1 hour ago, JYP said:

Here's a good write-up on the effort from 2011.

 

https://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/the-recent-history-of-meiner-flats/

 

It makes it all the more infuriating that other large historic buildings like the Dennison Hotel were demolished so recently. In 2008, Meiners was on the verge of demolition and the community had to rally to save it because there was no financially viable way to renovate it at the time...but just 11 years later it's being turned into office space. The Dennison was demolished because its owners said there was no financially viable way to save it (which I don't actually believe for a second)...but maybe 5 years from now there would be. But we already lost it forever and there's no way to get that history back once it's gone.

46 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

It makes it all the more infuriating that other large historic buildings like the Dennison Hotel were demolished so recently. In 2008, Meiners was on the verge of demolition and the community had to rally to save it because there was no financially viable way to renovate it at the time...but just 11 years later it's being turned into office space. The Dennison was demolished because its owners said there was no financially viable way to save it (which I don't actually believe for a second)...but maybe 5 years from now there would be. But we already lost it forever and there's no way to get that history back once it's gone.

 

I mean if we are being technical nothing is necessarily gone forever. If some REALLY wanted to, they could find a way to 3d model the Dennison hotel and use and replicate the archeticture through methods of 3d printing. 

 

The only difference would be the age of the bricks...but yeah, that would never happen in a million years, but if someone was avid and passionate enough to recreate the Dennison hotel detail for detail they very well technically could.

4 hours ago, taestell said:

Fencing and signage installed around buildings on Woodward Street that are part of the Willkommen project.

I havent heard anything about this, is it just standard renovations?

From the Business Courier:

 

Quote

The Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. and Model Group received $5 million in tax credits for a $50.3 million scattered site mixed-income project that will encompass 17 historic buildings as well as up to three new buildings. Model will manage the apartments once they are complete. Construction is expected to start either later this year or early 2020. [...]

 

Forty percent of the units will be affordable for residents whose income falls between 50% and 80% of the area median income. For a household of four, 50% of AMI is $40,650 and 80% is $65,050. To be defined as affordable, a person would have to spend no more than 30 percent of their income on housing.

 

25 minutes ago, troeros said:

I mean if we are being technical nothing is necessarily gone forever. If some REALLY wanted to, they could find a way to 3d model the Dennison hotel and use and replicate the archeticture through methods of 3d printing. 

 

The only difference would be the age of the bricks...but yeah, that would never happen in a million years, but if someone was avid and passionate enough to recreate the Dennison hotel detail for detail they very well technically could.

 

Aside from extremely culturally important buildings like Notre Dame, no one generally rebuilds historic buildings to their original specifications because of how insanely difficult and expensive it is. If a meteorite were to strike Union Terminal or Music Hall, I doubt we would rebuild them because the cost will be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. During the renovation of Union Terminal, they took 3D scans of the buildings so in theory it would be possible to rebuild it, but in practice the cost would just be way too high for Cincinnati or Hamilton County to afford, and it would take the State of Ohio or the federal government stepping in to put up the money.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

Aside from extremely culturally important buildings like Notre Dame, no one generally rebuilds historic buildings to their original specifications because of how insanely difficult and expensive it is. If a meteorite were to strike Union Terminal or Music Hall, I doubt we would rebuild them because the cost will be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. During the renovation of Union Terminal, they took 3D scans of the buildings so in theory it would be possible to rebuild it, but in practice the cost would just be way too high for Cincinnati or Hamilton County to afford, and it would take the State of Ohio or the federal government stepping in to put up the money.

 

I agree. That's why I said unlikely, but if someone had alot of money to blow and was passionate enough they could find a way. 

1 hour ago, seaswan said:

I havent heard anything about this, is it just standard renovations?

Yes, I do believe it is part of the tax incentives 3cdc had received a couple months ago. 

On 7/15/2019 at 5:11 PM, taestell said:

I just saw on Instagram that Urban Expansion is renovating 1709 Race into 2 micro apartments and 1 commercial space. It's great to see more projects finally happening between Liberty and Findlay Market. That stretch of Race has a lot of great buildings that are vacant or underutilized.

 

Urban Expansion is now planning to open their new bar, called Bar Bar, at 1709 Race. They originally wanted to open it in Pendleton at the opposite corner as Three Points, but were met with opposition from Pendleton Community Council.

 

 

The community council voted to endorse. A group of residents who did not go to the community council showed up at historic to oppose the project. 

why did they oppose it?

1 hour ago, seaswan said:

why did they oppose it?

 

Just for your typical NIMBY-ish reasons. "This is a family neighborhood, we don't want another bar here, we have too many bars already, there isn't enough parking" etc. etc. etc.

 

2 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Just for your typical NIMBY-ish reasons. "This is a family neighborhood, we don't want another bar here, we have too many bars already, there isn't enough parking" etc. etc. etc.

 

 

It's going to be quite entertaining to see how the pendelton community council handle the new retail developments and proposals that arise when the sycamore lots become developed...

To correct myself and to acknowledge Brad's post above, it actually was not Pendleton Community Council that voted to oppose Bar Bar going in at 13th & Pendleton. The Community Council voted to support it but Pendleton residents went around them and took their opposition directly to HCB.

Huge HCB meeting agenda for next Monday. Looks like 3CDC's Willkommen project will add 190 or so new units to the neighborhood. Good mix of old and new, north and south of Liberty street as well. Infill rendering in the last link. Staff recommendation for all but opposition from the OTR Foundation's Infill Committee. Not sure which way this one will go.

 

Hoping for an approval on at least the density variances, we need this kind of urban density for downtown. 

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-agenda-1-and-2/

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-3-and-4/

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-5/

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-6-and-7/

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-8-9-10/

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-willkommen-letters-item-11-12-13/

Love the new construction. Callbacks to the historic style, but not trying to replicate it. 

The infill on the last link is pretty interesting to me.

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-willkommen-letters-item-11-12-13/

I really like the look of 1600 Pleasant (at Liberty). I like the density and the way it interacts with Liberty Street. IMO, the corner property at Liberty should allow it a little more leniency than a typical row building.

 

Not a fan of the weird window alignment of 1512-25 Republic. I don't understand the desire to oscillate the window openings instead of making a whole vertical column of windows double windows, and then the others single-wide. The oscillating nature of these is not found anywhere in the district, and I think is one of the most important things to keep consistent with new infill.

 

As for 1619, I'm not super excited about the punched out windows. I know they are at the same location, but the way the top floor pulls back to make the top windows extrude out is distracting IMO.

 

Aside from the issues with windows on the two infill projects, I think these are pretty good infill. Everyone has their own opinions on this stuff, and I'm no architect, but I'm generally excited for these buildings to get started.

Im actually quite shockes by how good some of this infill looks...is this based off the new infill guide lines? I'm confused why otr is finally getting good looking infill after years and years of pure crap.

Love me some new infill!

 

They didn't show the new infill on ***Vine, probably for a future installment?

 

Also, love the density in these buildings. Am I reading correct that 70% of units will be low income units?

Edited July 31, 20195 yr by IAGuy39

30 minutes ago, troeros said:

Im actually quite shockes by how good some of this infill looks...is this based off the new infill guide lines? I'm confused why otr is finally getting good looking infill after years and years of pure crap.

 

No these are based on the existing guidelines. The OTR Infill Committee is trying to use the new guidelines as measure of evaluation even though they have not been formally adopted by the City. If you look at their letter in the packet they are particularly opposed to the new buildings heights.

 

The new guidelines would eliminate the existing guideline that limits new infill to one story adjacent to an existing buildings height and replace it with a rule that no new buildings can be taller than contributing non-institutional buildings on the same block. So for example, the 5-story building on Liberty would be required to be 4-stories in the new guidelines. This would probably remove several units in the process, reducing margins on the developer pro-forma's and on a macro level, limiting the number of new units in a neighborhood where high demand and limited supply are fueling price escalation and reinforcing perceptions of gentrification.

1 hour ago, JYP said:

 

No these are based on the existing guidelines. The OTR Infill Committee is trying to use the new guidelines as measure of evaluation even though they have not been formally adopted by the City. If you look at their letter in the packet they are particularly opposed to the new buildings heights.

 

The new guidelines would eliminate the existing guideline that limits new infill to one story adjacent to an existing buildings height and replace it with a rule that no new buildings can be taller than contributing non-institutional buildings on the same block. So for example, the 5-story building on Liberty would be required to be 4-stories in the new guidelines. This would probably remove several units in the process, reducing margins on the developer pro-forma's and on a macro level, limiting the number of new units in a neighborhood where high demand and limited supply are fueling price escalation and reinforcing perceptions of gentrification.

I start reading some of these people’s letters and have to stop by how ridiculous some of them are. People saying well it’s too many units. Seriously?? At one point OTR had over 44,000 people living it it. Considering it was in the days where places were tiny, but still, this is not Mason or West Chester. Then there’s the issue with the number of floors. It’s one more floor people, calm down, it’s not the end of the world, plus having buildings of different height gives OTR a much better contrast as opposed to all 3-4 story structures. 

@Ucgrad2015 do you have a link to where you are reading the letters? I don't see them in the packet I'm looking at.

Edited July 31, 20195 yr by Chas Wiederhold

12 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

@Ucgrad2015 do you have a link to where you are reading the letters? I don't see them in the packet I'm looking at.

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/august-5-staff-report-and-attachments-willkommen-letters-item-11-12-13/

 

Starts at pg.136

2 hours ago, JYP said:

 

No these are based on the existing guidelines. The OTR Infill Committee is trying to use the new guidelines as measure of evaluation even though they have not been formally adopted by the City. If you look at their letter in the packet they are particularly opposed to the new buildings heights.

 

The new guidelines would eliminate the existing guideline that limits new infill to one story adjacent to an existing buildings height and replace it with a rule that no new buildings can be taller than contributing non-institutional buildings on the same block. So for example, the 5-story building on Liberty would be required to be 4-stories in the new guidelines. This would probably remove several units in the process, reducing margins on the developer pro-forma's and on a macro level, limiting the number of new units in a neighborhood where high demand and limited supply are fueling price escalation and reinforcing perceptions of gentrification.

 

I see. Interesting...Did 3cdc just hire better architects? I'm just confused by the leap in quality in design. Much of the infill looks modern yet blends so we'll into the environment without sticking out like a sore thumb. 

3 hours ago, IAGuy39 said:

Am I reading correct that 70% of units will be low income units?

 

According to this Business Courier article, 40% of the units in this project will be affordable.

Man, those arguments against the buildings are something. 1 extra story! The horror!

 

20 hours ago, JYP said:

So for example, the 5-story building on Liberty would be required to be 4-stories in the new guidelines.

 

The idea that developers would be limited to only 4 stories on a street as massively wide as Liberty is just absurd.

Its funny because I'm fairly certain that some of the people who took part in creating the new guidelines are members here on urban ohio. I wonder if they can speak up and share their reasoning. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

The idea that developers would be limited to only 4 stories on a street as massively wide as Liberty is just absurd.

This and other aspects of these guidelines need to be fought vigorously when they come up for approval.

When they presented to the Pendleton Council, they said it was going to be changed from 1 story, to it has to be within 10% of the overall average height of the buildings on the block.  I pushed on this because that is going to be difficult when it comes to large plots of land that don't have many buildings around them.  Really, the new guidelines are almost entirely aimed at infilling a single 25x90 lot, where it has neighbors on either side.   Those are the easy, non-contentious proposals.   It is the bigger developments where you are combining 4+ lots for one large building that the new guidelines still don't really address.  When i asked about this, they mentioned how the guidelines recommend looking at the original Sandborn maps.  Which I take to mean that they are going to try prevent any large buildings, and make everything be smaller finely grained development.  I didn't get a satisfactory answer from them on this.  

It’s been discussed before but you also can’t have it both ways. Either you get some dense buildings at 6 stories that cover most of a block so you can have affordable units, or the whole neighborhood is filled with single family townhomes and flats that are high end by necessity. Which do people want?

^ That's exactly right, the people complaining about big new developments like Freeport Row (Liberty & Elm) did not make a peep about other developments like the faux historic townhomes on Elm. They only complain about projects being too big, never too small. They claim that projects like Freeport Row will cause "gentrification" yet didn't care that a developer built a handful of $750,000 townhomes on a lot that could have fit a larger number of more affordable units. So it makes me think that their concern isn't actually about "gentrification" and in reality they want to preserve their specific vision for the future of OTR and reject any development that could CHaNge the CharaCter Of THE neIGHbOrHOoD.

A six-story apartment block means a lot of "new people" taking up the "established residents'" parking spaces. Small condos with garages don't.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/08/01/over-the-rhines-the-rook-will-live-on-in-new.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

 

Exciting! I was actually just talking about this with a coworker when I saw this article. Hopefully they’ll move into a bigger space

8 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/08/01/over-the-rhines-the-rook-will-live-on-in-new.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

 

Exciting! I was actually just talking about this with a coworker when I saw this article. Hopefully they’ll move into a bigger space

 

Might as well still be dead...unless you live close to Harrison OH, not alot of people will make the trek to play board games. 

 

I'm guessing Zak didn't have a buyer for the otr bar and is essentially letting the game board concept permenantly die, which is a shame considering how unique it was. 

Harrison?  Yeah I'll never go there.  Damn I really hope someone else opens a board game bar in OTR, I loved the Rook. 

6 hours ago, troeros said:

Its funny because I'm fairly certain that some of the people who took part in creating the new guidelines are members here on urban ohio. I wonder if they can speak up and share their reasoning. 

 

The people that wrote the guidelines and champion the height requirements are on the OTR Infill Committee, I am not aware if any of them check UO.  Many on this board can probably guess who the main driver of this is. I can tell you that many of the guidelines have been softened by the Historic Conservator but for some odd reason the height maximum is still mandatory. 

 

4 hours ago, JoeHarmon said:

When they presented to the Pendleton Council, they said it was going to be changed from 1 story, to it has to be within 10% of the overall average height of the buildings on the block.  I pushed on this because that is going to be difficult when it comes to large plots of land that don't have many buildings around them.  Really, the new guidelines are almost entirely aimed at infilling a single 25x90 lot, where it has neighbors on either side.   Those are the easy, non-contentious proposals.   It is the bigger developments where you are combining 4+ lots for one large building that the new guidelines still don't really address.  When i asked about this, they mentioned how the guidelines recommend looking at the original Sandborn maps.  Which I take to mean that they are going to try prevent any large buildings, and make everything be smaller finely grained development.  I didn't get a satisfactory answer from them on this.  

 

That is the line they are using to obfuscate this issue. I've heard the 10% guideline thrown around a few times. It's being used to placate potential opposition and distract away from the MANDATORY height max that is literally the next section of the guidelines. It's the poison pill for the whole thing IMO.

9 minutes ago, JYP said:

 

The people that wrote the guidelines and champion the height requirements are on the OTR Infill Committee, I am not aware if any of them check UO.  Many on this board can probably guess who the main driver of this is. I can tell you that many of the guidelines have been softened by the Historic Conservator but for some odd reason the height maximum is still mandatory. 

 

 

That is the line they are using to obfuscate this issue. I've heard the 10% guideline thrown around a few times. It's being used to placate potential opposition and distract away from the MANDATORY height max that is literally the next section of the guidelines. It's the poison pill for the whole thing IMO.

 

What are the current regulations re: building toward the rear lot line?  Obviously, many original OTR buildings are built practically to the rear lot line - within 5 feet if not right on it.  It's generally the case today that a building can't go to the rear lot line - most areas require a 20-foot buffer.  

 

Being able to build to the rear lot line and permitting small units is as much the way to achieve housing affordability as is height.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, taestell said:

 

The idea that developers would be limited to only 4 stories on a street as massively wide as Liberty is just absurd.

Exactly. 4-storeys is fine for the old width of Liberty Street, but not the current width.

 

If I were the folks putting together the proposal, I'd dig up old photos of Liberty Street pre-widening and figure out the building height to street width ratio of the corridor. It's probably something like 2:1. Then I'd figure out what building height achieves the same ratio with today's widened road. It'd probably be 7-8 stories, if not more. If all building have to maintain this 4-storey limit, but keep the current width of Liberty Street, it will always feel more wide than tall and limit it from ever becoming a 'place' like it once was. 

 

This notion that building height should be the primary thing driving preservation misses out on so many other aspects of urban design that create great spaces and provide enclosure that makes OTR walkable and feel like a giant outdoor living room. 

Fire this morning at 279 West McMicken. CFD is saying the building is going to have to be demolished. It was in the process of being cleaned up for rehab. Contributing building in the Sohn-Mohawk local historic district.

Edited August 2, 20195 yr by mcmicken

What a shame. Saw it on the news this morning. 

46 minutes ago, mcmicken said:

Fire this morning at 163 West McMicken. CFD is saying the building is going to have to be demolished. It was in the process of being cleaned up for rehab. Contributing building in the Sohn-Mohawk local historic district.

 

100 percent sure certain this can't be saved? The structure, aside from the roof doesn't look that bad?

Thankfully the fire didn't spread into the neighboring buildings. It wold be nice to save, if possible. 

The brick is probably ok.  Roof is clearly destroyed.  The real question would be what shape are the wood floor joists in.  It likely could be saved, but may be cost prohibitive.

3 hours ago, troeros said:

 

100 percent sure certain this can't be saved? The structure, aside from the roof doesn't look that bad?

Haven't been inside so can't confirm, that was passed onto me from CFD. It's possible, however if someone had a construction budget based on a rehab a full rebuild would far exceed that budget. Plus, most vacant buildings are not insurable for property damage, so everything they have to spend will come out of pocket.

 

EDIT 3:45P: Hearing from neighbors it has already been demolished.

Edited August 2, 20195 yr by mcmicken

I went by yesterday. She gone.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/08/06/massive-otr-housing-development-gets-key-approval.html

 

"A $50.3 million scattered-site, mixed-income apartment project received approval on Tuesday for several zoning changes needed to make the project go forward, with some coming over the objections of neighborhood activists, who said city density rules should be enforced.

 

Sounds like the NIIMBYs got shot down, great news!

The variance in question was for 1600 Pleasant Street, which is the corner lot of Liberty and Pleasant. The zoning on that block probably dates back to when Liberty was a two lane wide street. Liberty is now a seven lane wide street. Of course we should build a larger building on that lot! Building a short building along that wide of a street would be absurd.

OTR still lacks a fluid community of rich, middle class and poor.

 

They are striving for mixed use but the honest truth is that you have 2 types of people living in otr....the people that are living well above the poverty and the people that are living wellllllll below. 

 

Creating a middle class in otr would buffer the Stark contrast of those who are parking their Luxery cars in their condo parking garage, and those who can't afford a car and must rely on bus transportation or walking. 

 

Obviously creating more dense projects would allow for the middle class to creep in but the rental prices are still so intense. 

^ I know several middle class people who live in OTR. Your claim is hyperbole. A quick peruse of Zillow shows condos going for $190,000 and $229,000 which is pretty affordable for a hot neighborhood. I have a friend who bar tends at a couple OTR bars and lives on Main St., and she and her friends are definitely not rich but they also aren't living in OTRCH units. There is a middle ground, for sure.

3 hours ago, edale said:

^ I know several middle class people who live in OTR. Your claim is hyperbole. A quick peruse of Zillow shows condos going for $190,000 and $229,000 which is pretty affordable for a hot neighborhood. I have a friend who bar tends at a couple OTR bars and lives on Main St., and she and her friends are definitely not rich but they also aren't living in OTRCH units. There is a middle ground, for sure.

 

How is that affordable?

 

If your making 20$ an hour (which is roughly 40-45k a year, maybe have a gf/wife who is making a similar amount with a child) that's not nearly enough to cover expenses for housing, bills, cars payments, health insurance, groceries, day care services etc.

 

50-60k combined salary is definitely middle class range and there are plenty of folks living in Loveland and deer Park who are able to thrive quite well. I honestly can't understand how they would afford otr