According to the Auditor's site it's owned by Nast Trinity United Methodist Church. Is that the neighboring church?

 

I can picture someone very wealthy converting that into their single family home.

 

Or maybe I'm fantasizing about what I'd do with it if I lived a different life.

 

According to the Auditor's site it's owned by Nast Trinity United Methodist Church. Is that the neighboring church?

 

I can picture someone very wealthy converting that into their single family home.

 

Or maybe I'm fantasizing about what I'd do with it if I lived a different life.

 

Yes, Nast Trinity is the church immediately south.

According to the Auditor's site it's owned by Nast Trinity United Methodist Church. Is that the neighboring church?

 

I can picture someone very wealthy converting that into their single family home.

 

Or maybe I'm fantasizing about what I'd do with it if I lived a different life.

 

That'd be cool, but I'd like to see as much density as possible in OTR.  I've lived in Mt. Adams for about two years now, and after extensively walking around, I've come to the conclusion that the neighborhood is much more structurally dense than the population reflects.  There are very few vacant lots in Mt. Adams, and almost all of the structures are occupied, yet the street life and other 'symptoms' of density are both pretty lackluster.  I attribute this to a lot of structures that were formerly multi-family being renovated and converted to single family homes over the years.  While a lot of these renovations have led to some pretty spectacular residences, it has created an area that is largely unable to support itself.  OTR is obviously a much larger neighborhood and it doesn't have the same geographic restrictions as Mt. Adams, but I still think it's important to press for density.  It's great to have a mix of housing styles, but it seems like OTR has had a surge in single family housing, which I hope doesn't become a trend that eclipses the apartments and condos that fueled OTR's early renaissance.

I think that is why I think there needs to be taller structures around Central Parkway and Liberty Street, to hem it in.  Then that would keep the foot traffic up in the southern area, and rich people can fill it up with single family homes and I don't think it would make the area devoid of street life at all.

 

I think some of the issues with Mt. Adams is that it is no longer the big destination spot it was, even 2 years ago when I first moved.  So much is opening and has opened in OTR since then that it is driving everyone downtown.  You have to include The Banks in that as well.  I personally like Mt. Adams and especially Bar and Grill. 

 

Once the 1800 or so new employees arrive in Cincinnati for GE, the demand will keep driving up and with the Streetcar running, I think we are going to see some bigger projects come through the pipeline.  Especially those large surface lots straddling Walnut on the south side of Central Parkway. 

The single thing that would benefit Mt. Adams the most would be a direct transit link with downtown.  Thinking gondola or incline...

 

but we're off topic.

The single thing that would benefit Mt. Adams the most would be a direct transit link with downtown.  Thinking gondola or incline...

 

but we're off topic.

 

The bar crowds up there totally suck.  It's mindless. 

Someone proposed a 4 story height maximum for OTR earlier, which I think might be the worst idea for the neighborhood besides bulldozing it (points: over the top dramatic statement of the day).  At Liberty, there would be nothing wrong with 5 or maybe 6 (if the 6th floor was set back from the 5th) story buildings.  In fact, I really wish the One Mercer building had been 5 stories (there is a 5 story historic building across from it). We should be trying to squeeze more residences in every where we can, not capping things at 4 stories. 

 

10 years from now, when All of south of liberty is built out and half of North of Liberty is built out, people will be pissed that developers in the mid 2010's didn't add an extra floor here or there on new construction in fill.  Because demand will still be high, and prices will keep skyrocketing as developable properties become less and less.

 

The one savior in all this is that huge swaths of the CBD are still parking lots, and ideally a number of taller structures will go in there. 

 

I've heard one of the vacant lots near City Hall might get developed in the next year or so.  Wondering what height they would go for.  I'm gonna put money on 5-6 stories (cautious developers), despite the fact an 8-10 story building could easily fit in (think The Waldo).

I posted last weekend my idea for a 12th and Vine Plaza in the General OTR thread.  I wanted to develop this idea but since most of the land involves 3CDC I'll post it here this time.  Here's my new ideas for the area: 

 

 

A few notes:

 

1. The new building fronting the plaza comes out farther towards Vine St. than in my previous sketch.  The building frontage facing the plaza would be a chance to design an eye capturing facade and would have to be something special to keep up with the buildings across Vine St.

 

2. Added outdoor dining for Senate if they want it & punch a hole in the wall for a door.

 

3. New Residential mixed use building behind plaza on Jackson St.

 

3. Didn't quite know how to handle the interior of that block north of the plaza, but assumed they need to keep vehicle access for deliveries and moving vans and stuff. 

 

4. New residential mixed use building in the parking lot next to Trideca. 

 

4. Multi story Garage added over on Walnut St. with an office wrap. This garage would be for the new developments pictured within a few blocks to use. I think OTR-ers with a personal vehicle should be OK with the idea storing it a block or two away (instead of immediately adjacent to your house,) and eventually OK with it being a streetcar stop or two away.

 

5. Block long pedestrian ally behind the garage, with new developments at 13th and Jackson and 12th and Jackson.

 

6. New Residential mixed use building in the Bakersfield/1215 Wine Bar parking lot. Maintained a pedestrian ally that could cut through to Republic someday or that could be used during events.

 

I like the revised version of the square mixed use building. Too bad Graeter's already put in an OTR store. That'd be a great spot for a mini-Ghirardelli Square type development.

Rather than limiting height, the focus should be limiting footprint size. No more superblocks should be allowed, we need more 1-6 unit single plot wide buildings.

Rather than limiting height, the focus should be limiting footprint size. No more superblocks should be allowed, we need more 1-6 unit single plot wide buildings.

 

This 100%!  The charm and integrity of Over-the-Rhine is in its varying building heights and architectural styles with the constant being verticality.

 

According to the Auditor's site it's owned by Nast Trinity United Methodist Church. Is that the neighboring church?

 

I can picture someone very wealthy converting that into their single family home.

 

Or maybe I'm fantasizing about what I'd do with it if I lived a different life.

 

That'd be cool, but I'd like to see as much density as possible in OTR.  I've lived in Mt. Adams for about two years now, and after extensively walking around, I've come to the conclusion that the neighborhood is much more structurally dense than the population reflects.  There are very few vacant lots in Mt. Adams, and almost all of the structures are occupied, yet the street life and other 'symptoms' of density are both pretty lackluster.  I attribute this to a lot of structures that were formerly multi-family being renovated and converted to single family homes over the years.  While a lot of these renovations have led to some pretty spectacular residences, it has created an area that is largely unable to support itself.  OTR is obviously a much larger neighborhood and it doesn't have the same geographic restrictions as Mt. Adams, but I still think it's important to press for density.  It's great to have a mix of housing styles, but it seems like OTR has had a surge in single family housing, which I hope doesn't become a trend that eclipses the apartments and condos that fueled OTR's early renaissance.

 

I think about Mt. Adams this way: It's very isolated. In a normally functioning city, that's a liability because cities are about maximizing exchange while minimizing travel. In the very abnormal 1970s-2000s, this isolation from the rest of the city was an asset, so it gentrified. Now that cities everywhere are starting to behave normally again, this isolation is once again a liability.

^-I kind of felt the same way about Mt Adams - it was an island in the sky so that helped with gentrification.

 

Same deal with Dearborn Park in Chicago: http://www.sloopin.com/2011/08/did-dearborn-park-have-to-be-walled-off.html  (I hate that area btw, no matter what transit mode you use its a pain to get around or to).

 

 

Getting back to Cincy the best thing for Mt Adams IMO is to improve Walnut Hills - its close enough to Walnut Hills that it should serve as a primary business district for the neighborhood its about a 30 min walk, though with bus or a bike its about 10 mins which isn't too bad.  Hopefully the WHRF won't keep diminishing this district's importance through replacement buildings that are too small and too many pocket parks in lieu of what were once very dense mixed use buildings.

Not sure if this is the best thread for this or not... but:

 

EXCLUSIVE: Model Group expanding redevelopment project near Findlay Market

Jan 28, 2015

Tom Demeropolis

The Model Group is expanding the size of its redevelopment project next to Findlay Market with an additional $5 million in investment.

Bobby Maly, chief operating officer of Model Group, said the first phase of the project could be a $19 million deal now as opposed to the $14 million project that was announced in September 2014. The reason? Model Group has been able to secure a number of additional properties along Race Street that will become part of the project.

The Model Group acquired 101 W. Elder St., a 5,000-square-foot retail and apartment building, at the beginning of the year for $221,925. It also bought 1812 Race St., a 2,400-square-foot apartment building, for $96,108.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/01/28/exclusive-model-group-expanding-redevelopment.html?page=all

 

 

And Model Group is buying these additional buildings from Alfred Berger, a man that was being decried in another thread.

 

In addition to those acquisitions, Model Group expects to close this week on the purchase of 1818 Race St., a 28,000-square-foot apartment building with first-floor retail space, from real estate investor Alfred Berger. Model Group will buy two more properties owned by Berger, 1808 and 1810 Race St., in a couple of months.

Very excited to see this block of Race get so much attention. Will be a very different space in a few years. 1818 Race is actually 4, 20-foot wide parcels (1818, 1820, 1822, and 1824). Big, huge, beautiful building. Can't wait to see what it looks like post-renovation, hopefully restoring the storefronts and windows to their original sizes.

 

I included a map of all the parcels that Model Group is working on along Race. Findlay Playground will be the backyard for many of these buildings, which hopefully means they would be willing to contribute towards a renovation of Findlay Playground.

The apartments that Core (Indy) is going to do at the old Windsor school will help continue to stitch "Eden Park", the fake neighborhood that some Walnut Hills residents use as a name) and the McMillan business district.  Right now that Windsor school is on the northern most border of redeveloped area where people might refer to themselves as living in "Eden park".  By pushing development upwards from there, it can stitch the area together.

 

So about OTR & 3CDC...

 

They have opened back up the storefront on Elm at 1408 Elm.  That building is moving fast!

 

I believe it's going to be a storefront with 8 residential units.

 

The apartments that Core (Indy) is going to do at the old Windsor school will help continue to stitch "Eden Park", the fake neighborhood that some Walnut Hills residents use as a name) and the McMillan business district.  Right now that Windsor school is on the northern most border of redeveloped area where people might refer to themselves as living in "Eden park".  By pushing development upwards from there, it can stitch the area together.

 

Is the Windsor school project still happening? It was announced a while ago, and I know they won historic tax credits recently, but I have not seen any action at the site.  I sometimes use the 'Eden Park' neighborhood name, despite actually living in Mt. Adams.  I think it more closely conveys where I live than 'Mt. Adams', which most people associate with the St. Gregory/Pavilion area.  Walnut Hills is a much larger neighborhood, so I understand why people would say Eden Park, if they actually live near the park. It just narrows down the description to almost a sub-neighborhood level.

 

So about OTR & 3CDC...

 

They have opened back up the storefront on Elm at 1408 Elm.  That building is moving fast!

 

I believe it's going to be a storefront with 8 residential units.

 

 

Wonderful to hear! More visible development right along the streetcar line.  Do you know if they'll be apartments or condos?

There was more discussion on another page about placing 4 story height maximums in OTR, including opposing 5 story buildings on Liberty.

 

To end that discussion once and for all:

 

 

Thank you.

The site that will become Grammer's Place Phase One:

 

 

 

 

 

I agree 4 story limitations is stupid. Cincinnati got to stop thinking so small

It's not thinking small, it's thinking big.  It's about motivating a faster turnaround for a larger number of neighborhoods.  This city has a huge number of buildings in need of rehabilitation.  Permitting mid-rises on vacant lots discourages the redevelopment of existing buildings. 

^ But that's the kind of logic that leads to statements like "if OTR is too full, then go to Walnut Hills or South Fairmount instead."  That ignores the first principle of real estate:  location, location, location, and could very well stall or limit redevelopment overall because of factors that make those other neighborhoods less desirable. 

 

 

 

This building is huge! Renovating it is going to be a big project on its own.  Wonder when it will happen. Hope it's soon.  Really need to complete the Vine St. corridor south of Liberty. 

 

It's not thinking small, it's thinking big.  It's about motivating a faster turnaround for a larger number of neighborhoods.  This city has a huge number of buildings in need of rehabilitation.  Permitting mid-rises on vacant lots discourages the redevelopment of existing buildings.

^ But that's the kind of logic that leads to statements like "if OTR is too full, then go to Walnut Hills or South Fairmount instead."  That ignores the first principle of real estate:  location, location, location, and could very well stall or limit redevelopment overall because of factors that make those other neighborhoods less desirable. 

 

Seems like it would be easier and more palatable to spread out development and market things as "OTR near" if we had a better transit system.  Also, let's hope the region's population and economy can support the filling out of OTR in the first place which everyone on here seems to have taken as a given!

 

Also, let's hope the region's population and economy can support the filling out of OTR in the first place which everyone on here seems to have taken as a given!

 

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

Also, let's hope the region's population and economy can support the filling out of OTR in the first place which everyone on here seems to have taken as a given!

 

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

Simple.

 

The majority of people in our metro region live in the suburbs. A lot of them actively love the suburbs and are vocal about fearing urban areas and would prefer to drive everywhere all the time.  A lot of them can't simply imagine living in an urban area.

 

Only a certain percentage is going to be willing to give urban living a try, despite the constant drumbeat and hype about the back to the city movement.  What is that percentage? I would say no one really knows, especially when factors like schools are considered. 

 

We are slowly and steadily growing with a trickle migrants coming in from other areas, the new GE facility is a good catch that will attract some, but we are not as strong of an economic magnet as the faster growing places around the country. 

 

OTR is a big place with a few hundred abandoned buildings still. Take a walk north of Liberty to see the extent of this.  Will there be enough demand to rehab all the abandoned buildings? What about Brighton and the West End?

 

I think there will be enough demand for it all to come back to life, but all we know for sure is there is more demand than there is supply at the current moment.

A follow on: the percentage of people that care or even think about urbanism and urban issues is a miniscule minority. The number of people living in the basin urban core are a minority of the people within Cincinnati city limits.  The number of people  people living within the city limits (even throw in Norwood, Newport, and Covington too) are a minority in the metro area.  If the mass market were to ever truly embraced the urban living trend, things would change in downtown and OTR so quickly that it would be simply impossible to debate every project, facade, alleyway, and architectural and landscape decision like we do on this forum.

 

Attracting people to the city is like craft beer trying to grow its market share against Budweiser and Miller.  Despite all the hype, the craft beer market share is only at 8%. What will the final market share be?

The answer to attracting people to the core is not necessarily from within the metro, but from other areas. Cincinnati needs more foreign immigration desperately.

The majority of people in our metro region live in the suburbs. A lot of them actively love the suburbs and are vocal about fearing urban areas and would prefer to drive everywhere all the time.  A lot of them can't simply imagine living in an urban area.

 

I'm not sure a majority of people "would prefer to drive everywhere all the time". A lot of the popularity of the suburbs is simply due to it being the default option for people who want to be "normal" (as opposed to those hipsters/yuppies/etc. that choose city life). Not to mention the government subsidies steering property developers and homeowners in that direction. Things are changing very quickly, and I'm not saying that it's going to turn everyone into an "urbanist", but it's going to be a really, really big change.

 

The other thing to consider is that modern urban neighborhoods in Cincinnati will never be as dense (population-wise) as historic Over-the-Rhine or the West End. A building that used to house five entire families historically might be converted into five one-bedroom condos today. So, it's not like we need tens of thousands of people to move back to the core, we just need a few thousand.

Looks like Westfallen II is almost completely sold-out:

http://otrliving.com/properties/westfalen_lofts_ii

 

And in fact 3CDC only has about 4 condos total available for sale at the moment, excepting the the 3 shoebox 500 sq foot units at 1406 Republic that appear doomed to remain on the market forever. 

The majority of people in our metro region live in the suburbs. A lot of them actively love the suburbs and are vocal about fearing urban areas and would prefer to drive everywhere all the time.  A lot of them can't simply imagine living in an urban area.

 

I'm not sure a majority of people "would prefer to drive everywhere all the time". A lot of the popularity of the suburbs is simply due to it being the default option for people who want to be "normal" (as opposed to those hipsters/yuppies/etc. that choose city life). Not to mention the government subsidies steering property developers and homeowners in that direction. Things are changing very quickly, and I'm not saying that it's going to turn everyone into an "urbanist", but it's going to be a really, really big change.

 

That's why a qualified that part of the statement with "A lot". I'm sure the majority of people would do whatever society makes easiest. In fact, I think we should do away with the term "motorist." It conjures up an old timey image of a guy with goggles, scarf and oil can, and it implies a degree of enthusiasm and expertise about cars that simply isn't there amongst the driving public.  That's why there's hamsters and other unrelated things going on in car commercials.

 

That said, there's a whole lot of people who view the suburban layout and automotive domination as progress and convenience just like they view fast food and TV dinners as symbols of the same.

 

The other thing to consider is that modern urban neighborhoods in Cincinnati will never be as dense (population-wise) as historic Over-the-Rhine or the West End. A building that used to house five entire families historically might be converted into five one-bedroom condos today. So, it's not like we need tens of thousands of people to move back to the core, we just need a few thousand.

 

I was actually going to work this point into my original post but couldn't think of an easy way to do it.

 

Another point is that success will breed success, so it will make more people want to move downtown the more bustling and active they see it is. The same principle will work for attracting people from other areas, we've seen all the positive national press we've recieved from the things we've done so far. And I don't want to diminish any accomplishments so far but there's still a long long way to go.

 

So there's a lot of reasons to think our momentum will carry us forward to redevelop all of OTR and that it won't stall out. My original comment that sparked this discussion was just offhandedly pointing out that it would really stink if the growth did stall out.

The majority of people in our metro region live in the suburbs. A lot of them actively love the suburbs and are vocal about fearing urban areas and would prefer to drive everywhere all the time.  A lot of them can't simply imagine living in an urban area.

 

I'm not sure a majority of people "would prefer to drive everywhere all the time". A lot of the popularity of the suburbs is simply due to it being the default option for people who want to be "normal" (as opposed to those hipsters/yuppies/etc. that choose city life). Not to mention the government subsidies steering property developers and homeowners in that direction. Things are changing very quickly, and I'm not saying that it's going to turn everyone into an "urbanist", but it's going to be a really, really big change.

 

Exactly! We're seeing a massive shift in people wanting to live car free or car light and in the city without the basic understanding of urbanism. The result is incredibly high demand for superblocks made of cheap materials with grocery stores on the first floor.

 

 

While this is all fine and dandy (and frankly Cincinnati could use a lot more of this) these types of developments wreak havoc on a historic district like Over-the-Rhine. Unless we start clamping down hard on these superblock proposals, we're going to completely lose the historic designation on Over-the-Rhine, which I think is this entire region's greatest asset quite honestly.

 

That's said, I would LOVE to see more of this in places like West End, Camp Washington, Northside, South Fairmount, Lower Price Hill, Walnut Hills, etc. This is exactly the type of development I envision flanking Ezzard Charles.

I agree that stuff like the Gateway Condos and the proposed Grammer's Place and the thing at Liberty & Elm are good for a developer's returns but bad for the character of the area.  Zone out projects larger than about 10 units and the problem goes away. 

^Yeah, but just like your proposal to zone out projects taller than 4 stories, there are a lot of unintended negative consequences with capping developments at 10 units. 

And that isn't going to stop people from requesting a PUD that doesn't have to follow current zoning.

I agree that stuff like the Gateway Condos and the proposed Grammer's Place and the thing at Liberty & Elm are good for a developer's returns but bad for the character of the area.  Zone out projects larger than about 10 units and the problem goes away. 

 

Not sure if I like that as a restriction as it precludes a lot of large institutional buildings from adaptive reuse (like Woodward).

I don't know if it would be wise to impose height restrictions, or to restrict the number of units in a development, but one thing Jake has caused me to ask myself is when was the last time a hi-rise apartment complex was built around here that used attractive, durable materials?  Adams Landing and the one that was built where Edgecliff College used to be (don't know its name) come to mind, but I can't think of anything more recent.  Some of the materials used to clad Gateway started looking bad before it was even fully occupied.  I've seen efflorescence already on newer mid-rise construction on Vine Street.  The old adage comes to mind -- "They just don't build 'em like they used to".  I don't know what the answer is to avoid new construction from looking cheesy.  It's a big problem.

As much as some people hate One Mercer, I think it looks decent and will hold up. Lower quality stuff like the Gateway Condos already looks bad and I fear the new Mercer Commons apartment building on Walnut will look like that in a few years. Maybe in the future they could put a higher-quality facade on these buildings?

Yeah the low income row houses built on Walnut and Clay in the mid-90s look better than most of the new construction.  The stuff on Walnut looks especially bad, and required the demolition of the street's most eccentric structure. 

I don't mind any of the new stuff built in OTR so far.  I like the deep dark red color of the new building on Walnut. The Gateway garage could have a lot more attractive frontage along 12th street but at the time that was built they had no idea if redevelopment would be successful or not.

The building on Walnut is fugly. I can't believe they thought (and the city approved) those hideous windows...

Don't sleep on Wade Street folks! Right at the Elm Street streetcar stop south of Liberty. This block of NoWash is about to take off!

I agree that stuff like the Gateway Condos and the proposed Grammer's Place and the thing at Liberty & Elm are good for a developer's returns but bad for the character of the area.  Zone out projects larger than about 10 units and the problem goes away. 

 

Not sure if I like that as a restriction as it precludes a lot of large institutional buildings from adaptive reuse (like Woodward).

 

I think any restriction should just be on combining plots; basically limit the street frontage a single building can have. Most buildings in OTR are on plots that are 20’ or 30’ wide. New buildings should follow that precedent. There are a handful of buildings that are double or triple that, but they are few and far between. The new apartments being built today are some of the widest, flattest buildings in OTR. Even if done well, they don’t fit the context of the neighborhood.  Trinity Flats is the only new construction I can think of off the top of my head that is a proper scale for the neighborhood.

Don't sleep on Wade Street folks! Right at the Elm Street streetcar stop south of Liberty. This block of NoWash is about to take off!

 

$550,000 Urban Expansion single family home about to go online. Urban Sites is about to sell 4 properties to developers.

Which building is that single family home? And what 4 properties is Urban Sites selling?

Don't sleep on Wade Street folks! Right at the Elm Street streetcar stop south of Liberty. This block of NoWash is about to take off!

 

$550,000 Urban Expansion single family home about to go online. Urban Sites is about to sell 4 properties to developers.

 

Well that's interesting.

Which building is that single family home? And what 4 properties is Urban Sites selling?

 

219 Wade just hit the market (I was wrong, it's $530K): http://m.cbws.com/property/details/256362/MLS-1434338/219-Wade-St-Cincinnati-City-Downtown-Area-OH-45202

 

Urban Sites is selling 208, 212, 214 and 215 Wade St.

Which building is that single family home? And what 4 properties is Urban Sites selling?

 

219 Wade just hit the market (I was wrong, it's $530K): http://m.cbws.com/property/details/256362/MLS-1434338/219-Wade-St-Cincinnati-City-Downtown-Area-OH-45202

 

Urban Sites is selling 208, 212, 214 and 215 Wade St.

 

If it sells for that price, or even close to that price, it'd be a big statement. It isn't a condo on 12th and Vine, it's a home in a somewhat isolated spot (at least for another year or two) and the actual investment in the renovation is probably half of what the asking price is.

That home is massive. Something like 4,000 square foot 4 bedroom with a parking pad for 2 cars.  Isolated for another year or so, but then in the middle of everything.

Don't sleep on Wade Street folks! Right at the Elm Street streetcar stop south of Liberty. This block of NoWash is about to take off!

 

NoWash? Not a thing.

Don't sleep on Wade Street folks! Right at the Elm Street streetcar stop south of Liberty. This block of Over-the-Rhine is about to take off!

 

Fixed that for ya.