^ Job & Family Services is probably the biggest reason that Subway opened where they did on Sycamore. Which makes me even more confused why the Diner on Sycamore didn't work out. If they can figure out how to make good food, fast and cheap, they're going to appeal to the JFS workers and the higher paid workers in the area... not to mention the late night bar crowd when 4EGeons opens.

Which makes me even more confused why the Diner on Sycamore didn't work out.

 

Because J Rodg let his mother run it into the ground? Guess he didn't need it for laundering anymore.

Not sure I ever had a meal that took less than an hour at the diner's latest incarnation, in fact they were all likely closer to and hour and a half.  Even an hour is pretty much a deal breaker.

I hate to sound prejudiced, but I don't think a bunch of middle-aged white women would even consider a local non-chain restaurant, no matter how cheap or close it is.  There's a lot of people out there who would go to New Orleans or Boston or San Francisco and seek out the nearest Olive Garden.  Joe also makes a good point, some people only get 30 or 45 minute lunch breaks. 

The diner was notoriously slow and the orders were often wrong. When you only have one cook in the back and one in the front, you can't get very far. My last trip there, not long before it closed for good, took 1 hour for a simple breakfast platter. Complain about chains being chains, but they are often successful because they have optimized their business and focused on their cores.

The one time I went there and it didn't take long, the cook didn't show up. The waitress had to go to the kitchen and make our food herself. Food came out ~15 minutes after we ordered. Best service I ever had there. We all left her a very good tip.

^Same thing happened the only time I ever went there. The very exhausted looking waitress took our orders in addition to two or three other tables' then went to the kitchen for 20 or so minutes and worked her ass off getting everyone's food ready, served it, then repeated with the next round of tables. We were there a couple hours and this went on the entire time. We all left her huge tips since nobody should have to do both jobs while likely still getting paid server wages.

New aerial shot of the Mercer IV (Empower MediaMarketing) office building going up on 14th:

 

I hate to sound prejudiced, but I don't think a bunch of middle-aged white women would even consider a local non-chain restaurant, no matter how cheap or close it is.  There's a lot of people out there who would go to New Orleans or Boston or San Francisco and seek out the nearest Olive Garden.  Joe also makes a good point, some people only get 30 or 45 minute lunch breaks. 

 

Maybe. I think if they reopened with good food, fast service, and reasonable prices, and made an effort to send flyers to the JFS offices, they'd gain some traction.

I hate to sound prejudiced, but I don't think a bunch of middle-aged white women would even consider a local non-chain restaurant, no matter how cheap or close it is.  There's a lot of people out there who would go to New Orleans or Boston or San Francisco and seek out the nearest Olive Garden.  Joe also makes a good point, some people only get 30 or 45 minute lunch breaks. 

Times Square is home of the Empire State Building... of Olive Gardens - Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

I still can't believe that we got a substantial building built without a single additional parking space.

How did the Over-the-Rhine Community Foundation feel about that? It looks TOTALLY out of scale! And that green facade? Totally chic.

I still can't believe that we got a substantial building built without a single additional parking space.

 

Residents that use the Mercer garage and commute outward free up spaces for those who commute into the area. 

How did the Over-the-Rhine Community Foundation feel about that? It looks TOTALLY out of scale! And that green facade? Totally chic.

 

Not sure of the level of seriousness here, but I'll answer.

 

Green facade isn't facade. It's building wrap. It'll be covered.

 

The front facade is actually broken up quite nicely. The top level is set back so you can't see it from the street (not that I personally believe that's necessary but that's neither here nor there), the historic facade that was integrated provides a relief from the larger mass of the modern building, and the modern building has a facade that's broken up into portions that simulate a finer grain urbanism. As far as large infill buildings go it does a pretty decent job of not being overbearing or over-scaled despite it being a large structure on a tiny street.

I still can't believe that we got a substantial building built without a single additional parking space.

 

Residents that use the Mercer garage and commute outward free up spaces for those who commute into the area.

 

I know that. But I also know that that's not how Cincinnati usually thinks about allocating parking resources.

I still can't believe that we got a substantial building built without a single additional parking space.

 

Residents that use the Mercer garage and commute outward free up spaces for those who commute into the area.

 

I know that. But I also know that that's not how Cincinnati usually thinks about allocating parking resources.

 

Also might have influenced the decision to build the squat and slow-selling homes on Mercer St.  40+ apartments would have gobbled up some of that Mercer garage capacity. 

How did the Over-the-Rhine Community Foundation feel about that? It looks TOTALLY out of scale! And that green facade? Totally chic.

 

I don't know whether Mercer IV is designated as a "planned development" (PD) or if it fits into existing zoning. I believe that developers are only required to work with OTRCC if it's a PD. I'm sure 3CDC also knows all the tricks to get around the red tape. What OTRCC needs to understand is that if they keep rejecting other developers' proposals, they're going to simply stop trying and we're going to get nothing but 3CDC developments in this neighborhood.

Does anyone know if this is meant to be a permanent make-shift alley? From what I understand you can't even take this alley route nowadays because of how union hall shares some type of space is this alley.

 

 

Is this meant to be a permanent private alley space, or is this something that will be infilled later on?

You can definitely still cut through even with the Cintrifuse space taking up some of the lot.

 

It's unlikely this will last forever as a public cut through. Eventually it'll likely be filled in since it's not a public right of way.

The OTRCC is currently working with CRC (recreation commission) and other stakeholders to plan the future of this space named "Imagination Alley".

Also, re Imagination Alley, residents of the Brickstone building to the North have frequently parked cars in a haphazard manner on the northern, rear half of the space, causing consternation for some of their neighbors. I don't know if this issue has been resolved or not.

Also, re Imagination Alley, residents of the Brickstone building to the North have frequently parked cars in a haphazard manner on the northern, rear half of the space, causing consternation for some of their neighbors. I don't know if this issue has been resolved or not.

 

Yeah, and there's standing water a lot of times back there too. It would go a long way if they could solve that issue and apply some organization to the parking/garbage bin area of the brickstone building.

Does anyone know if this is meant to be a permanent make-shift alley? From what I understand you can't even take this alley route nowadays because of how union hall shares some type of space is this alley.

 

 

Is this meant to be a permanent private alley space, or is this something that will be infilled later on?

 

This spot could be a great miniature golf course.

Does anyone know if this is meant to be a permanent make-shift alley? From what I understand you can't even take this alley route nowadays because of how union hall shares some type of space is this alley.

 

 

Is this meant to be a permanent private alley space, or is this something that will be infilled later on?

 

This spot could be a great miniature golf course.

 

I've already thought of doing a hipster putt-putt course on a vacant city lot.  You'd have to wear trucker hats. 

 

There is a hipster bar/putt putt course in Brooklyn called the Bushwick Country Club that I have always wanted to recreate here locally.

^ Instead of a PBR windmiill, can we please have a Hudy Delight windmill?

I'd prefer infill with retail and residential instead. Keep it whatever for now, but short term only.

Well in all seriousness the decline of Over-the-Rhine is part of its history, and if the area is completely built-out, no signs of that era will remain.  One house is not going to make a difference. 

 

New construction could be that sign of that era.

So in the latest HCB packet a developer wants to demolish 1614 Elm Street, because it's not financially viable enough for rennovation, which sounds like BS to me. I can't understand the finding.

 

From what I understand the developers can't demolish the building until new infill plans are presented for that site and are approved by the HCB?

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/may-8-2017-staff-report-and-attachments/

According to the auditor, the building was sold for $5,050 in March of 2015, then $41,500 that May.  An obvious example of someone benefiting from rising property values on the streetcar line. 

So in the latest HCB packet a developer wants to demolish 1614 Elm Street, because it's not financially viable enough for rennovation, which sounds like BS to me. I can't understand the finding.

 

From what I understand the developers can't demolish the building until new infill plans are presented for that site and are approved by the HCB?

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/may-8-2017-staff-report-and-attachments/

 

It looks like staff is recommending exactly that:

APPROVE a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of 1614 Elm Street based on the credible evidence provided by applicant in their submission dated September 27, 2016 and subject to the following conditions:

a. The building shall not be demolished until new plans for redevelopment are submitted for building permits.

b. Any new building design shall have to be approved by the Historic Conversation Board and must comply with the new construction guidelines for Over-the-Rhine Historic District.

c. The building permits must be issued within two years of the decision date or the Certificate of Appropriateness shall expire.

 

What I'm trying to understand is why are we destroying historic fabric for the sake of profit?

 

I understand the building is in bad shape. I understand it would be more profitable to demolish and start fresh.

 

But that seems like a really backwards mentality, especially when otr stock is already so damaged.

 

In 5 years time when north of liberty is developed that building can easily fetch half a million redeveloped. To just demolish for the sake of making money just seems so wrong and backwards for a historic district.

 

I'm glad the hcb wants a foreseeable plan before demolition, but I really hope someone will step up and preserve this building rather than destroy another thread of our original fabric .

1614 Elm is older than the surrounding buildings, which makes it unique and worth saving.  However, it is wood and the wood is severely rotted.  The rooms are small with low ceilings and the whole building has only 6 rooms with a funky layout.  To rehab it, almost every stick would need to be replaced.  If you do that, is it still an old building?

Looking at street view, it really is a tough one.  I agree with the board that demolition shouldn't even be considered without an approved replacement plan.  As it is though, how much does this building really contribute?  It's a wood box with a little cornice.  At some point you do have to say enough is enough.  Just because something is old doesn't mean it has great value.  Yes it has more value than an empty lot, or a garage, but it's also leaning/bulging and rotted, with little to no historic fabric left other than framing.  Is that worth blocking redevelopment that would actually be more in keeping with the surrounding buildings that are larger and more substantially built? 

1614 Elm is older than the surrounding buildings, which makes it unique and worth saving.  However, it is wood and the wood is severely rotted.  The rooms are small with low ceilings and the whole building has only 6 rooms with a funky layout.  To rehab it, almost every stick would need to be replaced.  If you do that, is it still an old building?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Looking at street view, it really is a tough one.  I agree with the board that demolition shouldn't even be considered without an approved replacement plan.  As it is though, how much does this building really contribute?  It's a wood box with a little cornice.  At some point you do have to say enough is enough.  Just because something is old doesn't mean it has great value.  Yes it has more value than an empty lot, or a garage, but it's also leaning/bulging and rotted, with little to no historic fabric left other than framing.  Is that worth blocking redevelopment that would actually be more in keeping with the surrounding buildings that are larger and more substantially built? 

 

But isn't that what HCB is saying? Present the reevlopment plan.  No more tearing down " because maybe".

Personally, I am in the camp of people who think that in certain situations, it's acceptable to tear down or heavily modify a building that's historic for the greater good. This small building on Elm and the Davis Furniture building are two examples where I would be supportive of their demolition if and only if the developer presents a plan to replace it with a higher density project with a quality design and has the financing in place to start construction immediately. There have been far too many examples of buildings that have been torn down because a developer told us that they had a plan for the site but it never materialized.

Personally, I am in the camp of people who think that in certain situations, it's acceptable to tear down or heavily modify a building that's historic for the greater good. This small building on Elm and the Davis Furniture building are two examples where I would be supportive of their demolition if and only if the developer presents a plan to replace it with a higher density project with a quality design and has the financing in place to start construction immediately. There have been far too many examples of buildings that have been torn down because a developer told us that they had a plan for the site but it never materialized.

 

Exactly, show me the proposed replacement, and proof of funds. If you don't build within a prescribed time period, you pay a very heavy fine that can further other preservation needs. 

^They could put the funds in escrow and the city could retain title until the replacement building is completed. 

^They could put the funds in escrow and the city could retain title until the replacement building is completed.

 

Or, they could hold one of the developer's kids hostage until he completed construction.

So the source 3 elm and liberty project is up for council vote tomorrow. Apparently the project might be further dwarfed and a design change might occur barring allowance to bypass the hcb for approval.

 

Thanks otr community council!

So the source 3 elm and liberty project is up for council vote tomorrow. Apparently the project might be further dwarfed and a design change might occur barring allowance to bypass the hcb for approval.

 

Thanks otr community council!

 

What's the source of this information?

 

I listened to a bit of the council meeting today where they discussed issues related to Liberty and Elm. Four council members abstained from voting, seeming to believe that the OTRCC opposition represents the community. There is a meeting tomorrow with council, the developers, and the "opposition" prior to a vote by council on Wednesday.

 

I live so close to this corner that I pay a lot of attention to it. But if you also can't stand what is going on, I'd say it's a good time to write council, if you haven't done so already. I'm pasting my letter below, explaining what I see as the issues.

 

---

 

Dear City Council Members,

 

My name is Jim Uber, and I live with my wife at 1529 Elm st, about 100 feet from the proposed development. We rehabbed that property in 2012, and just completed the renovation of a 7 unit  building next door at 1527 Elm - a building that sat vacant for over 30 years. We are partners with the City; you provided meaningful support that helped secure Federal and State tax credits for 1527 Elm, just as one example.

 

As a neighbor, I support the proposed development at Liberty and Elm streets. The vocal opposition (and, I believe, minority) that pretends to speak for me, does not.

 

My support is explained in three related points, below.

 

[*]I’m not a fan of the proposed architecture. But that issue is secondary; no-one should be allowed to hold a project hostage because of their romantic fantasy of what OTR is and must remain. That is the thinking of preservationists who envision OTR as an Italianate mecca for tourists, not as a bustling home for workers and families. They believe not only in preserving what is there, but in making certain that every new thing fits an architectural mold that mimics the past. It’s a foolhardy notion, and will lead us down the wrong road.

[*]OTR needs density and people, of all shapes and sizes. Not every set of vacant parcels can support a large and dense residential development, but if there ever was a corner screaming out for density and height, it is Liberty and Elm. The stoplight walk sign gives you almost 30 seconds to cross the street! Here we have the opportunity for an appropriate scale of architecture, and one that would bring life and love and light to that corner. And then here come the opponents, in the name of “my” community council, forcing the developer to lop off an entire story. Let’s be clear - that was an entire story to be filled with people, bringing in revenue that could have supported good materials and design, not to mention an appropriate number of affordable units.

[*]On this last point, City Council should not reward the hypocrisy of crying out for height restrictions, while at the same time complaining about the lack of affordable units and poor design quality. The height restriction was the opponents first and most concrete demand, and they won it. That removed the money and incentives to ask the developer for affordable units, not to mention for a better overall design. In pushing forward their romantic notion of OTR architecture, they gutted any opportunity for real progress. That fact belies their true interests.

 

I fear that this situation is already scaring off good developers. Please don’t make the problem worse by validating this false notion of what the “OTR community” wants.

 

The real solution here involves moving forward with form-based codes and re-making the historic conservation board process for infill development - both with real structured community involvement, not the stand-in that we’re seeing here.

 

-Jim Uber

There is a letter that will never get read.

 

For City Council, it your letter is more complicated than the instructions for putting two AA batteries into a flashlight, you have lost your audience.

 

Trust me on this.

Not true. I have written Council several letters of this length and have gotten thoughtful responses back. Now, whether enough council members decide to spend their political capitol by approving the project when OTRCC disapproves... is another matter entirely.

So the source 3 elm and liberty project is up for council vote tomorrow. Apparently the project might be further dwarfed and a design change might occur barring allowance to bypass the hcb for approval.

 

Thanks otr community council!

 

What's the source of this information?

 

There was an article in citybeat about the elm and liberty project. A quote from Tim Burke, representing Source 3 stated that the project could hypothetically be downsized further and a project design change could occur only if they are granted to bypass the HCB, in order to appease the OTRCC.

 

 

  I'm now praying this gets passed by council on Wednesday. If the OTRCC gets there way, then we will end up with a 3 story project with so much less density on a prominent street corner.

 

The people on the OTRCC are cancer to the future and growth of OTR. Utter cancerous tumors that are creating more harm than benefit. The project may have looked a little off, but at least it would have brought great density and weight to a prominent street corner. This is BS if goes through IMO, and the density is decreased because of the OTRCC. 

 

 

 

I don't know if there's a separate Brewery District thread so I'll put this here for now: http://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/050917-new-breweries-coming-this-fall.aspx

 

The old Cliffsyde brewery building on McMicken is opening as "Rebel Mettle Brewery" in "late summer 2017."

 

Also known as the former Clyffside and Sohn Brewery, the 40,000-square-foot space will host the brewery, a tap room and the Clyffside Event Center.

 

This is awesome. I walk by this building several times a week and had no idea this was in the works. Maybe Mohawk is beginning to turn around (a bit). Let's get that Imperial Theater going!

Was anyone able to attend the meeting today with Source 3, city council, and the OTRCC? I'm curious how that went..or is that later today? Curious what they are discussing before tomorrows final vote on the project.

Was anyone able to attend the meeting today with Source 3, city council, and the OTRCC? I'm curious how that went..or is that later today? Curious what they are discussing before tomorrows final vote on the project.

I don't know when/where that meeting was supposed to be held. You'd think it must be public, but I didn't see it on the council calendar.