The biggest issue facing Hyde Park (and many other east side neighborhoods) is the demolition of large, (unofficially) historic homes in order to build multiple homes of lower quality. This often messes with the aesthetic of the neighborhood and creates a break in the look of the neighborhood. Some are also against new architecture creeping into the neighborhood.

 

Will the city freeze Hyde Park development?

 

The Cincinnati Planning Commission will consider a measure on Friday that largely would halt development activity not already underway in Hyde Park while the city studies recent demolitions and subdivision of land in the affluent neighborhood.

 

Under the proposal, for at least the next three months, the planning commission would have to approve any demolition, subdivision of land or new construction before it could go forward. The planning commission and the City Council will have to approve the so-called interim development control district before it goes into effect. A council vote could come on Sept. 10.

 

Councilwoman Amy Murray, who serves on the planning commission, said she wants the commission to consider the additional bureaucratic hoops the proposal will create for the neighborhood’s 4,000 property owners.

 

“This is going to be a huge thing,” said Murray, herself a Hyde Park resident. Other affluent neighborhoods, such as Mount Lookout and Linwood, have since come to her requesting the same thing.

 

The proposal comes at the behest of Mayor John Cranley and the Hyde Park Neighborhood Council, according to documents filed with the planning commission by the city’s planning department.

Kind of on board with this. 

 

Some newer homes/buildings have been done with respect to nearby architecture: https://goo.gl/maps/gOC4U

 

Some have been deliberately different but still high-quality: https://goo.gl/maps/udb26

 

And some have been...less successful: https://goo.gl/maps/5MQ7V

Yeah. New construction and new architecture shouldn't be prohibited, but tearing down an old home to build 3 on the same lot is bad.

Yeah. New construction and new architecture shouldn't be prohibited, but tearing down an old home to build 3 on the same lot is bad.

 

Why?  That's how every urban neighborhood throughout the entirety of human history has grown and matured over time. 

This debate literally goes all the way down to whether zoning should be allowed. Most of our neighborhoods were developed with no zoning laws at all. Does that mean zoning isn't important?

 

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the United States. Should we use that as a basis for not allowing gay marriage? etc. etc.

 

Zoning is created to protect neighbors from other people who may do something that negatively impacts the value of your property. I'm not suggesting that demolitions shouldn't be allowed or that new construction should have to look like a faux style of the homes around it. I'm just against developers abusing the zoning laws to cram more buildings onto a space that doesn't mesh well with the existing fabric.

 

There should be a public law/policy/etc that explicitly recommends against lot splits that don't conform with the neighboring properties. That doesn't mean it should be prohibited every time forever, just that as a general policy, there should be more scrutiny placed on lot splits in established neighborhoods.

^Then how do you propose to allow a neighborhood that is in high demand to grow to meet that demand?  Zoning is about stasis, and in the long run stasis is almost always a bad thing.  Economic stasis, cultural stasis, technological stasis, these are all bad things.  It's no big leap to suggest that neighborhood stasis is also undesirable, even if it is a fine line between so-called stability or predictability.  Regardless, not allowing any redevelopment or densification only serves to make the neighborhood less accessible to anyone but the increasingly wealthy.

 

The thing about not conforming with neighboring properties is where do you draw the line?  Hyde Park Square certainly doesn't embrace the built form of the majority of the neighborhood, but that's what really makes Hyde Park special compared to say Westwood or North Avondale, both of which have a similar if not in some cases better housing stock and overall density.  Even within the neighborhood itself there's several different levels of density from the large-lot single family mini-estates along Grandin Road and in the Rookwood subdivision to the still generous homes on Observatory, Handasyde, parts of Erie, Portsmouth, and Bayard, plus relatively dense streetcar suburb type "city" homes on modest lots throughout much of the west and north side of the neighborhood to pretty darn dense courtyard apartments on Madison Road. 

 

So it's really not "out of character" to have different densities of buildings right next to each other.  Nobody's collapsing in the street writhing in agony because Carl's Deli and Element Cycles plus a few apartments overhead are plunked in the middle of a predominantly single-family area of the neighborhood, in fact they're much the better for it.  Residents don't have to walk all the way to the square to get a sandwich or soda.  Most of Hyde Park, however, isn't within walking distance of such amenities, but zoning precludes their construction not only outright, but also by restricting any densification of the residential development that might support more of such establishments. 

 

What bugs me the most about this whole situation is that zoning is by definition a centralized governmental construct that distorts the real estate market in ways that are quite perverse and destructive.  Yet it's usually conservative "cities should be run like a business" types that fiercely defend zoning and want free roads and subsidized mortgages and cheap gasoline, effectively destroying the free market forces that operate on land, housing, and transportation.  At the same time these "don't tread on me" types are quick to call the building inspector if their neighbor's fence is three inches too high or they want someone's Little Free Library or front yard garden deemed a public nuisance.  Strange isn't it that the more liberal smart growth advocates are the ones pushing for less regulation and market-based solutions in order to build more traditional neighborhoods? 

 

Anyway, moratoriums on development and downzoning only serve to push prices up and make development more catastrophically out of proportion where an available parcel of land that can be developed as a PUD is secured.  San Francisco has been a disaster on this front, and New York right there behind them.  We have an opportunity here in Cincinnati to try to nip this thing in the bud since prices aren't up to the insane levels of those cities, but the goal should be to allow growth and development to happen broadly and deliberately, not to try to restrict it on every front to the point where it'll be impossible to deal with in the future. 

Yeah. New construction and new architecture shouldn't be prohibited, but tearing down an old home to build 3 on the same lot is bad.

 

Why?  That's how every urban neighborhood throughout the entirety of human history has grown and matured over time.

 

I'm largely in agreement with jjakucyk here. If nothing was allowed to change / become denser, then (as an example) Orchard St would still be an orchard.

 

Definitely not advocating for pulling down old houses to build crap, but incremental development must be allowed to occur. And I'm a believer in a property owner largely being able to do what he or she wants with his/her property. Let's leave the big brother micromanagement in the form of homeowners associations to the suburbs.

Yeah. New construction and new architecture shouldn't be prohibited, but tearing down an old home to build 3 on the same lot is bad.

 

Why?  That's how every urban neighborhood throughout the entirety of human history has grown and matured over time.

 

I'm largely in agreement with jjakucyk here. If nothing was allowed to change / become denser, then (as an example) Orchard St would still be an orchard.

 

Definitely not advocating for pulling down old houses to build crap, but incremental development must be allowed to occur. And I'm a believer in a property owner largely being able to do what he or she wants with his/her property. Let's leave the big brother micromanagement in the form of homeowners associations to the suburbs.

 

Even Hyde Park developed successionally to the point it's at now, though admittedly in a more spasmodic way than the core of the city due to the wave of development that came with the introduction of electric streetcar service.  Nevertheless, what started out as large Revolutionary War land grants were subdivided into sizeable farm parcels and then smaller farms and land holdings plus some decent country estates.  Few of the estate houses remain today but several of the old farmhouses do.  These small farms were usually later subdivided as part of granting equal portions of the land as inheritance, and those were then subdivided into the residential streets and neighborhoods we have now.  The large Nicholas Longworth estate next to the Cincinnati Country Club became the Rookwood subdivision.  John Kilgour had a huge estate encompassing I think an entire "section" bounded by Observatory, Paxton, Wasson, and what would eventually become the line of Tarpis Avenue, totaling 159 acres.  The Wulsin Estate became the site of the extension of Dana Avenue to Madison plus the Regency tower and whatever those low-rise condos or townhouses are behind it.  The old Wurlitzer estate at Madison and Bedford Avenue was replaced with a few apartment buildings in the 50s through the 80s.  Many of the short dead-end streets represent the subdivision of a single small farm or estate. 

 

So yes there wasn't as much of one house being replaced by three or four as there was a small farm being replaced by a dozen or two dozen houses, or an old run-down estate being replaced with a new subdivision or condominium, but there's been successional development going on pretty much continuously until it was all mostly stopped in its tracks by the 1970s when, as I understand it, zoning was significantly tightened down compared to what it was before.  My guess is it was a response to the proliferation of the awful bland boxy apartments that started springing up in the 1960s throughout the city.  This isn't to be confused with the so-called "brick boxes" of the 1920s through early 1950s that were mostly 4-plexes, and most usually of an Art Deco style.  Those are at least well-built if not always the most attractive.  These are the later shoeboxes that average about 20-40 units per building, usually with balconies, and often no windows at all on the ends except for the entrance doors.  Think Clifton Colony or Mont Michel.  There's not so much in Hyde Park, but they're all over Mt. Washington, Clifton, Westwood, Kennedy Heights, and a lot of the marginal hillside properties.  They wouldn't be quite so bad except for the thoroughly unpleasant disposition of their parking lots and access drives, with ramshackle retaining walls, steep grades, poor asphalt engineering, all on top of a "cram the parking in wherever possible" mentality, none of which has aged well at all either.  Of course, rather than opting for some sort of design review or material standards, they mostly just redlined the construction of any apartments at all through further downzoning.

I think you're blowing things out of proportion and assuming my position is to stop all development (this is definitely the position of some people in the neighborhood).

 

I'm not suggesting places should never add density or that we should stop all future development in Hyde Park. The IDC should last for 3 months. As long as they don't prolong this into years of delays, whatever.

 

I understand OTR used to be farmland with a few owners. These owners slowly sold off (sometimes quickly) their land and it was developed into housing. After a couple of decades, larger brick buildings were constructed that stand today. Most of the business districts in Cincinnati have been business districts since their second life after they were farms or estates.

 

Hell, look at what the U Square development looked like before it was completely raised. It was a hodgepodge of single family homes, row houses, apartment buildings, and fast food restaurants with drive thrus. I'm sure the developers of the apartment buildings and fast food restaurants made a quick buck, but the neighborhood was worse off because of it. It greatly reduced property values and led to people leaving the neighborhood. If UC wasn't right next door, that would likely be as run down as Avondale, Corryville, and the like. It had some nice looking buildings and some historic buildings, but overall, it was pretty ugly. That's what happens when you let a mixture of completely different forms take over a street.

 

My personal opinion is that the neighborhood should pursue form-based code. This would allow buildings that fit the neighborhood be used for some businesses depending on the density. If a corner home is demolished on a busy street to make way for a 4-unit building with a business on the first floor, so be it. That's great. But when a home is demolished so four cheap buildings can be built that push up to the minimum setback requirements, regardless of what the surrounding homes are set back to, that's a problem. Property values drop, people move out, developers further cheapen the street.

 

And you kind of proved my point with the description of different areas of Hyde Park. Yes, Grandin Road has large mansions with huge lots. Should a developer be allowed to buy one of the large lots, demolish the mansion, and put 8 two-story suburban homes on a newly subdivided lot? I would argue no. That adversely affects the value of the other homes. It permanently changes the character of the street and diminishes the beauty of the neighborhood. I would also argue no one should buy 4 lots in one of the areas of Hyde Park with small houses/lots, and build a new mansion set back 80 feet from the street. We should try to keep individual blocks similar in style to how they are now. It keeps them attractive and healthy. It's not like there isn't a market for these older homes. It's just that developers see huge cash value when lots go for $400,000 before a house is built on them. It isn't adding any economic diversity to the neighborhood.

 

I have no problem with businesses in residential districts, either. One place that does this really well is German Village in Columbus. Little bars and shops are tucked away in buildings scattered across the neighborhood. Usually they take place on corner lots or on busier streets/thoroughfares. It's a little denser than most of Hyde Park, but not unreasonably so in some areas.

"Property values drop, people move out, developers further cheapen the street."

 

Does it?  I don't disagree about the subjective (or even objective) quality of the newer houses usually being inferior, but that's not a given and can be said about any new developments, whether infill or greenfield.  It's an issue of our time to be sure, but not one that should be worth squelching all development because of it.  The real question is what ACTUAL impact there is on property value or the ever-elusive "quality of life."  If there is a net increase in property values, due to the new houses being worth a lot more than the single old one plus a lot of empty land, even after whatever reduction in values there may be to the immediate neighbors, then it's a win for the city and should probably be allowed.  Of course the neighbors will raise holy hell, but they're a vested interest, as is the developer, yet nobody from the community at large can be bothered to speak for the greater good, except possibly for an impartial council member, because they have no personal stake in it, even if it will ultimately benefit everyone. 

 

As for Grandin Road, it's not really much different from the lower reaches of Victory Parkway, East McMillan, Taft, and the numerous side streets that abut the hillside in East Walnut Hills, and those have high rises now, usually in immediate proximity to older single-family homes.  A fairly extreme example perhaps, but whatever reduction in value of those houses is more than offset by the enormous increase in value and thus taxes from the new high rise.  I would also posit that while some people certainly don't want others looking down on their back yard, there's plenty of people who also don't care one bit, so while there may be turnover in ownership because of the new high rise, it isn't automatically a significant reduction in desirability and value.  I'd value having a high rise block the hot western sun from my place, even though most people cry foul when such a thing comes up, c'est la vie.

 

The other thing about Grandin Road is that while some houses certainly are set far back from the street on large lots, there's others that are almost frighteningly close to the street https://goo.gl/maps/WISFW and that inconsistency is actually charming and gives more of a mountain village feel, if only slightly.  It enhances the neighborhood in my opinion, compared to say Indian Hill which is so zealous in its setbacks and large lots that you can barely see any of the best houses.  Back to Carl's Deli and the few other stores there, a form-based code if applied similarly to a Euclidian code doesn't actually help much because those stores need actual storefronts on the sidewalk.  They won't work set back 30 feet or more like the rest of the houses.  That's why businesses like Lemon Grass, Hyde Park Meats, and the futon store that eventually became Wild Ginger, were built right up to the sidewalk, sometimes in front of the house, not only for practical layout purposes, but to entice passers by who could look right in the windows without having to trek down a pathway in the front yard.  Being set back like all the rest of the houses is ok if you want to have a home office or maybe a salon or even a small apartment building within a single-family district (those 4-plexes from the 30s and 40s are masters at this), but it doesn't work for most commercial uses.  Compatible scale is a more important factor than rigid positioning.   

 

That's what worries me about form-based zoning, in that it's still used to freeze the existing built form in amber, even if the use is allowed to be a tad more flexible.  That's two steps forward and one step back.  In practice, the way I see it being implement is merely substituting a highly specific and byzantine proscriptive (thou shalt not) system with a highly specific and byzantine prescriptive (thou shalt/must) system all with too many zones drawn with way too much surgical precision around preexisting development.  Also the form-based codes that have already been implemented include just as many use restrictions as the Euclidian codes (retail/restaurants for example are limited to T5 main street zones, T4 allows some small office types, but the T3 zones that cover single-family development only allow home offices, daycare, bed and breakfasts, churches, and small art/dance/music studios in 500 square feet or less accessory structures.  That's not really any different than what we have in the standard code.  Same outcome, slightly different tool. 

The debate on this forum of urbanists proves that this is a bit of a tricky issue.  On one hand, Hyde Park is pretty important to the city of Cincinnati's tax base, as it's the most affluent neighborhood in the city.  Obviously the neighborhood is appealing in its current form, as property values and real estate prices suggest that there is high demand to live there.  The city doesn't want to jeopardize this by letting new, denser development take the place of the established form, and that makes a lot of sense.  It's also a really popular neighborhood for families, largely because it offers essentially a walkable suburban environment, in terms of a safe neighborhood with big houses, big lawns and good public schools.  It's an 'urban' enigma.  Would adding density change this vibe to the average Joe Homeowner? Idk, but I think that's the underlying fear-- that Hyde Park will lose its competitive edge in attracting affluent families over the burbs.

 

On the other hand, the city needs to grow its population, and I'm of the opinion that we need to capitalize on densifying the areas that are already successful, just as we need to work on revitalizing and infilling other neighborhoods.  I think a good balance would be to encourage density at infill sites as they come available, while prohibiting/limiting the teardown of existing structures that are in good condition.  Even though the homes in Hyde Park might not be protected by historic designations, there is little doubt that there are a lot of beautiful, well built, old homes in the neighborhood.  It would absolutely damage the character of Hyde Park to lose these homes in favor of smaller, denser development.  Yes the population of the neighborhood would increase, but Hyde Park would lose a bit of what makes it so desirable in the first place.

 

I also think that the fact that Hyde Park is essentially built out could be a good thing for other neighborhoods.  Oakley has been seeing a lot of growth, both in terms of development and popularity among 'young professional' types, largely because many are priced out of Hyde Park.  The same goes for retail locating in Oakley Square vs Hyde Park Square.  With nearby Madisonville, Columbia Tusculum, hell, maybe even Pleasant Ridge offering affordable options with housing stock similar (in parts), wouldn't scarcity in Hyde Park propel people to these neighborhoods?  I know that proximity to premier neighborhoods is not the panacea for neighborhoods looking to improve, but I would have to think there would at least be some spill over.  Just as the Eden Park-near streets of EWH attract a lot of people who've been priced out of Mt. Adams. 

 

In sum, I'm not sure the reward of a denser Hyde Park is worth the risk to the character of the neighborhood.  Infill sites will come available, such as the homes being built on the old church on Erie, and the new street/sub-division being created off Grandin/Edwards, and the city should actively look for ways to accommodate growth in similar fashions.

Spillover development certainly does happen, but I don't think it can go all that far.  Oakley surely benefits from having a strong commercial corridor of its own, but like with Mt. Lookout and East Walnut Hills, they're still very close to HP Square too, which is the bigger draw for a lot of people.  Other neighborhoods need to develop their own centers to be at least good enough or else the spillover will just peter out.  Barriers such as valleys, highways, railroads, or even large institutions like hospitals, schools, or any superblock can be a wall against spillover development by making what's on the other side "just too far away."  Sometimes it's just perception too.  There's nothing really separating the mansions of East Walnut Hills from Evanston, but the demarcation line south of Fairfax Avenue is striking. 

 

I'm disappointed in the church site infill.  There's only four houses going on that huge site that used to have a sizable building on it.  I assume the idea of converting it onto condos was probably explored, ala the Windings in Clifton, but maybe it wasn't big enough or would've required too much reworking, but still that would've been preferable I think, even if it isn't exactly within easy walking distance of the square. 

 

Here's something to consider in the overall argument.  What some describe as "losing what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place" others would describe as reaching an equilibrium point in supply and demand.  While I don't subscribe to the notion that densification automatically makes a neighborhood less desirable, even if it did, then it would only densify to the point that the market will allow.  As it is, zoning is used to create artificial scarcity through what is essentially protectionism, something which is pretty universally frowned on in economic circles. 

Here's something to consider in the overall argument.  What some describe as "losing what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place" others would describe as reaching an equilibrium point in supply and demand.  While I don't subscribe to the notion that densification automatically makes a neighborhood less desirable, even if it did, then it would only densify to the point that the market will allow.  As it is, zoning is used to create artificial scarcity through what is essentially protectionism, something which is pretty universally frowned on in economic circles.

 

This is clearly the crux of our disagreement.

 

Here's the thing. I don't think densification automatically makes a neighborhood less desirable either. There are clearly areas of Hyde Park that are significantly denser than other parts of Hyde Park. There are neighborhoods less dense than Hyde Park that are clearly less desirable. The problem is that the "market" left to its own judgement will decimate neighborhoods for a quick buck. A developer would instantly buy a home, tear it down, and build a 4 story apartment complex in Hyde Park if the city let them. Eventually the entire neighborhood will be pockmarked with apartment buildings and people with money will leave the neighborhood because the charm and stability will be gone. I'm not suggesting we cater to rich citizens over poor ones, but those people aren't going to move to a different neighborhood without the market pressure to develop denser housing because those places typically have higher crime and lower performing schools. They would move to Mariemont, Kenwood, Mason. We still need to cater to them.

 

Spillover development is severely limited by the school district boundaries. This is a completely different discussion, but I think the Hyde Park school district should slowly and systematically expand every year, absorbing more streets into the district. Then when it becomes too big, it splits and there are two high performing schools that slowly expand into the neighboring areas, raising property values and encouraging people to move into the city. I know Hyde Park would be against this, but it would really help students in neighboring hoods and encourage investment in those areas for people who wanted to sell.

In my opinion the best move for Hyde Park to continue to grow is if they "add" onto the square at each edge, like it seems they are doing a bit anyways.  Like turning over some houses or offices into denser, higher valued condos / apartments / mixed used buildings North and South of the Square on Edwards, West on Erie, East on Erie, West on Observatory, East on Observatory, North and South of the Square on Michigan, North and South of the Square on Shaw.

 

The rest of the development should be scrutinized a bit tighter as people have mentioned to fall in line with the character of the neighborhood

If we taxed based on value of land and not improvements, I bet you'd see Hyde Park "densify" quickly (just like it would lead to surface lots downtown getting developed). 

The one issue i have with taxing on land value is, what happens if downtown is fully built out to demand, yet there are still surface lots? If they develop the lot, they lose money because there isn't housing/office demand to fill it. If they don't develop the lots, they lose a bunch of money to taxes. They wouldn't be able to sell because there isn't demand and the taxes are too high. If land value took use restrictions into consideration Hyde Park shouldn't densify because it can't become any denser.

In my opinion the best move for Hyde Park to continue to grow is if they "add" onto the square at each edge, like it seems they are doing a bit anyways. 

 

I'd agree, but I bet most residents wouldn't.  Many people seem to view "commercial creep" as some sort of nefarious cancer on the neighborhood.  A specific example was on Facebook where someone showed a historic photo of the corner of Edwards and Erie where Sibcy Cline/Key Bank is now.  It used to be a house like farther down Erie with a low hedgerow along the sidewalk not unlike how the Hyde Park School borders Edwards and Observatory.  Pretty much everyone commented that it was a huge loss and that the Sibcy Cline building is a travesty.  Never mind that it's a horrible corner for a large lot single family home (no privacy, noise, litter in the bushes, people trying to cut through the yard, etc.) and the Sibcy Cline building, while no masterpiece to be sure, is a perfectly competent participant in urban form that comes up to the sidewalk, has windows along said sidewalk, addresses the corner, is more than a single story tall, and even has a cornice, if rather abstracted. 

 

The one argument I can see being made, which applies to the adjacent 5/3 Bank and Michigan Terrace on the other side of the square is that previously all the buildings on Erie had a similar setback *from the centerline of the street* such that those directly on the square are right against the sidewalk because of how the street widens out, while the rest are back a good 30-40 feet.  So there was something of a consistent street wall, per se, even though the street itself wandered back and forth between that.  That's why there's yards and patios in front of Cock & Bull and down past Indigo where it turns into houses with the same front yards.  The problem is that while this works nicely for restaurants, all the businesses between Cock & Bull and the post office have no use for that space in front, and actually want to see it stripped as barren as possible so people can see into their windows from the real sidewalk and maybe the street rather than the internal private sidewalk.  The turnover of those stores has been pretty frequent, even art galleries have trouble making it there.  The yard at the corner of Michigan and Erie at Hyde Park Baptist is also a total dud, and it hurts the retail visibility of southern Michigan Avenue itself, which is actually the most pleasant street to walk down because of its enclosed feel and narrow street.  So while the setbacks in this case are an interesting study academically, I'd say breaking from that to properly orient the newer buildings to the sidewalk was a good move. 

 

The one issue i have with taxing on land value is, what happens if downtown is fully built out to demand, yet there are still surface lots? If they develop the lot, they lose money because there isn't housing/office demand to fill it. If they don't develop the lots, they lose a bunch of money to taxes. They wouldn't be able to sell because there isn't demand and the taxes are too high. If land value took use restrictions into consideration Hyde Park shouldn't densify because it can't become any denser.

 

I think the argument there is that the surface lots would develop before demand was totally satisfied because they're the low hanging fruit to begin with.  The sharp rise in the tax rate when the land tax is implemented would be most punishing to those with empty lots, so they'd be the first to get sold or redeveloped before any other tear-downs or redevelopment projects.  Many of the single-story "one part commercial blocks" from the 1900s-1920s (like where Oakley Cycles is, and along a lot of Montgomery Road in Norwood) were exactly the response to this sort of system.  They were built at important sites, usually along streetcar lines, to "get something in the ground" until the neighborhood developed to a point where there was more demand for something bigger.  The Great Depression and WWII and then suburbanization stopped that redevelopment in its tracks, but the result was a handful of inexpensive commercial storefronts that cater well to small businesses.  Overall the idea of a land tax is that it will spread development out much more evenly rather than seeing huge "silver bullet" type projects land like spaceships.

 

 

The commercial character and center esplanade of Hyde Park Square was originally supposed to extend 1-2 blocks closer to Madison Rd.  The attempt to block that went to the Ohio Supreme Court in the late 1910s or early 1920s and was successful in creating some sort of overlay that I assume is still in existence 100 years later and prevents construction of new commercial storefronts on Erie Ave. west of the existing square.  Creating a larger square would have devalued what had already been built.  That's the real estate game that is played in situation after situation around the country and world.  If there's more "downtown", then individual downtown properties are less valuable.  If Manhattan is expanded to Governor's Island, then there's more "Manhattan" and all else being equal existing properties and rents tend to go down in value. 

 

I don't see these tear-downs as accomplishing anything.  They are not significantly increasing the population density of this neighborhood.  To raise the density by 10% given existing demographics would require demolishing dozens of these homes situated on large lots.  Every wealthy person who builds a home on a new subdivision in Hyde Park is one who doesn't buy a house somewhere else in the metro.  So if you're interested in the repopulation of other neighborhoods, you should be opposed to the further densification of Hyde Park, Mt. Adams, and other areas where the addition of 100 more wealthy people makes no appreciable difference in the character of those neighborhoods or the city at large.  By contrast, if 100 people decided to renovate homes in Walnut Hills and Mt. Auburn, there would be a very noticeable change to those places. 

 

Also, there are few areas in this city where "densification" could lead to a large number of people being able to ditch their cars.  Few people who have moved to OTR or Downtown in the past ten years have ditched their cars.  Hyde Park is much farther from any threshold where people could start going carless on a large scale. 

I generally support anything that increases density and improves walkability (those two aren't necessarily synonymous)... but not all sub-divisions of large plots are well designed.

 

For purely selfish reasons, I'm especially sad about how Dana Ave was constructed to cut through my great-grandfather's parcel at the corner with Madison... which resulted in the Regency. I'm not  opposed to the idea of an apartment tower... it just makes me sad how uninviting that intersection is if you want to walk around there, in large part due to how far setback the Regency is from the street. I honestly don't think his old farm should have remained farm, but I do wish they had laid out the area with more thought to how people might want to walk from there to Hyde Park Square or O'Bryonville.

 

Even Hyde Park developed successionally to the point it's at now, though admittedly in a more spasmodic way than the core of the city due to the wave of development that came with the introduction of electric streetcar service.  Nevertheless, what started out as large Revolutionary War land grants were subdivided into sizeable farm parcels and then smaller farms and land holdings plus some decent country estates.  Few of the estate houses remain today but several of the old farmhouses do.  These small farms were usually later subdivided as part of granting equal portions of the land as inheritance, and those were then subdivided into the residential streets and neighborhoods we have now.  The large Nicholas Longworth estate next to the Cincinnati Country Club became the Rookwood subdivision.  John Kilgour had a huge estate encompassing I think an entire "section" bounded by Observatory, Paxton, Wasson, and what would eventually become the line of Tarpis Avenue, totaling 159 acres.  The Wulsin Estate became the site of the extension of Dana Avenue to Madison plus the Regency tower and whatever those low-rise condos or townhouses are behind it.  The old Wurlitzer estate at Madison and Bedford Avenue was replaced with a few apartment buildings in the 50s through the 80s.  Many of the short dead-end streets represent the subdivision of a single small farm or estate. 

Get a look inside Hyde Park’s newest luxury condos

 

 

Greiwe Development Group and its partners celebrated the completion of the $36 million luxury condominium development 2770 Observatory.

 

The four-story, 30-unit condo development is Greiwe’s first residential project in Hyde Park.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/10/13/get-alook-inside-hyde-park-s-newest-luxury-condos.html

^Much nicer than anything on The Banks, in OTR, or near UC. 

^ i would hope at $600K to over a mil.

So I used to work across the street from this. I'm curious how long before water intrusion begins and the HOA sues the developer and/or contractor and/or architect. The flashing was visibly incorrect and the waterproofing was being penetrated without care all over the place to attach various aspects to the building. For that price point there shouldn't be any worry about water.

I can't wait to see what he does downtown with this buildings on Main Street.  They should be very high character and quality materials

So I used to work across the street from this. I'm curious how long before water intrusion begins and the HOA sues the developer and/or contractor and/or architect. The flashing was visibly incorrect and the waterproofing was being penetrated without care all over the place to attach various aspects to the building. For that price point there shouldn't be any worry about water.

 

Why wouldn't building inspections catch this? I always have a beef with code and inspections because o know so many people who have purchased new buildings that have horrendous problems. Literally entire mechanical systems that don't work.

Building inspectors are just looking for life/safety issues, such as missing structural members, fireblocking, stair issues, egress door problems, improper attachments, etc.  Mechanical/electrical/plumbing inspectors aren't testing systems, they're making sure they're installed to code.  Things like flashing aren't really under any inspector's purview, and if they were (or to more thoroughly vet other parts of the building) would require many more inspectors and then hurr durr taxes evul gubmint! 

 

I don't consider the materials on this building to be THAT high quality.  7 out of 10 maybe.  The wood looks good, I just hope it doesn't fade/weather poorly or unevenly.  The cut limestone is good (it's probably still manufactured stone but looks ok).  However, the manufactured stacked stone (it looks more realistic because we use real crushed stone to make it!) reminds me of ODOT highway sound walls, and the bog standard Pella windows rub me the wrong way for a project at this price point.  The lack of contrast between the two stone materials also bothers me, but the color is also just different enough that it's irritating.  If they used just the cut limestone and the wood I think this would look a lot better. 

Hey experts!

 

What's the deal with 1421 Herschel???

 

It was purchased early 2015, the mansion torn down under protest a year ago, then excavated, utilities installed, graded, platted and then . . .  nothing.

 

Sitting for how long I don't even know. A lot longer than anyone expected.

 

Any thoughts?

Waiting for pre-purchases maybe?  The little 3-house development at the end of Paul Street now has two occupied houses and one dirt lot, because the first two plans sold and they built them right away.  Seems like these developers don't want to build the houses on spec, they want to wait until someone commits before constructing them.  I guess that's less risky, but you lose the "move-in-ready" selling point. 

Or the banks won't lend them the money to build them before they are sold.

Zillow shows three sold. That would be 3 out of 5.

 

Seems like you would lose a buyer with the dirt sitting there for 6 months.

This is the old Nippert property...has been subdivided into $800k lots!

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1513116/18-Grandin-Rd-18-Hyde-Park-OH-45208

That's not really so out of line.  $1M/acre was the going rate for land in Hyde Park about 10 years ago when they were looking to sell off the observatory and subdivide it.  Anything right off Grandin is certainly more.  Of course if these half-acre lots were just a few blocks of the square then it would be rather infuriating.

That's actually less than they told us they'd be charging for them when we measured the old house on that site and did a cost estimate of fully renovating it.

 

This requires the construction of new roads, utilities, etc. on a very steep site that will require a lot of complicated retaining work in order to function. I'm surprised they're not over a million a piece.

 

Plus they're on the Grandin Road spur which is very desirable.

That's actually less than they told us they'd be charging for them when we measured the old house on that site and did a cost estimate of fully renovating it.

 

This requires the construction of new roads, utilities, etc. on a very steep site that will require a lot of complicated retaining work in order to function. I'm surprised they're not over a million a piece.

 

Plus they're on the Grandin Road spur which is very desirable.

 

I believe this is the old Corbett house which had some great views of the river......

 

So from the site plan it looks like the excess land from both the Corbett House and the home at 2581 were utilized to create this development. 2581 had four building on site, the main house (the one I was referring to) and then 3 out buildings which were being rented out. A caretaker's cabin, a gardener's cabin, then some other cabin I can't remember the use of. Those three out buildings will be/were (unfortunately) demolished to make way for these plots of land.

 

It's really a shame because 2581 had a really fantastic old-Cincinnati feel to it. You went out to the giant rear terrace and it was a beautiful piece of land that looked down to the river without really seeing any neighboring homes. It needed a serious amount of work though. It was not well taken care of. We estimated it needed a solid 4.5-6 million in renovation work to be fully up to date and up to modern standards while restoring the original detail work that had been removed or ruined over time. I hope someone who truly cares about restoration becomes its owner because it's a very unique property for Cincinnati. Having it brought back up to its original standard of design and detail while being brought into the 21st century would be fantastic.

So from the site plan it looks like the excess land from both the Corbett House and the home at 2581 were utilized to create this development. 2581 had four building on site, the main house (the one I was referring to) and then 3 out buildings which were being rented out. A caretaker's cabin, a gardener's cabin, then some other cabin I can't remember the use of. Those three out buildings will be/were (unfortunately) demolished to make way for these plots of land.

 

It's really a shame because 2581 had a really fantastic old-Cincinnati feel to it. You went out to the giant rear terrace and it was a beautiful piece of land that looked down to the river without really seeing any neighboring homes. It needed a serious amount of work though. It was not well taken care of. We estimated it needed a solid 4.5-6 million in renovation work to be fully up to date and up to modern standards while restoring the original detail work that had been removed or ruined over time. I hope someone who truly cares about restoration becomes its owner because it's a very unique property for Cincinnati. Having it brought back up to its original standard of design and detail while being brought into the 21st century would be fantastic.

 

2581 was quite prominent in the filming of Carol in 2014.

^After writing that post I remembered that was the case and that I still hadn't seen Carol. Which is now what I'm doing haha. It's good to see it in the film. It really is a gorgeous house.

Quite a number of homes extending for about 4-5 miles east from East Walnut Hills have sweeping views of that giant bend in the river.  The river bends "outward" on the west side so it doesn't have the same effect.  There are some homes on the Kentucky side that have northward views similar to the east side views but the river valley is not quite as impressive and the Ohio shoreline is lined with heavy industry.  When you get close to the Indiana line, the views are marred by the pair of coal power plants at the mouth of the Great Miami. 

 

This is the old Nippert property...has been subdivided into $800k lots!

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1513116/18-Grandin-Rd-18-Hyde-Park-OH-45208

 

2581 Grandin is the old Barrett house... not Nippert.

^Speaking of that area... the Corbett house next door just sold for $2.44 million to an "undisclosed buyer"... but it seems pretty clear someone affiliated with the Barrett family was probably the buyer since it's part of the Barrett-backed "Grandin View" development:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/04/13/exclusive-former-corbett-estate-in-hyde-park-sold.html

^Grandin View was the seller, not the buyer.

UC Hyde Park Neighborhood Survey: http://bit.ly/SurveyHydePark

Cincinnati developers looking at large mixed-use project in Hyde Park

 

 

A Cincinnati commercial real estate development firm is looking at plans for a large mixed-use development along the Wasson Way bike trail.

 

Downtown-based Capital Investment Group Inc. is looking at a development project centered at the site of the former Pig & Whistle Sports Pub in Hyde Park. Gregg Fusaro, partner with CIG, would only say the developer is looking at different options.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/07/11/cincinnati-developers-looking-at-large-mixed-use.html

I just don't see how they have the space here for that dense of a development without some sort of underground parking structure. Pig and whistle has a large footprint, but I remember nights where the lot would be packed and there would be overflow to the Busken lot across the street, and that is just for one bar. Imagine adding 200 apartments to the mix. Without some sort of parking solution, I cant see how this project is feasible.

^Maybe they're getting a free parking garage from John Cranley. 

The article states there will be a parking garage with 300 spaces in it for both residents and some public parking. It would take up more than just the pig and whistle property but also some adjacent ones including the larosas...which would become a retail tenant in the new structure.

Can somebody share the design proposal? I'm curious how they're approaching the site plan. There aren't very many places along Wasson Way that have potential for adding high density housing, so I hope the anti-density crowd doesn't prevent this from happening.

 

I like this idea (assuming it means the existing LaRosa's building would be demolished and the new building would occupy that triangular space):

the LaRosa’s that is adjacent to the old Pig & Whistle would become part of the new development as a first-floor commercial tenant.

 

If they can acquire the other three buildings along Madison (2662-2676), the site plan could work much better. Currently, their site plan is about 75,000 sq ft... though I don't know how much of that would be taken up by the new building(s).

 

Here is the current site plan (assuming they use all of the LaRosa's parcel):

 

I love Lemongrass but the interior has been extremely worn out for a long time.  Hopefully they cash out and then operate as a tenant in the new building. 

 

The building to the left of Lemongrass is an attorney's office, so they are certainly holding out for maximum $$$.  I don't see how this development works without those properties.

 

A basic rule for selling your property to a developer is to hold out until you're the last one.  Just ask the Rookwood Exchange guy that got over a million for his two family. 

^Maybe they're getting a free parking garage from John Cranley.

 

My first thought too. The mayor's .2 mile bike path is why they like this location? Sounds like something the Mayor asked them to publicize in order to get a deal of some sort. Yes I'm jaded, good luck to them though.