How about the carriage house at 102 Peete.

 

I don't think I can talk my partner into Excelsior Row, which two units are in our price range, much less try and sell Peete Street. (But I'm driving by later today to see it after work.)

 

It really comes all down to timing Cincy-Rise.  We need to find a place that we can afford, fits our needs and will be ready when our house sells. (Currently on the market . . waiting for buyers.)  We can't think about Parker Flats for instance - the timing just isn't right. 

How about the carriage house at 102 Peete.

 

 

I don't think I can talk my partner into Excelsior Row

 

I think that Excelsior Row section is pretty nice and getting better.  Think of the neighboring streets. Investment on Walker, Boal, Milton is already established.  I think the next few years will see a lot of investment on Goethe and Dorsey.  There are condos going in lower down the hill on Sycamore, and then there's the three Keys Hill condo buildings at the top of the hill.  Add in the new park at Dorchester and Auburn and the nice green space across the street from the rowhouses themselves, and it adds up nicely.

And as trivial as this may sound, I really do not like the architecture of Gateway. 

 

That's not trivial at all.  If you're going to be paying $xx for a place to call home, you should be proud of it the way it looks, inside and out.  I think the Gateway is ugly, as is the new building @ MLK & Woodburn, as is 98% of the new construction within the city unfortunately.  As interest continues to increase, I would hope to see the bar raised eventually.  As of now though, we're dealing with builders who have little to no experience with urban building.  This can only change with a) experience  b) new builders from other cities  and/or c) higher quality demands from buyers.

My big gripe with Gateway is that I don't think the architecture has anything to do with OTR & Cincinnati (scale, materials, details, etc.)

 

So yesterday about 4:00 I drove down Peete Street to look at the carriage house at 102 and I hate to say this but I was a little intimidated by my surroundings.  Driving around Frintz & E. Clifton I was uncomfortable.  Goethe & Dorsey I think due to their cul-de-sac nature have more potential, like Kendall indicated, to turn around quicker.  I really like what Excelsior Row has to offer and what I think it will be like when built out and would have no problem at that point walking down the hill to OTR & the Main Street area.  The main issue there was traffic and being right on Sycamore.  I know - they are more affordable because they ARE on Sycamore and why they are even in our price range. (Oh, and I think the places on Dorchester look neat but we haven't been in . . yet.)

I think The Gateway is extremely GOOD looking personally. I just wish the Gateway was taller...it seems more appropriate in an area that dense I think. But as far as the architecture, I think it looks really cool. I don't see anything wrong with introducing new styles of architecture to OTR. You have to understand that when you have projects like The Gateway, they change people's perception; they make people think wow OTR must really be moving. People don't invest in high risk places like OTR unless they really care about the area and are determined to change it. I just don't understand why people would want a homogonous looking city. OTR should be preserved but I'm guessing there's a lot of buildings that are at the point of no return. If they were replaced with a different style, I don't see anything wrong with that. You guys are always complaining about McMansions all looking alike, I guess the city is different?

^good point david....it is a perspective that good to have.  I too believe that history (historic bldgs.) should be preserved and celebrated, but they should not be replicated in new construction.  Had everyone continue to build in gothic style then we would be without the art decos and colonials.  We must move on and leave a stamp for our own generation.  One that will be looked upon in the future as something as great as italianate, gothic, or colonial.

Ballhatguy,

 

So yesterday about 4:00 I drove down Peete Street to look at the carriage house at 102 and I hate to say this but I was a little intimidated by my surroundings.  Driving around Frintz & E. Clifton I was uncomfortable.

 

Believe me I understand, however you and I (and anyone one else) should take a tour down Peete.  Most of the street is either owned or under contract by Shabob LLC.  The buildings at the corner of Peete and Frintz and Frintz and E. Clifton (both sides) are currently under our control.  All the vacant lots that you saw next to the carriage house also (including the two teardowns) are owned by Shabob and the 5 new const homes will sit there. 

 

The first of the new condos on E. Clifton will be completed in Mid May.  All featuring bamboo floors, rooftop decks, glass block/porcelain showers-Not what you would expect in OTR.  But as I said, anyone who is interested in seeing what is really going on with the area, let me know, I will give a tour.

Amid turmoil, hope grows

Apartments reborn through renter's equity

Cincinnati Business Courier - April 14, 2006by Dan MonkSenior Staff Reporter

 

A rosebush grows where a crackhouse once sat in Over-the-Rhine. Larry Williams is seeing to the plant's development, now in its second spring, just off the back porch of his one-bedroom apartment at the St. Anthony Village apartment community.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/04/17/story2.html

Sorry, I decided to refrain from any comments about Mary Burke's buildings on E. Clifton and Peete.  The people in St. Anthony Village are great and very involved I just wish all of her tennants were as good.

The new face of OTR

B2B Equities partners work to rehab dozens of buildings

Cincinnati Business Courier - April 21, 2006by Lucy MaySenior Staff Reporter

 

Scaffolding and construction fences have replaced the street-corner drug dealing that once was visible from 12th and Vine streets. And the redevelopment of two buildings at 1133 and 1135 Vine St. on the southern edge of Over-the-Rhine is just the beginning.

 

If Cincinnati City Council approves a $2.4 million funding request in the coming weeks, B2B Equities and Rick Kimbler's North Point Group will begin renovating a dozen other buildings for the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp., or 3CDC.

Denhart trading rent subsidy for condo rehab

Cincinnati Business Courier - April 21, 2006by Dan Monk

Low-income landlord Tom Denhart is selling off hundreds of rent-subsidized properties in Avondale to finance a new career as an Over-the-Rhine condo developer.

 

"The city is ready to turn the corner," said Denhart, who has raised nearly $2 million since November from the sale of six properties that hold more than 150 apartment units in Avondale. Denhart said he recently retained the real estate brokerage Marcus & Millichap to market other properties comprising more than 400 additional units.

Know Theatre Tribe rocks!  Support the Tribe - I have been to one performance at the old locale (which was cool but achingly small) and look forward to the new venue.  It is directly behind the Art Academy,   parking all over the place including new Gateway (Kroger) gararge.

 

GO GO GO GO GO

A neighborhood guy

Retired Kroger CEO working to help revive his beloved Over-the-Rhine

Cincinnati Business Courier - April 28, 2006by Lucy MaySenior Staff Reporter

 

When he was CEO of Kroger, Joe Pichler's skyscraper view of Over-the-Rhine reminded him of Prague, with its rooftops, church spires and old-world charm.

 

What he heard from Kroger's Vine Street headquarters was a different story.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/05/01/story2.html?page=1

Uncle Rando, what if builders and architects a century or two ago had said, "well, we need to be really modern and contemporary and make sure we don't do anything that replicates the past?"  We wouldn't have had gothic revival (Music Hall), Renaissance Revival (SCPA and Germania), Second French Empire, Queen Anne, Italianate, Greek Revival, etc. etc.  All of those styles look to the past for their inspiration, without slavishly imitating it.  This whole modern obsession with going for stuff that's totally new, with lots of shock value, is kinda scary to me....especially when 90% of passerby walk by and say "wow, that's a really ugly building"  (and I hate to say it, David, but you're one of only 5% or 10% of people I've heard that actually LIKES Gateway...I do agree with you though that it was an important development as a stimulant of investment)

 

I don't think anyone wants a homogeneous looking city...the existing architecture of OTR is anything but homogeneous, which is one of the things that makes it so great.  Take a look around, every block has different styles, scales, materials, colors, features, etc.

I'm not a big fan of Gateway either, but I'd live there for now. Those units are going to skyrocket in the next 2-3 years compared to now.

I always find this debate interesting that we argue over what sort of new construction should and should not be allowed in OTR when the only new const. I can even think of currently in the borders of OTR is Gateway and Conroy (John Walter's).  We should welcome new development and that includes new designs.  The new only accentuates the old, it makes it stand out due to the contrast it provides, otherwise your 1865 building is just another building in a row of other 1865 buildings.  Be mindful of the past but not at the expense of the future, we need new development and placing restrictions on develpers is not the way to get it because otherwise it is just easier to build somewhere else. 

 

^ very well said

The economic argument is a good point...and I think you're right that now is not the time to be placing more restrictions on developers, when its already very difficult to get a return doing development in OTR.  But as time passes, and land values go up, infill and new construction will happen, and it will be increasingly possible to regulate design without hampering a developer's profit.  It might be 10 years from now, but it'll happen.  Shouldn't we be learning from what's going on now (Gateway, SCPA, developments on Mulberry) and planning for what needs to be changed?

 

Any designer will tell you that the new doesn't NECESSARILY accentuate the old.  It CAN, but if it's poor design it doesn't.  There are no guarantees.  My point is simply that, in a district as historic and important as OTR, at some point we are going to need some sort of mechanism to ensure good quality design that does accentuate the old.  Whether its traditional or contemporary, it needs to be good. 

good quality design

this is the most important thing in any community, OTR or Mason. I agree that freedom of design without some restraint is a dangerous road. However if you are a developer and you are considering Mulberry Street for new const dev. and you are faced with having to deal with Historic vs say Dorsey or somewhere that doesn't have the same restrictions but are in the same general area with the same general ammenities ie. views, or proximity to venues, which do you choose?

My point is that we should make it as inviting a place as possible to developers, investors, and future home owners. We already offer incentives to the purchasers, but developers and builders are faced with a long line of red tape when they try and do something in the inner city.

Let us let the market decide, instead of a historical board. Developers do not want to build something that the market does not want and if the market wants a building that is historically correct, then thats what will be built. 

Personal rant before article: 

I would love to see this business venture go down in flames!  I dont understand why people continue to think that it is a better business move to be in Newport than Cincinnati.  There is a reason Fat Fish Blue, IMAX, and others have failed/are failing.  Revenues are not what officials originally thought they would be for the businesses on the levee.  Not too mention if its soooo desireable then why has the area surrounding the levee continued to sit as a giant pile of crap?!!?!?  I drove through downtown Cincy yesterday and businesses were busy and people were everywhere...I then drove through Newport and the Haufbrauhaus looked empty and the levee looked like a ghosttown.

 

Lets not have everyone turn into the Massionette here, where they say that the city sucks and that they are being forced to leave due to a bad business climate.  When it is really that they offer a lack luster product to the consumer.  If your business product is bad then so will your profits...DONT TRASH THE NATI!!!  Rework you business strategy before you go out and start slinging poop all over those who had supported you for so long.

 

OTR's Jefferson Hall moving to Newport

Cincinnati Business Courier - 2:43 PM EDT Monday

 

Jefferson Hall, the live music venue that features local and regional artists, will be moving its operations from Over-the-Rhine to Newport on the Levee, according to an announcement released Monday.

 

The Jefferson Hall nighclub has been based in Over-the-Rhine for the past 10 years and has been a fixture of the Main Street entertainment scene there.

uncleRando,

 

I agree with what you are saying about Newport.  That being said, I thank Tony for sticking in for as long as he did, 10 years, anyone care to recap what his business and our community has been through in the past 10 years.  Do I wish they would stay? sure, but I wish Tony the best.

UncleRando, that is already posted in the Restaurants... section and would also be appropriate for the Main St. thread.  Let's keep this thread about construction projects only.

Well hopefully this will be a step in the right direction.

 

Friday, May 12th at 5:30, Pauline Van Der Haar, the OTR Chamber and myself will be hosting a meeting of Mt. Auburn and OTR developers in order share thoughts, resources, develpment progress and plans with one another to help achieve a common goal, the continued develpment of our community.

^ all the success in the world to you  (I know - I still need to post those pix from the clean-up)

Well hopefully this will be a step in the right direction.

 

Friday, May 12th at 5:30, Pauline Van Der Haar, the OTR Chamber and myself will be hosting a meeting of Mt. Auburn and OTR developers in order share thoughts, resources, develpment progress and plans with one another to help achieve a common goal, the continued develpment of our community.

 

Michael, is this open to the public, and if so, where is it going to be held?

It will be held at the OTR Chamber (which is above the Herman Miller Store).  This meeting is hopefully the first of many to come so that developers will be able to share their plans with one another and to help new investors and even small, first timers to sit down and learn from others how to get started. 

 

Will it be advertised as an open meeting? No

Are you invited? yes

 

One of the goals that we have for this first meeting is for each to share the progress of his/her developments.  We need to establish an environment not of competition, but of mutual support towards what has been a very elusive goal, the redevelopment of OTR and Mt. Auburn.  Fortunately Brian Tiffany has many of the contacts through his time at CDF as well as my and Pauline's contacts to make this a very inclusive first meeting.

 

Another goal is to discuss how we can better work together in both advertising the area (this is where the Chamber comes in) and if we can map out areas and do more logical, cohesive development in the future.  Lets face it, Hohlbein needs to know what Gorman is doing, Gorman needs to know what Van Der Haar is doing, and we all need to know what 3CDC is doing.  Realtors need to know the same, if I can stand on Mulberry and push one project while giving insight into other upcoming projects, it paints a grand picture of overwhelming redevelopment of an area.

 

And finally, you never know what may come out of introducing two or more people with a common intrest.  Perhaps joint ventures on larger scale projects, perhaps a new investor is given the confidence by sitting in on a meeting like this to go ahead and fund a project, who knows.  The bottom line is that this meeting needs to happen and on May 12, 5:30 at the OTR Chamber Office, it will.

My point is that we should make it as inviting a place as possible to developers, investors, and future home owners.  We already offer incentives to the purchasers, but developers and builders are faced with a long line of red tape when they try and do something in the inner city.

Agreed.  This is crucial in order to stimulate development.

Let us let the market decide, instead of a historical board.  Developers do not want to build something that the market does not want and if the market wants a building that is historically correct, then thats what will be built.

 

Don't agree here.  Let's not forget that free market capitalism is what got OTR into this whole mess in the first place.  And let's not forget that without the historic conservation board, all the demolition permits filed since 1993 (and there have been a LOT) by owners wanting to raze their buildings for surface parking would have been approved unconditionally.

The free market alone is notoriously bad at creating the types of cities and communities we want.  Although theoretically the market should guide new construction and ensure that it is of high quality, this does not happen in practice.  A developer can go for mediocre design, knowing that it will still sell because of proximity to downtown and other amenities.  Meanwhile, the externality imposed on other abutting structures by the inferior design is not taken into account.  Some sort of regulatory mechanism is needed to ensure that the "character" of OTR is maintained and that property values are thus maximized.

 

That being said, I totally agree that now is not the time.  Development is difficult enough.  I am only saying that some planning is needed for when land values reach a level where additional architectural fees and design review can be handled easily by developers.  Otherwise we WILL fail to fully capitalize on OTR -- just look at Gateway, Brackett Village, and the new homes on Mulberry.

 

Friday, May 12th at 5:30, Pauline Van Der Haar, the OTR Chamber and myself will be hosting a meeting of Mt. Auburn and OTR developers in order share thoughts, resources, develpment progress and plans with one another to help achieve a common goal, the continued develpment of our community.

This is a great idea.  How are you publicizing it?  You should write something up for iRhine.  I can talk to Dyah/Ran and get something posted, if you're interested.

Let us let the market decide, instead of a historical board.  Developers do not want to build something that the market does not want and if the market wants a building that is historically correct, then thats what will be built. 

 

My god, what a nightmare that would be.  Unfettered demolition, renovation, and new construction would gut OTR.  In just a few years, it would be a smattering of buildings surrounded by parking lots, like ducks floating on a pond. 

 

The problem is that a market is only as good as the information possessed by its participants.  In this case, developer and outsider (e.g., potential purchasers) biases against low-income housing, walking half a block or a block from their parking space, etc. would result in suburban type development.  They would make development and purchasing decisions based on their suburban paradigms, without having the chance to live in a real city environment that would likely change their perceptions.  I view historical boards as a valuable counterbalance to this effect.

 

The problem isn't the boards it has always been effective decision makers.

Just a couple of little notes here:

 

Mercy Housing is currently renovating 124 E Thirteenth St into affordable rental units.

(124 E Thirteenth is the one behind the street lamp)

 

They're doing the same at 1300 Main St.  Sorry, no photo.

 

Greg Badger is rehabbing 1408 Elm St.  He's the same guy doing that project on Elder near Findlay Market that got stuck in a rut.

(1408 Elm is the tall one in the middle)

 

Also, something might be happening at the white building at Broadway and Twelfth.  It and the adjacent lot were purchased about a month ago.

 

Dglen and Kendall,

Let me begin by saying that I believe you and I are in agreement that at some point down the road we could and should be picky about what sort of development goes into OTR, but now is not the time.

 

But these three quotes I have some disagreement with...

 

Let's not forget that free market capitalism is what got OTR into this whole mess in the first place.

 

A developer can go for mediocre design, knowing that it will still sell because of proximity to downtown and other amenities.

 

My god, what a nightmare that would be. Unfettered demolition, renovation, and new construction would gut OTR. In just a few years, it would be a smattering of buildings surrounded by parking lots, like ducks floating on a pond.

 

 

First, I am not sure how you are defining "mess" that OTR is currently is in. It had nothing to do with free market capitalism, it had to do with government intervention which encouraged subsidised housing (which in and of itself is not all bad) with stipulations such as lowered ceiling heights and gave incentives to chop housing into as many units as possible without regard to the historical contents of the building. It spawned an investor class that was driven not by quality of design or even maintenance of historical structures, but by the promise of $850 per month per unit by an entity that would not fail to pay its rent, the federal government-Not free market capitalism.

 

Second, you would think people are beating down the doors to buy in OTR. Build anything and they will come? Not exactly. The biggest risk takers are OTR developers, even with quality product it is a risky proposition. Put restrictions on top of that and what do you get? Doug Spitz on Boal, historic? did it help the area? yes! Pauline Van Der Haar on Dorsey, historic? did it help the area? yes! Gateway, historic? did it help the area? I would be willing to bet on it. John Walter on Conroy, historic? did it help the area? yes. Are all of these eye sores that we try and ignore? No, it is what helps us sell homes in close proximity that will be rehabbed and saved. Dorsey Muse helped me sell 120 Dorsey across the street that is currently under rehab, $500,000 homes in close proximity gave the Nunn's the confidence to delve into their first rehab. The new const. on Conroy is what helped push the redevelopment of lower Klotter and helped establish a price point that made it reasonable to sink some money into rehabs all up and down that street.

 

Third, I just sat in on a meeting last week with two developers that are planning a joint venture on Peete. We discussed surface lots for parking on 5 lots that were torn down by the city because of neglect over the past 10 years. As a matter of a fact one of the developers is saving 67 Peete (notice the tarp on top and if you look closely you can see a crack that is wide enough to fit a small child through)

no one cries about the buildings that are being torn down now because of neglect. No one came on these boards and complained about Crawfords building on Peete that was torn down last week that was is such terrible shape it posed a danger to the surrounding buildings. No one is complaining about the 55 buildings lost on Mulberry alone since 1980, not because of new construction (they only demolished a garage for them) but because of neglect and disrepair. Everyone cried about new construction on the city lots at the top of Hughes, the Foundation said that they would fight any modern design tooth and nail, and guess what, they won, no new const. and anyone care to take a look at the teardowns on Hughes within the past year because of this? Neglect has killed OTR and fear will continue its demise.

 

Unfettered demolition and renovation? Take a look at my house where during the 80's no building codes were enforced and they placed a bathroom on an exterior deck, anyone complain? Take a look at the two houses that were next to mine on the East side that were demolished not to build new, but because he didn't want the cost to maintain them, anyone complain? New const and new design is not the enemy of OTR and if you want to point toward bleak possibilities, you simply have to look in the past. The status quo is no longer an option.

 

Surely the creative class is not adverse to a little creativity.

^Yeah, what he said!

sorry, was that a bit lengthy? Waaay to much caffeine today.

 

Correction

I was wrong about the developer meeting, it is on Friday the 19th at 5:30 at the Chamber.

Let me begin by saying that I believe you and I are in agreement that at some point down the road we could and should be picky about what sort of development goes into OTR, but now is not the time.

cool, thanks for compromising

 

you would think people are beating down the doors to buy in OTR.  Build anything and they will come?  Not exactly.  The biggest risk takers are OTR developers, even with quality product it is a risky proposition.

agreed, I didn't mean to sound like it was an easy proposition

 

no one cries about the buildings that are being torn down now because of neglect.  No one came on these boards and complained about Crawfords building on Peete that was torn down last week that was is such terrible shape it posed a danger to the surrounding buildings.  No one is complaining about the 55 buildings lost on Mulberry alone since 1980, not because of new construction (they only demolished a garage for them) but because of neglect and disrepair....Neglect has killed OTR and fear will continue its demise.

Couldn't agree with you more.  Demolition by neglect is killing OTR, causing way more damage than insensitive new construction might.  It deserves much more attention.  This is one reason the National Trust just named OTR an 11 most endangered place.

 

I am not sure how you are defining "mess" that OTR is currently is in.  It had nothing to do with free market capitalism, it had to do with government intervention which encouraged subsidised housing

Disagree here.  People forget that the subsidized housing began in the 60's-70's.  The neighborhood had already undergone a long and protracted decline by then.  The economic base of the community began eroding after the turn of the century with suburbanization, and by the 40's the population had been cut in half.  Working class and poor appalachians, as you know, became the dominant demographic in the neighborhood.  The glut of subsidized housing did not occur until later, and though you're right that it did have a negative effect, it was more of the nail in the coffin.  OTR had been going downhill for years, and it was due largely to free market capitalism.

 

 

 

 

I do believe that we ultimatly will have to agree to disagree on the last point.  The only rise in population between 1900 and 1960 occured in the 40's, but that is neither here nor there.  You and I may differ in our views of what a sucessful OTR is.  I do not necessarily define it by density of population, but by OTR simply being a safe, clean and economically vibrant community that presents itself as a choice for people to live, work, or play and not as a last resort.  50,000 people living here because they have to vs. 20,000 people living here because they want to-I choose the latter. 

Also to the point of density, I am currently working on several projects that are taking buildings that once held up to 19 units of low income apartments (that have been vacant for years) and turning them into 3 and 4 units of market rate housing/condos.  Net loss of 15-16 units per building you may say (although they have been vacant) or a gain of home ownership that is hovering around 4% in OTR.  Bottom line, would you say OTR is heading in an upward or downward direction now?  Personally I would say up, way up, yet you will see more losses in population before you see a rise.  You and I probably have the same outcome in mind for OTR, however I do believe our equations on getting there may differ.

^Agreed!  I too believe that a population of 20-30,000 would be just fine for OTR because of your conversion example.  However, I would hope that the lesser population wouldnt be a result of bldg demolition to make way for lame parks and gateways.  On the other hand you mentioned that you would see population losses before gains?  How can that be when the current population hovers around 6-7,000.  This was once a community of tens of thousands but now is not.  So I would think that with a few major projects you could see a gain relatively easily.

I personally can't forsee an OTR population of more than 12 to 15k without serious differences to land use and transportation in the region. Most of that has to do with the nature of rehabbed housing in OTR that MR mentions above. I haven't done anything remotely like a rigorous examination of this, but my hunch is that 20k is the best possible scenario. That's still a helluva lot compared to present circumstances, and would represent a remarkable achievement.

 

You have to consider that just as Cincinnati's population loss was due mainly to shrinking household size until the 1970 or 80? census (IIRC), so too has most of OTR's population loss had to with shrinking household size. And it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I feel like everyone looks to the number 50,000 without considering what's behind that statistic. Folks are awestruck by it -- "wow, wouldn't it be great to have 50k there now?"

 

The answer is no. It would be unacceptable and offensive to our modern sensibilities. Those buildings can't accomodate that sort of density and at the same time be appealing to anyone with housing choice. Not to mention that if richer people move in, they'll bring with them more cars, which for better or worse, and I think worse, will have to be accomodated.

Unfortunately parking garages are very expensive and if there was a big demand for parking space, many of those buildings would disappear with nothing left but a paved surface and Kenwood Towing waiting on you to accidentally put your money in the meter to the right.

Courtesy of WCET.org, here's a May 10th video interview with Joe Pichler, the former Kroger CEO who's now heading 3CDC's current and future efforts in OTR:

http://www.cetconnect.org/cetconnect_video.asp?ID=314&V=1

 

Let me give you an example of temporary population loss, surface lot parking without demolition, and a return of a building to its original historic state.

101,105 Peete St and 100 E. Clifton. The building will be delivered to us vacant on the closing date. 5 adjacent lots are sitting there now with nothing but weeds and garbage, these 5 lots and 1 other vacant lot on E. Clifton will give us 19 spaces for parking for that building. The building, although occupied is in horrible condition with a mismatch of Windows and in a general state of disrepair.

We will lose 16 people in the short run, regain 16 more in the long run and the building will be completely redone, parking will be added with no demolition, everyone is happy.

 

Beyond that, new construction design downtown has parking as part of the lower level of the home, not next to it. Building a garage is expensive (unless part of the foundation) but to aquire adjacent land, demo, and then build a garage, that is cost prohibitive.

 

Another example is 72 E. Clifton A,B, and C. Once was 9 apt, now 3 condos, all with garages that are on adjacent vacant land, no demo. All new construction designs we are considering are on contiguous, vacant lots and the garages are built into the foundation. No Demo.

 

30 sites proposed by the HBA at the top of Hughes (now dead) was all new const, all with garages, no Demo.

 

It can, and is being done. To say that OTR can not move forward with new const. or even rehabbs (they require parking to) without mass demo is not true.

Mt. Adams has a high occupancy rate (i'm assuming) and it's still really dense...but it is damn near impossible to find a parking spot up there...it's always a tight squeeze. A lot of those houses have first floor garages too.

>The free market alone is notoriously bad at creating the types of cities and communities we want.

 

Well, the free market created nearly all cities, as in semi-educated people like Israel Ludlow were the original land speculators and surveyors of the entire interior United States, the street grid and original lot sizes of downtown and OTR were all about getting it done as fast as possible, with as little litigation as possible.  The ridiculous layouts of today's suburban subdivisions and pie-shaped lots were made possible only with more precise surveying tools.  Previously the precise acerage and precise position of property lines could not be quickly or decisively determined, thus things were done as simply as possible.   

 

So my point is that what people have come to recognize as good urban design, as in the dense European city with apartments above shops, was achieved mostly by ignorant people of the previous two millenia reacting immediately to immediate stimuli and an economic system that hovered only a hair above trade and bartering.  We have in the United States these grids all over the place, which means there was a "plan" of some kind in place from the beginning, although those plans, with the exception of Washington, DC and a few othes, were made by semi-educated or completely ignorant surveyors, people who spent their young adulthoods on the frontier, chopping wood and killing bears, not sitting in coffee shops reading theory.  Today's planners have just plain failed to consistantly create what people like about the classic buildings and places despite their supposed wisdom, and to a large extent, what today's intellectual elite admire about eccentric streetscapes is the visible end-product of ignorance. 

 

As for Jefferson Hall, who gives.  That place was lame. 

     

 

^And I read somewhere (don't remember where) that one of the reasons Cincinnati became what it became, rather than Marietta, was because in Marietta the plots were far more controlled, they tried to sell plots of land in order, etc., and it just couldn't grow like Cincinnati could...

Though without a reference for that, definitely treat it as speculation!  Wish I could remember where I read that...

^No, actually a big reason why the grids were so popular was that someone on the east coast could buy a lot of a standard size site unseen, and I believe Marietta was not surveyed according to its original instructions which probably scared off some investors.  But the larger issue was that Ft. Washington was built at Cincinnati and there were a lot of other things early on, like the shorter walk (yes, WALK) back from New Orleans.   

like the shorter walk (yes, WALK) back from New Orleans.   

 

Ouch.

Looking on google earth at Rome and Cairo the buildings look really old yet the layout looks really complex. It's not a bunch of squares, the buildings have narrow roads that often connect with evenly spaced 5 point intersections. It looks really cool.

Wasn't really sure where to put this, but it seems to fit here.

 

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/05/22/story3.html

Over-the-Rhine is his canvas

Bill Baum has made art form out of rehabbing in troubled area

Cincinnati Business Courier - May 19, 2006by Lucy MaySenior Staff Reporter

 

Bill Baum has a hard time putting into words what has kept him in Over-the-Rhine all these years when so many others have tried and failed.

 

He started redeveloping rundown, historic buildings there with brownstones on Main Street in 1983. He did another building, then another. There were lots of apartments. More recently, the condos.

Controversy Brews Over Plans To Move OTR Halfway House

Reported by: Tom McKee

Web produced by: Neil Relyea

 

 

Plans to possibly move an Over-the-Rhine halfway-house are coming under fire.

 

That's because the facility could be located in Queensgate and many of its clients are sex offenders, including some from other parts of Ohio.

 

The Pogue rehabilitation center is run by the Volunteers of America.

 

A letter was drafted to explore expansion options immediately west of downtown Cincinnati.

The Pogue Center is hard to even notice if you drive or walk by, but it probably has a detrimental effect on the property values.  In fact, just last week a relative of mine was doing the Sexual predator search on the internet and called me to warn me that there were dozens of dangerous men living within a mile of me.  90% of them were at that address.

What's wrong with moving it to the Queensgate area? Granted, I don't like the idea of the whole State using it as a place to dump all predators, we already know there really aren't any residents in this area.