I think Towne presented to OTR Foundation's infill committee, but I have not seen the plans.

Wow, nice. 9 townhomes. I liked the inclusion of the lower level space that could be used as a home office or a rentable space.

 

Very nice plans.  I really like the entire layout.  I hope they end up looking good once they're built! 

Though we could get into a conversation about faux historic architecture and my opinions on it, if it's going to be done hopefully it ends up looking correct. If these come out looking nice, which the front rendering suggest they will, they could be a great asset. We need this scale infill in as many places as we can get it. There are so many singular vacant lots that could use some nice townhome infill in order to recomplete the street wall.

It looks like the townhomes are on a footprint less than 20' wide... which is great since OTR has so many empty parcels of that width. I'm glad to see that Daniels Homes is using Hampton architects, since Steve Hampton knows OTR architecture better than just about anybody. I'm really hoping we see more and more projects of this sort of scale and detail.

Though we could get into a conversation about faux historic architecture and my opinions on it,

 

 

Yeah the alternative is something faux-interesting. 

Or something actually interesting? There are plenty of architects capable of designing really awesome buildings in this city and we're not capable of getting a fair chance because people have some ridiculous romantic idea of what OTR should be and force new construction to look old despite sharing essentially zero construction methods with the actual historic buildings they're trying to emulate.

I was reading from my phone so I apologize if I am on the wrong thread but I know it was posted about 4 new retail spaces and some more restaurants and bars opening up along Vine Street, which I believe are mostly 3CDC spaces?  I have a question, are the new spots opening up in previously vacant retail storefronts or is there some replacement going on?

Or something actually interesting? There are plenty of architects capable of designing really awesome buildings in this city and we're not capable of getting a fair chance because people have some ridiculous romantic idea of what OTR should be and force new construction to look old despite sharing essentially zero construction methods with the actual historic buildings they're trying to emulate.

 

I'm pretty much right there with you. People are so up in arms typically when a new construction project doesn't embody the look of "classic" otr. I think that's bs, and that there is ultimately nothing sexier than having this mix of classic old architecture, but also this new modern architecture that shows where we have been, and where we are going.

Cincy needs a lot of work on its new Architecture however.  (OTR does have some better examples than most).

I was reading from my phone so I apologize if I am on the wrong thread but I know it was posted about 4 new retail spaces and some more restaurants and bars opening up along Vine Street, which I believe are mostly 3CDC spaces?  I have a question, are the new spots opening up in previously vacant retail storefronts or is there some replacement going on?

 

Majority are vacant spots being filled in.

I really like the basement level offices/apartments on those.  Adds diversity to the streetscape and kinds of uses possible in OTR.

 

If it was me, I'd run an Airbnb out of there and see how big of a dent I could put in that mortgage!

Scripps heir takes lead on $75M Over-the-Rhine development

May 13, 2015, 12:08pm EDT

Tom Demeropolis Senior Staff Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

A few weeks after the Business Courier reported Martin Wade is cutting back on his daily duties at Rookwood Pottery, Wade told me he’s also no longer heading up plans for about $75 million worth of development around Grammer’s German restaurant in Over-the-Rhine.

 

In a two-line email, the Cincinnati entrepreneur said his wife is now in charge of the project.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/13/scripps-heir-takes-lead-on-75m-over-the-rhine.html

Not sure if this has been noted anywhere, but I've heard a rumor that the Wades are getting divorced. So, that explains all of this recent strange behavior with Martin Wade stepping away from Rookwood Pottery and Grammer's Place.

Friend in the know confirms this. I've also heard their marriage was largely a business deal like Claire and Frank Underwood in House of Cards.

Microgrocery opening soon near Findlay Market-June

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/18/micro-grocery-opening-soon-near-findlay-market.html

Microgrocery opening soon near Findlay Market-June

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/18/micro-grocery-opening-soon-near-findlay-market.html

 

Just to make sure this doesn't get lost in the conversation about under 18 clubs of yore, this is hopefully good news as long as someone has finally figured out how to do a proper urban market.  I still remember Mayberry foodstuffs being hyped as being a grocery and other than having a tiny amount of produce and a few beers it was practically useless - I was worried that this would turn people off from researching how to do one right.

 

I've linked to these before, but for those who don't remember/didn't read the board, here are a few examples of what I'm talking about from Chicago:  http://www.greengrocerchicago.com/

http://gogrocerchicago.com/store-locations/

http://www.oliviasmarket.com/

I just moved the discussion of clubs to the Cincinnati Bars and Nightlife discussion

Beasley Place ribbon cutting ceremony was today. The building will have 13 apartments at 1405-1407 Republic:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/05/21/beasley-place-real-affordable-otr-housing/27731381/

 

This building was a recipient of Historic Preservation Tax Credits. The exterior looks great - I'm curious to see some interior photos. The first floor has a storefront with about 1200 square feet of commercial space. Does anybody know what will be going in that space?

It really does look great. That stretch of Republic will be fully revitalized soon. This building stuck out like a sore thumb when I moved in to my place on Race Street last year. I have a view of the side/back of the building from my balcony and it has been nice seeing it come back to life. The storefront looks especially well done. That corner is quickly becoming one of my favorite intersections in OTR.

Nice.  Definitely something to point to when people scream gentrification.  My hope is if this is successful they try similiar projects in the future.  Meanwhile the bar Low Spark on the corner opens soon and John Hueber is working on 5 single family homes (2 rehab and 3 new) on Republic just south of 14th.

Hueber Homes is also doing the building at 1506 Republic which is a sizable building. And Bair Properties is doing a fantastic job on their multiple properties just south of Liberty.

 

Republic Street south of Liberty is becoming one of the best examples of mixing of uses, incomes, etc. It's a great street and an example for how we should be expanding redevelopment in the future of OTR.

The City posted a bunch of photos of Beasley Place, including interiors of some of the apartments, on Facebook:

 

Hueber Homes is also doing the building at 1506 Republic which is a sizable building. And Bair Properties is doing a fantastic job on their multiple properties just south of Liberty.

 

1506 is going to be two units. One apartment and then an owner/occupied unit.

Wow really? That's a huge building to only have two units. How big are those units going to be?

OTR Still House: https://www.facebook.com/otrstillhouse?pnref=lhc

 

 

Semi unnanounced/announced project. Apparently going to be an event center/bar? Takes place in a old warehouse center that is being remodeled to suit an event stage.

 

Seems to be located near Findlay Market area...some development pics on the fb page.

^I'm pretty sure that it is a distillery in the works by the owners of Pet Wants.  I rode my bike to the location last night and the mailbox says Born Again distillery- so maybe they have changed the name to OTR Still House? Or Still House is the name of event center/bar portion that you mention? Seems like a cool project!

BTW Branch St. where this is located has a really cool industrial feel:

 

 

This will be also be right around the corner from Rhinegeist and a streetcar stop and I assume will have a Central Parkway entrance as well. 

 

 

Oh man, my imagination just went wild imagining that street fully occupied and refurbished with businesses, galleries, studios, etc. occupying those industrial buildings.

 

This sounds like a cool project.

Really cool vibe that street is giving. Is much of the distillery district in that area have that same kinda historic industrial feel of sorts that the image above is showing?

Yeah, it's the backside of the old canal, where a lot of industrial buildings were located. A lot of them are still in use! As far of as "distillery district" goes, I've heard local historian/man about town John Funcheon is working on Stadt Distillery in the Apex building across from the Streetcar MOF.

 

What I would do with this area is keep everything historical or anything still in use, then go in and replace some of the underutilized one story non historical buildings with new multi story residential.

 

Wow really? That's a huge building to only have two units. How big are those units going to be?

 

Probably 2 2000 sqft homes.

The Mercer Commons 16 Bit barcade has a large garage door type opening on Mercer St. which I assume would be helpful in getting arcade games in and out.  However it looks like they are putting up some wood fencing for a little patio on the sidewalk that would prevent them from using this door?

^I think it's just going to be a garage door opening to get the outside-in vibe on nice days and evenings, like they have at Quan Hapa and Mercer.  I don't think it's necessarily related to getting the games in and out. 

Random question...Are there height restrictions for buildings in OTR? So, say if 3CDC or another outside developer wanted to build a 30 story Condo tower/hotel in OTR, would they even be allowed to build it at that height?

There is not a specific "black letter" restriction in the OTR historic conservation guidelines, but it says infill should not vary more than one story from neighboring buildings, and that most buildings in OTR are 2-5 stories.  I think that it would be impossible to get a 10 story building (let alone something like 20 stories) past the review board. 

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/54846058-D043-26AE-A0BB3F1BB5EBD422/showMeta/0/

 

I don't know, maybe you could get something higher on Central Parkway--there are a fair number of taller buildings there.  But I think that would be about it. 

The review board throws a temper tantrum if someone proposes something that doesn't have an identity crisis and isn't trying to act like its 100+ years older than it really is. There's no chance in hell they'd approve a tower. And the unfortunate thing is that I feel they'd even restrict a Central Parkway tower despite there being a 16 story in OTR along Central Parkway. That road (and Liberty) need buildings taller than the general 2-6 story range that exists in OTR in order to feel even remotely pedestrian in nature.

"identity crisis and isn't trying to act like its 100+ years older"

 

Are you referring to the current day architects trapped in a 100 year old modernist style or are you referring to the OTR builders of 1880 who interpreted Italian style as their own?

I'm referring to people who move into an historic district but want to build new construction that looks like it's from 1880 despite having absolutely zero similarities in construction methods to the buildings it is trying to emulate.

 

Look up Morris Adjmi Architects in NYC for what I consider appropriately contextual, yet modern architecture that fits into historic districts, complimenting the historic architecture while understanding that making something brand new match something it shares no qualities with is a silly idea and makes really no sense at all in such a modern world.

What if the market wants new buildings that resemble the old ones?  What if everyone isn't impressed with parallelogram-profile pillars, shipping container chic, etc.? 

Jake, where did I say any of that? Go to the architect I mentioned and rethink your snarky comment.

 

The buildings of 1880 are like they are because that was the current way of building. They were using as much glass as they could back then, solid masonry walls, wood single pane windows, etc. because that's what modern technology of the time allowed. If you were to build a new building that emulated that you'd be using framed walls with veneer brick, clad double or triple pane windows, etc. Architecture isn't just about style, it's about construction methods as well. And emulating something from a completely different era makes no sense because construction methods of today are nothing like they were back then.

 

You need to educate yourself on what's actually current with urban infill architecture since you're clearly mistaken about what is current. Most urban infill built today to today's standards and styles is quite simple and uncluttered. The styles you mentioned in such a rude manner are experimental and looking for a deeper understanding of what can be done while thinking differently about what can be architectural. But they comprise a tiny fraction of a percent of new architecture.

If a layperson looks at a new building and can’t tell the difference between it and its neighbors, than the historic conservation board as failed, in my opinion.

 

Some of the buildings by the architect jmicha mentioned above come close to looking historic until you look at the detailing. Several of them, in context, seemingly disappear.  That’s also a nice way to do infill in a historic neighborhood, but I don’t know that many clients would be happy about that.

 

That's precisely why I enjoy their work so much. The massing, the way the buildings meet the ground and sky, the scale, etc. fit in with their historic neighbors. But then when you look closer you realize they are thoroughly modern in their materiality, their detailing, their spatial planning, etc. They work as infill in historic neighborhoods and also represent very clean, well thought out modern detailing and construction methods. They work great from a pedestrian standpoint as well. Their buildings are some of the most comfortable new buildings in all of NYC. I love coming across their work when I'm in New York.

I'm referring to people who move into an historic district but want to build new construction that looks like it's from 1880 despite having absolutely zero similarities in construction methods to the buildings it is trying to emulate.

 

Look up Morris Adjmi Architects in NYC for what I consider appropriately contextual, yet modern architecture that fits into historic districts, complimenting the historic architecture while understanding that making something brand new match something it shares no qualities with is a silly idea and makes really no sense at all in such a modern world.

 

You bring up a good example in Morris Adjmi, that studio looks to have a knack for sensing what a place feels like and expressing it in new construction, rather than simple mimicry on the one end or stark glass box modernism on the other. I would argue though that OTR is an astonishingly fine-grained built environment, more so than many of the bigger cities that designers like Adjmi can play in. You could almost say it's just downright fussy. There are very few large gestures here to emulate. I compare it to Charleston, which has had its ups and downs with infill as well. Places like Charleston and OTR are almost more like museums than city neighborhoods.

Which is part of why the fuss over modern infill worries me so much. They're living, breathing neighborhoods but many want to keep them as museum pieces which is a dangerous path to go down. No city is a museum and they need to be able to grow and adapt with modern society. That means a vacant piece of land could become a building with a curtain wall of glass or metal that has no quantifiable detriment to the historic architecture it is next to and life will go on. As long as that modern building understands the location it's being built in and responds appropriately, as I believe architects like Morris Adjmi do, then the neighborhood will be better for it.

Which is part of why the fuss over modern infill worries me so much. They're living, breathing neighborhoods but many want to keep them as museum pieces which is a dangerous path to go down. No city is a museum and they need to be able to grow and adapt with modern society. That means a vacant piece of land could become a building with a curtain wall of glass or metal that has no quantifiable detriment to the historic architecture it is next to and life will go on. As long as that modern building understands the location it's being built in and responds appropriately, as I believe architects like Morris Adjmi do, then the neighborhood will be better for it.

 

The problem is that modern buildings reflect modern industrial processes and a modern economy, ie, they are big with a lot of prefabricated components. It's a very easy temptation to want to make a statement in your facade and veer outside of what I would consider complementary to the context. (Especially when you try to do it cheap, like that ridiculous piece of Mercer Commons on Walnut.) I like the majority of stuff on this pinterest board https://www.pinterest.com/venerableprop/contextual-urban-infill/ but what does it all have in common? Fenestration and facade rhythym of course, and its humble. Which is remarkable because I'm sure a lot of it is expensive. It occupies that very narrow realm of trying to fit in without looking like you were trying to fit in.

Much of that work is nice modern infill. And there are several Morris Adjmi projects in that pinterest list. I've always been a fan of subtlety in architecture and feel that coincides with being appropriate in historic neighborhoods.

Total layman's opinion but... What bothers me about the "keep in context and pay homage but don't imitate" mantra is that my favorite parts of OTR buidlings are the elaborate and ornate details.  Things like the cornice carvings and all the way up to things like leaves & vines, animals, cherubs, and human figures built into the facades.  It seems like by saying "don't imitate" in new construction we are saying that those kinds of things are now forbidden for all time. (and maybe by extension there is some homage must be paid to modernism in all new construction as well.)

jimcha the problem with your "museum" comment is that it's been used derisively in Europe but has no purpose here.  The problem is that new infill construction in Europe, and *especially* Paris, operates in a completely different context.  It's a plain fact that much less intact 19th century cityscape exists in entire United States than in central Paris alone, which measures (I'm going from memory) about 6x8 miles, or roughly 50 square miles. 

 

In the entire United States of America there are only a handful of places where a square mile of intact 19th century city exists. Cincinnati, OH is one of them.  And as I have argued many times before, putting up tall residential buildings not only ruins the area's historic streetscapes and disrespects its narrative, it also discourages a complete and speedy renovation of all of Over-the-Rhine's housing stock.  Putting up 1,000 units of hi-rise housing on Liberty St. would slow the redevelopment of the West End, Brighton, etc.   

Total layman's opinion but... What bothers me about the "keep in context and pay homage but don't imitate" mantra is that my favorite parts of OTR buidlings are the elaborate and ornate details.  Things like the cornice carvings and all the way up to things like leaves & vines, animals, cherubs, and human figures built into the facades.  It seems like by saying "don't imitate" in new construction we are saying that those kinds of things are now forbidden for all time. (and maybe by extension there is some homage must be paid to modernism in all new construction as well.)

 

To follow up on this point would it really be a terrible thing to put a traditional style cornice on a John Hueber home for example?  Would it really confuse people as to what's historical and what's not or detract from the significance of what's already there?  And is it that big of a deal that it must be regulated? ( I am making the assumption that the "don't imitate" clause is why more new buildings don't have elaborate cornices, although cost is a factor as well I realize.) 

Why can't new buildings in OTR look new? Why must the brick veneer often be "weathered" masonry? Why must we put up cornices that pale even in comparison to the original tin stampings? (Go ahead, show me a new cornice that really replicates the feel of the original, no matter what the building cost. I'm waiting.)

 

It seems that the historic conservation board guidelines are to blame. The thing is, this board, enabled by the city administrative code, consisting of 7 members appointed by the city manger and approved by council, is charged with writing its own guidelines. The members could be selected differently, and they could be asked to re-write their guidelines to allow and even encourage modern infill that is of high quality. I for one think they should definitely do just that.

 

For those who are interested but haven't seen them, I'm attaching the boards own conservation guidelines.

 

They start out well enough: "New construction should be well-designed but should not replicate the existing buildings." And then they go on...

 

"New buildings should have a well-defined base. Within the district most buildings have a base that is distinguishable from the rest of the building."

 

"Details on new buildings should relate to the detailing of adjacent or nearby buildings."

 

"New construction must employ a strong element that terminates the uppermost part of the building. Distinctive elements in the architecture of Over-the-Rhine are elaborate projecting cornices, decorative parapets and the expressive use of materials."

 

And especially, window openings should be just as they were when a 3 x 4 sheet of plate glass was a luxury to behold: "Window openings are extremely important in this district. The openings of new buildings should be related to the size and placement of openings found on historic structures of similar use in the district. In residential buildings, window openings are typically found individually rather than in pairs or grouped. The openings are taller and wide (typically in a proportion of 2:1), window sash are set back from the wall surface, and openings have some form of definition, such as lintels, sills or decorative surrounds. Window openings, which are typically aligned vertically, usually occupy between 20% and 50% of the principal facade."

 

I have no problem at all with these sorts of guidelines applying to rehabilitation of existing historic structures; those must be preserved. But these are restrictions applied to new infill housing. It's just ridiculous in my opinion.

 

No wonder that we get the architecture that is submitted for OTR infill. You have to really be gearing up for a fight to do otherwise. I think these guidelines need to be rewritten, and the new ones need to embrace high quality modern infill, and turn people away from the inevitable poor copies of historic architecture that we're getting. Take a look at the new 3CDC design for the Race and 15th project, and you'll see the maximum that the envelope can be pushed toward a modern interpretation of these rules. Frankly it's not good, cause it's neither historic nor high quality modern design, cause the rules stick the architects in this muddy middle where nothing can be really good.

 

And if the board (or urban conservator) has no appetite for that sort of change, then maybe they should be replaced by those who do.