Over-the-Rhine Revisited: Designing Infill for Historic Districts

http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/08/over-rhine-revisited-designing-infill.html

 

On Thursday, September 4th, the Mercantile Library will be hosting an informative session regarding Over-the-Rhine and the challenges facing new development in the historic neighborhood. Over-the-Rhine Revisited: Designing Infill for Historic Districts will be held at 5:30pm at the Mercantile Library.

 

The session is a continuation of discussion that started at the January 2008 charrette and is being hosted by AIA Cincinnati, Architecture Foundation of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Preservation Association, Mercantile Library, and the Over-the-Rhine Foundation.

 

Light refreshments will be served , but reservations are required. The session costs $8 for members and $10 for non-members. You can make reservations by either calling 513.621.0717 or by emailing [email protected].

 

 

+++External links and photos within main article+++

Revisit ideas for Over-the-Rhine infill this Thursday

http://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/otrrevisited0902.aspx

 

The ideas and plans generated on a January afternoon will be shared during Over-the-Rhine Revisited: Designing Infill for Historic Districts, a presentation from 5:30 PM to 7 PM on September 4 at the Mercantile Library.

 

Sponsored by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, AIA Cincinnati, Architecture Foundation of Cincinnati, Cincinnati Preservation Association, and the Over-the-Rhine Foundation and held at the Art Academy of Cincinnati, the free, day-long charrette on infill design for four of the neighborhood's vacant lots was led by more than 30 architects and University of Cincinnati architecture students and included more than 90 participating community members.

 

Of primary concern to the sponsors was calling attention to the fact that it's possible to add new buildings to the neighborhood without mimicking what's already there.

 

"The ideas, or strategies, for inserting infill ran the expected gamut from 'tear it down and build something new' to  'it's an endangered species, therefore it must be saved'," says Mike Moose, Glaserworks principal and co-chair of the charrette’s volunteer architect committee.  "The professionals generally wanted a more modern approach than the lay people, some of whom firmly believe that the only thing one can do in Over-the-Rhine is more of what is there."

 

Moose says that, while not surprised with the sophistication of the ideas that were produced, he was still quite pleased with the results.

 

"What seemed to work best, in terms of producing a solution, was for a group to discuss the major issues together and then break into subgroups to draw up the agreed-to vision," he says.

 

It was so productive that consideration is being given to holding another neighborhood charrette.

 

"The feedback was very positive," Moose says.  "People seemed to enjoy being there and sharing their thoughts."

 

Reservations are required and can be made by calling (513) 621-0717 or by e-mailing [email protected].

The most recent historic conservation board staff report is out, and the application for 1216-18 Race seems to be heating up as a defining case for OTR infill housing. It's worthy of rejuvenating this thread.

 

The packet for this one application is 114 pages, including a 20 page staff recommendation (To table or deny), and 31 pages of outside letters. I've separated things out (why can't the HCB create a friendly format for distribution? This is 2017.)

 

Application: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z61g18ll7nvsckp/HCB%201216%20Race%20Application.pdf?dl=0

Staff Rec: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4wrtmzle4znaycf/HCB%201216%20Race%20Staff%20Rec.pdf?dl=0

Letters: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sycjh1h921jvqbh/HCB%201216%20Race%20Letters.pdf?dl=0

 

My interested observer opinion: Key elements of the existing guidelines on parking, density, and design are colliding full on with common sensibilities about what many people want OTR to become. It's time to separate the guidelines for OTR infill from the guidelines for historic preservation. If the HCB approves this design against the staff recommendation, it will force staff to admit that the existing guidelines have failed for infill. And that would be a very good thing. I don't see us moving forward on sensible infill guidelines until an event like that happens.

 

The letters alone are a really interesting read. Some really smart folks with a way for words are interested in changing the status quo.

 

^Glad to see a new construction building in OTR whose windows actually line up and aren't scattered across the facade. Also, there should be no restrictions on density or parking in OTR for small projects like this.

Do you really think that façade is good design?  Seems clunky and scale-less adjacent to the fine grained urbanism surrounding it

^I just hate scattered windows in OTR. It's not appropriate at all IMO and is my biggest complaint with all of the new construction in the last 5 years in the neighborhood.

Just look at this monstrosity that 3CDC is building at 15th and Vine. It is referenced in the staffs recommendation against the the windows here, which makes no sense because the window alignment is awful at 15th and Vine.

^totally agree.  15th and Vine as well as Walnut at Mercer are two horrible examples of "modern" buildings that got approved.

^Glad to see a new construction building in OTR whose windows actually line up and aren't scattered across the facade. Also, there should be no restrictions on density or parking in OTR for small projects like this.

Yes - density and parking requirements, along with inappropriate design restrictions, need to be eliminated for small infill projects. Any new infill project meets so much needless resistance that it's hard to imagine it isn't impeding development.

 

And by the way, this is NOT the way that HCB is leaning. In fact for the Platte project they state that, if a parking variance is granted, it will be the last one recommended for any OTR project that relies on proximity to Washington Park garage.

The OTR Foundation Infill Committee has been working on revising the guidelines (at least to make them look graphically better) than what we have now. I am not sure what content may be proposed to be changed but the idea is to better articulate the infill guidelines and avoid faux historic construction.

 

Once they are finished I think they will hand it off to the city for adoption. There should be public input but I am not sure when that will happen.

I understand it's a complicated process, and they want to be thorough if they are going to change the design guidelines for a generation, but it seems like I've been hearing this infill committee business for years and haven't heard any details of how far along they are.

^Glad to see a new construction building in OTR whose windows actually line up and aren't scattered across the facade. Also, there should be no restrictions on density or parking in OTR for small projects like this.

Yes - density and parking requirements, along with inappropriate design restrictions, need to be eliminated for small infill projects. Any new infill project meets so much needless resistance that it's hard to imagine it isn't impeding development.

 

And by the way, this is NOT the way that HCB is leaning. In fact for the Platte project they state that, if a parking variance is granted, it will be the last one recommended for any OTR project that relies on proximity to Washington Park garage.

 

The HCB is only following the zoning ordinance which requires parking.  Until that requirement is removed, by law, they must enforce the requirements. 

 

Platte has come up with a 5 year lease of 20 parking spaces from the Washington Park garage. Since so many other are also doing this, is it any wonder that this garage of 450 spaces (I think) is full so often?

^Glad to see a new construction building in OTR whose windows actually line up and aren't scattered across the facade. Also, there should be no restrictions on density or parking in OTR for small projects like this.

Yes - density and parking requirements, along with inappropriate design restrictions, need to be eliminated for small infill projects. Any new infill project meets so much needless resistance that it's hard to imagine it isn't impeding development.

 

And by the way, this is NOT the way that HCB is leaning. In fact for the Platte project they state that, if a parking variance is granted, it will be the last one recommended for any OTR project that relies on proximity to Washington Park garage.

 

The HCB is only following the zoning ordinance which requires parking.  Until that requirement is removed, by law, they must enforce the requirements. 

 

Platte has come up with a 5 year lease of 20 parking spaces from the Washington Park garage. Since so many other are also doing this, is it any wonder that this garage of 450 spaces (I think) is full so often?

 

Quick question. This has to go to the Planning Commission as well. Why does the HCB care about zoning uses or parking requirements? IMO, the HCB should only be worried about how it fits in with the historic district. Planning Commission should be worried about what the zoning code says. Can someone explain why HCB concerns themselves with things that have nothing to do with historic preservation?

The OTR Foundation Infill Committee has been working on revising the guidelines (at least to make them look graphically better) than what we have now. I am not sure what content may be proposed to be changed but the idea is to better articulate the infill guidelines and avoid faux historic construction.

 

Once they are finished I think they will hand it off to the city for adoption. There should be public input but I am not sure when that will happen.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city.

Quick question. This has to go to the Planning Commission as well. Why does the HCB care about zoning uses or parking requirements? IMO, the HCB should only be worried about how it fits in with the historic district. Planning Commission should be worried about what the zoning code says. Can someone explain why HCB concerns themselves with things that have nothing to do with historic preservation?

 

In historic districts, by city ordinance, the HCB replaces the zoning board of appeals

Quick question. This has to go to the Planning Commission as well. Why does the HCB care about zoning uses or parking requirements? IMO, the HCB should only be worried about how it fits in with the historic district. Planning Commission should be worried about what the zoning code says. Can someone explain why HCB concerns themselves with things that have nothing to do with historic preservation?

 

In historic districts, by city ordinance, the HCB replaces the zoning board of appeals

 

It seems like the knowledge base and skill sets of the Planning Commission would be better suited than the HCB, though. And don't these development also go to the Planning Commission?

^Glad to see a new construction building in OTR whose windows actually line up and aren't scattered across the facade. Also, there should be no restrictions on density or parking in OTR for small projects like this.

Yes - density and parking requirements, along with inappropriate design restrictions, need to be eliminated for small infill projects. Any new infill project meets so much needless resistance that it's hard to imagine it isn't impeding development.

 

And by the way, this is NOT the way that HCB is leaning. In fact for the Platte project they state that, if a parking variance is granted, it will be the last one recommended for any OTR project that relies on proximity to Washington Park garage.

 

The HCB is only following the zoning ordinance which requires parking.  Until that requirement is removed, by law, they must enforce the requirements. 

 

Platte has come up with a 5 year lease of 20 parking spaces from the Washington Park garage. Since so many other are also doing this, is it any wonder that this garage of 450 spaces (I think) is full so often?

 

Good point on the zoning ordinance. I forgive the HCB this and instead hope that they spur needed changes to zoning.

 

Regarding the washington park garage, I don't think it is a bad thing that this garage is full. Cincinnati needs to feel pressure to invest in better transportation modes and make the existing ones more efficient. These silly rules generate inefficiency in spades by removing pressure on the infrastructure that should feel it, by restricting development. It's all anti-city anti-density to me, which is why I have no taste for it.

 

The OTR Foundation Infill Committee has been working on revising the guidelines (at least to make them look graphically better) than what we have now. I am not sure what content may be proposed to be changed but the idea is to better articulate the infill guidelines and avoid faux historic construction.

 

Once they are finished I think they will hand it off to the city for adoption. There should be public input but I am not sure when that will happen.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city.

 

Jim; do you really like the proposed façade? It looks a big brick wall with giant plain openings cut into it.. then a huge horizontal floating roof above.  I don't get the attraction.  No scale, no articulation.

The OTR Foundation Infill Committee has been working on revising the guidelines (at least to make them look graphically better) than what we have now. I am not sure what content may be proposed to be changed but the idea is to better articulate the infill guidelines and avoid faux historic construction.

 

Once they are finished I think they will hand it off to the city for adoption. There should be public input but I am not sure when that will happen.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city.

 

Jim; do you really like the proposed façade? It looks a big brick wall with giant plain openings cut into it.. then a huge horizontal floating roof above.  I don't get the attraction.  No scale, no articulation.

 

It is a true modern interpretation of the design guidelines.  It removes ornamentation and relies on form and material to express.I don't think it is worthy of the cover of Arch Record, but considering the crap we get in this city a lot, it is definitely a step in the right direction.  Buildings like this compliment their historic neighbors, rather than competing as a faux historic building would.

The OTR Foundation Infill Committee has been working on revising the guidelines (at least to make them look graphically better) than what we have now. I am not sure what content may be proposed to be changed but the idea is to better articulate the infill guidelines and avoid faux historic construction.

 

Once they are finished I think they will hand it off to the city for adoption. There should be public input but I am not sure when that will happen.

The OTR infill committee is one of the few that opposed the 1216 Race development. For my money, their reasons don't make sense. I hope that they are evolving in their thinking, prior to handing their suggestions off to the city.

 

Jim; do you really like the proposed façade? It looks a big brick wall with giant plain openings cut into it.. then a huge horizontal floating roof above.  I don't get the attraction.  No scale, no articulation.

 

It's not really a matter of whether I like it or not, though I agree with CinciInTheKnow and many of the supportive letters that complain about faux historic (and the total pass that anything faux historic gets with the HCB).

 

My romantic vision of OTR is to preserve and cherish all existing historic buildings, but release infill possibilities to a great extent to encourage modern design. Obviously not complete freedom - we don't want cheap materials, and we don't want completely out of scale buildings.

 

Here are the main complaints from the HCB, in their words, that arise from enforcing the historic guidelines:

 

1. Emphasis: The building reads very horizontally and lacks a strong vertical emphasis.

 

2.Articulation at the openings: the building is very flat and does not have articulation or detailing around the windows or openings.

 

3.Setback:  The first floor is not set at the street line but has an angular setback that is very rarely seen in the neighborhood, but for mostly historic corner doorway entrances that are canted.

 

4.Materials:The rear building façade is painted CMU. While this is an alley and not a primary street façade the alleys are important aspect of the character of Over-The-Rhine and a better quality material should be proposed.

 

Aside from #4, I think the rest are b.s. For new infill, I can honestly say I do not care about any of these issues raised, and it annoys me to no end that people eager to bring in new investment and new people are harassed by them.

Here's three projects going before HCB on 8/20/18

 

1684 Central Parkway:

 

1504 Republic Street:

 

502 + 506 Dandridge Street:

 

^having a hard picturing how that last one fits onto the site? Doesn’t seem like there’s enough room

Whats the planned use for 1684? It looks almost like a school of sorts? I noticed it says, "OTR CTR"..I'm guessing CTR is an abbreviation for Center, so it's probably not residential.

 

I like the look of 506 Dandridge. Looks like a faux industrial building of sorts.