And it just says "Clifton, OH". Clifton Ohio is near Yellow Springs. I've had suburbanite friends participate in events in OTR and tag them as Clifton Ohio. Then social media will generate a little map of the real Clifton Ohio.

 

Facebook's location data is awful. For city neighborhoods, it leaves out the actual city name and just says "Clifton, Ohio", "Pendleton, Ohio", etc. Which is problematic because many of those are actual cities in other parts of the state.

I wonder how many people are showing up to at the Clifton Mill in Clifton, OH asking if Nippert Stadium is close by?

 

Follow up: Of those people, how many are sticking around for the pancakes?

Here's info on the Deaconess development: http://res.cloudinary.com/courbanize-production/v1/timeline_events/yojdkiaxeargg56tdv7y

 

From the story on Business Courier: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/08/03/here-s-what-s-being-planned-for-the-former.html

 

180 hotel rooms, 750 housing units, 100,000 square feet of office space and 100,000 square feet of retail space.

 

Also expected to be included in the development is a small-format grocer or market along with a large entertainment venue that could take the form of a cinemas or bowling concept.

They really shouldn't be tearing down the historic part of the hospital. 

Yeah, I was surprised at that. I like a lot in the proposal, but it seems like that building would be really easy to convert into a hotel.

That's a substantial plan. That's a TON of developed square footage. I'm most interested in the B schemes that have a little more variety in height. That spot is so high in elevation that anything of the height shown would have incredible views.

 

I'm not super fond of demolishing the existing hotel building, BUT if they actually develop something of worthwhile quality I think it could be a net improvement.

 

I'm concerned though about the 100,000 square feet of retail. I feel there's already too much retail around UC, does this development really justify another 100,000 square feet? That's like 3 more UPA buildings...that seems problematic to me.

MORE FAST CASUAL AT $30/SF!

Wow, that project is huge. Agree with the others that the historic hospital building should stay, but love the idea of that much density near campus. Soon we may need better transit in uptown to move all these people around...

The thing is...how much denser will this be than Deaconess Hospital was 10 years ago when it was still a major hospital with an ER and research?  From the city's perspective, it is a major loss of revenue, although the psychiatric stuff moved to the old Jewish Hospital building on Burnett. 

 

Look how the Tri-Delts defiantly refuse to sell. 

 

 

Well, 750 units (looks like an average of around 1,000 square feet so likely two bedrooms) is likely around 1200-1500 people depending on how they're situated, 100,000 square feet of office is between 500-750 office workers depending on what type of office space it is, 106,500 square feet of retail is around 3 of UPA so 20-30 retail establishments, and then 170 hotel rooms which is likely another 150 or so people on a regular day (maybe more?)

 

So in total 1,850-2,400 people plus whatever is in the retail establishments. I wouldn't think Deaconess ever had that level of density but not sure. Maybe someone has some good numbers to compare.

It looks like both the Tri-Delts and the Jewish Center refused to sell, which is great, because otherwise this was going to inevitably turn into an ugly street wall.  Before Stratford Heights went in, Clifton was a nice modest row of eclectic residential structures from Straight up to Joselin.  The site plan for Stratford Heights is a mess and the building style is cheap and makes no sense.  Perhaps in the future we'll see the Stratford Heights apartments between Straford and Clifton rebuilt as something more substantial. 

 

Another mystery is the lot at the corner of Straight & University, between University and Fortune.  There was a big house there until it was torn down around 2012.  That is now a staging lot for the big product across the street.  From these drawings it's unclear what it's going to become, but it looks like they might try to jam a parking garage on it. 

Quite the pessimistic view! Also what's wrong with Stratford Heights? As far as I have seen (inside and out) the build quality is fine. It's also student housing. Anyway it seems your sentiments are stemming from a strange fear of change more than anything that seems rational. Straight from Clifton to the top of the hill has been fairly dead for years, even when Deaconess was open. I think this project has fantastic potential to bring some life to that area.

This development is dense af. If Uptown wants to be Cincinnati's "second downtown", we need more stuff like this and less of the garbage that's going up along MLK.

Quite the pessimistic view!

 

Well Towne Properties got away with murder with their amazingly cheap U square development.  A handful of good historic buildings were torn down for that development.  Looks like we're going to lose the historic section of Deaconess Hospital for another burrito place topped by particle board apartments. 

 

Sure if you want to base your judgement it solely on appearances, otherwise I would say that U Square has brought a lot of amenities to that area. Also recall it was a Hardee's and McDonald's for a long time, not just "Inn The Wood" or whatever else you may feel nostalgia towards.

Agreed. Although the architecture of USquare is awful, it's probably the most "successful" Clifton Heights has ever been in terms of commercial activity and street life. The little plaza at USquare has also turned into quite an important gathering space for a neighborhood that didn't previously have that type of space.

Yeah while U Square looks like apts at every other college it's brought a lot of good residents, retail, restaurants and bars to previously empty area.  And before it was empty it was filled with fast food places.  It is a definite upgrade. 

Quite the pessimistic view!

 

Well Towne Properties got away with murder with their amazingly cheap U square development.  A handful of good historic buildings were torn down for that development.  Looks like we're going to lose the historic section of Deaconess Hospital for another burrito place topped by particle board apartments. 

 

 

Most of the buildings in this site plan are well above the allowable height limit for wood framed construction so they'll either be steel or concrete. So from the get go they're going to be higher quality buildings than, say, U Square.

 

Regardless, as Taestell mentioned, this is insanely dense. If you feel like boiling it down to "just another burrito place topped with particle board apartments" then that's you deal, but that view is pretty ignorant and lacking any sort of critical analysis and based on meaningless predictions considering it's just a rough site plan at this point.

i don't remember any "historically significant" buildings in the U Square area. gas station, mcdonalds, arby, triple decker place, drive thru auto wash. Like it or not that street could have been most anywhere in the usa

Back in 2005 we were shown glistening renderings of what would be built between W. Clifton and Ohio Ave.  Underground parking, for starters, and an 8-story wall of apartments and condos.  Instead, after a 5-year delay, we got a pair of above-ground garages, a plastic apartment complex, and the Shell Station was preserved because of "neighborhood input".  Where was that survey?  Right, it didn't happen. 

 

The same thing is going to happen here.  Over-promise, under-deliver.  Trick everyone into thinking we're going to get high-quality buildings, then bust out the tinker toys. 

 

Also, I walked around Calhoun/McMillan in 1998 with a camera, and have some photos of the historic buildings that were torn down.  The area where the Fairfield Inn and Target is now, over to the Shell Station had several rows of row buildings in styles that were unique to Cincinnati. 

 

 

 

Well I apologize for my optimism /s.

Back in 2005 we were shown glistening renderings of what would be built between W. Clifton and Ohio Ave.  Underground parking, for starters, and an 8-story wall of apartments and condos.  Instead, after a 5-year delay, we got a pair of above-ground garages, a plastic apartment complex, and the Shell Station was preserved because of "neighborhood input".  Where was that survey?  Right, it didn't happen. 

 

The same thing is going to happen here.  Over-promise, under-deliver.  Trick everyone into thinking we're going to get high-quality buildings, then bust out the tinker toys. 

 

Also, I walked around Calhoun/McMillan in 1998 with a camera, and have some photos of the historic buildings that were torn down.  The area where the Fairfield Inn and Target is now, over to the Shell Station had several rows of row buildings in styles that were unique to Cincinnati. 

 

You're comparing renderings pre recession to buildings built post recession...that wasn't just some tactic to get everyone on board, it was a reality of the changes to the market that happened in the time it took to get the project off the ground.

 

The building they're already constructing is going to be higher quality than U Square. Again, because it can't be wood framed construction so it already has a better starting point.

 

The scale they're trying to achieve is fairly substantial and will require higher quality construction to become a reality. it's very early, so who knows how it'll pan out, but so far their first phase is already a step above the other similar developments in the area and is literally taking an ugly garage and wrapping it so the streets around are now going to be fronted with active uses. They're off to a good start.

Back in 2005 we were shown glistening renderings of what would be built between W. Clifton and Ohio Ave.  Underground parking, for starters, and an 8-story wall of apartments and condos.  Instead, after a 5-year delay, we got a pair of above-ground garages, a plastic apartment complex, and the Shell Station was preserved because of "neighborhood input".  Where was that survey?  Right, it didn't happen. 

 

The same thing is going to happen here.  Over-promise, under-deliver.  Trick everyone into thinking we're going to get high-quality buildings, then bust out the tinker toys. 

 

Also, I walked around Calhoun/McMillan in 1998 with a camera, and have some photos of the historic buildings that were torn down.  The area where the Fairfield Inn and Target is now, over to the Shell Station had several rows of row buildings in styles that were unique to Cincinnati.

there were buildings. Were they unique to cincy or anywhere. I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

What's the cut off line between a shitty old building and a historic building?  40 years?  60 years?  80+ years?  I'm just curious because it seems like for some people every old building is a historic building. 

Probably shouldn't open that can of worms...

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more. 

 

 

 

And the buildings on Straight (aside from original Deaconess building) were/are not historically significant. The house on Fulton was nice but really not that special. Additionally, the whole stretch has just been a place where people throw trash as they speed through. I would much prefer an activated area than the complete lack of anything that exists there now.

Don't forget that UC originally wanted to demolish the block between Ohio and Scioto as well, but fortunately this cluster of buildings was saved as well as the old church that got turned into the Urban Outfitters and CHCURC offices. Imagine a third block of USquare there instead of the historic buildings.

i don't remember any "historically significant" buildings in the U Square area. gas station, mcdonalds, arby, triple decker place, drive thru auto wash. Like it or not that street could have been most anywhere in the usa

 

I have another photo somewhere of the building closest to the Shell station.  It was the only building of that style in the city, maybe more of a St. Louis style apartment:

 

So what you're looking at here is now the space for the hotel and the east parking garage.

 

pointycollars[/member] had some good pics from the insides too but they were unfortunately lost after the big UO server crash a few years back.

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more.

 

 

 

You say hello and I say goodbye. Historic walkup basements (all four of them) and the photo someone else posted only shows that nothing was lost here. Camp Washington, Northside, in fact any number of neighborhoods have buildings that look like this. It wasn't a historic neighborhood. People didn't drive from St. Louis or Chicago to admire Cincy's architecture. OTR is probably historic, Union Terminal Historic, Tusculum area historic, The Taft Home historic, and maybe even the zoo could be considered historic. For me historic means something happened at this location. And we should remember it.

 

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

Sounds like the typical Cincinnati attitude of life-long local residents now knowing the value of our own building stock. What Aaron Renn called our "embarassment of riches."

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

The Trinitas student housing project:

 

UC Trinitas Student Housing 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

 

UC Trinitas Student Housing (2) 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

 

I'm posting these here since it's a private development that will turn into a neighborhood development.

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

 

If historic architecture is that meaningless to you then stay up in the northern burbs. They just opened Liberty Town Center, it sounds right up your alley

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

 

 

 

bm

 

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

 

 

 

bm

 

 

i appreciate all kinds of architecture. unfortunately, narrowminded people don't want to hear the truth. Please define "historic architecture'?  i will be sure to correct you when to deviate from your definition and I will use your definition against you. if you dont  consider the arches of McDonalds, neon signs and the drive thru service of historical significance then stand up. You will be able to see farther. If I'm not mistaken the name of this blog is Urban Ohio. McDonalds are in Ohio and in the cities of Ohio and that includes Cincy. So bugger off.

 

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

 

If historic architecture is that meaningless to you then stay up in the northern burbs. They just opened Liberty Town Center, it sounds right up your alley

Stop being so contentious, no one wants to argue your definition of historic, we all have our own opinions on what we like. Now you're just making a scene.

Getting back on topic, new PDF with the latest design plans for "The District". Lots of details here: https://res.cloudinary.com/courbanize-production/image/upload/v1/timeline_events/lvrrvxjlfzmrhi6qdqdk

 

The views on top of the high-rises could be pretty special.

The District: I love it all. Build it and they will come.

So it appears they dropped the shorter option?

And suddenly Uptown has a skyline.

Looks like a great project, will do an awesome job to densify and hopefully soon they can get the lot across the street from the crossroads church to get moving.

And suddenly Uptown has a skyline.

 

Been done had one, bruh

 

The naming contest for the apartments that are currently under construction came up with..."The Deacon".  Except Deaconess hospital was named for...deaconesses.  As in female deacons. 

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more.

 

 

 

You say hello and I say goodbye. Historic walkup basements (all four of them) and the photo someone else posted only shows that nothing was lost here. Camp Washington, Northside, in fact any number of neighborhoods have buildings that look like this. It wasn't a historic neighborhood. People didn't drive from St. Louis or Chicago to admire Cincy's architecture. OTR is probably historic, Union Terminal Historic, Tusculum area historic, The Taft Home historic, and maybe even the zoo could be considered historic. For me historic means something happened at this location. And we should remember it.

 

 

There is an international urbanist group where I posted a beautiful shot of OTR, and only like 500+ people have responded to it positively.  Only that and no comments from people admiring the tenements or anything like that.  ::)

 

I also posted some unlabeled photos of places like East Walnut Hills and CUF and people were asking where they were, with an interest of OMG I didn't know this existed in the midwest.

Also here is what was demoed pictures are worth a thousand words to those who get caught up in the rhetoric about it only being fast food places:

 

http://cincinnatimonocle.blogspot.com/2012/01/photos-of-calhoun-st-and-mcmillan-st-in.html