UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 27-May-2010 I, Timothy Neely , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Architecture in Architecture (Master of) It is entitled: Rhineland’s a Fine-Land Once More: Mobility minded redevelopment of Cincinnati’s historic OTR district Student Signature: Timothy Neely This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Nnamdi Elleh, PhD Nnamdi Elleh, PhD Aarati Kanekar, PhD Aarati Kanekar, PhD 5/27/2010 849 Rhineland’s a Fine-Land Once More: Mobility minded redevelopment of Cincinnati’s historic OTR district A thesis submitted to the: Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati In Partial Completion of the Requirements for the degree of: Master of Architecture In The School of Architecture and Interior Design Of The College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning 2010 by Timothy Neely B.A. Columbia University, 2005 Committee Chairs: Nnamdi Elleh Aarati Kanekar i ii Abstract The personal mobility of the automobile undermines the gathering of people in cities as centers of collective amenity. The isolation of auto traffic is reflected in buildings surrounded by parking with no detail at the human scale. Asphalt infrastructure characterizes the public space of the street with such a universal sameness that large parts of the city seem generic and placeless. The potential introduction of a streetcar for the city of Cincinnati presents the occasion to design policy and built work that promote public life and the activation of public space. The neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine provides a unique setting to address the return of urban space to more pedestrian friendly scale as these buildings weren’t designed for the speed and isolation of the car. The location of the streetcar line and its stops allow opportunities to address both event space and the everyday space of the street. The public space of the street, its activation, and its “imageability” are the focus of this thesis. iii Table of Contents Abstract iii Introduction 1 Mobility and the American City 3 Car Based Development 5 Role of the Architect 7 Cincinnati Transportation Politics 8 Lessons from Portland 13 Life Between Buildings 17 Architecture of Collective Amenity 27 Purposeful Mobility 27 Townscape 30 Site Selection 32 Site History and the Over-the-Rhine Master Plan 33 Site Conditions 44 Project 49 Bibliography 59 iv Images Figure 1 - Center for Public Space Research/Realdania Research. “Close Encounters With Buildings.” Danish Architectural Magazine (2004): 7. Figure 2 - Center for Public Space Research/Realdania Research. “Close Encounters With Buildings.” Danish Architectural Magazine (2004): 4. Figure 3 – Jan Gehl New City Spaces. Copenhagen: The Danish Architectural Press, 2000. 42. Figure 4 – Neely, Tim. Digital map made from GIS information. 2009 Figure 5 – Neely, Tim. Collage from pictures and Digital Diagram. 2009 Figure 6 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Introduction”, http://www.cincinnati- oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 7 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Executive Summary”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 8 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Executive Summary”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ - pdf map altered by Tim Neely Figure 9 – Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study. “Streetcar Development Study Option.” http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads Figure 10 - Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study. “Streetcar Development Study Alternative B.” http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads Figure 11 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Transportation”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 12 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Transportation”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ , pdf altered by Tim Neely v Figure 13 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Transportation”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 14 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Economic Development”, http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 15 - Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan, “Quality of Life”, http://www.cincinnati- oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3652-/ Figure 16 - Digital Diagram 2010 Figure 17 – Neely, Tim. Digital Diagram. 2010 Figure 18 - Neely, Tim. Digital Diagram. 2010 Figure 19 - Neely, Tim Rendering 2010 Figure 20 - Neely, Tim Digital Map Figure 21 - Michael Schuster Associates, "Government Square Transit Center", http://www.msaarch.com/ Figure 22 - Michael Schuster Associates, "Government Square Transit Center", http://www.msaarch.com/ Figure 23 - Neely, Tim Digital Rendering Figure 24 - Neely, Tim Digital Diagram Figure 25 - Neely, Tim Digital Rendering Figure 26 - Neely, Tim Digital Rendering Figure 27 - Neely, Tim Digital Diagram vi Introduction A city is defined by its streets and the space between buildings as much or more so than it is by its landmark buildings and singular destinations. This space is today characterized by an ever growing abyss of asphalt that has drained the richness of Cincinnati's architectural heritage. Streets treated as conduit for transportation and utilities ought to be celebrated as public space and part of the identity of a city. As the dominant means of transport, the car is responsible for these deleterious effects on this space between the built environment. As the primary interface between private and public realms, all streets, signs, and buildings have become scaled to the speed of the car. The car functions as an isolation chamber in the public realm of the street and has facilitated the undervaluing of public life by creating the illusion of an entirely privatized environment. One leaves his or her private home, gets in a private car, and arrives at a private business. This complete physical removal from the public realm allows for, and tacitly rationalizes, a disengagement from any sense of community and society at large. The shift to auto traffic and the escape to the suburbs has dismantled the original purposes of gathering in cities. Cities are meant to be centers of collective amenity - not a stop on the way back to the suburbs. Transit is a large part of that collective amenity and the population density in urban centers is better served by a variety of transit options. Planners and architects have been aiding car development when they ought to be serving more humane needs. pg. 1 Recognition of the benefits of mass transit has been lost somewhere in America‟s acceptance of car culture; however, as the shortcomings the automobile become more obvious, so do the advantages of rail transit. Part of this thesis is to deconstruct the historical context - the policy and cultural milieu during which the rail transit options were deconstructred - to determine why Cincinnati has made such a complete and seemingly irreversible shift to rubber wheeled transit. Mobility and the American City During America‟s Industrial Revolution, cities grew at unprecedented rates. European cities of similar or greater density had developed in smaller increments over longer periods of time. This more gradual approach to city living allowed a greater appreciation of the benefits of collective amenity, while being able to deal with its downfalls at a more reasonable scale, over a longer period of time. The quality of life spawned by the rush to industrial centers made American city dwellers wary of urban living. 1 (Kunstler 1993, 39) The design of Central Park on Manhattan was a response to the ills of industrial urban living. The park became an escape to more bucolic setting, on what was the periphery of developed land on the industrial southern end of the island. It was not long after this development that what may be thought of as the first modern suburbs emerged on the periphery of New York and Chicago. These first developments built off private rail lines created a kind of linear suburb emanating from the city center. The 1 James Howard Kunstler, Geography of Nowhere (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 39. pg. 2 suburban home provided their owners with the peace, privacy, and green space they could not find in the city. The narrow tree-lined streets terminating in wooded squares suggest a design scaled to a human pace that respects a connection to nature.2 (Kunstler 1993, 39) Early suburban development coincided with the formation of zoning laws. 1916 zoning laws protected domestic space from industrial space and other types of development by designating areas for different uses. For example, factories could be constructed anywhere, destroying the character of an area once mostly used for housing. The large scale production of car-based suburbs aided in protecting investments in private homes from developments that might decrease property values and quality of life. Subdivisions of suburban housing would also help protect people‟s investments from eminent domain. At the time it was not uncommon for the federal government or another entity to seize land for rail lines or other projects. 3 (Kunstler 1993, 55) At the beginning of the 1900‟s rail transit was seen as a real estate venture benefiting the rich captains of industry – far from being seen as a public transit service. The automobile‟s increasing affordability and the freedom of mobility that it provided, was seen as a more democratic form of transportation. The transition from rail also happened because of the rail tycoons‟ general mistrust and dislike of government intervention. At the same time, the auto and oil lobbyists were taking over town halls and funding political campaigns.4 (Kay 1997, 177) New rail lines and upkeep of the rail 2 James Howard Kunstler, Geography of Nowhere (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 48 3 James Howard Kunstler, Geography of Nowhere (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 55 4 Jane Holts Kay, Asphalt Nation (New York: Crown Publishers, 1997.) 177 pg. 3 lines were not only privately funded but heavily taxed. New roads, houses, and the infrastructure to support them all became subsidized by the government making it cheaper to continually expand outward rather than making upgrades to existing infrastructure and housing stock.