January 29Jan 29 18 hours ago, Lazarus said: A few community comments from tonight's virtual meeting were useful: 1. This plan is in conflict with the freshly-minted "Connected Communities" In what sense is this in conflict with Connected Communities?
January 29Jan 29 Hyde Park residents flock to denounce $150M square development By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier Jan 29, 2025 Residents came out in force Tuesday night to oppose a major development on Hyde Park Square, arguing that the project was too tall and would bring too much traffic. More than 300 people attended the Jan. 28 city of Cincinnati planning staff conference on the project. The meeting was held virtually via Zoom. The meeting followed letters from three neighborhood groups opposed to the development as proposed. MORE
January 29Jan 29 NIMBYs gonna NIMBY. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
January 30Jan 30 10 hours ago, jwulsin said: In what sense is this in conflict with Connected Communities? Because the developer is asking for significant zoning variances above and beyond the now-looser zoning. In fact, it appears that the project would have never been proposed without the new zoning, since the developer would have had to ask for a much larger number of variances. The other problem is that the new zoning was sold as a way to revitalize moribund parts of town. Instead, it's motivating redevelopment of a business district that is doing perfectly fine without a hotel or additional apartments.
February 28Feb 28 Hyde Park Square developers shrink major mixed-use project The three developers planning an apartment-hotel-commercial development on Hyde Park Square have reduced the size of their project, but the neighborhood’s community council still objects to the height. PLK Communities, NorthPointe Group and the Loring Group have reduced the height of the 1.78-acre project from 85.5 feet tall to 80 feet tall and correspondingly reduced the number of parking spaces from roughly 350 to 250. The move comes about a week before a showdown is expected at the Cincinnati Planning Commission March 7 between neighbors and the $150 million project’s developers, with a potential vote by the panel on rezoning the property to allow the project to proceed. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/02/27/hyde-park-square-development-shrinks.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
February 28Feb 28 8 hours ago, RustyBFall said: Should've made it taller They should add a floor for every lawyer the NIMBYs hire.
February 28Feb 28 This whole thing reminds me a lot of the "honor your promise" campaign that went on about 20 years ago. Those that were around at that time will remember that the opposition blanketed the neighborhood in yard signs. https://www.fox19.com/story/3261952/hyde-park-church-expansion/
February 28Feb 28 Author so there will be no parking spaces for the larger community (residents, businesses at Hyde Park Square, etc), we'll add millions to the cost of the project, and it'll be less environmentally friendly (concrete) so that the building can shrink by 5 feet and the NIMBYs will still be angry. Great job everyone. The city just needs to aggressively allow dense developments.
February 28Feb 28 1 hour ago, ryanlammi said: so there will be no parking spaces for the larger community (residents, businesses at Hyde Park Square, etc), we'll add millions to the cost of the project, and it'll be less environmentally friendly (concrete) so that the building can shrink by 5 feet and the NIMBYs will still be angry. Great job everyone. The city just needs to aggressively allow dense developments. FWIW, it looks like there will still be publicly available parking: Quote Approximately 257 parking spaces will be provided in a multi-level underground garage. This parking garage will be available to hotel guests and building residents, and roughly 89 spaces will be reserved for commercial use. I would assume 89 is way more than what is necessary for workers of the development on any given day, but I guess it's possible some could be reserved for event staff? In any case, I was told by a subcontractor that has worked for PLK in the past, that they were looking at switching to metal framing because it's more reliable to work with. This was almost 3 months ago. The packet shows that the metal framing will only save them a week or two during construction but I assume that the schedule is functionally more reliable than using wood framing. It's very clear to me that this was what PLK wanted to build from the outset and they are using the city's policies and politics to make themselves look like they are the reasonable ones in this discussion. It looks like the opposition is playing right into their hands. Additionally, there are letters of opposition in the 1,582 page packet (!) from at least the following organizations: Hyde Park Neighborhood Council Mt. Washington Community Council Sayler Park Village Council East Price Hill Improvement Association Mt. Airy Town Council North Avondale Neighborhood Association Paddock Hills Assembly Mt. Lookout Community Council Cincinnati Preservation Association Hyde Park Square Business Association Churchill's Fine Teas The packet is 1,582 pages with the last ~1,160 pages being copies emails.
February 28Feb 28 Author 10 minutes ago, Dev said: FWIW, it looks like there will still be publicly available parking: The 89 spaces are going to be only for businesses in the development. If you aren't patronizing those businesses I don't think you get to use it. From the Business Courier article: "The garage would have served both the development and the public, but with the reduced size of the project, it would only serve both the new and existing apartments, the hotel and the commercial space."
February 28Feb 28 Ok, I'm actually going to side with the NIMBY's on this one. Their sketch below isn't far fetched, and that back apartment building is incredibly too long. I bet you'd able to see it from everywhere in the Square. This reminds me of that long homogenous building that semi-recently went up behind Mainstrasse. Last time I was in town, I couldn't believe what I saw! Edited February 28Feb 28 by atlas
February 28Feb 28 57 minutes ago, Dev said: FWIW, it looks like there will still be publicly available parking: I would assume 89 is way more than what is necessary for workers of the development on any given day, but I guess it's possible some could be reserved for event staff? In any case, I was told by a subcontractor that has worked for PLK in the past, that they were looking at switching to metal framing because it's more reliable to work with. This was almost 3 months ago. The packet shows that the metal framing will only save them a week or two during construction but I assume that the schedule is functionally more reliable than using wood framing. It's very clear to me that this was what PLK wanted to build from the outset and they are using the city's policies and politics to make themselves look like they are the reasonable ones in this discussion. It looks like the opposition is playing right into their hands. Additionally, there are letters of opposition in the 1,582 page packet (!) from at least the following organizations: Hyde Park Neighborhood Council Mt. Washington Community Council Sayler Park Village Council East Price Hill Improvement Association Mt. Airy Town Council North Avondale Neighborhood Association Paddock Hills Assembly Mt. Lookout Community Council Cincinnati Preservation Association Hyde Park Square Business Association Churchill's Fine Teas The packet is 1,582 pages with the last ~1,160 pages being copies emails. If any of those emails are of the same nature/content of what many of those neighborhoods/residents submitted during connected communities, then they doing their effort far more harm than good. The amount of sheer ignorance contained was amazing...
February 28Feb 28 While we're still in desperate need for more housing these nimby loser community councils shouldn't be allowed dictate developments. I'm glad this is being pushed through. Wish it included some affordable housing, the east side needs to be forced into adding some of those.
February 28Feb 28 23 minutes ago, jag said: If any of those emails are of the same nature/content of what many of those neighborhoods/residents submitted during connected communities, then they doing their effort far more harm than good. The amount of sheer ignorance contained was amazing... I have not taken the time to look through them, it's way too much lol That said, I did notice as I scrolled through that there is a lot of form letters in there, which I imagine goes to your point of hurting their case, more than helping.
February 28Feb 28 Author 52 minutes ago, atlas said: Ok, I'm actually going to side with the NIMBY's on this one. Their sketch below isn't far fetched, and that back apartment building is incredibly too long. I bet you'd able to see it from everywhere in the Square. This reminds me of that long homogenous building that semi-recently went up behind Mainstrasse. Last time I was in town, I couldn't believe what I saw! You aren't going to see the 85' part from most of the street, though. It's set back from the rest of the building. Most of it will be about the height of the other buildings on the street. They could've proposed a building 20' shorter and the NIMBYs would've been throwing a fit. They just don't want any change, and it's been strangling our cities for 60 years. And that Covington development is great. Is this really that bad of a sight? This is about the most you see the building from any angle. We need to adapt and build more housing. The world isn't waiting for us to figure it out, people are just moving away.
February 28Feb 28 36 minutes ago, Cincy513 said: While we're still in desperate need for more housing these nimby loser community councils shouldn't be allowed dictate developments. I'm glad this is being pushed through. Wish it included some affordable housing, the east side needs to be forced into adding some of those. Don't judge all community councils based on the behavior of those listed there...
February 28Feb 28 Yes it is that bad, and it's embarrassing. Ffs, get some standards. Progress = new development + quality, not, 'let it rip'. Cincy's best attribute is it's charming, walkable NBDs. These huge mega boxes destroy that and turn it into copy/paste Atlanta. I am all for increasing height, increasing density, increasing residents. But not these 400' long rectangles that destroy the character and fabric.
February 28Feb 28 Author This is what the building looks like that actually fronts the street. This is what you see from the furthest point on 6th/Main While walking on Main you can barely see it. This building filled in the middle of the block which was mostly vacant lots and small one story warehouses. It's not perfect, but let's not pretend it destroyed Mainstrasse. We can't hold ourselves to 40' height and expect our cities to survive.
March 2Mar 2 Mainstrasse might currently be Greater Cincinnati’s most thriving and most culinarily interesting restaurant/bar district, thanks in part to all of the residential density that’s been built in the surrounding area.
March 2Mar 2 5 hours ago, taestell said: Mainstrasse might currently be Greater Cincinnati’s most thriving and most culinarily interesting restaurant/bar district, thanks in part to all of the residential density that’s been built in the surrounding area. I agree. Hopefully it can expand to tie into the Covington Riverfront Development at the former IRS site. I'd hate to see the CRD negatively impact this historic and lively street/area.
March 3Mar 3 Cincinnati planning staff makes recommendation on $150M Hyde Park Square development By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier Mar 3, 2025 The city’s planning staff has recommended that the Cincinnati Planning Commission give initial approval to a major $150 million development on Hyde Park Square that would bring a new hotel, multifamily housing and a rehabilitated existing apartment building. In its report, the planning staff determined the proposed development complies with the city’s most-recent plan adopted in 2012, as well as the 1983 Hyde Park Plan, the 1984 Hyde Park Square Neighborhood Business District Urban Design Plan and the 2023 Green Cincinnati Plan. The planning staff reviews requested zoning changes like the one submitted by the three developers proposing the Hyde Park project and makes a recommendation to the full commission, which is appointed by the mayor and Cincinnati City Council. The commission casts a vote on the zoning changes, which is then kicked over to city council for a final determination. MORE
March 7Mar 7 Does anyone know what the result of the planning commission meeting was this morning for this project?
March 7Mar 7 A lot of Hyde Park baby sitting mostly.Verdict still not in though recommender for approval.
March 7Mar 7 It just passed 3-1 but I believe it's the original version of wood framing at 85.5 feet. Members of the crowd are accusing them of being paid off.
March 7Mar 7 (Yay!!!) "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 8Mar 8 Cincinnati Planning Commission votes on $150M Hyde Park Square development The Cincinnati Planning Commission gave initial approval to a major $150 million mixed-use development on Hyde Park Square after hearing hours of testimony from hundreds of opponents Friday. The March 7 vote was 3-1, with Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney casting the sole "no." She voiced strenuous opposition. "I just think this is outrageous," Kearney said. "There's really no justification for ignoring the community. This is just siding with the developer who needs to be working with the community." Supporters on the planning commission said they backed the project because it will deliver more housing to a city that desperately needs it and that it could be a better project than if the city made the developer build something under the existing zoning. Assistant City Manager Billy Weber and commissioners Daniella Beltran and Jacob Samad voted for the development. "I do want to hold up the housing growth that is a part of this" as a good thing, Weber said. The project now heads to Cincinnati City Council, which will decide whether to rezone property to a planned development. It’s unclear when that vote will be. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/03/07/planning-commission-hyde-park-square-development.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 10Mar 10 Hyde Park attorneys float lawsuit over square development By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier Mar 10, 2025 Attorneys representing nearby residents opposed to a $150 million development on Hyde Park Square may look at suing the city of Cincinnati if City Council approves a zoning change to allow the project. Attorneys Matthew Fellerhoff and Jeffrey Levine began to lay the groundwork for a suit at the March 7 Cincinnati Planning Commission when they argued the planning commission was the wrong body to consider a zoning change that would allow the development and that it instead should be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals. “This entire procedural posture is in clear violation of the zoning code,” Levine told commissioners. “It is illegal.” MORE
March 10Mar 10 I'm not sure what images were presented to the community when, but massing models in an axonometric aerial view is such a graphic design/community engagement mistake. This is not the way we experience the built environment. Further, it multiplies the actual lived impression of the buildings, showing more sides of the building than anyone will ever experience. Perspectival views from the streets and sidewalks is the only way to convey how these buildings will or will not "adversely affect the physical character of the area". The renderings the ownership group shared early on didn't do enough to contextualize the height; instead the renderings showed the contrast in height between adjacent 1 story buildings, and context-less views of the tallest part of the site (hidden in the middle of the block if I understand correctly) I am pro density and hope Hyde Park Square adds density but I can also sympathize with the neighborhood because these buildings don't fit their imagination of what Hyde Park Square could be.
March 11Mar 11 On 2/28/2025 at 11:00 PM, ryanlammi said: This is what the building looks like that actually fronts the street. This is what you see from the furthest point on 6th/Main While walking on Main you can barely see it. This building filled in the middle of the block which was mostly vacant lots and small one story warehouses. It's not perfect, but let's not pretend it destroyed Mainstrasse. We can't hold ourselves to 40' height and expect our cities to survive. The problem isn't the height, it's the length and height homogeneity across the site. I am always amazed, through the lens of practical utilitarian needs RIGHT NOW, folks will look the other way as we spoil the ingredients that make for great cities. We did this in the 1940s-70s with highways and housing blocks, and these projects don't look too different to me. Back then, it was through the practical need of modernization and suburban movement, and today it's through the need of affordability and housing shortage. I get it. But we will look back and regret destroying diversity, fine grain, human scale in the name of 'progress' that unfortunately isn't aligned with human scale cities. The places in the world that attract the most footfall are places with these characteristics, not places that deliver housing via utilitarian outcomes only. I currently live in Ukraine delivering urban recovery projects for the UN and I see a stark difference between communist tower blocks akin to the Mainstrasse example and then traditional urban design. And I see what residents choose when given the choice/option to rebuild. Over and again, people feel more attached to human scaled environments, which isn't surprising. I appreciate the constraints that developers and governments face, and when I face similar constraints in my projects, in Ukraine, Australia or elsewhere, I push and advocate for more height variance across a site to avoid overly long blocks. I do this by pushing for more height along the street frontage and less height/bulk internally. This isn't merely an aesthetic fetish, it is a way to maintain character of a place that makes it economically successful. For Hyde Park, I'd push to eliminate most, maybe all, of the upper storey setbacks (they are often expensive for developers) and add 2-3 storeys to the buildings fronting the street, to create more slender forms, and then take off 2-3 storeys of the internal sites. If there are design controls that stipulate the upper storey setbacks, I would challenge these. Edited March 11Mar 11 by atlas
March 11Mar 11 On 3/2/2025 at 2:28 PM, taestell said: Mainstrasse might currently be Greater Cincinnati’s most thriving and most culinarily interesting restaurant/bar district, thanks in part to all of the residential density that’s been built in the surrounding area. The reason Mainstrasse is a destination is the fine grain, heritage buildings along the street, not the other way around. Without these, you wouldn't have a thriving, culinarily interesting place, no matter how many concrete slabs you stack in the area. I think it's important to understand the characteristics that attract people in the first place, so you don't destroy it unwittingly.
March 11Mar 11 I'd prefer to see a debate on height around something like this where we have height variation across the site. At least then the overton window can shift a bit towards a better outcome. The simple principle being: Edited March 11Mar 11 by atlas
March 11Mar 11 Author @atlas I agree with most of what you said, but this development is mostly not fronting the street. If it's in the middle of the block, I don't really personally care if the height varies or if there's a large monolithic structure that's largely hidden from the street. It doesn't materially impact the streetwall along Mainstrasse. A vast majority of it is between homes on one street and businesses on the other. They didn't tear down fine grain heritage buildings along Mainstrasse to build this development, so you still get the charm of Mainstrasse that makes it attractive, but you dramatically increase the residential density. I personally think putting the tallest part of the structure in the center of the block and stepping down as you approach the street is a more natural way to add new developments without drastically changing the massing.
March 11Mar 11 2 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: @atlas I agree with most of what you said, but this development is mostly not fronting the street. If it's in the middle of the block, I don't really personally care if the height varies or if there's a large monolithic structure that's largely hidden from the street. It doesn't materially impact the streetwall along Mainstrasse. A vast majority of it is between homes on one street and businesses on the other. They didn't tear down fine grain heritage buildings along Mainstrasse to build this development, so you still get the charm of Mainstrasse that makes it attractive, but you dramatically increase the residential density. I personally think putting the tallest part of the structure in the center of the block and stepping down as you approach the street is a more natural way to add new developments without drastically changing the massing. But it isn't 'mostly' hidden from the street, and the Mainstrasse example definitely isn't either. I think most people didn't 'care' about the West End when it was raised in favour of homogenization forces, but here we are.
March 11Mar 11 10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: @atlas I agree with most of what you said, but this development is mostly not fronting the street. If it's in the middle of the block, I don't really personally care if the height varies or if there's a large monolithic structure that's largely hidden from the street. It doesn't materially impact the streetwall along Mainstrasse. A vast majority of it is between homes on one street and businesses on the other. They didn't tear down fine grain heritage buildings along Mainstrasse to build this development, so you still get the charm of Mainstrasse that makes it attractive, but you dramatically increase the residential density. I personally think putting the tallest part of the structure in the center of the block and stepping down as you approach the street is a more natural way to add new developments without drastically changing the massing. I think a taller, 'internal' mass could work if it is a simplified massing (not multiple, wedding cake setbacks) and a stronger relationship between low-high (3 storey street height and 8 storey 'tower' height, as an example) See diagram below as a typology we developed in Oz. Edited March 11Mar 11 by atlas
March 11Mar 11 Comparing the Mainstrasse development to communist tower blocks is preposterous. Edited March 11Mar 11 by Cincy513
March 11Mar 11 4 minutes ago, Cincy513 said: Comparing this development to the total destruction of neighborhoods for a highway is preposterous. Mate, you're missing my point. Broken window theory. It's good to care. Large or small. Edited March 11Mar 11 by atlas
March 11Mar 11 I don’t disagree, but HPCC doesn’t agree to anything. If PLK proposed a 9 floor building in Hyde park square people would lose their minds, much like what is happening here.
March 11Mar 11 FYI: I know we're all going on a bit of a tangent here. I think it's OK to continue discussing the Mainstrasse project here as long as we're relating it back to what's being proposed and what modifications we'd like to see to the Hyde Park project. Here's a photo I snapped in Covington last summer that shows the contrast between the new apartment complex and the surrounding neighborhood: Personally the difference in scale doesn't bother me. It's the architecture and building materials of the new construction. It's crazy to me that neighborhoods fight the density instead of fighting the vinyl siding and mishmash of architectural styles. A building of that scale that looked nice would be a great asset to the neighborhood.
March 12Mar 12 I just don't get why people don't care that the previous work and current sympathies of Hyde Park residents is being ignored. If this was a black neighborhood the exact same people chuckling down at NIMBYs would be picketing city hall with "gentrification" signs. The term NIMBY insinuates "white" - it's a class differentiator that boosts the academized/beTwittered white shamer above the shamed white, but only in the shamer's own mind. And this is completely different than the Giant Eagle development in German Village. That site was a postwar auto-centric intrusion into a 19th century neighborhood. Hyde Park Square is one of the five best neighborhood business districts in the city and one where there is little need for new investment. Instead of "connected communities" incentivizing development in poor areas or business districts where the street wall is pockmarked by surface lots (i.e. Mt. Airy or College Hill), it's instead drawn first blood in an area that generated enormous push-back. The top-down approval of this project might motivate Hyde Park residents to push a charter amendment for wards or even secession from the City of Cincinnati.
March 12Mar 12 Here is an example I am familiar with in the far-flung suburbs of Sydney. I think this is an improved way to design a long-lot block of apartments. While this isn't perfect, and I think the materiality could be simplified still, it succeeds in that it creates the look of separate, finer grained, attached buildings instead of monotonous blobs, which looks cheap/domineering. Lumina, Penrith, NSW
March 12Mar 12 4 hours ago, atlas said: Here is an example I am familiar with in the far-flung suburbs of Sydney. I think this is an improved way to design a long-lot block of apartments. While this isn't perfect, and I think the materiality could be simplified still, it succeeds in that it creates the look of separate, finer grained, attached buildings instead of monotonous blobs, which looks cheap/domineering. Doesn't this require single-stair reform, which is an issue that is larger than the City of Cincinnati? I don't see how we are going to get the thinner and taller buildings, which I agree are much better, until the Ohio Building Code is reformed.
March 12Mar 12 10 hours ago, Lazarus said: I just don't get why people don't care that the previous work and current sympathies of Hyde Park residents is being ignored. If this was a black neighborhood the exact same people chuckling down at NIMBYs would be picketing city hall with "gentrification" signs. The term NIMBY insinuates "white" - it's a class differentiator that boosts the academized/beTwittered white shamer above the shamed white, but only in the shamer's own mind. That's not how development or real estate works. Location, location, location. People want to live in desirable areas, and don't want to live in undesirable areas. Also if this exact project was being proposed in a poor neighborhood we'd ask how many people get displaced and where they go but not inherently be against investment in the neighborhood, but you don't read people's other pro development posts throughout this website I guess. If we mothball the "best" neighborhoods and only allow development in "poor" neighborhoods all you end up doing is hampering development city-wide, raising housing prices further in the best school districts and neighborhoods and slowly turning yourself into San Jose-lite. Fear of tall buildings and density doesn't help anyone except the few loud voices who are afraid of change. Grow or die is an ethos in the business world but as soon as you apply it to someone's neighborhood they have a panic attack.
March 12Mar 12 On 10/11/2024 at 8:05 AM, The_Cincinnati_Kid said: $21M high-end apartment building opens on Hyde Park Square: PHOTOS By Brian Planalp – Staff reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier Oct 11, 2024 Updated Oct 11, 2024 7:32am EST A new, high-end luxury apartment building has opened to residents on Cincinnati’s East Side. The Skyler, a four-story, 65,000-square-foot apartment building at 2745 Erie Ave., welcomed its first residents Oct. 1. The building bookends the eastern side of Hyde Park Square. The $21 million project is owned and operated by Falling Leaves LLC. Terrex Development & Construction, headquartered in Oakley, acted as the general contractor. MORE Anyone have any updated information on this building that opened last fall on HP square? It appears that some of the apartments are leased but the first floor retail is still see-through. Edited March 12Mar 12 by tabasco
March 12Mar 12 12 hours ago, Lazarus said: Hyde Park Square is one of the five best neighborhood business districts in the city and one where there is little need for new investment. Agree with most of your points but the square could be a lot better. The square is real tired and has not changed much for the better in a decade. It does have some crown jewels: Lulu lemon, Graeters, Delamere and Hopkins, a solid coffee shop and a couple good restaurants at varying price points in Parkside, The Echo, Alfio's and Al Posto (this last one is pretty debatable/polarizing). The Farmer's market on Sunday is of course a staple during the warmer months. Then there are the head-scratchers, like why is there a Coldwell Banker office that is always empty sucking up valuable real estate space in the middle of the square. Same with the Berkshire Realty office space that is just always totally dead. Sibcy Cline has an office there too but it seems to have some activity at least. How is it that this rug business on the square has been open the last 20 years but I have never seen a customer in it? Then there are the vacancies like the old estate jewelry store next to the now defunct wine store that has been vacant for years. The restaurant space that used to house Cock & Bull, then Mesa Loca and now some other soon to be out of business Mexican Cantina. That space hasn't had a decent tenant in a dozen years since back when Vineyard was there. Then there are a smattering of salons and bank branches and random medical services which are fine and then some vanity businesses. I may have actually convinced myself that the square isn't actually that bad as I was typing this post but I think it could be more vibrant and have a few more restaurants a couple bars and even some more diverse retail. I personally find the business districts along Woodburn/Madison Rd and Obryonville to be more interesting and compelling that what Hyde Park currently offers. Oakley too has a better mix of businesses IMO.
March 12Mar 12 3 hours ago, ucgrady said: If we mothball the "best" neighborhoods and only allow development in "poor" neighborhoods all you end up doing is hampering development city-wide, raising housing prices further in the best school districts and neighborhoods and slowly turning yourself into San Jose-lite. Fear of tall buildings and density doesn't help anyone except the few loud voices who are afraid of change. Grow or die is an ethos in the business world but as soon as you apply it to someone's neighborhood they have a panic attack. 100% this! The code applies equally across all areas regardless of desirability. So its no surprise that the first implementations happen in them. The way you steer development to the areas in need is via subsidy. Let the private capital do its thing in the desireable areas including needed infrastructure investements. Just simply make them pay the costs themselves. Then use subsidy only to steer private capital to where it is needed most.
March 13Mar 13 19 hours ago, Lazarus said: I just don't get why people don't care that the previous work and current sympathies of Hyde Park residents is being ignored. If this was a black neighborhood the exact same people chuckling down at NIMBYs would be picketing city hall with "gentrification" signs. The term NIMBY insinuates "white" - it's a class differentiator that boosts the academized/beTwittered white shamer above the shamed white, but only in the shamer's own mind. And this is completely different than the Giant Eagle development in German Village. That site was a postwar auto-centric intrusion into a 19th century neighborhood. Hyde Park Square is one of the five best neighborhood business districts in the city and one where there is little need for new investment. Instead of "connected communities" incentivizing development in poor areas or business districts where the street wall is pockmarked by surface lots (i.e. Mt. Airy or College Hill), it's instead drawn first blood in an area that generated enormous push-back. The top-down approval of this project might motivate Hyde Park residents to push a charter amendment for wards or even secession from the City of Cincinnati. If this same development was proposed in Bond Hill, I, and I suspect many on this forum, would joyfully support it. And many of us have been enthusiastic supporters of new development in College Hill, Walnut Hills, Mt. Auburn, etc. So it feels like this take is coming from a place of "I made up a guy to be mad at" more than it is coming from reality.
Create an account or sign in to comment