BlauBaum

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe the major issue is with the MSD (which is county owned--READ: THE PROBLEM--and operated by the city under a contract) versus the GCWW (which is city owned since the early 19th century). One organization drains water, the other pumps it in and purifies it.

So it goes is correct. The private garages will be built by the developer at the same time as the buildings on top of the parking podium. These garages being built now will connect with the URFC garage as well as all connecting to the RTC. When I worked for the Port Authority I actually helped us get a grant (for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) because they were planning on using these garages as a park and ride for a downtown shuttle based in the RTC.

I really disagree with changing Henry to 20th. A person from outside of Cincinnati will not be better oriented, because they would have no idea how many blocks Over-the-Rhine, or the basin stretch (without previous research...which at that point they'd just as well see Henry street on their map). We would also lose a historic street name, which is not only historic in theory, but is the intersection that is always refered to when Christian Moerlein is referenced (in books AND in beautiful historic advertisements). I have always been in favor of restoring the German street names, however.

Osam, Good to know that the entire banks will have some variety at least...and obviously I understand the limitations of time and how they effect coordination. I'm not sure though that I agree with your assessment that the only way to make this development work design-wise is to found a group willing to loose 10s of millions of dollars in some altruistic gesture for the city. This is certainly not the biggest project ever built, or the most difficult.

Weedrose, we are all kind of assuming that the infrastructure lifting the development out of the floodplain is going to be solid, long lasting stuff. If it isn't, nothing will succeed above, no matter how good the design. I took the thread to be currently discussing the aesthetics of the buildings developed on top of these garages. My point was--and maybe I was misunderstanding you--that we can't afford to make sure the garages are well built, and then just say, 'OK, now whatever can be built, as we've got good foundations and anything above them can just be torn down an we'll start over.' That would be very dangerous and wasteful--but I think the developers would like the design review board to take that stance! ;)

They would definitely have to get demolition permits for all those buildings. Does anybody know if there are any historic guidelines for Corryville? I don't think it's a historic district, but it would be useful in this case, as the body of regulations would be against razing this block. It's also good to hear that the city owns a lot of the land needed. If the city can be convinced this is not good, it could stop them from going forward with the cost of demolition.

I'm glad to see the opinions of the folks in this thread really turn on this project. This is a neglected block, but the bones of it are historic save one or two buildings. There really isn't a need to be tearing down any historic buildings in this city! On top of all of that, the last building on the block was (maybe still is) Bruce Goetzmann's office--the head of historic preservation at DAAP for many years--and is a well maintained historic town home!! The fact that anyone would have even considered this project, in this location is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that a prominent member of the very same business district would be considering this...DISGUSTING. Here's a tip for the owner of Martino's. Renovate the several buildings you already own to their former glory into an awesome bar and restaurant. Oh, and burn all the Pittsburgh sh!t while you're at it. ;)

I'm not clear on the number of levels of parking (including the exterior "Plaza" level), but it seems like a few bays(structural) on the bottom level of the McMillan side could be spared for small retail of some sort. Any amount would be better than a huge wall of parking. I guess it all depends on how far back they are willing to excavate into the hillside. It is a challenge, but I believe this is the biggest issue with the plan.

This project is really becoming very destructive. There are some really fantastic buildings on Jefferson that were once well to do homes (not to mention "the Florence" which was covered earlier in the thread). Not sure which buildings you are referring to, but it worries me to hear that.

Ram, to have a good design does not mean a signature architect needs to be involved. However your point is well taken that SEVERAL architects could have made this project less monotonous. There are multiple firms in town with the fire power to make this into a great project (most with better design credentials than C+R). A competition would have been a great way to divide this up amongst several firms, or just one prominent piece. It would also have provided a huge economic stimulus to a local architectural community that desperately needs one. Heck, make the majority of the competition judges the members of the design review board, and you could reduce the process of approval to one meeting! Oh well, what do I know?

Weedrose, this is a particularly dangerous attitude. We shouldn't be designing and building structures ESPECIALLY AT THIS SCALE, to last for only 25 years! This project will be successful if it attains LASTING SIGNIFICANCE. If it does not, it will be viewed as another failure for Cincinnati, and it will be a huge zit on the face of our city, which other cities will laugh at for the next however long it takes to get the political will to spend another vast amount of money to demolish and rebuild. I've said this several times on this forum, and I'm glad to see that Council member Qualls agrees with me, and that the design review board is doing their job. Civik: Cole+Russel MAY be capable of good designs, but they sure as heck have not been demonstrating that for a long time. They are the Walmart of Cincinnati architectural firms. How the exact team that produced the unorganized fiasco of a building that is the new SCPA in historic OTR got the largest, most publicized commission of the decade is an f-ing mystery to me. The design review board needs to keep the leash tight here, or we'll end up with a Gateway Condos project X 10. :drunk: Also, thanks Enquirer for providing us with one image of the actual design...sheesh! :x

I couldn't agree more. It's kind of disturbing how silent this group has been publicly recently. Streetcar/Progress advocates need to be out there pressing the flesh in a big sort of way! How do we get mobilized? I've sent a few emails to the CFP folks, but have only been told that a "yard sign drive" using YPs is coming up.

Having a thick stone foundation was actually the standard for a well built home in those days, and is therefore quite common here in Cincinnati. The use of concrete for a residential project would be pretty rare until the 20s or 30s. It is definitely fun to think of the associated labor moving all this raw material though! Down in OTR we have some brewery foundations that are 40-50' deep!! And of course are made of stone. It always amazes me to think of how cheap labor must have been in constructing buildings before the 20th century.

Sorry to chime in late here on the subject of the private development exteriors, but here goes: Buildings should not be judged only on whether or not they serve their initial programs well. Take the UP development. Yes, they function well, housing people, and providing spaces for retail on the first floor, but in 20 to 50 years, will people still want them around? Aesthetics are essential to create a legitimate and lasting sense of place. It is not because of the usefulness and utility of the Italianate buildings in OTR that makes them worth preserving. In fact, this is often a hindrance to preserving them. It is the quality of materials, the variety of their facades, and their overall aesthetics that make them SIGNIFICANT to our heritage and culture. We have spent a lot (politically, economically) on making this brand new neighborhood, and if we want it to be successful and last as a significant development for many years, the value that design adds must be carefully considered. We're starting from scratch, so we have a great opportunity for producing something lasting. If this turns out to be another University Park (except times 10!!), it will be a failure. This neighborhood has to be something people will find worth preserving in the future.

Looking good "Consultant". Is heat-gunning the method you've been using for stripping all of your trim, or having you tried chemicals as well? I'm especially curious what you may have had success with on interior trim (just because there is usually so much).