That entire area is still 100% walkable....

Yeah, and it's not exactly drive to urbanism if the people using the area mostly live within walking distance too. Students aren't driving to campus, they're not driving from campus to their building in the area for lunch, etc. They're walking.

This unending paint job is verging on its fourth month:

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

This unending paint job is verging on its fourth month:

I painted my mom’s house like 5 years ago over a week and I was SPENT. There’s a house like this in Loveland that also has one of those massive skeletons in front, half done for 4+ years. 

Construction is wrapping up on The Point, at least on the exterior. Also, the site across the street on the corner of McMillan and Auburn is being excavated and a construction fence has been put up around it.

 

 

Well that's one of the buildings of all time.

That's a pretty good-looking building. and very good photography. nice job.

I'm pleased (and surprised) to see that the high voltage utility lines along McMillan were buried as part of this. I hope that means some proper street trees can be planted and grow tall in the sidewalk.

 

 

The new West Tower at Good Samaritan Hospital is going up. Here's an article about it.

 

Glad to see this finally coming to life!

Edited March 27Mar 27 by anusthemenace

On 3/25/2025 at 6:11 PM, ry.bread said:

Construction is wrapping up on The Point, at least on the exterior. Also, the site across the street on the corner of McMillan and Auburn is being excavated and a construction fence has been put up around it.

 

 

The sage against the red brick elsewhere uptown is gorgeous. Hope there's more of this throughout the city.

2 hours ago, Pdrome513 said:

The sage against the red brick elsewhere uptown is gorgeous. Hope there's more of this throughout the city.

The building right next door won't be far off.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but no matter how much I want to like the arch, I wish it wasn't there.

2 hours ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

I'm probably in the minority, but no matter how much I want to like the arch, I wish it wasn't there.

if all the buildings in town look like huge bricks, then you are stuck with the exterior surfaces to get attention, add warmth, etc. i personally like the marble finish and use of materials. arches are historic and add a bit of sophistication to a project. it reminds of of frank lloyd wright in a way or maybe Sullivan.

45 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

if all the buildings in town look like huge bricks, then you are stuck with the exterior surfaces to get attention, add warmth, etc. i personally like the marble finish and use of materials. arches are historic and add a bit of sophistication to a project. it reminds of of frank lloyd wright in a way or maybe Sullivan.

This comparison is a bit of a stretch lol.

2 hours ago, RJohnson said:

arches are historic and add a bit of sophistication to a project. it reminds of of frank lloyd wright in a way or maybe Sullivan.

 

 

Yes, that's all well and good, except for the part about them actually being arches.

 

1 hour ago, anusthemenace said:

This comparison is a bit of a stretch lol.

 

4 minutes ago, zsnyder said:

Yes, that's all well and good, except for the part about them actually being arches.

it was sullivan i was referring to. 2 out of 3 are arches I believe. Cincy in the know thinks they are. the technology is the same.... you know like a keystone and stuff. i bet if you contact the architect, he would say his inspiration was sullivan. i betcha.

 

5 hours ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

I'm probably in the minority, but no matter how much I want to like the arch, I wish it wasn't there.

 

I think I know what you're saying? so I'll attempt to respond?

The "arch" at the Auburn isn't an arch. It's a graphic that looks like an arch.

 

And the only thing I'd say to an architect who says that Sullivan inspired that arch, is that they have no understanding of Sullivan. I would really think they'd know better.

That arch is more Venturi than Sulllivan.

 

But my biggest point of contention is that with the style of architecture of the rest of the building, it seems like they need to either bump it up or tone it down. It's in a weird limbo... But then again, I may be in the minority.

Edited March 28Mar 28 by CincyIntheKnow

16 hours ago, zsnyder said:

 

And the only thing I'd say to an architect who says that Sullivan inspired that arch, is that they have no understanding of Sullivan. I would really think they'd know better.

i don't know who the architect was, but since he was an architect, he probably has heard of Sullivan. You say, "It's a graphic that looks like an arch". I was under the impression that the materials- marble or the marble-looking bricks and the textured surface above were actual materials, not a graphic (a picture of or image of) of said material. Do you mean like a graphic that covers an entire bus? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

I said, the arch reminded me of Sullivan. I have no idea what Sullivan was thinking before or after he added graphics of arches on his buildings. I always thought they were real. but that doesn't matter. i said it: the graphic you speak of reminded me of either Wright or Sullivan. My mind's eye said, "Hey, Johnson, I remember an architect who used this form in his buildings".

 

I read this on wiki, "Sullivan's massive Transportation Building and huge arched 'Golden Door" stood out as the only building not of the current Beaux-Arts style, and with the only multicolored facade in the entire White City".

 

Is the "arc de triomphe" an arch or an image of an arch? Are you saying the Auburn is "Bas Relief" and doesn't have an architectural use- Form over Function, function over form? That's good to know, but an arch is still an arch. Which one of these images are not an arch? See attached.

24 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

i don't know who the architect was, but since he was an architect, he probably has heard of Sullivan. You say, "It's a graphic that looks like an arch". I was under the impression that the materials- marble or the marble-looking bricks and the textured surface above were actual materials, not a graphic (a picture of or image of) of said material. Do you mean like a graphic that covers an entire bus? That doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

I said, the arch reminded me of Sullivan. I have no idea what Sullivan was thinking before or after he added graphics of arches on his buildings. I always thought they were real. but that doesn't matter. i said it: the graphic you speak of reminded me of either Wright or Sullivan. My mind's eye said, "Hey, Johnson, I remember an architect who used this form in his buildings".

 

I read this on wiki, "Sullivan's massive Transportation Building and huge arched 'Golden Door" stood out as the only building not of the current Beaux-Arts style, and with the only multicolored facade in the entire White City".

 

Is the "arc de triomphe" an arch or an image of an arch? Are you saying the Auburn is "Bas Relief" and doesn't have an architectural use- Form over Function, function over form? That's good to know, but an arch is still an arch. Which one of these images are not an arch? See attached.

Sullivan's arches were rooted in expression of materiality, structural expression, and depth of light and shadow. The arch in this building is an applique, it doesn't even have one of the legs. It is almost whimsical in nature, like a postmodern interpretation of arches (i.e. Venturi).

 

I am not saying arches=bad, I am saying in this application it needs some tweaking, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Sullivan's arches were rooted in expression of materiality, structural expression, and depth of light and shadow. The arch in this building is an applique, it doesn't even have one of the legs. It is almost whimsical in nature, like a postmodern interpretation of arches (i.e. Venturi).

 

I am not saying arches=bad, I am saying in this application it needs some tweaking, in my opinion.

im sorry but an arch doesn't have legs. an arch is an arch. legs implies it either has movement or is standing on something. i assume you mean columns or standards. at stonehenge they are called standing stones. if you look at my four examples check out nos 1., 2., an. 3. are the arches  or not?

 

An arch is a curved vertical structure spanning an open space underneath it.[1] Arches may support the load above them, or they may perform a purely decorative role. As a decorative element, the arch dates back to the 4th millennium BC, but structural load-bearing arches became popular only after their adoption by the Ancient Romans in the 4th century BC.[2]

Arch-like structures can be horizontal, like an arch dam that withstands the horizontal hydrostatic pressure load.[3] Arches are usually used as supports for many types of vaults, with the barrel vault in particular being a continuous arch.[4] Extensive use of arches and vaults characterizes an arcuated construction, as opposed to the trabeated system, where, like in the architectures of ancient Greece, China, and Japan (as well as the modern steel-framed technique), posts and beams dominate.[5]

Arches had several advantages over the lintel, especially in the masonry construction: with the same amount of material it can have larger spaerial it can have larger span, carry more weight, and can be made from smaller and thus more manageable pieces.[6] Their role in construction was diminished in the middle of the 19th century with introduction of the wrought iron (and later steel): the high tensile strength of these new materials made long lintels possible.

 

A true arch is a load-bearing arch with elements held together by compression.[7] In much of the world introduction of the true arch was a result of European influence.[2] The term false arch has few meanings. It is usually used to designate an arch that has no structural purpose, like a proscenium arch in theaters used to frame the performance for the spectators, but is also applied to corbelled and triangular arches that are not based on compression.[8][9]

Masonry arch elements

A typical true masonry arch consists of the following elements:[10][11][12]

Keystone, the top block in an arch. Portion of the arch around the keystone (including the keystone itself), with no precisely defined boundary, is called a crown

Voussoir (a wedge-like construction block). A compound arch is formed by multiple concentric layers of voussoirs. The rowlock arch is a particular case of the compound arch,[13] where the voussoir faces are formed by the brick headers.[14]

Extrados (an external surface of the arch)

Impost is block at the base of the arch (the voussoir immediately above the impost is a springer). The tops of imposts define the springing level. A portion of the arch between the springing level and the crown (centered around the 45° angle[15]) is called a haunch. If the arch resides on top of a column, the impost is formed by an abacus or its thicker version, dosseret.[16]

Intrados (an underside of the arch, also known as a soffit[7])

Rise (height of the arc, distance from the springing level to the crown)

Clear span

Abutment[17] The roughly triangular-shaped portion of the wall between the extrados and the horizontal division above is called spandrel.[18]

A (left or right) half-segment of an arch is called an arc, the overall line of an arch is arcature[19] (this term is also used for an arcade).[20] Archivolt is the exposed (front-facing) part of the arch, sometimes decorated (occasionally also used to designate the intrados).[21] If the sides of voussoir blocks are not straight, but include angles and curves for interlocking, the arch is called "joggled".[22]

Arch action

[edit]

Arch (A) action diagram in comparison with a beam (B)

A true arch, due to its rise, resolves the vertical loads into horizontal and vertical reactions at the ends, a so called arch action. The vertical load produces a positive bending moment in the arch, while the inward-directed horizontal reaction from the spandrel/abutment provides a counterbalancing negative moment. As a result, the bending moment in any segment of the arch is much smaller than in a beam with the equivalent load and span.[23] The diagram on the right shows the difference between a loaded arch and a beam. Elements of the arch are mostly subject to compression (A), while in the beam a bending moment is present, with compression at the top and tension at the bottom (B).

In the past, when arches were made of masonry pieces, the horizontal forces at the ends of an arch (so called thrust[24]) caused the need for heavy abutments (cf. Roman triumphal arch). The other way to counteract the forces, and thus allow thinner supports, was to use the counter-arches, as in an arcade arrangement, where the horizontal thrust of each arch is counterbalanced by its neighbors, and only the end arches need to buttressed. With new construction materials (steel, concrete, engineered wood), not only the arches themselves got lighter, but the horizontal thrust can be further relieved by a tie connecting the ends of an arch.[6]

Funicular shapes

[edit]

Main article: Funicular curve

When evaluated from the perspective of an amount of material required to support a given load, the best solid structures are compression-only; with the flexible materials, the same is true for tension-only designs. There is a fundamental symmetry in nature between solid compression-only and flexible tension-only arrangements, noticed by Robert Hooke in 1676: "As hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will stand the rigid arch", thus the study (and terminology) of arch shapes is inextricably linked to the study of hanging chains, the corresponding curves or polygons are called funicular. Just like the shape of a hanging chain will vary depending on the weights attached to it, the shape of an ideal (compression-only) arch will depend on the distribution of the load. [25]

Analogy between an arch and a hanging chain and comparison to the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome (Giovanni Poleni, 1748)

 

A complex funicular model (Church of Colònia Güell by Gaudi, 19th century)

Arch diagram with pressure polygons drawn. A defect at the R-S portion of the intrados makes the arch susceptible to extra force along the line M-N, where the polygon curve can be pushed out of the envelope of the arch causing a collapse

While building masonry arches in the not very tall buildings of the past, a practical assumption was that the stones can withstand virtually unlimited amount of pressure (up to 100 N per mm2), while the tensile strength was very low, even with the mortar added between the stones, and can be effectively assumed to be zero. Under these assumptions the calculations for the arch design are greatly simplified: either a reduced-scale model can be built and tested, or a funicular curve (pressure polygon) can be calculated or modeled, and as long as this curve stays within the confines of the voussoirs, the construction will be stable[26] (a so called "safe theorem").

Arches were created structurally to span openings. It doesn't span if one side is floating. Thanks for the wikipedia text.

2 hours ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Arches were created structurally to span openings. It doesn't span if one side is floating. Thanks for the wikipedia text.

keep on truckinng

This is getting ridiculous. 

i agree anus, it maybe be a ridiculous arch or a useless arch but in the end we all know what we're talking about here. Since I desire to be the bigger man here, I concede my ignorance and hope I didn't offend anyone by attempting to use a word that others use the same way. i informally flip my king.

Edited March 29Mar 29 by RJohnson
edit copy

On 3/28/2025 at 8:33 PM, anusthemenace said:

This is getting ridiculous. 

 

More arch talk than St Louis!

As two Cincinnati council members vote no on Chick-fil-A, developer pledges more housing

A project that would bring a new Chick-fil-A to a Corryville parking lot has landed the city of Cincinnati’s approval, but not before it faced turbulence from City Council members who wanted to know why the developer was not building more housing instead.

Uptown Properties President Dan Schimberg assured council members that his company does want to build multifamily housing on a vacant lot it likely will own in the next few years just west of the planned restaurant known for its fried chicken sandwiches.

Council members Anna Albi, Jeff Cramerding and Evan Nolan all expressed varying degrees of heartburn about approving a zoning change needed so that Uptown and Chick-fil-A could develop the parcel in the northwest corner of East McMillan Street and Highland Avenue, between the University of Cincinnati and Interstate 71.

Ultimately, Nolan and Albi voted “no.”

At a May 6 council housing committee, Cramerding said, “I do not believe that Chick-fil-A is the highest and best use” for the land and that it may be better to leave the site as a parking lot for now. Cramerding also said he worried that members of the LGBTQ+ community would oppose the restaurant. Chick-fil-A’s corporate owners opposed legalizing gay marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court made it legal, although since then, they have said they will no longer donate to anti-LGBTQ+ causes.

...

Other council members said they were convinced the site was not suitable for residential.

“I drive down this area all the time. It’s headed for the highway,” said Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/05/13/chick-fil-a-uptown-properties-schimberg-housing.html

2 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

“I drive down this area all the time. It’s headed for the highway,” said Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney.

A fast food joint can go anywhere. How in the world does this comment make sense? All roads are headed somewhere, and that entrance to 71 is the one thing that shouldn't be there. You have five lanes that are used by many to get to Walnut Hills. Suddenly, the flow of traffic is stopped because we have an entrance in the worst possible location. It is not pedestrian-friendly and never will be. Where are the protesters for road diets? Look at all the investment that has happened in Walnut Hills and the UC area. By removing the entrance ramp, you open up the possibility of a streetcar tram being erected wholly on McMillan.

Jan-Michele has no real vision for the city. That's the crux of the issue. This thing is going to be a nightmare, and continue the vicious cycle of car dependency along this corridor. But a majority of the members of council don't care.

Garbage in, garbage out. Very disappointed in the consistently anti-urban, anti-growth mindset of Council and especially Kearney.

I can see it now.

"Traffic is a nightmare Highland Ave, we need more lanes!"

25 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

A fast food joint can go anywhere. How in the world does this comment make sense? All roads are headed somewhere, and that entrance to 71 is the one thing that shouldn't be there. You have five lanes that are used by many to get to Walnut Hills. Suddenly, the flow of traffic is stopped because we have an entrance in the worst possible location. It is not pedestrian-friendly and never will be. Where are the protesters for road diets? Look at all the investment that has happened in Walnut Hills and the UC area. By removing the entrance ramp, you open up the possibility of a streetcar tram being erected wholly on McMillan.

I have no issue with there being an onramp to I-71 NB from McMillan. In fact, I think that onramp is a well-designed urban onramp, taking up very little unnecessary land and providing useful connectivity.

My issue is with the argument (made explicitly by CM Kearney and others) that since this stretch of McMillan is currently inhospitable to pedestrians, we should be ok with making it even more inhospitable to pedestrians. There are residents living across from this proposed Chick-fil-A location at CP Cincy. If nothing else, the City owes it to those residents to make McMillan feel less like an extension of the I-71 onramp. East of the intersection with Highland, along McMillan there's the former Union Institute (somewhat oddly, it is owned by the "State of Ohio" but with a mailing address at UC), Lighthouse Youth Services, Essex Studios, and recently closed Dohn Community School... and of course the rest of Walnut Hills further east. This area will not attract residents or investment (aside from exclusively car-based activities) as long as McMillan continues to feel like an extension of a highway onramp. McMillan needs a dramatic road diet.

Edited May 14May 14 by jwulsin

2 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

“I drive down this area all the time. It’s headed for the highway,” said Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney.

A fast food joint can go anywhere. How in the world does this comment make sense? All roads are headed somewhere, and that entrance to 71 is the one thing that shouldn't be there. You have five lanes that are used by many to get to Walnut Hills. Suddenly, the flow of traffic is stopped because we have an entrance in the worst possible location. It is not pedestrian-friendly and never will be. Where are the protesters for road diets? Look at all the investment that has happened in Walnut Hills and the UC area. By removing the entrance ramp, you open up the possibility of a streetcar tram being erected wholly on McMillan.

55 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

I have no issue with there being an onramp to I-71 NB from McMillan. In fact, I think that onramp is a well-designed urban onramp, taking up very little unnecessary land and providing useful connectivity.

The ramp may be urban-esque, cheap, and functional, but "the exit" to the ramp is the problem. It's like many retail store situations where the parking lot is next to the store entrance. When you get to the entrance, it says, Please use the side door. It doesn't make the neighborhood on either side of I-71 pedestrian-friendly. When an awkward impediment/barrier is installed in the middle of what had been a good crosstown traffic solution (one way Taft and McMillan), it's almost as if the city/county decided to red-line Walnut Hills and make it poor. Like Vine into the CBD, Hamilton Ave into the northside. The Westend runs into I-75. The ramp off the low bridge onto 3rd runs into a Stop. Do Not Enter. That would otherwise lead to Third Street, and other no-left-turn intersections around the city. So, it's cheap, but it made certain neighborhoods lose their value. That may be good for real estate investment and slum-lord millionaires, but as it turns out, this type of thing creates houses for the poor, which seems to increase crime.

We seem to agree that pedestrians and neighborhoods are more important than highways. Or, maybe you were just fluffing the pillow. Walnut Hills could and should be on Urban Ohio's Best Places to Preserve List. The area is full of older homes, apartments, and character. And, for the most part, it still is a walkable neighborhood. It seems our elected officials want to "get out on the highway, looking for adventure."

I too despise this exit, especially when an event releases in the UC area and people that are not as familiar with the area are flocking to the highway. I stay straight on McMillan to go home and have been cut off so many times by last second swervers that I have lost count. I am not sure there is a lot that can be done to improve it.

My other favorite McMillan quirk is the relatively newer massive speed cushion in EWH that has claimed the suspensions and front fascia of many unsuspecting drivers. The grooves in the pavement on either side of the cushion tell the tale.

I have bicycled the length of McMillan many times without incident. For whatever reason, people don't realize that there are always these things called "gaps in traffic" and when you ride your bike in one of these gaps you can pedal many blocks for 2-3 minutes without any cars catching up to you.

The reverse direction on Wm H Taft is more of a chore and so I typically decamp to University Ave, Oak, or some other combination of side streets.

47 minutes ago, tabasco said:

I too despise this exit, especially when an event releases in the UC area and people that are not as familiar with the area are flocking to the highway. I stay straight on McMillan to go home and have been cut off so many times by last second swervers that I have lost count. I am not sure there is a lot that can be done to improve it.

Restoring McMillan as a two-way street west of the onramp would improve it. Adding a stoplight at the onramp to I-71 would improve it. Adding on-street parking to the curbs would improve it. Adding curb extensions at intersections would improve it. Narrowing the width of the travel lanes would improve it. Adding dedicated bike lanes would improve it. Adding street trees would improve it. Enforcing lowered speed limits would improve it.

Slowing traffic down is not particularly difficult and need not be expensive (allowing curbside parking is the cheapest immediate intervention that would remove 2 lanes of travel), once you decide that it is a goal worth pursuing. The hard part is simply recognizing that cars are going too fast and the street design needs to be updated to force cars to slow down. McMillan was two-way until the late '60's. A lot of mistakes were made when highways were built through our cities. I have no patience for the view that "Well, this is how the street was designed in the '60s, so we should keep this design forever."

seems my comment was a mistake. i take it all back, the exit ramp is perfectly fine and a great use of money. The only thing I can think of is the use of the words "r*dl*ine, and maybe c*ty c*unc*l. I didn't know these words were restricted.

I agree with jwulsin. But, the ramp should be rebuilt and maybe relocated to another place. Stoplights, bike lanes, and on-street parking would surely slow traffic. Those ideas would work today. But, shouldn't we look to the future? The exit ramp onto Taft, just up the street, is horrible. How many lanes are there at Reading and Taft? That doesn't seem pedestrian-friendly at all. And, if someone (not familiar with the area) wants to exit I-71 at Taft, then drive across those lanes and take Essex across to McMillan is probably going to be on the evening news. Somehow, the block between Taft and McMillan east of Essex should be used to rework the traffic for that entire area. Because Uptown is going to continue growing. The Bethsada Hospital lot is empty. The traffic flow is bad for both Taft and McMillan in this area. Unless Cincy goes (SOV) single-occupancy vehicle/pro-pedestrian/streetcar/public transportation, this area will continue to stop development.

17 hours ago, RJohnson said:

The exit ramp onto Taft, just up the street, is horrible. How many lanes are there at Reading and Taft? That doesn't seem pedestrian-friendly at all. And, if someone (not familiar with the area) wants to exit I-71 at Taft, then drive across those lanes and take Essex across to McMillan is probably going to be on the evening news.

I agree that Taft also needs to be redesigned.

Here's an option that could be implemented without moving any curbs if Taft and Essex were both made two-way:

2 hours ago, jwulsin said:

Here's an option that could be implemented without moving any curbs if Taft and Essex were both made two-way:

I was thinking last night that a solution would be to make both McMillan and Taft return to two-way traffic from the St. Ursula school in Walnut Hills to Taft High School in Clifton Heights... Stoplights, speed bumps, and bike lanes included. This would include a Stoplight at Essex, too. ( I like the idea of Essex being two-way.) Traffic would then have the choice of driving up Reading to MLK. On McMillan, traffic could turn right on Highland and left on Kinsey to Reading Road. But it was late, and I don't know what problems I created. I'm ready for my flaying.

I've been saying on here for a long time, they need to figure out the McMillan and Taft corridor between UC and Walnut Hills. It has so much potential to be much better than it is, and with the massive ramps on MLK now, I think they need to two way it from UC to Walnut Hills and fix the whole street grid. Development would follow, I would think, and the time to strike is soon. I don't think that the council has that vision though.

15 minutes ago, IAGuy39 said:

I don't think that the council has that vision though.

Lucky for the council i have a vision maker.

'We're elated': Developers win vital tax credit award for $20M Vine Street housing project

A badly needed housing project at the southern gateway of Uptown has received a tax credit award that will bring it to life at last, rewarding the persistence of the developers, nonprofit partners and city leaders who have backed it for years.

The Ohio Housing Finance Agency, or OHFA, at its May 21 board meeting, having twice rejected the Vine & Polk project before, awarded it a reservation in the 9% federal low-income housing tax credit program.

The $20 million project will occupy the west side of Vine Street at Polk Street in the CUF neighborhood, commonly known as Clifton Heights, which faces a significant shortage of affordable and workforce housing.

In response, Vine & Polk will bring 57 apartments, income restricted to those making 60% or less of the area median income, which for an individual in Cincinnati amounts to $44,040.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/05/22/uptown-affordable-housing-vine-polk-8k-tax-credits.html

polk and vine could be a great place to live. on the bus line, across the street from a nice park, which I think has or had a reflecting pool. And if the streetcar tram comes up Vine that would be additionally nice.

Progress on the new Adriatico's retaining wall:

https://wedge1.hcauditor.org/view/re/1000003001000/2024/summary

Seems like maybe Mr. Tuxedo finally caved?

Does this mean that Adriatico's is now the owner (through 3 separate LLCs) of the properties from 107-113 W McMillan? Anybody know what their plans are for the whole site?

• 113 W McMillan - acquired by "McMillan LLC" 11/25/2009, with mailing address at 2985 Grandin (I think this is supposed to be 2985 Lower Grandin since there is no address of 2985 Grandin)

• 109 W McMillan - acquired by "109 West McMillan Street LLC" 2/17/2025, with mailing address at 2411 Grandin, owned by "SEBIT LLC" which seems tied to Susan Mary Kelley-Fernandez

• 107 W McMillan (combined parcels from 93-107 W McMillan) - acquired by "MCM103 LLC" 1/14/2025, with mailing address at 2985 Lower Grandin (owned by Kattie and Thomas Erbeck).

21 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Does this mean that Adriatico's is now the owner (through 3 separate LLCs) of the properties from 107-113 W McMillan? Anybody know what their plans are for the whole site?

• 113 W McMillan - acquired by "McMillan LLC" 11/25/2009, with mailing address at 2985 Grandin (I think this is supposed to be 2985 Lower Grandin since there is no address of 2985 Grandin)

• 109 W McMillan - acquired by "109 West McMillan Street LLC" 2/17/2025, with mailing address at 2411 Grandin, owned by "SEBIT LLC" which seems tied to Susan Mary Kelley-Fernandez

• 107 W McMillan (combined parcels from 93-107 W McMillan) - acquired by "MCM103 LLC" 1/14/2025, with mailing address at 2985 Lower Grandin (owned by Kattie and Thomas Erbeck).

Lazarus shared some info a while back. Adriatico's owner is building a new structure for the restaurant with an outdoor beer garden. Then they're going to rent out existing location to a different tenant.