It looks like they are going to be taking at least a section of Buddy's Place surface lot.  The site plan shows it restriped and the renderings show the garage and Vine St building lined right up with the alley.

It looks like they are going to be taking at least a section of Buddy's Place surface lot.  The site plan shows it restriped and the renderings show the garage and Vine St building lined right up with the alley.

 

Indeed. I'm still not sure why they couldn't build the garage on the lot and offer OTRCH spaces in it as part of the deal.

It looks like they are going to be taking at least a section of Buddy's Place surface lot.  The site plan shows it restriped and the renderings show the garage and Vine St building lined right up with the alley.

 

Indeed. I'm still not sure why they couldn't build the garage on the lot and offer OTRCH spaces in it as part of the deal.

 

That was mentioned in the HCB hearing.  They are purchasing a portion of the OTRCH lot but said they could not come to an agreement with OTRCH for the remainder of the lot.  Seems a little thin, considering what they are spending on the project, and would go a long way to filling in the streetwall on Vine.

 

It looks like they are going to be taking at least a section of Buddy's Place surface lot.  The site plan shows it restriped and the renderings show the garage and Vine St building lined right up with the alley.

 

Indeed. I'm still not sure why they couldn't build the garage on the lot and offer OTRCH spaces in it as part of the deal.

 

That was mentioned in the HCB hearing.  They are purchasing a portion of the OTRCH lot but said they could not come to an agreement with OTRCH for the remainder of the lot.  Seems a little thin, considering what they are spending on the project, and would go a long way to filling in the streetwall on Vine.

 

The "We Shall Not Be Moved" sign in the window of Buddy's Place on streetview is a nice touch. It's not surprising they couldn't come to an agreement, is it?

I'm pretty familiar with the current OTRCH Board which controls Buddy's Place, and I am quite sure a deal could have been made for the whole lot.  If a fair offer had been made.  A few years ago 3CDC did get other buildings from them on Vine Street and on 13th Street.  I think 3CDC decided that a large rectangle parking garage (instead of an "L" shape) works better for their design anyway.

As the land the parking lot sits on increases in value, it's likely it will not remain a parking lot.

According to this old thread, 1329 Walnut was built in 1851 and use to house the German Herwegh singing society

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2568.msg45470.html#msg45470

 

This should not be demolished

^I literally walk by that building every single day.  It is an absolute eyesore.  I am surprised it is even still standing. 

Just because a building housed something significant does not automatically make the building itself significant.

I literally walk by that building every day too and I think it's absolutely beautiful.  It's got a well ordered facade and its scale is very intimate.  I think it's an absolute shame to demolish it, but again...I do NOT want to stall this project.  Mercer Commons will do wonders for the neighborhood. 

as much wonder as Gateway #1 did?  The design has a certain resemblance to that, which is maybe the third ugliest building in OTR after the Shell gas station and the Health Clinic

First, there is no way that building is an eyesore.  Please see past everything that which you think it is an eyesore including the color, boarded up windows, etc.

 

The building is significant for a number of reasons. 

1. It's age and architecture. (Just because it is a simple, two-story design doesn't mean it isn't significant.  It's simplicity is a key indication of its age BEFORE much of the rest of Victorian Italianate & Queen Anne Over the Rhine.  There is not a lot left of Civil War era Over the Rhine.)

2. It is on a corner.  (The importance of that corner can be debated but Walnut and anything is important in my opinion.)

3. What it housed, who lived there, etc.

 

That said, I understand the developers want to have greater density and a two story building doesn't give you that.  But it's corner location and age in my opinion make it more important than 1314 Vine.  A compromise solution is to keep 1329 Walnut and let the proposal to remove 1314 Vine go though . . . HOWEVER, There is still something to be said about the facade design along Vine Street and it's near utter lack of reference to neighborhood scale, proprotions, punched opening sizes, heights, etc.  You don't need to create totally historic facades but give us modern buildings that do not detract from the neighborhood and the existing streetscapes.

 

Just my opinion.

Having just walked past it the other day, I'm putting my money on "It's a groaning pile of shit." Nearly everything about it has been degraded by history except its general shape and fenestration. Eve that's precarious, as the entire north wall is bulging rather uniformly out towards the street.

 

You could, with unskilled subcontractors, recreate everything that this building has left to contribute to the neighborhood; a well-ordered two-story brick facade is pleasant but not historic.

^You could say the same about half the buildings in OTR.

 

I've worked on <a href="http://www.citykin.com/2007/09/1425-elm-street.html">buildings similar to this</a>, and they can be wonderful, uniquely Cincinnati buildings... or you can tear down our history and build something that looks it could go anywhere.

First, there is no way that building is an eyesore.  Please see past everything that which you think it is an eyesore including the color, boarded up windows, etc.

 

The building is significant for a number of reasons. 

1. It's age and architecture. (Just because it is a simple, two-story design doesn't mean it isn't significant.  It's simplicity is a key indication of its age BEFORE much of the rest of Victorian Italianate & Queen Anne Over the Rhine.  There is not a lot left of Civil War era Over the Rhine.)

2. It is on a corner.  (The importance of that corner can be debated but Walnut and anything is important in my opinion.)

3. What it housed, who lived there, etc.

 

That said, I understand the developers want to have greater density and a two story building doesn't give you that.  But it's corner location and age in my opinion make it more important than 1314 Vine.  A compromise solution is to keep 1329 Walnut and let the proposal to remove 1314 Vine go though . . . HOWEVER, There is still something to be said about the facade design along Vine Street and it's near utter lack of reference to neighborhood scale, proprotions, punched opening sizes, heights, etc.  You don't need to create totally historic facades but give us modern buildings that do not detract from the neighborhood and the existing streetscapes.

 

Just my opinion.

 

I love posts that start off with absolutes and end with "just my opinion." 

 

There are many beautiful buildings in OTR.  This, in my opinion, is not one of them. 

I am all in favor of saving as many buildings as can possibly be saved.  But this thing is not in good shape.  I shudder to think of what's actually inside the building (I've seen enough people go into all of these Mercer Street buildings despite them being boarded up) at this point. 

 

I'm sure this will be in the minority, but history doesn't come from a building just because it is old.  And old buildings are not inherently better than things that are newer.  Heck, I'm sure we're starting to come upon a time where some god-awful 1950s-style ranches are going to be old--but I don't want to say they all need to be saved. 

 

It would be great to save everything and make it wonderful, but I don't think this is one that falls into the category of "must save."

^You could say the same about half the buildings in OTR.

 

I've worked on <a href="http://www.citykin.com/2007/09/1425-elm-street.html">buildings similar to this</a>, and they can be wonderful, uniquely Cincinnati buildings... or you can tear down our history and build something that looks it could go anywhere.

 

This one already looks like it could go anywhere, it's lost so much of its architectural value.

Post from Cincinnati Preservation Association's Facebook page - FRIDAY Planning Commission hearing on proposed zone change to Planned Development for Mercer Commons project. 9 am, 805 Central Ave, 7th floor. Public welcome to attend and to speak.

 

Full history of 1329 Walnut:

1329-1331 Walnut (475 Walnut prior to 1896)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150705463540343&set=a.355547265342.350919.185964090342&type=1&ref=nf

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=LaM_Sr8sp7sC&lpg=PA143&ots=29DmJyVk3Z&dq=%22Deutsche%20Republik%22%20cincinnati&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q=%22Deutsche%20Republik%22%20cincinnati&f=false

“For a period in the earlier history of the society, its officers met in the "Deutsche Republik," a wine-house, located at the corner of Walnut and Mercer Streets.”

1851

Bruggemann Conrad, coffee h. s. w. c. Walnut and Mercer

1855

Lehmann Herman, 475 Walnut

Marr John, vinegar. 475 Walnut

1860

Doll Theo., carver, s.w.c. Walnut and Mercer

Hoffmann Louis, restaurant, s.w.c. Walnut and Mercer

1865

Schwab George. cof. h. 475 Walnut

1870

Schwab Geo. saloon, s . e . c . Jane and Ham. Road, h. s. w. c. Walnut and Mercer

Schwab Geo. saloon, s. w. c. Walnut and Mercer

1875

G. A. R. HALL, SOUTH-WEST CORNER MERCER AND WALNUT

Beckmann Theresa, servt. s. w. c, Mercer and Walnut

Gimbel Fred, driver, h. s.w.c. Mercer and Walnut

Gimbel John, clk. bds. s.w. c. Mercer and Walnut

Schneider Jos. cutter, h. s. w. c. Mercer and Walnut

Schwab Geo. saloon, s. w. c. Mercer and Walnut

1878

Lang Fred, saloon, 475 Walnut

1879

LANG FREDERICK, German Republic Wine and Beer Saloon, 475 Walnut, cor. Mercer

1880

G. A. R. HALL, SOUTH-WEST CORNER MERCER AND WALNUT.

LANG FRED., German Republic Wine and Beer Saloon, 475 Walnut

1885

KLAG  HENRY, Proprietor Vereins.Halle, "Deutsche Republik," Wine and Beer Saloon; a Fine Assortment of Wines, Liquors and Cigars, s.w.c. Walnut and Mercer

1890

Dieringer August D. saloon, 475 Walnut

1895

DIERINGER MRS. KATE, (Widow of August D.) Proprietress "The Republik"; Choice Wines, Beer, Cigars, &c., cor. Walnut and Mercer

1896

Dieringer, Kate – Saloon

1900

DIERINGER MRS. KATE, (widow of August D.) Proprietress " "The Republik ; " Choice Wines, Beer. Cigars, &c, cor. Walnut and Mercer

1901

DIERINGER MRS. KATE, (widow of August D.) Proprietress "The Republik;" Choice Wines, Beer, Cigars, &c.. cor. Walnut and Mercer

1902

Dieringer Mrs. Kate, (wid. August D.) saloon, 1331 Walnut

1903

Albert Chas. saloon, 1331 Walnut

1904

Albert Chas. 1331 Walnut – Saloon

1905

Musicians' Headquarters Cafe s w c Walnut and Mercer

1910

Aschenbroedel Club s w c Mercer and Walnut

1915

Aschenbroedel Club s w c Mercer and Walnut

1920

Aschenbroedel Club s w c Mercer and Walnut

1925

Cincinnati Musicians' Protective Association No. 1—Meets, first Wednesday of -each month at s.w.c. Mercer and Walnut.

1930

1329 Adams The C F Co household gds

s w c Dieckmann Edward R tailor

1936-37, 1939, 1940

Naegele Jos 1331 Walnut - Restaurant

1942

Posner, Edmund F 1331 Walnut – Restaurant

1944

Posner, Edmund W (Ellen A) restr 1331 Walnut, h 4334 Ridgeview Av

1947

Walnut Café, 1331 Walnut

More good information from the planning commission agenda:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps43623.pdf

 

Of the 2 buildings being demolished, apparently one is structurally deficient (I assume the building on Walnut given its bulging wall) and non-contributing (Vine building?).

 

Does anyone know what happened at the meeting today?

^ Not good information for the hardcore preservationists.

 

I'm on the fence, but I would like for them to find good reasons to preserve the buildings more than justifications to take them down.

I always have issue with the term "non-constributing".  It can be stretched to mean anything.  Also, there is obviously a tendency for small buildings to be demolished in cities and replaced by larger ones, but a cityscape of only large buildings is always cold (the Washington Mall, skyscraper ghettos, etc.).  It's always great when a small building, for reasons that aren't obvious, survived some sort of large project that buts right up against it. 

^ Not good information for the hardcore preservationists.

 

I'm on the fence, but I would like for them to find good reasons to preserve the buildings more than justifications to take them down.

 

Are not the reasons to preserve ALL the buildings already implicit in this issue? In essence your desire would result in an infinite feedback loop of pro-vs-con.

 

Kinda similar to the same mentality that COAST uses with the streetcar.

I'd also like to remind everyone that 3CDC is non-profit. In light of that, you have to heavily discount - if not reject- that they are somehow motivated to tear down buildings to squeeze a bit more profit out of a project. Their reasons for these demos are probably much, much more to do with design logistics and creating a product that is marketable. And maybe even to avoid taking out other, more contributing buildings.

Hello everyone:

 

Just an update. First I must say that I am not familiar with the name of everyone on the Planning Commission, please excuse me for the absence of names.

 

Basically, the vote on the zone change was item #3 on the agenda at the Friday August the 19th Planning Commission meeting. A few members of the Commission were absent, but there were enough members present for a quorum for the first two items. However when this item went up for discussion, one member of the Commission had to recuse himself (I did not catch his name), and so the vote for the zone change has been moved to the September 2nd Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, there is still time to research, get informed, and make commentary.

 

Second, I for one do not feel that there was very much awareness raised about the proposed zone change prior to the August 19 meeting. The reason may be that per zoning code, if 10 or fewer parcels of land are to be rezoned, included in the parties required to be notified are all property holders within a 400' radius. If 10 or more parcels are to be rezoned, that 400' radius requirement *does not apply* and  only "…individuals or representatives of individuals and organizations who have specifically asked to be notified, to the community organization representing the citizens in the area of concern, to each owner of record of property within the boundary of the area for which the zoning district change has been proposed, and to other parties as the Director of the Department of City Planning and Buildings may deem advisable to notify," are required notice. The "boundary of the area for which the zoning district change has been proposed" in this case only encases 3CDC controlled property, as far as I can tell. It definitely does not include the parcel adjacent to 1314 Vine on the southside, or 1300 Vine.

 

Anyhow, without being extremely informed or having read this entire thread…what I gather from my Urban Planning background, and from attending the Historic Conservation Review Board meeting where 3CDC presented this a while back (July 25th, I believe)… is that basically the change to PD zoning essentially gives 3CDC and City Studios Architecture much more free reign in design than if the existing zoning regulations were to stand. Is that correct? I've pulled the Conservation Guidelines for the Over-the-Rhine Historic District (http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3717.pdf) and in reading those briefly, I can see tons of ways in which the proposed massive Vine Street structure does not abide. I've also recently pulled the zoning text for what the parcels are currently zoned as (Commercial Neighborhood - Pedestrian & Commercial Community - Pedestrian) and for PD, but like I said, I am not yet super informed on this and haven't gone over everything with a fine tooth comb. If 3CDC does not get the PD granted, will the plans City Studios Architecture has drawn up need major revisions in order to construct a building on Vine that fits better with the existing fabric of the neighborhood? Also, will the 349 space parking garage with means of egress on Vine Street fit with the existing ' - Pedestrian' zoning?

 

I'm not against redevelopment, revitalization, investment in the city, or anything like that…but I do have issues with the way the proposed Vine Street building will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood, and with the demolitions. At least two members of the Historic Conservation Review Board expressed concern at their meeting in July as well, there was a lot of achitect-y talk about form, massing, articulation, etc. Bottom line is just that with a 2.7 acre site in OTR, something *better* than what is currently proposed could be dreamed up and built.

 

 

It looks like they are going to be taking at least a section of Buddy's Place surface lot.  The site plan shows it restriped and the renderings show the garage and Vine St building lined right up with the alley.

 

Indeed. I'm still not sure why they couldn't build the garage on the lot and offer OTRCH spaces in it as part of the deal.

 

This was pretty much the exact comment made at the HCB meeting. Land is land and land use can change. Currently OTRCH uses the land as a parking lot, yes. But why would/should a non-profit with a 30+ year history in this neighborhood give up land for parking spots in a garage that the non-profit will not even own, so that someone else could build on it? That doesn't make any sense! This is Vine Street, the Gateway Quarter, prime real estate on the main artery of the city!

Currently OTRCH uses the land as a parking lot, yes. But why would/should a non-profit with a 30+ year history in this neighborhood give up land for parking spots in a garage that the non-profit will not even own, so that someone else could build on it? That doesn't make any sense! This is Vine Street, the Gateway Quarter, prime real estate on the main artery of the city!

 

No one said OTRCH should "give up" their "land".  They could work with 3CDC to develop it into a higher and better use than a surface lot. I'd prefer to see it replaced with an actual building instead of a parking garage. It's an asset of OTRCH and it's completely up to them how/if/when they develop it.

 

Too bad it isn't part of Mercer Commons IMO.

I'm not a fan of demolishing old buildings and replacing them with ugly modern architecture, but I hope they at least replace these buildings with a quality structure, not a piece of sh** like the gateway building on 12th and Vine.  I can't believe how poorly made that building is everytime I walk by it.  The fake brick they used on the sides buckles out and all of the materials they used just look cheap. 

Currently OTRCH uses the land as a parking lot, yes. But why would/should a non-profit with a 30+ year history in this neighborhood give up land for parking spots in a garage that the non-profit will not even own, so that someone else could build on it? That doesn't make any sense! This is Vine Street, the Gateway Quarter, prime real estate on the main artery of the city!

 

No one said OTRCH should "give up" their "land".  They could work with 3CDC to develop it into a higher and better use than a surface lot. I'd prefer to see it replaced with an actual building instead of a parking garage. It's an asset of OTRCH and it's completely up to them how/if/when they develop it.

 

Too bad it isn't part of Mercer Commons IMO.

 

Essentially, the comment at the Historic Conservation Review Board was <i>exactly</i> that suggestion -- it was suggested OTRCH sell, or give up, their land, so that more garage/more market rate condos and apartments could be built on it. I was there, I took notes.

 

And yes, the orgs <i>could</i> work together to develop the surface lot into a higher and better use. But while both OTRCH and 3CDC are non-profits working in housing, OTRCH and 3CDC have very different missions; OTRCH "...works to build and sustain a diverse neighborhood that values and benefits low-income residents," and they "...focus on developing and managing resident-centered, affordable housing in an effort to promote inclusive community" while 3CDC's "..mission and strategic focus is to strengthen the core assets of downtown by revitalizing and connecting the Fountain Square District, the Central Business District and Over-the-Rhine (OTR)." e.g. Economic Development to strengthen the city's tax base.

 

With affordable housing as a mission, a higher and better use for OTRCH would be more units of affordable housing, which is not congruous with 3CDC's mission. In my opinion, it is not <i>likely</i> that 3CDC would just bend to the affordable side of the housing spectrum when that is not their focus, and especially when creating affordable housing only makes sense when tax credits, etc are involved.

 

For example, OTRCH and 3CDC are two of the entities that worked together on City Home Phase I & II and are currently working together on Phase III - 7 new construction town homes on Pleasant Street, where none of the new town homes are able to be subsidized to bring the price point down to an affordable level - because the numbers in the budget make it impossible to subsidize even 1 of the new 7.

 

3CDC also does not currently have a track record in developing affordable rental housing, because they have not yet developed any. So Idk. Unlikely at this time, in my opinion. I too would like to see a building instead of a parking lot on the site, for sure, I loathe surface lots! I love density! But in my opinion, in regards to the surface lot, it's wise to keep the existing use for now, even for another decade, and then leverage the value of the land in the future to construct a building that fits with OTRCH's mission. In my opinion, the land will be worth a lot more in the future and affordable housing will even more scarce at that time. & rather than lump the parcel into Mercer at the last minute, I'd rather see patience and well thought out development for the site in the future.

 

Anyway. Fact is the surface lot will remain for now, and none of us can say what will happen 3-5-10 years from now, so we'll just have to see what happens,  voice opinions where possible, and hope for the best for OTR as a community of people and as a historic district.  :clap:

 

 

Does anyone know how Mercer Commons will impact future dealings with historic tax credits. Last time I checked, OTR is in danger of dropping below 50% historic building stock. That's why the application for This Place Matters was so urgent--to save historic buildings in the neighborhood. This is why I am somewhat surprised to hear that many people are in favor of razing an "undesirable structure" at Mercer and Walnut. I can recall many instances in which people were in favor of saving large, three and four story structures, as grand as they appear--even dilapidated. But the massing of a Civil War-era building shouldn't be written off, just because it doesn't have detailed cornice work or other ornamentation.

 

What's more important at this point: integration with and preservation of remaining building stock...or a subjective, selective process of saving only what is favored at the time of the meeting?

 

I tend to disagree that access to the parking garage along Vine is a bad thing. However, I do feel that it is bad for Mercer. A narrow street like Mercer doesn't need a consistent flow of traffic to and from the garage. Additionally, the more narrow, neighborhood streets should be met with less traffic flow than the main thoroughfares. One mission should be to create inviting neighborhood corridors throughout OTR, while focusing on the development of commercial spaces, parking access, and transit accommodations on streets like Vine. Side streets should be the "less beaten path."

Currently OTRCH uses the land as a parking lot, yes. But why would/should a non-profit with a 30+ year history in this neighborhood give up land for parking spots in a garage that the non-profit will not even own, so that someone else could build on it? That doesn't make any sense! This is Vine Street, the Gateway Quarter, prime real estate on the main artery of the city!

 

No one said OTRCH should "give up" their "land".  They could work with 3CDC to develop it into a higher and better use than a surface lot. I'd prefer to see it replaced with an actual building instead of a parking garage. It's an asset of OTRCH and it's completely up to them how/if/when they develop it.

 

Too bad it isn't part of Mercer Commons IMO.

 

Essentially, the comment at the Historic Conservation Review Board was <i>exactly</i> that suggestion -- it was suggested OTRCH sell, or give up, their land, so that more garage/more market rate condos and apartments could be built on it. I was there, I took notes.

 

And yes, the orgs <i>could</i> work together to develop the surface lot into a higher and better use. But while both OTRCH and 3CDC are non-profits working in housing, OTRCH and 3CDC have very different missions; OTRCH "...works to build and sustain a diverse neighborhood that values and benefits low-income residents," and they "...focus on developing and managing resident-centered, affordable housing in an effort to promote inclusive community" while 3CDC's "..mission and strategic focus is to strengthen the core assets of downtown by revitalizing and connecting the Fountain Square District, the Central Business District and Over-the-Rhine (OTR)." e.g. Economic Development to strengthen the city's tax base.

 

With affordable housing as a mission, a higher and better use for OTRCH would be more units of affordable housing, which is not congruous with 3CDC's mission. In my opinion, it is not <i>likely</i> that 3CDC would just bend to the affordable side of the housing spectrum when that is not their focus, and especially when creating affordable housing only makes sense when tax credits, etc are involved.

 

For example, OTRCH and 3CDC are two of the entities that worked together on City Home Phase I & II and are currently working together on Phase III - 7 new construction town homes on Pleasant Street, where none of the new town homes are able to be subsidized to bring the price point down to an affordable level - because the numbers in the budget make it impossible to subsidize even 1 of the new 7.

 

3CDC also does not currently have a track record in developing affordable rental housing, because they have not yet developed any. So Idk. Unlikely at this time, in my opinion. I too would like to see a building instead of a parking lot on the site, for sure, I loathe surface lots! I love density! But in my opinion, in regards to the surface lot, it's wise to keep the existing use for now, even for another decade, and then leverage the value of the land in the future to construct a building that fits with OTRCH's mission. In my opinion, the land will be worth a lot more in the future and affordable housing will even more scarce at that time. & rather than lump the parcel into Mercer at the last minute, I'd rather see patience and well thought out development for the site in the future.

 

Anyway. Fact is the surface lot will remain for now, and none of us can say what will happen 3-5-10 years from now, so we'll just have to see what happens,  voice opinions where possible, and hope for the best for OTR as a community of people and as a historic district.  :clap:

 

 

 

Nice points made about 3CDC.  Great post!

via facebook: Rezoning to PD approved but final development plan must meet the Conservation Guidelines for the Over-the-Rhine Historic District (adopted in 2003), available here: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3717.pdf for review

Mercer Commons project gets conditional thumbs-up

Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 6:00am EDT

Lucy May

 

 

The $54 million Mercer Commons project can proceed – as long as it meets the city’s historic conservation guidelines.

 

The Cincinnati Planning Commission on Sept. 2 granted conditional approval of a concept to redevelop 2.7 acres in Over-the-Rhine.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2011/09/09/mercer-commons-project-gets.html

We all talked a lot about the changes to the Vine side of the parking lot due to the land swap with OTRCH but did anyone discuss the partial demolition of one of the buildings on Mercer?

 

From the looks of it TWO buildings will lose their back sides for a more efficient parking garage.  Non-factor as far as I am concerned.  Facade is much more important.

I got to see a presentation on this project by 3CDC and the architect/designer last night at the OTR community council meeting.  Paint me impressed!  I know there is concern on a lost historic building, but it seems as though the grand scale of the plans (including saving many, many other buildings) easily makes up for the loss of one building.  If they build the streetcar and I can talk XUMelanie in to it, I'd be in interested in making one of the condos on Vine Street our future home.

Historic board:Parts of Mercer Commons don't meet guidelines

 

Business Courier by Lucy May, Senior Staff Reporter/Associate Editor

Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 2:02pm EDT

 

Two key elements of the $53.5 million Mercer Commons project in Over-the-Rhine don’t meet the city’s historic guidelines for development in the neighborhood.

 

Cincinnati’s Historic Conservation Board on Monday afternoon voted unanimously that a large, new building on Vine Street that is part of the project does not conform to historic guidelines. The board also voted unanimously that town houses being built as part of the project also fail to meet the city’s historic guidelines.

 

The board’s decision is important because the Cincinnati Planning Commission and Cincinnati City Council agreed earlier this year to let the project move forward on the condition that it would meet the city’s historic guidelines.

Interesting- I don't mind the town homes at all, but I wasn't a fan of the giant glass building on Vine.

I rather like the contrast between neutral glass curtain building facades and well-maintained historic brick buildings. A poorly executed brick facade in this neighborhood could look much worse than the modern glass.

 

But, it will be interesting to see what else they come up with. I'm sure they have some alternative concepts already done.

Article about some of the people behind Mercer's design:

http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/102511citystudios.aspx

This isn't an open air museum or williamsburg, va. It is a living breathing city. We can't let such "experts" seriously delay already good developments. This is an example of the problems in cincinnati, not the solution. I realize that these "experts" need to make a living, but do they have to do it in Cincinnati?

Chicago has been in a rage of awful infill for some time now, Cincinnati can do better and has (Stetson Square).  Transportation is much more key than architecture however.  Improved transit leads to an increased occupancy rate, higher density leads to a more exciting and colorful city.  Wouldn't matter if it was Boston or Houston.

Chicago has more good developments because it has more developments. Because it's a bigger city.

 

It also has more bad developments. Because it has more developments. Because it's a bigger city.

 

I don't know what the ratio of good to bad is for either city, but I would bet the difference is not as large as some here seem to think. Similarly, Chicago continues to needlessly tear down historic buildings at a rapid clip.

Every new building doesn't have to be outstanding, but we aren't getting any new outstanding buildings in OTR.  The Gateway Condos, SCPA, and the other apartments all look second-rate.  They are made from cheap materials that undermine their designs. 

 

People can sound the gentrification horn if they want to, but there need to be wealthy people moving in to motivate the highest quality construction (and renovations).  The best buildings since Modernism don't look out of place in historic areas if they are high-quality buildings.  The quality of some of the new prominent condos in Portland along its streetcar route is outstanding, and it elevates your reaction to the cheaper buildings (which were typically built within the first five years after the streetcar was built, before the area really took off). 

I know I toot the horn probably a bit too much on Chicago because I've seen tons of good infill up here.  Not to say there isn't a lot of bad, some poor cinderblock apartments that look like  bizzaro suburban mcmansions but entirely in cinderblock, as well as older infill around Old Town that screams 1970s and has no interaction with the neighborhood, not to mention the walled community in the south loop (Dearborn Park).  Seattle's infill probably wouldn't work as well in OTR, but it is nice, I think the Christian Moerlein lager house is starting to look like something you'd find in Seattle and it works because there really isn't a neighborhood there and its really starting to come together to be a good building, with OTR there still is the context of a strategically important neighborhood for Cincinnati and it should do everything it can to preserve that asset.

 

 

Every new building doesn't have to be outstanding, but we aren't getting any new outstanding buildings in OTR.  The Gateway Condos, SCPA, and the other apartments all look second-rate.  They are made from cheap materials that undermine their designs. 

 

Other than the Gateway Condos the stuff 3CDC has done is generally pretty good.  Not sure if it was 3CDC but I saw a really fantastic townhouse on 12th street that was brand new and fit the neighborhood vernacular.  14th and Vine is a good modern interpretation of the neighborhood vernacular without going too far over the top.  The best thing they did IMO is Trinity flats which is some of the best infill in Cincinnati and would hold up well in any more heavily gentrified city.

If you want to look at cities that you really can say won't accept sh!t for infill, you have to look on the other side of the Atlantic. No matter how many form-based codes or whatever we have in America, sh!t inevitably seeps through the cracks.

 

I'm not saying we should accept the fact, or accept individual POS's that sprout up. But to say Cincy is small potatoes because it allows sh!tty developments is disingenuous. The big guys do, too.

 

Gotta say, I'm really more disturbed about the demolitions for Mercer Commons than the architecture. Not really sold on that glass building, but I always find it hard to picture real buildings, in context, via renderings. It might be okay, or awful, I just can't really say. 3CDC has earned a few "benefit of the doubt" points, however. Even concerning the demolitions, though I think the purple building's facade could easily make a quality garage entrance.

 

Rejecting the townhouses is a danger. We could very easily get something much worse.

Gotta say, I'm really more disturbed about the demolitions for Mercer Commons than the architecture. Not really sold on that glass building, but I always find it hard to picture real buildings, in context, via renderings. It might be okay, or awful, I just can't really say. 3CDC has earned a few "benefit of the doubt" points, however. Even concerning the demolitions, though I think the purple building's facade could easily make a quality garage entrance.

 

Yeah I agree, particularly if they could find a way to put the bay windows back on the top.  I have to admit the purple building is pretty much an abortion in its current state.  We'll see what this ruling provides, I'm pretty glad the all glass building was rejected.

If you want to look at cities that you really can say won't accept sh!t for infill, you have to look on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

What cities overseas are you referencing?

If you want to look at cities that you really can say won't accept sh!t for infill, you have to look on the other side of the Atlantic.

 

What cities overseas are you referencing?

 

Let's go with Prague and Amsterdam. I'm sure some things slip by, but I think these cities have pretty high standards. I can't speak too much for the outer neighborhoods of Prague, but I think we are mostly talking about the urban core (considering the thread we're in).

 

Infill in Amsterdam. 

 

 

Proposed Metropol (hilarious!) hotel in Prauge.

 

Moral of the story? Everyone has some great infill, and some bad infill- so let's stop the constant Cincy bashing and just accept that mixing the old and the new is what happens. Huzzah!

See I think that glass building in Prague is wonderful. It says "Look at my beautiful neighbors" instead of "Look at me." The important things are good quality, a nice active street, etc, etc.

 

Cities that are treated like museums will eventually become them. The preservation people have done their very important job already -ensuring that a significant portion of OTR is not demolished- and now they are just in the way.

 

They need to get out of the way.