^That would be really upsetting. I obviously already don't feel that it's right for the neighborhood and catering to the transient worker crowd just heightens this if this turns out to be the case. I'm hoping it does not.

I don't get the whole notion that a Subway isn't a right fit for OTR.  It's a pretty large area with a very economically diverse population, and should be able to support a wide variety of uses.  Would a Subway belong in the middle of the trendy restaurants on Vine street? Obviously no.  But in a pretty isolated part of the neighborhood, with many surface lots and a lack of activity, I think a Subway would actually be a welcome addition.  Having just come back from a NYC trip, I was struck by the mix of uses in many of the neighborhoods I walked through- particularly in the Downtown portions of Manhattan (areas that look incredibly similar to OTR...).  You see chains and independents, all price points, corner stores, etc. all in close proximity to each other.  It creates a vibrant street scene and creates the sense that all are welcome in the neighborhood, which is something that the current Vine Street tenant mix does not achieve.

I think the general attitude is that Subway is not cool, and the food they sell isn't necessarily of the highest quality. That aside (and just my opinion) they also don't seem to have a good sense of design or quality in the build of their stores, which would do absolutely no justice to the historic interiors of the buildings of OTR. In fact, I feel that it would degrade the overall value of a property in OTR, and change its interior in a dramatically negative way.

^This sums up my opinion of Subway in OTR perfectly. Beyond my own personal opinion of its 'coolness' or quality of product, the actual physical built environment of a Subway is just awful. They use faux brick in their typical stores. Does this mean in a building which is actually masonry we'll have furred out stud walls with faux brick all built over top of actual brick? It's things like this that make me question the appropriateness of such a store in a historic neighborhood.

At the very least, it's encouraging that national chains are starting to take another look at OTR.  While Subway, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc. aren't exactly what we're all hoping for, the attention of this type of chain is a sign that the neighborhood has turned a corner.

Agreed.  I tend to fall into the "ok with it" crowd.  I missed it though, is it going into an existing building or is it new construction? 

I think the general attitude is that Subway is not cool, and the food they sell isn't necessarily of the highest quality. That aside (and just my opinion) they also don't seem to have a good sense of design or quality in the build of their stores, which would do absolutely no justice to the historic interiors of the buildings of OTR. In fact, I feel that it would degrade the overall value of a property in OTR, and change its interior in a dramatically negative way.

 

Wait a minute, we're not talking about Subway opening in an historic building. We're talking about them opening on the first floor retail space under a massive parking garage. There is already a Subway on Court Street, and that one is in an historic building. I wonder if they are moving, or if we're going to have two Subways about 3 blocks apart.

 

Cintrifuse's OTR headquarters gets council members' approval

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Cincinnati City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee approved $4.5 million on Monday for the construction of a new Over-the-Rhine headquarters for Cintrifuse, the startup incubator.

 

The 39,906-square-foot headquarters will be located from 1311 to 1315 Vine St., across the street from the Cincinnati City Center Development Corporation’s Mercer Commons apartment and condo project. 3CDC will own and manage the property.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/05/cintrifuses-otr-headquarters-gets.html

One block apart, there is a Subway in the historic Mercantile Building and soon to be one in Carew Tower (moving from Tower Place food court to former Vine St. Tazza Mia).  Also locations in Atrium II, Chiquita Center, URS building...

Subway franchise licenses are extremely cheap, and the operating expenses are next to nothing.  They can be supported on a hundred customers or so per day, easily. There's a reason there are more Subway locations on the planet than any other restaurant. In NYC, for instance, I have noticed a few spots with more than one on the same block.

 

As has been pointed out, OTR's new Subway is going into the bottom of a parking garage, so it's not really breaking up any historic fabric.  Even if a chain did end up going into a storefront on Main or Vine, who cares? I'd imagine the lease wouldn't allow any ugly alterations to the storefront, and would it really be that bad to add a bit of diversity to the neighborhood? Boutiques and expensive restaurants do not make for a livable neighborhood, just a destination - maybe OTR needs some Dunkin Donuts and a FedEx Kinko’s.

^I must've missed that it was going in that garage. I care less now about its existence. I was mostly worried about a Subway in a historic building.

 

With that being said, I don't think anyone was saying there shouldn't be diversity in OTR. It was more a problem with the quality of the Subway chain in particular. There are plenty of national/international chains that offer a cheap product but also have decent fit and finish and would feel find in the neighborhood. Subway just doesn't fit that qualification for many people, myself included. Nothing good comes to mind when I think of Subway stores. But when I think of, say, a Dibella's I think of a place that offers a very similar product but can have decent stores that don't feel immensely cheap and "suburban mall" when you step into them.

Has anyone else noticed the construction in the commercial space of the Hamilton County owned garage on Sycamore? I've been curious since it started over a month ago and finally did some digging - according to cagis it looks as if OTR may be getting its first Subway. I had hoped for something more grand....

 

http://cagis.hamilton-co.org/opal/apd.aspx?entcode=cinc&ezstdadrtag=1123||SYCAMORE|ST||||CINC|CINC|00750004022801123S|007500040228|007500040228|CINCINNATI&APD=2013P03529

 

Nice, that's only a few blocks from my house.  I'll probably be going there often when I'm too lazy to fix my own lunch.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building. 

Just like to say that I missed the part about this going in the bottom of a parking garage. In that case I have far fewer qualms, aside from the whole "uncool" argument, but hey, who am I to define that.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

 

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

>Subway franchise licenses are extremely cheap, and the operating expenses are next to nothing. 

 

The restaurants themselves are very cheap to build out and operate.  There is usually no walk-in fridge at a sub shop or fryers or a significant oven other than the bread oven.  This means they need much less space than a typical restaurant and their energy costs are very low.  Also, there is relatively little to prep in the morning or clean up at the end of the night. 

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

 

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

 

Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation.  In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings.  That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused.  After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway.  Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements.  Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse.  Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside.  It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive.

While we're on the Subway discussion, their new look is an improvement over the traditional booths and bright branded colors:

 

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/new-decor-premieres-in-nwi-subway-restaurants/article_6ce1e4ab-3d2d-5493-a2de-fd26d7a8e5ce.html

 

This is apparently the look of the Subway that is going into Carew Tower.

That is a vast improvement. Still not amazing, but not...cartoonish like the older interiors. I'm glad to see they're modernizing a bit.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

 

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

 

Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation.  In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings.  That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused.  After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway.  Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements.  Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse.  Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside.  It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive.

 

Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic shit than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century.

I'd say read back on some of my posts about U Square and other projects, which make it pretty clear that I am not satisfied with mediocrity or generic shit.  Most of those were lost in the Great UO Crash however.  I also don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on what I said.  How does a restaurant chain leasing space in a historic building water down the neighborhood's fabric?  We're not talking about them building some cheap freestanding building anew, or slapping their large corporate-standard sign on one of those historic buildings, which they couldn't do anyway. 

 

Retail tenancy is all about redoing the interiors to fit the brand, so any space they or Skyline, or Graeters, or Chipotle would occupy has very likely already been goobered up on the inside by the many past tenants.  Certainly those chains are going to put at least a modicum of effort into redoing their interior spaces compared to what you'd get at Smitty's or Alabama Fish Fry.  Even Deveroes on Race Street is pretty nondescript.  Ultimately as long as the building exterior is respected, then the programming of the space inside really doesn't matter.  It can and has changed multiple times in the past anyway, all within the same bones. 

 

Go to any world class city...London, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, and you'll see McDonalds on the priciest main streets, Seven-Eleven on many corners, and any number of cheaper chain businesses.  That's ok, because they're in old buildings just like all the other businesses, and they aren't allowed to run roughshod over the building exterior.  They're also usually pretty well mixed in among everything else, not in some crap hole cheap-ass district where only chain stores are allowed.  They provide cheaper alternatives for when you don't want to shell out $10 for a hot dog, making the neighborhood more affordable for those who aren't quite so wealthy. 

 

Really though, the idea is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and diversity includes chain stores and cheaper places too. 

 

Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic sh!t than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century.

 

Uhhh.... some of the most historic places in america and europe still have mcdonalds and subways in storefronts.  It happens.  Get over it.

 

Also, you realize THIS is the storefront that we're talking about.

 

 

They are moving into an already existing storefront.  Not building some new suburban style drive through.

That's just barely part of OTR - more like part of the court house zone. It's a good spot to catch the county workers on lunch and kids from the school across the street.

Leeper is the man making the new Cincinnati

Aug. 11, 2013 4:13 AM 

Written by Cindi Andrews and Dan Horn

 

 

Steve Leeper arrived in Cincinnati nearly a decade ago as an outsider in a notoriously insular town, hired to be the savior of the city’s urban core.

 

It didn’t help that the Pittsburgh native came in with a Steel City attitude, bluntly pointing out weaknesses in beloved landmarks such as Fountain Square.

 

“People in Cincinnati don’t like to be told how successful some other places are,” said Doug Bolton, managing principal of Cassidy Turley and a longtime local business leader. “To have a Steelers fan come in and tell us that – it was extremely nauseous.”

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130811/BIZ01/308110010/Leeper-man-making-new-Cincinnati?gcheck=1

 

Interactive Timeline:  http://news.cincinnati.com/interactive/article/20130811/CINCI/130809025/Timeline-look-back-3CDC

 

Interactive Map:  http://news.cincinnati.com/interactive/article/20130809/CINCI/130809034/Interactive-map-View-3CDC-projects

Still listening for the downside of this.  I never go to Subway but it certainly has a place in the decision set for most people.  I think we read this as part of an overall rise in demand for choice in the core but outside of the CBD.

New low-income housing project in OTR will go near 3CDC condos, Washington Park

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

One of the criticisms of Over-the-Rhine’s resurgence is that it has focused on bringing upscale, market-rate housing into the neighborhood and done little to better house the low-income people already living there.

 

There have been some steps toward addressing that concern in recent months.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/14/new-low-income-housing-project-in.html

I'm really happy to see this. Mix of incomes, classes, race, whatever is important to a lively neighborhood like OTR. I hope in the future there are more projects that incorporate mixed income into their design like Mercer Commons is doing.

From the article:

 

Over-the-Rhine Community Housing will get 100 percent property tax exemption on improvements to the buildings for 8 years

 

I thought non-profits didn't pay property taxes anyway.

From the article:

 

Over-the-Rhine Community Housing will get 100 percent property tax exemption on improvements to the buildings for 8 years

 

I thought non-profits didn't pay property taxes anyway.

 

They do if they use it for a non-NPO use, such as residential housing. If the property was for their operations, it would be tax free.

I always figured if they were fulfilling their mission with their property that it would be tax free. Interesting.

Ah... that's an interesting point... I hadn't thought of it that way. I may not have a complete grasp of the law.

I suppose I don't have a complete grasp of it either... Anyone want to help us out?  :wtf:

Looked at auditors website. They pay property taxes.

According to 3CDC, in 2012 OTR housing south of liberty was 59% affordable. Personally, I don't think we should be adding ANY more in OTR, Pendleton or the West End.  They are all incredibly over saturated.

According to 3CDC, in 2012 OTR housing south of liberty was 59% affordable. Personally, I don't think we should be adding ANY more in OTR, Pendleton or the West End.  They are all incredibly over saturated.

 

Any neighborhood that has more than about 20% to 25% subsidized housing is not sustainable nor self sufficient. 

 

An argument could be made that a majority of the affordable housing in OTR is poor quality and needs replaced, but the goal should still be to eliminate much of it while improving the quality of the remainder.

According to 3CDC, in 2012 OTR housing south of liberty was 59% affordable. Personally, I don't think we should be adding ANY more in OTR, Pendleton or the West End.  They are all incredibly over saturated.

 

I wonder if that figure is based on occupied units. There are so many vacant buildings that need to be reno'd... a majority of those should be reno'd to market rate, but there still need to be some provisions for better quality affordable units to come online. That 59% probably represents a very small raw number. As more and more units are brought online - the majority of which are market rate - that percentage will decline. I think it'd be safe to hover in the 20-30% range once all the dust settles.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

 

Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation.  In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings.  That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused.  After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway.  Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements.  Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse.  Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside.  It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive.

 

Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic sh!t than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century.

 

I'm sorry, this post just made me laugh.  If there's one poster on here who I would say complains (in a good way) the most about settling for mediocre (or worse) architecture and buildings in Cincinnati, it's jjakucyk. 

I think I'm gonna cry.

According to 3CDC, in 2012 OTR housing south of liberty was 59% affordable. Personally, I don't think we should be adding ANY more in OTR, Pendleton or the West End.  They are all incredibly over saturated.

 

That number continues to drop every month. Market-rate construction is significantly outpacing affordable development, and I'm sure some affordable units are transitioning to market-rate.

Even if it was in a historic building, as long as their sign fits (and OTR does have fairly strict sign requirements) then who cares?  It's not as if they can replace the storefront, they're just occupying the inside of the building.

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is.

 

Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation.  In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings.  That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused.  After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway.  Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements.  Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse.  Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside.  It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive.

 

Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic sh!t than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century.

 

I'm sorry, this post just made me laugh.  If there's one poster on here who I would say complains (in a good way) the most about settling for mediocre (or worse) architecture and buildings in Cincinnati, it's jjakucyk.

 

For me it goes beyond architecture, I personally feel that companies on the scale of Subway are in general a bad thing for society, and I would rather not see them be a part of OTR. I think we've been very fortunate for the strong grass roots efforts that have brought many awesome local businesses to OTR, and I think Subway would only take money from these people, and use a lot of it to perpetuate an unhealthy and corrupt factory farm system, and pay their board member way too much money. Also I'm not really part of the club on here, I don't know who you are, and I don't keep track of your post history, I responded to the comment.

^By "grass-roots" you mean 25-35 year-olds who inherited enough money to start a business during a deep recession. 

Thank you.  Find me one successful urban neighborhood in America that doesn't have a single chain restaurant. You won't. Additionally, did you even look at the storefront this is moving into? You had that huge address about historic character of buildings. This is going into a parking garage that was built a couple decades ago.

That parking garage was built in 1998 or 1999, I believe by Hamilton County.  I imagine that the storefront was always intended to be rented to a lunchtime-oriented restaurant just like Subway. I think it was a surface parking lot beforehand. 

 

As has been stated numerous times in all discussions of the Gateway Quarter for at least five years...the storefronts in most of OTR's buildings are simply not large enough to fulfill the space requirements of most fast food, fast casual, casual, or high end chain restaurants, even before the parking issue is considered.  We don't have to worry about chain restaurants overtaking OTR. 

That parking garage was built in 1998 or 1999, I believe by Hamilton County.  I imagine that the storefront was always intended to be rented to a lunchtime-oriented restaurant just like Subway. I think it was a surface parking lot beforehand.   

 

For many years from the time the building was constructed until around 2008-10 time period, it was a corporate Cincinnati Bell Store.

I think I'm gonna cry.

 

I said it's in a good way!  :)

 

Historic Moerlein building to be converted into OTR housing: EXCLUSIVE

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

A 19th century building constructed by Christian Moerlein as a place where his beer could ferment will become Over-the-Rhine’s only affordable housing for seniors next year.

 

The land and Italianate buildings at 1500-1506 Elm St. have a rich history, according to research done by Over-the-Rhine Community Housing.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/09/03/historic-moerlein-building-to-be.html

 

That's great news! The streetcar should also be very beneficial to the future residents to get downtown.

 

This appears to be the building from the article: http://goo.gl/maps/7WZZR

that IS good news. I'm just surprised that they're saying they'll be done by May 2014.  They have to install an elevator and everything, there's going to be a lot involved with this rehab.

That is weird, when I posted the article this morning the photo in the article was of the two buildings, now it just shows a Moerlein graphic.

that IS good news. I'm just surprised that they're saying they'll be done by May 2014.  They have to install an elevator and everything, there's going to be a lot involved with this rehab.

 

This rehab was announced months ago, but I think the information about it here got deleted when the forum crashed.  In fact, I'm kind of wondering why there's a new round of press about this project? I distinctly remember reading about the building's history, details of the renovation, etc. back in the spring/late winter.