Cincinnati: Over-the-Rhine - Washington Park & Music Hall Projects

[BDRUF]

Just out of curiosity how much does a shell typically go for in this area and how much does it take to make it livable? I graduate this May and would like to be able to by something sometime in the next year.

[moonloop]

My sister and I bought a shell of a building on Pleasant Street at auction in the Spring of 2003 (Denhart Properties Bankruptcy sale).

What was the address of this building, if you don't mind me asking?

1531 Pleasant.  The property consisted of two buildings, both shells.

So 3CDC put you out on the street, those bastards!

OTR truly is at a tipping point. Streetcar, Washington Park redo, Music Hall redo, SCPA, the almighty 3CDC. It nice to the see the silent approval that the city seems to be giving 3CDC and their plans.  The next few years should be fun to watch.

[LesterLyles]

The key will be for private money investors to fill in the balanks where 3cDC doesn't fill. When private money starts buying/redoing some of these buildings, you will really see the neighborhood take off.

[cincySAL]

My sister and I bought a shell of a building on Pleasant Street at auction in the Spring of 2003 (Denhart Properties Bankruptcy sale).  3CDC bought it from us in the summer of 2005.  I don't think they've done anything with it yet, and I'm personally concerned (and was at the time of the sale) that they are just going to bulldoze the building and turn Pleasant into a glorified driveway for houses on Elm and Race.  I can't imagine there would be many more opportunities for flipping properties in that area.

Just curious cuz I don't know how it works, but does 3CDC offer a decent price, or does the property sell for whatever market value is (rather than holding out and making them offer a higher price)?

[LincolnKennedy]

My sister and I bought a shell of a building on Pleasant Street at auction in the Spring of 2003 (Denhart Properties Bankruptcy sale).  3CDC bought it from us in the summer of 2005.  I don't think they've done anything with it yet, and I'm personally concerned (and was at the time of the sale) that they are just going to bulldoze the building and turn Pleasant into a glorified driveway for houses on Elm and Race.  I can't imagine there would be many more opportunities for flipping properties in that area.

Just curious cuz I don't know how it works, but does 3CDC offer a decent price, or does the property sell for whatever market value is (rather than holding out and making them offer a higher price)?

We held our property for two years and the initial buy was cheap, so we made quite a good return on it.  The intention from the initial purchase wasn't to flip it to the government, but we had an opportunity to move on another building at a much better location soon after we purchased Pleasant, so 1531 got put on the back-burner.  When this opportunity to sell to 3CDC came up my sister was enthusiastic about it.  I had moved out of town by that time, so she handled the negotiations and details.  I was pleased with the profit and am still hopeful they won't tear the buildings down.

[UncleRando]

I was pleased with the profit and am still hopeful they won't tear the buildings down.

3CDC has publicly stated that it is in their best interests NOT to tear down buildings.  They have seen a lot of interest in the historic structures they have renovated and they attribute much of the success to the charm/character of those old buildings.  I'm pretty sure that demolition of any structure in OTR would be an option of last resort.

[thomasbw]

And if you look at their sales, the new gateway I is lagging behind the renovated properties in the gateway Q

[cramer]

While I am sure that 3CDC realizes that historic properties are the area's core competitive advantage, they might also feel that further higher end residential development will inevitably require a parking solution. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that they'll use secondary streets as alleys; I don't see why you'd blindly trust 3CDC.

Here's where thomasbw says how streetcars will reduce parking requirements.

[UncleRando]

I don't see why you'd blindly trust 3CDC.

Is there any reason NOT to trust them so far?  I'm just not sure I understand the skepticism towards 3CDC...is it because it's headed by a bunch of corporate execs?

[David]

And if you look at their sales, the new gateway I is lagging behind the renovated properties in the gateway Q

Aren't the Gateway Q units much cheaper? People bought units there for 90-140k.

[xumelanie]

And if you look at their sales, the new gateway I is lagging behind the renovated properties in the gateway Q

Aren't the Gateway Q units much cheaper? People bought units there for 90-140k.

The original gateway building has poorly designed units.  The renovated ones are much better.   I think this is one of the reasons for the better sales.

[David]

Is there any reason NOT to trust them so far?  I'm just not sure I understand the skepticism towards 3CDC...is it because it's headed by a bunch of corporate execs?

There you go being optimistic again!

I've heard people are saying 3CDC isn't listening to the neighborhood's concerns. Also something about having so many subsidiaries incorporated and that being bad because how much its costing us for them to incorporate so much, but it's also good because if one project goes bankrupt, it won't stop the rest from happening, as they're under different corporations. I don't know much about 3CDC though. I'm also curious about all the reasons they're criticized because I've seen people holding up signs basically saying 3CDC is the anti-christ.

[cramer]

I don't see why you'd blindly trust 3CDC.

Is there any reason NOT to trust them so far?  I'm just not sure I understand the skepticism towards 3CDC...is it because it's headed by a bunch of corporate execs?

I'm guess I'm sort of a skeptic by nature. But, in this case I think it just makes sense.
 
Look, 3CDC is doing a fine job, really fine stuff‡. But that doesn't make them infallible and there's really nothing lost by keeping an eye on them. That they are a quasi-governmental entity operating outside the auspices of the city means they are harder to hold to account. That concerns me.

From a pragmatic standpoint, they have done well, completing projects and making things happen in a neighborhood that makes neither easy. But if you look down the road at what they want to do, complete more residential projects, and whom they want to do it for, upwardly mobile young folks and upscale empty nesters, and what those folks tend to bring with them, stuff and cars, it's not hard to see that push may come to shove.

Streets like Pleasant seem vulnerable, is all.

As an aside, it seems inconsistent to me to bemoan the castration of the City's planning department while at the same time be all rah-rah about 3CDC. 

‡ Though I must say that I think Gateway 1 and the Via Vite building are just terrible.

[Jskinner]

^3CDC didn't have anything to do with Gateway I, that was City Council.

[UncleRando]

As an aside, it seems inconsistent to me to bemoan the castration of the City's planning department while at the same time be all rah-rah about 3CDC.

I don't understand why...the two serve different purposes.  City government can not go in and do the work that 3CDC is doing, why...because people would view that as a communist/socialist practice.  That is to single-handily do projects from start to finish.  3CDC is offering unique and very qualified experience to work these financial deals...this is something that I'm not sure the City has the capability of doing (especially in the most robust Planning Dept).

I think it is fair of me then to be upset about our Planning Dept being cut to no end, because we have not had a comprehensive plan update in many years...and much of our long-term planning has gone to the wayside.  Maybe its a personal opinion of mine...but I feel that government planning is more suited to doing the long-range and day-to-day planning operations for a city.  I don't think that it is the best outlet to perform functions that are probably better serviced by the private industry or even some quasi-governmental agent that is run by individuals from the private side.  Lets be honest...there is a different system of operations that exists there; and we should look to capitalize on what each is best at.

[Cincinnatus]

^ They get things done behind closed doors, which is a good thing in this instance.

The situation with OTR is too awkward. I've heard more than once from someone that lives in OTR ... "you're just trying to drive us(blacks) out!" ... "white people left and now they want to come back here and live". It's too touchy of a situation, but it's something they have to do. Those types of comments are from folks that have their own issues to deal with.

[cramer]

^^My bad on Gateway I.

^It's a fair point you make, Rando. I think you've hit on exactly what 3CDC is for, to provide cover for the city and corporations to make moves that neither could make without more severe blowback. But that advantage comes with some disadvantages, like an unresponsiveness to neighborhood concerns. And really, calling that a disadvantage isn't really accurate. It's actually the central idea.

I've probably gone a bit far in saying that it's inconsistent, but you do have to recognize the tradeoff. The Lemmie/Luken regime essentially decided to outsource a good deal of the planning function, and 3CDC is the spawn of that decision. Literally, that's what the Economic Development Task Force recommended. The City wanted to cut the budget, public-private partnerships was the phrase that pays, and the corporations were willing to throw some cash on the table, but not just hand it to the City (not unreasonably). They wanted to maintain a measure of control.

But don't think that this money couldn't have been handled in house. The main advantage, really, is a flexibility in hiring and firing that the City doesn't have. But the expertise is the same. It's not like 3CDC is staffed by a race of real estate super-robots. Munitz came straight from the city.

I'm not sure that 3CDC is doing these projects from start to finish either, certainly not single-handedly. Maybe I am missing something. They end up dealing with the City, just like any other developer. Their scale is certainly an advantage.

I don't think there is anything socialist about the City making investments. It's not socialist at all, but rather capitalist. You might read Rise of the Entrepreneurial State in one of your courses. If not, and if you are interested, I could loan you a copy.

[UncleRando]

But don't think that this money couldn't have been handled in house. The main advantage, really, is a flexibility in hiring and firing that the City doesn't have. But the expertise is the same. It's not like 3CDC is staffed by a race of real estate super-robots. Munitz came straight from the city.

Agreed...I just look at their main purpose as being separate from what I perceive as the main purpose for city government.

I don't think there is anything socialist about the City making investments. It's not socialist at all, but rather capitalist. You might read Rise of the Entrepreneurial State in one of your courses. If not, and if you are interested, I could loan you a copy.

I'm not saying that it is a reasonable thought to have...I'm just stating the inevitable backlash that would occur if the city started to get more and more involved in the development game.  Just about every time that happens there seems to be a firestorm from members of the general public.  It almost seems as if the city goes above and beyond anything involving CDBG funds (and the like)...then they are overstepping their boundaries.  This is something I totally disagree with, but it seems to be what it is.

[David]

^ They get things done behind closed doors, which is a good thing in this instance.

The situation with OTR is too awkward. I've heard more than once from someone that lives in OTR ... "you're just trying to drive us(blacks) out!" ... "white people left and now they want to come back here and live". It's too touchy of a situation, but it's something they have to do. Those types of comments are from folks that have their own issues to deal with.

Not exclusive to OTR, those issues that those people have derive from poverty, dependance, leading to a lack of self empowerment. Also, with outside forces on the polar end of the spectrum like 3CDC attempting to cross huge significant boundaries of inequality, what it leads to is a lack of mutual respect, which is achieved through compassion. Dependance vs. autonomy. Haves vs. Have-nots. The fact that you pointed out solely "their own issues" exemplifies the contrast that exists. Im starting to think OTR is changing too fast, or atleast in a way that's damaging. I think 3CDC will do a great job of gentrifying OTR or atleast parts of it but I'm not sure they will have any positive effect on civic solidarity.

[LincolnKennedy]

^It's a fair point you make, Rando. I think you've hit on exactly what 3CDC is for, to provide cover for the city and corporations to make moves that neither could make without more severe blowback. But that advantage comes with some disadvantages, like an unresponsiveness to neighborhood concerns. And really, calling that a disadvantage isn't really accurate. It's actually the central idea.

Here's a quote from an article in today's Enquirer about selecting an architect for the Banks project that supports Cramer's point about these public/private partnerships:

"Just to make it a manageable project, this won't be a public process," Pope said.

Article link: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/BIZ01/712140357/1076

[Cincinnatus]

^ They get things done behind closed doors, which is a good thing in this instance.

The situation with OTR is too awkward. I've heard more than once from someone that lives in OTR ... "you're just trying to drive us(blacks) out!" ... "white people left and now they want to come back here and live". It's too touchy of a situation, but it's something they have to do. Those types of comments are from folks that have their own issues to deal with.

... The fact that you pointed out solely "their own issues" exemplifies the contrast that exists.

Keep in mind that I was using the word "issues" more geared toward racism and not financial instability or drug dependence as I guess it could come across that way. Seeing a difference between blacks and whites. Seeing it as the white man versus the black man.

[oakiehigh]

Can homeless shelter mix with condos?
BY JANE PRENDERGAST | JPRENDERGAST@ENQUIRER.COM
E-mail    |    Print    |    digg us!    |    del.icio.us!     |     Click-2-Listen

OVER-THE-RHINE – For three decades, Cincinnati’s Drop Inn Center homeless shelter has given a bed and meals to all comers, few questions asked. The largest shelter in the region, it harbors as many as 250 people a night.

Off and on for all that time, the shelter has weathered scrutiny for everything from its mission and funding to its location.

[jessehallum]

Councilman Chris Bortz, who comes from the Towne Properties development family, speaks more strongly about the situation.
He wants the Drop Inn to require clients to enroll in treatment programs, believing that would cut down on the numbers of people who hang around outside throughout the day. If that doesn’t happen, he said the shelter should move someplace where it’s not “putting enormous pressure on an already unstable neighborhood.”
“People may have that right (to choose they don’t want help), but that doesn’t mean we have to pay to help you,” he said. “I think they enable self-destructive behavior.”

I agree with Bortz 100%.

The drunks who hang out in Washington Park have no inherent right to our money and the basin's largest and most historical park.  Pandering by the city to the drop inn center was the standard through the eighties and nineties, but that policy has not worked.  I cannot see how the drop in center has improved the lives of the average poor person in OTR.  If anything, it allowed a group of drunks and degenerates to essentially live right next door to an elementary school.  It is a shame that the drop inn center has been so politically powerful, especailly when you consider the disproportionately high level of sex crime convicts who list the drop inn center as their official address. 

I have no real problem with recovery/rehab institutions in the area because those people are trying to recover from illness.  They deserve our sympathy and help. 

If the people want to be drunk and homeless, that is their business, but the shelter should be held accountable.  We are funding this institution and we should have some say as to how operates and fits into our neighborhoods.

-edited for grammar-

[Michael L. Redmond]

Cincinnati needs a place like the Drop Inn, which aims to take anyone, sober or not - “low-barrier” and “unconditional,” he calls it. That mission, he said, is what makes this city a place where you don’t see a lot people sleeping on sewer grates and in alleys.

They sleep not in sewer grates, but in great parks such as Washington Park.  I would love to see the drop inn center move along with several other social services to a place with less of an impact on the surrounding community and there are plenty of possibilities.  That being said, Downtown, and OTR are unique communities in that you can have something like this and one block over have the Duveneck.  
Every street and every block is almost a community within itself.  Mulberry and all of Prospect Hill sits within a stones throw of one of the biggest drug corners in all of Downtown, it affects us of course, but it doesn't stop us.  The surest and quickest way to make places like the Drop Inn center want to relocate is the continued development and success of the Q.  It is in their best interest to be where the homeless are and historically that has been right where they are at, but that is now changing.

[oakiehigh]

We have all discussed this before here.     Moving to another neighborhood, without a fight from those residents, doesn't look to promising either.   

The Drop Inn Center is just going to have to take responsibility for the people that it attracts.   I know all there intensions are good, but wouldn't the LOITERING issue have to be addressed by them and/or the city if they are inundated by complaints by the ever increasing amount of folks moving downtown??? 

[Michael L. Redmond]

Moving to another neighborhood, without a fight from those residents, doesn't look to promising either. 

I think we are speaking to the same thing.  First, OTR has to dry up as a homeless magnet, and with fewer vacant buildings, tighter policing, market rate redevelopment, and filled store fronts all lends to residents moving in and not putting up with the loitering, public intoxication and vagrancy.  To me, this article was asking the question can one exist next to the other and I say yes, for a while, until you hit the tipping point where as you said, one puts pressure on the other.  Right now we are going in a positive direction.

[mcmicken]

Moving to another neighborhood, without a fight from those residents, doesn't look to promising either. 

I think we are speaking to the same thing.  First, OTR has to dry up as a homeless magnet, and with fewer vacant buildings, tighter policing, market rate redevelopment, and filled store fronts all lends to residents moving in and not putting up with the loitering, public intoxication and vagrancy.  To me, this article was asking the question can one exist next to the other and I say yes, for a while, until you hit the tipping point where as you said, one puts pressure on the other.  Right now we are going in a positive direction.

Mike hits the nail on the head.  That doesn't mean we don't keep the pressure on agencies that abuse the neighborhood.

[Jimmy_James]

^ Moving the Drop Inn Center to a different neighborhood would do a world of good for OTR's revitalization.  A big reason why lots of people don't want to venture into OTR is because of this very issue.  The constant presence of drunks, addicts, panhandlers, and all other manner of homeless vagrants doesn't make for a place that a variety of people want to visit, much less live in.  The only problem with moving it is that you're essentially pushing the problem somewhere else, where a whole new set of residents will have to deal with it.

I'm all for helping the less fortunate get back on their feet, but at a certain point, you have to ask how much that "help" is costing you (outside of the obvious monetary figure), and whether or not its even working.  I'm with Bortz 100% on this.  It's important to determine who really wants help, who you actually can help, and who you're just enabling.  Because if the extent of your aid boils down to allowing people to exist on the street, you're not really doing them any favors.  I hope that the Drop Inn Center listens to him and tries to tighten their policies a bit.  If they focused on fewer people, they might even have better results because their resources wouldn't be spread so thin.  And I agree with his rationale that this would lead to less loitering in and around the Washington Park area, which has so much promise.

[GetBackCincy]

It needs to move.  It would be irresponsible to have the Drop Inn a block from a brand new k-12 school and a revitalized park.  If it is not moved, it will only serve to cheapen the investments of the city, 3cdc, and residents.  The park will be overrun with drunks and addicts, making it unsafe for the young kids going to school and the residents of the area.

While I understand the need for it, and the sensitivity in maneuvering in the politics of it, it simply cannot exist as is. Who is going to send their young child to school there with the crowd at the park?

[BlackBengal]

^ I agree 100%.  Moving all, or most, social services out of OTR would be a dream come true.  If the city wants to really fix OTR this is the only way to go.  At the risk of pissing someone off I say move them to lower price hill.