I didn't quote you in my reply, nor did I mention your name, so I didn't respond to your post. I responded in generalization, especially to Weedrose's comment.

 

"Could we please simply discuss projects, instead of vilifying certain demographics ad nauseam?"

 

Seriously Blue Line, are you calling me racist and classist now? Please, I have my opinions and interests. I'd be interested in what you think I am "vicious" about. If you can't back up your statement, can you please remove it or at least stick to what I actually said?

Well, there's the problem right there.  You only used a directive after two of my posts, not even addressing Weedrose.  His/her post was six messages back.  Simply address the person, rather than saying "you", and my response would have never existed.

 

Case closed.

 

I'm sure you're aware that you and I have very different views on social services.  However, I think my view actually was in accordance with your view, in terms of the location or deconcentration of social services.  That's the confusing part for me.

 

Also, I never called you a racist.  I mentioned demographics.  I did not equate demographics with race at all.  In fact, I actually named the types of people to which I was referring (poor, the mentally challenged/deranged/unfit/whatever, rehabilitated drug addicts).  I agree with you on a few things, but I don't feel that you're even seeing that.

Enquirer's take on the situation.

 

Another half-way house full of opposition

By Sharon Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, December 6, 2009

 

Two companies are seeking to open halfway houses for federal prisoners in Cincinnati neighborhoods - one on Elm Street in Over-the-Rhine just blocks from Music Hall and the new School for Creative and Performing Arts, igniting a firestorm of opposition.

 

The other potential location: 1885 Queen City Ave., in South Fairmount.

 

--

 

"He said the inmates don't pose a danger to the community."

 

Sure about that? One of the companies seeking to build a felon-release center is Bannum -- an out-of-state company. "A Bannum-run halfway house came under scrutiny in 2005 after a shooting inside the facility..."

 

What about the Cincinnati 'Success' for Life Center on McMicken? A resident that was declared clean and safe was released and then he killed a 13-year-old girl a few days later.

 

I don't feel it is approperiate to put murders, rapists and chronic drug abusers (the out-of-state companies emphasize just the last bit) in an area over-saturated with social service agencies, blocks from a high-profile school, and in an area where the crime rate is pretty high.

 

Let the Talbert House continue its mission -- it made its statement clear in the article that it is a locally managed company with a clean track record, who understands that the over-concentration of social service agencies in one location is a bad thing.

 

Key: "If there is a lower bid, they will take it. In this environment the government looks at what is the lowest and the best."

 

Government doesn't care about quality, only cost.

Please try to keep in mind the bigger picture here everyone, which is that the historic basin bears the burden of social services for the entire county, when ironically it is also the richest cultural asset. I know everyone agrees in principal that this isn't the ideal situation.

 

Every time this topic comes up, people indulge in sword-rattling for their side of the issue, then quickly back off in subsequent posts and play the semantics game, with the favorite line being "you misinterpreted what I said." Then everyone gets to wade through 12 posts of it.

 

 

 

 

We need to avoid straw men when discussing this issue and re-direct to our main points.  My core belief is that locating social service agencies anywhere in the city is not a problem, given the right space and proper consideration of the community that will be affected, needs.  With emphasis on consideration of a community's needs.  I feel that re-entry programs need to be managed extremely carefully and require a high level of scrutiny, for example, sex offenders near schools are an issue.  I feel that ex-offenders once released and especially, after undergoing treatment need to be given the right shot otherwise recidivism issues are likely to rise, that's been my experience from working with a few.

 

On the merits of the project, this doesn't seem to have been particularly thought out, I definitely feel like project ownership needs to provide more details for this project in order to get the community's support, otherwise I personally feel that this project deserves to die.

3 OTR projects win Ohio tax credits

 

Three projects valued at more than $38 million in Over-the-Rhine's Gateway Quarter have landed roughly $7 million in tax credits from the state.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091210/BIZ01/912110359/3+OTR+projects+win+Ohio+tax+credits

 

 

Vine Street rehab projects win historic tax credits

Business Courier of Cincinnati

 

Three Over-the-Rhine sites have won Ohio Historic Preservation tax credits, Gov. Ted Strickland and State Sen. Eric Kearney announced Thursday.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/12/07/daily55.html

 

FYI the projects are Mercer Commons, Germania Hall, and the Cincinnati Color Building.

I heard that Terry from Terry's Turf Club is selling his business, but the restaurant/bar will continue as normal. Also, I believe Senate is one of his endeavors.

Terry is not selling TTC, he is expanding it. I do not believe he has any involvement whatsoever in Senate.

 

What happens to the current sales center?

It will be leased out for retail.

That's sweet, though I wish that they would reconsider the parking garage.

What's wrong with the parking garage?

its going to be dead to the street.  no commercial uses along the first floor.  it better look amazing. 

Isn't a parking garage better than a parking lot?  It will be harder to sell or rent places with parking.

its going to be dead to the street. no commercial uses along the first floor. it better look amazing.

 

From what I can tell there will be retail fronting Vine: http://www.3cdc.org/about/archive/Over-the-Rhine/OTR_OTRWorkGroup_OTRWorkGroup.pdf

 

page 12

 

Yeah man, I don't think these developers are so unsophisticated that they wouldn't know how to activate Vine Street. Good idea to make sure you're familiar with the whole plan before you criticize! The 3CDC site plans are pretty easy to find.

 

Now the back of the Southshore Tower...THAT is something to criticize.

^There needs to be a new social services moratorium OTR. I don't care how unfair, unconstitutional or politically incorrect that is. Put this sh!t in Queensgate.

 

Amen!  If the residents of Hyde Park can keep this stuff out, so should OTR.  Fight on.

its going to be dead to the street.  no commercial uses along the first floor.  it better look amazing. 

 

From what I can tell there will be retail fronting Vine: http://www.3cdc.org/about/archive/Over-the-Rhine/OTR_OTRWorkGroup_OTRWorkGroup.pdf

 

page 12

 

 

yea it looks that way.  youre right.  when I asked about it to the Gateway Quarter commercial sales reps., they told me there would be no retail at street level in the garage.  hope they were wrong and that pdf is right. 

What's wrong with the parking garage?

 

A garage is certainly better than lots.  I just hope (because I have no idea) that once we get the streetcar established that there is some plan to slowly take some of those lots offline and build on them.  That's all I'm concerned about.

Terry is not selling TTC, he is expanding it.

 

That's not what I heard from one of his assistants.  Personal reasons I won't mention here, and a need to sell soon.

I have heard just the opposite but we will see. I also heard from very credible sources that he was reopening NEONS and the person swore up and down to me that Terry was back and well.... so who knows.

Weird.  So, would that impact Neon's Unplugged, in terms of naming...or should we just wait for various stories to unravel, so we know for sure what he's doing?

Weird. So, would that impact Neon's Unplugged, in terms of naming...or should we just wait for various stories to unravel, so we know for sure what he's doing?

 

I demand more rampant speculation!

As I was writing that it made sense to me but reading back I guess I left that open for too much interpretation. My point was that I have heard many rumors told to me about Terry in the past by those who are adamant about their facts yet prove to be wrong. He is a hard guy to pin down as to what his next move will be. I could certainly be wrong. I got my information from a long time friend and neon supplier of Terry.

 

So, would that impact Neon's Unplugged, in terms of naming

NEONS, NEONS Bar, Tavern, NEONS on 12th, NEONS Unplugged and all permutations thereof are solely owned by NEONS Unplugged LLC. No rampant speculation necessary.

 

Back to the Quarter....

The sales team has already surpassed their sales for last year both in numbers and dollar volume.

Well, thank you for the insight nonetheless.  I do appreciate it.

 

Go Q.

What's wrong with the parking garage?

 

A garage is certainly better than lots. I just hope (because I have no idea) that once we get the streetcar established that there is some plan to slowly take some of those lots offline and build on them. That's all I'm concerned about.

 

That all depends on how lending institutions view the streetcar. In cities with LRT or better, they usually view new development within a certain radius of a stop as "transit oriented" and will lend to projects with lower parking ratios. That usually leads to things getting built on parking lots.

We don't have streetcars, so for at least the next few years, we have to develop with the mentality that streetcars will not be a reality.

^What does that mean? If they line up the funding, then it would be imprudent to NOT anticipate a streetcar.

Updated the Gateway Quarter article with information on the tax credits and added new building information. Look for new photos and much more information this weekend:

http://urbanup.net/index.php?catid=391

Can't wait for Senate to open...

 

Trinity Flats progressing...

 

 

Building at the northwest corner of 14th & Vine:

 

New signs in the Gateway Quarter:

^metronation started the sign convention.  I like it.

Wow. So improved it's almost creepy.

The new streetlights are too bright.  They need to get dimmer bulbs and light the exterior of the buildings. 

 

 

That was also said to be the problem when the lights were first installed on Main.  The city dialed them down and now we are stuck with too dim of lights and nothing we can do to light up Main.  I believe the lights are great.

Yeah, I liked my parents reaction on Vine versus Main:

 

"Did Main Street die? I can't see anything at night!"

 

That's kind of my reaction in a sense. I have trouble seeing down Main Street -- it's too dark, and there are not enough buildings lit and there is really only one exterior signage to speak off -- Mr. Pitiful's, that gives off any warm ambiance. When you are bringing people from the suburbs or who are new, I think we all know what street they will prefer, based almost solely on the lumens.

soon you will be able to bask in the warm glow of NEON on Main and all will be good again, but we had better keep Vine the way it is... bright.

It's the one (affordable) thing I'm looking forward to!

That was also said to be the problem when the lights were first installed on Main. The city dialed them down and now we are stuck with too dim of lights and nothing we can do to light up Main. I believe the lights are great.

I think they are too bright.  The glare is so strong you only see the bulbs, not the buildings or the people.  The problem is that they use a "historic" looking globe but put a thousand watt bulb in it.  The better option, IMO would be a "full cutoff" fixture that fully illuminates the area but doesn't have so much glare.  It would not look so historic during the day, but that is a tradeoff.  I really think they need to reconsider the light fixture style before they extend this to other streets.  I really don't want those on my street.  I wouldn't be able to look out my windows at night without getting blinded.

 

 

I agree that the lights are bright... being there is one right outside my kitchen window, but I believe they serve a more important purpose than blinding me.  I say keep the lighting level where it is as I've already gotten used to it.

I agree that the lights are bright... being there is one right outside my kitchen window, but I believe they serve a more important purpose than blinding me. I say keep the lighting level where it is as I've already gotten used to it.

 

But what do you know? How long have you been studying urban issues? Can someone create a poll question about this? We can't just let residents have whatever they like without a more comprehensive study

The lights are *way* too bright.

I am sure that the city could dial them down to Main Street levels if enough people ask and you will get Main Street results, but hey, lets complain.

All this talk about the lights is making me want to drive down right now to judge for myself.

 

Anyone have photos?

Jesus H. Christ ... and to think "we" thought OTR was a lost cause, now we're bitching about how bright the streetlights are ... this is a sign of the times.

People will complain about lights as they did on Main. They will complain about trees as they did on Mulberry. They will complain about progress in general as they did in the early days of 3CDC. Everyone has their different visions of the way they want to see other people's properties and projects go, but in the end, it is undeniably progress.   So I say remove the lights, dig up the power lines, chop down the trees and lets see if we can manage to get a consensus on the way that the Q should be done. Shouldn't take long I would imagine. 

 

I think the lights are great the way they are, and I say this as someone who was first shocked when they were turned on and began streaming into my bedroom window at night. Now, however, they don't bother me at all, and it makes the street look so pretty at night...

People will complain about lights as they did on Main.  They will complain about trees as they did on Mulberry.  They will complain about progress in general as they did in the early days of 3CDC.  Everyone has their different visions of the way they want to see other people's properties and projects go, but in the end, it is undeniably progress.   So I say remove the lights, dig up the power lines, chop down the trees and lets see if we can manage to get a consensus on the way that the Q should be done.  Shouldn't take long I would imagine. 

 

Don't over react or anything Mike, jeesh.  I agree that the new lights illuminate the sidewalk very well.  Unfortunately because of the globe design, they also light up the buildings, bedroom windows and the night sky too.  Bright lights should be shielded or they will create glare.  Exposed bulbs are beautiful when they are low wattage bulbs such as decorative holiday lights, or gaslights, or even neon, but high wattage bulbs directly exposed to the eye produce glare, which is unpleasant and does not increase safety.

It helps to sleep with eye covers or a shirt over your head.  It keeps bright lights from illuminating your eyelids which keeps you awake lol.

I agree that the lights are bright... being there is one right outside my kitchen window, but I believe they serve a more important purpose than blinding me. I say keep the lighting level where it is as I've already gotten used to it.

 

But what do you know? How long have you been studying urban issues? Can someone create a poll question about this? We can't just let residents have whatever they like without a more comprehensive study

 

I'm not saying I know anything about urban planning but I'm sure there are people on UO and 3CDC that do...  I'm just adding my two sense into the conversation.  Two sense -> Bright lights seem to reduce loitering and sketchiness in general (as compared to other areas of OTR).  That can't be a bad thing, right?

I think the lights are fine the way they are.  It gives the Gateway Quarter a much different atmosphere than the rest of Vine Street which has yet to be streetscaped.  To people who have no first-hand experience in the neighborhood, the atmosphere they will perceive is "safe and well-lit."  Once OTR loses some of the negative reputation many area people currently hold, then we can debate streetlight brightness levels.

I think the lights are fine the way they are.  It gives the Gateway Quarter a much different atmosphere than the rest of Vine Street which has yet to be streetscaped.  To people who have no first-hand experience in the neighborhood, the atmosphere they will perceive is "safe and well-lit."  Once OTR loses some of the negative reputation many area people currently hold, then we can debate streetlight brightness levels.

 

^Agree Completely

I agree that the lights are bright... being there is one right outside my kitchen window, but I believe they serve a more important purpose than blinding me. I say keep the lighting level where it is as I've already gotten used to it.

 

But what do you know? How long have you been studying urban issues? Can someone create a poll question about this? We can't just let residents have whatever they like without a more comprehensive study

 

I'm not saying I know anything about urban planning but I'm sure there are people on UO and 3CDC that do... I'm just adding my two sense into the conversation. Two sense -> Bright lights seem to reduce loitering and sketchiness in general (as compared to other areas of OTR). That can't be a bad thing, right?

 

I'm kidding man. My point is that we debate many of these issues without real regard for what the actual residents think. A bunch of forumers say the lights are too bright but the person living there says they're fine. Who should hold more sway?