Interesting. So this is a lot larger than those renderings depict. That's just one part of the project. There is also the row of renovated buildings along the east side of 14th happening now as Phase I, Phase II will be the building depicted in the renderings which is primarily office space but has some residential and retail as well, in addition to 4 large townhomes filling in the gaps on Clay Street where those ugly garages were recently torn down, and Phase III will be an as-of-yet unseen building filling in the huge gap behind Kroger.

 

If this all happens as plans this is a massive project.

What I find interesting is that the Wade's see enough demand to provide a huge amount of commercial space this far north in OTR, in a brand new building with structured parking, yet the owners of the Davis Furniture building on Main Street say renovation isn't economically viable. A new building like this one proposed at the Grammer's site is going to cost a lot more per square foot to build out.

^That's probably because the owners of the Davis Furniture building weren't actually ever interested in restoring it but rather tearing it down for parking.

I disagree with the idea that the scale is too big. Liberty isn't what it first was. It's super wide, and as such needs much larger buildings lining it in order to help undo the openness which its expansion created.

 

It's not 1860. We shouldn't pretend it is. We shouldn't think building like it's 1860 makes sense. This is a perfect example of romanticizing idea of what OTR is and what it actually is. It's 40% of a historic neighborhood and 60% open, ugly, underdeveloped space or vacant. There's no actual reason we should think that 60% should look like it did before it was torn down. Aiming for such will result in a really awful neighborhood filled with ugly row buildings that look like that crap that was just built on the 1400 block of Elm Street or the things built on Republic Street a few years back. Europe should tell us that the best way to celebrate the old is to compliment it with the new, not try to mimic the old and fail at doing so, insulting the old in the process.

 

The way we function as a society isn't the same as when OTR was first developed. Therefore we should update the way we use space accordingly.

 

Over-the-Rhine is the largest National Register Historic District in the country.  It's filled with a one-of-a-kind collection of architecture that is on par with Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans in terms of historical significance.  There is no other neighborhood like it in North America.  If this were just another warehouse district, I'd be saying "go nuts" and begging developers to make it interesting with the latest residential developments.  If this was being proposed in West End, Camp Washington, Northside, CUF, Avondale, Walnut Hills, etc. I'd be elated.  But Cincinnati is LUCKY to have an intact 19th Century neighborhood that can be leveraged as a tourist destination.  Fill it in with a bunch of stuff that's out of scale and you can kiss that designation goodbye.  It instantly goes from a world-class asset to another one of those nice neighborhoods that every city has.

Except it's not out of scale. It's only out of scale if you think OTR is just a bunch of row buildings, which it is not.

 

Being the largest historic district doesn't negate the fact that 60% of it is gone forever. I'm an architect. I love historic architecture. But nothing irks me more than thinking being next to something old means you need to mimic it in any fashion. You can elude to the historic fabric, graining, etc. while still being of a modern design. And as stated earlier, Liberty is in desperate need of larger buildings. The building-to-building width is too large for your typical 3-4 story OTR building to work properly. 5-8 stories is more appropriate for those sites, which is far from out of the ordinary. There are plenty of buildings of that scale scattered about and several in the direct vicinity. As long as the design is handled properly I don'g get why people insist on thinking historic district = need for faux old, mimicking the past, bowing down to the old, etc. I've never seen a compelling reason as to how changing how we build "ruins" or would cause us to "kiss goodbye" to the historic draw of a place. I think the vast majority of the world that sees history-based tourism would disagree.

 

As I've stated earlier and in other threads, look to European cities where 21st century architecture sits alongside 16th century architecture and they compliment each other because people aren't trying to force the architectural ethics of a bygone era down the throat of those designing and building new. It works there and would definitely work here. But we're not given that opportunity because of the historic review board.

I'm not at all advocating faux history. The proper way to infill historic districts is with contemporary styling matching historic scale. Those houses you posted the other day by Johnson Schmaling are jarringly different from their suburban neighborhoods, but they work beautifully because they don't tower over the houses next door.

 

My problem with this project specifically is three things:

1) the roof is flat. Buildings in OTR need to have pitched roofs or at the very least staggered roof heights.

2) vertical elements that are too narrow. The Rookwood wall and that stupid yellow bar (which I can only assume is an elevator shaft) are horrible. Context calls for facades to be broken up by vertical lines no less than 30 feet, preferably 50 feet.

3) that stupid section of new construction looming over the old Grammers buildings. That area needs to be a void in any design.

 

I know we're all thirsty for development in Over-the-Rhine, but if we're not careful in maintaining the historic integrity of the neighborhood we'll lose it forever.

I disagree with the idea that the scale is too big. Liberty isn't what it first was. It's super wide, and as such needs much larger buildings lining it in order to help undo the openness which its expansion created.

 

It's not 1860. We shouldn't pretend it is. We shouldn't think building like it's 1860 makes sense. This is a perfect example of romanticizing idea of what OTR is and what it actually is. It's 40% of a historic neighborhood and 60% open, ugly, underdeveloped space or vacant. There's no actual reason we should think that 60% should look like it did before it was torn down. Aiming for such will result in a really awful neighborhood filled with ugly row buildings that look like that crap that was just built on the 1400 block of Elm Street or the things built on Republic Street a few years back. Europe should tell us that the best way to celebrate the old is to compliment it with the new, not try to mimic the old and fail at doing so, insulting the old in the process.

 

The way we function as a society isn't the same as when OTR was first developed. Therefore we should update the way we use space accordingly.

 

Over-the-Rhine is the largest National Register Historic District in the country.  It's filled with a one-of-a-kind collection of architecture that is on par with Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans in terms of historical significance.  There is no other neighborhood like it in North America.  If this were just another warehouse district, I'd be saying "go nuts" and begging developers to make it interesting with the latest residential developments.  If this was being proposed in West End, Camp Washington, Northside, CUF, Avondale, Walnut Hills, etc. I'd be elated.  But Cincinnati is LUCKY to have an intact 19th Century neighborhood that can be leveraged as a tourist destination.  Fill it in with a bunch of stuff that's out of scale and you can kiss that designation goodbye.  It instantly goes from a world-class asset to another one of those nice neighborhoods that every city has.

 

Charleston has many new construction buildings, some look excellent, some look decent.  This proposal looks decent.  Regarding some of the massing, this is a first revision that is obviously going to be the most extreme/out of the box.  HCB will likely push for some tweaks regarding vertical elements, etc.  That almost always happens.

Except it's not out of scale. It's only out of scale if you think OTR is just a bunch of row buildings, which it is not.

 

Being the largest historic district doesn't negate the fact that 60% of it is gone forever. I'm an architect. I love historic architecture. But nothing irks me more than thinking being next to something old means you need to mimic it in any fashion. You can elude to the historic fabric, graining, etc. while still being of a modern design. And as stated earlier, Liberty is in desperate need of larger buildings. The building-to-building width is too large for your typical 3-4 story OTR building to work properly. 5-8 stories is more appropriate for those sites, which is far from out of the ordinary. There are plenty of buildings of that scale scattered about and several in the direct vicinity. As long as the design is handled properly I don'g get why people insist on thinking historic district = need for faux old, mimicking the past, bowing down to the old, etc. I've never seen a compelling reason as to how changing how we build "ruins" or would cause us to "kiss goodbye" to the historic draw of a place. I think the vast majority of the world that sees history-based tourism would disagree.

 

As I've stated earlier and in other threads, look to European cities where 21st century architecture sits alongside 16th century architecture and they compliment each other because people aren't trying to force the architectural ethics of a bygone era down the throat of those designing and building new. It works there and would definitely work here. But we're not given that opportunity because of the historic review board.

 

It works in Europe because they demand top-notch new buildings with premium materials in historic areas.  Here 99% of new buildings are total crap.  Compare the Guggenheim Bilbao to UC's Vontz Center.  Built the same year by the same architect.  The poorer country threw big money at their building, we slapped shopping mall brick panels on the Vontz Center. 

But that's beside the point that new can work well with old while veering away from the old in major ways.

The building is 5 stories tall.  There are a number of historic 5 story tall buildings in OTR, and I think we should have MORE 5 story buildings in OTR. I would be upset if this building was any smaller.

I don't understand how it's permitted to construct with EIFS foam and metal panels that in no way have a reflection on the character of the community. I get that the new architecture shouldn't be copies of the old, however there is a significant lack of quality in new construction that is the real issue. We need to have laws set in place that require new construction to retain certain characteristics that are what define that neighborhoods architectural character. Some of these feature that I would like to see as required are as follows.

 

- Buildings should be built within the bounds of existing property plot lines.

- New construction must maintain the appearance of a street wall, regardless if its a parking lot or a private home.

- Walkability should take precedence over parking and driving. Parking is a problem in OTR because people want to get out of their cars and walk around. Walkability is important.

- Buildings should have a cornice, or some sort of cornice, be it modern or traditional.

 

This is just off the head but I could probably think of more.

^And that's precisely how you end up with garbage architecture like the new row home on Elm.

 

Those laws would be immensely intrusive. And some would even go against the historic architecture.

 

Not all buildings built in the past are on one plot. Many are on two or more plots that were combined in order to allow for larger buildings.

 

Not all buildings in the past were built with quality materials. Some were built with essentially zero ornamentation and with low quality brick that needed to be painted in order to not look bad.

 

The character of historic architecture isn't destroyed or hurt if something different is built nearby.

 

That being said, the current incorporation of the historic facades is another story. It looks questionable and very TUC-esque where it feels like the old is a 2-dimensional plane and not a 3-dimensional mass.

Where does it say anything about EIFS?

I was thinking about something the other day when at the Main Street Thanksgiving thing. I'm friends with someone who is good friends with the guys opening the Macaron Bar on Main and spent the night in their store. They mentioned they were excited about being on those maps that 3CDC puts together showing where everything is.

 

I'm wondering, does anyone have the files used to create those? I'd love to see a progression from when the first ones were put out to now to see everything that has been added/changed. I remember the first ones being pretty sparse. They're currently quite dense with information and I'd love to have them as a series.

I noticed the exact same maps in Midtown Harrisburg a few months ago, so I'm pretty sure they are made by a third party.

Hmmm, maybe I'll contact 3CDC and see what they say. It would be awesome to have a side-by-side comparison online on, say, the Enquirer's website so people could actually see firsthand the amount of businesses that have opened up in such a short time.

Two tiny homes, 200 SF, are going to be built in OTR. I'm going to guess it will be north of liberty.

 

They will cost $89K. A normal size home can be bought for that much in the inner burgs. I don't get it.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/11/30/haile-fellows/19721863/

 

CINCINNATI (December 1, 2014) – The Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) today announces the departure of one of its long-time senior staff members, Executive Vice President of Asset and Capital Management, Chad Munitz.

 

 

 

Serving as the City of Cincinnati’s Economic Development Director at the time of 3CDC’s inception, Munitz soon joined the group in August 2006 as Vice President of Development. Working with 3CDC President and CEO, Stephen G. Leeper, and a handful of other key staffers, he spent the next eight-and-a-half years helping to invest in, build, and manage some of the center city’s greatest assets. Munitz was instrumental in the financing and redevelopment of Fountain Square, Washington Park, the 21c Museum Hotel, the Boca/Sotto/Igby’s complex, dunnhumby Centre, and numerous condominiums, apartments, and commercial space in between.

 

 

 

“There is a little bit of sadness in my heart to leave such a great organization,” said Munitz, “But I’m proud of what we’ve been able to do in terms of ‘placemaking’ in Cincinnati, and I’m ready for the next challenge in my life.” He stresses that 3CDC’s work is by no means done, but that he leaves a strong team in place to carry forward the organization’s mission.

 

 

 

Munitz’s earlier years at 3CDC were filled with structuring real estate deals and financing packages, along with assembling the right construction teams to serve each unique project. His last few years were spent managing 3CDC’s growing portfolio of buildings, condominiums, apartments and garages, including leading the teams focused on programming and event sponsorships at Fountain Square and Washington Park.

 

 

 

“Chad has played a major role in every facet of this business,” said Leeper, “But I know his heart is in the real estate development aspect of what we do and he is looking forward to getting back to that. We are very sad to see him go.”

 

 

 

Prior to his work at the City, Munitz served as the assistant deputy director and the Governor’s regional economic development representative at the Ohio Department of Development in Columbus. In that role, he facilitated private sector expansion, retention and relocation projects within Ohio.

 

 

 

Munitz is a graduate of The Ohio State University and a native of New Philadelphia, Ohio.

The sites are up on the hill north of McMicken.

 

The idea is a good one. The implementation, however, is...questionable. 89k is a lot of money for 200 square feet. Even if you're not looking to leave the neighborhood, 89k (or slightly more, in the 100k region) can get you a studio that's more than twice the size and just as nice or nicer. Or if you really NEEDED your own single-family home and yard you could buy one of the many that are available in the immediate vicinity that aren't in need of tons of work, are similar in price, and are many times the size.

 

I get not wanting a lot of space. I live in 490 square feet with my dog and have absolutely no qualms with it. Based on how I have everything set up you could cut that down to about 420 square feet and it would still function exactly the same. Full, big kitchen with full-size appliances and way more cabinet space than I need. A full bathroom with a big vanity. Enough room for a full bed, 4-person dining table, couch, two side chairs, an entertainment center, entryway chair/mirror/table area, etc.. And it never feels cramped at all.

 

Once you start dropping to dorm-style appliances, wet bathrooms, furniture that needs to be able to double-function, etc. you lose me. I know that just means I'm not the target audience, but when the price is basically the same for one of these as it is for a full-size place I'm not sure who they're going to attract.

 

They need to get construction costs down to 150/sq. ft. $30,000 construction budget plus the lot cost (let's just say 5k since these are vacant lots in a less-than-ideal spot) and you're at 35k cost. Sell it for 50k, make a small profit, combine it with the profit from the other one, build your next two, etc. etc. It's a challenge to get construction costs that low, but it would be way more conducive to the goal of tiny living.

Two tiny homes, 200 SF, are going to be built in OTR. I'm going to guess it will be north of liberty.

 

They will cost $89K. A normal size home can be bought for that much in the inner burgs. I don't get it.

 

 

You can buy a 1500 sq foot home in CUF with a usable basement and a small yard for $89,000.  Hell, there's an old tiny house for sale on Victor or Stratford right now for $49,000. 

 

A house on Mulberry for sale at $25k. 588 square feet. Needs probably $30k to make livable, but it has the same function. You could save $25k and have a historic home with a view of downtown (if you extend the back deck to the rear of the property line).

Two tiny homes, 200 SF, are going to be built in OTR. I'm going to guess it will be north of liberty.

 

They will cost $89K. A normal size home can be bought for that much in the inner burgs. I don't get it.

 

 

You can buy a 1500 sq foot home in CUF with a usable basement and a small yard for $89,000.  Hell, there's an old tiny house for sale on Victor or Stratford right now for $49,000. 

 

 

 

My memory failed me...it's on Rohs:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3000655426-2347-Rohs-St-Cincinnati-OH-45219

 

 

 

 

200 square feet is very tiny, and akin to the small homes people build on trailers. I wonder if that's what these homes will be. One of the problems with tiny homes is code compliance. There are minimum sizes dictated for things like bathrooms and bedrooms by the International Residential Code, and building a mobile home on a trailer is how people skirt those regulations.

 

The $89,000 seems expensive, even if land is included. That is $445 per square foot – over 4 times what new home construction costs on average in Cincinnati.  Maybe it’s a $60,000 plot of land?

 

For a personal anecdote, I’ve always wanted to construct a small two bedroom home in the urban basin somewhere, but by small I’d want around 1000 square feet on two stories. 500 would be reasonable for one person, and similar to a smaller studio apartment.

 

I think 400 SF is pushing the lower bounds of an actual complete living space. 200 SF is a fad. And at $400 a square foot, it's offensive.

^Exactly. Once you drop below about 400 square feet you start sacrificing one or more of the essential 5 spaces people look for in a place. Those are a bathroom, a kitchen, a living space, an eating space, and a sleeping space. You can normally get away with combining eating and living in some manner and people are still happy. The moment you have to combine any of the others you start to lose people. And for good reason. If every action of your day requires you to modify your living space in some manner you'll get tired of that process. It works fine short-term but not long-term.

 

I was wondering about the building code as well. It definitely doesn't allow for 200 square foot permanent residences. And that's his plan. He mentioned a permanent foundation. And those floor plans do not appear to be trailer or mobile based.

 

Maybe he'll find luck in his process, maybe not. But this isn't filling the necessary gap of affordable housing that lures people into the tiny-house trend.

Also I only think the whole Tiny house thing would work in really really hyper inflated markets like San Francisco, perhaps as "back houses" ala a coach house or a granny apartment.

Also I only think the whole Tiny house thing would work in really really hyper inflated markets like San Francisco, perhaps as "back houses" ala a coach house or a granny apartment.

 

Yeah for the price of a down payment on a 2-family home in Cincinnati, where your tenant would pay almost all of the mortgage, you get a structure on a trailer that will depreciate just like a camper.  So in 30 years you could either have the memory of your tiny house or you could have full ownership of a 2-family home generating thousands per month in income.  You would have enjoyed the mortgage write-off and depreciation on the 2-family house the entire time, too. 

 

 

^Exactly. Once you drop below about 400 square feet you start sacrificing one or more of the essential 5 spaces people look for in a place. Those are a bathroom, a kitchen, a living space, an eating space, and a sleeping space. You can normally get away with combining eating and living in some manner and people are still happy. The moment you have to combine any of the others you start to lose people. And for good reason. If every action of your day requires you to modify your living space in some manner you'll get tired of that process. It works fine short-term but not long-term.

 

I was wondering about the building code as well. It definitely doesn't allow for 200 square foot permanent residences. And that's his plan. He mentioned a permanent foundation. And those floor plans do not appear to be trailer or mobile based.

 

Maybe he'll find luck in his process, maybe not. But this isn't filling the necessary gap of affordable housing that lures people into the tiny-house trend.

 

Yeah it seems like you would have to plan your every possession and action like you were on a backpacking trip in the deep woods.  The slightest bit of disorganization and you would be drowning in your own mess.  Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

Edit: well I couldn't do it at least, but after reading about it over on UrbanCincy, it seems like a neat project and should be interesting to follow.

I still don't get it, but I think a few more details are needed. It's part of two Haile Fellowships, which will provide the recipients with $100,000 each, to allow them the time to work on their projects.

 

"What: Cooper’s proposal sits at the intersection of his two passions: architecture as a product and community engagement through architecture and design. He’s calling the project Start Small and plans to build two, 200 sq.ft. zero-net-waste tiny houses. Brad will engage neighborhood residents from the outset, allowing him to understand basic needs and requirements of tiny living for Cincinnati residents before beginning construction, thereby making finished homes more appealing to potential owners. When finished, Cooper’s homes will stand on concrete foundations and be fueled by solar panels, making them self-sustaining and long-term investments in the community."

 

http://www.peoplesliberty.org/blog2?category=Bradley%20Cooper

 

As someone mention, will the city even approve the permit(s) needed?

Who will own these houses? 

Who will own these houses?

 

 

The small but growing hobbit population of greater Cincinnati.  63 hobbits who were descendants of Samwise Gamgee and Meriadoc Brandybuck originally moved to the area from the Shire in the late 1940's to work at the P&G Soap Factory in Ivorydale.

Who will own these houses?

 

The people who buy them will, I thought.

The tiny houses could be designed in a way to allow easy addition/expansion.  All the mechanicals and kitchen very small and obvious places for living room, porch or 3-season room additions, which could be done later by the owner with his own labor.

Cincinnati already has tiny houses. buy those.

Cincinnati already has tiny houses. buy those.

 

but these two are even smaller and more expensive

3CDC moves into new office building

 

Old warehouse takes on new life with multiple tenants

 

 

 

CINCINNATI (December 4, 2014) – The Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) officially vacates its 7,500-SF space at Saengerhalle on Race Street this Friday, December 5, and reopens in the renovated Pabst Bedding Warehouse building at 12th and Walnut Streets on Monday, December 8.

 

 

 

Saengerhalle was developed through a partnership between 3CDC and Northpointe Group and completed in 2010, when both groups relocated their offices to the building. Since that time, 3CDC has steadily grown, as has demand for office space within OTR. That combination presented 3CDC with a unique opportunity to backfill its current space with a new tenant and develop a vacant property on Walnut Street at a critical corner between the commercial districts on Vine and Main Streets.

 

 

 

Other tenants at 12th & Walnut include a new restaurant called Lachey’s, KMK Law, and AGAR, all on the first floor, and Market 6 on the second floor. 3CDC is the first tenant to occupy the building, with over 12,000 SF across the third and fourth floors and an official address of 1203 Walnut Street, 4th Floor.

 

 

 

SpiceFire, currently operating at 30 Garfield Place in downtown, will occupy 3CDC’s vacated space at Saengerhalle in January, joining tenants Northpointe Group, Bayer & Becker, 4EG, Necco, Munoz Agency, Kurt Platte, JYS Productions, and Zula Restaurant & Wine Bar.

Their new building at 12th and Walnut has had its lights on at night. It came out really nice. The exterior looks good and the bright, white interior really stands out when it's dark out. It adds a lot of life to a corner that only a couple years ago was basically dead.

 

I'm also happy to hear their old space is being filled immediately.

 

Is the Pabst Bedding building fully leased then? That's impressive and should hopefully speed up the other office developments happening around the neighborhood by 3CDC and others.

I was surprised to learn that other tenants have already signed on for the 12th & Walnut Building, especially KMK Law. This seems to be a good sign that office demand is high in OTR, and maybe Mercer Commons Phase 3 will be accelerated because of it.

^^taestell[/member], include a link to the original article: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/04/3cdc-moves-to-new-office-announces-neighbors.html

I just hope 3CDC is able to clean up the 13th and Walnut area quickly.  That intersection is one of the biggest open area drug markets in OTR at the moment.  These new tenants and their clients could certainly run into some dangerous situations if they aren't careful.

^The purchase of the one building recently should help with that.

 

I really want to see the lot north of their new headquarters in addition to the Coffee Emporium...thing...redeveloped into high density, mixed-use development. Connecting Walnut from 12th up to 14th would help really tie together Main and Vine.

^^taestell[/member], include a link to the original article: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/12/04/3cdc-moves-to-new-office-announces-neighbors.html

 

I copied and pasted 3CDC's press release.

 

^The purchase of the one building recently should help with that.

 

I really want to see the lot north of their new headquarters in addition to the Coffee Emporium...thing...redeveloped into high density, mixed-use development. Connecting Walnut from 12th up to 14th would help really tie together Main and Vine.

 

Coffee Emporium allegedly has a plan for that building that involves a tasting room or special events space or something along those lines. It would just be nice to see it used.

 

As businesses start to open up in Mercer Commons along Walnut, the area is going to quickly clean up from 12th to 14th.

It'll be good to see it used in the meantime but it's an awful little building with a massive parking lot. That corner could be a pretty important gateway into the burgeoning Walnut Street business district.

I actually think that corner building should stay, it is a neat little building.  You can definitely fix it up and build around it.  It has a nice presence and if the area around it wasn't a parking lots it would be a lot better.  Just my opinion!

It could be another U square!

Lol.  Maybe someone who was smart could expand on to the building to make it all two floors and stretch out over the parking lots like this image from Chicago.  Though I don't know if that would be feasible and if the building would have the strength to do it.

 

Edit:  Image didn't work but here is the link:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=city+corner+buildings+chicago&biw=1600&bih=854&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=BcmAVJW4C7CcigK03IDwBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=city+corner+building&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=YL8dxTer8ey6PM%253A%3B5SXIAsHS-DIVxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chibarproject.com%252FReviews%252FBigCityTap%252FBigCityTapCornerSP.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chibarproject.com%252FReviews%252FBigCityTap%252FBigCityTap.htm%3B640%3B480

It's just way too short. And lacking detail. Or a style. Or anything of significance whatsoever. It's not scaled properly for that intersection nor would an addition to it be.

 

We have so few full intersections these days thanks to demolition. Corners are some of the most important spots in any urban environment. They need to be fully built out. A two story building on a major corner along the streetcar, and a bad building at that, is a really good way of not meeting the potential of the intersection.

Yeah you guys are way smarter at this than me!

 

What would a nice new building look like for that corner?  I know it would have to be smaller horizontally, but vertically and the way it faces the corner, something similar to this?

 

http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013-09-19_OCB_Congress-02.jpg

I like this intersection a lot because it's unique to OTR. Each corner offers something different. One has a warehouse, one houses the best example of German architecture in the area, and one houses some examples of Italianate buildings more common throughout OTR. The last corner should be a showcase of modernity at a scale and massing that references the buildings around it. With the Pabst building and Art Academy building nearby industrial influences would work really well I think.

 

Something like 250 Bowery (although not as ridiculously high end since we aren't rolling around with Russian billionaires, oil sheiks, etc. here).

 

https://www.manhattanscout.com/building/250-bowery

 

Though with a more inviting ground level than 250 Bowery.

 

Large windows that reference the industrial nature of its neighbors. A proper scale for the area. Modern. Clean. Provides a nice backdrop to help the Germania building stand out even more. Etc. etc. etc.

 

 

^^I like that, fine. I don't know if it's just because it's at a certain angle and it's really bright, but it would be best if the first floor windows weren't essentially mirrors. It's nice to look into businesses. And perhaps something that interacts with the street a little more with storefronts and whatnot. Though I'd be fine with that, personally. A lot better than the new building at the corner of Walnut and Mercer.

 

^I think that building's pretty cool. The first floor (just like the other) could interact with the street a little more, but I like that. It would work really well across the street from the Lachey's Bar and 3CDC building.

 

I think 5 stories would be a good height at this location, too. All the other buildings at this intersection are 4 or 5 stories.