^ People coming from east side still often use Taft as a way of getting to Clifton from Columbia Parkway. I'd imagine McMillan gets some of this as well going the opposite way, but you're right that there isn't a whole lot of through-traffic on these streets east of 71. But through-traffic shouldn't be a pre-requisite for business district health. Many of the best Nbd's in the city aren't on through streets or otherwise very congested streets. Hyde Park Square would be on Madison instead of Erie of vehicular cut through traffic was that important. Oakley's nbd would out perform Hyde Park and Mount Lookout. My point is that I think the sorry state of the residential neighborhoods, combined with the fact that there's simply a glut of retail space, are the bigger issues facing WH's business districts than the lack of through-traffic. 

 

Oakley Square would really be something if not for Rookwood and Center of Cincinnati, etc.  Also, cars travel through that square pretty quickly.  They travel very slowly through Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout squares. 

 

Oakley Square's openness and comparative lack of buildings along it, plus lesser pedestrian presence communicates a "more speed is ok" message.  A week or two ago someone drove straight into the HP Square esplanade, taking out a big chunk of the concrete curb/wall and the fire hydrant.  https://goo.gl/maps/37R4Gn4DJsJ2  I can't find any news report about it though. 

Just what Walnut Hills needs...an orchard! :roll:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/09/06/community-orchard-coming-to-walnut-hills.html

As far as locations for a community garden/orchard, I actually think this is fine. It's on a vacant lot (of which Walnut Hills has many), it's near the highway, it's not on a corner, and May St doesn't have any retail or foot traffic.

 

^The article was a little over the top about the benefits and desire from the community. But I'd rather see that than vacant lots, and if it's all being paid for by grants, more power to them.

As far as locations for a community garden/orchard, I actually think this is fine. It's on a vacant lot (of which Walnut Hills has many), it's near the highway, it's not on a corner, and May St doesn't have any retail or foot traffic.

 

 

Yes, but Walnut Hills desperately needs housing infill.  I know this site in particular might not be all that appealing for residential development, but the article mentions that there are now more than 10 (!) community gardens in Walnut Hills.  In a neighborhood where there isn't much single family housing stock left (that hasn't been subdivided up into apartments, at least) these lots present opportunities for new single family housing to be constructed.  The residents say they want fruit? How about utilizing the Findlay Market farm stand or Kroger on McMillan, or, you know, actually going down to Findlay.  How much fruit is realistically going to be yielded from a few trees and bushes? These hair brained ideas seem to find more traction in WH than other places.

^There's a lot of vacant land in WH. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

I'd like to see WHRF pursue a partnership with a bank to offer first-time home buyers already in the neighborhood an opportunity to purchase a home with very little down payment set up as a forgivable loan. Similar to the Wells Fargo program two years ago that offered $15k in assistance for those making under a certain amount of money. It wouldn't have to be that much, but maybe help pay $5k in down payment assistance to help existing residents invest in their community.

^I think there's already some sort of program like that out there. Or at least there was recently. When I bought my condo there was the option to only need to put 1.5% (I think) down and the grant would offer me another 1.5% to get to a 3% down payment since I made under a certain amount. I chose not to go that route since I had enough for a conventional loan requiring a 20% down payment, but had I not it would have been a good option.

 

The guy I was seeing before I moved also used something similar to buy a house in Madisonville. I don't know the specific percentages associated with it however or if it was a bank-specific grant or something from the government that can be applied to any number of banks/loans.

 

And with housing prices in Walnut Hills being extremely low even a struggling family might have the ability to purchase something with this assistance. 1.5% of a $30,000 house is only $450. When you're struggling to get by paycheck to paycheck that's not a small lump of money, but it's at least within the realm of possibility.

^There's a lot of vacant land in WH. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

That's the same attitude of someone who argues that it's ok to tear down a historic building because there are tons of other historic buildings in the city.  No resource (in this case developable land) is infinite, and once the community gets used to having a garden or orchard or whatever, they aren't going to want to give that up. 

Why would anyone want to build a new, single family, house on May St.?

Right now? Nobody. But that's not the point edale is making. It's that once you put these things in place it's hard to get rid of them 10,15, 20 years down the line when someone DOES want to build something there.

 

Look at OTR. On Race Street between 14th and 15th there's a junky looking little "community garden" that I never once saw someone in despite living across the street from it for two years. It takes up 3 zoning lots in what was a, "who would want to build something there?" spot years back. Now it's in a spot where people are building new townhomes all over in the $500,000-$1,200,000 range. That spot would be great for either a few new infill buildings or one larger apartment building. But you can bet your ass that if someone proposed getting rid of that "community garden" suddenly people would come out of the woodwork talking about how amazing it is and how essential it is to the community despite all of that being a load of BS.

Yes, exactly. As soon as people get used to any kind of "pocket park", even if was originally intended to be temporary when built, the community will never let it be developed. I don't know the story of the pocket park at Orchard and Main but I assume that a building was demolished and it was too small to become a parking lot so it was just left as green space. If anyone ever proposed building a new townhouse there, Orchard Street residents would freak out even though it's really only ever used as a place for dogs to poop.

Why would anyone want to build a new, single family, house on May St.?

 

May St. is definitely a dump, like most of those streets, but it's also pinned up right against I-71 so the noise is pretty bad.  Luckily the freeway noise seems to taper off quickly in Walnut Hills because of how I-71 is in a trench.  But Symmes St. is also permanently doomed.  There is a house in horrible condition on Symmes that you would assume is uninhabited because no lights are ever on but there is a blind woman who lives there. 

There is a house in horrible condition on Symmes that you would assume is uninhabited because no lights are ever on but there is a blind woman who lives there. 

 

Well that's exceptionally depressing.

The east side of OTR is not analogous to May St. There is almost zero green space in east OTR. That is because the building were not torn down like they were in that part of Walnut Hills. and, there is much less really crappy infill in east OTR.

 

And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

The point isn't whether the built environment is the same, it's that when you choose to turn something into an official pocket park, orchard, etc. it's hard to undo that even if the intent is for it to be temporary from the get go.

 

Also, Race Street is west side of OTR.

My comments were addressed to the claim of a embedded pocket park at Orchard and Main, which is on the east side of OTR.

 

And, shouldn't existing residents be allowed to have amenities of their choosing that might make them stay in an area which most sensible people would leave the keys in the mailbox and get out?

Yes, but pocket parks, urban orchards, etc. are notoriously underutilized and notoriously difficult to make more useful or redevelop in the future.

And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

 

Yes.

Also the fix for damaged urbanism isn't "green" it's better urbanism.  In the US we have this bizarre fetish for emptiness to the point that people will protest redeveloping a parking lot because "hurr durr open space!"  It gets to absurd levels when people in Indian Hill sign away development rights to preserve "green space" in a city (no Indian Hill is not a village anymore) where most of the lots are 3 and 5 acres.  Is there really a shortage of "green space" where 100 foot setbacks and huge single-family residential-only lots are the norm?  Believe me the Italians, Danes, French, and Japanese aren't collapsing in the gutter writhing in agony due to a lack of grassy berms, overgrown weedy lots, and useless lawns. 

Wait. So the needle hasn't moved at all in Walnut Hills, you're not convinced the neighborhood is rebounding, but you're worried about future redevelopment on one of the most blighted streets in the neighborhood because this little "orchard" could deter future redevelopment?

Yes, but pocket parks, urban orchards, etc. are notoriously underutilized and notoriously difficult to make more useful or redevelop in the future.

 

OK. but isn't that the definition of a good neighborhood amenity? One the neighbors think should stay? You won't have that problem with a vacant lot with a bunch of tires and mattresses piled up, but then is that a better plan for the next 20 years for that lot?

And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

 

Yes.

 

Its 13' wide. Nothing could be built there anyway.

Also the fix for damaged urbanism isn't "green" it's better urbanism.  In the US we have this bizarre fetish for emptiness to the point that people will protest redeveloping a parking lot because "hurr durr open space!"  It gets to absurd levels when people in Indian Hill sign away development rights to preserve "green space" in a city (no Indian Hill is not a village anymore) where most of the lots are 3 and 5 acres.  Is there really a shortage of "green space" where 100 foot setbacks and huge single-family residential-only lots are the norm?  Believe me the Italians, Danes, French, and Japanese aren't collapsing in the gutter writhing in agony due to a lack of grassy berms, overgrown weedy lots, and useless lawns.

 

With regard to little infill pocket parks which is what we were talking about (not 3 acre minimums and 100 foot setbacks) the countries you mention (except for Japan) are rather famous for them.

But see a pocket park or urban garden is something that has some merit as a negative space (negative in the figure/ground sense, not negative as in bad) when it's discernible amongst the built environment.  Pocket in this sense doesn't just mean small, it means carved out of its surroundings, something different than what's around it.  When it's just one more empty space among many, whether vacant lots or excessive lawns and berms then it loses its appeal.  We as Americans are so blind to anything other than open green nature as a solution to all problems that if even in a place like Indian Hill they don't think they have enough open space then maybe that's not actually the problem. 

 

Here's some good reading material on the subject:

 

‎http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2015/072615.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2009/101109.html

 

I am not a fan of Indian hill, but the idea that an enormous village has land use controls that limit development to 3 acres or 5 acres does not bother me.

 

This isn't Paris.

 

And, if one goes out into the French countryside as I have done, many times, one finds endless villas with much more green area devoted to a single family residence than folks in Indian Hill ever dreamed of.

 

And, I've been to Venice which you linked above, and it is a complete toilet. I would rather live at a minimum security federal prison in the US  than in central Venice.

And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

 

Yes.

 

Its 13' wide. Nothing could be built there anyway.

 

Lol, says who? There was a building there previously so obviously something fits there. And as an architect, 13' of width is more than enough to make something.

And, as for Orchard and Main, are you referring to the Red Bike stand?

 

Yes.

 

Its 13' wide. Nothing could be built there anyway.

 

Lol, says who? There was a building there previously so obviously something fits there. And as an architect, 13' of width is more than enough to make something.

 

Hehe. I stand corrected.

But today's zoning won't allow anything to be built on a lot that small.

But today's zoning won't allow anything to be built on a lot that small.

 

Well, today's zoning is terrible for the most part.

Nothing a little variance couldn't fix.

16 feet wide is a very common width for a lot of the houses on 25 foot wide lots throughout the city. 13 feet would be a bit narrower obviously but not impossible to work with, given that you could find a way to use the full width of the lot for the building.

I lived in a house in Clifton Heights that was 11'-4" wide. Plenty of width for a building.

There's no little variances though.  Not only would you need a variance on the minimum lot width (which is either 20' or 25' I don't recall offhand) but also a variance to eliminate the setbacks as well.  Most residential zones, even high density ones, usually have a total of 5' of side yard setbacks, so that 13' wide lot only allows an 8' wide building.  Plus historic review and all that.  This is a lot of administrative overhead for what should be a simple affordable project, being as small as it is. 

 

I am not a fan of Indian hill, but the idea that an enormous village has land use controls that limit development to 3 acres or 5 acres does not bother me.

 

That's not the point.  The point is that Indian Hill has an extensive greenbelt program whereby property owners can (and very often do) donate land to be restricted from development, even though the area is already so lightly developed compared to most suburbs.  They still fight tooth and nail against adding just one single house on a street.  So it seems for some people no amount of buffering, woods, or nature is ever enough, so as I said before, maybe that's not really the problem.  It's the "most sprawl is caused by people fleeing sprawl" principle.

 

This isn't Paris.

 

And, if one goes out into the French countryside as I have done, many times, one finds endless villas with much more green area devoted to a single family residence than folks in Indian Hill ever dreamed of.

 

Again, that's not the point. 

 

And, I've been to Venice which you linked above, and it is a complete toilet. I would rather live at a minimum security federal prison in the US  than in central Venice.

 

The millions of tourists who go there every year just to be in Venice obviously disagree with you.  Doesn't mean it's for everyone, but neither is OTR.  I've compared Venice to OTR myself, but that's mostly because of its run-down state.  What it has going for it is a much more intact built environment and of course no traffic.  You'd really take a federal prison over that?  Give me a break.  Look at Florence, or any other town in Tuscany, or central Copenhagen, Prague, Bruges, Amsterdam, Salzburg, or Munich if Venice offends you so much.  You're fixating on things irrelevant to the discussion.  Tourists flock to these cities because of their architecture and their intimate people-oriented places defined by buildings and small walkable streets.  It's not pocket parks or urban orchards that attract people to these places. 

This is getting really off topic.

Yes, I think the issue here was whether the May St. "orchard" (which is really a community garden) is a good idea. I still think it is despite the analogies to other cities and other types of amenities.

 

Anyone who is sticking it out on May St. deserves some type of amenity that they don't have to wait 10, 20 (or maybe never) years to enjoy.

 

Playgrounds usually devolve into trouble spots in these types of areas, so what is left? I think the orchard is a good idea.

Yeah I don't think we need to stop things from happening to a few vacant lots in a troubled neighborhood because a potential person may want to build something here some day in the future, but maybe never. It's odd to me that the same people exclaiming that Walnut Hills hasn't changed and nothing is happening are the same ones professing that this will hamper future development.

The only thing is that orchards tend to be rather messy.  Unless it's well-curated, whatever fruit comes to be either gets eaten by bugs or squirrels, or it falls on the ground and rots.  The trees themselves also tend to not be all that attractive.  Granted, what sort of park doesn't require a fair bit of maintenance and attention?  The easiest is just some mown grass and trees, with maybe a few benches and flower beds, but those kinds of spaces are a dime a dozen.

I've seen a lot of orchards in Ohio fall into disuse over the years since its a difficult thing to do here... BUT this is from the Columbus perspective. Cincinnati has lizards so it may be just hot enough.

^There's a lot of vacant land in WH. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

I'd like to see WHRF pursue a partnership with a bank to offer first-time home buyers already in the neighborhood an opportunity to purchase a home with very little down payment set up as a forgivable loan. Similar to the Wells Fargo program two years ago that offered $15k in assistance for those making under a certain amount of money. It wouldn't have to be that much, but maybe help pay $5k in down payment assistance to help existing residents invest in their community.

 

 

 

I never saw a follow-up on the Neighborhood Lift Program but I was told at the time that they were concerned that they weren't going to find 200 people in the Cincinnati area who qualified.  That program came about as part of a giant class action settlement against Wells-Fargo for predatory lending and other evil activities in the mid-2000s and leading up to the crash.  I assume that their predatory activities centered around exploiting blacks and other minorities since the payouts programs all took place in cities and not in suburbs.  In LA I think I read that there was a list of available houses in specific neighborhoods but in Cincinnati the whole city was open. 

 

I went down to the event at the convention center and there they were doing predatory lending at a court-ordered event for predatory lending.  You can't make this up -- they had dance music playing and a hype man in a DJ booth in the middle, then cabana tents and fake palm trees next to "home improvement loan" booths and things like that.  So they were getting people into crappy houses with the Neighborhood Lift Program, then burying them with loans for new kitchens and back patios.  They were doing it all in plain sight and getting away with it!

 

^They definitely found 200 people. There was a waiting list for people who could get the loan if people who had already secured it failed to actually purchase a home in the time frame required. A program like this would probably be more effective at having a positive impact if it was focused on a specific neighborhood and run through WHRF or some similar nonprofit.

Yeah I don't think we need to stop things from happening to a few vacant lots in a troubled neighborhood because a potential person may want to build something here some day in the future, but maybe never. It's odd to me that the same people exclaiming that Walnut Hills hasn't changed and nothing is happening are the same ones professing that this will hamper future development.

 

Generally speaking, I'm not opposed to this orchard or garden or whatever as a stand alone project.  What does concern me is that there have now been 10 pocket parks and community gardens created in WH, and that is about all that seems to get completed in the neighborhood. Rather than creating 10 bare-bones 'parks' that will rarely, if ever, get used for their intended uses, wouldn't it be wiser to focus efforts to create one really well done park that could have a meaningful impact for the neighborhood? Creating an asset that enhances the property around it ala Washington Park would be a much better use of funding and space than these little orchards and gardens scattered around.  The needle hasn't moved in Walnut Hills, and I think a large part of the reason why it hasn't is because the entity in charge of leading revitalization efforts has been pulled in so many directions, trying to cover so many areas and provide so many different things for residents that they end up not really doing anything. I know WHRF isn't 3CDC, but look at what was successful in OTR when it was first beginning it's transformation.  They started with one block, and they totally transformed it, effectively creating a destination, no matter how small it was.  That created momentum and a clear path forward for revitalization, one block at a time.  Do you think Vine St. would be what it is today if 3CDC rehabbed a single building at 14th, created a pocket park on 13th, landed a somewhat cool restaurant tenant on 12th, etc? That is what's going on in WH right now.  "Oh, but Gomez will be opening on Gilbert, and a 3 unit apartment building was renovated on McMillan over by 71, and Brew House has a new ground level facade, and 'green man park' opened across from Fireside...see? Progress!" The revitalization process doesn't really work that way in neighborhoods that are struggling to find their starting point.  All of these projects are great in isolation, but they do little to change the long term, or even mid term trajectory of Walnut Hills.

^Paramount Theater. I understand construction hasn't started yet on this, but this is exactly what you are talking about. They are pairing it with the rest of the McMillan business district buildings they own. The office in the Paramount Theater can help secure additional funding that is unavailable to pure residential/retail, and the income from that can help offset the debt from renovating the residential/retail components.

I get a bit confused on what's going on in Walnut Hills and here is why in regards to the development of East McMillan.

 

The first development obviously was Trevarren Flats:

 

http://www.modelgroup.net/files/documents/news/2014/Trevarren%20Flats%2010-8-14.pdf

 

Then the announced the Trevarren Flats 2... I can't find an article on it, but I know I was seeing one, that would renovate that southside of McMillan alongside Trevarren Flats 1 heading west.  But they didn't receive tax credits for that.

 

Then, they announced they received tax credits but for a different area of Gilbert and the very west side of McMillan on the corner of Gilbert.  I think this is the Paramount?

 

So now, they are going forward with Paramount Square, having completed Trevarren Flats 1.

 

Trevarren Flats 2 is no go at the moment, so are they still applying for Tax Credits there as well?

 

If they get tax credits for TF2, then they will have the whole north and south side of that block humming, but not certain what the plan is now.  Can anyone clear this up for me?

 

 

"Paramount Square" absorbed "Trevarren Flats 2".

 

From this article in the Business Courier in December

 

Model Group and Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation are still working to finalize different aspects of the project. Once construction does start, Wright expects it will be about a year before the project is finished.

 

The buildings included in Paramount Square are the Paramount Building, located at 900-921 E. McMillan St., 957 E. McMillan St., 2436-2454 Gilbert Ave. and 2363 St. James Ave. The buildings on Gilbert Avenue, St. James Avenue and 957 E. McMillan St. were originally planned to be part of the second phase of Trevarren Flats, but once Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation gained control of the Paramount Building, Model and the foundation put the two together to create Paramount Square.

What about the new construction that was to be a phase 3 of Trevarren Flats? Is there any word on that? Or is that still "future development" at this point?

OK understood now.

 

Jmicha I have the same question.  I believe they were planning to demolish those 1 story buildings in between and build new construction on it.  Wonder what the plans are for that or if they are just putting it on hold at the moment??

 

Does Model Group do any new construction or aren't they mainly historic rehab?

At the open house for Phase 1 they had a mockup of the final product that still had it in the plans along with the Paramount Square stuff so as of pretty recently it was still planned to happen at some point. Hopefully it does because that would help with connecting the phases.

Parking plan irks business owners in up-and-coming Cincinnati neighborhood

 

 

A new plan to charge for parking at two lots in one of Cincinnati's fast-growing neighborhoods is causing concern among business owners.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/09/19/parking-plan-irks-business-owners-in-up-and-coming.html

Speaking of parking in Walnut Hills, the latest HCB packet has info about the new restaurant that's renovating the beatuiful art deco building at the corner of Woodburn and Madison. They want a parking variance, reducing the requirement from 34 down to 17. This still seems crazy that in a business district we require a restaurant, that might be only open a few hours a day, to "control the rights to at least 17 parking spaces within 600 feet). If we want thriving neighborhood business districts, we need to encourage sufficient density so that each individual business doesn't have to dedicate precious land/money to surface parking that will sit empty 75% of the time.

 

Proposal starts at page 167:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/september-26-2016-staff-report-and-attachments/