Yes, but it is two units, and you can rent the smaller one out as AirBnB or use it yourself.  I toured this a few weeks ago and it is top quality, but yeah, the price, ouch. 

I was puzzled when he quoted the mortgage in his flyer at $1500/mo. How could that be?

 

I have another unit coming available and I am trying to price it correctly. 2 Bed 2 full bath, 2 floors and 2 off street parking spaces available.

Edited January 13, 20214 yr by 1400 Sycamore

$2

3CDC recently posted that they completed their "Vine Street Shuffle" which involved relocating some of their retail tenants to boost their exposure. Per the Business Courier:

 

Quote

The retailers on the move are:

• Go(o)d Co., which moved from 1428 Race St. to 1323 Vine St. in February
• Ombre Gallery, which moved from 1511 Race St. to 1429 Vine St. in September
• Native One, which moved from 1421 Vine St. to 1400 Vine St. in the former Kaze restaurant space in November
• Myooz, which moved from 1525 Race St. to 6 W. 12th St. in December
• The Most Beautiful Thing in the World Is, which moved from 6 W. 12th St. to 1411 Vine St. in November
• Am|Pm Exchange, a brand new retailer which moved into 1421 Vine St. and opened on Dec. 26

 

Wonder why they moved retail into the Kaze space.  There's obviously a kitchen back area that probably isn't being used and they have that great patio.  Hopefully it's just temporary and they'll get another resteraunt in there post covid. 

7 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Wonder why they moved retail into the Kaze space.  There's obviously a kitchen back area that probably isn't being used and they have that great patio.  Hopefully it's just temporary and they'll get another resteraunt in there post covid. 

 

The Kaze space is part of a much larger two or three building renovation project where it remain a restaurant.  I assume the retail is just temporary.  

Edited January 14, 20214 yr by nicker66

When Thunderdome closed Kaze, they announced plans to open a new restaurant in that space. The pandemic probably put those plans on hold. The space got split up with Native One going into the front portion. I'm guessing the back bar area and the outdoor space are still being reserved for a future restaurant concept.

2 hours ago, taestell said:

When Thunderdome closed Kaze, they announced plans to open a new restaurant in that space. The pandemic probably put those plans on hold. The space got split up with Native One going into the front portion. I'm guessing the back bar area and the outdoor space are still being reserved for a future restaurant concept.

 

Native One is a permanent move. Kaze's old bar on 14th, the kitchen, and the patio are going to be combined with 1408-1410 Vine Street (Wielert's Cafe). It will all be one new business, from what I have heard.

11 hours ago, taestell said:

3CDC recently posted that they completed their "Vine Street Shuffle" which involved relocating some of their retail tenants to boost their exposure. Per the Business Courier:

 

 

I was down in OTR around Christmas and noticed that Bonobos has closed its Guideshop. 

9 hours ago, preservationrestoration said:

I was down in OTR around Christmas and noticed that Bonobos has closed its Guideshop. 

That sucks. I was down there before Christmas and they were still open. Kind of wondered how they were doing and hoped that they would stay open. I wonder if it was due to COVID or if they just weren’t doing well in general in OTR.

A few new progress pics from 3CDC.

 

Infill on Liberty:

 

 

New restaurant space by Ziegler Park:

 

 

OTRCC and the NIMBYs at it again. Real question- is there a single private development in OTR that the CC has ever supported?

 

Check out this article from Cincinnati.com:

OTR activists will hold noon press conference Tuesday to 'inform the public about the problems' with Liberty and Elm street project

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/01/19/activists-slam-plans-expand-otr-project-without-affordable-housing/4205667001/

Quote

"Currently, there are no plans for affordable housing, and this is a project that will receive millions of dollars in tax abatements and incentives,'' according to Rivers, noting the developers are seeking a 30-year tax abatement.

 

This is a periodic reminder that property tax abatements do not cost the city anything because of the annual property tax rollback that has now happened for 23 consecutive years. The city can give out as many tax abatements as they want and the city will continue to collect the same amount of property tax revenue in terms of real dollars ($29 million).

Quote

Rents for market-rate apartments - including some three-bedroom apartments, which are a rarity in OTR - will range from about $1,400 to $2,400, according to the developers, OTR-based KEAN Ventures and Buckingham Cos. of Indianapolis.

 

$2400 for a 3 bedroom apartment at a prime location in OTR is really a bargain. Three roommates could share an apartment in an amazing urban location and pay $800/month each (+ utilities + parking if they choose to bring a car). That's barely more than I paid to live in OTR a decade ago.

Really hope this gets approved.  Been waiting years for this development to finally start.  It should really help bring more life to Liberty and start bridging the gap between Liberty and Findlay Market. 

Edited January 19, 20214 yr by Cincy513

3 hours ago, taestell said:

 

This is a periodic reminder that property tax abatements do not cost the city anything because of the annual property tax rollback that has now happened for 23 consecutive years. The city can give out as many tax abatements as they want and the city will continue to collect the same amount of property tax revenue in terms of real dollars ($29 million).

 

 

The real incentive power of the abatement should be focused on motivating the construction of new single-family homes on long-vacant residential lots.  They need to modify the policy so that it only applies to this circumstance and can never be applied to new construction where a house stood a year earlier, i.e. a tear-down.  

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The real incentive power of the abatement should be focused on motivating the construction of new single-family homes on long-vacant residential lots.  They need to modify the policy so that it only applies to this circumstance and can never be applied to new construction where a house stood a year earlier, i.e. a tear-down.  

 

I think I agree with you that tear-downs shouldn't be so heavily incentivized, but I'd also love to see more duplexes/triplexes built. Those types of houses are hard to finance through traditional mortgages. Would be nice for City policy to help incentivize those. 

32 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Really hope this gets approved.  Been waiting years for this development to finally start.  It should really help bring more life to Liberty and start bridging the gap between Liberty and Findlay Market. 

Same. It’s been way too long for that lot to be vacant and I love the 7 floor apartment building along Central. I hope to see more 7 or more floor buildings facing central in the coming years. 

23 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The real incentive power of the abatement should be focused on motivating the construction of new single-family homes on long-vacant residential lots.  They need to modify the policy so that it only applies to this circumstance and can never be applied to new construction where a house stood a year earlier, i.e. a tear-down.  

 

Somehow, along the way, the city has forgotten that the purpose of tax abatements is to be an incentive for developers to do something. At one point, the city was so desperate for new investment that we decided to adopt a policy of, please just build something in the city and we'll give you a tax abatement for your troubles!

 

However we are now long past that point of desperation. The city should decide what type(s) of development it wants to encourage, and going forward, new tax abatements should only be granted for developments that meet those requirements. For example, if we wanted to encourage walkable/transit-oriented development, we could limit tax abatements to developments along specific high frequency transit corridors. If we wanted to encourage affordable housing, we could limit tax abatements to apartment buildings that have 30% or more affordable units. We could require LEED Gold status in order to receive an abatement. We could encourage new construction on long-vacant lots like @jmecklenborg suggested. Perhaps there could be a checklist of a dozen different items like this, and in order to be eligible for a tax abatement, you would have to meet 6 of the 12 criteria.

 

However, until we eliminate the property tax rollback, there is no incentive to reform the process at all. The city can hand out property tax abatements like candy because it costs them literally nothing. Not a single dollar is lost from the city's coffers.

14 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

 

I think I agree with you that tear-downs shouldn't be so heavily incentivized, but I'd also love to see more duplexes/triplexes built. Those types of houses are hard to finance through traditional mortgages. Would be nice for City policy to help incentivize those. 

 

You'd have to talk to some real bankers to see what they suggest.  I have tried to find information on how small multifamilies were financed between about 1920 and 1970 but have never been able to find anything.  As we can all see, they were built by the dozen for decades and then abruptly stopped right around when Nixon took office.  I suspect that a federal law changed at that point but I have never been able to find it.  

 

I own a lot where a 3-family stood for about 100 years until it was torn down around 2002.  Current zoning doesn't let me rebuild what was there (or even a duplex).  People like to think all the city has to do is relax the zoning but the financing issue is the much bigger issue.  Nobody is going to plunk down $450,000 cash to build a 3-family with no off-street parking in Cincinnati.  How do I know?  Look around town - basically zero new small multifamilies have been built anywhere in the city in the past 50 years.  The only one I can think of is one in the 300 block of Probasco across from the frat houses.  

But they do it in Nashville all the time.

7 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

You'd have to talk to some real bankers to see what they suggest.  I have tried to find information on how small multifamilies were financed between about 1920 and 1970 but have never been able to find anything.  As we can all see, they were built by the dozen for decades and then abruptly stopped right around when Nixon took office.  I suspect that a federal law changed at that point but I have never been able to find it.  

 

I own a lot where a 3-family stood for about 100 years until it was torn down around 2002.  Current zoning doesn't let me rebuild what was there (or even a duplex).  People like to think all the city has to do is relax the zoning but the financing issue is the much bigger issue.  Nobody is going to plunk down $450,000 cash to build a 3-family with no off-street parking in Cincinnati.  How do I know?  Look around town - basically zero new small multifamilies have been built anywhere in the city in the past 50 years.  The only one I can think of is one in the 300 block of Probasco across from the frat houses.  

This sounds self-reinforcing. Banks don't want to lend to build that because no one is building them due to zoning restrictions so there are no comps for the banks to see how safe/profitable it is?

The previous decades trend of building sunken multis stopped because zoning got even more restrictive. Financing was probably easy because Baby Boomers were moving out of their parents' homes and entering the work force. Supposedly, the first floor units were partially below grade to squeeze in extra units into a building, making it more profitable, while still meeting the height limitations of the time. Strong Towns - the Death of the Suburban Fourplex

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

I have tried to find information on how small multifamilies were financed between about 1920 and 1970 but have never been able to find anything.

 

1 hour ago, Dev said:

Banks don't want to lend to build that because no one is building them due to zoning restrictions so there are no comps for the banks to see how safe/profitable it is?

 

While some cities enacted primitive and incomplete zoning codes prior to the 1930s, it wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s that they really started to become widespread.  I think, but haven't found the actual evidence, that Cincinnati didn't have a comprehensive zoning ordinance until around 1970 when most apartment construction stopped.  I think that's a deliberate causation not a mere correlation.  

54 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

I think that's a deliberate causation not a mere correlation.  

 

They stopped getting built outside city limits, too.  I don't think zoning had a single thing to do with it. 

2 hours ago, Dev said:

This sounds self-reinforcing. Banks don't want to lend to build that because no one is building them due to zoning restrictions so there are no comps for the banks to see how safe/profitable it is?

The previous decades trend of building sunken multis stopped because zoning got even more restrictive. Financing was probably easy because Baby Boomers were moving out of their parents' homes and entering the work force. Supposedly, the first floor units were partially below grade to squeeze in extra units into a building, making it more profitable, while still meeting the height limitations of the time. Strong Towns - the Death of the Suburban Fourplex

 

 

I think that the reason so many small multifamilies were built during that time period was because banks weren't lending to build bigger complexes.  But investors want big complexes - like 100+ units, not the equivalent number of units in small multifamilies because the management costs are much lower.  Anyone who is a housing advocate should also be fighting for large, professionally managed complexes rather than a smattering of small multifamilies that often are not professionally managed. 

 

What's more, a 4-bedroom house might actually house more people on the same amount of land as a 4-unit multifamily.  The endless anti-SFH drum beat that emanates from NUMTOT and Twitter never acknowledges this fact.  It also never acknowledges how flexible single-family homes are as a housing type.  Adult children, adult siblings, other relatives, girlfriends/boyfriends, and friends or paying boarders can move into an owner-occupied single-family house without violating a lease because there is no lease. 

 

When I was a kid we moved into my grandparents' house for a few months.  Several of my aunts and uncles were still teenagers and I was about 8.  We would have had four generations under one roof but both great-grandparents, who lived in the house for about 15 years, died a few years before.  More recently my cousin's ex-husband moved back into his parents' home with his second wife and their two kids.  His kids from wife #1 (my cousin) live there every other weekend.  You can't do that without violating an apartment lease.  You can't do that with a condo without the HOA going nuclear. 

 

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

But they do it in Nashville all the time.

 

No.  I'm not aware of any new small multifamilies there.  All of the money is in single-family housing, be it detached or attached.  All of those attached homes that look like duplex apartments are actually two completely separate homes, legally, just like old row homes in the north that share load bearing walls. 

 

The triplex thing was passed in Minneapolis in 2018.  I have repeatedly searched to see if even a single infill triplex has been built.  I haven't been able to find anything. 

 

Also, Josh Spring was on TV tonight opposing the big new apartment complex at Elm & Liberty because it takes away affordable housing.  It's a big vacant lot, dude. 

 

Josh Spring owns three vacant lots on York St. in the West End.  By his logic, three new homes there would take away affordable housing. 

12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

They stopped getting built outside city limits, too.  I don't think zoning had a single thing to do with it. 

 

It's possible that other jurisdictions adopted zoning codes at around the same time after Municode published their boilerplate templates, I'm not really sure though because dates on this stuff are very hard to find.  If you aren't convinced, that's fine, but what evidence is there for the opposite position?  

Just now, jjakucyk said:

 

It's possible that other jurisdictions adopted zoning codes at around the same time after Municode published their boilerplate templates, I'm not really sure though because dates on this stuff are very hard to find.  If you aren't convinced, that's fine, but what evidence is there for the opposite position?  

 

What does a 1980 fourplex look like?  A 1990?  A 2000?  Nobody's ever seen one, because they don't exist. 

 

 

Just now, jmecklenborg said:

What does a 1980 fourplex look like?  A 1990?  A 2000?  Nobody's ever seen one, because they don't exist. 

 

That's a bit hyperbolic, but yes, fourplexes were mostly built in single-family areas and were thus banned by zoning ordinances.  A lot of larger apartment complexes were built on former estates of the well-to-do, spawning many of the "neighborhood character" NIMBYs.  

46 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

No.  I'm not aware of any new small multifamilies there.  All of the money is in single-family housing, be it detached or attached.  All of those attached homes that look like duplex apartments are actually two completely separate homes, legally, just like old row homes in the north that share load bearing walls. 

 

 

Ah, key distinction.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Ah, key distinction.

 

Here is an example:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/418-36th-Ave-N-Nashville-TN-37209/248421801_zpid/?

 

I'm still in disbelief that people aren't hesitating to pay big money for these attached single-family homes.  Being sandwiched between other owners in a strip of attached town homes seems a lot better to me than being permanently attached at the hip, literally, to just this one other owner.  If you're in a long row and live next to a troublemaker you can gang up on said troublemaker with the normal people on your strip.  But with these dyads it's just you versus them. 

 

 

 

Here is a link to the Channel 9 story that aired Tuesday:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/over-the-rhine/otr-community-council-says-77m-development-will-hurt-low-income-residents

 

 

This is the reality of accepting public money for what should work as a private project. Which begs the question, would that building work as a 100% private project?

1 hour ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

This is the reality of accepting public money for what should work as a private project. Which begs the question, would that building work as a 100% private project?

That depends, I think. The hypocritical advocacy of the "'neighborhood character' NIMBYs" as @jjakucyk called them, has been expensive for development. It's lopping off entire floors of this building and others, and making the building process more expensive in other ways, all to serve their personal romantic notions of what OTR should "feel" like. The absurd thing is, these exact same folks (literally) will stand on Josh Spring's soapbox and rail against "big business" leverage and "gentrification," all while eliminating any cushion in the balance sheet that might have allowed discussions of affordable housing units. It's absurd, but they see no hypocrisy in it.

 

^BTW I looked up Josh Spring's land in the West End and he sold it last May to Habitat for Humanity.  He bought 75x87 on York across from Kaiser Pickle divided between two parcels (one 25x87 and another 50x87) in 2015 for $3,200.  So he got three buildable home sites for roughly $1,000 apiece.  He just sold for the odd sum of $11,000 total, so just under $4,000 apiece.  The market rate in that area is at least $15,000 per lot (one on Baymiller sold for that sum in 2019).  So he left tens of thousands of dollars on the table.  The whole paradox of the situation is that you need a lot of money to avoid participation in capitalism.  Historically, people from decent backgrounds took vows of poverty and became monks, but religion isn't cool these days.  

 

So on one hand he was ridiculously generous, but it also illustrates that he, like Buddy Gray, no doubt comes from a well-healed background and can afford to give tens of thousands to charity at a young age.  He does still own three properties on E. Clifton.  

 

Those York St. lots were listed for at least 6 months back in 2015 for $15,000 total.  I remember the listing well because I went back and forth in my head on making an offer.  Spring ended up getting the land for incredibly cheap - I think I was going to offer them half of their listing ($7,500) but then he got them for half of that sum. 

 

Meanwhile, there was a lot of speculative activity going on in the West End in 2020.  Both guys who own multifamilies to either side of the land I currently own in the West End are black and can't wait to sell out.  Some of the tenants are awful - one keeps throwing soiled baby diapers onto my lot.  They also lie and try to borrow money from me when I come down there to cut the grass.  The people who have owned property in the West End for a long time aren't typically from wealthy backgrounds and will happily sell because they, unlike Spring, actually need the money.  

     

Edited January 20, 20214 yr by jmecklenborg

1 hour ago, jim uber said:

The hypocritical advocacy of the "'neighborhood character' NIMBYs" as @jjakucyk called them, has been expensive for development. It's lopping off entire floors of this building and others, and making the building process more expensive in other ways, all to serve their personal romantic notions of what OTR should "feel" like. The absurd thing is, these exact same folks (literally) will stand on Josh Spring's soapbox and rail against "big business" leverage and "gentrification," all while eliminating any cushion in the balance sheet that might have allowed discussions of affordable housing units. It's absurd, but they see no hypocrisy in it.

 

What we have learned about many individuals within the OTR NIMBY crowd is that they will always find a reason to oppose any development that includes market rate apartments. This became abundantly clear to me a few years ago when this project went to City Council for approval the first time, and one of the neighborhood activists posted a message on Facebook saying, "If you oppose this project for any reason — the architecture, the height, the lack of parking, the lack of affordable units — show up at City Hall tomorrow!" What that told me is that they are not interested in working with the developer to tweak the project and make it something that is mutually beneficial to both the community and the developer. Instead, they want to give the developer a laundry list of their demands. And if the developer does not comply, they will show up at City Hall and try to filibuster the project.

 

It is my understanding that for the second iteration of Liberty & Elm, the developer has already worked with OTRCC to tweak the architecture, reduce the height, tweak the amount of parking, and add in community-oriented features like the art alley. The developer also says they plan to incorporate affordable housing into the second phase of this project (the historic buildings along Liberty that they plan to rehab). But it doesn't matter, nothing is good enough for many of these activists. They would rather let this site remain an empty field for the next decade than allow an evil, greedy, for-profit developer build market-rate apartments there.

^These people aren't calling for new public housing, either, since you don't get to harass developers by doing so.  

Edited January 20, 20214 yr by jmecklenborg

What annoys me the most about this group is that the city basically grants them the right to a massive microphone by letting them operate as a ‘community council’ when in reality it’s like 10 kooks who received maybe 50 votes in a 6,000 person neighborhood, and don’t reflect the public’s views in any way.

 

Just spitballing here but maybe the city could pass an ordinance where if you can’t get 10% of the vote in the neighborhood you operate, your council has no say in anything.

You're never going to get 10% of a neighborhood voting in the Community Councils. Never.

 

You can barely get that in the mayoral primaries.

^Also, these people are conspicuously absent when something useful to their cause presents itself.  For example, the first thought I had at the Millennium's auction last February was that those towers would have made great low-income housing - literally 500+ units, similar to the defunct Dennison, Ft. Washington, Metropole, etc.  The same is certainly possible for the Terrace.  But these people don't want to actually solve the problem because then they'd have to find something else to do with their lives.  Like Weird Al once sang in the voice of Yoda to Luke Skywalker, "I know Darth Vader's really got you annoyed/But remember if you kill him then you'll be unemployed".  

 

But instead of fighting for a big win - hundreds of units - they pick around the edges of new construction looking for like 2-10 units of affordable housing.  

 

In Over-the-Rhine they completely ignore the work of Model, which has built several dozen low-income units in recent years (if not over 100) and there was no mention of the work 3CDC is doing on the vacant lots that Josh Spring controlled on Vine St. opposite the former Kroger.  There is no mention of Bracket Village.  

16 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

You're never going to get 10% of a neighborhood voting in the Community Councils. Never.

 

You can barely get that in the mayoral primaries.

Maybe 10% is slightly ambitious but this is exactly my point. If 99.5% of the neighborhood didn’t vote for you- and most of those people didn’t know the vote or even the community council existed- then what business do you have telling the city how the neighborhood feels on anything?

 

 

1 minute ago, Guy23 said:

Maybe 10% is slightly ambitious but this is exactly my point. If 99.5% of the neighborhood didn’t vote for you- and most of those people didn’t know the vote or even the community council existed- then what business do you have telling the city how the neighborhood feels on anything?

 

 

 

It's hard work to get people to participate in a community council. It's really not easy. From the outside it's easy to say these things, but when actually doing the work of a community council, it's really tough.

 

The best part about the community council is that it is an outlet to make sure people are heard. There's a reason that the community council has no real power in city government - and it's because of how easy it is to hijack the agenda, and how difficult it is to get true representation and accountability.

 

But it at least forces developers to come to the community and get feedback. Sometimes that feedback is valuable. Other times it isn't. And it's up to the Planning Department, HCB, and City Council to determine what should be done. FWIW, I think that it hurts their credibility, and diminishes their voice when their objections to developments or projects are warranted because of how many issues they oppose.

53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

It's hard work to get people to participate in a community council. It's really not easy.

 

I know multiple people who have been involved in community councils and quit after awhile because it's really hard to be a pro-development person who tries to create a win-win situation for everyone. You get shouted down and overruled by the NIMBYs, and it's just not worth all of the time and effort. I've never been on a community council but I feel the same way based on my experience with the Liberty Street Road Diet project. The city held meeting after meeting to gather community input and in the end they threw it in the trash and did what they wanted anyway. The time and effort of so many people who were trying to do the right thing for their community, just completely wasted.

 

53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

There's a reason that the community council has no real power in city government

 

The current situation in Cincinnati is fundamentally broken. Neighborhood councils oppose any new development, which is bad. City Council and city boards ignore the input from the community, which is also bad. Community Councils then get mad that the city ignores their input and gets even more aggressive with their NIMBYism.

 

I don't know the solution but there has to be a better way. There needs to be a way that the community can give input and help shape the type of development that happens, but can't veto projects from happening.

The OTR Community Council is especially obnoxious when the low population ranking of the neighborhood is considered.  It is currently the 18th most populated neighborhood in the City of Cincinnati - easily outranked by no-drama neighborhoods nobody hears anything about like Mt. Washington and Mt. Airy.  

 

CUF has triple OTR's population but there is never any drama.  Nobody's heard of their community council members. They aren't stepping on each other to get on TV.  

 

The sad thing is that it's long been the case, certainly going back to Buddy Gray, that OTR characters use the neighborhood for self-promotion.  Everything they do "for" the neighborhood is actually for them.  

2 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The OTR Community Council is especially obnoxious when the low population ranking of the neighborhood is considered.  It is currently the 18th most populated neighborhood in the City of Cincinnati - easily outranked by no-drama neighborhoods nobody hears anything about like Mt. Washington and Mt. Airy.  

 

CUF has triple OTR's population but there is never any drama.  Nobody's heard of their community council members. They aren't stepping on each other to get on TV.  

 

The sad thing is that it's long been the case, certainly going back to Buddy Gray, that OTR characters use the neighborhood for self-promotion.  Everything they do "for" the neighborhood is actually for them.  

 

And let me add that if these OTR celebrities want their stars to rise, they should be trying to pack the place with as many people as they can so they can pass out more business cards.  Instead they try to keep people out of their fiefdom.  It's all about cultural capital with them, not capital capital, since they've already got that.  

 

That said, the Pendleton community council is even more irrelevant, considering that Pendleton is #49 in population, ahead of only lowly Sadamsville and California.  I think it's much easier to justify Sedamsville and Calfornia as distinct neighborhoods as compared to Pendleton, of course, and the absorbtion of Pendleton by OTR would possibly allow it to usurp Northside in the neighborhood hierarchy.  Imagine those bragging points!!!

 

 

https://statisticalatlas.com/place/Ohio/Cincinnati/Population

Edited January 20, 20214 yr by jmecklenborg

Council's economic development committee just voted this project out of committee 4-0, and so my understanding is that it goes in front of the entire council tomorrow.

 

BTW, one thing of note was that some of the speakers against the project - in particular one person who is on the current OTRCC board - claimed without evidence that the entire project was shrouded in secrecy and shady administrative dealings. Even mentioning that "more indictments" from the FBI were coming. This was singled out by Smitherman and Goodin and roundly dismissed, which it should have been - there's no place in public decision making for making these specious claims.

3 hours ago, taestell said:

 

The current situation in Cincinnati is fundamentally broken. Neighborhood councils oppose any new development, which is bad. City Council and city boards ignore the input from the community, which is also bad. Community Councils then get mad that the city ignores their input and gets even more aggressive with their NIMBYism.

 

I don't know the solution but there has to be a better way. There needs to be a way that the community can give input and help shape the type of development that happens, but can't veto projects from happening.

 

The Northside Community Council is pretty good. I get annoyed with some of the voices but, for the most part, it's pretty fair. There's a productive conversation going on with PLK for the Blue Rock and Hamilton lot right now and the council supported the rezoning for the Scholar House on Dane.

On 1/19/2021 at 4:33 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 

You'd have to talk to some real bankers to see what they suggest.  I have tried to find information on how small multifamilies were financed between about 1920 and 1970 but have never been able to find anything.  As we can all see, they were built by the dozen for decades and then abruptly stopped right around when Nixon took office.  I suspect that a federal law changed at that point but I have never been able to find it.  

 

I own a lot where a 3-family stood for about 100 years until it was torn down around 2002.  Current zoning doesn't let me rebuild what was there (or even a duplex).  People like to think all the city has to do is relax the zoning but the financing issue is the much bigger issue.  Nobody is going to plunk down $450,000 cash to build a 3-family with no off-street parking in Cincinnati.  How do I know?  Look around town - basically zero new small multifamilies have been built anywhere in the city in the past 50 years.  The only one I can think of is one in the 300 block of Probasco across from the frat houses.  

Liberty Hill has a few small multi fams built within the last 5 years, but they have some off street parking - two duplexes at 432 and 434 as well as a triplex at 545. Very doubtful the economics would work in many other neighborhoods here.

Edited January 20, 20214 yr by urbangiraffe

1 hour ago, urbangiraffe said:

Liberty Hill has a few small multi fams built within the last 5 years, but they have some off street parking - two duplexes at 432 and 434 as well as a triplex at 545. Very doubtful the economics would work in many other neighborhoods here.

 

 

Thanks, I didn't know those were multi-families.  I looked at them on the auditor's site and 432-434 was a vacant lot as far back as the website lists, which is 1992.  It appears that both addresses were 434 but then 432 was created in 2015. 

 

Back in 1992 the combined 432-434 vacant lot sold for $1,850.  545 Liberty sold in 1991 for $2,100.  It was bought for $30,000 in 1996, sold four years later for $40,000, and then sold to its current owner (builder of the multifamily) for $100,000 in 2015. 

 

These are anomalies, obviously, since infill single-family construction outnumbers infill small multi-family by more than 100 to 1.  The city and possibly school board would have to lay down an insane property tax abatement for small families instead of single-families to start encouraging more of them.  But the tax break would have to motivate the construction of thousands of multifamilies to make a significant difference in the character of any particular area.  As I mentioned previously, it's certainly possible for a single-family house to house more people than a small multifamily with the same number of total bedrooms. 

Being of a certain age, I can add a little to this puzzle. First, the incremental income tax rate (what your rich folks paid) was 70% up to Nixon. And, the multifamily depreciation rate was 60 months for FHA. Add to it the FHA515 multifamily loan program and the continued housing shortage and that meant that the rich folks could sign a few papers and reduce taxes by astronomical amounts. Then  Nixon had a moratorium on the multi family program. but, was it needed? All of a sudden, in the late 60's when I was about 20 every single one of my acquaintances had to have a single family ranch in Milford or Western Hills or Mt. Washington. No one wanted to live in multifamily and no one did. It was considered a failure to live in an apartment.