^ That glass building looks nice in context because the massing fits within that neighborhood.  The glass box they wanted to construct at Mercer is huge, and they’re knocking down an existing building to make it that large.  I suspect it isn’t the glass that the historic board was opposed to, but the massing. 

^ That glass building looks nice in context because the massing fits within that neighborhood.  The glass box they wanted to construct at Mercer is huge, and they’re knocking down an existing building to make it that large.  I suspect it isn’t the glass that the historic board was opposed to, but the massing. 

 

Where can one find details of their decision?

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).

 

Not that you don't have a valid point but a number of Euro cities constructed some impersonal and hideous edifices in a postwar reconstruction phase.  Instead of making their fringes look deplorable with cul-de-sacs like the States was in the '60s and '70s, many cities in Europe were disgracing their core with aesthetically unpleasant behemoths.

 

I honestly believe it's just not a good business climate for nostalgic redevelopment.  There is plenty to complain about regarding The Banks but there's Banks-esque apartments and mediocre infill from Warszawa to Milano, Marseille to Lisboa.  The little guy was priced out of the speculatory business partially due to combat inflation in the '70s and all we have now are firms that can command a certain figure for disgusting work due to the lack of parity in the industry.  Talent doesn't pay like it used to.

What in OTR has been "nostalgic"? 

I agree that economics are the biggest barrier. I think a lot has to do with building costs vs. land value. Building an expensive building on cheap land is not cost-effective. The package of land+building will not be worth the price of building materials+labor.

 

Cincinnati has two things going against it here. First is the overall cheap value of land versus other markets. Second is the distribution of the highest valued land, which is not highly concentrated in the urban core but spread across the metro region. The first problem is the biggest barrier to quality developments, IMO. Other cities simply don't have this problem, because their land is way more valuable. The cost of building materials is basically fixed, wherever you are, so cities with lower land values are likely to get cheaper developments. (Labor costs do fluctuate with cost of living, which is related to land values, so that evens the playing field a little bit.)

 

We're damn lucky to have 3CDC doing what it's doing, because they're offering higher quality buildings and renovations than one might expect. Underground parking is another thing which usually only appears where land values are high. Enjoy the Washington Park and Banks garages.

The distribution of land values in cincinnati and many metros is changing with suburban locations values declining and downtowns and midtowns seeing smaller falls, stable values, or even increases in some places. This will change the calculations of owners and developers in the future. Cincinnati is cheap, but not profoundly more so than our competition. Legacy costs and sprawl have driven development outward in the past. This may change in the future with internet shopping and working, permanently expensive gas, hard to get mortgages, and changing expectations about the future path of development that affect long-term investment decisions. This all makes me wonder if new midrise buildings might not make sense in OTR at some time in the not too distant future.

^^^ I think mid-rise buildings WILL make sense to developers in the near future...and that's exactly what needs to be controlled.  OTR is a very important historic district.  The CBD can build all the mid to high-rise condo and apartment towers it wants.  OTR has a unique scale that needs to be matched.

What in OTR has been "nostalgic"? 

 

Mound St. and City West are two examples downtown of developments under the umbrella of past+present.

Interesting developments.

I have quite a few friends living on Mound St. they love it and I actually do like the buildings- reasonable prices, decent quality, mix of older and new style done well.  There are also some very good City West developments that are larger and are quite attractive- especially considering how cheaply they were done- knowing that Vine would be developed as expensive market rate condos, they could definitely do something well.

3CDC posted the 10/24 presentation to the historic conservation and it includes more detailed renderings than I have seen in the past.  http://www.3cdc.org/images/editor/Mercer%20-%20Historic%20Conservation%20Board_10-24-11%20-%20web%20version%20(NXPowerLite).pdf

 

The meeting packet for the 11/18 planning commission meeting outlines in some detail why the board did not approve the Vine St building or the Mercer townhomes.  http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps44647.pdf

 

It seems to come down to a few things: Too much glass, being "horizontally oriented", not using materials characteristic of the historic district, and lacking a distinct bottom middle and top.  The standards are ambiguous if you ask me and pretty much give the historic board free reign to stop whatever doesn't suit their personal tastes, which I would assume must be the faux-historic train wrecks like the newish townhomes on the east side of Walnut.

 

Personally, I really like the Vine St. building.  The roof line echoes the varied roof lines of tall/narrow OTR  buildings and they use some coloration to break it up.  The glass will be a good contrast and I also think do a good job of putting eyes on the street to improve the overall safety of the area.

 

I'm not really sure how you "vertically orient" a 4 story building that takes up over 1/2 of the block other than to break up the facade to make it look like multiple faux-historic buildings, which I think would be awful.  Attached is an example.

 

Does anybody know what is really going on here?  Is the historic board offering solutions or just griping?  I'm really concerned they are going to destroy the economic feasibility of this project and we'll be left with a dramatically scaled down project or a much lower quality project with lots of cheap looking brick.  Can the planning commission decide they disagree with the historic conservation board so we can get going with this already? 

I agree with the HCB's comments.  It doesn't have to look like the photo you posted at all.  After all, they approved the modern design of the new Walnut Street building.  The Vine Street building does not fit.  Not because it is too massive (it isn't), not because it is too modern either, but because it had too much glass, especially glass balconies, and the street level is monotonous aluminum storefront like you would find on college campus.  Also, they didn't mention it, but this will be the first parking garage entry directly on Vine Street in OTR.  Needs reworking IMO:

I think it looks fine. We can't replicate 1800's Italianate. It's not our era. I'd rather we build what we know how to do well rather than get some shitty brick rowhouse design. Even our finest brick infill developments today are no match for the detail of OTR's building stock, and it's far more flattering to accept that than to let the preservation board piss in the pot.

Also, how that board approved the hideous Walnut Street building that replaces the little green one is beyond me. Talk about obliterating all your credibility in one awful decision. The Walnut Street building is by far the worst of the entire proposal. I wouldn't approve that anywhere in Cincinnati, much less in OTR. Jesus Christ.

Also, too, in the same commission summary packet, they approve the closure of Broadway in front of the Casino so it can have a...front yard. Buildings downtown shouldn't have front yards. This move also enshrines the ass of the county jail as the street frontage on the west side of Eggleston across from the Casino. I wonder if anyone considered closing Eggleston instead, creating a new parcel adjacent to the jail, and building a liner building to hide the jail and create a fully activated block on Broadway. Maybe none of that was feasible, but we are getting a casino site plan where the building appears to recoil in horror from the intersection of Central and Eggleston. And it looks like they aren't going to do anything with the open space but sod it over like a golf course.

 

Nice.

^Ha, I think we just have to accept the fact some people have absolutely horrible taste and lack true urban design vision.  You look at some designs and you wonder who sits there and okay's it.  Not to change the subject but look at the hideous Crosley Tower at UC.  Who sat there and literally said "omg that's the design I want.  I really do want to see a gigantic upside-down cement chair leg with no color scheme."

In my opinion, modern buildings look great in the middle of historic neighborhoods.  It give the sense that although the neighborhood is old and preserved that it isnt stale.  That it is progressive.  The Vine St. building would have been a nice addition.  I hope they don't throw up some brick crap to satisfy the board.

^Ha, I think we just have to accept the fact some people have absolutely horrible taste and lack true urban design vision.  You look at some designs and you wonder who sits there and okay's it.  Not to change the subject but look at the hideous Crosley Tower at UC.  Who sat there and literally said "omg that's the design I want.  I really do want to see a gigantic upside-down cement chair leg with no color scheme."

 

Count your lucky stars the master plan at the time didn't go through... 11 of those same buildings were planned around the campus.

An interesting take on those floor-to-ceiling glass walls:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/11/13/tor-glass-walled-condos.html

 

May look great now, but wait for nature to take its course with expansions and contractions. That's not to say that Mercer Commons will be cheapened with construction, but even from an energy efficiency standpoint - these designs are not efficient. Ever.

In my opinion, modern buildings look great in the middle of historic neighborhoods.  It give the sense that although the neighborhood is old and preserved that it isnt stale.  That it is progressive.  The Vine St. building would have been a nice addition.  I hope they don't throw up some brick crap to satisfy the board.

 

It seems to me to be a matter of moderation. I think the Fifth Third Center downtown looks fantastic in the overall mix of skyscrapers. An entire downtown of those buildings? Not so much. I think the Mercer Commons buildings would be a fantastic addition to OTR, though I don't know if a similar project should ever be done in the neighborhood after it.

To add insult to injury, the architects didnt do themselves or their client any favors by releasing those renderings. Spend 5 seconds looking at them and you can tell how horribly out of scale the people/trees/cars are in relation to the proposed buildings... I have no idea if those renderings were shown to the review board, but amateurish renderings like those can kill a project... they can totally alter the way people feel about a building because its not the true relation of a person to the building.

 

if you want an example of what i'm talking about, in the rendering on the previous page, on the balcony in the upper right there is a girl taller than a 7' or 7'-6" door... its stuff like this that makes a building look chunky and out of proportion.... the glass is just a matter of taste, but the perceived scale of the project, as a result of these poor renderings can really affect the attitudes of the people you're trying to impress.

To add insult to injury, the architects didnt do themselves or their client any favors by releasing those renderings. Spend 5 seconds looking at them and you can tell how horribly out of scale the people/trees/cars are in relation to the proposed buildings... I have no idea if those renderings were shown to the review board, but amateurish renderings like those can kill a project... they can totally alter the way people feel about a building because its not the true relation of a person to the building.

 

if you want an example of what i'm talking about, in the rendering on the previous page, on the balcony in the upper right there is a girl taller than a 7' or 7'-6" door... its stuff like this that makes a building look chunky and out of proportion.... the glass is just a matter of taste, but the perceived scale of the project, as a result of these poor renderings can really affect the attitudes of the people you're trying to impress.

 

They didn't strike me as too out of scale? The people on the balcony are leaning against what is presumably a 36" rail, which would make the man about 6' and the woman about 5'10", tall for a woman but not a giant.

 

They aren't all perfect, but that particular rendering didn't strike me as unprofessional...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111114/BIZ01/111150325

 

"Mercy Commons denied"  (cincinnati.com front page headline...)

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111114/BIZ01/111150325

 

"Mercy Commons denied"  (cincinnati.com front page headline...)

 

Denied by the Conservation Board, but they don't need the Board's approval.  I hope they just ignore this silly Board and start construction. 

The design is just hideous.  Period.  There's no way I would want to look at those buildings right next to beautiful Italianate architecture.  It's modern architecture vomit at the worst.

^Can you explain what exactly you don't like about the building?

 

I think the building is OK (not terrible, not great), and I would be find with seeing it built.  The building engages the street through the use of balconys and high transparency of the glass facade.  It has ground floor retail, a varried roofline, and special attention is paid to the corner of Vine and Mercer.  The portions of the building that stand higher than the rest help to break up the site line of the building, which helps minimize the massive (by OTR standards) footprint of the building.  It's also important to note that this building is covering a parking garage, which is a limiting factor in the design, and necessitates a large building.  With high quality building materials, I think the building could be quite nice for OTR.

This is the exact same style of infill building you see all over in Brooklyn and Queens industrial areas, and in Portland and Seattle, except I guarantee this thing will be of the cheap materials that doomed the Gateway building and which undermine those two new buidings right there at Mercer St.  The argument for contemporary design doesn't win when the architects aren't able to do it right due to budget constraints. 

This is the exact same style of infill building you see all over in Brooklyn and Queens industrial areas, and in Portland and Seattle, except I guarantee this thing will be of the cheap materials that doomed the Gateway building and which undermine those two new buidings right there at Mercer St.  The argument for contemporary design doesn't win when the architects aren't able to do it right due to budget constraints. 

 

This is all true. But honestly, what would be worse? Cheap modernism, or cheap faux historic? I kind of don't want cheap brick anywhere near this thing, it could just go so, so bad...

 

Moral: They seem to be working with pretty thin margins here. This isn't a wealthy area...yet. People get excited about infill and don't stop to remember that a lot of these projects are barely happening, from a financial standpoint.

Here's some very high quality infill in Ireland, the best I've seen lately that matches a historic context. It CAN be done, but god knows how much this cost...

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=814202&page=7

What's amazing about Portland's Pearl District is that the first buildings, circa 2001-02, were low-rise and very cheap-looking.  By 2005 world-class 10-20 story buildings were going up right next door.  The market was so hot that there was some speculation that the early condos would be torn down.

 

Cincinnati's not going to achieve that level on that scale in part because the city already has so many other nice, expensive areas like Mt. Adams and the various hillsides with river views.  So I don't think we can depend on the free market alone to ensure higher quality buildings. 

Here's some very high quality infill in Ireland, the best I've seen lately that matches a historic context. It CAN be done, but god knows how much this cost...

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=814202&page=7

 

It's amazing the contrast between that Irish infill and the dreck we see at Gateway, etc. I wish The Banks had that sort of vision and construction.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111114/BIZ01/111150325

 

"Mercy Commons denied"  (cincinnati.com front page headline...)

 

Denied by the Conservation Board, but they don't need the Board's approval.  I hope they just ignore this silly Board and start construction. 

 

It's those thoughts that would enable Greenhills to outright flatten the Gamble House, to allow for the continued demolition of OTR - which is teetering on 50% wholesale demolition of its historic stock that threaten its National Historic District designation. There is room for compromise, and we understand that, but we want to try and preserve what's left of the Italianate building stock.

How would flexibility on style of new construction lead to loss of existing building stock?

Ya- I'd bet $100 that in 10 years that Glass building will look strange, out of place, and not particularly attractive. Also, since it's solid glass, i can guarantee almost all the windows will be covered with blinds constantly. Just look at the giant windows on the side of Trideca lofts- Someone moved in and put up a giant white, floor to sealing (two stories), shutter that I have NEVER seen open (and I walk by it several times a week). It looks horrible!!

 

I'm just not a fan.

 

I hope the planning commission approves the townhomes along mercer, but sends the Vine building back to the drawing board. It doesn't fit in this location.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111114/BIZ01/111150325

 

"Mercy Commons denied"  (cincinnati.com front page headline...)

 

Denied by the Conservation Board, but they don't need the Board's approval.  I hope they just ignore this silly Board and start construction. 

 

It's those thoughts that would enable Greenhills to outright flatten the Gamble House, to allow for the continued demolition of OTR - which is teetering on 50% wholesale demolition of its historic stock that threaten its National Historic District designation. There is room for compromise, and we understand that, but we want to try and preserve what's left of the Italianate building stock.

 

The disagreement between 3CDC and the Conservation Board has to do with the design of new construction, not with the demolition or renovation of the historic buildings on site.  How does the construction of a modern building hinder the preservation of the Italianate building stock?

I was thinking about what something faux-historic might look like on the block, so I whipped up something last night in Sketchup:

 

 

 

We used to create these kinds of very formulaic dummy infill models all the time. Strangely enough, it's often what developers end up building, especially on low or mid-range infill projects. Anyhow, it gives some sense of what more historic proportions might look like.

 

 

These types of renderings don't mean anything because no matter how nice/shitty a rendering is, the finished product will always look different. Real materials do not look the same as their simulated counterparts. I like the rendering you produced, Civvik, but if implemented in real life, I fear that it'd look like crap.

^ One of the strangest comments I've read in a long time.

 

Of course things look different, duh. And that TYPE of development is much better and would create a much better feel. Thanks Civvik for putting it together- definitely think it looks good (for such little time) and reminds us that this is a historic neighborhood-

 

Put a giant glass building on a hill side-- NOT in a heavily pedestrian neighborhood where most residents will have their floor to ceiling windows closed 24/7

^ I think Civvik is actually for the glass building.

 

I agree with Rob -- these renderings look much better than the results such plans would likely yield.

 

I'm ambivalent toward the glass building, mostly because the alternative could end up much worse. Particularly something faux-historic.

My point was - its hard to tell how something will actually turn out from renderings alone. Renderings that portray classic brick facades with ornamentation conjure images of (in this case) the italianate buildings around it, and thus evoke a positive image. On the other hand, renderings that show glass curtain walls and greater massing with modern materials evoke images of modern buildings, the great majority of which amount to a whole bunch of architectural vomit. In reality, the former renderings turn in to what we have around UC and now at The Banks. They don't look that great.

 

I don't know how I feel about the proposed style, I just want it to happen, and I wish they could do it without demoing any buildings.

Actually, I don't know if the modern building is ultimately the best choice for the location and I do understand the goals of the historic preservation board.

 

Some people have been commenting that "OTR isn't Disneyland" but in a way, it is. We have decided that it is a special place and we want it to look a certain way. How is that very different from a theme park? I think I differ from some people here in that I'm not a history buff, just a design buff. I don't revere the historical value of OTR, honestly. I just think it's pretty and irreplaceable, it gives our city an edge, and I support efforts to perpetuate that. I like the overall historical narrative of the neighborhood, but I really couldn't care less what each individual building was for 100 years ago. But that's just me.

 

My opposition to faux-historic for Mercer is that I think it will turn out worse than a modern building because the budget is too low. So, more or less, I'm for the modern building because we execute those pretty well, even with middling budgets. They can, to some extent, be about design more than craftsmanship. Historic buildings, on the other hand, are far more formulaic design-wise while their beauty comes from their craftsmanship.

 

Some people though, hell maybe even most people, wouldn't notice poor quality on faux-historic new construction, and the seamless style of the neighborhood would please them more than a bad-ass glass curtain condo.

Civvik, I prefer your rendering to the official.

I've noticed that few if any new buildings pair the windows in the way you have them there, imitating a style that was once pretty common. 

 

I think it's fair to say that the OTR Italienate style WAS a relatively cheap style, so I don't understand why it's so tough for architects to simply copy the facades exactly.  Hollywood set designers can do it faithfully but somehow architects can't. 

^I'm with you on that Jmeck.  They design what they're used to seeing.  I'm an industrial designer and the same thing happens in product design.  Anything you try that's radically different gets dumbed down for the public.  When cars are designed, the concept work is fantastic but when idiots start chiming in on the design, it gets muddied down into a boring wash for fear of the public not being able to connect with it.

I've noticed that few if any new buildings pair the windows in the way you have them there, imitating a style that was once pretty common. 

 

I think it's fair to say that the OTR Italienate style WAS a relatively cheap style, so I don't understand why it's so tough for architects to simply copy the facades exactly.  Hollywood set designers can do it faithfully but somehow architects can't. 

 

There are a couple of things that go into this.  First, when OTR was originally built, labor cost was low.  This set up lends itself to the detailed ornamentation you see all over OTR, as it cost very little to have 20 guys working long hours on small details.  Today, labor cost is huge, and the goal of most construction projects is to have things put together as quickly as possible.  This is why you get things like huge bricks (think University Park Apartments) – masons are expensive, and big bricks = less time to stack.

 

As for replicating the Italianate details like the cast iron cornice – this can’t really be done today because cast iron is a lot more expensive and no one would ever pay for it if an architect did specify it.  Instead, it would be done in EIFS or something similar, and it would start to look like crap after 15-20 years instead of the 100+ years cast iron will look nice.  As for Hollywood sets, I believe they simply use plaster which is quick and easy to work with if you have a couple talented guys doing it, but it can’t be used on the outside of a building. Sets are temporary and it doesn’t matter if they leak, buildings have to last.

 

I prefer the proposal.  If the board wants an anachronism, tell them you will provide hollographic technology as soon as it is available. 

 

The design offers a cornice, a strong differentiation between base and top, and the varried roof line breaks down the scale of the building mass.  While the scale of fenestration is a little larger than the neighborhood norm and the materiality is obviously different, I would not call this building an unacceptable infill.

 

MAYBE, change the material between the storefront to brick and see if they would be more willing to oblige.  (Even if the only reason buildings were built in brick back then is because it was cheap, as concrete is now.)

I prefer the proposal.  If the board wants an anachronism, tell them you will provide hollographic technology as soon as it is available. 

 

The design offers a cornice, a strong differentiation between base and top, and the varried roof line breaks down the scale of the building mass.  While the scale of fenestration is a little larger than the neighborhood norm and the materiality is obviously different, I would not call this building an unacceptable infill.

 

MAYBE, change the material between the storefront to brick and see if they would be more willing to oblige.  (Even if the only reason buildings were built in brick back then is because it was cheap, as concrete is now.)

 

See, this attitude is curious to me. How is replicating or complementing an older style an anachronism? Does that follow, then, that everything new must be of the newest style? Did you check out those Irish buildings? They are pretty damn nice, and I wouldn't dismiss that project as an anachronism.

 

And I will concede that 150' is a lot of building to build on Vine, and putting the same metal panels over all of it is going to screw any notion of "verticality." But I think if you start playing with other materials like brick, and try to draw out those more vertical building elements in 150' of facade that you're going to start wandering away from the sleek modern vibe they are going for and into the realm of "transitional crap."

 

Then again, maybe not. I'm not an architect. Maybe someone would like to sketch something out that would be build-able, lasting and satisfy the Italianate feel of the neighbors.

^^

 

Anachronism comes into play in the fine line between replicating and complementing. 

 

Building Italianate style buildings, or neo-classical, or tudor style, or Gothic revival... all are anachronisms, even if under the pretense or justification of context.  In the end it is a matter of taste, Architecture enables you to achieve anything from any period.  Some prefer new, some prefer the old.

What is everyones opinion of 14th/v and Trinity Flats?

 

Then, what is your opinion of the <i>area<i/> that Trinity flats and 14th/v are in?

 

When I look at that area (ignoring the Mercer commons parking lot area) it looks like a decently high quality, dense, fairly seamless transition between new and old.

 

In fact- the WORST part of 14th&Vine is the ugly, "modern" commercial space on the first floor, NOT the small brick finish with strong windows, etc. The metal on the modern first floor of 14th and vine is already starting to look crappy from wear and tear. Trinity on the other hand has a more traditional first floor, and again has strong window designs, etc.

 

And no one seems to remember that 90% of what we will see on this glass structure is curtains. floor to ceiling, probably closed most of the time like nearly all the larger windows in OTR. 

 

Floor to ceiling glass windows are much better on hill sides or in high rises, where you can leave them open and not see someone one or two floors down on the street looking up at you 24/7.  JMHO, but i'd be willing to bet that most of these windows will just be blinds closed most of the time.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111114/BIZ01/111150325

 

"Mercy Commons denied"  (cincinnati.com front page headline...)

 

Denied by the Conservation Board, but they don't need the Board's approval.  I hope they just ignore this silly Board and start construction. 

 

It's those thoughts that would enable Greenhills to outright flatten the Gamble House, to allow for the continued demolition of OTR - which is teetering on 50% wholesale demolition of its historic stock that threaten its National Historic District designation. There is room for compromise, and we understand that, but we want to try and preserve what's left of the Italianate building stock.

 

The disagreement between 3CDC and the Conservation Board has to do with the design of new construction, not with the demolition or renovation of the historic buildings on site.  How does the construction of a modern building hinder the preservation of the Italianate building stock?

 

It has everything to do with it. And while the disagreement did not hinge specifically on the older buildings that would have been razed under their proposal, there was significant opposition that was a factor in having the Conservation Board reject 3CDC's proposal 6-0.

 

But the modern building design can hinder the preservation of the older building stock. When you have developers proposing cheap modernistic designs, similar to University Park or The Banks, what is to stop them in demolishing other less significant but historic buildings and replace them with cheap modernistic designs for cost savings? The ball starts rolling somewhere.