Part of it is also market demand, most of the demos that took place in OTR were of single family houses so there is a shortage of them and a market that wants them. (Though I agree that along the streetcar should be denser).

Rob Bennett, president of Karvoto, said the goal is to break ground on the new development, called Hillman Point OTR, at the first of the year.

 

Someone needs to tell the developer that this isn't a subdivision, you don't need to give it a cheesy name. It can just be part of Over-the-Rhine.

 

I actually wonder if all of these proposed townhomes will come to reality. Are there really 30 families/individuals in the market for $500k-1m townhomes in OTR right now? I know that 30 isn't a huge number in the grand scheme of things, I just wonder who's going to be buying them.

Rob Bennett, president of Karvoto, said the goal is to break ground on the new development, called Hillman Point OTR, at the first of the year.

 

Someone needs to tell the developer that this isn't a subdivision, you don't need to give it a cheesy name. It can just be part of Over-the-Rhine.

 

I actually wonder if all of these proposed townhomes will come to reality. Are there really 30 families/individuals in the market for $500k-1m townhomes in OTR right now? I know that 30 isn't a huge number in the grand scheme of things, I just wonder who's going to be buying them.

 

You can't rent these (well you could, but it would be a terrible investment) because you'd need to be bringing in $5,000~/mo to be making 10% over the purchase price assuming the house was rented all 12 months of the year, which doesn't happen over time.   

 

^And? Nobody in the market for townhomes is looking to rent them, they're meant for primary residences.

 

As for if these will all come to fruition, the 9 happening on 15th have already pre sold 4 or 5 at this point, I'm hearing Towne has already had letters of intent from people for some of theirs, and these will likely be the same.

 

The 500k-750k market has been growing pretty substantially recently and has been fairly successful.

There's rich young professionals aplenty who live in Cincinnati. Who woulda thunk?

I drove by today and it looks like demolition is underway on the non-contributing structure attached to the old firehouse on 15th Street.

Guys, think about it, there is so much demand in OTR just from the suburbs from baby boomers.  I highly doubt many of these 500 - 600 k townhomes are going to young professionals.

 

Take a look at a suburb like Wyoming, or Glendale, or Amberly, or Madiera, Mariemont, Indian Hill, Terrace Park, etc.  Think about how much income is in those communities alone.  Then think about how many of those people are empty nesters or are about to be empty nesters sitting in a large house fighting traffic to work downtown, or want to enjoy more of the arts and culinary scene in OTR and downtown. 

 

I know for a fact even my boss who lives in the Madeira/Indian Hill area has friends that are looking to buy or build their own custom home down there and lamenting the fact they didn't do it sooner when pricing was better.

 

These townhomes will sell for certain.  It may not be overnight but they will sell.  And as the neighborhood continues to redevelopment the pace will continue to accelerate.

I know this would be a bad thing if it happens, but right now it seems this way..If OTR becomes the Indian Hill neighborhood of Urban Cincinnati, what exactly does this do for the City of Cincinnati and it's tax revenue? This will pretty much guarantee that Cincinnati is always in a surplus correct?

Nope. The city only collects a fixed amount of property taxes as a city (which is freaking ridiculous and idiotic, but I digress) so all it would do if OTR became a super wealthy enclave (which I don't think it will, but again, I digress) is reduce property taxes for everone else because the city would collect a larger proportion of its set amount from OTR. Which is why people complaining about abatements don't realize they actually benefit everyone eventually under the circumstances surrounding Cincinnati's property tax setup.

I agree that most of the $600,000+ homes are probably going to empty nesters, or middle aged double-income-no-kids. Young professionals in general don’t have the buying power, unless they are independently wealthy.

 

I’m also still impressed with the profit margins that the developers must be seeing. Even at a construction cost of $200 a square foot, which is probably more than these quality homes cost to construct, they are making triple figure profit on each home. The demand is clearly there and appears to be growing, as more and more developers are building but the prices are still going up.

I agree that most of the $600,000+ homes are probably going to empty nesters, or middle aged double-income-no-kids. Young professionals in general don’t have the buying power, unless they are independently wealthy.

 

I’m also still impressed with the profit margins that the developers must be seeing. Even at a construction cost of $200 a square foot, which is probably more than these quality homes cost to construct, they are making triple figure profit on each home. The demand is clearly there and appears to be growing, as more and more developers are building but the prices are still going up.

 

Yeah these guys might have gotten these lots for well under $10,000 apiece depending on when they bought them.  I think the last cheap lot that was listed was in late 2013 or early 2014 on Hughes St. for $20,000.  At this point I think you could build a $500,000 house pretty much anywhere up to McMicken with confidence that it will pay off. 

 

That said, the COAST boys who complain endlessly about property taxes are actually only complaining about property tax rates.  Someone can easily half their property tax burden by moving to a piece of property with half the value.  If you move from a $250k house to a 125k house your annual property taxes will drop from approximately $4500 to $2250.  If you invest the difference is a boring fund for 20-30 years, you will likely come out WAY ahead of any appreciation on the nicer house.       

 

 

And have lived somewhere you didn't want to.

 

As someone who works with many wealthy people on their houses I'm going to let you in on a secret. They don't give a shit. Their house isn't their primary investment. That slight amount saved annually doesn't matter to them. The return they'll get doesn't matter to them.

 

People want to live where they want to live, not sacrifice location (the most important part of real estate) when they can easily afford to live right in the middle of things and be financially stable for the future regardless.

There are a handful of lots for sale in the $20k-$30k range up on Mulberry Hill (Hust, E Clifton, Mulberry), but no lots are on the market further south: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Cincinnati-OH-45202/land_type/77493_rid/39.120497,-84.501976,39.106262,-84.529871_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/

On the 1300 block of Vine Street is a park area known as Imagination Alley.  Apparently the back side of the "alley" (really just a gap in the block due to demolished buildings) that reaches Republic Street is a top 5 crime hot spot in the neighborhood.  Cintrifuse (who owns an adjacent building) is looking to lease out the whole "alley" in order to block off the back half for private use (and thus reducing the crime there) as well as maintain the Vine Street half as a community park.  There are clawbacks in the leasing agreement with the City in case the community doesn't feel like the park is being maintained well, or the private leased area is causing issues.  Last night at the OTR Community Council meeting most people were against blocking off the "alley" and were hostile to this agreement.  Ultimately it was decided by a 13 to 9 vote to delay supporting the project until more details about the private use are made public, although, most people were against the project in general.

 

More people who want to see progress including better public spaces and decreased crime in the community really need to start going to these OTR Community Council meetings.  As long as the old guard is able to dominate the conversation and hold up improvements to the community the progress will be stunted.

On the 1300 block of Vine Street is a park area known as Imagination Alley.  Apparently the back side of the "alley" (really just a gap in the block due to demolished buildings) that reaches Republic Street is a top 5 crime hot spot in the neighborhood.  Cintrifuse (who owns an adjacent building) is looking to lease out the whole "alley" in order to block off the back half for private use (and thus reducing the crime there) as well as maintain the Vine Street half as a community park.  There are clawbacks in the leasing agreement with the City in case the community doesn't feel like the park is being maintained well, or the private leased area is causing issues.  Last night at the OTR Community Council meeting most people were against blocking off the "alley" and were hostile to this agreement.  Ultimately it was decided by a 13 to 9 vote to delay supporting the project until more details about the private use are made public, although, most people were against the project in general.

 

More people who want to see progress including better public spaces and decreased crime in the community really need to start going to these OTR Community Council meetings.  As long as the old guard is able to dominate the conversation and hold up improvements to the community the progress will be stunted.

 

What exactly do they want to do with that alley space? Build new construction to cover that gap? I'm sort of confused...

On the 1300 block of Vine Street is a park area known as Imagination Alley.  Apparently the back side of the "alley" (really just a gap in the block due to demolished buildings) that reaches Republic Street is a top 5 crime hot spot in the neighborhood.  Cintrifuse (who owns an adjacent building) is looking to lease out the whole "alley" in order to block off the back half for private use (and thus reducing the crime there) as well as maintain the Vine Street half as a community park.  There are clawbacks in the leasing agreement with the City in case the community doesn't feel like the park is being maintained well, or the private leased area is causing issues.  Last night at the OTR Community Council meeting most people were against blocking off the "alley" and were hostile to this agreement.  Ultimately it was decided by a 13 to 9 vote to delay supporting the project until more details about the private use are made public, although, most people were against the project in general.

 

More people who want to see progress including better public spaces and decreased crime in the community really need to start going to these OTR Community Council meetings.  As long as the old guard is able to dominate the conversation and hold up improvements to the community the progress will be stunted.

 

What exactly do they want to do with that alley space? Build new construction to cover that gap? I'm sort of confused...

 

Sounds like an outdoor area for their company.  They'll need to block off the area at Republic Street, so I'm guessing a combination of walling and gated area.  They wouldn't be doing any buildings as it is only a leased space.

Being as that it's been closed for construction for seemingly the past two years, I don't know how it could still be a top 5 crime hotspot?  Given all the new activity on Republic I doubt it will return to its old ways.  I would like to give it a chance as a pass-through again.  I think little alleys like that really make a place interesting, like all the little alleys that are part of the Mercer development.  (If they blocked a chunk off I would be OK with that if you could still get through to Republic St.)

Im sort of the same way. I'd rather it be a public space/alley...kind of agree with the otr community chamber

There are a handful of lots for sale in the $20k-$30k range up on Mulberry Hill (Hust, E Clifton, Mulberry), but no lots are on the market further south: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Cincinnati-OH-45202/land_type/77493_rid/39.120497,-84.501976,39.106262,-84.529871_rect/15_zm/0_mmm/

 

I think all of those lots are on hillsides which might raise construction costs and they might not be able to get big equipment down Hust Alley. I sense that most of the good flat empty lots have been changing hands without being listed because I check the listings fairly regularly and haven't seen one in at least a year, maybe two. 

 

 

And have lived somewhere you didn't want to.

 

As someone who works with many wealthy people on their houses I'm going to let you in on a secret. They don't give a shit. Their house isn't their primary investment. That slight amount saved annually doesn't matter to them. The return they'll get doesn't matter to them.

 

People want to live where they want to live, not sacrifice location (the most important part of real estate) when they can easily afford to live right in the middle of things and be financially stable for the future regardless.

 

Many people who give the appearance of being wealthy or at least financially astute are not.

 

At this point OTR is overpriced which means these houses are toys, not certain investments.  And you pay cash for toys unless you want to take on unnecessary risk and possibly see your whole life come crashing down.  We have a family friend whose business was swindled and is losing his house in Indian Hill about 20 years into a 30-year.  If he had stayed in the modest house he had in the 80s he'd be fine. 

You do realize how many incredibly high paying positions there are in this city right? Two people making 100k a year can easily afford a $600k house. And there are most certainly countless examples of people in this type of situation.

 

If these people were just putting on a show they wouldn't be able to afford the projects I do or the projects my peer firms work on. You've provided a statement as "fact" with zero data to back it up. You're not the authority on other people's finances.

 

And unless you can provide even a stitch of evidence that OTR is "overpriced" despite being underpriced compared to our peer cities' comparable neighborhoods, I'm not going to bother even responding to the second half of your post. Anecdotal "evidence" from you to support your notion that everything is terrible and OTR is going to implode into itself. Your family friend's situation has no value in a wider conversation about housing values.

Yeah, the Cincinnati region has so much wealth outside of the city its going to be a long time before the market for young professionals, empty nesters, and people who want to send their kids to private school or magnet schools runs out.

 

After traveling around a bit it still amazes me how an economically ok region like Cincy is so impoverished in its core - take a look at census maps on average incomes sometime to see what I'm talking about.

 

The good news is that there are still PLENTY of undervalued areas in the core.  If OTR is way overvalued (in spots I might add), then there are other areas within walking/biking distance of the core that aren't.  In the grand scheme of things OTR is still dirt cheap - when I was down in town for MPMF I ran into a guy who was working a tech job in San Francisco, but living in OTR (as a lot of tech jobs can be done remotely).  He's still making an SF salary (which is probably 6 figures given the company he said he was working for) but living in OTR.  This is still a steal for someone like him where his six figure salary could probably get him a studio condo at best in SF in OTR that could get him one of those luxury townhouses easily.  I'm sure there are more people like him.

There definitely are. I have clients who are duel income families where both partners are making 7 figures and living in $800k houses. They could probably buy up an entire street and mortgage it and still be fine. Some of these clients are only in their 20s and started successful businesses or are longtime employees at some of the fortune 500s in the region (or started them for that matter).

 

Point is, there are thousands of millionaires in this city. A handful of $500k townhomes isn't going to flood the market and dry up demand.

Are those first floor garages? How terrible. If we set this precedent now we're opening ourselves up to block after block of infill with ground floor garages fronting the public realm. See Graduate Hospital in Philly, arguably 10 years ahead of OTR in terms of gentrification, for what this will look like. That neighbourhood is now fighting the good fight against ground floor garages, but it took 10 years of "take what we can get" attitudes to realise the larger, exceptionally negative, effect on the neighbourhood.

 

I'd rather get faux historic crap than be walking along the sidewalk dodging cars backing out of their driveways. It's like watching a terrace give birth to a car.

Here is a great article on the matter in Philly: http://hiddencityphila.org/2013/03/death-by-a-thousand-curb-cuts/

 

Historic preservation is about a lot more than just the buildings - it's also about the original pedestrian experience of a place, and preserving the small scale flourishes that only a pedestrian-oriented urban neighbourhood can provide. I'd rather preserve that vibe/experience than any cornice detail, any day.

You do realize how many incredibly high paying positions there are in this city right? Two people making 100k a year can easily afford a $600k house. And there are most certainly countless examples of people in this type of situation.

 

Many couples who used their combined incomes to buy expensive houses, vacation homes, or investment properties in the 2000s lost it all when they lost their jobs.  It was illegal to use combined incomes in mortgage underwriting up until (I read a few years ago but couldn't quickly find via google) the 1960s.  When that changed, people were then able to afford larger homes, and that's when suburban subdivisions proliferated with 2,000+ sq foot homes.  People should never, ever use their combined incomes for this purpose and ideally should use the smaller of the two. 

 

If these people were just putting on a show they wouldn't be able to afford the projects I do or the projects my peer firms work on. You've provided a statement as "fact" with zero data to back it up. You're not the authority on other people's finances.

 

You're apparently too young to understand what happened during the crash and the years leading up to it.  Few people then or now who reside in expensive homes, drive nice cars, etc., actually own those items outright. They're doomed if they lose their jobs during a deep recession.  Anyone with cash cleaned up in 2009-2010 in real estate and in the stock market. 

 

And unless you can provide even a stitch of evidence that OTR is "overpriced" despite being underpriced compared to our peer cities' comparable neighborhoods, I'm not going to bother even responding to the second half of your post. Anecdotal "evidence" from you to support your notion that everything is terrible and OTR is going to implode into itself. Your family friend's situation has no value in a wider conversation about housing values.

 

Our peer cities are slow-growing metros of a similar size with tons of underutilized historic areas like St. Louis and Cleveland, not smaller, faster-growing metros like Nashville that have virtually zero 19th century housing stock or traditional business districts.  Housing prices are getting out-of-control in some smaller cities because they only have 1-2 decent walkable neighborhoods, not over a dozen outstanding ones like Cincinnati has.  In Cincinnati you can start a walk on a sidewalk in Latonia, KY and still be walking on a sidewalk north of Reading or Green Hills, about 15 miles north.  You can't walk on a sidewalk for more than five miles in one cardinal direction in Nashville or Charlotte. 

It's interesting how they integrate parking in urban neighborhoods in Asia.  The results aren't perfect for sure, but generally more creative and (usually) less oppressive.

 

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/061211.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/092511.html

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2011/071711.html

 

You're apparently too young to understand what happened during the crash and the years leading up to it.  Few people then or now who reside in expensive homes, drive nice cars, etc., actually own those items outright. They're doomed if they lose their jobs during a deep recession.  Anyone with cash cleaned up in 2009-2010 in real estate and in the stock market.

 

Where you get off insulting others' intelligence or ability to understand something is beyond me. Your jaded view of the world isn't always right.

 

Architecture is intertwined with the real estate industry. An understanding of what happened is crucial longterm.

Our peer cities are slow-growing metros of a similar size with tons of underutilized historic areas like St. Louis and Cleveland, not smaller, faster-growing metros like Nashville that have virtually zero 19th century housing stock or traditional business districts.  Housing prices are getting out-of-control in some smaller cities because they only have 1-2 decent walkable neighborhoods, not over a dozen outstanding ones like Cincinnati has.  In Cincinnati you can start a walk on a sidewalk in Latonia, KY and still be walking on a sidewalk north of Reading or Green Hills, about 15 miles north.  You can't walk on a sidewalk for more than five miles in one cardinal direction in Nashville or Charlotte.

 

Just take a look at Lawrenceville, Southshore, or Mexican War Streets in Pittsburgh. They're littered with buildings listed over $500k with the average probably close to $250-300k.

 

Or look at Lafayette Square in St. Louis.

 

These homes around Washington Park are going to remain valuable because of their proximity to Music Hall, Washington Park, Downtown, the streetcar, and the Vine Street business district.

Are those first floor garages? How terrible. If we set this precedent now we're opening ourselves up to block after block of infill with ground floor garages fronting the public realm. See Graduate Hospital in Philly, arguably 10 years ahead of OTR in terms of gentrification, for what this will look like. That neighbourhood is now fighting the good fight against ground floor garages, but it took 10 years of "take what we can get" attitudes to realise the larger, exceptionally negative, effect on the neighbourhood.

 

I'd rather get faux historic crap than be walking along the sidewalk dodging cars backing out of their driveways. It's like watching a terrace give birth to a car.

 

The garages facing Wade Street are unfortunate, but I don't see another alternative since the alley does not extend behind these homes. If it did, it would be easy to have the garage entrance from the alley.

 

Of course, the alternative would be to not have a garage at all. But if you're building a $500k home in Cincinnati... it's going to have a garage.

Though not ideal, street facing garages on small side streets like Wade and Kemp are not really that big of a problem. They aren't heavy pedestrian zones so the curb cuts aren't detrimental to their character and if done correctly a garage door can actually be quite nice looking.

 

Though not perfect the two private garages on Republic are similar and do not necessarily create a zone that's unfriendly to pedestrians. I walk that block of Republic often and have never felt that the garages had a negative effect on the street. That being said something with ground level activity would certainly be better, but as it is they didn't hurt anything and removed a handful of cars from the street.

On this subject of garages... I live a stones throw from Wade and I agree they are not a big deal. In terms of historic character they are not altering what is there currently. The one structure is currently a one story "non-contributing" garage, and the other parcel is vacant. And Wade is purely residential. It's not like they are taking what was once a storefront and creating a garage out of it. I doubt that our historic board would approve that sort of modification.

 

And on a higher level, I am ecstatic about this development in terms of what it will mean for the very local situation near Liberty and Elm. While I might not confront a car backing out of a garage while walking the sidewalk, I do encounter numerous drug dealers, deal with threats when I confront drug users in the rear of my property, and face a continuous barrage of people who think my property looks like a toilet. I don't even get to the point of complaining about the trash...

 

I've seen these things change in other areas and know they will here also, and it won't be police it'll be economic development. That's why on a very practical level I don't complain about gentrification (even while supporting a diverse development plan), and I also won't be complaining about garage doors that are part of a tasteful and impactful development.

Though not ideal, street facing garages on small side streets like Wade and Kemp are not really that big of a problem. They aren't heavy pedestrian zones so the curb cuts aren't detrimental to their character and if done correctly a garage door can actually be quite nice looking.

 

Though not perfect the two private garages on Republic are similar and do not necessarily create a zone that's unfriendly to pedestrians. I walk that block of Republic often and have never felt that the garages had a negative effect on the street. That being said something with ground level activity would certainly be better, but as it is they didn't hurt anything and removed a handful of cars from the street.

 

I'd also like to add that San Francisco has a ton of these, and its still a very pedestrian friendly city.  The biggest impact is finding a streetside parking spot if you drive.

 

And the reason for San Fran having these is not historic, historically these spaces were garden areas which were in every house in part due to the climate which allows for year around semi-outdoor gardens, as cars became more popular these were pretty much universally converted in to garages as like Cincinnati there aren't many car friendly alleyways in San Fran.

https://4feet2mouths.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/2012-08-02-20-bay-area-road-trip-222.jpg

 

San Francisco proves good design can create proper pedestrianization in areas despite traditionally anti-human planning choices being made. Many roads in SF are stupidly wide. Side streets that have basically no traffic but could fit 6 lanes of moving cars.

 

But the garages you mention are integrated nicely and the scale of the buildings still responds to the street which makes for an enjoyable pedestrian experience.

This conversation regarding street level garages instantly made me think of San Francisco, so thank you neilworms[/member] for bringing it up as a counterpoint to the notion that garage entrances create inherently pedestrian unfriendly areas.  I've noticed that neighborhoods that feature a lot of converted garages tend to still often have stairs, stoops, elevated porches, or other features that still provide something of interest to the public domain. 

 

Have to say, jmicha[/member], having just returned from SF, I can't really think of too many absurdly wide streets that you're speaking of.  Other than Market, Geary, and some of the other main corridors and axis' of the city, I find most of San Francisco's streets to be almost perfectly scaled to the pedestrian, much like OTR.  LA is another story entirely, but it's street widths are (in)famous.

If the city would just blanket allow accessory dwelling units (they can keep the current 800 square foot limit as the maximum footprint, but raise the height limit to allow an occupiable second story) then garages can be built as proper carriage houses either on alleys or side streets.  As a concession, there can be stricter guidelines for garage door materials and design such as no double-wide doors, no blank panels, etc.  It doesn't address the issue of narrow lots with no rear access, but maybe that's a case where more scrutiny needs to be applied to the garage door selection by the conservation board.

This conversation regarding street level garages instantly made me think of San Francisco, so thank you neilworms[/member] for bringing it up as a counterpoint to the notion that garage entrances create inherently pedestrian unfriendly areas.  I've noticed that neighborhoods that feature a lot of converted garages tend to still often have stairs, stoops, elevated porches, or other features that still provide something of interest to the public domain. 

 

Have to say, jmicha[/member], having just returned from SF, I can't really think of too many absurdly wide streets that you're speaking of.  Other than Market, Geary, and some of the other main corridors and axis' of the city, I find most of San Francisco's streets to be almost perfectly scaled to the pedestrian, much like OTR.  LA is another story entirely, but it's street widths are (in)famous.

 

I'm thinking less about the Financial District and areas around it and more along the lines of the Richmond, the Sunset, etc.

This conversation regarding street level garages instantly made me think of San Francisco, so thank you neilworms[/member] for bringing it up as a counterpoint to the notion that garage entrances create inherently pedestrian unfriendly areas.  I've noticed that neighborhoods that feature a lot of converted garages tend to still often have stairs, stoops, elevated porches, or other features that still provide something of interest to the public domain. 

 

Have to say, jmicha[/member], having just returned from SF, I can't really think of too many absurdly wide streets that you're speaking of.  Other than Market, Geary, and some of the other main corridors and axis' of the city, I find most of San Francisco's streets to be almost perfectly scaled to the pedestrian, much like OTR.  LA is another story entirely, but it's street widths are (in)famous.

 

I'm thinking less about the Financial District and areas around it and more along the lines of the Richmond, the Sunset, etc.

 

Those parts of town shock me, because frankly the architecture shows that it was developed in the 1930s-1950s but yet there are corner stores off main drags like you'd find in pre 1890s era neighborhoods - they even feel like pre-streetcar era neighborhoods which is totally unique, I'm kind of wondering how that came about?

 

I think the outer neighborhoods like the sunset in San Fran are pretty much an outlier in terms of urbanism for the US.

Random thought..But over/under for how long it will take for those new pleasant street condos (the one's that were built 5 years ago or so), to be demolished for more a more "luxurious" deluxe condo that they can turn over for 600-700K.

 

Because with the distance it is to music hall and it being in the epicenter of OTR, I can imagine if those were rebuilt to look more "luxurious" I could see those type of condo's be worth close to a million 10 years down the road or so (assuming the area continues to improve like it currently has)

The ground floor garages shown in SF benefit from topography, where you can use split slabs to tuck the garages and set it back a bit from the streetscape. In the basin, you don't have this benefit, plus the lots aren't as wide or deep so you can't really push the garage off the property line all that much. As a result you are assaulted with a garage door where windows, flower boxes, seating, and other pedestrian oriented amenities would be. Not to mention what this does for safety, casual surveillance to the street, etc. If this happens a few times, yea it is no big deal. But if it becomes a whole block then it is an issue. People invest in neighbourhoods like OTR because of its pedestrian experience on the street and so these houses can break that rule and be the exception. Effectively they are taking advantage of the neighbourhood's pedestrian quality and sticking a thumb in it. The minute they become the rule, though, the vibe of the neighbourhood is ruined.

 

Further, the future of urban core areas like OTR will be in how they treat their more pedestrian scaled areas like alleys and laneways. I understand OTR is still trying to get their main streets in order, but in global cities the laneways and alleyways are where the excitement/value is. If Cincinnati writes off all of these spaces, it would be a real shame and a missed opportunity.

 

I will point to Philly again, because, well, I love that city. But just take a look at Quince Street, Addison Street, American Street, Waverly Street, and many more for great residential alleyways that maintain a nice pedestrian rhythm. Homes on those streets go for well above $500k. And of course Melbourne has the most infamous network of laneways where their cafe culture hits full stride.

^ Again I'd say there is little to worry about here. Drive around OTR and imagine that every current vacant lot is a building with a driveway/garage on the first floor. Even that, which is an extreme case, wouldn't really destroy the pedestrian experience in my opinion. Even with recent changes the historic board won't be approving demolitions or first floor garage conversions of existing historic properties, so this is about as bad as it could ever be.

I think Jim is right, that even the worst case wouldn't be too bad, as long as the new buildings adhere to the existing form and siting (zero lot lines, built to the sidewalk).

 

Aside from enforcing that form, the other thing big thing the city could do to help is improve alley way access.

 

When the city improved Osborne and Comer alleys: http://balancedgrowth.ohio.gov/Portals/0/BLLUP/Case%20Studies%202013/Osborne%20&%20Comer%20Alleys_rgb.pdf - they ensured that those blocks along Race, Pleasant, and Elm could be (mostly) free of curb cuts. Not every block in OTR has alley access, but many do. I really like the treatment (brick pavers with low granite curbs which don't require curb cuts), done along Osborne and Comer, and would like to see more alleys receive it.

 

 

 

 

The only real problem I have with street facing garages is the curb cut removes 1-2 spaces of on street parking. So you're basically removing a public asset for the benefit of a private asset. We definitely should limit them and push more heavily for densification of alleyways and for all private parking infrastructure to be handled in them opposed to on the street.

There's certainly an argument to be made that trading one off-street parking spot for one on-street parking spot is a net loss for the neighborhood, but that argument breaks down once you get beyond a 1:1 ratio.  It's kind of an interesting thought process, since one off-street spot with a curb cut is no different than having a reserved on-street spot for that person.  There's one less spot for everyone in the neighborhood to compete for, but one less person competing for them.  On the other hand, that spot isn't available to others when its owner isn't using it, so that's where the net loss comes in. 

 

In general, what's interesting about San Francisco is that while the painted ladies and core neighborhoods like Chinatown and the Mission have pretty small and innocuous garages in comparison to their fairly sizable buildings, the same isn't true out in Sunset or Richmond.  This is pretty bad from an "activated sidewalk" perspective, on top of the excessively wide street that's pretty useless for street parking https://goo.gl/maps/r1onUdfDEpH2 but this is even worse https://goo.gl/maps/gusGuBpn2Qm  Talk about harsh and unpleasant. 

My biggest concern with curb cuts is when they're spaced in such a manner that you can't park between them and due to various conditions and layout of the parking lane you're left with much larger reductions in the number of on street spaces for a couple curb cuts. It happens all the time up in Clifton where two houses have curb cuts that are about 12' apart and even though some compact cars can fit there they put up the "no parking between drives" signs and then you lose out on that space plus the two spaces where the curb cuts themselves are. Then the city has a fire hydrant 15' away from one of the curb cuts so you can't park between the hydrant and the curb cut and suddenly you're left with a completely useless parking lane for 5 or so spaces for two curb cuts.

In general, what's interesting about San Francisco is that while the painted ladies and core neighborhoods like Chinatown and the Mission have pretty small and innocuous garages in comparison to their fairly sizable buildings, the same isn't true out in Sunset or Richmond.  This is pretty bad from an "activated sidewalk" perspective, on top of the excessively wide street that's pretty useless for street parking https://goo.gl/maps/r1onUdfDEpH2 but this is even worse https://goo.gl/maps/gusGuBpn2Qm  Talk about harsh and unpleasant.

 

Street Parking is the worst aspect of this to be honest - its even worse when you understand that parking regulations/enforcement in San Fran is nuts and tickets are obscenely expensive like everything else there).  I've walked through these neighborhoods (there is great Chinese food out there, and I also went there to take one of the Muni Lines to its end) and while not as pleasant as the San Fran tourists are more familiar with its still not bad as far as walk-ability goes, I just wouldn't want to find parking in that area.  If alleyways are available they are a far better solution.

 

Again this is one of the weirdest areas in the US as far as urbanism goes, the houses are both row houses and bungalows with prominent garages, yet main streets have businesses and there are even corner shops in the neighborhoods.  Its a weird transition between hardcore old school urban and new auto oriented suburban.

My friend lived in the Sunset and I stayed with her there for a week and a half. It's not that attractive from an architectural or style standpoint, but it works really well honestly. The main streets are quite urban and there are countless great little places, especially when you got towards Ocean Beach. It is definitely an oddity as far as American urban planning history goes but it works well. Minus the massive width of the side streets. You could bring it down to 36' curb to curb and they'd function the same but you could have fit several more blocks of buildings. That ship sailed long ago though.

This is pretty "out there" I know. But as parking gets more difficult, and cars get smaller, we might consider means to make our use of the street (for parking) more efficient. I've posted about this before, but in some very dense cities such as Seoul, they have legal double parking (see picture below). Everybody who double parks, by agreement, leaves their car locked and the wheels straight, but the transmission in neutral. If someone is blocking you, you just go out and push their car (or cars) out of the way. I experienced pushing a car like this and thought it was a hoot. But she couldn't really understand what the big deal was and why I wanted to have a picture of something so boring.

Something to keep in mind about street parking, which many new urbanists advocate for almost to the point of fetishizing it, is that it's merely a tool for mitigating the impacts of an excessively wide street, and an imperfect one at that.  Yes if the street is wide has even moderately fast moving vehicles, then parked cars are a way to provide a buffer to the sidewalk.  Still, a narrow street that people can walk down the middle of because it's so narrow that cars can't go fast doesn't need street parking because there's nothing to buffer from.  Similarly, a greatly widened sidewalk that puts the street furniture (lamps, benches, trees, planters, cycletracks, etc.) next to the roadway is preferable still because it's permanent, whereas parked cars are not.  It's rare to find a street with the parking spaces 100% occupied 100% of the time, meaning the buffering effect is lost when it may be needed the most, such as late night or on weekends when the relative emptiness of the street encourages speeding.  It's similar to the vehicular cycling arguments.  Vehicular cycling is a tool to work within a flawed system, but it's not a goal to be striving for, and neither is parallel parking.

^ So the ultimate goal to be striving for is wider sidewalks, narrower streets, and no or limited street parking. Is that right? I get that as a goal, but that's also separate from what is realistic, of course.