January 25, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, ucgrady said: There is/was roadwork on the Robertson overpass that connects the Factory 52 to the Neyer project, I wonder if there is going to be widened or improved sidewalks or bike lanes on that overpass because 4 lanes aren't necessary right there. That was emergency work to fix the deteriorating concrete wall of the overpass, after an accident knocked half of it onto 71 northbound.
January 27, 20232 yr On 1/25/2023 at 1:14 PM, IAGuy39 said: I wouldn't plant bamboo in your yard. I am pretty sure it's highly invasive and starts to take over your yard and really hard to kill. If I were you I would look to plant if you were looking at hedges and depending on sunlight something like prairie willow, p***y willow, or create a thicket of arrowood viburnum. https://www.google.com/search?q=arrowwood+viburnum&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu3tHLqeP8AhXKkmoFHVBhD2EQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1#imgrc=5accubkfy9uK2M My grandmother planted bamboo and after about 15 years it got really nasty. I had to cut and mow and cut and mow probably 10 times before it finally died. It was next to a fence and got on both sides so it was hard to get under the fence fabric.
January 28, 20232 yr On 1/26/2023 at 9:19 PM, GCrites80s said: My grandmother planted bamboo and after about 15 years it got really nasty. I had to cut and mow and cut and mow probably 10 times before it finally died. It was next to a fence and got on both sides so it was hard to get under the fence fabric. The stuff is nasty! It’s actually grass. I see a lot of one kind of it growing in Cincy. One spot next to the median where honey suckle doesn’t grow on 71 in Cincy is just completely bamboo, I’m pretty sure that’s what it is. It’s crazy how badly bamboo and honeysuckle grow here, it’s like the perfect environment. In other areas it’s things like burning bush Edited January 28, 20232 yr by IAGuy39
February 4, 20232 yr I was in the Cincinnatian Hotel last night for the first time since the renovation. It's now a...totally generic "boutique" hotel. Current interior design trends are so predictable that even a hotel that has been a hotel for 100 years looks no different on the inside than a new "boutique" hotel conversion. The Cincinnati history stuff in the lobby is a cartoon, not the real thing.
February 4, 20232 yr 58 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: "Novelty" comes from screens now. Everything else is blank.
February 5, 20232 yr 15 hours ago, Lazarus said: The Cincinnati history stuff in the lobby is a cartoon, not the real thing. Cincinnati history has been a cartoon for a long time.
February 10, 20232 yr https://www.cincinnati.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2F2023%2F02%2F09%2Fformer-sycamore-township-mobile-home-park-may-become-upscale-rentals%2F69862250007%2F Not exactly sure where this is at in Sycamore Township.
February 10, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Ucgrad2015 said: https://www.cincinnati.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cincinnati.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2F2023%2F02%2F09%2Fformer-sycamore-township-mobile-home-park-may-become-upscale-rentals%2F69862250007%2F Not exactly sure where this is at in Sycamore Township. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2804505,-84.3643744,564m/data=!3m1!1e3
February 13, 20232 yr More on that... $80 million upscale apartments proposed at former Sycamore Township mobile home park Sycamore Township could be home to nearly 400 upscale apartments if a local developer receives approval for a zoning change at site along Interstate 275. Downtown Cincinnati-based CIG Communities LLC is requesting Sycamore Township change the zoning of a 17.5-acre parcel at 11604 Grooms Road from light industrial to multifamily so it can develop about 392 units on the property. The development, which does not yet have a name, would likely be completed in two phases. Gregg Fusaro, partner with CIG, told the Business Courier the first phase investment would be between $75 million and $80 million. What was formerly a mobile home park and boat dealership would become “an upscale multifamily development” with “a full amenity package,” according to paperwork filed with the township’s zoning commission. The amenity package would include a large clubhouse, coffee bar, game room, personal workstations, fitness center, golf simulator and a pet spa. Fusaro said a dog park would also be built. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/02/13/upscale-apartments-proposed-sycamore-township.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
February 22, 20232 yr On 7/21/2021 at 11:48 AM, jwulsin said: The old building at 6219 Wooster Pike (which I believe was originally a Cincinnati Bell property) has been demolished. The property changed hands in 2019. Owner's LLC is registered by Scott Davis, who might be the same Scott Davis associated with The Loring Group. Or maybe just a coincidental shared name. Anybody know what the plans are for this site? The property is quite large (nearly one acre) and extends all the way back to the creek that runs from Dogwood Park. Street View Auditor Summary I have been told that this project has stalled out and will not be completed. Supposedly the developer's GC has gone bankrupt and can not complete the job.
March 24, 20232 yr Developer begins work on townhomes, apartments in Columbia Township A local real estate developer has begun work on a boutique residential project in Columbia Township. Dial Residential LLC, owned by Christian Dial, broke ground on Tributary 50 in the fourth quarter of 2022. The project at 4040 Walton Creek Road was originally called Creekside Manor. Dial said he changed the project name to better fit the aesthetic of both the project and surrounding area, but the vision to provide a unique living experience has stayed the same. Tributary 50 will be made up of two residential buildings: one with 17 units and the other with 10 units. There also will be a clubhouse on site, which will include a coworking area, kitchen and fitness room. The clubhouse will open up to an outdoor entertainment area on the creek. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/03/23/developer-townhomes-apartments-columbia-township.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 24, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, ColDayMan said: Developer begins work on townhomes, apartments in Columbia Township A local real estate developer has begun work on a boutique residential project in Columbia Township. Dial Residential LLC, owned by Christian Dial, broke ground on Tributary 50 in the fourth quarter of 2022. The project at 4040 Walton Creek Road was originally called Creekside Manor. Dial said he changed the project name to better fit the aesthetic of both the project and surrounding area, but the vision to provide a unique living experience has stayed the same. Tributary 50 will be made up of two residential buildings: one with 17 units and the other with 10 units. There also will be a clubhouse on site, which will include a coworking area, kitchen and fitness room. The clubhouse will open up to an outdoor entertainment area on the creek. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/03/23/developer-townhomes-apartments-columbia-township.html Interesting...I was told that the project was on hold because of flooding in the area. It sounds like that was speculation I guess. IIRC Columbia TWP has funds to add a sidewalk along Walton Creek Road so hopefully this, and the eventual completion of the CROWN behind Kroger, will encourage more placemaking for this Census Designated Place.
March 24, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Dev said: Interesting...I was told that the project was on hold because of flooding in the area. It sounds like that was speculation I guess. IIRC Columbia TWP has funds to add a sidewalk along Walton Creek Road so hopefully this, and the eventual completion of the CROWN behind Kroger, will encourage more placemaking for this Census Designated Place. Yeah - the Kroger shopping center is tantalizingly close, but Walton Creek Rd isn't safe for walking (without a sidewalk). Even with a new sidewalk, I'm worried a lot of residents at this new apartment complex will hop in their cars to drive across Wooster Pike to get groceries. A new pedestrian crossing was added at Fifty West Brewery a couple of years ago, and so hopefully over time there will be more pedestrians and bikes crossing Wooster Pike, and more push for additional traffic calming measures. Maybe one day, we can get rid of one of those lanes of traffic on Wooster Pike; it drops down to 1 lane in Fairfax and doesn't seem to have resulted in the end of the world (though I'm sure somebody would claim that'd be the impact if a lane of traffic were remove here). I think Wooster Pike should be only one lane in each direction starting at Newtown Rd, continuing through all of Mariemont and Fairfax. That would open up space for protected bike lanes, which would be great for connecting to the Little Miami trail and future CROWN extension.
March 24, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, jwulsin said: Yeah - the Kroger shopping center is tantalizingly close, but Walton Creek Rd isn't safe for walking (without a sidewalk). Even with a new sidewalk, I'm worried a lot of residents at this new apartment complex will hop in their cars to drive across Wooster Pike to get groceries. A new pedestrian crossing was added at Fifty West Brewery a couple of years ago, and so hopefully over time there will be more pedestrians and bikes crossing Wooster Pike, and more push for additional traffic calming measures. Maybe one day, we can get rid of one of those lanes of traffic on Wooster Pike; it drops down to 1 lane in Fairfax and doesn't seem to have resulted in the end of the world (though I'm sure somebody would claim that'd be the impact if a lane of traffic were remove here). I think Wooster Pike should be only one lane in each direction starting at Newtown Rd, continuing through all of Mariemont and Fairfax. That would open up space for protected bike lanes, which would be great for connecting to the Little Miami trail and future CROWN extension. Yeah given the existing conditions I also don't think they would regularly walk to Kroger but I'm hoping it will make them want to, and pressure the township/ODOT to make it more hospitable. If it was me, it would so frustrating to be so close to a great trail system but yet be so dangerous to just walk/roll/bike to it. It's wild to me that it goes from 1-2-1-2 so much in less than 2.5 miles. I know there is interest by ODOT from the Eastern Corridor project to upgrade the Newtown Road intersection to a roundabout. Ideally, that would be the time to pursue a 5-to-3 road diet, with separated bike infrastructure through the township's section.
April 5, 20232 yr Landsman proposes $35 million in federal funding for 15 local projects By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier Apr 5, 2023 Fifteen Greater Cincinnati projects could get federal funding under a proposal U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Mount Washington, has sent to the House Appropriations Committee allocating his share of tax dollars earmarked for local projects. Landsman announced the projects at a news conference in Mount Airy on Tuesday. A bipartisan committee of dozens of local business and labor leaders gave input on the congressman’s list. “We pay a lot of taxes, and a lot of it goes to the federal government. It doesn’t always come back. And when it does come back, it’s not the things we necessarily say are the most important,” Landsman told the Business Courier. “These are our tax dollars are coming back (to projects) that people in the region have said are the most important.” MORE
April 18, 20232 yr Interesting to see this former jail in Queensgate get repurposed. It is slated to open in September: https://www.cincinnati.com/picture-gallery/money/business/2023/04/18/photos-former-queensgate-jail-site-developed-into-creative-co-working-spaces/11642560002/
April 20, 20232 yr Why Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers in its business districts The city of Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers at 11 intersections throughout the city, some in neighborhood commercial districts, in an attempt to reduce the number of pedestrians hit by cars. The so-called “hardened centerlines” are aimed at making crosswalks safer for pedestrians and to get cars to slow down in some of the region’s busiest business areas. ... Locations for centerline barriers: Jefferson Avenue and West Corry Street Montana and Boudinot avenues Queen City and Boudinot avenues Glenway and Grand avenues Clifton and Ludlow avenues Reading Road and Kinsey Avenue Vine Street and Erkenbrecher Avenue Burnet Avenue and Kasota Street Burnet Avenue and Albert Sabin Way Vine Street and East Seymour Avenue More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/20/cincinnati-installing-rubber-barriers.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 20, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, ColDayMan said: Why Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers in its business districts The city of Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers at 11 intersections throughout the city, some in neighborhood commercial districts, in an attempt to reduce the number of pedestrians hit by cars. The so-called “hardened centerlines” are aimed at making crosswalks safer for pedestrians and to get cars to slow down in some of the region’s busiest business areas. ... Locations for centerline barriers: Jefferson Avenue and West Corry Street Montana and Boudinot avenues Queen City and Boudinot avenues Glenway and Grand avenues Clifton and Ludlow avenues Reading Road and Kinsey Avenue Vine Street and Erkenbrecher Avenue Burnet Avenue and Kasota Street Burnet Avenue and Albert Sabin Way Vine Street and East Seymour Avenue More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/20/cincinnati-installing-rubber-barriers.html Those are cute, guess they havent seen some of the drivers in Cincinnati. This isnt going to stop or slow drivers down at the mentioned intersections.
April 20, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, ColDayMan said: Locations for centerline barriers: Jefferson Avenue and West Corry Street Montana and Boudinot avenues Queen City and Boudinot avenues Glenway and Grand avenues Clifton and Ludlow avenues Reading Road and Kinsey Avenue Vine Street and Erkenbrecher Avenue Burnet Avenue and Kasota Street Burnet Avenue and Albert Sabin Way Vine Street and East Seymour Avenue Lol this is a list of 10 intersections, not 11
April 20, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Dev said: Lol this is a list of 10 intersections, not 11 Clifton and Woolper is also getting them
April 20, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, savadams13 said: Those are cute, guess they havent seen some of the drivers in Cincinnati. This isnt going to stop or slow drivers down at the mentioned intersections. Remember when they installed those crossing things in the middle of McMillan St. near St. Monica Church about five years ago? They were all destroyed within four or five weeks, and never replaced.
April 20, 20232 yr Use 6" steel posts, filled with concrete. I'm so tired of our traffic engineers pandering to reckless drivers.
April 20, 20232 yr 46 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Remember when they installed those crossing things in the middle of McMillan St. near St. Monica Church about five years ago? They were all destroyed within four or five weeks, and never replaced. Exactly, they will be taken out in a couple weeks time and there will be no more.
April 20, 20232 yr Y'all need to calm down. I've been told that they have ordered a large volume of spares. When the pedestrian safety crew gets started, they will be able to rapidly replace them as needed. If these things don't work at all, then they will try something else that is more useful. Edited April 21, 20232 yr by Dev
April 21, 20232 yr Anyone else think it’s a little weird Western and Southern commissioned an impact analysis from the UC Economics Center? Has me feeling like they’re about to ask for something. https://economicsresearch.org/the-economic-fiscal-and-community-benefits-of-western-southern-financial-group/
April 21, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, Dev said: Y'all need to calm down. I've also been told that they have ordered a large volume of spares. When the pedestrian safety crew gets started, they will be able to rapidly replace them as needed. If these things don't work at all, then they will try something else that is more useful. I’ve also heard they are using new, higher quality “Pexco FG 300” posts, which should be more durable than what was used previously. But agreed that ongoing replacement needs to be a part of the program.
April 21, 20232 yr Y'all, we are in a new era with this stuff and some of you need to get with the program. This administration and council are actually interested in making a difference on pedestrian safety. They've hired the in-house crew, which is a game changer. And they've been adamant about continuing to make upgrades and maintaining them. That's a commitment we've never had before. It's a new day in Cincinnati.
April 24, 20232 yr On 4/20/2023 at 9:24 AM, ColDayMan said: Why Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers in its business districts The city of Cincinnati is installing rubber barriers at 11 intersections throughout the city, some in neighborhood commercial districts, in an attempt to reduce the number of pedestrians hit by cars. The so-called “hardened centerlines” are aimed at making crosswalks safer for pedestrians and to get cars to slow down in some of the region’s busiest business areas. ... Locations for centerline barriers: Jefferson Avenue and West Corry Street Montana and Boudinot avenues Queen City and Boudinot avenues Glenway and Grand avenues Clifton and Ludlow avenues Reading Road and Kinsey Avenue Vine Street and Erkenbrecher Avenue Burnet Avenue and Kasota Street Burnet Avenue and Albert Sabin Way Vine Street and East Seymour Avenue More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/04/20/cincinnati-installing-rubber-barriers.html WVXU just did their own version of this article, while also covering other initiatives: https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2023-04-24/6-pedestrian-safety-ideas-piloted-cincinnati In the article, she reviews: Centerline hardening Speed cushions Leading pedestrian intervals In-house work crew Plastic curb extensions Rightsizing How to ask for these types of projects
April 28, 20232 yr On 8/5/2014 at 11:30 AM, Cygnus said: Noticed last night that 824 Reedy Street, formerly T.J. Homan, Inc. Scrap Metals, was being demolished. Per Hamilton County Auditor website, sold by the Homan family 07/03/14 for $80,000 to Robert L Adleta II, owner of Adleta Construction. Also, 830 Reedy, the lot in between 824 and 834 (green building) was purchased by Bansal Construction Inc. in November 2013. There is excavation occurring here now. In August 2022, the following transactions occurred: 824 Reedy St: Adleta Robert L Ii to Opa Real Estate LLC; $800,000 830 Reedy St: Adleta Robert L Ii to Opa Real Estate LLC; $800,000 "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
April 28, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Cygnus said: There is excavation occurring here now. In August 2022, the following transactions occurred: 824 Reedy St: Adleta Robert L Ii to Opa Real Estate LLC; $800,000 830 Reedy St: Adleta Robert L Ii to Opa Real Estate LLC; $800,000 Looks like it may be a dispensary being built. Check out the Ohio section of this website. https://investors.awholdings.com/our-stores
May 5, 20232 yr $1 million townhomes coming to Mariemont By Abby Miller – Reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier May 5, 2023 The Enclave of Mariemont, a development that will include 19 townhomes above or just shy of $1 million, is expected to break ground within the next few weeks. MORE
May 26, 20232 yr https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/jun-2-2023-packet/ Exciting stuff in the upcoming planning packet, staff is recommending approval for sandwich signs in College Hill, Hyde Park, and Mt. Airy!
May 26, 20232 yr Chinedum Ndukwe is a part of both items #5 (developer seeking to rezone 2133 Ravine St) and #6 (as the developer seeking to tear down the Hoffman School). Curious if he'll make a public appearance before the Planning Commission.
June 22, 20231 yr https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/22/cincinnati-first-ohio-city-granny-flats.html Anybody else feel like this legislation is gonna be a nothingburger? Requiring that owners must live on the premises in order to rent out the ADU seems like it'll result in none of these getting built. I mean, if you've got the land and resources to build an ADU, and you can't use it as an investment property, are you really going to bother with all of this? Basically counting on rich people to decide that they'd like to have a stranger inhabiting their backyard, for a most likely paltry monthly profit. I guess this makes sense if you're building for granny or your kids who can't afford rent elsewhere; but any other situations? Seems unlikely. Also - given the premium for SFH vs. a duplex of the same size, I have to imagine building one of these things could easily result in a net loss at time of sale, how big is the market for buyers looking to live on the premises and rent out the ADU? City is basically codifying it's preference for owners over renters, and pissing off a lot of homeowners who think Mt. Lookout will become OTR overnight. Really dampens the hope for the abolishment of SF zoning in this city lol.
June 22, 20231 yr 4 minutes ago, dnymck said: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/22/cincinnati-first-ohio-city-granny-flats.html Anybody else feel like this legislation is gonna be a nothingburger? Requiring that owners must live on the premises in order to rent out the ADU seems like it'll result in none of these getting built. I mean, if you've got the land and resources to build an ADU, and you can't use it as an investment property, are you really going to bother with all of this? Basically counting on rich people to decide that they'd like to have a stranger inhabiting their backyard, for a most likely paltry monthly profit. I guess this makes sense if you're building for granny or your kids who can't afford rent elsewhere; but any other situations? Seems unlikely. Also - given the premium for SFH vs. a duplex of the same size, I have to imagine building one of these things could easily result in a net loss at time of sale, how big is the market for buyers looking to live on the premises and rent out the ADU? City is basically codifying it's preference for owners over renters, and pissing off a lot of homeowners who think Mt. Lookout will become OTR overnight. Really dampens the hope for the abolishment of SF zoning in this city lol. The NIMBYs are in control. I'm glad this was passed but sad it's so watered down. Hopefully this is an incremental step and the connected communities legislation is more robust. But the problem is that the only people who show up to the engagement sessions are NIMBYs.
June 22, 20231 yr What does “responsible, independent person” mean? I thought I saw people upset that it made it too easy for the homeowner to now live there and have both of the structures be rented out
June 22, 20231 yr 1 hour ago, DEPACincy said: The NIMBYs are in control. I'm glad this was passed but sad it's so watered down. Hopefully this is an incremental step and the connected communities legislation is more robust. But the problem is that the only people who show up to the engagement sessions are NIMBYs. The City seems to be touting this as a win since it'll keep big bad investors out of the neighborhood. They polled residents and homeowners living on the property was one of the lowest issues on most peoples list of priorities, I think I remember seeing that a narrow majority actually preferred ADUs be allowed on lots where the owner wasn't an occupant. If that was the case, why did they capitulate? It's really not a positive thing. 19 minutes ago, Dev said: What does “responsible, independent person” mean? I thought I saw people upset that it made it too easy for the homeowner to now live there and have both of the structures be rented out I think it's basically somebody who has their name on the mortgage or is a family member/close friend who doesn't pay rent.
June 22, 20231 yr city council caved to the NIMBYs who were opposed to the increased density ordinance, too. Most of them are too scared to stick their neck out there and do something good for the city when the vocal minority is opposed. this is a bandaid that won't actually see any measurable impact. But they can claim they legalized ADUs without actually legalizing ADUs. The only people who voted in favor of the increased density ordinance were Liz Keating and Reggie Harris. Meeka Owens abstained, but seemed supportive in general.
June 22, 20231 yr This is how things always go. Never the real thing. Always semantics and caving in to old Cincinnati NIMBYs. Kudos to Reggie and Liz but still not enough. So discouraging.
June 22, 20231 yr 2 hours ago, dnymck said: The City seems to be touting this as a win since it'll keep big bad investors out of the neighborhood. They polled residents and homeowners living on the property was one of the lowest issues on most peoples list of priorities, I think I remember seeing that a narrow majority actually preferred ADUs be allowed on lots where the owner wasn't an occupant. If that was the case, why did they capitulate? It's really not a positive thing. I think it's basically somebody who has their name on the mortgage or is a family member/close friend who doesn't pay rent. Yea they prioritized the needs of the vocal minority. It's frustrating.
June 23, 20231 yr 8 hours ago, ryanlammi said: city council caved to the NIMBYs who were opposed to the increased density ordinance, too. Most of them are too scared to stick their neck out there and do something good for the city when the vocal minority is opposed. this is a bandaid that won't actually see any measurable impact. But they can claim they legalized ADUs without actually legalizing ADUs. The only people who voted in favor of the increased density ordinance were Liz Keating and Reggie Harris. Meeka Owens abstained, but seemed supportive in general. I live in a condo, but I also can understand that SF homeowners bought their property with the understanding of the density of their next door neighbor's property. To change the zoning to what in effect is a MF property should require someone to follow the zoning process with public hearings, etc., not by legislation. These are property rights that we have in the US. I'm in favor of permitting the ADUs, but only if the property owner is a resident of the property. Edited June 23, 20231 yr by thesenator
June 23, 20231 yr I understanding wanting more density, but if this passes without the owner occupied component I see every landlord in CUF who rents to students cramming questionable ADU's into every open yard that is left. Not only CUF but definitely CUF. It will be chaos. I want more density too, but the answer to density as i see it is more affordable multifamilies, no parking requirements in good transportation areas and opening zoning up to things like duplexes and fourplexes that got phased out over time. This is a specific plan to let home owners allow relatives to 'move in' more in separately from the main house or sublet their property to make some money to pay their mortgage. Trusting landlords to solve density issues is a bad thing to do........right? I'm not seeing the benefits of getting rid of the Owner Occupied part. Just asking the question honestly, not looking to fight.
June 23, 20231 yr 1 hour ago, SleepyLeroy said: I understanding wanting more density, but if this passes without the owner occupied component I see every landlord in CUF who rents to students cramming questionable ADU's into every open yard that is left. Not only CUF but definitely CUF. It will be chaos. I want more density too, but the answer to density as i see it is more affordable multifamilies, no parking requirements in good transportation areas and opening zoning up to things like duplexes and fourplexes that got phased out over time. This is a specific plan to let home owners allow relatives to 'move in' more in separately from the main house or sublet their property to make some money to pay their mortgage. Trusting landlords to solve density issues is a bad thing to do........right? I'm not seeing the benefits of getting rid of the Owner Occupied part. Just asking the question honestly, not looking to fight. The city really shouldn't dictate who gets to live where. By requiring that a homeowner lives on site they're effectively saying that a homeowner > renter, a de facto discrimination you can already see play out anytime a new multifamily project is proposed in a majority single-family area and the residents freak out because it'll let the "wrong people" in, now the city is just making it de jure. Sure, homeowners as a whole may be better stewards of their neighborhood than a renter due to their vested interest, but this simply isn't true to a person. There are great renters who add a lot of value to their community and plenty of bad homeowners who do the opposite. I don't like the precedent the city is setting here, and I don't think this is going to benefit homeowners much anyway. If you have the land and resources to build one of these things, are you really the type of person who's hurting for cash and needs to build one in their backyard? I bet even a modest ADU could cost upwards of $80k after running all new utilities, site work, vertical construction, kitchen, bath, etc. I really don't believe there is a world where adding a single unit in the backyard could be a bad thing. The only issue which this extremely minor increase in density will bring about would be added cars on the street, and Urban Ohio is really the last place where we need to point out that increased density in a neighborhood will create a more walkable environment/lessen the need for automobiles in the first place. Single family homes are very space inefficient and while they may be nice to live in, they cause a lot of problems for society as a whole. ADUs are an opportunity to remedy this inefficiency (albeit mildly) but the way this legislation is written it will have negligible impact, if any, on the housing crisis and upside down land use patterns in Cincinnati.
June 23, 20231 yr 2 hours ago, SleepyLeroy said: I understanding wanting more density, but if this passes without the owner occupied component I see every landlord in CUF who rents to students cramming questionable ADU's into every open yard that is left. Not only CUF but definitely CUF. It will be chaos. I want more density too, but the answer to density as i see it is more affordable multifamilies, no parking requirements in good transportation areas and opening zoning up to things like duplexes and fourplexes that got phased out over time. This is a specific plan to let home owners allow relatives to 'move in' more in separately from the main house or sublet their property to make some money to pay their mortgage. Trusting landlords to solve density issues is a bad thing to do........right? I'm not seeing the benefits of getting rid of the Owner Occupied part. Just asking the question honestly, not looking to fight. You still need to get permits to build a new structure. It's not a free for all where landlords can put up ramshackle sheds and call them ADUs. 16 hours ago, thesenator said: I live in a condo, but I also can understand that SF homeowners bought their property with the understanding of the density of their next door neighbor's property. To change the zoning to what in effect is a MF property should require someone to follow the zoning process with public hearings, etc., not by legislation. These are property rights that we have in the US. I'm in favor of permitting the ADUs, but only if the property owner is a resident of the property. Saying you don't want renters in your neighborhood, or saying another 2 units on the block is going to ruin the character of the neighborhood is ridiculous IMO. And legislating changes to the zoning code is perfectly acceptable. Zoning codes were created through legislation. We shouldn't be forced to stick with the original codes forever because people bought their houses while those zoning codes are in place.
June 23, 20231 yr Good points all, thanks! Weirdly I'm a home owner now who wants to be more mobile now that kids are out of the house and rent in other areas but with the rate rents have gone up since 2008 I'm priced out and cant really afford it. I dont even have fancy expectations but everything is more than my mortgage even after downsizing from 4 to 1 bedrooms (or just a cozy bed nook even). Cincinnati area real estate is a baffling landscape.
June 23, 20231 yr 4 hours ago, SleepyLeroy said: I understanding wanting more density, but if this passes without the owner occupied component I see every landlord in CUF who rents to students cramming questionable ADU's into every open yard that is left. Not only CUF but definitely CUF. It will be chaos. I want more density too, but the answer to density as i see it is more affordable multifamilies, no parking requirements in good transportation areas and opening zoning up to things like duplexes and fourplexes that got phased out over time. This is a specific plan to let home owners allow relatives to 'move in' more in separately from the main house or sublet their property to make some money to pay their mortgage. Trusting landlords to solve density issues is a bad thing to do........right? I'm not seeing the benefits of getting rid of the Owner Occupied part. Just asking the question honestly, not looking to fight. A bunch of ADUs in CUF would be a huge win. It's probably the neighborhood with the biggest housing shortage in the city and it's because there's not nearly enough housing for students. Even better, all the single family areas in CUF should be rezoned for multifamily.
June 23, 20231 yr 10 minutes ago, SleepyLeroy said: Good points all, thanks! Weirdly I'm a home owner now who wants to be more mobile now that kids are out of the house and rent in other areas but with the rate rents have gone up since 2008 I'm priced out and cant really afford it. I dont even have fancy expectations but everything is more than my mortgage even after downsizing from 4 to 1 bedrooms (or just a cozy bed nook even). Cincinnati area real estate is a baffling landscape. Yeah I've thought about this too. I'm not looking to move, but I have realized that I would spending significantly more to rent than I spend right now on my mortgage. I got my house in 2014 at a low interest rate and low price. But it's pretty shocking to look at rents almost anywhere. The highest rent I ever paid was like $515 for a studio near UC (2010-11). I don't know that I would find a similar studio for under $1000 today unless I went way outside of city limits.
June 23, 20231 yr 6 hours ago, SleepyLeroy said: I understanding wanting more density, but if this passes without the owner occupied component I see every landlord in CUF who rents to students cramming questionable ADU's into every open yard that is left. Not only CUF but definitely CUF. It will be chaos. I want more density too, but the answer to density as i see it is more affordable multifamilies, no parking requirements in good transportation areas and opening zoning up to things like duplexes and fourplexes that got phased out over time. This is a specific plan to let home owners allow relatives to 'move in' more in separately from the main house or sublet their property to make some money to pay their mortgage. Trusting landlords to solve density issues is a bad thing to do........right? I'm not seeing the benefits of getting rid of the Owner Occupied part. Just asking the question honestly, not looking to fight. I own a rental in CUF with a never-used back yard. It measures about 40x25. There is definitely enough space to build a 20x20 ADU. THE PROBLEM is that the site is only accessible via a 60" wide alley. There is no way to get large equipment back there, which would drive up costs. Also, you'd create a bad environment for the tenants with 8-12 months of daily construction. Contractors constantly struggle to park close to the house as-is. I imagine that you'd have to run completely independent water/sewer to the ADU, which will be ridiculously expensive. They'll have to dig up the street to create the new connection. Independent electric won't be so bad.
Create an account or sign in to comment