I wish I would win mega millions when its at like 600 million so I could just give the city/county money with a contract agreement for them to spend it on what i say lol. but I'd probably just start my own city of urban enthusiasts in a corn field somewhere and we would surpass cincy in a couple decades anyway lol

 

 

I would just use the money to travel and see the world. Oh and maybe on some strippers. Yeah, those too. :)

I wish I would win mega millions when its at like 600 million so I could just give the city/county money with a contract agreement for them to spend it on what i say lol. but I'd probably just start my own city of urban enthusiasts in a corn field somewhere and we would surpass cincy in a couple decades anyway lol

 

 

Starting a city in the middle of a cornfield is the epitome of sprawl.  Even if it's moderately dense, it will never come close to the impact of simply revitalizing a real city.

I wish I would win mega millions when its at like 600 million so I could just give the city/county money with a contract agreement for them to spend it on what i say lol. but I'd probably just start my own city of urban enthusiasts in a corn field somewhere and we would surpass cincy in a couple decades anyway lol

 

 

Starting a city in the middle of a cornfield is the epitome of sprawl.  Even if it's moderately dense, it will never come close to the impact of simply revitalizing a real city.

 

That's not really accurate. Sprawl is the excessive, resource-inefficient outward growth of existing urban areas, where the entire area is the same single economy. There's nothing wrong with building a new settlement.

Way off topic, but it would be really cool to see what it would cost in current dollars to rebuild major cities from scratch. I don't even know the order of magnitude it would cost. It would be cool to see it for multiple US cities of various sizes.

This thread probably should be split in two (W&S HQ and 3rd & Broadway condo project), but the article below hints at the HQ project.

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: One of Cincinnati’s largest architectural firms moving its HQ

Oct 20, 2014, 2:48pm EDT 

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

I asked Wurtenberger if the upcoming move had anything to do with Western & Southern Financial Group's plans for the Lytle Park area.

 

"Possibly," she said. Wurtenberger declined to elaborate.

 

One of Greater Cincinnati's largest architectural firms is moving from its long-time home in downtown.

 

Champlin Architecture, which has been in the Woodford Building at 424 E. Fourth St. for 30 years, is in the process of signing a long-term lease for 13,000 square feet of space in the Sawyer Point Building.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/10/20/exclusive-one-of-cincinnati-s-largest.html?page=all

W&S collecting more cash for future development(s):

 

Western & Southern sells 2 Cincinnati hotels for $62M

Tom Demeropolis - Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Two Greater Cincinnati hotels that were developed by Western & Southern Financial Group and Winegardner & Hammons Inc. were sold for nearly $62 million.

 

Lone Star Funds, a Dallas-based private equity firm that recently purchased three office buildings in the region, bought the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast in Mason and Cincinnati Marriott North in West Chester Township, paying a total of more than $61.6 million.

 

The Cincinnati Marriott Northeast, located at 9664 S. Mason Montgomery Road, was the first full-service Marriott developed by the partnership of Winegardner & Hammons and Western & Southern’s Eagle Realty Group. The 309-room hotel with seven suites opened in 1996.

 

Cont

I like the narrative that they are cashing out of suburban developments in order to fund downtown development. Fingers crossed.

Has anyone heard what the company plans to do with its famous spinning clock atop the garage?

 

Boston's much more famous blinking Citgo sign has somehow avoided the wrecking ball, despite not having landmark status.  Now the property it sits atop is changing hands, making its future a little uncertain:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/01/21/get-your-checkbooks-out-the-citgo-sign-for-sale/GyKWfAP97HZLMOyvVOLPRJ/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=

I would hope that at worst it would end up in the sign museum and at best it could be integrated into the design of the new tower.

^It would be great if they crowned the top of their new HQ with that spinning clock, whenever that gets built.

It could end up on Everything But The House. 

Are they actually going to build a tower? I feel like there has been so much talk, but not a lot of rock in terms of major building announcements in Cincy. 

 

Edit: I'm usually incredibly positive, so excuse my negativity today.  I think I have a case of the winter blues... 8-)

They've always stated it wouldn't happen until after Lytle Park is redone. When asked about their future in the Lytle Park area they mentioned the future of 2017 (this was in an article either last year or 2014) as one where you can now go to the new hotel on the park, go to dinner, and look up at the construction of multiple new buildings. So in their theoretical world we still wouldn't see construction until next year.

Well I imagine that Cincinnati zoned out moving and blinking signs like this sometime in the 1960s or 70s, and I'd be curious to know if the sign would be allowed to spin and blink if it were moved somewhere else (even the roof of the sign museum!). 

 

Western-Southern also once had a truly ridiculous neon sign overlooking I-75 at Marshall Ave.  The structure itself is still there (it's the billboard with the oversized scaffolding-type legs) but now it's just an ordinary billboard with a digital readout on top.  For about 30 years the south face featured a blinking blue neon spectacle advertising that Western-Southern "is the company that cares".  I think it's still always been a Western-Southern ad, but without all of the neon excitement. 

Cincinnati should have never disallowed these kinds of signs through zoning.  So much of what makes cities feel urban and vibrant is these sorts of signs.  My favorite cities have some of these all over the place.

They've always stated it wouldn't happen until after Lytle Park is redone. When asked about their future in the Lytle Park area they mentioned the future of 2017 (this was in an article either last year or 2014) as one where you can now go to the new hotel on the park, go to dinner, and look up at the construction of multiple new buildings. So in their theoretical world we still wouldn't see construction until next year.

 

I remember that article, but I also thought there was an article in the middle of last year with them saying that a big announcement was going to be made by the end of 2015, unless that was for something else by somebody else.  I just remember somebody saying a big announcement was going to come by the end of 2015, which never happened.   

Jean Robert's new restaurant "L" at Great America is close to opening.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/dining/2016/03/31/jean-roberts-new-restaurant-has-name/82433984/

 

 

I find it interesting that western and southern is not only the landlord of the property but also an investor. I know there have been talks of future development in this corner of CBD, but is this any indication of more to come? Anyone have anything?

question: Could western and southern expand into the empty office pad at the Banks, 180 Walnut? That would fill up Phase 1 at the Banks (finally,) and perhaps they could convert the Woodford building into residential. The Banks would still be a prominent, if less stuffy, location for them, near their existing buildings.

 

Otherwise who is going to be filling all this office space? Potentially 180 Walnut, a new W&S building, and whatever fantasy land building they put on the Joseph's lot could all be competing for tenants.

^No, it makes more sense to expand onto land they own.  They are a competitor to 180 Walnut. 

Dunhumby/84.51 should have went to 180 Walnut.  If they did they could have torn down the Millennium and used that entire block to expand the convention center and build a new hotel.  I don't know how 180 Walnut is going to get one tenant, at this point they just need to erect the building and fill it with multiple tenants. 

If I was the one planning what to do here this is what I'd do.

 

1) Do a Hearst Tower style build. Use their current building at the corner of 4th and Broadway as a base for their new headquarters tower.

 

2) Renovate the Woodford into Lofts. Expand above the building to the west of it and to the parking lot behind it. Keep the fabric of that small building there with a building of equal or greater height to the Woodford above. Set back the first level of the new addition to create a transition between old and new so the old doesn't look paper thin. Hide necessary parking in garage in current parking lot along 5th. That street isn't going to be a pedestrian zone as long as P&G is across the street so this side can serve as vehicular access without ruining pedestrian movement around Lytle Park.

 

3) Tear down spinny clock garage and build new mixed use tower. Maybe a residential+hotel tower. Integrate garage either behind or underneath. Preferably you'd have a base that has retail along the ground level, "townhomes" above (wrapping a garage behind) and then the tower above.

 

4) Close Arch Street and Ladlow to traffic and turn into a pedestrian zone. Arch Street has a nice scale to it that could work well as a pedestrian street.

 

5) Remove the parking in front of the Guilford building. Expand Lytle Park west across the new pedestrian Ladlow Street.

 

6) Tear down the hideous 550 Apartment building. Construct new residential complex on that site and expanding onto the terrible garage along 5th behind.

If I was the one planning what to do here this is what I'd do.

 

1) Do a Hearst Tower style build. Use their current building at the corner of 4th and Broadway as a base for their new headquarters tower.

 

2) Renovate the Woodford into Lofts. Expand above the building to the west of it and to the parking lot behind it. Keep the fabric of that small building there with a building of equal or greater height to the Woodford above. Set back the first level of the new addition to create a transition between old and new so the old doesn't look paper thin. Hide necessary parking in garage in current parking lot along 5th. That street isn't going to be a pedestrian zone as long as P&G is across the street so this side can serve as vehicular access without ruining pedestrian movement around Lytle Park.

 

3) Tear down spinny clock garage and build new mixed use tower. Maybe a residential+hotel tower. Integrate garage either behind or underneath. Preferably you'd have a base that has retail along the ground level, "townhomes" above (wrapping a garage behind) and then the tower above.

 

4) Close Arch Street and Ladlow to traffic and turn into a pedestrian zone. Arch Street has a nice scale to it that could work well as a pedestrian street.

 

5) Remove the parking in front of the Guilford building. Expand Lytle Park west across the new pedestrian Ladlow Street.

 

6) Tear down the hideous 550 Apartment building. Construct new residential complex on that site and expanding onto the terrible garage along 5th behind.

 

I like the idea and direction, but you have to think about the client(s) Western Southern and Eagle Realty. Both are extremely conservative in design and development. How many years did they keep the Great American HQ building plans on hold without a redesign? Lets not forget they decided to build the smaller annex building first instead of building a taller structure to save money.

In reality I see them tearing down the parking garage in the next ten years mostly due to cost to maintain and repair will out pace profit margins. Most likely they will build a mixed use structure with parking garage office space with maybe residential but then again this is all speculation.

The woodford building could come down along with the annex building and a structure be put in the space the two buildings maintained. All while a new parking garage with residential component is built like the crap North American Properties is building down the street.

The Great American Tower was only made possible by Great American Insurance filling most of the building.  The market seems to only have recently been able to absorb the craters of office space they left behind.

 

What company will be the next to require a large amount of new office space?  I don't see anyone out there.  Macy's, P&G, Kroger and 5/3 are all pretty comfortable with what they have. 

 

180 Walnut has to be built on spec.  It reminds me of the new Rookwood office building, where Anderson said the only way he got tenants interested was for them to tour the finished space.  It is pretty much full now but I don't think they had more than one or two tenants signed when construction began.

Every time a spec office tower goes up in the burbs, like Kenwood Collection or at Rookwood, they are taking away tenants that might otherwise be choosing 180 Walnut. They need to built it ASAP!

^ not necessarily, many of those offices are catering to customers In the burbs and would be at other suburban locations. Most of the companies there like UBS or Morgan Stanley also have downtown offices but keep the suburban offices to be closer to their customers.

Indeed...many of those companies would choose a suburban location no matter what. But every time I see a Business Courier article about some new startup who has built out a really cool modern office space in Kenwood Collection or Rookwood, I can't help but think that at least some of those companies would have located at 180 Walnut if that was an option.

I think 180 building is going to be built based on other downtown companies like law firms etc looking to upgrade their space to A+ rents or a new company like GE coming in from out of town.

 

There may be a few small wins like Coca Cola moving from Blue Ash to downtown, but that is a pretty small amount of space on the whole.

 

Also, there is something to say that a lot of people in their mid 30s-40's do prefer the suburban office out of convenience. Most of them live in the burbs, and given that there are often children considerations, etc, the suburban location is preferable. I have spoken to a number of people recently who moved their office from Downtown to Oakley because of the convenience, and people who do not like the fact their company moved downtown from Blue Ash because of family considerations. He told me if he were 10 years younger, he would have loved it but now it is more of a pain. When his kids get out of the house, he would like it again.

 

 

It's comical how people think suburban offices are more convenient.  Every move around the metro is more convenient for some workers but less convenient for others.  Downtown is the most convenient for the most people because the whole structure of the region's highway and bus network focuses on it. 

^ its a matter of perspective. If you live in NKY, working out in Mason is a pain in the ass and vice versa. If you live in Mason, then working at Luxottica has advantages and you would not want to work downtown.  Jake, you are in the minority for your age group. The majority of people in your age group live in the burbs now and have young families which makes going downtown more inconvenient for them.

 

I love downtown, and going downtown is always enjoyable, but with young children, we spend less and less time in the city because their activities are also suburban centric. As much as I love downtown, I much prefer working in the burbs at this time in my life.

...The majority of people in your age group live in the burbs now and have young families which makes going downtown more inconvenient for them.

 

I love downtown, and going downtown is always enjoyable, but with young children, we spend less and less time in the city because their activities are also suburban centric. As much as I love downtown, I much prefer working in the burbs at this time in my life.

 

I know this is just an anecdote, but xumelanie[/member] and I live in OTR with two young kids and we're loving it.  There's plenty of kid activities to do and all within either walking or streetcar distance.  I'm not sure what activities are better out in the suburbs other than large forested parks.

^ I think there is still a pull to having a yard and swing set and such. I think the perspective is changing and you can raise a family in the city a lot easier now than 20 years ago however, there is also an economic tradeoff too. It is a bit more expensive to get many of the same amenities in homes in the city than in the burbs (size, parking, private outdoor space, etc).

 

 

I'd love it, but it's going to be a challenge for my wife and I to start a family in OTR. First off we live on the fourth floor (stairs only) so we'd have to move. Then it would be difficult to find a place big enough at a reasonable price. Then start thinking about the schools...

We had the same thing. We had a place in Clifton on the 3rd floor with no elevator. Cool place, but not ideal for kids and their toys. Having a yard where they can run around and street where they can learn to ride their bikes is a nice feature to have.

 

Now, obviously raising kids in the city is a different experience. One of our best friends grew up in Wrigleyville in the 80s and had a different experience than any of us had growing up in the burbs at that time. There were a lot of things they were able to experience that a kid in the burbs could not, so it is a tradeoff.

My cousin is raising her kids in a house with no driveway on one of the most steeply sloped streets in the city and complains that it's tough to get them both out and into the car with car seats.  She declared she was going to move last year because of this but now I think the youngest kid is big enough and the problem -- to whatever extent it once existed -- no longer exists.  People sometimes make big decisions for very temporary reasons.

 

 

   

 

 

 

I currently live on a steep hill in Newport and similarly have had discussions of moving when our first kid comes this summer. Hopefully my wife and I can tough it out because I don't want to go anywhere.

 

Whenever the western and southern garage does get demolished I've always hoped the spinning sign is salvaged and placed at the tip top of their shiny new headquarters building. I love that sign, and as much as I love the sign museum I don't want to see it get retired anytime soon.

Even if most people live in the suburbs, Luxottica in Mason isn't able to effectively pull from Florence or Burlington, while not benefitting from proximity to Morrow or Cozaddale.  It becomes self-selecting too, where you can say "nobody from [community] works here anyway so it doesn't matter" but those people are lost potential.  That doesn't even address the dearth of decent lunch venues in the suburbs, which is why these suburban campuses need elaborate cafeterias and other supposed perks to try to woo people in. 

My cousin is raising her kids in a house with no driveway on one of the most steeply sloped streets in the city and complains that it's tough to get them both out and into the car with car seats.  She declared she was going to move last year because of this but now I think the youngest kid is big enough and the problem -- to whatever extent it once existed -- no longer exists.  People sometimes make big decisions for very temporary reasons. 

 

Not saying you can't make it work, but the allure of space in the burbs can be appealing. Not going to lie, I like the convenience of being able to run to Kroger without a hassle and not have to worry as much about my kid being hit by a car when he rides his bike. Having the extra space to throw the kids toys is nice too so the house is not so cluttered. The downside, we cant walk to cool parks like Smale and Washington too easily. Not near the new restaurants and events that take place downtown. It is a tradeoff wherever you go. At this point in my life I prefer the burbs. As I become an empty nester again, I can see myself returning to the city in some capacity.

Just keep in mind that the leading cause of death of kids over the age of 1 or 2 is car crashes.  For younger kids, it's getting backed over in their own driveway, but mostly it's collisions while being driven around by their parents.  So the "being hit by a car" problem is actually worse in most suburbs for a number of reasons, not just having to be driven absolutely everywhere, but that suburban streets are demonstrably more dangerous for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike because engineering standards require even suburban cul-de-sacs to be designed like highways. 

Blah blah blah...proximity to Morrow or Cozaddale. 

 

You win for the Cozaddale reference.

^ Yes, but I will not let my 6 year old ride his bike down Prospect Hill but I don't have a problem letting him ride in my cul-de-sac. There are more risks on a heavily travelled street than a small cul-de-sac to have issues.

A heavily travelled street can be more dangerous than a cul-de-sac, but a suburban cul-de-sac neighborhood is actually more dangerous in a lot of ways than a city neighborhood of connected narrow streets because the suburban streets are engineered for at least a 35 mph design speed with wide clearances, easy grades, and gradual curves, all of which encourage further speeding.  I had a meeting in a Mason subdivision just last week, and after it was done, I had to sit at a stop sign deep inside the subdivision for a good long while to wait for traffic to clear because there's only one way out nobody walks anywhere, so even a bunch of dead-end streets concentrate a surprising amount of traffic in a very short time, and the wide smooth clear streets subconsciously tell people it's ok to go fast.  Narrower city streets with sidewalks, trees, parked cars, buildings closer to the street, and people milling around send a signal to slow down, and that's hugely important for safety.  Even if you're more likely to get hit by a car in the city (not sure if that's the case or not), you're more likely to survive because of lower speeds.  At 20mph hitting a pedestrian is only fatal 10% of the time, but at 40mph it's fatal 90% of the time.