There are only three parks north of Liberty, and all are pretty equally spaced out along McMicken. None on the scale of Washington Park. We can build dense development and keep/improve all of these parks. Development is already moving along at the north end of Vine. Most of the buildings at Vine and McMicken are either already fully occupied or being redeveloped now. The only exception I see is the southeast corner which I think is vacant upstairs (it has a convenience store on the first floor). What we really need is for the long stretch between McMicken and Liberty to undergo redevelopment. I don't think it needs Findlay Playground to be a mixed-use development for this to happen.

 

It's already creeping in along Elder from Findlay Market, from the north at McMicken, and once the huge Kauffman brewing building gets redeveloped, the center should see a huge influx of activity. Narrowing Liberty will also help.

EDIT: The only thing I think would be appropriate is to place a garage under Findlay Playground. perhaps build up some right on Vine Street, but leaving the bulk of the park alone (while improving it). I think Grant and Hanna should be designed as the more active parks (basketball, tennis, pools, etc) and Findlay could be a more passive park (think Ziegler).

Let's focus on rehabbing all of the existing historic buildings and filling in all of the vacant lots with new development. Then start replacing all of the surface parking lots in the neighborhood with new development. Then start talking about demolishing some of the ugly non-historic buildings in the neighborhood and replacing them with new dense mixed-use developments.

 

There is room for hundreds or thousands of new residents in OTR by doing those things. There is no reason we should be considering eliminating any existing parks and replacing them with new buildings at this point.

I agree we should focus efforts on existing building rehabs and vacant lot infill/parking infill, but the park is closed for some unknown reason and unknown amount of time. Clearly the future of the park is being determined (likely behind closed doors) before a proposal is going to appear out of nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the city/3CDC tries to turn the park into new development.

My assumption is that they want to put a parking garage underneath it and rebuild the park above. But I would also have no problem if they "swapped" Findlay Playground and the Findlay Market north lot. Put a development with an underground garage where Findlay Playground is, and replace the parking lot north of Findlay Market with a park that can also double as the outdoor farmers market area on weekends during warmer months. But I don't think 3CDC could get away with simply eliminating public park space north of Liberty. There would be too much pushback, similar to the "keep our courts" movement that popped up in opposition to another development in OTR that would have eliminated 2 basketball courts (even though I think the developer had figured out a way to rebuild the courts nearby).

11 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I agree we should focus efforts on existing building rehabs and vacant lot infill/parking infill, but the park is closed for some unknown reason and unknown amount of time. Clearly the future of the park is being determined (likely behind closed doors) before a proposal is going to appear out of nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the city/3CDC tries to turn the park into new development.

Was closed to help deal with the criminal element hanging out there all hours of the day. Tentative plan is to reopen in spring/early summer. CRC has been applying for funding for capital park improvements to both Grant and Findlay. Unfortunately they have gone about this in a half-assed way so they are asking for money before there is even a plan in place for what the improvements would be. 

Just now, taestell said:

My assumption is that they want to put a parking garage underneath it and rebuild the park above. But I would also have no problem if they "swapped" Findlay Playground and the Findlay Market north lot. Put a development with an underground garage where Findlay Playground is, and replace the parking lot north of Findlay Market with a park that can also double as the outdoor farmers market area on weekends during warmer months. But I don't think 3CDC could get away with simply eliminating public park space north of Liberty. There would be too much pushback, similar to the "keep our courts" movement that popped up in opposition to another development in OTR that would have eliminated 2 basketball courts (even though I think the developer had figured out a way to rebuild the courts nearby).

Which would be historically interesting as the playground was originally where the north lot is, and the current park was the parking lot.

The Findlay Market parking lot used to be a baseball diamond.   That diamond was rebuilt at the Findlay Playground.  I never saw anyone use it. 

 

Almost no kids play at Grant Park and zero at the kickball field north of SCPA.  

 

As kids decrease, city parks are increasingly just for dogs and Instagram.   

 

 

25 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I agree we should focus efforts on existing building rehabs and vacant lot infill/parking infill, but the park is closed for some unknown reason and unknown amount of time. Clearly the future of the park is being determined (likely behind closed doors) before a proposal is going to appear out of nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the city/3CDC tries to turn the park into new development.

 

You wouldn’t be surprised if the organization that has quarterbacked two major park projects in OTR fought to eliminate a park in OTR? What gives you the impression they are in the business of eliminating park space?    

11 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The Findlay Market parking lot used to be a baseball diamond.   That diamond was rebuilt at the Findlay Playground.  I never saw anyone use it. 

 

Almost no kids play at Grant Park and zero at the kickball field north of SCPA.  

 

As kids decrease, city parks are increasingly just for dogs and Instagram.   

 

 

 

This is not true. There are plenty of kids in OTR, they just spend their time in the safe parks that have received attention. The play field next to SCPA used to get used by kids more because there wasn’t an active park with a pool and new playground across the street. 

 

I realized Grant park received a facelift but the area around it is not yet to a point that evokes a sense of safety. By the time a Findlay Market area major park project could be completed, enough development will have occurred around it to make it a successful and utilized public space. 

22 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Almost no kids play at Grant Park and zero at the kickball field north of SCPA.  

I live close by, and I see kids there all the time. Unlike the basketball courts that have caused such a fuss on Main north of Rothenberg. I almost never see anyone at those courts (they are terrible, so I'm not too surprised).

 

15 minutes ago, ZoeBarnes said:

You wouldn’t be surprised if the organization that has quarterbacked two major park projects in OTR fought to eliminate a park in OTR? What gives you the impression they are in the business of eliminating park space?    

It's complicated, but they did Ziegler and Washington Park because they generate revenues via the parking garages. I don't think a parking garage under Findlay Playground is as profitable. The lack of a plan by CRC regarding Findlay Playground throws up red flags. It sounds like per @mcmicken we don't need to worry about it and they should be reopening the park, but it's just a little suspicious. Plus, there isn't a lot of moneyed interests around Findlay Playground that want this space preserved like there was around Ziegler and Washington Parks. It might appear to be a chance for them to do something different if they get the city's blessing.

 

I think there would be a ton of pushback, but it's the only one I see as possible to convert to a development since they already closed it for over a year with no plan and haven't gotten that much pushback. It could be that they are testing the waters for removing it entirely.

 

But that's speculation on my part. 

14 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I live close by, and I see kids there all the time. Unlike the basketball courts that have caused such a fuss on Main north of Rothenberg. I almost never see anyone at those courts (they are terrible, so I'm not too surprised).

 

It's complicated, but they did Ziegler and Washington Park because they generate revenues via the parking garages. I don't think a parking garage under Findlay Playground is as profitable. The lack of a plan by CRC regarding Findlay Playground throws up red flags. It sounds like per @mcmicken we don't need to worry about it and they should be reopening the park, but it's just a little suspicious. Plus, there isn't a lot of moneyed interests around Findlay Playground that want this space preserved like there was around Ziegler and Washington Parks. It might appear to be a chance for them to do something different if they get the city's blessing.

 

I think there would be a ton of pushback, but it's the only one I see as possible to convert to a development since they already closed it for over a year with no plan and haven't gotten that much pushback. It could be that they are testing the waters for removing it entirely.

 

But that's speculation on my part. 

just to be clear, those parks were not done as a mechanism for parking revenue, however they were done because parking provides revenue. If you do a little research you will find that the revenue from those garages keeps those parks active and clean and the spaces still operate in the red.  If the parks had the right amount of funding from the city to operate, it would have been immensely cheaper to not build the garages. Not ignoring the fact that parking capacity helps surrounding development but there are definitely cheaper ways to build parking if you are only in it for profit. 
 

i agree it’s isn’t the same scenario NoL but the market certainly can draw crowds. 

31 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I live close by, and I see kids there all the time. Unlike the basketball courts that have caused such a fuss on Main north of Rothenberg. I almost never see anyone at those courts (they are terrible, so I'm not too surprised).

 

It's complicated, but they did Ziegler and Washington Park because they generate revenues via the parking garages. I don't think a parking garage under Findlay Playground is as profitable. The lack of a plan by CRC regarding Findlay Playground throws up red flags. It sounds like per @mcmicken we don't need to worry about it and they should be reopening the park, but it's just a little suspicious. Plus, there isn't a lot of moneyed interests around Findlay Playground that want this space preserved like there was around Ziegler and Washington Parks. It might appear to be a chance for them to do something different if they get the city's blessing.

 

I think there would be a ton of pushback, but it's the only one I see as possible to convert to a development since they already closed it for over a year with no plan and haven't gotten that much pushback. It could be that they are testing the waters for removing it entirely.

 

But that's speculation on my part. 

And to clarify, just because CRC says they are opening the park again doesn't mean it will happen. And honestly, it has been frustrating working with them because while they closed the park to get a handle on the crime, there hasn't really been much work to keep it from happening again when it re-opens. We were promised improvements when they closed it but literally outside of knocking down a few walls to improve sightlines, nothing has been done.

 

There are a lot of potential moving pieces, including the rec center, Findlay Park, Grant Park, Findlay parking lots, and the leftover piece of Findlay Park on Elm Street that could be moved around and/or re-imagined. In the midst of all this I've heard rumors of lots of things, but so far haven't seen anything concrete surface.

35 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I don't think a parking garage under Findlay Playground is as profitable.

 

I think they were also waiting to see what the county announced for their FC Cincinnati garages. If a new county garage does end up getting built just west of Findlay Market, that might soak up most of Findlay Market's parking demand, making a garage under Findlay Playground unnecessary or too risky. On the other hand, if you master plan the area a bit more, you could still build a garage under Findlay Playground and use that capacity to support future development in the area and/or eliminate surface parking lots.  Aside from the north lot swap I described above, you could also develop the south lots (easily enough room for a few dozen apartments or condos) and maybe even start having a conversation about the future of the OTR Rec Center and the Corporation for Findlay Market office building. There are several other non-historic 1 to 2 story buildings along Race that could eventually be replaced by new development as well.

56 minutes ago, ZoeBarnes said:

just to be clear, those parks were not done as a mechanism for parking revenue, however they were done because parking provides revenue. If you do a little research you will find that the revenue from those garages keeps those parks active and clean and the spaces still operate in the red.  If the parks had the right amount of funding from the city to operate, it would have been immensely cheaper to not build the garages. Not ignoring the fact that parking capacity helps surrounding development but there are definitely cheaper ways to build parking if you are only in it for profit. 
 

i agree it’s isn’t the same scenario NoL but the market certainly can draw crowds. 

You don't need to be condescending in replies.

 

If there weren't parking garages under Ziegler Park and Washington Park, I don't know if 3CDC would have been involved. Those would have likely been purely city projects (that probably struggled to happen due to funding). Fountain Square was also done and partially funded with the revenue from the parking garage underneath. To my knowledge, 3CDC has never redeveloped a park or other public space without a garage built to support the project financially. That's what I'm saying.

The way I see it, a parking garage under Findlay Playground without any additional developments wouldn't generate nearly enough revenue to justify the costs. That's where my guess of a potential redevelopment of the space into parking and mixed use is coming from. With the FC Cincinnati/Findlay Market garage going west of the Market, it further reduces the revenue that a parking garage would generate east of the Market without additional development.

And to be clear, I don't think they are going to propose this any time soon now that the new garage is being built west of the Market. If I had to guess, the park will get some very minor updates and then quietly reopen. I think there may have been a long game plan with closing the park, and it just didn't pan out.

There are tons and tons of baseball diamonds/football fields/soccer fields near OTR that get virtually zero use.  There are wooded hillsides all over the place where kids could play but don't.  

Kids don't go outside much anymore and there are fewer kids than ever in the city.  Those that remain sit in the air conditioning playing video games or messaging one another on their phones.  

 

Pickup basketball is way more popular than pickup baseball/football/soccer.  Basketball takes up the least space of the four.  

7 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Kids don't go outside much anymore and there are fewer kids than ever in the city.  Those that remain sit in the air conditioning playing video games or messaging one another on their phones.

With the glaring exceptions of Washington Park and Ziegler Park which between their playgrounds and splash fountains are jam packed with kids all summer long...

Edited January 14, 20205 yr by ucgrady

1 hour ago, ucgrady said:

With the glaring exceptions of Washington Park and Ziegler Park which between their playgrounds and splash fountains are jam packed with kids all summer long...

 

Those are little kids who don't have phones.  Their parents usually come with them. Ages 10+ all have phones and don't go outside.   

 

I've never seen a pickup game of anything other than basketball anywhere in the city pretty much ever.  I haven't seen a kid throwing a baseball against a wall or two kids tossing or any of that - not in 15+ plus years.  

 

All of the fields in the West End - and there are like 9 of them - get hardly any formal use and almost zero informal use.  

 

This isn't hard for me to believe as someone who was about 10 when video games were invented and cable TV proliferated and all of the sudden pickup games and riding bikes and playing in the woods ceased to occur.  We had "seasons" and statistics that we kept between our pickup games because they were daily, sometimes multiple games and multiple sports per day.  

 

City kids toss football a lot, even if not playing a full blown game. 
 

Informal baseball is rare, although I remember hearing the sounds from aluminum bats from organized games on Dyer field in the west end a lot from when I lived on Klotter. The Reds fund helped upgrade that field

9 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Those are little kids who don't have phones.  Their parents usually come with them. Ages 10+ all have phones and don't go outside.   

 

I've never seen a pickup game of anything other than basketball anywhere in the city pretty much ever.  I haven't seen a kid throwing a baseball against a wall or two kids tossing or any of that - not in 15+ plus years.  

 

All of the fields in the West End - and there are like 9 of them - get hardly any formal use and almost zero informal use.  

 

This isn't hard for me to believe as someone who was about 10 when video games were invented and cable TV proliferated and all of the sudden pickup games and riding bikes and playing in the woods ceased to occur.  We had "seasons" and statistics that we kept between our pickup games because they were daily, sometimes multiple games and multiple sports per day.  

 

 

Inner city american youth hardly play anything but basketball due to space (harder to find large open fields in an urban environment), and easier barrier to entry (you just need 1 ball, and one hoop versus baseball gloves, baseball bat, baseball, make shift bases, potentially breaking someone's car window or house window). That's why baseball statistically struggles with the race gap between it's players. 

1 minute ago, troeros said:

 

Inner city american youth hardly play anything but basketball due to space (harder to find large open fields in an urban environment), and easier barrier to entry (you just need 1 ball, and one hoop versus baseball gloves, baseball bat, baseball, make shift bases, potentially breaking someone's car window or house window). That's why baseball statistically struggles with the race gap between it's players. 

 

You need a fixed hoop to play basketball, otherwise you're just dribbling.  You can play baseball/stickball anywhere, soccer anywhere, football anywhere.  Theory debunked.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

All of the fields in the West End - and there are like 9 of them - get hardly any formal use and almost zero informal use.  

 

I go down to the west end roughly once a week in the summer and there are ALWAYS kids playing football/basketball/baseball when its nice out. 

Let's keep this on topic, please. 

Upcoming hcb packet agenda includes plan for 1905 elm Street to be rehabbed....Ive heard rumors from Rhinegeist employees that it will be a new brewery with a tap room. 

 

Glad to see more development especially right across the street from Rhinegeist...but Ive always saw that building as an opportunity for demo and building something more dense on that corner. 

Agreed. Hopefully they aren't putting a lot of money into it, and are just bringing it up to a productive use until it's financially feasible to demo and redevelop.

Developer is trying to demo a 1999 built non contributing building on Woodward street and build a one story commercial building that will house either a bar or a restaurant. 

 

Not sure how the anti gentrification crowd will take this. Isn't this essentially demolishing affordable housing so rich people can have another option to eat or drink?

yeah, not sure I'm a fan of this

Anyone know when the last time that building was occupied? The building looks to be in very fair shape. 

I like the building that’s currently there. Very New Orleans esque and of they do put something there at least make it around the same height the building currently there is. 

It makes sense to put a restaurant at that corner, given its location next to the newly renovated park; and I don't have any problem with demolishing a non-historic building (if it's true that it was built in 1999); but I don't understand how it makes any sense to demolish an existing building in OTR and replace it with a new one that's shorter. Considering that it's next to a 4 story building on Yukon and a 5 story building on Woodward, would HCB even allow a 1 story building to be built there? Don't their guidelines suggest that infill should be ±1 story compared to neighboring buildings?

28 minutes ago, troeros said:

Anyone know when the last time that building was occupied? The building looks to be in very fair shape. 

 

I don't think it's been vacant for very long. In the most recent Street View imagery from 2005, it appears to still be occupied. The residents may have been evicted around the time that the Mercy Housing portfolio was acquired by Model Group and 3CDC around 2007.

1 hour ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

I like the building that’s currently there. Very New Orleans esque and of they do put something there at least make it around the same height the building currently there is. 

That building is a poor use of space. The first floor is only garages. It’s a decent sized footprint (including access spaces for garages) that yields two, maybe three non-accessible units. When combined with the overall project those affordable units are replaced elsewhere. This will be a nice add for vibrancy in an awkward corner that has most recently functioned as a drug spot- even with an active park across the street. The site would be tricky for a high density project given that it Fronts two tight streets and is pinched. 
of course we can all be nit picky but I’m chalking this one up as a win for the neighborhood. 

Woodward St. should have been rebuilt when Ziegler Park was redone.  As-is the elbow has a weird, incomplete feel to it.  They could have restored the street as a brick street, put bollards at either end to prevent thru traffic, but let vendors in there like food trucks and ice cream trucks.  

The nicest trees in the park would have had to have been removed plus the street would still have died at sycamore. Woodward really does cut through the park as a pedestrian path, it is just not driveable. I fundamentally agree but realistically don’t think it would benefited the park. 

5 hours ago, ZoeBarnes said:

That building is a poor use of space. The first floor is only garages. It’s a decent sized footprint (including access spaces for garages) that yields two, maybe three non-accessible units. When combined with the overall project those affordable units are replaced elsewhere. This will be a nice add for vibrancy in an awkward corner that has most recently functioned as a drug spot- even with an active park across the street. The site would be tricky for a high density project given that it Fronts two tight streets and is pinched. 
of course we can all be nit picky but I’m chalking this one up as a win for the neighborhood. 

 

Yes I have noticed this as well. You would think that the nice renovated park and the addition of more families and kids would deter the drug dealers but they don't. You still see the same dude, on the same corner selling the same drug and then getting in the same loud shouting matches day in and day out. 

 

This is why gentrification is tricky. People of lower income are the demand that meets the supply for these dealers. So in theory the less affordable housing you have and the more rich people you have the less drug dealers you will have because the demand won't meet their supply...but poor people are humans to and you have to find a way to be kind heart and sympathetic..so how do you balance these 2 very polar opposites?

 

I'm not saying poor people are the cause of otr problems past and present problems. Obviously it's much more complex than that.

 

But if you walk around otr on any given day or night and you will see the stretches of affordable housing blocks that have police surrounded by these blocks on a consistent, almost weekly basis. 

 

That's why I often think about the future of otr. I don't know if the plan to make the socialist Utopia where rich and poor people live side by side is a realistic proposal. There is just too much data behind poverty and the relationship towards criminal behavior so how could this possibly mesh with rich people who are deterred by crime?

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, troeros said:

 you have and the more rich people you have the less drug dealers you will have because the demand won't meet their supply

 

The people buying off these guys resell to college students and downtown lawyers.  The demand for cocaine, especially, comes from the wealthy people who can afford it. 

This looks like an unnecessary project at best to me.

 

-the existing building that’s there is great urbanism. Doors and balconies that are very intimate with the narrow street.

-I don’t understand why the the HCB packet material says the existing building  can only be a single family home when it looks like it’s set up as a multi family unit

-this discussion should be moved to the 3cdc thread since it is part of the Willkommen project. If it wasn’t part of that project, which is providing a net gain of affordable housing units, people would probably be fighting this 

6 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

This looks like an unnecessary project at best to me.

 

-the existing building that’s there is great urbanism. Doors and balconies that are very intimate with the narrow street.

-I don’t understand why the the HCB packet material says the existing building  can only be a single family home when it looks like it’s set up as a multi family

Look closer at the existing building. Not great urbanism- very few units above unused garage space that requires adjacent driveway. Terribly inefficient. 

6 hours ago, troeros said:

 

But if you walk around otr on any given day or night and you will see the stretches of affordable housing blocks that have police surrounded by these blocks on a consistent, almost weekly basis. 

 

That's why I often think about the future of otr. I don't know if the plan to make the socialist Utopia where rich and poor people live side by side is a realistic proposal. There is just too much data behind poverty and the relationship towards criminal behavior so how could this possibly mesh with rich people who are deterred by crime?

 

 

 

This is why mixed income buildings is the way to go. 

2 hours ago, thebillshark said:

-the existing building that’s there is great urbanism. Doors and balconies that are very intimate with the narrow street.

 

I disagree that the current building is good urbanism. Sure, the Yukon Street side is nice with its balconies overlooking the park, but if you look at the Woodward Street side, you'll see that the entire first floor is four one-car garages. In order for these garages to be reachable, you need to have a huge driveway/turnaround area that is literally as big as the building itself. A new building with a storefront facing Woodward Street would be a huge upgrade from an urbanism perspective.

Call me crazy, but why not a 3 story building with a couple of units above a bar/restaurant space? I think I've seen it work before.

I’ve walked past that building 100 times and never once thought that the little driveway (which seems more like a courtyard with the windows of three buildings facing it) interrupted the rhythm of that street in any way, in fact I’ve never thought about at all before this conversation. Doesn’t rise to the level of something that needs to be “fixed” by tearing the building down in my opinion.  

12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Call me crazy, but why not a 3 story building with a couple of units above a bar/restaurant space? I think I've seen it work before.

 

Yeah, I don't know why they can't do a taller building with apartments above the restaurant, unless they're simply trying to do this project for as cheap as possible or have some other motivation for tearing down the existing building quickly. It reminds me of when 3CDC first proposed a 1-story building for the vacant corner lot across the street from Taft's Ale House. Eventually, a 3-story building was built instead.

 

Here are a few more screenshots from the HCB packet showing the proposed building:

 

 

3 hours ago, thebillshark said:

This looks like an unnecessary project at best to me.

 

-the existing building that’s there is great urbanism. Doors and balconies that are very intimate with the narrow street.

-I don’t understand why the the HCB packet material says the existing building  can only be a single family home when it looks like it’s set up as a multi family unit

-this discussion should be moved to the 3cdc thread since it is part of the Willkommen project. If it wasn’t part of that project, which is providing a net gain of affordable housing units, people would probably be fighting this 

 

This is correct, the units of affordable housing have been moved from this property into the the 3CDC/Model/OTRCH affordable housing developments. I think the idea here is to get rid of a very small, non-historic building and replace it with something that can add some vibrancy to Woodward Street and the activity in Ziegler Park. I'm sure the budget did not make sense to rehab this building due to the small size and number of units they would be able fit. Again, this is a non-historic building so there is an opportunity to build something more attractive on the site.

3 minutes ago, d_burnham said:

replace it with something that can add some vibrancy to Woodward Street and the activity in Ziegler Park

 

This is the most important part. This street needs all the foot traffic it can get in order to drive out the drug dealing that apparently continues to happen at this corner. Collective Espresso isn't open late, and Boom Box Buns will soon be leaving. So this street will be dead after 6 p.m. unless another late night business opens up.

12 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

This is the most important part. This street needs all the foot traffic it can get in order to drive out the drug dealing that apparently continues to happen at this corner. Collective Espresso isn't open late, and Boom Box Buns will soon be leaving. So this street will be dead after 6 p.m. unless another late night business opens up.

 

I think the sycamore project will help some.  Adding a sizeable amount of new residents and new businesses could have a spillover effect and activate Ziegler Park more in result. 

 

That said, I think bars tend to activate blocks more than resturaunts. Resturaunts, especially in otr tend to be closed Sunday and/or monday and they usually close around 9/10 on weekdays. 

 

A popular otr bar are usually open 7 days a week and usually open at 2pm and stay open until 2:30am. Definitely creates more activation coverage in the long term. 

 

Plus resturaunts tend to close. Bars don't really close that often because their margins are higher and you need less people to run a bar versus staffing a full service resturaunt.

2 hours ago, taestell said:

unless they're simply trying to do this project for as cheap as possible

 

Sounds about right to me.  Restaurants have extensive and complicated HVAC, with makeup air units and large exhaust fans as well as the normal heating and air conditioning package units.  Having those on the roof directly above the spaces served is the cheapest, and it's the easiest to install and service too.  However, that rendering shows just how big a hole in the mass of the block this puny building creates.  Plus, if I was living in any of those buildings overlooking this, I might be happier on the one hand to have a better view of the park, but then not so happy to be looking at greasy exhaust fans that are blowing kitchen smoke at my windows.  This should be 3-4 stories, and while it is more complicated and expensive to properly fire separate a restaurant from the spaces above, it's not like there aren't still tons of examples.  

^i wonder if they’re thinking a taller building might cast a shadow on the pool area 

24 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

^i wonder if they’re thinking a taller building might cast a shadow on the pool area 

Doubtful... for one, the angle of the sun in the summer is so sharp that when the pool is open, shadows from a tall building wouldn't even reach the pool. 

Bars are never good neighbors. They only attract visitors and mostly visitors you would not want to see. Admittedly, they have opened up some neighborhoods to development but once actual residents move in the desirability of bars is lost.

 

The recent article on WCPO about the shootings and drunk driving deaths emanating from 11xx Sycamore is spot on. They need a public nuisance suit to get rid of that dump once and for all.

Edited January 23, 20205 yr by 1400 Sycamore
Address was wrong