^ It absolutely is realistic, just not in the short-term. 

In case it is useful for folks who are doing an historic rehab, I was able to find two places with competent and competitive rates for Builder's Risk + Liability insurance. This insurance is normally required by the lender. Many places won't even quote for a historic property let alone one that has been vacant for 30 years (e.g. Great American). And I've received quotes for the same coverage where there was a 4X difference between the minimum and maximum quotes.

 

Anyway, if you're ever in this boat, try one of the following:

 

Barry Schmidt

Siemens Insurance Agency, LLC

513-469-8877 ([email protected])

 

Dan Driehaus

Driehaus Insurance Group, LLC

513-977-6860 ([email protected])

 

CITY COUNCIL 10/28: Approved an 8-year Community Reinvestment Area tax exemption agreement with Hagen Properties, LLC for the $106,000 rehabilitation of 1833 Vine St in Over-the-Rhine into seven market-rate apartments and commercial space. The City estimates that it will result in a net revenue gain of nearly $12,000 over the life of the agreement.

http://otrliving.com/properties/parksite

 

So Parksite has been listed. $450+/sq. ft. That's some seriously pricey territory but not surprising given the location and the fact that the architect chosen to do the design did a pretty great job. And that roof deck.

 

Apparently someone pre-purchased two units (an entire floor) and is doing their own design which is what the already pending unit that is 2,150 square feet is.

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.

 

It's quite simple, land values. SF always forced density because it's not viable to waste space when you have such short height limits. Most of San Francisco is limited to 80 feet in height. In the Outer Sunset and Outer Richmond, it can be as low as 40 feet. Therefore, attached housing is the only option.

 

It's a completely unique situation because San Francisco hates skyscrapers and high-rise housing. As a sane person, it's impossible to understand this attitude because the city's two best neighborhoods, Nob Hill and Russian Hill, have a lot of high-rise housing mixed in with traditional Victorian rows. Even the most anti-New York SFer's love those two neighborhoods. The great irony is that they're the most New York-ish neighborhoods outside of Manhattan. It's best not to try to understand politics in the Bay. Just know people only care about their own financial interest and power position.

 

Also, The Richmond Distirct is much older than most of the Sunset District. The reason the corner stores look like they're from the 1890's is because they are from the 1890's. I'm a former Inner Richmonder, and most housing in my neighborhood was built 1890-1930. Very little of the Inner Richmond or Central Richmond is post-1930 with the exception of homes lost to earthquakes. All over SF, you will see modern infill in historic neighborhoods since most housing is cheaply-built and doesn't do well in quakes. Walls are thin, foundations are weak, and weather-sealing is bad because we don't deal with extreme weather events like people in Midwestern and Northeastern cities do. With SF being the most expensive city in the world, this is a problem that has only worsened in recent years. Most new housing is built like crap despite $10,000 a month rents or $2.5 million mortgages. Even the famed Victorians cut a ton of corners and have seen few structural upgrades. Some still don't even have seismic upgrades, particularly rent-controlled buildings (the landlord wants those to fall down). The historic housing is not nearly as strong as the Victorian era stuff in Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.

 

The Outer Sunset has the newest low-rise stuff. That is post-Great Depression housing, and the street density is due to the short height limits. If there were no height limits, it'd probably look like Century City in LA. You'd have high-rises on the beach and space between them. It's the same situation in East Oakland. Neighborhoods like Fruitvale also have a lot of structural density because Oakland has continually protested new housing construction and skyscrapers. By forcing low-rises and making it impossible to replace them, the Bay ensured street-level density. Even some of our suburbs like Berkeley are far more pedestrian-friendly and functionally urban than core cities in the Midwest outside Chicago.

 

We're at the point now where we need to tear down every single crappy (modern) low-rise and replace them all with skyscraper housing in San Francisco and Oakland. It's a battle being fought every year with ballot issues, and at this point looks hopeless. Bay Areans like low-rises and love how they ensure their home values go up 20-40% a year. So in a weird way, the Outer Sunset and much of Oakland looks the way it does because it's the best way to increase property values fast. Like everything in the Bay, it's all about money. The reason New York City is so much cheaper than the Bay is because they approve so much high-rise housing.

 

*Developers salivate at the idea of opening up neighborhoods in San Francisco and Oakland to high-rises, but it's just never going to happen. People in San Francisco and Oakland openly insult New York City because of its skyscrapers. Protests of high-rise housing developments are dramatic and getting more heated every month. And New York is always the target of these protests. "No Manhattanization!!"

 

**So yes, the Bay is entirely unique in the world. It's due to the restrictive zoning laws.

 

***In terms of streets, SF has the narrowest streets on the West Coast and setbacks are small or non-existent. Market, Geary, and Van Ness are wide because they are the main spines of the city, and historically had lots of streetcar track on them. Also, San Francisco barely has any freeways, so traffic is pushed to the main arterials. SOMA is the only neighborhood that actually has wide streets. Oakland and LA have much wider streets overall. They also have trees in front of houses. Still, they have a lot more pedestrian activity than 90% of American cities because driving and parking sucks. And well, the weather is flawless. :wink: Coastal California's vibrancy is partially because it has the best weather to motivate you to get your ass outside and walk around. Even New York City is a lot less vibrant in the winter. :| It's pretty easy to say, "I think I'll walk to the grocery store today," when it's 70 degrees and sunny outside...

 

****the main takeaway for all other cities is to never, ever duplicate San Francisco zoning laws. Yes, they force pedestrian activity, but it comes at one hell of a high cost. The cities to emulate are New York City and Toronto, both places with tons of high-rise housing and excellent mass transit systems. Ohio cities will not see much high-rise housing because it's not economically viable given median home sale values. What cities like Cincinnati need to do is just focus on low-rise infill housing within a mile of streetcar stops. After that, more infill can spread deep into the ghettos. And historic preservation should absolutely be Cincinnati's main worry.

 

Pittsburgh may see some new high-rises soon because the current investment flood has pushed low-rise housing prices there into the $500k range in choice neighborhoods. At that point, building a high-rise condo building is profitable. Actually, given low labor costs in Pittsburgh, it'd be extremely profitable. Expect a high-rise housing boom there soon...

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.

 

It's quite simple, land values. SF always forced density because it's not viable to waste space when you have such short height limits. Most of San Francisco is limited to 80 feet in height. In the Outer Sunset and Outer Richmond, it can be as low as 40 feet. Therefore, attached housing is the only option.

 

It's a completely unique situation because San Francisco hates skyscrapers and high-rise housing. As a sane person, it's impossible to understand this attitude because the city's two best neighborhoods, Nob Hill and Russian Hill, have a lot of high-rise housing mixed in with traditional Victorian rows. Even the most anti-New York SFer's love those two neighborhoods. The great irony is that they're the most New York-ish neighborhoods outside of Manhattan. It's best not to try to understand politics in the Bay. Just know people only care about their own financial interest and power position.

 

Also, The Richmond Distirct is much older than most of the Sunset District. The reason the corner stores look like they're from the 1890's is because they are from the 1890's. I'm a former Inner Richmonder, and most housing in my neighborhood was built 1890-1930. Very little of the Inner Richmond or Central Richmond is post-1930 with the exception of homes lost to earthquakes. All over SF, you will see modern infill in historic neighborhoods since most housing is cheaply-built and doesn't do well in quakes. Walls are thin, foundations are weak, and weather-sealing is bad because we don't deal with extreme weather events like people in Midwestern and Northeastern cities do. With SF being the most expensive city in the world, this is a problem that has only worsened in recent years. Most new housing is built like crap despite $10,000 a month rents or $2.5 million mortgages. Even the famed Victorians cut a ton of corners and have seen few structural upgrades. Some still don't even have seismic upgrades, particularly rent-controlled buildings (the landlord wants those to fall down). The historic housing is not nearly as strong as the Victorian era stuff in Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.

 

The Outer Sunset has the newest low-rise stuff. That is post-Great Depression housing, and the street density is due to the short height limits. If there were no height limits, it'd probably look like Century City in LA. You'd have high-rises on the beach and space between them. It's the same situation in East Oakland. Neighborhoods like Fruitvale also have a lot of structural density because Oakland has continually protested new housing construction and skyscrapers. By forcing low-rises and making it impossible to replace them, the Bay ensured street-level density. Even some of our suburbs like Berkeley are far more pedestrian-friendly and functionally urban than core cities in the Midwest outside Chicago.

 

We're at the point now where we need to tear down every single crappy (modern) low-rise and replace them all with skyscraper housing in San Francisco and Oakland. It's a battle being fought every year with ballot issues, and at this point looks hopeless. Bay Areans like low-rises and love how they ensure their home values go up 20-40% a year. So in a weird way, the Outer Sunset and much of Oakland looks the way it does because it's the best way to increase property values fast. Like everything in the Bay, it's all about money. The reason New York City is so much cheaper than the Bay is because they approve so much high-rise housing.

 

*Developers salivate at the idea of opening up neighborhoods in San Francisco and Oakland to high-rises, but it's just never going to happen. People in San Francisco and Oakland openly insult New York City because of its skyscrapers. Protests of high-rise housing developments are dramatic and getting more heated every month. And New York is always the target of these protests. "No Manhattanization!!"

 

**So yes, the Bay is entirely unique in the world. It's due to the restrictive zoning laws.

 

***In terms of streets, SF has the narrowest streets on the West Coast and setbacks are small or non-existent. Market, Geary, and Van Ness are wide because they are the main spines of the city, and historically had lots of streetcar track on them. Also, San Francisco barely has any freeways, so traffic is pushed to the main arterials. SOMA is the only neighborhood that actually has wide streets. Oakland and LA have much wider streets overall. They also have trees in front of houses. Still, they have a lot more pedestrian activity than 90% of American cities because driving and parking sucks. And well, the weather is flawless. :wink: Coastal California's vibrancy is partially because it has the best weather to motivate you to get your ass outside and walk around. Even New York City is a lot less vibrant in the winter. :| It's pretty easy to say, "I think I'll walk to the grocery store today," when it's 70 degrees and sunny outside...

 

****the main takeaway for all other cities is to never, ever duplicate San Francisco zoning laws. Yes, they force pedestrian activity, but it comes at one hell of a high cost. The cities to emulate are New York City and Toronto, both places with tons of high-rise housing and excellent mass transit systems. Ohio cities will not see much high-rise housing because it's not economically viable given median home sale values. What cities like Cincinnati need to do is just focus on low-rise infill housing within a mile of streetcar stops. After that, more infill can spread deep into the ghettos. And historic preservation should absolutely be Cincinnati's main worry.

 

Pittsburgh may see some new high-rises soon because the current investment flood has pushed low-rise housing prices there into the $500k range in choice neighborhoods. At that point, building a high-rise condo building is profitable. Actually, given low labor costs in Pittsburgh, it'd be extremely profitable. Expect a high-rise housing boom there soon...

 

The corner stores are actually well into the outer Sunset, which is why I"m shocked (I know the richmond has 1890s-1930s architecture) here's an example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7622788,-122.5062518,3a,75y,326.29h,74.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soteKgSmEQTKZETt5SetJiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

This is completely different than normal for 1930s-1950s era hoods.

 

One more point, high rises were difficult to construct until about 1970 on the West Coast due in part to earthquake concerns, that's why SF doesn't have that many and the Manhattan like hoods you talk about feel more like Harlem than midtown (particularly the Tendernob - the transition between the tenderloin and Nob hill).  As a result of this technological advancement, there was a skyscraper boom in the 70s, many were constructed during an unfortunate era in urban development that SF actively rebelled against (freeway and urban rewnewal revolvts - only the Westren Addition was urban renewaled protests killed more extensive plans though it helps that SF was widely white and asian and the area that didn't escape was black) which led to the anti-manhattanization movement.  I think anti-manhattanization is a bad term - they didn't want Bunker Hill in LA which previously was a very SF looking urban neighborhood before urban renewal sucked the soul out of the place a 1970s - 1980s skyscraper boom would have done that - look at what the 80s skyscraper boom did to Cincy which prior to that was kind of a smaller scaled version of the tendernob today there are patches but its not as contigious an intense urban environment that it used to be - look at pics from the 1940s on 3rd Street in Cincy and compare to the view on Bush Street looking west right around Powell Street.  In short "Manhattanization" happening when it did would have devastated SFs character much like the skyscrapers in the 80s did to Cincy (along with highways earlier).  SF needs to let go and realize that we are in a better era and allow some construction there (though ideally it should be the outer neighborhoods built 1930s-1960 that really should densify). Finally thank goodness for the freeway revolts - I can understand why SF is so anti that era, and its done the city very well, almost too well in contrast to another (historically) very dense american city that embraced everything wrong with that era - Cincinnati and how much it has suffered since then. (Its a topic I'd love to see a documentary on).

 

Can't find the 40s image but 3rd street Cincy: http://www.cincinnativiews.net/images/3%20st%20Wholesale%20District.jpg)

 

Bush Street Tendernob: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7900569,-122.4097131,3a,75y,258.14h,89.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOkPT7xa0muh7n59OPbrHjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

 

And personally I agree with you, the outer sunset isn't what drives tourists to San Francisco, the whole area should ideally be way higher density given the insane demand on housing - other than the usual NIMBYISM the only thing that could be holding that back is that the weather to your average Californian out there is dreadful - its foggier and colder than the rest of the city - Oakland will probably density before the Sunset does, though there are racial issues in Oakland making gentrification far more contentious.

 

Pulling this back to Cincinnati - I actually feel some of SFs policies with a distinct sunset clause would be good for the city - preserve the historic architecture, maintain human scaled low rise districts connected to each other with adequate transit and preserve/promote higher property values.  Cincy is stupidly undervalued given the product potential and SF style property value preserving policies would be good in the short to medium run for the city - longer term areas that were emptied out like much of Walnut Hills (f-ing tragic), Queensgate and where ever else can be redeveloped to higher and more modern standards.  SF policies would help refill what was lost and make the city regain a lot of his charm so long as it doesn't get out of control.

Discussion of OTR perceptions moved to appropriate thread:

 

Cincinnati: Changing Perceptions of Over-the-Rhine

 

 

Absolutely one of my favorite buildings in OTR. Really gives me a New Orleans vibe more than an OTR vibe, but regardless... Please tell me 3cdc owns this building, or some other developer, and there's plans for this beauty? I would love to see this this building rehabbed with a fresh coat of green paint.

It is owned by 3CDC. I've heard a restaurant is going in, but that's about it. That is the historic Wielert's Cafe. It was a biergarten where Boss Cox ran the city in a corner booth, where the World Series was (supposedly) drawn up by August Herrmann, and where the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra got started.

Most of the new streetlights are up on Main Street.

 

 

There is a meeting scheduled for 11/12, 5:30-7:30pm at the Woodward Theater to discuss the remaining changes to the Main Street streetscape.

I ate lunch on St Mary's steps today, and noticed that the old Circle A building is open and seeing a little activity. Anyone know what's going on there?

 

 

Fencing has gone up around the first phase of the 15th and Race project. They mentioned a late October/early November start so it looks like they're sticking to that timeframe.

Was wondering if anyone can confirm this...Heard through a few friends that acclaimed Cincinnati Chef Ryan Santos is going to be opening up his new Upscale Restaurant in the gateway quarters of OTR and is scheduled to open early next year.

 

 

Was wondering if anyone can confirm this...Heard through a few friends that acclaimed Cincinnati Chef Ryan Santos is going to be opening up his new Upscale Restaurant in the gateway quarters of OTR and is scheduled to open early next year.

 

yup! Santos is aiming for a Spring 2016 opening of Please in OTR. He's being slightly cagey about where, exactly, the restaurant will be in the neighborhood. I'm super excited, I've been eating at his pop-up for years. He's a great dude and his food is phenomenal.

 

in the meantime, you can follow him on Instagram @pleasecinci.

Found this on his instagram feed

 

 

Have no clue which building that is in OTR though.......

Isn't that the Urban Sites building at the corner of 14th and Clay? It appears to be.

^good eye. I think you're right.

 

Cincinnati Shakespeare Co. unveils new OTR theater plans

 

The Cincinnati Shakespeare Co. is hosting an event on Nov. 17 to unveil new details of the project. Demolition of the Drop Inn Center is scheduled to begin at the start of 2016 with construction beginning in April. The hope is that the Cincinnati Shakespeare Co. can move in by July 2017 for the beginning of its 24th season.

Wow, that's going to look really neat when finished.  I don't know what other's think but, I really like the design and the glass atrium (I think that's what you call it?).  I think it is going to really deepen the corner and liven it up.  Think of all the investment going on in that small block and a half stretch on the West side of Elm Street including Music Hall.  Just off the cuff, when will the Music Hall update finish?

Closes June, 2016, reopens Fall 2017. So in a couple years we'll have the renovated Music Hall, Memorial Hall, and this new building all along Elm along with the Transept now open, the large building adjacent to this on 12th renovated into apartments, and the YMCA finished and occupied. The Music Hall streetcar stop is going to be busy.

It looks nice with the lighting and all of the pedestrians rendered in, but I'm curious about the materials they are planning to use on the exterior.  The glass will be a nice modern touch to Elm St, but the second floor gives me a little pause. I guess we shall see.

I am not against contemporary design in Over-the-Rhine when it makes an attempt to fit the context (materials, fenestrations, something...), but I am not a fan of this. Perhaps I shouldn't complain, however, given that part of this building's context is SCPA.

It's definitely bold... I think I hate it. It's tough from a rendering.

I've had this question for the longest time...I know we don't see classical archecticure type of buildings anymore because of the cost of the meterials are much more expensive, compared to how much they cost 100 years ago.

 

My question is why can't we have more exquisite and grand front building FACADES at least that mimic the architecture of old? I've never encountered a modern building that makes me pause go wow...

 

This building isn't bad. Honestly, if the entire building was made of see through glass I think it would stand out more. Overall it's not bad though. But modern design has always felt uninspired to me so there's that..

If you haven't encountered a modern building that made you pause you need to walk around more and get out more.

 

The reason we don't build like that isn't JUST because it's expensive, it's because it's a style that came and went. There's no reason for mimicking the past, especially when construction and materials have come so far.

 

Style isn't what makes an urban area like OTR feel cohesive. Scale, graining, and building orientation (how it relates to the street) are what actually matter.

If you haven't encountered a modern building that made you pause you need to walk around more and get out more.

 

Sorry I disagree. Don't get me wrong, there's some types of modern architecture that I "appreciate"...but at the end of the day this evokes more raw emotion from my eyes:

 

 

Than compared to alot of the modern "high end" arhcecticure we see today like habitat 67 in Montreal:

 

 

 

 

They just don't compare in my honest opinion. I understand we live in a different era, and architecture should apply to that..but I can't help but feel modern architecture is a lot like current day modern art paintings (like say Jackson Pollock the drip painter). Very minimal compared to classical art that's very detailed and grandiose.

 

 

Let's just nip this in the bud. Let's not discuss the merits of different styles of architecture here. Please keep it focused on the actual projects in OTR (non-3CDC, of course)

It's definitely bold...

 

It looks like a credit union. 

Closes June, 2016, reopens Fall 2017. So in a couple years we'll have the renovated Music Hall, Memorial Hall, and this new building all along Elm along with the Transept now open, the large building adjacent to this on 12th renovated into apartments, and the YMCA finished and occupied. The Music Hall streetcar stop is going to be busy.

 

It's great that so many arts institutions will be located in one place. It should help keep many of the bars and restaurants in the area busy.

 

I do also think that their move is a sign that things are not great for the western half of the CBD at the moment. While the areas around Fountain Square and The Banks are doing well, the western half of the CBD doesn't have much going on.

The latest HCB packet is out: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/nov-09-2015-packet/

Closes June, 2016, reopens Fall 2017. So in a couple years we'll have the renovated Music Hall, Memorial Hall, and this new building all along Elm along with the Transept now open, the large building adjacent to this on 12th renovated into apartments, and the YMCA finished and occupied. The Music Hall streetcar stop is going to be busy.

 

It's great that so many arts institutions will be located in one place. It should help keep many of the bars and restaurants in the area busy.

 

I do also think that their move is a sign that things are not great for the western half of the CBD at the moment. While the areas around Fountain Square and The Banks are doing well, the western half of the CBD doesn't have much going on.

 

It is crazy how for such a seemingly small area, the difference in energy level and feel between just a couple blocks is huge. 6th and Walnut has a ton going on with people crossing between the aronoff and the bars on the west side of the street. But go just two block over to race and one block up and you would think that aliens had abducted every single person in downtown. Totally dead. I would say that Race, Elm, and Plum are very, very quiet still.

Closes June, 2016, reopens Fall 2017. So in a couple years we'll have the renovated Music Hall, Memorial Hall, and this new building all along Elm along with the Transept now open, the large building adjacent to this on 12th renovated into apartments, and the YMCA finished and occupied. The Music Hall streetcar stop is going to be busy.

 

It's great that so many arts institutions will be located in one place. It should help keep many of the bars and restaurants in the area busy.

 

I do also think that their move is a sign that things are not great for the western half of the CBD at the moment. While the areas around Fountain Square and The Banks are doing well, the western half of the CBD doesn't have much going on.

 

True. That starts with the stalled 4th and Race project and the parking crater across from the convention center, to the ominously empty Terrace Plaza hotel which will almost "cancel out" the new street life brought by 84.51, all the way up to the massive open parking fields surrounding City Hall. You'd think those lots in the NW quadrant could be developed and marketed as "OTR near" and be considered to be on the streetcar route. Especially you'd think someone at Turner Construction office building would know how to do a deal to develop the massive surface parking lot of their Court Street Center office, even with maintaining parking spaces for their employees in a new garage.

The latest HCB packet is out: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/nov-09-2015-packet/

 

That warehouse to home conversion at 42 West McMicken (the old space for Tinderbox parties) is very interesting. It looks to be a very expensive, custom house in an otherwise off the beaten path location. It's a short walk from the streetcar, though.

There's several cool old industrial buildings on that block of McMicken along with a smattering of rowhouses and apartment buildings.  It's a very nice mix of building types in a small area, good for lofts, live/work, small offices, workshops, even a restaurant or gallery.

I met the owners of that building a year and a half or so ago right after they had looked at the 42 W McMicken building.

 

Before that my friend Stuart lived in it and threw parties under his "Tinderbox" label that has become a pop-up party since moving out of the warehouse.

 

The space is super interesting despite the immediate dangers of occupying it. The main beam had collapsed in two of the structural bays and the roof had long collapsed and been cleared out of the space. So basically you had this tiny apartment in the front, a sloped area that lead you up to the collapsed roof portion, a big area open to the sky (where the bands would play), then a big area in the back that was just filled with crap but still under cover.

 

Their plans for the residence portion look interesting. It basically expands what was livable space out into the rest of the front half of the building before the collapsed roof. They're leaving the collapsed portion open to the sky which will be interesting to see how it is refinished. I wonder what the longterm plans are for the rear half that's still under cover. It could make a great guest house.

 

I remember them saying they'd do the project if they thought it could cost less than a million. Who knows how that has changed though.

This funky building could be OTR’s next cool office space

When Miriam Hodesh first walked through the unique building with two huge bubble windows facing Central Parkway, she wanted to make the top floor her home. But after giving it some thought, Miriam, her husband, Jake, and business partner Duane Fahrnbach knew the property at 220-230 Findlay Street in Over-the-Rhine would be best served as an office building.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/11/this-funky-building-could-be-otr-s-next-cool.html

OTR coffee bar owners opening new restaurant

The owners of 1215 Wine Bar & Coffee Lab in Over-the-Rhine are opening a new restaurant just blocks from their coffee house.

Joanna Kirkendall and Daniel Souder are planning a full-service restaurant that will serve breakfast, lunch and dinner at the planned Osborne condo development at 118 W. 15th St. The concept does not yet have a name, opening date or chef.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/11/10/otr-coffee-bar-owners-opening-new-restaurant.html

^Their plans were in one of the October Historic Conservation packets. Looks like it will be a good asset for that corner.

I like that were starting to see more activity and restaurants on more quieter residential streets.

 

Pleasant is getting this new resturaunt

 

Clay is getting a new resturuant from Chef Ryan Santos

 

Walnut is getting Che, an argentianan resturaunt

 

The only thing now is to get Elm street in the act. Would love to see some type of retail/resturaunt presence there to increase the pedestrian activity a bit.

Elm will be challenging to see that because there is very little commercial space on Elm from Central Parkway all the way up to Liberty. Most is purely residential or institutions. Elm north of Liberty has quite a lot of commercial ground floor spaces and they're beginning to see activity but there will likely be a bit of a gap for a bit before those two areas merge together into one.

I've also heard a restaurant is going into the former OTR Foundation building at 13th and Clay. SW corner. I don't know who it is, though.

I've heard that as well. No details but some business owners in the neighborhood were talking about it.

All these new restaurants and still no simple sitdown chilli parlor...

 

How I would kill for that in OTR :(

Elm will be challenging to see that because there is very little commercial space on Elm from Central Parkway all the way up to Liberty. Most is purely residential or institutions. Elm north of Liberty has quite a lot of commercial ground floor spaces and they're beginning to see activity but there will likely be a bit of a gap for a bit before those two areas merge together into one.

 

What I think would be interesting is if there were some new, large-ish residential buildings with ground floor commercial built along Central Parkway one block west of Elm. (In place of the lots and underutilized shorter non contributing buildings.) That could drive some foot traffic to the western edge of OTR.

I see a bigger demand for large office tenants along Central Parkway. Proximity to Washington Park and the streetcar and large lots to develop on. There is still plenty of housing to be rehabbed in the center of OTR. I wonder what large housing developments on Central Parkway would do to demand of rehabbing housing.

I see a bigger demand for large office tenants along Central Parkway. Proximity to Washington Park and the streetcar and large lots to develop on. There is still plenty of housing to be rehabbed in the center of OTR. I wonder what large housing developments on Central Parkway would do to demand of rehabbing housing.

 

I don't think it would affect it at all. Historical renovation is slow and expensive but demand will always exceed supply (for historical homes in neighborhoods perceived as safe.) I would view adding housing as I described as adding "bonus residents" in the meantime that can sustain businesses and add to vibrancy. I am picturing something that be somewhat more affordable and add diversity to the housing stock.

41 new businesses opened in OTR this year: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2015/11/10/41-new-businesses-opened-otr-year/75525078/

That's great news for OTR and Cincinnati in general.  I know myself I always thought that all the new retailers would bring more people away from the malls in the suburbs and into downtown and it seems that is coming to fruition.  I will be curious to see how this keeps moving.

 

Anyone know how many of the retail spots along the renovated Vine, Race and Walnut Street portions of OTR are still for rent?

I don't have an exact answer but I'd imagine based on walking around all the time that it's less than a dozen or so spaces still rentable. As far as I can tell there's nothing on Race Street available at the moment south of Liberty, there are only a couple spots that come to mind on Vine, there's nothing on Republic with the introduction of the clothing store (I'm forgetting its name right now), Walnut might have a handful in Mercer Commons, and Main Street seems to only have a handful as well that are either vacant or almost ready to be occupied through renovations to the buildings above.

 

North of Liberty is soon to see an influx of new places over the next year as well which will be great for moving people across Liberty.

Also, on another thought, in regards to the objections of placing a bar at Republic and 14th Street on the SE corner:

 

I wonder when the development will start to move up Vine Street more towards Liberty.  I am talking about the 15th and Vine project at the SW Corner, the slew of buildings on either side of Kroger, and those two large buildings on the NE and SE corner of Vine and 15th.

 

I think that redevelopment will help spread out the bar situation and keep it on Vine Street.  I am all for small bars, etc. on the side streets, but I can understand there becoming a bit of saturation in such a small area when in reality, it seems development is going to keep pushing upwards on Vine Street and would be a better area for noisy bars, while the side streets might turn more towards coffee shops, yoga studios, pop up shops, sit down restaurants, etc.  Any thoughts on this?