(1.) connect some of Cincinnati's other walkable neighborhoods to downtown with very fast, high quality transit; and (2.) keep building more housing in OTR, CBD, and the West End to keep up with the demand as much as is possible.

 

Transit is still workable around the University and along the 17 to Northside, and the metro plus is good for commuting on weekdays, though I'm assuming you are referring to the streetcar right?

 

Remember when Mayor Cranley had an invertiew with Aaron Renn on Urbanophile and he said that they were planning to turbocharge development in OTR and downtown and double the population in 5 years?

 

I wonder if it is on track for that?  I bet there is a lot more development in early planning stages that we haven't heard of yet.  As spring is starting up, I am sure more announcements downtown and OTR will come up.  Though a lot of people don't like Cranley and his urban core vs. neighborhood talk, I still think he is smart enough to realize that the city needs to capitalize as much as they possibly can on the momentum in downtown.  AT least I hope he is.

 

I actually feel that interview was done so he could recapture some of the urbanists he ticked off.  I think he actually feels threatened by people like us, look no further than his glib taking credit for Cincy red bike, which was one of the few urbanist policies he supported and when it was successful he ran with it and took credit for it even when it had been in the works for many years before he took office.  The success of urbanists on the streetcar was a slap to the face for him.

The weird issue going on with this development at 15th & Race is that it is definitely under-sized for what the market could support.  In Portland the very first circa-2001/02 streetcar condo developments are 2-story buildings of mediocre quality.  By 2005 stuff similar to or better than The Ascent was going up right next door, leading to speculation that those original HOA's would sell out and have their buildings demo'd and redeveloped.  I don't know if that happened or not though. 

 

The townhomes will attract my attention as investment properties if they are priced at or around $300k.  But get higher than that and the hit you take when a tenant doesn't pay for 2-3 months is pretty severe.  In fact you could default on the mortgage if you become ensnared in some situation where the tenant isn't paying but you can't get them evicted. 

 

In the past six months there has been a noticeable uptick in prices in Prospect Hill and CUF.  Investors are now trying to get $150k for dumpy multifamily properties in CUF that were selling for $75-100k in 2012-2013. 

 

Example:

http://www.trulia.com/property/3193345483-Clifton-202-Klotter-Ave-Cincinnati-OH-45219

 

 

^You actually think $300k is even remotely appropriate for a huge 3,000+ square foot townhome on the streetcar route? $100/sq. ft.? That's not even realistic in much less desirable neighborhoods.

 

You're also still unable to remove yourself from the equation. Nobody cares if YOU don't see these as good rental properties. That's not what they are. They're going to be people's primary residences. That's it. It's highly unlikely anyone will ever rent these out.

^You actually think $300k is even remotely appropriate for a huge 3,000+ square foot townhome on the streetcar route? $100/sq. ft.? That's not even realistic in much less desirable neighborhoods.

 

You're also still unable to remove yourself from the equation. Nobody cares if YOU don't see these as good rental properties. That's not what they are. They're going to be people's primary residences. That's it. It's highly unlikely anyone will ever rent these out.

 

The $100 a square foot is closer to what the construction costs should be, in my opinion. I think $150 a square foot is probably more realistic for the quality of materials being used (somewhat high end) and the difficulties of urban construction, but from the photos and plans I've seen of some of the new homes going up I don't think they're anywhere near $200 per square foot to build. The $300,000 price tag is closer to appropriate than $600,000, it's just the extremely limited supply that results in the $600,000 price tag. I think a hypothetical 3000 square foot townhome in OTR that sells for $600,000 would result in triple digit profits for the builder.

 

 

(1.) connect some of Cincinnati's other walkable neighborhoods to downtown with very fast, high quality transit; and (2.) keep building more housing in OTR, CBD, and the West End to keep up with the demand as much as is possible.

 

Transit is still workable around the University and along the 17 to Northside, and the metro plus is good for commuting on weekdays, though I'm assuming you are referring to the streetcar right?

 

I am referring to any high-quality transit that would be attractive to the so-called "riders of choice". Maybe that's Metro*Plus, maybe that's light rail. If you take a neighborhood like Northside and make it a very quick one- or two-stop ride to Downtown, you start to make it a much more attractive neighborhood to people who might only consider CBD/OTR right now.

^You actually think $300k is even remotely appropriate for a huge 3,000+ square foot townhome on the streetcar route? $100/sq. ft.? That's not even realistic in much less desirable neighborhoods.

 

You're also still unable to remove yourself from the equation. Nobody cares if YOU don't see these as good rental properties. That's not what they are. They're going to be people's primary residences. That's it. It's highly unlikely anyone will ever rent these out.

 

The $100 a square foot is closer to what the construction costs should be, in my opinion. I think $150 a square foot is probably more realistic for the quality of materials being used (somewhat high end) and the difficulties of urban construction, but from the photos and plans I've seen of some of the new homes going up I don't think they're anywhere near $200 per square foot to build. The $300,000 price tag is closer to appropriate than $600,000, it's just the extremely limited supply that results in the $600,000 price tag. I think a hypothetical 3000 square foot townhome in OTR that sells for $600,000 would result in triple digit profits for the builder.

 

 

 

$100-150/sq. ft. is not a reasonable number for construction costs. That's bordering subruban greenfield developer construction levels. That's nowhere near enough for anything in an urban location. Even if we build at the quality that's acceptable in suburbia, logistics expenses are still going to be extraordinarily high because of location. It's just not enough money. I've said it before but labor and materials are super expensive right now. And more importantly, contractors are swamped with work meaning they're all charging a premium. It's not realistic to get a product of any respectable quality at that price in that location at this point in time.

 

Look at similar projects from 3CDC in the past. They lose money even at $200+/sq. ft. $100-150/sq. ft., if even possible at this point in OTR, would be the lowest of quality.

In rereading the Business Courier article I'm not seeing anywhere that these houses will be 3,000 sq feet.  It doesn't say that they will be identical or that they will be custom.  So there's a lot that is unknown at this point. 

 

What is startling is the use of the term "fee simple" in reference to the legal arrangement of these houses.  In England the King (or Queen) owned the entire country and the owner of an "estate" typically had "fee simple" rights to the land (yes, I have paged through Burke's Landed Gentry).  So who is the Royal Family in this arrangement?  Does 3CDC retain the right to buy back the homes at some future date at fair market value so as to redevelop the whole site?

According to this website

 

Fee simple is the most common type of land ownership, meaning that the owners have complete ownership of the land and the home, but are still subject to taxation and debt obligations on their mortgage. Fee simple is contrasted with lease ownership, meaning the owners have complete access to the land, but they don't actually own it. Single family residence owners have fee simple ownership, but condo and many townhouse owners don't since they only own their unit, not the land on which the development is built. A condo or townhome development will list the type of ownership available in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) document.

 

I take this to mean that if someone wanted to demolish their building and do something different in the future, they are free to do so. That is, unless there is a deed restriction on the property beyond that.

Didn’t have much time to comment earlier today, but here are some thoughts:

 

In regards to high Downtown and OTR housing pricing:  Travis is 100% correct that the way to mitigate this is with better transit to the neighborhoods where less expensive housing stock is available.  We need high frequencies and a long time span of transit service per day so that folks in the neighborhoods can participate in activities and nightlife in the urban core and also give service industry folks transit options when their shifts end late at night.  I also think real time arrival data via text/app would also be a huge boost to make our bus system more useful and attract new ridership too. This is also the way to spread the urban renaissance to the neighborhoods and this is how we should frame the debate for maximum political support.

 

In regards to the 15th and Race, the one story building planned on the corner:  On one hand I don’t think this is the end of the world.  It would provide some diversity to the streetscape, there's going to be a lot of activity on that corner anyway, and it’s not directly in front of the streetcar stop.  And at least it's not a parking lot. On the other hand, the blank wall part of the historical building next door that will remain exposed clearly abutted another building that faced the corner in the past, which no doubt had a lot more detailing facing the corner than the blank wall does.  So maybe this would be a great opportunity to build a new taller building on the corner that shares hallways and stairs with the old, forming a pretty cool, larger multi-unit building.

 

In regards to the 15th and Race, general density: There's going to be the opportunity to add a lot of density across Race St. in the 1508 and 1510 buildings.  Also there are three large vacant lots on that side of the street that could support infill development if they're not commandeered for parking. Overall, I think the 15th and Race plan is good, as long as they truly do develop the "temporary" lot they have shown on the corner of Liberty St. someday.

 

In regard to the pace of development in OTR, and how it can seem slow given the demand: Perhaps this a good thing.  We may not want to build the entire neighborhood out given today's market and parking demands but rather give the streetcar time to transform the market.  The danger in delay is if we miss the back-to-the-city demographic waves- if our active empty nesters become old enough for the nursing home, if the younger millennials move to other cities, if the older millennials all move to the burbs to start families. 

 

In rereading the Business Courier article I'm not seeing anywhere that these houses will be 3,000 sq feet.  It doesn't say that they will be identical or that they will be custom.  So there's a lot that is unknown at this point.

 

I'm basing it on the previous plans and the scale increase of the massing model of the townhomes and the fact that they're specifically aiming at families that want larger space. It's possible they'll be much smaller, but it's unlikely based on the scale of other townhomes developed by 3CDC and their intentions for the site.

 

Being custom has nothing to do with this conversation. These aren't being built en masse so there isn't going to be any sort of discount on bulk materials and only a handful of so called "custom" features actually bump the price up. Drywall is drywall. Hardwood floors generally fall into a pretty small range of prices. Kitchen counters that aren't laminate don't have a huge range unless you get extravagant which most people do not. These buildings are big and in an area that's more difficult to build in than suburbia. So anyone expecting suburban prices needs a reality check. And anyone thinking a brand new product in the hottest market in Cincy should be priced the same as a dated building of a similar size in a much less desirable neighborhood needs to rethink their understanding of how real estate works.

 

I'm still not sure people realize that these developments, even at such a high cost per square foot, often lose money. I wasn't just making stuff up when I said that places like Westfalen (both phases) lost money even at well over $200/sq. ft. and that's with pretty basic, affordable finishes. Look to Tea Company's prices to see what happens when you use higher end finishes. Look to Mercer Commons to see what 3CDC's version of "high end" costs per square foot. Then apply it to a massive townhome and you'll find you're just flat out wrong expecting them to cost $300k.

jmicha, you have to be careful when you talk about developments "losing money" at $200/ft. To most people, losing money means you're out of business. It means you're not getting a paycheck at the end of the month. You're not paying bills. That's obviously not what's happening, because if it were, then nothing would be happening.

 

Now when you say that they're not making a profit at $200/ft. -- that I can believe, and it's also technically correct. But it's also probably misleading in terms of what people are thinking that it means. I have a business and I can guarantee you that our profit margins are extremely small and often times negative. But I still get paid. My partner and employees get paid. The bills and subcontractors get paid.

 

I am certain that for every building in OTR at $200/ft or higher, there are many principles, architects, engineers, GCs, HVAC/electrical/plumbing subcontractors, material suppliers, and laborers that are getting paid. And in many cases, very well paid, by most peoples standards. Stephen Leeper is well paid. All, as it should be. But at the same time I'm sure that the development business in OTR is not by its nature a high margin business.

 

So I find it disingenuous when I read in the papers about how expensive OTR development is, and how hard it all is, and how (my reading between the lines here, obviously) you must have to be the progeny of Einstein and Mother Theresa to even contemplate doing it.

 

I'm going to finish a 4 story building of about 5000 sq. ft. for about $110/ft. Yes, I am. And you know what, CDF thinks that I am too, and they wouldn't give me the loan if they didn't believe both me and my GC, who also says that I am. The finishes will be nice. Part of that is the building. It has 90% good original floors, and original plaster, and original moldings. That's worth tons. And what about the "finishes" provided by 10-11 ft. ceilings? Priceless. After that, what finishes you have left are compartmentalized in the kitchens and baths. My wife and I will design the kitchens and select all the bath tile and fixtures and avoid paying a 50-100% premium just for that. For things like kitchens we'll almost play the role of a GC, and arrange for and supervise installation. We know people who will do a good job and are reasonably priced.

 

But of course, we'll lose money doing this. My wife and I aren't getting paid for what we do. But other folks are. And if it were $200/ft, we could pay ourselves a lot of money. But we'd still not make a stitch of profit on the job.

 

^ I forgot to add, by the way, that despite everything I said, I don't find myself in the camp of folks who think these units are currently overpriced. I'm a realist and think that the price is going to be what people will pay and not what they cost.

Though it is a remodel, the building on Wade Street that is listed right now is selling for exactly $150 a square foot, which means construction costs were somewhere below that. The house is a massive 3500 square feet. 

 

I think condo buildings like Mercer are likely to cost more than $150 per square foot because of steel, elevators, etc. but I honestly think new houses like the one built last year on Race Street can’t be much more than $150 per square foot to put up. Townhomes are likely cheaper than condos too, as you’re going to have things like party walls, fewer exterior finishes/insulation, etc. yet no need for much steel, concrete, or vertical transportation.

 

I think a modest 1500 square foot 2 or 3 bedroom house could be built on a vacant plot in OTR for under $300,000, if not down around $250,000, and I think it would do wonders to bring middle class residents to the area.

 

Except most of 3CDC's projects would not be possible for a private developer because they'd lose money without city funds available to 3CDC. You can see their breakdown of costs and go to the auditor's site to see what the total sales for a development were and you'll find this exact situation.

 

http://www.3cdc.org/our-projects/completed-projects/westfalen-lofts-ii/

 

This is Westfalen II. Cost $8.6 million to do. Total sales of $6.6 million. $239/sq. ft. with generic finishes sales costs, closer to $275/sq. ft. construction costs.

 

http://www.3cdc.org/our-projects/completed-projects/westfalen-lofts/

 

Westfalen I. Total cost of $3.38 million, total sales came in under $2 million. Same basic situation. Generic finishes but expensive construction costs due to the specifics of the development.

 

If you go through their entire "completed projects" section you'll find the same situation in essentially every one of their for-sale developments.

 

Without knowing the specifics of your building it's difficult to have this conversation. But some buildings, like many that 3CDC deal with, require as much as $100/sq. ft. in stabilization costs alone. A private developer would never take those buildings on because that's too much money to invest in one property and sales averages can't make up for that.

 

I never claimed the people responsible for design, construction, etc. aren't getting paid though. 3CDC has means of handling negative sales that private developers do not (garage revenue, owning all the storefronts they develop, etc.). The costs associated with paying those people are why things are so expensive.

 

New construction is a different animal than renovation. You won't have to do any excavation (not a cheap endeavor in an urban location), new foundation construction, etc. in a renovation project. Fixing up a building that has good bones to begin with is definitely tough, but leaves out entire portions of the construction process of a new building that are far from cheap. Foundation costs are much higher today than they were even a few months ago. Concrete and steel are extremely expensive at this point in time.

 

And with that I'm thinking I've given my input into this conversation. I was relaying information I see from being in the field and knowing that many existing buildings need way more work than most people realize. And that new construction is not the same thing as renovation.

http://www.3cdc.org/our-projects/completed-projects/westfalen-lofts-ii/

This is Westfalen II. Cost $8.6 million to do. Total sales of $6.6 million. $239/sq. ft. with generic finishes sales costs, closer to $275/sq. ft. construction costs.

 

Westfalen II was funded with mix that included over 35% City Grant funds... which explains why 3CDC was willing/able to do a project like that, when other developers (without access to public funds) weren't. And it also explains why 3CDC was willing/able to sell them below cost.

 

(Little nitpick on the numbers, jmicha... your $6.6 million sales figure is - I assume - calculated by average selling price ($202k) times number of units (33), which doesn't account for the commercial space in the project. Your point still stands that 3CDC is selling the residential condos below cost, but the commercial portion will, at least partially, help 3CDC recoup their investment.)

&This is true which I sort of alluded to (maybe not clearly enough) when I mentioned 3CDC retains ownership of all their storefronts so they see rent from that even beyond the HOA taking over the development. Not sure how common this is for other developers but it definitely helps in a situation like this offset any potential losses by allowing for a monthly income that helps fund their day-to-day expenses.

 

The sales in Westfalen were all at list price or slightly above. So I figured that average was good enough for my example without having to go into the auditor and look up each individual unit since my point would have still been essentially the same.

 

But my point was that a normal developer couldn't take on a project like that because they wouldn't have access to a lot of the funds available to 3CDC. Hueber Homes wouldn't have been able to do the Westfalen project alone since they would have never made any money off of it.

I almost think we need a new thread for Grandin Properties projects in OTR.

 

The Planning Commission during their upcoming April 3 meeting will discuss the lease of the city-owned property at 124-128 W. Liberty St to Grandin Properties so the developer can apply for state historic tax credits.

 

The current plan is to rehab the building into 7 residential units and 2 commercial spaces.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning-buildings/city-planning-commission/apr-4-2015-packet/

You should not ignore the commercial space. It's fair market value needs to be added to the sales revenue.

 

When I have more than cost estimates for my building I'll post them in all their gory detail. We're bidding it now. It's useful to compare what a hack like me can do with an individual building, to the professions. That margin might entice others to do the same.

I'm not ignoring it, but in the case of, say, Westfalen, those three spaces aren't worth the 2 million shortfall the sale of the units left plus whatever percentage profit a private developer would need on the sale of the units to justify the project in their minds.

 

And in the case of the townhomes, there aren't going to be any commercial spaces. So that can't be taken into account for future revenue for those buildings which are what started this conversation.

In response to the "Fee simple" point--anyone who owns any property typically owns it in "Fee Simple Absolute" (or FSA as my property law professor would say).  I'm not sure why they used that phrasing here, unless they just wanted to indicate that it's a free standing building that will come with the plot beneath it.  There are in fact other places in OTR--like where the Woodward Trust owns land--where I believe you can own the building on top of the land, but not the land itself. 

 

 

^Fee simple can be a distinction for townhomes when they are part of an HOA but aren't condominiums.

The town homes might share party walls and/or the foundation might be one continuous structure.  Or maybe they will be independent homes but the parking lot will be HOA.

3CDC seems to be focusing on properties directly along the streetcar line at the moment.

 

Funny that 3CDC is going to benefit greatly from the streetcar, yet they have yet to come out in support of it. They have barely even acknowledged its existence. The term "streetcar" only appears three times on 3CDC.org. Two of them are in quarterly report slideshows, which each contain a slide saying: "Visit www.Cincinnati-Oh.Gov/Streetcar to sign up for weekly project updates." The other is in their 2010 Annual Report which contains the following quote from Cincinnati Magazine:

 

“Over-the-Rhine is being transformed by the private, non-profit Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC), which has so far put $84 million into buying up derelict buildings and funding development. And there’s other change: the push for a streetcar to connect the center city with uptown; the impending opening of the new School for Creative & Performing Arts; the excitement of new residents, retailers and restaurateurs; the frustration of stakeholders on the street where redevelopment hasn’t arrived; and the concerns of longtimers who guard the interest of low-income residents, esteemed cultural institutions and even the buildings themselves. They all seem to want the same things: a safe, clean neighborhood that’s economically viable. A place where beautiful 19th century buildings answer 21st century needs. A community that’s genuinely diverse and vibrant.”

 

-Cincinnati Magazine, September 2009

Anyone know if 15th and Race got approval at the OTR Community Council meeting? I had to leave but people were so wound up from the North Pointe project around Rothenburg that was presented earlier I wonder if it passed or not.

 

Edit: nevermind I think it was information only

^ What was the outcome regarding the NorthPointe Project?

The letter of support for the NorthPointe project was rescinded.

What exactly was the NorthPointe project and why was it rescinded?

Project in the North-east section of OTR for 21 new family townehomes ($400K-$600K) as well as nine workhouse units (~$900/month) in a to be rehabbed building to be built on mostly empty, crime-infested land that also included the removal of six basketball hoops.  It was rescinded because of a technicality on the vote at the last meeting caused the vote to be invalidated.  They voted on it again last night, but this time Josh Spring organized more people to show up including bringing in kids to parrot his view of why they should not be allowed to go forward with the plan.  The developer was trying to work with the community to save two of the hoops, but those that showed up didn't want to lose any of the hoops nor allow "those people" to live in the neighborhood.

I'm not sure since I missed last month's meeting, but I think it's some single family homes around Rothenburg School and one historic ronvation into "workforce" housing.  Folks were upset the project took away too many basketball courts, and that rent at the "workforce" housing would be to high.  To be honest, Northpointe did no do themselves any favors- they had no presentation and did not speak up and clearly explain how the project would benefit the neighborhood when a few folks started getting up on their soapbox.  The meeting was way too long and Ryan Messer who can usually keep things moving was out of town.

 

I am sympathetic about the basketball courts. Maybe they could install some hoops in the Rothenburg School parking lot?

Knowing someone working on this project, it would be a huge asset to that area. Most of that area is vacant land that serves absolutely no purpose. The basketball hoops are almost never fully used so I'm not sure why keeping two is deemed problematic.

 

The "those people" argument is ridiculous. That should never be taken seriously by anyone with the power to approve or disapprove a development on completely vacant land (with the exception of the lots the basketball hoops are on).

So is the project dead in the water now or what happens from here?

I'm not sure since I missed last month's meeting, but I think it's some single family homes around Rothenburg School and one historic ronvation into "workforce" housing.  Folks were upset the project took away too many basketball courts, and that rent at the "workforce" housing would be to high.  To be honest, Northpointe did no do themselves any favors- they had no presentation and did not speak up and clearly explain how the project would benefit the neighborhood when a few folks started getting up on their soapbox.  The meeting was way too long and Ryan Messer who can usually keep things moving was out of town.

 

I am sympathetic about the basketball courts. Maybe they could install some hoops in the Rothenburg School parking lot?

 

Grant Park, which they are currently renovating, has basketball hoops and is less than 900 feet away.

So is the project dead in the water now or what happens from here?

 

Parties will likely bicker back and forth until everyone is annoyed and sick of hearing about it, it'll be approved with some caveats, and we'll see 21 new townhomes in an area lacking in investment. All will work out.

I should note that the NorthePoint developers did give a presentation at the February meeting.  At last night's meeting they were just re-presenting the motion and did not do the full presentation again.

Some seem to have the idea that anyone with money is inherently evil.

The moment I saw Josh Spring mentioned... ugh.

 

I'm sure he's taking advantage of Messer not being around too.

It is pretty clear that the "homeless advocates" and "anti-gentrification activists" like Josh Spring are really just opposed to any new development happening. One of the community feedback items was: "Concern was also raised regarding the cost of the homes and that people couldn’t afford homes at $400,000." Well, why don't you let the people building the homes and the people buying the homes worry about that? Just because one individual cannot afford a $400,000 home does not mean that $400,000 homes should never be built.

 

There is no value in keeping his land vacant. I'm sure it will be developed soon.

 

Update:

I've always been perplexed at the concept of having claim on a neighborhood. Being entitled to an unchanging neighborhood is not a right. Whites sure as hell weren't "entitled" to their neighborhoods in the 20th century when upwardly mobile minorities wanted to buy a house, and poor people aren't entitled to their ghettos in the 21st.

Whites sure as hell weren't "entitled" to their neighborhoods in the 20th century when upwardly mobile minorities wanted to buy a house

 

Actually, they kind of were. Which was a huge problem with suburban expansion and white flight.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act put an end to bank redlining, which had a profound effect on segregating U.S. cities.

It's a balance- on one hand you don't want anyone to be truly steamrolled by new development, but on the other hand some people like to use these meetings to grandstand and emote some self righteous anger.  Things ended up like they did last night because no one put things in perspective- an occupied building is better for everyone than an abandoned one, new neighbors are better than an empty lot collecting litter.  Even for kids using the basketball courts, having more eyes on the street to prevent crime might be better than having spare court. New taxpayers can fund more services and the upper middle class people buying these may even contribute financially to community activities. 

 

I didn't vote one way or the other because I missed last month's presentation.  If Northpointe had even shown a diagram it would have gone a long way for me. 

I'm not sure since I missed last month's meeting, but I think it's some single family homes around Rothenburg School and one historic ronvation into "workforce" housing.  Folks were upset the project took away too many basketball courts, and that rent at the "workforce" housing would be to high.  To be honest, Northpointe did no do themselves any favors- they had no presentation and did not speak up and clearly explain how the project would benefit the neighborhood when a few folks started getting up on their soapbox.  The meeting was way too long and Ryan Messer who can usually keep things moving was out of town.

 

I am sympathetic about the basketball courts. Maybe they could install some hoops in the Rothenburg School parking lot?

 

Grant Park, which they are currently renovating, has basketball hoops and is less than 900 feet away.

 

Not to mention the basketball courts behind Joe's, between Sycamore and Main at 13th, less than 4 blocks away (which in all likelihood will be upgraded with the renovation of Peaslee / Ziegler Park.

Rothenberg (right across the street) also has basketball hoops.

Those are turning out nicer than I imagined.

219 Wade is showing as "Sale Pending" with an asking price of $530,000.  Wow.

 

219 Wade sold for $495,000. Couldn't crack the $500,000 mark.

That urban expansion one with the garage on the first floor is looking like they've got everything right.  I'm hoping the final facade will look good (though seeing that they used cement block on the sides instead of vinyl siding gives me hope it will look good) because its a really creative use of a preexisting building that would have otherwise been torn down.

I love the idea of not demolishing one story buildings, but adding on top.  There are a lot of interesting one story properties that could be reused.

I love the idea of not demolishing one story buildings, but adding on top.  There are a lot of interesting one story properties that could be reused.

 

As long as it's structurally doable, many times it isn't, at least not without performing a façadectomy. 

Put basketball hoops on Rothenberg's employee parking lot.  Problem solved.

 

Take a look at this proposal for Short North in Columbus...much, much higher quality than anything 3CDC has built so far:

  http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2015/04/02/first-look-multi-story-tower-proposed-for-short.html