1 minute ago, Troeros2 said:

When is that giant grassy lot that has been vacant for over 20 years plus going to be developed? (The grass lot that’s across the cross roads church).

 

I swear development has been promised there time and time again but always falls apart. Is the land just impossible to build on? It seems the land around UC is becoming quite in demand lately so I simply don’t get why such a large plot of land can sit with weeds for this long. 

 

With how much UC is acquiring land and property for the "Cincinnati Innovation District", I wouldn't be surprised if it's now land speculation. 

 

It'd be nice to see UC build another Sawyer Hall on it with some commercial or offices on the lower levels.

Happy with the level of density that's going to help this stretch. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1277296,-84.5174211,3a,75y,104.96h,99.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szg5YM0LypvhBvHwFYIgOuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

Next up is the corner of Auburn/McMillan hopefully and someday that grassy hill lot.

Edited August 31, 20213 yr by tonyt3524

2 hours ago, tonyt3524 said:

Happy with the level of density that's going to help this stretch. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1277296,-84.5174211,3a,75y,104.96h,99.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szg5YM0LypvhBvHwFYIgOuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

Next up is the corner of Auburn/McMillan hopefully and someday that grassy hill lot.

Yes, absolutely the best news out of all this! 
 

That said, adding nearly  500 new residents, along with the other expanding developments occurring around UC..and UC expanding their student  acceptance population  almost every year…most of these kids drive and are car dependent.

 

Clifton/Clifton Heights will definitely hit a breaking point with parking spaces versus total population living there. 

22 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

Yes, absolutely the best news out of all this! 
 

That said, adding nearly  500 new residents, along with the other expanding developments occurring around UC..and UC expanding their student  acceptance population  almost every year…most of these kids drive and are car dependent.

 

Clifton/Clifton Heights will definitely hit a breaking point with parking spaces versus total population living there. 

 

I'd honestly say that area has already hit a breaking point. When I lived on Victor Street there would be times where there was no parking from Ohio to Fairview. 

 

As for car dependence, I think the streetcar coming up to Clifton would help a lot. I also think it might be time to start looking into getting residence permits for the streets around campus with limited numbers. Maybe one or two cars per apartment. I would be interested to see how the cuf landlords chopping up the inside of houses to have crazy densities have impacted how much parking there is. From my experience, many of the cars parked on these streets rarely move unless there is a long weekend or holiday break when all the students return home. 

Just noticed the architect on this. His office is a five minute walk from my house in Columbus. Would have never thought he did stuff of this scale...in Cincinnati.

UC simply needs to renegotiate a deal with Metro that gives all students, faculty, and staff free unlimited rides on Metro via an opt-in procedure. UC pays $X for each person who opts in to the system at a discounted per semester rate. The student/staff sees no direct costs.

 

Simply link up to the Transit app to give students/staff passes they can show on their phone. The incentive for Metro to work with UC to establish regular ridership from students to get them accustomed to riding transit should not be underestimated.

 

Unfortunately everyone is looking out for the current budget, and not their long term benefit. We could drastically reduce car ownership around campus if we leaned into this.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

UC simply needs to renegotiate a deal with Metro that gives all students, faculty, and staff free unlimited rides on Metro via an opt-in procedure. UC pays $X for each person who opts in to the system at a discounted per semester rate. The student/staff sees no direct costs.

 

Simply link up to the Transit app to give students passes they can show on their phone. The incentive for Metro to work with UC to establish regular ridership from students to get them accustomed to riding transit should not be underestimated.

 

Unfortunately everyone is looking out for the current budget, and not their long term benefit. We could drastically reduce car ownership around campus if we leaned into this.

 

UC didn't renew that deal to buy new shuttle buses for around campus and the blue ash route. I don't see them wanting to renegotiate a deal with Metro when most students live near campus anyway. I also think the students who would ride the bus are going to do so regardless of subsidization. Whereas the people the subsidization would target, e.g. people who bring their cars to the campus area, will have a negative view on busses prior and not utilize it. 

 

On the other hand, I think if UC spent some dough getting a shiny new streetcar route up to campus, I think a lot of students would use it rather than the less "old and dirty" busses. Since there isn't already a negative view on streetcars when they come to campus.

 

1 hour ago, Troeros2 said:

 

Clifton/Clifton Heights will definitely hit a breaking point with parking spaces versus total population living there. 

 

As somebody who works on campus and in athletics, I can definitely attest to us already being there IMO.

8 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

I also think the students who would ride the bus are going to do so regardless of subsidization. Whereas the people the subsidization would target, e.g. people who bring their cars to the campus area, will have a negative view on busses prior and not utilize it. 

 

On the other hand, I think if UC spent some dough getting a shiny new streetcar route up to campus, I think a lot of students would use it rather than the less "old and dirty" busses. Since there isn't already a negative view on streetcars when they come to campus.

 

 

I strongly disagree with your assumptions about peoples' willingness to ride the bus. Yes, people in general have a negative view of buses without ever riding them, but by forcing people to pay to ride for the first time, you're dissuading them from trying it in the first place and learning how it works. The only reason I started riding the bus is because it was free to ride for students, and brought me downtown.

 

UC is never going to fork over tens of millions of dollars to subsidize a streetcar extension to campus. They may be willing to pay several hundred thousand dollars every year to give their population free rides across the region. I understand UC has incentive to improve their shuttle service. It makes students feel safer around campus in a way that bus passes don't. I don't fault them for prioritizing their shuttles because it is a selling point to attend the university. I think Metro needs to be more flexible and work toward free rides for students and making it worthwhile to UC financially.

I moved to Cincinnati to go to UC. I first went to Clermont so I lived out there for my first 9 months. When I transferred to the main campus, the Metro pass for UC students encouraged me to use the park & ride out there, instead of paying for parking. I then moved to O'Bryonville and kept using Metro, even though it tripled my commute time. It was great and I miss it.

 

That said, the student pass won't change much for the parking and traffic congestion in the short-term. The system itself, and the network, is just not good enough. They should still pay for it though, to give everyone the option to use it. They should also restore the program to be proactive. If our infrastructure and system does get updated, they should be ready to take advantage of it.

1 minute ago, Dev said:

I moved to Cincinnati to go to UC. I first went to Clermont so I lived out there for my first 9 months. When I transferred to the main campus, the Metro pass for UC students encouraged me to use the park & ride out there, instead of paying for parking. I then moved to O'Bryonville and kept using Metro, even though it tripled my commute time. It was great and I miss it.

 

That said, the student pass won't change much for the parking and traffic congestion in the short-term. The system itself, and the network, is just not good enough. They should still pay for it though, to give everyone the option to use it. They should also restore the program to be proactive. If our infrastructure and system does get updated, they should be ready to take advantage of it.

 

I ended up moving down to OTR in my junior year and taking the bus every day to campus for my final 2 years (at that point they removed the free option, and I had to pay $1 per ride, but I was already accustomed to riding).

 

Especially with the new 24 hour service along the trunk lines (17 and 78 passing either side of campus), I could see more people looking to utilize that to get from OTR/downtown back to campus on the weekends. Instead of spending $40 to take an uber, you can hop on the bus for free.

11 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I strongly disagree with your assumptions about peoples' willingness to ride the bus. Yes, people in general have a negative view of buses without ever riding them, but by forcing people to pay to ride for the first time, you're dissuading them from trying it in the first place and learning how it works. The only reason I started riding the bus is because it was free to ride for students, and brought me downtown.

 

UC is never going to fork over tens of millions of dollars to subsidize a streetcar extension to campus. They may be willing to pay several hundred thousand dollars every year to give their population free rides across the region. I understand UC has incentive to improve their shuttle service. It makes students feel safer around campus in a way that bus passes don't. I don't fault them for prioritizing their shuttles because it is a selling point to attend the university. I think Metro needs to be more flexible and work toward free rides for students and making it worthwhile to UC financially.

 

Upon further thought and looking at the bus route map, I think you're right. I think getting a transit center with a proper building and shelter on centrally located on campus. The bus stops currently around campus, besides the one on Jefferson are either signs or a small shelter. 

 

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

 

I ended up moving down to OTR in my junior year and taking the bus every day to campus for my final 2 years (at that point they removed the free option, and I had to pay $1 per ride, but I was already accustomed to riding).

 

Especially with the new 24 hour service along the trunk lines (17 and 78 passing either side of campus), I could see more people looking to utilize that to get from OTR/downtown back to campus on the weekends. Instead of spending $40 to take an uber, you can hop on the bus for free.

 

I've used the 24-hour service before to go downtown and to OTR. It's nice, except for there being a lack of proper bus stops throughout OTR and downtown.

Just now, ryanlammi said:

 

I ended up moving down to OTR in my junior year and taking the bus every day to campus for my final 2 years (at that point they removed the free option, and I had to pay $1 per ride, but I was already accustomed to riding).

 

Especially with the new 24 hour service along the trunk lines (17 and 78 passing either side of campus), I could see more people looking to utilize that to get from OTR/downtown back to campus on the weekends. Instead of spending $40 to take an uber, you can hop on the bus for free.

Rebranding could also help with the 17 and 78. SORTA has stated that they are interested in getting rid of the numbers to make the lines more intuitive. I don't know what they could be renamed to but I think they are leaning towards colors so maybe they could be "red" and "black" since they end up bracketing the school.

5 hours ago, RealAdamP said:

 

Upon further thought and looking at the bus route map, I think you're right. I think getting a transit center with a proper building and shelter on centrally located on campus. The bus stops currently around campus, besides the one on Jefferson are either signs or a small shelter. 

My understanding from public meetings was that as of November 2020, the uptown transit center is planned to be part of the UC Health garage, north of MLK between Burnet & Harvey. I'm not sure it will be centrally located enough to move the needle for students, but could for the uptown area more broadly if given some level of priority - and it is better than the originally proposed location for a transit center. 

14 minutes ago, shawk said:

My understanding from public meetings was that as of November 2020, the uptown transit center is planned to be part of the UC Health garage, north of MLK between Burnet & Harvey. I'm not sure it will be centrally located enough to move the needle for students, but could for the uptown area more broadly if given some level of priority - and it is better than the originally proposed location for a transit center. 

That is an improved location, in that it would at least serve the hospital complex well. The underlying challenge to “Uptown” is that it isn’t monocentric. There is no “center.”

Has anybody heard when construction is going to start on 1A of the Deacon? I think they're calling it the hub. Was driving around campus yesterday looking at all the construction and was disappointed to see that this lot is sitting idle. 

 

On a side note, it's nice to see two tower cranes right on campus. 

13 hours ago, Cincy_Travels said:

Has anybody heard when construction is going to start on 1A of the Deacon? I think they're calling it the hub. Was driving around campus yesterday looking at all the construction and was disappointed to see that this lot is sitting idle. 

 

On a side note, it's nice to see two tower cranes right on campus. 

 

The only work on their sites I've seen is this drilling that's been going on for a week. I assume it's something to do with the nearby gas line replacement on straight street. 

Glad to see the second building under construction.  The first building really has a presence when turning the corner down I-71 past the Xavier exit. When all the phases are completed including the Node, this will really change the feel of this area along 71. 
https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/09/08/western-southern-uptown-office.html

So the Gateway Lofts planned on McMillian looks like it's not doing too hot community wise or planning wise. 

 

 

I'm honestly shocked that they don't want to have any retail space on the bottom floor due "market conditions". I don't know what market they're looking at but I'd imagine adding all that residential right there would increase demand.

 

On another note, I don't understand why there's such a pushback on developments being tall and dense in the CUF area from "prominent" landlords. Are they upset that they are/were unable to get this level of density or height? I mean calhoun hall is a block away from this site and its 14 stories tall and was built across the street from fast food places..

I think it’s counterproductive to increase the parking ratio.  By insisting each bedroom (or even most bedrooms) be tied to a parking space this area is going to choke on traffic. Either by residents flooding the streets with their own vehicles, or by people being forced to live elsewhere and driving their cars in. One solution is to build housing without dedicated parking (the other solution is transit)

On 10/29/2021 at 5:43 PM, thebillshark said:

I think it’s counterproductive to increase the parking ratio.  By insisting each bedroom (or even most bedrooms) be tied to a parking space this area is going to choke on traffic. Either by residents flooding the streets with their own vehicles, or by people being forced to live elsewhere and driving their cars in. One solution is to build housing without dedicated parking (the other solution is transit)

 

I think it's also silly that we don't see more parking garages being built in CUF. I think something like the findlay market garage would do amazing if placed around the campus. 

It's silly that so many of the streets (including Lyon adjacent to this proposed project) around UC have free, un-permited, un-metered parking. Nobody should be surprised that people complain about parking when so much of the public right-of-way is dedicated to a free parking bonanza. <Insert obligatory plug for Shoup's High Cost of Free Parking.>

16 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

It's silly that so many of the streets (including Lyon adjacent to this proposed project) around UC have free, un-permited, un-metered parking. Nobody should be surprised that people complain about parking when so much of the public right-of-way is dedicated to a free parking bonanza. <Insert obligatory plug for Shoup's High Cost of Free Parking.>

This is the correct response. The parking study CUF got in late 2019 did not tell them to build any new parking though I don't think the City has implemented any of the recommended strategies yet.

2 minutes ago, Dev said:

The parking study CUF got in late 2019

Do you have a link/copy of this study?

6 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Do you have a link/copy of this study?

https://cliftonheights.org/about/cuf-parking-study/

Not being a professional in that field, but being an advocate for reducing our reliance on auto infrastructure, the report reads really, really well.

This is my favorite part:

Quote

These principles suggest:
A. If parking is inexpensive and available, it is not likely to be convenient
B. Inexpensive, convenient parking is unlikely to remain available
C. In order to offer parking that is available and convenient, it cannot be cheap In order to create a system like this, off-street parking must be represented as option A in the example above.

Currently, most of the on-street is represented as option B but we want to change that through management recommendations to be option C as this will create a more predictable system. So, we cannot discuss the management or marketing of off street without discussing the management of on street – it must be treated as a whole system. If just the on-street recommendations are implemented and not the off-street (or vice versa), the system would likely still not be successful

 

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

It's silly that so many of the streets (including Lyon adjacent to this proposed project) around UC have free, un-permited, un-metered parking. Nobody should be surprised that people complain about parking when so much of the public right-of-way is dedicated to a free parking bonanza. <Insert obligatory plug for Shoup's High Cost of Free Parking.>

 

I lived in CUF for 7 years and it seemed to me that owner-occupants would like to have on-street parking permit system, but the landlords don't. Most homes have a 25 foot frontage, which would realistically mean 1 permit spot per house. Landlords like to cram 5 renters into their houses, and know that most of them bring cars - making them share 1 spot is undesirable from a landlord standpoint. Residential permit parking, at least under Cincinnati's current rules, probably won't happen because landlords get a say as property owners and won't support it.

 

8 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

I lived in CUF for 7 years and it seemed to me that owner-occupants would like to have on-street parking permit system, but the landlords don't. Most homes have a 25 foot frontage, which would realistically mean 1 permit spot per house. Landlords like to cram 5 renters into their houses, and know that most of them bring cars - making them share 1 spot is undesirable from a landlord standpoint. Residential permit parking, at least under Cincinnati's current rules, probably won't happen because landlords get a say as property owners and won't support it.

 

 

I've always wondered: If the property owners did some tactical urbanism and put up signs and made their own adhoc residential parking permit system, would this give enough proof of concept to sway the city to implement it? I'd imagine that if you put up the signage and have cars that show that they have permits, it would change on street to option A rather quickly.

8 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

 

I've always wondered: If the property owners did some tactical urbanism and put up signs and made their own adhoc residential parking permit system, would this give enough proof of concept to sway the city to implement it? I'd imagine that if you put up the signage and have cars that show that they have permits, it would change on street to option A rather quickly.

I think that's a good way to get your car keyed or windows broken or worse. Homeowners have no authority over the spots in from of their home. It would just cause fighting.

 

We know the impacts of permitted parking. It's just a matter of do we want to suffer the consequences from that system? There are tradeoffs to doing it.

10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I think that's a good way to get your car keyed or windows broken or worse. Homeowners have no authority over the spots in from of their home. It would just cause fighting.

 

We know the impacts of permitted parking. It's just a matter of do we want to suffer the consequences from that system? There are tradeoffs to doing it.

 

Who's fighting? I'm saying something like all the homeowners on Fairview Ave put up their own signs and permits on their car to discourage nonresidents from parking there. Would the people visiting be keying and smashing up cars?

3 hours ago, RealAdamP said:

 

I think it's also silly that we don't see more parking garages being built in CUF. I think something like the findlay market garage would do amazing if placed around the campus. 

the problem is that there are only 3 main streets going into the densest part of the neighborhood south of campus (Calhoun, McMillan, Clifton.) More garages there would cause even more traffic. Maybe they could build a new garage at MLK and Clifton and let all new development within a one mile radius claim space in it to satisfy the parking requirements, kind of like off site car storage.  Not sure if that would work out better than just reducing or eliminating the requirements though.  
 

EDIT: if Cincinnati Parks could build a garage somewhere along the south edge of Burnet woods it could be a huge source of recurring revenue for them. And then if they do that why not some residential on top of the garage.

 

Edited November 1, 20213 yr by thebillshark

2 hours ago, RealAdamP said:

I'm saying something like all the homeowners on Fairview Ave

Are you presuming all homes are owner occupied? I suspect many of the homes on Fairview Ave are owned by landlords who rent them out.

 

3 hours ago, Ram23 said:

I lived in CUF for 7 years and it seemed to me that owner-occupants would like to have on-street parking permit system, but the landlords don't. Most homes have a 25 foot frontage, which would realistically mean 1 permit spot per house. Landlords like to cram 5 renters into their houses, and know that most of them bring cars - making them share 1 spot is undesirable from a landlord standpoint.

I think this is correct. There was a proposal earlier this year  to set up a residential parking permit system on Bellevue Ave (in Corryville), and it got cancelled in May/June due to opposition from tenants/properties that have many residents (some of the "homes" in Corryville are quite large), since the properties with lots of residents wouldn't get 1 permit/resident. It's sad and ironic that the very density that could make the neighborhood less car-dependent is - at least in the short term - making it difficult to move forward on policies to reduce car dependency. 

Edited November 1, 20213 yr by jwulsin

15 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Are you presuming all homes are owner occupied? I suspect many of the homes on Fairview Ave are owned by landlords who rent them out.

 

 

No I'm just wording it poorly. I mean the residents who are living on fairview all get their own makeshift parking permit. Now this wouldn't have any enforcement besides making it unappealing to non residents or people that are coming for game days/events as they wouldn't know that it wasn't enforced.

1 hour ago, RealAdamP said:

No I'm just wording it poorly. I mean the residents who are living on fairview all get their own makeshift parking permit. Now this wouldn't have any enforcement besides making it unappealing to non residents or people that are coming for game days/events as they wouldn't know that it wasn't enforced.

 

Where I lived, there were a handful of folks who would routinely call parking enforcement for cars that parked for longer than 18+ hours, or partially blocked a driveway or crosswalk ramp. Meter maids would pretty promptly come out to chalk tires and/or write tickets. I don't know if it was much of a deterrent, though.

 

That at least impacted part of the problem - people who park cars for days, weeks, or even semesters at a time. Those are the sort of cars that probably aren't needed at all.

4 hours ago, thebillshark said:

 

EDIT: if Cincinnati Parks could build a garage somewhere along the south edge of Burnet woods it could be a huge source of recurring revenue for them. And then if they do that why not some residential on top of the garage.

 

 

Do you think so? There's regularly ample street parking available along the roadways inside Burnett Woods. I would never park in a garage when I could just park on the street for free.

Being a current resident of CUF for now 5 years, there are certainly a decent percentage of cars that just sit for weeks at a time. I'm assuming they're students who mostly walk (possibly for fear of losing their space). Not sure what it would take to get them to ditch their cars altogether. CUF is in a weird middle ground between being dense enough to be completely walkable, but spread out enough to make cars an asset. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Do you think so? There's regularly ample street parking available along the roadways inside Burnett Woods. I would never park in a garage when I could just park on the street for free.

Parking inside Burnet Woods is already by permit (at least closest to UC): https://cincinnatiparks.regfox.com/burnetwoodsparkingpass

Edited November 1, 20213 yr by thebillshark

1 hour ago, thebillshark said:

Parking inside Burnet Woods is already by permit (at least closest to UC): https://cincinnatiparks.regfox.com/burnetwoodsparkingpass

 

Oh interesting. I didn't even know. I always park in the northern part.

OSU has permit areas off campus such as east of High. I don't really know how it "changed" things since it's been like that as long as I can remember.

$41 million project by UC delayed to address community concerns

 

 

A planned $41 million development near the University of Cincinnati has been delayed as the neighboring community and city staff voiced concerns about portions of the project.

 

Cincinnati Planning Commission voted unanimously Friday morning to hold a proposed zone change for Hallmark Campus Communities’ planned Gateway Lofts project at the southeast corner of West McMillan Street and Moerlein Avenue in CUF. The commission asked the development team to work with the neighborhood and staff from the Department of City Planning and Engagement to come to an agreement regarding elements of the project.

 

Gateway Lofts is planned as a six-story student housing building that would include 116 units with a total of 469 beds. The project would include a mix of two-bedroom, four-bedroom and five-bedroom units. It also would include 153 underground parking spaces. The total investment for the project is estimated to be about $41 million.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/11/05/gateway-lofts-delayed.html

On 10/29/2021 at 4:35 PM, RealAdamP said:

So the Gateway Lofts planned on McMillian looks like it's not doing too hot community wise or planning wise. 

 

 

I'm honestly shocked that they don't want to have any retail space on the bottom floor due "market conditions". I don't know what market they're looking at but I'd imagine adding all that residential right there would increase demand.

 

On another note, I don't understand why there's such a pushback on developments being tall and dense in the CUF area from "prominent" landlords. Are they upset that they are/were unable to get this level of density or height? I mean calhoun hall is a block away from this site and its 14 stories tall and was built across the street from fast food places..

From what I saw they are OK to the height on the main roads, but dont want to encourage such tall ehights on the side streets (like Lyons) lest it lead to all the buildings in these "residential" areas being replaced with supertall versions on the existing lots. Tall is OK on the main corridors not off them. Right?

1 hour ago, SleepyLeroy said:

From what I saw they are OK to the height on the main roads, but dont want to encourage such tall ehights on the side streets (like Lyons) lest it lead to all the buildings in these "residential" areas being replaced with supertall versions on the existing lots. Tall is OK on the main corridors not off them. Right?

 

Allowing new construction above 4 stories would be very expensive to build on those side streets. Our building codes don't really make tallish buildings with small footprints easy to accomplish. The developers probably want to see the same result as The Verge did with its side street.

 

It'd be really nice to see some dense row houses be built to replace some of the more mutilated housing stock that can be common in the area. Though I don't know how realistic that dream is any more.

1 hour ago, SleepyLeroy said:

From what I saw they are OK to the height on the main roads, but dont want to encourage such tall ehights on the side streets (like Lyons) lest it lead to all the buildings in these "residential" areas being replaced with supertall versions on the existing lots. Tall is OK on the main corridors not off them. Right?

Yeah - that was the gist of the feedback (at least as stated during the Planning Commission meeting). Folks said they're ok with the overall density but want to see more stories on McMillan and fewer on Lyon. The developer responded saying that adding floors on McMillan would require moving to all steel construction (for the McMillan portion of the structure), which would add a lot of expenses and potentially make the project unfeasible. 

Edited November 8, 20213 yr by jwulsin

Demo work began on the remaining existing buildings for the next phase of The District at Clifton Heights. The former frat/party house on the corner of Straight and Clifton is no more as of yesterday. 

Have they received all approvals needed? I haven't seen anything on it for a while now.

31 unit townhome development in the latest City planning packet Dec 17 in North Bend road in College Hill.3 story buildings mostly.

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/

1 hour ago, ucnum1 said:

31 unit townhome development in the latest City planning packet Dec 17 in North Bend road in College Hill.3 story buildings mostly.

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/

Moved to the College Hill thread: 

 

 

Not really development news but good news for the area around UC. Good football team=More applicants=more students=Need for more housing. Hopefully we’ll see more dense development around UC. So even though most people wouldn’t think of it. UC football is really a good generator for Cincinnati in general.
 

https://www.wcpo.com/college-sports/university-of-cincinnati/university-of-cincinnati-expecting-record-number-of-undergrad-applicants

Edited December 15, 20213 yr by Ucgrad2015

On 11/17/2021 at 9:26 AM, RealAdamP said:

Demo work began on the remaining existing buildings for the next phase of The District at Clifton Heights. The former frat/party house on the corner of Straight and Clifton is no more as of yesterday. 

They are already tearing down the Tri-Delta house? I didnt think there new house was completed yet so they could move. 

21 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

They are already tearing down the Tri-Delta house? I didnt think there new house was completed yet so they could move. 

 

Not yet. The house next to it was demo'd. They're finishing up the new Tri-Delta house currently. The exterior is nearly done and the inside is getting furniture installed. I imagine they'll demo the old house after spring semester.

In a rare move, planning commission votes down $41 million project near UC

By Chris Wetterich  –  Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Under Mayor John Cranley, the Cincinnati Planning Commission and its staff have rarely turned their thumbs down at a major development project, but at its final meeting of the year, members did just that.

 

In the face of strident neighborhood opposition from Clifton Heights-University Heights-Fairview (CUF) groups, commissioners rejected a zoning change and concept plan needed for a $41 million project proposed by Hallmark Campus Communities known as Gateway Lofts.

 

“I have never seen every advocate body representing a community unanimously say ‘no,’” said Byron Stallworth, chairman of the Planning Commission. “My personal belief is something is awry. I’m not sure that it can be fixed at this particular moment.”

 

MORE