Wheeler Kearns did a great job of a "contemporary cornice" in Chicago

The modern design is fine, but it is just one big honking mass on a street that is otherwise made up of narrow building facades. Two or three variations would be helpful in breaking up the big mass. The housing density and modern design would not be a concern of mine.

35 minutes ago, ink said:

The modern design is fine, but it is just one big honking mass on a street that is otherwise made up of narrow building facades. Two or three variations would be helpful in breaking up the big mass. The housing density and modern design would not be a concern of mine.

 

The problem with breaking up the mass is getting post modern messes like this:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm okay with it being one solid building.   There are examples of this even in old neighborhoods, I don't know why people think that all architecture has to be fine grain so they fake it on non fine grain architecture.

 

I still wonder why someone can't recreate a building like this (with a just a bit less detailing), hollywood set designers can do it architects can too: 

 

This also is an example of a non fine grain building that was built in the age of small lot sizes.  A few of these done right won't hurt.

Edited January 3, 20196 yr by neilworms

^^ I don't understand the insistence that large apartments mimic the narrow facades of the neighborhood. They can't mimic the design, so why try to mimic the massing? The design inevitably ends up a disjointed mess of materials and shapes that looks cheap. Maybe there are good examples of this in Cincy, but the ones in Cleveland that try this are awful.

The Pendleton Community Council meeting voted strongly in favor of this project.  However, of those who were against, the 5 story height was a concern.  I pointed out that the Historic Pendleton Arts building is 8 stories tall.  The old High school that is now the Alumni Lofts is a very large 5 story building, etc.  But they don't want to hear that.  As far as they are concerned, any infill should be 3, maybe 4 stories max.  That is what "fits" the neighborhood.   They will fight any large building. 

On 1/2/2019 at 1:55 PM, taestell said:

I see that some serious work is going on inside of @1400 Sycamore. Any details on that project?

Project coming along well.

 

Edited January 5, 20196 yr by 1400 Sycamore
.

I created a new topic for the discussion of faux historic infill:

 

Any news about the apartmen development on the parking lot on Sycamore?

11 hours ago, taestell said:

I created a new topic for the discussion of faux historic infill:

 

 

Could we rename it "Infill in Historic Neighborhoods"?

4 hours ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

Any news about the apartmen development on the parking lot on Sycamore?

Other the Rhine community council appealed the Historic Boards decision to let it move forward.  The development group is arguing that since it is in Pendleton, OTR shouldn't be allowed to appeal it.   But if they can drag this out long enough, the developer will go over the timeframe to purchase the lot at the price they had negotiated.  At that point, if the owner of the lot asks for more, the project is likely dead.

OTRCC is the worst.

There is a guy who is I think the VP of OTRCC.  He is a nice guy who is super passionate about OTR/Pendelton.  He strongly believes in finely grained urbanism.  He also believes no infill in OTR/Pendleton should be taller than 4 stories.  He will do everything he can to stop any large building.  I don't disagree that finely grained urbanism infill would be preferable to one large ownership model.  I just don't see that as a realistic development model in today's environment.  I would rather have a large building than a surface lot.

36 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

Other the Rhine community council appealed the Historic Boards decision to let it move forward.  The development group is arguing that since it is in Pendleton, OTR shouldn't be allowed to appeal it.   But if they can drag this out long enough, the developer will go over the timeframe to purchase the lot at the price they had negotiated.  At that point, if the owner of the lot asks for more, the project is likely dead.

 

Who are they exactly appealing? The historic conservation board? The zoning board?

 

I was always under the impression that these community council bodies didn't have any legal power, but only suggestive power in that they can suggest approvals/denials for projects with there community council support. So with that being said, who exactly are they appealing and how does it have any legal merit? 

Just baffles my mind that they would rather have a surface parking lot than apartments. Would they rather wait 10 years to just have someone else develop it (which it would prolly still be a larger development due to the size of the lot).

The HCB asks developers to go to the community councils and have them vote to support a project or not.  But you are correct there is no real power there.  The HCB takes the vote into consideration, but they can still make whatever decision they feel is best.  I was not aware of the ability to appeal one of their decisions until last months Pendleton Neighborhood meeting.  The representative from the Development team gave us that update.  I don't know any more than that.

8 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

The HCB asks developers to go to the community councils and have them vote to support a project or not.  But you are correct there is no real power there.  The HCB takes the vote into consideration, but they can still make whatever decision they feel is best.  I was not aware of the ability to appeal one of their decisions until last months Pendleton Neighborhood meeting.  The representative from the Development team gave us that update.  I don't know any more than that.

 

So will the Pendelton Community Council appeal against OTR Community Appeal? They are 2 different neighborhoods so I'm not sure why the OTR Community Council has any say in any of this? Why are they treating like they own Pendelton?  

31 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

The HCB asks developers to go to the community councils and have them vote to support a project or not.  But you are correct there is no real power there.  The HCB takes the vote into consideration, but they can still make whatever decision they feel is best.  I was not aware of the ability to appeal one of their decisions until last months Pendleton Neighborhood meeting.  The representative from the Development team gave us that update.  I don't know any more than that.

 

One last note...It's really cool that a member of the development team is keeping you guys in Pendelton updated about this project! Especially since they are an out of state developer. To me, it sounds like they are really eager to break ground when the opportunity allows them to. 

Since this project sits on the brder of Pendleton and OTR, the HCB had asked them to go to both Neighborhood councils.  OTR did not vote to support, Pendleton did, although it was very close.  The development group is trying to get the appeal thrown out since it is in Pendleton. 

I don't think it's totally unreasonable for neighborhoods to have an opinion about large projects that are just slightly outside the technical border of that neighborhood. The FC Cincinnati stadium will have a huge impact on OTR even though it's one block away in the West End, yet OTRCC was told they aren't allowed to have any input into the stadium project.

 

With that being said, their opposition to this Pendleton project is the typical NIMBY nonsense that we have come to expect from OTRCC. They would much rather have a vacant grassy lot (in the case of Liberty & Elm) or a huge parking lot (in the case of this Pendleton project) than a new development if it doesn't check off every box on their list of requirements. I agree that we should have high standards for what gets built in our historic urban neighborhoods, but OTRCC seems to have no ability to see things from the developer's point of view.

 

With the Liberty & Elm project, OTRCC demanded that: the building be made shorter because the original proposal was too tall; OTRCC would get to select one of the architects of the project; some percentage of the units be affordable for people with low incomes; the construction workers be hired from the local community and be paid an amount determined by OTRCC; the retail spaces be filled with local businesses and no chains; etc. etc. etc. You can't get every item on your wish list, and many of the items on that list are in direct opposition to each other. You can't demand that the developer do a bunch of things that increase their costs and also do a bunch of things that decrease their income and still expect the project to be financially viable. You need to pick and choose which battles you want to fight. If you want to fight for a shorter building with better architecture and building materials? Great! But you've just significantly increased the developer's cost-per-unit. So you don't also get to demand affordable units and a local-tenants-only policy for the retail spaces which are both things that would decrease the developer's income. In fact, rents would probably need to be higher in order to pay for the better design that you have demanded.

 

With the Pendleton project, I hope it's a pretty simple decision for HCB and ZBA. Pendleton CC supports the project, and that should trump OTRCC's opposition to it.

I am still baffled that someone actually thought and still thinks that OTR and Pendleton are different neighborhoods.  It should all be one neighborhood and only have one council. 

 

At least East Walnut Hills is comprised of significantly different types of structures than Walnut Hills. 

Currently the city classifies OTR and Pendleton as two separate neighborhoods, although in the past Pendleton had been considered a "sub-neighborhood" of OTR.

5 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

I am still baffled that someone actually thought and still thinks that OTR and Pendleton are different neighborhoods.  It should all be one neighborhood and only have one council. 

 

At least East Walnut Hills is comprised of significantly different types of structures than Walnut Hills. 

 

With that logic prospect Hill, and Mohawk should be incorporated as well.

Quote

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE JANUARY 17, 2019 9:00 AM Please be advised that the Zoning Board of Appeals will hear the following cases in the Fifth Floor Conference Room of II Centennial Plaza at 805 Central Ave. Case No.: Z-4041-2018 Location: 1118 Sycamore Appellant: Over the Rhine Community Council Owner: Charles Street Development Re: This appeal is in reference to the Historic Conservation Board decision dated October 8, 2018 approving a certificate of appropriateness and granting zoning relief to build a new seven-story mixed-use development.

From: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/council/references-resources/city-bulletin1/

 

8 minutes ago, taestell said:

Currently the city classifies OTR and Pendleton as two separate neighborhoods, although in the past Pendleton had been considered a "sub-neighborhood" of OTR.

 

I think the fact that there is a lot of surface parking (pun intended) between both areas, reinforces that sense of separation. 

This city needs fewer "neighborhoods", like half as many, if not just 10-15.  As-is, some are huge, some are teeny-tiny. 

 

There is no reason why Fay Apartments should be its own "neighborhood".  There is no actual place called "East Westwood". 

Here's some more information about OTR Community Council's opposition to the 1118 Sycamore project for Business Courier subscribers.

Danny Klinger said he has “grave concerns about interference, by a prominent political actor, into the affairs and integrity of the historic review process.”

Who is this political actor? Is he just trying to scare people into getting worked up over this project? Danny Klinger was at the Pendleton Council meeting and voted no on the project. He spoke out in strong opposition to the development, but the neighborhood voted yes. Now he is throwing a tantrum to try to delay the project and potentially kill it?

42 minutes ago, taestell said:

Here's some more information about OTR Community Council's opposition to the 1118 Sycamore project for Business Courier subscribers.

Is there anyway to contact otr community council and state our opposition to their opposition? 

http://otrcommunitycouncil.org/contact-us/

I am just done with OTR Community Council, every single one of them needs to go sit on a pine cone in the corner. This is a well thought out design, nice density, not extremely tall. Its a major improvement to the surface lots. This development would increase all of their properties more than the parking lot, but who cares because they didnt get the fake brick, applied cornice work to the exterior, and sill style windows with muntin bars.  

I spoke with Danny about this after the meeting.  He is very passionate about the character of the neighborhood.  He doesn't particularly care about buildings looking "Historic", he is fine with modern architecture, but he very much does not like the size of the building.  The standard 25' wide 3 -4 story tall building is what I believe he wants to see for infill.  Also, he was very bothered that the developers had been going back and forth with the planning department for about a year, finalizing the design.  Then they ask the community councils to vote just a couple weeks before it goes in front of the HCB.  He felt they were intentionally trying to minimize the Community councils input to the project.  Which they probably were after the Liberty and Elm debacle. 

7 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

I spoke with Danny about this after the meeting.  He is very passionate about the character of the neighborhood.  He doesn't particularly care about buildings looking "Historic", he is fine with modern architecture, but he very much does not like the size of the building.  The standard 25' wide 3 -4 story tall building is what I believe he wants to see for infill.  Also, he was very bothered that the developers had been going back and forth with the planning department for about a year, finalizing the design.  Then they ask the community councils to vote just a couple weeks before it goes in front of the HCB.  He felt they were intentionally trying to minimize the Community councils input to the project.  Which they probably were after the Liberty and Elm debacle. 

I feel for that plot and how big it is, that it wouldn’t look right to build just some 3-4 story apartment building. I don’t think everything needs to be only a couple stories tall. I mean someone could have proposed a 15 story tall building at that site. And if this project doesn’t go through then how long till someone else buys it? And what would be the price tag for that plot of land then? I would much rather have a larger 7 story apartment building than some crappy looking lot that makes Pendleton seem detached from OTR.

Agreed, my argument was that Pendleton already has a number of large historic buildings, the 8 story tall Arts Center, the old High School that is now the alumni Lofts, etc.   Plus this site originally had a brewery on it.  So historically, it was a large building.  I voted for it and hope it gets built.  Those surface lots aren't helping the neighborhood.

10 minutes ago, JoeHarmon said:

Agreed, my argument was that Pendleton already has a number of large historic buildings, the 8 story tall Arts Center, the old High School that is now the alumni Lofts, etc.   Plus this site originally had a brewery on it.  So historically, it was a large building.  I voted for it and hope it gets built.  Those surface lots aren't helping the neighborhood.

Very true. I would be pretty upset if I was a Pendleton cc memeber bc OTR Cc should have no right to appeal it, and if it does go through than what’s the point of even having a Pendleton cc of Otr can just stick their noses in everything that Pendleton cc passes.

We never hear anything good coming out of any community council.  They give crazy people like Mary Kuhl a little piece of power. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/16/pendleton-council-otrcc-over-the-line-trying-to.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

Edited January 16, 20196 yr by Ucgrad2015

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 12:42 PM, jmecklenborg said:

We never hear anything good coming out of any community council.  They give crazy people like Mary Kuhl a little piece of power. 

 

Repeated post, for emphasis. 

37 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/16/pendleton-council-otrcc-over-the-line-trying-to.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

Way to go Pendleton CC. Standing up and putting the "Elite Nimby" of OTR CC in their place. Hopefully the appeal will be dismissed. Fingers crossed. 

Is there a way to get rid of the OTR Community Council? I swear at times they remind me of Restock and Buddy Gray combinded. 

 

Bunch of old timers. They need mellenial blood on that council who are in there early 20s and still have unique vision for the neighborhood.

11 minutes ago, troeros said:

Is there a way to get rid of the OTR Community Council? I swear at times they remind me of Restock and Buddy Gray combinded. 

 

Bunch of old timers. They need mellenial blood on that council who are in there early 20s and still have unique vision for the neighborhood.

 

You can't get rid of them but if you live in the neighborhood you can join and have voting privileges for the low cost of $3.

 

http://otrcommunitycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/OTRCCMembershipForm2017.pdf

Citywide, these community council people need to get off their high horses.  It's as bad as a retirement community HOA arguing over balcony railings. 

 

Neighborhoods organized and got things done before these community councils existed.  Clifton blocked the demo of the Emery Theater for a Wendy's, demo of the Roanoke for a Burger King, and recently got a non-profit grocery coop started in their business district.  I believe the 20th Century Theater in Oakley was also saved pre-community council. 

 

To his credit, Danny Klingler didn't need a community council to start OTR Adopt, although they hardly have any properties left so it's unlikely that the organization will exist for much longer. 

Yeah, neighborhood/community councils are obnoxious NIMBY collectives everywhere. 

 

As far as this appeal goes, though, that is pretty common in historic preservation. I worked for a bit in preservation for the city of LA, and I dealt with many appeals for infill projects or additions to homes. If the historic review staff wrote their findings well, and can support the basis for the approval, this project shouldn't have any problems. The community council that the project is in supports the project, and appeals are really supposed to look at the merits of the project and how it conforms to the preservation guidelines or secretary's standards. The fact that the OTR CC doesn't feel included enough in the process shouldn't be enough to win an appeal. Now, if they can uncover some sort of technicality, like a mandatory noticing requirement that wasn't followed, that could spell trouble. But based on what I've read about this project and its appeal, I think it should go forward. 

15 hours ago, JYP said:

 

You can't get rid of them but if you live in the neighborhood you can join and have voting privileges for the low cost of $3.

 

http://otrcommunitycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/OTRCCMembershipForm2017.pdf

 

I tried getting involved in the OTRCC.  I was a board member of the Downtown Residents Council for two years and thought it could be a bit of a mess sometimes.  However, the culture at the OTRCC is toxic to the extreme.  You literally have people shouting at each other and grabbing microphones out of the peoples' hands.  If you value your sanity stay away from that hot mess.  It's no wonder anyone who wants to make a difference in the community does their best to avoid them.

Quote

The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously voted to grant the motion to dismiss the Over-the-Rhine Community Council’s appeal of the Historic Conservation Board’s approval for a $40 million mixed-use project in Pendleton.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/01/17/zoning-board-makes-decision-on-appeal-of-40m.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline

I'm so happy this project won't be delayed. It's a massive development for Pendelton and OTR.

 

We can debate the design back and forth for ages, but the bottom line is that otr needs dense residential units.

 

OTR is far to dead on the weekdays at night. Just stroll through main Street at midnight and it's like a ghost town, compare to how the street is flooded on the weekends. Hell, even pins closes at midnight last night because there was no one there.

 

Plain and simple we need more people living in otr, and we need ALOT more people. It's not just about allowing these businesses in otr thriving on weekends but also on week days as well. 

 

Plus, more residents means more "eyes" on the street which will allow the bad apples who still thrive in drug dealing and there bad criminal behavior to realize that they have to go to price Hill or Avondale to do there new criminal activites.

 

When the streets are dead, crime thrives. Plain and simple. We need people who live in otr to deter crime and support businesses regardless of how appropriate the design may or may not be.

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 20196 yr by troeros

Yes, that density is necessary, but will never happen if NIMBYs want to keep all the buildings at 3 stories. 5 even and we will never get there.

Edited January 18, 20196 yr by Yves Behar

I think this will be a great project in addition to the Urban Sites project if they can get that one figured out in adding more critical mass. My other wish lists for next two years: The area of Main and Central Parkway (Salvation Army Site) and of course the Elm and Liberty Project. Then you hope the other big lot next to this projects gets built and then eventually the Kroger redevelopment encompassing that large area which hopefully at that time, the Liberty Street Project is finished and you can have a nice size development in the Grammar's area hugging up to the reduced street size.

Edited January 18, 20196 yr by IAGuy39

I like the Salvation Army building as an unlikely disrupter of an otherwise large street wall.  At some point almost all of these halfway-nondescript med-century buildings are going to be gone across the United States. 

 

Also, remember that skyscrapers of basically the same style are being built in 200+ cities around the world.  U.S. cities are unusual not just for typically having old skyscrapers, but also having ones built between 1960 and 1990.  In addition, we have small and oddball mid-sized buildings in our cities built between those years that no city in Europe or Asia or the Middle East will ever have. 

 

So stuff like the Salvation Army building is actually important to keep if we want the story of the city's evolution to remain. 

That's exactly why some groups are trying to get buildings like the Salvation Army building on Central Parkway and the Peaslee building on 14th labeled "historic" in an attempt to precent them from being demolished and redeveloped.

Yeah nobody thought anything of the Washington Park school when it was demolished.  There were tons of those schools but they're being demolished left-and-right all across the country. 

 

A lot of suburban public school districts have torn down their 1950s/60s school buildings.  This has put places like LaSalle and McAuley and St Xavier in the odd position of being the last survivors of that era of suburban school construction. 

 

The Colerain library on Galbraith Rd. was a circa-1960 gem that was superficially similar to the Salvation Army.  That thing was torn down around 2010 and replaced by a blob.  That circa-1960 library had a "Los Angeles Brady Bunch" style to it, with a peaked roof and green tilework that you can't get anymore. 

 

16 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Yeah nobody thought anything of the Washington Park school when it was demolished.  There were tons of those schools but they're being demolished left-and-right all across the country. 

 

A lot of suburban public school districts have torn down their 1950s/60s school buildings.  This has put places like LaSalle and McAuley and St Xavier in the odd position of being the last survivors of that era of suburban school construction. 

 

The Colerain library on Galbraith Rd. was a circa-1960 gem that was superficially similar to the Salvation Army.  That thing was torn down around 2010 and replaced by a blob.  That circa-1960 library had a "Los Angeles Brady Bunch" style to it, with a peaked roof and green tilework that you can't get anymore. 

 

Here's a 1965 Gem. My middle school in Cedar Rapids, IA

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0265083,-91.6509964,3a,75y,148.32h,88.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5LehcCPJwZ4mGOzLv7kY4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656