So is the debate about whether the buildings should come down or whether their replacement is a worthy addition to the neighborhood?

JJ,

 

I don't get the "look at me" iconic architecture vibe from Mercer Commons.  If this is a discussion on the Bilbao Guggenheim or the Getty, I totally agree.

 

Society is a reflection of education and inertia.  For the most part we do and think what we are told to do, or travel down the path set before us.  You want people to appreciate modern architecture, educate them and expose them to better examples.  Watch the "societal" reaction to the streetcar project for example.  Those for it are educated as to the benefits, those against are not, and are for maintaining the status quo.

 

And as for your counter regarding Brueges, yes to an architecturally educated society it is all those things.  Europeans for the most part are a better educated society and appreciate those points I previously mentioned.  You are projecting your own bias on what you feel "societal" opinion would be. 

 

To appreciate what glass is you need to understand the history of glass.  Throughout history windows represented a means for lighting and ventilation.  The size was dictated by construction techniques, i.e. abilities to build with bearing construction and span over open spaces.  As modern construction techniques were improved and the price of glass fell, windows became larger. 

 

What was once about the structure dictating size of glass has now become structure dictating the void of glass.  So yes, it is in fact a juxtaposition in the same framework of rules.   

 

Materiality is not necessarily about sitting on it, but you definitely notice the contrast in texture and color between the modern example and its surroundings.  While to you that is a slap in the face to the historic context, I think through contrast allows for appreciation of both.  More importantly about materiality you see the warmth  and verticality of the wood at the entrance in contrast with the smoothness and horizontality of the rest of the building.  So yes, it does honor the entrance.  As far as void, you have to realize the arguement for pattern and void, positive and negative space.  With proper use and appreciation of one come appreciation of the other.

 

Regarding your last paragraph we agree.  There is room for proper architecture everywhere, as long as it is done correctly.  Doesn't happen too often in this city though, unless commissioned specifically.

So is the debate about whether the buildings should come down or whether their replacement is a worthy addition to the neighborhood?

 

Very good question.  It seems that this particular debate is about the role of infill.  For me, at least, the discussion is not about Mercer commons specifically, but what the rules of infill can and should be.

 

As far as the existing buildings that are destined to be removed, if 3CDC does not develop them, who does?

So is the debate about whether the buildings should come down or whether their replacement is a worthy addition to the neighborhood?

 

As far as the existing buildings that are destined to be removed, if 3CDC does not develop them, who does?

 

That's probably one of the questions the Planning Commission will probably consider when it determines the acceptability of 3CDC's PD application.

The problem is the 'assumption' that only 3CDC can do projects in OTR. I'd love  to see some competition in OTR for development. But 3CDC's 'prefferred developer' status gives them a competitive edge. The back room relationship with city official's does not help other developers either.

 

The Redtape/Roadblocks placed by city inspections and permits discourages development in my opinion.

 

I also believe we need more 'spot' development rather than the 3CDC block at a time approach. Some real restoration would be nice. Many of these buildings would lend themselves to  a 3-4 bedroom luxury townhouse over a  retail use.

 

If you look at Indianapolis as an example. The Glove factory in Lockerbie atarted out as smaller condos Much like 3cdc is now doing. Today  there are far fewer units as many have been 'combined' to form larger units.  The market was actually better for larger units than was originally predicted.

 

More diversity in my opinion is needed and I do not think 3CDC should geta free pass on demo of historic architecture JUST because they are 3CDC.

3CDC isn't a villain in this story. It's quite the opposite in fact.

 

No one is giving 3CDC pass for any demolition at this point. There will be time for the public to comment and the city will ultimately make the decision about any PDs in OTR.

 

If I cared passionately about historic restoration, I'd be more concerned about fly-by-night "preservationists" than 3CDC.

 

Just take a look at that poor structure on Elm to see what I mean.

Large-scale developers, such as 3CDC, have enough investor and financial backing to make large-scale developments financially and economically viable. Part of the problem in developing parcels downtown and now in parts of Over-the-Rhine is land cost and building cost. Renovating these buildings is not cheap, and government subsidies are still needed to manage an economic break-even point - and then leave a little bit for profit. That's why you see more condos for sale than apartments for rent - investors are more likely to put money into the bucket for a quicker return on products that sell, rather than see an investment that trickles in little by little for years.

 

There have been some instances of a condo glut. Belmain, above Park+Vine on Main Street, was for sale for I believe two years and did not sell one unit. I remember looking at the units after they opened, and last fall, and they were completely empty. Of course, who would pay $130,000 to live in some closet-sized unit that had all of the "LEED"/green gimmicks of "covered bicycle storage" and "organic paint" crap? No one. My mortgage would be $890/month, versus $750/month to rent at the Emery! (I pay $538 to live in a large house in Northside, for comparison.) Now, the Belmain is a rental complex - like it used to be, and it sold out very, very quickly.

 

Of course, it goes without saying that rental units are easier to "sell" in a down market than condos. Hence why Phase 1 of The Banks is all apartments and no condos. Hence why Parvis rented out in months, as did the Belmain. And why there are zero units for rent in any of the restored properties in Over-the-Rhine. There are still some condos for sale, though, but it's not the glut anyone has described.

There may be condo glut, and retail glut, but there's certainly no apartment glut.  As for upscale housing, I don't know.  I want to say the neighborhood isn't quite ready for that yet, but it's getting there.  The real trick is how to properly convert a building with 1st floor retail into residential.  In the past, the wide open storefront was bricked up, which you see all up and down Race and Elm.  That's of course not a good solution, but neither are wide-open windows into your living room right at street level.  It's going to have to be dealt with though.  I doubt we'll ever see a reality where Main, Vine, Race, and Elm can all support the extent of first floor retail that's in place.  Those storefronts would make fine offices, but again, is there the demand for that? 

See "Park Haus" on page 17: 3CDC 2010-2011 Annual Report

Some real restoration would be nice. Many of these buildings would lend themselves to  a 3-4 bedroom luxury townhouse over a  retail use.

 

I get your overall point, but it's not restoration -- let alone "real restoration" -- when you turn a former tenement with ground floor retail into a luxury townhouse. You should refrain from using that terminology, as it detracts from the valid things you have to say. Especially as a professional in the field!

Actually you can take one of those tenements and usually get a perfectly good single family home out of them. In fact many of those "tenements" were not built that way. They were built as single family homes (usually for teh shop owner who owned the building). Now single family meant more that a family of 4, It was usually a family with 4-5 kids and one parents lived with you and maybe even some uncle ot aunts. It was the large "european extended' family. I've looked at dozens of buildings in OTR and West End and when you take away the remuddlings done in the late 1890's (remember many of these buildings were built between 1860-1870), The remuddlings done in the 1920's when they were divided again and the remuddling in the 1970-80's when many were made just 'rooming houses', you get back to a workable single family home with 6-8 bedrooms or so. Now from that base and not changing walls, you add in the things you need for a modern upscale home today, Home office, media room, family room and a few luxury size bathrooms and closets connected to bedrooms. Basicaly re-adapting existing rooms and you have a luxury home.

 

There is a House on Dayton street in West End, that is 17 units right now , Rooming houses with shared baths , common room kitchens etc. A real hodgepodge, HOWEVER, it was built as asingle family home. Infact Ive looked at witha cluient considering buying it to turn it back to original. I know of  house right now, formerly 7 large apartments that is going back to one grand 7000 square foot home. The market is there. Its just the latest of 6 conversions back to single family in the last few years over there that i know of.

3CDC isn't a villain in this story. It's quite the opposite in fact.

 

No one is giving 3CDC pass for any demolition at this point. There will be time for the public to comment and the city will ultimately make the decision about any PDs in OTR.

 

If I cared passionately about historic restoration, I'd be more concerned about fly-by-night "preservationists" than 3CDC.

 

Just take a look at that poor structure on Elm to see what I mean.

 

4 or 5 projects on Elm right now which one are you talking about as the link you gave just goes to the blog?

Anybody know what's up with this building on Elm? I saw that it was discussed at a 106 review as a public nuisance I think:

 

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.180302248682656.38898.110779292301619

1737 is in Court.

 

OTRADOPT is suing to get it back and the people who bought it have filed a complaint with the state attorney generals office against OTRADOPT because their were unpaid liens against the building that OTRADOPT was supposed to take care of once they were known and never did. They are out thousands paying those liens out of pocket, plus they have filled out the paperwork for a Tax Appeal (granted), VBML Waiver and it turned out OTR ADOPT was not even incorporated as non profit at the time of sale (althought the paperwork was signed as such),so there is a problem with that and enforceablility of the covenants and the purchase contract.

 

I've seen the covenant/contract and its not worth the paper its wriitten on, I dont know who prepared it for OTRADOPT but its not enforceable due to the language and as soon as OTRADOPT failed to clear the liens they were in technical breach so its anyones guess as to how they plan to get it back. I assume the owners are filing a countersuit againsty OTRADOPT  for the unpaid leins, additional title and insurance fees.

 

They owners put in a new meter base and paid to have the building cleared out of all the debris that was in it. The owners have applied for a permit for the roof on the front building and new box gutters but can't do anything because of the stop work order issued because the Brick contractor (recomended by OTRADOPT) never pulled a permit to do the work and now the entire rear wall with have to be taken completely down and rebuilt from ground up. The people who bought it hired a structural engineer who issued a report to them on what the have to do now because the rear wall was not done properly and because of the stop work order it was not completed. That has caused a roof issue and a problem with the courtyard wall. Which will add tens of  thousands to the cost of the rear building. Their new architect is working on the plans submission and they have been trying for weeks to get the stop work lifted so they can start getting stuff done.

 

Its avery sad situation in my opinion. I was trying to work with both sides to try and resolve the situation to no avail, so looks like everyone is headed to court and they will fight it out there.

 

That,  is whats going on with 1737 ELM.

 

 

That is an interesting interpretation to what is going on at 1737.. However, several key points have been left out.  Regarding the permit that the owners have pulled to begin work- it was withdrawn the same day.  Just theatrics to imply they are making an effort on the building.  Regarding OTR Adopts non profit status,they  applied with the Ohio Secretary of State in July of 2010 as a non profit business, it incorporated the non profit with the Secretary of State in Jan of 2011.  So, Im a little unclear as to the reference that there status was not up to par.  Actually, the owners of the building forged the Ohio Agent, Cathy Frank, on the the Secretary of States paperwork.  To me a forgery null and voids a contract (although, I am not a lawyer), and the ownership would automatically go back to OTR ADOPT.  The owners have never paid any liens on the building or the taxes.  As a matter of fact back in April, the owner called the building department and said there were title issues and they were getting back their money from the title company and giving the building back.  It is all public record.  Quite sad, THAT...Is what is going on with 1737 ELM.

If it's a court case at this point, I'd say let the courts determine what is what. That's not up for speculation in this forum. It seems both sides have stated their case so lets not make a mess of things here.

@Paul (restorationconsultant): I wouldn't put any value into what "Lacey Dresses" or any of her fake accounts retort. She purchased 1737 Elm, hacked away at the front and worked without a permit - that much has been known. Don't be fooled Paul, or by "Sandy Northside" or the host of other aliases that seemingly flood your site and Facebook account.

Actually The individual in question on the incorporation represented the LLC principals as agent in the acquisition of a property on Dayton street  in the West End which fell through due to dispute between the city and Duetsche Bank. the LLC was originaly incorporated to acquire that building which the owner junped though many hoops  in an attempt to acquire. ( I actually was blind cc'd on all this so I actually have supporting documentation here).

 

For the record I advised the people  who bought 1737 ELM against acquiring it as I felt the restoration costs far exceeded the value odf the building. These people try to save buildings no one else would do. I respect that.

 

FYI: The date of filing for OTRADOPTS articles of incorporation do not mean that same is a nonprofit. That only occurs once that is granted by the state, and IRS,  and that can take some time. The IRS only recognized  OTRADOPT as a non profit in JUNE 2011 well after the contract with the buyers of the property . Legally OTRADOPT was not an indentified legal non profit by the IRS,  at the time the contract was excecuted.

 

Look I am not pointing fingers here I am simple stating the legal facts. I believe there was

a serious lack of communication, very bad contracts and covenants concerning this property.

 

Legaly the facts are the facts, OTRADOPT was not a legal non profit at the time the contract was executed. The paperwork is sloppy and there is a real problerm here. I am not accusing antyone of dishonesty I am just saying its a is legal mess and I do  not understand why the parties cant reach an agreement since I belive both parties hace a committment to the building.

 

Fron a strictly legal standpoint,in court,OTRADOPT will lose and I don't feel that helps preservation in Cincinnati, especially since the people who adopted it have already spent thousands clearing up lliens OTRADOPT should have caught in the title search. HAD they done a thorough search in the first place. Lost of mistakes made here on both sides. These buildings typically have issues going back decades and title search is a complicated process BUT Mr. Klinger is charging the buyers several thousand dollars in consulting fees to deliver clear title. I actually have a copy of the contract. He didnt delivera free and lien clear title. Of course they are upset.

 

There are no winners in this situation and the preservation commuunity goal should be an effective resolution to the problem. BUT if you dont have the paperwork I have,you should not make assumptions about what is actually going on.

 

Until we have the documentation - which cannot be put on here due to the legalities surrounding the issue, then it is nothing more than speculation. Sorry that you were pulled into the hoax.

Until we have the documentation - which cannot be put on here due to the legalities surrounding the issue, then it is nothing more than speculation. Sorry that you were pulled into the hoax.

 

What Sherman said. I've seen documents that validate everything ega122307 said. If one cared about OTR, would you ever sue a group like OTR ADOPT? Of course not.

Actually it was OTRADOPT that filed the suit.

 

That all I intend to say about this topic.

 

On other news there is a meeting Thursday by MSD on  8/11. 6-9 PM, Robert Paideia Academy, 1702 Grand Ave. It will cover the whole watershed. A total of three workshops will be held culminating in a master plan. This is your chance to be heard on this project and voice Preservation concerns and at least go on record as trying to shape the future of this project , This project if it happens the way MSD wants it to, will result in the destruction of 80 plus structures built between 1850-1915 , Mostly Victorian era structures and will represent the largest  loss of architecture in Cincinnati since the freeway was built.

 

We need the Presrvation communities input and we need to promote the idea of "daylighting" East of Grand only, save the historic business/residential district and enact a  downspout seperation program to seperate downspots from internal drains that run direxctly into the sewer system. Portalnd was able to remove 1.2 Billion gallons of rainwater fronm their CSO by this method. Other cities like Toronto are doing the same thing yet MSD has totally ignored this option.

 

EPA will ultimatley have to sign off on this alternative plan and we need to insist that historic architecture be saved, There is some remarkable buildings in that basin that we should not lose.

Thought people might like to see one of the many changes going on up in Knox Hill. This home had been vacant since 2001. Under restoration now, and its starting to look 100 percent better. They plan on restoring the slate on of the Second Empire rooline and they rebuilt the flat roof structure and put on a new EPDM roof.

 

Knox Hill will be holding its first annual Historic walking Tour and open house on May 19th. We hope to have a good turnout for that event.

Thanks to the generousity of a Knox Hill board member, the C.Winkler House has been bought and through a partnership with Knox Hill Neighborhood Association, the Second Empire town home will be saved from the city bulldozers.

 

KHNA will restore the exterior of the home to Secretary of the Interior Standards and steps will be redone and a rare 'servants tunnel' will be reopened. The lot will also be cleaned and landscaping has been donated.

 

Once stabilized, the house will be resold with a protective covenant to preserve the exterior to historic standards and the new buyer will be required to complete the interior within a specific time.

 

Knox Hills "Save not Raze" project is patterned after a very sucessful Indiana Landmarks program called FLIP.

 

There are 3 other homes on the same block under restoration by individual preservationists.

Thought people might like to see one of the many changes going on up in Knox Hill. This home had been vacant since 2001. Under restoration now, and its starting to look 100 percent better. They plan on restoring the slate on of the Second Empire rooline and they rebuilt the flat roof structure and put on a new EPDM roof.

 

Knox Hill will be holding its first annual Historic walking Tour and open house on May 19th. We hope to have a good turnout for that event.

I see Jesus peering out the top-right pane of the top window!

 

Thanks to the generousity of a Knox Hill board member, the C.Winkler House has been bought and through a partnership with Knox Hill Neighborhood Association, the Second Empire town home will be saved from the city bulldozers.

 

KHNA will restore the exterior of the home to Secretary of the Interior Standards and steps will be redone and a rare 'servants tunnel' will be reopened. The lot will also be cleaned and landscaping has been donated.

 

Once stabilized, the house will be resold with a protective covenant to preserve the exterior to historic standards and the new buyer will be required to complete the interior within a specific time.

 

Knox Hills "Save not Raze" project is patterned after a very sucessful Indiana Landmarks program called FLIP.

 

There are 3 other homes on the same block under restoration by individual preservationists.

Looking forward to photo updates.

If you are interested in historic preservation, abandonments or just in Cincinnati - come out tomorrow!

Tomorrow, I will be leading a discussion at the University of Cincinnati to discuss photography and of course ... abandonments in Cincinnati, Ohio. Feel free to join in! The meeting is at 6:00 PM at Room 741 at Baldwin Hall, and is being hosted by the University of Cincinnati Preservation Acton Network.

 

Building: http://ucdirectory.uc.edu/CampusBuildings.asp?bldgcode=BALDWIN

Does anyone know what is going on with 41 East McMicken? I was walking by the other day and noticed that they were applying a fresh coat of blue paint to the building located on the corner of Elder and East McMicken. The owner of the building according to CAGIS is "North Thine Heights". I'm assuming this is "North Rhine Heights" and just a typo on CAGIS. I did a Google search of North Rhine Heights and found some documents detailing the renovation of the building. This appears to be a joint project involving Model Group and CityStudios Architecture.

 

I have not heard anything about these buildings until now. Are these intended to be low-income rentals, market-rate rentals, condos, or some combination? This is more of just a curiosity thing, as it seems everything is going well. I have tried to attach a photo of the building for reference.

 

Here is a link to the plans: http://plans.modelgroup.net/subcontractors/-/document_library_display/cTs4/view/11753;jsessionid=912FF5E157DCB0B23102D3F93FD45BD8

Well it looks as though I found the answer to my own questions: http://soapboxmedia.com/devnews/032712modelgroup.aspx

 

Apparently this will be "high-quality housing for low-income residents". Very happy to see this. If you have any other info, let me know.

Some notable preservation victories highlighted in this week's Soapbox:  http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/050812preservationmonth.aspx

Some notable preservation victories highlighted in this week's Soapbox:  http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/050812preservationmonth.aspx

 

Nice article.  I've been working on the Rauh House restoration in Woodlawn as project architect for 14 months now.  It's really coming together beautifully.  http://architectsplus.com/residential/historic-contemporary.html

Some notable preservation victories highlighted in this week's Soapbox:  http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/050812preservationmonth.aspx

 

Nice article.  I've been working on the Rauh House restoration in Woodlawn as project architect for 14 months now.  It's really coming together beautifully.  http://architectsplus.com/residential/historic-contemporary.html

 

Hey, that's great! I read about its story in Preservation Magazine. This deserves major attention, IMO.

 

And great article, Caseyc - thank goodness for Soapbox

It certainly better get the attention it deserves.  It's a very rare early modernist house for the area.  Here's some photos I took a few weeks ago after the windows and some of the second floor cabinetry were installed.  http://jjakucyk.exposuremanager.com/g/leacrest_progress_041212

great photos - thanks for sharing!

May is Preservation Month and the Knox Hill Neighborhood Association is having its first ever "Preservation Opportunity" Home Tour this Saturday May 19th, 1800 Block of Knox street. Tickets are 10.00 and proceeds benefit KHNA's Save-not-Raze program.

 

Three under restoration homes will be featured on the tour and tour goers will  be able meet the owners and ask questions. In addition to the tour homes, there will be two Architectural  Walking tours at 12:30 and 2 PM, and there is also a classic car display.

 

The Knox Hill neighborhood features an outstanding collection of Victorian era architecture and the neighborhood is working on its National Registry Nomination.

Recent news from Knox Hill. KHNA has started its second Save-not-Raze Project house in the 1800

Block of Knox Street. The home, built in 1885, is a three story Italianate, four bedrooms, 3 Baths and a full basement.

 

The home was converted to an illegal triplex years ago and had been vacant since 2006. KHNA is stabilizing the home, removing the front vinyl and insulbrick and restoring the facade to Secretary of the Interior standards. Once stabilization is somplete, the home will be resold with protective covenants that require it be exterior maintained to preservation standards. The interior restoration needs to be completed within two years and the owner must demonstrate funding to do the restoration. There are no restrictions on the interior design but the home must be converted back to a single family home.

 

The home is in very sound structural condition but will need  the usual new mechanicals. Interested individuials should contact me for details. This is a relatively easy restoration project and sits on a block with 6 other under restoration homes. Knox Hill Neighborhood association was formed in 2008 to foster Historic preservation in the Knox Hill area of Cincinnati

The final restoration should look like this:

 

via http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2012/09/knox-hill-neighborhood-announces-new.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good to see the after photos Jeff.

The landscaping will be true to the original design as well.

The discovery of Schaller Brothers' Main Street Brewery tunnels challenges Cincinnati's preservation community.

 

http://www.blogotr.com/otr/the-discovery-and-preservation-of-the-schaller-brothers-main-street-brewery-tunnels/

 

FYI https://www.facebook.com/events/361535173938061/

Recent news from Knox Hill. KHNA has started its second Save-not-Raze Project house in the 1800

Block of Knox Street. The home, built in 1885, is a three story Italianate, four bedrooms, 3 Baths and a full basement.

 

The home was converted to an illegal triplex years ago and had been vacant since 2006. KHNA is stabilizing the home, removing the front vinyl and insulbrick and restoring the facade to Secretary of the Interior standards. Once stabilization is somplete, the home will be resold with protective covenants that require it be exterior maintained to preservation standards. The interior restoration needs to be completed within two years and the owner must demonstrate funding to do the restoration. There are no restrictions on the interior design but the home must be converted back to a single family home.

 

The home is in very sound structural condition but will need  the usual new mechanicals. Interested individuials should contact me for details. This is a relatively easy restoration project and sits on a block with 6 other under restoration homes. Knox Hill Neighborhood association was formed in 2008 to foster Historic preservation in the Knox Hill area of Cincinnati

The final restoration should look like this:

 

via http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2012/09/knox-hill-neighborhood-announces-new.html

 

There has been a significant upgrade to the design on this project:

 

The revision makes some substantial design changes and works towards a higher level of design sophistication.

Read more and see a construction photo: http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2012/12/overlook-project-design-revisions-mr.html

is that for real?

you're not the only one wondering that, Rob... amirite, natininja??

Looks like there is real work going on:

 

 

There has been a significant upgrade to the design on this project:

 

 

Looks like they're using Microsoft Paint for their renderings.

 

There has been a significant upgrade to the design on this project:

 

 

Looks like they're using Microsoft Paint for their renderings.

 

Hah... that's what I was thinking.

I guess I'm confused by this.

 

On one hand, Paul hates others who slap on vinyl, choose a non-authentic paint color, adds non-historic features to their own residences. And then he goes and does this modern monstrosity. I suppose it's hard to make out what it will actually look like because of the rendering, but I see Paul holding a double standard.

When restoring an old house, I've always believed that the way to go is either authentic to the period or ultra modern, depending on how much of the structure's original character is still intact.  But, I've always thought that about the interior; I've never considered an ultra modern exterior.  It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

OTR ADOPT Seeks Donations for 51 E. Clifton

 

http://www.blogotr.com/otr/otr-adopt-seeks-donations-for-51-e-clifton/

 

To Sherman,and others,  just to clarify. The overlook project is Modern for a couple of reasons. One, this particular house had virtually no historic fabric left.  Built in 1895 it had a major 'craftsman remodel' in the 1920's, a further remuddle in the 1950's when the garage was added with teh horrible stucco job, and a remuddle around 1997 when everything was vinylized . In short its a total gut. No useable plaster or period trim.

 

"Period restoration" of this size home would have been in excess of 450-475K and it wouldn't have been restoration , but rather re-creation. The only thing going for it was sound structure and frankly if we had not bought it the local slumlord/hoarder would have bought it and nothing would have happened to it and bulldozing would have been the result.

 

While the lower eastern end of Knox Hill has some great architecture, a nice 1865 center hall down the street and the Zahn Row a 4 unit attached shotgun cottage complex, but overall there isn't much "valuable architectural fabric". Most of the close area is industrial. 

 

The Lunkenheimer Building on between Waverly and Pinetree (where Covingtion Recycle is) is undergoing a marketing change next year with a shift towards Artist and photographer studio spaces with the vast majority of the complex, Covington recycle will be staying. There are a couple of other small industrial buildings being redone as live/works too, and there are a couple of restorations starting in the area in 2013. Also the private Roosevelt School has brought better educational opporunities to the area making it more attractive to young proffessionals with kids.

 

Because of misguided demo policys by South Fairmount CC, much of that lower area was bulldozed and there are a lot of infill site opportunities and if you have been up there you know the views are fantastic. We have identified some 45 vacant lots in the district. What we dont want is anotyher Citirama type of development with a bunch of vinyl sided 'burb houses' that look like they should be in the burbs, and we dont want any more habitat housing.

 

 

The "Overlook Project's" aim is to demonstrate that upscale Urban housing can be built in this area that utilizes those million dollar views at a far more attractive price point than Mt Adams. This property has  target sales price beween 325-350K and we are working with a buyer at that price.

 

The goal is that this project will spur further development interest. We are talking with some custom builders and we have some lots acquired. In fact my company will be building a new traditional style infill similar to some we built in Indy. the hope is that with new development comes greater preservation interest in the existing homes.

 

The neighborhood has been working on the  comprehensive overlook district plan for over a year now. The city has held off demolition of key property while the association works on strategies (like receivership) to get long vacant properties  freed up.

 

I am first and foremost, dedicated to preservation. But just historic preservation won't always work in every neighborhood situation. This is one of those situations.