FWIW, not every old building within a historic district is in fact historic itself. There are a variety of ways in which a district can get its historic designation and Over-the-Rhine fulfills every one that I can think of off the top of my head. It has a large historic collection of buildings, significant historical events took place there, and significant historical people lived or worked there.

 

So with that being the case, we can toss the idea of OTR losing its historic designation out the window.

 

The real concern among most people, I think, is the loss of "historic fabric". This is a reasonable concern, but if the urban form of "new fabric" respects and compliments the old, then it shouldn't really be that much of a problem.

 

The battle cries of OTR losing 50% of its historic fabric are worthy cries, but the reality is that even if every single vacant lot was built upon with modern infill, the district would still overwhelmingly feel historic in nature.

 

In terms of Mercer Commons, I decidedly undecided about these two structures. I can understand both arguments being presented, but in the end I am just happy that OTR even has these kind of problems today. Five years ago this wouldn't have even been an issue, so I'm glad the conversation and debate is being had. That means some positive stuff is happening in OTR.

Agreed with Randy but I don't think CPA, OTRF, etc. would say losing the historic designation is a real possibility if it wasn't.  But I'm not an expert on historic designations.

Once OTR really hits its stride in private investment (streetcar), the feel of OTR will change with the density increasing more noticeably than now, mostly because the current efforts have been concentrated in a specific area.  I'm just hoping that whenever, if ever, the Brent Spence project gets going that the atmosphere created by all that freed up property west of downtown will be urban.  Modern, faux-historic, either one would be okay with me as long as the scale is appropriate for a central district.  Hopefully the city planning will be better than City West, which didn't address neighborhood vitality.  Where are the restaurants?

I noticed that they are using part of what will become Mercer Commons for valet parking now.  The neighborhood is really taking off...

in the end I am just happy that OTR even has these kind of problems today. Five years ago this wouldn't have even been an issue, so I'm glad the conversation and debate is being had. That means some positive stuff is happening in OTR.

This is very true.  Although demolitions are still happening in OTR, it is much less than what was happening a few years ago.  Not only that, but crappy ugly buildings that have been vacant for 20 years are being sold at higher and higher amounts.  20 years ago I knew a guy who was begging people to take buildings like these off his hands, they were only a liability.

 

That said, 3CDC is making a huge mistake demolishing these 2 buildings (if that is indeed their plan).  There is a huge parking lot south of 1314 Vine that is owned by OTR Community Housing.  There is no reason they couldn't expand their project into that lot in exchange for offering parking spaces in their new garage to OTRCH.

 

No matter how complimentary the new buildings are, they never contribute to the feeling of the neighborhood in the same way as the old buildings..  I especially like the one at the SW corner of Mercer and Walnut.  If I'm not mistaken, it is one of the oldest buildings in the neighborhood. 

No matter how complimentary the new buildings are, they never contribute to the feeling of the neighborhood in the same way as the old buildings..  I especially like the one at the SW corner of Mercer and Walnut.  If I'm not mistaken, it is one of the oldest buildings in the neighborhood. 

 

Agreed, but then I see comments like these and am reminded that people have varying degrees of appreciation for historic context and styles: http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/the-fate-of-1329-walnut-and-mercer-commons/1329walnut/

 

####

 

Here are a few renderings I put up on flickr and the OTR blog:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/overtherhine/sets/72157627143037401/with/5969373263/

http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/mercer-commons-renderings/

 

MercerOver by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

 

Mercer Commons by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

Mercer Commons by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

Walnut & Mercer by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

Mercer St. by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

Mercer & Vine by OverTheRhine, on Flickr

 

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/overtherhine/5969373263/#in/set-72157627143037401/

Okay, I can understand the desire for a parking structure and can see how it would make the most sense to level 1314 Vine.  It sucks, but this is an important project that needs to move forward.

 

As for 1329 Walnut...WTF!?!  That building they plan to put in its place is awful.  Its massing doesn't fit the context at all, the random window placement is far from the Italianate/Second Empire tradition, and it's not a necessary building in Mercer Commons complex.  To level a beautiful building (and yes, 1329 Walnut is beautiful...I was standing in front of it at 5am on my way to work this morning soaking in the details) for this garbage is almost incomprehensible.  3CDC has done a fantastic job maintaining the historic integrity of the neighborhood so far.  I really don't understand why they'd set a bad precedent for future developers who will most likely be less conscientious. 

Here's an interesting earlier overhead rendering of Mercer Commons that does not show 1329 Walnut being demolished:

 

Ignore the yellow box.

^ this rendering dates back to 2008.  The other ones are from 2010 and 2011. I've seen the above rendering brought up on many blogs that they may be saving these older buildings.  The current plan is the top pictures.  I think it would end a lot of confusion if the internet just erased this older rendering- haha

^ this rendering dates back to 2008.  The other ones are from 2010 and 2011. I've seen the above rendering brought up on many blogs that they may be saving these older buildings.  The current plan is the top pictures.  I think it would end a lot of confusion if the internet just erased this older rendering- haha

 

Yes, it's old. So at some point it was decided that it would be better to demo and replace 1329 with a four story contemporary structure.

Is anyone aware of current height restrictions for new buildings in OTR?

OTR Historic District Guidelines stipulate that "new infill should not vary more than one story from adjacent contributing buildings.  Most buildings in OTR are between 2 and 5 stories."

 

This does not preclude other zoning or building code requirements that may apply.

I agree it is good we're having this discussion about new infill, as opposed to just continuing to demolish historic buildings.

 

The problem is the attitude of "it's just one non-descript building, we can tear it down" or "it's too hard to work around it".  If you start applying this to every project all of a sudden we've lost an even bigger chunk of the neighborhood.  What's the difference between this and the Rothenberg project, where buildings were to be torn down for the "greater good"?  or SCPA, where historic buildings were demolished for an ugly, fenced off, anti-urban amphitheater and loading dock that was part of a bigger project?

 

This is a neighborhood of details.  Even simple historic buildings have a vocabulary and palette that is richer than any infill building being built these days.  Infill can be great, but it will never match the original.

 

I'm not against Mercer Commons.  I work on these exact issues every day, and deeply understand the challenges.  But we need to keep asking these questions to keep everyone honest.  We need to keep pushing to ensure the best possible project for everyone involved.  The minute we give carte blanche to any developer or accept that the historic architecture has no value is when the whole thing falls apart.

Here's the agenda for today's HCB meeting at 3pm.

 

HCB Agenda 7.25.11

I agree it is good we're having this discussion about new infill, as opposed to just continuing to demolish historic buildings.

 

The problem is the attitude of "it's just one non-descript building, we can tear it down" or "it's too hard to work around it".  If you start applying this to every project all of a sudden we've lost an even bigger chunk of the neighborhood.  What's the difference between this and the Rothenberg project, where buildings were to be torn down for the "greater good"?  or SCPA, where historic buildings were demolished for an ugly, fenced off, anti-urban amphitheater and loading dock that was part of a bigger project?

 

This is a neighborhood of details.  Even simple historic buildings have a vocabulary and palette that is richer than any infill building being built these days.  Infill can be great, but it will never match the original.

 

I'm not against Mercer Commons.  I work on these exact issues every day, and deeply understand the challenges.  But we need to keep asking these questions to keep everyone honest.  We need to keep pushing to ensure the best possible project for everyone involved.  The minute we give carte blanche to any developer or accept that the historic architecture has no value is when the whole thing falls apart.

 

I do agree that it is very important to have a dialogue about saving structures, even when most support the project being built.  I understand the concerns about setting a precedent for demos for the sake of convenience of a project, but this is the first real example I've seen of 3CDC tearing down buildings.  They have a good track record, and are essentially the only development force of note in the neighborhoood, so I'm not terribly concerned about this causing a domino effect of demolitions. If and when large scale private development occurs around this site, the parking garage can be used for neighboring properties, which means less vacant land would have to be converted to parking, and hopefully no existing building would have to get demolished for parking.

Business Courier picked up the story: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2011/07/25/3cdc-adds-another-property-to-mercer.html

Its my understating that the only reason why there is a lack of parking in OTR is due to an abundance of metered parking in areas that really are underutilized.  Get rid of the excess metered parking, and as population goes up impliment a permit system for residents.  The lack of parking is artificial and because of this, more historic buildings are going to be lost.

 

Cincinnati is literally the only city with its level of history/historic architecture to be so banal about parking issues.  Look at some things they do in San Francisco for instance: http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/07/creative-solutions-and-ability-to-think.html

Or they could build a streetcar...

Until the US becomes like Europe when everywhere is accessible without a car, people are still going to have cars, streetcar or no streetcar.  I even still have one living in a dense Chicago neighborhood, I don't use it much, and occasionally have issues with parking (am considering going to a car sharing program though).  Its part of living in the city, particularly in a neighborhood like OTR and Cincinnatians should realize they should deal with it.

I park on the street in OTR and never have any problems.  Half the meters have had the change receptacles stolen out of them anyway, so they’re basically free to park at.  I used to live in NYC and parked on the street; that was a challenge.  People in Cincinnati just can’t seem to grasp the fact that parking on a street is part of living in a city.

Until the US becomes like Europe when everywhere is accessible without a car, people are still going to have cars, streetcar or no streetcar.

 

1) That's a "chicken-or-the-egg" issue.

 

2) Not everywhere in Europe is accessible by transit. Just most places people want to go on a daily basis.

There is already a zoning exemption for properties located along the streetcar route that reduces the parking requirements for new construction and renovations. More buildings can be saved if parking requirements are reduced. Maybe if the streetcar was already in place, they wouldn't need to take 1314 Vine for the garage.

There is already a zoning exemption for properties located along the streetcar route that reduces the parking requirements for new construction and renovations. More buildings can be saved if parking requirements are reduced. Maybe if the streetcar was already in place, they wouldn't need to take 1314 Vine for the garage.

 

I think the zoning exemption is for buildings within 600 feet of a streetcar stop.  Pretty sure 1314 is at least a football field from the nearest streetcar stop. 

^It's actually 585 feet away if they preserve the stop at 12th and Vine.

 

Ah! Yes. I was counting from the 12th and race stop.  Very interesting- I wonder if the city will allow those zoning changes to go into effect when construction begins, or not until the line is opening. I'm hoping for sooner, rather than later.

Its my understating that the only reason why there is a lack of parking in OTR is due to an abundance of metered parking in areas that really are underutilized.  Get rid of the excess metered parking, and as population goes up impliment a permit system for residents.  The lack of parking is artificial and because of this, more historic buildings are going to be lost.

 

Cincinnati is literally the only city with its level of history/historic architecture to be so banal about parking issues.  Look at some things they do in San Francisco for instance: http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/07/creative-solutions-and-ability-to-think.html

 

Parking meters are not the problem.  Meters are required to allow stores and businesses to function by creating turnover.  If there were no metered parking, all of the spaces would be constantly filled by downtown workers and residents, which is the case through the majority of the neighborhood where there are no meters.  Parking should not be free as it encourages over-consumption of a limited resource.  There will never be enough street parking in OTR to fulfill the residential needs of the neighborhood.  At the most generous, street parking would provide no more than 1 space per building.

 

This is a problem that vexes every urban neighborhood in the country.  Remember this neighborhood was built during a period with no automobiles.  I don't see how a single family residence with a single car garage in SF constitutes a parking solution.  The solution is not going to be at an individual level, but at a neighborhood level.  A pilot residential permit parking program, starting in Pendleton, is being implemented as we speak.  The city is pursuing a streetcar that will reduce vehicle use, along with reductions in the required parking along the route.  Structured parking is being/has been built throughout Downtown and at Washington Park, and being pursued near Findlay Market. 

 

With regards to Mercer Commons, a lot of this discussion is a moot point, as it is being developed under the PD zoning.  No specific zoning regulations will apply, it will be evaluated as a whole project.

With regards to Mercer Commons, a lot of this discussion is a moot point, as it is being developed under the PD zoning.  No specific zoning regulations will apply, it will be evaluated as a whole project.

 

Yes, some preservationists were hoping 3CDC wouldn't use the PD route in order to skirt the HCB but it looks like it will and therefore the two buildings will be coming down...unless the Planning Commission determines otherwise.

 

 

###

 

The OTR/Cincinnati parking discussion really deserves its own thread. My two cents: eliminate parking requirements.

Parking meters are not the problem.  Meters are required to allow stores and businesses to function by creating turnover.  If there were no metered parking, all of the spaces would be constantly filled by downtown workers and residents, which is the case through the majority of the neighborhood where there are no meters.  Parking should not be free as it encourages over-consumption of a limited resource.  There will never be enough street parking in OTR to fulfill the residential needs of the neighborhood.  At the most generous, street parking would provide no more than 1 space per building.

 

1) I'm asking for eventual conversion of the parking to permit parking in the more residential parts of the neighborhood if there are too many residents in the neighborhood to help perserve their spots.

 

2) Meters are fine when they are actually in front of Buildings or very close to buildings that are Businesses, yet there are areas in OTR where there are no Businesses and a bazillion meters.  Keep the metered parking on Vine and Main or  very close by.

 

3) Ultimately there will have to be additional parking structures.  I guess its one positive of OTR loosing 50% of all its buildings, there is space for more parking structures.  Ultimately though I think what they are doing now is overkill and will threaten the remaining historic building stock.

I just posted all the newest renderings of Mercer Commons on the OTR blog tonight: http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/the-most-recent-mercer-commons-renderings/

 

I'll post them here later.

New Images from OTR Work Group July 11 release.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are a few of them-- I'm sure Seth will post more soon.

 

Did anyone attend their presentation to the Historic Conservation Board? I'm wondering if their was any discussion afterwards.

I was there, but not able to stay for the whole discussion.

 

Some of the issues brought up by the board:

 

- what is the point of asking for feedback if 3CDC is already in construction document phase (done with design phase)?

- was it possible to get the parking lot of Buddy's Place to the south to complete the streetwall or provide better garage access without demoing 1314 Vine?

- no order or rationality to glass facade on Vine, no base/body/cap

- architectural elements on Walnut buildings do not meet the sky well, are too small/undeveloped

Here's my one wish for Mercer Commons: that they leave Rodney Alley paved in brick.

 

###

 

Here are all the renderings: http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/the-most-recent-mercer-commons-renderings/

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

8

9

10

11

12

13

^ I'm pretty certain the alley will be brick.  Looking at the alley ways at Parvis & behind the City Home developments, 3CDC always seems to install new brick into the alleys.

^ I'm pretty certain the alley will be brick.  Looking at the alley ways at Parvis & behind the City Home developments, 3CDC always seems to install new brick into the alleys.

 

Yeah, or reuse bricks by turning them on their side.  But with Mercer being so big, I was thinking they might put in new. Just wondering.

^ I'm betting it will be exactly the same as Comer Alley.

I'm interested to know what the parking garage will actually look like.

 

You can see a peak of the garage here:

 

And the garage looks like it will have a flat brick wall facing Vine.

Perfect for a mural! But not much else.

Mercer Commons takes shape

9:33 PM, Jul. 30, 2011

Lisa Bernard-Kuhn

http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110731/BIZ01/307310002/Mercer-Commons-takes-shape

 

...

So far, Harris said, he’s not aware that a planned development has ever been presented or approved in a historic district.

 

In August, Munitz expects 3CDC will have its first round of hearings before the city planning commission.

 

Last week, the group voluntarily submitted its plan before the historic board to get its feedback, and Munitz said he expects that communication will continue as the project moves forward. He doesn’t agree that 3CDC is taking advantage of a loophole in the city zoning codes.

 

“Our design team got a lot of good comments (from the board) that we’ll consider as we refine the project before our full submission,” he said.

 

 

You can see a peak of the garage here:

I am not sure this will really be noticable.  It is a narrow street that will be lined with 4-5 story buildings so the viewing angle from the street will make it invisible.

 

And the garage looks like it will have a flat brick wall facing Vine.

 

Look closely at the site plan.  I am pretty sure this brick wall is the rear of a building along Walnut, not part of the garage.

sean, thanks. you're right about the garage. i'm not too worried about the garage. more curiosity than anything. i'd like to see a rendering of it from vine street just south of where 1314 Vine now stands.

^ I agree- Since it is in plain view, from that angle (think outside of Venice on Vine) it has the potential to be hideous.

This is speculation, but it might look like the part of it seen in this rendering:

 

This is speculation, but it might look like the part of it seen in this rendering:

 

 

But that is the Mercer Street elevation looking south.  Mercer is so narrow that you'll never be able to be far enough back that you'll have a sightline to see the parking garage.  You can see it in elevation view, but in any perspective I bet it'd be hidden.

I'm wondering what it will looking like from this angle:

 

 

I'm wondering what it will looking like from this angle:

 

 

 

From this image yo can imagine how it would look from the street.  It looks like it has some erratic concrete or metal panel facade system in the rendering.  In any case, it looks like it wasn't forgotten about.

 

Really... that parking garage entrance shouldn't be on Vine St... it should be off of Mercer or one of the alleys.

Really... that parking garage entrance shouldn't be on Vine St... it should be off of Mercer or one of the alleys.

 

There's one on Mercer as well as the one on Vine (which is through the new building, reminds me of the entrance to the Fountain Square Garage)

I'm not a fan of all the garage entrances on major thoroughfares. This is why the city has alleys and minor streets.

I'm wondering what it will looking like from this angle:

 

 

 

From this image yo can imagine how it would look from the street.  It looks like it has some erratic concrete or metal panel facade system in the rendering.  In any case, it looks like it wasn't forgotten about.

 

 

 

Thanks very much, Ram23! I don't know how I overlooked that angle.