I'd really love for this to happen, but I'm skeptical. Hoping Rhinegeist maybe gives some sort of indication on the matter. At least a "no," would give a definitive answer.

Gondola or not... I love the idea of a beer garden at Bellevue Hill Park, as long as they maintain the cool modernist design: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1218053,-84.5193365,3a,90y,289.22h,84.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5DzjFunS-JIpZSW9B_0PcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

Let's just pretend for a moment that this is happening: doe this change or effect plans for an uptown streetcar route?

^ I would say absolutely not. I highly doubt this will happen for a multitude of reasons. Wouldn't there be huge liability and insurance issues with this? Bellview Park is nice and all, but way at the edge of the CUF neighborhood. It really wouldn't connect anything, from a transportation perspective.

Let's say getting up to the park is Phase One.  How difficult would/could it be to connect it to somewhere near UC campus?

 

Maybe run it in between Moerlein and Ohio and land it where the Shell station currently is?

I wouldn't compare this with the streetcar at all, this is more in the line of the Newport Ferris wheel with the added benefit of connecting two places with similar uses. It is what is, and what it is is cool in a stand alone manner. I think too much comparing it to the streetcar risks encouraging those who think of the streetcar as an amusement park ride and not serious transportation. It differs from the inclines too in that the  inclines were a part of the streetcar system and most of them lifted streetcars up and down the hills to carry on their journey elsewhere.

If Bob and Bryant weren't thinking about it already, I bet they're thinking about it now. The "brewery" IS becoming an amusement park experience. We've got a great example in Cincinnati already with the 50 West Pizza-Beer-Volleyball-Bike-Kayak adventure you can go on there. 

 

As means of connectivity, it could be huge. I walk up Elm to the Ohio Street Steps to the 17 stop on Clifton every day when I'm in Cincinnati.  If oakiehigh[/member] is not high and this could be a phased project that is both leisure and transportation, the story writes itself. Rhinegeist occupies the original Moerlein Brewery. They establish a biergarten on the hillside with one of the most dramatic views of the city and an under-utilized Frank Lloyd Wright look-a-like cantina. The gondola continues over some trees, above Moerlein St to McMillan where it touches down at Stop'n'Go/Stab'n'Grab, a block away from Christy's (RIP), the now demolished Moerlein Mansion. The connection between UC, CUF, and OTR gets sealed in the process. I'm too romantic to think about liability and insurance right now.

Let's just pretend for a moment that this is happening: doe this change or effect plans for an uptown streetcar route?

 

Since Phase 2 of the streetcar is on hold right now, we have an opportunity to re-envision where it would go. It seems like most streetcar supporters aren't fond of the Vine Street alignment that was previously chosen for "Phase 1B". If a gondola provides connectivity from CUF to OTR, this allows the streetcar to go in a different direction to serve another neighborhood. Either the CBD loop could be extended up Main/Walnut and enter a tunnel to serve Mt. Auburn; or the north end of the route could be extended to cut through the West End, continuing to either Union Terminal or Northside.

The nominal destination may be Belleview Park, but to me the real attraction up that hillside is the Jackson Brewery.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/07/28/steiner-s-washington-park-project-stymied-for-now.html

 

The HCB approved the variance in parking requirements (good), but opposed the recessed facade of the restaurant on the 1st floor. They also opposed the use of cinderblock on the rear of the building.

 

I'm curious to hear people's opinions on the recessed facade for the restaurant. Further south on Race, <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1073597,-84.5162437,3a,43.8y,86.46h,84.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snu4bYeKVIA6j48fDuVrndg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">Revolution has sidewalk seating</a> that seems to take up ~5' of the sidewalk. What are the rules for restaurants that want to offer sidewalk seating?

 

I don't mind the recessed facade so much, but I'd rather see them use fold-up doors like Senate, allowing all (or most) of the restaurant to open up to the sidewalk when the weather is nice.

 

 

 

It looks like it was done in part to match recessed balconies on the upper floors.  This really seems like unnecessary nit-picking. 

I am all for the recessed first floor to give more space for outdoor dining. Seems nitpicky to reject the plan based on that. I am glad they are opposed to the cinder block on the back of the building, though. Building in cities will be seen from many angles, so putting brick only on the front and using cheaper materials for the back isn't ideal.

The recessed first floor is fine. Without it, right next to the streetcar stop there would be too much of a sidewalk bottleneck in that location for outdoor dining. I'd have to jump over tables when I'm sprinting to catch the streetcar.

 

I think this is a case where blindly adhereing to guidelines doesn't make sense quite frankly. I would think the meet the street guideline is in place to prevent a suburban style front yard or parking lot in front of the building. In this case the exception is for a sidewalk cafe across the street from a park and the mass of the facade on the upper stories still comes up to the sidewalk anyway.

 

Of course you could take away two or three parking spaces out front and extend the sidewalk for dining and really make a notable memorable  place there right by the streetcar stop. But that would cause people to faint or send them into convulsions. I cannot understate the resistance urbanists face on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life to anything that takes away parking spaces. 90% of people are just completely irrational about it.

I also am completely for the recessed facade that allows for street seating in nice weather. To say this building doesn't complement the area and the existing architecture is just more b.s. from the OTR foundation infill committee and the HCB -- being constrained by outdated requirements that should never apply to infill, in my opinion.

 

We need different historic requirements for infill, period.

I don't mind the recess at all and really really dislike when outdoor seating encroaches too much on sidewalks, like on the west side of Walnut Street south of 7th (The Scene and Righteous Room bars), or on the Walnut Street side of Jeff Ruby's (the cigar smokers' seating).  Walnut's a busy pedestrian thoroughfare and at times there's hardly enough room at rush hour to navigate around the seating outside of those bars. 

 

Like jwulsin I'm curious about the criteria for permitting outdoor seating, if there even are any criteria.  Plus, there used to be loud music blaring from one of those bars on the west side of Walnut, which seems to have stopped.  I wouldn't be surprised if the condo dwellers above the bars complained.  Outdoor seating and the accompanying loud talking, outdoor music, and residences don't always mix very well...

The previous plan was better: the dining was both out front and in a courtyard.  The courtyard was a cool feature that was eliminated to keep the density but not go higher than 5 stories.  Wtihout the courtyard the apartments have much less natural light.

 

Also, I guess the zoning requires a 4' setback on the alley which is stupid and they previously were asking for a variance on the rear setback.

 

The only problem I have with the recessed front dining is the precedent that is set.  In good urban design, the buildings typically should come right up to the sidewalk.

The courtyard was a nice feature and it is too bad that without the height it had to be omitted to maintain the proforma. In the case that there is no courtyard, another loser becomes the adjacent buildings who would have had a wonderful space to look out onto. Given this, the new layout has lightwells, which are nice, but they suffer from the nostalgic ignorance of the HCB in that they are more narrow than any space too many people would want to spend outside... and people WANT to spend time outside. OTR was built fairly late 18th/early19th century utilitarian... the narrow lightwells provided light and passage to back entries. The folks who built these were not spending their afternoons and weekends recreationally in these spaces as we contemporary people do. I wish the HCB wouldn't force an outdated way of life through their misunderstanding of what they should be preserving.

Of course you could take away two or three parking spaces out front and extend the sidewalk for dining and really make a notable memorable  place there right by the streetcar stop. But that would cause people to faint or send them into convulsions. I cannot understate the resistance urbanists face on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life to anything that takes away parking spaces. 90% of people are just completely irrational about it.

 

Currently, there is only room for 2 parking spaces in front of this because there are two curb cuts. Presumably, with the new building, the two curb cuts would go away, so you could actually keep the current number of parking spaces (2) and extend the sidewalk for the rest of the area.

I see what they're trying to do with the recessed first floor but what about in winter, or if in a few years this restaurant is replaced with a retail tenant or some non-restaurant retail that doesn't have outdoor seating?  Then the recess serves no practical function while also disengaging the storefront from the sidewalk. 

 

Consider this building in O'Bryonville https://goo.gl/maps/CrghHoqiEPr  It's not parallel to Madison Road and it has a bit of a setback to start with, but nothing major.  Nevertheless, its relation to the street and sidewalk is completely destroyed.  Swing around to the opposite side of the street to see proper frontages as opposed to this sort of pseudo-urban junk that's all too typical in places like Madeira, Blue Ash, or even Norwood.  Small seemingly insignificant moves can have a big impact.  Plus, in pedestrian-oriented zones there's some very specific requirements for first floor transparency and a build-to line on the first floor (basically lots of glass, built right up to the sidewalk) so setting back like this does kind of fly in the face of that. 

Consider this building in O'Bryonville https://goo.gl/maps/CrghHoqiEPr  It's not parallel to Madison Road and it has a bit of a setback to start with, but nothing major.  Nevertheless, its relation to the street and sidewalk is completely destroyed. 

I honestly do not see any sort of relationship between this building, and the one proposed for Race st. I'm not going to try and fail to explain why in architectural terms, because I'm not an architect. But when I look at Race and the building referenced, I see apples and oranges.

It's not apples to apples sure, but the point is to show how such a small setback can have a huge impact. 

The setback is a great feature. You won't even notice it when interacting with the street. It'll look like the building is built to the sidewalk. Someone who has a problem with this setback doesn't interact much with designing built form. Many buildings have setbacks that you wouldn't know is there because the sidewalk is particularly wide. What gave them the wide sidewalks was a more generous setback. I presume Nada has a setback applied to that building. If so, thank goodness for that setback - that plaza space makes that corner so much livelier than it would be otherwise. That's good urban design.

What this?  https://goo.gl/maps/VT9nUpDxap72  I find that corner quite dead.  It's not good urban design as far as I'm concerned, especially with such a huge setback and such a short building.  Maybe if the outdoor seating came all the way out to those pillars it would activate the sidewalk better, but as it is that's a non-place that's little different than a vacant lot/missing tooth.  Saying you won't notice the setback on Race Street sounds like a windshield perspective to me, because when you're walking by the building isn't large enough to make it feel like a wider sidewalk, especially with the wall coming down in the middle and the overhang of the building mass above. 

jjakucyk makes a good point, although a more illustrative example may be how the 580 Building's 6th Street and Main Street first floors were recessed in the initial design.  For decades, the recesses really hurt the value and potential of those commercial spaces, which surely must be why the recesses were eliminated by the current developer.  Fortunately for @580 the surrounding sidewalks are so wide there's still plenty of room for outdoor seating. 

Yea that space. It would be better if it the seating wasn't 'fenced' in but spilled out into the plaza. But yea. Those sorts of 'moments'  make an urban environment much more interesting. If done in a manner ala Midtown in the 60s-80s amongst ghastly commercial towers, perhaps not the best.

This is one case where I don't agree with the conservationists.  This is an extremely  high quality infill building, the fact that they don't like Cinder Block bugs me too because isntead of cinderblock they'd probably use vinyl instead which looks far far worse.

Many of 3CDC's infill buildings in OTR use siding on the back and it actually doesn't look bad. They must use wood instead of vinyl. Now, the vinyl siding on the Towne Properties townhomes on Elm does look awful, and that's visible from Elm Street.

Many of 3CDC's infill buildings in OTR use siding on the back and it actually doesn't look bad. They must use wood instead of vinyl. Now, the vinyl siding on the Towne Properties townhomes on Elm does look awful, and that's visible from Elm Street.

 

Cinder block looks way better.  Particularly with larger boxy buildings like this.  It has a more substantial look to it, though I'd only really use it in back.

This is one case where I don't agree with the conservationists.  This is an extremely  high quality infill building, the fact that they don't like Cinder Block bugs me too because isntead of cinderblock they'd probably use vinyl instead which looks far far worse.

How is this high quality?  It is a huge flat brick wall with large plain openings, a cinder block façade facing the alley, and hardly any natural light to 75% of the units. I don't see why everyone on this board loves it so much ... other than it is dense.

^ As for the "huge flat brick wall with large plain openings" - in all honesty I don't think that's the type of criticism that can generate much of a response. I guess that you are looking for articulation of some kind. For me, all I can say is the overall effect is pleasing. I think it looks luxurious. Now, the devil is in the details and the craftsmanship, especially for this type of building. The masonry needs to be done really well, and the brick selection is equally important.

 

As for the light into the units, that was significantly reduced because the conservationists forced the designers to squash the building and, in an effort to keep the all-important density of the development (even though you seem not to value that highly), they eliminated a courtyard. All because conservationists stupidly have convinced themselves that adjacent buildings in OTR can only vary in height by one story.

 

So, conservationists are to blame for this building not being everything it could be, and for holding up a good development that would add to the neighborhood. When it comes to infill development, they just always make things worse.

Not that it matters, but here is the building to be demolished, with it's original façade.  The structure is still there. Built in 1880s as Rudolph Gohs beer hall

It's actually quite a decent example of simple but effective architecture. The "plain flat front" is hardly so.

 

You have an implied brick front plane and every time something is stepped back from that the reveal is that you see the thickness of the brick plane and then the extrusion into the mass is clad in wood. They set up that rhythm and stuck to it. It's seen in the residential entry, the balconies on the upper floors, and the overhang of the setback top floor.

 

You will read this building as a series of rectangular masses clad in wood with a brick plane with holes placed over top. It will look nice.

 

I have a slight feeling they'll go with a brick that's popping up everywhere (I've even specified it on projects) that's called manganese ironspot. Look it up. It's a very attractive brick and works immensely well with wood cladding.

 

This building isn't going to be a piece of world class architecture known for miles for breaking down boundaries. But it WILL be a nice example of contextual modern infill that isn't trying to look faux historic but doesn't subvert its context in some awkward way.ctiv

This is one case where I don't agree with the conservationists.  This is an extremely  high quality infill building, the fact that they don't like Cinder Block bugs me too because isntead of cinderblock they'd probably use vinyl instead which looks far far worse.

How is this high quality?  It is a huge flat brick wall with large plain openings, a cinder block façade facing the alley, and hardly any natural light to 75% of the units. I don't see why everyone on this board loves it so much ... other than it is dense.

 

I've seen enough of similar infill projects in other cities to know that it will look pretty good (Devil is in the details and execution, I'm hoping it will be good as I think the same guy did the really great condos in Mariemont).  Yes Cincinnati is not the only place with bad infill but I do feel that a lot of the great infill I've seen elsewhere modern and faux historic has not been built too much.

View of this building from park

Get a look at 3CDC’s latest OTR condos

 

One of Cincinnati Center City Development Corp.’s latest condominium projects, the Stafford, is wrapping up construction.

 

While 3CDC has developed hundreds of condos in Over-the-Rhine, the historic neighborhood north of Cincinnati’s central business district, this is its first project to offer “micro” condos. The condos just hit the market and two are already sale pending.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/08/03/get-a-look-at-3cdc-s-latest-otr-condos-photos.html

Am I the only one alarmed by the complete lack of insulation in this loft unit?

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1546258/1233-Walnut-St-305-Cincinnati-OH-45202

Am I the only one alarmed by the complete lack of insulation in this loft unit?

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1546258/1233-Walnut-St-305-Cincinnati-OH-45202

 

It's possible they did a layer of rigid insulation on top of the boards you see then the roof layers on that.  I would hope so anyway.  That is standard insulation method for structures like timber-frame where you want structure and planking exposed.

The insulation is on top of the roof, not under it.  Otherwise it wouldn't meet building code since there is a certain R-Value you have to hit. 

The restaurant beneath Rhinegeist will be called "Sartre" and will be opening later this summer:

 

http://sartreotr.com/

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/dining/2017/08/07/existentialism-jeanpaul-sartrefrench-restaurant/545941001/

https://www.facebook.com/SartreOTR/

 

Model Group is currently tearing down the non-historic building at Elder & Logan that formerly housed Chatfield College and Mercy St. John Social Services. I don't know what they have planned for that block but hopefully it'll be developed soon and not just become a surface parking lot.

 

Model group basically owns that part of the Northern Liberties. Directly to the west is the Parkway Towers building, to the east is Market Square Phase 2, and to the southwest is the Film Center, all of which are Model Group projects.

^I thought the Film Center was Urban Sites.

Oops, you're right. But all of the stuff north of Elder in that area is Model Group.

Model Group is currently tearing down the non-historic building at Elder & Logan that formerly housed Chatfield College and Mercy St. John Social Services. I don't know what they have planned for that block but hopefully it'll be developed soon and not just become a surface parking lot.

 

Model group basically owns that part of the Northern Liberties. Directly to the west is the Parkway Towers building, to the east is Market Square Phase 2, and to the southwest is the Film Center, all of which are Model Group projects.

 

The non-historic building at Elder and Logan will become a surface parking lot to count for the parking demand for Market Square Phase II.

Oops, you're right. But all of the stuff north of Elder in that area is Model Group.

 

I saw a know-it-all on Facebook assert that the streetcar doesn't matter since 3CDC was redeveloping "everything up there already".  I pointed out that 3CDC owns nothing in that area so he kicked the ball into the sewer and went home. 

Hmm, not a fan until I know more.

 

I voiced concern in this thread about the planned outdoor area at the Film Center specifically because this spot really should be a built gateway and there was no assurance the other lots wouldn't become open spaces as well. And that is now becoming a more real concern.

 

Open spaces need to be strategically located. Important gateways aren't the place for them so I'm hoping this becomes new construction infill. The current building is ugly and sited kind of poorly, but at least it's a building. I'll be very displeased if it becomes a parking lot.

Get a look at Cincinnati Shakespeare Company's new theater

 

The Cincinnati Shakespeare Company’s brand-new Otto M. Budig Theater opened for business on Aug. 11.

 

The $17 million, 233-seat facility is expected to help create an arts district in Over-the-Rhine along with Music Hall and the Ensemble Theater, both of which are being rehabilitated, as well as Memorial Hall and the School for the Creative and Performing Arts.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/08/16/get-a-look-at-cincinnati-shakespeare-companys-new.html

The exterior may leave some perplexed, but I can appreciate it in some places. That interior looks phenomenal. Hats off for the inside.

Agreed, the interior looks great. The exterior looks a bit un-finished or un-refined in places but the overall shape and form makes it a very nice addition to that corner of OTR. I haven't seen it yet at night, but I feel like with the inside glowing at dark it will look really nice.

The facade looks like a shipping container. This was allowed to be built, but the Steiner infill project was rejected? Makes no sense.

On an unrelated note, I have seen Chris Collinsworth in OTR at least 4 or 5 times this summer walking around and not even just on the main drags but off the beaten path and in random corners with not much pedestrian traffic. Does anyone know if he is involved in any investment going on in OTR? With his money and national tv presence it would be great to see him getting involved like Ndukwe or even like Lachey has.