Jump to content
The_Cincinnati_Kid

Cincinnati: CUF / Corryville: Development and News

Recommended Posts

Back in 2005 we were shown glistening renderings of what would be built between W. Clifton and Ohio Ave.  Underground parking, for starters, and an 8-story wall of apartments and condos.  Instead, after a 5-year delay, we got a pair of above-ground garages, a plastic apartment complex, and the Shell Station was preserved because of "neighborhood input".  Where was that survey?  Right, it didn't happen. 

 

The same thing is going to happen here.  Over-promise, under-deliver.  Trick everyone into thinking we're going to get high-quality buildings, then bust out the tinker toys. 

 

Also, I walked around Calhoun/McMillan in 1998 with a camera, and have some photos of the historic buildings that were torn down.  The area where the Fairfield Inn and Target is now, over to the Shell Station had several rows of row buildings in styles that were unique to Cincinnati. 

 

You're comparing renderings pre recession to buildings built post recession...that wasn't just some tactic to get everyone on board, it was a reality of the changes to the market that happened in the time it took to get the project off the ground.

 

The building they're already constructing is going to be higher quality than U Square. Again, because it can't be wood framed construction so it already has a better starting point.

 

The scale they're trying to achieve is fairly substantial and will require higher quality construction to become a reality. it's very early, so who knows how it'll pan out, but so far their first phase is already a step above the other similar developments in the area and is literally taking an ugly garage and wrapping it so the streets around are now going to be fronted with active uses. They're off to a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 2005 we were shown glistening renderings of what would be built between W. Clifton and Ohio Ave.  Underground parking, for starters, and an 8-story wall of apartments and condos.  Instead, after a 5-year delay, we got a pair of above-ground garages, a plastic apartment complex, and the Shell Station was preserved because of "neighborhood input".  Where was that survey?  Right, it didn't happen. 

 

The same thing is going to happen here.  Over-promise, under-deliver.  Trick everyone into thinking we're going to get high-quality buildings, then bust out the tinker toys. 

 

Also, I walked around Calhoun/McMillan in 1998 with a camera, and have some photos of the historic buildings that were torn down.  The area where the Fairfield Inn and Target is now, over to the Shell Station had several rows of row buildings in styles that were unique to Cincinnati.

there were buildings. Were they unique to cincy or anywhere. I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the cut off line between a shitty old building and a historic building?  40 years?  60 years?  80+ years?  I'm just curious because it seems like for some people every old building is a historic building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the buildings on Straight (aside from original Deaconess building) were/are not historically significant. The house on Fulton was nice but really not that special. Additionally, the whole stretch has just been a place where people throw trash as they speed through. I would much prefer an activated area than the complete lack of anything that exists there now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that UC originally wanted to demolish the block between Ohio and Scioto as well, but fortunately this cluster of buildings was saved as well as the old church that got turned into the Urban Outfitters and CHCURC offices. Imagine a third block of USquare there instead of the historic buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't remember any "historically significant" buildings in the U Square area. gas station, mcdonalds, arby, triple decker place, drive thru auto wash. Like it or not that street could have been most anywhere in the usa

 

I have another photo somewhere of the building closest to the Shell station.  It was the only building of that style in the city, maybe more of a St. Louis style apartment:

P1010057-1.jpg

 

So what you're looking at here is now the space for the hotel and the east parking garage.

 

pointycollars[/member] had some good pics from the insides too but they were unfortunately lost after the big UO server crash a few years back.


“All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more.

 

 

 

You say hello and I say goodbye. Historic walkup basements (all four of them) and the photo someone else posted only shows that nothing was lost here. Camp Washington, Northside, in fact any number of neighborhoods have buildings that look like this. It wasn't a historic neighborhood. People didn't drive from St. Louis or Chicago to admire Cincy's architecture. OTR is probably historic, Union Terminal Historic, Tusculum area historic, The Taft Home historic, and maybe even the zoo could be considered historic. For me historic means something happened at this location. And we should remember it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

 

If historic architecture is that meaningless to you then stay up in the northern burbs. They just opened Liberty Town Center, it sounds right up your alley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

 

 

 

bm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more 'historic' stuff in Cincy than your list, and I'm glad that people take a more expansive and informed view on preservation. It might sound crazy to you that people would travel to take in a beautiful built environment, but that is literally the foundation of tourism in tons of the most iconic cities in the world. Who goes to SF and doesn't fall in love with the rowhouses and finely detailed Victorian architecture? If the same bars and restaurants that are found in the French Quarter were instead found in strip malls and ugly stucco boxes do you think NOLA would have the tourism and appeal that it does? Charleston and Savannah are both pretty sleepy places, but their built environments make them unique and worthy of tourism. Cincinnati's architecture and topography ARE unique, especially in the context of the Midwest. Other cities, save maybe St. Louis and mayyyybe Louisville, don't have anything even remotely approaching what Cincinnati has, and that's after we demolished so, so much. It boggles my mind that people really think the loss of historic buildings throughout the city is no big deal, as long as it's replaced by some cheap student housing and a Quiznos. I get that sometimes buildings have to go to make room for progress, and I'm not saying the city should be preserved in amber, but it's tiring to see the continued dismissal of the assets the city has. IMO, the architecture and topo of Cincy is what makes it unique and memorable among its midwest peers.

 

 

You may be boggled and tired. Consider buying your favorite building then rehabbing it back to its glory days. That'll give you something to do besides complaining about someone's observations. Things change. Just down the street a fire happened on the church steeples. They are gone and then replaced. As much as I liked the old ones. I think the new ones are clever and beautiful and fun. I hope this doesn't offend you too much.

 

 

Always nice when a new member with 24 posts decides it's ok to make obnoxious posts and insult long-time forum members.  Perhaps RJ could learn to post constructively and not be so sensitive when others disagree.

 

 

 

bm

 

 

i appreciate all kinds of architecture. unfortunately, narrowminded people don't want to hear the truth. Please define "historic architecture'?  i will be sure to correct you when to deviate from your definition and I will use your definition against you. if you dont  consider the arches of McDonalds, neon signs and the drive thru service of historical significance then stand up. You will be able to see farther. If I'm not mistaken the name of this blog is Urban Ohio. McDonalds are in Ohio and in the cities of Ohio and that includes Cincy. So bugger off.

 

I have the opposite feeling from RJohnson[/member] about what's historic. If being in a space, particularly an outdoor one, gives me a sense of what it would feel like standing in that spot many years ago, then I feel like that's worth preserving. Having that solid row of 100+ year-old houses would definitely qualify; I could stand across the street from them and tangibly feel a bygone era. What happened, or didn't, in those houses isn't particularly relevant to me.

 

 

i can appreciate your sensibilities. Maybe one day you may have that same response to a true double arched McDonalds. They tore down all of those and rebuilt atop those sacred spaces. I hear that they left the walk down basement stairs and preserved the golden arches as a shrine. pilgrims come from all over to light candles. Downstairs the shakes and fries are still 15 cents each. Ah, memories.

 

If historic architecture is that meaningless to you then stay up in the northern burbs. They just opened Liberty Town Center, it sounds right up your alley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a great project, will do an awesome job to densify and hopefully soon they can get the lot across the street from the crossroads church to get moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The naming contest for the apartments that are currently under construction came up with..."The Deacon".  Except Deaconess hospital was named for...deaconesses.  As in female deacons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts. Maybe a photo and explanation of their uniqueness might help.

 

Chicago or St. Louis-type strips of row houses with rounded roof lines, walk-up style with basements, plus a strip of OTR-type row buildings survived until about 2003.  Not only were historic buildings bulldozed, but the area lost individual ownership.  So instead of a bunch of individual owners of individual businesses, aka "fine-grained urbanism", we have big-time ownership, professional management, and the national chains that come with it.  Bor-ring. 

 

I am stunned that 10+ years after this disaster, people still defend it.  U Square is hideous, period.  Now people want more.

 

 

 

You say hello and I say goodbye. Historic walkup basements (all four of them) and the photo someone else posted only shows that nothing was lost here. Camp Washington, Northside, in fact any number of neighborhoods have buildings that look like this. It wasn't a historic neighborhood. People didn't drive from St. Louis or Chicago to admire Cincy's architecture. OTR is probably historic, Union Terminal Historic, Tusculum area historic, The Taft Home historic, and maybe even the zoo could be considered historic. For me historic means something happened at this location. And we should remember it.

 

 

There is an international urbanist group where I posted a beautiful shot of OTR, and only like 500+ people have responded to it positively.  Only that and no comments from people admiring the tenements or anything like that.  ::)

 

I also posted some unlabeled photos of places like East Walnut Hills and CUF and people were asking where they were, with an interest of OMG I didn't know this existed in the midwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair it’s sort of hard to create sizes or density with those old roe houses.

 

I feel that certain parts of the city, especially otr, should be preserved. But there should also be a balance of looking at the past but also the future. We can keep every historic building, but we can also tear it down and create a student housing building that can hold 150 residents and students.

 

It’s a tough balance. The worst is demolishing for the sake of a parking lot. I think that is the definition of pure evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair it’s sort of hard to create sizes or density with those old roe houses.

 

I feel that certain parts of the city, especially otr, should be preserved. But there should also be a balance of looking at the past but also the future. We can keep every historic building, but we can also tear it down and create a student housing building that can hold 150 residents and students.

 

It’s a tough balance. The worst is demolishing for the sake of a parking lot. I think that is the definition of pure evil.

 

I get your point, but I would disagree that it is hard to create density with old row houses. South Philly is one of the densest neighborhoods in the entire country and it is all row houses:

 

PHILA-2.thumb.jpg.25dd561c5d454d73d48fe63606130e28.jpg

AX79_085-00001.jpg.1b8c576fe84359dee267dd46023cddad.jpg

AX79_075-00001.jpg.7697f3dc07b6e8519f2b77e0fee871e9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of commercial in South Philly. There are corner stores, restaurants, and cafes on just about every corner--in row house type buildings. And the neighborhood's "main street" called Passyunk Avenue is vibrant and bustling. Plus there's the famous Italian Market. All this without high rises.

 

I love high rises and I usually can't get enough of them. I live in one haha. But South Philly is an amazing, historic, high density, low rise neighborhood. It shows you can do high density right without the mass and scale of contemporary development.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, the commerical stuff could have been built on a smaller footprint to accomodate the old development.

 

Its not a hard concept here's an example in Chicago where a historic diner was saved:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8673165,-87.6392218,3a,45y,56.37h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si1s6fRBryLl003m8tIF-1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

The original plan called for it being torn down, the community faught back, the developers who devleoped the bank of america next door and the shopping center that surrounds it built around the thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're saying neilworms[/member], and I similarly think that the new development on Calhoun and McMillan could have accommodated at least some of the more impressive historic buildings that were on the site. The example you provided of the diner in Chicago is a bit of a weird one, though, as the building that was saved is a simple one story structure, with no obvious historic value. Unless there is some sort of cultural or historical importance to this diner, it seems like this might be more of a NIMBY victory than a preservation one.  Also, based on this thread on SSP, it looks like Chicago has a pretty massive problem of their own when it comes to preservation: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=233475

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get impressive density in a neighborhood of 3-4 story rowhouses.

 

It's more about how close things are built to rear lot lines.  Much of LA is much denser than Cincinnati because many square miles are filled with small apartment buildings that were built to the rear lot line.  So not a Dallas Donut/Cincinnati's Banks. 

 

Clifton Heights:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hughes+STEM+High+School/@39.1258895,-84.5193541,414m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b3f558203d6f:0xf1b19cd49d454b3b!8m2!3d39.128662!4d-84.521686

 

Hollywood, CA:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hollywood,+Los+Angeles,+CA/@34.093884,-118.3341171,316m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bf07045279bf:0xf67a9a6797bdfae4!8m2!3d34.0928092!4d-118.3286614

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, LA has a lot of what I'd call 'hidden density'. From the street, many of the neighborhoods look somewhat suburban or not all that dense due to the front setbacks that are so prevalent in the city. But you have a lot of apartment buildings that are oriented perpendicular to the street, and buildings (like you said) go to the rear lot line or very close to it.

 

This is close to where I live. Check the difference between the view from the street vs the aeiral:

 

Street: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.109982,-118.2863212,3a,75y,36.04h,91.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAhYqLoml7cIRwhVd8OYfzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

Aerial: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hollywood,+Los+Angeles,+CA/@34.1102277,-118.2862596,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bf07045279bf:0xf67a9a6797bdfae4!8m2!3d34.0928092!4d-118.3286614

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...