Calling all folks who are interested in OTR infill development. In the coming weeks the OTR Foundation "Infill Committee" apparently plans to submit for council approval their concept of infill guidelines. If nothing else, this has motivated me to finally become a member of the OTRCC, because I'm sure that the Foundation will seek their approval.

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.

Well, I'm pre-social media, so I don't usually trust people I don't know. But I did produce a version 2 of my previous letter, and sent that to council too. Anyone else who feels strongly about this - now's the time to speak up through your own statement. Council votes today, looks like finally the last step.

 

---

 

Dear City Council Members,

 

My wife and I live at 1529 Elm st, about 100 feet from the proposed development. We support it for the following reason.

• Over The Rhine needs high density infill development to support a vibrant and diverse community.
  
• Parking is important, but there are many who want to live in OTR that don’t need it, or don’t value it highly.
  
• The best path to affordable housing is through high density and small unit sizes, not inflated costs from parking and arbitrary height restrictions.
  

Council must send a clear message to the development community about infill housing, after engaging the whole community, including but going well beyond the so-called “Joint Committee."  But stopping Source 3 now would be a very wrong message.

 

Jim Uber

Over The Rhine

 

So this project has stirred controversy because

 

1) It does not look like the sort of infill that fits with the neighborhood and it is 1-2 stories too tall? - I remember when the residents of Hyde Park fought and lost that battle and ended up with a pretty nice corner building on the square because of it.

2) It ruins the historical character of the neighborhood? - Last I checked this was an abandoned parking lot and looked very blighted. The proposal may not be perfect, but safe to say it would be an improvement

3) The homeless coalition does not like that it has no affordable housing? - I struggle to make the connection here too, last i checked this was a parking lot. I don't think too many homeless will be displaced here, outside of the few squatters in their cardboard boxes.  I know Josh Spring likes to stir controversy when none is warranted to create bottlenecks and slow things down, but this is pointless here. 

 

 

I don't see why this is such a controversy, outside it is just Cincinnati and people love to complain.

They already reduced the height of the building by 12 feet. It is now within one story of the tallest building on the street. Any further reduction in the height is arbitrary and bad policy.

 

Affordable units and local businesses? Nothing requires the developer to do that. If these people really want that to be a requirement, get council to change the rules with new developments so that if the city gives them money, or cheap land, or tax abatements, then they need to provide a certain mix of affordable units. Don't introduce new rules on this one development. That's bad policy.

 

The ONLY complaint I can see as reasonable, is that the architecture doesn't fit in with the guidelines. But even that, at this point, is a bit of a stretch when you consider what has been built recently. If you want to write new guidelines, fine. But don't hold up this project if it's meeting almost all requirements.

 

The opponents to this project want way more than what the city typically does. Change how things are done, don't demand things of a single development.

This project has already been delayed by months because of a few concerns that are cherry picked for this development. I do not understand the resistance to this - it is a vacant lot that has a bunch of litter in it.

 

By holding up all new developments it limits the supply of available units which only increases the prices of the units that are already built. It seems the OTRCC/OTR foundation do much more harm than good. It should not take 12 months of 'negotiations' between a developer and community groups to get projects going.

 

Also - 'demanding' that it includes affordable units and restricting retail tenants it extremely unrealistic and that is not how project financing works. Implementing those restrictions is a good way to slam the brakes on anything new being built.

3) The homeless coalition does not like that it has no affordable housing? - I struggle to make the connection here too, last i checked this was a parking lot. I don't think too many homeless will be displaced here, outside of the few squatters in their cardboard boxes.  I know Josh Spring likes to stir controversy when none is warranted to create bottlenecks and slow things down, but this is pointless here. 

 

If you build anything that's not 100% affordable housing, the anti-gentrification crowd will complain about it. They have a complete inability to look at the bigger picture.

 

This project is replacing a vacant lot overgrown with weeds, and also preserving some historic buildings. It's adding probably about 150 residents to a corner right next to a streetcar stop. Probably 100 of the residents will do their weekly grocery shopping at Findlay Market and help support those businesses.

I just sent my letter to council. If you want to do the same, send yours to [email protected] and CC [email protected].

 

Members of City Council,

 

I am writing you as a resident and homeowner in Over-the-Rhine to express my support for the proposed Freeport Row development at Liberty and Elm streets. While the project isn't perfect, and I could offer many critiques of its architecture and design, that should not prevent the developer, Source 3, from moving forward.

 

As the number of people wanting to live in Over-the-Rhine continues to increase, housing costs will keep rising unless we add more housing to the market. The Freeport Row development will add 110 apartments to the neighborhood, adding supply to keep up with the demand. If we block new development from occurring in OTR, housing costs are going to rise even faster.

 

Freeport Row will replace a blighted lot with new retail and housing, and preserve several historic buildings. It will be located at an intersection that's well served by transit, making it accessible to people that live a car-free or car-light lifestyle. It will add at least 110 new residents who will spend money at Findlay Market and other nearby businesses. Quite frankly, this is exactly the type of development that we should be encouraging in our city.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Travis Estell

Over-the-Rhine

 

 

The ONLY complaint I can see as reasonable, is that the architecture doesn't fit in with the guidelines. But even that, at this point, is a bit of a stretch when you consider what has been built recently. If you want to write new guidelines, fine. But don't hold up this project if it's meeting almost all requirements.

 

The opponents to this project want way more than what the city typically does. Change how things are done, don't demand things of a single development.

 

IMO the baseline for development should be that it substantially improves the current condition of the property and what currently resides on the lot. 

If it were a debate on whether this should replace the Denison, there is merit to that argument. But the debate is whether this project should replace an empty overgrown parking lot that is a blight to the community. I am sorry but those people against this have no leg to stand on.

 

 

Freeport Row passed City Council 8-1 with only Mann voting no.

 

Call me crazy, but it seems like getting a few letters from OTR residents, letting them know that OTRCC doesn't represent the entire neighborhood, may have swayed the outcome here.

Listening on citicable just now - Council has voted to support the Source 3 development. Young, Seelbach, and Simpson expressed reservations about the fit of the building with OTR, but supported it. Only Mann voted against passage.

 

Simpson argued for making sure that this process didn't happen again. It sounds like maybe this could provide the impetus for some more sanity around all the issues surrounding OTR infill. Isn't that one of the things that form-based codes would have tried to accomplish?

So when can we expect to see construction starting?

Simpson argued for making sure that this process didn't happen again. It sounds like maybe this could provide the impetus for some more sanity around all the issues surrounding OTR infill. Isn't that one of the things that form-based codes would have tried to accomplish?

 

Yes. What is needed is a front loaded conversation about community vision and then developing context specific development regulations that fit that vision.

 

What we have is general CC-P and RMX zoning that is standard throughout the city but fails for the type of urban neighborhood OTR is. This is part of the reason why every big development goes PD. The regulations are too generic for a neighborhood that deserves better.

Former Bengals player acquires OTR property for redevelopment

 

 

A joint venture between Kingsley + Co. and Anchor Properties has closed on the purchase of two Over-the-Rhine properties with plans for a mixed-use development.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/10/exclusive-former-bengals-player-acquires-otr.html

^

I had assumed that project was dead since it hasn't been in the news for a long time. Hopefully Kingsley + Co and Anchor can make something substantial happen here. A 2-story grocery store would be great at this location! If Kroger won't get off its act together, then lets get a competitor in town.

I like that it brings some height to the Central Parkway corridor.

^^^Spinzone: Cranley starting to let development happen i.e. this project and Skyhouse to get Urbanists back on his side.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Oh no! What does OTRCC think of this? Too high? Too glitzy? Not enough affordability?

I was thinking the other day, it's going to be really weird in 10 years in OTR compared to what it has been the last 5 years and for people who have lived here for most of their lives, even further back.

 

Out and around Findlay Market, the side streets off Vine, Elm, Race, etc.  Even though dilapidated, it has that back in 1900's feel to it, that once it gets re-populated and re-commercialized, will just be a part of our memory of the eerily quiet, boarded up yet beautiful buildings and architecture.

^^^Spinzone: Cranley starting to let development happen i.e. this project and Skyhouse to get Urbanists back on his side.... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

I don't think Cranley has anything to do with these. The Skyhouse is being facilitated through the Port and this is being done through CMHA. No direct city funding or incentives going to either so far.

Oh no! What does OTRCC think of this? Too high? Too glitzy? Not enough affordability?

 

They demand to have the ability to set prices of items sold in the grocery store.

 

 

If Anchor is officially on board, we can prematurely welcome a new Kroger store. 

Oh no! What does OTRCC think of this? Too high? Too glitzy? Not enough affordability?

 

They demand to have the ability to set prices of items sold in the grocery store.

 

 

If Anchor is officially on board, we can prematurely welcome a new Kroger store.

 

I think Court Street would be MUCH better for a Kroger store. The pedestrian traffic could revitalize the empty storefronts. You're really not taking advantage of any spillover effects of having a grocery store anchor if it's in this Central Parkway location.

^I agree that the Central Parkway / Walnut / Court street location would be great for a large project with grocery at ground level... but we haven't heard anything firm from Kroger (or anybody else) on whether or not they're actually planning something for that site.

There has been some work happening inside the old H&R Block space at Main and 14th. I have heard some rumors that this would be a restaurant serving pub style food.

City Council decides on huge OTR development

 

 

Cincinnati City Council took a vote Wednesday on a major mixed-use development in Over-the-Rhine that drew heated opposition from some members of neighborhood groups.

 

By an 8-1 vote, Council approved Freeport Row, which will have 110 apartment units and 80 surface parking spaces in addition to 15,000 square feet of commercial space. Vice Mayor David Mann cast the only dissenting vote.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/10/city-council-decides-on-huge-development.html

Curious about the meterial and color change that they apperantly did. The article says it will be presented to the hcb. I'm guessing source 3 won't break ground until late summer/early fall now.

 

Edit. Also apperantly the facade might be altered but no 100 percent promise was made. Just a might.

I just can't. If you read the enquirer comments about this development many are stating that the site should've stayed as a community garden. I just can't.

A lot of people are too dumb to realize that there used to be buildings there before they were torn down and the site temporarily used as a community garden.

A lot of people are too dumb to realize that there used to be buildings there before they were torn down and the site temporarily used as a community garden.

 

When I was in college and photographed city parking lots for a photography class, the teacher did not understand this, nor did most of the class.  So the photos went over like a lead zeppelin. 

I found councilman Seelbach statement pretty funny when he said this project looks more fit for the banks. This project should have been what the banks was aiming for all along instead of the crap we got instead now.

Jesus. 80 parking spots?? Cut that in half, add the floor that was chopped off back on, and then the developer can afford to add the 'affordable housing' the neighborhood activists want. This kind of shit drives me bonkers. Right now these are EMPTY LOTS. By adding 110 units, that's 110 more units than were there before. It's not like people are being displaced by a building being built on an empty lot.

^Yes exactly. If the community would have consistently said: "Hey developer, we have concerns about the quality of materials and aesthetic design, and the unit size mix that you are proposing, which would seem to preclude folks affording to live there who are making $30K per year. Can we talk about that?" - I'd have been on board.

 

But instead they lopped off an entire story of living spaces for people, and then proceeded to complain about EVERYTHING else. In the end, their "joint committee" coalition, thought to be their strength, ended up weighing them down, because they just couldn't narrow down what they wanted most.

 

They also failed to synthesize their various views one bit. In other words, they presented an aggregation of standard arguments of what the advocates for the homeless wanted, and what the OTR foundation and preservationists wanted, without asking for creative solutions to get to some of their goals, without bankrupting the project.

Where the hell were these people when towne properties was building their single family million dollar town homes.

 

That's why I have no respect for these people.

The elephant in the room is that we need to drop this ridiculous notion that every single new development needs to have an affordable housing component to it. Generally speaking, I believe that if a developer wants to buy a vacant lot and build apartments that they can rent out at a market rate, they should be allowed to do so. Opponents of this development will give a million reasons why this development should include affordable housing, like, "they got a zoning variance so they owe something to the community," "they got a tax abatement," etc. OTR already has more than its fair share of social services and subsidized housing, and 3CDC is adding even more affordable housing alongside market-rate housing with each new phase of their developments. While I want OTR to remain a very diverse neighborhood, and believe that it will continue to be one, I don't understand the desire to add more and more of it when we already have more than other city neighborhoods.

^Zoning Variance and tax abatements don't "Cost" the city ANY money.  This is the worst argument ever I see on Enquirer arguments it's do dumb I can't even believe people see that, but of course the Enquirer never points that out.

 

It's getting a big tax abatement but there wasn't anything there, I wonder what the taxes collected from there are?  A couple Grand?  Now it will be something like $400k per year to Cincinnati Public Schools and $240k per year for the Streetcar operations?

Yes. And people act like tax abatements are some special gift that's given out as a favor to certain developers, when that's just not true. If you build anything new (or rehab a building) in the city, you can get a 15 year tax abatement on it. And after those 15 years, your tax bill goes up to its original amount. So the idea that developers "owe" their community something extra for getting a tax abatement is crazy.

^Big developments like this are eventually going to be so much that the Streetcar will run in the black, it has to.  I wonder what they will do once it is running deep in the black, put it in eschrow?  Use it to bury utility lines and make sidewalk and street / pedestrian improvements, stop charging fares (probably never do that), improve the services?

There's a number of things the city could do once the streetcar is getting most/all of its budget from VTICA (property tax contributions). They could either add more service (which would be hard to do with our current number of streetcars), eliminate fares, do away with the naming rights sale to Cincinnati Bell after it expires, or they could just take the money that's coming from parking meters and give that back to the general fund. I'm not sure if they're technically allowed to use it for capital improvements, like buying an additional streetcar or burying utilities along the route.

But, these urban farmers can take the taxpayer subsidized streetcar to their severely undervalued (and nil tax revenue generating) urban farm!

There's a number of things the city could do once the streetcar is getting most/all of its budget from VTICA (property tax contributions). They could either add more service (which would be hard to do with our current number of streetcars), eliminate fares, do away with the naming rights sale to Cincinnati Bell after it expires, or they could just take the money that's coming from parking meters and give that back to the general fund. I'm not sure if they're technically allowed to use it for capital improvements, like buying an additional streetcar or burying utilities along the route.

 

Because fares can't be used as local match for Federal grants, they should use the VTICA as one (along with ad revs and other non-fare revenues) to apply for FTA 5309 Small Starts/Core Capacity/New Starts funds for expansion (assuming, of course, that the program doesn't get zeroed out). Cities all over the country are using this program for streetcar, LRT, and BRT projects. This, of course, would also require a city administration that's on board. But SORTA could pursue this on their own as well.

Kevin Flynn was on with Scott Sloan this morning and Sloan was of course doing a hard spin on this project.  Sloan was trying to connect this to the people that wanted to save the Dennison and Gamble house, mentioning that they always try to impede development.  I never call in because I don't like to get sucked into those ridiculous debates, but I was so close to doing so.  Absolutely no development has or will come from demolishing those two buildings.  That doesn't even get into how Freeport Row is a completely different situation from those demolitions.  So frustrating.

^Yes. Infill versus preservation. A central issue is to get the public to agree that these should be distinguished, one from the other.

I would expect that 700 WLW hosts and listeners wouldn't understand the nuances of these issues, but it's really sad that a sitting council member is going on the radio and revealing that he doesn't understand the differences between historic preservation and infill development.

Yes. And people act like tax abatements are some special gift that's given out as a favor to certain developers, when that's just not true. If you build anything new (or rehab a building) in the city, you can get a 15 year tax abatement on it. And after those 15 years, your tax bill goes up to its original amount. So the idea that developers "owe" their community something extra for getting a tax abatement is crazy.

 

I also want to add that I am a big fan of more or less the free market in OTR in general to drive development though I am very sympathetic to any loss of social services and affordable housing.  That said, when these groups coming out making these massive demands saying the city is handing them money (which is covered that they aren't), that it makes them more or less seem as if they are asking for money out of this.  I understand and see the need for affordable housing, but as mentioned they can't just hold this one developer accountable for everything which is wrong with the zoning and policy.  We need a comprehensive approach with form based-codes, reduction in parking mins and then design review panel which we currently have in the HCB.

 

I do think that it would be a bit silly for the city to put in no parking requirements in OTR, but they should definitely use TIF money on strategically placing parking garages preferably underground so that business have enough customers from outside the basin.  I know we don't want a ton of structured parking and parking garages but there has to be a good mix otherwise I don't think we are at the point yet for retail to be profitable without outside the neighborhood influence.

  So frustrating.

 

That sums up talk radio.  They always frame any debate as male/strong/practical versus female/submissive/communist. 

I would expect that 700 WLW hosts and listeners wouldn't understand the nuances of these issues, but it's really sad that a sitting council member is going on the radio and revealing that he doesn't understand the differences between historic preservation and infill development.

Agreed, but I also want to point out it isn't restricted to the public at large or Flynn.

 

At the council meeting yesterday, I got into a discussion with one of the key opponents about why I was speaking for Source 3. In part, I relayed to him how I had not seen one single instance of a recommendation from the "OTR Infill Committee" that I had agreed with. I said that I am a big fan of historic preservation (I've rehabbed two buildings, so it's not theoretical), but that I felt strongly that the same restrictive standards should not be applied to development of every vacant parcel. Which is exactly what they are emphatically insisting on.

 

One of the guys turned to me then and said, with a lot of sarcasm, "well then why don't you just go live in Mt. Adams?"

 

This issue is going to be a big fight with the preservationists.

I work in historic preservation, and I'm kind of torn on this particular project. In terms of economic development and neighborhood growth, this is a no brainer. If you compare the proposal to the vacant lot it is replacing, it's again a no brainer.

 

However, when the garage portion of the project was removed, my feelings about this project shifted. The garage could have facilitated other rehabs in the area, and new small scale infill to be built without parking, which would have been huge for that area of OTR. A surface lot, however, achieves none of that, and is probably inappropriate in OTR, even if it is concealed from the street. I also worry that the materials will be cheap, and this building will set a poor precedent for future infill. As one of the biggest development sites in OTR and one of the most visible sites in the neighborhood, the project absolutely deserved more scrutiny than most. I also think the concerns about affordable housing are valid, and I don't think it's unreasonable to push for the inclusion of affordable housing in these types of developments.

 

Overall, I am glad to see development occurring at this site, and I'm glad that two more buildings are being rehabbed as part of this project. It will be good for Findlay Market and the streetcar to have all those additional residents right there on Elm. Hopefully the project turns out looking better than I'm afraid it might. Preservationists need to tow a fine line between upholding development standards and guidelines and limiting growth. It's a challenge everywhere, not just Cincinnati, and I'm not sure a perfect solution exists.

The garage will happen, it just won't happen during Phase 1 of the project. It would be stupid for the developer to leave a surface lot there forever when they could replace it with a garage in a growing part of the neighborhood.

The garage will happen, it just won't happen during Phase 1 of the project. It would be stupid for the developer to leave a surface lot there forever when they could replace it with a garage in a growing part of the neighborhood.

 

I've been mostly thinking of another scenario where a garage is built elsewhere enabling the development of the surface lot. Although that may be challenging once tenants are actually parking there.

Here's my manifesto on development in OTR going forward:

 

https://cincinnatiideas.com/2017/04/20/cincinnati-needs-people-vision-10000/

This is great news for the neighborhood as this area right now is pretty much taken over by drug dealers and users.  If you don't believe me feel free to walk by there pretty much any time of day and see for yourself.  After what I saw from OTR Community Council (OTRCC) and other groups for the Liberty and Elm project, I'm worried this long stalled project may be held up by the gentrification and design police.  One would hope sanity would prevail here, but given what I've seen at OTRCC meetings in the past I'm genuinely worried.  The developer would have done better to go under the radar and try to avoid the public light until their permits were all approved.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/10/exclusive-former-bengals-player-acquires-otr.html