40 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Updated Liberty & Elm vision emerges as possible streetcar fight looms

 

A new version of the Liberty & Elm mixed-development project would add affordable housing but reduce funding to the streetcar.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/02/02/liberty-elm-project-gets-new-vision.html

 

So if it had two more floors there could be affordable housing AND full funding for the streetcar? But 7 floors would ruin OTR?

^ I know, this is so ridiculous. Thanks Cranley for making a mockery of leadership

 

Looks like vacant lots on E. Clifton are selling for $50k~:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1619388/48-E-Clifton-Ave-Cincinnati-OH-45202

 

11 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

^ I know, this is so ridiculous. Thanks Cranley for making a mockery of leadership

 

I dont know how that is Cranley's fault, I thought the OTR community council nixed the additional floors. 

 

I just seems like on this project too many people have no money at risk have differing visions of what they want to see built and feel entitled to tell the developer how it needs to spend its money.

^you understand that the community council has no power, it can only offer opinion\

 

11 minutes ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

^you understand that the community council has no power, it can only offer opinion\

 

As much as this thread rightly sh*ts on Cranley, he’s been in the right on this project, and the issues have nothing to do with him.

It’s been him and the Republicans fighting for it to be built while the Democrats are the ones intervening.

14 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

I'm surprised that you, of all contributors, don't know that it doesn't have to be dismal to be economically affordable. That is more than dismal.

Now you're just making yourself look bad.

15 hours ago, SleepyLeroy said:

So if it had two more floors there could be affordable housing AND full funding for the streetcar? But 7 floors would ruin OTR?

It really goes to show how hypocritical it is for the OTRCC and other NIMBYs are to say a building is too tall and also say they want affordable units. This is especially true of the building along Central Parkway which has 10 story buildings down the way, and an MLS stadium a block away. Historic scale hardly applies on Central Parkway, and if all they actually cared about was affordability they'd be all for the additional floors. 

^The folks in the "OTR as museum" camp are deceiving the folks who advocate for affordable housing, that they are on the same side. In reality, when pressed to take sides, the Museum folks will always choose the infill architecture that they want, and are only using the affordable housing angle in order to kill projects that aren't in sync with their vision. 

$80 million divided by 300 units = $250,000~ per unit.  I'm not sure that that the advertised $80 million cost is the actual cost because $250k per unit is a ton for Cincinnati and would require a $2,500 monthly rent to cover given typical rules of thumb for rental properties.  Some of the $80 million is probably commercial storefronts, but still, I doubt they are actually planning to spend anywhere close to $250,000 per unit.  

 

But we must wonder how people can demand affordable housing from projects like this when the cost per unit is always well north of $100,000.  I mean, do the math.  To actually provide a significant number of affordable units in a building, a developer would need direct subsidies to build the units, not just a property tax abatement.  

 

People just don't want to face the fact that it's really, really expensive to build new apartment buildings because labor and materials are very, very expensive.  

The Liberty & Elm project passed through City Council this afternoon. The version that was passed was the "original" one, not the latest proposal that took some VTICA funds for adding some workforce housing. 

On 2/2/2021 at 3:08 PM, 646empire said:

Poison pill in the sense I doubt this proposal will get very far which may be the point, they do things like this just to go back to the proposal that stalled a week or so ago or another proposal that gives just a little bit more affordable housing and avoids dare touching streetcar funds which they know is toxic aka poison pill.

Seeing as this is what just happened, I'd say you might have been onto something.

3 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

$80 million divided by 300 units = $250,000~ per unit.  I'm not sure that that the advertised $80 million cost is the actual cost because $250k per unit is a ton for Cincinnati and would require a $2,500 monthly rent to cover given typical rules of thumb for rental properties.  Some of the $80 million is probably commercial storefronts, but still, I doubt they are actually planning to spend anywhere close to $250,000 per unit.  

 

But we must wonder how people can demand affordable housing from projects like this when the cost per unit is always well north of $100,000.  I mean, do the math.  To actually provide a significant number of affordable units in a building, a developer would need direct subsidies to build the units, not just a property tax abatement.  

 

People just don't want to face the fact that it's really, really expensive to build new apartment buildings because labor and materials are very, very expensive.  

 

I cannot find the graphic that I saw shared the other day (Stong Towns?) that broke down the cost of a new apartment building in a typical city. The majority of the costs were because of the building's construction (materials, labor, etc.). Permitting and the back-and-forth was another significant cost as well.

6 hours ago, Yves Behar said:

Now you're just making yourself look bad.

No, Yves, you played the "humble beginnings card" on the wrong hand.

 

What is going on with 1714 Vine, should you care to know, is the usual scam  of creating crap and charging for caviar. There are 10 tiny units in the two buildings plus a little bit of white box retail in that project. And, for over $100,000 per unit in renovation plus a 300,000 tax credit, they got a Soviet era quality kitchenette and throw away finishes throughout. That bathroom floor tile in 12x24 is not just dismal, an idential lot was $0.05 per square foot on Fast Track Auction and they couldn't give it away.

 

They could have done something nice but dismal is what they got.

26 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

I cannot find the graphic that I saw shared the other day (Stong Towns?) that broke down the cost of a new apartment building in a typical city. The majority of the costs were because of the building's construction (materials, labor, etc.). Permitting and the back-and-forth was another significant cost as well.

 

Anyone who owns a house knows that pretty much any work is horrendously expensive.  Anyone who owns a condominium knows that condo fees seem too high but all work is horrendously expensive.  

 

If we really want to get the cost of new apartment buildings down, we'd have to skip any on-site parking, no air conditioning, no elevators, kitchenettes instead of kitchens, no dishwashers, tiny bathrooms, laundry in the basement, etc.  We'd skip all insulation including double-paned windows and pass the higher utility costs onto tenants.  There would be no overhead lighting, just a single outlet per room, or more likely a central cluster of conduit that means you'd have to run extension chords.  

 

Obviously much of what I described above is not legal.  

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

 

 

If we really want to get the cost of new apartment buildings down, we'd have to skip any on-site parking, no air conditioning, no elevators, kitchenettes instead of kitchens, no dishwashers, tiny bathrooms, laundry in the basement, etc.  We'd skip all insulation including double-paned windows and pass the higher utility costs onto tenants.  There would be no overhead lighting, just a single outlet per room, or more likely a central cluster of conduit that means you'd have to run extension chords. 

 

 

Basically, how things were done until 1930.

35 minutes ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

No, Yves, you played the "humble beginnings card" on the wrong hand.

 

What is going on with 1714 Vine, should you care to know, is the usual scam  of creating crap and charging for caviar. There are 10 tiny units in the two buildings plus a little bit of white box retail in that project. And, for over $100,000 per unit in renovation plus a 300,000 tax credit, they got a Soviet era quality kitchenette and throw away finishes throughout. That bathroom floor tile in 12x24 is not just dismal, an idential lot was $0.05 per square foot on Fast Track Auction and they couldn't give it away.

 

They could have done something nice but dismal is what they got.

Then say that, don't just give some upturned nose comment about what you think is nice. Regardless, if you walked into someone's home and said it looked dismal, they would call you an ass for being one. Good job.

23 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

^there's something to be said for some basic solid-wood cabinets vs IKEA type that look slick but aren't as durable. 

 

I'm pretty sure the bathroom cabinet is indeed an Ikea product:

 

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/hemnes-sink-cabinet-with-2-drawers-black-brown-stain-20217659/

 

I don't think the kitchen cabinets are, but they might still be laminate.

 

On 2/2/2021 at 1:44 PM, jim uber said:

Yeah I'm not sure why they're not used more, either. They are perfect for these old buildings created without chases to run duct work in. And, for 600 sq. ft. units, their Duke bill should average about $50/month including A/C. I know some folks living in OTRCH housing where their Duke bill can be more than half their rent - crappy old HVAC, leaky windows, no insulation - so from an affordability perspective this matters.

 

Even for a unit as small as this one, there are two mini splits - one in the bedroom and one in the common area. From a maintenance perspective, that is double the amount of equipment to worry about. I also think the ability to heat a space in our climate with these systems is relatively new. It's been over a decade since I've done any research on these but I remember them being viable really only as a replacement for window AC units, not heat. I know that these are all over the place in southeast Asia, and everyone goes into a panic (and people literally die) when temperatures get below 50F because the mini-splits can't provide enough (or any) heat. A quick DuckDuckGo search tells me that there are options out there to provide enough heat down to -5F.

 

I do know some people who have installed mini-splits in liue of forced air AC in homes that have boilers/radiator heating. That seems to work much better than shoehorning ductwork into an old building that wasn't designed for it.

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Basically, how things were done until 1930.

 

Yeah.  Lots of this:

 

8 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

Even for a unit as small as this one, there are two mini splits - one in the bedroom and one in the common area. From a maintenance perspective, that is double the amount of equipment to worry about. I also think the ability to heat a space in our climate with these systems is relatively new. It's been over a decade since I've done any research on these but I remember them being viable really only as a replacement for window AC units, not heat. I know that these are all over the place in southeast Asia, and everyone goes into a panic (and people literally die) when temperatures get below 50F because the mini-splits can't provide enough (or any) heat. A quick DuckDuckGo search tells me that there are options out there to provide enough heat down to -5F.

 

I do know some people who have installed mini-splits in liue of forced air AC in homes that have boilers/radiator heating. That seems to work much better than shoehorning ductwork into an old building that wasn't designed for it.

 

 

 

Yeah this is really out of date information about mini-splits. I own an apartment building next door with 7 units and all of them use Mitsubishi mini-splits for heat and A/C. It's true that they are more efficient for a/c than heat, but they are excellent overall. The newer models like the Mitsubishi "hyper-heat" is totally appropriate for our climate (and colder). 

 

And it's not twice the maintenance. The technology allows multiple interior heads to be run by the same exterior compressor, which is where the guts are. The main downside is that each of the interior units require a condensate drain, so you don't literally recoup all of the savings from having to run ductwork.

One mini-split outdoor condenser unit can run multiple indoor air handlers (three is typical) so it's not that much more equipment.  The trick is that the indoor units need a condensate drain, which isn't always the easiest thing to locate. 

 

Heat pump technology has improved quite a bit over the last 10 years to the point that Norway, of all places, has become a major adopter.  The units in Asia I think are just air conditioners.  50F temperatures are ideal for a heat pump, even 40 years ago, so there's no way temperatures like that would cause a problem in buildings that have any heating systems at all. 

 

It's below freezing where you need to start thinking more carefully about it.  Still, I've worked on projects with heat pumps here in Cincinnati where the heating design temperature is 0F, and it was a 100 year old un-insulated building.  More stringent insulation requirements came about in the 2017 commercial and 2019 residential building codes, so a heat pump mini-split shouldn't have any issues. 

 

Also, considering the "skip all insulation including double-paned windows and pass the higher utility costs onto tenants" idea, if you put a little thought into it, the better system could still be cheaper.  No insulation and single-pane windows means a much bigger HVAC system.  That could mean now you need to run gas to each unit, which needs venting and more ductwork, bigger air conditioner condensers, supplementary units in rooms that wouldn't need them otherwise, etc.  In somewhat colder climates, better insulation/windows means you can completely eliminate your entire perimeter heating system (baseboard radiators mostly) and instead rely on the air handlers.  That leads to a net decrease in upfront cost.

2 hours ago, jwulsin said:

The Liberty & Elm project passed through City Council this afternoon. The version that was passed was the "original" one, not the latest proposal that took some VTICA funds for adding some workforce housing. 

So what all still has to happen before we see dirt moving? 

55 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

So what all still has to happen before we see dirt moving? 

I think it is all up to the developer now to move ahead. It has passed through all the public bodies (planning commission, historic conservation board, city council). 

Council approves $80 million Liberty and Elm project

 

Cincinnati City Council approved zoning changes and a development agreement for the $80 million, 300-apartment mixed-use development at Liberty and Elm streets in Over-the-Rhine.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/02/03/council-approves-80-million-liberty-and-elm-proje.html

 

 

15 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

One mini-split outdoor condenser unit can run multiple indoor air handlers (three is typical) so it's not that much more equipment.  The trick is that the indoor units need a condensate drain, which isn't always the easiest thing to locate.

 

I've always been wary of mini-split systems because of the lack of outside air circulation. To me, they seem to be okay in a pinch, but if you have the flexibility to install a traditional ducted system, I'd suggest it for the sake of indoor air quality.

 

On a somewhat related note, in the wake of COVID I've seen people want to upgrade or replace HVAC systems in order to use 100% fresh outside air at all times - which is typically a significantly expensive endeavor. On the other end of that spectrum are ductless systems that don't provide any outside air. Long term, I won't be surprised if we start to see heftier HVAC systems requested or even required in the name of wellness. More outside air, more air changes, stronger filtration, etc.

There has been a push, even before COVID but accelerated by it, to bring fresh air to all dorm rooms that use fan coil units. I wouldn't be surprised if similar desires exists in the hospitality as well. I believe the newest ASHRAE standards recommend it so it's only a matter of time that its required in the code everywhere. 

 

On the Liberty & Elm project, they approved the 'original' version of the project, does that mean the building is still 7 stories tall along Central Parkway? The original plan showed 306 units, this version says 300 units, so it doesn't seem like a height reduction, but just some small changes but I can't tell. 

31 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

There has been a push, even before COVID but accelerated by it, to bring fresh air to all dorm rooms that use fan coil units. I wouldn't be surprised if similar desires exists in the hospitality as well. I believe the newest ASHRAE standards recommend it so it's only a matter of time that its required in the code everywhere. 

 

On the Liberty & Elm project, they approved the 'original' version of the project, does that mean the building is still 7 stories tall along Central Parkway? The original plan showed 306 units, this version says 300 units, so it doesn't seem like a height reduction, but just some small changes but I can't tell. 

Looking at the renderings because I was wondering this as well it looks to be 6 floors alone Central and 7 along Logan st. 

51 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

I've always been wary of mini-split systems because of the lack of outside air circulation.

 

Most furnaces don't have outside air either, never mind hot water systems.  Simply adding a duct from the outside to your return plenum, can flood your home with moisture and pollen in summer, and will dry out the air terribly in winter while also driving up fuel costs.  Most people don't want to spend the extra $1,500 for an ERV to temper the incoming air.  A 100% fresh air system would be crazy expensive to run, very difficult to temper properly in cold/dry, hot/humid, or even cool/wet conditions, and would complicate ducting too because you need to exhaust all that air out after bringing it in. 

 

Commercial has had requirements for outdoor air (generally it's 10%) forever, so I'd be surprised to find dorms and hotels where that's not already provided.  It's easy to do with PTACs by just having a little damper through to the outside grille, and rooftop units have outdoor air dampers.  Sometimes they can be pretty subtle.  Daniels Hall at UC has hot/chilled water coils in each dorm room, but they're also fed air from a central system with little jets/nozzles in each unit to help induce draft across the coil and also provide the fresh air.  Commercial systems need to be upsized to handle the additional load, but they also need air balancing with exhaust fans to operate correctly, they go through filters like crazy, and they're more expensive to maintain. 

^ In our apartment building (LEED silver) we were required to have continuously running fans in each bathroom, in part for the fresh air requirement. We all thought that was funny in an 1870s masonry building where we didn't do anything special (and expensive) to isolate the units vertically.

48 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

On the Liberty & Elm project, they approved the 'original' version of the project, does that mean the building is still 7 stories tall along Central Parkway? The original plan showed 306 units, this version says 300 units, so it doesn't seem like a height reduction, but just some small changes but I can't tell. 

The 'original' versus modified proposals at this last stage had nothing to do with broad architectural features. It was the number of units that would be set aside to meet affordability criteria (and how to pay for them).

BBC’s take on the ‘gentrification’ of OTR

Over-The-Rhine: Is this a model for urban renewal or a warning sign? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56048812

3 hours ago, roman totale XVII said:

BBC’s take on the ‘gentrification’ of OTR

Over-The-Rhine: Is this a model for urban renewal or a warning sign? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56048812

From 1980 to 2000 Over-the-Rhine lost 2,236 black residents and 2,256 white/other residents.

 

If 3CDC had never been formed, is there any reason to assume that those trends wouldn't have continued? 

^ If 3CDC had never been formed, or something like it, we wouldn't have a whole lot to argue about right now, when it comes to OTR - either gentrification or affordable housing or parking or streetcar or... anything.

When it was only a dilapidated scary neighborhood people complained, now that it’s on the come up and developing nicely people are complaining. That’s just how it goes.

The focus should really be on getting ownership vs rentals for black and lower income residents. I think the line from that BBC article that rings true is that people don't know their neighbors anymore, and that it could lose the feeling of a neighborhood if it becomes purely catered to visitors. That being said, I think the term gentrification doesn't quite fit here due to the fact that the article mentions both the ever changing makeup of the neighborhood through history and it's more recent vacancy. Having 44,000 people in OTR at its peak wasn't sustainable, but having 4,000 people at its nadir isn't sustainable either. This means that all the new businesses and residents are by and large inhabiting vacant spaces, not displacing current residents.

 

On a side note, I have such a low self-esteem as a Cincinnatian that I just think it's cool we have an article being being discussed in Britain about us. I was out this past weekend at Mittenfest and met people who were in town visiting Cincinnati to historic tours and see breweries from Florida. I mean who thinks of 1. Floridians visiting Ohio in February and 2. Floridians wanting to see historic architecture and visit breweries and deciding to go to Cincinnati? 

18 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

The focus should really be on getting ownership vs rentals for black and lower income residents. I think the line from that BBC article that rings true is that people don't know their neighbors anymore, and that it could lose the feeling of a neighborhood if it becomes purely catered to visitors. That being said, I think the term gentrification doesn't quite fit here due to the fact that the article mentions both the ever changing makeup of the neighborhood through history and it's more recent vacancy. Having 44,000 people in OTR at its peak wasn't sustainable, but having 4,000 people at its nadir isn't sustainable either. This means that all the new businesses and residents are by and large inhabiting vacant spaces, not displacing current residents.

 

On a side note, I have such a low self-esteem as a Cincinnatian that I just think it's cool we have an article being being discussed in Britain about us. I was out this past weekend at Mittenfest and met people who were in town visiting Cincinnati to historic tours and see breweries from Florida. I mean who thinks of 1. Floridians visiting Ohio in February and 2. Floridians wanting to see historic architecture and visit breweries and deciding to go to Cincinnati? 

Spend 10 minutes in florida where 98% of the buildings were built after 1975.....of course they wanna see a real building or two.

14 hours ago, jim uber said:

^ If 3CDC had never been formed, or something like it, we wouldn't have a whole lot to argue about right now, when it comes to OTR - either gentrification or affordable housing or parking or streetcar or... anything.

Mmmm, not exactly. 3CDC was formed in 2003. All the shouting was over as far as "gentrification is concerned. The pioneers had done their work and everything was underway, Main St. was a done deal, Buddy Gray was murdered in 1996 by one of his anti gentrification nuts. Of course no one much but Historic had ventured north of Liberty. But, 3CDC was late to the party, looking more opportunistic than trailblazer.

3 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

Mmmm, not exactly. 3CDC was formed in 2003. All the shouting was over as far as "gentrification is concerned. The pioneers had done their work and everything was underway, Main St. was a done deal, Buddy Gray was murdered in 1996 by one of his anti gentrification nuts. Of course no one much but Historic had ventured north of Liberty. But, 3CDC was late to the party, looking more opportunistic than trailblazer.

 

OTR was still losing population between 2000 and 2010. 

Hey @1400 Sycamore - I'm very aware of the OTR history back to 1990. Spent a lot of time on Main st and I remember the shock when Michael Bany was killed. I don't think it denies the important work of the pioneers (you might be one) to say, that in order to save OTR as a community you needed to scale up those efforts massively. In the case of Cincinnati and OTR, that scale up power came from 3CDC. Unequivocally. Without that organization or something like it, the rate of decay would continued to outstrip the pitiful rate of renewal, and you'd end up bulldozing most of it. 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by jim uber

6 minutes ago, jim uber said:

Hey @1400 Sycamore - I'm very aware of the OTR history back to 1990. Spent a lot of time on Main st and I remember the shock when Michael Bany was killed. I don't think it denies the important work of the pioneers (you might be one) to say, that in order to save OTR as a community you needed to scale up those efforts massively. In the case of Cincinnati and OTR, that scale up power came from 3CDC. Unequivocally. Without that organization or something like it, the rate of decay would continued to outstrip the pitiful rate of renewal, and you'd end up bulldozing most of it. 

That is an interesting perspective. I have never really thought about how 3CDC compares with the truly private development by scale. I'd like to know that. I see little pockets of 3CDC here and there but I admit not having any sense of the overall scale. Most of what I am familiar with from 3CDC are lovely, helpful, but not economically sound.

^Even what 3CDC has done to date is depressingly small compared to what still needs to be done. I read recently from them they have rehabilitated something like 170 buildings (IDK if that is only in OTR)? I mean, that's a lot, but it's not a LOT. My perspective is that somebody with money to spend, and to lose, had to get into the game. That meant big businesses like P&G and Kroger finally linking their futures in Cincinnati, to the success of OTR as a community. I don't know 3CDCs balance sheet but I'd imagine that the funding model was to lose money for a significant period of time.

 

The good news (to me) is that now you have several major players (e.g. Model, and dare I mention the Liberty and Elm folks) that mean North of Liberty probably won't take as long as South did, and the most at risk buildings won't fall. 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by jim uber

Historic released a number of buildings to Model but I am not sure if the plan is economically sensible. I mean, you can't spend $300/sq. ft. on properties like Gateway cost and have it work long term unless 3CDC is going to let these be rented or sold below cost.

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

OTR was still losing population between 2000 and 2010. 

 

It was losing population because people were moving out of dilapidated, crime-ridden buildings faster than people were moving in to renovated buildings, but that doesn't mean the revival wasn't already under way. It just means the renovations in desirable buildings/areas weren't yet offsetting the exodus from the rougher areas. As early as the 90s there were signs the neighborhood was on its way up, even as people fled in droves.

 

12 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

It was losing population because people were moving out of dilapidated, crime-ridden buildings faster than people were moving in to renovated buildings, but that doesn't mean the revival wasn't already under way. It just means the renovations in desirable buildings/areas weren't yet offsetting the exodus from the rougher areas. As early as the 90s there were signs the neighborhood was on its way up, even as people fled in droves.

 

 

It's true there were signs of revitalization in the 90s but that all cratered after the riots in 2001. It could've gone either way at that point, and it was looking dire. I'm not saying 3CDC should get all the credit (or blame, if you're so inclined) but it wasn't really a given that OTR was going to take off until the 2010s.

Most of the Main St bar zone had its residential units above done in the 2003 range. When I got to 1411 Sycamore St in 1998 and the next 5 years or so most of the units were "gentrified" on Sycamore, Mansfield, Orchard, 14th and Broadway. The 2001 riots meant exactly zero over here on the Pendleton side of OTR. Didn't affect anything. But, i agree that without 3CDC Vine St. north of Central Parkway was not happening.

 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by 1400 Sycamore

2 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

Most of the Main St bar zone had its residential units above done in the 2003 range. When I got to 1411 Sycamore St in 1998 and the next 5 years or so most of the units were "gentrified" on Sycamore, Mansfield, Orchard, 14th and Broadway. The 2001 riots meant exactly zero over here on the Pendleton side of OTR. Didn't affect anything. But, i agree that without 3CDC Vine St. north of Central Parkway was not happening.

 

 

FWIW, the term gentrification gets misused a lot. If vacant units are renovated and people move into them that's not gentrification. Gentrification is displacement of low-income residents with higher income ones. There actually wasn't all that much displacement in OTR because the population had already cratered.

Historical OTR building converted to condos

 

A Cincinnati real estate developer has converted an Over-the-Rhine building into eight residential condominiums.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/02/24/historical-otr-building-converted-to-condos.html

 

14 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

FWIW, the term gentrification gets misused a lot. If vacant units are renovated and people move into them that's not gentrification. Gentrification is displacement of low-income residents with higher income ones. There actually wasn't all that much displacement in OTR because the population had already cratered.

I am not sure I would agree that displacement is a necessary element of "gentrification" as opposed to being either or both a casual and causal factor, but, either way, I am quite sure that there has never been a time when spaces in my area (13th to Liberty and Sycamore to Broadway had more than a smattering of vacant units. Maybe a couple at 13th and Van Seggern.

3 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

I am not sure I would agree that displacement is a necessary element of "gentrification" as opposed to being either or both a casual and causal factor, but, either way, I am quite sure that there has never been a time when spaces in my area (13th to Liberty and Sycamore to Broadway had more than a smattering of vacant units. Maybe a couple at 13th and Van Seggern.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "either or both a casual and causal factor."

 

And maybe there weren't many vacant units on your block but OTR and Pendleton did have tons of vacant units. I'm not going to go pull the data but the vacancy rates were astronomical. 

I don't think Pendleton ever saw quite the vacancy that OTR did, speaking anecdotally some of this is because of the Pendleton Art Center drawing an early first wave of new residents when it opened in 1991, especially as Mt. Adams became more expensive many of the artistic class moved down the hill to the Pendleton.