Civvik

That nationally known urban adviser from Minneapolis that came here several years ago said that once Cincinnati built The Banks, NOTL would fail. I wonder if he will be right?

Yes definitely some light columns or something to add some rythym would be a good idea. I feel like I've seen a pic of that though already somewhere...

After repeated offenses, yes. It seems you missed all the hubbub over the nasty-gram UO received in 2009, co-signed by Ohio's eight largest newspapers because many UO members were posting entire articles here? We had to hide all threads where entire articles were posted (hundreds of threads!!), and then clean up those threads one at a time before making them visible again. There are still 177 threads yet to be cleaned and made visible again. That threatening letter from Ohio's eight largest newspapers is why we vigorously enforce the rules limiting the posting of copyrighted material. When in doubt, we will delete just to be safe. Got it? Back to the streetcar. Any construction updates? Photos? Thank you for all the fluster. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. If you think that I missed the 2009 thread cleaning you should perhaps refresh your memory on who I am? I don't like to see moderators here chiding our longstanding, contributing members. Sets a bad tone. If the forum guidelines on posting copyrighted content need refinement, just refine them. But we should certainly know what we can do based on careful review and consensus. Not on-the-fly moderator speculation.

People will walk to The Banks. There was no reason to go down there at lunch time until very recently. All you have to do to predict this behavior is look at other cities with similar destinations. People walk blocks and blocks at lunch in Chicago to sit in Millennium Park on a nice day, or get something to eat. I'm proof of that.

I did not know it was only 3500 square feet. A nice restaurant can be built (from the ground up) for around $150 a square foot, $200 would be extremely upscale. Mahogony's was given $684,000 which comes out to around $195 per square foot to finish out their space. The city is basically paying for everything via the grant. I guess the loan is for operating expenses. Correct you are. I lease Commercial RE for a living. The TI and FFE loan and grant the city is giving up is off of the charts bad. I would have not loaned $$ for Toby Kieth either. The prime developer goes to their lender to get $$ for space improvements, if the Tenant has credit and solid P/L statements of course. The Tenant Improvement $$ are amortized in the rental rate and the term of the lease. Of course the City played lender on this deal, very stupid. The grant $$ is equal to about 10 years of free rent. Epic fail by the city. I'd have to hear what Carter or Anderson had to say about their experience getting tenants in that space so far. This is not exactly a conventional development.

I like Mallory and Doheny particularly for these reasons, most of the time. They relentlessly pursue their vision for Cincinnati, and make every effort to plow through the political muck to make their vision a reality. However one thing this administration has not done well is PR and selling their vision to the region. The city should have issued a press release when this issue first came to light saying that the city is a development partner at The Banks, and then citing other examples of cities underwriting similar situations (assuming such situations exist). Public perception is important, and the more often these type of situations pop up, the more irrational and undue scrutiny will be placed on all other projects. Following through on a vision is admirable, but you have to make sure that the public understands the vision and the logic behind decisions such as these. I still contest that the grant was not a prudent use of money. A low or no interest loan is certainly appropriate, but to simply make a $600,000 grant to one business, with no expectation of repayment or any stipulations regarding growth, seems short sighted and irresponsible. The City has every right to influence the tenants that are in The Banks, because as you stated, they are technically a development partner. However, imo, the City should not be advocating for a particular business, in a closed, private matter. If the administration had put out a request for proposals to local/minority owned restaurants, and Mahogany came out as the best option, that would be a more transparent and fair use of public money. The way this went down, it seems that Mahogany was selected seemingly at random, and that it is fulfilling a particular, personal vision for what The Banks should be. The down side of efficiency and persistence can be the loss of some of the democratic processes that we are owed and should expect, Robert Moses serving as the most drastic example of this. Yes, I immediately thought of some kind of RFP process if the city fancied extending a grant to such a tenant. But as you point out, they lose efficiency doing it that way. They definitely acted more like a developer in this instance, rather than a government. Obviously government has a duty to the people to be transparent and such, but when cities become development partners and governments in general are hammered by a political climate that wants them to be run more like businesses, all I can think is "You get what you ask for!"

The Enquirer will come after UO for posting a letter to the editor? I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't see the basin as being populated enough yet to support this. Mainly because we don't have fixed transit yet with a lot of car-free housing units.

It IS a chicken and egg thing. An area tends to be either walkable or not, without much middle ground, because it is impossible to design an area to be both walkable AND driveable. In my humble opinion, this is what makes new rail transit in auto-oriented areas such a challenge. To achieve enough pedestrian density to support the transit, cars have to be limited. If the area around the stops is redeveloped complete with parking, there will not be enough density to support the transit. Of course you can design an area to be walkable and driveable! I used to do it every day. In fact this is really the only way forward for American cities if energy scarcity pushes us to transit. The process will be iterative, and there is PLENTY of precedent on how to do it.

Although a state audit recently said 50% of all broken tax incentive deals had 0 punishments. Even if they were written into the deal, it's VERY rare for a municipality to use a clawback. Hell, Convergys had been "off" it's mark for over 3 years, but the City only went after them this year to close a deficit. I think the loan is fine- I'm mixed on the grant but whatever. The most important part is that I hope they do well. REALLY well. Tax incentives are not loans or grants. A taxing authority agrees to lower, usually payroll taxes, on new hires or retaining employees. No logical reason to do this deal with Mohogany. I know this sounds crazy to someone sensitive to opaque politics and liberal urban bias, but some small maneuvers like this grant are, in my opinion, a sign of leadership. The administration has a vision and makes it happen. This is why we have executives. This is why Cincinnati is getting a streetcar. It's why Chicago got Millennium Park. The city is a development partner in the banks and their vision for the area is culture and entertainment. Getting this particular restaurant in there strikes them as a good fit for this vision, so they are making it happen. Just because this particular maneuver makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's bad leadership.

I agree 100%.

Maybe this whole tempest in a teapot was just a way for "the Duke team" to take a couple trips. This drama is pathetic. Like they have to go anywhere to know what to do. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon though. On the contrary, I am relieved they are finally dragging their asses to Portland. These issues appears to be pretty cut and dry.

I am in agreement. But the Tavern on the Green example that JCS mentions is at least a precedent. Still, it's a bit uncomfortable that they are more or less monopolizing the only completed piece of the park so far. Where does the profit go?

I subscribe to the school of thought that function = purpose. You bought the TV because it allows you to watch moving images on it. You drive your car to take you where you want to go. You will ride on the streetcar to move about the downtown/OTR area and go farther and faster than you would on foot. You aren't riding on the streetcar because it is a great economic development catalyst. That might be the reason we fund its construction but not its purpose. Mass transit's purpose is first and foremost for people to actually use it. In the Streetcar's case, it is not a stretch to say that people will be riding it because it's an economic catalyst, because it's not being built to serve existing ridership demand. It's being built to attract residents and development.

I don't think so. That's what it does, but it's not its purpose. My TV translates electronic signals into images, but that's not why I bought it. I think it's an important concept to promote, because to the state DOT, they seem to have forgotten that transportation is the backbone of urban form and pretty much dictates what development is going to look like and how it's going to work.

Yep, that explains why Cygnus couldn't rent the lawn for his reception. I'm very confused about this whole relationship between the park board and Moerlein. It kinda smells.

They should start planting some ivy on that shit pronto.

But we were talking about a commuter-style rail system, not a streetcar. The main purpose of a streetcar is economic development, while the main purpose of other types of rail transit is to get large numbers of people quickly from Point A to Point B. All transportation is economic development.

I gave the retail floors 13' I think, and the office 12' because I hear they want high ceilings. When we plugged in retail in these massing models we usually just did something like 13' high and 60' deep. Any architects know if there's some fairly standard height, say for a grocery?

That's hilarious! Don't hit on the streetcar girl or else! He protects her from Barry "Legs" Horstman.

Oh thank baby Jesus! That wall DEFINITELY needed some flair.

I'm sure they will do something. But I bet they won't line the garage levels with anything, if there will be a floor or two of retail on the bottom. PS: Just as a caveat to anyone, that massing model is a massing model, not my attempt at architecture LOL.

It's a black owned business and serves soul food. Cincinnati is badly in need of some establishment that will put its black business owners and upscale community in the public eye. I don't know if that was on the minds of the city leadership, but its something to consider. I don't know if 600 grand was an appropriate amount, but I'll be the first to say that I think SOME amount is money well spent. This city's upper and middle class black community needs more publicity than just Chris Smitherman, for the love of God.

Very quick sketchup of what that might look like on the site:

- There's almost no way it's going to be one giant building pad all the way up. Good to keep in mind that light only penetrates about 40' into a building. My own screwings-around came up with something similar to NatiStreets, feels like a two elevator core site, at least. - As far as impacting the skyline, even a 20 story tower isn't going to change the skyline in that location. It's a moot point. If for some reason they started considering 400 or 500 units there, then you'd see a noticeable impact on the skyline. - 180 units of new construction residential there would be fantastic. However, I do think that if they get a Kroger in there, they could double it. There are really three different issues bouncing around this discussion: Presence, Height and Density of residential units. They are only loosely related. It depends on the size of the units, among other things. For example, a 180 unit proposal: A 120 unit project: