thebillshark

^i take issue with that article- is there really a person out there that would turn down a boatload of money because they refuse to come to Cincinnati that’s so much more “talented” than the next person in line that would come here? These writers have their heads up their rears with this “creative class” stuff sometimes. Also I think it over-emphasizes the difference one person can make in arenas where sweeping macro forces are at play. Also in the case of a consumer products company like P&G would it really be more helpful to have the executives in an elite enclave like New York or London where they are more disconnected from the lifestyle and habits of the average person?

^what’s the status of that rail ROW? Does any of it still have ROW status? Is the Gantry the only significant structure blocking it? (I’m not “blaming” the Gantry for blocking it BTW-I dont know if that could ever be useful again and it goes right through the heart of everything)

This is the “Dragon Hoard” economy. A lot of gold accumulating in hoards without much effect on the townspeople in the village below. Except when a few of them get roasted by the dragon here and there.

I agree this is bad news but one of the things I don’t get is, isn’t there like 12 other board members? How can this guy come in and start making moves on his own?

Downtown location for Trader’s World? Have half the town ready to go for Amazon HQ2? I really hope they don’t close that Macy’s store though. I make a specific point to patronize it & we just did a lot of Christmas shopping there

I think it’s a great project actually. Some new apartment infill projects have long walls with no entrances facing the street, meanwhile their entrances face into an interior parking lot that comes right up to people’s front windows, hardly a shrubbery in between. This faces outward towards the public space of the street and the parking is contained in two neat rows behind it and the parking does not dominate the site. More detailed plans here: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/dec-15-2017-packet/ I will take a project that has a solid urbanist site plan over chasing the unicorn of “Good” or “Great” architecture whatever that means.

Will it add population to the neighborhood? Check. Does the building address the street? Check. Does it have entrances along the sidewalk that will create sidewalk activity? Check. Sounds like a good project to me.

My takeaway from the evening walk tonight: Sixth Street would easily be the CBD’s best, most vibrant street if the Terrace Plaza came back to life. This project should be downtown’s number one priority. (Especially off they dropped the solid brick facade like in Birkla’s rendering) https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/08/04/developer-unveils-bold-plan-for-deteriorating.html

You’re right! http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2015/03/16/cincy-property-deals/24869107/ That surprised me since we’ve been following this fairly closely in the OTRCC’s housing and economic development committee. But I guess the V stands for “voluntary” so they could make it part of any deal! Sounds like the Baldwin Building was a complex deal with historic tax credits and a TIF.

During your abatement period, the city and county portion of your tax bill will be based on the pre-renovation value of your property, which means that CPS still collects the full amount they are owed based on the post-renovation value. Then, with the recently added VTICA policy, you must pay a small percentage of the abatement you receive into community organizations/programs. For Downtown/OTR residents, that's the streetcar operating fund. For Walnut Hills, it's WHRC. I'm not sure I've seen examples in other neighborhoods but most likely a similar deal would happen. After your abatement expires, you go back to paying the full tax bill based on the post-renovation value which means your VTICA contribution ends. Just to clarify I am fairly certain the streetcar is currently the only VTICA item in the city. It gets a "clawback" from abatements awarded to projects located in downtown, OTR, and adjoining areas (I don't have a link to a map, but it's a larger area than one would think.) There are proposals out there to institute VTICA citywide that could be used for community development corporations as administered by a third party and a citywide affordable housing fund: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/26/exclusive-cincinnati-set-to-overhaul-tax-breaks.html?ana=RSS%26s=article_search I don't know where this is in process with council but I don't think this third-party group had been identified yet, and things were put on hold for the election it seems. Under this scenario I THINK that all of downtown/OTR's VTICA (according to existing boundaries) would still go to the streetcar, so no extra VTICA money for specific projects in downtown/OTR, but downtown/OTR would be still able to draw on the city's affordable housing fund.

You could go further down the rabbit hole and make properties receiving abatements “cap-exempt” where they pay a fixed rate after their abatement is up, that would presumably generate more revenue than the lower “capped” rate. But I don’t know if more complexity is really what we need in this system.

^i wonder if “the cap” negativity affects the city's motivation to develop surface parking lots downtown?

(See link re: Power Buildkng below) Isn’t one of the ways we get affordable market-rate housing is to have existing buildings age as new buildings come online and command higher rents? Don’t we wish we had more of this kind of building stock downtown and in OTR? Then how is this kind of intervention into the regular market justifiable? http://cin.ci/2Bm9q3q

The article calls says about 6 floors of the building will be turned into a 450 car garage topped off with office space. It mentions a call center as one of the possible uses, because of the ability to provide parking. I wonder if there are any technical advantages to having a call center right across from the Bell building? I wonder if they could leverage this new garage to replace any of the aging garages in the area. The one south of the Bell building and the Federated garage to the north of the Bell building are particularly unsightly. They probably won’t though

I actually like what’s there (including all the newer City West stuff) and walk around it quite a bit. I think overall what’s there is good urbanism. It’s definitely “walkable.” What I have noticed that I don’t care for though is the new stuff does waste space here and there. For example having wide driveways and streets instead of narrower alleys and similiar things. You can see it in this plan- the green space in between the driveways won’t function well as either private backyards or public space, and the awkward way the buildings meet the corner at John and Clark Street.

The city is cheating itself out of future tax revenues if they approve a plan like that. They could have 2 or 3 times the income tax earners living in that location. But does anyone at city hall even think like that?

That plan is horrible. Townhomes should at least have the density of the existing City West development such as those on Mound Street to the south and along Cutter Street. It would be nice if they had some multi family buildings or even mixed use building on the corners as well.

If we lived in an alternate universe where all the metro area were all one single political jurisdiction, or if someone were an impartial observer from outer space, the I think the stadium would make the most sense in Newport. There’s more synergies with entertainment options there- Newport on the Levee, the Aquarium, the planned Ferris wheel- and already 2 hotels nearby. Not to mention the attractions of downtown Cincinnati. I think a Newport stadium has more potential to draw visitors from outside the region for a long weekend. Here’s what I think some of the players in this game are thinking- The team ownership has incentive for Oakley because the Port Authority stadium ownership structure saves money on sales tax for construction materials. This Port Authority deal is not available in Kentucky. Cranley (and thus the city) wants Oakley because it would fit in with his past support for development in the area. Enlightening article here: http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/22/loc_oakley22.html To be fair- someone, sometime will have to do something with that site lest it sit vacant for years. Hamilton County wants PBS because they’ve bet the farm on the Banks. They’re concerned the Bengals may leave someday. They would get increased parking revenue from the parking garages they own for FC games. An interesting question- would a Newport stadium also produce parking revenues at the Banks? If so, would that draw more revenue to the county than constructing the stadium in Hamilton County itself, after you consider the expense of constructing new facilities? The city of Newport seems to be letting Corporex handle negotiations.

No bridges over the RR tracks though. So if you live in the single family home neighborhood to the south and get the inkling to try to walk to something here, tough luck.

The parking lots for the movie theatre and big box stores in that rendering have a greenish tint to them that makes them look like parkspace or something (they’re not of course)

Demolition is in progress as we speak (saw it when I drove by.) Don’t know what the scope is of required remediation. Article: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/09/06/exclusive-cast-fab-selling-former-oakley-facility.html Yeah I was wondering that to. It seems like that huge Target/Meijier lot is never more than half full. The stadium would need some parking beyond the 1,000 car proposed garage and I wonder if they are counting on being able to use some of these huge surface lots. But there wouldn’t be any incentive for the property owners to share any parking revenue with the club even if the box stores agreed to let the lots be used.

I drove around the Oakley site last night. The area is big box stores and parking lots and doesn’t really have a sense of place. It may be “in Cincinnati”, but there’s little about it that’s specifically “Cincinnati”. (Or even “Oakley” for that matter- “Oakley” makes me think of the walkable neighborhood and Square area to the south.) In contrast, in Newport the Cincinnati skyline would be looming large right there and all of downtown Cincinnati’s activity would be right over the river. That’s why I really can’t understand people opposed to Newport because it’s “not Cincinnati”, or that think Cincinnati is going to “lose” or “be embarrassed” if the stadium is built in Kentucky.

I think this is optimistic. We’ve already built two stadiums and a world class park and all we got in that area was three mid rise apartment buildings so far

How can this be if they’ve been wanting to develop Ovation for years?

For the Record I do think joining MLS has huge intangible, hard to quantify benefits (just like the streetcar.) I think soccer and MLS will only grow over time in cultural importance. It is pretty unusual luck that we have a shot at joining over some faster growing peer cities all things considered. It may be crying over spilt milk, but I don’t see an Oakley site as building into the strengths and synergys our city has already created namely at the Banks. The reasons that led to this Oakley plan are real but to me they are a little frustrating. But an Oakley stadium would be functional and help us win the bid.