Author Topic: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News  (Read 21258 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9011
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #390 on: August 10, 2018, 11:08:48 AM »
But you NEED NBDs and other commercial for it to be good density.

Offline DEPACincy

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 281
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #391 on: August 10, 2018, 11:17:30 AM »
Lots of commercial in South Philly. There are corner stores, restaurants, and cafes on just about every corner--in row house type buildings. And the neighborhood's "main street" called Passyunk Avenue is vibrant and bustling. Plus there's the famous Italian Market. All this without high rises.

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


Offline neilworms

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1484
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #392 on: August 10, 2018, 11:19:11 AM »
Again, the commerical stuff could have been built on a smaller footprint to accomodate the old development.

Its not a hard concept here's an example in Chicago where a historic diner was saved:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8673165,-87.6392218,3a,45y,56.37h,94.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si1s6fRBryLl003m8tIF-1w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

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

Offline edale

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 476
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #393 on: August 10, 2018, 12:27:21 PM »
I agree with what you're saying @neilworms, and I similarly think that the new development on Calhoun and McMillan could have accommodated at least some of the more impressive historic buildings that were on the site. The example you provided of the diner in Chicago is a bit of a weird one, though, as the building that was saved is a simple one story structure, with no obvious historic value. Unless there is some sort of cultural or historical importance to this diner, it seems like this might be more of a NIMBY victory than a preservation one.  Also, based on this thread on SSP, it looks like Chicago has a pretty massive problem of their own when it comes to preservation: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=233475

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15211
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #394 on: August 10, 2018, 12:49:10 PM »
You can get impressive density in a neighborhood of 3-4 story rowhouses.

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

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

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


Offline edale

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 476
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #395 on: August 10, 2018, 01:14:22 PM »
Yeah, LA has a lot of what I'd call 'hidden density'. From the street, many of the neighborhoods look somewhat suburban or not all that dense due to the front setbacks that are so prevalent in the city. But you have a lot of apartment buildings that are oriented perpendicular to the street, and buildings (like you said) go to the rear lot line or very close to it.

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

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

Aerial: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hollywood,+Los+Angeles,+CA/@34.1102277,-118.2862596,196m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bf07045279bf:0xf67a9a6797bdfae4!8m2!3d34.0928092!4d-118.3286614
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 01:43:57 PM by edale »

Offline neilworms

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1484
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #396 on: August 10, 2018, 01:35:41 PM »
I agree with what you're saying @neilworms, and I similarly think that the new development on Calhoun and McMillan could have accommodated at least some of the more impressive historic buildings that were on the site. The example you provided of the diner in Chicago is a bit of a weird one, though, as the building that was saved is a simple one story structure, with no obvious historic value. Unless there is some sort of cultural or historical importance to this diner, it seems like this might be more of a NIMBY victory than a preservation one.  Also, based on this thread on SSP, it looks like Chicago has a pretty massive problem of their own when it comes to preservation: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=233475

The diner is kind of a cultural landmark, its a perfectly preserved 1930s diner aimed at a working class audience and is considered a local landmark for its longevity and representing a pretty much bygone era.  I wasn't giving a one to one comparison with Cincinnati it just was the best example I could think of where a mega development worked around an older established building - I wanted to illustrate that yes it can be done don't let the developers tell you otherwise.  I don't really think of this as a NIMBY victory either as the whole area was pretty desolate before those developments came in - it was a warehouse / industrial area probably urbanrenewed back in the mid century.

Chicago is pretty bad at preservation, I'm not as up in arms about it as I am with Cincy as Chicago does a lot to make itself stand out and Cincinnati has a very hard time branding itself in spite of itself.  (that and Chicago's neighborhood building stock outside of the loop isn't generally as impressive as Cincinnati's - I'd also make the same arguement for San Francisco or Boston just having better neighborhood vernacular)
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 01:44:36 PM by neilworms »

Offline Yves Behar

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 283
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #397 on: August 10, 2018, 01:45:08 PM »
This is currently occurring here as well where the new Kroger building on Central is being built around the historic 1 story bank building on the corner.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15211
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #398 on: August 10, 2018, 02:05:32 PM »
This is close to where I live. Check the difference between the view from the street vs the aeiral:

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

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

That's a great example, and illustrates why people are so startled when they see LA's residential density figures.  It also illustrates why the original red line subway under Vermont up to Hollywood was not the irrational project it appeared to be.  Wilshire has always been the more obvious candidate for a subway...that's why Henry Waxman focused on stopping it.   

The thing about LA is that the basin is flat and so aside from the LA river there isn't any natural feature that blocks movement in all directions.  That's not the case in CUF, obviously, and is a reason why I still believe there is merit in extending the streetcar north from Henry St. via a tunnel in line with Clifton Ave. to a portal near Deaconess Hospital.  The thing that I think has even greater potential is a streetcar line on a reservation in Linn St. that connects to UC via a tunnel.  So with a downtown connection, Linn St. could be made to be a high-value location with fantastic accessibility to downtown and UC/Hospitals without building a ton of track. 

A tunnel entering the hill around Stonewall St. could quickly take streetcars from the existing line and a future Linn St. line to Clifton Ave.:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rhinegeist+Brewery/@39.1229746,-84.524039,1221m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b3f9acd61b67:0x402ea6be65897064!8m2!3d39.1172664!4d-84.5201012

...then the line would turn east at MLK and travel to the VA, UC, Children's, etc. 








Offline Yves Behar

  • Huntington Tower 330'
  • **
  • Posts: 283
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #399 on: August 10, 2018, 02:29:03 PM »


Online carnevalem

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 162
Re: Cincinnati: CUF: Development and News
« Reply #401 on: August 12, 2018, 12:55:14 PM »
The thing about LA is that the basin is flat and so aside from the LA river there isn't any natural feature that blocks movement in all directions.  That's not the case in CUF, obviously, and is a reason why I still believe there is merit in extending the streetcar north from Henry St. via a tunnel in line with Clifton Ave. to a portal near Deaconess Hospital.  The thing that I think has even greater potential is a streetcar line on a reservation in Linn St. that connects to UC via a tunnel.  So with a downtown connection, Linn St. could be made to be a high-value location with fantastic accessibility to downtown and UC/Hospitals without building a ton of track. 

A tunnel entering the hill around Stonewall St. could quickly take streetcars from the existing line and a future Linn St. line to Clifton Ave.:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rhinegeist+Brewery/@39.1229746,-84.524039,1221m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b3f9acd61b67:0x402ea6be65897064!8m2!3d39.1172664!4d-84.5201012

...then the line would turn east at MLK and travel to the VA, UC, Children's, etc.

I like this idea. What about extending your Clifton tunnel slight farther south to the subway tunnel? What about extending the line farther north along Clifton into a tunnel that connects to the rail interchange at Mitchell? You'd have an almost completely grade separated trip from the commuter lines to downtown, with a stop at UC and a potential connection to your MLK line.

You'd also avoid this issue:
I am not an expert on this issue but from everything I've heard it's impossible to add service south of Norwood without building a fourth track between Mitchell Ave. and CUT, which would cost in excess of $100 million. 
And solves this:
I do think that an intercity plan could be combined with commuter rail to justify an outlay for double-tracking.  But CUT would be a weak Cincinnati terminus.  The transit center would be better, and a tunnel through uptown would be much, much better.