Developers sought for two Port-owned sites in Cincinnati

 

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority has released requests for proposals to redevelop two sites, one in Mount Auburn where it recently demolished a building, and another in Walnut Hills.

 

The Port demolished the former Mount Auburn Cable Railway Building at 2001 Highland Ave. after packed snow caused a partial structure collapse. It is seeking developers of multifamily, mixed-use, single-family and commercial projects to propose something for the site.

 

The site is about one-third of an acre at the corner of Highland and Dorchester avenues. The Port, which manages the Hamilton County Landbank, which owns the property, prefers a project to increase affordable housing density, but it will entertain any project type.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/06/11/developers-sought-for-two-port-owned-sites-in-cinc.html

 

4 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Developers sought for two Port-owned sites in Cincinnati

 

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority has released requests for proposals to redevelop two sites, one in Mount Auburn where it recently demolished a building, and another in Walnut Hills.

 

The Port demolished the former Mount Auburn Cable Railway Building at 2001 Highland Ave. after packed snow caused a partial structure collapse. It is seeking developers of multifamily, mixed-use, single-family and commercial projects to propose something for the site.

 

The site is about one-third of an acre at the corner of Highland and Dorchester avenues. The Port, which manages the Hamilton County Landbank, which owns the property, prefers a project to increase affordable housing density, but it will entertain any project type.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/06/11/developers-sought-for-two-port-owned-sites-in-cinc.html

 

wow, I didn't know that building had been razed. That's sad.|
Would have made a great base for a taller structure, if not viable on its own.

5 hours ago, zsnyder said:

wow, I didn't know that building had been razed. That's sad.|
Would have made a great base for a taller structure, if not viable on its own.

Was supposed to be rehabbed but the snow pack this past winter completely collapse the roof and the structure was dangerous to other nearby homes and residents. 

When it was being demo'ed and you could see inside you could see the western side of the stone foundation had been pushed in pretty far by the hillside.  I feel like I saw posts from a few people who had tried to buy it and it was close to a mil just to get stabilized.

On 3/31/2021 at 11:16 AM, jwulsin said:

The topography of that site means there is a ~70' elevation change from the high point along Auburn Ave to the level of the basketball courts on the west side of the site. Based on the video from the Park Board, it sounds like the property along Vine Street would be Park owned/managed, as part of "Inwood Park extension". I checked CAGIS to see what else Uptown owns. Everything in blue would be owned/managed by Uptown. Uptown said they don't have a site plan yet. I'm very curious to see what they propose here. It's a huge site. I hope they preserve the old mansions along Auburn Ave. They'd make cool "clubhouses" for shared amenities (assuming they decide to put apartments on the site. Has Uptown ever done anything mixed use, or are all of their projects purely residential? 

 

 

 

One thing to keep in mind here. Could be a landing spot for UC's indoor football facility in a couple years. 

Edited June 17, 20213 yr by tonyt3524

2 hours ago, tonyt3524 said:

 

One thing to keep in mind here. Might be a landing spot for UC's indoor football facility in a couple years. 

Interesting idea… but that doesn’t line up with the current proposal to sell the park-owned land to Uptown Rents. 

23 hours ago, jwulsin said:

Interesting idea… but that doesn’t line up with the current proposal to sell the park-owned land to Uptown Rents. 

 

Obviously wouldn't need all of that space, probably more towards the east side of the land. 

Edited June 17, 20213 yr by tonyt3524

New development is being proposed along Bigelow across from Hopkins Park.

 

I was pretty impressed with the design overall. Three buildings, each with 3 townhomes. Parking in the rear of the lot. Going to be expensive, though!

 

Small developer involved, and should be presenting at the MACC meeting on Monday for approval of some variance requests. I'll post renderings and plans when I have them (should be later today or tomorrow).

Former 150-year-old mansion of Cincinnati brewer to be redeveloped

By Meghan Malas  –  Editorial intern, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Redevelopment plans of a 151-year-old mansion in Mount Auburn were approved this month by the Historic Conservation Board.

 

MORE

The big apartment project from Uptown Rents at the south end of Bigelow is moving a lot of dirt (taken from approximately this location on streetview): 

 

Looking south west:

 

Looking south:

 

Looking southeast:

 

Crane is going up

 

 

16 hours ago, richNcincy said:

Crane is going up

 

 

This is for Bigelow correct?

2 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

This is for Bigelow correct?

Yes.

On 3/31/2021 at 11:16 AM, jwulsin said:

The topography of that site means there is a ~70' elevation change from the high point along Auburn Ave to the level of the basketball courts on the west side of the site. Based on the video from the Park Board, it sounds like the property along Vine Street would be Park owned/managed, as part of "Inwood Park extension". I checked CAGIS to see what else Uptown owns. Everything in blue would be owned/managed by Uptown. Uptown said they don't have a site plan yet. I'm very curious to see what they propose here. It's a huge site. I hope they preserve the old mansions along Auburn Ave. They'd make cool "clubhouses" for shared amenities (assuming they decide to put apartments on the site. Has Uptown ever done anything mixed use, or are all of their projects purely residential? 

 

 

 

Since I posted this in March, Uptown Rents has acquired several additional parcels shown in red on this map:

• 2436 Vine (back half with c. 1956 commercial building)
• 2440 Vine (back half empty lot)
• 2442 Vine (empty lot... had a building until 2018 when it was demolished while under different ownership)
• 2444 Vine (2.5 story, brick, Italianate c. 1890 building)
• 23 E McMillan (used to have a c. 1900 house, which was torn down in the past month)
• 25 E McMillan (used to have an old house, which was torn down around early 2017 after being acquired by Uptown Rents in 2015)
• 33/35 E McMillan (1904 apartments building with at least 8 units)... I'd be very sad if this gets torn down
• 26 E Hollister (1885 wood clapboard Italianate)
• 58 E Hollister (1900 brick office or 2-family) 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, jwulsin said:

 

Since I posted this in March, Uptown Rents has acquired several additional parcels shown in red on this map:

• 2436 Vine (back half with c. 1956 commercial building)
• 2440 Vine (back half empty lot)
• 2442 Vine (empty lot... had a building until 2018 when it was demolished while under different ownership)
• 2444 Vine (2.5 story, brick, Italianate c. 1890 building)
• 23 E McMillan (used to have a c. 1900 house, which was torn down in the past month)
• 25 E McMillan (used to have an old house, which was torn down around early 2017 after being acquired by Uptown Rents in 2015)
• 33/35 E McMillan (1904 apartments building with at least 8 units)... I'd be very sad if this gets torn down
• 26 E Hollister (1885 wood clapboard Italianate)
• 58 E Hollister (1900 brick office or 2-family)

 

Uptown has done several mixed use projects before on short vine and other locations around the area. I'm not sure what they're planning here though. That is a significant area to gobble up. It's probably something along the lines as 65 west. I'm curious to see if they keep that corner of mixed use on mcmillian or just, sadly, tear it down. 

 

Or maybe they'll surprise all of us and put something unique and heavy on mixed use.

Edited September 16, 20213 yr by RealAdamP
removed extra letter

24 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

 

Uptown has done several mixed use projects before on short vine and other locations around the area. I'm not sure what they're planning here though. That is a significant area to gobble up. It's probably something along the lines as 65 west. I'm curious to see if they keep that corner of mixed use on mcmillian or just, sadly, tear it down. 

 

Or maybe they'll surprise all of use and put something unique and heavy on mixed use.

I think it's false hope to think they'll do anything but obliterate everything on the site. They are already responsible for erasing hundreds of great old buildings that were quite viable.

1 hour ago, TheCOV said:

I think it's false hope to think they'll do anything but obliterate everything on the site. They are already responsible for erasing hundreds of great old buildings that were quite viable.

The park board put on hold the sale of Hollister Park it looks like anyways.From todays enquier.

"The board also tabled a project set to go in Mount Auburn because of the same secretive process in which parkland would be sold, but the city didn't provide the sale cost."

Seems obvious Uptown has a huge project in the works.Im guessing new UC indoor football practice facility and housing.

3 minutes ago, ucnum1 said:

The park board put on hold the sale of Hollister Park it looks like anyways.From todays enquier.

"The board also tabled a project set to go in Mount Auburn because of the same secretive process in which parkland would be sold, but the city didn't provide the sale cost."

Seems obvious Uptown has a huge project in the works.Im guessing new UC indoor football practice facility and housing.

 

I think you're right. UC and Uptown probably will create an olympic village of sorts. With prices to match.

1 hour ago, ucnum1 said:

The park board put on hold the sale of Hollister Park it looks like anyways.From todays enquier.

"The board also tabled a project set to go in Mount Auburn because of the same secretive process in which parkland would be sold, but the city didn't provide the sale cost."

Seems obvious Uptown has a huge project in the works.Im guessing new UC indoor football practice facility and housing.

Interesting... I hadn't seen that article yet, so thanks for pointing it out. Here's the link to the article: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/09/16/cincinnati-marina-vote-delayed-park-board-secret-selection-process-city-hall/8350807002/

 

Regarding the idea of an indoor football facility, why wouldn't UC simply use the current location of Sheakley (where they put up the inflatable balloon every winter)? It's big enough and there's no other space that is more centrally located. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Assuming UC is going to spend a ton of money on the facility, they'll want it to be in a highly visible location. But maybe there's something I'm not thinking of that would motivate UC to choose a more distant, less visible location.

Edited September 16, 20213 yr by jwulsin

37 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Interesting... I hadn't seen that article yet, so thanks for pointing it out. Here's the link to the article: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/09/16/cincinnati-marina-vote-delayed-park-board-secret-selection-process-city-hall/8350807002/

 

Regarding the idea of an indoor football facility, why wouldn't UC simply use the current location of Sheakley (where they put up the inflatable balloon every winter)? It's big enough and there's no other space that is more centrally located. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Assuming UC is going to spend a ton of money on the facility, they'll want it to be in a highly visible location. But maybe there's something I'm not thinking of that would motivate UC to choose a more distant, less visible location.

Simply... not big enough. They are talking about a dedicated office and training complex, not just practice fields.

Yes UC football wants locker rooms offices in this new facility.$70-80 million price tag for this.

All locations are in play, all locations have their own perks. 

I believe Mad Frog (1 E McMillan) was also listed for sale about a year ago, not sure if it still is.

Looks like UC's new football facility could be McMillian/Vine area:

 

Quote

As Fickell pulls a few blocks off campus, on the corner of McMillan and Vine streets, he points out an area where there’s talk of a potential site for a $60 million indoor football facility. It would be the caliber of facility that would allow Cincinnati to recruit at the Power Five level, as its current offices are shoehorned into the seventh floor of an eight-floor athletic department building — three of which are underground — adjacent to cozy 40,000-seat Nippert Stadium in the heart of campus. (Students frequently wander through Nippert as a cut-through while walking campus.)

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/1-week-with-cincinnati-reveals-bearcats-rise-as-cfp-interloper-luke-fickells-staying-power-and-why-notre-dame-game-means-so-much-014530420.html

 

 

1 hour ago, mcmicken said:

Looks like UC's new football facility could be McMillian/Vine area:

 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/1-week-with-cincinnati-reveals-bearcats-rise-as-cfp-interloper-luke-fickells-staying-power-and-why-notre-dame-game-means-so-much-014530420.html

 

 

Interesting... good catch! Personally, I don't love that idea/location. I really think the Sheakley location is big enough and would make for an amazing location and facility. I think keeping it adjacent to existing parking structures, and close the core of campus would make it better utilized year-round by all members of the university and would avoid having to build new parking garages/lots that would sit empty most of the time. 

 

I compared other Big 12 "indoor facilities"... some are just bubbles like UC's, while others have permanent indoor structures. They vary in size, but the footprint of Sheakley (127,000 sq ft) would be larger than any existing Big 12 indoor facility. 

 

 

Crane over Mt Auburn

On 9/16/2021 at 4:21 PM, jwulsin said:

Interesting... I hadn't seen that article yet, so thanks for pointing it out. Here's the link to the article: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/09/16/cincinnati-marina-vote-delayed-park-board-secret-selection-process-city-hall/8350807002/

 

Regarding the idea of an indoor football facility, why wouldn't UC simply use the current location of Sheakley (where they put up the inflatable balloon every winter)? It's big enough and there's no other space that is more centrally located. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Assuming UC is going to spend a ton of money on the facility, they'll want it to be in a highly visible location. But maybe there's something I'm not thinking of that would motivate UC to choose a more distant, less visible location.

 

 

This is a very long, wonderful article about UC football. Worth a read if you have any interest in UC at all.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/1-week-with-cincinnati-reveals-bearcats-rise-as-cfp-interloper-luke-fickells-staying-power-and-why-notre-dame-game-means-so-much-014530420.html

 

But, buried within it was this tidbit:

 

As Fickell pulls a few blocks off campus, on the corner of McMillan and Vine streets, he points out an area where there’s talk of a potential site for a $60 million indoor football facility. It would be the caliber of facility that would allow Cincinnati to recruit at the Power Five level, as its current offices are shoehorned into the seventh floor of an eight-floor athletic department building — three of which are underground — adjacent to cozy 40,000-seat Nippert Stadium in the heart of campus. (Students frequently wander through Nippert as a cut-through while walking campus.)

 

3 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

 

This is a very long, wonderful article about UC football. Worth a read if you have any interest in UC at all.

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/1-week-with-cincinnati-reveals-bearcats-rise-as-cfp-interloper-luke-fickells-staying-power-and-why-notre-dame-game-means-so-much-014530420.html

 

But, buried within it was this tidbit:

 

As Fickell pulls a few blocks off campus, on the corner of McMillan and Vine streets, he points out an area where there’s talk of a potential site for a $60 million indoor football facility. It would be the caliber of facility that would allow Cincinnati to recruit at the Power Five level, as its current offices are shoehorned into the seventh floor of an eight-floor athletic department building — three of which are underground — adjacent to cozy 40,000-seat Nippert Stadium in the heart of campus. (Students frequently wander through Nippert as a cut-through while walking campus.)

 

This was linked to and quoted yesterday: 

 

19 hours ago, jwulsin said:

This was linked to and quoted yesterday: 

 

 

Ope... my bad.

Edited October 1, 20213 yr by Ram23

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/sites/planning/assets/Hollister Rec Area - Concept Plan.pdf
 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/community-engagement-meetings1/upcoming-community-engagement-meetings/hollister-sale-in-mount-auburn/
 

Via Buildingcincinnati

Glad to see this space getting such a sizeable development, although I would love for all that empty space at E McMillian and Auburn to get some action as well. Perhaps that might be in the cards for the future seeing as it is noted as "currently owned land" on these site plans. I also like the idea of a row of townhomes along Inwood Park, and I'm very glad to see that they aren't demolishing the buildings at the corner of Vine and E McMillian.

Well that is a pleasant surprise. Wish it had more character or uniqueness, but I know that's not in the finances for uptown in this area.

 

I wonder where UC is going to put that new training facility now though..

1 hour ago, RealAdamP said:

Well that is a pleasant surprise. Wish it had more character or uniqueness, but I know that's not in the finances for uptown in this area.

 

I wonder where UC is going to put that new training facility now though..

Ive heard a rumor about them scouting the west end area…not sure where they would space for it though with some serious demo of the structures that are already there. 

I'm very curious what the plan is for all of those parcels they own around this development. The east plot can be another development easy, but those individual ones are interesting if they aren't trying to consume them all.

If they are basically building the apartments where the Tennis courts are now, Hollister Recreation Area no longer exist, which is fine, the Tennis courts don't really get used, and you could move the basketball courts to Inwood park.   But I don't understand why they wouldn't develop all the way up to Vine street.   The left over triangle at Vine and Hollister just ends up becoming useless Green Space.  They have it labeled as Inwood Park Improvement Opportunity.  But it is not functionally part of Inwood park, no matter how much they try to say it is.  Hollister very clearly separates it.

39 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

If they are basically building the apartments where the Tennis courts are now, Hollister Recreation Area no longer exist, which is fine, the Tennis courts don't really get used, and you could move the basketball courts to Inwood park.   But I don't understand why they wouldn't develop all the way up to Vine street.   The left over triangle at Vine and Hollister just ends up becoming useless Green Space.  They have it labeled as Inwood Park Improvement Opportunity.  But it is not functionally part of Inwood park, no matter how much they try to say it is.  Hollister very clearly separates it.

I like your idea of moving the basketball courts to Inwood. I go to Inwood with my kids somewhat regularly and I always wish it were busier with more people. The new playground up near the Wellington Pl circle is quite nice. And they're in the process of installing a new playground just northwest of the old pavilion, near Vine Street. Perhaps they can remove the old playground (southwest of the pavilion) and use that flat space for a basketball court. I'd love to see the pavilion restored. It was built in 1910, and the City Park's website claims it is one of the oldest buildings still standing in all the parks. 

 

In terms of a site plan that builds all the way up to Vine Street, I see what you're saying, but at the same time, I think that triangle has the potential to be a beautiful space with large shade trees. Even though it's right across Hollister from Inwood Park, I'm not necessarily opposed to having some more green space in that area. That being said, I think it's a good question to ask the City and Uptown Rents at the Community Engagement Session on October 20th (3pm via zoom). What is the plan for that triangle and why did the City/developer choose to not include it in the sale? 

I have heard that they intend on moving the basketball court to the main portion of Inwood Park south of Hollister. If so, that would be great because that is currently utilized a lot. I'm not sure exactly where it would go.

 

The one thing I will say about the space along vine Street is that I do somewhat often see families having picnics around the trees north of Hollister (often parking their cars right on the grass, but whatever). The picnic tables near the parking lot south of Hollister get a lot of usage, and I think it could be beneficial to add more tables and amenities for a casual gathering place right off Vine among the trees. 

 

I do hope that Uptown doesn't demolish the building to the south of Mad Frog, and instead chooses to renovate it. I would like to see the current parking lot/old barber shop be turned into some street fronting mixed use buildings, but I kind of like keeping the corner as a continuation of Inwood Park.

Developer plans $6 million townhome project in Mount Auburn

 

An veteran Cincinnati developer is planning nine, new single-family townhomes on a half-acre in resurgent Mount Auburn, but the Cincinnati Planning Commission delayed its approval of a development plan on Friday while the developer makes adjustments to it.

 

Camden Homes plans to develop the $6 million project under its Greenview Homes label. The three lots located at 1934, 1940-1942 and 1948 Bigelow St. near Hopkins Park are vacant.

 

The homes will sell for about $695,000, Camden CEO Dutch Cambruzzi told the commissioners.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/15/developer-plans-6-million-townhome-project-in-mou.html

 

Those porticos look like cats pausing on their way into the litter box. Hope they got the mark-up.

12 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Developer plans $6 million townhome project in Mount Auburn

 

An veteran Cincinnati developer is planning nine, new single-family townhomes on a half-acre in resurgent Mount Auburn, but the Cincinnati Planning Commission delayed its approval of a development plan on Friday while the developer makes adjustments to it.

 

Camden Homes plans to develop the $6 million project under its Greenview Homes label. The three lots located at 1934, 1940-1942 and 1948 Bigelow St. near Hopkins Park are vacant.

 

The homes will sell for about $695,000, Camden CEO Dutch Cambruzzi told the commissioners.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/15/developer-plans-6-million-townhome-project-in-mou.html

 

NIMBY of the year award for Mt Auburn:

 

"But neighbor Barry Roth objected to one of the setbacks, which he said would place one of the homes too close to his, blocking the light. He asked that the project be moved two feet in order to mitigate the issue."

14 hours ago, zsnyder said:

Those porticos look like cats pausing on their way into the litter box. Hope they got the mark-up.

I’m neither an architect nor a cat person… can you elaborate on what’s bothering you about the porticos and why you say they look like cats?

they look tacked on and under-scaled. They employ strategies (like the pediment on their tops and layered pilasters in their corners) that have no relationship to the building as a whole.  The whole building just looks like a bare bones pastiche of fuzzy memories about architectural features.  

That being said, I'm sure people will eat them up.
 

The cat butt and hind quarters was simply the first thing that came to mind when seeing them.

Edited October 17, 20213 yr by zsnyder

I like that the garages and (shared) driveway won't be visible from Bigelow. To my untrained eye, the porticos look neither like cats nor "tacked on." I think it's a nice design and will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood, helping finish the "framing" around Hopkins Park. Adding 9 townhomes to this 213' street frontage results in an average of ~23' per townhouse, which strikes me as an appropriate "medium density" layout. 

$100 million development planned for neglected Mount Auburn park

 

 

One of Cincinnati’s most active commercial real estate developers has plans to transform a long-neglected park property in Mount Auburn.

 

Uptown Rental Properties, along with its frequent development partner North American Properties, plans to transform Hollister Recreation Area into Hollister Court, a project that includes a four-story apartment building atop a three-story parking garage and five, three-story townhomes. The total development cost for the proposed project is more than $100 million.

 

Dan Schimberg, president of Uptown, said while he can’t really comment on the end use for the property, he said it will primarily be a residential development, with some other uses as requested and warranted by zoning and the neighborhood.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/10/18/100-million-development-planned-hollister.html

 

I hear the park board approved the land sale today for $1.5 million. 

 

I drove by the Flatiron building the other day and was surprised to see how quickly it's getting renovated. Mt. Auburn CDC posted these images on Facebook

They were waiting for a long time to get windows delivered. Progress should be quick now

Developer’s Mount Auburn townhome project gets key approval

 

The Cincinnati Planning Commission approved a new, single-family townhome development by a veteran Cincinnati developer Friday after Camden Homes made some changes to the plan.

 

At the request of the project’s next-door neighbor, Camden shifted its development two feet south to meet the city’s required five-feet side yard setback requirement. The developer had been asking for a variance.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/11/05/mount-auburn-townhomes-land-approval.html

 

Some slightly older pictures from the construction crane at the Uptown Bigelow project. This building is going to have some sick views:

 

^ Yes it is!  

 

I also noticed progress on the flat iron building has been cruising and it now looks almost complete.