5 hours ago, ucgrady said:

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. 

Elder used to be part of the Market area. If you look close you can still see metal markers on the curbs that denoted stall spaces. 

9 hours ago, taestell said:

 

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.

 

Is there any evidence that CPD is responsible for the road configuration? This seems like one of those claims that sounds right so it gets repeated without question.

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Is there any evidence that CPD is responsible for the road configuration? This seems like one of those claims that sounds right so it gets repeated without question.

 

I think it's one of those things that is not controlled by CPD, but they have to be given notice of a change like this, they can object, and the city can use that objection as an excuse not to go forward with it. Any time public right of way is sold or leased, the city asks water works, MSD, CPD, CFD, etc. if the change will negatively impact them. I imagine it's the same any time the city wants to close a street to vehicles, change streets between one way and two way, etc.

11 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

Is there any evidence that CPD is responsible for the road configuration? This seems like one of those claims that sounds right so it gets repeated without question.

 

The current configuration of Green Street is absolutely to discourage drug dealing, but I doubt there are any articles online confirming this, as these sorts of urban planning beat issues weren't well covered by the local media until the last few years. It's the same strategy as putting roadblocks on McMicken (which eventually got removed) and 15th Street (which later became outdoor dining).

Developer plans two dozen new Over-the-Rhine apartments, with hopes for more

 

Local real estate developer Kunst has raised $1.6 million for a fund it will use to redevelop underutilized real estate in Cincinnati’s urban core.

 

Founder John Blatchford wants to raise $5 million for the new fund by March.

 

Kunst Fund II will use capital investments to develop historic, vacant buildings in Over-the-Rhine and the central business district.

 

Using the funds it has available so far, Kunst bought two OTR buildings — 254 Mowhawk and 1923 Elm St. near Rhinegeist Brewery.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/09/kunst-development-otr.html

 

Why a massive Findlay Market mixed-use project still has not started construction

By Chris Wetterich  –  Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

It’s been a year since Cincinnati City Council approved incentives for a massive mixed-use development in the northwest corner of Liberty and Elm streets in Over-the-Rhine near Findlay Market, but the project is ensnared in a court battle over approvals given to it by the city’s regulators.

 

City Council’s Feb. 3, 2021, vote to incentivize Kean Development and the Buckingham Cos.’ $80 million Freeport Row project was not the final word. After the council’s vote, the project’s design still needed approval by the Historic Conservation Board and the Cincinnati Planning Commission. It narrowly won the conservation panel’s approval in March and the planning commission’s unanimous OK in April.

 

But foes of the project, whose opposition centers on the lack of guaranteed affordable housing in the project as well as its design and scale, appealed the Historic Conservation Board’s approval to the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals. When the zoning panel dismissed the appeal, opponents appealed to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, where the case remains today before Magistrate Anita Berding.

 

MORE

OTR Adopt are a bunch of losers

30 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

OTR Adopt are a bunch of losers

I am surprised Margy Waller isnt gathering the losers together to hinder anything and everything going on in OTR. 

Margy Waller is singlehandedly killing development left and right. I tried to ask her for an example of what she thought WAS good development and she could only ever give roundabout answers. She has completely surpassed NIMBYism and is full on BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). She's unreasonable and people should call her on her horse crap every chance they get.

What does she have the 'power' to actually stop though? Outside of yelling and screaming and being unreasonable? Are there specific projects that have been pulled? 

 

The Elm/Liberty project is incredibly frustrating. A person with zero standing / interest in the development suing to stop it due to some technicality in how things were handled. 

She has a way of riling people up and gathering support. She doesn't necessarily have individual power over anything, but creating a voice of opposition is definitely something that can cause problems.

9 hours ago, jmicha said:

Margy Waller is singlehandedly killing development left and right. I tried to ask her for an example of what she thought WAS good development and she could only ever give roundabout answers. She has completely surpassed NIMBYism and is full on BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). She's unreasonable and people should call her on her horse crap every chance they get.

BANANA unless it's literally 100% permanent supportive housing, she was recently advocating for an OTRCH project at HCB. Not sure what the outcome of that was, but it's been frustrating to watch the 'progressive' opinion become "if a project is not >50% affordable housing it's not enough and should not be built and anything else is a developer handout." 

Buddy Gray lives.

I don't quite understand how people cannot grasp that restricting ALL housing types will inflate the prices of all types of housing. And just because a developer makes a profit does not make them 'evil'. They are a for profit business. More people in a neighborhood supports the businesses there and brings jobs to an area. Very shortsighted. 

It is hard for us to understand, but many of these advocates are actually Communists. I mean that literally. They do not believe in private ownership of housing. The local Communist Party meets at Peaslee Center and I am pretty sure there is a lot of overlap with the low income advocates that are also based there.

 

Read this for a little culture shock:

 

http://peasleecenter.org/programs/community-organizing/rubric/

 

EDIT: I could not find a link for the communists meetings at Peaslee but I know i saw it in the past.

Edited February 11, 20223 yr by 1400 Sycamore
Fact check on myself

lions, tigers and bears, oh my. socialists, commies, and lefties too. millionaires, billionaires and minimum wage is too high. what are we going to do? Red lines, blue lines and white lines too. no black lines, no brown lines or rainbow hues. no water, no food just more for you. 

who dey

 

Back to the point at hand, Freeport Row is pending a court date this coming week to allow construction to proceed.  A fully permitted $85m plus covid inflation project offering landmark economic development (Market sales, construction work, streetcar ridership, potential North of Liberty homeowners, discretionary income in the neighborhood, crime mitigation, affordable housing funding, historic redevelopment, etc., etc.) has to date been stopped by one guy's nimby lawsuit.

 

If this project is further delayed legally, it will be due time for common sense community members to take action.

 

 

"Back to the point at hand, Freeport Row is pending a court date this coming week to allow construction to proceed."

 

If you are referring to the scheduled oral argument, that is not a determinate event. After oral argument there may be more filings and certainly the court will take some time to issue a ruling. Then, whoever loses will file a notice of appeal and that will start a new round of delay.

Thanks. Regarding legal process:

If developer does prevail in pending oral argument, is there a practical end to Klingler appeals?  

And, considering that the developer met all city obligations to gain necessary permits, does the idea of a frivolous lawsuit come into play?

No, there is essentially no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit in actual practice. At least not when filed by an attorney. Boys will be boys. No, Klingler appears to be only after delay. So he will appeal and that puts it all on hold again. And, he has two separate suits going on. Double trouble. I've seen motions to dismiss undecided for more than a year after oral argument if a lazy judge has to write an opinion because the case is likely to be appealed and the Judge doesn't want to be embarrassed in the Court of Appeals.

 

The key problem is that the lender(s) will not close with the litigation not final.

Edited February 13, 20223 yr by 1400 Sycamore

So the end game is just to appeal and appeal on suspect lawsuits to delay and delay until the developers give up and then the empty lot remains an empty lot. And that is the prize? 

I can't speak to OTR ADOPT motives, but the result is that unless the project has enough "affordable housing" (a term which is nonsense because the person paying the rent is the CMHA on behalf of HUD not anyone who can or cannot "afford" the rent) it will draw the attack by affordable housing's  advocates.

 

I think that for developers, its kind of like a cost of doing business. You build a bunch of expensive units and throw in some subsidized units which will lose money forever to get approval from the powerful "affordable housing" lobby. Or, the whole thing is subsidized and you take the credits and the non-recourse financing and the grants, make a bundle on the build and move on before the building cash flow goes upside down.

 

Just my humble opinion.

Edited February 13, 20223 yr by 1400 Sycamore

Quote

I can't speak to OTR ADOPT motives, but the result is that unless the project has enough "affordable housing" (a term which is nonsense because the person paying the rent is the CMHA on behalf of HUD not anyone who can or cannot "afford" the rent) it will draw the attack by affordable housing's  advocates.

Are you referring to Section 8 or other housing voucher type subsidies?  There are many other programs where tenants do pay their own rent, LIHTC for example.

1 hour ago, The_Cincinnati_Kid said:

Are you referring to Section 8 or other housing voucher type subsidies?  There are many other programs where tenants do pay their own rent, LIHTC for example.

The LIHTC tax credits to developers do not help tenants pay the rent (which they cannot pay anyway). They just monetize the affordable housing units to developers which is what i was pointing out above.

 

Please know that most persons for whom OTRCH, Homeless coalition, OTR ADOPT etc., are advocating do not have any money to pay rent. No money. I had 8 units and could accept anyone. Tenants in 7 of the 8 units paid $25/mo, the minimum. CMHA pays the rest. And, the Section 8 subsidy for an OTR 1 bedroom was $638/mo Landlord pays gas and electric, water trash, repairs,management fees and everything else.

 

No one can make that work with renovation costs at $250 per foot. Hence, developers throw in some low income units and its a cost of getting your project approved.

 

If HUD paid "market rent" or even close to it for subsidized, low income tenants there would be an endless supply of housing and no controversy about development except for the NIMBYs. The real issue of "affordable housing" is the absence of adequate federal subsidy. $638/mo Landlord pays all expenses creates the problems rather than solves them. With inadequate financial support the housing falls into disrepair conditions worsen and tenants and neighbors suffer.

Edited February 13, 20223 yr by 1400 Sycamore

I don't specifically know the target clientele of the various OTR advocates, nor was I expounding on the economics of development.  I was simply pointing out there are programs out there (e.g. LIHTC) which keeps rents pegged to an affordability index (40%, 60%, 80% AMI).  While not providing directed rental assistance to the tenant, it does keep the rents lower for those who qualify. There is definitely a problem over the last several years with the rapid increase in market rents which HUD can't react to fast enough, not to mention the disparity in the rise in housing costs vs. rise in incomes.

The motives of Danny Klingler and OTR Adopt are not primarily about affordable housing. I know him and served on his board, before resigning with the liberty and elm fiasco being the final straw. The mission of OTRA was to save buildings that were being ruined by neglect and thus help save the neighborhood. His buildings did not ever turn into affordable housing to my knowledge. Somewhere along the way the business model got harder to work (he used to literally get people to donate buildings) and he became a significant landlord and property owner with a romantic vision of OTR being rooted in the 1800s. His main angle then became to oppose all new development that didn’t meet his personal definition of historical development. He was a main driver and architect of the new historical board standards. He just plain has never seen a new development that he likes. Basically he is aligning with and hiding behind affordable housing advocates to satisfy his personal romantic architectural vision. 

To make matters worse, the second of the two cases, the one that is set for oral argument on the 17th, is set before Anita Berding who is not a Judge, but a Magistrate. Under the local rules, after she renders her decision, in the form of a written order, either party may object to the Magistrate's decision within 10 days and then it has to be ruled on by the Judge. Since the Judge was not there for oral argument, often counsel will ask for a hearing on the objections which is then set out sometimes months in the future. All that before an order is entered which then can be appealed

 

Just saying.

Personally I don't know who I know on this board.  But I do think a lot of us share righteous indignation that this permitted gamechanging development, pivotal for North of Liberty economic development, is held up by one anti-Cincinnati malcontent. 

 

It would seem we're getting close to a point in which project advocates are necessary to jumpstart this project.  Maybe after more legal process, maybe using public PR or networking or city resources or something, some action beyond complaining on forums like I do seems appropriate.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

often counsel will ask for a hearing on the objections which is then set out sometimes months in the future.

Wow, can't wait.... this project may not break ground until 2024 at this rate. 

 

3 hours ago, lumpy said:

It would seem we're getting close to a point in which project advocates are necessary to jumpstart this project. 

 

I think this forum does a good job of informing those when opportunities to voice an opinion do arise; whether it's emailing the right people or attending the right meeting so that we aren't just "complaining on forums" but it appears to me that this development is beyond the public input phase and is stuck in court where we have little to know recourse. 

On 2/10/2022 at 11:50 AM, jmicha said:

She has a way of riling people up and gathering support. She doesn't necessarily have individual power over anything, but creating a voice of opposition is definitely something that can cause problems.

 

Before the original proposal for Liberty & Elm was approved years ago, she put out an all-call on Facebook, something like "if you oppose this project for any reason, show up at..."

 

So, if you don't think it has enough affordable housing ... if you think it has too much affordable housing ... if you think it's too tall ... if you think it's too short ... if you hate the architecture ... if you hate for-profit developers entirely ... show up and demand that City Council stop it!

 

Pure NIMBYism — no interest in finding a solution that allows the project to move forward in any way.

 

On 2/11/2022 at 8:48 AM, wjh2 said:

I don't quite understand how people cannot grasp that restricting ALL housing types will inflate the prices of all types of housing.

 

You are, of course, 100% correct but for some reason I think this is a really hard concept for the average NIMBY to grasp. They somehow think that adding more market-rate housing is the cause of housing prices rising. It just shows a completely lack of understanding of the basics of supply and demand.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

You are, of course, 100% correct but for some reason I think this is a really hard concept for the average NIMBY to grasp. They somehow think that adding more market-rate housing is the cause of housing prices rising. It just shows a completely lack of understanding of the basics of supply and demand.

Having discussed this with many people, I've come to the conclusion it essentially amounts to "well they're building luxury housing and prices still went up, so that must not be true" in regards to more housing easing pricing.

 

The issue is, this misses one incredibly critical piece of data. Is the amount of new housing being built enough to outpace the demand in that same timeframe? 

The problem is, they don't think about this. Because the answer to that question is a resounding "not even close." NYC added 600,000 people in the 2010s. In that same timeframe, a little under 200,000 units were built. The average occupancy within each of these units is somewhere between 1.5-2 people (data is hard to find specifically on just new units). Even at 2, that means 400,000 of the 600,000 had new housing supplied, whereas the remaining 200,000 were left to densify existing housing. 

 

The second those numbers don't align, prices go up. There are a million other factors that come into play as well, but the biggest is most definitely supply and demand.

 

My overall fear at this point, having worked on dozens of new construction projects around the country ranging from 10-500 units, is that the cost of development has now gotten so incredibly high, that there's no other option anymore other than building for top of the price point a market can bear. We've missed out on building in cheaper years and are now stuck trying to fix a multiple-decades long problem at a time building new housing has never been more expensive.

 

It's a crap show, but the solution definitely isn't to limit the developers who DO find a way to make high density large scale multi-family work.

Exactly, they are completely ignorant of the "demand" side of the equation. There have only been a few fast-growing American cities that have changed their policies to allow enough new housing to be built that they have seen prices stabilize or even slightly tick downward. I read about this happening in Seattle, although that was a few years ago (pre-pandemic), so it's possible that the increase in demand over the past 2-3 years has caused prices to tick upwards again.

As much as I don't think emulating Texas is good for anywhere urban, I do think the lack of zoning or much simpler regulations is something more places should try. You can see it there where housing is able to fill in gaps quickly to meet demand. Areas that are underutilized can quickly change from "strip malls and run down housing" to "mixed use medium to high density" in a matter of years organically. They have other serious issues to work with like rampant sprawl, but the fact pricing hasn't gotten outrageous in places like Houston that are growing several times faster than their peers is impressive and should serve as an example of some things that are working.

1 hour ago, jmicha said:

Having discussed this with many people, I've come to the conclusion it essentially amounts to "well they're building luxury housing and prices still went up, so that must not be true" in regards to more housing easing pricing.

 

The issue is, this misses one incredibly critical piece of data. Is the amount of new housing being built enough to outpace the demand in that same timeframe? 

The problem is, they don't think about this. Because the answer to that question is a resounding "not even close." NYC added 600,000 people in the 2010s. In that same timeframe, a little under 200,000 units were built. The average occupancy within each of these units is somewhere between 1.5-2 people (data is hard to find specifically on just new units). Even at 2, that means 400,000 of the 600,000 had new housing supplied, whereas the remaining 200,000 were left to densify existing housing. 

 

The second those numbers don't align, prices go up. There are a million other factors that come into play as well, but the biggest is most definitely supply and demand.

 

My overall fear at this point, having worked on dozens of new construction projects around the country ranging from 10-500 units, is that the cost of development has now gotten so incredibly high, that there's no other option anymore other than building for top of the price point a market can bear. We've missed out on building in cheaper years and are now stuck trying to fix a multiple-decades long problem at a time building new housing has never been more expensive.

 

It's a crap show, but the solution definitely isn't to limit the developers who DO find a way to make high density large scale multi-family work.

yeah, I saw an article recently where the average rent in Cincy had one of the top 20 biggest jumps in the nation, percentage-wise. We just aren't bringing on new units quickly enough to help stabilize / lower rents.

 

 

  6 hours ago, ucgrady said:

 

I think this forum does a good job of informing those when opportunities to voice an opinion do arise; whether it's emailing the right people or attending the right meeting so that we aren't just "complaining on forums" but it appears to me that this development is beyond the public input phase and is stuck in court where we have little to know recourse. 

 

I agree that this project seems to have little opportunity for public recourse at this point.  But bringing some additional sunlight, especially visual support from Market vendors and neighborhood development proponents, could possibly make the litigant and his lawyer think twice about further legal appeals.  

Edited February 14, 20223 yr by lumpy

As a business owner in OTR, this project can't break ground soon enough. We need the density it will provide and the neighborhood will benefit greatly from it. Three hundred+ people frequenting all the local businesses throughout the week would be a great help. I would love to speak out in support of this and other projects of this nature, is there someone specific to reach out to voice my opinion on the matter? 

12 hours ago, Happenstance said:

As a business owner in OTR, this project can't break ground soon enough. We need the density it will provide and the neighborhood will benefit greatly from it. Three hundred+ people frequenting all the local businesses throughout the week would be a great help. I would love to speak out in support of this and other projects of this nature, is there someone specific to reach out to voice my opinion on the matter? 

Historic Conservation Board, Planning Commission, and City Council are the primary public entities that typically review variances, abatements, incentives that are needed if a project isn't "permitted by right". So you can reach out to those bodies. In particular, I'd encourage you to reach out to Reggie Harris since he is chair of the "Equitable Development & Housing Committee." 

On 2/13/2022 at 10:19 PM, 1400 Sycamore said:

To make matters worse, the second of the two cases, the one that is set for oral argument on the 17th, is set before Anita Berding who is not a Judge, but a Magistrate. Under the local rules, after she renders her decision, in the form of a written order, either party may object to the Magistrate's decision within 10 days and then it has to be ruled on by the Judge. Since the Judge was not there for oral argument, often counsel will ask for a hearing on the objections which is then set out sometimes months in the future. All that before an order is entered which then can be appealed

 

Just saying.

Update: OTR ADOPT dismissed the second case, without prejudice (meaning it could be re-filed but probably not) and is continuing with the first case it filed and which had oral argument to the Magistrate on Thursday.

 

No idea what this means and it is neither good new nor bad news for the developer.

 

Just updating for the Forum.

Couple questions for the lawyers:

Describing two cases, is one vs the city and the other vs developer?

If Klingler dismissed a case, which one would that be?

And does that mean effectively that half this issue is resolved?

Or does it mean he is still suing developer and extending project delay?

 

The case that continues seeks to assert an appeal of the Zoning Board against the City.

Edited February 18, 20223 yr by 1400 Sycamore

Really exciting to see the last handful of vacant/deteriorating buildings along Main Street rehabbed. Maybe within a few years we'll see something happen with the Davis Furniture block...

5 hours ago, taestell said:

Really exciting to see the last handful of vacant/deteriorating buildings along Main Street rehabbed. Maybe within a few years we'll see something happen with the Davis Furniture block...

I’d love to see it integrated into some development with the parking lot to the south and north of the building. 

You gotta fight

For your right 

to de-mo

 

https://www.wvxu.org/politics/2022-02-24/church-rallies-for-city-support-of-bell-tower-demolition

The three sisters on Vine Street at Clifton are looking good

Klingler associated lawyer filed to appeal Historic Conservation Board approval of Findlay Market garage project.  Suder, representing OTR Foundation, has based appeal on 'nonconformity with conservation guidelines' and 'failure to consider the Logan St granite curb removal'.

Klingler lawsuit vs Elm/Liberty project apparently still causing construction delay.  This Lent I'll say a prayer for Cincinnati economic development.

 

A random citizen should not be able to appeal a decision by the historic conservation board.  

58 minutes ago, lumpy said:

Klingler associated lawyer filed to appeal Historic Conservation Board approval of Findlay Market garage project.  Suder, representing OTR Foundation, has based appeal on 'nonconformity with conservation guidelines' and 'failure to consider the Logan St granite curb removal'.

Klingler lawsuit vs Elm/Liberty project apparently still causing construction delay.  This Lent I'll say a prayer for Cincinnati economic development.

 

I get that they can try and go after private developers like at Liberty & Elm but this is a publicly funded garage being built by the county right? All this is going to do is slow down the project and cost taxpayers money, unless the county just tells them to keep working and ignore this case as frivolous.

Look inside the Alcove, MadTree Brewing's new OTR Oasis: PHOTOS

By Andy Brownfield  –  Senior staff reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati's second-largest craft brewery is expanding outside of its Oakley home with an urban oasis set to open in Over-the-Rhine on Tuesday.

 

MadTree's Alcove debuts on March 8 inside of the former Color Building at 1410 Vine St. in Over-the-Rhine, but flip through the photos above for a sneak peek inside.

 

While MadTree is best known for its brews – it is the second-largest craft brewery in the region, producing 25,000 barrels of beer in 2020, the most recent numbers provided to the Courier – the Alcove expands on that with house-made cocktails and a menu of farm-to-table offerings from Chef Stephen Williams, the owner of Bouquet in Covington and Spoon: Kitchen & Market inside of Riverhaus.

 

The space was designed by the Drawing Department, and Oswald Construction is serving as the general contractor. The buildings are owned by the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC).

 

MORE

I would have preferred a traditional beer hall like what was previously there in the buildings history.  But this use is certainly better then an empty building. 

I get upset every time I drive past the vacant lot that should be an under construction Liberty & Elm project.