Civvik

I'm torn on this project. I use the bike trail, and I would love to see it go into the city. They'd better be razor sharp about preventing language from enshrining the ROW as trail only forever.

They use the numbers that support their asphalt lobby friends.

Actually the full quote from the guidelines is "New construction must employ a strong element that terminates the uppermost part of the building. Distinctive elements in the architecture of Over-the-Rhine are elaborate projecting cornices, decorative parapets and the expressive use of materials." I think that the expressed intent of those adjoined examples is pretty obvious. I don't read the second sentence as a mandate. Certainly what has been built (like One Mercer) doesn't have anything elaborate. I don't think we are disagreeing here really, I would just say that there's not evidence that they've forced this level of detail on anything. Also, I do not understand the feeling that proscribing certain forms and patterns are tantamount to forcing details onto a building that aren't appropriate for the time they are built in. Taken in isolation, removing the undulating cornice is petty. But taken in the context of tying to set even a small set of standards and precedents, I think it is not asking much. These things seem really basic to me: they are trying to prevent horizontality where there is no precedent for it; doing the same for verticality is not exactly a stretch from that concept.

I don't see how expecting a building to have certain basic elements in its form or facade is the same thing as "forcing ornamentation?" Where would you draw the line at such a concept? The existing guidelines simply say "a strong element that terminates the top of a building."

I agree with this, but then what do you do for infill at high profile sites like the lot at 12th and Vine that will demand a distinctive high quality design? (as well as some of the sites along Liberty) What do you mean? You don't do anything differently than what is already being done.

They are working.

God I wish the US would subsidize lobster dinners.

After reading all of this, I tend to think that the design guidelines in place in OTR so far have done more good than bad. As Andres Duany once said, design guidelines tend to prevent both excellent and poor design. OTR is a national treasure, and I think that poor buildings are more of a threat to the district than lack of excellent ones. If developers were pounding out excellent buildings today, I would probably think that design guidelines would be stifling. But you just have to look at Uptown or The Banks to see that things are pretty grim. Developers will build what they can get away with. Jmicha makes a decent argument for contemporary expressions of creativity, and at one point I thought perhaps a special approval process for high-quality contemporary design could be an interesting idea. But the potential for abuse would be huge, becuase contemporary design has so few rules. How do you legislate creativity and beauty? The OTR guidelines don't do that, they jut legislate conformity because that's the lesser evil than architectural chaos.

I don't mind 15th and Race at all. It's connecting one node (Liberty and Race) to another (Taft Ale House). It doesn't look faux historic to me. It's just quiet infill doing its job of filling in a gap in the block.

To follow up on this point would it really be a terrible thing to put a traditional style cornice on a John Hueber home for example? Would it really confuse people as to what's historical and what's not or detract from the significance of what's already there? And is it that big of a deal that it must be regulated? ( I am making the assumption that the "don't imitate" clause is why more new buildings don't have elaborate cornices, although cost is a factor as well I realize.) I would say that philosophically you are correct, but that in practice it doesn't have a great track record. Also a fundamental questions: Is imitation really design?

The problem is that modern buildings reflect modern industrial processes and a modern economy, ie, they are big with a lot of prefabricated components. It's a very easy temptation to want to make a statement in your facade and veer outside of what I would consider complementary to the context. (Especially when you try to do it cheap, like that ridiculous piece of Mercer Commons on Walnut.) I like the majority of stuff on this pinterest board https://www.pinterest.com/venerableprop/contextual-urban-infill/ but what does it all have in common? Fenestration and facade rhythym of course, and its humble. Which is remarkable because I'm sure a lot of it is expensive. It occupies that very narrow realm of trying to fit in without looking like you were trying to fit in.

You bring up a good example in Morris Adjmi, that studio looks to have a knack for sensing what a place feels like and expressing it in new construction, rather than simple mimicry on the one end or stark glass box modernism on the other. I would argue though that OTR is an astonishingly fine-grained built environment, more so than many of the bigger cities that designers like Adjmi can play in. You could almost say it's just downright fussy. There are very few large gestures here to emulate. I compare it to Charleston, which has had its ups and downs with infill as well. Places like Charleston and OTR are almost more like museums than city neighborhoods.

AC is not a cheap brand. It is a more reasonable price point, but still stylish. Very much like aloft hotels. I agree with you that it's not cheap like a Motel 6. But Marriott itself does not classify this brand as full-service, like for instance their W brand that was pursued for this site previously.

This doofus has to work for the company building this yawn of a "lifestyle center." We kicked this theory around a couple years ago.

I feel like 500,000 of them are mine. But I bet everyone feels like that lol.

Better street level, still ugly. But AC is supposed to be a cheap brand, so that's probably as good as it's gonna get.

I had a guy in suburban Columbus a few years ago tail me into a parking lot after I didn't let him cut in front of me going out of a green light, which the instant it turned green he began laying on his horn at all the cars in front of him. I parked, he came flying around in his car, screaming at me. If I had had a gun, I would have shot him. And I don't even own a gun. That's how much a feared for my life. I thought he was going to try to kill me. It was totally inexplicable behavior. Except it wasn't, if you consider drug use. I think this guys was probably on meth. Drugs (including alcohol) can make people do terrifying things. It's rarely just someone acting crazy aggressive in a sober state.

You know that Mercy Health building at Rookwood and 71? I heard a European contractor did that as a showcase of more European materials and design. I wonder if that group could do the AC? I don't know that you'd get a building similar to the ones in Spain without partnering with a company that actually does that kind of work?

Aww. The Herbert Hoover of the Enquirer's editorial legacy.

No I think that's actually a great idea. They could even auction them off every year and give the funds to the parks department. The problem is that Smale Park is turning out to be heavily programmed, ie, there isn't a lot of blank grassy space similar to a college quad. That's appropriate for the urban space that it occupies. I just don't know where they would put a bunch of tailgater tents.

Let's look at that from the "I don't want to pay for it because I will never use it" argument: The average Dunnhumby worker will pay over $100 a month for police and fire, a service they will statistically never use. They will pay 43 cents a month for streetcar operations, a service they will probably use at least once a year. "But you can't look at police and fire that way, their presence adds value to the city even if you're not using it." And the streetcar doesn't?

So the city budget came out today in the Enquirer. I had no idea the sheer stupidity of comparing the Police/Fire budget to the streetcar budget. The former is going to end up being 27,000% larger than the latter.

My bar for family-friendly is pretty low (No strippers? No gunfire? Chicken tenders on the menu? Check!). But really, what isn't family-friendly about Moerlein, the frozen yogurt place, all the fountains, the park, and the carousel? Does a family-friendly place need to have mediocre food? Clowns? Bibles? Ponies? Let's not forget that this city was built by families that bought their children mini beer steins on their birthday to take with them to the beer halls in OTR. Somehow we all survived.

I've tailgated at PBS before so I'm not exactly a hater, but what were fans really expecting when they proposed a riverfront football stadium downtown with development surrounding it? That's a high-profile urban spot, not appropriate for picnicking out the back of your car in a parking lot. This is the core of a lower-tier global economic center, not a rural college campus.

I do too. Is there a reason the arms have to be silver and can't be black?