^ This should help - thanks!

There is a Jose Garcia design proposal for what appears to be race and liberty on its instagram page.

 

Building is 5-6 stories tall. Components are mixed use with office space on ground floor, a hotel portion, and affordable housing units above.

Any idea who is the developer behind this proposal?

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1129151,-84.5176897,3a,90y,226.47h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snDvfYGBGtTuW0QvpIVEx2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Wow, maybe on Wilshire Boulevard in 1972.

That would be Motel 6, I expect.

That would be Motel 6, I expect.

 

Give me a break.

 

Jose Garcia does great work, I have no concerns that this wouldn't turn out well. I personally have no qualms with a bit of modernity in an area that is filled with bad new construction.

That would be Motel 6, I expect.

 

Give me a break.

 

Jose Garcia does great work, I have no concerns that this wouldn't turn out well. I personally have no qualms with a bit of modernity in an area that is filled with bad new construction.

 

Thankfully, you are not in charge.

Lol, k. No point in arguing with you. You've never shown any positive response to literally anything that happens in OTR, so I shouldn't have even poked the bear.

The hcb will never approve this so no point in getting worked up either way. This will need to be redesigned

^Which is precisely the problem. The HCB is trash and a horrible joke. They allow junk like the Elm Street townhomes to get built or that horrible new thing they approved just south of 15th on Elm Street or the uninspired stuff 3CDC builds but don't allow anything interesting to get built.

 

I remember one of my previous bosses told me something about boards like the HCB. They keep out the worst but also stifle the best. Jose Garcia is an amazing designer and having more of his brand of work would be a good thing, not bad.

*disregards entire profession and places I've lived and first hand experiences I have*

 

 

 

I am puzzled by the quoted statement from your (now deleted) post. Is this something someone said to you or something you said to others?

 

Would it help if I told you that as far as I know you could be the foremost authority on urbanism and architecture on this forum? Would that get us back to a discussion about the hideous image above?

Good designer or not, this design has absolutely no relationship to the street or sidewalk.  It is wholly inappropriate for this location.  Perched on a hillside overlooking the city?  Maybe.  Kenwood?  Sure.  A prominent corner in OTR?  No way.  What's even happening on that corner anyway?  Is it a room?  A partially outdoor space?  For all we know it could be a parking ramp. 

Dude, not even worth it. It was based on previous comments you've made and I realized it's not even worth going into it with you.

 

Back to non-3CDC development.

Good designer or not, this design has absolutely no relationship to the street or sidewalk.  It is wholly inappropriate for this location.  Perched on a hillside overlooking the city?  Maybe.  Kenwood?  Sure.  A prominent corner in OTR?  No way.  What's even happening on that corner anyway?  Is it a room?  A partially outdoor space?  For all we know it could be a parking ramp. 

 

Honestly I don't think we know anywhere near enough of what's happening. Which is why I made the comments I did about trusting Jose Garcia. This looks exceptionally preliminary and is lacking in so many details it's not really worth commenting on until we've seen more. But the overall idea has some interesting points that I wouldn't mind seeing. Ground level changes to make it connect more are definitely an area that would need further development though from what we do see.

...This looks exceptionally preliminary and is lacking in so many details it's not really worth commenting on until we've seen more...

 

If so, then why is it presented as a photorealistic rendering?  In 1st and 2nd year architecture studios I recall professors criticizing students for showing excessive levels of detail on their schematic plans.  One that sticks out in my mind is that there was even hardware on the bathroom stall doors, along with grab bars, paper towel dispensers, etc.  The explanation from the students was that they just inserted a pre-made bathroom block from AutoCAD which already has all that stuff in it.  But that's not the point.  It's inappropriate to be showing that level of detail in a preliminary drawing because it makes it look finished and unable to be changed.  That can be a problem when presenting to clients, which is why sketched or squiggled drawings are better when starting out, even if you drew them in the computer first.  The same goes for renderings like this.  It certainly doesn't look preliminary, so why go to the trouble of presenting something that doesn't work? 

I'm not going to pretend to know the design process his firm uses. But this wouldn't be the first time I've seen photorealistic renderings for schematic designs. I personally don't get it for the reasons you've stated, but something about this seems less based on a final design and more on a massing and general programming and is a first pass at seeing what it looks like. Maybe that's how his firm gets through the SD phase, who knows.

 

The firm I work at has a process for creating renderings that puts the setup for a photorealistic rendering right at the beginning of SD. We show basic white sketchup models plopped into a real scene first, then layer information on as it's developed. But at some point there is a photoshop file and 3D model that is fully organized for a photorealistic rendered model but we just purposefully don't do it until all those details are there. But all it would take at the end of SD would be hitting "render" in vray and dropping those rendered elements into the Photoshop file that's awaiting them at some point.

Is this not owned by 3CDC in regards to the land? Did they sell this land off to Jose Garcia?

I think Jose was serious. And, it is Motel 6.

 

From Jose's website plus Instagram discussion:

 

    josegarciadesignMixed use building proposal for the edge of the OTR district in Cincinnati. The program calls for housing on the top floors, a small hotel, and offices below.

    stevepasztThat would be amazing @josegarciadesign

    davidberensonConfused how this fits the urban historic fabric...

 

    micahphone??

 

    micahphone@davidberenson well first of all it’s inspired Design. That, in our current urban landscape, is a new concept.

 

    5chw4r7zYES YES YES!!!

 

    davidberenson@micahphone the hcb will never approve this. So it's moot.

 

  micahphone@davidberenson but they will approve buildings like the Cincinnati Shakespeare Co.

 

    davidberensonI'm fine with the Shakespeare company building compared to this. This looks like it's pulled straight out of the 70s. It's hot, hot trash design wise and no where near fits the otr neighborhood. Jose other project on race was excellent and modern. This is just garbage.

 

  5chw4r7z@micahphone And isn't everyone sick of faux historic buildings? They're ugly.

Show me a single motel 6 that looks like this.

Few things:

 

1. I think this would have to be a 3cdc project as it is part of their multi Phase project for 15th and Race. They own the land (and also the land of the Cell Phone Store across the Pleasant street.)

 

2. Hope they incorporate my parking garage concept https://cincinnatiideas.com/liberty-and-race-underground-garage/

 

3. Can't tell if it actually does from the rendering, but i hope they plan for it to come out to the curb of the narrowed Liberty Street (not the current Liberty Street.)

 

4. This building looks tall, twice the size of its three story neighbor. (Building two doors down is four stories however.) Would be interested to see how height compares to size of proposed Elm and Liberty. I think there should be height limits on OTR but I don't know what they should be. Wouldn't want it competing with steeples of nearby St Francis Seraph.

 

5. The style- it's different for the neighborhood but the more important thing to me is they get the site plan right. Are the entrances going to create sidewalk  activity? And also reusability- if the buildings original purpose is lost, can it be adapted to something else? Historic buildings in OTR are great for this. A modernist building like the Terrace Plaza Hotel not so easily. 

 

6. I trust that the designer Jose Garcia will do a great job. It could be a stunning building that somehow "fits" or even makes people stop and contemplate it, The key would be not to totally overwhelm its surroundings. I don't expect the Conservator or the infill committee to react kindly to it though.

I honestly appreciate the effort and understand what Jose was trying to do, but it could have been something that complemented the historic structures.

 

His modern design home on race street does just that.

 

Instead he designed something that looks like an alien spaceship crash landed in otr. It looks so foreign and alien to its surroundings and ends up just sticking out more so than need be.

 

It steals the attention of its historic neighboring buildings and that should never be the goal for infill otr structures.

Pretty poorly planned troll job by 1400 Sycamore[/member] here - doubling down on on a misinformed Motel 6 comparison is a good way to expose yourself but too naïve to really fan the flames.

 

This looks promising!  Unabashedly modern could be much more effective on Liberty than the modern-and-ashamed aesthetic we've seen farther south. 

Can you truly call something "unabashedly modern" that's inspired by a 50 year old design aesthetic? 

I think if the landing becomes appropriate and fits into the surrounding fabric, I'm OK with the rest of the building.  It kind of is like some of those brutalist architecture buildings at the base, IMO.

For everyone drooling over this design: explain how that entire first floor isn't garbage urbanism? It doesn't even try to connect to the street.

 

Also, please explain how, if this is approved, literally anything could be denied in the future, since it doesn't pretend to be in Over-the-Rhine at all. I agree that there is too much faux historic, but that doesn't mean we should just let any abstract modernist building be put in.

Photos of the recently completed Empower Marketing building at 15 E 14th St: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/10/09/empower-literally-makes-its-company-values-real-in.html

 

 

Can we keep the modern concept but conform it to otr? I mean we have otr warehouses that take up many lots. We have buildings like rheingeist. Why not create a more modern interpretation of that.

^I agree, but the rendering shown does not belong in OTR. It does not respect the buildings around it, or activate the street.

I saw this in San Diego:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7095939,-117.1601143,3a,75y,77.69h,113.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1LkfFYxcEu9k8HPEezWQKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

What do the architects and others on here think about this kind of modern infill? Does something like this belong in OTR?

 

It was interesting being the the Gas Lamp quarter which went through its renaissance in the 80s and 90s. It's about 10 times smaller than OTR in number of contributing buildings and acreage. 

Any idea who is the developer behind this proposal?

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1129151,-84.5176897,3a,90y,226.47h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snDvfYGBGtTuW0QvpIVEx2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

OTR needs a building like this one. The neighborhood, in places, is beginning to look too contrived. It could use some flair here and there, lest it become sterile.

I don't disagree ^ but let it be inspired by its surroundings while keeping its modern flair.  Don't be mordern and edgy just for the sake of being modern and edgy.

 

I'll take anything that looks like it was designed by Morris Adjmi. In the rest of the city we should go nuts with contemporary, color changing, experimental buildings. In OTR we should stick to simple modern buildings with brick, metal and glass. Exposed concrete feels wrong in OTR, but maybe that's just me.

 

I'll take anything that looks like it was designed by Morris Adjmi. In the rest of the city we should go nuts with contemporary, color changing, experimental buildings. In OTR we should stick to simple modern buildings with brick, metal and glass. Exposed concrete feels wrong in OTR, but maybe that's just me.

 

Boom!! I was looking for something like this but the closest i found was this one on Blossom St in London. Yours is perfect!!!

Nothing Adjmi does is really 'splashy' except maybe the attached below, but everything he does is extremely nice and high quality. It's this industrial modern aesthetic that I think we could use more of, instead of the faux-cornices and plank siding we are seeing going up in OTR. With the prices some of these condos are starting to reach per square foot, the excuse for lack of quality is disappearing.

 

A quick photoshop onto the google map image (ignore the wonky angles). I wonder how something like this would fly here. The build-out on the corner really shows how narrow the sidewalk is compared to the width of the street. From this distance you should see the buildings on three of the corners with one at your back.

Jose Garcia is answering and discussing this project on his instagram in the comments section. Just a heads up.

Cool, I like it!  I think it will fit in fine, especially in this stretch of OtR.  It kinda hearkens to it's neighbors across Liberty Street, St Francis Seraph, St Anthony Messenger and the other building West of St Anthony. I'm sure with more renderings and an explanation of what we are seeing that I will like it even more.

 

For the record, I really like the top half of this design. However, like others have stated I have some questions and concerns with how it meets the street. I also don't want to see any of these parcels get filled in before the Liberty Street diet, because that will be a waste of potential density and create awkward setbacks along the new Liberty Street. If 3CDC is trying to move along with a project here that means they either don't think the street diet will happen and therefore aren't concerned about losing out on potential extra lot acreage, or they are proceeding as if the street diet is happening, which would be a great sign.

Ditto about the lower levels -- I can almost picture a cigarette machine and phone booth under those orange triangles.  As a long-term downtown resident, I have to say those recesses may be asking for trouble.  Jose Garcia seems to be channeling the Rat Pack on this one!

 

I like the Adjmi example ucgrady provided better, but as an admirer of Garcia's work, I'm not ready to dismiss his design entirely.

This building would be an albatross in OTR for years to come. I'm all for getting creative with infill and I'm generally a proponent of contemporary architecture, but this building looks to be a bit of a mess, and is definitely inappropriate in one of the best and biggest historic districts in the country. I see structures similar to this one in many parts of LA- most dating from the 70s and 80s- so nothing is really contemporary or fresh about this design. It looks like the Watergate complex on top of a vaguely Googie inspired base. There is no interaction with the corner, lots of dead and wasted space, and it seems quite out of scale with its neighbors. I don't have a problem with buildings going a bit higher on Liberty to address the width of the street, but they should still respect their context a bit better than this does. Maybe a 4 story base with a couple more stories set back on top could work to achieve this effect. I guess we need to wait and see other renderings, but so far, this building is a definite no from me. It'd be better in the MLK area, if it must get built.

From the looks of it, this does NOT take advantage of a narrowed Liberty (see the cobrahead streetlight in line with the street trees). So, I'm kind of hoping this is being tossed out as the proposal for if Liberty remains as is, and then there will be an alternative design which would be on a deeper lot and have a stronger base and connection to the street. We need 3CDC to show why Liberty needs to be narrowed, and this site is a perfect opportunity to make the case.

Question, say this is created before the street diet occurs. And say that setback is created due to the additional land. Is that land, if not used for this project, could be used for smaller infill?

I wouldn't get too worried that the proposed building is going to be built. So far we have heard absolutely nothing from 3CDC about what they plan to do with their lots facing Liberty. I would almost guarantee that they will build another parking garage somewhere along Liberty, although it'll probably be where the former KFC turned cell phone store is located. It's quite possible that 3CDC will punt and focus on the OTR Kroger site before developing the Liberty Street lots.

It's strange though considering the level of rendering. It's clearly well thought out.

 

Jose Garcia even responded on instagram stating we will see more renderings very soon, and learn more details.

 

3cdc won't have the vine st site to work on until 2019-2020 at the earliest. A lot of their otr projects are wrapping up as well, and work is already beginning on the infill for 15th and race. After that there is nothing left on the agenda except for historic renovations that need historic tax credits to complete. 

 

I feel that 3cdc is lining this project up for their 2018 work load, to complete the race st block.

 

We were also told by over the rhine community council that funds are locked in for the street diet just this past month. Perhaps there is a connection.

1714 Vine St and 57 E McMicken just received NOFA funding. 1714 Vine will contain 6 affordable and 5 market rate units (total project cost of $925,886). 57 E McMicken will contain 5 affordable and 4 market rate units (total project cost of $1,070,872). Good to see these two large buildings get renovated. Always good to see vacant buildings renovated, especially in that corner of OTR which hasn't seen much activity lately.

 

Here's a link to the press release: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/community-development/news/6-4m-in-nofa-funded-projects-announced-for-cincinnati-neighborhoods/

 

Here's an overview of all the funded projects: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/community-development/assets/File/Fall%202016%20NOFA%20Project%20Breakdown(1).jpg

Over-the-Rhine theater lands major preservation grant

 

The Woodward Theater has received a $150,000 grant that will allow it to restore its old, electric marquee.

 

The 104-year-old theater finished eighth among 25 sites across the country that were hoping to receive a share of $2 million in grant funding from American Express, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Main Street America.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/02/over-the-rhine-theater-lands-major-preservation.html

 

I've been to a few events held at the Woodward and while I'm very very glad this gem has been preserved (and no doubt it's challenging to design an adaptive reuse of a theater), IMO there's something kind of dreary and too primitive about the interior.  More exterior lighting will be a nice improvement but it would be good if something brightened up the inside too.

Are neon signs banned on Main?  Obviously Mr. Pitifull's has one (albeit a pretty yawn-worthy one) but otherwise there is no good lighting.  I personally would never open a bar or restaurant where I could not brazenly declare to all who pass that I am open for business and here is what my business does.  The ban on lighted signs is hurting all of these OTR businesses.  They often come and go without my having noticed them despite walking or biking past them many times. 

 

This bar in Columbus has a great animated neon sign.  I talked to the owner in 2007 who complained of an epic battle with city hall to put the thing up:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9923993,-83.0065915,3a,75y,234.03h,93.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQdH8FUqPxmEMQEL0mxKECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

^ I believe the OTR Conservation Guidelines say neon signs can be approved on a case by case basis, but I'm not sure what the history of approvals is in OTR - it's possible they are de facto banned if they are rarely or never actually approved. Internally illuminated signs are banned. The real problem is the size limitation - projecting signs can only be 3' x 6' max. Compare that size to the "PAINT" sign on Kaze, which looks like it's about 30' tall. Having a few more of those around would be nice, IMO.

I biked around last night around Midnight and barely noticed two places that have opened since the last time I was down there. It is hard to see these businesses, day or night.  I wouldn't know Brown Bear bakery was there if I didn't know someone who worked there.