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

[Maximillian]

biggest drug corners in all of Downtown,

OTR is not downtown. Queensgate is the perfect place for a citylink/freestore/dropinn center like facility.

[mcmicken]

^ 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.

Just moving them to another neighborhood is not the solution.  No one neighborhood (with the exception of non-residential ones like Queensgate) should bear the concentration of social service agencies that OTR has.  The key is to equitably distribute them throughout the city, county, and region.  There are people with problems everywhere.

[Michael L. Redmond]

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.

Perhaps, or perhaps not--depends on where it goes.  And even if this is the case, should that be the primary concern of OTR, that we do not want to export our problems to another community.  We have to clean up our own back yard, and other communities have the same responsibility and for the past 50 years have been exporting their problems to OTR.  We have to do what is best for our own community first, but as Max said, Queensgate is a win win.

biggest drug corners in all of Downtown,
OTR is not downtown.

I said that with you in mind, happy new year Max.

[UncleRando]

We have to do what is best for our own community first, but as Max said, Queensgate is a win win.

I don't really agree with this Queensgate option being thrown out there.  As it has been mentioned...no one lives there (aside from the jail population there which will be closed down in the somewhat near future).  So by locating social services there you are making it difficult for those individuals who need them.

The new housing voucher system that has swept our nation provides a new opportunity.  No longer do social services have to be clustered around the concentrated low-income housing.  Users of the voucher system get to choose where they live essentially, and have dispersed themselves quite a bit since the program has been put into place.

As a result the social services need to get with the times and disperse themselves as well to meet the changing population patterns of those they serve.  No longer do all the low-income people of Cincinnati live in OTR and the Westend...they are still there, but not solely there.  Therefore social services still need to be present in those neighborhoods, but at a more appropriate level that matches the amount of people they serve in that neighborhood.

This, in a nutshell, is why CityLink is a horendous idea.  Concentrating services in one area would make sense if that was where those people were located.  That is no longer the case.

[Michael L. Redmond]

And I do not disagree, however here in OTR it makes perfect sense to relocate some to a Westwood, Price Hill, etc. but I doubt that the other communities will see, perhaps the logic, but certainly not the benefit.  But the bigger question is, does the social service see the logic or the benefit.  I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that the reason of continued concentration, throughtout downtown is more of a social statement than anything and the more we fight them, put them in the paper, try and pay them off to relocate, the better off they are, both financially and message wise.  To me, this is a complex problem.

[oakiehigh]

^very complex!

[jmecklenborg]

If I rented an apartment facing the park, bought 25 kegs and 25 bottles of Thunderbird, and invited 250 of my closest friends over and did it 365 days a year for the past 35 years, the proper authorities would have put an end to it in a matter of hours, 35 years ago.

[GetBackCincy]

It's just a shame to see so much potential go to waste.

[UncleRando]

If I rented an apartment facing the park, bought 25 kegs and 25 bottles of Thunderbird, and invited 250 of my closest friends over and did it 365 days a year for the past 35 years, the proper authorities would have put an end to it in a matter of hours, 35 years ago.

That's good stuff.

[The Nati Life]

Won't get long-winded on UO.  Here's my post, if you want to read it: http://natilife.blogspot.com/2008/01/drop-inn.html

[Michael L. Redmond]

If I rented an apartment facing the park, bought 25 kegs and 25 bottles of Thunderbird, and invited 250 of my closest friends over and did it 365 days a year for the past 35 years

The fact you even had that thought process makes me want to come to one of your parties.

[dmbfanatpsu]

Can I throw my going away party at your place?

[UncleRando]

Funds likely for Drop Inn Center
January 15, 2008 | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

OVER-THE-RHINE - Cincinnati's largest emergency homeless shelter, the Drop Inn Center, appears likely to get approval Wednesday by City Council for a $236,000 federal grant to help the shelter operate.

Council's Finance Committee unanimously approved the Emergency Shelter Grant on Monday.

That moves the ordinance to the full council.

Council members also agreed to mandate the hiring of a chief financial officer, more caseworkers and the construction of an inner courtyard for smoking, Councilman Jeff Berding said.

[GetBackCincy]

Well I guess that's a start...  Are they going to build an inner-courtyard for drinking and doing crack as well?

MOVE IT!

[The Nati Life]

You can't be serious.     Since when should a shelter be given money to ensure their population a comfortable place to indulge in vice?

Rando, I sincerely hope that you found this article in the "funnies" section of the paper.

[dmbfanatpsu]

WTF!

[Michael L. Redmond]

Welcome to Cincinnati.  It is distressing when you look closer at who funds or makes possible many of the social services here in OTR, it is in many cases the last person or group who you would expect.  Keep in mind that they justify this as "balance", a give and take that does nothing but interfere with the evolution of area.

[Maximillian]

Where the old Washington Park school was there is now a fugly parking lot. I know it's temporary but I'd rather see grass.

[Maximillian]

Looks like the best time to avoid the DIC area and Washington Park is when it gets really cold. 

Several Hundred Stop By Drop Inn Center
Last Update: 11:41 am  www.wcpo.com

 Freezing temperatures have brought many homeless people to shelters around the Tri-State.

Overnight, about 300 people took advantage of the Drop Inn Center in Over-the-Rhine.

A worker said that's about 50 more than a normal night.

One reason the center has been letting so many people through the door is to hopefully prevent weather-related deaths.

Glen Ward, coordinator of the Drop Inn Center, said, "Even the people on our avoid list we allow them to stay unless they're real violent, then we ask them to leave."

Donations can be made to help the center, including blankets, socks, and hats, or anything to keep warm.


 

[dmbfanatpsu]

^hmmmm.....

[jmecklenborg]

Wonder why people don't stay in those places when it's cold?  Because they've all known each other for years, been in fights, owe people money, and so on.  That's one argument for there being several shelters and why consolidating everything in one place means certain individuals wiill never show their face. 

[GetBackCincy]

Due to the lack of response to my initial post, I'm going to infer that there is not a final plan nor timetable for the Washington Park re-design.  Can anyone confirm or elaborate?

Thanks!

[Jskinner]

I don't think there is a timetable.  I believe they are still making estimates and figuring out how to pay for it. Also, they want to have the new parking garage completed next to Music Hall before removing the new "temporary" parking lot they just installed at the north end of the park.  I would guess 5 years, but others may be more optimistic.

[UncleRando]

Just thought I'd post these...I think the main plan might have already been posted, but I don't think the concept graphic has been.  Enjoy.

Washington Park Plan:


Washington Park Concept:

[dmerkow]

I'm all about the Civic Green. This should be Cincinnati's really nice (grassy) front yard. In the way, Fountain Square is the front stoop and the riverfront is the big park next door. Or something like that.

[BDRUF]

Im okay with the rendered design, but i really dont like the civic green. i think it lacks functionality. The Strolling garden looks good in plan view and is very similar to one of my previous designs, but those flanking sidewalks seems to create too much paved surface.

[UncleRando]

New type of project would help Cincinnati's chronically homeless, but not everyone's a fan
BY LUCY MAY | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER
March 7, 2008

CINCINNATI - The Over-the-Rhine Community Housing Network is working with the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. to develop a new type of housing for the city's chronically homeless.

The $3.2 million development would be the first of its kind in Greater Cincinnati and would cater to the most difficult to serve among Cincinnati and Hamilton County's homeless population. There were 9,448 homeless people in Hamilton County in 2006, according to the "2006 Homeless Information Management System Demographic Report" produced by the Cincinnati/Hamilton County Continuum of Care.

[so it goes]

First time poster, I didn't see this posted yet


Lease spat threatens expansion
BY LISA BERNARD-KUHN AND BEN FISCHER | LBERNARD@ENQUIRER.COM AND BFISCHER@ENQUIER.COM

OVER-THE-RHINE - Two multimillion-dollar plans that officials have said are vital to revitalizing one of Cincinnati's most troubled neighborhoods might be in trouble.

Officials at the Cincinnati City Center Development Corp. (3CDC) said a $14 million plan to expand Washington Park and a $16.9 million plan to build a 600-space parking garage near Music Hall could fall through.

[dmbfanatpsu]

^yikes!!!

[Michael L. Redmond]

Unless I misread this, they are saying they have a written lease agreement, but it only came up in a discussion about the reversion?  If it isn't in the lease, then they do not have the right, statute of frauds.  It says that 3CDC should have known, and then says it "needs to be a provision" does that mean that it was not a provision previously?  It is either in there or not.  I say make the reversion option only in the event of a default.  I would like to see how this law was written because if it is just a flat out right, then 3CDC is absolutely correct and no one would ever invest a dime.