Ram23 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I have some information straight from the horse's mouth -- a Walgreen's security guard: -University Plaza Walgreen's will be shutting down soon, but its pharmacy will operate out of the trailer that is currently on the site -New Kroger will also have a pharmacy -New Kroger will be 2-floors I saw that there was a permit pulled for the address for a “pharmacy trailer.” I first thought it was some type of misprint, and that it was just a construction trailer that would be on-site while the new pharmacy was being built. However, your security guard has confirmed my initial understanding - Walgreens will operate out of a trailer, much like the classrooms at UC’s nearby Wilson Auditorium replacement. I wonder if he meant the Kroger itself will be two stories, or if other buildings on site will be. One of the site plans from years ago did have a couple two story outbuildings along Corry Street. However, I have also heard from Kroger workers that they will stay open during construction – so the site plan has to have changed (or they’re being lied to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I also heard from a recently retired Kroger store manager (who managed a nearby Kroger for several years that I'm not mentioning to keep him from getting in trouble, but never the Corryville store) that there were plans at some point to build a pedestrian bridge over Jefferson Ave. allowing for a better connection between UC and University Plaza. I assume that Kroger considered at one time building the new store up against Jefferson but obviously that is not happening. Also, no word on a new location for Blockbuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwulsin Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Two restaurants (Fusian and Noodle's & Co) are planned to be constructed at the corner of Vine and MLK, next to the Hampton Inn. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/06/17/fusian-coming-to-stalled-uptown-development.html?ana=twt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHemroid Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I went inside Walgreens last week and talked to the owner. He said they will start demolition on Walgreens and Kroger at the end of June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I grabbed this photo of the former Pomodori's Pizza on May 19th. I'm told that this building has now been demolished: Some photos of construction at The Verge, also taken May 19th: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBill Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 Does anyone know of what is going to be built on the lot Pomodori's Pizza use to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyt3524 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Has there been any news regarding the supposed development on the former mcdonalds site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian korte Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 According to the latest planning commission agenda Pomodori's Pizza was demolished for surface parking of 40 spaces. It is owned by Kingsley Investment Group LLC which I believe is the Chinedum Ndukwe development company. The planning commission staff recommended approval if they amend the proposal to add some tree buffers. Staff actually said they think this will help alleviate parking problems in the area. What a terrible use for that corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 The lot is going to be temporarily used as the staging area for construction of the hotel across the street. I would expect that Adriatico's attempts to purchase some or all of the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The Verge (July 16, 2015): Fairfield Inn & Suites (July 16, 2015): They've already made a ton of progress on the hotel since I took that photo. Also, I noticed that Smiling Moose closed and has been replaced by something called 200 West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OllyTransit Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 The Verge (July 16, 2015): The Verge by Travis Estell, on Flickr Fairfield Inn & Suites (July 16, 2015): They've already made a ton of progress on the hotel since I took that photo. Also, I noticed that Smiling Moose closed and has been replaced by something called 200 West. Shame. I actually really liked Smiling Moose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanlammi Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 I remember seeing the 200 West sign, but there was something in smaller font above 200 West that actually said what the storefront was going to become. I can't remember and didn't take a picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 It's been almost a year since the new streetscape was finished, and it still looks horrible because the city and/or Duke has not yet come around and removed the telephone polls and cobra head lighting: Does anyone know what's going on here? Renovations in the 2600 block of Short Vine: UTBAGS (Used to be a Gold Star): The VP3 development doesn't look so bad from the Euclid Ave. side: ...but the Corry St. side is gross: The VP4 development is underway: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanlammi Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Those concrete bollards are some of the ugliest streetscaping elements I've ever seen. Whoever decided that was a good idea should be publicly shamed. Are those necessary for safety somehow? I understand there isn't a curb, but there are parked cars all along the street protecting the pedestrians from out of control cars. There has to be a better solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Those concrete bollards are some of the ugliest streetscaping elements I've ever seen. Whoever decided that was a good idea should be publicly shamed. Are those necessary for safety somehow? I understand there isn't a curb, but there are parked cars all along the street protecting the pedestrians from out of control cars. There has to be a better solution. I think the city was afraid to go full woonerf and felt there needed to be some demarkation between the "car area" and "pedestrian area". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 That plaza you asked about is being renovated to be more enticing. Long-term the owners have stated that they'll eventually tear that building down, leave the garage, and build something up to the sidewalk that's larger and includes housing. But until then they're creating a better pedestrian plaza to help with leasing since that building was...well it was just awful. I drove through the other day to visit my brother who lives in a house on Euclid and have to agree those concrete bollards are absurd and the fact those light poles and all those wires still exist is a bit ridiculous. Is there not a way we can push this issue with the city? what's the point of spending all that money if you then in the end just don't remove the hideous wires and lights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAGuy39 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Travis: I am by no means an expert but I spent some time working on under ground electrical installation / maintenance and we worked in a couple of different cities. We had a big project in downtown Cedar Rapids, IA. We did all the infrastructure which includes large plastic conduits, new substation hook ups, etc. We then pulled the actual new electrical wiring through. Doing all this took a solid 2 months for about a 4 block stretch. It was essential the city lengthening the downtown in one direction since new buildings were going up in former surface parking areas, and in the actual downtown the utilities were already buried. With that said, it still took around 1.5-2 years before the city got around to hooking live the new wiring and taking down the old poles. Still have no idea why it took so long but, guessing it is just how the city decides to go about the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 It seems like most of the streetscapes in Cincy take around 1-2 years to complete. Walnut Street still has the old utility poles after the new streetscape was installed last summer. 12th Street in Pendleton got redone around the time the casino was built and they finally removed the utility poles last summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAGuy39 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Yeah, I would guess it has more to do with the fact that they don't want to pay Duke overtime to get it done. It is probably on a timeline of, construction costs are less to do now with the streetscape and underground utility infrastructure, then we keep Duke on their same schedule and they get it done in their normal operating times, which is scheduled out from 1-2 years from now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakucyk Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I just noticed the other day that Duke finally removed the last couple of utility poles at DeSales Corner this spring or summer, and that streetscaping was done in 2008! https://goo.gl/maps/Ypk1n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 A dozen very nice 1800s row houses and some early 1920s bungalows on traditional lots were torn down for this junk. This is one of the craziest, most jumbled-up apartment configurations I've ever seen. This is what happens when developers with out-of-town ownership and investors are given free reign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCtoCincy Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 ^ Huh? This was developed by Uptowns largest homegrown developer. How does it have anything to do with out-of-town ownership when it's a guy who has been owning in Corryville for 30 years? I'm not saying don't criticize it, but it's two Cincinnati companies who developed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 My bad. I assumed that given the outside ownership of most of the other projects in the area, none of which are attractive. You don't see good student housing being built pretty much anywhere in the United States. It always pushes code to absurd limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCtoCincy Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Actually, all of the major projects in Corryville are local developers. The two other new construction buildings on Short Vine are Uptown/NAP, the ones on University are Uptown, the ones on Eden ave by MLK are Great Traditions (suburban Cincy), and this one(VP3) and VP4 accross the street are Uptown. The one at McMillan and Ohio is also Uptown and U Square is Towne. The one on Jefferson near Cactus Pear is an out of town company. The one way down McMillan by itself is an out of town company and the under construction new project at Clifton & McMillan is an out of town company. Uptown Properties has been on a massive building boom lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 It depends on the city they are coming from, but I tend to feel that Cincinnati is a pretty underdeveloped urban real estate market and its infill reflects that. The student stuff is mindblowingly bad in some cases, about the only uptown infill project I like (and even it has that dumb top floor that should have had brick veneer instead of vinyl) is the building Taste of Belgium is in. Maybe I just have an inherant anti-cincy native bias, given the severe level of insularity that the city has - they don't know better things and don't care about better things (its not in their small universe) even though historically they had them. This culture is showing signs of budging but its still held back by too much inertia. Out of towers may have better infill if they are used to working in intense urban environments. I think Columbus for instance has better developers, the wood companies should open an office in Cincy, they'd be such a perfect fit - which is all the more shocking because Columbus really doesn't have as good an urban enviornment as Cincy does... Chicago as a whole has better developers, but we aren't without some absolute duds too. Though I do understand the arguments about property values and regulatory environment as well as it being a bigger city that attracts higher level talent. I constantly wish Cincinnatians would aim a little higher though, how can people be so blind to what they have? Its absurd. Great Traditions is upping the game and some of 3CDCs stuff is better so I do have some hope, perhaps its just a matter of the market maturing as well as creating an environment where there is a bit more pushback from the community. I have this feeling of resignation about Corryville, most of the good stuff is long gone even buildings that in any other city would be landmarked. I understand the student population pressures, but there had to have been a better way of doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCtoCincy Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I think that the out-of-town developed project on Jefferson across from Cactus pear is excellent form and pretty high quality materials. I would have added a retail space in the front... but beyond that it's pretty much a great college apartment development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 The idea that this is somehow unique to Cincy is the only insular thing I'm seeing here. I went to Denver recently. The infill there is garbage. And the shocking thing in Denver is that because they've had such massive influxes in population recently that you have block after block of pure sh!t that looks exactly like The Banks. One level of concrete + five levels of wood framing with cheap finishes and bad design. But it's fast and easy which is needed in a boom market. Point being, Cincy isn't unique in having awful infill. Every single city has it but the ones that have matured long enough have moved on to better things because it becomes a selling point. We haven't because our urban revival story is still so short. We'll get there just as other places have, but it's not going to just fall into our lap. We have to demand better and elect people who will as well. We should be using peer cities like Minneapolis as precedent for good urban design, not places like NYC since we're never going to even toy with the prices that city can achieve. I'd love to see some stuff here like what is happening in the Bowery or Meatpacking but they cost 10 times as much per square foot so it's unrealistic to expect that. What we can expect is infill similar in price to the better projects in Columbus, some of the new construction in Cleveland in the Warehouse District and the Flats East Bank, and strive for eventually being on par with cities like Minneapolis. Working towards that is realistic. But we're not somehow lost because developers are building crap right now. Those cities had the same process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 The idea that this is somehow unique to Cincy is the only insular thing I'm seeing here. I went to Denver recently. The infill there is garbage. And the shocking thing in Denver is that because they've had such massive influxes in population recently that you have block after block of pure sh!t that looks exactly like The Banks. One level of concrete + five levels of wood framing with cheap finishes and bad design. But it's fast and easy which is needed in a boom market. Point being, Cincy isn't unique in having awful infill. Every single city has it but the ones that have matured long enough have moved on to better things because it becomes a selling point. We haven't because our urban revival story is still so short. We'll get there just as other places have, but it's not going to just fall into our lap. We have to demand better and elect people who will as well. We should be using peer cities like Minneapolis as precedent for good urban design, not places like NYC since we're never going to even toy with the prices that city can achieve. I'd love to see some stuff here like what is happening in the Bowery or Meatpacking but they cost 10 times as much per square foot so it's unrealistic to expect that. What we can expect is infill similar in price to the better projects in Columbus, some of the new construction in Cleveland in the Warehouse District and the Flats East Bank, and strive for eventually being on par with cities like Minneapolis. Working towards that is realistic. But we're not somehow lost because developers are building crap right now. Those cities had the same process. I think the difference is with Denver is that the urban environment wasn't very great to begin with. Its better than most cities in the west, but nothing compared to the east coast, and a few key midwest cities (Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati) - they don't really have a point of reference for better architecture and the population boom is putting pressure on them to build fast. From what I've seen there isn't even equivalent neighborhoods to German Villiage or Short North in Columbus - there at least is something there as a point of reference - maybe that's why Cbus has better infill at an earlier stage in its development? I guess that's what's surprising about Cincinnati - yes there is bad infill everywhere but its more dramatic when you have such an incredibly beautiful city get it - it mares what was once a pretty awesome environment and cheapens what should be a great city by the time it finally gets around to turning around. I kind of gasp everytime I see formerly run blocks (saw an article about a street in Northside with some great pictures) where italianate townhouses get revived - Cincy's vernacular is so good compared to most american cities and the people of the region have done a terrible job taking care of it and have been slow to embrace the idea of urban living its frustrating. San Fran has the opposite issue - they realized what they had was unique and protected it, now its reaching a crisis point of affordability due in part to these protections. I don't think Cincy should go to that extreme but it deserves so much better than the hand its been dealt in the last 60 years. Bad infill isn't unique to Cincinnati, I feel what's unique is the attitude locals have towards its assets, other cities with its assets weren't given such a terrible treatment, and got the TLC they deserved many years before Cincinnati finally got around to fixing it. The two other cities I can think of with excellent historic vernacular that are behind (but still ahead of Cincy in a lot of ways) are St. Louis and Baltimore, but those cities suffered far more from deindustrialization than Cincy did, the local economies are more to blame, in Cincy its almost entirely cultural so there is no excuse for the poor care of its assets other than a culture that is insular and has a bad attitude about such things. (Plus Cincy's vernacular is better than both of those cities - its really one step below San Fran and Boston). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmecklenborg Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The problem is that Cincinnati residents, and apparently its architects, are completely blind to the great examples that are all around them. This sort of crap is excusable in a third-rate Southern college town like Murfreesboro, TN or Gainseville, FL where almost nothing respectable exists within a 100-mile radius. But the real thing often exists on adjacent blocks to this crap that's been going up in Cincinnati since about 2005. The first was McMillan Manor, which changed names to Sterling @McMillan, and which is now College Park, or something ridiculous like that. It is a hideous apartment complex. Everything since has followed suit -- doing the cheapest construction they can get away with. Compare those to The Majestic on McMillan or The Roanoke on Ludlow...each are 100 year-old buildings that still radiate an energy into the neighborhood. Then compare those to the 1960s-1970s complexes like 707/717 MLK and the Monte Michelle Apts on Riddle -- you pull into those places and you struggle to contain a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 As an architect in Cincinnati, get off your high horse. We are equally annoyed that the people with money have no desire to do these large project correctly. But as it stands there's nothing WE are able to do about it without risking our businesses. You can't just turn down clients left and right because they don't want to spend the extra money. That's a great way to go out of business. Bad infill happens all the time in contexts with amazing existing building stock. Go over to Skyscraperpage and go to the city compilation threads and go to some of the cities you're thinking of. Read through the projects. Plenty of them look like The Banks and U Square. The only difference in those cities is that because so much more is happening in terms of infill that the swaths of bad construction are overshadowed by the handful of amazing new buildings being built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYP Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Value engineering is probably the biggest challenge to quality infill in Cincinnati. Architects draws up amazing buildings but when the contractor is hired they cut out all the good stuff because its not within the bid price. “All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Exactly. And on a ton of big projects the architect isn't doing Construction Administration anyway so they no longer even have a say on what is going on. They just sit back and watch their plans simplified and butchered. Hell, look at the original renderings of what U Square's concept was. It wasn't the most amazing thing on earth, but the garages were well hidden, the plaza could be programmed, the buildings were a lot more interesting, and the ground level had much more variation to it. Then the realities of the lack of money the developer wanted to spend came about and it was simplified and value engineered to what it is now. Which is garbage. Stylistically the projects I work on aren't in line with my taste necessarily, but the quality is top of the line. Which is what I care about most. We design things that people want who are willing to go the extra step to make them come true. And our projects turn out great because of it. But this doesn't translate to large scale projects which is why I would never apply to a firm doing these large student housing projects since they're nothing but disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram23 Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 There are very few architecture firms willing to do the large scale residential projects that are popping up everywhere in Corryville because of the liability insurance costs. It can be 2-3X the insurance costs for a similar commercial, retail, institutional, etc. building. Condos are a whole other story - the architect had one client, but that client dissolves and suddenly there are 50 property owners who can sue for every paint chip or drip that might occur over the next 40 years. Few firms are willing to touch these types of projects. But that's a bit aside from the root cause, which is developers' desires to maximize profit margins, students who don't care about aesthetics (and will likely trash the apartments, anyways), and a community that isn't able to protect historic assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 But that's a bit aside from the root cause, which is developers' desires to maximize profit margins, students who don't care about aesthetics (and will likely trash the apartments, anyways), and a community that isn't able to protect historic assets. The last point is probably the most frustrating for Cincinnati. Why wasn't the Goetz house protected as a landmark back in the 1970s given its history and ties to one of Cincinnati's chief beer barons? It boggles the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The last point is probably the most frustrating for Cincinnati. Why wasn't the Goetz house protected as a landmark back in the 1970s given its history and ties to one of Cincinnati's chief beer barons? It boggles the mind. Because I think the preservation community in Cincinnati has become somewhat complacent and doesn't start fighting the battles until demolition permits have already been filed (when it's already too late). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The problem is that Cincinnati residents, and apparently its architects, are completely blind to the great examples that are all around them. This sort of crap is excusable in a third-rate Southern college town like Murfreesboro, TN or Gainseville, FL where almost nothing respectable exists within a 100-mile radius. But the real thing often exists on adjacent blocks to this crap that's been going up in Cincinnati since about 2005. I mean, the Enquirer did just publish an LTE where some guy said that Music Hall and Union Terminal were bland and boring, and we need to paint them bright colors to make them pop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The problem is that Cincinnati residents, and apparently its architects, are completely blind to the great examples that are all around them. This sort of crap is excusable in a third-rate Southern college town like Murfreesboro, TN or Gainseville, FL where almost nothing respectable exists within a 100-mile radius. But the real thing often exists on adjacent blocks to this crap that's been going up in Cincinnati since about 2005. I mean, the Enquirer did just publish an LTE where some guy said that Music Hall and Union Terminal were bland and boring, and we need to paint them bright colors to make them pop! I'm pinning a more blame on the elites. Leadership in Cincinnati has set an example of terrible appreciation/management of its assets and doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks either (which isn't always a bad thing, but in Cincy's case it would be good for its culture if it would open up a little bit more and be a bit more welcoming/bit more able to see how they fit contextually with the rest of the country and or world). DAAP is a great design school and there is no doubt there are talented architects in the region especially due to DAAP, but they aren't the only ones in charge of putting together projects ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 There was just an article in the Business Courier where John Schneider called for better development and used 8th and Sycamore as an example of not just settling and coming up with something that's both an asset to the community and is used to leverage tens of millions in private investment. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/08/is-now-the-time-for-cincinnati-to-demand-better.html We need to have these conversations now, landmark buildings we think are important even if we don't think they're in danger, and make our voices known at public meetings. Preservation didn't just happen in other cities. It's something that requires constant action and forward thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakucyk Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Straying a little bit into a tangent here, but it seems that Cincinnati's "embarrassment of riches" is a big part of the problem too. With a few exceptions to be sure, many cities didn't really start focusing on preservation until much of what was worth preserving was already gone. It was sort of a "wow we only have this little bit left, we better protect it to make sure we don't lose it all." Cataclysmic events tend to galvanize people, like Penn Station obviously. Cincinnati hasn't really had any major losses of that scale, such as if Union Terminal or Music Hall had been demolished, or the suspension bridge replaced with something more utilitarian. The significant loss of Kenyon-Barr/Queensgate is tragic yes, but it's not a singular monument that people could keep in their mind's eye, so it's a bit easier for most to overlook. Plus, even today there's so much historic architecture that the general perception is there's more than enough to go around. There's already not enough people to keep up all these buildings, so what benefits do you really get by slapping on more historic designations? There's also the issue that the greater stock of historic buildings and neighborhoods means more historic review, hearings, paperwork, etc. for an already small staff of people to document and coordinate. Less than a decade ago you could chat with the Urban Conservator on the phone at length and get personal attention for any historic project you were doing. Now that office is so overworked they can't even keep track of what's in for permit and review right now. Same goes for the Preservation Association, their attention is divided between many more projects and buildings and issues than just about any similar sized city, so it's difficult to keep up. At the same time it's also difficult to expand staff and resources because as I said before the general perception is that there's so much historic stock around that it's not like we're going to lose it all. Of course the trick is to make sure we don't end up like the frog being slowly boiled or dying from a thousand cuts, which can certainly happen too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Lets pause and think about those other places that have "embarassments of riches", was there a cataclysmic event in San Francisco or Boston that led to this? In Boston I'm going to guess it was the City Hall, though I'm less sure about San Fran as its biggest loss was pretty comparable to what Cincy lost but on a much smaller scale... What about Savannah or Charleston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Savannah lost three of its public squares and their surrounding buildings to urban renewal and the expansion of a state route and another to the construction of a parking garage which occupied the entirety of one of the squares for 50 years, ending in 2009, which seems to have been the beginning of people realizing that tearing down old for new isn't always good. Not so sure about Charleston though. I don't know enough about the history of that city. I'd say Boston was massive disconnect the highways caused. The contrast between the historic built form and the new freeway was much more stark than in most places due to Boston's urban fabric. City Hall likely helped accelerate that desire for preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old edale Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Lets pause and think about those other places that have "embarassments of riches", was there a cataclysmic event in San Francisco or Boston that led to this? In Boston I'm going to guess it was the City Hall, though I'm less sure about San Fran as its biggest loss was pretty comparable to what Cincy lost but on a much smaller scale... What about Savannah or Charleston? I think maybe the great earthquake of 1906 motivated the city early on to cherish and preserve it's built environment. Why needlessly tear down historic structures when mother nature is capable of doing so on a mass scale? Sounds plausible to me. Also, the near constant growth of SF over the years also probably has something to do with the preserved nature of it's housing. It's easy to appreciate historic buildings when they're in good condition and brimming with life. It's a little tougher to appreciate the value of a historic building when it's vacant, deteriorated, and otherwise blighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Lets pause and think about those other places that have "embarassments of riches", was there a cataclysmic event in San Francisco or Boston that led to this? In Boston I'm going to guess it was the City Hall, though I'm less sure about San Fran as its biggest loss was pretty comparable to what Cincy lost but on a much smaller scale... What about Savannah or Charleston? I think maybe the great earthquake of 1906 motivated the city early on to cherish and preserve it's built environment. Why needlessly tear down historic structures when mother nature is capable of doing so on a mass scale? Sounds plausible to me. Also, the near constant growth of SF over the years also probably has something to do with the preserved nature of it's housing. It's easy to appreciate historic buildings when they're in good condition and brimming with life. It's a little tougher to appreciate the value of a historic building when it's vacant, deteriorated, and otherwise blighted. Chicago had a similar catastrophe in the 1870s but doesn't have nearly as strong a desire for preservation (though stuff that is equivalent to the Goetz house is preserved in Wicker Park the beer baron row is protected at least I'd argue that preservation community has more teeth than it does in Cincy but its a shadow compared to what's in San Fran). Chicago took a path of complete new city, and by the mid 20th Century it instituted one of the largest urban renewal programs in the whole country (Cincy wasn't too far behind at least according to the book about community relations that also happens to be the best source we have on the west end's tragic fall) and generally isn't as preservation friendly as San Fran in spite of the similar age and similar catastrophes at key moments in their growth. Outside of the loop and a few other key areas Chicago is a tier below Cincinnati in terms of neighborhood vernacular (though it was a place of much innovation - perhaps its cultural theme is that of rebirth instead of preserving the old?). San Francisco feels like an older city even though both were founded in 1840 - the rebuilding of San Fran was done more conservatively. I'm still blown away at how many Italianates in Chicago had their cornices ripped off btw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjakucyk Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Savannah and Charleston, and to some extent New Orleans, seem to have taken a similar trajectory to Prague in that they fell on hard times enough that redevelopment of old buildings was minimized, but not such hard times that they had wholesale abandonment and blight either, so they just kind of sat and pickled. That left a cohesive urban (and urbane) fabric that itself is pleasurable to be in, and which also happens to be from a pretty narrow time range, giving it something of a "frozen in amber" quality that also exhibits a strong local vernacular. OTR has many of those same benefits, but it's hurt in that it has seen a fair amount of blight and demolition, and it has more typical post-industrial hypertrophic (excessively large) streets than you find in Savannah or especially Charleston and Boston. Other neighborhoods around the city are much more broken up and incoherent, which doesn't help their appeal. Plus OTR and Cincinnati in general just isn't quite as old, and there's some subtle but still important differences in our Italianate Victorian architecture which is a stylistic import that's not as well liked by the general populace as the older and more genuinely American Federal/Georgian/Colonial styles. San Francisco seems to be a whole separate ballgame in and of itself, and I'm not really sure what the explanation is there. It could be that the very regular urban fabric is part of the story, where anything contrary to what's already been built is viewed suspiciously. I tend to view historic preservation there as more of a NIMBY tool to prevent change rather than a strong preference for preserving historic architecture and urban form, but it's a fuzzy line to be sure. There's also the case that SF is about the only city in the west that has much old stuff at all, so it's a victim to simple supply and demand forces, because they certainly haven't been building any new places out there that aren't positively dreadful from an urbanistic standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmicha Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 ^That's an interesting point about falling on hard times but not so much so that everything was abandoned and left to fall apart to the point where it wasn't salvageable. It actually seems like a lot of the older areas in NKY are more intact than some of the older neighborhoods in Cincy for similar (albeit with obvious differences) reasons. They may have fallen on hard times that they still haven't necessarily come out of but most of the buildings in Newport and Covington seem to have never been abandoned. They might have fallen into disrepair due to deferred maintenance but still for the most part were in good enough condition that they could be occupied without extensive work. Policy differences are also a huge factor. Many cities took a "we don't really give a sh!t" approach to the period of post WWII decline when it came to maintaining the city. It's how you wound up with places like NYC in the 70s. Filthy, disgusting, losing 90,000 people every year, etc. whereas some cities actively demolished anything that was abandoned in order to keep it looking "pretty" but just wound up with empty block after block which likely just accelerated the problems in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilworms Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 It actually seems like a lot of the older areas in NKY are more intact than some of the older neighborhoods in Cincy for similar (albeit with obvious differences) reasons. They may have fallen on hard times that they still haven't necessarily come out of but most of the buildings in Newport and Covington seem to have never been abandoned. They might have fallen into disrepair due to deferred maintenance but still for the most part were in good enough condition that they could be occupied without extensive work. NKY is like a sleeping giant. The business district in Covington is particularly strong here's hoping that it doesn't go the way of Walnut Hills where the comm council winds up demoing like half of it for pocket parks :P - It really gives me a good feeling of what much of the dense fabric in Cincy was like pre WWII (though smaller and somewhat more southern in vernacular). Bellevue appears to be the only area that is really taking advantage of it (they also have some of the most intact stock too). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taestell Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Not only has Bellevue put a lot of effort into historic preservation, encouraging homeownership, and bringing back its business district... but they have enacted a form-based code for the one part of the city with big box stores and drive-thrus. So, years down the road when those properties are re-developed, they will have something really awesome going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Hash Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Really the only area of the NKY core that fell victim to 1960's large-swath urban renewal is the IRS supercenter. Covington sold part of it's soul for that warehouse of bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCtoCincy Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 ^ and all the fast food restaurants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasbw Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 ^ and all the fast food restaurants... Love the RedBike station in the Taco Bell parking lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now