JYP

One of the things I have been watching in OTR is older renovations with expired abatements or that are about to expire are selling for about $20,000 less than their initial listing price or in some cases not selling at all. Most of these properties have not been renovated since the 2000's when they were done by 3CDC or Urban Sites, etc. It's interesting to see with all the fuss about abatements and gentrification in OTR, a middle-income affordable product is beginning to emerge. Meanwhile the new high-end stuff with abatements continue to command much higher prices.

I don't recall exactly but I think Columbus has a materials requirement for using brick as a percentage of the building frontage. Also they have a very early form-based code that requires buildings be built to the street, have front entrances, percent of glazing, rear parking, etc. It definitely forces development to interact better at the street level. Columbus does a better job for sure at filtering out crap design, but some of it still makes it through.

Looks to be owned by a 209 E Court LLC with a mailing address in NYC.

I swear I saw both of those pieces at the At Home store in Oakley this weekend.

I speculate that there is so much excess parking now that Encore has been built they can get away with just leasing monthly spaces in adjacent lots and garages for most of the units. Remember we have over 42,000 parking spaces in the CBD. I don't know how many exactly are within a 5 minute walk from 8th and Main but with Encore and Court and Walnut plus some of the other garages, the number is easily around 1500-2000 spaces.

There is a huge zoning disparity in most of the city and most of it stems from the last full overhaul of the city's zoning code in the 1960's. Its been updated plenty of times since then but most of it doesn't meet modern land use and market trends. The city was working on a huge overall back in 2013 called the Land Development Code which would have fixed many things with the present zoning but it was defunded five years ago and mothballed by the administration. https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/zoning-administration/view-the-draft-land-development-code/

They are not, but like other potential non-conforming uses, they are grandfathered if the zoning changes to not allow them. If KFC/Taco Bell or a similar drive-thru restaurant is there when the building becomes obsolete in about 40 years, they will likely demolish and rebuild. At that time they may be able to keep the drive-thru if the building is on the same footprint and conforms to most of whatever the zoning code says at that time.

Millennials are more likely to order food via GrubHub or UberEats than to wait in a drive-thru lane. There are plenty or reasons to support a ban on these (carbon emissions, auto-centric lifestyle, etc) however I have seen enough reasons to believe one is not entirely needed. If we require them to meet the street with an entrance, proper 1-story heights, and enough clear glazing they can become a good transition from auto-centric areas to more pedestrian-oriented areas. We have plenty of these places in cities across the country. The outright ban strategy is more about sending a message about your cities priorities. It's not needed but looks good as a news headline. Also in many of these places, if a fast-food company wants to locate there, they will find a way. First they will challenge the rule as far as the appeals process will go and if they lose they usually build the store to the city's rules or don't build it at all.

I will agree with that. The existing sign from when it was actually a "Public Comfort Station" is supposed to be the sign. My biggest pet peeve with the exterior is that its hard to tell which door to go in for the entrance. Yes its the blue door, but some people will try the beige door.

Cool it Jake. People can have differing opinions. It's always great to back them up with more than just a imperceptive statement designed to infuriate instead of inform. You can do better than this.

So the NIMBY opposition that was concerned about traffic is going to develop an anti-urban development that will ensure an increase in traffic? Got it.

Even when developed under an FBC, drive thru's still manage to suck: In Bellevue, KY: https://goo.gl/maps/gGkPb4CzPKB2BXMG6 This one in SLC is nicer but still... https://goo.gl/maps/wHUxr4iDuTVkawZM9 And the ultimate drive thru in Columbus, OH: https://goo.gl/maps/zunYJJtQ55t1nfQV6

Remember this? Anyone?

I find it hard to get excited about this news. Under contract is not "signed, sealed and delivered" so I'm not holding my breath. The owners of the Millennium have been wily in the past so I wouldn't put it past them to ghost at the last minute or screw up the deal. Vandercar has a pretty terrible record as an urban developer but they are a partner and developer for the Summit Park mixed-use at Blue Ash. I would group them with the other local developers that are trying to do urban but need coaxing to be pushed to build better. The development community for the most part is starting to get it, but they still want to do it on the cheap. If the deal for the Millennium goes through, they will need help and they will need to be challenged to design better. We can dream about skyline altering, which I am sure this one is, but the real focus needs to be on how this meets the street.

At this point the goal should be to focus on small wins. Maybe push for fare free, signal prioritization, faster towing, etc. Small things that make the system more efficient and increase public perceptions are key right now. The biggest problem has been City Hall. It's not just the Mayor but also a combination of caution and lack of expertise from Council and DOTE.

What a shame. Saw it on the news this morning.

The people that wrote the guidelines and champion the height requirements are on the OTR Infill Committee, I am not aware if any of them check UO. Many on this board can probably guess who the main driver of this is. I can tell you that many of the guidelines have been softened by the Historic Conservator but for some odd reason the height maximum is still mandatory. That is the line they are using to obfuscate this issue. I've heard the 10% guideline thrown around a few times. It's being used to placate potential opposition and distract away from the MANDATORY height max that is literally the next section of the guidelines. It's the poison pill for the whole thing IMO.

Kinda miss Toyota being HQ'd in Hebron. They at least had more high paying jobs.

No these are based on the existing guidelines. The OTR Infill Committee is trying to use the new guidelines as measure of evaluation even though they have not been formally adopted by the City. If you look at their letter in the packet they are particularly opposed to the new buildings heights. The new guidelines would eliminate the existing guideline that limits new infill to one story adjacent to an existing buildings height and replace it with a rule that no new buildings can be taller than contributing non-institutional buildings on the same block. So for example, the 5-story building on Liberty would be required to be 4-stories in the new guidelines. This would probably remove several units in the process, reducing margins on the developer pro-forma's and on a macro level, limiting the number of new units in a neighborhood where high demand and limited supply are fueling price escalation and reinforcing perceptions of gentrification.

Huge HCB meeting agenda for next Monday. Looks like 3CDC's Willkommen project will add 190 or so new units to the neighborhood. Good mix of old and new, north and south of Liberty street as well. Infill rendering in the last link. Staff recommendation for all but opposition from the OTR Foundation's Infill Committee. Not sure which way this one will go. Hoping for an approval on at least the density variances, we need this kind of urban density for downtown. https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-agenda-1-and-2/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-3-and-4/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-5/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-6-and-7/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-8-9-10/ https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-willkommen-letters-item-11-12-13/

It takes some real creativity to make some very nice historic structures look like they were transplanted straight from West Chester's "downtown"

Sign me up!

Here's a good write-up on the effort from 2011. https://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-recent-history-of-meiner-flats/

This thread has veered off-topic...unnecessarily. See what I did there? Back on topic please! Thank you.

Yes, the 10% variance is a should. The "no taller than the tallest non-institutional building on the block" clause is a "must." That is the real poison pill here. This requirement is often the line that determines if a developer pro-forma's will have enough units to pencil out or not. This goes for LIHTC and other affordable projects too. Instead of getting good urban density, we are more likely to get expensive single-family townhomes if this document is adopted as it currently is.