https://www.instagram.com/p/R5uP8ckePd/

City Planning and the Mt Auburn Community Development Corporation have held 3 public meetings to gather input for the "Auburn Ave Corridor Plan":

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/planning-projects-studies/mt-auburn-plan/

 

I didn't hear about these meetings until after they'd already happened, so I didn't attend any of them. But they have included the presentation (which was prepared by the Gossman Group) and survey:

 

Presentation: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rgcn7bme5gublxj/AuburnAve_SteergCommf_PPT_160403.pdf?dl=0

Survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rOsVmsnGk7uk-DWmQWkxUB46n4IOMr8DSDs7XliWf6o/viewform?c=0&w=1

 

They included a streetscape rendering, which might be meaningless/misleading since they're so early in the planning process. In tiny letters it says "Euclid Ave", which might mean this was repurposed from another project, or it was a mistake since Auburn Ave turns into Euclid once it crosses Taft. Having said that, the rendering shows a 76' wide street.

 

The current right of way is only 60', with 12' sidewalks and 36' for travel lanes. The new rendering shows the sidewalk flush against "existing setback/buildings". Currently, there aren't any buildings built right up to the sidewalk, so it seems like the right of way could be expanded to 76' without demolishing any buildings. Here's an image showing the tightest pinch point in the ROW (at the corner of Auburn and McGregor), showing there's about 80' between buildings, 60' for the ROW (including sidewalks), 36' for travel lanes:

 

This would be a very expensive project since it would involve acquiring property and completely redoing the street, but it would certainly be transformative for Mt Auburn! It would smooth traffic flow by giving a center turn lane and 10' lanes for cars. And it would improve the pedestrian experience by giving the sidewalk a generous buffer from traffic with permanent on-street parking, trees, and cycle track (though I'd rather the 12' cycle track be split into two 6' tracks on each side of the street).

 

Overall, this would make Auburn Ave much more attractive for retailers and restaurants, making the street feel less like a thoroughfare. Mt Auburn has a lot of untapped potential, so this seems like the kind of improvement that could be financed through a TIF district since the property tax base will grow as the area becomes more attractive to residents and businesses.

A cycle track on Auburn Ave.?  For all the people biking up the Sycamore St. hill? 

 

I biked up that hill daily for the two years I worked downtown 2007-09.  I had the hill to myself every time.  A lane at the top of the hill isn't going to entice one person to start climbing that hill. 

jmecklenborg[/member] - I think you're right that very few people will bike up from OTR/CBD... but a cycle track would make it much more attractive to bike to Christ Hospital from UC or Childrens. The Uptown area can definitely become more bike friendly and building streets with bike infrastructure will help.

 

 

I'm confused. Is the roadway part of the street going to be widened? Or are they just proposing to add a more hard surface to the east side? I'm generally against any idea that widens a street, and don't see how that can be more pedestrian friendly.

 

It also doesn't make sense to widen the street to abut the set-back buildings if our zoning code still calls for setbacks. New buildings will just be built even further back from the street, defeating the purpose.

I'm not sold on the cycletrack either. There isn't any destination except for the hospital, and no one will climb Sycamore Hill. Or whatever that street is to the east that descends sharply down to Reading. Shared lanes would be sufficient given the demand and (I assume) slower traffic.

I'm confused. Is the roadway part of the street going to be widened? Or are they just proposing to add a more hard surface to the east side? I'm generally against any idea that widens a street, and don't see how that can be more pedestrian friendly.

 

It also doesn't make sense to widen the street to abut the set-back buildings if our zoning code still calls for setbacks. New buildings will just be built even further back from the street, defeating the purpose.

 

I believe there's interest in changing the zoning to allow for zero setback.

jmecklenborg[/member] - I think you're right that very few people will bike up from OTR/CBD... but a cycle track would make it much more attractive to bike to Christ Hospital from UC or Childrens. The Uptown area can definitely become more bike friendly and building streets with bike infrastructure will help.

 

 

 

There's no getting away from the short, sharp hills and various longer climbs in the uptown area.  Corryville has a few short, obnoxious hills like the 2700 block of Euclid.  Then there's Eden and Bellevue, and of course MLK between Vine and Burnett.  Are many amateur bikers going to even bike from McGreggor to the top of Auburn?  Taft from Reading up to Euclid sucks currently because of the mean waves of traffic coming off of 71, and really would benefit from a bike lane, but I don't hear any bike advocates calling for one there, because most bike advocates don't seem to bike around this city very much. 

 

 

 

 

^ Cyclists don't ride on streets that suck to ride on.  Go figure!  The hills around Corryville are much more doable than Sycamore or Dorchester.  The problem is traffic and lack of cycling facilities, but the vehicular cycling advocates think nothing's wrong. 

 

I bet the cycle track was put in as a diversion tactic to get people to accept the rest of the street widening (it's being made 5 lanes wide from the current 4) by presenting an excessively wide cross section and then later cutting out the cycle track to save space and appease opponents.  Even so, that 4' buffer could easily go away, it's redundant with the parking/rain garden right next to it.  Plus two-way cycle tracks really aren't best practice anyway, unless you think the crap we do here in America is sacrosanct.  Also won't this run afoul of the Taft historical site?  There's original stone walls and entry gates that would need to be...disassembled and reconstructed further back I guess?  Such things are not well received by the National Trust and other preservation organizations.

Christ Hospital's new spine and joint building has won some architectural awards. Here are a few photos:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/07/26/christ-hospital-s-new-building-draws-national.html

Uptown Rentals is continuing it's push into Mt Auburn - just closed on a 20+ unit apartment building at 255 Mcgregor and 2 adjacent vacant parcels. Will be interesting to see if they rehab it like the one they are doing on Auburn Ave, or just tear down to build a new development.

Uptown Rentals is continuing it's push into Mt Auburn - just closed on a 20+ unit apartment building at 255 Mcgregor and 2 adjacent vacant parcels. Will be interesting to see if they rehab it like the one they are doing on Auburn Ave, or just tear down to build a new development.

 

That's a pretty mediocre little complex, from what I remember of it.  There is a lot of excess land, so I'd bet they'll tear down. 

 

It's quite an ugly little building too.

New single-family homes coming to Mount Auburn

 

 

A developer plans to build four single-family rowhouses on Mount Auburn overlooking downtown Cincinnati and will seek approval from the city’s Historic Conservation Board today.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/11/21/new-single-family-homes-coming-to-mount-auburn.html

Nice front doors.

Saw this on a recent one of the 'abandoned building' facebook pages and thought it would be a wonderful fit for the 'flatiron on a cliff' lot at the top of Sycamore Hill at Auburn. Hopefully something grand goes on that spot someday.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Belv%C3%A9d%C3%A8re+du+Rayon+Vert/@42.4439969,3.1681111,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s-3iRR13yS_v0%2FVR_o-GlelLI%2FAAAAAAAAACg%2FOlVruxV5tQQMLt40tUvG4umjmHKFKJD-ACJkC!2e4!3e12!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-3iRR13yS_v0%2FVR_o-GlelLI%2FAAAAAAAAACg%2FOlVruxV5tQQMLt40tUvG4umjmHKFKJD-ACJkC%2Fs360-k-no%2F!7i899!8i1598!4m5!3m4!1s0x12ba7eb9f9a0eb33:0xbd66c40667c404e4!8m2!3d42.4441271!4d3.1676637!6m1!1e1

 

Saw this on a recent one of the 'abandoned building' facebook pages and thought it would be a wonderful fit for the 'flatiron on a cliff' lot at the top of Sycamore Hill at Auburn. Hopefully something grand goes on that spot someday.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Belv%C3%A9d%C3%A8re+du+Rayon+Vert/@42.4439969,3.1681111,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s-3iRR13yS_v0%2FVR_o-GlelLI%2FAAAAAAAAACg%2FOlVruxV5tQQMLt40tUvG4umjmHKFKJD-ACJkC!2e4!3e12!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2F-3iRR13yS_v0%2FVR_o-GlelLI%2FAAAAAAAAACg%2FOlVruxV5tQQMLt40tUvG4umjmHKFKJD-ACJkC%2Fs360-k-no%2F!7i899!8i1598!4m5!3m4!1s0x12ba7eb9f9a0eb33:0xbd66c40667c404e4!8m2!3d42.4441271!4d3.1676637!6m1!1e1

 

See page 82 of this: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/feb-17-2017-packet/

 

It shows a conceptual plan for a plaza/park overlooking Sycamore, which would be tied into a renovated flat iron building. This "idea" doesn't have any money behind, so don't get your hopes up... but it is good to see Mt Auburn trying to think creatively about how to make use of that area.

 

I like the idea of making Dorchester 1-way (westbound). That could allow for a widened sidwalk around the flat iron building and it would allow the awkward 5-way intersection to get "tightened" up, making it safer for both pedestrians and cars.

I like the idea of making Dorchester 1-way (westbound). That could allow for a widened sidwalk around the flat iron building and it would allow the awkward 5-way intersection to get "tightened" up, making it safer for both pedestrians and cars.

 

As a resident I would love for a one way to happen as well, but unfortunately traffic already backs up so far up Sycamore hill waiting for Liberty left turns that there's no way the DOTE or Christ Hospital would allow that.

I think the one-way might be in reference to just going Westbound at Auburn Avenue. East of Auburn it would remain two-way

I like the idea of making Dorchester 1-way (westbound). That could allow for a widened sidwalk around the flat iron building and it would allow the awkward 5-way intersection to get "tightened" up, making it safer for both pedestrians and cars.

 

As a resident I would love for a one way to happen as well, but unfortunately traffic already backs up so far up Sycamore hill waiting for Liberty left turns that there's no way the DOTE or Christ Hospital would allow that.

 

I'm imagine the traffic down to liberty will decrease once the MLK ramp opens up.

I think the one-way might be in reference to just going Westbound at Auburn Avenue. East of Auburn it would remain two-way

 

That's what I figured.  The a right turn from eastbound Dorchester to Sycamore is almost a u-turn, making it slow and somewhat blind too.  It also has quite a tilt to it as well, which makes it impossible for anything but small vehicles.  Plus it's not like Sycamore couldn't use some curb bump-outs as well, since you can't park until you get to the bottom of the steps anyway, and it's a wide no-man's land. 

I think the one-way might be in reference to just going Westbound at Auburn Avenue. East of Auburn it would remain two-way

 

Yeah - that's my understanding as well of the proposal. Nothing in the "plan" is at all close to "shovel ready"... so just take these as rough ideas to spark further thinking, and hopefully attract some private or public dollars.

The purpose of the Auburn Avenue Corridor Plan was to establish a framework for how to redevelop the corridor and add some businesses to support the residents and employees in the area. The main focus will be on the southern end of the corridor. A large tract of land is owned by Christ Hospital directly across the street from the hospital (currently an empty block with trees). They are apparently open to selling the land for development or partnering with someone and maintaining ownership. This would be the first step to creating a true business district in the neighborhood. Nothing on the scale of Corryville or CUF, but a place for hospital workers/visitors and residents to utilize.

Somebody listed a single 50x110 lot on Valencia St. for $70k...absolutely ridiculous:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1533183/128-Valencia-St-Mt-Auburn-OH-45219

 

This is of course just footsteps from where a napkin sketch of a streetcar/light rail tunnel would have a surface station, but come on, people. 

Ridiculous!  Someone trying to get $330k for a double lot on Dorchester.  Telephone wires spoil this view, which isn't so great to begin with. 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1549600/164-Dorchester-Ave-Mt-Auburn-OH-45219

Uptown Rents presented to the Mt. Auburn Community Council Board last night about single family homes on Slack and Ringgold. They want to demolish 539-545 Ringgold (4 buildings), renovate 551 Ringgold (they don't own 547-549) and demolish 546 Slack Street and a garage facing Slack.

 

They plan on building 4 homes on Ringgold and 6 on Slack. All will be about 18' wide and three stories. First floor garage and steps outside leading to the second floor. The homes on Slack will have a rooftop deck which will require a height variance. All properties need lot width variances, front setback variances, and rear yard variances (due to a deck on the back of each property). The homes are going to be priced in the $300k's to $400k's.

 

The homes being demolished are in a National Register Historic District, but not in a local historic district. Demo permits have been issued and they plan on demolishing in the next month or so.

Somebody listed a single 50x110 lot on Valencia St. for $70k...absolutely ridiculous:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1533183/128-Valencia-St-Mt-Auburn-OH-45219

 

This is of course just footsteps from where a napkin sketch of a streetcar/light rail tunnel would have a surface station, but come on, people. 

 

does the 70k get you the other properties?

"This property priced to sell in the package deal with 118 Mulberry St, 210 Dorchester Ave, 437 Milton St, and 14 Findlay St. "

Uptown Rents presented to the Mt. Auburn Community Council Board last night about single family homes on Slack and Ringgold. They want to demolish 539-545 Ringgold (4 buildings), renovate 551 Ringgold (they don't own 547-549) and demolish 546 Slack Street and a garage facing Slack.

 

They plan on building 4 homes on Ringgold and 6 on Slack. All will be about 18' wide and three stories. First floor garage and steps outside leading to the second floor. The homes on Slack will have a rooftop deck which will require a height variance. All properties need lot width variances, front setback variances, and rear yard variances (due to a deck on the back of each property). The homes are going to be priced in the $300k's to $400k's.

 

The homes being demolished are in a National Register Historic District, but not in a local historic district. Demo permits have been issued and they plan on demolishing in the next month or so.

 

If the buildings are only 18' wide, it sounds like they will NOT be zero lot line. The parcels are all 23.5 or 24' wide. So each building will have side setbacks of ~2.5', creating a 5' gap between the buildings (similar to the row of houses on <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1164365,-84.5136435,3a,75y,14.47h,101.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsCItvKKKX-C9Or9BcZtqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">126-134 Mulberry</a>). Curious to hear from the architects here if that's a good idea or not. With such a tight space, I feel like it'd be better to build zero lot line, which would a) give each townhouse a valuable extra ~5' of width, b) improve energy performance, c) reduce exterior siding costs, d) improve the street wall, e) avoid the shitty vinyl siding that would be used in between the buildings.

^Ringgold properties will all be separate buildings with separate walls, but they will be grouped in twos with no room between buildings. so 539-541 will be immediately adjacent to each other and 543-545 will be immediately adjacent. There will be space between those two sets of buildings, though.

 

The Slack properties will all have space between them.

^^ A pretty big swath of Cincinnati has ~25 foot parcels, with ~16-18 foot homes. That describes my house in CUF. While there are arguments for and against that, what's nice about it is that there's no sort of condo association or HOA needed due to shared walls, roofs, etc. (though from the post above it sounds like there still will be at least one shared wall between every two buildings). While it seems small, that 7-9 foot gap is big enough for a compact car driveway, or in my case a nice shade garden. It also gives you a nice, accessible spot to put mechanical equipment and allows you to have side windows - a lack of side windows on long, skinny buildings can be a limiting factor for interior space layout.

Seems to be the typology of the neighborhood too - Detached row houses. I don't think the building width is the issue with these... it's the garage on the street on the first floor. Such a killer for neighborhood vitality. Begging for a nice tagging.

It's a shame these require so much demolition when there's a ton of open space just west these could fit in.

 

And 1st floor garages are a bit of a bummer.

It's a shame these require so much demolition when there's a ton of open space just west these could fit in.

 

And 1st floor garages are a bit of a bummer.

 

I had the same thought about that green space. Unfortunately, that green space is owned by the God's Bible School. They own a lot of land up in that area. Not sure what their plans are for that land.

^They probably don't have plans for that space.

 

^^The green building at the end on Ringgold definitely doesn't need to be demolished. That building could easily be renovated. They just don't want to do it because they can make more money building new.

^They probably don't have plans for that space.

 

^^The green building at the end on Ringgold definitely doesn't need to be demolished. That building could easily be renovated. They just don't want to do it because they can make more money building new.

 

This pisses me off. This is why some of us get upset at EVERY demolition.  We are losing Cincinnati to the landfill. Such a limited amount is left, and there's is so much land available, that these demolitions should be prohibited.  Those old buildings become more valuable when you do not allow demolitions.

It's a simple choice.

 

The zoning for new construction likely requires off-street parking.  Cranley hates form-based code so that can't change until he's out of there. 

 

I had the same thought about that green space. Unfortunately, that green space is owned by the God's Bible School. They own a lot of land up in that area. Not sure what their plans are for that land.

 

Unfortunately they seem to have no plan for it and the president gets angry/belligerent when anyone approaches them to propose buying for development.

 

Another small development of houses is coming to Carmalt St as well. Hopefully the start of bigger things between these two developments.

More details on the Wellington Place project is on <a href="http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/jun-3-2016-packet/">page 116 of the June 3 Planning Commission Packet</a>.

 

The project is going before the Planning Commission, requesting a change in zoning to become a Planned Development. Their preliminary site plan looks like it was designed to conform to the old zoning of <a href="https://www2.municode.com/library/oh/cincinnati/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIXIZOCOCI_CH1405REMUMIDI">Residential Multi-family 0.7</a>, which requires 25' setbacks. I'm hoping that they're granted the zoning change and that as part of the Planned Development they reconsider the excessive setbacks in the current design (appears to be ~35' from property line on Wellington Place). Wellington Place is a beautiful street that deserves to have buildings built up closer to the sidewalk.

 

I like that there isn't just one huge building taking up the whole block. It's nice to have 4 smaller buildings breaking up the space visually, allowing for some variation of height (~15' of elevation change between the 4 buildings). I like that the parking garage is behind the buildings and there's only one curb cut on Wellington for residents to use for parking. There are a few other curb cuts for service vehicles. The buildings are going to be four levels and the garage is also going to be 4 levels, but the garage will be "sunk" down due to the topography of how the hill drops down to Glencoe to the south. So, the top of the garage will be level with the courtyards of the apartments, which is a nice way to minimize the presence of the garage.

 

The big thing that stands out though is the empty surface parking at the corner of Wellington and Auburn Ave.  I'm hoping that that parcel is being left as parking temporarily for a new, mixed-use building to go in there... but who knows. Maybe they'll just leave it as surface parking forever.

 

I'm curious what the plan is for Glencoe Place. Ideally, something would be built on the north side of Glencoe Place that would cover up the 4-story garage. That 450'x60' parcel is owned by an LLC with a mailing address at 421 E Fourth St (the Guilford building, home of Western & Southern). In the Planning Commission's notes, it says:

The site can be maximized by taking advantage of additional properties in the residential zoning district that is on the south side of the proposed site.

 

Here's the site plan:

 

This project is well underway:

 

 

DOES this project not need to go before the hcb in terms of design? Isn't it located in the mt auburn historic district?

Apparently not.  I suspect the way the border extends just a bit south of Wellington is the reason for the building setbacks being what they are.

They demolished this gorgeous building on Wellington Place in order to build this new project. I'm guessing this is one of those situations similar to Lytle Park where the historic district boundaries were selectively drawn to allow developers to do what they wanna do.

To be fair, as nice a building as that is, it was much newer than the other historic stuff in Mt. Auburn.  1920s vs. mid to late 1800s.  So I can see why it was excluded.

Also, the poor people were kicked out of 2301 Auburn.  It was renovated and re-rented to yuppies.  Not a peep from the anti-gentrification crowd. 

They demolished this gorgeous building on Wellington Place in order to build this new project. I'm guessing this is one of those situations similar to Lytle Park where the historic district boundaries were selectively drawn to allow developers to do what they wanna do.

 

Aw man, I was wondering if this site is where that building was. That blows. On the other hand, 260 new residential units is pretty big for Mt. Auburn.

Jan 13, 2018:

A single family home is currently being built on the east side of Loth Street (between St. Joe and Thill). Right now there's a big hole in the ground. They are looking to sell for about $300,000. If it goes well, they plan on building a few more on the street on a couple of parcels they have acquired - and hope to acquire - from the city/port authority/private owners. It's not in a historic district, but the architecture at least seemed to work with the existing buildings.

 

The houses will be three stories and have a 2-car garage on the first floor. Not sure I can come up with any renderings or details at the moment, but it's a good sign of progress for that corner of the neighborhood which has to date only seem demolitions and a couple of modest rehabs.

A single family home is currently being built on the east side of Loth Street (between St. Joe and Thill). Right now there's a big hole in the ground. They are looking to sell for about $300,000. If it goes well, they plan on building a few more on the street on a couple of parcels they have acquired - and hope to acquire - from the city/port authority/private owners. It's not in a historic district, but the architecture at least seemed to work with the existing buildings.

 

The houses will be three stories and have a 2-car garage on the first floor. Not sure I can come up with any renderings or details at the moment, but it's a good sign of progress for that corner of the neighborhood which has to date only seem demolitions and a couple of modest rehabs.

 

Wow. Good news, indeed. Didn't expect to see new construction in that area for a while.

Jake, is that photo of Wellington Place development?

At least they destroyed the entire neighborhood with a plan :/

 

Literally one of my favorite streets in all of Cincinnati was ruined by an overflow parking lot by Christ Hospital  >:(

Yes that's the Wallington Place development that was built where that really nice brick building was.