Jump to content
Guest OCtoCincy

Cincinnati: Downtown: Eighth & Main Redevelopment

Recommended Posts

I disagree. I do agree that this development being two buildings fills in some gaps better than one tall building would in the short term, but it's the same argument I have against people claiming no new buildings in OTR should be over 3 stories since there are so many vacant lots. Once you've used up that asset it's gone. You can't build a bunch of smaller buildings to fill in the gaps and then add more height later. If you are "anti-height" you shouldn't be in the Central Business District.

 

This doesn't mean every development has to try to push height limits, but there are a lot of benefits to building taller buildings. Higher spot density which helps with street life quite a bit. This is directly next to a streetcar stop so having the most people living directly along the line is beneficial to a cause basically every Cincinnatian on UrbanOhio can get behind, making sure the streetcar is seen as an asset. And from an outside image standpoint having new buildings poking up through the skyline is a sign of prosperity. Cities that have a changing skyline and have cranes visible have the effect of feeling more exciting and entice people to check things out who maybe wouldn't before.

 

Yes, there are a TON of surface lots Downtown. It would be great to fill them all in. But the reality is that very few are for sale, and likely won't be for awhile since the cost of land is so cheap here meaning selling isn't worth it. Therefore we should utilize what open lots we do have the opportunity to see development on to their fullest by aggressively pushing for the most units possible which usually means more height.

 

We're not meeting demand as it is. We're not even close to meeting demand. Building taller won't quell demand because there's so much untapped demand at the moment. There is definitely room for larger buildings without stalling progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the city needs to be as open to any development as possible while at the same time making certain the "landings" are very pedestrian oriented and good for street life.  I think adding a layer of height limitation would be the worst thing possible because it could deter some developers.  I don't know the economics of buildings very well at all.  I know jmicha has mentioned before at some point, but something going from a 4 story to a 5 story you need to have elevators then going higher at some point there is a point where it becomes more expensive.

 

That said, if a developer manages to make a deal on a surface lot and wants to take the most advantage of it to drive the fixed cost per unit down by building 25 stories, I am all for it. 

 

As a comparison, if you go to a city like St. Louis and compare it's downtown to Cincinnati, Cincinnati is much more "filled in".  I think out of the rust belt area cities, Cincinnati does quite well in regards to less surface lots.  There are a ton of surface lots don't get me wrong, but it could be much worse.

 

I say don't try to put on another layer of zoning in regards to height and I am all for adding height to the skyline whenever a developer wants.  I am actually more pro-height in regards to the developments on Elm Street, etc.  That is why I am more or less convinced OTR will become more of a single family development area, more posh/cosmopolitan as time moves on, and downtown needs to add as much density as possible to make OTR fully built out as a restaurant / bar / tourism row on the main arteries. 

 

I am also very pro affordable tax credit in buildings in OTR as well because we need to save these buildings as best as possible and the affordable tax credits will help in this regard.  It also gives people who have lived in very bad conditions much better living conditions and more incentive to keep them up and move up on the economic ladder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are "anti-height" you shouldn't be in a city. Period. If you have a problem with tall buildings get out of the Central Business District. That's your problem, nobody else's.

 

I love tall buildings.  I just don't want one or two massive apartment towers to suck up all of the existing demand and stall development. 

 

it's the same argument I have against people claiming no new buildings in OTR should be over 3 stories since there are so many vacant lots. Once you've used up that asset it's gone.

 

I understand what you're saying, but unless something drastically and unexpectedly changes, this won't realistically be a problem for many, many years.  Between OTR, the West End, the lots on Eggleston, and the lots around the CBD, there is enough dead space to build for decades.  And that's ignoring all of the abandoned/underutilized historic structures that will be demolished or collapse and become vacant lots in the meantime if they don't get restored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely economics in play in OTR with regards to going from 4 to 5 stories. You do need a lot more infrastructural costs built in to do so so I can understand why some developers would want to restrict themselves to 4 stories in small buildings which is fine. Whatever works financially I'm in support of as long as it's not like Towne Properties 7 townhomes on Elm since that's a huge site for very low density development.

 

In the CBD the economics don't quite yet attribute themselves to gigantic buildings and likely won't for a long time. Which is fine, but we shouldn't artificially restrict new development in the only area of the region with many highrises. If the economics only work out to 90 units in two 14/15 story buildings like they do here, perfect. That's what the market can bear which is all you can ask for. If someone figures out a way to build an 80 story tower on top of Macy's and make it work financially, go for it. I'll be the first one to cheer it on at the groundbreaking ceremony.

 

Supporting what the market dictates can work financially is the best way to ensure land use patterns are in our best interest. It's not a perfect system but it generally works out in the long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think adding a layer of height limitation would be the worst thing possible because it could deter some developers...

 

I say don't try to put on another layer of zoning in regards to height and I am all for adding height to the skyline whenever a developer wants.

 

No one is asking for that.  All I'm saying is that this development being two shorter structures as opposed to one taller structure is a GOOD thing for the surrounding area.  American Luxury asked about the "advantages for doing two smaller buildings vs doing one 29 story building" and I put an answer out there.  Don't make more out of it than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're responding to your "anti-height" comment. The only way to be programmatically anti-height is to put restrictions in play. It wasn't specifically what was asked about/stated, but it's the only method in which one can actually be anti-height when it comes to development and achieve anything more than making noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget success will beget success here too. The more vibrant the core is, the more demand will increase from people and businesses wanting to move there.


www.cincinnatiideas.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

 

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments.  My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories.  While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded.

 

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create.

 

It is this sentence that really stood out to me.  While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing additions to our high-rise district.  Not everyone likes dogs either, but it would be unreasonable for those people to go to dog parks and complain about the barking.

 

Edit: Duplicate post with incorrect quote formatting - mods, feel free to delete this one as I can't seem to figure out how to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

 

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments.  My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories.  While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded.

 

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create.

 

It is this sentence that really stood out to me.  While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing additions to our high-rise district.  Not everyone likes dogs either, but it would be unreasonable for those people to go to a dog park and complain about the barking.

 

 

Edit: I'm dumb and couldn't figure out how to quote two posts at once, so I put your earlier quote in bold to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Precisely my problem with restricting height artificially in the CBD. It's the ONLY area of the region that has anything more than a couple towers here or there and if you aren't fond of being around skyscrapers, don't live there.

 

I don't like having a gigantic yard (well, a yard at all actually) so I don't move to suburbia and decry yards. That would be ridiculous.

 

It's like people who move directly next to a highway then complain about noise. You know where you purchased/rented. If you chose the CBD, expect skyscrapers to grow around you at some point. It's how American cities operate. There is a concentrated area of skyscrapers in the center of the city and that's a given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, but I was responding to greatgooglymoogly's assertion that an "anti-height position" is a problem, when in reality there are many advantages to having several smaller structures as opposed to a single taller one, which was part of the initial question.  I'm not proposing anything; I'm just addressing the original question.

 

I'm not arguing that height for the sake of height always trumps smaller developments.  My issue is your stance that a 29-story tower would be too tall for this location, which to me is indicative of the small-town parochialism that has gripped our city's development for too long. This location is well within the borders of our CBD and a pretty well-established high-rise district with nearly a dozen towers of more than 29 stories.  While debating the merits of the design and integration of a (hypothetical) 29-story tower could be constructive, decrying the scale seems small-minded.

 

Besides being out of scale compared to it's immediate surroundings, not everyone wants to walk, live or work in the shadows and canyon-like feel that very tall buildings can create.

 

It is this sentence that really stood out to me.  While you have every right to feel this way, this sentiment does not and cannot stand on its own as an argument for preventing the growth of our high-rise district.  Not everyone likes dogs either, but those people don't go to dog parks and complain about the barking.

 

That isn't my stance and the quote you listed was urbanpioneer, not me.  I have no problem with skyscrapers, but I do strongly believe that all else being equal, two smaller structures are a better fit for Cincinnati's current needs than one taller structure of the same capacity.  I'm shocked at the amount of pushback I'm getting for simply not advocating a massive, theoretical apartment tower.  Welcome to the internet, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no, it's pushback from a combination of posts by Urbanpioneer and you and a response that was very strict in its statement that smaller buildings = better due to short term problems Cincy faces.

 

But this has gotten very off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are "anti-height" you shouldn't be in a city. Period. If you have a problem with tall buildings get out of the Central Business District. That's your problem, nobody else's.

 

I love tall buildings.  I just don't want one or two massive apartment towers to suck up all of the existing demand and stall development. 

 

Is this a joke?

 

they are two 14 story condo buildings with only 65 condos.  The demand we have is for thousands of more units. 

 

EDIT: I just noticed your comment further down where you clarified what you were saying.  Still, even one 29 story building is not going to suck up 'all of the existing demand'  We could build 3000 more residential units easily and rents will continue to go up because our core is so under built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could double these 3 towers and still not meet demand. Besides, the smaller condo buildings need to charge more because there's only so many units and when I say more, I mean ... more than what most people can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, even one 29 story building is not going to suck up 'all of the existing demand'

 

No it wouldn't.  But the original question was:

 

I'm sure there's a good answer, but what are the advantages for doing two smaller buildings vs doing one 29 story building?

 

To which urbanpioneer brought up a valid concern about scale (which I understand but do not share), and greatgooglymoogly implied that an "anti-height position" is objectively negative.  I pointed out that there are good arguments for filling in the urban fabric rather than building skyward, and the whole thing spiraled from there.  It has nothing to do with this specific project at all.  Let's move on or move this discussion to an appropriate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on the scale issue! I want MORE 10-20 story buildings. I think they are the perfect Size for large chunks of our downtown. One off high rises like QCS or Skyhouse are nice, but I don't bank on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be.

 

 

Um what?

 

CBD-of-La-D%C3%A9fense-from-Arc-de-Triomphe-%C2%A9-French-Moments.jpg

 

 

The historical zones of Paris/London are applicable to OTR. Historic zones have a strict guideline in terms of architectural styles, and height limitation.

 

Within the Central business district, height matters. As you can see, the historical zone of Paris, and the CBD of Paris in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, the last time I was in Paris or London I don't recall being overshadowed by lots of hi-rise buildings...

 

Seriously, some people who are fixated on tall buildings seem to disregard how very narrow many of the streets are in the CBD.  Cincinnati is different in that regard compared to a lot of other cities its size.  And it can make a big difference when it comes to hi-rises.  I'm just glad those who are perpetually fixated on hi-rise construction for nearly every potential development downtown are only armchair developers.

 

I'm also glad jmicha said good things about the proposed development at 8th & Main, but I really resent his architectural snobbery saying that if I don't like tall buildings I shouldn't live in the CBD.  I could say more but I don't want to get kicked off the forum so I'll leave it at that.  I like tall buildings -- on sites that are appropriate for them.  I just think Griewe's plans for the two mid-rise buildings are much more suitable for their 8th & Main location than a 29-story building would be. 

 

Right, it's just "architectural snobbery" despite having literally nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with urban planning. There is (1) area of the entire region with skyscrapers. If you don't want to live around tall buildings, why on earth would you move to the CBD? That's poor planning.

 

And this site is literally a block away from much larger buildings. It is 100% appropriate for a taller building if that were to what someone should choose.

 

And London or Paris definitely do have tall buildings, not that that would really matter at all when discussing American city density patterns. And London has them on far narrower streets than our CBD has. It's objectively false to say they don't have tall buildings.

 

As for this project, the buildings' scale is fine. I would have supported a single taller building but two 14/15 story buildings will also add to the structural density and add what will probably be around 150 people to a quiet side of Downtown if the 90 unit figure comes true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati is not experiencing any kind of land crush.  It would be great to see the city enact policy that encourages low and mid-rise redevelopment of its many surface parking lots and penalizes developers who wish to demolish any existing structure to expand a developable footprint.  For example, there could be a 10+ year property tax exemption or even construction worker earnings tax rebate to the developer for appropriate redevelopment of parking lots but a permanent 2X property tax penalty for any project that involves the demolition of any pre-1950 structure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy Eros, are you not aware that there already exists a Main Street Historic District?  The photo you've provided actually supports low-rise development in an historic district.  I haven't called for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cincinnati is not experiencing any kind of land crush.  It would be great to see the city enact policy that encourages low and mid-rise redevelopment of its many surface parking lots and penalizes developers who wish to demolish any existing structure to expand a developable footprint.  For example, there could be a 10+ year property tax exemption or even construction worker earnings tax rebate to the developer for appropriate redevelopment of parking lots but a permanent 2X property tax penalty for any project that involves the demolition of any pre-1950 structure. 

 

15 years from now when we filled downtown with a bunch of 5 story buildings everyone would be FURIOUS that someone had such a ridiculous idea.  How many people look at the 4 story apartment building at 6th and Race and think WHY ISN'T THAT 10 STORIES.

 

Advocating for low rise development in downtown is a bad bad bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Among many other things, yes. A complete lack of ability to build densely enough in fear of ruining "historic districts" so the price of crappy little victorian houses skyrocketed to the point where only the wealthy could afford them anyway and they would buy them and convert them back to single family buildings resulting in extreme lack of inventory. And then NIMBYs blast every development in the city for being "out of scale" resulting in buildings nowhere near large enough to handle the needs of the population going up and taking up valuable real estate that could have housed 2-10x as many units if people weren't so incessantly opposed to literally anything and everything that gets proposed in SF.

 

But Cincy will likely never have that level of demand. Which is a good thing. Doesn't mean we should push for low-density development though, especially along our only rail line and in the only part of the city where highrises are acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already wasted a ton of potential by allowing single-family townhomes to get built along the streetcar line on Elm Street. We should be pushing for a much higher density along Main and Walnut near streetcar stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Isn't that the issue in San Fran that's driven rent to such ridiculous levels?

 

dear lord we are nowhere near the point where we can start talking about San Francisco's situation, or even rent control.  Cincinnati did have rent control, but that was more than 50 years ago, before the era of rent control that SF and NYC still have today, because there was practically zero buildable land in the Cincinnati basin or most of its hillside or hilltop neighborhoods.  We have tons and tons of vacant land not only in DT and OTR, but the rest of the city.  We still have tons of move-in ready houses sitting vacant and listed for $50k or less in various neighborhoods.  Newport and Covington, directly across the river, are similarly halfway bombed-out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you turn Yves's comment into something it wasn't, nobody here is saying that we're anything like San Francisco. Just that artificially limiting height in the Downtown of a region can bring with it a lot of really negative consequences. In SF's case, it is the stupidly high rent for s**thole apartments and an unhealthy reliance on one industry since it's the only one that pays well enough to afford the BS rents SF commands.

 

In Cincinnati it could be that we wind up underutilizing our first rail line in 6 decades by building squat buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maximizing use of the streetcar line by residents is not motivation enough for tarnishing Over-the-Rhine's traditional character with high-rise buildings and slowing its repopulation.  And as I've stated several times over the years, everyone living in an apartment or condo more than five stories off the ground is someone not living at stories 4 or lower in one of the area's countless vacant buildings or in new construction on a vacant lot.   

 

Nobody's suggesting limiting building heights to 4 floors like the Walgreen's apartments.  But building heights of some kind -- be it 10 or 16 or 20 floors -- limit the impact a hideous new project can have on the city's appearance.  It's simply a fact that we haven't gotten a great new building downtown in decades, and there's no reason to suspect that great buildings are about to start happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Paris and San Francisco situations need some clarification.  For one thing, central Paris isn't really low-rise, it's 7-stories.  That's Calhoun Street, but on every single block over an area from the riverfront to St. Bernard.  Their streets are also half as wide, if not less, even counting the grand boulevards, and they don't waste land on useless "green space" or buffer zones or parking lots/garages.  That's how you get nearly the same population density as Manhattan with just 7-story buildings. 

 

San Francisco and most US cities have such "peaky" downtowns because that's the only place any reasonably dense development can happen at all.  Once you get just a short ways outside the downtown, you're limited to low-density automobile-oriented sprawl by zoning.  In many cities what urban development exists outside of downtown is only grandfathered in, or at best is allowed to be maintained as-is but no bigger.  Yes San Francisco's core neighborhoods aren't THAT dense, certainly not compared to Paris or New York (SF has only 30% the population density of Paris), and that's in no small part because it's completely strangled by single-family residential zoning, whether in city neighborhoods or the suburbs.  Chicago is the same, and even a lot of Brooklyn and Queens are single-family only.  Yes they may be smaller lot, even attached, with some denser commercial nodes scattered about, but because there's such a tight noose around all development in the entire metro area, so much of the demand gets focused on the few lots where high density is allowed.  The other problem with that is it causes speculation on those few parcels, further stalling out development. 

 

Cincinnati may not be quite in that position now, at least not region-wide, or even city-wide, but you can see it in OTR, Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, and Mt. Adams.  The desirability of those neighborhoods and the inability to do anything but rebuild what's already there causes prices to go up which pushes other people out.  But it's not the rich who get pushed out, because they're the ones who are doing the pushing since they want to live in these neighborhoods.  That's what makes it difficult to bring other neighborhoods up, when it's only those who've been displaced are left to try to repopulate them.  Granted someone priced out of Hyde Park is unlikely to be poor, but once you're out there's the whole metro area to pick from, so everyone gets spread thin and building the critical mass to turn around another neighborhood is difficult. 

 

So if there's a concern about high rises downtown or excessive rents and development in OTR, it's necessary to look at the whole region and see why people are being squeezed into these specific locations.  Walkability and amenities are certainly a factor, and even in Hyde Park Square or Northside those can be lacking.  In part that's because those neighborhoods are not as walkable as they may seem due to low-density zoning surrounding their business districts.  I personally believe that 2, 3, and 4-family apartments as well as garage apartments should be allowed as of right in the whole city.  You could theoretically quadruple the population of an area without significantly changing its overall form, and then you get much better transit performance.  That's also the increment necessary to encourage redevelopment of run-down or fallow neighborhoods.  It doesn't make financial sense to redevelop single-family into two-family, the numbers just don't work, but a 4x increase in density is where the numbers finally start to pan out. 

 

I'll stop rambling now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say too, since I am in the area and looking for housing, that Columbia Tusculum is really getting quite expensive everywhere.  The only place I could find a house for sale less than 150k was on Eastern Avenue, which I think is gentrifying at a slow pace, albeit.  In Columbia Tusculum, they are squeezing in everywhere these 3 story, townhome like buildings on the hill sides and side streets, that are going for 500k to 600k.  And you can look and see on all of those older houses, that asking prices are much higher than they were 5 years ago.  Columbia Tusculum could really do itself good by building a few more of those big apartment projects like Delta Flats.  It seems they are filling in an area of Columbia Parkway and Hoge street, which I think could easily add 400 apartments with a 5 story building and really boost that area of CT.

 

All that said, I don't see Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout changing much over the years.  It seems they are quite content with the way things are and don't want anymore traffic or congestion.  Especially if the streetcar moves to uptown, the area around Inwood Park, Short Vine, etc. could really get a huge boost, because that area is quite depressed as of now.  I think that is the next logical area for a more affordable OTR / Uptown mix type neighborhood that would be great for Mid-20's on up working professionals.  I think Cincinnati really needs to look at catering to that age group, because it seems the Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, CT, OTR area is the only place really doing that so much now, and OTR seems to be pushing more towards empty nester expensive type neighborhood.  That's what would be the best part of a tunnel to Uptown.  You can have all the amenities of downtown, OTR, Uptown area, Short Vine, Findlay Market, etc. all within walking distance and no need for a car.  That's what Cincinnati needs most to boost talent recruitment, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Densification of typical residential areas by the addition of basement apartments and detached garage apartments or the construction of several houses on a lot formerly occupied by a single house is one thing.  The built density of a downtown is another.  In Cincinnati the economic pressures that exist in other cities don't exist here because the metro population is barely growing and there is not a land crunch...there is no physical or legal growth boundary (lake, ocean, watershed, mountain range, restricted growth of water & sewer, or formal growth boundary ala Portland, OR), and there is no rapid transit system.  People live in Cincinnati's denser neighborhoods as a hobby and buy property there as speculative investments -- not because of some real practical concern or because they have to due to a lack of affordable alternatives.

 

Nobody's going to convince me that under current conditions we should permit infill in Over-the-Rhine higher than the buildings that already exist there.  DT is different of course, but as we are seeing with the huge parking garage planned for the Pogue's parking garage site, big residential developments in the downtown will continue to require gigantic parking garages. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being disingenuous isn't a sport Jake. The Pogue's Garage development having a massive parking isn't because it's a residential development. It's replacing a large parking garage and the city wants just as many spaces. In no world does a 208 unit building require 925 spaces. Not even in Cincinnati.

 

People really get on my nerves around here throwing that or 8th and Sycamore around as "omg Cincinnati development requires gigantic garages" examples when it's completely bogus. They're both replacing garages and adding development on top of the replacement. Pretending they have such massive garages purely for the residential on top is a flat out lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't remember the exact count, but it's barely different than Pogue's Garage now. But it's now also serving 208 units and 25,000 square feet of retail space. In the end we actually have less spaces/user but that argument seems lost on a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice looking building!

 

Two new nuggets of info from this latest packet:

 

-south tower is 14 stories confirmed

 

-811 Main St (Sophia's building) is staying!


www.cincinnatiideas.com

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...