14 minutes ago, ucnum1 said:

No offense but it is mostly in your head.23 new bars and restuarants opened in otr in 2021. More than double what opened in 2020 and 2 more than in 2019.Total development in otr is booming $310 million in projects announced in 2021.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/12/26/restaurant-openings-2021.html

 

 

not denying you but what are the 23 restaurants and bars that opened in otr? The list you linked is from a different article. 

The article only listed out the restaurants.

 

Two of the biggest venues in OTR just opened in the last couple of months - Somerset and OTR Still House.

 

There are also other bars that opened like Bar Bar and The Pitch. It's in your head. This year was a lot better than 2020. I suspect some businesses opted to delay opening (or were forced to delay opening) from 2020 to 2021.

3 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

Hey guys. 
 

I thought I’d express some thoughts on my mind. 
 

I won’t lie my interest in urban development has really waned over the past year. It really sucks because it’s a passion of mine but it’s really hard to be excited about things right now. 
 

The restaurant industry and service industry have been hit so hard because of Covid and labor and materials shortages and getting worse because of the new variant.

 

Obviously this is also affecting the pace of new developments in otr. Things feel incredibly slow. I know there are still projects popping up here and there but it definitely is not like how it was back in 2019.

 

New retail, restaurants and bars have also gone silent. There have been a few new openings here and there but again, nothing like how it used to be.

 

I know this is all temporary and eventually things will rebound at some point but I must admit it’s been tough towards having a passion towards something and it just kind of being crushed because of our current situation with the pandemic and the current state of the economy.

 

I really miss being excited for these new developments and the explosive growth our city had. I really hope that returns soon one day. It was really fun times.

 

I feel like there's more active developments right now than at any point since I moved here. In OTR, but also Downtown, Northside, Covington, Newport, Oakley, etc. The city feels like it's booming. I don't understand your sentiments at all.

I would also like to add that if you want immediate or even frequent gratification, that this isn't an interest/passion that provides that. For instance I remember getting really into the Banks and the Ovation project back when I was in high school and I'm now in my 30's with three kids and one is mostly finished while the other is just now finally starting. Not to mention the myriad projects that are announced and then never come to fruition (I'm still butthurt about the Chicago Spire from when I lived up there)

Hopefully with a bunch of new members on council, new mayor, new city manager, new attitude, and more eyes on things we will get some exciting development devoid of the 'good old local boys sameness' of yore.  Those attitudes killed some interesting builds and limited others so (HOPEFULLY) the future is pretty bright! Maybe even one day they absolute waste of the Cincinnati Milicron site will be avenged.

 

8 hours ago, ucgrady said:

if you want immediate or even frequent gratification, that this isn't an interest/passion that provides that.

I'm 51 years old. My passion for urbanity (and cincinnati urbanity, in particular) goes very specifically back to the frequent trips into downtown through OTR with my Granparents in the 70s and 80s from their house in Westwood. 

 

This is a long game. 

 

I'm not surprised to see the sentiments above from that particular poster. The post history is alarmist.

On 7/1/2021 at 6:44 PM, ryanlammi said:

HCB will have a hearing on 8/9/21 about the demo of 1920 Vine Street. 1918 Vine and 2 Hust Alley are right at corner with the alley. 1920 is the building with the stucco front. In the notice, it says the building is not listed as contributing to the OTR Historic District. The Auditor says it's owned by the Land Bank.

 

 

It's this building on the left.

 

 

Demolition is underway today on 1920 Vine:

On 6/9/2021 at 3:59 PM, ucnum1 said:

Remodel existing builings per how ordiance reads.

 

 City Manager
51. 202102093 ORDINANCE (EMERGENCY) submitted by Paula Boggs Muething, City 
Manager, on 6/3/2021, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING the City Manager to 
execute a Community Reinvestment Area Tax Exemption Agreement with 
Broadway Square IV, LLC, an affiliate of The Model Group, Inc., and the Port 
of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, thereby authorizing a 15-year tax 
exemption for 100% of the value of improvements made to real property 
located at 418-424 E. 12th Street, 555 E. 13th Street, and 1409 Main Street in 
the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati, connection with the 
remodeling of the existing buildings into approximately 4,272 square feet of 
commercial retail and office space and approximately 15,539 square feet of 
residential space consisting of 31 residential units, at a total construction cost 
of approximately $5,178,022

 

There's a dumpster outside 1409 Main, so it appears work is underway on this project.

54 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

 

There's a dumpster outside 1409 Main, so it appears work is underway on this project.

There's been work going on the past 3 months. I live across the street. It's the 4th dumpster I've seen.

Latest HCB notice included a demo for a noncontributing addition to 1415 Walnut Street. It appears to be only the single story portion tacked onto the back of the building. Not surprising they want to demolish it. I doubt they'll get a fight on this. It appears they have no plans for a full renovation yet, but I would say this is a good step toward getting there.

 

7 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Latest HCB notice included a demo for a noncontributing addition to 1415 Walnut Street. It appears to be only the single story portion tacked onto the back of the building. Not surprising they want to demolish it. I doubt they'll get a fight on this. It appears they have no plans for a full renovation yet, but I would say this is a good step toward getting there.

 

In December, they finished a substantial masonry project, rebuilding a big portion of the first floor of the structural brick wall... so if they're now planning to remove the small CMU addition at the rear, it seems like the owners have a plan for bringing the building back to use which is good to hear. 

On 12/28/2021 at 2:28 PM, jwulsin said:

Demolition is underway today on 1920 Vine:

Demolition of 1920 Vine is complete with grass seeded. Hopefully 1920 and the adjacent empty lot at 1922 Vine St are put out for RFP by the Port, either individually or as a package. Together those two parcels have 50' frontage on Vine, 25' frontage on E Clifton, and a total footprint of ~3,300 sq ft.

 

And fortunately the adjacent building on the corner of Clifton and Vine is 5 or 6 stories depending on how you analyze it so a new development could have some definite density. Great location to get to UC and downtown on the frequent buses. Could be a really exciting parking-free development.

Another update on the battle over the First Lutheran Church bell tower:

 

Quote

Pastor says fight over historic bell tower could force First Lutheran to close

 

Pastor Brian Ferguson says the church has spent more than $75,000 on legal and engineering fees. He says he's not sure the church can afford more and might need to sell.

 

"I guess the question would be, what would the community value more: having a historic building or continuing to have the First Lutheran Church, the historic organization that has been in continuous operation for 180 years?" Ferguson said.

 

OTR ADOPT Executive Director Danny Klingler agreed to drop the legal challenge in favor of mediation. He hopes to reach an agreement that preserves the 127-year-old tower.

 

"Our goal is and always has been to reach a win-win, meaning a solution that prevents the demolition of the bell tower, but also is in the best interest of the church and allows it to flourish and to move forward," Klingler said.

 

Creating an ultimatum of "keep the Church or keep the building" seems like a false ultimatum and I hate that they are trying to make it seem like that's the only choice. Also the argument "We are the property owner. We are the stewards of this building. We built it, we've been occupying it for 127 years now," Ferguson said. "And yet we seem to have a very small voice and say in what's happening." Is incredibly stupid, you can't just destroy a piece of the historic fabric in a National Historic district because you don't want to want to do the upkeep.

What is so annoying is that they call themselves the stewards of the building, yet they are also crying about it being difficult and expensive to repair. Which one is it? Were you good stewards of the building for 127 years or did you let a lingering issue turn into a clusterf*ck that got the whole community pissed off after you asked for money to help the issue and then turned around saying you wouldn't do anything about it and oh by the way we want to keep the money.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm no lawyer, but if they repair the building to meet all required Codes per the cheaper option, and their insurer is willing to give them insurance on the building, then what are they worried about? They act like they would still be liable, but if an engineer signs the drawing and a contractor makes the fixes those two entities (and their liablity insurance) will be responsible for any issues for the next 10 years, correct?

Church or building? That's easy. Save the building.

Agreed. The people can move on, especially if they don't care about the building. 

^Wow, that is cold.

 

They care about the building. They've been working to fix it up and keep it around for decades after wealth left the area. They want to save the tower just like everyone else. But they also have to be able to use the building--just like any other type of occupant needs to be able to use its building--and they face huge costs and uncertainty.

 

And should they leave the building, there is risk of finding a new occupant and plan to reuse the building and restore the tower in a timely manner.

I just don't understand the argument for tearing it down. There is a valid bid to complete the necessary repairs for much cheaper than the original estimate. Money was raised to do the work so First Lutheran is out no additional money to save the tower vs. tear it down.

 

What's the hold up? They don't actually address the facts of the issue, and instead insist it has to be torn down.

59 minutes ago, ink said:

And should they leave the building, there is risk of finding a new occupant and plan to reuse the building and restore the tower in a timely manner.

I agree with this, the best occupants for a church is a church. We have examples of event venues, breweries and residential going into churches but at the end of the day if a church can stay a Church that's for the best. They just need to apply the fixes per the code and not per some magical made up standard that has yet to be defined. 

 

If this same conversation was about a family who had lived in a building for generations but couldn't afford the upkeep I would say the best occupant for the building is the residents; I just wish there was a process for repair/maintenance in a national historic district to help issues like this so 1. people aren't evicted and 2. the buildings aren't lost.  I don't know if the answer is a tax or a fund or what, but this is a problem that extends beyond First Lutheran Church.

 

 

This church started a shady save the bell campaign, rallied the community to save the tower, otr adopt found solutions and the church repeatedly rejected each solution….they were so dead set on making sure the tower was earth quake proof as part of the renovations that they ignored every other contractor estimate that said it was not needed…the church has shot themselves in the foot.

 

I feel bad for the church community that goes there, but it sounds like they should find a new location that requires less upkeep of the building they occupy. 

 

 

2 hours ago, ink said:

^Wow, that is cold.

 

They care about the building. They've been working to fix it up and keep it around for decades after wealth left the area. They want to save the tower just like everyone else. But they also have to be able to use the building--just like any other type of occupant needs to be able to use its building--and they face huge costs and uncertainty.

 

And should they leave the building, there is risk of finding a new occupant and plan to reuse the building and restore the tower in a timely manner.

 

The pastor is the one who created the dichotomous ultimatum. Sure, I'd love to have them stay. But if he's saying that the choice is the church or the building, of course I'll take the building. A church is just a collection of individuals. They come and go. They can recreate their community elsewhere if that's what they feel is the only choice.

I happen to know people that are members of that church that are very involved in the community, pro-historic preservation, and pro-transit. I do feel it would be sad to lose the church. However the pastor has really set up an impossible situation here, demanding that the bell tower be earthquake-proof despite there being no fault lines anywhere near Cincinnati, and missing the opportunity to use historic preservation as a tool to strengthen the bond between the church and the community.

Is the desire to make it "earthquake proof" really the hold up?

 

Per code, most new buildings in Cincinnati are designed to resist wind loads, which are stronger than any expected seismic loads (as determined by the USGS). While it's possible the New Madrid fault could cause significant shaking in Cincinnati (as it did in 1811/1812), that shaking would be weaker than the shaking caused by a severe thunderstorm. So if a building can survive the storm, it should be able to survive the earthquake.

 

However, it's possible the plans to stabilized the tower stop short of bringing it up to what would be required for a new building built today. I don't think code would require it but I'd need to know more to confirm that. If that's the case, the retrofit would meet code, but it would do so by getting an exception to not comply with the seismic requirements of the code. I could at least understand the concerns the owner has.

 

However, if they want to go above and beyond that baseline and build it to resist major earthquakes that are not a realistic possibility in Cincinnati, it's a bit much.

 

The question gets complicated and nuanced quickly, as these sorts of things often do.

Per the Business Courier:

 

Quote

The church leadership believes the project requires additional stabilization to endure an earthquake, adding $800,000 to $900,000 to the cost, according to Save the Bell Tower, a group of local preservationists. The state’s building code does not mandate the consideration of earthquakes when restoring it. The church is at 1208 Race St. east of Washington Park. [...]

 

Asked for a response, the church’s pastor, Brian Ferguson, pointed to an Aug. 9 statement saying it stood by its June 23 decision to demolish the tower. The statement did not explain the reasons for the decision. 

 

The nearest active fault line to Cincinnati is the New Madrid, about 350 miles west of Cincinnati. The last major earthquakes, those of 7.5 or higher on the Richter scale, on that fault line were in 1811 and 1812, according to a 2008 University of Cincinnati discussion. Another inactive fault line is located just south of Lexington. Minor earthquakes around 5 on the Richter scale have occurred in the Midwest over the last 40 years. [...]

 

“The original engineering approach called for work that far exceeds what is required by the building code,” according to the Save the Bell Tower letter. “A significant portion of that additional work is meant to add seismic upgrades that are not typically part of a historic restoration project, and are not required by the code.”

 

The pastor seems like an idiot

2 hours ago, taestell said:

Per the Business Courier:

 

 

 

There's some ambiguity about just what the owners mean when they say they want the building to "endure an earthquake." It's reasonable, albeit atypical, for them to want the tower to be retrofitted to meet the requirements a new building would have to meet, even though it isn't required by code. It isn't unheard of for people to want to go above and beyond code minimums in the name of safety. If they want it retrofitted to withstand an earthquake from the seventh bowl, though...

20 hours ago, ink said:

^Wow, that is cold.

 

fair enough. Maybe I'm misreading the congregation's coldness, which is what informed my take.

 

On 1/17/2022 at 6:58 PM, DEPACincy said:

Church or building? That's easy. Save the building.

 

Agreed. The historic district exists precisely to protect buildings from short-sighted people.

Krueger's Tavern is moving to the old Panino's location at 1313 Vine, and Bakersfield (both restaurants are owned by Thunderdome) is going to expand into Krueger's old space at 1211 Vine:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/01/25/long-closed-otr-restaurant-to-revive-in-new-space.html

Always liked Kruger's so glad they'll be coming back

Phillipus Church has closed and sold their building to Crossroads

12 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

Phillipus Church has closed and sold their building to Crossroads

 

👆  Opinions on mega churches aside, this is a good thing for the building. Crossroads invested heavily in Old St George - a building I thought would be torn down when I watched the steeples burn years ago.

Phillipus is less than a mile from St. George so that seems kind of odd. Can we get them to buy First Lutheran church instead...

Check out 3CDC’s Main Street redevelopment, Keyer Row: PHOTOS

By Tom Demeropolis  –  Senior staff reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. recently completed the redevelopment of properties in the 1200 block of Main Street in Over-the-Rhine into a mixed-income apartment project with street-level commercial space. There has been strong demand, with 14 units already leased.

Keyer Row, a project that encompasses 1221-1249 Main St., redeveloped the buildings into 22 residential units and six first-floor commercial spaces. Five of the apartment units are affordable, with the other 17 market-rate. The total project cost was $8.5 million.

Lann Field, vice president of development with 3CDC, said Keyer Row helps fill in a portion of Main Street that needed redevelopment and activation.

 

MORE

20 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

Phillipus Church has closed and sold their building to Crossroads

can you show where it says this? Looking in the auditor website and I don’t see anything. 

1 hour ago, Troeros2 said:

can you show where it says this? Looking in the auditor website and I don’t see anything. 

I volunteer for the Over the Rhine museum and the directors office is in there. We have to move it out next weekend. It's been sold.

9 hours ago, ucgrady said:

Phillipus is less than a mile from St. George so that seems kind of odd. Can we get them to buy First Lutheran church instead...

I don't think it is Crossroads, but a similar church (who is buying it from Model Group who already purchased it from Philipus):

 

https://www.fox19.com/2021/12/22/city-church-otr-finds-new-permanent-home-time-christmas/

Quote

 

“It is truly a miracle. We were getting moved from our current venue and I started calling all of these developers,” explains Pastor Marlin, “And I got ahold of Model Group who does a lot in Over-the-Rhine, and they were like, ‘Man we just bought a church, and we don’t know what to do with it.’ And I was like, ‘I know what to do with it.’”

 

Pastor Chris Marlin Opened City Church OTR last year during the pandemic.

 

Since then, the congregation has moved to a couple of locations, but this is the new permanent home after buying the building earlier this month.

 

 

Phillipus is a great end-of-axis, marking the edge of the basin. The view on foot from Findlay Market is great. Another rear view mirror landmark for vehicles, though.

On 8/28/2019 at 4:13 PM, mcmicken said:

1725 Vine is permitted, not sure when they will start full on construction. Per inspector's notes they have started some framing: https://cagis.hamilton-co.org/opal/apd.aspx?entcode=cinc&ezstdadrtag=1725||VINE|ST|GJ1469732493|||CINC|CINC|00940008039101725V|009400080237|009400080391|CINCINNATI&APD=2016P07163

 

Work on 1725 Vine has been stalled for years... but recently there have been signs of progress. New windows have been installed over the last few weeks. Hopefully they have the financing in place to actually finish the project.

That's good to see. I feel like this building with a fully opened storefront, a good cleaning, and a rebuilt cornice could really anchor this stretch of Vine Street. I feel like Vine north of Liberty still needs that one anchor that really improves the vibe and is a catalyst for improvement. I think this, if done well, could be it.

This building plus the 3CDC/Model Group joint Findlay Playground redevelopment will completely change the stretch from Liberty to McMicken. That alone would touch over 20 buildings on that block. 

 

But to rant a little, the other problem with this block improving is unrelated to the buildings stock. It's basically impossible to move east/west in this three block stretch. There are too many one ways and left turn restrictions and weird traffic things that make the area too difficult to navigate and makes people speed faster. Basically this whole area has too many weird traffic obstacles that date back to police trying to make the area purposefully more difficult to navigate (for drug deals I guess?) but that make no sense for a functional neighborhood. I wish the city would make Findlay, Elder and Green all two way streets their whole length. 

17 hours ago, ucgrady said:

This building plus the 3CDC/Model Group joint Findlay Playground redevelopment will completely change the stretch from Liberty to McMicken. That alone would touch over 20 buildings on that block. 

 

But to rant a little, the other problem with this block improving is unrelated to the buildings stock. It's basically impossible to move east/west in this three block stretch. There are too many one ways and left turn restrictions and weird traffic things that make the area too difficult to navigate and makes people speed faster. Basically this whole area has too many weird traffic obstacles that date back to police trying to make the area purposefully more difficult to navigate (for drug deals I guess?) but that make no sense for a functional neighborhood. I wish the city would make Findlay, Elder and Green all two way streets their whole length. 

Yeah it definitely feels like east/west travel is stupidly difficult then a ton is in service of being able to speed along Vine unrestricted. None of it works for an active urban neighborhood. I'm still hoping Vine becomes two-way and that the design from south of Liberty is carried up north of Liberty.

I know I'm a broken record, but I just want to point out that Green Street was supposed to be converted back to two-way as part of the streetcar project (that's why new traffic signals were installed as part of the construction) but because the Cranley administration wasn't especially passionate about Complete Streets issues (and perhaps CPD requested that it remain one-way for anti-drug dealing reasons), this was never implemented and the new traffic signals were eventually removed.

40 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I'm still hoping Vine becomes two-way and that the design from south of Liberty is carried up north of Liberty.

I'm a little confused by this comment since Vine already is two-way on this section (it's two-way everywhere north of Central Parkway). 

I don't think it is a bad thing that it is so difficult to traverse this section of OTR E-W by car. In fact, many urban precincts across the world are overhauling their urban designs around busy transport hubs/neighbourhoods/schools and are instituting these very ideas - eliminating thru-traffic within a neighbourhood or block (ala Barcelona's Superblock) and relegating it away from key places and busy pedestrian areas. I think the E-W confusing streets aren't a problem, it is the N-S ones that now need overhauled.  

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

I'm a little confused by this comment since Vine already is two-way on this section (it's two-way everywhere north of Central Parkway). 

Wow that's right...I moved away and apparently my memories aren't right haha. So KEEP the one way (whoops) and implement things like curb bump-outs and better street design as seen south of Liberty, but then also extend the two way SOUTH of Liberty to make everything cohesive.

21 minutes ago, atlas said:

I don't think it is a bad thing that it is so difficult to traverse this section of OTR E-W by car.

 

I don't think the goal is the make it easy to navigate OTR by car, it's to eliminate some of the illogical road configurations that force drivers to go several blocks out of their way, which ultimately results in more miles driven and more fossil fuels burnt in the urban core. The current configuration of Green Street wasn't chosen by urban planners or traffic engineers; CPD gave it an intentionally bad configuration so that thru traffic could no longer use it. If it were two-way it would serve as an additional connection between Elm, Race, and Vine that might alleviate some of the traffic that currently has to divert down to Liberty. I would compare it to how 13th Street was converted to two-way about 10 years ago, and now serves as an additional connection between Race, Vine, Walnut, and Main. 14th Street should also become two-way between Elm and Race.

Green Street could be a great woonerf though. You could even make it more of a Dutch style 'place' since it has such a wide ROW and plonk in some playground equipment, sand boxes and other children play equipment instead of angled car parking. I think it or Elder is a great candidate for limiting thru-traffic and improving place characteristics significantly, with less push back from traffic engineers. Elder could become the next Findlay Market expansion area with a woonerf or pedestrian only area.

 

An effective mobility strategy I have implemented in Sydney is to institute a complete street 'ring road' boulevard around a central pedestrian core by limiting the desire or possibility to cut thru a neighbourhood. The ring road is for thru traffic but also regional travel ala bus and major cycling routes. Planning for 'movement' infrastructure like public parking garages directly off the ring road encourages walking in the neighbourhood core and limits cut-through traffic which is typically the kind most associated with speeding and unsafe behaviour. The 'ring road' isn't an inherently new idea and has a tenuous history, but Barcelona's superblocks have reopened the idea but with a more 'complete street' focus instead of only thinking of it in terms of car traffic. 

 

In this area, with Vine Street being the only N-S that allows for thru-traffic, I could imagine a sort of ring road being adapted for Central Parkway to West and South and McMicken to north (and Vine right down the middle). This is sort of being done with the new parking garage being placed right next to Central Pkwy up by Findlay and this thinking could help in planning for future parking sites. An even more effective mobility strategy would ensure on-street parking is priced appropriately so as to not encourage folks driving around looking for spots. Don't need to repeat that here. But this could help alleviate the *need* to cut thru the neighbourhood and encourage folks to park their car 1-2 blocks away from their destination, and that be ok. Delivery trucks should also be discouraged from cutting through Green Street. 

2 hours ago, atlas said:

I think it or Elder is a great candidate for limiting thru-traffic and improving place characteristics significantly, with less push back from traffic engineers. Elder could become the next Findlay Market expansion area with a woonerf or pedestrian only area.

This is a great idea since Elder is already closed to traffic at Findlay and I think being able to extend/expand the market with outdoor eating all the way East to Vine would be awesome. If Findlay and Green were each two-way streets Elder could completely become pedestrian only.