|
|
Major changes could come as soon as next year to one of Cincinnati’s most eclectic and cherished neighborhoods. But whether it will ensure the Clifton Gaslight District’s prosperity or permanently destroy its character is hotly debated.
A developer is proposing a large project between Ludlow and Howell avenues, near the center of the business district, that would include condominiums, office space and a retail area. Jack Brand’s project also would include a new public plaza and a larger space for the Clifton branch library, now located in a cramped storefront, at a reduced rental rate.
Brand, a 20-year Clifton resident, is partnering with more experienced developers such as Tom Neyer and Henry Schneider on the project.
Some residents who have seen preliminary plans, however, say the project’s size — it would include at least one eight-story building along Howell — is out of scale with the neighborhood and would overwhelm surrounding structures. Additionally, they believe that razing houses to make way for the project, as well as the extra traffic it would generate, will lower property values and prompt many to move from the area.
Opponents have begun circulating petitions to stop the project, which would first need rezoning approval from the city’s Planning Commission and Cincinnati City Council before it could proceed. Other hurdles include approval needed from the Clifton Business and Professional Association and the Clifton Town Meeting, the latter of which serves as the neighborhood’s community council.
None of the groups have yet signed off on the project, but some Clifton business owners and city council members are enthusiastic about it.
‘A shot in the arm’
Although the Gaslight District’s mainstays, such as the Esquire Theatre, small eateries and bohemian shops, still attract crowds at night, the area’s overall economic health is shaky, Brand says. He cites the recent closing of New World Bookstore and Za, the former Uno’s Restaurant & Bar site.
“The point is, the business district needs a shot in the arm,” Brand says. “We feel the development we’re proposing would do that.”
A former Clifton Town Meeting president, Brand has butted heads with residents before. Another development proposal, to demolish a former funeral home on Clifton Avenue and build a four-story building to house a restaurant and 12 apartments, is the subject of a legal challenge. The case is scheduled for hearing in mid-June.
Longtime resident Michael Ramundo, who has led opposition to both projects, says they don’t comply with the standards set in the 1994 long-range urban renewal plan passed by the Town Meeting.
“He’s trying to shove another monster building down our throats,” Ramundo says. “I’m shocked at the audacity of it because he’s a Clifton resident and he knows the Clifton plan.”
Brand’s preliminary plan calls for an eight-story building containing 38 condos near Howell and Ormond avenues, along with a five-story building with 120,000 square feet of office space and 35,000 square feet of retail space near Ludlow Avenue.
Other features include replacing the Merchant’s Lot, a 91-space parking lot near Keller’s IGA, with a 450-space parking garage that would mostly be underground. Retail space would be on top of the deck, closer to Ludlow, with offices on upper levels.
A pedestrian plaza connecting Ludlow to Howell would be built between the condos and retail space on land that now contains Bender Optical. The business association and the Town Meeting jointly own that site, and the business association owns the Merchant’s Lot. Both would have to agree to sell the properties to make the project a reality.
The project would also include up to 9,000 square feet of space for the Clifton library, which would be offered to the cash-strapped library board at the same rate as its current 2,000 square feet “until such a time that their finances change, which may never happen,” Brand says.
Partially sparking the idea for the project was the fact that the 1994 urban renewal plan called for the city to build more parking and the library board to build a larger space, but neither could afford it, he adds.
“After a while, that caused me to begin a quest for private funding,” Brand says.
Brand hasn’t put a price tag on the project but concedes he would probably seek city funding — in the form of tax increment financing — for its public portions, including the parking deck, plaza and library.
Developers estimate it will take about six months to tweak designs and get administrative approvals. They’d like to begin construction in 2007 and say the project could be finished in 12 to 18 months.
The land is zoned for residential and limited commercial uses. Brand wants a planned-development designation that would provide more flexibility about what could be built there. That would require at least two hearings before the Planning Commission and a vote by city council.
‘Always pushing it’
At a special forum by the Clifton Town Meeting in March, the crowd mostly seemed opposed to the proposal. But as residents learn more they’ll see the benefits, Brand says.
Opponents counter that details are in flux and haven’t been forthcoming, justifying their concern.
“We don’t really have specific drawings,” Ramundo says, noting that Brand has said the size, design and even the building materials are subject to change. “We have nothing concrete. He wants our support before we see anything. It’s an outlandish concept.”
Concerns about the project’s size don’t take into account the fact that it would be built on a sloping parcel between Ludlow and Howell, Brand says. Because Ludlow is on a higher elevation, the portion fronting that street would be about 25 feet wide and three stories tall. About 100 feet back from Ludlow, toward Howell, the building would get taller and would rise to eight stories tall on Howell.
Richard Druffel, Clifton Town Meeting president, says more specifics are needed before the group votes on the project.
“What we concluded was we needed more than preliminary plans in order to critically evaluate whether the project, in net, was a benefit to the community,” he says. “There’s kind of a sense that the project hits a lot of needs in the community, but they’re trying to figure out at what price.”
Druffel doesn’t intend to make any decisions on the project at the Town Meeting’s June 5 session. A possible vote on another item — whether to begin construction on the pedestrian plaza — might affect the project’s fate.
Several city officials are cautiously optimistic, stating the project could help Cincinnati’s goal of fostering neighborhood revitalization in older areas.
“I want to see what they’re proposing and where Clifton Town Meeting ultimately stands on the issue,” says Councilman John Cranley. “Obviously, we want to see new investment, but we also want to preserve the character of the neighborhood.”
Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell, who has talked to the developers, is more supportive.
“It’s dynamite,” he says. “It’s just the type of in-fill development we’re looking for and should support. It’s not without it’s challenges; the devil is in the details. There will be adjustments to find a middle ground.
“To make the older business districts stronger and keep them on track is right at the heart of what we need to do in this city. It really maximizes the space and increases the residential density. The gain will significantly outweigh the drawbacks.”
Councilman Chris Bortz, who is a developer, also likes the concept.
“It could be a very important economic generator in Clifton,” he says. “It would provide much needed parking and office space in the area, but it’s important for the community council to weigh in and the residents’ concerns be addressed.”
Ramundo believes city officials are so eager to get new development and expand the tax base, however, that they’ll accept projects that aren’t in residents’ best interests.
“This project would double or triple the traffic in the area, which is already bad,” Ramundo says. “I wish somehow that our government officials would help us out. We’ve spent millions of dollars creating a zoning code and these neighborhood plans, but they’re always pushing it right to the edge with new projects.” ©
This article appears in May 24-30, 2006.