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.) 

 

I would say that philosophically you are correct, but that in practice it doesn't have a great track record. Also a fundamental questions: Is imitation really design?

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.) 

 

I don't think the board has any problem with putting an elaborate cornice on new buildings; correct me if I'm wrong. They just seem to be executed poorly. I mean, there aren't a lot of people left who can create tin cornices these days. So we get whatever can be made on site out of wood, or purchased prefab out of foam. This gets installed in the field, of course, by a finish carpenter, if you're lucky. I just doubt that those sorts of folks have the same attention to detail as the tin smiths did 100 years ago, working in a shop environment.

All that detail was there for a reason though. That's the problem. It had a very distinct purpose. Much of it was to cover up shoddy joints that resulted from the lack of construction accuracy of the time. And many of the details you see were actually mass produced by a handful of people. Notice many buildings around OTR sharing details. It was no different than buying something off the shelf today.

 

Forcing that specific type of detail has no relation to modern construction techniques. And trying to force techniques from a very much bygone era on new construction just results in really lackluster architecture like 15th and Race. Not terrible but also incredibly forgettable and boring. And that's a waste. It could be a nice, modern design that shares massing, scale, graining, etc. with its historic neighbors but the similarities end there. The detailing, materials, etc. could be representative of 2015 and it would show to its users that it's a new building and that it's neighbors are old buildings. It heightens both. Lazy faux historic buildings bring their ornate historic neighbors down a notch.

All that detail was there for a reason though. That's the problem. It had a very distinct purpose. Much of it was to cover up shoddy joints that resulted from the lack of construction accuracy of the time. And many of the details you see were actually mass produced by a handful of people. Notice many buildings around OTR sharing details. It was no different than buying something off the shelf today.

 

It has no relation to modern construction techniques. And trying to force techniques from a very much bygone era on new construction just results in really lackluster architecture like 15th and Race. Not terrible but also incredibly forgettable and boring. And that's a waste. It could be a nice, modern design that shares massing, scale, graining, etc. with its historic neighbors but the similarities end there. The detailing, materials, etc. could be representative of 2015 and it would show to its users that it's a new building and that it's neighbors are old buildings. It heightens both. Lazy faux historic buildings bring their ornate historic neighbors down a notch.

 

I don't mind 15th and Race at all. It's connecting one node (Liberty and Race) to another (Taft Ale House). It doesn't look faux historic to me. It's just quiet infill doing its job of filling in a gap in the block.

I certainly agree; see above. Seems the only approach to actually getting this done, as opposed to talking about it, would be to build political forces for a change in the board guidelines. Perhaps that would start with a sympathetic councilperson, perhaps with the OTR neighborhood council, perhaps.... I don't know.

 

15th and Race isn't trying to be faux historic, but it's about as modern as you can get under the guidelines without putting up a fight. And that's the problem. It creates buildings that fall way into the background as a really bland building. Why is that okay? People on these boards are constantly talking about how most modern infill in Cincy is bad (and I agree) yet here we have people supporting guidelines which only allow for bad infill. It makes no sense.

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.) 

 

I don't think the board has any problem with putting an elaborate cornice on new buildings; correct me if I'm wrong. They just seem to be executed poorly. I mean, there aren't a lot of people left who can create tin cornices these days. So we get whatever can be made on site out of wood, or purchased prefab out of foam. This gets installed in the field, of course, by a finish carpenter, if you're lucky. I just doubt that those sorts of folks have the same attention to detail as the tin smiths did 100 years ago, working in a shop environment.

 

We have 3d modeling and machines designed for mass production on a far more economical scale than we did 100 years ago. The problem is that the demand for decorative cornices is not there. That being said, small shops could easily make modern elaborate custom cornices, it's just that most people don't want to invest that much into a piece of their home that tho once necessary and useful, is now purely decorative. I do however believe that there could be far better interpretation of a modern cornice than large brushed aluminum panels or a strip of colored foam board stuck out 6 inches, but that seems to be all we get around here.

 

Edit: I would also add that there is often a lack of window and door / transom detail as well. But my assumption is that people today have more stuff, and space takes precedent over curb appeal.

The cornices still serve a purpose today.  They not only punctuate the vertical termination of the building, giving it a "significant" ending where it meets the sky, as opposed to "just ending" or petering out, but they still protect the facade from rain.  The brick and mortar and aluminum/fiberglass/vinyl windows of today may not need as much protection as in the past, but it still helps. 

 

The funny thing is that what looks like a pretty elaborate cornice really isn't all that complicated.  As a general rule, from top to bottom you have:

 

• An overhanging soffit with an ogee crown moulding (the moulding can be purchased stock today)

• Supporting brackets, usually of wood (these are the most elaborate parts of course)

• Flat wood paneling behind the brackets, with either raised panels, panel moulding, or attic windows (very simple finish carpentry)

• A wood ledge with a smaller piece of crown moulding at the bottom (can also be purchased stock)

 

That's it.  Here's some drawings of a new cornice made to match an existing one's parts and pieces, just arranged slightly differently.  The original has a roof coming down to a box gutter, but the new one is a parapet instead.  Anyway, the amount of variety you can get from pairing up brackets, doing windows vs. panels, varying spacing, turning the corner, using different crown mouldings and other trim is virtually limitless.  Even so, it's really not all that complicated despite looking like it is. 

Where is the box gutter in the revised plan?

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.   

 

Also what I don't get is how is Italianate valid when it itself is a throwback style?  I mean it recalls roman and Italian architecture from another era, why can't contemporary movements do the same?

It may have been a throwback, but it wasn't entirely mimicry. They were still using modern construction methods, materials, etc. that were the result of what technology of the time allowed. If you were to do Italianate today, it wouldn't.

 

Being inspired by a former style and taking certain aspects of historic architecture (massing, scale, graining, etc.) are important in historic districts. But trying to recreate details using completely different techniques is where the idea of building a modern italianate building falls apart. And this is what the historic guidelines are trying to do. And it just doesn't work. At all. Ever. Look around OTR. What faux historic building actually looks like a good interpretation of italianate architecture? Instead they all look like poorly detailed, lazy attempts. And it's because the historic board is forcing standards down the throats of builders and architects and these standards offer absolutely no room for imagination or inspiration. They only allow backgrounded buildings. And that's not okay considering 60% of the land in OTR is not occupied by historic structures. If we fill all that in with bland, boring architecture then we'll have a neighborhood that's 60% boring and 40% historic. And trust me, that'll look like crap.

It may have been a throwback, but it wasn't entirely mimicry. They were still using modern construction methods, materials, etc. that were the result of what technology of the time allowed. If you were to do Italianate today, it wouldn't.

 

Being inspired by a former style and taking certain aspects of historic architecture (massing, scale, graining, etc.) are important in historic districts. But trying to recreate details using completely different techniques is where the idea of building a modern italianate building falls apart. And this is what the historic guidelines are trying to do. And it just doesn't work. At all. Ever. Look around OTR. What faux historic building actually looks like a good interpretation of italianate architecture? Instead they all look like poorly detailed, lazy attempts. And it's because the historic board is forcing standards down the throats of builders and architects and these standards offer absolutely no room for imagination or inspiration. They only allow backgrounded buildings. And that's not okay considering 60% of the land in OTR is not occupied by historic structures. If we fill all that in with bland, boring architecture then we'll have a neighborhood that's 60% boring and 40% historic. And trust me, that'll look like crap.

 

So italianate works with modern methods of its era, but somehow today's modern methods don't work?  I don't understand that.  Particularly when jjakucyk provides some pretty good examples of modern architects using current technology to make old stuff work.

 

My bias is that architecture is still suffering from the self-inflicted wounds it caused itself when the modern era began and are unwilling to reject some of its iron clad maxims of old=bad and decorative = sinful.

Architecture is about more than a cornice. Recreating a cornice is possible, but construction methods would never require it. It's purely a desire of wanting to look old. And that's a historic renovation. Not a new building. I'm fine with recreating details when fixing up an old building. That makes sense to me. But when starting from scratch? That makes no sense.

 

Architecture doesn't even come close to thinking old=bad. The reason I want better modern architectural infill is because I love historic architecture so much and find it incredibly disrespectful when some builder comes in and builds some garbage building trying to emulate its historic neighbors. It's insulting. And it's frustrating that a historic board doesn't get that and forces it upon an entire neighborhood.

 

Ornamentation has a place, but the way that ornamentation and decoration is handled is the problem. Do you build your car to look like it's 100+ years old? Do you try to make your computer look like it's from 1970? Do you try to make your cell phone look like a phone from the 80s? The answer to all these questions is a resounding "no" because it makes no sense. Why would it in architecture?

Jmicha, is it permitted in your modern framework to have decoration? gabled roofs? cornices?  You are wrong in your statement that cornices and such were a coverup of construction techniques of the past.  A cornice is a stylistic choice. An expensive statement of style.  What you fail to see is that your framework is a stylistic choice.  Just because it is possible with modern materials to build flat roofs or huge swaths of horizontal window does not mean that anything else is faux historic.  Modernism is a historic style.

 

At your request, I looked at Morris Adjmi.  Nice stuff.  I think some of their work would easily pass the Historic Conservation Board.  I've gone to many meetings and the problem is not what the Board will approve, but what architects present to them. I agree that the guidelines should not say that all windows in OTR should be vertical 2:1 and have a sill and lintel.  But notice the guidelines DO NOT SAY THAT.  They say windows are important. They give examples.  There are lots of "shoulds" not "shalls".    Look at the renovation happening now for Chatfield College.  It is an historic building with lots of glazing and steel sash.  And there are others that can be used as examples when presenting to the Board.

Why?  Because the market wants it.  It's basically not possible to create something new that is as impressive as something from the premodern era or antiquity because designing and building stuff now is super-easy compared to then.  A huge sports dome like the Georgia Dome or whatever isn't as impressive as the smaller domed roof at the West Badin Hotel in Indiana let alone the Pantheon in Rome. 

 

The Federal Courthouse in Knoxville, TN was built in the late 90s, it adds WAY MORE to that downtown than any conceivable contemporary building:

 

The neoclassic symphony hall in Nashville, TN opened in 2006 and likewise did way more to legitimize a new extension of their downtown into a former low-rise industrial area than any of the surrounding contemporary buildings:

http://openbuildings.com/buildings/schermerhorn-symphony-center-profile-3153

The cornice was an embellishment of a very necessary aspect of construction. I'm not wrong, ornamentation was used as a way to decorate areas of imperfection where construction techniques didn't allow for small enough tolerances to be cleanly detailed.

 

I never said, "modernism" I said modern in the very general definition of the term that non-architects would understand. I would call shenanigans at someone building a truly modernist building as well. But at least modernism still has a handful of relations in construction techniques to that of current buildings.

 

I'm not talking about style either. I'm talking about architecture. Two different things. Italianate isn't just a style, it has aspect ingrained in how the building was built, used, operated, etc. It had a direct relation to society of the time and construction methods of the time and material abilities of the time. I want that from new buildings. To look, feel, be built in, and operate in the realities of 2015's technology. And nothing the historic board permits can truly do that.

 

Jake, if that's your qualification, nothing in OTR is impressive beyond maybe Music hall. Those italianate row homes were easy to design and build as well. Copy/paste details bought by local craftsman onto a rectangular building. Zoning was specifically done as such to allow for quick, easy buildings.

If a person is looking to build a single family home in OTR on a vacant lot in between two Italianate buildings, and said person wants their house to be an Italianate in the same mold with the cornice and façade all the same, I don't see any issues with that.  I also don't see any issues with a person wanting something more modern yet respectable to the neighbors.  Over time both are going to fit into the neighborhood, especially considering when trees are planted, some age, etc.

 

First example, though I am not a fan of the garage, etc., it should be off street in the back alley, but still nonetheless:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.113855,-84.508914,3a,37.5y,353.45h,102.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2anqNxrIxXlULxEssdZrdA!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

Second Example:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.113779,-84.507736,3a,75y,206.87h,112.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sHsIyPXmI9cM5NB9s6XVHIA!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

I also don't see why it would be a big deal to have infill in OTR, like what will be built on Race and 15th, something similar to the below.  Only difference would be to add a story on top and have glass / open window retail on the bottom floors, and maybe different paint schemes:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.092952,-84.493262,3a,75y,292.54h,96.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1saPUQ6DIaXrA35pSYSwu7Zw!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

 

I mentioned above that a cornice has both practical and aesthetic functions.  Practical being to protect the facade below from the weather, aesthetic to punctuate the termination of the building where it meets the sky.  There's plenty of old buildings out there that didn't need a cornice either because they didn't have an attic or box gutter.  They still built one for the protection effects but also to keep the top of the building from petering out with a weak or non-existent gesture.  Yes you can taper the building at the top to a dome, spire, or whatever, and it's done very successfully in skyscrapers like the Chrysler or Empire State Buildings.  Doing neither is the more modernist approach where the wall just ends, making a building that's attempting to convey a pure shape or volume, usually standing alone, rather than articulated walls within a broader context. 

 

To the point on the purpose of decoration, the answer is NOT a resounding "no" at all.  Cars and computers and cell phones are mass produced items that aren't possible to customize in the way a home can be.  Nevertheless, there ARE people who build their own cars, a few even out of wood, but many are hot rod kits that certainly don't look modern, even if they're not Model-T's.  Have you seen some of the steampunk computer cases and keyboards people are making?  Phones are a bit harder because they don't last long and are so tiny that you can't do a whole lot to them.  Nevertheless, people still want to decorate their houses, their cars, their computers, they just do it with stickers and wallpaper and upholstery, etc., they buy artwork and pottery and knickknacks, they buy patterned rugs and furniture, they hang wind chimes and bird feeders.  That's decoration. 

 

That some people want old stuff and decoration, and that some people want new modern clean stuff isn't mutually exclusive.  They're just choices, and frankly a lot more people prefer traditional art/architecture/music/sculpture/writing/whatever, but one isn't right or better than the other just because artists/architects/musicians/etc. declare it so.  As neilworms said, there's nothing fraudulent about a wood bracket made to replicate a stone bracket, a pressed tin bracket made to replicate a wood bracket, or by extension an injection-moulded polyurethane bracket made to replicate any of the others before it. 

Okay, but the historic board, the origination of this conversation, restricts good modern infill. They guidelines and their whims during meetings restrict proper modern architecture. And therefore they're declaring nothing modern can be as good as something old which is wrong. And that's why it's so frustrating. And the board pushes for really awful interpretations of historic forms. If someone HAS to build a faux old building, at the very least they should be required to do it right. But they aren't. So not only do we not get good faux historic examples, we don't get good modern buildings. We get middle of the road, bland buildings. Hence the frustration with the board. I personally think we shouldn't have to put up with anything they say and that they should have zero power beyond making suggestions. That way people can build what they want and we don't create a neighborhood that exists in some delusional, romantic idea of what it is.

 

Also, so it's clear, I never said I believe people shouldn't be able to build faux historic. I obviously don't agree with it whatsoever, but never did I say any restrictions should be in place against it. The only thing I'd want in that regard are better guidelines to follow to make sure it doesn't turn out like those Hueber Homes things being built all over that are lazy.

 

I just don't want restrictions against modern architecture. Which the board does. It forces faux historic aspects onto buildings that have very little if no relation to historic architecture. Which is why I'm so against them.

First example, though I am not a fan of the garage, etc., it should be off street in the back alley, but still nonetheless:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.113855,-84.508914,3a,37.5y,353.45h,102.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2anqNxrIxXlULxEssdZrdA!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

I used to agree with you on this but I've come to the conclusion that this is an acceptable adaptation, here's why:

 

Sadly I think the reason for these buildings having garages is due to a lack of alleyways for them.  Infill in Chicago is for the most part not allowed to have this setup (excluding a few very old parts of the city), but 90% of the city has alleyways that are easily accessible thus most infill doesn't have a setup like this.

 

By contrast take a look at these non-infill buildings in San Francisco, note the first floor garages:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.77502,-122.442891,3a,75y,71.07h,97.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6lgKXfSLQloRFwORXAOzAQ!2e0

 

Much of San Fran like much of Cincinnati doesn't have alleyways, but they did have one weird local architectural quirk - first floor garden areas.  Almost all of these were converted into garages by the 20th century these houses were built pre-auto but adapted to meet the needs of the current era.  I think building new infill using this San Fran solution in Cincinnati makes sense given similar restrictions.

Yeah, I don't think there is an alley behind Boal street where you could put a garage.  And even streets/alleys behind on the hillside streets are often on a completely differently level than the street itself. 

One more thing I'd like to clarify, I'm not 100% opposed to modernist architecture - a finely executed modernist building is just as pleasurable as a finely executed traditional one.  Fact is not every building needs to be a statement, they just need to be competently designed, save the impressive buildings for the landmark institutional structures.

 

My bias is that modernism is more prone to failure - its more difficult to get right than traditionalist architecture - its too easy to build an ugly minimalist box.    That might be my own bias but it falls in line with observations.

I definitely agree every building shouldn't be a statement. OTR would be garish if that was the case. But a really nicely detailed curtain wall of glass isn't allowed by the historic board but can be really nice and can compliment historic neighbors. But you can't do that here. A building that meets the ground with glass isn't allowed. A building that meets the sky in some manner other than a cornice (or interpretation of cornice) isn't allowed but there are plenty of examples of really greatly designed modern buildings that do it correctly. That's why it frustrates me so much. The board makes any new architecture out to be incompetent which is hardly the case. But nobody has the opportunity to prove them wrong.

jmicha[/member] you really think if we did away with the design guidelines, all of a sudden developers/builders/architects would start putting up great infill? I think you're putting too much faith in the desires of developers. They want to build the cheapest, fastest structure that will get them the best ROI. That means U Square in OTR. That means 65 West in OTR.

 

Without guidelines, the whole neighborhood gets terrible infill.

 

We already put up a building that didn't fit the window dimensions (corner of Mercer and Walnut) and it looks terrible. The windows and scattered balconies draw attention to the building when the whole point of the historic district is to keep a relatively continuous feel to the neighborhood instead of getting a mix of styles that distract from the fabric. The individual buildings shouldn't be fighting for attention.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.110551,-84.513677,3a,75y,220.53h,100.01t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1ss2Oc5Zpdu4zt1IUAJfIVaQ!2e0!5s20140701T000000

 

And the top of that building just ends. It looks terrible. No cap to the building and it stands out.

 

The two new buildings at the corner of 14th and Vine are very good IMO. They don't try to be old, they don't try to get your attention, and they don't try to pretend they were built with old materials (metal accents, etc). Those fit the guidelines and are the type of new construction OTR needs.

First example, though I am not a fan of the garage, etc., it should be off street in the back alley, but still nonetheless:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.113855,-84.508914,3a,37.5y,353.45h,102.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2anqNxrIxXlULxEssdZrdA!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

I used to agree with you on this but I've come to the conclusion that this is an acceptable adaptation, here's why:

 

Sadly I think the reason for these buildings having garages is due to a lack of alleyways for them.  Infill in Chicago is for the most part not allowed to have this setup (excluding a few very old parts of the city), but 90% of the city has alleyways that are easily accessible thus most infill doesn't have a setup like this.

 

By contrast take a look at these non-infill buildings in San Francisco, note the first floor garages:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.77502,-122.442891,3a,75y,71.07h,97.85t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6lgKXfSLQloRFwORXAOzAQ!2e0

 

Much of San Fran like much of Cincinnati doesn't have alleyways, but they did have one weird local architectural quirk - first floor garden areas.  Almost all of these were converted into garages by the 20th century these houses were built pre-auto but adapted to meet the needs of the current era.  I think building new infill using this San Fran solution in Cincinnati makes sense given similar restrictions.

 

I completely agree with you.  I should have clarified, the garage should be in the alleyway in the OTR basin if possible.  Anywhere else on the hills like Boal Street, other hill streets that are rising in elevation, I am A-OK with having the garage like this.

 

My absolute favorite area of Cincinnati is Milton Street.  Lovely on the hill, the bay windows, Italianate buildings, I love the old time retaining walls and small gardens out front, truly a beautiful area, and oh yeah, the views of downtown!

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.113417,-84.50959,3a,75y,56.08h,96.49t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKA8va-jwwXSmtsaK7AyN_A!2e0!6m1!1e1

^I regularly check real estate listings to see if there's anything on Milton in my price range. I love that street. But I love Corporation Alley more. There are some tiny little homes off that alley that are so, for a lack of a better word, adorable. I could live there in a heartbeat. View, small lot, small house, great location, great architecture.

After reading all of this, I tend to think that the design guidelines in place in OTR so far have done more good than bad. As Andres Duany once said, design guidelines tend to prevent both excellent and poor design. OTR is a national treasure, and I think that poor buildings are more of a threat to the district than lack of excellent ones. If developers were pounding out excellent buildings today, I would probably think that design guidelines would be stifling. But you just have to look at Uptown or The Banks to see that things are pretty grim. Developers will build what they can get away with. Jmicha makes a decent argument for contemporary expressions of creativity, and at one point I thought perhaps a special approval process for high-quality contemporary design could be an interesting idea. But the potential for abuse would be huge, becuase contemporary design has so few rules. How do you legislate creativity and beauty? The OTR guidelines don't do that, they jut legislate conformity because that's the lesser evil than architectural chaos.

>Developers will build what they can get away with

 

Real Estate investors are often from out-of-town and so care about the bottom line to the exclusion of all else.  I doubt there was much "foreign" real estate investment in Cincinnati or even New York City in the 1800s.  Real Estate is still much more a "local" game than is stock investing, but with the emergence of real estate ETF's and developers who build student housing in any and every college neighborhood they can find across four time zones, we are seeing more and more of the cheap crap going up nationwide, *especially* multifamily. 

 

A lot of what we are complaining about could be eliminating by -- as I've suggested before -- capping new multifamily construction in OTR at four units.  This keeps the national players away. 

 

 

 

 

 

Jmicha makes a decent argument for contemporary expressions of creativity, and at one point I thought perhaps a special approval process for high-quality contemporary design could be an interesting idea. But the potential for abuse would be huge, becuase contemporary design has so few rules. How do you legislate creativity and beauty? The OTR guidelines don't do that, they jut legislate conformity because that's the lesser evil than architectural chaos.

 

I agree with this, but then what do you do for infill at high profile sites like the lot at 12th and Vine that will demand a distinctive high quality design?  (as well as some of the sites along Liberty)

^ 4 units is a little light, the institutional money does not really go after much outside of the 100+ unit range.

How in the heck would a 4-unit limit ever make sense? A typical 3-4 story OTR building houses more than that. You'd basically be requiring every single new development to be smaller than typical existing one-lot OTR buildings. How in the heck is that a smart idea? You would kill off basically all interest by doing that. Especially considering that completely disregards the context of OTR. There are historic buildings with 10+ units in them.

 

Your statement about out-of-towners is also questionable considering all the big developers are either local or have set up a local arm in Cincy.

 

Jmicha makes a decent argument for contemporary expressions of creativity, and at one point I thought perhaps a special approval process for high-quality contemporary design could be an interesting idea. But the potential for abuse would be huge, becuase contemporary design has so few rules. How do you legislate creativity and beauty? The OTR guidelines don't do that, they jut legislate conformity because that's the lesser evil than architectural chaos.

Why couldn't the urban design review board perform such a function.

 

I'm just very skeptical of arguments that are based on extrapolating into an unknown. That's what I think we are doing by assuming that all modern expressions in OTR would look like univ square.  Let's put in some smart encouragement for good modern infill, along with the necessary safeguards, and do the experiment for Gods sake. I don't believe that an intelligent and engaged community like OTR is going to suddenly wake up after 10 years and realize that "oh goodness my neighborhood has been screwed by mediocre infill."

Jmicha makes a decent argument for contemporary expressions of creativity, and at one point I thought perhaps a special approval process for high-quality contemporary design could be an interesting idea. But the potential for abuse would be huge, becuase contemporary design has so few rules. How do you legislate creativity and beauty? The OTR guidelines don't do that, they jut legislate conformity because that's the lesser evil than architectural chaos.

 

I agree with this, but then what do you do for infill at high profile sites like the lot at 12th and Vine that will demand a distinctive high quality design?  (as well as some of the sites along Liberty)

 

What do you mean? You don't do anything differently than what is already being done.

^and so you get lots of confusion because the projects don't appear, at least to the non-architect, to obey the guidelines, and the arguments end up being about that lack of adherence, instead of about what parts of the modern infill design do we consider not excellent.

How in the heck would a 4-unit limit ever make sense? A typical 3-4 story OTR building houses more than that. You'd basically be requiring every single new development to be smaller than typical existing one-lot OTR buildings. How in the heck is that a smart idea? You would kill off basically all interest by doing that. Especially considering that completely disregards the context of OTR. There are historic buildings with 10+ units in them.

 

Your statement about out-of-towners is also questionable considering all the big developers are either local or have set up a local arm in Cincy.

 

 

My opinions are influenced a lot by what I've seen happen in cities where the adoption of form-based code + an irrationally hot real estate market has motivated a reckless butchering of the neighborhoods by get-rich-quick developers.  Some of them are local, some of them have swooped in from out-of-state.  When a market turns red-hot, crazy things start happening *fast* -- way faster than any local preservation group can respond to.  There is only so much donated money and pro bono legal work to be found when developers are attacking on all fronts. 

 

I think OTR is in danger of being overrun by bad moves that will permanently damage its character if the market gets much hotter.  You will see a lot of pressure to demo buildings and put up cardboard infill.  The potential for things to get out-of-hand is limited in a regulated environment.  For example, the height limits in Mt. Adams helped prevent large-scale developments that would have ruined its character.  The neighborhood rebuilt itself one building at a time over an extended period. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But 4 units is tiny. There's no existing contextual precedent for such a small number of units per development. Think about buildings along Vine, Race, or Main Street. Forcing 4 units per building would be impossible. Therefore you're basically stopping existing buildings from ever seeing renovation. And then you're basically restricting every new building from matching the size or scale of its historic neighbors. It wouldn't just stop things from going crazy, it would stop things from happening entirely.

 

The building I live in, if it wasn't connected to the rest of Westfalen II, would have 6 units. It's just a typical 4 story, single lot building. Building something that scale shouldn't be restricted.

 

The five story on the corner of Vine and 15th will be converted to 13 units. No reason a building that scale shouldn't be allowed to be built.

 

The Belmain has 16 units. Think of how many buildings that scale exist in OTR. Again, no reason a new building can't match that scale.

 

How many units are in that giant building on the corner of Main/Orchard? 20+? No reason that shouldn't be allowed in new construction.

 

I'd venture a guess that the majority of buildings in OTR have more than 4 units. Does anyone have info on that? That kind of restriction goes against the fabric you're trying to preserve.

Settle down, I meant 4 units new construction. 

...k, didn't realize posting examples of how your idea falls apart requires a "settle down" but whatever.

 

And I'm talking about new construction on those scales. You're basically saying you think all new construction should be forced to be smaller than its historic neighbors. Notice my wording after each example.

 

... I'm not wrong, ornamentation was used as a way to decorate areas of imperfection where construction techniques didn't allow for small enough tolerances to be cleanly detailed.

I call BS.  Craftsmen 1,000 years ago could detail super tight joints.  The more likely answer is that ornament was claimed criminal by Adolf Loos over 100 years ago, and you went to an architecture school that ingrained that thought in your head.  Ornament sometimes is just painted or carved on a flat wall, as a form of expression or as a way to make a building beautiful.  Do you think ornament is criminal?  Tell us the truth now.  Is decoration on new building immoral? Admit it, you think a cleanly detailed neoprene gasket between glass and steel more beautiful than a decoratively carved pediment?  And you logic is that it is more "of it's time". 

 

We define our time by what we build.  Neither the zeitgiest nor modern manufacturing methods define what is beautiful.

 

I tried to bring this argument to a different thread because it doesn't really belong in the 3CDC OTR thread.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,29418.0.html

 

Call BS all you want, it doesn't change construction history. The quickly thrown up buildings of OTR aren't the Parthenon. They were cheap, fast, easy, and didn't require tight construction tolerances. Many aspects were done with cheap, unskilled labor and covered up with ornamentation done by craftsman. End result is a good looking building that didn't require excessive labor costs.

 

It's a well documented effect that happened as society industrialized.

 

I've clearly stated I love historic buildings. And that includes their detail. I hate seeing restorations occurring that result in diminished details and ornamentation. But you seemed to miss those posts.

 

The building I bought in was a top pick because I love the detailing on the bay window that sticks out over the sidewalk. I really love the way the building is detailed and how well it is ornamented while being distinguished from its neighbors.

 

To answer your questions, no I don't think ornament is immoral, I think forcing it is. I claimed I have a serious problem with forcing someone to use methods from the past and making a new building look old. There are plenty examples of really nicely detailed modern buildings that feature elements that are purely ornamental. And no, a neoprene gasket is not a beautiful detail. It's a pretty mundane detail in fact.

 

Don't confuse my disdain for faux historicism with a dislike of detail or ornament. It's my love of those things being done correctly that makes me wish we could build a properly modern building in OTR. When you recreate ornament of old with modern techniques you get things like foam details covered in stucco. That's not a nice detail. That's why I have such a problem with it. Or on the other hand you end up with wood that's nowhere near as nicely done and therefore ends up a lazy attempt at recreation. And neither is good architecture. It's rare to find someone who wants to actually put the time and effort into building something like a cornice the same way it was back then and therein lies the problem with forcing it upon new construction.

Call BS all you want, it doesn't change construction history. The quickly thrown up buildings of OTR aren't the Parthenon. They were cheap, fast, easy, and didn't require tight construction tolerances. Many aspects were done with cheap, unskilled labor and covered up with ornamentation done by craftsman. End result is a good looking building that didn't require excessive labor costs.

 

It's a well documented effect that happened as society industrialized.

 

I've clearly stated I love historic buildings. And that includes their detail. I hate seeing restorations occurring that result in diminished details and ornamentation. But you seemed to miss those posts.

 

The building I bought in was a top pick because I love the detailing on the bay window that sticks out over the sidewalk. I really love the way the building is detailed and how well it is ornamented while being distinguished from its neighbors.

 

To answer your questions, no I don't think ornament is immoral, I think forcing it is. I claimed I have a serious problem with forcing someone to use methods from the past and making a new building look old. There are plenty examples of really nicely detailed modern buildings that feature elements that are purely ornamental. And no, a neoprene gasket is not a beautiful detail. It's a pretty mundane detail in fact.

 

Don't confuse my disdain for faux historicism with a dislike of detail or ornament. It's my love of those things being done correctly that makes me wish we could build a properly modern building in OTR. When you recreate ornament of old with modern techniques you get things like foam details covered in stucco. That's not a nice detail. That's why I have such a problem with it. Or on the other hand you end up with wood that's nowhere near as nicely done and therefore ends up a lazy attempt at recreation. And neither is good architecture. It's rare to find someone who wants to actually put the time and effort into building something like a cornice the same way it was back then and therein lies the problem with forcing it upon new construction.

 

I don't see how expecting a building to have certain basic elements in its form or facade is the same thing as "forcing ornamentation?" Where would you draw the line at such a concept? The existing guidelines simply say "a strong element that terminates the top of a building."

The guidelines might not explicitly state it, but the meetings have shown they try to force details on buildings. For example, a historic storefront detail is to have a small curb before the windows. One Mercer was designed with glass that went straight to the ground. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say this isn't allowed. But it's one of the tiny details they forced them to change in order to approve it. They said it made it fit in more with the historic neighbors. As such it has a one foot curb in its storefront.

 

The guidelines appear loose but the meetings are problematic because the board makes subjective calls as they please. It makes designing anything different hard because you know you'll have to put up a fight even if you follow the basic guidelines.

 

If you went in with a strong element that terminated that building but wasn't a cornice you'd be shot down. One Mercer had that problem as well. The continuous undulating overhang they created was seen as a problem because, "historically a cornice didn't ever turn vertical to connect to the next building" and as such the vertical portions of that overhang were eliminated.

 

It's not a direct forcing of ornamentation but it's trying to shoehorn ideas into buildings that don't really relate to the time period that idea came from.

I don't see how expecting a building to have certain basic elements in its form or facade is the same thing as "forcing ornamentation?" Where would you draw the line at such a concept? The existing guidelines simply say "a strong element that terminates the top of a building."

 

Actually the full quote from the guidelines is "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."

 

I think that the expressed intent of those adjoined examples is pretty obvious.

I don't see how expecting a building to have certain basic elements in its form or facade is the same thing as "forcing ornamentation?" Where would you draw the line at such a concept? The existing guidelines simply say "a strong element that terminates the top of a building."

 

Actually the full quote from the guidelines is "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."

 

I think that the expressed intent of those adjoined examples is pretty obvious.

 

I don't read the second sentence as a mandate. Certainly what has been built (like One Mercer) doesn't have anything elaborate. I don't think we are disagreeing here really, I would just say that there's not evidence that they've forced this level of detail on anything.

 

Also, I do not understand the feeling that proscribing certain forms and patterns are tantamount to forcing details onto a building that aren't appropriate for the time they are built in. Taken in isolation, removing the undulating cornice is petty. But taken in the context of tying to set even a small set of standards and precedents, I think it is not asking much. These things seem really basic to me: they are trying to prevent horizontality where there is no precedent for it; doing the same for verticality is not exactly a stretch from that concept.

^well, we have a lot of infill that is going to be built. So far we have very mediocre examples of restrained modern design and Italianate style copies having been executed. I mean, nobody needs to be convinced that OTR architecture is all about the historic and the new structures are, I would put it, tolerated. I guess that would be because we don't deserve excellent infill (at least not yet), or it just can't be done, or the historic guidelines (or how they are perceived) are warping the design landscape in a bad way. I wish I was as convinced as you are that the guidelines are just basic common sense and are doing no harm, but I'm not. Time will tell and I hope I'm wrong.

The problem is the subjectivity of the board. Things not explicitly stated in the guidelines come up on some projects, and sometimes they don't. Inconsistency is problematic when people are trying to keep architectural and design fees down. All that time has to be billed somewhere that you meet with the board and find out they're not feeling a detail on your building despite having just approved the same detail on another building a week ago.

This conversation is twisting and turning into arguments over small details.  I think the fact of the matter is this, jmicha is right that there is too much inconsistency.  The board should follow a set of guidelines that are a little more structured, no?  As long as large, infill projects and smaller, single family home projects retain the type of mass and shape of the buildings surrounding, I think it will be alright.  Over time, the structures will blend in and make the neighborhood diverse.  Things like property line consistency (where the building fronts the sidewalk/street), size, and shape stays consistent, and also some type of cornice at top, whether it is a cornice that is elaborate or not, I think the end product will turn out well.  I don't think it should matter if they do faux historic or not, if it looks nice, and the person is willing to pay for it, let them go for it.  Here is an example from Chicago of some infill in old neighborhoods that fits in well yet is a bit different.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.942671,-87.651205,3a,75y,187.61h,94.56t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEX0FCyqjJBeeP210azKmtw!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

On the left is an older brick apartment building, in the middle is an old single family home, and on the right some three story single families / apartments that are new.  All three are different, yet because of the tree cover and sidewalk, it all blends in.  If it was stand alone, it may look a little odd, but over time they all blend in.  You can find this all over the place in Chicago's north side neighborhoods.

 

As jmicha said, restricting modern infill too tightly could hurt development.  That said, architects could still come in and "try" to pass something by, but if the product isn't done respectfully to the neighbors, then don't let it pass.  But schematics like what type of cornice it has and how big the windows are, I think that is a little too much red tape.

This conversation is twisting and turning into arguments over small details.  I think the fact of the matter is this, jmicha is right that there is too much inconsistency.  The board should follow a set of guidelines that are a little more structured, no?  As long as large, infill projects and smaller, single family home projects retain the type of mass and shape of the buildings surrounding, I think it will be alright.  Over time, the structures will blend in and make the neighborhood diverse.  Things like property line consistency (where the building fronts the sidewalk/street), size, and shape stays consistent, and also some type of cornice at top, whether it is a cornice that is elaborate or not, I think the end product will turn out well.  I don't think it should matter if they do faux historic or not, if it looks nice, and the person is willing to pay for it, let them go for it.  Here is an example from Chicago of some infill in old neighborhoods that fits in well yet is a bit different.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.942671,-87.651205,3a,75y,187.61h,94.56t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEX0FCyqjJBeeP210azKmtw!2e0!6m1!1e1

 

On the left is an older brick apartment building, in the middle is an old single family home, and on the right some three story single families / apartments that are new.  All three are different, yet because of the tree cover and sidewalk, it all blends in.  If it was stand alone, it may look a little odd, but over time they all blend in.  You can find this all over the place in Chicago's north side neighborhoods.

 

As jmicha said, restricting modern infill too tightly could hurt development.  That said, architects could still come in and "try" to pass something by, but if the product isn't done respectfully to the neighbors, then don't let it pass.  But schematics like what type of cornice it has and how big the windows are, I think that is a little too much red tape.

 

Living in Chicago has totally changed my view on infill btw.  The infill here is generally light years beyond what's done in Cincy (though it would  be naive of me to say all of it is good)  :)

Does anyone know how many (if any) historic review boards there are in Chicago that actually have the power to stop development? The prices there in many neighborhoods aren't crazy different from some of the stuff in OTR yet they seem to get it so much more than developers here. I'm not sure if that's a result of restrictions that basically force higher quality or a lack thereof that allows people to be a little more expressive with architecture than they can under heavy restrictions and having to appease a board.

Does anyone know how many (if any) historic review boards there are in Chicago that actually have the power to stop development? The prices there in many neighborhoods aren't crazy different from some of the stuff in OTR yet they seem to get it so much more than developers here. I'm not sure if that's a result of restrictions that basically force higher quality or a lack thereof that allows people to be a little more expressive with architecture than they can under heavy restrictions and having to appease a board.

 

The buck stops with the alderman, literally they have complete control over zoning in each ward its to the point where its easily corruptible, you help your alderman, your alderman helps you.  There are neighborhood groups all over that work to make the infill better quality, but they have influence that varies dependent upon which alderman is in their district.  Some Aldermen like Waguespack listen more to their constituents while others listen more to money and/or favors. One thing I've seen is that in less glamorous (more townie) neighborhoods like Jefferson Park the infill is universally lower quality (Jeff Park also has a parochialism that would make Cincinnati proud too).    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.964996,-87.75086,3a,23.8y,27h,90.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srpT-g0X61kvDjxUEGftgbA!2e0

 

Part of me also wonders if its a demand thing, the more hip neighborhoods are demanding better quality design (also helps that Chicago is a major design center so local pool of talent is much greater than it would be in smaller cities) and the more old school neighborhoods that dont' have economic problems don't demand it.

 

What really puzzles me though is Columbus, the infill in Cbus is a lot better than Cincy as a whole... I wonder what the factor is there?  It may all boil down to Cincinnati's conservatism.