I don't believe they have governmental authority.  There's an advisory board, which I would imagine is something like an architectural review board.  It would be nice if the city government had an official department like this though.

I don't believe they have governmental authority. There's an advisory board, which I would imagine is something like an architectural review board. It would be nice if the city government had an official department like this though.

 

Check out that whole link then consider that in Lexington that body has the power to delay demolition and real estate agents tout the Architectural Board of Review when selling in urban Lexington.  Lexington is miles ahead of Cincy, but needn't be.

CPA has ZERO authority where regulation is concerned. that is handled by the Cincinnati Urban Conservator Larry Harris. Larry Harris has a degree in architecture. NO historic preservation degree, no experince in restoration or historic preservation , doesn't know the difference between Italianate and Second Empire Vuctorian Architecture and has the job because of politics not because of any knowledge of preservation..

 

Knox Hill Neighborhood Assocaition, is still working its way through our Federal complaint with HUD regarding federal CDBG and NSP monies being used for demolition withour a proper section 106 review proceedure. Required when any property over 50 yrs old is considered for demoltion or redevelopment using Federal funds.

 

The city was basically told that their current proceedure through the Nuisnace Board does not meet 106 review. The city has contacted me regarding further discussions but no face to face meetings yet. It is hard to get the several people that need to meet together in one place at one time.

 

I have insisted that CPA be part of any discussion as they are the one with the Programmatic Agreement with the city and suposed to be the 'adviser' to the city on section 106 review process.

 

IN THE MEANTIME, the city continues to demo.

 

There has been discussion about talking to judge to get a Federal Injuction but that also drawn out process.

Sounds like Cincy needs something like what Lexington has.  Now, how do we get it?

I don't believe they have governmental authority.  There's an advisory board, which I would imagine is something like an architectural review board.  It would be nice if the city government had an official department like this though.

 

As RestorationConsultant mentioned, the city does have a Historic Conservation office headed by the Urban Conservator ( http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/pages/-37117-/ ).  They typically only review buildings in a historic district or that are individually listed, though part of their charge should be reviewing the appropriateness of other potential historic structures.  They are also inadequately staffed for even this task, in both number of staff and experience.

 

Cincinnati Preservation Association has announced the first ever Westside Preservation Summit called "Preserving the heart of the west side". the forum will bring together West side stakeholders on Historic Preservation as a revitalization tool. on Saurday June 5th.

 

Preservation segments include: Facing challenges, Exploring Solutions, Starting the dialog.

 

This should be a very informative day and this is "must attend" conference for community leaders, local preservationists and restorers and will provide a great deal of networking among those working to restore the west side.

 

The event is sponsored by Comey & Sheperd Downtown office and the National Trust for historic Preservation.

 

The conference will run from 10-4 Saturday at the Westwood Library, 3345 Epworth Avenue in Westwood. Admission free: Box Lunch included. You can register to attend this landmark event online here:

 

http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2w04pmib45948b9&oseq=a004g7yz8vki

 

More information about this event can be obtained by contacting Margo Warminski at CPA 513-721-4506 or [email protected]

 

Here is an article on Danny Klinger, the founder of OTR ADOPT.  It's a new business that matches investors with historical buildings that are in danger of being demolished.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100523/NEWS01/5240302/Old-buildings-new-owners

^

Unfortunately the article glosses over a number of people who were instrumental in getting the program off the ground.

 

I think this sort of effort is best accomplished through existing non-profits in the neighborhood.  I'm not sure how the business model can support the effort as a business.  I wish Danny the best of luck though.

^

If Danny does what he wants to do, it will be very well worth a consulting fee.  There is a lot of work involved in identifying the properties, contacting the owners, and handling the legal issues of property transfer.  We desperately need an industry that will make individual purchase and rehab of OTR structures more accessible.  I think that Danny is trying to build that, and it will be worth it to many. 

 

I wish that all of the money I've given to real estate agents over the years could have been given to people like Danny Klingler instead.

 

Knox Hill Neighborhood Association has been fighting to get a proper section 106 review process in Cincinnati for over a year.

 

We filed a citizens complaint with HUD and have ben in contact with OHPO on the fact the city continues to bulldoze historic eligible property using Federal dollars without a proper section 106 process.

 

Larry Harris the Uban Conservator thinks he can just ignor preservationists and the issue will go away, and he continues to "rubber stamp" the demos.

 

The Department head of OHPO sent the city a letter last week. Advising the city that they had failed to provide an outine of 106 proceedures, and they were advised they had 90 days to do so.

 

After 150 DAYS they are fed up and have demanded the info and that HUD be sent the information as well.PLUS they want documentation of the proceedure used on recent nusinance declarations.And they have requested the city halt demolition on one property (1853 Knox) in our neighborhod pending review of the city's documentation

 

The most telling part of the letter which I was cc'd on:

 

"We have considerable concerns about the city's implementation of the Programmatic Agreement with OHPO. If the city can not provide the information that we have requested and show that public comments have been considered, OHPO will make a dispute claim under stipulation X of the Programmatic Agreement and may ultimately terminate or substantially amend  the terms of the agreement"

 

In plain English the city can have its Federal monies cut if the city cant show they are doing a proper 106 reviews, that would mean a loss of CDBG and NSP monies for demolitions.

 

Maybe the city will finally start following the law if it means the loss of several million dollars a year?

 

 

 

 

 

Good work!  I hope that the city will finally comply with the federal guidelines.

GOOD news!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Thanks, Paul. I'm still crossing my fingers, but things have come a long way. Largely, thanks to you.

For some time (in absense of a REAL sectrion 106 review process) the Urban conservator has pointed to his reliance on the Ohio Historic Building Inventory reports as a "basis' for if a property is "historic eligible'.

 

Recenty I have reviewed the inventory report for just South Fairmount. If it is typical of the city at large we have a serious issue of inaccurate and incomplete building inventory.

 

I discussed this today on my blog and showed examples of property that in my opinion should be on these reports but are not. Wondered what other peoples opinions were on this as it appears if its not on this report then the Urban Conservator belives it has no historic value.

 

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/06/cincinnati-historic-building-inventory.html

 

We all need to be concerned  if these reports are this incomplete. I have asked OHPO to review this issue and get back to me.

 

I

You should ask in writing for a SPECIFIC List of what is wrong, do not accept the "13 point standard crap" make them SPELL OUT IN WRITING exactly what is wrong.

 

You should ask for a meeting with Ed Cunningham and I would also ask that Ron Wahl who is from the the vice mayors office be present.

 

The VBML is little more than a governmental 'shakedown' to get people they know are actually doing something to cover their  costs for the hundreds of  slumlords who ignore them.

 

Dont stand for it!

 

 

They sure as heck won't return my calls.

They don't return anyone's calls. They just vilify.

rofl

 

Look there are alot of people out there refusing to pay the VBML or apply for the waiver.

 

The city 'threatens" them with court and when the owner shows up with an attorney in tow the city loses.

 

The fact us the city is unable to to show any level of compliancy with this ordinance to be able to offer the legal position to a court that it is not being discriminatory in its application.

 

Last time I checked there are a couple of thousand properties on the VBML or 'condemn" list. As it stands right now the city cannot produce documentaion that a proper section 106 review has taken place on those properties declared a  nuisance and set for demo and they certainly haven't filed court proceedings against all those people.

 

Knox Hill's Federal citizens complaint to HUD and their continuing to forward things to OHPO and HUD is creating a problem for the city which "may have' demoed property using federal tax dollars without following proper section 106 review guidlines. The fact that the Urban Conservator refuses to respond to Knox Hill does not help the city and the neighborhood group is considering filling a complaint with the state AG's office because this data should be a matter of public record since its state and federal monies being spent.

 

The city is "allegedly" trying to come up with a 106 review process but in my mind that means they didnt have viable one before meaning they cannot demo properties using Federal funds without having a new section 106 done on EVERY property on that list.

 

There are some "other issues' regarding HUD monies the city would rather not have HUD investigating regarding proceedures with stimulus monies.

 

Of course the 'big issue'? Are you working on the property or just letting it sit? If you are 'holding it' they probably are going to try to give you a hard time as they are taking the position its time for people to start doing something with these properties.

The city is "allegedly" trying to come up with a 106 review process but in my mind that means they didnt have viable one before meaning they cannot demo properties using Federal funds without having a new section 106 done on EVERY property on that list.

 

Or at least that they cannot demo any property on that list without having a new section 106 done on that specific property.

Not

I 

VBML is totally seperate from permits. VBML's are issued through the city vacant building task force. Permits are different division and governed under a different section of the city ordinance. A property can be 'condemned' and still obtain building permits.

 

One of the reasons for that is that with the "appeal' process it can take months to actually get to waiver hearing. The expensive part is finding the Liability Insurance which you still MUST HAVE even with the appeal. That liability insurance is what costs and you must have it with the VBML or with the appeal.

I am rehabbing a place in OTR next to a vacant condemned building.  The owner of the condemned building has kept it vacant for 31 years and not done anything to the structure save for taking down a couple of chimneys and boarding up some windows.  The building is full of trash.  The roof has been half uncovered for two years and there are no gutters/cornices along 80' of the structure.  This weather damage is recurring and this coming winter will be the third is has seen in an open condition.  Obviously the structure is not compliant with the City's VBML.

 

Otherwise it is a lovely building (no sarcasm intended!).  As a neighbor impacted by a "blighted building" I am considering going to court to seek repairs to bring the building up to VBML compliance (or beyond), and (very likely) to have those repairs be managed by a court-appointed receiver under O.R.C. 3767.41. 

 

Does anyone have any experience or opinions, positive or negative, with this receivership process?  Also, I am seeking a good lawyer with past experience in this section of the O.R.C. in Cincinnati - anyone have any good names to offer?  Thanks.

Irony here is that once the property goes to 'condemn", it doesn't necessarily mean its structurally unsound. Most property on the Condemn list do not have structural problems but its an escalation of say a broken window complaint  (repair order) that gets elevated to a VBML and when the owner wont pay they condemn it. If its sitting in a historic district the owner is pretty much off the hook because if they are not complying with the VBML they certainly are not doing anything. The city tearing it down is a long process in a historic district, though not impossible.

 

The VBML program was enacted 14 years ago and was sold to preservationists as a way to shake these buildings loose and get them restored.

 

Today there are 2572 buildings on the VBML/condemn list (there were a few hundred 14 years ago). The program is a failure and the task force keeps writing VBML's like candy so they obtain Federal CDBG and NSP funds. The city is "addicted" to federal funds to help pay salaries.

 

Cities like Louisville and Indy have turned around their urban neighborhoods in the last 14 years. WHY? No VBML. We need early intervention with repair orders including fines and court, not "kicking the can down the road" with VBML and condemn orders. We actually need a real housing court.

 

Receivership may be your best and fasted remedy. Camp Washington community council are the locaal experts at this having used Receivership very effectively. www.camp-washington.org  , Paul Rudemiller is the director and he can probably point you to a good attorney they use. Even if you go the receivership route do not be surprised if the city wants you to post a 15-20K bond and make a VBML application  means liability insurance which can cost several thousand a year to secure.

 

We need to get rid of the VBML, switch to a repair order based system like all other cities use and try to offer incentives to restoration not R&R (redtape and roadblocks)

 

I know people , witha proven track record of restoration from St Lois, trying to buy a  house on Dayton street, spend 300-400K on restoration and cannot get a bond requirement lifted (city wants a 15K bond) so they can close. They are being quoted 6000 a year for liability insurance and the city wants the 'repair orders" done in 90 days on a 4500 square foot house!

 

Unless someone like the council intervenes, they will have to walk away which is a shame because they are highly regarded historic preservationists and would be relocating two businesses here to Cincy that will provide local jobs.

 

The houee will sit until it falls down. They will be the thied buyer who walked away because of unreasonable requests by the city!

 

 

 

Thanks very much for that information.  I'm no expert on VBML for sure, and am not in any position to either defend or condemn it.  In this case it seems that going the receivership route is the closest thing that I can get to a "housing court" with a "repair order based system" like you recommend, even if I am having to craft it myself using the Ohio Revised Code.  I will definitely try to find out as much as possible about what Camp Washington has done, as it seems hard to find reputable Lawyers who have actual experience with receivership actions.

Jim ,sounds like your neighbor is a Karkadoulious!  The Building Dept should have put her in jail years ago.

Ha!  Sounds like you know the neighborhood very well indeed!

 

I am meeting with Paul Rudemiller next week, and will make a decision about a course of action following that. 

I guess soem discussions have been ongoing between the city and CPA about 'modifications' to the VBML to make it more 'preservation friendly'. As usual not a lot of actual neighborhood input here.

 

Based on just what I'm getting it seems like in addition to my neighborhood of Knox Hill, the Riverside area seems to want to see VBML gone as does some folks in Lower Price and Westwood and the OTR facebook page seems to indicate they are kind a fed up with VBML too.

 

I really think we have got to get back to repair order based enforcement (like other cities have) and we need a real hosuing/environmental court. It is interesting the city could file receiverships against these bad property owners but I've been told more than once they are afraid of owning and maintaining any more property.

 

Of course the city can't seem to get a landbank deal put together.

 

Personally I think we need a Historic Landbank Fondation, (independent of CPA)  so those groups without development corporations could "hold' key prioperties and the city would have an avenue to turn over property to someone who could market it to preservationists.

 

We also need to be spending our CDBG fund on stabilization not demolition.

 

Winburn 'finds' $750K for Gamble House

By Cliff Radel • [email protected] • November 10, 2010

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20101110/NEWS0108/11110322/

 

 

Winburn is a nut, but in this case I think he has a good idea.

I agree.  Sounds like he's "all in" too!

Restorationconsultant just posted on his blog about recently digitized photos of the old Kenyon-Barr neighborhood (the one that was "renewed" into Queensgate) offered by the Cincinnati's Historical Society's website.

 

Blog Post: http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/11/cincinnatis-lost-neigborhood-kenyon.html

 

Photography Collection: (Search for Kenyon-Barr)

http://library.cincymuseum.org/

 

Its a complete travesty that we lost this neighborhood to a mediocre suburban office/industrial park. I've heard much about this neighborhood and have seen a photograph of it from the air around Union Terminal, but this is the first time I've seen pics on the street.  Its both facinating and sad.

Even sadder was the fact that some of the earliest townhomes in Cincinnati were still standing there in 1959. Besides the "newer" 1850's and 1860's Italianates and mansard roofed Second Empires, there were still a number of pre-Civil War era Greek Revival and some Federal style brick townhomes going back to the first decades of the 1800's. While I will have to admit some of these (then) century old buildings were looking pretty shabby by the late 1950's their loss tore a big hole in the historic architectural fabric of urban Cincinnati. I've seen that aerial photo you mentioned from the 1930's and while the concourse of Union Terminal had already clear-cut blocks of early townhomes and the Laurel Homes projects would cause many more blocks to disappear, the built density of the neighborhood back then was incredible. Cincinnati did not move out of the basin to the surrounding hills until the era of the Inclines in the 1870's so the earlier built density was far more compact than in the new suburbs during subsequent decades.

 

After the Queensgate industrial redevelopment and the 1950's Freeway, it's amazing anything survives today in the West End. Even so, what remains of the West End is fragile and precarious in its existence. A lot more investment is needed to save what remains. If Kenyon-Barr had not been destroyed and the Freeway not cut a swath through the neighborhood, the original complete West End neighborhood could have rivalled or even surpassed Charleston, SC or the French Quarter in New Orleans. The urban studies book mentioned in the blog article concluded that much of the senseless redevelopment was done under the guise of "urban renewal" and was politically and racially motivated-not that uncommon a practice in the period of neighborhood "redlining" and "blockbusting". The massive redevelopment did almost nothing to help the impoverished residents of Kenyon-Barr and the West End.  Their forced displacement from Kenyon-Barr led to the relocation of poverty and the myriad of social problems that come from it to other neighborhoods.

RestorationConsultant: Where did you find those K-B photos? I'm ridiculously jealous. The museum center has only released about 10% of the entire K-B survey photos on the web, basically just Barr Street and parts of Baymiller. Those are the only ones I've seen up until now, with the exception of a pic of the Sterling Hotel at 6th and Mound that I came across in a random article on the internet

No they have expanded the number to carr and carlisle and some others. there are about 600 photos.

Those are amazing photos. It looks like a great urban neighborhood. It's a real shame we lost it :-(

 

Just out of curiosity, were similar photo surveys ever done in OTR (Mohawk St for example)???

I don't think so but then I do not belive the entire collection is didgitized.

 

They dont really have things (except for this Kenyan Barr) identified by neighborhood.

 

I have seen one photo of the business district there at Mohawk and McMicken by doing a seach on just the street Mohawk and I believe the area was identified as "Mohawk Place".

 

Right now I am looking for photos up in my area Knox Hill , which is in Fairmount so I can complete the national registry nomination narrative for the neighborhood and I'm having a tough time finding old photos online. I have a couple I obtained from residents and of course there are the ones of the Schuezenverein (the German shootig club and beer garden that was once on the hill).

 

Any research with old photos is always difficult who knows how many are sitting somewhere in someones attic?

They've been up for at least 6 months. 

 

Wanted to pass along the word that Preservation Connection: Cincinnati is coming on August 12 to the Art Academy of Cincinnati.

 

We've just launched the event website at: preservationconnection.wordpress.com, and you can also follow us on Twitter at @presconncinci.

 

If anyone is interested in sharing information, success stories, or other timely information, we're going to reserve a section of the event for 10-minute "lightning" presentations -- 5 minutes of sharing information, slides, etc., with and 5 minutes for discussion/Q & A. This can be for your project in urban photography, an effort to preserve a particular landmark or neighborhood, a call for action -- anything related to preserving historic resources.

 

Drop me a line with any questions you might have, and hope to see you in Cincinnati this August!

slightly off topic from the streetcar discussion... to revert back to esterpico's question... of design and context in a historic area, I am of the belief that nothing new should try to imitate something old. they had their reasons for making things the way they did, and we should have reasons for making things the way we do, context or not. (its probably the 7 years of architecture school, not in cincy, but it doesn't take long to start to understand this neighborhoods history)  but anything that is faux historic, no matter how well done, is a complete disservice to whatever neighborhood it is in. to provide an example of what i feel is an incredibly successful project: i was in bruges, belgium (a unesco world heritage site) last summer and happened across this house (i'll have to link my flickr account, since i am not on the computer with my photos) the pictures are pretty poor since i was only using my old iphone, but it gets the point across... three story, 500 year old brick context, typical flemish style detailing and a completely contemporary insertion that in my opinion blends perfectly. contrast creates cohesion in this case. (the argument will be made that its singular and as such does not destroy the surrounding fabric) but the point is, it can be done, and any attempt to persuade otherwise is misinformed.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53941591@N04/4990894557/#in/set-72157624957960742/

 

there are two photos of the house discussed above.

There's a difference between respecting context and faux historicism.  There's some very basic rules about building in an urban context that don't hinder, but which provide a framework for building a stronger architectural narrative.  Sadly, even those most basic rules tend to be forgotten or dismissed.  Building to the sidewalk with wall-to-wall frontage shouldn't need any explanation here. 

 

Still, another of the most important expressing verticality.  Much modern infill, such as the Vine Street elevation of Mercer Commons, and the Bruges example as well, go for horizontality, and for little practical reason other than to be contrarian to their surroundings, and simply because most modern precedents are horizontal buildings in wide open fields.  I will give the Vine Street building credit for one thing that's sorely missing from projects like The Banks or the Walnut Street elevation of Mercer, in that it doesn't pretend to be multiple buildings.  That's a whole other can of worms for another day.

 

Nevertheless, urban form is also about scale, detail, and relationships with people.  Going back to that Bruges example, what does it give to the passer by?  There's no detail to look at, to explore, to delight the pedestrian or even the passing motorist.  It's just a huge expanse of glass to be passed by as quickly as possible.  How much does that glass even benefit the homeowner?  It's so exposed they have to keep the blinds shut all the time.  It's more of an office building or retail typology than anything.  It might even work ok in that sort of an environment, but really the only saving grace in this context is that it is right up against the sidewalk, which was probably only done begrudgingly. 

The reason why architects concoct theories that justify not copying what worked in the past is because they don't want to admit that the Europeans figured 99% of it out 500 years ago. 

To avoid writing a book on mecklenborgs comment, I'll just say: Or because stagnation of thought breeds stagnation of society. Look at any great civilization, what they build reflects their values. If our current desire is for the civilizations of the past, so be it. Mine, personally, isn't... (not to be mistaken for an argument against preservation)

But you see dlueg, you're writing off society's values in favor of your own.  That's the crux of the problem right there.  Regardless of what may be the desires of society, you say "don't constrain MY creativity!  I need to express MYself."  It's an ego trip, not only of the architect but also the client.  Writing off the architectural and urban knowledge base of all human history before 1950 for being somehow stagnant is not only callous but narcissistic.  The best modernist architects were the ones who had a classical architecture education.  They may have broken away from it, but they were still grounded in the rules of scale, proportion, order, balance, not to mention how to actually construct a building that functions, and is durable, while not leaking or falling down.  Nowadays it's just a free-for-all with blobs and titanium and fake stucco.  Those early modernists are akin to writers breaking out of the mould to create a compelling new kind of story.  But they still used words, sentences, and proper grammar.  Now all we have are words scattered about randomly on the page in different colors and patterns.  The layperson is admonished because he's "not sophisticated enough" to understand it, but it still wins AIA awards.  That's why we have rampant NIMBYism, preservation ordinances, and restrictive zoning.  Because society in general doesn't want these ego trip buildings that serve only to confound or even repel people anywhere near them. 

JJ,

 

Your own arguement can be turned against you.  Are architects and clients not members of society?  Is not society in essence an expression of a collection of people and ideas?  Of all people not just a majority?  By dismissing those who prefer modernity are you not writing off a segment of society as well?  I agree that good architecture has a certain morality or set of ideals no matter the style, but is the arguement really for homogenuity and monotony versus contrast and discussion? 

 

While I agree for the most part contemporary architecture has failed contemporary society (Contemporary architects are not all good, and therefore contemporary architecture is not all good.)  It is hardly wise to say there is no room for modernity in historic fabric. 

 

Regarding Breuges, it gives the passerby pause, a respect for contrast and juxtaposition, an appreciation for modern materials and style, a celebration of entry, and a realization of modern building capabilities.

JJ,

 

Your own arguement can be turned against you.  Are architects and clients not members of society?  Is not society in essence an expression of a collection of people and ideas?  Of all people not just a majority?  By dismissing those who prefer modernity are you not writing off a segment of society as well?  I agree that good architecture has a certain morality or set of ideals no matter the style, but is the arguement really for homogenuity and monotony versus contrast and discussion? 

 

While I agree for the most part contemporary architecture has failed contemporary society (Contemporary architects are not all good, and therefore contemporary architecture is not all good.)  It is hardly wise to say there is no room for modernity in historic fabric. 

 

Regarding Breuges, it gives the passerby pause, a respect for contrast and juxtaposition, an appreciation for modern materials and style, a celebration of entry, and a realization of modern building capabilities.

 

You can't turn his argument against him because it's rooted in the fact that there are core human aesthetic values which are reflections of our own physical form. He isn't lamenting a discipline, he's lamenting lack of any discipline.

I never said there's no room for modernity in historic fabric, but it should at least attempt to utilize the frameworks laid out for it by that context.  The "look at me!" iconic starchitecture type buildings are best when they're standing somewhat alone.  Whether that's the suburban or country house, the college campus building, or the civic building, they (like many of the best historical monumental buildings) are set apart from their surroundings somewhat.  In the suburbs or the college campus, that's with green space between buildings.  In an urban setting, it's the building occupying a whole block or central square, with the street acting as a buffer.  Cincinnati's City Hall, St. Peter in Chains Cathedral, the Hamilton County Courthouse, Music Hall, and the old CPA/Woodward High School are such urban examples. 

 

Also, there's a big difference between members of society and society as a whole.  Society is the collective response, which tempers or averages out the individual's preferences.  Society's values are rarely the same as any particular individual's (take Tom Luken for instance).  Let him run amok in some cornfield where he won't do too much damage, but those sorts need to be watched very closely when they start mucking with neighborhoods or whole cities.

 

Back to the Bruges example, does it really do those things for the typical passer by?  I don't think so.  It will give them pause, I grant you that.  Still, a respect for contrast and juxtaposition?  It exemplifies contrast and juxtaposition, and might make people think about that, but they're just as likely to say "it's too different" or "it doesn't fit in, who does this asshole think he is building this?"  The same argument goes for the appreciation of modern materials and style.  Such appreciation only comes about for a reason.  Just because it's there doesn't mean it will be appreciated.  If that window ledge was made to be sat on (it looks too high to me) then we might have something.  If the glass was more than just a huge blank expanse, then there'd be something worth appreciating.  As it is, it seems more likely to say "don't touch me or you'll get your finger prints all over me!"  There's definitely no celebration of entry here either.  The entry is a blank void.  All the other doors down the street celebrate entry more, but this building celebrates only the view out. 

 

I'd like to reiterate that I do think there is a place for modern or even wild buildings in a place like OTR.  The thing is, there are some parameters that need to be respected, and as simple as they are, that's not happening.  Think about it like this, we have rules of etiquette for social gatherings, dining out, basic interactions with other people.  Buildings in cities are no different.  The trouble is that while the rabble-rouser can be thrown out of the party and told to shape up, we're stuck with the building for a long time.  We need to do them right from the get-go.  If the new building isn't going to be better than what's lost, or worse, if the public would rather see a lot stay vacant, then we're definitely doing something wrong. 

Mercer Common is a product of "New Urbanist Herd architecture" . You see this 'crap' in every major city. It has no soul and frankly no place in OTR. You can go to Atlanta. Indianapolis, Baltimore and its already out of fashion. So much of my business these days is trying to design/restore rooms back into open concept lofts because in many other major  markets they are worthless and design traditional reskins facades for what I call "Bettlejuice" new urbanist design houses.

 

Prediction: we are getting close to 'condo glut' in OTR. Looking forward there is need for single family townhouses and upscale residences. There is a limit of "20 somethings" willing/able to buy this entry level New Urbanist architecture.

 

For OTR to be sucessful long term we need high level architecture. Frankly I'd rather see the original buildings redeveloped and quality infill townhomes built there that what we will look back on in 20 years and say 'why did we let that crap be built"  It looks very similar to low income housing projects I've seen.

 

OTR deserves better in my opinion