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.

 

Listed by Bill Draznik? Doesn't he co-own A Tavola?

East West End

So-Li

 

DUMBO. 

 

Directly Ubove Musichall Backdoor Opening

The nearby Tea Company single family home that was on the market for $550k is now pending which speaks to the market for half a million+ dollar single family homes.

 

Ryan Messer's house is also now on the market as well for $899k. I'm excited to see how quickly that one goes. Those views in a house that is quite nicely detailed.

 

It's still to be seen though if Wade Street has that much buying power.

1718 Republic and 1720 Republic were recently purchased by Urban Expansion. Very excited to see some action on this part of Republic.

 

Announcement:

 

Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.114986,-84.517068,3a,75y,115.59h,85.25t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8b6aPEIyMRX5EPsW8temew!2e0

Here's the lot on the west side of Walnut where Grammer's Place Phase 2 will be located. The developer wants to demolish the pink building there now:

 

 

I HATE this entire Grammer's Place project. We've got the market to build high quality infill in Over-the-Rhine now. I wish we'd stop accepting this garbage as "the best we can do."

There is nothing wrong with that pink building on Walnut.

 

Re Wade Street, Towne Properties recently purchased three structures there from 3CDC. I talked to them on the street and they offered this info up freely.

 

As noted above, Urban Sites recently offered up all of their parcels, and have supposedly found a buyer.

 

Urban Expansion has 219 and 221 Wade. As noted above, 219 is on the market as a single family. 221 will be developed as a two family.

 

Chatfield College is at the end of the block, and that is all of the buildings. With Grandin Properties buying the Warner Bros Building, and the large development announced for the NW corner of Elm and Liberty, it won't take long for this block to completely fill out.

 

While right now, it looks empty (because, well....it is), if you have seen what kind of progress takes place over two years, it's not hard to see how this will develop. Good streetcar stop right there as well.

I HATE this entire Grammer's Place project. We've got the market to build high quality infill in Over-the-Rhine now. I wish we'd stop accepting this garbage as "the best we can do."

 

Yeah they're effectively destroying Grammer's and replacing that lot with junk. 

I HATE this entire Grammer's Place project. We've got the market to build high quality infill in Over-the-Rhine now. I wish we'd stop accepting this garbage as "the best we can do."

 

What aspects, in particular, do you hate about the project? To me, the pros of adding residential and commercial space to a site that is currently dominated by surface parking far out weigh whatever hesitations I have about the proposed architecture of the development. I think there is middle ground to be had between "the best we can do" and complete trash.  There are elements of the project that could be improved, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a higher and better use of the site, and it is being developed by an entity other than 3CDC.

 

Also, I would argue that we don't necessarily have the market to build high quality infill in this portion of OTR.  Perhaps the market exists for buying luxury housing with top grade materials (not entirely sure about that), but what about our building market? Do we have a local developer that has demonstrated an ability to construct the type of mixed use development that is desired?  Have out of town developers assembled sites in OTR for projects of this scale?  Without the supply side of things being up to par, it doesn't really matter what the demand market is.  OTR is still fairly early in its redevelopment, and I think a lot of people forget that the neighborhood is still largely run down and abandoned (looking at both sides of Liberty).  If you take off the rose colored glasses, one would see a community that is being almost exclusively redeveloped by a single entity that doesn't really have to play by the same rules (at least from a financing perspective) as other developers.  Development, leasing, and even public enhancements are all coordinated with and through 3CDC as well.  Given that this is a non-3CDC project, I think a large scale development like this is still a bit of a risk in terms of lacking precedent, and in terms of location, being quite a bit removed from the heart of the revitalization efforts of Vine and Washington Park.  I don't want to make excuses for poor developments, but I also think that we need to realize that OTR is still in its early phases of redevelopment, and that usually infill quality improves as revitalization progresses. 

I HATE this entire Grammer's Place project. We've got the market to build high quality infill in Over-the-Rhine now. I wish we'd stop accepting this garbage as "the best we can do."

 

What aspects, in particular, do you hate about the project? To me, the pros of adding residential and commercial space to a site that is currently dominated by surface parking far out weigh whatever hesitations I have about the proposed architecture of the development. I think there is middle ground to be had between "the best we can do" and complete trash.  There are elements of the project that could be improved, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a higher and better use of the site, and it is being developed by an entity other than 3CDC.

 

Also, I would argue that we don't necessarily have the market to build high quality infill in this portion of OTR.  Perhaps the market exists for buying luxury housing with top grade materials (not entirely sure about that), but what about our building market? Do we have a local developer that has demonstrated an ability to construct the type of mixed use development that is desired?  Have out of town developers assembled sites in OTR for projects of this scale?  Without the supply side of things being up to par, it doesn't really matter what the demand market is.  OTR is still fairly early in its redevelopment, and I think a lot of people forget that the neighborhood is still largely run down and abandoned (looking at both sides of Liberty).  If you take off the rose colored glasses, one would see a community that is being almost exclusively redeveloped by a single entity that doesn't really have to play by the same rules (at least from a financing perspective) as other developers.  Development, leasing, and even public enhancements are all coordinated with and through 3CDC as well.  Given that this is a non-3CDC project, I think a large scale development like this is still a bit of a risk in terms of lacking precedent, and in terms of location, being quite a bit removed from the heart of the revitalization efforts of Vine and Washington Park.  I don't want to make excuses for poor developments, but I also think that we need to realize that OTR is still in its early phases of redevelopment, and that usually infill quality improves as revitalization progresses. 

 

The weird thing is that I actually really like this development.  (Phase 1 in particular)  The problem is that the scale is completely out of proportion for the neighborhood, and in a National Historic District that has the potential to be on par with the French Quarter, thowing a massive building like this into the middle of it really REALLY harms that potential.  (Same goes for Mercer)  I understand that bigger buildings have a better ROI and assembling parcels to build a superblock like this makes good business sense, but frankly maintaining a historic district is never cheap.  I've been saying for years that we were doing a fantastic job building a tourist market and eventually the market would tip to the point where developers would try to bulldoze the neighborhood to build out these types of buildings, and that the Historic Conservation Board needs to be on high alert for when that happens.  2014 seems to be that year. 

 

There are weird things all over this develpment that I could nitpick.  Overall I like the varying facades and general verticality.  Some of the vertical elements are too narrow (that weird yellow bar on Walnut and the Rookwood Wall) and some are too wide (especially that terrible facade that's hovering above the old Grammer's buildings.)  The biggest problem is the roof.  That huge, flat roof is going to look TERRIBLE from the hillsides.  The Wades expressed that they want every apartment to have a deck.  That's actually relatively easy when you vary the heights of the buildings.  Throw some random angled rooflines up there.  (As much as I hate the materials used in 65 West, I really appreciate that detail on the development.) 

 

The Phase 2 building is just deplorable.  It's a giant "U" which is a fantastic building design that works very well in places like Walnut Hills and Avondale.  NOT in Over-the-Rhine.  At the very very least the building should be flipped around so that the courtyard is mid-block, but the fact that their Architect chose not to work with that little gem of a building and instead opted to design a giant box with no context whatsover proves to me that they have no business designing in this historic district.  Either the Wade's need to get an Architect that has a clue what they're doing, or these parcels should be sold piecemeal to people who actually want to work in this context.  Heck, the Wade's could take this exact design over to Liberty and John and they wouldn't even need to ask their Architect for a redesign.  (They could even expand it to go all the way to Wade Street!)  I would be elated if that was the case. 

 

I understand hate is a strong word, and I have to express that I'm glad the Wade's want to build downtown and that there is finally an economy in Over-the-Rhine to work with.  But unless we're harsh on these new development over the next decade, we're going to completely lose sight of the charm in Over-the-Rhine that makes it the unique tourist destination that it is.

I think those are all valid critiques, and I do think it's fair game to critique aesthetics and perhaps massing while still acknowledging the benefits in terms of use and vibrancy that the project will bring.  What I think your point comes down to most is a conflict that might be on the horizon in OTR between contrasting visions for the future of the neighborhood.  There is no denying that OTR is architecturally unique and historic, and that it will play an increasingly large role in the tourism market for Cincinnati. However, I think romantic visions of a French Quarter style neighborhood treat the neighborhood as an antique that is more concerned with aesthetics than function, and it limits the possibility for OTR to reach it's full potential from a neighborhood/urban perspective.  It's important to find a balance between preserving the amazing built character of OTR, and making it a truly self supporting, vibrant and bustling place- a true urban core neighborhood.  In order to achieve the latter goal, you need density and diversity of ages and incomes, which generally requires a little compromise when it comes to aesthetics. 

 

While not perfect examples, I can think of two situations that demonstrate the point I'm trying to make above.  San Francisco, as everyone knows, is in a housing and affordability crisis, largely due to a stubbornness to allow new and increased growth in it's beautiful historic neighborhoods.  NIMBYs place primary emphasis on the character and aesthetic quality of the traditional SF street scene, and as a result, the city is increasingly becoming unaffordable, with growth stymied despite a huge demand for it. 

 

Another example closer to home is German Vilage.  Wonderfully preserved, GV is quaint and virtually unchanged in its form from when it was first built.  However, when one talks about the vibrant, happening neighborhoods of Columbus, German Village isn't usually the first neighborhood that comes to mind.  To me, it feels more like a museum and less like a functioning urban community.  Obviously this isn't the whole story for either GV or SF, but I think both cases illustrate a concern with the aesthetics above all approach to development in OTR.

@ Prokno5, Very well said, I agree completely with this. That U-Shape is a horrendous precedent to set, and should not be allowed in OtR. Hate seems appropriate in this instance.

 

Here is the information being presented to the Historic Conservation Board for the plans of Grammer's Place. Many more plans, photos, and renderings than before. Since this is such a large project that will likely span 5+ years, I think it deserves its own thread.

 

That link doesn't work... any chance somebody saved a copy of it?

There is another thread dedicated to Grammer's Place: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29803.0.html

 

 

The Historic Conservation Board reviewed preliminary designs of Grammer's Place. The large (22mb) PDF is available online, with designs beginning on Page 24: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/jan-26-2015-packet/

I think those are all valid critiques, and I do think it's fair game to critique aesthetics and perhaps massing while still acknowledging the benefits in terms of use and vibrancy that the project will bring.  What I think your point comes down to most is a conflict that might be on the horizon in OTR between contrasting visions for the future of the neighborhood.  There is no denying that OTR is architecturally unique and historic, and that it will play an increasingly large role in the tourism market for Cincinnati. However, I think romantic visions of a French Quarter style neighborhood treat the neighborhood as an antique that is more concerned with aesthetics than function, and it limits the possibility for OTR to reach it's full potential from a neighborhood/urban perspective.  It's important to find a balance between preserving the amazing built character of OTR, and making it a truly self supporting, vibrant and bustling place- a true urban core neighborhood.  In order to achieve the latter goal, you need density and diversity of ages and incomes, which generally requires a little compromise when it comes to aesthetics. 

 

While not perfect examples, I can think of two situations that demonstrate the point I'm trying to make above.  San Francisco, as everyone knows, is in a housing and affordability crisis, largely due to a stubbornness to allow new and increased growth in it's beautiful historic neighborhoods.  NIMBYs place primary emphasis on the character and aesthetic quality of the traditional SF street scene, and as a result, the city is increasingly becoming unaffordable, with growth stymied despite a huge demand for it. 

 

Another example closer to home is German Vilage.  Wonderfully preserved, GV is quaint and virtually unchanged in its form from when it was first built.  However, when one talks about the vibrant, happening neighborhoods of Columbus, German Village isn't usually the first neighborhood that comes to mind.  To me, it feels more like a museum and less like a functioning urban community.  Obviously this isn't the whole story for either GV or SF, but I think both cases illustrate a concern with the aesthetics above all approach to development in OTR.

 

This is a very important conversation we needed to have as a city yesterday.  I don't think visions of reaching French Quarter status are all that romantic, personally.  The tour company I work for gave over 30,000 tours of Over-the-Rhine in 2014.  About a tenth of those were international tourists to boot.  The word is out on Over-the-Rhine as a National Historic District and people are clamoring for somewhere new to take their family vacations.  Add an open container district, allow uninhibited growth of Bockfest, and start discussing the German, African, Appalachian creole that makes the culture of Cincinnati so unique and BAM...watch the high-end hotel chains fight for property. 

 

The thing is that we have a bunch of neighborhoods that can become dense, walkable, fully functioning urban districts.  West End, Camp Washington, Whatever the heck we're calling the area between Eggleston and Broadway these days, Northside, Corryville (I wouldn't have included it a few years ago but UC cut the jugular on any chance of that neighborhood remaining single family detached), Walnut Hills, etc.  We only have one neighborhood that has the potential for that degree of tourism.  (Actually it's the only neighborhood in the entire Midwest with that potential) It would be a damn shame to lose all that because we're aiming for the Pearl District instead.

There is another thread dedicated to Grammer's Place: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29803.0.html

 

I prefer to keep this conversation here because it affects all new developments in the neighborhood.

1.  In this redesign they do away with the new structure above the roofs of Grammer's buildings.  I like that. 

 

2.  I don't understand what would be so terrible about a U shaped building? Seems like it would add some diversity to the OTR streetscape. 

 

3.  Like I said before, no matter what happens they shouldn't be touching any historic buildings until the new developments are a sure thing. I would be mostly against touching anything historic in general.

 

4.  I recall hearing about some past drama surrounding these owners, the Wades, in various business ventures, but I'm not at all familiar with the backstory.  Based on past history are these developments likely to happen?

 

Also ProkNo5 I don't understand how adding infill development, especially if it's aimed at some to these vacant lots, would threaten OTR's draw for historic tourism in any way.  Would seeing new buildings alongside the old really completely ruin anyone's experience, especially given all the gaps there are to fill in? It seems to me the denser and more vibrant the neighborhood street life is, the bigger draw it would become. 

I think those are all valid critiques, and I do think it's fair game to critique aesthetics and perhaps massing while still acknowledging the benefits in terms of use and vibrancy that the project will bring.  What I think your point comes down to most is a conflict that might be on the horizon in OTR between contrasting visions for the future of the neighborhood.  There is no denying that OTR is architecturally unique and historic, and that it will play an increasingly large role in the tourism market for Cincinnati. However, I think romantic visions of a French Quarter style neighborhood treat the neighborhood as an antique that is more concerned with aesthetics than function, and it limits the possibility for OTR to reach it's full potential from a neighborhood/urban perspective.  It's important to find a balance between preserving the amazing built character of OTR, and making it a truly self supporting, vibrant and bustling place- a true urban core neighborhood.  In order to achieve the latter goal, you need density and diversity of ages and incomes, which generally requires a little compromise when it comes to aesthetics. 

 

While not perfect examples, I can think of two situations that demonstrate the point I'm trying to make above.  San Francisco, as everyone knows, is in a housing and affordability crisis, largely due to a stubbornness to allow new and increased growth in it's beautiful historic neighborhoods.  NIMBYs place primary emphasis on the character and aesthetic quality of the traditional SF street scene, and as a result, the city is increasingly becoming unaffordable, with growth stymied despite a huge demand for it. 

 

Another example closer to home is German Vilage.  Wonderfully preserved, GV is quaint and virtually unchanged in its form from when it was first built.  However, when one talks about the vibrant, happening neighborhoods of Columbus, German Village isn't usually the first neighborhood that comes to mind.  To me, it feels more like a museum and less like a functioning urban community.  Obviously this isn't the whole story for either GV or SF, but I think both cases illustrate a concern with the aesthetics above all approach to development in OTR.

 

This is a very important conversation we needed to have as a city yesterday.  I don't think visions of reaching French Quarter status are all that romantic, personally.  The tour company I work for gave over 30,000 tours of Over-the-Rhine in 2014.  About a tenth of those were international tourists to boot.  The word is out on Over-the-Rhine as a National Historic District and people are clamoring for somewhere new to take their family vacations.  Add an open container district, allow uninhibited growth of Bockfest, and start discussing the German, African, Appalachian creole that makes the culture of Cincinnati so unique and BAM...watch the high-end hotel chains fight for property. 

 

The thing is that we have a bunch of neighborhoods that can become dense, walkable, fully functioning urban districts.  West End, Camp Washington, Whatever the heck we're calling the area between Eggleston and Broadway these days, Northside, Corryville (I wouldn't have included it a few years ago but UC cut the jugular on any chance of that neighborhood remaining single family detached), Walnut Hills, etc.  We only have one neighborhood that has the potential for that degree of tourism.  (Actually it's the only neighborhood in the entire Midwest with that potential) It would be a damn shame to lose all that because we're aiming for the Pearl District instead.

 

The resistance to densification in surrounding neighborhoods and suburbs is another big factor in the housing issues in SF and even to some extent in Portland as well on the east side of the Willamette River.  New York City is hemmed in by a lot of Queens, South Brooklyn, and...New Jersey, while Chicago is also tightly constrained by not only its bungalow belt but the denser neighborhoods a bit closer in where "3-4 stories is plenty."  Sound familiar?  So the conversation on allowing bigger buildings and more density in OTR is definitely one that needs to be had, but it can't happen in isolation without also discussing density in surrounding neighborhoods and suburbs. 

 

We're already seeing the results of hyper-strict zoning and even down-zoning in Hyde Park, which being a desirable neighborhood with no ability to grow "up" has nowhere to go but more upmarket.  Hence tearing down a handful of apartment buildings to build a super high-end condo building, with no appreciable net increase (or possibly a net loss) in population.  But since the single-family residential districts are sacrosanct, there's nowhere else for the market to go. 

 

Also consider that unless you do go super high-end, then in order to make redevelopment of a particular property financially tenable, you usually have to quadruple the number of units.  So a single-family house goes to a 4-plex, or four single-family houses become a small courtyard apartment, etc.  That's why you see weird things like pop-ups in Washington DC that are 2-3x as tall as the surrounding row houses and why capping heights at 4 stories in a neighborhood that's already 3-4 stories to begin with just leads to further stasis or moving farther and farther upmarket.  The numbers just don't work otherwise. 

I've heard a lot of criticism over the big "U" shaped building, but I have to say I really like it. I feel like the green space will add to the dynamic of the street and would probably make tenants feel safer around their home. It's possible that could sway some on-the-fence renters/buyers. Also it's a design that reflects the larger character of the city, as a lot of that style apartment exist in the older suburbs (Something I haven't noticed in many other cities). And I hate to say it, but I think we need to reflect 2015 in what we build in OTR. In the past I would have been on the team of those saying that we need to build to suite the old styles, but frankly it's a different time, and we have different needs and constraints, as well as freedoms. Height restrictions are a bad idea, and I think this building will prove itself. I can't image many Cincinnatians alive in her prime would have thought small and in the past.

Also ProkNo5 I don't understand how adding infill development, especially if it's aimed at some to these vacant lots, would threaten OTR's draw for historic tourism in any way.  Would seeing new buildings alongside the old really completely ruin anyone's experience, especially given all the gaps there are to fill in? It seems to me the denser and more vibrant the neighborhood street life is, the bigger draw it would become. 

 

It's about scale and context.  Trinity Flats is a fantastic addition to the neighborhood.  There's is nothing faux historic about it.  I also like the 14th and Vine building across the street.  1401 Main St is a different style for the neighborhood but it fits in perfectly.  The bank building at 13th and Main is one of my favorite buildings in Over-the-Rhine and it couldn't be more different in style from Italianate if it tried.

 

The historic integrity of the neighborhood is not any one style of architecture.  It's in the diversity of architecture and building heights in the same intimate scale. 

Also ProkNo5 I don't understand how adding infill development, especially if it's aimed at some to these vacant lots, would threaten OTR's draw for historic tourism in any way.  Would seeing new buildings alongside the old really completely ruin anyone's experience, especially given all the gaps there are to fill in? It seems to me the denser and more vibrant the neighborhood street life is, the bigger draw it would become. 

 

It's about scale and context.  Trinity Flats is a fantastic addition to the neighborhood.  There's is nothing faux historic about it.  I also like the 14th and Vine building across the street.  1401 Main St is a different style for the neighborhood but it fits in perfectly.  The bank building at 13th and Main is one of my favorite buildings in Over-the-Rhine and it couldn't be more different in style from Italianate if it tried.

 

The historic integrity of the neighborhood is not any one style of architecture.  It's in the diversity of architecture and building heights in the same intimate scale. 

 

I'm not an architect, but I regularly see people pointing to Trinity Flats as a development that "got it right".  However, I never hear anyone ask who designed it.  Since building infill in a historic district like OTR is so difficult, shouldn't we track down that guy/girl/firm and demand that they be allowed to design more projects in the neighborhood?

Also ProkNo5 I don't understand how adding infill development, especially if it's aimed at some to these vacant lots, would threaten OTR's draw for historic tourism in any way.  Would seeing new buildings alongside the old really completely ruin anyone's experience, especially given all the gaps there are to fill in? It seems to me the denser and more vibrant the neighborhood street life is, the bigger draw it would become. 

 

It's about scale and context.  Trinity Flats is a fantastic addition to the neighborhood.  There's is nothing faux historic about it.  I also like the 14th and Vine building across the street.  1401 Main St is a different style for the neighborhood but it fits in perfectly.  The bank building at 13th and Main is one of my favorite buildings in Over-the-Rhine and it couldn't be more different in style from Italianate if it tried.

 

The historic integrity of the neighborhood is not any one style of architecture.  It's in the diversity of architecture and building heights in the same intimate scale. 

 

I'm not an architect, but I regularly see people pointing to Trinity Flats as a development that "got it right".  However, I never hear anyone ask who designed it.  Since building infill in a historic district like OTR is so difficult, shouldn't we track down that guy/girl/firm and demand that they be allowed to design more projects in the neighborhood?

 

Glaserworks.  They've done almost all of the new buildings in Over-the-Rhine worth caring about.  Sometimes it seems like they're the only architects in town who've picked up a copy of Architectural Record.

The group of people who created those fake 3CDC Twitter and Facebook accounts and tried to hold a fake press conference are at it again. Here's an Enquirer article about the group and their latest fake video:

 

Aww, people don't like getting kicked out of their rental.

 

News flash, nobody likes getting kicked out of their rental. Too bad, you didn't own it.

A 3CDC owned building at 18 W. 13th has an LLC applying for a liquor permit, so I would expect a new bar at this location. Circle Hospitality Group LLC is applying for the liquor permit and I believe the name of the bar would be "Remus Pharmacy."

 

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/documents/Record?rpp=10&upp=0&m=5&order=native%28%27doc_no%2FDescend%27%29

 

It appears this bar will be called Sundry and Vice.

Aww, people don't like getting kicked out of their rental.

 

News flash, nobody likes getting kicked out of their rental. Too bad, you didn't own it.

 

The issues causing people to stay in poverty aren't related to housing in this city.  Housing here is as cheap as it gets in the United States. 

 

These guys are so myopic if they think housing costs are a problem in Cincinnati - literally this is the first time in decades property values are on the rise for Cincy (in certain areas) and then people think oh wait we're totally having a problem because like I heard this article about San Francisco housing and....

 

Apples and Oranges.  I know San Fran has hills and Victorians too BUT...

Here's two great explorations of the role of preservation and the issues of compatibility versus differentiation, historic versus modern, etc.

 

Can Preservationists Let Love Rule?

http://www.placemakers.com/2015/02/02/preservationists-let-love-rule/

 

Differentiated and Compatible Design

http://www.oldhouseauthority.com/archive/DifferentiatedandCompatibleDesign

Housing affordability here is the best in the nation.  Ok... Maybe Detroit & Buffalo are cheaper, but still.  You can buy a house.  A HOUSE for $50K and it will be in decent shape.  You only need to make $28K to qualify for a mortgage for a $50K house with decent credit.

These guys are so myopic if they think housing costs are a problem in Cincinnati - literally this is the first time in decades property values are on the rise for Cincy (in certain areas) and then people think oh wait we're totally having a problem because like I heard this article about San Francisco housing and....

 

Apples and Oranges.  I know San Fran has hills and Victorians too BUT...

 

There is way more housing than there are people in this region.  Here there are many 3-4 bedroom homes with only one person living in them. 

Some additional links on the project:

 

http://50.63.137.145/~gossmang/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GGR_ProjSheet-GrammersGateway_V1.pdf

 

http://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/021015-grammers-development-otr.aspx

 

 

One of the units at 1406 Republic is finally pending.

 

That building has been empty for over a year now. The problems were obvious though. I toured the studios in it when I was looking and immediately decided against it. The building has zero curb appeal whatsoever which is never a good way to start a home search. The studios, though larger than all the studios that were in Westfalen II, were way too square which is never an easy shape to work with when space is super limited. And there was no open wall space anywhere. Kitchen on one wall, windows on two of the walls, and a wall of closets on the other. It made laying out a sleeping space, dining space, and living space impossible. Then you are hit with a $210 HOA fee for zero amenities which is $85 more than Westfalen which has a grilling area, a rear courtyard, an elevator, storage units in the basement, etc. People are looking for affordable studios and Westfalen showed that. The dozen or so studios in Westfalen had no trouble selling. But these aren't enticing enough even though they're cheap.

 

I really think the only way the studios at 1406 Republic will sell is if there is nothing else on the market, they receive a price chop, or the HOA fee is dramatically reduced.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong though and having one unit occupied will help get the others occupied. Nobody likes to be the first person in a building.

^The HOA could drop once the HOA actually takes over. Or it could go even higher. HOA fees on new condo buildings are set by the developer, once the HOA is formed it can be changed.

Oh I know. But people see that number and don't want to pay that for zero amenities regardless of its necessity. I was more getting at the fact that the HOA is one of the highest in OTR for a building like this. I'm not really sure what exactly it's covering since it's a small, simple building with no frills and similar buildings have much lower monthly dues.

I tried to take some photos along Republic Street last week but there were so many Duke trucks and other construction equipment that it was virtually impossible. I think every vacant building between 13th & 15th must be getting renovated at the same time.

Not even just up to 15th, all the way to Liberty. Republic is quickly becoming a really great street.

I suspect that 3CDC created those $95,000 studios as a counter-argument to accusations that they were pricing everyone out of the market. Those studios could be decent seasonal rentals or airbnb places, or even could work as tax write-off offices for self-employed people who live nearby, but the condo regulations won't make any of those possibilities guarantees for the owners.  It's a very risky HOA to enter into, and it will be difficult to sell those studios quickly. 

 

Also I have been in several purpose-built studio apartments in NYC that are nearing 100 years in age, and they make much better use of similar square footage.  Sometimes adaptations of existing buildings can work, but with very small living spaces there has to be a good overall design or else the place is no fun.       

I live in 1412, which is part of the same HOA as 1406.  I'm surprised at how long its taken for the two 1br's in 1406 to sell...they are strange layouts, but a great value.  We all get basement storage in Parvis, access to Parvis alley patio area, plus we have an awesome private fenced in backyard behind the garage that now fills the 1410 lot.  Plus option for $45 a month parking in gated alley lot off Republic.  The construction has been a headache, but a year from now Republic is going to be even more incredible that it is now.

Yeah studios are really tough to do correctly when you're dealing with an existing space. The proportions are often not right for a studio to really work. I built 3D models of every studio available when I was searching and decided which to buy based on how well my furniture fit into the space. There was only one studio in the entire neighborhood at the time that properly allowed for the three main spaces to fit nicely without any real sacrifices in comfort. And I bought it. The finishes could be a little less suburban-developery but that's easy to change and I have been making changes since I moved in. And I have a nice view of the hills and Downtown with a decent outdoor space so I'm pleased with my decision to go smaller and spend less money than I would have on a one bedroom.

This building at 14th & Clay is being renovated:

 

 

According to Hamilton county auditor that building is owned by Martin Wade under the holding company WDC, LLC.

 

WDC, LLC owns approx 50 parcels of land throughout the neighborhood it looks like.

For some reason, I thought the building on the NW Corner of 14th and Clay was being renovated by Urban Sites.  But it must be this building on the NE corner?  Also, I heard it was only going to be 3 apartments.  Does that sound right?  Seems like it could easily fit 6 apartments.

1405 Clay (on Northwest corner) is being renovated by Urban Sites. Will be retail on 1st floor, with four apartments above, according to their Historic Tax Credit project description: http://development.ohio.gov/files/media/pressrelease/12.18.14%20-%20Release%20-%2035%20Historic%20Buildings%20Rehabilitated%20with%20Help%20from%20State.pdf

 

1400 Clay (on Northeast corner) is being renovated by WDC. I'm not sure anything has been published about the plans for this building. Great to see it's getting renovated.

 

Here's streetview of that corner, looking north: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.111208,-84.513016,3a,75y,348.57h,105.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-06xu_25a7k2Shi8aGNXdQ!2e0

Very nice.  Wow on 1405, those are going to be some big apartments huh?  Only 4 of them in there, those will probably command some high rent, or at least high total amount!

Here is the building on the NW corner:

 

General question, does it seem like there is more development going on at this point than any other time in the past few years?

General question, does it seem like there is more development going on at this point than any other time in the past few years?

 

Yes. But there is still a long long way to go.