It would be a nice spot for a decent gas station too.

1321 wasn't demolished, it collapsed.

 

I actually pieced this together after my girlfriend said Republic St. was blocked off by police on Friday.  News article: http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/over-the-rhine/over-the-rhine-building-partially-collapses

 

The news article said the building was undergoing demolition but it could be wrong. Did it collapse while they were digging the foundation for the new townhomes?

Was in Over the Rhine yesterday evening.  Wanted to park in a garage since we were hanging out from about 7:00 pm and on and didn't want to pay for a meter. Both the Mercer Garage and the Washington Park garage were full.  Ended up parking south of Central Parkway and walking up. Not sure if I think a new garage is needed ... but I might be leaning that way.  Or get that streetcar going. :)

It collapsed in the middle of the night as far as I know. That building was in rough shape so it's really not all that surprising.

Was in Over the Rhine yesterday evening.  Wanted to park in a garage since we were hanging out from about 7:00 pm and on and didn't want to pay for a meter. Both the Mercer Garage and the Washington Park garage were full.  Ended up parking south of Central Parkway and walking up. Not sure if I think a new garage is needed ... but I might be leaning that way.  Or get that streetcar going. :)

 

What about 12th and Vine? That garage has never been full any time I've ever used it.

Did it collapse while they were digging the foundation for the new townhomes?

 

That's what it looked like. Got too close to the foundation of 1321.

What about 12th and Vine? That garage has never been full any time I've ever used it.

 

Or that very unutilized Alms and Doepke garage at Reading and Sycamore.

A few years ago, some of the Main Street businesses made an effort to promote the A&D garage as their "official" garage, but I don't think it stuck. Maybe we need more signage directing people there, as we have with the 3CDC garages.

What about 12th and Vine? That garage has never been full any time I've ever used it.

 

Or that very unutilized Alms and Doepke garage at Reading and Sycamore.

 

The Alms and Doepke garage would be much easier to access if Reading were two-way between Sycamore and Main. It's only 1-way for that one block.

Neat story about a rose gardender in northwest OTR: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/06/07/rose-oasis-grows-middle-otr/28559745/

 

A rose oasis grows in the middle of OTR

Stuie Schulman gives away his roses.

 

A past president of the Greater Cincinnati Rose Association, Schulman and his wife recently moved to the northernmost reaches of Over-the-Rhine from their long-time home in Madeira.

 

They renovated a house over 100 years old at 225 Stark Street, several blocks northwest of Findlay Market. And Stuie's extensive garden – 400 hybrid tea rose bushes, plus other flowering plants – came with him.

It collapsed in the middle of the night as far as I know. That building was in rough shape so it's really not all that surprising.

 

Not the middle of the night--around 9:30 or 10:00 on Friday night.  We saw it as we were walking back from dinner with friends who live on Pleasant Avenue.  Whole street was shut down, as was 14th street. 

It's sounding more and more like they undermined the foundation during excavation for the new townhomes and it collapsed due to that (and likely a combination with being in pretty awful shape). Unfortunate, but at the very least it's unlikely that spot will stay vacant considering the development plan for that spot by Hueber.

Maybe they can rework the site plan to something that makes a little more sense.

Could they be forced to rebuild the structure they accidentally destroyed? Does Hueber also own that property?

Hueber does own that property and planned on converting the building to a townhome. I don't think they could be forced. It's actually quite likely the construction company will foot the bill for the mistake. Unless Hueber does construction in house. I have no idea but I'm assuming they contract work out.

 

There's no point in rebuilding it. Essentially nothing is left at this point. Might as well start over with something that'll fit that site better since the existing building was always awkwardly sandwiched into that spot next to a giant blank wall and set back from the street.

Hueber does own that property and planned on converting the building to a townhome. I don't think they could be forced. It's actually quite likely the construction company will foot the bill for the mistake. Unless Hueber does construction in house. I have no idea but I'm assuming they contract work out.

 

There's no point in rebuilding it. Essentially nothing is left at this point. Might as well start over with something that'll fit that site better since the existing building was always awkwardly sandwiched into that spot next to a giant blank wall and set back from the street.

 

I have a feeling that insurance will cover the damage, if you've been following OTR this has happened in the past.

I wasn't clear, but that's kind of what I meant. It's likely the construction company's insurance will be the one to cover the cost of this since it appears to be a construction mistake.

The Corporation for Findlay Market is working with the University of Cincinnati, University of Cincinnati Research Institute and MetroLab, an architecture program at UC, to make Pleasant Street in OTR a more walkable corridor between Washington Park and Findlay Market:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/06/08/this-otr-street-could-become-a-pleasant-walking.html

 

 

80% of people wanted an easier way to cross Liberty street. Is it possible to just build a pedestrian bridge that would allow pedestrians to walk above the traffic, and connect elm, pleasant, race, and vine across liberty street?

 

Or is there a way to shorten liberty way? Because it shouldn't be difficult to walk to findley market from washington park, but the amount of lanes to cross, plus there being no pedestrian cross walk just kills that. At the very least building a pedestrian bridge would make it more family friendly to walk from one end of otr to the other.

I'm sure others will wiegh in, but in general a pedestrian bridge would be difficult to maintain, inaccessible to elderly and handicapped, unsightly, and underused (it'd be easier at most times to make a dash across street than climb up and down a flight of stairs.) Over and beyond that it would not address the root cause of the problem of Liberty Stret being inhospitable to pedestrians along its entire length. Like taking an aspirin for a broken bone but doing nothing to help the injury heal.

 

Crossing Liberty Street is obviously an issue but I think the first step is developing the empty lots and redeveloping the cell phone store and of course complete the 15th and Race project. That would go a long way to making Pleasant Street feel more connected between the Park and the Market.

Why not just close Pleasant entirely to traffic? It's not a heavily used road as it is and could be a really great pedestrian corridor to bring the two closer to one another.

 

And Liberty is definitely the biggest problem. It's just too wide. Remove the dedicated turn lanes entirely, have two narrower lanes of travel in each direction with 8' wide parking lanes on either side with curb bump-outs at intersections so at most you'll be crossing 4 lanes of traffic instead of the 7 you do now. Use that leftover space for bike lanes and wider sidewalks. Problem solved. Put a push button light at Pleasant that only activates if a pedestrian pushes the button to cross.

 

This is an easy problem to solve. Building pedestrian bridges is a really expensive way of ensuring Liberty is never fixed and remains a pseudo highway across the basin.

As much as I would like to see something new built there that's taller and goes up to the street corner... it would be awesome to see that space repurposed as a bar or coffee shop. They could open the garage doors in nice weather.

 

I like that idea, along with converting the parking lot in to a semi-covered patio/garden area with lots of outdoor seating. Could be a great addition to that end of OTR.

 

There is a similar structure in Grosse Pointe that was repurposed as an upscale bar and restaurant.  For a preview of what this building could look like, click here, and then go back and forth between 2007 and 2013:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.382184,-82.938341,3a,75y,328.79h,90.93t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sUZ46whGJrIrjsj7bWqbO2w!2e0!5s20130901T000000!6m1!1e1

Why not just close Pleasant entirely to traffic? It's not a heavily used road as it is and could be a really great pedestrian corridor to bring the two closer to one another.

 

And Liberty is definitely the biggest problem. It's just too wide. Remove the dedicated turn lanes entirely, have two narrower lanes of travel in each direction with 8' wide parking lanes on either side with curb bump-outs at intersections so at most you'll be crossing 4 lanes of traffic instead of the 7 you do now. Use that leftover space for bike lanes and wider sidewalks. Problem solved. Put a push button light at Pleasant that only activates if a pedestrian pushes the button to cross.

 

This is an easy problem to solve. Building pedestrian bridges is a really expensive way of ensuring Liberty is never fixed and remains a pseudo highway across the basin.

 

I agree, all that Liberty needs is a road diet. I believe there were road diet plans for Liberty proposed by the Neihoff Studio or another DAAP venture at UC years ago. A narrower road, sidewalk bumpouts, and a dedicated crosswalk at Republic (with flashing yellow light at all times) would be around the same price as a bridge but deliver better results.

 

On the topic of dedicated crosswalks, has anyone noticed the one across Central Parkway at 15th Street is basically ignored by everyone? That one could also use some better signage and lighting. I was once beeped at for stopping for pedestrians there. I think drivers don’t realize that it exists, or simply don’t understand that they’re required to stop when pedestrians are present.

 

Pedestrian bridges over roadways are a horrible idea in urban areas. The further the notion that cars are primary and pedestrians are secondary. The solution is to give Liberty a road diet and make it easier to cross. Hopefully it would add crosswalks at many of the "in-between" streets like Pleasant. I would also like to see many of the side streets in OTR converted into a woonerf-type street that makes cars cede to pedestrians.

Pedestrian bridges over roadways are a horrible idea in urban areas. The further the notion that cars are primary and pedestrians are secondary. The solution is to give Liberty a road diet and make it easier to cross. Hopefully it would add crosswalks at many of the "in-between" streets like Pleasant. I would also like to see many of the side streets in OTR converted into a woonerf-type street that makes cars cede to pedestrians.

 

I'm with you, but will people take urbanists seriously if we're going around asking for a Woonerf? But then again most people will probably think he plays offensive line for the Bengals.

Widened Liberty in its current condition adds to the NYC feel of OTR similar to Canal or Hudson St. or the bottom "gashed" blocks of 10th Ave.   

Why does Pleasant Street have to be redesigned as some pedestrian connector from Washington Park to Findlay Market?  I thought the whole charm and appeal of OTR was that it has a viable grid system that is great for walking.  Race and Elm Streets are already fine connections to FM, and the streetcar will tie the area together even more.  I would concentrate efforts elsewhere, like reducing the width of the entirety of Liberty or better connecting OTR with the CBD.

Why do those things have to be mutually exclusive?

 

Prioritizing pedestrians between two pedestrian areas on one street could be a useful asset and a tool used to show the benefit in other locations of reducing space for cars.

I just feel like the reinvestment along Elm and Race is already making for a better pedestrian connection to Findlay Market.  Why re-invent the wheel when you have perfectly effective and pleasant pedestrian connections already in place, due to the grid and human sized scale of OTR.  I guess I see the value in treating Pleasant as an experiment of sorts for testing the viability of shared streets principles, but it would seem a better use of time and resources to try to enhance pedestrian connections where they are currently lacking.  Also, Pleasant is an entirely residential street, which doesn't lend itself to the woonerf style as easily or effectively as a mixed use street.  I think we should be encouraging pedestrian activity on our mixed use streets, not funneling it into residential side streets that are already very quiet and pleasant (hah, excuse the pun) to walk down.

Why does Pleasant Street have to be redesigned as some pedestrian connector from Washington Park to Findlay Market?  I thought the whole charm and appeal of OTR was that it has a viable grid system that is great for walking.  Race and Elm Streets are already fine connections to FM, and the streetcar will tie the area together even more.  I would concentrate efforts elsewhere, like reducing the width of the entirety of Liberty or better connecting OTR with the CBD.

 

I agree with what you say here but I do think a revamped pedestrian oriented Pleasant Street would make a hell of an exclamation point to the other things you mentioned. It's maybe not the first priority in the area but definitely an opportunity for something unique for the city to show off. All the pieces are there.

I agree on the residential point, but it was more that Washington Park has a visual connection to Findlay down Pleasant. A pedestrian road that leads from one to the other along Pleasant essentially creates a continuous pedestrian zone whereas Race and Elm, though fine in scale, do not. Yes, it's friendly to the pedestrian already, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to be better or to try new things.

 

Unrelated. I was just browsing a map. There are essentially zero blocks that have all their buildings left except on Main going north from 13th. Every other block is missing at least one building, most more.

 

That's depressing.

Yeah I don't get why people care about creating a "pedestrian street" when there is no reason to walk down Pleasant St. unless you live on it.  And no tourist is going to be spontaneously compelled to walk toward Findlay market should they catch a distant, incomplete glimpse of it from Washington Park.  They're not going to know what it is from that perspective. 

 

 

If they ever plant trees on Pleasant, the view of Findlay Market will be obscured anyway.

 

Not saying I wouldn't welcome a pedestrian street or woonerf on Pleasant, but there are better uses of money than that, IMO.

I agree on the residential point, but it was more that Washington Park has a visual connection to Findlay down Pleasant. A pedestrian road that leads from one to the other along Pleasant essentially creates a continuous pedestrian zone whereas Race and Elm, though fine in scale, do not. Yes, it's friendly to the pedestrian already, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to be better or to try new things.

 

Unrelated. I was just browsing a map. There are essentially zero blocks that have all their buildings left except on Main going north from 13th. Every other block is missing at least one building, most more.

 

That's depressing.

 

Be thankful there's even that much. With all the neglect that was put upon these buildings throughout the years its surprising there's as many as there are still standing today.

 

Also, lets not pretend that every building is worthy so to speak. There are some ugly ass old buildings in OTR that I would be more than happy to be demolished and replaced with something better in design. Don't get me wrong there is alot of great designed italian archeticture in OTR, but for every one beautifully designed building in OTR, I can't help but feel there's 2 than just look plain as can be and could be replaced with something better looking and newer.

 

 

14th street from Elm to Main would be a better pedestrian street.

Also, lets not pretend that every building is worthy so to speak. There are some ugly ass old buildings in OTR that I would be more than happy to be demolished and replaced with something better in design. Don't get me wrong there is alot of great designed italian archeticture in OTR, but for every one beautifully designed building in OTR, I can't help but feel there's 2 than just look plain as can be and could be replaced with something better looking and newer.

 

I don't think you quite understand how the historic district works. If we tore down 2/3 of the remaining buildings, we wouldn't have a historic district. We would have a smattering of old buildings. Those "plain" buildings are essential to the fabric of the neighborhood.

I don't think you quite understand how the historic district works. If we tore down 2/3 of the remaining buildings, we wouldn't have a historic district. We would have a smattering of old buildings. Those "plain" buildings are essential to the fabric of the neighborhood.

 

I get that. I also get that people want OTR to be an urban museum rather than an actual urban neighborhood. I feel like progress and new development is a cardinal sin when it comes to anything "new" in OTR.

^Just because people have strong opinions about infill doesn't mean that they don't want it. There's a diverse opinion on the fact, but almost no one (especially on this forum) wants to prohibit new development in OTR. We just want to stop further demolitions. There's plenty of room for new development without demo.

 

And OTR was built as an actual urban neighborhood. Returning functional use of that urban neighborhood through renovation and similar-scale infill isn't making it a museum, it's keeping the integrity of the neighborhood while returning people to the pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. I don't really get what you're saying unless you want new construction that towers over existing buildings, which would be functionally and aesthetically detrimental to the neighborhood.

I don't think anyone would accuse me of wanting OTR to be a museum, but there's no need for demolition when 60% of the neighborhood is gone already, leaving massive open spaces for new development. If entirely built out OTR would be majority new construction as it stands now and further demolition would only further reduce the historic qualities of the neighborhood.

I agree on the residential point, but it was more that Washington Park has a visual connection to Findlay down Pleasant. A pedestrian road that leads from one to the other along Pleasant essentially creates a continuous pedestrian zone whereas Race and Elm, though fine in scale, do not. Yes, it's friendly to the pedestrian already, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to be better or to try new things.

 

Unrelated. I was just browsing a map. There are essentially zero blocks that have all their buildings left except on Main going north from 13th. Every other block is missing at least one building, most more.

 

That's depressing.

 

Be thankful there's even that much. With all the neglect that was put upon these buildings throughout the years its surprising there's as many as there are still standing today.

 

Also, lets not pretend that every building is worthy so to speak. There are some ugly ass old buildings in OTR that I would be more than happy to be demolished and replaced with something better in design. Don't get me wrong there is alot of great designed italian archeticture in OTR, but for every one beautifully designed building in OTR, I can't help but feel there's 2 than just look plain as can be and could be replaced with something better looking and newer.

 

1. It's Italianate not Italian

 

2. Almost every building IS worthy because they were built on a human size and scale that creates the kind of special place that we're all talking about on this board.  They literally don't build them like they used to because zoning prohibits it across the country and banks don't lend to anything that doesn't fit a suburban model. Almost every old building lost for something new (or even worse, a parking lot) is an example of the "Tragedy of the Commons" that diminishes the whole neighborhood. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would accuse me of wanting OTR to be a museum, but there's no need for demolition when 60% of the neighborhood is gone already, leaving massive open spaces for new development. If entirely built out OTR would be majority new construction as it stands now and further demolition would only further reduce the historic qualities of the neighborhood.

 

Question has there actually been done a proper survey done by the city, of each recognized historic building in OTR and how much historic building stock remains?

 

Because I hear so many numbers be thrown around without any actual physical data to back it up. All of it seems like roughly gauging by the eye.

A few years ago we reached the point where 50% of the neighborhood's historic buildings had been demolished. I don't know where it stands today.

 

This is also why people object to projects like the new Towne Properties development where they are only building 6 single-family townhomes (with detached garages!) on a 1/2 acre lot. There is a ton of demand for living in OTR and they could easily build 20 condos or apartments instead of 6 single family homes. We need to maximize the usage of our vacant lots so that we don't have to tear down more buildings in the future to add more density.

I don't think anyone would accuse me of wanting OTR to be a museum, but there's no need for demolition when 60% of the neighborhood is gone already, leaving massive open spaces for new development. If entirely built out OTR would be majority new construction as it stands now and further demolition would only further reduce the historic qualities of the neighborhood.

 

Question has there actually been done a proper survey done by the city, of each recognized historic building in OTR and how much historic building stock remains?

 

Because I hear so many numbers be thrown around without any actual physical data to back it up. All of it seems like roughly gauging by the eye.

 

There was something official but I don't even know where to begin to find it again. But there is an exact number of historic buildings that I know someone here will be able to tell you since it's the total contributing buildings to the historic district (which encompasses every historic building in OTR) and there are endless student projects mapping the loss over the decades if you search through OhioLink for theses about OTR.

I agree on the residential point, but it was more that Washington Park has a visual connection to Findlay down Pleasant. A pedestrian road that leads from one to the other along Pleasant essentially creates a continuous pedestrian zone whereas Race and Elm, though fine in scale, do not. Yes, it's friendly to the pedestrian already, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to be better or to try new things.

 

Unrelated. I was just browsing a map. There are essentially zero blocks that have all their buildings left except on Main going north from 13th. Every other block is missing at least one building, most more.

 

That's depressing.

 

Be thankful there's even that much. With all the neglect that was put upon these buildings throughout the years its surprising there's as many as there are still standing today.

 

Also, lets not pretend that every building is worthy so to speak. There are some ugly ass old buildings in OTR that I would be more than happy to be demolished and replaced with something better in design. Don't get me wrong there is alot of great designed italian archeticture in OTR, but for every one beautifully designed building in OTR, I can't help but feel there's 2 than just look plain as can be and could be replaced with something better looking and newer.

 

 

 

 

I get what you're saying about some of the remaining stock not being very attractive.  There was really a lot more intact up until the later 1980's, and then it seemed like there were demos every day in the 1990's. Especially Race Street. The most elaborate buildings are usually the ones that are destroyed first.  Second story bay windows, intricate cornices, and decoration succumb to water intrusion faster than the slab sided, more plain looking buildings.  Many of the remaining ones once had decoration that is now long gone.

I don't think anyone would accuse me of wanting OTR to be a museum, but there's no need for demolition when 60% of the neighborhood is gone already, leaving massive open spaces for new development. If entirely built out OTR would be majority new construction as it stands now and further demolition would only further reduce the historic qualities of the neighborhood.

 

THIS- A thousand times over!!  It's why some of us get a little CRAZY when another demolition is proposed, no matter how unworthy the structure may seem.  All of the newer construction will some day dominate the neighborhood.  We MUST keep whats left.

A few years ago we reached the point where 50% of the neighborhood's historic buildings had been demolished. I don't know where it stands today.

 

This is also why people object to projects like the new Towne Properties development where they are only building 6 single-family townhomes (with detached garages!) on a 1/2 acre lot. There is a ton of demand for living in OTR and they could easily build 20 condos or apartments instead of 6 single family homes. We need to maximize the usage of our vacant lots so that we don't have to tear down more buildings in the future to add more density.

 

This tangentially touches on a point I was trying to make earlier about why it's important to preserve almost every single historical building that's left and how they don't build 'em like they used to. I'm glad for the new development, but those six houses are going to look the same because they are all designed and built at the same time. If they were historical from back in the day there'd be maybe two houses, a tenement building, and maybe a commercial/workshop building all on that same plot and they'd all look different. This variety is what makes OTR appealing and interesting to walk around and draws the tourism. Nowadays most everything new that's built is going to be scaled up and built in chunks with parking included to satisfy banks and regulations.

A few years ago we reached the point where 50% of the neighborhood's historic buildings had been demolished. I don't know where it stands today.

 

This is also why people object to projects like the new Towne Properties development where they are only building 6 single-family townhomes (with detached garages!) on a 1/2 acre lot. There is a ton of demand for living in OTR and they could easily build 20 condos or apartments instead of 6 single family homes. We need to maximize the usage of our vacant lots so that we don't have to tear down more buildings in the future to add more density.

 

This tangentially touches on a point I was trying to make earlier about why it's important to preserve almost every single historical building that's left and how they don't build 'em like they used to. I'm glad for the new development, but those six houses are going to look the same because they are all designed and built at the same time. If they were historical from back in the day there'd be maybe two houses, a tenement building, and maybe a commercial/workshop building all on that same plot and they'd all look different. This variety is what makes OTR appealing and interesting to walk around and draws the tourism. Nowadays most everything new that's built is going to be scaled up and built in chunks with parking included to satisfy banks and regulations.

 

But see isn't that what makes history special though. You create a time capsule that tells a story of that time...Similarly how the new towne houses will tell a story about our time. And in a 100 years when were in the ground as dust our grandchildren will have an idea of how life was life for us..and once again things will change to reflect there time.

 

Point is, what exactly is historic architecture but just a snapshot of life during that time. I love OTR and I agree we must preserve it's history, but the buildings we build today (the towne homes, the mercer commons), and once they last for hundreds of years do they also not become a part of OTR fabric? A reflection of the time and space that we once lived in the early 21st century?

 

That's why I love, personally, that's there's this new and old. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world I'd love if every building was standing that was historic. But at the same, there's something equally special about this blending of new and old architecture in OTR, that reflects where we were and where we are..and just how we look back today at OTR architecture, surely our great grandchildren will look at our newer architecture that's being built and  and see a snapshot of how we lived during the early 21st century.

Nobody is denying that. But tearing down the remaining historic architecture isn't necessary to achieve that. There is plenty of empty space already that can be developed without ever having to remove another historic building.

I don't want to know what people are going to say about some of the architecture we see right now (not necessarily infill in OTR, but other places).  Stuff built in OTR was clearly built to last.  I don't know that post-war tract housing (or suburbs built in the 70s and 80s) was built to last. 

Things get old.  We can't keep holding on to the past though.  The OTR architecture is beautiful but people are forgetting a lot of things such as, hardly any of the newer establishments are wheelchair accessible. 

I don't want to know what people are going to say about some of the architecture we see right now (not necessarily infill in OTR, but other places).  Stuff built in OTR was clearly built to last.  I don't know that post-war tract housing (or suburbs built in the 70s and 80s) was built to last. 

 

What happens when a few feet of water in a vacant home's basement with a broken sump pump go through a few freeze-thaws?  It can't be good.