56 minutes ago, SleepyLeroy said:

Ive been away from it for a while, but i think the reason Corryville is doomed is that the neighborhood group IS the developers. They dont and wont oppose demolition. CUF tried at times, and won a few battles with the help of others (St George/ Lyons St development) but it is hard for volunteers to fight funded full time developers who have momentum, paid employees and city connections. 

I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing- Cincinnati is lucky to have amazing architecture in places like OTR, but we’re also seeing just how hard development becomes due to historic district regulations. CUF currently has an extreme housing crunch and stopping demolition of any historic building in the neighborhood is a good way to ensure that almost nothing gets built.

Id focus on preserving key buildings, like the mansions on Auburn, and as sad as it is seeing some other old buildings go, I think ultimately it will be worth it in exchange for housing thousands of new residents and more affordable rents.

It's just frustrating that Cincinnati doesn't seem to be able to do the middle ground. In the vast majority of city neighborhood, we should preserve remaining historic structures whenever possible and fill in the gaps with new construction (and personally I'd rather see modern architecture rather than faux-historic buildings). But it's either the OTR extreme where every new proposal is fought tooth and nail, or Uptown where we don't even think twice before tearing down historic structures to make way for new developments.

Just now, taestell said:

It's just frustrating that Cincinnati doesn't seem to be able to do the middle ground. In the vast majority of city neighborhood, we should preserve remaining historic structures whenever possible and fill in the gaps with new construction (and personally I'd rather see modern architecture rather than faux-historic buildings). But it's either the OTR extreme where every new proposal is fought tooth and nail, or Uptown where we don't even think twice before tearing down historic structures to make way for new developments.

A lot of European cities like Paris and Amsterdam are doing historic revival architecture very very well... it is possible, but in Cinci we're only exposed to Towne Properties design on a dime HisRev like the polished turd on 15/Elm. High quality historic revival in OTR and CUF/Corryville would be incredible, but we have too many developers that would rather line their pockets than enrich the city.

8 minutes ago, taestell said:

It's just frustrating that Cincinnati doesn't seem to be able to do the middle ground. In the vast majority of city neighborhood, we should preserve remaining historic structures whenever possible and fill in the gaps with new construction (and personally I'd rather see modern architecture rather than faux-historic buildings). But it's either the OTR extreme where every new proposal is fought tooth and nail, or Uptown where we don't even think twice before tearing down historic structures to make way for new developments.

I love historic architecture as much as anyone but outside of the rare true historic neighborhood like OTR,  I don’t think it makes sense to say if any building is built before a certain year, it can’t be torn down. I think we need to accept that cities grow and change over time and occasionally that means buildings built a long time ago will be replaced with newer buildings, and we should focus more on putting guidelines in place to ensure the new buildings don’t look like crap.

 

Moving this discussion to the Historic Preservation thread since it's not CUF/Uptown-specific.

Did the Hollister Court project get more detailed site plans? I assume they'll have to ask for a variance on zoning with plans eventually.

 

Curious to see if they're going to integrate into the intersection more now that UC is looking at building a tower on the adjacent empty lot.

^Not sure, but I share your curiosity. I'm bummed about the losing 33 McMillan which has a nice design and scale. But you make a good point about how there's potential to transform that intersection if the design on both the NW and SW corners work well together. 

 

Regardless of what gets built, we should push for that corner to get bumpouts and pedestrian improvements to slow cars down.

That intersection could have a really interesting public realm that works with the more extreme topography. Something with multiple layers, levels, etc. Retail that works on multiple levels to create interesting vantage points. Integrate that bus station well, etc. It's a shame to lose more historic building stock, but if it's going to happen, it should be for something that creates a better sense of place. I feel like one of the things lacking there is that it feels quite a bit separated from even just one street north, due to the elevation difference. Giving people a reason to occupy that intersection would do a lot in making that area feel more inviting/safer than it has in the past. I lived on Hollister for a couple years, and there was definitely a noticeable difference in "eyes on the street" the moment I passed the Shell Station and was walking down to my house. This is the perfect opportunity for this little section of CUF to feel more alive and active and occupied. Would also help in connecting eastward towards things like McMillan Manor (or whatever it's called now) and Walnut Hills. The more gaps that can be filled in, the better.

I might be a pessimist, but it is hard for me to be excited about more historic fabric in CUF being torn down in the hopes that whatever replaces it will be nice. We recently lost the former Sudsy's and a neighboring structure, which in my mind were pretty integral to the Short Vine District, only for them to be replaced by a building that is not only aesthetically disappointing, but also takes away a lot of what should be commercial frontage at the street level. The Verge, which took out Lenhardt's, as well as several other historic structures is falling apart on the inside already. Water damage, electrical issues, etc. 65 West is another project that removed a significant neighborhood icon in the Friars Club. This building suffers from similar issues. VP3 and the Deacon are other examples of new large scale projects that were intended to be transformative, but already face major issues in terms of construction quality. There are many more examples in Uptown as well, but there is a clear trend, and I find it concerning how easy it is for developers to destroy neighborhood history, and replace it with buildings that are low in quality, but expensive in price. Now it looks like we will see the corner of McMillan and Vine be torn down, which is particularly sad because it is in many ways a gateway to the neighborhood. Although it was a bit of a dive, the Mad Frog's space itself is a landmark, and I see a lot of potential for a project in this area to be a mix of infill and renovation. I know this might come off as angry, but I've just been disappointed in the quality of many of the projects in CUF/Uptown in the last 10ish years. 

The UC property would have to be handled similarly to how university parks apartments are put together in order to get retail/commercial usage. UC, from my knowledge, does not want to handle buildings with tenant fit outs and such due to how their facilities management works.

 

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

Regardless of what gets built, we should push for that corner to get bumpouts and pedestrian improvements to slow cars down.

I'd be interested in seeing what methods could be put in place on both Calhoun/McMillan to slow traffic down. The bike lane on clifton worked well, but I'm not sure if taking these streets down to one lane will bring more good than bad.

24 minutes ago, jc22 said:

This building suffers from similar issues. VP3 and the Deacon are other examples of new large scale projects that were intended to be transformative, but already face major issues in terms of construction quality. There are many more examples in Uptown as well, but there is a clear trend, and I find it concerning how easy it is for developers to destroy neighborhood history, and replace it with buildings that are low in quality, but expensive in price

This is a symptom of a much broader problem with development. It's only profitable, or even possible, to develop in large projects. Not only due to economies of scale but with how banking and zoning works. It's clear that the city is open to changes in the parking requirements that influence this a lot. I'm not sure if the CUF / Corryville area still has parking minimums though. If it does, that's the first step in getting away from only having these kinds of projects go on.

 

I'd like to see the city encourage smaller developments/buildings by making it easier for property owners to rezone to MF. That way density could be increased across the whole area constantly, rather than just in a development every 5 years.

The last big project proposed in CUF got held up and ultimately denied due to neighbors complaining about insufficient onsite parking: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/12/17/commission-votes-down-project.html

 

On 11/5/2021 at 2:27 PM, ColDayMan said:

$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

Edited September 8, 20222 yr by jwulsin

23 hours ago, jc22 said:

I might be a pessimist, but it is hard for me to be excited about more historic fabric in CUF being torn down in the hopes that whatever replaces it will be nice. We recently lost the former Sudsy's and a neighboring structure, which in my mind were pretty integral to the Short Vine District, only for them to be replaced by a building that is not only aesthetically disappointing, but also takes away a lot of what should be commercial frontage at the street level. The Verge, which took out Lenhardt's, as well as several other historic structures is falling apart on the inside already. Water damage, electrical issues, etc. 65 West is another project that removed a significant neighborhood icon in the Friars Club. This building suffers from similar issues. VP3 and the Deacon are other examples of new large scale projects that were intended to be transformative, but already face major issues in terms of construction quality. There are many more examples in Uptown as well, but there is a clear trend, and I find it concerning how easy it is for developers to destroy neighborhood history, and replace it with buildings that are low in quality, but expensive in price. Now it looks like we will see the corner of McMillan and Vine be torn down, which is particularly sad because it is in many ways a gateway to the neighborhood. Although it was a bit of a dive, the Mad Frog's space itself is a landmark, and I see a lot of potential for a project in this area to be a mix of infill and renovation. I know this might come off as angry, but I've just been disappointed in the quality of many of the projects in CUF/Uptown in the last 10ish years. 

Exactly this, losing the Sudsy's building was shocking, and the replacement even more so. I hope some of the preservation efforts happening downtown and in OTR bleed up north and quick. Losing the beautiful old industrial building at Melish and Bathgate was also heartbreaking, but at least the innovation corridor feels somewhat innovative and thoughtfully planned out. These cheap student housing developments are turning uptown into a generic, soulless cluster.

The Gateway Lofts is back on, set to go before the CPC Friday. I don't usually complain about the design of these stick builds on garage podiums, but something about the red and black is extremely garish to me. Fits with the project's bungled history I suppose. Completion date estimated at August 2024.

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/sep-16-2022-packet/

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by Pdrome513

It's a bold statement all right

On 9/8/2022 at 1:55 PM, jwulsin said:

The last big project proposed in CUF got held up and ultimately denied due to neighbors complaining about insufficient onsite parking: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/12/17/commission-votes-down-project.html

It's ironic that the traffic study they did in the latest packet even says that the majority of the parking garage is going to be used as a long-term parking area at an airport.

 

I still can't believe they're not going to have any retail on street level. Maybe their comp was the verge and the vacant storefront worried their financing.

28 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

It's ironic that the traffic study they did in the latest packet even says that the majority of the parking garage is going to be used as a long-term parking area at an airport.

 

I still can't believe they're not going to have any retail on street level. Maybe their comp was the verge and the vacant storefront worried their financing.

Honestly the area is already over-retailed as it is, even before The District is finished which will pull dollars away from Calhoun and McMillan. I think it's a smart financial move, I just wish they did more to at least make active uses along parts of the street.

The staff recommendation includes this proposed modification:

Quote

Revise the Concept Plan and Development Program Statement to include a mixed-use component along the W. McMillan Street facade. This revision should include a list of permitted uses and maximum square footage.

 

IIRC, the previous feedback from the community organizations was asking to put something there that is a public asset/amenity, not necessarily that it is retail. It sounds like the idea of a gym or lounge for the tenants is no better than a blank wall or empty windows.

Is there anything in the PD that would prevent it from being converted to retail or another use in the future?

The latest design has a letter of support co-signed by the CUF Neighborhood Association, Clifton Heights Business Association, and Clifton Heights CURC. They specify what they'd like to see on the McMillan first floor:

Quote

Many in the community would prefer that the first floor along McMillan contain a retail component or other smaller scale public uses to enhance this important mixed commercial corridor in the heart of our business district. We are pleased that the developer has made efforts to activate the first-floor space with a workout room, lounge, office, etc.,  but we ask that the construction of the "storefront" be such that, if warranted and desired in the future, modifications could be made to accommodate one or more new entrances to new commercial space by ensuring that the interior floor grade align with the public sidewalk, etc.

 

I couldn't remember how the different rounds of this design evolved, so here's a rough summary with links to the Planning Commission packets if you want more details. From a design perspective, the main changes are with the Lyon Street side where each round had different treatments. With the townhouses on Lyon and the setback upper floors, the latest design is very similar to The Verge (though the Verge has 6 stories on McMillan, while Gateway Lofts has 5 stories on McMillan). 

 

Round 1 (November 5, 2021):

• 113 units, 442 beds
• 223 off-street parking spaces (0.50 spaces/bed; 1.97 spaces/unit)

 

 

 

 

Round 2 (December 17, 2021):

• 103 units, 411 beds
• 263 off-street parking spaces (0.64 spaces/bed; 2.55 spaces/unit)

 

Round 3 (September 16, 2022):

• 103 units, 365 beds
• 227 off-street parking spaces (0.62 spaces/bed; 2.2 spaces/unit)

Wow, that really shows how expensive parking really is and how demand for parking supply eats away at housing.

 

I am curious why they went with 5 floors for the McMillian side instead of 6 but I do remember that the fake townhome look was also requested from the community organizations....which, come on, all of CUF is going to be mid-rise within our life times so this is going to look worse in 20 or 30 years.

If memory serves, the neighborhood council objected to 6 stories, which is what prompted the initial design change, which torpedoed the project because that change wasn't allowed/contemplated in the first zoning change, so they had to start over.

Would this affect Adriatico's?

3 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

Would this affect Adriatico's?

Adriatico's is on a separate parcel and not part of the proposed planned development. 

21 hours ago, Dev said:

I am curious why they went with 5 floors for the McMillian side instead of 6

The initial submission included a document that showed how the design had been revised in response to feedback. The initial concept had "7 floors over a basement", which I think means it would have been 6 floors (due to the topography) above McMillan, just like The Verge.

 

 

At this morning's meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the "Gateway Lofts" Planned Development. 

Welcome to CUF Goth Dorms! I wish the neon read "Evil Scientist" ala bugs bunny though. 

It's giving "Lonely motel in a Father John Misty music video about the irony of mankind"

Hallmark Campus Communities revives $47 million Uptown project

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

Sep 16, 2022

 

A Columbus-based developer has resuscitated a private student housing project in Clifton Heights near the University of Cincinnati, shrinking it to meet the neighborhood’s concerns and addressing a major need for homes near campus.

 

Cincinnati Planning Commission voted to change the zoning at 115-125 W. McMillan St. and 124-142 Lyon St. to a planned development. That will allow Hallmark Campus Communities to build Gateway Lofts, a 103-unit, 365-bed, 263 parking space student apartment development with two buildings and nine townhomes that conceal two stories of parking. City Council approval also is needed. Hallmark’s investment has risen to $47 million from $41 million.

 

The planning commission rejected a different version of the Hallmark project in December, but the new version has assuaged community concerns about the height of structures on a Clifton Heights residential street and opened the door to potential retail on McMillan Street.

 

MORE

Quote

There was a robust discussion about the need for retail along McMillan Street, with the planning staff acknowledging the market is not there now for retail. The developer does not believe retail will work. John Heekin, a longtime developer, said retail overall continues to shrink and the nearby U-Square development has never been 100% leased. The city should not be requiring developers to have retail in a mixed-use project like Hallmark.

 

I'm not an expert in this matter but the majority of places I've seen closed are restaurants, which always have a high turnover. Though, from what I know the rent for usquare is extremely high as well for what it is. Seems short sighted nonetheless to just avoid any retail in a project this size. I imagine that once this project is completed there will be demand for retail there with how busy that specific intersection is.

I think the general lack of retailers OTHER than restaurants is a clear indication there aren't quite enough people yet to support what has already been built. I lived in that area from 2007-2014 and even back then it felt over-retailed and that feeling dramatically increased with the opening of U Square.

 

I think they're right that it's not a good choice here. I do think though that there are creative ways to design flexible spaces that can be converted in the future should the demand arise. I've seen buildings of this construction type (5 over 1 construction) where the garage podium is designed so that an entire row of parking can eventually be removed (I know that statement would surely cause some gasps in the neighborhood groups) and converted to street fronting retail. I think that's a decent option if the floor plate layout allows for it. Even if it's something small like three spaces going offline in the future to active the corner on the opposite side of the building from the entrance so that you are creating active moments along the full facade instead of concentrated in one spot.

 

All that to say, we should be holding developers to higher standards, but I do think they are making the logical decision to not add retail given the realities of the neighborhood around the building.

I think it's good that the design is such that it could support future retail if/when there's demand, and that there's an interim use (gym, clubhouse, leasing office) that will make those spaces somewhat activated even if retail demand doesn't materialize.

 

One of the members of the Planning Commission was worried that updating the design to allow for future retail would add too many costs to the developer, but the developer said allowing for future retail wouldn't drastically increase their costs, since those McMillan St spaces are already designed with glass "storefronts" around the gym, lobby, and leasing office. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 20222 yr by jwulsin

Did not see anything posted about this anywhere, but the former Madfrog building was torn down earlier this week. Pretty quick turnaround. Does anyone know if Uptown has released any plans for this property?

46 minutes ago, jc22 said:

Did not see anything posted about this anywhere, but the former Madfrog building was torn down earlier this week. Pretty quick turnaround. Does anyone know if Uptown has released any plans for this property?

Yupp, from yesterday. What’s interesting is from the site plan it looks like the new apartment building doesn’t even need the madfrog building footprint. I guess for landscaping and sidewalks etc.

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/10/04/mad-frog-demolished-whats-going-there-next-cincinnati-mount-auburn-uptown-rental/69534918007/

Edited October 5, 20222 yr by 646empire

Some folks from Uptown met with about a dozen people in a park one day a couple of months ago to discuss what we'd like to see at the Mad Frog site. They don't currently have any plans drawn up from what I understand, but were committed to demolishing the buildings. The development in the tennis courts is not directly related to the Mad Frog except possibly usable land for staging equipment and stuff maybe. These are two separate projects.

 

They've said they would want to create some kind of mixed use structure. Many comments were centered on how it would interact with the street. I think any development there would be in conjunction with improvements to the intersection by DOTE (nothing is set in stone, but they would push for it). They also seem to want to push the buildings a little bit back from the street and make a wider sidewalk in front of the space. I recommended that if they do that, they need to provide some street-facing patio space for businesses to activate the street. I'm worried they were thinking of just creating some generic green space that no one will use. Hopefully some storefronts with smaller footprints would be provided since large retail spaces (like those around most of Calhoun/McMillan to the west) remain unused and smaller ones are often filled.

 

All of this is very preliminary. 

16 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Some folks from Uptown met with about a dozen people in a park one day a couple of months ago to discuss what we'd like to see at the Mad Frog site. They don't currently have any plans drawn up from what I understand, but were committed to demolishing the buildings. The development in the tennis courts is not directly related to the Mad Frog except possibly usable land for staging equipment and stuff maybe. These are two separate projects.

 

They've said they would want to create some kind of mixed use structure. Many comments were centered on how it would interact with the street. I think any development there would be in conjunction with improvements to the intersection by DOTE (nothing is set in stone, but they would push for it). They also seem to want to push the buildings a little bit back from the street and make a wider sidewalk in front of the space. I recommended that if they do that, they need to provide some street-facing patio space for businesses to activate the street. I'm worried they were thinking of just creating some generic green space that no one will use. Hopefully some storefronts with smaller footprints would be provided since large retail spaces (like those around most of Calhoun/McMillan to the west) remain unused and smaller ones are often filled.

 

All of this is very preliminary. 

 

Was this a public conversation? How does one get involved?

30 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Some folks from Uptown met with about a dozen people in a park one day a couple of months ago to discuss what we'd like to see at the Mad Frog site. They don't currently have any plans drawn up from what I understand, but were committed to demolishing the buildings. The development in the tennis courts is not directly related to the Mad Frog except possibly usable land for staging equipment and stuff maybe. These are two separate projects.

 

They've said they would want to create some kind of mixed use structure. Many comments were centered on how it would interact with the street. I think any development there would be in conjunction with improvements to the intersection by DOTE (nothing is set in stone, but they would push for it). They also seem to want to push the buildings a little bit back from the street and make a wider sidewalk in front of the space. I recommended that if they do that, they need to provide some street-facing patio space for businesses to activate the street. I'm worried they were thinking of just creating some generic green space that no one will use. Hopefully some storefronts with smaller footprints would be provided since large retail spaces (like those around most of Calhoun/McMillan to the west) remain unused and smaller ones are often filled.

 

All of this is very preliminary. 

Oh nice that’s good to hear these are 2 separate projects. The more development the better.

15 minutes ago, Miami-Erie said:

 

Was this a public conversation? How does one get involved?

 

I believe the Mt. Auburn Community Council advertised it online and at a meeting. It is not a part of some ongoing conversation that I'm aware of, it was just a one off meeting that Uptown wanted to have.

Interesting insight by ryanlammi, thanks for sharing that. But more importantly, someone finally used "a part" instead of "apart". It just sent me over the moon!

 

Edited October 5, 20222 yr by cincity

TriHealth details next phase of $240M renovation at Good Samaritan Hospital

 

TriHealth is celebrating the next stage in a “transformative” $240 million project at one of its flagship campuses in Greater Cincinnati.

 

Officials broke ground this week on a more than 700-space employee parking garage, part of a planned renovation project at Good Samaritan Hospital in Clifton, and further detailed plans for phase 2, a new 168,000-square-foot outpatient building. Construction on that facility is slated to start in 2023.

 

TriHealth, overall, is looking to modernize the campus – a five-year effort first announced in March 2021. The project includes the demolition of older, less functional buildings. Plans also call for the addition of newer, larger operating rooms and the relocation and expansion of the hospital’s emergency department. 

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/10/05/trihealth-next-stage-good-samaritan-modernization.html

 

It will be really interesting to see how Uptown moves forward. I'm not sure how you put a 4 story building in the middle of that block without it eventually turning it into a tower in the park that completely de-emphasizes the surrounding streets.

I'm very surprised that they didn't group these projects together for one bigger development, or is it two different groups working on them? 

14 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

I'm very surprised that they didn't group these projects together for one bigger development, or is it two different groups working on them? 

The old Mad Frog property is also owned by Uptown Rents so in a sense you're right that it looks like it'll become "one bigger development". But the previously presented and approved plan was focused on the former tennis court area. The 4-story apartment building would be on top of a garage, which dictates the shape/scale of that building, and there were some 3-story townhomes that would face Vine St.

 

Based on what @ryanlammiwrote, it sounds like Uptown is exploring options for a new, mixed-use building at the corner of Vine and McMillan. 

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/community-engagement-meetings1/past-community-engagement-meetings/hollister-sale-in-mount-auburn/

 

Here are some of the renderings that were presented back in October 2021:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Losing that building is so irritating. The only redemption, imo, would be some sort of gateway tower to really welcome people to uptown from OTR. Ideally one that is unique and design forward... but splurging, even once, isn't really in Uptown's or Towne Property's business plans. 

2 hours ago, Dev said:

It will be really interesting to see how Uptown moves forward. I'm not sure how you put a 4 story building in the middle of that block without it eventually turning it into a tower in the park that completely de-emphasizes the surrounding streets.

 

Since Tri-Health is planning to move their main entrance to the intersection of Dixymth and MLK, it seems like they're moving away from the rest of Uptown. The lanes on Dixmyth are ~14' wide, so I think they could add 4-5' bike lanes and still have enough room for ambulances. We'll have to wait and see what the design for the Clifton Ave side becomes, but I'm not expecting it to be particularly inviting. From that Courier article:

Quote

Future phases include repositioning Good Samaritan’s main entrance from Clifton Avenue to the intersection of Dixmyth Avenue and Martin Luther King Drive.

 

14 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

The old Mad Frog property is also owned by Uptown Rents so in a sense you're right that it looks like it'll become "one bigger development". But the previously presented and approved plan was focused on the former tennis court area. The 4-story apartment building would be on top of a garage, which dictates the shape/scale of that building, and there were some 3-story townhomes that would face Vine St.

 

Based on what @ryanlammiwrote, it sounds like Uptown is exploring options for a new, mixed-use building at the corner of Vine and McMillan. 

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/community-engagement-meetings1/past-community-engagement-meetings/hollister-sale-in-mount-auburn/

 

Here are some of the renderings that were presented back in October 2021:

 

 

 

Got it. Just worried these projects are going to look like pieced-together cluster of buildings that don't flow together at all. 

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

 

Since Tri-Health is planning to move their main entrance to the intersection of Dixymth and MLK, it seems like they're moving away from the rest of Uptown. The lanes on Dixmyth are ~14' wide, so I think they could add 4-5' bike lanes and still have enough room for ambulances. We'll have to wait and see what the design for the Clifton Ave side becomes, but I'm not expecting it to be particularly inviting. From that Courier article:

 

I was actually referring to Uptown Properties and their Hollister Court development but good answer nonetheless.

25 minutes ago, Dev said:

I was actually referring to Uptown Properties and their Hollister Court development but good answer nonetheless.

Lol... re-reading your comment it makes much more sense in conjunction with the Hollister Court project. My bad. 

Any news on the quote request from UC on the empty lot across from Crossroads?