The big problem is that after a slow start the place got expensive very fast in 2013-14.  Now, basically the only people who can start a storefront business are able to do so because of family money.  I'm going to keep my mouth shut so far as the people I personally know who got family money but it's basically everyone.  By comparison, Michael Redmond and John Back started Neon's with just $15,000 of their own money and then abandoned the business when the landlord wanted to double or triple the rent. 

 

The one thing really missing from OTR right now are basement businesses.  I don't know if it's because of the character of the typical building or what but New York City and even Columbus still have a fair number of bars in basements.  Also, keep in mind that if not for both of my grandparents getting ill in 2011 my dad was zeroing in on buying two buildings near the Art Academy for dirt cheap, and today instead of being an internet heckler I could be proprietor of a sleazy establishment that would be a thorn in 3CDC's side! 

 

 

I was in otr last weekend I believe, there was a women who overdosed, I believe heroin, right on the corner of 12th and race.

 

You still see open air drug dealing on republic st.

 

Walking past 15th and vine, alone at night is still sketchy as hell. Just recently I had a friend who got mugged at gun point with his girlfriend while walking to rheingeist late at night, crossing north liberty.

 

Otr still has a long, long way to go. The future is exciting, if not a bit anxiety driven. That said it's only been 5 years of real development. There are still a lot of reasons why higher income families wouldn't want to live there yet.

 

Also in order to attract more families to the urban core you truly need better school systems. That's a huge factor for families, and why many of them chose the suburbs. The urban schools, for the most part, are a disaster.

 

 

Yeah, we live right near 12th/Race and the drug dealing there is pretty much non-stop even with the school right there.  I know we've gotten quite of few of the dealers locked up and even know about a half dozen by name, but it has only gotten slightly better in the last few years.  We're hopeful with more development going on and the closure of some drug dealer friendly businesses things will get better.

Yeah, you are exactly right. If the middle class decides that living in OTR isn't worth the cost, and they can just live in Northside or Walnut Hills and drive to OTR on the weekends, then OTR will never get the density of middle class residents to support moderately priced businesses.

 

Is this scenario really a bad thing? Obviously we want OTR to be densely populated and filled with a variety of commercial uses, but if it trends continue, the neighborhood will become out of reach for some middle class residents. If these people who want to live in the core but cannot afford to instead land in Walnut Hills, Price Hill, Northside, etc. then you get more of a widespread renaissance across the city.  Isn't that kind of a secondary goal of 3CDC's work in OTR? Make downtown/OTR as desirable as possible, turning the area into an asset that people would want to live near. It's kind of like the Hyde Park/Oakley effect. People getting priced out of Hyde Park has helped to turn Oakley into a hot neighborhood, so now we have two cool, urbanish neighborhoods instead of just one.

 

I still think this discussion is very premature, though. OTR still has a long way to go, especially north of Liberty, before we can start saying that the neighborhood is an urban Indian Hill (lol). Even if every portion of OTR and Pendleton become super gentrified, there is still the West End, Brighton, Lower Price Hill...lots of basin neighborhoods that are in rough shape. There will be room for the middle class in the basin area of Cincinnati for quite some time, I think.

 

My critique here is purely based on what we want the neighborhood to become in the long run. Obviously it is not an "urban Indian Hill" today and won't become that within the next 10 years. However, if the current trends continue, it may become that in 15 or 20 years. Yes, much of the neighborhood is still vacant buildings and vacant lots, especially north of Liberty. But what will those lots ultimately become? We can either allow developers to build 3 to 5 story apartment or condo buildings which will be affordable to the middle class; or the community council can continue to protest density and watch the lots continue to be filled in with single family townhomes that only the wealthy can afford. In their fight to protect low income neighborhood residents, the community council is pushing out the middle class and making sure OTR really does become a neighborhood for "Only The Rich".

 

Also, if we don't allow high density to be build in OTR, we are kinda squandering the investment we made in the streetcar. The whole idea is that new apartments and condos would be built near the route and thousands of new residents would be able to use it to get around, either to their jobs in the CBD or just to get around OTR. If current trends continue, we might only add a few hundred additional residents to OTR, and most of them will be wealthy enough that they'll mostly use Uber to get around anyway.

^ The other factor to consider is that many of the apartments that are currently receiving subsidies to house low income residents may not be that way in 10 or 15 years. For the sake of this thread, I'm not going to make any judgements about that (there's a gentrification thread for that). But this CityBeat article did provide this interesting tidbit:

 

HUD data shows that about 30 buildings containing about 500 units of affordable housing in OTR and neighboring Pendleton had their HUD affordability restrictions or subsidies expire between 2001 and last year. [...]

 

Like Sycamore Manor, buildings in OTR and Pendleton containing at least 900 low-income units are set to have their HUD subsidies or LIHTC-related rent restrictions expire over the next five years, HUD data shows. That’s not counting buildings OTRCH, Model and other groups are working to keep affordable.

A partial solution would be for the city to build and manage its own affordable housing with zero parking.  This would be separate from CMHA.  NYC has lotteries for affordable units in new luxury housing towers in Manhattan.  The affordable housing could be part of developer projects or its own free-standing structure.  Renting would require proof that the tenant does not own a vehicle.  A lottery could also prioritize those with high student loan balances. 

 

I read somewhere that the biggest non-profit housing charity in San Francisco owns 3,000 units.  They bought most of their buildings in the 70s and 80s and can't afford to buy any more.  We don't have anything like that in Cincinnati, at least not on that scale. 

Current view of Race Street showing the two one-story buildings that will be demolished for the new Steiner infill building:

 

Wow! Great Photo!

Woman-owned real estate firm lands first 3CDC project

 

 

A woman-owned construction and development company has landed its first project with Cincinnati Center City Development Corp., and its largest project to date.

 

Titan Real Estate Group, a certified woman-owned firm, has been named general contractor on the Rennen & Beecher Flats condominium and street-level commercial space project. This $7.2 million development at the corners of 15th and Race and 15th and Pleasant streets will include 18 condos and about 5,000 square feet of commercial space.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/28/woman-owned-real-estate-firm-lands-first-3cdc.html

So according to those renderings, we're getting a three story at the NW corner of 15th & Race. I'd still prefer something taller but it's certainly better than the two story building that was once proposed for that corner.

I really like the corner infill buildings in particular. They look respectable and blend really well to the historic stock.

^ Are we looking at the same image? These are laaaaaaaaaaame.

The article ColDayMan[/member] included above is the Pleasant Street side, I believe. If you click through to the article, the image at the top is the corner of 15th & Race.

This older article from May shows a few different angles of renders:

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/30/exclusive-3cdc-building-7-million-mixed-use.html#g/413305/1

I like that these are simple. There are many building examples in otr that are simple, without cornices and without extra details.

 

I like how these buildings are simple, yet still look like buildings you would see in otr, in terms of scale, the brick facade, the dimension of the windows, etc.

 

Idk. I like them.

 

 

Meh. They're "nothing" architecture. Not bad, but absolutely forgettable. Which is unfortunate for such a major site.

 

I value everything 3CDC has done for OTR, but I'm starting to feel it's their time to exit, at least with these types of projects. I've been disappointed with their work for awhile now and they keep dropping the ball. The lack of density here is upsetting. The quality of design is lackluster. The overall result is boring.

Fortunately, both Model Group and Urban Sites are taking on larger projects in OTR. While I don't think Urban Sites has done any infill (they've only done historic renovations as far as I know), I could see them getting in that game. Steiner + Associates getting involved in OTR is a good sign too... although their project by Washington Park is relatively small, I could see them doing larger projects. Hopefully, with 3CDC's focus shifting south to Court Street and other key projects in the CBD, other developers will be able to step in and grab some of the infill projects in OTR.

I think 3cd has done some great infill projects.

 

The empower media infill building is looking great. 15th and vine is really good to imo.

 

I like there 15th and race project. I also think the infill projects on vine (the yellow infill building and the one building directly across from it with a brick facade are respectable to)

 

They have dropped the ball on some infill projects as far as design goes for sure, but overall I feel like there infill has gotten better from the early days of Mercer.

This project is 18 condos with an average price of $260,000=$4.68 million. They're already spending $7.2 million. With numbers like that, something's gotta give. Im OK with it being the architecture, in order to keep things remotely affordable.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm OK with bland architecture, if it means we can fit in more middle class people. I think the older buildings provide the beauty here, and it's very hard to "ruin" a street with "bad" architecture. The only cases were I see things getting "ruined" are when something automobile-oriented is built- like the cell phone store/old fast food place on Liberty. Or something with a big blank wall with no street activation. It's 95% in the site layout. We don't have to be great, we just have to avoid big mistakes.

 

I'd actually like to see an Uptown-style development go in to the west of Central Parkway to add hundreds of more people to the area. We need more customers for businesses and eyes on the street. There's definitely less pedestrian activity in the wintertime when it gets dark early, one thing we can do is increase the baseline number of people who might want to venture out.

 

The way our metro economy is, I don't know if you'd have ever enough high income earners to fill out OTR. And thier dollars could buy them a mansion in the suburbs for the cost of a basic townhouse, especially if prices got higher in the city.

 

 

^ I completely agree. We recently put one of our small-ish (500 sq. ft.) OTR apartments on the market - on Elm just south of Liberty. After two days and 25 showings, I removed it before even responding to 25 other requests. And I'm not inflating these numbers. Other than being mentally exhausted, my overall feeling from this experience was sadness. There are a LOT of good people who so want to live here in a nice and affordable space, and we just don't have them. And we have made it so that a developer who could actually bring lots of units online, would have to be nuts to even propose it.

 

Our infill rules are the same as those we apply to 150 year old architecture. It's crazy. We're lopping off entire floors of proposed multi-unit buildings because we think that a two story difference in building height is going to offend people more than telling them to go live somewhere else. We're getting prepped to start denying permits for larger developments because of our arcane parking requirements, not caring that the artificial mitigation of parking pressure will be what ensures that we don't get the parking we need.

 

Meanwhile you can do pretty much whatever crappy faux-historian stuff you want, so long as it's an expensive, low density, single family townhouse.

 

Sorry to all of the die-hard, stick-to-the-script historic conservation folks (from someone who has rehabbed two historic structures in OTR), but people want to move here more because of the social contract than the architecture. And the HCB and its rules for infill are setting us on a path to destroy that social contract, not strengthen it.

^How does that change?  I guess getting more people like yourself to speak up and into leadership roles?

The way our metro economy is, I don't know if you'd have ever enough high income earners to fill out OTR. And thier dollars could buy them a mansion in the suburbs for the cost of a basic townhouse, especially if prices got higher in the city.

 

 

 

I counted last year and there are lots for approximately 300 single-family homes in OTR.  That count included building single-families on the large parking lots where a multifamily would almost certainly be built like the Arnold S. Levine lots and Freeport Row.  But realistically, we're going to end up with about 150 more single-family homes in addition to old multifamilies being renovated into single families (like John Back's 4-story "house" on Elm). 

 

Discouraging single-family construction would require enacting property tax and zoning incentives for small multifamilies while simultaneously disincentivizing single-families.  Part of the reason why these single-families are popping up is because the banks love financing single-families homes but small multifamilies are rare loans.  The city can't really do anything about what banks are incentivized to do by the FHA. 

 

 

^ I completely agree. We recently put one of our small-ish (500 sq. ft.) OTR apartments on the market - on Elm just south of Liberty. After two days and 25 showings, I removed it before even responding to 25 other requests. And I'm not inflating these numbers. Other than being mentally exhausted, my overall feeling from this experience was sadness. There are a LOT of good people who so want to live here in a nice and affordable space, and we just don't have them. And we have made it so that a developer who could actually bring lots of units online, would have to be nuts to even propose it.

 

Our infill rules are the same as those we apply to 150 year old architecture. It's crazy. We're lopping off entire floors of proposed multi-unit buildings because we think that a two story difference in building height is going to offend people more than telling them to go live somewhere else. We're getting prepped to start denying permits for larger developments because of our arcane parking requirements, not caring that the artificial mitigation of parking pressure will be what ensures that we don't get the parking we need.

 

Meanwhile you can do pretty much whatever crappy faux-historian stuff you want, so long as it's an expensive, low density, single family townhouse.

 

Sorry to all of the die-hard, stick-to-the-script historic conservation folks (from someone who has rehabbed two historic structures in OTR), but people want to move here more because of the social contract than the architecture. And the HCB and its rules for infill are setting us on a path to destroy that social contract, not strengthen it.

 

I agree with much of this.  But your last sentence is incorrect.  The Historic District has simple guidelines (have vertical emphasis, have a base, middle and top etc).  It is the zoning restrictions on use, density, parking and setback that cause the real problems.  The HC Board is just tasked with zoning relief in historic districts.

^ I stand corrected on that, but frankly whether they are from historic guidelines or zoning, the conservation purists will exploit whatever rules exist to further their interests with regard to infill development. And in that sense I would just say that they and the HCB effectively collaborate in a way that stops useful avenues for high density development. Further, I do believe that the egregious "height difference" restriction is a part of the historic guidelines, correct? And that in particular has been damaging and used repeatedly by the preservation purists.

 

So I won't completely give HCB a pass on this. In addition, they are a part of the city bureaucracy, and have a right and responsibility to work with other organizations and even elected leadership to make the rules what they should be, in order to ensure that logical development occurs. Yvette Simpson said as much at the end of the whole Freeport Row fiasco (which now appears to be dead, if at least temporarily), yet nothing happens. And I've been told - 3 years ago - by HCB leadership that those necessary zoning changes had to happen, and were "in the works" - but nothing happens.

 

So sometimes you just have no choice but to single out a person or an organization and blame them, because even if they are not "the problem" and are just "doing their job" -- it's the only way to leverage change.

I'd place more blame on the neighborhood council than the HCB.

Yup the otrcc is a cancer

^They are clearly far from innocent. I could also add, by the way, the OTR Foundation and their prestigious "infill committee". But I believe that if the City - the bureaucrats who work for us and implement policy, along with the appropriate political actors - proposed a meaningful set of reforms that were intended as an initial play to move us in a significant direction, then you'd start to see more of a chorus of voices to "complement" those from the OTRCC. Right now, OTRCC is really the only voice in an echo-chamber, so they are able to create their own narrative and individuals can easily rise up to "represent" the neighborhood.

 

And, I mean, seriously - blame a volunteer community council? I have a real problem with any statement that our paid-for City government bureaucracy is being blown away by the shear force of the OTRCC. No, they've just supported the vacuum that allows them to persist.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

 

Dude, weren't you just talking about how OTR needs to maintain its affordability so that the middle class can afford to live there?

 

Personally, I'm ok with unoffensive infill in OTR, as long as the proportions, scale, massing, etc. are OK, I don't need anything ground breaking or exciting. The visual highlight of OTR is the historic building stock. Infill built in the neighborhood should complement the historic structures, but doesn't need to compete with them.

One of the big issues is that OTR's zoning is outdated. Of course the solution would be to update the zoning or implement something like a form-based code so that developers can built new projects without having to beg for a variance. As soon as a developer has to ask for a variance, there has to be a hearing, and the Community Council starts showing up and voicing their opposition to the project. Additionally, if the development gets rezoned as a "planned development", the developer is required to meet with the community council and work with them to address their concerns.

 

What was really disturbing about the opposition to Freeport Row is that OTRCC was posting on Facebook, "If you are opposed to this project for any reason, show up at this meeting." Which is just NIMBYism, plain and simple. People that didn't like it because they thought it was too dense... people who thought it should be required to have a certain percentage of affordable housing... people who didn't like the architecture... they all came together to attempt to kill the project. You can't just make a list of demands and hand it to the developer and expect them to do everything. Something has to give. OTRCC should have taken a carrot and stick approach. "We're okay with you keeping the height if you improve the quality of the architecture and the materials on the building."

 

In that situation, I don't place any of the blame on city officials. They approved the development. I place the blame on the community council who was unified in their opposition to the project instead of suggesting realistic changes that the developer might actually be able to make.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

 

Dude, weren't you just talking about how OTR needs to maintain its affordability so that the middle class can afford to live there?

 

Personally, I'm ok with unoffensive infill in OTR, as long as the proportions, scale, massing, etc. are OK, I don't need anything ground breaking or exciting. The visual highlight of OTR is the historic building stock. Infill built in the neighborhood should complement the historic structures, but doesn't need to compete with them.

 

My complaint in the other thread is that we are allowing too many single family homes and not enough larger apartment or condo buildings. Density will ultimately decide how affordable the neighborhood is.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm OK with bland architecture, if it means we can fit in more middle class people. I think the older buildings provide the beauty here, and it's very hard to "ruin" a street with "bad" architecture. The only cases were I see things getting "ruined" are when something automobile-oriented is built- like the cell phone store/old fast food place on Liberty. Or something with a big blank wall with no street activation. It's 95% in the site layout. We don't have to be great, we just have to avoid big mistakes.

 

I'd actually like to see an Uptown-style development go in to the west of Central Parkway to add hundreds of more people to the area. We need more customers for businesses and eyes on the street. There's definitely less pedestrian activity in the wintertime when it gets dark early, one thing we can do is increase the baseline number of people who might want to venture out.

 

The way our metro economy is, I don't know if you'd have ever enough high income earners to fill out OTR. And thier dollars could buy them a mansion in the suburbs for the cost of a basic townhouse, especially if prices got higher in the city.

 

When I say "best thing", I mean architecture wise. I don't really have complaints about the "meh" architecture that 3CDC builds as infill. Just saying that as property values rise, we will hopefully get to the point where developers can build new projects in OTR without big subsidies and actually have some money to spend on architects and quality materials. Right now, some of these projects can't even get off the ground because it's so hard to get financing, so I don't think we should be blocking the ones that are moving forward on account of architecture.

Right. The best thing that could happen is that property values rise enough that developers can hire good architects for these infill projects. Until that happens, the best we can hope for is Cole Russel normcore architecture.

 

Dude, weren't you just talking about how OTR needs to maintain its affordability so that the middle class can afford to live there?

 

Personally, I'm ok with unoffensive infill in OTR, as long as the proportions, scale, massing, etc. are OK, I don't need anything ground breaking or exciting. The visual highlight of OTR is the historic building stock. Infill built in the neighborhood should complement the historic structures, but doesn't need to compete with them.

 

My complaint in the other thread is that we are allowing too many single family homes and not enough larger apartment or condo buildings. Density will ultimately decide how affordable the neighborhood is.

 

Not necessarily. San Francisco, Manhattan, and Paris are all very dense, and they are among the most expensive residential markets in the world. Density will help keep supply and demand more balanced, which could potentially slow the rate of housing cost creep, but as the neighborhood gets more desirable, looses some of the social problems with the homeless and very low income population, reduces crime and blight, it is going to get more expensive. In Cincy, this isn't really a big issue at the citywide level, as we have a ton of neighborhoods that are still very cheap. Once those places start to become unaffordable to the middle class, then we will have a true gentrification problem in the city.

^ I stand corrected on that, but frankly whether they are from historic guidelines or zoning, the conservation purists will exploit whatever rules exist to further their interests with regard to infill development. And in that sense I would just say that they and the HCB effectively collaborate in a way that stops useful avenues for high density development. Further, I do believe that the egregious "height difference" restriction is a part of the historic guidelines, correct? And that in particular has been damaging and used repeatedly by the preservation purists.

 

So I won't completely give HCB a pass on this. In addition, they are a part of the city bureaucracy, and have a right and responsibility to work with other organizations and even elected leadership to make the rules what they should be, in order to ensure that logical development occurs. Yvette Simpson said as much at the end of the whole Freeport Row fiasco (which now appears to be dead, if at least temporarily), yet nothing happens. And I've been told - 3 years ago - by HCB leadership that those necessary zoning changes had to happen, and were "in the works" - but nothing happens.

 

So sometimes you just have no choice but to single out a person or an organization and blame them, because even if they are not "the problem" and are just "doing their job" -- it's the only way to leverage change.

The guidelines for the OTR historic district say new buildings should be within one story height difference from the neighboring buildings, which basically makes a 5-6 story limit.  This is pretty standard historic district language.  The only buildings in OTR over 5 stories are church steeples, Music Hall, The Emery etc...  I think the guideline makes sense for OTR.  I love going on a roof in OTR and seeing all the roofs, chimneys and church steeples!  It is worth preserving IMO

In that situation, I don't place any of the blame on city officials. They approved the development. I place the blame on the community council who was unified in their opposition to the project instead of making realistic changes that the developer might actually be able to make.

There's no disagreement given the (significant) caveat "in that situation". Where city officials come into play is, why are we in this situation, and how do we get out of it. That is their job to ask and answer such questions, and propose solutions. You just can't run a city by implying that important decisions need to be initiated at the level of volunteer community councils.

^ I stand corrected on that, but frankly whether they are from historic guidelines or zoning, the conservation purists will exploit whatever rules exist to further their interests with regard to infill development. And in that sense I would just say that they and the HCB effectively collaborate in a way that stops useful avenues for high density development. Further, I do believe that the egregious "height difference" restriction is a part of the historic guidelines, correct? And that in particular has been damaging and used repeatedly by the preservation purists.

 

So I won't completely give HCB a pass on this. In addition, they are a part of the city bureaucracy, and have a right and responsibility to work with other organizations and even elected leadership to make the rules what they should be, in order to ensure that logical development occurs. Yvette Simpson said as much at the end of the whole Freeport Row fiasco (which now appears to be dead, if at least temporarily), yet nothing happens. And I've been told - 3 years ago - by HCB leadership that those necessary zoning changes had to happen, and were "in the works" - but nothing happens.

 

So sometimes you just have no choice but to single out a person or an organization and blame them, because even if they are not "the problem" and are just "doing their job" -- it's the only way to leverage change.

The guidelines for the OTR historic district say new buildings should be within one story height difference from the neighboring buildings, which basically makes a 5-6 story limit.  This is pretty standard historic district language.  The only buildings in OTR over 5 stories are church steeples, Music Hall, The Emery etc...  I think the guideline makes sense for OTR.  I love going on a roof in OTR and seeing all the roofs, chimneys and church steeples!  It is worth preserving IMO

 

There are a few more. The old Moerlein Ice House at Henry and Race (7 stories), the building Lightborne is in on 14th is basically 6 stores tall, the Pendleton Art Center... so not just churches and landmark buildings after all.

A healthy neighborhood needs to have an array of housing types for different types of households.  So saying housing for "the middle class" is way too vague.  There needs to be housing for singles, married couples, those with children, and everything in between. 

 

We could have a lot of housing units in buildings that aren't tall if the space currently being given over to parking was instead housing of some type.  The early 3CDC condos on 12th and on Vine have surface parking that is no doubt now very valuable. 

 

I have mentioned it before but it should be possible for the city to permit zoning variances for low-parking construction if landlords can only rent to people who do not own cars. 

Well, one of the reasons OTRCC was opposed to Freeport Row was that it didn't have "enough" parking, which means that it would be harder for existing neighborhood residents to find on-street parking spaces. They said that existing low income residents need ample parking because they need to drive to get to their jobs given the current, inadequate state of transportation in Cincinnati. I just don't get it. The solution is to improve our public transit system, not to continue to demand that more and more parking is built in OTR.

I have mentioned it before but it should be possible for the city to permit zoning variances for low-parking construction if landlords can only rent to people who do not own cars. 

 

That's trivially easy to get around though.  Like when someone applies for a mortgage and are told they need to sell one of their cars, which they do, but they just buy it back as soon as the mortgage is approved. 

 

Something that would certainly help zoning-wise is to loosen the minimum lot sizes and setbacks.  There are so many lots that are completely unbuildable because they're not wide enough or don't have enough total square footage.  That's a nonsense knee-jerk reaction that attempts to legislate small houses (and even small apartment units) out of existence because, heaven forbid, a poor person might live there.  Setbacks are similar.  Does requiring a 5 foot side or front setback really achieve anything?  You're not getting a view from the side windows, and does anyone even open their windows anyway?  If you want light and air from the sides, create an interior court.  Fire concerns are already handled by the building code. 

The ribbon cutting for the new Empower MediaMarketing office building will occur on Wednesday, October 11 at 10:30 a.m. Here's a shot of the progress taken earlier this week:

 

I like those townhouses on the north side of Mercer, but the outside space feels like a missed opportunity to create spaces where people might actually sit outside. I wish they had planted trees in the sidewalk in line with the streetlights, instead of planting the trees in the little garden/terraces. The trees are so close to the townhouses, that I doubt they'll ever grow very tall and residents will have to constantly trim them to keep branches out of the windows. If the trees had been planted in line with the streetlights, the trees could grow taller and develop more canopy before encroaching on the townhouses. That would then give residents a bit more flexibility for how to use their little outdoor space.

 

Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1104426,-84.5144686,3a,75y,324.71h,78.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy8SYMVElQZP7fj_SlWl7qQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dy8SYMVElQZP7fj_SlWl7qQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D79.01233%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

 

Get a look at new mixed-use development coming later this year near Findlay Market: PHOTOS

Jul 10, 2017, 2:49pm EDT Updated Jul 10, 2017, 3:53pm EDT

Chris Wetterich

Staff reporter and columnist

Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Urban Sites is about six months from completing a long-awaited mixed-use project featuring industrial loft apartments that will further add to the redevelopment activity around historic Findlay Market in Over-the-Rhine.

 

The Film Center project at 1632 Central Parkway, projected to cost $9.4 million, will feature 44 luxury apartments and about 10,000 square feet of street-level commercial space, including an outdoor patio fronting Elder Street. Residents will have access to several amenity areas as well as a rooftop deck. The deck will offer views of downtown, Mount Adams and Mount Auburn.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/07/10/get-a-look-at-new-mixed-use-development-coming.html

 

Some updates:

 

 

Unfortunately I doubt that the rooftop patios will get much use, at least during the day.  People don't use "exposed" patios like the ones on The Ascent (probably the worst balconies in the area because the outward curve exaggerated the "exposed" feeling).  Balconies need to be recessed into the building, at least partially, so that there is shade and some semblance of privacy. 

^Thanks for all the project photo updates, taestell[/member]! I love seeing the drone photos of OTR.

The ribbon cutting for the new Empower MediaMarketing office building will occur on Wednesday, October 11 at 10:30 a.m. Here's a shot of the progress taken earlier this week:

 

Wow - so they'll finish all of the exterior cladding in a little more than a week. Amazing.

Construction of the 15th & Vine office building is well underway:

 

 

They made a huge amount of progress in 3 months:

 

Interesting video on urban density here. My bad if it has already been posted.

 

Forgive me if this isn't the best place to ask this, but I was wondering if anyone knew of an easy way to access some specific data for a project in one of my engineering masters' classes. I'm trying to track down a rough estimate of the total number of buildings in OTR (broken down by vacant/rehabbed if possible), demographic/population trends over at least the last decade, and some basic crime statistics for the neighborhood. Exact numbers aren't important, since it's a very rudimentary model that I'm trying to construct, but having somewhat realistic numbers would help out the credibility of the model greatly!

Forgive me if this isn't the best place to ask this, but I was wondering if anyone knew of an easy way to access some specific data for a project in one of my engineering masters' classes. I'm trying to track down a rough estimate of the total number of buildings in OTR (broken down by vacant/rehabbed if possible), demographic/population trends over at least the last decade, and some basic crime statistics for the neighborhood. Exact numbers aren't important, since it's a very rudimentary model that I'm trying to construct, but having somewhat realistic numbers would help out the credibility of the model greatly!

 

Xavier's Community Building Institute did a study in 2015: https://media.bizj.us/view/img/8366002/otrhousinginventoryfullreport1-21-2016.pdf