June 17, 200816 yr Just drove through this area for the first time last night. Very spooky at night. Looks like it has a lot of potential. Has any progress been made here?
June 17, 200816 yr I don't think that any progress has been made. I'd love to be told otherwise though.
June 19, 200816 yr I was talking to Pauline the other day and she's making some progress on this but there are still issues.
June 19, 200816 yr The city is just giving this the runaround. There was an agreement on the table a couple of years ago and then it comes down to them not wanting to fix their (the cities) own property that surrounds the project.
June 22, 200816 yr Another issue with a deep tunnel station is capacity of the elevators. Waiting for an elevator car can also add time to the commute.
June 23, 200816 yr I drive or walk or bike Auburn almost every day, I just don't get the sense that there's enough population up there to make that station worthwhile. They would have to encourage high-rise residential in that immediate area (and there are a few good sites currently occupied by low-rise offices) but I think even by adding 1,000 residential units they'd be struggling to get enough riders to make that station worth it. I don't know how many people work at Christ but they wouldn't be attracting a lot of commuters until the whole light rail network were quite large. I don't think the elevators are much of an issue, there are many stations with elevators around the country. They are typically at lower-capacity stations like this.
September 17, 200816 yr Motion to jumpstart stalled Inwood Village project adopted, but questions remain http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/09/motion-to-jumpstart-stalled-inwood.html A motion by Cincinnati City Councilmember Roxanne Qualls to jumpstart the stalled Inwood Village project has been adopted, but City administration remains concerned about an incomplete development proposal. Qualls' motion would direct the City to negotiate a $5.1 million funding and development agreement with Dorian Development for the long-vacant Glencoe-Auburn Place Row Houses and the Glencoe-Auburn Hotel in Mount Auburn, pending passage of an ordinance for $300,000 in pre-development funding. Now referred to by the City as the Glencoe Hotel and Condominiums project, the current development proposal calls for Dorian to perform public improvements on the City-owned concrete courtyards and other infrastructure and to rehabilitate the building envelopes, then to sell the shells to individual builders to rehabilitate each unit to prospective buyers' specifications. Estimated at $20 million, the project would create 54 condominiums, with an additional 14 rental units in the hotel. The $5.1 million City subsidy, over $69,000 per unit, would be budgeted for 2009. Proposals date back to 2002 Proposals for rehabbing the buildings date back to 2002, when Dorian acquired the property and approached the City about applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits to renovate it into affordable housing units. The City, looking for more homeownership opportunities, was reluctant to approve such a large rental project. In 2005, the City offered $2.6 million in public improvement assistance for a new $18 million proposal that would have created 68 condominium units in the $200,000-$300,000 price range. A model was completed in late 2006. In 2007, the City revised its offer to $5.4 million, $1.9 million of which would be used to improve the City-owned areas of the complex. A counter-offer by Dorian, which provided no evidence of conventional financing and did not address a significant funding gap, was rejected as unsatisfactory. Michael Cervay, director of the City's Department of Community Development and Planning, said that the City's relationship with the Inwood Village project had come to an end. "You refused to sign the development agreement, failed to comply with the City's request for documentation of private financing commitment, and rejected as insufficient the City's previous offer with no explanation as to how what you had previously described as insufficient is now satisfactory," Cervay said in a letter to Dorian's Pauline Van der Haer. "Your current financial need, as set forth in response to this offer, exceeds the City's capacity or willingness to supply." Late last year, an application for Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credits was rejected due to insufficient information. But in March, Dorian presented the revised proposal for an $18.5 million project that would use $7.1 million in private financing, $6 million from individual builders, and $5.4 million from the City. Pre-sales to builders would start this month, with the first units built out in April 2009 and project completion in 2011. A risky expenditure City administration is skittish about financing the project because, after several years, they still lack sufficient documentation, such as: A bank commitment, or any other financial documentation A market study more recent than one done in 2006 Guarantees of completion Documentation from the Ohio State Historic Preservation Office approving development of all of the buildings Casualty and liability insurance Environmental studies, specifically regarding lead and asbestos Geotechnical studies The City is also concerned because all City subsidies would be expended before the first unit is ever produced, putting the City's funds at risk of being wasted if no private financing materializes. And because no specific homebuilders have been identified and the entire project rests on Dorian's ability to sell the empty shells, there is even more cause for concern, especially in a soft condo market. If this project is to work, it's likely that a more detailed proposal will be required for City review before they'll part with any dollars.
September 17, 200816 yr BTW, they sustained some serious roof damage on one of the buildings during the storm. I think the tar paper might have flown off one of the other ones too.
September 19, 200816 yr I am privy to some of the details (and personally helped bring some major players to the table) and this is a great project as it fills a condo price gap in a unique and strategically important setting. We have spoken for Pauline several times and Holly spoke at this last meeting to demonstrate both the need and the viability of this project. Council membersshould know that this is not important to just Mt. Auburn, but the entire linkage from Uptown to Downtown. So much is left out of the article above and I do not know what Pauline wants released and what she doesn't, but the question of who the builders are, who the sales team would be and what the market looks like for that price range in that area--I will simply say there is know doubt in my mind, this is the right thing for the city to do. Now I am not sure what the fate of this project will be.
October 6, 200816 yr City approves $300K for Glencoe-Auburn improvements http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/10/city-approves-300k-for-glencoe-auburn.html Cincinnati City Council has approved an ordinance creating a new $300,000 capital improvement program account for the Glencoe Hotel and Condominiums project in Mount Auburn. Funds for the account will be taken from a surplus in the Neighborhood Market Rate Housing '07 account and can only be used for public improvements, which the City will initiate before January 2009. Councilmembers Leslie Ghiz and Jeff Berding voted against the ordinance. Dorian Development has proposed a $20 million rehabilitation of the six buildings in the long-vacant Glencoe-Auburn Row Houses and Glencoe Auburn Hotel complex. The rehabiliated building shells would then be sold to individual developers, resulting in the construction of 54 condominium units and 14 rental units. Last month, council approved a motion that would trigger the negotiation of a $5.1 million funding and development agreement between the City and Dorian that was conditional upon the passage of this ordinance. City administration has been uneasy about financing the project because of insufficient documentation, and worries that City money could be wasted if private financing doesn't materialize before the first unit is produced. They also worry because no specific homebuilders have been identified, and the entire project rests on Dorian's ability to sell the empty shells in a soft condo market. Dorian Development plans to unveil the project during Mt. Auburn's Row House Revival, a home show projected for September 2009. Completion of the Glencoe Hotel and Condominiums is projected for 2011.
October 6, 200816 yr I agree it is important to start this project, but if we are going to put $5 million into this project, what is the benefit to cost ratio, what is the economic impact? Just to put things into perspective: $5.1 million for 68 new units= subsidy of $75,000 per unit $132 million for the streetcar for 7994 new units= $16,512 per unit -streetcar cost account for 102 million downtown/otr line + 1 million a year for 30 years to operate. -and the streetcar gives you about 4280 more housing units over the next twenty years -and the streetcar also gives you over a million square feet of new office/hotel/retail.
October 6, 200816 yr Streetcar promises to bring what Inwood delivers. By that I mean that we talk about the development that will happen when the streetcar comes, but this is development NOW. This project lends to the argument for a streetcar, not the other way around.
October 7, 200816 yr Plus it is stakeholders that will be living, investing, participating in making Mt. Auburn and greater downtown a better, safer place. It will introduce 68 new families, and countless friends who will visit those families to a grand community that has been forgotten for a very long time. We can not equate supply (streetcar gives you about 4280 more housing units) and especially not demand over any given period of time to any one project that is not a housing development itself. Streetcar does not necessarily bring development, but development may bring a streetcar. Inwood Village is a great investment.
October 7, 200816 yr Streetcar does not necessarily bring development, but development may bring a streetcar. I think this is a false statement. Streetcars consistently do bring development, but developments are much less consistent in bringing streetcars. Inwood Village is a great investment. Agreed, but what I think thomasbw was trying to say is that while we all think this is a pretty solid investment...the streetcar is that much better. It is not an either or proposition here...Brad just likes to show how good of an investment the streetcar actually is.
October 7, 200816 yr I have heard "take money from 3CDC development" for Streetcar. I have now heard that Inwood money would be better served on streetcar. This is not a good way for Streetcar to make many friends in the development community that says we are bringing people now. The streetcar may bring development, but development absolutly brings development. Do not pit one Development against another project because both ultimately loose.
October 7, 200816 yr Streetcars bring development...LOTS of development. This has been proven through a multitude of economic studies and real-world examples. Development alone brings the exact development that it is, and maybe something else. But typically each is its own entity. If you break it down on a unit by unit analysis (like Brad did) then you begin to see how good of a deal the streetcar is. This is not saying that the two should be pitted against one another, but at some point you've got to pay for the thing. Who is better to step up than the developers who will gain the most from the streetcar (aside from the corporate entities that is)? Like I said, it does not have to be an either or proposition. Brad was just highlighting the amazing impact that the Cincinnati Streetcar will have on this community (the economic impact that has been verified by multiple institutions and case studies).
October 7, 200816 yr If you break it down on a unit by unit analysis (like Brad did) then you begin to see how good of a deal the streetcar is. Does anyone take this serious? $132 million for the streetcar for 7994 new units= $16,512 per unit How disappointed do you think everyone will be when this number 7994 just doesn't pan out (at least round it off). Who can say this, who would say this and imply that a streetcar line alone is what will bring people to an area? You are forcasting specific demand in a given area based solely on a streetcar line. I know a bit about real estate, I know a bit about what drives demand in specific types of units and this is just a terrible way to present the streetcar as you loose all credibility with such claims (I don't care who did the "study"). Inwood would simply be 75K plus 16K per unit with the streetcar. A large part of that per unit investment is going towards improvements of city owned property that is necessary for the success of Inwood. That problem, such as the drainage issues on the City property does not go away because there are tracks laid nearby. Just to throw out numbers based on other cities with a different set of circumstances than we face in OTR and Mt. Auburn with the exactness of "$132 million for the streetcar for 7994 new units= $16,512 per unit" just doesn't hold water with me and when I see it presented as "this is a pretty solid investment...the streetcar is that much better" I, and I am sure the developer and the associate builders would disagree. As I said, this is not the way to make friends in the development community. What frustrates me is that this is a good day for Inwood (after years of work) and here we are talking about the streetcar. Money is alloted for Gateway several months back and I read that it should go to the streetcar (John Schneider said it himself). The streetcar advocates are becoming myopic in their thinking and it will do nothing but hurt their efforts in the long run.
October 7, 200816 yr It was a comparative rhetoric argument that Brad made. John Schneider is not the one negotiating the funding for the streetcar, nor is Brad or anyone else on this forum. The only person responsible for this right now is Milton Dohoney. If you don't believe the numbers presented in the HDR study which were then confirmed by UC economists then fine. But you can not claim that these numbers were simply pulled out of the air. These are more than legitimate projections.
October 7, 200816 yr But you can not claim that these numbers were simply pulled out of the air. "[glow=red,2,300]7994[/glow] new units" Uhhh, yeah I can. Lets put that into perspective. Gateway Quarter will be almost 500. So this is 16 times a Gateway impact by just having a streetcar. Hotels, business, residential demand out the ying yang all because I have a cool way of getting from point A to B. Really?
October 7, 200816 yr I agree, 8,000 units from the proposed basin routing is preposterous. That would mean well over 10,000 people and close to 10,000 cars that need a place to sleep every night.
October 7, 200816 yr First of all the Gateway has only introduced a fifth of those 500 total units. Another fifth will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most). In all honesty the newness of the Gateway Quarter will start to wear off soon and to think that the credit crunch won't hurt sales at all will be bad move. So how do you overcome those odds...I think a streetcar will sure as heck do a lot (as does HDR and UC economists to name a few). Plus you have huge amounts of housing stock throughout OTR that have not been accounted for. Oh yeah and there is Downtown, the riverfront (streetcar will be instrumental in pushing units at The Banks), and you have the northern most portions of the line that reach into Uptown now. Oh yeah, and all that surface parking that could be developed. Maybe the nearly 8k is a high number, maybe it is low, maybe it is just right. What we do know is that the number has been confirmed as being "in the ballpark." So with our best knowledge what we do know is that the number is legit and has been confirmed by multiple sources and case studies. I'm confident with my sources.
October 7, 200816 yr The point is that it's great that this project is inching forward. But in all reality it is more purely a government role to pay for infrastructure than it is development. Wouldn't it be great if we could pay for something that will in turn help development and fit within government's more pure duties? Wouldn't it be great if government could invest in something that will actually help grow demand? As for right now I think it's great that we continue to invest in these projects, but at the same time I think it is a better option to look at investing in something that the government will see multiple returns on instead of investing in things that show singular returns at best.
October 7, 200816 yr but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most). 20% at most? Gateway I-55% Duncanson-69% Breman-100% Duveneck-73% Trideca-66% Centenial-13% Goodfellows-20% and other presolds waiting for contracts to be produced by the developer at Trinity (many of the above never made it to the MLS except as "sold before sent"). Once again you try and put the streetcar forward because of a forcasted weakness that has proven to be nothing but an ever strengthening Gateway. This is the quickest way to get people to speak less than favorably about the streetcar project as I am wildly less enthusiastic about it now due to comparisons like these. Talking down projects is not the way that you will get further support. Maybe the nearly 8k is a high number, maybe it is low, maybe it is just right. I'm confident with my sources. I am much more confident in mine, they are exact, they do not "ballpark" or hit a fly ball out of the ballpark which is what I would call Streetcar=7994 new units. But in all reality it is more purely a government role to pay for infrastructure than it is development Did you miss the part about the City owned land improvements that must be made on this Development?
October 7, 200816 yr Look, the Streetcar is a great project, Inwood is a great project, and the Q is a great district. All will complement each other in time. There is no sense in withholding money from a current project (Inwood) to give it to a project a few years down the line. Ideally, the Streetcar will be up and running in an OTR that is a bit more stable and vibrant than it is today. The stronger OTR is when the streetcar becomes operational, the more people are going to be willing to invest in OTR near the streetcar line. I too think that 8,000 is a bit high of a projection in a city that generally pushes development along at a snails pace, just as I think looking to Portland as a direct example as to what will happen here is invalid. Portland never had the crime, perceptions of crime, or concentration of social servie agencies that OTR currently has. That said, the streetcar will be a good investment and a successfull project, and even more successful if it can link a healthy riverfront (will be after the Banks gets going...), with a healthy downtown (check), with a stable OTR (hopefully that will come sooner than later...). The streetcar will have it's day, let's let Inwood have its!
October 7, 200816 yr The only reason I brought the whole thing up is because I thought that 75k per unit subsidy seemed high.
October 7, 200816 yr Is Inwood going to become a gated community? I can see them sealing one end with a gate on the vine st side.. :x
October 7, 200816 yr I agree, 8,000 units from the proposed basin routing is preposterous. That would mean well over 10,000 people and close to 10,000 cars that need a place to sleep every night. That is over 30 years. who knows what the car situation will be 33 years from now?
October 7, 200816 yr The only reason I brought the whole thing up is because I thought that 75k per unit subsidy seemed high. It would be high if it were for the units alone. If you walk around Inwood you will see small concrete parks next to many of the buildings and those were made without adequate drainage that has caused run off to go into the buildings. Those "parks" are city owned and have to be redone. There has been a lot of back and forth as to who will do the work on the cities land, the city or Pauline. So when you back out the city land portion, the subsidy is much more in line with the other projects. Pauline has a great comparison sheet of Inwood cost vs the other major projects in and around downtown. Is Inwood going to become a gated community? I can see them sealing one end with a gate on the vine st side. She already has permission to block that side of the project and this will have a positive ripple effect all the way down to Mulberry as it is currently used as a means of egress for drug traffic. I believe that the Sycamore side will remain open but there is no real reason to ever go down Glencoe unless you live there or are visiting. The model is already complete and with the new way of selling off shells to the builders instead of only one builder doing the whole project, I believe you will see this come together much more quickly now.
October 7, 200816 yr She already has permission to block that side of the project and this will have a positive ripple effect all the way down to Mulberry as it is currently used as a means of egress for drug traffic. I believe that the Sycamore side will remain open but there is no real reason to ever go down Glencoe unless you live there or are visiting. There is a side street off Glencoe Place that dead ends into Inwood Park, before you head down the hill toward Inwood Village. I don't see how blocking that street off would even be feasible. Glencoe isn't all that wide to begin with.
October 7, 200816 yr I do not think we are talking about the same street. There are two ways to get into Inwood Village-Auburn Ave to Glencoe on the East and the Western entrance that I believe is Valencia. I am talking about closing the Western entrance. Inwood Park is to the north of this street and I believe you are referring to the two parallel streets, Glencoe and Le Roy Ct., but those would of course be left open. And she may or may not close the western entrance. I know it was talked about and permissions had been granted but no closures yet.
October 7, 200816 yr but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most). 20% at most? Gateway I-55% Duncanson-69% Breman-100% Duveneck-73% Trideca-66% Centenial-13% Goodfellows-20% and other presolds waiting for contracts to be produced by the developer at Trinity (many of the above never made it to the MLS except as "sold before sent"). The projects you list only account for around 100 units...not the 500 that you originally mentioned. So even when this current portion is 100% occupied it only represents 1/5 of the overall 500 units that will eventually be coming on line. Once again you try and put the streetcar forward because of a forcasted weakness that has proven to be nothing but an ever strengthening Gateway. This is the quickest way to get people to speak less than favorably about the streetcar project as I am wildly less enthusiastic about it now due to comparisons like these. Talking down projects is not the way that you will get further support. If you read my posts I have said nothing but good things about this project. All I was doing is pointing out that Brad was speaking in generalities. If you follow his posts you'll notice that he draws these comparisons with literally EVERYTHING. This is not a literal extraction saying that funds should be diverted from x to z, but just raising the point and making comparisons. Just take it easy.
October 7, 200816 yr Ok, I'll bite. First of all the Gateway has only introduced a fifth of those 500 total units. Another fifth will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most). Lets do the math. 1/5 of total 500=100. Another 1/5 or 100 will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about 1/5 of that or 20. 500*.2=100 100*.2=20 (at most) I disagreed and rebutted with...well its all there. This is not a literal extraction saying that funds should be diverted from x to z, but just raising the point and making comparisons. "I think it is a better option to look at investing in something that the government will see multiple returns on instead of investing in things that show singular returns at best." "For those who believe that it would be more prudent to subsidize the construction of more downtown and OTR condos instead of investing in the public realm by building the streetcar, read this:" John Schneider "it is more purely a government role to pay for infrastructure than it is development...Wouldn't it be great if we could pay for something that will in turn help development and fit within government's more pure duties?" "In all honesty the newness of the Gateway Quarter will start to wear off soon and to think that the credit crunch won't hurt sales at all will be bad move." And the last one plus the "inching along" comment didn't help me "take it easy" at all. Just like you probably wouldn't take it easy if I said that getting the 132 million in todays economic climate for a streetcar has little to no basis in reality. (of course I would never say such a thing) And keep in mind what thread this is. Is it Streetcar? NO, it is the Inwood Village thread. The benefit of Inwood is not going from 0 to development. As I mentioned above Inwood is a crime magnet and safe haven for drugs, prostitution and overall blight that has hendered other smaller developments in Mt. Auburn and has a ripple effect both negative and eventually positive straight down that hill and all the way back to Clifton. I retract nothing, I still say that to diminish any other project, whether it is Gateway or Inwood Village in the hopes of making a case of need for the streetcar is fundamentally flawed and will get you little favor in the eyes of the development community.
October 8, 200816 yr Ok, I'll bite. First of all the Gateway has only introduced a fifth of those 500 total units. Another fifth will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most). Lets do the math. 1/5 of total 500=100. Another 1/5 or 100 will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about 1/5 of that or 20. 500*.2=100 100*.2=20 (at most) I disagreed and rebutted with...well its all there. I don't think you're understanding me. I'm assuming that a full 100% of the first phase units are sold. Those roughly 100 units amount to the 500 total units that will eventually be brought on line in the Gateway Quarter. So 100, at most, have been sold since that is all that have come on line thus far. Those 100 units are 1/5 of the total 500. I don't know what is unclear here.
October 8, 200816 yr I don't know what is unclear here. Your first statement didn't read that way. "First of all the Gateway has only introduced a fifth of those 500 total units. Another fifth will be coming online shortly, but what has been absorbed only amounts to about a fifth of that (at most)". But that is neither here nor there as Gateway is one of the leading Project in the city. In all honesty the newness of the Gateway Quarter will start to wear off soon and to think that the credit crunch won't hurt sales at all will be bad move. So how do you overcome those odds...I think a streetcar will sure as heck do a lot My point is that Gateway is actually far ahead of its sales projections and the newness, considering a new building is brought on every couple of months, may actually not wear off and do not think it wise at all to leverage the streetcar off a projects hurting, because they just ain't. Otherwise we look at this as what is bad for development is good for the streetcar. That is not unclear to me, simply misguided by those who wish to continue in this line of thinking. One statement after another shows this and whether it is a consious effort or not does not change the message. The streetcar is usesless without these developments and that includes those condos in OTR, Inwood Village and all of the others that hard working Developers like Pauline have poured everything they have into. The streetcar should take a back seat to putting both individuals and families into these previously forgotten structures like Inwood because if we do not do it now, there will not be an Inwood or OTR to save, streetcar or not.
October 8, 200816 yr With the last word I'll deem this discussion over. If you want to continue let's do it via PM. Let's stay on topic about this project.
October 9, 200816 yr I can't wait to ride the streetcar up to inwood for a walk someday. You have the right tone. Personally, I don't think I'll still be here to enjoy much of the streetcar offerings. I support it wholeheartedly, but living here for 21 years and waiting another 3 for actual transit progress...you get burnt out on the bogeys.
October 9, 200816 yr I can't wait to ride the streetcar up to inwood for a walk someday. I will ride it right along with you Max, all the way to the northern reaches of Downtown at Inwood. :wink:
October 9, 200816 yr This morning I biked on Auburn at about 7:30am and the Inwood row buildings were shrouded in a thick fog that was just in that little valley. It was an incredible sight but I didn't have my camera!
October 17, 200816 yr ^ http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/10/13/daily41.html?ana=from_rss
October 17, 200816 yr ^Great, is that $3.9 million from the historic tax credit program? Yes sir! And the Glencoe Auburn Place Row Houses [inwood Village], which will receive $3.9 million in credits.
November 3, 200816 yr I've been following this project for awhile, I've always had quite an interest in the Glencoe complex. If anyone's interested, I composed a history of the place for a class at UC earlier this year, it's available here: http://daapspace4.daap.uc.edu/~feinze/galleries/miscprojects2/miscprojects2.html
Create an account or sign in to comment