserved, at least in large part, as a condition of redevelopment, I'll trust it as much as a fart after eating a pint of ice cream before realizing I forgot to take lactaid.

You have much more faith than I do then.

Surprised this graphic doesn't include Astor park as a gray area while at the same time highlighting the need to focus on the West AD and GIVE US THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ALREADY 😅