^ agreed.

 

Btw-  Incase anyone didn't know- All apartments/condos in Mercer will have to pay $75 a month for a parking space in the garage.

You mean will have to pay $75 if they want a space, or will have to pay for a space if they want an apartment?

I love those pics.

^ agreed.

 

Btw-  Incase anyone didn't know- All apartments/condos in Mercer will have to pay $75 a month for a parking space in the garage.

You mean will have to pay $75 if they want a space, or will have to pay for a space if they want an apartment?

 

If they want a space.

Demolition permits have been issued.  I think 1314 Vine is coming down this upcoming week.

Everyone take photos while they still can.

What a sad state of affairs. See record of the fight to save this structure in this article from March 2011:

http://overtherhine.wordpress.com/2011/03/07/the-fate-of-1314-vine-street-and-mercer-commons/

Coolest part about that building is the steeple.  I wonder if they can detach it and move it somewhere else.

Beyond the steeple and maybe the history, is there actually anything so redeeming about this building to fight its demolition? I'm all for preservation in OTR, but it seems like this building wasn't spectacular to begin with and it being sacrificed will help move the project along with better results. At least in my opinion anyway.

Beyond the steeple and maybe the history, is there actually anything so redeeming about this building to fight its demolition? I'm all for preservation in OTR, but it seems like this building wasn't spectacular to begin with and it being sacrificed will help move the project along with better results. At least in my opinion anyway.

You're getting your way, so the point is moot.

That's fine, I was just curious if I was missing something that was making many people opposed to its demolition.

That's fine, I was just curious if I was missing something that was making many people opposed to its demolition.

I think the main argument was to stop the slippery slope of demolitions we've been on for decades.

 

IMO the facade could have served as a good entrance to the garage. I don't know all the engineering work which would have to go into that, though.

 

I was kind of ambivalent about the building coming down, but certainly not up in arms about it. Now that it's going down, I am not crying. Just hoping for better preservation in the future than we've seen up till now.

Well, no need to be snippy about it :P I've been in the Vine Street building before - it's nothing special. The only item worth salvaging is the cornice and trim on the facade, and that's it. The interior is so butchered that I have to agree with the city, 3CDC and even many preservationists - there is nothing notable about this building. It may be historic in the sense that it is old, but that doesn't mean it is significant to save when a higher and better use is possible.

There is a slippery slope to demolition, but at the same time there's also a slippery slope to preservation as well.  Overzealous preservation efforts have basically the same effects as low-density euclidian zoning.  It prevents the natural successional development and densification of neighborhoods, thus increasing demand and prices, and pushing development outwards rather than upwards. 

 

The practices of historic preservation, urbanism, and green building have not been particularly well integrated, even though they can and should be.  It's gotten better, but there's still a long way to go.  One thing that would help is to make certain that projects where a demolition is involved are held to a higher standard of quality and detail than they might otherwise be.  The new must be better than the old if the old is going away.  The new being worse than the old is exactly what started the preservation movement in the first place, so that very circumstance must be avoided. 

1329 Walnut St. is coming down as of this morning.

Wrecking ball has hit 1314 Vine Street as of this morning.  I expect it will be down later today. 

^Or maybe not--I have no real time frame of how long it takes to bring something like that down.

From this morning:

If they had renovated the Red Barn, it would have become hipster central.

No more purple. Or lavender or whatever. Another building should be painted to honor the dearly departed. :)

I like the use of plywood to protect the parking lot pavement that will be torn up in a few weeks.

 

It's exciting to see the official start of work on this project.

I just hope the building that replaces this doesn't become a white elephant like Gateway I.  Seems pretty similar in size and layout ... being a front to a large parking garage, similar aesthetic ...albeit with more glass, and an actual storefront. 

 

The real storefront is an improvement, but I'm not sure about all the glass.  Who wants to live in a fishbowl facing Vine Street?

I saw people out and about on Walnut, too, this morning, but don't know if they will get over there today or not.

I heard that they saved the cornice from 1314 Vine.  Can anyone confirm?

As of last night, the cornice was laying in the parking lot at the site.  It had straps on it suggesting it was carefully taken down with a crane.

Good. 

^^^ You can actually see it in the picture you took.  It is the white thing on the ground.

Tack it on the convention center.

^Or the new building that will replace it!

Tack it on the convention center.

 

Awesome

And make sure it faces a one-way street leading away from it. 

It'll probably be for sale at an architectural salvage yard in Chicago for $40,000 in a couple weeks.

^^^ You can actually see it in the picture you took.  It is the white thing on the ground.

 

D'oh!  Completely missed that.

The site along Vine is all clear now, to be honest it already feels a lot less ghetto from 12th all the way to 14th. In fact, it feels almost completely revitalized. Strange what removing (or had they renovated, not making a claim either way) that purple building did to improve the feel of the street.

Here is an infill bulding in Chicago that is kind of inappropriate for the area its in but would be absolutely stunning in the middle of OTR, when I harp on and on about upping the quality of infill in Cincinnati its because I see buildings like this around me quite a bit:

 

 

I like most of what 3CDC has done, but I wish mercer had more stuff like the photo of the building above

 

Here is an infill bulding in Chicago that is kind of inappropriate for the area its in but would be absolutely stunning in the middle of OTR, when I harp on and on about upping the quality of infill in Cincinnati its because I see buildings like this around me quite a bit:

 

 

I like most of what 3CDC has done, but I wish mercer had more stuff like the photo of the building above

 

 

As much as I want to praise that fine-looking structure, I've seen too much awful, Parquet-brick infill in Chicago to not be objective.  I agree with some of the other regulars, once the Streetcar is in the ground and running, property value will shoot up, and developments won't be as basic.  Just as we all have to live with the fact that even with downtown revitalization, Cincinnati as a whole will still be one of the more blighted cities in the country, we will have to live with some disappointment in city accomplishments.

Here is an infill bulding in Chicago that is kind of inappropriate for the area its in but would be absolutely stunning in the middle of OTR, when I harp on and on about upping the quality of infill in Cincinnati its because I see buildings like this around me quite a bit:

 

 

I like most of what 3CDC has done, but I wish mercer had more stuff like the photo of the building above

 

 

As much as I want to praise that fine-looking structure, I've seen too much awful, Parquet-brick infill in Chicago to not be objective.  I agree with some of the other regulars, once the Streetcar is in the ground and running, property value will shoot up, and developments won't be as basic.  Just as we all have to live with the fact that even with downtown revitalization, Cincinnati as a whole will still be one of the more blighted cities in the country, we will have to live with some disappointment in city accomplishments.

 

Things are changing in America and Cincinnati is not really more blighted than average. Take a city like Orlando, where blight in the form of poorly maintained 1960's cinderblock ranches cover large swaths of the city, AND its commercial corridors are pretty ugly to boot. Only the trendiest urban neighborhoods in Orlando approach the charm and architectural interest of middle class neighborhoods in Cincinnati like Clifton or Oakley.

ehhh-  I've done my fair share of traveling/living in other places, and the drive through northern OTR to the West End, Up central Parkway, Brighton's Corner, over the Viaduct to South Fairmount, etc. is pretty damn blighted.  The worst I've ever seen outside of Detroit (although my travels usually take me East, South & West, not so much midwest, ironically). 

 

The buildings are obviously very beautiful, but there are still SO many boarded up buildings, it's almost crazy. 

 

 

Has anyone noticed if the older green building on Walnut has also been taken down? or just 1314 Vine at this point?

 

 

 

 

 

Walked down Walnut yesterday and the green building is still there.

ehhh-  I've done my fair share of traveling/living in other places, and the drive through northern OTR to the West End, Up central Parkway, Brighton's Corner, over the Viaduct to South Fairmount, etc. is pretty damn blighted.  The worst I've ever seen outside of Detroit (although my travels usually take me East, South & West, not so much midwest, ironically). 

 

The buildings are obviously very beautiful, but there are still SO many boarded up buildings, it's almost crazy. 

 

I couldn't agree with you more. It's a main source of frustration for me when it comes to urban revitalization in Cincy. The progress made is astounding and looks great, BUT the drive you just mentioned (and many more outside of OTR) is a constant reminder of how much more progress is needed. The Gateway Dist is a VERY small piece of the puzzle, people.

Here is an infill bulding in Chicago that is kind of inappropriate for the area its in but would be absolutely stunning in the middle of OTR, when I harp on and on about upping the quality of infill in Cincinnati its because I see buildings like this around me quite a bit:

 

 

I like most of what 3CDC has done, but I wish mercer had more stuff like the photo of the building above

 

 

Here is where I am probably an outsider to this forum, mainly due to my thinking about preservation in general.  I love preserved buildings, I love their quality and their character, I believe they contribute to overall infrastructural value and architectural value of a city.

 

BUT I truly believe that going with faux historic buildings is a horrible detriment to the actual historical buildings in OTR.  The character and architectural intrigue of OTR might be better served if the UDRB and other City offices flipped their position 180 degrees and encouraged extremely simple , metal and glass clad buildings.  The contrast would be amazing and striking.  In effect the new buildings would reflect the old or disappear viewed as mere masses amongst their historical neighbors. In the end it would show off the extreme number of historic buildings in the area.

 

The buildings in OTR were built in keeping with with the construction advances of their time, by building something next to them that is not in keeping with our own time does not seem right. 

Except "our time" sucks.

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 bullshit.  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. 

I have to agree with jjakucyk, that style is pretty irrelevant in contemporary architecture, I'm not really concerned with what "style" it chooses as long as it is good, responsible design that is a good neighbor, contributes to surrounding neighborhood, and is people friendly.  I'm not so keen on the idea of glass buildings that "disappear," because that is a form of cop-out response that doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the urban environment.  We should be able to create buildings that are just as valuable to the community as those that were built 100 years ago.

 

That said, as a self-proclaimed architectural historian/investigator, I think a building should be an expression of its time, but that is more an issue of construction methods than the overall physical appearance.  I only discourage more traditional looking buildings in the sense that most architects today have no skills in proportioning and detailing with a classical eye.

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. 

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1892.390.html#ixzz1iPbwRI46

 

The pic I supplied was not good quality, I was playing around with tapatalk and it didn't upload it the right way from my phone (too small).  It looks nicer than that.  Its also really hard to get a pic of that place because its frankly a terrible location.  In terms of execution the context is horrible - it's on a highway as wide as Liberty Street in an area that was once a working class turn of the century neighborhood with (typical midwestren) frame houses.  On the other hand if this was put into OTR it would look quite nice.  Is it as good as the old stuff in OTR? Not really. Is it beyond much of what's going in down there? Yes it is and all I'm trying to do is get people in Cincinnati to start thinking about what kinds of infill can be built.  There may be economic restrictions, but if the developers valued creative thinking there are always workarounds to produce similar results.

 

Here is a higher quality pic:

 

 

-----

 

BUT I truly believe that going with faux historic buildings is a horrible detriment to the actual historical buildings in OTR.  The character and architectural intrigue of OTR might be better served if the UDRB and other City offices flipped their position 180 degrees and encouraged extremely simple , metal and glass clad buildings.  The contrast would be amazing and striking.  In effect the new buildings would reflect the old or disappear viewed as mere masses amongst their historical neighbors. In the end it would show off the extreme number of historic buildings in the area.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?action=post;topic=1892.390;last_msg=595320#ixzz1iPmaNK1P

 

This is a really extreme example, but here is what an area with tons of glass buildings and a few historic buildings looks like for those to at least get a good image of what's being discussed, and also keep in mind the modern stuff will most likely not look as good as what's being built in Vancouver given the tastes/economic realities of local developers in Cincinnati:

 

(copy paste this into the url box on your browser or else it tries to embed which doesn't work very well -http://maps.google.com/?ll=49.284618,-123.124833&spn=0.001352,0.001561&t=h&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=49.284682,-123.124934&panoid=mYuBGSXGFZHoghW8bEw55w&cbp=12,130.24,,0,-14.69 )

 

Sorry neil, jjakucyk is right. That building is an example of OK materials but they didn't pull off the design quite right.

I have to agree with jjakucyk, that style is pretty irrelevant in contemporary architecture, I'm not really concerned with what "style" it chooses as long as it is good, responsible design that is a good neighbor, contributes to surrounding neighborhood, and is people friendly.  I'm not so keen on the idea of glass buildings that "disappear," because that is a form of cop-out response that doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the urban environment.  We should be able to create buildings that are just as valuable to the community as those that were built 100 years ago.

 

That said, as a self-proclaimed architectural historian/investigator, I think a building should be an expression of its time, but that is more an issue of construction methods than the overall physical appearance. I only discourage more traditional looking buildings in the sense that most architects today have no skills in proportioning and detailing with a classical eye.

I'll accept that last statement since I'm no architect -- but I find it depressing and amazing.

 

I also don't think it necessary to adopt a particular style for OTR infill.  I just want pleasing proportions and relationships (as how jjakucyk described them, very generally) and good execution in terms of workmanship and material quality.  It seems to me that different building styles can intermingle quite nicely, provided that this is done.  It also seems to me that excellent execution and materials are the most difficult to realize.  If I see a building I hate, usually it's because it's built cheaply, or because some design features were omitted because it needed to be built cheaply.

 

Most of the obstacles to "good" infill I see are of an economic nature that I can't completely understand.  For the life of me, I don't get how 30 feet of decorative tin cornice can cost more than $30,000 to manufacture and install.  Why is it so difficult (or expensive?) to specify and install a decent looking lintel, or door.  Plastering is becoming such a lost art that you would think it is magic sometimes, to talk to someone about doing it instead of drywall.

 

I read recently about the next round of OTR rehabs (3CDC, but not Mercer commons) where the finished single family homes were going to be selling for $500K+.  These are for buildings where the purchase price was probably in the range of $0-50K.  Just where is this money going?  Not to the guy installing the shower pan for $500 or the crew installing drywall at $6 per sheet.  I'm well aware of the "difficulty" of rehabbing old structures but come on...

 

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?

 

I hope this is not off-topic, and I'm happy to be educated about how it all really works in the world of big architecture.  But maybe if we really want high quality infill, we should also consider how to train a new generation of modern craftsmen so they can efficiently implement high quality architectural features, even if it's at the scale of an individual single family home.  And figure out how to make most of the money go into their pockets.

>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. 

 

 

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. 

 

Windows are usually the Achilles' heel of most of today's attempts at historic building.  These sorts of buildings want tall and relatively narrow windows.  However, to get something that's tall enough for a space with 10 or 12 foot ceilings gets quite expensive and are usually value-engineered out.  When that goes, the proportions of the elevations go with it.  Vinyl windows, which the less expensive projects are going to have, are generally no taller than 6 feet, which is really not big enough.  Wood and clad windows are available at pretty big sizes, but again, with the necessity of insulated glazing the larger double-hung windows require beefier hardware and frames, plus those larger insulated glass panels, so the price soars. 

 

Frankly there's little excuse for not getting the proportions right.  There's simple and inexpensive tricks to make a cheap and squat window look taller, same with doors.  Cornices are a little more difficult, but really aren't that hard if you want to make it work.  It's just that a lot of people don't think about or even care about the proportions.  Other times there's external parameters that cause issues with proper proportioning.  In a lot of cases I figure there's a combination of lack of full understanding of the proper conventions of proportioning, a lack of interest from the client in doing it really well (i.e. they don't want to pay any extra design fees), and also value engineering that ends up requiring smaller windows and other decorative elements than there really should be.  There's also another factor whereby some architects might exaggerate some elements or mess around with things just to put their own sort of signature on it, trying to create their own kind of style, even if it doesn't really work. 

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.

Sorry neil, jjakucyk is right. That building is an example of OK materials but they didn't pull off the design quite right.

Yeah, I totally agree. I prefer things that are actually being built in OTR like City Homes (minus the vinyl) and Trinity Flats.

 

 

These take historic elements of the neighborhood and apply them in a contemporary context, but they don't bastardize historic styles like in neilworms's pic.