Why don't they put a remote control access Gate at the bottom and leave the top gateless.  That would solve most of the problems.

I can say that, for myself, installing a gate of any kind would cause me boundless visceral hate for the entire project.  This is the frickin' city.  I understand cutting off access to close off a street to through-traffic for a host of reasons.  But gating it, allowing access only to those we want to have access, while keeping others out?  I would despise that.

 

the fire deparment won't let this happen.  The ladder company at mcmicken and vine would have to go all the way up the hill on sycamore to get to the project.  with the road open they can just shoot up vine, there response time would be doubled at least.

 

and come on, lets not end up like west chester with endless culs du sac and gated communties

Yeah, it's a city.  I'd have no issue with it if it were in Montgomery or wherever but this is less than a mile from downtown.  No gates, no street blocking.  If anything, that would encourage development along the adjacent streets.

Yeah, no blocking. Same concept as the steps in E. Walnut Hills down to the East End.

This discussion makes me think of the neighborhood in Dayton where they placed random gates to stop crime/drug traffic. I'm not sure if that plan made residents feel more secure or not.

It made residents feel more confused, if anything.  Five Oaks (which you are referring too) plan was not that effective and the gates currently are an eyesore.

When 13th st was blocked crime plummeted  :-o I too would not like the gated aspect but hey I don't drive a car much around here. I am an urban walker and the gate wouldn't bother me a bit.(As long as you can get in by walking) without any problems. It might make suburbanites who are considering moving to the city feel safer like the new houses that are being built around mt auburn that you just drive in your garage and shut out the world.  but whatever gets people to move into this area I am with it!! For some reason I think that in the early plans there would be no access at the bottom.  Don't mess with the steps though or maximillian will become angry :x

^Thanks for the name, helped me find the thread:  http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=6116.0

When 13th st was blocked crime plummeted  :-o I too would not like the gated aspect but hey I don't drive a car much around here. I am an urban walker and the gate wouldn't bother me a bit.(As long as you can get in by walking) without any problems. It might make suburbanites who are considering moving to the city feel safer like the new houses that are being built around mt auburn that you just drive in your garage and shut out the world.  but whatever gets people to move into this area I am with it!! For some reason I think that in the early plans there would be no access at the bottom.  Don't mess with the steps though or maximillian will become angry :x

 

In some cases, I'm for suburban catering.  In this case, we are dealing with historic rowhouses and an already-existing neighborhood.  So no, screw the suburban mentality of blocked streets in this case.  Mt. Auburn is not Mt. Orab.

Mt. Auburn is not Mt. Orab.

I am a proud Mt auburn homeowner and I agree with that! Inwood village is a great idea.  There is nothing cooler than standing at the top or bottom of Glencoe and soaking in the beautiful stairstep architecture.  The neighborhood is one of the most unique in cincinnati.

^Amen to that!  It's a great location, and it's visually interesting from every angle.  It could be such a great little community, could be a center of life that flows out into the surrounding community - instead, it's a lifeless hole that depresses the whole area.  But wow, so much potential...

 

OK, a different direction then I thought the update would go into. The important thing now is that the project get started and completed. Street blocking will be a mute point if the city does not see that this is an immensely important project, not just for Mt. Auburn, but for the entire area.

The City needs to fund this project, so send some emails, make some calls, let them know.  Either this project is going to happen and the city come through with what they already have agreed to, or it sits there indefinetly, maintaining the status quo.

 

Michael, do you know what plans are for parking?  If these places were all renovated and filled up, there's absolutely no way there'd be enough space on the stree for even half or a third of the residents.  How is that going to be handled?  Or is the issue a non-issue right now, and will be addressed at a hypothetical later date?

 

BTW, if anyone's interested, there are photos of the area from 2004 about halfway down the first page of this thread...

 

^yeah i was wondering about that myself (the parking).  Had the light rail been built the mt. auburn stop would have alievated some of those issues.

If I remember it was a combination of parking lots, parking decks, and possibly individualy garages/carports.

I could be wrong about this but I do know of two houses that Pauline is going to buy or has bought, they are both directly behind the model, I want to say that some parking is going to go there after they are torn down (one already has a tree sitting on it roof) As for the rest, I am not sure. There is existing parking spaces at the bottom of the first row of condos on the right.

So how many buildings are gonna be torn down in the end?  (I hope you understand that the suggestion makes the ol' sphinkter tighten up a little...)

 

 

two frame, non historic building, one that a tree has fallen on, both abandoned. 

Well, I guess the question is the long-term plans for parking...I understand if that isn't worked out yet, but obviously two lots isn't sufficient for demand.  I'm just not familiar enough with the area to know if there's ample spaces or not, it's just looking at Glencoe and LeRoy and all that, I just don't see it...

 

to be honest, I don't know enough about the parking situation to really comment on it.  Next time I see Pauline, I will ask. 

 

If anyone has a camera and wants to take some new pics of the interior of the model, let me know and I will get you in.  The outside just doesn't tell the story.

Re: parking

 

The only parking I have heard of is a 57-space garage structure that the developers want the city to fund.

 

That doesn't seem like very much.

 

Ok, there are just short of 2 parking spaces per unit.  There will be surface lots dotted all around the project in addition to the garage. 

 

This project I feel is about to happen, it is going in front of the finance committee to get approval for cost increases and all members of council and the mayor have been met with individually. 

The community, including Dist 4 and Dist 1 are getting behind this along with Christ Hospital because many of the problems associated with having a huge, vacant, neglected property are radiating outward and affecting the neighborhood as a whole.

UrbanOhio's voice should be heard as well on this project.  Here is a chance to do more than just talk about upcoming projects but to have a say in getting it done.  Please write council, tell them how important 68 historic, market rate homes in the heart of Mt Auburn could benefit us all in exposing even more to the urban lifestyle.

It is time to draw the line in the sand, Inwood Village has been neglected, and pushed to the side for years.  We have an opportunity to as a community, as people who realize the importants of building our urban core, to bring to life a project that will serve as a catylyst to even more development between uptown and downtown Cincinnati.  Please email council today, this is it!

 

Vice Mayor James R. Tarbell

Phone: (513) 352-3604

Fax: (513) 352-3621

[email protected]

Y. Laketa Cole

Phone: (513) 352-3466

Fax: (513) 352-3957

[email protected]

 

Jeff Berding

Phone: (513) 352-3283

Fax: (513) 352-3289

[email protected]

 

Chris Bortz

Phone: (513) 352-3255

Fax: (513) 3264

[email protected]

John Cranley

Phone: (513) 352-5303

Fax: (513) 352-4657

[email protected]

 

David Crowley

Phone: (513) 352-2453

Fax: (513) 352-2365

[email protected]

Leslie Ghiz

Phone: (513) 352-3344

Fax: (513) 352-3277

[email protected]

 

Chris Monzel

Phone: (513) 352-3653

Fax: (513) 352-4649

[email protected]

 

Cecil Thomas

801 Plum St. Rm 349

Phone: (513) 352-3492

Fax: (513) 352-3218

[email protected]

This could be a great project that will help fill in some of the awesome density in the core.  I hate it when people compare density numbers...and it just doesn't add up.  There is NO WAY that Charlotte is as dense as Cincinnati, but thats what the numbers say.  If Cincy were to fill in these type of bldgs then the numbers wouldn't even come close.

 

Picture it this way...Inwood Village is a very dense area, but it is vacant...so if a place like Charlotte simply threw down 10 SF track homes over the same land area - then poof; higher density numbers.  When in all reality it isn't close.  I pray for the day when there are almost none of these places left in Cincy.  Our inner-city 'hoods are struggling...hopefully our city government takes the right action of this one; and allows a reuse to occur!

Say it loud UncleRando, say it to the people who need to hear it, City Council, they are deciding now. 

who do you need to sway?  I am just guessing a call or email to tarbell wouldn't be as beneficial to a call or email to (fill in the blank)

Leslie Ghiz

Phone: (513) 352-3344

Fax: (513) 352-3277

[email protected]

 

 

Chris Bortz

Phone: (513) 352-3255

Fax: (513) 3264

[email protected]

 

These are the two that we are not sure of.  The others still could use emails or calls to let them know that they are indeed making the right decission on supporting Inwood.  Thank you Thomasbw and everyone else.

 

I was searching for a thread similar, but I couldn't find anything ...

 

I was wandering if anyone has heard anything in regards to Glencoe in Mt. Auburn? This place is amazing and has the potential to be a great area. I know Michael Redmond was mentioning something about city financing to get this project going, but I haven't heard anything recent. Any updates would be greatly appreciated!

 

Just a small sample of Glencoe for those of you that don't know about it (a bad and gloomy picture, if anyone has a better one -mods feel free to replace this one) ...

 

 

I haven't heard a thing.

The hold up is that the city has already agreed to provide funding for improvements of their property (city property) which are the small concrete parks that are overgrown and an eyesore.  They now do not want to release that money until after the project is completed which we say will hender the sales.  The model is already complete and the project is ready to go, we just need to get over this one hurdle.

Inwood Village project seeking preservation tax credits

Building Cincinnati, 9/26/07

 

The developer of the stalled Inwood Village project in Mount Auburn is seeking state tax credits to help fund the rehabilitation a historic district abutting Christ Hospital.

 

Developer Pauline Van der Haer of Dorian Development has applied for Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credits for a $20.5 million rehabiliation of the Glencoe-Auburn Hotel and the Glencoe-Auburn Place Row Houses.

 

The rehabilitation of the buildings, which were built between 1884 and 1891, would produce 68 market-rate homes priced in the $200,000-$300,000 range.

 

The tax credits, which are distributed by the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD), are equal to 25 percent of the owner's qualifying rehabilitation expenditures.*

 

ODOD has deemed $16 million of the project cost eligible for the tax credits.

 

Van der Haer had been loath to seek federal tax credits for the project after the district was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2004.

 

The project was first announced in 2004 with the promise of 31 units in Phase I, and a model was completed in late 2006.

 

Since then, the project has stalled due to funding. The City has already approved Community Development Block Grant funding for infrastructure improvements in the district, including the small concrete parks in the courtyards.

 

However, the City wants for the buildings to be completed before that money is released. Dorian feels that the overgrown courtyards would hurt sales.

 

In related news, parking capacity has not yet been ironed out, but it's likely to include at least one parking structure and numerous small surface lots.

 

* The credit can be claimed against the building owner's Ohio corporate franchise tax, personal income tax, or dealer-in-intangible tax liability.

 

http://buildingcincinnati.blogspot.com/2007/09/inwood-village-project-seeking.html

 

God, this would be amazing if it were redeveloped.

Seicer did a good writeup of this area at his Abandoned site (w/pix).

 

http://www.abandonedonline.net/index.php?catid=349

This project is not abandoned, it is still moving forward however the city needs to step up to the plate and take care of the property they own that is dotted all around this site.  Pauline has worked very hard to come to a reasonable agreement with the city and she is very close.  The mayor has said this project needs to happen and we have most of counsel on board however there are a few that either do not understand the importance of this site and its redevelopment, or simply have other priorities outside the turnaround of the area that links uptown to OTR and downtown.

 

One really cool change in the plan is the Glencoe Hotel that might find its way back into the boutique hotel business.  So many great things can happen if counsel will step up to the plate and do what they have already promised to do, but we need to tell them.  If anyone knows any of the counsel members personally, ask them--if anyone is at any of the "meet the counsel" meetings, tell them--we need Inwood!

I don't think Seicer was writing off the area as abandoned forever by putting it on his page, just that it was not occupied at the time he took pictures.

I don't think Seicer was writing off the area as abandoned forever by putting it on his page, just that it was not occupied at the time he took pictures.

Understood, however I wish to reiterate the need for a push by everyone who would like to see Mt. Auburn begin the same path of change as Uptown, downtown and OTR.  If an area the size of Inwood can have the negative impact that it has had over the years by being a vacant site with the fostering of drug activity and prostitution--just imagine the positive impact that a new, totally rehabbed, 68 condos from affordable to luxury can bring.  Inwood does not exist in a vacuum, it impacts the community as a whole either negatively or positively, and we now have a chance at the latter. 

 

So call the counsel members, send them an email, or stop them on the street and tell them we need INWOOD!

Ha, I love this place.

 

I've been photographing these buildings, as well as writing about them for the last year or so.

 

Here are just a few of the hundreds of photographs I have of the row houses.

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

 

7.

 

8.

 

9.

 

10.

 

11.

 

12.

 

13.

 

14.

 

15.

 

16.

 

17.

 

18.

 

19.

 

20.

 

The condos that they have completed are really really nice. If I had the means, I wouldn't mind living in one.

 

^Neat stuff...thanks for sharing.

Nice job!

There is a grad student at Penn who presented a paper on this at the recent Society for American City and Regional Planning Historians. Compared it with a neighborhood in Pittsburgh.

Love the photos...

Had this idea today...when and if the streetcar line is built up the Vine St. hill, the line could instead be built on Loth St. which would both move the streetcar to a quieter street and somewhat closer to this development.  As is a walk to Vine St. from the highest of these new condos is roughly 2,000 feet due to the circuitous nature of Valencia and Thill St.  A pedestrian walk between Rice and Loth would allow a much shorter walk to the streetcar from this development, plus encourage redevelopment of Rice and Loth St. 

 

Bus service on Auburn Ave. is infrequent compared to Vine St. so the focus has to be on better connections with Vine.  But the idea for a pedestrian tunnel between these row buildings cutting right into the hillside to the never-built Auburn Ave. station of the never-built Mt. Auburn tunnel is a seductive idea.  In other words instead of having to walk up Glencoe to Auburn Ave., people could just walk downhill through a pedestrian tunnel to that station (which of course theoretically could still be built in the future)!

 

 

I always get excited when I hear/talk about the Mt. Auburn tunnel, but I often think to myself that the cost/benefit analysis just simply work out...and that it would become more of a Big Dig type thing on a smaller scale for Cincinnati.

There's no way for light rail or heavy rail to get to UC without a tunnel, so that's not the issue.  The real cost/benefit issue is the Auburn Ave. station, which would be very expensive and necessitate a slightly longer route for the tunnel (maybe 1,000 more feet).  The tunnel's grade would also have to level a significant distance ahead and behind the station to allow for the platforms to be extended in the future (riding into New York City on the Long Island Railroad is a bit funny because only the front four cars of six car trains line up with the station platforms closer to the city).  This means the actual typical grade below and above this station would have to be somewhat steeper.  And actually a full 400~ foot station would have to be built initially since I don't think extending platforms on such a deep station can be done easily while maintaining service.  Coming in later and building a station on a grade is illegal since it isn't ADA complaint.  Boston's Blue Line has one or two stations built on significant grades, it's a bit like being in a fun house. 

 

The big non-capital cost-benefit of not building a station under Auburn Ave. is that the trains could run much faster and without brake wear.  The distance between Liberty St. and Corry St. at Jefferson Ave. is almost exactly 6,000ft., so trains could make that trip in 70 or 80 seconds with no station stop.   

 

 

 

 

"so trains could make that trip in 70 or 80 seconds with no station stop.    "

 

That would make it worth it in itself!

 

No car could even come close!

No car could even come close!

 

...well, that depends on a) how long it takes you to get to Corry at Jefferson, and b) how long you have to wait for the next train...

 

^Really the beauty of the Mt. Auburn Tunnel routing is that when built-out with three routes converging at Xavier University, headways even in off-peak hours would be very frequent between Xavier and downtown.  For example on Sunday nights with trains only running once every 20 minutes on individual lines, there would still be 7~ minute headways in this area.  And during weekday rush hours six trains per hour per branch would mean 3 minute headways through Avondale and Corryville.

 

But wait there's more.  As I've posted here before, a tunnel under the river between downtown Cincinnati and Covington with a station at the NK Tank transit center means Tank buses could terminate there with trains every three minutes not just to downtown Cincinnati but to the many employment and educational destinations north to Norwood.  This would both save Tank a lot of miles (and therefore actual buses) while greatly improving the transfer situation.     

jmeck. . . when do we start digging... I'm free Sunday morning.

CraigMoyer, those pics are fantastic.  I plan on linking to your post on my blog.

>I'm free Sunday morning.

 

Damn, I missed this.  We'll do it next week.