Honestly, I am torn about this development. It decimates the street grid by relocating Erkenbrecher Ave with no connection to the rest of the existing grid. The zoning change seemed to sail through all the departments and the City Planning Commission despite the opposition of the Community Council. There are some real challenges in Avondale and on one hand it's not fair to expect Children's to solve that but on the other hand, the city has handed away entitlement obligations with lip service being paid to diversity and inclusion. The Planning Departments findings supporting the zone change were very general and sparse at best.

 

This project is so huge, it's hard to see that with all this money being spent they couldn't have at least thrown a bone or two to the neighborhood at the onset. What Young and Simpson seem to be doing is requiring the elements of a Community Benefits Agreement seemingly at the 11th hour. It is the 11th hour and I am not a fan of the goal post moving but I am also not a fan of completely ignoring the community in which this is being built. This seems to be another example of how cities like Cincinnati tend to differ carte blanche to institutions and other major players.

 

I guess at the end of the day we have an administration who is led by someone with the development philosophy of "beggars can't be choosers." This city, its staff, appointed and elected officials, and ultimately the voters have to decide if that type of attitude is still relevant and necessary.

 

That's very well said and I agree with you on this.

(and of course most hospital employees seem to commute from absolutely ridiculous distances). 

 

 

Yeah, they aren't going to give up their "country" lifestyle outside Batavia on a ribbon-development road, in a suburban-style ranch house on 3.1 acres, with John Deere memorabilia all over the place despite not owning any actual equipment, bad Nu-Country music and their kid's $549 knockoff Taiwanese ATV that he rides a circle in the yard all day.

/\ Sounds like you know a lot of nurses and not many researchers or physicians.

(and of course most hospital employees seem to commute from absolutely ridiculous distances). 

 

 

Yeah, they aren't going to give up their "country" lifestyle outside Batavia on a ribbon-development road, in a suburban-style ranch house on 3.1 acres, with John Deere memorabilia all over the place despite not owning any actual equipment, bad Nu-Country music and their kid's $549 knockoff Taiwanese ATV that he rides a circle in the yard all day.

 

You have a lot of hate in your heart.

^Well it's simply a fact that hardly any of Cincinnati's hospital workers walk or bike to work, despite all of them being located in some of the most walkable neighborhoods in the Midwest.  One of my relatives is a nurse at one of the hospitals (name disclosed) and has bike commuted there from Northside almost every day for the past twenty years.  She's about 100lbs lighter than the average nurse cruising to work from Kentucky, Clermont County, etc. 

We'd take a huge amount of stress out of this city's expressway network by encouraging more hospital and UC staff to live in the surrounding neighborhoods, but there is absolutely no effort underway to do so.  Corryville and Avondale and Mt. Auburn are all junky messes.  Mysteriously, the Clifton gaslight district is one of the greatest city neighborhoods in the United States but people aren't fighting to get in there. 

(and of course most hospital employees seem to commute from absolutely ridiculous distances). 

 

 

Yeah, they aren't going to give up their "country" lifestyle outside Batavia on a ribbon-development road, in a suburban-style ranch house on 3.1 acres, with John Deere memorabilia all over the place despite not owning any actual equipment, bad Nu-Country music and their kid's $549 knockoff Taiwanese ATV that he rides a circle in the yard all day.

 

You have a lot of hate in your heart.

 

 

Nah, that's where I grew up.

Children's hospital already owned all the houses on Erkenbrecher, Hearne and Wilson that were torn down to accommodate this project, not a single one was taken via eminent domain. The market value for those properties was less than $11 million, why do they owe the community more than if they were to have bought all those properties outright?  Should UC, the zoo, Kroger and McDonalds all write checks to Avondale just because they operate a business there?  The citizens of Avondale should be happy these giant corporations actually want to operate in their area because if it wasn't for them the area would be a million times worse then it is today. 

Didn't Save-A-Lot recently pull out of the newest Avondale Town Center redevelopment proposal?  Yet the developer had the advantage of a big HUD grant as well as a few million from the City.  The original incarnation of the Avondale Town Center failed because the grocery store quickly became a hub for drug dealing and other crime.   

 

I hate to say it but forcing inorganic development in Avondale has a history of failure.  This is why the proposal by Young and Simpson seems ill-conceived to me, and likely motivated by electoral concerns.  Believe me, I'm no fan of Mayor Cranley but, because of similar electoral concerns, he's probably gleeful about this last-minute proposal.  Maybe some people on this forum aren't thrilled about Children's Hospital's expansion plans but many people consider the place a jewel in the Queen City's crown.  And institutional expansion of this sort is what DOES succeed in the neighborhood.  Simpson talked about Children's needing to be a good neighbor in Avondale, but it works both ways.  Maybe the design wouldn't have to be so "fortified" if it were safer around there.

^ But it's not unsafe if you aren't involved with crime already. It's like OTR 10 years ago except not as bad. There wasn't that much friction between the doctors/lawyers and the troublemakers in OTR back then. I used to go to Avondale often to get food and hit the AutoZone and never felt like I had anything to worry about. That was 10 years ago.

^This happened just 2 years ago when one of our tenants worked at the hospital:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/17/cincinnati-childrens-increasing-security/30292421/

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/08/childrens-ceo-fisher-puts-foot-down-new-avondale-demands/550985001/

 

Fisher is basically telling the dissenters to shut up and get in line and get the deal done. He has a point.

 

Enquirer also saying Simpson overplayed her hand and could hurt her chances

I mean the fact that the groups in avondale have asked for nearly 100 million dollars shows the special kind of crazy being delt with.

Enquirer also saying Simpson overplayed her hand and could hurt her chances

 

Keep in mind that the Politics Extra columns are written by a reporter that desperately wants to be Cranley's next Communications Director. It's the Kevin Osborne situation from 2013 all over again.

^ Politics X is not really the important article. The Fisher letter blasting Council especially Young and Simpson is a lot more significant.

I've supported both Simpson's and Young's campaigns but this is a shamefully boneheaded move on their part that puts them in league with the likes of Dwight Tillery who paid himself a quarter of a million dollars in yearly salary (until he was exposed) for basically signing up Medicaid applicants -- paid from a City grant his former crony John Cranley arranged.  Is it any wonder people are cynical when it comes to politics?  Jason Williams only stated the obvious in his Politics Extra piece.

I think the comments on here somewhere corroborate that Simpson overplayed her hand.

I find it frustrating that despite all of this "debate" around the Children's expansion, there doesn't seem anybody (not even the Planning Commission) discussing the actual site plan and design of the new tower. In particular, I feel there needs to be much more attention paid to how the building interacts with the surrounding neighborhood and streets. Overall, it's wonderful that Children's wants to expand, and this *should* be a good thing for Avondale but with the current design proposal, it feels like the hospital does *NOT* want to face the street or encourage a walkable neighborhood surrounding the hospital. I'm worried that Erkenbrecher will end up with excessively wide lanes and with the building setbacks, it will encourage cars to travel too fast.

 

Because the proposed tower is set back so far from Erkenbrecher, the site plan conveys that the hospital is separate from Avondale. Strangely, the Planning Commission doesn't mention this at all (<a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/p6qu1d9ahqktwba/CPC%20Packet%206-16-17.pdf?dl=0">June 16 CPC Packet</a>), and instead simply says that the proposed expansion will help fulfill the <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvbssz9kuxwyfbm/2006_avondale_burnet_avenue_urban_renewal_plan%281%29.pdf?dl=0">2006 Burnet Ave Urban Renewal Plan</a>. But the 2006 plan explicitly recommends that buildings should be built right up to the sidewalk! I would feel much better if we knew what Children's intends to do with the land they own along Burnet. As part of this phase of expansion, they are going to extend the Northern Ave parking garage, but - for now - leave the old Post Office site vacant.

 

 

In the proposed uses for the Post Office site, there is no mention of possible residential. Burnet Ave would benefit greatly from some new, high density residential options, built on top of first floor retail/commercial.

 

 

As a point of contrast with the proposed tower, I like the building that Children's constructed at <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1429258,-84.5001313,3a,89.9y,97.04h,109.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssr7Fks53X5aoUQFewbYJ6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">3040 Burnet</a> because it is built right up to the sidewalk, hides parking behind the building, and interacts well with its neighbor to the north.

 

On page 27 of the <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvbssz9kuxwyfbm/2006_avondale_burnet_avenue_urban_renewal_plan%281%29.pdf?dl=0">2006 Burnet Ave Urban Renewal Plan</a>, they show this as the vision for Burnet:

That "existing landscape buffer" is a yuppie apartment block waiting to happen. 

 

And of course there are no specifics for the mostly-empty block east of Burnett.  If you look at the existing A tower, it appears to have been constructed with the expectation of a skywalk across Burnett.  The problem with an expansion like that is that the lobby level is at ground level so they'd end up with a crazy upper floor "main street" like Good Sam.  The new tower immediately north of B keeps B as the hub (mysteriously, Area A is a wing, not the center of the hospital complex). 

 

 

The vote is in and Yvette Simpson needs to wipe the egg off her face...

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/city-council-members-objection-to-hospital-expansion-disappointing-says-hospital-president

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/08/09/city-council-approves-major-cincinnati-children-s.html

Didn't Steiner win a bid to do a development in that area along Burnet? It has been almost two years so I am pretty sure that came and went.

That "existing landscape buffer" is a yuppie apartment block waiting to happen. 

 

That "buffer" area is 125 ft deep (from Harvey to the garage) and 610 ft from Northern to Erkenbrecker, so it could accommodate a fairly substantial building.

I wonder if Simpson is being pushed into absurd positions like this by whoever is running her campaign. She was always one of the most reasonable voices on council but ever since her mayoral candidacy started up she's been involved in some pretty big gaffes: The Bockfest body-shaming, the "stale pale male" debacle, and now this. It makes me think she's doubling down on certain issues she otherwise wouldn't have because she thinks that's what she needs to get elected, when really she should have just kept doing what she'd always been doing.

Does anybody know if Children's actually acquired the homes on the north side of Hearne Ave. (the new Erkenbrecher)? Or did they just get the homeowners to agree to have the street removed and have a new alley added in the back for vehicular access?

Does anybody know if Children's actually acquired the homes on the north side of Hearne Ave. (the new Erkenbrecher)? Or did they just get the homeowners to agree to have the street removed and have a new alley added in the back for vehicular access?

 

Looks like they are all owned by one of two LLCs, both of which have a mailing address at 425 Walnut St.

^ This is definitely going to hurt her in the election. Cranley is gearing up the ad machine now about how she voted to hurt the health of children in the area.

^ This is definitely going to hurt her in the election. Cranley is gearing up the ad machine now about how she voted to hurt the health of children in the area.

Shamefully for her, Yvette handed this one to Cranley on a silver platter. 

I'm not confident this will be a huge issue in the election. This will get a lot of support in the Avondale area, and likely other communities like them (Mt. Auburn with Christ Hospital, Evanston with Xavier, CUF with UC, etc). I'm not convinced either way this will be good or bad for her.

Other than WLW listeners who believe Bill Cunningham when he says that "Yvette Simpson is killing children" ... I'm not convinced that this issue will cross the radar of most Cincinnatians. It's kind of a wonky issue.

^ Wonky issues can be boiled down to quick sound bites and have an impact. Imagine a commercial about Simpson putting the health of inner city children at risk to support cronies. This is an ad that will be created. It obviously does not tell the whole story but this is a commercial that will likely be cut.

 

Thing is, trying to vote against a non-profit hospital serving children in the area is really never a good idea for your political ambitions. Wendall Young is different, he can do that because he wins by winning Avondale, Yvette needs to have broader appeal.  Plus, you don't want to have the business community choose sides and actively throw money at your opponent. 

Yvette certainly didn't act very mayoral throughout this process. I've thought that her campaign has been a bit too populist and small timey for a prospective mayor. Cincinnati isn't a very large city, but it does have a very large corporate presence, which demands more of a polished leader at the helm. I just can't see the big CEOs taking her seriously, especially after all these stupid missteps. I was a big fan of hers, but I'm not sure she's ready for the job. I suppose she's better than Cranley still, but what a terribly low bar.

^ I was not a huge fan of Mallory, but he at least knew how to work with the corporate leaders in the city, at least on the surface.

Cities with world-renown institutions don't all let themselves be pushed around by them.  Tiny Cambridge, MA is home to two of the world's Top-5 universities but doesn't allow either of them to do whatever they want.  MIT and Harvard are never going to abandon their historic campuses for a suburb and neither is Cincinnati Children's. 

 

The corporate "community" in Cincinnati, which includes the various non-profits and cultural institutions, want a mayor and council who will let them rubber stamp anything they wish to do.  That's why they put huge money behind David Pepper and flipped out when Mallory won.  They know they're at risk of losing their current puppet in the mayor's office so the country club smear machine is out there laying trip wires for Ms. Simpson. 

I question the reality of Avondale as a "Community." It is a little pocket of poor, non-diverse crime ridden population, which serves as a political base for minority candidates for office and a sucking sinkhole for public money. I'd like to see the Community Council membership list. They might have 5 businesses. They call themselves the "City of Avondale."

 

It might be a residents association, but a "community?"

^ ok, wtf.

I question the reality of Avondale as a "Community." It is a little pocket of poor, non-diverse crime ridden population, which serves as a political base for minority candidates for office and a sucking sinkhole for public money. I'd like to see the Community Council membership list. They might have 5 businesses. They call themselves the "City of Avondale."

 

It might be a residents association, but a "community?"

 

Proving your racism yet again.

This is more of Uptown Consortium's usual junk, their vision of uptown might as well be a suburban office park - if they weren't tearing down beautiful old townhouses/mansions I wouldn't care, but the fact that they are bothers the heck out of me.  Yes the Children's hospital does good work (and yes they are a non-profit but so are most other hospitals which are price gouging us to death - lots of hospitals seem noble but there are really horrible people running them).  None of these people should get a free pass, the fact that pushback is seen as evil speaks volumes about Cincinnati's inability to do the right thing for its unique and slowly suburbanizing/dying urban neighborhoods.

 

If this costs Yvette the election, then I'm out of this forum, Cincinnati can continue to dig its grave.

This is more of Uptown Consortium's usual junk, their vision of uptown might as well be a suburban office park - if they weren't tearing down beautiful old townhouses/mansions I wouldn't care, but the fact that they are bothers the heck out of me.  Yes the Children's hospital does good work (and yes they are a non-profit but so are most other hospitals which are price gouging us to death - lots of hospitals seem noble but there are really horrible people running them).  None of these people should get a free pass, the fact that pushback is seen as evil speaks volumes about Cincinnati's inability to do the right thing for its unique and slowly suburbanizing/dying urban neighborhoods.

 

If this costs Yvette the election, then I'm out of this forum, Cincinnati can continue to dig its grave.

 

Or, you could move to Canada.  :roll:

 

Yvette wet the bed. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before the mask came off.

 

Relax, think of it as a few less persons to be crime victims.

I question the reality of Avondale as a "Community." It is a little pocket of poor, non-diverse crime ridden population, which serves as a political base for minority candidates for office and a sucking sinkhole for public money. I'd like to see the Community Council membership list. They might have 5 businesses. They call themselves the "City of Avondale."

 

It might be a residents association, but a "community?"

 

Proving your racism yet again.

This is more of Uptown Consortium's usual junk, their vision of uptown might as well be a suburban office park - if they weren't tearing down beautiful old townhouses/mansions I wouldn't care, but the fact that they are bothers the heck out of me.  Yes the Children's hospital does good work (and yes they are a non-profit but so are most other hospitals which are price gouging us to death - lots of hospitals seem noble but there are really horrible people running them).  None of these people should get a free pass, the fact that pushback is seen as evil speaks volumes about Cincinnati's inability to do the right thing for its unique and slowly suburbanizing/dying urban neighborhoods.

 

If this costs Yvette the election, then I'm out of this forum, Cincinnati can continue to dig its grave.

I suggest you refrain from your name-calling and judging others' motives for their statements.  Your own observations about "beautiful Avondale" demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with the present day reality of South Avondale and its abysmal history.  What 1400 Sycamore concisely stated is accurate.

 

 

 

I question the reality of Avondale as a "Community." It is a little pocket of poor, non-diverse crime ridden population...

 

The it's the 4th largest neighborhood in the city with 20,000 people. 

This is more of Uptown Consortium's usual junk, their vision of uptown might as well be a suburban office park - if they weren't tearing down beautiful old townhouses/mansions I wouldn't care, but the fact that they are bothers the heck out of me.  Yes the Children's hospital does good work (and yes they are a non-profit but so are most other hospitals which are price gouging us to death - lots of hospitals seem noble but there are really horrible people running them).  None of these people should get a free pass, the fact that pushback is seen as evil speaks volumes about Cincinnati's inability to do the right thing for its unique and slowly suburbanizing/dying urban neighborhoods.

 

If this costs Yvette the election, then I'm out of this forum, Cincinnati can continue to dig its grave.

They didn't push back on this Children's expansion.  There was months of time and discussion to push back.  What they did was try to extort money at the last second from one of this cities biggest assets and largest employers. 

The it's the 4th largest neighborhood in the city with 20,000 people. 

 

2010 census data has in 7th with 12.5k people.

This is more of Uptown Consortium's usual junk, their vision of uptown might as well be a suburban office park - if they weren't tearing down beautiful old townhouses/mansions I wouldn't care, but the fact that they are bothers the heck out of me.  Yes the Children's hospital does good work (and yes they are a non-profit but so are most other hospitals which are price gouging us to death - lots of hospitals seem noble but there are really horrible people running them).  None of these people should get a free pass, the fact that pushback is seen as evil speaks volumes about Cincinnati's inability to do the right thing for its unique and slowly suburbanizing/dying urban neighborhoods.

 

If this costs Yvette the election, then I'm out of this forum, Cincinnati can continue to dig its grave.

 

There is a right way and wrong way to do this. Going after a children's hospital, let alone one of the top pediatric research hospitals in the world,  will always be the wrong way just on the optics alone. It was a stupid battle to fight and if she loses because of this, she only has herself to blame.

 

Secondly, this was something that had been in the works for years and those concerns should have been address long before a vote like this came to light, otherwise it looked like her and Young were just seeking to extort money. Again bad optics and poor judgment on her end.

 

Third, since no public money was at stake, the only thing she had to try and get more money was to hold off Children's request for a zoning change. This is illegal under Ohio Law. So again you need to question her judgment. It would have been different if Children's was seeking TIF incentives or other tax  breaks or kickbacks, but they were not for this project so the city did not have as much power to pushback. Again, as a lawyer, this shows poor judgment on her part because she did not have the legal leg to stand on for her pushback.

Aren't they also buying a public ROW? Is that not a negotiable point?

I do not have the exact specifics on that part of the deal, but in most cases no it will not be if Children's paid fair market value for it or above fair market value and the transaction was not tied to any other form of tax incentive.

But the city is under no obligation to sell public ROW to any private entity. As long as they meet the requirements of the city code, they should be granted a zoning variance or change. But the sale of ROW affects everyone in the neighborhood and can/should be looked at differently. Not saying the Simpson/Young plan was the right way to go about things, but pretending that the city shouldn't be able to ask more of someone buying public ROW is silly IMO.

^ But the sale of the Row was probably negotiated separately in a separate transaction and the city was paid FMV. While it may have been essential to the overall project, if the land deal was a separate transaction, then the city cant come back and try and bundle it to the whole deal.

 

Also, getting back to the earlier point. It is poor judgment to pick a fight with a children's hospital. Just bad optics

While I agree that I think it was all a bad move, bad optics, etc I think the biggest issue I have is that the money was to go to the Avondale Community Development Corp.  I would still no be a fan if it was going to the city but I could at least understand that argument more as compared to the money going to some community development corp tied to the community council.

Yes it was bad optics, but I used to live in Corryville and watched the institutions of uptown totally mess up that entire area.  Yes it was not a good neighborhood but in the case of that area there were especially unique townhouses that were torn down instead of restored for exceptionally bland infill.  The Uptown Consortium was pushing for this stuff for years and while I do appreciate that Corryville and Clifton Hts is nicer now, they killed the character of the neighborhood, they could have gone about it in a way better way.

 

Its like the powers that be in Cincy would never mine for gold because it was too dirty and the people they don't like live next to the mine.  They've never had a gold mine in their community and mining would be a scary affair so might as well just plow over the mine and build something they are more familiar with like corn farms or tree groves.  That's the mentality  I'm seeing here (and I see it over and over and over again).

 

Anyways, this part of Avondale isn't as nice architecturally (though their are a decent number of solid brick buildings here) as Mt Auburn or Corryville or Clifton Heights, but I want someone to stand up to these institutions, they are literally ripping the heart out of Cincinnati and turning it into everytown USA.  I think Cincinnati would prefer being everytown usa over being  I don't know a city people out side the region actually care about and  an asset to the nation like say Charleston and Savannah are??

 

Also the design of this plan which plows away an necessary number of houses for an open field/token trees is terrible.  Why didn't anyone push back on that?  Its bad design and the area is destined to be a dead zone people don't want to go to.  While there is room for a yuppie condo development, IMO they aren't going to do it because people like this like parks better than they like urbanity.

Which is funny as the preservation/architecture argument was not made by the parties involved or picked up by any preservation organizations.  I think you could also make an argument that these institutions are helping the redevelopment of the downtown basin.  I know a significant amount of employees of these institutions who have made purchases in the basin in the last few years so while not ideal in how these institutions exist in the neighborhood they do provide high paying jobs to many individuals who are more and more taking up residence in downtown/otr.