nati streets

I believe early and mid date park plans showed this area with a walkway dividing the strip East to West (and if I recall correctly the elevation of the walkway was below sidewalk elevation but above top of wall elevation along the river). To the South of the walkway were large fountains (at top of wall elevation) shooting into the river, to the North was green-space/vegetation.

New video of the park is up... Cincy Parks Youtube Channel Smale Riverfront Park—MID SPRING 2012 Construction Update

For anyone who is up for a quick read, this is a great article about why city planners should be greatly inclined to zone and create policy that favors pedestrians and tourists. Yes a certain level of automobile accessibility is necessary (especially taxis etc) but parking spaces are lost money for a local economy. http://www.nbm.org/intelligentcities/topics/city/city-essay.html#full

-appreciate all the info! Considering they are still early in the process whatever models are built right now are sure to change. (I'm probably just bitter, in the middle of some SD stuff myself)

The firm, Gensler, is one of the largest architecture firms in the business (lots of offices), they also pretty good. I wonder which office they are using, anyone have info on this?

Jake- not to be a contrarian/stickler and I appreciate your point of view and expertise in many areas--- but "downtown" is used by many to refer to between 4 and 6 Cincinnati neighborhoods. (Riverfront, Queensgate, OTR, West End and Pendelton & The Banks - if you count them despite being very small and under-development respectively.) ie Where is Union Terminal...ah its "downtown." CBD I think what you mean and is referred to as such by developers. As for the placement of SCPA I had not seen it as a way of using CPkwy to corral larger buildings/money. I thought that idea had long since died off. I saw its development along with the streetcar line adjacent as a way of enticing development up to the large empty lots along CPkwy. Development along CPkwy (corporate, residential, and street commercial) would have a similar effect to the capping of Ft Washington Way. FFWay is wider and more extreme but it is surprising to have the Riverfront neighborhood so incredibly separated from the rest of the city neighborhoods. Both cases are cases of abrupt breaks in urban context and both could use "capping" either physically or zoning/investment wise. Cincinnati should strive for the blurring of the lines between its CBD and its supporting neighborhoods, it will make both healthier. The city basin is constrained enough it will likely not "bleed-out" especially if the true goal is greater density. Call it the basin, or zone 1, or downtown.... whatever. The point is that the basin neighborhoods (including parts of Cov and Newport) have a character distinct form the rest of the city's other 46 neighborhoods and countless suburbs. That character is stems from being amoungst the area's major urban landmarks and places of business... downtown.

I just had a thought, in spring 2014 you could do a really cool one-day outdoor music festival with acts at Findlay Market (parking lot, farmers shed, or south of the market), Washington Park, Fountain Square, Smale Event Lawn, with the streetcar connecting all of the venues. You could even get four singer-songwriter/acoustic acts to play on the actual streetcars. (Also I suppose you could throw another act in a parking lot on/near Central Parkway) As long as it doesn't rain. Can't rain that day. I am sure that those planning the MidPoint Music Festival are looking at the future of these outdoor venues and salivating. **With the boat dock coming on-line at the end of Main Street I would really like to see a music festival that goes big and tries to connect venues from the city (with stops at Riverfront Park & Sawyer Point) by boat to RiverBend... yeah I know its a trip but 5 years from now it could really work (and be unique).

What is your reasoning for that opinion? Why is this not a good spot? Why would closer to the Banks or Central Pkwy be better locations? Can't speak for the poster himself but on those sites such a tower would be more visible, the sites would receive more sunlight, and would have "sweeping" views of the basin (OTR, theWE, and the CBD) or river.

Scale or not, the definition is still the same- they are vending goods and beverages.

It might be a bit too soon to go king making out of the Cincinnati Parks Service- in any case I am a huge proponent of additional income is great if it helps continue Riverfront Park west of the Roebling... and continues to provide citizens with quality recreational space.

Agreed- A few years ago back in the DAAP studios images of this (http://asla.org/awards/2006/06winners/341.html) water retention/street scape project were circulating as possible precedent for most Cincy streetscape projects.... **I would love to see the bike lane plan implemented with the areas of "curb" actually becoming decent vegetated or retention areas. Also the solar powered lights seem like a throw in, and if they stay they would be better moved to the "parking meter curb" location and be double sided like this (http://www.dmxledlights.com/OutdoorLighting/SolarStreetLights/). The lights just being LED would be a nice step up and consumption wise a lot more important than being solar powered. **I would MUCH rather the street lights be like THIS: http://inhabitat.com/new-york-city-to-install-led-streetlamps/ -----It is easier on the eyes, provides visual interest, defines the "brewery district" as both NEW and OLD.

Back to Liberty Street. A lot of Liberty's problems stem from its widening years ago. It left the street with no buildings that face the street (as they were demo'd to widen the road). If Liberty needs anything it is simply buildings facing the street- whether 3CDC does it or not. (Which I sure wish someone else would because despite their high intentions they have moderate ambition and taste.)

The way I read the quote was as two phases (above/below or north/south like the two cores)... if in fact it becomes two buildings, I would say 40,000 for the first tower (that was the lower number quoted in the Enquirer) and the parking under that building. Depending on the developer and if there are struggles etc the second phase could either be on the parking garage or not, assuming the garage may only be held to the footprint of the first phase for timing reasons. If the second phase is a completely separate project... 20,000 sq ft with a 5,000 sq ft alley or garage ventilation between (for the full site of 65,000).... so that would be a 10 stories of residences with a lobby/service floor, a mechanical and small penthouse floor, so technically something like 12 floors.

A bit off topic maybe but in many ways on point, regarding the future of OTR projects: I love the old character of the neighborhood, but I find some of the completed projects and planned projects to be lacking in taste. This I believe is a result of the aesthetic guidelines for the area kept by the city review boards. As I understand it from reading portions of the proportional materials language, something as beautiful and enriching to the neighborhood as this (http://archidose.blogspot.com/2010/05/nyc-guidebook-find.html) New York rowhouse would not be allowed. Nor would a great residential midrise like this (http://www.millerhull.com/html/residential/1310.htm) Miller Hull project be allowed in the Brewery District or along Liberty because of the proportion of its facade covered in glass. This is ridiculous. Neither of these projects would hurt the character of OTR, IMO either would act as a classy contrast to the buildings around them. I realize not all modern projects have a place in OTR but some definatily do.

The following is an estimate The site is roughly 380' x 180'. Roughly 65,000 sq ft. Dunhumby's initial plans according to the Enquirer article indicate a building plan with 50,000 sq foot plates. -Any residential component would probably not cover the entire building footprint and more likely would be proportional to about half the area of the site, (this is assumed because the site's proportions lend themselves to two elevator banks... so 30,000 sq ft). -Assuming a similar apartment size mix to the "Current at the Banks" project (average 750-800 sq ft). -Largest size assumed: 180 units x 800 sq ft = 144,000 sq ft -Assume a circulation factor around 20% = 28,800 sq ft -Roughly 170,000 sq ft of Residential or 5-6 floors... (1-2) story commercial base. (2 story or loft available commercial here would be very nice here) (4-5) stories of Dunhumby commercial dedicated space. (2-3) Likely additional floors for future growth (Dunhumby says 1000 employees, I am currently on a project with a similar plate size trying to fit 600 employees on 3 floors... it is not so easy). Dunhumby says they want to grow on site. It would be smart to lease out up to 3 more additional floors for other businesses to ensure onsite growth would be available. Commercial 5-10 Residential 5-6 Overall 10-16 stories Any way you slice it it could/should be a very nice project. Hopefully it will have a sleek commercial base including two stories of street level commercial- home to a grocer and/or upscale clothiers/goods- and a residential component to the North of the site to maximize daylight/balconies to the south. I would love for this project to have a decent roof terrace or greened roof so that the desired balconies/windows to the south have a more marketable view. *if it is only business commercial I think they would fit in a few more levels for onsite insurance and overall building proportion... so basically the discussed 12. In this case I would not mind a similar to the aesthetic of 1999 K St NW (the third image posted by KyleCincy) but keep in mind that the 1999 K site is only 240ft long.

With regards to the substation discussion, and with reference to Music Hall and MH Park... It seems that Central Parkway from the substation up to Ezzard Charles should be prime residential territory. It would have a ridiculous amount of amenities from parks to culture to a unique location between rowhouses style buildings and historic structures (along Central Ave), Music Hall, City Hall, easy access to Findlay Market, exclusivity along a broad parkway but just off the side from the streetcar line... I would love to see the city or citizen group re-imagine the area prior to the influx of tourism (read: foreign money) this summer. If done properly this part of CPkwy could be a big winner as a result of Music Hall & MH Park investment. If handled properly infrastructure would be reworked along this stretch of CPkwy as to provide residential street connections to the West Side (ideally connecting Clark Street across CPkwy to Grant Street). This would really help tie OTR and Downtown to the West End. Such a plan would provide mid-rise living for patrons (high-end) as well as connections to areas affordable to artists, while opening the WE up for people to appreciate if more. Beyond street connections and streetscape improvements, this type of potential project is more about developing the idea of this area as destination which due to its amenities should not be heavy lifting for developers.

OCtoCincy- where have you read 40,000 sqft per floor? QCS is not even 40,000 sqft per floor... and the sites Dunhumby itself has mentioned do not logically support a floorplate that size.

there have been a few UC thesis projects that i can remember that actually proposed this ^^^^ idea. I have posted one of them in the past which was actually sponsored by WS (money for model, determination of brief & program)- from my old GA (PJ Bauser). WS would like to keep the old structure is what I have always heard so the complication was how to do that... then the hearst tower came along. I still think the joint between old and new on that building is horribly resolved... a partial glass curtain in front of WS's historic facade would be nice and provide more usable sq ft above (by not immediately setting back above 3 stories).

Well I see that this has really started a firestorm of activity- good. Reading the posts I think we all have a better idea of where everyone is coming from. I do feel the need to apologize for my caviler use of terms which seem to have been taken quite literally. "Metal and glass" was used as a filler for what would realisitcally have been a laundry list of more modern techniques. Please know that when I say metal I mean metal used: behind a brick rainscreen but revealed to the passerby, as exterior core-ten/oxidized steel, custom metal panels (such as the bronze used on the American folk art museum or more commonly Alucobond rainscreens), metal louvers, perforated metal facades (see DeYoung Museum or previous post about the Herzog & DeMuron infill project "8 Courts" in Munich). Also the use of the phrase "reflect the old" was a way to call upon people's understanding of the striking contrast between such contemporary styles which could actually act to highlight them rather than detract from them. The "glass" proposal was meant as the extreme of a discussion who premise is: "What if we built everything new in OTR so that we could tell it was new?" Still I appreciate the fervor, and will try to not down-play what is meant in future. *With regards to MERCER COMMONS specifically... the project would be 10Xs better if the zebra striped brick and efis facade with weird vertical protrusions could just receive a simple anodized bronze cornice (1/16" thick laminated on a build up of course), and would have a simple brown (maybe even with a glaze) brick veneer which is held above the window lintels revealing the contemporary metal beams which we use today. In this way the project would be within the realm of modern building practices, it would be inexpensive- moreover it would match the rhythm of the stone lintels, wooden cornices, and orange/red brick along the street. It would be in keeping with neighborhood datum lines and have its own character. That alone should be the goal of new development in OTR. (an aside Art Deco was not a revision of classicism-- it was an American response to European Art Nouveau with an a heavy influence on the monumental as a result of a burgeoning mechanized culture. The height and massing of Nouveau buildings such as Carew tower was a rejection of historical proportion. And I most young people I know would like to live either in an industrially refurbished historic building or a new/contemporary/non "faux" building.)

Does the detailing look very sub-urban to anyone else? I guess its mainly the fake balcony and white railing to the left side of the first image.

Here is where I am probably an outsider to this forum, mainly due to my thinking about preservation in general. I love preserved buildings, I love their quality and their character, I believe they contribute to overall infrastructural value and architectural value of a city. BUT I truly believe that going with faux historic buildings is a horrible detriment to the actual historical buildings in OTR. The character and architectural intrigue of OTR might be better served if the UDRB and other City offices flipped their position 180 degrees and encouraged extremely simple , metal and glass clad buildings. The contrast would be amazing and striking. In effect the new buildings would reflect the old or disappear viewed as mere masses amongst their historical neighbors. In the end it would show off the extreme number of historic buildings in the area. The buildings in OTR were built in keeping with with the construction advances of their time, by building something next to them that is not in keeping with our own time does not seem right.

I don't think it is the intention of this thread but Sherman IMO you are SORELY mistaken - the CAC is beautiful! The contrasting styles of the CAC next to the 21C will make for a dynamic and very visually rich block ----- Cincy needs so much more of this contrast and compliment.

To bring the conversation back to Mercer/ the topic of OTR new build in general- but with respect to Paris vs. Prague I believe that both of the following projects offer a lot and are good reminders that a diverse neighborhood (read urban historical with modern infusions) is for the better. Paris (Citron Dealership): http://www.flickr.com/photos/23355531@N06/3280716925/# Pargue (ING House): http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/dancinghouse/index.htm OR a very refined look that would go great in OTR from Herzog and de Meuron: Munich (5 Courtyards Mall) (new build + renovation): http://www.kubuildingtech.org/cooltour/gallery/5courts/source/11.html

Jake- You and John know a lot more about the previous plans then most of us. I was not aware that the previously planned (and easiest) convergence of 74 & 75 Light Rail lines would miss the business district all together. The main thing I was trying to get at was that building a station with the capability for Light Rail would start to rally people to a light rail system. I agree with you the money to do things a little more difficultly (and to the north) up front, would FAR outweigh the initial cost. As far as an airport connection is concerned, I had hoped to hear some movement on that this past year, coinciding with CVG's new director. Have there been murmurings that have not yet slipped out to the public? I agree with most posters that such a line would be a great next step. Unfortunately it is not Ohio, or even Cincinnati's next step as the line would not be in City limits for more than 2 miles, and I think we might have to wait for the new bridge to be built and incorporate a light rail track or open the BSB for a track before we can cross the river as easily as would be desired for a rapid Airport connection. I have been encouraged in the past by the far reaching goals and lines involved with the MetroMoves plan and I love extent of network dreamed in Living in Gin's graphic... but I wonder what we can leverage to continue the ball rolling before it picks up speed and can become either of these dense networks. -Could the city work with the development team from Incline Village to restablish a west side incline (developer financed but with a city financed Union Terminal Streetcar stop at its base)? Could that be paired with a Mount Adams incline, done at the same time as the pending expansion of the Cincinnati Art Museum? This could really enrich this already planned streetcar route adn create a vibrant West to East streecar line. -Do we use the old subway tunnels because construction could proceed rapidly, and because they would have their own right of way already built in? Could this be tied into bringing business interest in Camp Washington and Northside? Considering the amount of open land, empty warehouses, downtown access, and easy rail or highway shipping access either locale seems like a very good place for a planned/potential Cincinnati film and production studio. -Do we take advantage of the Riverfront transit center and tie into Newport and Covington?

This is a post in-order to bump this topic to the top of the front page thread list. The Emery opens again TONIGHT 11.11.11 Preview show and fundraiser. Tickets start at a reasonable $75 (considering this includes show and donation these are a steal!!!!) Just go... it sounds like it will be a great time and it is definitely a more than worthy cause, if you can start to imagine the way the Emery can again fill the missing role Cincy needs of a medium sized (1200 person) venue. You can order tickets here: https://sa1.seatadvisor.com/sabo/servlets/TicketRequest?eventId=501525&presenter=KNOW&venue=&event= or you can call: (513) 300-5669 Show includes-- National Recording Artists: Over-the-Rhine, the Madcap Puppet Theatre, and Exhale Dance Tribe with Drew Lachey