I heard a little clip on WVXU/NPR this morning about how the plans for the U-Square public space/circle/garden whatever you want to call it did not go over so well in yesterday's (I think) CUF meeting? Anyone know what the concerns were here?

I heard a little clip on WVXU/NPR this morning about how the plans for the U-Square public space/circle/garden whatever you want to call it did not go over so well in yesterday's (I think) CUF meeting? Anyone know what the concerns were here?

 

I'll know soon enough, and when I do I will post up the info.

Drove by this development today on both Calhoun and McMillan.  Yikes, is all I can say.  These big continuous buildings just leave me feeling cold.  I don't like it.  There needed to be more variation in the streetwall.  I'm not a fan of these monolithic monster structures.  I'm glad to see this land finally become useful again, but wish it were scaled better.  At least, if it's going to be so large, make the quality of the architecture outstanding.

It feels totally fake and awkward.

I live across the street on Ohio Avenue in the 65 West apartment complex.  The EIFS/brick facade on U Square may not be ideal, but it's vastly superior to the bluish-turquoise portions of facade on 65W.  What was the dude smoking when he picked the color schemes back in 2009/10?

 

Anyway, the atmosphere in CUF, especially when we've been lucky enough to experience habitable weather outside, is unbelievable.  There is a genuine excitement among UC students/CUF residents who live close enough to the site to see progress on the project each day.  I think all CUF residents are looking for the weather to break this spring, as this will signal the near completion of the project.  While the architecture may be boring, dull and/or unoriginal, it's still extremely exciting to see this site finally being occupied.  When I first came to UC, the site was a field with random areas of tiled floors and gravel that people tailgated on for UC FB games.  I didn't even know there used to be fast food restaurants and retail between McMillan and Calhoun until last week..... 

 

So compared to that empty field, I am more than thrilled with U Square.

65W may be the worst example of urban construction in the city. (By "urban" I basically mean abutting the sidewalk.)

While the architecture may be boring, dull and/or unoriginal, it's still extremely exciting to see this site finally being occupied.  When I first came to UC, the site was a field with random areas of tiled floors and gravel that people tailgated on for UC FB games.  I didn't even know there used to be fast food restaurants and retail between McMillan and Calhoun until last week..... 

 

Look earlier in this thread I believe, and you'll find some pics of some of the cooler historic buildings that were lost - not everything was fast food, though the pr campaign made it sound that way.

65W may be the worst example of urban construction in the city. (By "urban" I basically mean abutting the sidewalk.)

 

It actually wouldn't be terrible if people would actually go out on their balconies facing the street.  The balconies inside 65W always have activity, but I've never seen anyone on the balconies facing the streets.  Maybe this is because all of the units facing the streets are single units....

 

But I think the intention is to give Ohio Ave. a residential feel, meaning no storefronts just outdoor balconies and new streetscapes.  Plus the hill running along 65W on the McMillan side makes storefront pretty difficult to achieve.

 

While the architecture may be boring, dull and/or unoriginal, it's still extremely exciting to see this site finally being occupied.  When I first came to UC, the site was a field with random areas of tiled floors and gravel that people tailgated on for UC FB games.  I didn't even know there used to be fast food restaurants and retail between McMillan and Calhoun until last week..... 

 

Look earlier in this thread I believe, and you'll find some pics of some of the cooler historic buildings that were lost - not everything was fast food, though the pr campaign made it sound that way.

 

The only building I've seen is the Friar's Club, which I understand would have been very challenging to rehab and was worse than 65W in terms of abutting to the sidewalk.  I liked the landscaping, but the clubhouse at 65W also has a public gathering space with a garage door opening that was pretty sweet to pregame UC games with neighbors. 

 

Not all classic buildings are being targeted for demo.  Like the Urban Outfitters/Verizon across from Shell.  But some of these classic buildings are taking up space, like Old St. George Church and the school next to it.  Is that hotel ever going to happen? Anyway, not saying tear them down, just do something with them.

 

The bottom line is these new developments are providing better places for people to live, bringing new retail to the area, and adding parking.  It's also amazing how much more walkable Calhoun St. already is and McMillan St. will be this spring.  Complete change from my freshman year when walking from Siddall to "Stab n Grab" (Stop n Go) was sketchy.

This is what the area looked like when I first went to college: http://cincinnatimonocle.blogspot.com/2012/01/photos-of-calhoun-st-and-mcmillan-st-in.html

 

There was a lot of fast food junk and the Prime Time building at on vine was a monstrosity from the 1970s, but the rest of the buildings were really nice if not in the best of shape - the kinds of buildings one would only really find in a handful of cities in this country.  Seeing that being a grassy field for 10 years was really frustrating, developers should have their finances in order before they are allowed to tear down existing structures.

 

The new stuff is consistently ugly, but if it was blended in a little more it would be nicer.  Refering back to the CUF thread, the development on McMillian at W Clifton should be handled that way.

^^^as much as 65 West makes me want to puke...I kind of agree with el double u on these new developments in Corryville and CUF.  They're the right scale and they'll prove to be great nodes of energy within the neighborhood.  Hopefully, we'll get a developer who will see the development and try to one up it with quality architecture.  Until then...this is progess.

I have another photo somewhere of the building closest to the Shell station.  It was the only building of that style in the city, maybe more of a St. Louis style apartment:

 

So what you're looking at here is now the space for the hotel and the east parking garage.

^^^as much as 65 West makes me want to puke...I kind of agree with el double u on these new developments in Corryville and CUF.  They're the right scale and they'll prove to be great nodes of energy within the neighborhood.  Hopefully, we'll get a developer who will see the development and try to one up it with quality architecture.  Until then...this is progess.

 

Maybe as current projects progress it will encourage developers to spend more money on future projects like the one on McMillan at W Clifton?  Or maybe give better developers an incentive to bid on projects in the area?  I guess here's to hoping, right?

I'm not too worried about U Square. I think it looks fine, not great at this point, but it will be successful, which is ultimately what matters. I know some people hate it, but every building project has had its critics, including great buildings like the Eiffel Tower and the Parthenon. I admit the parking garage by Shell doesn't look too hot thus far, but I'll wait until its complete before giving it my final verdict.

 

"Only fools and women criticize unfinished work."

-Frank Lloyd Wright  :laugh:

Does anyone know anything about plans for the site at the corner of McMillan and Vine across the street from CVS?

It is a future phase of U Square.

 

It is a future phase of U Square.

 

Future as in Phase II? Anywhere you can find a breakdown of each phase of U Square? 

 

I haven't seen that rendering before, but it looks really cool.  Can't imagine how congested that intersection will be during construction.

I feel like that park space is pretty superfluous and won't see a lot of use with the park across the street and the fact that Vine is busy and noisy. And who would want to sit and look at the CVS??

^I really wish that that park, as well as the one across the street would be developed. They're awful places that nobody is ever going to spend time in, so why even have them?

 

Also, I'm hoping in time that the CVS spot is redeveloped to continue the urban feeling of the space between Calhoun (Taft) and McMillan. A longer pedestrian mixed use corridor would be awesome and there are already some larger scale residential buildings further east.

Does anyone know anything about the planned hotel at USquare? Is there a timetable for construction to start or are the developers waiting to find the right partner?

Yuck, more useless greenspace buffer on what should be the the premier"welcome to UC" corner.  Also note that the McMillan side of the building is garage at ground level, so expect blank walls or views of cars, lovely. 

^I wonder if there is any chance of that greenspace being swapped out for more development as the next phase happens. It seems like such a huge waste to put another useless little park there. That whole section, as in ALL sides of that intersection, needs a TON of help.  It's such an awful entrance to the campus area. It's kind of insulting that there isn't more of a push to make it a significant gateway to the university area.

I'll admit it's difficult to envision a development that embraces the sidewalk when the street is a traffic sewer, the natural response is to retreat behind a buffer, but with pedestrian activity being as much as it is here, it's criminal not to work with that.  The potential here is much better than at Vine/MLK or even Clifton/MLK.  It really isn't all that different from Clifton/McMillan/Calhoun a half mile west, aside from the topography, and that's a bustling area despite all the traffic.  There's some good fabric on the south side of the Vine/McMillan intersection to respond too here, especially since they finally gave the Mad Frog building a decent paint job.  Seriously, it's not that difficult to be contextual even with modern architecture.  I'm just flabbergasted that no architects seem to know how to deal properly with corners anymore.  All these developments retreat from the corners leaving unresolved useless space and making the project look unfinished, when it's a marvelous opportunity to punctuate the design and really go all-out on making it cool.  Sad really.

I'm just flabbergasted that no architects seem to know how to deal properly with corners anymore.  All these developments retreat from the corners leaving unresolved useless space and making the project look unfinished, when it's a marvelous opportunity to punctuate the design and really go all-out on making it cool.

 

It makes you even more frustrated when you see buildings only 100 miles away that look like they belong more in Cincy than the garbage being built around the university - here's one in short north and *gasp* the architect understands the building is on a corner and references the best architecture in that neighborhood - http://www.columbusunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/construction-september-2012-34.jpg

>I'm just flabbergasted that no architects seem to know how to deal properly with corners anymore.

 

I have this hunch that it's all sales-driven.  The architects who are the best salesmen are getting the gigs, an basically nobody is both an academic and a salesman. 

Part of it is also the starchitect mentality, that buildings need to be an art object set away from everything else so they can be properly viewed "in the round."  The site itself and surrounding context are things to be ignored and pushed as far away as possible, leading to unresolved and useless green spaces and parking decks as platforms to elevate the building above the "uncooperative" site.  Any time a project is represented by an aerial view you have to be very suspicious, because it's being depicted as an art object, disconnected from and completely unresponsive to pedestrians and the surrounding environment. 

I'm not sure if anyone has walked the site lately, but I think U Square fits into the neighborhood pretty well on the Calhoun side with UPA right across the street.  The McMillan side kind of has a dominating feeling because of the surface lots on the south side of McMillan.  Projects like the one at the corner of McMillan and West Clifton should ease that feeling, if they come to fruition.  Also, there are other possibilities to create a sort of transition zone into the old housing stock on that side of the street. 

 

Sites like Pomodori's Pizza, Stab 'N Grab (Stop 'N Go), and the Adriatico's parking lot all provide opportunities for development in the future. 

Part of it is also the starchitect mentality, that buildings need to be an art object set away from everything else so they can be properly viewed "in the round."  The site itself and surrounding context are things to be ignored and pushed as far away as possible, leading to unresolved and useless green spaces and parking decks as platforms to elevate the building above the "uncooperative" site.  Any time a project is represented by an aerial view you have to be very suspicious, because it's being depicted as an art object, disconnected from and completely unresponsive to pedestrians and the surrounding environment. 

 

And every building needs a yard just like a house!

The architects who are the best salesmen are getting the gigs, an basically nobody is both an academic and a salesman. 

 

Nope, and it's certainly not a pleasant career transition. Unfortunately, the demand for salesmen is much greater.

Part of it is also the starchitect mentality, that buildings need to be an art object set away from everything else so they can be properly viewed "in the round."  The site itself and surrounding context are things to be ignored and pushed as far away as possible, leading to unresolved and useless green spaces and parking decks as platforms to elevate the building above the "uncooperative" site.  Any time a project is represented by an aerial view you have to be very suspicious, because it's being depicted as an art object, disconnected from and completely unresponsive to pedestrians and the surrounding environment.

 

I've been saying this for a while. I saw so many student architecture projects and a lot of them were often very monumental and isolated from their surrounding infrastructure. I think it's absurd, and I feel there should be a more humble approach to designing within the context of an urban environment, there needs to be some structure and cooperation. Look at the new casino for example, not only does it completely buck the style of any of the surrounding neighborhoods with it's Las Vegas adobe desert bs, and it's lack of ornamentation. But also, it's arbitrarily set back from the street, unlike anything else in the area.

The architects who are the best salesmen are getting the gigs, an basically nobody is both an academic and a salesman. 

 

Nope, and it's certainly not a pleasant career transition. Unfortunately, the demand for salesmen is much greater.

 

Maybe you could open up a new branch of you store at U Square, reconciling your academic days with your post-grad salesman status. ;)

You wouldn't think it, but college campuses are actually not good places for game stores. People have tried many times, including a bare minimum of the three independents that I know of for sure at gigantor tOSU. These were started by experienced, otherwise successful businesspeople with other well-performing game stores. Rent's high on college campuses and you lose out on Christmas and the sizzling summertime months among other things. And those big boxes full of good trade-ins in people's basements are mostly in the 'burbs. You might see GameStop on a campus but they've got all those other locations to feed them stock.

This has nothing to do with "starchitect" mentality; quite the opposite. There are maybe fifty architects worldwide who legitimately fall into the category of "starchitect", and none of them are involved in either the U Square or casino projects. These projects are horrible because the developers wanted something that could be built cheaply and turn a quick profit, and they hired architects of mediocre talent who would roll over and give them exactly what they wanted, regardless of any detriment to the urban context. Architects have a legal and ethical responsibility to create projects that benefit the public good, but some architects take that responsibility more seriously than others. A few can get away with abandoning that responsibility because of the sheer power of their egos, but most get away with it simply because they don't give a damn as long as they're getting paid.

 

I know it's fashionable to bash architects here on UO, and the architects of these projects certainly deserve it, but please make sure you're bashing them for the right reasons.

^^ Hmm, interesting. Hadn't thought of that.

 

There actually is a GameStop in UPA, across Calhoun from U Square. Apart from the reasons you listed, that would be another reason an indie would really struggle in the area.

There's always a fear of looking too different.  The same thing happens in car design.  Companies just copy off of eachother.  At U-Square, the architects played it safe and looked at The Banks and probably thought, hey let's save time and money and just make them similar.  The other problem is that in the design world, art directors are wimps.  They don;t know when to say NO.  So what happens is you get architecture input from a marketer, an intern, a secretary, a treasurer, and the janitor.  It becomes a clusterf$!k of ideas.  Just look at the Pontiac Aztec;)

The starchitect mentality permeates the profession.  Even those "architects of mediocre talent" WANT to be Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman, Daniel Liebskind, or whoever.  That's how architecture school is taught in all but a few select (and mostly derided) places. 

 

I say this as an architect who graduated from DAAP. 

Having worked at one of the firms in question, I can say for a fact that nobody there wants to be Gehry, Eisenman, or whatever. (In fact, not a single person I know at DAAP aspires to be one of those architects. And Eisenman is so 1985.) Their biggest ambition was to leave the office by 5:00, collect their paycheck, and give their clients exactly whatever they demand and nothing more.

These projects are horrible

 

I think you mean architecturally horrible? They certainly fill the needs of the neighborhood, from a functionality standpoint.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

Architects have a legal and ethical responsibility to create projects that benefit the public good, but some architects take that responsibility more seriously than others. A few can get away with abandoning that responsibility because of the sheer power of their egos, but most get away with it simply because they don't give a damn as long as they're getting paid.

 

I know it's fashionable to bash architects here on UO, and the architects of these projects certainly deserve it, but please make sure you're bashing them for the right reasons.

 

Um... I wouldn't say building a pretty building "benefits the public good."  The public good depends more on how functional and efficient the building is.  It would be nice if the developers in the area could find a "sweetspot" maximizing both the functionality of a building and its aesthetic qualities, but this hasn't exactly happened yet. 

 

Must be the engineer in me typing this.

I'd argue that "public good" should be defined broadly to include factors beyond mere function and adherence to building codes. Beyond just "looking pretty", building design can have a huge impact on behavior, livability, return on investment, and other factors. It's why we hire architects to design buildings, and not just engineers and contractors.

Indeed, just like people have duties as citizens of cities, so do buildings.  At the very least they need to make the neighborhood better than it was before, a sadly difficult thing to achieve nowadays.  At their best though, they become icons of pride that actually project value onto the rest of the neighborhood through their good design and siting.  Hughes High School is a perfect example of such a building, which makes Calhoun Street a more valuable place because of its presence. 

Most of the old buildings people love here were built during a boom period, but also in a way that was quick and cheap to build at the time. Of course, there are always exceptions. Developers still build cheap, but the nature of where the costs go are different, and that's reflected in the buildings. I don't think its anything to get upset about. While some things could obviously be better, U Square will fit the needs of students, few of whom can tell good architecture from bad, and I think that's ultimately what matters.

Um... I wouldn't say building a pretty building "benefits the public good."  The public good depends more on how functional and efficient the building is.  It would be nice if the developers in the area could find a "sweetspot" maximizing both the functionality of a building and its aesthetic qualities, but this hasn't exactly happened yet. 

 

Must be the engineer in me typing this.

 

It is the engineer in you. And what you are missing is the way aesthetics functionally affect people. While we don't have it figured out as scientifically as egress and structural integrity, it is objectively true that aesthetic quality has a functional role on human beings' emotions and behaviors.

 

LIG proposes expanding the definition of 'public good', but I would propose you expand your definition of 'functional'. You might find it disturbing how vague terms are used to describe aesthetic quality, or that it would seem so "subjective", and I would agree with you. But that complexity doesn't undermine the reality of a functional role for aesthetics.

Since aesthetics are completely subjective, you can only state how U Square will affect you, but projecting your opinion upon the student population isn't a very strong argument. I, as another poster has noted, have noticed a air of excitement around U Square. I don't think anyone expects everyone to like it, but I also don't buy that the "aesthetics" of U Square are so bad that they are harmful to public health. If the aesthetics are really that bad, without exaggeration, then U Square will be a failure. If not, it will succeed.

Since aesthetics are completely subjective

 

Except they aren't. For example, certain colors can inspire people to feel sad or angry. There is an objective psychological reality to aesthetics.

 

Sure, having a blue bedroom does not make everyone depressed. But it is more likely for someone who has a blue bedroom to develop depression. That's a very real phenomenon, and a large part of architecture and urban design is about creating environments which are statistically likely to elicit positive emotional responses and behaviors. For developers, the most important of these responses is getting people to spend money (occupy units, pay rent). But that is far from the only functional aspect of the design which is functionally important to residents, visitors, the neighborhood, the city, etc.

Anybody who thinks architecture is only about "aesthetics" needs to read Blair Kamin's Why Architecture Matters and William Whyte's City: Rediscovering the Center cover-to-cover before coming to UO and spewing ignorant nonsense.

^^Unless you can empirically prove the effect U Square architecture has on people's mood, you really don't have any evidence to support your opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, as I know humans are incredibly irrational and easily manipulated, but I don't really see how you can tie what you're saying to U Square specifically. Unless, you're complaining that the rooms in U Square are blue, of course.

 

^I don't recall anyone writing that architecture was only about aesthetics.  :?

It's not just color of course, but relationships to the human body play a big part in aesthetics as well.  One reason that classical and vernacular architecture was popular for...well...pretty much all of history, and is still popular with the "proletariat" today is that the parts and pieces are related to the proportions of people.  There's also functional considerations but no need to get into that here.  Columns and whole buildings with a base, shaft/middle, and top are based on feet, body, and head.  Windows and doors are taller than they are wide, usually by a ratio of at least 2 to 1, as those are openings that we are comfortable walking through or standing at to look out of.  Vertically-oriented building elements, and buildings themselves when assembled in traditional urban areas, are more interesting to the eye and make walking along them more pleasant because there's more to look at and you feel like you're progressing faster when the facades change so quickly.  The level of detail or ornamentation is geared towards being viewed up close by pedestrians, something to be admired, studied, touched, explored, and hopefully loved.  All these elements can be used in a sort of fractal arrangement to scale up buildings to monumental sizes will still maintaining interest at more intimate scales.

 

Comparatively, modern architecture, and especially the undifferentiated mediocre "builder" stuff has few if any of these elements.  Columns and the overall massing aren't based on anything but structural and functional considerations (not form follows function, but function without form).  Horizontality has become the preeminent design emphasis which is more responsive to cars driving by, and to the overall form of buildings which have become landscrapers as opposed to skyscrapers.  This comes from the fact that most developments nowadays are being done not on the building lot scale but the scale of the whole block, so unless it's a skyscraper the building will be wider than it is tall, and trying to fake it to look like multiple buildings just comes across as a sham.  The horizontality also makes walking along these buildings more tedious as it doesn't feel like you're progressing as much, because it's so monolithic.  The scale of these buildings is usually quite large overall, and with the pervasive "ornament is a crime" meme, not to mention value engineering, there's even less opportunity to capture and hold people's interest at ground level.

 

No, these things are not quantifiable, but that doesn't make them purely subjective either.  In general, we humans like things that look more like people or that respond to people.  It doesn't have to go as far as anthropomorphizing, but that does happen sometimes.  Just look at cars for a good example.  It's no coincidence that the front end looks like a face.  Most buildings don't have faces on them, but we at least subconsciously respond better to ones that look like they were made for us as people to interact with. 

Since aesthetics are completely subjective, you can only state how U Square will affect you, but projecting your opinion upon the student population isn't a very strong argument. I, as another poster has noted, have noticed a air of excitement around U Square. I don't think anyone expects everyone to like it, but I also don't buy that the "aesthetics" of U Square are so bad that they are harmful to public health. If the aesthetics are really that bad, without exaggeration, then U Square will be a failure. If not, it will succeed.

 

There is no doubt U Square will be a success, it does perform a much needed function for the area, that has been lacking ever since the foolhardy pre-financial security demolition of all the old businesses in that area that left a giant vacant lot.  U Square is much needed, but on a bigger picture scale not that great for Cincinnati as a whole.  For those who are cynical, look at it like this: one of Cincinnati's greatest assets is that it is quite different from any city in the Midwest with its vast collection of elegant Victorians of a quality one would usually only find in larger cities. Other cities have capitalized on this and are extremely successful, its an excellent economic development tool, and frankly Cincinnati's problems are those of perception and this "San Francisco of the Midwest" look is something that could change perceptions if better known. In short fantastic way to attract new people who aren't aware Cincinnati is like this (because knowledge is low about the city other than it being conservative, most people think its another Indianapolis or Columbus not what it is).  Not only that but at least now you can actually afford to live in a neighborhood with fantastic old buildings, which IMO cannot be done in most cities with this level of housing stock.

 

You get rid of too much of the old stock, and your left with a stodgy city that is an extension of the giant burbs that surround it.  In this case the stock was already gone, but at the very least make the newer stuff look a little better...  Its kind of insulting to what made Cincinnati great back in the day.  Where's Samuel Hannaford's ghost when you need him?

This is a very interesting discussion.  I'd like to invite you all to walk around the site if you get a chance on the first 60 degree day of the year and tell me what you think about how U Square fits with UPA.  The EIFS has an interesting dark brown color on that side, which I honestly think looks pretty good considering it is EIFS we're talking about.  It's a nice contrast to UPA's brick. 

 

I walked around the block yesterday and I think the entire development will be a huge success.  It almost feels like a new neighborhood has been built within CUF.  The McMillan side of the street just feels kind of awkward because of the lack of storefront on the south side.

 

The energy is really in the air around the site though, especially on warmer days when more pedestrians are outside.  The next big step, for me, will be when the traffic cones are taken out of the streets and traffic can flow naturally and the sidewalks are opened.  Hopefully coming soon.  The area will be much less congested with traffic. 

 

I do not see the architecture in any way deterring anyone from living, shopping or working at U Square, even though it leaves something more to be desired.

 

Hell, if the facade at 65W didn't deter people, I'm not sure what will....

 

The starchitect mentality permeates the profession.  Even those "architects of mediocre talent" WANT to be Frank Gehry, Peter Eisenman, Daniel Liebskind, or whoever.  That's how architecture school is taught in all but a few select (and mostly derided) places. 

 

I say this as an architect who graduated from DAAP. 

 

Do you guys know anything about University of Miami? They have a classical architecture track that an old coworker did. It sounded pretty different.

jjakucyk, while I don't necessarily disagree with your last post, as it's obvious to anyone that U Square could be better, your previous assertion that the architecture of U Square is mentally harmful to college students is, well, laughable. You have no real evidence at all to support this claim, and my observation of students around campus is exactly the opposite. They are excited. Sorry! Not everyone shares your hatred of this project.

 

neilworms, while I prefer the craftsmanship of 19th century architecture, I also acknowledge that we simply live in a completely different world. The labor costs, the availability of skilled craftsmen, natural resources, population density, energy costs, modern living requirements of electric/plumbing/etc. are all so different from the 1870s.  I'm not sure what you expect. I sometimes wonder if anything could be built that would satisfy all the critics. Heck, even the Parthenon, probably the most copied building of all time, had its ancient Greek critics.