There is no name for this project yet, but neighborhood leaders are spearheading a two-block redevelopment effort that will tear down a bunch of historic structures to make way for a mixed-use infill project that will includes housing targeted at future workers at Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati.

 

There is no official name for this project yet, but there are more details here:

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/walnut-hills-targets-casino-employees-for-new-housing-

 

Ink shared this picture of the block in question in the Demolition Watch Thread:

Well this redevelopment effort is picking up steam quickly, and came out of nowhere:

 

http://soapboxmedia.com/devnews/0426walnuthillsrevitalization.aspx

I'm beginning to wonder if this city is worth saving.  The citizens hate it.  The state gov't hates it.  Most of the people in the city that care about its historic architecture or want Cincinnati to become a Chicago or Philadelphia are on this forum daily.  Not trying to be negative for the sake of being negative but honestly, this city is going nowhere fast.  By the time rail transit revitalizes the urban core, there won't be any 19th century storefronts left in Cincinnati.

Yes this would definitively be a big lost.  McMillian really has a wonderful historic stock.  Why are the city leaders oppossed to rehabbing the buildings and still using them as apartments for casino workers?

in the interest of fairness, that picture must be decently old. i'm pretty sure that the building pictured prominently with the paramount vodka sign doesnt even exist anymore... (per the soapbox article, i believe it was the one that was demolished in february... and even on google earth, the building looks significanly more decrepid than it does in your photo.) they do appear to be interested in saving what is deemed "historically significant" specifically what that means to members of the board, or whether or not i am convinced that they will, is yet to be seen... but as i feel is all too often the fault of many on this board, just because it is old does not mean its good or significant. the character of a neighborhood does not come from a cornice. time and design did not stop in 1900. modernism and postmodernism, specifically when dealing with urbanity is total shit and has left us with quite a stain on most of our cities. but reverting to the techniques and styles of our predecessors is not the answer. architectural form is reflective of the population it serves. the needs and skill set of people 100 years ago, were such that those building types were pervasive. now, unfortunately, we have too many people making half-assed attempts at historicist architecture and lt looks pathetic. either save something or tear it down and build something that speaks to the will of our epoch. 

 

 

personally i am in favor of saving as much as humanly possible and i sincerely hope that they decide to do so, but in many cases (just as old doesnt equal good) new doesnt always equal bad. i am tired of new urbanist faux historicis bullshit. many of the buildings on that street (including that awful "divine day care center" across the street) could be demolished and infilled without significantly altering whatever character you may perceive east mcmillan street to have. street presence is the key in any attempt at urbanity, not necessarily what is above it.

^Great point about street presence.  North High in Columbus is a perfect example of this.  North of High and Dodridge, just past the Old North Columbus commercial district, the street opens up significantly and coincides with a major erosion of charm.  Who knows what Columbus could be if the area between Dodridge and North Broadway had a greater street presence even with Gateway-ish architecture.

Dlueg,

Excellent points in your post. However, this stretch of McMillan is one of the more intact 19th century commercial areas outside of the OTR and should not be targeted for an "urban renewal" type redevelopment.  To do so erases the rich history and built legacy of the neighborhood, to be replaced by what?  I'm in total agreement that modern in-fill development in a historic streetscape can be gawd-awful in mimicking the originals; to successfully blend new construction to be visually compatible with the old takes considerable design talent.  Better to stick to a modern design but not put a Frank Gehry-type organic modernist structure right next to an 1870's classic Italianate. (but some people like this kind of jarring architectural juxtaposition and esthetic dissonance)

 

In the specific case of McMillan, the redevelopment is based and motivated by speculation, i.e., that if housing is built and specifically targeted to the as yet incompleted Casino's employees, they will take up residence there. Are the folks marketing this project going to offer Casino employees subsidized rent for a year? A big screen TV with free cable? Suppose the housing looks bland or so generic design-wise that it looks like any other kind of mid to low income apartment housing built from Miami FL to Seattle, WA? Was it worth it then to get rid of the 19th century originals and replace them with more "Mac-partments"? Sure, the 19th century originals need work-if, by some miracle, anything being built today is still standing in 2125, what condition do you think it will be in?  Modern construction is designed with built-in obsolescence in mind-that is a total departure from the 19th century building philosophy that buildings should last for generations. (proven by these 125 year old buildings still standing, despite minimal maintenance in many cases) So, the thinking is that new and shiney is the best way to go.

 

A whole 'nother argument could be made from a sustainability-environmental viewpoint; current trends point to a future that is less wasteful if the future is to allow us sustainable living; let's not fool ourselves into thinking the replacement housing will be built for generations. It won't. By the time this as yet unbuilt housing is itself being demolished 30-40 years from now the Casino may be a distant memory shared only among the elderly. Few will care or even notice these as yet unbuilt housing units then being torn down. Such is modern architectural economics: the focus, like much of our current business model philosophy, is on the very short term. Hence the often repeated futuristic scenario that guarantees everyone their 15 minutes of fame-our cultural focus today is squarely on the here and now. It is a weak, shallow culture of instant gratification that dominates all aspects of modern life.  So I contend that the old architecture is worth saving and there are abundant examples across the country that prove perserving and rehabilitating the old is appealing and economically worthwhile. One need not look any further than the OTR to see evidence of that. But money talks while everything else walks, so this is a done deal-developers, builders, and marketers, will divide up the quick profits and the nearby residents will be left to like or dislike what is built there to replace all of the old. I certainly hope the new development exceeds everyone's expectations and is quite profitable.

I've been talking with those who are on the community council, and for the purpose of fairness, they have made it clear that they are going for an urban perspective.  They aren't just aiming the project for Casino workers, they want a mixed income community that includes empty nester bloomers, young professionals and affordable apartment units.  Finally, they are trying the hardest they can to get stabilization funds, but they don't have the resources that 3CDC does to be able to save everything.

 

I wish they could have at least saved the Facade of the "Paramount Vodka" building, that one was one of my favorites, and is one of the all too rapidly disappearing buildings that makes Cincinnati completely unique in the Midwest and rare in this country.

 

I'm concerned that because Cincinnati doesn't have much exposure to it, the community council won't understand what good quality urban infill is like and we'll get more uptown prop style suburban apartment complexes.  Barring a small handful of Downtown and Over-The-Rhine projects, there is hardly any of it in Cincinnati at all - most of it tends to be suburban style vinyl sided boxes.  I hope that they consider what's being built in other cities in Cincy's architectural league and work towards getting developers to build better quality so we don't have to go on a crazy witch hunt every time another decrepit but beautiful old building bites the dust.

 

Finally, take a look again at the article under the facebook comments section, there is a pretty good conversation going on.

"They aren't just aiming the project for Casino workers, they want a mixed income community that includes empty nester boomers, young professionals and affordable apartment units.  Finally, they are trying the hardest they can to get stabilization funds, but they don't have the resources that 3CDC does to be able to save everything."

 

Let's look at that statement and analyze some of the conclusions to be reached. First, local media coverage emphasized that the housing market demographic to be targeted was Casino workers. Ok, so now it is being expanded to include "empty nester boomers" (read: the 55+ set) young professionals (I assume "young" in this case means post-university/college graduates but probably not families with children) and "affordable apartments". The term "affordable" is relative. Affordable for someone receiving Fed. housing assistance may be a couple of hundred dollars a month; for a millionaire, it may be in the thousands per month. But I think the idea here is to target the lower plus to mid-range income segments. Nothing wrong with that-but again, when you mention "exciting" housing choices to younger Cincinnatians, Walnut Hills would likely come in near the bottom. As for the "boomer" post 55 set, most older people put a premium on relative safety-yes, a fortress-like apartment building might afford a sense of security, but there's little to no interaction with the neighborhood in such surroundings. Boring.  Given the neighborhood surroundings, it will be challenging for the developers and marketers to come up with something so unique it will appeal by itself to those they claim as their future tenants. Maybe they could bulldoze all of Walnut Hills and build a new neighborhood from scratch, but if they cannot even find stabilization funds, then how can funds be found for something massive like that?

 

Giving up on the historic buildings due to a lack of stabilization funds is taking the easy way out. Perhaps a list of all older neglected structures in Cincinnati could be created and each and every building demolished-problem solved, right? Rehabilitation of older structures should not be viewed as a lesser alternative choice to new construction. It's true that 3CDC created conditions that made it attractive to rehabilitate structures in the OTR, but the renaissance of the OTR is driven now by new investment from savvy developers who see there's a great local market for nicely rehabbed 19th century buildings. These are for folks of all ages who want to live in a place with character and a sense of history.  Replacing the McMillan streetscape with bland modern apartment buildings does not serve the kind of people who would choose to live in the OTR. Those who seek new apartments also want safe apartments and the perception is that this area is not very safe. The OTR still has a safety image problem as well but those people who want to live in a place with history and character are willing to accept that. (with the premise that as the OTR gentrifies, it will become safer)  These new vs. old apartment dwellers are different demographic groups with different outlooks.  They are very similar to Suburbanites who wouldn't live in anything over 20 years old and certainly not in the inner city vs. urbanists who consciously choose to live in a 125 year old dwelling located in the inner city. (and who shun Suburban sprawl and all it stands for)

 

To me, what is being offered are new inner-city apartments being targeted to suburbanites. As has been witnessed in many older areas throughout the City, new apartments quickly become dated, and over a few decades can become virulent and ugly. Does Walnut Hills want to assume this long-term risk? But wait, that's the whole philosophy behind modern construction, build it to last 30-40 years, then tear it all down and build again. As previously stated, this part of Walnut Hills is more intact with its historic architecture than many others; once these 19th century buildings are gone no amount of hindsight will ever bring them back.  They should be looked upon as a precious, finite asset that cannot be replicated today-by choosing the new, this will determine the future of the neighborhood. I suspect it will have a neutral to slightly negative impact on the neighborhood. My gut feeling is that this is short-sighted and a mistake.  The OTR and even the West End may become some of the priciest real estate in Cincinnati in 20 years and will rocket up in value while Walnut Hills remains, well, Walnut Hills-there are plenty of examples to prove this likelyhood.  But as I said, modern culture lives in the here and now and puts off any thoughts about the future especially when it might involve looking back and respecting the past.

 

 

^

I like your enthusiasm, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.  There is a LOT of historic architecture in Walnut Hills and East Walnut Hills, both in the residential side streets, and the main commercial streets.  The article did say that certain properties were going to be saved for their historic value, and there are only 14 parcels in this whole discussion.  Is it a shame that some beautiful buildings are being demolished? Absolutely.  Does Cincinnati need to look long and hard about it's current historic preservation (or lack there of) tactics? Absolutely.  Is this project going to destroy the neighborhood and create an inner city Mason? No.  People drawn to urban living will definitely still be drawn to Walnut Hills and EWH because of the architecture, proximity to Uptown, Downtown, and Eden Park, and variety of housing styles that can be found in the neigborhood.  The DeSales Corner area is experiencing a bit of a boom, with investment slowly but surely spilling over from the new construction, and filling up the older buildings with new uses such as retail stores, restaurants, galleries, etc.  The new construction there breathed some life into that district, and there is the potential for this project to give McMillan a similar boost.  No need for extreme alarmism yet...let's just wait until we see some renderings.

The McMillan-Peebles Revitalization Project did not come out of nowhere. The community and city have been talking about it for more than 20 years. The Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation and community leaders are consulting with the Cincinnati Preservation Assn. and others on finding any means possible to save historically significant structures on East McMillan. Recent media coverage has not pointed to efforts to save four large, significant and highly deteriorated buildings across from the Kroger store. McMillan has significant pedestrian traffic. The "Paramount Vodka" building at Concord St was literally falling to the sidewalks below, including at least two bays ready to collapse. It's sad that so many of these treasures were allowed to deteriorate to this point. Everyone posting here would do well to lobby city, state and federal officials for the funding necessary to save as many as possible, in Walnut Hills and elsewhere.

The McMillan-Peebles Revitalization Project did not come out of nowhere. The community and city have been talking about it for more than 20 years. The Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation and community leaders are consulting with the Cincinnati Preservation Assn. and others on finding any means possible to save historically significant structures on East McMillan. Recent media coverage has not pointed to efforts to save four large, significant and highly deteriorated buildings across from the Kroger store. McMillan has significant pedestrian traffic. The "Paramount Vodka" building at Concord St was literally falling to the sidewalks below, including at least two bays ready to collapse. It's sad that so many of these treasures were allowed to deteriorate to this point. Everyone posting here would do well to lobby city, state and federal officials for the funding necessary to save as many as possible, in Walnut Hills and elsewhere.

 

These are very good and valid points. As others have noted, doing nothing is this area will not change anything except for more emergency demolitions as some of these elderly structures are reaching a "tipping" point due to deterioration. While I agree that funds from city, state, and federal sources would be extremely beneficial, we have now entered a period of austerity and very tight governmental budgets. At a time when public employees,  teachers, and even first responders are being given pink slips, it's unrealistic to expect a windfall of public funds to come save these or any other historic Cincinnati treasures.

 

So where could funds to rehabilitate these buildings come from? The obvious answer is from the private sector. No, there are no fabulously wealthy patrons of architecture who would selflessly dedicate a million dollars or two to save these buildings, but by considering the OTR as a template, individual buildings could be marketed to the same developers who are transforming them in the OTR.  If a TIF district or some other form of tax incentives could be put in place to "sweeten" the deal, maybe at least one structure could become the test model to see if this kind of rehabilitation would work in Walnut Hills. I know of at least one apartment building on Gilbert that was successfully rehabbed in recent years although I think HUD funding went into that project.

 

Developers are only seeking a decent return on their investment-if that return comes from rehabilitation of a historic building or from building a new one, it matters little.  For now, at least, new construction has been chosen as the path to revitalization and if successful, there's no reason to think it will end with these 14 buildings being torn down. At some point, the presence of new overtakes the old streetscape and the old disappears completely.  Take a look at the downtown riverfront photos from the 1930's and try to find any of the old buildings there today. My contention is transforming the neighborhood in this manner wastes some potentially valuable historic buildings that would be more valuable in the long run than anything new to be built there.  The choice to build new in place of rehabilitating the old is NOT reversible as the act of building new always requires destruction of the old.  Walnut Hills in the late 19th century was one of Cincinnati's nicest neighborhoods and full of prosperous merchants and their families. The architecture there still reflects that. It would be a shame to lose that historic identity so every new construction project should be evaluated not just on the basis of profitability for the developer, builder, and marketers, but how it will benefit the neighborhood itself (over the long term) and the nice folks who call Walnut Hills home.

Along these lines, I wonder how much money could be generated via a Kickstarter and a good social media based campaign that would include blogs and new media publications like Soapbox media and possibly using bars to host events to fundraise?  I'm not sure if it would be good for raising 100s of thousands of dollars, but it might not be a bad idea to run something like this periodically just to build up a bank of funds for future use towards stablization.  Get a good grassroots movement going on, because there are people who care about the architecture, but communication between neighborhoods and different groups in Cincy is very poor.  Just some thoughts.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/

 

Any thoughts?

A thought, and I don't know if this was floated, but was it feasible to do the bare minimum to stabilize the structures, then encourage developers to fill in the gaps?  The gaps being filled in would raise property values and make the area more attractive to investors.

 

Another curiosity, its my understanding (though to make this clear, this is just through rumor, not necessarily fact) that the Alms Hotel Apts are a source of a lot of the crime in the area.  If this is reduced this would help revitalize the area.  If this is the case, has there been pressure put on the landlords of that building as well as local police to clean it up?

Has there been an updates on this project?

Many lots have been cleared and prepped for investment. Also, City apparently has plans to make McMillan & taft 2-way between May st & victory Parkway.  East Walnut Hills/St. Ursula are not supporting 2-way conversion beyond Victory.

On a personal note, ive started to feel that Walnut Hills will be the next OTR in terms of urban renaissance. However, I would say Walnut Hills 2017 will be OTR 2008.

 

NOTE: Edited to be slightly more realistic.

^ That timeline sounds extremely optimistic.

Walnut Hills was at one time the 2nd largest employment center in the city after downtown, hence the great historic fabric along McMillan and Taft. I'm kinda upset about losing some of these buildings to prospectors thinking it would become workforce housing for the casino. However; there's plenty of opportunity in the neighborhood, especially with the reintroduction of 2-way traffic.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120204/NEWS/302100005/The-renaissance-Walnut-Hills?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

Great article posted on cincinnati.com. It would be great to see Walnut Hills turn around and save so many great buildings.

Except the article states that the developers are going to bring down more.  I'm happy some stuff is saved, but again the worry comes back to sheer quality of infill in Cincinnati, which all too often is really low.

Except the article states that the developers are going to bring down more.  I'm happy some stuff is saved, but again the worry comes back to sheer quality of infill in Cincinnati, which all too often is really low.

 

I understand what you are saying. But you have two choices, don't tare any down and they ALL will be gone or tare down a few to save more. Same goes for OTR.

 

"I noticed a couple of new camera along Vine, at 13th and 14th street. Nice to see if you ask me.  I assume they are police cameras.  They are mounted on large arms on the tops of the buildings."

"Your observations are accurate. Police department mounted the cameras. These cameras transmit real time and are capable of zooming in/out the distance of a few blocks. Camera at 13th & Vine is mounted on the buddy's place building, 1300 Vine, owned by Over-the-Rhine Community Housing. They allowed the Police Dept to do so. The camera near 15th & Vine is also mounted on a building owned by OTRCH - 1511 Vine Street. These cameras are $25,000 a pop and although I don't have the specific details in front of me (I learned all of this at one of the public Washington Park Safety Sector meetings + took notes) I do know there are several other new cameras up in OTR as well, North of Liberty."

 

This would be a great idea for this area aswell.

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16431.2070.html#ixzz1loUisz2x

http://uptownaccessstudy.com/Images/PDFs/Open_House2%20materials/AltF.jpg

 

This is the preferred alternative for the two way conversion.

^Very interesting Thanks for posting! Has there been any preliminary drawings for the proposed new exit/onramp?

Does this mean we won't have to look at ghetto trash hanging out? Its amazing how that very thing abruptly stops at the McDonalds.

Does this mean we won't have to look at ghetto trash hanging out? Its amazing how that very thing abruptly stops at the McDonalds.

 

wow....

 

But on topic, This will be great for this strip, and will hopefully be able to work to revitalize this area and reactivate the pedestrian space to spur storefront reopenings.

 

I wish they'd take the two-waying to its full extent on at least one end of the corridor.  If west of I-71 is a no-go, then they should take it all the way to Woodburn.  I don't know why St. Ursula is opposed to two-waying, but really, for both Taft and McMillan to go from two-way to one-way to two-way and back to one-way again just doesn't sit right with me. 

I was told that it is more dangerous for the kids to have to look both ways to cross the street instead of just one way and yes i am being serious.

 

*sigh*

If there's any logic in that reasoning, which there's not, it would be offset by the fact that two-way traffic will be slower than one-way traffic.

Does this mean we won't have to look at ghetto trash hanging out? Its amazing how that very thing abruptly stops at the McDonalds.

 

I was told that it is more dangerous for the kids to have to look both ways to cross the street instead of just one way and yes i am being serious.

 

This thread is full of win.

Does this mean we won't have to look at ghetto trash hanging out? Its amazing how that very thing abruptly stops at the McDonalds.

 

I was told that it is more dangerous for the kids to have to look both ways to cross the street instead of just one way and yes i am being serious.

 

This thread is full of win.

 

Don't understand why you are grouping my reply to a legit question with a legit response with that other guys comment.

^ Ya, actually neither do I.  the first comment is idiotic.  yours is actually a strange, but true point that is being made by St. Ursula.

I wish they'd take the two-waying to its full extent on at least one end of the corridor.  If west of I-71 is a no-go, then they should take it all the way to Woodburn.  I don't know why St. Ursula is opposed to two-waying, but really, for both Taft and McMillan to go from two-way to one-way to two-way and back to one-way again just doesn't sit right with me. 

 

The Community of East Walnut Hills and the administration of St. Ursula is opposed to this at this time.  The school sites that two way traffic would be more dangerous.  I doubt the City is going to make it two way if the community isn't clamoring.  Walnut Hills seems to have their act together and is clearly doing a great job of pushing for this.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/WalnutHillsRF

 

Anyone who cares like the page!

http://hosted2.ap.org/RIPRJ/37624898f7fc47e881149bd4a0c12011/Article_2012-02-10-Neighborhood%20Rebirth/id-7adb7ff9338d4c4285ab03647d0e94d4

 

another article

awesome. 

 

Here is the PDF of the preferred alternative for the two way conversion.

 

http://www.uptownaccessstudy.com/Images/PDFs/Open_House2%20materials/AltF.jpg

Does this mean we won't have to look at ghetto trash hanging out? Its amazing how that very thing abruptly stops at the McDonalds.

 

I was told that it is more dangerous for the kids to have to look both ways to cross the street instead of just one way and yes i am being serious.

 

This thread is full of win.

 

Don't understand why you are grouping my reply to a legit question with a legit response with that other guys comment.

 

I'm so blunt that I come off as being a jerk sometimes.  Sorry if I offend.

Check out the progress being made on some buildings on East McMillan. See more pictures on the Walnut Hills Redevelopment Facebook page.

 

 

oooo I'm loving those vintage flourescent fixtures. those are tasty.

oooo I'm loving those vintage flourescent fixtures. those are tasty.

 

8 foot long T-14's I think, totally old school. 

Some more updates:

First photo is the front of the building being renovated, 2nd is the foundations for town homes being build right off E. McMillan, the last 2 are buildings that may have announcements soon about renovations.

Some more updates:

First photo is the front of the building being renovated, 2nd is the foundations for town homes being build right off E. McMillan, the last 2 are buildings that may have announcements soon about renovations.

 

Great news - so happy for Walnut Hills

The Fire Dept. building and the one next to it are ones I thought would have been a killer redevelopment for about 20 years now!

 

The Fire Dept. building and the one next to it are ones I thought would have been a killer redevelopment for about 20 years now!

 

Yeah, but I keep getting Ghostbusters flashbacks on that photo.

 

"City leaders partner with Walnut Hills to advance two-way street conversions"

 

Plan is to start the 2-way conversion this fall.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/07/city-leaders-partner-with-walnut-hills-to-advance-two-way-street-conversions/

 

 

The first new storefront tenant preparing to move in. Hopefully more to come soon.

 

"City leaders partner with Walnut Hills to advance two-way street conversions"

 

Plan is to start the 2-way conversion this fall.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/07/city-leaders-partner-with-walnut-hills-to-advance-two-way-street-conversions/

 

 

 

An absolute must: as long as there's a high-speed arterial it's a driving district, it is most certainly not a business district. Funny how there are stripmalls with several stop signs and pedestrian crossings which are much more pedestrian-friendly than "urban" "business"districts like these.

They already have new traffic signals up from May Street to Park Avenue.