05 June 2008

Model at Mercer and Vine

Some construction has begun in the existing buildings on Vine Street, just north of Mercer Street. This project is directly across the street from the other Model project I blogged about last month. So far it looks like they are just doing interior demolition in preparation for the rehab. There will also be a new building in the parking lot in the foreground of this picture. I believe this project is called Trinity Flats and Glaserworks is the architect.
 


West Elevation facing Vine Street. All the buildings on the left are existing, the one on the right is proposed for the vacant lot in the photo above:
 


Proposed South Elevation, facing Mercer Street. There appears to be a garage door to the right and aluminum storefront to the left, at Vine Street:
 

[Where: 1332 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202]

12 comments:

columbus exile said...

Is it just me or does this thing kind of look messed up? The idea is to have new builds fit in with the existing buildings, right?

This king looks like it got hit with the modern architecture ugly stick.

CityKin said...

I think the elevation is too busy.

OTRFAN said...

It does look complicated - but I hope that might turn into 'character'.. and keeps the momentum.

NEXT STOP - WIELERT'S!!

VisuaLingual said...

I have one thought about the seeming busy quality of the facade. It seems to me that the facades of a lot of infill projects are not really detailed enough to fit with the details of their neighbors, and to really generate adequate interest at the pedestrian scale. Also, breaking up the width of the facade minimizes the perceived scale of the project and creates the illusion of several narrow structures which, again, is more in line with its neighbors. I'm not really defending the design per se, but I feel like I understand the logic behind these choices.

Paul Wilham said...

It is not difficult to build new infill architecture that mimics historic, its just more expensive. Architecturally the building is out of context with the surrounding structures. In most major cities with historic districts this likely wouldnt be permitted. Maybe the Historic commission is setting the standard for infil too low. I dont knwo if teh uildings that were there before had any architecural value or not but what I would like to see Is where they keep the facade of the old structure and build new behind it. Indianapolis saved several historic facades when they built circle center mall. You can save it if you want, you just have to want to!

Radarman said...

Hold on a minute. It's not like we're dealing with Edinburgh Old Town here. OTR has buildings from the twentieth century and the nineteenth. Imitation old architecture is always just that. Imitation. Respect the scale. Maybe respect the building materials. But, for God's sake, please no fake nineteenth century imitation of "Italianate."

justforview said...

I agree. What makes a place interesting is that it is a theme park for a single style but the various styles and values that are juxtaposed.

Design guidelines should attempt to mimic, but respect.

justforview said...

not a theme park. yikes

Paul Wilham said...

Among national historic preservation circles,Over the Rhine is known as a premere example of Italiante architectute. That is why it is important. Is is one of only a few cities to have this much intact architecture! It is as important architecturally as a town like Williamsburg or Chaleston SC. Because it is intact historically. When you just start dropping anything into it you destroy the architecture in its original historical context. Many people from Cincinnati do not understand the national respect for OTR being one of the largest "intact" assemblages of surviving Italianate architecture in the nation. I understand you cant save everything, but if the original facade of a building is there it should be saved, you can build new construction behind it, but the historic streetscape is important. Whe city planners are short sighted and if we take a "lets just build buildings" because we create investment, you ruin any chance for Cincinnati to be a Historic Tourism destination, which it could be and would bring Millions of dollars into the economy and provide large numbers of service jobs, and convention business as well as make OTR one of teh most exxpensive housing in the city.

CityKin said...

I don't want to live in a museum, AKA Williamsburg. The vibrancy and life of the neighborhood is more important than tourism IMO.

justforview said...

I think that Cincinnati realizes the significance of OTR. Maybe not everyone all the time, but there are many well intentioned people working hard on a daily basis to balance the complexity present in the neighborhood.

The absence of a planning dept. during the time places like Indy where revitalizing their downtowns definitely set the city back, but that is one of the things that is inherent about Cincinnati, for better and worse.

It goes back to Mark Twain's aphorism that everything happens 20 years late in Cincinnati.

VisuaLingual said...

Sure, a lot of structures of essentially the same time period are intact in one neighborhood, but a neighborhood is a living thing, not a moment in time. I would much prefer for these infill projects to simply represent the best of contemporary practice and the best response to contemporary needs. That doesn't mean that context should be ignored, but it doesn't entail watered-down historicism either.