^ Its not a factor of skill, its a factor of resources and budget.  You cant compare the imaginative enviroment of a video game to real world construction economics.  How many skilled masons does it take to build a shell in a video game?  How much do all of those fake stone and brick materials cost on a movie set? 

 

If architects were given the directive and budget to deliver 19th Century Italinate by a developer, they could do it.  The problem is developers are far more concerned with squeezing in one more unit than how aesthetically accurate the exterior is.  Highly detailed buildings are extremely expensive and in almost as situations are cost prohibative. 

>most architects today have no skills in proportioning and detailing with a classical eye

 

Yet set designers in Hollywood get it dead-on.  And video game developers. 

 

Perhaps the difference is that set designers and video game developers are literally trying to imitate existing styles, and in doing so they recreate the styles without necessarily understanding why certain elements exist.  Whereas architects are trying to create something new by drawing inspiration from previous designs, so their result isn't an exact copy of the original style but more of an interpretation with other elements mixed in that don't necessarily work.  Just a thought.

^ Its not a factor of skill, its a factor of resources and budget.  You cant compare the imaginative enviroment of a video game to real world construction economics.  How many skilled masons does it take to build a shell in a video game?  How much do all of those fake stone and brick materials cost on a movie set? 

 

If architects were given the directive and budget to deliver 19th Century Italinate by a developer, they could do it.  The problem is developers are far more concerned with squeezing in one more unit than how aesthetically accurate the exterior is.  Highly detailed buildings are extremely expensive and in almost as situations are cost prohibative. 

 

It's a function of land value, as we've discussed several times.

I guess that we are just not a Nation of craftsmen, any more, and so we're paying too much money to corporations and their shareholders to implement our designs.  Maybe it's that simple.  Do we only know how to look up factory manufactured stuff in catalogs and order it, and then it comes in a box and we employ guys on site that know just enough to use a tube of construction adhesive?

 

As an admirer of turn-of-the-century architecture myself, I've had many of the same thoughts.  The only thing I can come up with is that 100+ years ago, labor was a lot cheaper.  There was no minimum wage, safety codes were lax or non-existent, unions weren't as prevalent, and the US was blessed with an influx of immigrants from europe who were skilled craftsman (doing the work or training others).  You could afford to splurge on materials because the labor was cheap.  That isn't the case anymore, so we end up with a bunch of quickly thrown together structures with low quality finishes, unless you get to price points that are outrageous (like the $500K single family homes you referenced).

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong and if someone more informed could shed better light on this, it would be much appreciated.

 

I'd agree for the most part.  It's not that the skills are gone, it's just that priorities have changed and along with the changing relationship between labor and material costs, what used to be more common has become more of a niche.  It's actually not all that difficult to find really skilled craftsmen out there.  Expert cabinetmakers, masons, plasterers, tile setters, and finish carpenters are still out there, but they're either working only in high-end construction or most of their bread and butter is the typical production stuff. 

 

There's also a big change in quality versus quantity preferences.  Today it's all about quantity.  Square feet, number of bedrooms, leaseable space, parking spaces, metrics metrics metrics.  Quality has fallen by the wayside in part because it can't be measured.  What's the value of windows that will last 50 years if you can use the money for an extra bedroom or bathroom instead?  You don't even plan to keep the building for 20 years, let alone 50.  Of course another problem is just how much money needs to be spent accommodating cars.  That garage and driveway isn't free after all, but some absolutely must have them, so that money comes out of the rest of the project.

 

You can actually see how size and quality played off each other over the last century.  Houses for example were quite large for the most part in the late 19th and very early 20th century.  Those row houses in OTR are really big, partly because they didn't need much infrastructure.  You built a box, put in some walls and doors, a few fireplaces, a staircase, decorated it up really well, and you were done.  When you get into the 1920s houses got quite a bit smaller because people were demanding a garage, built-in cabinets and closets, a full kitchen and bathrooms, central heating, electricity in every room, and good design on top of it all.  They had to make the houses smaller to avoid them costing too much.  That old rowhouse originally had none of that, other than the good design.  You'd have a fireplace and maybe a gas light in each main room and that was it.  No kitchen, an outhouse in the back, wardrobes instead of closets, basically a bunch of bare rooms.  It wasn't until the 1970s or so that we figured out how to cheapen things enough that we could start to build big AND have those conveniences too.  Unfortunately, design and craft were victims, not to mention durability.

Highly detailed buildings are extremely expensive and in almost as situations are cost prohibative. 

I get that they are cost prohibitive.  I just don't know why.  On one hand, so many factors should make it much cheaper these days.  Imagine what it used to take to deliver all of the bricks, sand, cement, lumber to the site, and then lift it all multiple stories, for three-course brick walls!  I'm told that plumbers used to be the big bad-asses of of the tradesmen, cause they were handling heavy iron all day long.  Yet these were working class homes and tenements, mostly, and they got it done -- without omitting the details.

 

I realize this is theoretical.  But is it that we are just not used to doing it any more, and are therefor inefficient?  Or is it something different, like the fact that we live in a lot more square footage per person than they did back then, and in order to get that space we have to be satisfied with the cheapest possible way to build a box with R20 walls?

 

I dunno - this all makes me depressed about our ability to actually revitalize a significant fraction of the current OTR housing stock, and then take care of it.  I mean, if each cornice is going to cost $20-30K, then we might as well just tear down all of the current housing stock that needs new cornices, and focus on the rest.

 

I'd agree for the most part.  It's not that the skills are gone, it's just that priorities have changed and along with the changing relationship between labor and material costs, what used to be more common has become more of a niche.  It's actually not all that difficult to find really skilled craftsmen out there.  Expert cabinetmakers, masons, plasterers, tile setters, and finish carpenters are still out there, but they're either working only in high-end construction or most of their bread and butter is the typical production stuff. 

 

There's also a big change in quality versus quantity preferences.  Today it's all about quantity.  Square feet, number of bedrooms, leaseable space, parking spaces, metrics metrics metrics.  Quality has fallen by the wayside in part because it can't be measured.  What's the value of windows that will last 50 years if you can use the money for an extra bedroom or bathroom instead?  You don't even plan to keep the building for 20 years, let alone 50.  Of course another problem is just how much money needs to be spent accommodating cars.  That garage and driveway isn't free after all, but some absolutely must have them, so that money comes out of the rest of the project.

 

You can actually see how size and quality played off each other over the last century.  Houses for example were quite large for the most part in the late 19th and very early 20th century.  Those row houses in OTR are really big, partly because they didn't need much infrastructure.  You built a box, put in some walls and doors, a few fireplaces, a staircase, decorated it up really well, and you were done.  When you get into the 1920s houses got quite a bit smaller because people were demanding a garage, built-in cabinets and closets, a full kitchen and bathrooms, central heating, electricity in every room, and good design on top of it all.  They had to make the houses smaller to avoid them costing too much.  That old rowhouse originally had none of that, other than the good design.  You'd have a fireplace and maybe a gas light in each main room and that was it.  No kitchen, an outhouse in the back, wardrobes instead of closets, basically a bunch of bare rooms.  It wasn't until the 1970s or so that we figured out how to cheapen things enough that we could start to build big AND have those conveniences too.  Unfortunately, design and craft were victims, not to mention durability.

 

Ah, that makes a lot of sense to me -- thanks.

 

I realized, but had forgotten, that all of the infrastructure we take for granted (even bathrooms and plumbing!) were added after the fact, on the buildings that we are now trying to mimic.  I guess that something's gotta give...

Highly detailed buildings are extremely expensive and in almost as situations are cost prohibative. 

I get that they are cost prohibitive.  I just don't know why.  On one hand, so many factors should make it much cheaper these days.  Imagine what it used to take to deliver all of the bricks, sand, cement, lumber to the site, and then lift it all multiple stories, for three-course brick walls!  I'm told that plumbers used to be the big bad-asses of of the tradesmen, cause they were handling heavy iron all day long.  Yet these were working class homes and tenements, mostly, and they got it done -- without omitting the details.

 

I realize this is theoretical.  But is it that we are just not used to doing it any more, and are therefor inefficient?  Or is it something different, like the fact that we live in a lot more square footage per person than they did back then, and in order to get that space we have to be satisfied with the cheapest possible way to build a box with R20 walls?

 

I dunno - this all makes me depressed about our ability to actually revitalize a significant fraction of the current OTR housing stock, and then take care of it.  I mean, if each cornice is going to cost $20-30K, then we might as well just tear down all of the current housing stock that needs new cornices, and focus on the rest.

 

Today money is spent on HVAC and plumbing that would have gone towards architectural detailing 100 years ago.  Another factor is that when OTR was built labor was cheap and materials were expensive.  The opposite is true today.  A skilled mason, for instance, is very expensive to have on site, which is why we use things like "thin brick" instead of actual bricks, and cast stone in place of limestone.

But why metal and glass?  Why not concrete and glass block?  Why not vinyl and plexiglass?  The whole "reflecting the old" mantra championed by the architects of the Hancock Tower in Boston is, quite frankly, post-rationalizing bullsh!t.  These super simple glass buildings never disappear.  More often than not they call even more attention to themselves by way of reflecting the sun in bizarre ways on the other buildings and on hapless pedestrians unfortunate enough to have to walk by them. 

 

Also keep in mind that nearly everything built between about 1920 and 1950 that wasn't Art Deco or some early International Style modern was also "faux historic."  Even Art Deco itself is more of an extension or reinterpretation of historical classicism than a rejection.  At this point in time we can do pretty much any style you want, but who's to judge which one is right and which one isn't?  Is faux Italianate any worse than faux Art Deco or faux International Style?  About the only thing that isn't faux anymore is titanium-clad blobs, and even that is pretty roundly criticized.  Most avant garde architecture is highly criticized, if not outright hated, by the general public.  The academic arguments remain just that, academic.  Not many "regular people" have any interest in the modern stuff, they'd rather have the faux historic. 

 

Now, the key of course is in execution.  That Chicago example from a few posts back is really really bad.  It's mixing a sort of Boston/Annapolis Federal style on the top floors with a weak Italianate style on the second floor and a somewhat nondescript storefront on the bottom (it's hard to tell though since it's so dark and a small picture).  The proportions aren't terrible, but they're not great, and it looks like more of a caricature or some sort of tongue-in-cheek hybrid than anything particularly serious. 

 

Anyway, I guess my point is that you can't single out faux historicism as being bad because we don't really have an architectural style that's truly "of today" in the way that we did throughout much of recent history.  To try to pick something that's supposed to represent today's modern styles and mandate that throughout an historic district like OTR would be quite dangerous.  If we were having this discussion in the 1970s we'd only allow poured concrete brutalist hulks.  Would you really want that?  Even the super simple glass and steel idea is more of a 1960s aesthetic.  We don't really want that either.  There's no simple solution of course, but putting a few parameters in place (build to the sidewalk, glassy first floors, vertical massing, etc.) are all that's really needed. 

 

Well I see that this has really started a firestorm of activity- good.  Reading the posts I think we all have a better idea of where everyone is coming from.

 

I do feel the need to apologize for my caviler use of terms which seem to have been taken quite literally.  "Metal and glass" was used as a filler for what would realisitcally have been a laundry list of more modern techniques. Please know that when I say metal I mean metal used: behind a brick rainscreen but revealed to the passerby, as exterior core-ten/oxidized steel, custom metal panels (such as the bronze used on the American folk art museum or more commonly Alucobond rainscreens), metal louvers, perforated metal facades (see DeYoung Museum or previous post about the Herzog & DeMuron infill project "8 Courts" in Munich).

Also the use of the phrase "reflect the old" was a way to call upon people's understanding of the striking contrast between such contemporary styles which could actually act to highlight them rather than detract from them.

 

The "glass" proposal was meant as the extreme of a discussion who premise is: "What if we built everything new in OTR so that we could tell it was new?"

Still I appreciate the fervor, and will try to not down-play what is meant in future.

 

*With regards to MERCER COMMONS specifically... the project would be 10Xs better if the zebra striped brick and efis facade with weird vertical protrusions could just receive a simple anodized bronze cornice (1/16" thick laminated on a build up of course), and  would have a simple brown (maybe even with a glaze) brick veneer  which is held above the window lintels revealing the contemporary metal beams which we use today. In this way the project would be within the realm of modern building practices, it would be inexpensive- moreover it would match the rhythm of the stone lintels, wooden cornices, and orange/red brick along the street.

It would be in keeping with neighborhood datum lines and have its own character.  That alone should be the goal of new development in OTR.

 

 

(an aside Art Deco was not a revision of classicism-- it was an American response to European Art Nouveau with an a heavy influence on the monumental as a result of a burgeoning mechanized culture.  The height and massing of Nouveau buildings such as Carew tower was a rejection of historical proportion. And I most young people I know would like to live either in an industrially refurbished historic building or a new/contemporary/non "faux" building.)

My two cents on a good, new building that borrows from the past but is inventive and modern.  Stong base, middle and top.  Great ornamentation, large amounts of glass, and highly desirable by buyers:

>I mean, if each cornice is going to cost $20-30K,

 

The Italianate style certainly appears to be a pretty simple exterior style.  It's mostly just proportions, then window eves and brackets that I understand were in some cases mass produced in their day.  So I don't know what the problem is with getting the exteriors to look correct.

 

As for the interiors, I certainly understand why the wood floors and elaborate staircases can't be built cheaply today.  The old growth wood is all gone and the men who knew how to do all that stuff are few in number.  Some of you are probably familiar with the staircases in the Roanoke apartments on Ludlow Ave, but I have been in most of the similar Section 8 apartments in Walnut Hills and along Reading in Avondale and they all have incredible staircases that are part of very creative interior spaces. 

 

^^Great example, Skinner.

^^Great example, Skinner.

Absolutely.

I swear I saw something today saying the green building was being demolished tomorrow. Anyone know for sure?

The larger picture makes that Chicago building look worse.  What's with those pseudo balcony railings?  That's pretty silly.  It wouldn't be too bad of a Federal revival building if they just treated the second floor the same as the third and fourth.  It might be an ok Italianate revival too, but the way they mix the two is very bad.  The storefront looks ok from what I can tell.

 

Still, it's a good example of poor execution.  Look how the building falls apart at the back.  It's completely unresolved and looks like nobody bothered to even think about it.  The shutters, even though it's like pulling teeth to get them installed properly, are still too small for the windows. 

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1892.390.html#ixzz1iSvwn87y

 

I'll admit its not a perfect building, but cut off the bit on the back and the building gets the basic shape and substantial feel down perfect for a building that would look good in OTR - the building gets the basics right and fails on the details, which is a lot better than a ton of other infill I've seen where sometimes its the other way around.  I'll reiterate, it looks terrible where it is, but I actually feel that I'd like something better like that which actually interacts with the corner and matches the basic proportions of the other buildings in OTR than City Home, where the bay windows are completely wrong (it looks like a weird mix of federalist with late circa 1890s victorian, the later of which is rare in OTR), the vinyl is cheap and the buildings on the corner as others mentioned on this forum before just end with a nasty side facing the other street and have no interaction with the cross street at all.

 

You aren't seeing me complain about Trinity flats one bit, its really one of the nicest post modern urban interpretations I've seen anywhere... though the building that Skinner Posted is amazing, I wonder where that one is?

They put the fence up today.  I do believe that it will come down tomorrow.

Now, the key of course is in execution.  That Chicago example from a few posts back is really really bad.  It's mixing a sort of Boston/Annapolis Federal style on the top floors with a weak Italianate style on the second floor and a somewhat nondescript storefront on the bottom (it's hard to tell though since it's so dark and a small picture).  The proportions aren't terrible, but they're not great, and it looks like more of a caricature or some sort of tongue-in-cheek hybrid than anything particularly serious. 

 

It might be an ok Italianate revival too, but the way they mix the two is very bad.  The storefront looks ok from what I can tell.

 

Still, it's a good example of poor execution.  Look how the building falls apart at the back.  It's completely unresolved and looks like nobody bothered to even think about it.  The shutters, even though it's like pulling teeth to get them installed properly, are still too small for the windows.

 

The rationale here seems to be a bit rigid.  Why can't Federal and barebone Italianate go together?

 

Your expectations, and the expectations of several others are unrealistic.  There are standards, and there are things you have to live with.  The brick on that Chicago structure has quality to it.  You have to live with the railings and failings here and there unless you have a time machine and can go back to 1887 when labor, poverty, international tariff, and a lack of an electronic revolution made the ability to construct a detailed structure a normality as opposed to a formality.

 

As for the rear of the building, I don't think most of us, if any, are intimate with the background of that particular street corner and immediate vicinity.  In many midwestern cities, you see corner storefronts with an attached or sealed structure behind it, often for purposes of industry or storage.  Hard to see exactly what's going on in that picture, but the criticism of the rear may be too strong.  That building would fit in a few historic areas of Columbus despite its flaws.

 

Let's be realistic.

Does anyone have photo updates from the Mercer Commons construction site?

There's nothing significant to report. Buildings were demolished but no significant construction has started.

It's been 2 months since the buildings were demo'd and still no construction. If they want to get that structured garage out of the ground for open in early 2013, they better get a move on it!

Some building permit applications were submitted last week.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps45248.pdf

^Excellent news!

The new market tax credits awarded a couple of weeks ago were a key gating item on the project. They will now be doing remediation etc. and expect major work to appear in 30-45 days.

^fantastisch

I imagine the planned unit development designation will speed up the permitting?  A lot of the typical slowdowns such as historic preservation review, sewer, and water issues having already been addressed?  Can an expert weight in?

^ pretty sure all that was indeed approved by planning commission. Someone on here posted a link to a doc that showed all communications between 3CDC and duke, MSD, GCWW, etc.

^

Plan review for compliance with the building codes is a totally separate process from zoning.  All agencies like MSD, GCWW, Duke, etc still need to sign off on detailed engineering.

Any updates on this? There's not even any equipment on site yet...is there a hold-up or something?

I've heard Early June for Phase 1 and early august for phase 2.  Phase 3 would be about a year from now

The article about OTR today said May.

Latest report from 3CDC says that Messer has been selected as GC and should begin construction in June: http://www.3cdc.org/images/editor/March%20Monthly%20Report(1).pdf

I think they've been using part of the site to stage some stuff for the park construction--I often see them moving large stone/concrete forms from the lot behind where the building was torn down to the park.  I assume as the park gets more complete, things will start picking up. 

They've also been staging the Color Building stuff there as well.

Yeah, that's right--it makes a lot of sense for both spots.

From the report, it looks like an Asian inspired restaurant is opening at 14th and Vine in the Trinity Flats space called Hapa.  New news to me. 

Hapa: Hawaiian language term that describes mixed Asian/Pacific Islander race/heritage.

It's by the former owner of Beluga.

Construction begins in late-June

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/developingnow/2012/05/29/mercer-commons-construction-to-begin/

Bumping the thread for the groundbreaking today, quoted text from another thread. 

 

Mercer groundbreaking tomorrow! Anyone have the deets?

 

Press Release from 3CDC

 

$59M MERCER COMMONS BREAKS GROUND TUESDAY

 

154 housing units, 17,600 SF commercial space, and 359 parking spaces

 

 

CINCINNATI – (June 25, 2012) – The City of Cincinnati, 3CDC, and its corporate partners will break ground at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, June 26th, on the first of three phases of construction in Over-the-Rhine that will ultimately yield 28 condos, 126 apartments (30 of which will be affordable to those making 50-60% of area median income), 359 parking spaces, and 26,000 SF of commercial space.

 

 

 

The $59 million project, dubbed Mercer Commons, includes the redevelopment of 19 historic buildings and 26 vacant parcels of land on a total of 2.67 acres between East 13th and 14th streets, bounded by Vine Street on the west and Walnut Street on the east. 

 

 

 

Mercer Commons represents the largest mixed-use project to date for 3CDC. Since 2007, 3CDC has completely restored 57 historic buildings in Over-the-Rhine, creating 186 condominiums that are 97% sold, over 90,000 SF of commercial space that is 85% leased, and 68 market-rate rental units that have been fully leased for years. 3CDC and its partners have invested over $200 million in Over-the-Rhine developments, including the redeveloped Washington park, streetscapes, land-banked buildings, and annual carrying costs associated with future development sites.

 

3CDC solicited feedback on the Mercer Commons project through a series of community input session held from 2008 to 2011, involving representatives from dozens of organizations. Feedback included the need for more apartments to meet increased demand for rental housing, the need for affordable units to continue developing a mixed-income neighborhood, more retail and commercial space on Walnut to begin to create a critical mass, and more parking and green space needed by neighborhood business owners and residents. The project meets these community needs and creates a connection between already completed projects by redeveloping vacant buildings and parcels into a more unified district.

 

The first phase of construction includes the restoration of 4 historic buildings into 11 for-sale units, and the construction of 5 new townhomes, 1 new 340-space parking garage, and 1 new mixed-use building to include 12 for-sale units and 3,900 SF of commercial space. Tuesday’s groundbreaking will be followed by a 16-month construction schedule, with the garage opening in March 2013.

 

Funding partners include PNC Bank, JobsOhio, the City of Cincinnati, 3CDC, Cincinnati Development Fund, Cincinnati Equity Fund II, and Cincinnati New Markets Fund. Messer Construction is the general contractor, and the design team includes City Studios, and City Architecture.

Well, equipment is on site and they put up the rendering on the corner.

 

Anybody with a good camera should get over there before they fence off the site...could make for some really remarkable before and after shots! Particularly a Vine St. panoramic and some shots of the buildings on Mercer St.

^Oh don't worry I'm in the process of photographing everything.  Back when they were first building the Gateway garage, you couldn't even take photos of the construction without worrying that you would get mugged, even in broad daylight.  That's why I only have a few photos of it under construction and of the very first Vine St. rehabs at 12th. 

^Oh don't worry I'm in the process of photographing everything.  Back when they were first building the Gateway garage, you couldn't even take photos of the construction without worrying that you would get mugged, even in broad daylight.  That's why I only have a few photos of it under construction and of the very first Vine St. rehabs at 12th.

 

nice. thanks for photographing it all, jake!

 

video of the groundbreaking:

https://vimeo.com/44748061

 

pic:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151041100887700&set=a.316738867699.148473.282777447699&type=3&theater

Well, equipment is on site and they put up the rendering on the corner.

 

Anybody with a good camera should get over there before they fence off the site...could make for some really remarkable before and after shots! Particularly a Vine St. panoramic and some shots of the buildings on Mercer St.

 

I have some photos taken from the 3rd floor of buddy's place (1300 Vine, southeast corner of Vine & 13th), as well as tons of photos of 1314 Vine before demo taken from the street, photos of 1314 Vine being demo'd from buddy's place & the street. My office also has photos of Vine at Mercer from the 80s/90s that interns will be scanning in this summer. One day I'll make a photo blog or a better flickr and post a gallery for anyone interested in viewing.

Someone I know is doing a timelapse of Mercer Commons from a nearby rooftop too.

 

Well, equipment is on site and they put up the rendering on the corner.

 

Anybody with a good camera should get over there before they fence off the site...could make for some really remarkable before and after shots! Particularly a Vine St. panoramic and some shots of the buildings on Mercer St.

My office also has photos of Vine at Mercer from the 80s/90s that interns will be scanning in this summer. One day I'll make a photo blog or a better flickr and post a gallery for anyone interested in viewing.

 

Can't wait to see those scans!

WLWT's news coverage of the ground breaking:

Ground broken on next big OTR project

The start of major work got underway today with the demolition of the rear portion (an addition) of a building on Mercer to make way for the garage.  I believe this was a ~1930's ea addition.

From today:

I thought the giant pile of tires--which looked like they were from some seriously old cars--was interesting. 

The pile of tires today was awesome. They were excavating them from the eastern edge of the dig. Also, they appear to have started a facade-a-dectomy on the second building in (east) on Mercer.

here are some recent pics including two of the pile of tires.

 

Cygnus - I used your photos too - thanks!

 

http://www.blogotr.com/otr/construction-prep-at-mercer-commons/

Is that pic above with the orange barrels a latrine pit? That could be some cool investigating!