2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Playgrounds at this point are so safe and balless that kids have more chance of hurting themselves on the gazebo

So, when was the last time you got a quote for installing a playground? Had to develop a maintenance agreement for it? Ensure had sufficient insurance/liability coverage?

No jokes around this guy

Re: master plan for the site.

 

i like how it extends the street grid for 31st to 33rd Aves. and also adds an East-west street. And that 2 out of the 3 street extensions go almost all the way to the tracks in case additional connections over the tracks can be made someday. 
 

it gets a little dicey in in terms of urban form in the northwest corner where it looks like some buildings (labeled “G”) would face parking lots. Although that portion is sort of boxed into a corner anyway. 

 

It seems like many multi family buildings face parking lots as a default design these days, ironically making it easier to create good urban form (buildings that face streets) with single family homes like in the eastern portion of the development, although its not as dense.

 

I guess my views on urbanism are really simple: have streets and then have the buildings face them.

 

 

29 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Re: master plan for the site.

 

i like how it extends the street grid for 31st to 33rd Aves. and also adds an East-west street. And that 2 out of the 3 street extensions go almost all the way to the tracks in case additional connections over the tracks can be made someday. 
 

it gets a little dicey in in terms of urban form in the northwest corner where it looks like some buildings (labeled “G”) would face parking lots. Although that portion is sort of boxed into a corner anyway. 

 

It seems like many multi family buildings face parking lots as a default design these days, ironically making it easier to create good urban form (buildings that face streets) with single family homes like in the eastern portion of the development, although its not as dense.

 

I guess my views on urbanism are really simple: have streets and then have the buildings face them.

 

 

The mix of multi-family and single family may change, so the internal development plan could change before it gets to the city for final approvals. Neyer is now saying 65-100 single family units vs. just 65 previously, but there has been no formal presentation to community council nor official confirmation that they are in fact upping the number for this section.

 

My speculation only: they getting more interest in single family from potential development partners and buyer inquiries. This would not be a bad thing IMHO.

1 hour ago, thebillshark said:

Re: master plan for the site.

 

i like how it extends the street grid for 31st to 33rd Aves. and also adds an East-west street. And that 2 out of the 3 street extensions go almost all the way to the tracks in case additional connections over the tracks can be made someday. 
 

it gets a little dicey in in terms of urban form in the northwest corner where it looks like some buildings (labeled “G”) would face parking lots. Although that portion is sort of boxed into a corner anyway. 

 

It seems like many multi family buildings face parking lots as a default design these days, ironically making it easier to create good urban form (buildings that face streets) with single family homes like in the eastern portion of the development, although its not as dense.

 

I guess my views on urbanism are really simple: have streets and then have the buildings face them.

 

 

 

If Cranley hadn't gotten his way back in 2003-04, we'd have something like this on the Milacron site instead of the Center of Cincinnati.  No free parking garages for donors. 

 

 

1 hour ago, jag09 said:

The mix of multi-family and single family may change, so the internal development plan could change before it gets to the city for final approvals. Neyer is now saying 65-100 single family units vs. just 65 previously, but there has been no formal presentation to community council nor official confirmation that they are in fact upping the number for this section.

 

My speculation only: they getting more interest in single family from potential development partners and buyer inquiries. This would not be a bad thing IMHO.

Please don’t take my comment the wrong way, I am not expressing a preference for single family housing at this site, I am actually excited by the fact that multifamily housing at this site could increase the city’s population by the hundreds, maybe a thousand. I am simply commenting on the form 

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by thebillshark

28 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Please don’t take my comment the wrong way, I am not expressing a preference for single family housing at this site, I am actually excited by the fact that multifamily housing at this site could increase the city’s population by the hundreds, maybe a thousand. I am simply commenting on the form 

Understand, I was just providing input that the layout - specifically as it relates to the “g” and “t” sections - could be changing. And a pedestrian tunnel from end of 34th to Oakley Station is being investigated.

 

The community goal, as outlined in the master plan, is to reduce the gap in rental vs. owner occupied %, so more single family and owner occupied properties the better. We’ve already added considerably to the city population, let other neighborhoods do their share.

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by jag09

31 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

If Cranley hadn't gotten his way back in 2003-04, we'd have something like this on the Milacron site instead of the Center of Cincinnati.  No free parking garages for donors. 

 

 

Actually, Millworks would have still been predominantly commercial/retail, but would have used existing buildings and would have been a much more enjoyable (and walkable) experience.

^ And of course, Norwood tore down blocks of single-family homes on nice urban streets in order to create the suburban hellscape known as Rookwood Exchange.

8 minutes ago, taestell said:

^ And of course, Norwood tore down blocks of single-family homes on nice urban streets in order to create the suburban hellscape known as Rookwood Exchange.

We can only control we we have responsibility for.

33 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’ve already added considerably to the city population, let other neighborhoods do their share.

Oakley sits at a sweet spot in proximity to both downtown jobs and jobs in the Blue Ash/northeast suburbs along the golden road of I-71, the rest of Cincinnati needs it to accept growth, lest it is captured by the suburbs and exurbs. Other neighborhoods don’t have this geographic advantage that creates demand. 

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by thebillshark

25 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Oakley sits at a sweet spot in proximity to both downtown jobs and jobs in the Blue Ash/northeast suburbs along the golden road of I-71, the rest of Cincinnati needs it to accept growth, lest it is captured by the suburbs and exurbs. Other neighborhoods don’t have this geographic advantage that creates demand. 

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010. It’s not our responsibility to carry the burden for the rest of the city, especially not at the risk of destroying our neighborhood in the process. We will continue to push for more owner occupied over rentals, as that the very clearly stated will of the community. 

 

If the city wants to increase its population, it needs to invest in other neighborhoods to make them attractive options.

On 5/27/2020 at 11:15 AM, ucgrady said:

 

It was never shown as part of the master plan. 

 

The above site plan is different from what was submitted in the Planning Commission packet, fyi. The project, with a lot of detail, begins on page 612 (after a tome of FC Cincinnati garage drawings). https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/may-22-2020-packet/

 

10 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010. It’s not our responsibility to carry the burden for the rest of the city, especially not at the risk of destroying our neighborhood in the process. We will continue to push for more owner occupied over rentals, as that the very clearly stated will of the community. 

 

If the city wants to increase its population, it needs to invest in other neighborhoods to make them attractive options.

 

Why do you hate renters? Pretty intense to say that growth "destroys" a neighborhood. I'd gladly take thousands more residents in my neighborhood to support our business district, contribute to the tax base, and add to the street life.

16 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010.

 

The population of Oakley is about 1,500 higher than it was in 2010. 

 

2010: 10,429

 

Latest Estimate: 11,979

1 hour ago, jag09 said:

We can only control we we have responsibility for.

 

For sure. I didn't mean to imply that anyone other than Norwood is responsible for Norwood's bad urban planning decisions.

 

23 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010. It’s not our responsibility to carry the burden for the rest of the city, especially not at the risk of destroying our neighborhood in the process. We will continue to push for more owner occupied over rentals, as that the very clearly stated will of the community. 

 

This is reasonable on its surface but when extrapolated across the entire city leads to widespread NIMBYism and an anti-growth environment. Everybody has a reason why their neighborhood shouldn't see any new development beyond what's already there.

58 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010. It’s not our responsibility to carry the burden for the rest of the city, especially not at the risk of destroying our neighborhood in the process. We will continue to push for more owner occupied over rentals, as that the very clearly stated will of the community. 

 

If the city wants to increase its population, it needs to invest in other neighborhoods to make them attractive options.

considering that the oakley square area as a whole still kind of sucks, I'd personally be advocating for more large scale development & growth but to each their own 

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by seaswan

26 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

The population of Oakley is about 1,500 higher than it was in 2010. 

 

2010: 10,429

 

Latest Estimate: 11,979

Actually, the 2010 census number for Oakley 45209 is 9605.

 

The latest ACS estimates are only thru end of 2018 (and are lower than actual), do not include 2019 growth, nor the projected impact of the numerous developments in process right now. My estimates puts total at closer to 13,700. Time will tell what the 2020 census counts show us - our tract that is predominantly rental properties is lagging in its response rate.

 

1 hour ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

 

The above site plan is different from what was submitted in the Planning Commission packet, fyi. The project, with a lot of detail, begins on page 612 (after a tome of FC Cincinnati garage drawings). https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/may-22-2020-packet/

 

Yes, the first diagram is the latest that Neyer has shared/presented publicly to the community.

 

The one included in the packet is more detailed and is the result of a series of meetings with various city departments. Things like width of streets, sidewalks, emergency/sanitation access, utilities placements, etc. are in the latest.

 

Neyer is scheduled to present at the next public OCC meeting and I’d assume they will have updated plans to share.

8 minutes ago, jag09 said:

Actually, the 2010 census number for Oakley 45209 is 9605.

 

The 45209 zip code and Oakley do not line up perfectly. I used the city's definition of Oakley, which is Census Tracts 52, 53.01, 53.02, and 54. 

 

10 minutes ago, jag09 said:

The latest ACS estimates are only thru end of 2018 (and are lower than actual)

 

That's just, like, your opinion. 

 

But it's all besides the point. More residents is good for the city, and if there is demand to live in Oakley, we should encourage it. I can't, for the life of me, fathom why you would want to limit the number of people living on this site. It's right next to a regional shopping destination. These people could live there and walk to it, or they could live in Northside, Norwood, Pleasant Ridge, etc. and just drive to it--which would add tons more traffic to Madison. 

26 minutes ago, seaswan said:

considering that the oakley square area as a whole still kind of sucks, I'd personally be advocating for more large scale development & growth but to each their own 

Your opinion, which is fine, but unless you’re an Oakley resident or business owner then it’s not really taken into consideration.

9 minutes ago, jag09 said:

Your opinion, which is fine, but unless you’re an Oakley resident or business owner then it’s not really taken into consideration.

What a ridiculous notion. The idea that you have to live in a specific neighborhood to understand what does and doesn't work and how well something is currently working is ridiculous.

 

I was in Oakley many times a week when I still lived in Cincy. Was I only allowed to form a valuable opinion about OTR since that's where I lived? I saw what was not working in Oakley, such as a lack of businesses fronting the square, a lack of pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and an over-emphasis on car throughput, an opposition to any new development whatsoever, especially if it was dense, etc.

 

These things are what hold back an urban neighborhood. You don't need to live there to understand that.

27 minutes ago, jmicha said:

What a ridiculous notion. The idea that you have to live in a specific neighborhood to understand what does and doesn't work and how well something is currently working is ridiculous.

 

I was in Oakley many times a week when I still lived in Cincy. Was I only allowed to form a valuable opinion about OTR since that's where I lived? I saw what was not working in Oakley, such as a lack of businesses fronting the square, a lack of pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and an over-emphasis on car throughput, an opposition to any new development whatsoever, especially if it was dense, etc.

 

These things are what hold back an urban neighborhood. You don't need to live there to understand that.

Well, as a volunteer member of the Oakley Community Council, my obligation Is to represent the community to the city. In that capacity, In the final analysis the opinions of actual residents and business owners do carry heavier weight than outsiders.

 

That doesn’t mean we don’t consider outside opinions when issues are being discussed, but in the end we’re the voice of the community.

 

 

46 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

The 45209 zip code and Oakley do not line up perfectly. I used the city's definition of Oakley, which is Census Tracts 52, 53.01, 53.02, and 54. 

 

 

That's just, like, your opinion. 

 

But it's all besides the point. More residents is good for the city, and if there is demand to live in Oakley, we should encourage it. I can't, for the life of me, fathom why you would want to limit the number of people living on this site. It's right next to a regional shopping destination. These people could live there and walk to it, or they could live in Northside, Norwood, Pleasant Ridge, etc. and just drive to it--which would add tons more traffic to Madison. 

Actually, I think it’s an educated opinion. I’m a PhD Data Science guy, an active community council member for past 20 months, and was very active in the master plan process going back an additional year. So part of what I could contribute is bringing the applicable data to the table so it could help form better decisions and more proactive thinking. I’m very familiar with the tracts, the differences with community council boundaries vs statistical ones, etc.

 

The city has never been able to reconcile that 2010 number when I ask about it.

The point that you and others are missing is:

- There 52 neighborhoods in the city, why must the burden fall on Oakley?

- We’re not anti-growth, as evidenced by the number of developments and residents that have been added in past decade
- We prefer that the growth include more owners vs renters to help get a more balanced ratio.

 

Our challenge is to manage the growth while trying to maintain the character & identity that make it a community that people want to be part of. At some point things like walk-ability, pedestrian safety, ability of small local businesses to compete with national chains, traffic congestion are negatively impacted with uncontrolled growth.

 

Long term community viability requires a better balance of owners vs renters. This is not a hate of renters - I rent, as does our council president - but reality is most renters aren’t as invested in the neighborhood as owners are.

 

3 hours ago, jag09 said:

Actually, Millworks would have still been predominantly commercial/retail, but would have used existing buildings and would have been a much more enjoyable (and walkable) experience.

 

Center of Cincinnati was built around 2005.  Robert Smyjunus developed both it and the bigger development to the south around 2015.  I recall that the main Milacron buildings still stood until 2011 or 2012.  

 

Going back 20 years, Roxanne Qualls pushed for the whole thing - 100~ acres - to be mostly residential.  That plan was dismantled in favor of big box retail.  Most of that stuff is going to go bust in the next 10 years - the once mighty Sam's Club is now..."At Home", whatever that is.  That's a harbinger of things to come.  

 

All of that big box retail diluted Madison Rd. retail, including Oakley Square.  

 

 

2 hours ago, taestell said:

 

For sure. I didn't mean to imply that anyone other than Norwood is responsible for Norwood's bad urban planning decisions.

 

 

This is reasonable on its surface but when extrapolated across the entire city leads to widespread NIMBYism and an anti-growth environment. Everybody has a reason why their neighborhood shouldn't see any new development beyond what's already there.

How is it reasonable to expect one neighborhood to carry the brunt of burden for the whole community? It’s not like we’ve not grown, quite the opposite. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we should want to be able to manage this growth while maintaining those things which made us attractive to begin with.

6 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Center of Cincinnati was built around 2005.  Robert Smyjunus developed both it and the bigger development to the south around 2015.  I recall that the main Milacron buildings still stood until 2011 or 2012.  

 

Going back 20 years, Roxanne Qualls pushed for the whole thing - 100~ acres - to be mostly residential.  That plan was dismantled in favor of big box retail.  Most of that stuff is going to go bust in the next 10 years - the once mighty Sam's Club is now..."At Home", whatever that is.  That's a harbinger of things to come.  

 

All of that big box retail diluted Madison Rd. retail, including Oakley Square.  

 

 

I won’t argue any of that, predates my involvement. From what I’m told, most of Center of Cincinnati & Oakley Station was done in spite of community opposition.

1 hour ago, jag09 said:

Your opinion, which is fine, but unless you’re an Oakley resident or business owner then it’s not really taken into consideration.

 

I'm a Cincinnati taxpayer. Last I checked, Oakley is in Cincinnati. 

I have some more zoomed out observations and questions... Cincinnati has a ~40,000 unit affordable housing shortage. A project like this has a big opportunity to put a dent (maybe more like a ding) in that number. As we face a climate catastrophe exacerbated by consumption and car culture encouraging people to adopt lengthy, stressful, and toxic commutes a development that focuses on a dense, walkable, amenity-rich urban form is really what I would expect folks on "Urban"Ohio to promote. Certainly, I am waiting for Camp Washington to urbanize in a meaningful way, as well as Northside south of Blue Rock but right now developers see the old industrial corridor of the Baltimore & Ohio as the place to develop in the city. Other neighborhoods will get their moment... but right now, all eyes on the vestigial industrial wastelands in Oakley.

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

Actually, I think it’s an educated opinion. I’m a PhD Data Science guy, an active community council member for past 20 months, and was very active in the master plan process going back an additional year. So part of what I could contribute is bringing the applicable data to the table so it could help form better decisions and more proactive thinking. I’m very familiar with the tracts, the differences with community council boundaries vs statistical ones, etc.

 

Well I'm a career urban planner and data analyst. I'm not sure how that, or your role, is relevant to the accuracy of ACS data. But that's a digression. 

 

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

The city has never been able to reconcile that 2010 number when I ask about it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

- There 52 neighborhoods in the city, why must the burden fall on Oakley?

 

My point is that there is no burden. It is a blessing. I'd gladly take the development in Northside, but the kinds of people who want to live in Oakley are more likely to end up in Blue Ash than they are Northside. And if they end up in Blue Ash because we didn't build enough housing for them in Oakley, that is bad for the city. 

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

We’re not anti-growth, as evidenced by the number of developments and residents that have been added in past decade

 

1,500 residents? Yes, it's like going to be more over the whole decade, but not a ton more. That's hardly evidence of a pro-growth environment. The demand is there for many more. 

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

Our challenge is to manage the growth while trying to maintain the character & identity that make it a community that people want to be part of. At some point things like walk-ability, pedestrian safety, ability of small local businesses to compete with national chains, traffic congestion are negatively impacted with uncontrolled growth.

 

This is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do. How would more apartments on this site, tucked away in the corner of the neighborhood, bordering railroad tracks and Oakley Station, detract from the "character & identity" of the community? I encourage you to seriously consider that statement. Would adding more apartments here make the community less walkable? No. The opposite actually. Would it make the community less safe for pedestrians. No. The opposite actually. Would it keep small local businesses from competing with national chains? No. The opposite, because there'll be more people to walk to the small businesses! Would it increase traffic congestion? No. Because people can walk to Oakley Square or Oakley Station if they live there, instead of driving to those places from other neighborhoods like they do now! Everything you claim to try to be doing with this attitude, you're actually doing the opposite. 

 

35 minutes ago, jag09 said:

Long term community viability requires a better balance of owners vs renters. This is not a hate of renters - I rent, as does our council president - but reality is most renters aren’t as invested in the neighborhood as owners are.

 

This is the absolute worst. Because, you say that this is not a hate of renters, but it's basically like saying "I'm not racist." If you have to say it, you probably are (and no it doesn't make a difference that you yourself are a renter). Why do "long term community viability" require a balance of owners and renters? You've provided no evidence of that. There are plenty of viable, thriving neighborhoods throughout this country. I've been in a million planning meetings where a councilperson, township trustee, or planning commission member asks if we could explore provisions to require owner-occupied units, or to ask a developer about the ownership plans for units and I say "ABSOLUTELY NOT." This concern about renters not being "invested" in the neighborhood is not only unfounded, but it is discriminatory. 

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by DEPACincy

18 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

I have some more zoomed out observations and questions... Cincinnati has a ~40,000 unit affordable housing shortage. A project like this has a big opportunity to put a dent (maybe more like a ding) in that number. As we face a climate catastrophe exacerbated by consumption and car culture encouraging people to adopt lengthy, stressful, and toxic commutes a development that focuses on a dense, walkable, amenity-rich urban form is really what I would expect folks on "Urban"Ohio to promote. Certainly, I am waiting for Camp Washington to urbanize in a meaningful way, as well as Northside south of Blue Rock but right now developers see the old industrial corridor of the Baltimore & Ohio as the place to develop in the city. Other neighborhoods will get their moment... but right now, all eyes on the vestigial industrial wastelands in Oakley.

 

This is a good point, and one I was curious about myself. Why was no affordable housing included in the development? I'm all for ANY development, market rate or affordable. But so many of the new developments in other neighborhoods have a mix of both. Oakley is supposedly shouldering so much "burden" with this development. Why is the burden of providing affordable units falling on other neighborhoods? Has there been ANY affordable units developed in Oakley this decade? I can't think of any. 

People need to remember that banks aren't lending to builders for nearly anything that has to be bought rather than rented. This includes both condos and single-family detached. Basically only way to get single family built in today's lending environment is for the future owner to get it financed as an individual. So demanding any new development be only for owner occupation is a de facto demand for no development until the lending environment changes -- which may not happen for quite a while.

29 minutes ago, jag09 said:

How is it reasonable to expect one neighborhood to carry the brunt of burden for the whole community? It’s not like we’ve not grown, quite the opposite. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we should want to be able to manage this growth while maintaining those things which made us attractive to begin with.

 

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that Oakley must bare the sole burden of densification. However that attitude, when extrapolated across multiple neighborhoods and jurisdictions can end up causing decline. Often times neighborhoods that do not evolve decline. I think the whole renter vs owner thing is tinged with bias from the pro-owner occupied side. For a very long time renters were stigmatized, but those perceptions shifted after the housing market collapse. Personally, I rented for thirteen years and stayed in the same place for over 9 years. I took care of my place, got along with my landlord, got active in my community, etc. Eventually I bought a place less than two blocks away. Renting often allows new residents to sample a neighborhood and potentially put down roots by purchasing.

 

1 hour ago, jag09 said:

Actually, the 2010 census number for Oakley 45209 is 9605.

 

The latest ACS estimates are only thru end of 2018 (and are lower than actual), do not include 2019 growth, nor the projected impact of the numerous developments in process right now. My estimates puts total at closer to 13,700. Time will tell what the 2020 census counts show us - our tract that is predominantly rental properties is lagging in its response rate.

 

Here's the city's data sheet on Oakley: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/B551FA01-C25A-4AE5-41085780A1056E4F/showMeta/0/

 

I would advise that any questions about the accuracy of these numbers be directed towards the City's Planning Department. 

8 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

People need to remember that banks aren't lending to builders for nearly anything that has to be bought rather than rented. This includes both condos and single-family detached. Basically only way to get single family built in today's lending environment is for the future owner to get it financed as an individual. So demanding any new development be only for owner occupation is a de facto demand for no development until the lending environment changes -- which may not happen for quite a while.

 

Exactly. We must "eat" the rich. "Burn down" existing institutions. Redistribute the wealth and invest in well-being and education as top priorities. We live in a society, don't we?

 

EDIT: All this to say... our existing financial situation doesn't seem to allow for the owner occupied utopia that is being debated right now.

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by Chas Wiederhold

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I'm a Cincinnati taxpayer. Last I checked, Oakley is in Cincinnati. 

I too am a taxpayer. But I'm not eligible to vote on issues in front of other neighborhood/community councils. I can voice my opinion, as can anyone regarding Oakley development.

I'm specifically addressing votes that come before us in Oakley, and the opinions that matter at the end of the day are those who live in Oakley, own a business in Oakley, work in Oakley, or worship in Oakley.

3 hours ago, JYP said:

 

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that Oakley must bare the sole burden of densification. However that attitude, when extrapolated across multiple neighborhoods and jurisdictions can end up causing decline. Often times neighborhoods that do not evolve decline. I think the whole renter vs owner thing is tinged with bias from the pro-owner occupied side. For a very long time renters were stigmatized, but those perceptions shifted after the housing market collapse. Personally, I rented for thirteen years and stayed in the same place for over 9 years. I took care of my place, got along with my landlord, got active in my community, etc. Eventually I bought a place less than two blocks away. Renting often allows new residents to sample a neighborhood and potentially put down roots by purchasing.

 

Here's the city's data sheet on Oakley: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/B551FA01-C25A-4AE5-41085780A1056E4F/showMeta/0/

 

I would advise that any questions about the accuracy of these numbers be directed towards the City's Planning Department. 

We're not anti-renters - I rent as does our council president. We have tried very hard to get those who rent in Oakley to engage, get involved, participate so their voice can be heard too. Multiple emails, providing flyers at rental offices, welcome emails for new renters, annual mailings to all physical addresses. Crickets. A few do engage, but >95% do not. That tract's census response rate is currently < 50%, despite targeted efforts by us & Greater Cincy Counts to reach them and encourage participation. And part of the reason to attempt to get them engaged is exactly what you stated - allow them to see what we have to offer with the hope they will decide to purchase here at some pint down the road.

But there also value in trying to promote more home ownership here.  You may not agree, but Oakley not really an urban core area, has long had a good mix of rentals and owned. Just want to maintain that were possible.

And have no issues with the rental units going into the Neyer development, but if they opt to increase single family housing I personally see that as s good thing.

And there have been several here that have indeed said Oakley should focus more on the numbers we can add because the rest of the city needs it. Sorry, not going to happen.

Edited May 28, 20205 yr by jag09

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is a good point, and one I was curious about myself. Why was no affordable housing included in the development? I'm all for ANY development, market rate or affordable. But so many of the new developments in other neighborhoods have a mix of both. Oakley is supposedly shouldering so much "burden" with this development. Why is the burden of providing affordable units falling on other neighborhoods? Has there been ANY affordable units developed in Oakley this decade? I can't think of any. 

We don't have any type of community redevelopment corp or business group that actively seeks out investors/developers. The rising property values present a cost of entry that is too high for most of those developers who work in the "affordable" housing space, so they don't consider Oakley.  They look to College Hill, Walnut Hills, Madisonville - all who have active redevelopment entities working to attract such developers. Most grant programs steer such efforts to neighborhoods that are deemed to be in more urgent need.

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Well I'm a career urban planner and data analyst. I'm not sure how that, or your role, is relevant to the accuracy of ACS data. But that's a digression. 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

 

My point is that there is no burden. It is a blessing. I'd gladly take the development in Northside, but the kinds of people who want to live in Oakley are more likely to end up in Blue Ash than they are Northside. And if they end up in Blue Ash because we didn't build enough housing for them in Oakley, that is bad for the city. 

 

1,500 residents? Yes, it's like going to be more over the whole decade, but not a ton more. That's hardly evidence of a pro-growth environment. The demand is there for many more. 

 

This is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do. How would more apartments on this site, tucked away in the corner of the neighborhood, bordering railroad tracks and Oakley Station, detract from the "character & identity" of the community? I encourage you to seriously consider that statement. Would adding more apartments here make the community less walkable? No. The opposite actually. Would it make the community less safe for pedestrians. No. The opposite actually. Would it keep small local businesses from competing with national chains? No. The opposite, because there'll be more people to walk to the small businesses! Would it increase traffic congestion? No. Because people can walk to Oakley Square or Oakley Station if they live there, instead of driving to those places from other neighborhoods like they do now! Everything you claim to try to be doing with this attitude, you're actually doing the opposite. 

 

 

This is the absolute worst. Because, you say that this is not a hate of renters, but it's basically like saying "I'm not racist." If you have to say it, you probably are (and no it doesn't make a difference that you yourself are a renter). Why do "long term community viability" require a balance of owners and renters? You've provided no evidence of that. There are plenty of viable, thriving neighborhoods throughout this country. I've been in a million planning meetings where a councilperson, township trustee, or planning commission member asks if we could explore provisions to require owner-occupied units, or to ask a developer about the ownership plans for units and I say "ABSOLUTELY NOT." This concern about renters not being "invested" in the neighborhood is not only unfounded, but it is discriminatory. 

Well you have all the answers, no need to even try to engage you further. 

 

You simply twist what I say, and discount the fact that i actually work with all the Oakley related data from numerous sources.

2 hours ago, jag09 said:

We're not anti-renters - I rent as does our council president. We have tried very hard to get those who rent in Oakley to engage, get involved, participate so their voice can be heard too. Multiple emails, providing flyers at rental offices, welcome emails for new renters, annual mailings to all physical addresses. Crickets. A few do engage, but >95% do not. That tract's census response rate is currently < 50%, despite targeted efforts by us & Greater Cincy Counts to reach them and encourage participation. And part of the reason to attempt to get them engaged is exactly what you stated - allow them to see what we have to offer with the hope they will decide to purchase here at some pint down the road.

But there also value in trying to promote more home ownership here.  You may not agree, but Oakley not really an urban core area, has long had a good mix of rentals and owned. Just want to maintain that were possible.

And have no issues with the rental units going into the Neyer development, but if they opt to increase single family housing I personally see that as s good thing.

And there have been several here that have indeed said Oakley should focus more on the numbers we can add because the rest of the city needs it. Sorry, not going to happen.

 

I am sympathetic to what you are saying regarding the Community Council and your disappointment in the level of engagement you are seeing. When I lived on Alicemont, my landlord was Jon Doucleff who along with his wife were very active on the Council (I know one of them was President or however that is structured) before they moved to Mt. Lookout or Mt. Washington -- can't remember which right now. It's not your fault; the neighborhood is big with the post-college crowd who are notoriousl for being strapped for time and often apathetic toward local politics. At least it's not like here in Columbus where almost the entire city is apathetic about local politics and can't name any City Council members.

 

The reason that so few of these projects include single-family is that once developers add a single-family component the banks lock up and won't fund the project. Most developers would want to add single-family since they get their money back NOW when it sells. In the same way that we here at UO become frustrated when not enough mixed-use gets built due to banks rejecting the retail component (unless they are able to get a long-term pre-sign on a taproom, '50s diner or farm-to-table restaurant or whatever) the banks control what residential gets built. UO users, apathy, lack of public sector involvement are not what keeps owner-occupied from being added to the project. And unfortunately even at the Mayor's Office or even state level it is tough to control what the banks want to see and why the federal government has to get involved with affordable housing.

 

Are Oakley renters really that bad? I don't think so. The advantages of neighborhoods full of owner-occupied often has to do with so many homeowners being retirees since they have the time for all these extracurricular activities. But that can lead to a lack of variety in the businesses that are located in the vicinity. This is how Oakley south of Madison was in the '80s and '90s with north of Madison being the Slammer's crowd.

Edited May 29, 20205 yr by GCrites80s

16 hours ago, jag09 said:

Well you have all the answers, no need to even try to engage you further. 

 

You simply twist what I say, and discount the fact that i actually work with all the Oakley related data from numerous sources.

 

I'm not sure how you got that idea. I was simply responding to what you said. I hope you think about some of your preconceived notions about renters and density. That's all. 

On 5/28/2020 at 3:36 PM, JYP said:

 

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that Oakley must bare the sole burden of densification. However that attitude, when extrapolated across multiple neighborhoods and jurisdictions can end up causing decline. Often times neighborhoods that do not evolve decline. I think the whole renter vs owner thing is tinged with bias from the pro-owner occupied side. For a very long time renters were stigmatized, but those perceptions shifted after the housing market collapse. Personally, I rented for thirteen years and stayed in the same place for over 9 years. I took care of my place, got along with my landlord, got active in my community, etc. Eventually I bought a place less than two blocks away. Renting often allows new residents to sample a neighborhood and potentially put down roots by purchasing.

 

Here's the city's data sheet on Oakley: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/B551FA01-C25A-4AE5-41085780A1056E4F/showMeta/0/

 

I would advise that any questions about the accuracy of these numbers be directed towards the City's Planning Department. 

Bingo. This is what occurred with us. We ended up buying a house in Madisonville because we rented and decided to invest in the neighborhood.

42 minutes ago, Cincinnatus said:

Bingo. This is what occurred with us. We ended up buying a house in Madisonville because we rented and decided to invest in the neighborhood.

 

...so I wasn't invited to the housewarming party?  I thought we were friends. 

38 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

...so I wasn't invited to the housewarming party?  I thought we were friends. 

 

lol, we are! We closed on 4/01, so it was during Covid-19 ?

My brother told me housewarming parties aren't a thing anymore.  I don't know if that's true or him being antisocial.  ?‍♂️

3 hours ago, Cincinnatus said:

 

lol, we are! We closed on 4/01, so it was during Covid-19 ?

Welcome to Madisonville. I bought a house in the neighborhood in 2016 and love it. 

3 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

My brother told me housewarming parties aren't a thing anymore.  I don't know if that's true or him being antisocial.  ?‍♂️

Everyone I know has them when they move. Which, in NYC, is often haha. Way too many housewarming parties. Basically the only time I ever visit anyone else's place.

3 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

My brother told me housewarming parties aren't a thing anymore.  I don't know if that's true or him being antisocial.  ?‍♂️

 

We had one last year. We've been to a few over the past couple years. I feel like they are still a thing. 

On 6/1/2020 at 2:51 PM, Ucgrad2015 said:

Welcome to Madisonville. I bought a house in the neighborhood in 2016 and love it. 

Nice, what part of Madisonville? We're on Adelphi.

On 6/1/2020 at 3:18 PM, DEPACincy said:

 

We had one last year. We've been to a few over the past couple years. I feel like they are still a thing

 

On 6/1/2020 at 2:51 PM, jmicha said:

Everyone I know has them when they move. Which, in NYC, is often haha. Way too many housewarming parties. Basically the only time I ever visit anyone else's place.

We threw a kegger as our house warming party many years ago  when I bought my first house, which in retrospect was not the best idea, lol

 

No longer in those days though.

12 minutes ago, Cincinnatus said:

Nice, what part of Madisonville? We're on Adelphi.

I am on Watterson. The part that dead ends into (Laurel cemetery).