Yeah I agree with all that.  My assertion is that even if Lincoln Heights got most of the land they wanted, I still don't think it would've turned out so great.  Evendale went all-in on the suburban development pattern and all they have to show for it are a few banal subdivisions and some kitschy stone landscape walls in the median of Reading Highway Road.  More to the point, Woodlawn captured a huge area of industrial and commercial development, it's similar in age and population to Lincoln Heights (compared to newer Evendale or older Lockland), and yet it's still pretty dumpy.  If you're into tiny 3-bed 1-bath mid-century ranch houses with carports then it's the bee's knees, but other than that, there's not much going for it.  That's the sort of trajectory I'd expect for a fully realized Lincoln Heights. 

But isnt that a huge point of the article? That none of these areas worked together, and instead fought each other for everything they had, meaning they all tried to do different things? If the municipalities had joined together, maybe the area would have developed differently, and there would have been a central business district, as well as economic & social diversity.

Lincoln Heights does have a lot of vacant lots.  In a hyper-gentrification scenario like what Nashville has experienced since 2010, crazy Ikea houses would be going up on those lots.  People would be complaining about it just like they're complaining about a lack of investment now.  

 

Where are these areas that are improved the exact right way?  

2 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

Yeah I agree with all that.  My assertion is that even if Lincoln Heights got most of the land they wanted, I still don't think it would've turned out so great.  Evendale went all-in on the suburban development pattern and all they have to show for it are a few banal subdivisions and some kitschy stone landscape walls in the median of Reading Highway Road.  More to the point, Woodlawn captured a huge area of industrial and commercial development, it's similar in age and population to Lincoln Heights (compared to newer Evendale or older Lockland), and yet it's still pretty dumpy.  If you're into tiny 3-bed 1-bath mid-century ranch houses with carports then it's the bee's knees, but other than that, there's not much going for it.  That's the sort of trajectory I'd expect for a fully realized Lincoln Heights. 

Between the neighborhoods in question, Lincoln Heights, Woodlawn, Evendale, and Lockland, only Lincoln Heights and Lockland have connected street grids. Lockland's is a bit wiley, tbh and Lincoln Height's is rigidly gridded except for the Medosh Ave development (which looks soooo good, IMO and would benefit from a bit more density, commercial mixed use development, and TREES!). It is ridiculous to look at how Lockland avoids EVERY opportunity to connect to Shepherd Lane preventing any type of connection between the two villages/cities. Woodlawn and Lincoln Heights have some connectivity and would perhaps benefit from merging municipally.

 

59 minutes ago, seaswan said:

But isnt that a huge point of the article? That none of these areas worked together, and instead fought each other for everything they had, meaning they all tried to do different things? If the municipalities had joined together, maybe the area would have developed differently, and there would have been a central business district, as well as economic & social diversity.

None of these areas worked together and Hamilton County, Lockland, Evendale, and Woodlawn historically fought Lincoln Heights for everything they had.

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Where are these areas that are improved the exact right way

I haven't delved too deep into the topic but are there any good examples in the US, of historically successful black neighborhoods grass-rootsing their way back to success, specifically by increasing homeownership?  I imagine they don't get the big private investments that wealthy white neighborhoods do, and if they do, those big private investments often lead to Nashville-esque development and black displacement.

Edited August 4, 20204 yr by 10albersa

I was looking through some planning commission packets. Is there anything that could be put in place to encourage pedestrian pathways (or even stairs/bridges) in new subdivisions to connect to existing surrounding streets when new subdivisions are planned? I’m thinking cutting the time it takes to walk from the interior of a new subdivision to other parts of the neighborhood even if there is only one way in/out for vehicles. (Especially if the only connection is to a pedestrian unfriendly road.)

Edited August 9, 20204 yr by thebillshark

1 hour ago, thebillshark said:

I was looking through some planning commission packets. Is there anything that could be put in place to encourage pedestrian pathways (or even stairs/bridges) in new subdivisions to connect to existing surrounding streets when new subdivisions are planned? I’m thinking cutting the time it takes to walk from the interior of a new subdivision to other parts of the neighborhood even if there is only one way in/out for vehicles. (Especially if the only connection is to a pedestrian unfriendly road.)

I like that idea... but seems like it would mostly only come up for new subdivisions, which are pretty rare within city limits. Are there specific projects that you're thinking of? 

54 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

I like that idea... but seems like it would mostly only come up for new subdivisions, which are pretty rare within city limits. Are there specific projects that you're thinking of? 

 

Yeah this subdivision in Sayler Park on on page 40 of this packet: 

 

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/jul-17-2020-packet-1-of-2/

 

It looks like it could be built to have a pedestrian connection to Sayler Avenue (the plans are little unclear in this area, I can't tell if it does or doesn't.)  Otherwise the only way in/out is via Hillside Ave., a high speed road with no sidewalks.  

 

Agree that new subdivisions are rare inside city limits, which makes it tough because the city would probably be the only local jurisdiction interested in encouraging/requiring these kind of pedestrian connections.

Edited August 9, 20204 yr by thebillshark

I have a question that maybe there's an obvious answer to.  Something I've always wondered is why has no developer stepped up to build a residential tower with actual affordable apartments.  I'm talking 1 bedrooms $8-900 and 2 bedrooms $11-1200.  Build it however many stories necessary to make it profitable.  I've been looking at apartments downtown and pretty much every desirable spot is gone within a day or two if it's under $950, let alone $900.  What's keeping this from happening?  Or is there just still too much demand for more profitable luxury apartments.  

29 minutes ago, LAW 21 said:

I have a question that maybe there's an obvious answer to.  Something I've always wondered is why has no developer stepped up to build a residential tower with actual affordable apartments.  I'm talking 1 bedrooms $8-900 and 2 bedrooms $11-1200.  Build it however many stories necessary to make it profitable.  I've been looking at apartments downtown and pretty much every desirable spot is gone within a day or two if it's under $950, let alone $900.  What's keeping this from happening?  Or is there just still too much demand for more profitable luxury apartments.  

 

Is it easier maybe for a developer to get financing/roi for a project if it's luxury apartments/versus more affordable units?

 

 

13 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

Is it easier maybe for a developer to get financing/roi for a project if it's luxury apartments/versus more affordable units?

 

 

That's a good point, but it seems like something could be figured out with maybe 10-15 stories of affordable units and then 5-10 stories of luxury units on top of that.  

42 minutes ago, LAW 21 said:

I have a question that maybe there's an obvious answer to.  Something I've always wondered is why has no developer stepped up to build a residential tower with actual affordable apartments.  I'm talking 1 bedrooms $8-900 and 2 bedrooms $11-1200.  Build it however many stories necessary to make it profitable.  I've been looking at apartments downtown and pretty much every desirable spot is gone within a day or two if it's under $950, let alone $900.  What's keeping this from happening?  Or is there just still too much demand for more profitable luxury apartments.  

Simple answer is it's impossible to make that work. Hard and soft costs require  higher pricing for new construction to even break even than would be considered affordable. It's not feasible in Cincinnati or really anywhere in the country.

 

The cheapest multi-family large scale housing is what's referred to as 5-over-1, or 1 story of concrete construction for the base with 5 stories of wood-framed construction above. Even this, in greenfield sites, doesn't work at the price point you're referring to unfortunately.

 

Basically decades of construction and material cost increases have outpaced inflation and wage growth, so here we are. New construction is relegated to the "luxury" market and that's it without heavy subsidy.

8 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Simple answer is it's impossible to make that work. Hard and soft costs require  higher pricing for new construction to even break even than would be considered affordable. It's not feasible in Cincinnati or really anywhere in the country.

 

The cheapest multi-family large scale housing is what's referred to as 5-over-1, or 1 story of concrete construction for the base with 5 stories of wood-framed construction above. Even this, in greenfield sites, doesn't work at the price point you're referring to unfortunately.

 

Basically decades of construction and material cost increases have outpaced inflation and wage growth, so here we are. New construction is relegated to the "luxury" market and that's it without heavy subsidy.

Thanks for the informative and depressing post!  ?  I guess I'll stop getting my hopes up every time a new project is announced.  

Edited August 28, 20204 yr by LAW 21

You should just continue to be happy with all the new "luxury" apartments that are built.  The more of those that come on the market, the more the existing stock of older apartments will get priced down to "affordable."  It works the same way with office space.  No one ever builds class B or C office space.  Space just lowers into those categories as new offices are built. 

12 hours ago, LAW 21 said:

I have a question that maybe there's an obvious answer to.  Something I've always wondered is why has no developer stepped up to build a residential tower with actual affordable apartments.  I'm talking 1 bedrooms $8-900 and 2 bedrooms $11-1200.  Build it however many stories necessary to make it profitable.  I've been looking at apartments downtown and pretty much every desirable spot is gone within a day or two if it's under $950, let alone $900.  What's keeping this from happening?  Or is there just still too much demand for more profitable luxury apartments.  

As mentioned above regarding costs making affordable housing prohibitive, the thing that it does do is push older housing into a more affordable class. New product makes it difficult for the older product to compete and there is less incentive to keep the older product up to the level that would compete with the Class A new product. Plus style changes and what was designed new 20 years ago cant be redesigned as easily to meet today's preferences. The Class A product becomes Class B and no longer competes with as high of rents. 

Looking downtown, 4th and Plum lofts is a perfect example of this. In the mid/late 90s early 2000s these were great apartments. Now they are a bit dated and rents correspond to that. THey are expensive still, but not quite the level of say 7 on Broadway or the Banks. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

As mentioned above regarding costs making affordable housing prohibitive, the thing that it does do is push older housing into a more affordable class. New product makes it difficult for the older product to compete and there is less incentive to keep the older product up to the level that would compete with the Class A new product. Plus style changes and what was designed new 20 years ago cant be redesigned as easily to meet today's preferences. The Class A product becomes Class B and no longer competes with as high of rents. 

Looking downtown, 4th and Plum lofts is a perfect example of this. In the mid/late 90s early 2000s these were great apartments. Now they are a bit dated and rents correspond to that. THey are expensive still, but not quite the level of say 7 on Broadway or the Banks. 

 

 

While in general this is the case, I've seen several projects, including 4th and Plum start apartment renovations with a goal of maintaining price points. In Cincinnati, our urban housing market is too small and dominated by too few players to really have a huge diversity in rent structures. I am cautiously optimistic this is changing with the construction of more residential apartments downtown and in OTR/Pendleton. 

 

Subsidy is one way to induce affordability in new construction, either through LIHTC or other incentives. Other cities have explored Inclusionary Zoning as a policy to require a percentage of affordable in new projects however the impact is that this generally inflates the market-rate side of a project to make up losses taken on the affordable units. This actually exacerbates the problem for middle-income households who are priced out on the market side but exceed salary or other requirements for the affordable units.

 

In general it is hard to deliver on affordability. Residential demand for urban walkable housing has exploded nationally, benefiting the coastal cities until they became too expensive and then "trickling down" to the cool cluster cities like Austin or Nashville. In Cincinnati, we are lucky to have what is underway happening today, but we will still need more if we want to open up affordability to more people on the income ladder.

13 hours ago, LAW 21 said:

I have a question that maybe there's an obvious answer to.  Something I've always wondered is why has no developer stepped up to build a residential tower with actual affordable apartments.  I'm talking 1 bedrooms $8-900 and 2 bedrooms $11-1200.  Build it however many stories necessary to make it profitable.  I've been looking at apartments downtown and pretty much every desirable spot is gone within a day or two if it's under $950, let alone $900.  What's keeping this from happening?  Or is there just still too much demand for more profitable luxury apartments.  

 

The new apartments at 8th and Main have "micro" units for under $1,000. Also, not new construction, but the Garfield Tower has 1-BR apartments for under $1,000. They're not as nice as new buildings but they have a small fitness center and a rooftop pool with great views.

It's the same deal in the suburbs. Most of the new apartment complexes are luxury..look at the apartments at summit park in blue ash, or the Loveland station apartments...it's extremely tough nowadays to find a quality living space for less than 1,000/per month these days. 

 

My friend lives in an out dated 1 bed room apartment in Loveland that was built in the early 80s. His rent is nearly 900/per month for 700 square feet and out dated amenities. 

 

The rental market is just insanely expensive nowadays. I'm not sure how lower income families survive to be honest.. especially those who live in the suburbs. 

2 hours ago, JYP said:

affordability

 

I went to the Millennium Hotel auction back in February and couldn't help but think that those towers would have made great no-frills downtown apartments.  A kitchenette would been needed for each room unless zoning was changed to allow a dorm-style kitchen built on each floor.  

 

Obviously, a lot of prewar hotels were turned into low-income housing (Metropole, Ft. Washington, Dennison) and there was a lot of crime associated with those places, but it doesn't automatically have to be that way.  

 

4 hours ago, JYP said:

While in general this is the case, I've seen several projects, including 4th and Plum start apartment renovations with a goal of maintaining price points. In Cincinnati, our urban housing market is too small and dominated by too few players to really have a huge diversity in rent structures. I am cautiously optimistic this is changing with the construction of more residential apartments downtown and in OTR/Pendleton. 

 

Subsidy is one way to induce affordability in new construction, either through LIHTC or other incentives. Other cities have explored Inclusionary Zoning as a policy to require a percentage of affordable in new projects however the impact is that this generally inflates the market-rate side of a project to make up losses taken on the affordable units. This actually exacerbates the problem for middle-income households who are priced out on the market side but exceed salary or other requirements for the affordable units.

 

In general it is hard to deliver on affordability. Residential demand for urban walkable housing has exploded nationally, benefiting the coastal cities until they became too expensive and then "trickling down" to the cool cluster cities like Austin or Nashville. In Cincinnati, we are lucky to have what is underway happening today, but we will still need more if we want to open up affordability to more people on the income ladder.

Certainly, operators are going to fight to keep their product relevant as it ages. 4th and Plum is certainly investing back in the property, but eventually, it becomes a cost benefit analysis where it is better to go from a Class A apartment to a high class B apartment and rent corresponding to that.  I think a good example is Lytle Tower. Back up until the 2000's it was pretty much the only apartment building downtown of any relevance and catered to a high end crowd. While it offered good views, there are too many structural issues there that prevent it from comepting with today's class A product and their amenities. Lytle has low ceiling height for example which cannot be remedied. It may not be able to offer the amenities such as a dog park, or rooftop terrace that are common with today's downtown developments or even certain conceirge level services. While rents still are on the higher end, it does not command the same level as say a 7.

 

I have read some papers on Inclusionary Zoning and it does not seem very effective in NYC where it is being tried. I dont think Cincinnati has the base for it yet and housing is still relatively affordable here for that type of zoning. LIHTC certainly work, but certainly, those seem to go toward more specialty developments such as senior only, etc in the present time. There is a wide area between the luxury apartment and the LIHTC apartments that is not being served now and finding a way to market to this group is key because a lot of the YP"s fit in this group. I think the Blonde is an attempt at this. We will have to see how it plays out and then I imagine you will see the sister project to the Blonde take shape in another year. 

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

I went to the Millennium Hotel auction back in February and couldn't help but think that those towers would have made great no-frills downtown apartments.  A kitchenette would been needed for each room unless zoning was changed to allow a dorm-style kitchen built on each floor.

 

This is what I wanted explored as well.  Way too many chips are being put on the convention renovation and the revenue it is projected to bring in.  I find The Millennium good-ugly and it is perfectly set up for "workforce" housing.  Of course, Cranley had already given Vandercar free money to tear down and find a builder and forced the county's hand before anyone had a chance to talk about it.

Edited August 28, 20204 yr by 10albersa

2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I went to the Millennium Hotel auction back in February and couldn't help but think that those towers would have made great no-frills downtown apartments.  A kitchenette would been needed for each room unless zoning was changed to allow a dorm-style kitchen built on each floor.  

 

Obviously, a lot of prewar hotels were turned into low-income housing (Metropole, Ft. Washington, Dennison) and there was a lot of crime associated with those places, but it doesn't automatically have to be that way.  

 

What about the old Garfield Hotel. I thought those were being turned back into apartments? Did they ever open?

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What about the old Garfield Hotel. I thought those were being turned back into apartments? Did they ever open?

No, that project never got off the ground, though that would be a good spot for affordable housing due to it's central location near transit and directly across the street from the main branch of the library. 

Has anyone seen plans or renderings of what Sam Adams is planning at the corner of Central Parkway and Liberty? It sounds like they are adding more building north and south of their existing in addition to the nearly completed parking lot further north on Central Parkway. A 3-level elevator shaft looks to be nearly completed on the south side of the existing building, but it is hard to tell what the new building footprint is going to be. 

https://www.wcpo.com/rebound/samuel-adams-plans-significant-cincinnati-plant-enhancement-project

6 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Sam Adams

 

No, I haven't seen any specific plans.  Is the lot north of Findlay going to be a public lot or a Sam Adams employee lot?  

Check out this year's Cincinnati Design Awards video. A lot of renderings of proposed and unbuilt projects. Some final photos of Cincinnati's newest buildings. 

 

29 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Check out this year's Cincinnati Design Awards video. A lot of renderings of proposed and unbuilt projects. Some final photos of Cincinnati's newest buildings. 

 

Thanks for posting that, there are some good projects, especially office/corporate that I had never seen before. Tell GBBN to build some of that cool Chinese stuff in Cincinnati.

 

Also my favorite piece of design in Cincinnati last year is a drawing of a concrete plant:

Edited November 10, 20204 yr by ucgrady

21 hours ago, ucgrady said:

Thanks for posting that, there are some good projects, especially office/corporate that I had never seen before. Tell GBBN to build some of that cool Chinese stuff in Cincinnati.

 

Also my favorite piece of design in Cincinnati last year is a drawing of a concrete plant:

 

Tell the clients to pay for GBBN's Chinese stuff in Cincinnati! Haha. I'll pass it along. To be serious though, there is some very good work here. I love the Hilltop Concrete Project. I was so proud to see Luis Sabater Musa and Alex Gormley's project in there as I went to undergrad with Alex and to grad school a year behind them both. They are incredibly talented and I'm happy they have found someone to commission them. Love Terry Boling's Elm Street home, especially that patio! It looks completely secluded but on the other side of that steel wall is the Findlay Market parking lot. Hub + Weber's Train Viewing Platform rocks. It's contemporary but it also looks like it's been there for 150 years.

$32 million apartment project planned for former Bigg’s shopping center

 

A Columbus commercial real estate development company plans to transform a former Bigg’s-anchored shopping center into apartments.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/12/01/32m-apartment-project-anderson-township.html

 

That spot has always been a sort of dead zone but has seen some resurgence since Big Ash brewery opened up. Hopefully this will spark some new development in that area.

Would be great to see them do something to make the site plan a little more walkable. You’ve already got a popular brewery there, why not make it easy for residents to walk there without having to cross a sea of parking? Could be like a better Oakley Station, but with more residential than retail.

^ I couldn't agree more. Get rid of the parking lot in the front of the building, move it a tad closer to Big Ash, and turn the interior road into a small boulevard.

Wanting to place a "bike trail hub" on the property is interesting. I assume that they want to tie into the LMST and future Beechmont bridge path via the Elstun Road connector. Maybe this is just the push needed to re-do the intersection there and make it safer/easier to cross.

 

Wow, the way that hill is just cleaved off is disturbing. 

18 hours ago, taestell said:

Would be great to see them do something to make the site plan a little more walkable. You’ve already got a popular brewery there, why not make it easy for residents to walk there without having to cross a sea of parking? Could be like a better Oakley Station, but with more residential than retail.

Agreed. Even just a little bit of a "plaza" between the apartment building and Big Ash could help make the space feel more intentional and inviting to non-cars. 

 

2 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Wow, the way that hill is just cleaved off is disturbing. 

Yeah, those views to the north and west are going to be... rough.  I'm wondering how (if at all) the landscape designers will try to make it so residents don't feel like they're living in the bottom of a 150'-deep quarry:

 

The Christmas bombing in Nashville reminded me of the BASF explosion.  I'll never forget seeing the huge cloud of black smoke in the distance while driving north on I-471 back from Coney Island. 

 

 

Hey SW Ohioans, is there a long-planned, transit-supportive development along the streetcar route that is in want of funding to help get it to a groundbreaking? I'm working on something for All Aboard Ohio. Thx

31 minutes ago, KJP said:

Hey SW Ohioans, is there a long-planned, transit-supportive development along the streetcar route that is in want of funding to help get it to a groundbreaking? I'm working on something for All Aboard Ohio. Thx

First thing that comes to mind is the project formerly known as Freeport Row now known as Liberty and Elm, no idea what it's funding status is but it's been sitting around out there for years so my guess is 'not good' : https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/10/01/80-million-mixed-use-project-planned-on-key-corner.html

 

I'm not sure which developers are/aren't in need of more funding, but here are the announced or rumored projects that come to mind along the route:

 

Freeport Row — not delayed because of a lack of funding, but rather because the developers were able to acquire the former Boys & Girls Club site along Central Parkway and incorporate it into the project. This nearly triples the size of the project (from 113 to 306 apartments) and it will need to go back to City Council for approval. (Kitty-corner to the Liberty & Elm streetcar stop.)

 

8th & Main Part II (NW corner of that intersection) — adjacent to a streetcar stop, would replace a small surface parking lot. Developers are probably taking a "wait and see" approach since the first tower (The Blonde at the SW corner of the same intersection) just opened a few months ago.

 

180 Walnut — proposed office building at The Banks, adjacent to a streetcar stop.

 

Public Library Expansion — could include construction of a new building between the existing building and Walnut Street, adjacent to a streetcar stop. Apartments were being considered as one of the options.

 

Court & Walnut Part II — rumored second apartment tower at the SE corner of Court and Walnut street, replacing a large parking lot. 3CDC would probably wait to gauge the success of the first tower (1010 on the Rhine) before moving forward with the second. (Kitty-corner to the Public Library streetcar stop.)

 

12th & Vine Infill — pure speculation at this point, but it makes since that 3CDC will want to eventually replace this parking lot with a new building of some sort. Probably the most valuable lot they own in OTR, as it's adjacent to a streetcar stop and right in the heart of the Gateway Quarter restaurant/bar district.

3 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

 

Court & Walnut Part II — rumored second apartment tower at the SE corner of Court and Walnut street, replacing a large parking lot. 3CDC would probably wait to gauge the success of the first tower (1010 on the Rhine) before moving forward with the second. (Kitty-corner to the Public Library streetcar stop.)

 

Incidentally, I took photos of the court st work this past weekend and noticed that they're dolling up the "missing tooth" in the north street wall (next to the former King's Court barber).  It makes me think that they're reserving that space so a future tower at the SW corner of Central Parkway & Walnut (the old tire place that was torn down) can have a lobby entrance from Court St.  

 

 

5 hours ago, taestell said:

I'm not sure which developers are/aren't in need of more funding, but here are the announced or rumored projects that come to mind along the route:

 

Freeport Row — not delayed because of a lack of funding, but rather because the developers were able to acquire the former Boys & Girls Club site along Central Parkway and incorporate it into the project. This nearly triples the size of the project (from 113 to 306 apartments) and it will need to go back to City Council for approval. (Kitty-corner to the Liberty & Elm streetcar stop.)

 

8th & Main Part II (NW corner of that intersection) — adjacent to a streetcar stop, would replace a small surface parking lot. Developers are probably taking a "wait and see" approach since the first tower (The Blonde at the SW corner of the same intersection) just opened a few months ago.

 

180 Walnut — proposed office building at The Banks, adjacent to a streetcar stop.

 

Public Library Expansion — could include construction of a new building between the existing building and Walnut Street, adjacent to a streetcar stop. Apartments were being considered as one of the options.

 

Court & Walnut Part II — rumored second apartment tower at the SE corner of Court and Walnut street, replacing a large parking lot. 3CDC would probably wait to gauge the success of the first tower (1010 on the Rhine) before moving forward with the second. (Kitty-corner to the Public Library streetcar stop.)

 

12th & Vine Infill — pure speculation at this point, but it makes since that 3CDC will want to eventually replace this parking lot with a new building of some sort. Probably the most valuable lot they own in OTR, as it's adjacent to a streetcar stop and right in the heart of the Gateway Quarter restaurant/bar district.

Now talking about heights of these new buildings. 
Tallest building of Freeport Row is 7 floors, I believe the renderings put it around 75-80 ft. 

8th and Main rendering was 14 floors so around 180-185. The blonde is 13 floors at 170ft. 

 

180 Walnut will be 17 floors at 250 ft. 
 

Library expansion renderings for the apartment tower I believe showed it to be 15 floors so I’d say around 200 ft.

 

Court and walnut phase ll. My guess would be same height or shorter than phase I as I am assuming they will not be needing another parking garage. 
 

12th and Vine. I would assume due to the location that it will not be any taller than 4-6 floors. 
 

I wonder also about the parking lot and the building that housed Jean Roberts table. I’d assume due to the size of the lot nothing taller than 7 floors. 

 

Thanks gents. The data you shared was included in an All Aboard Ohio blog article shared and discussed at:

 

Has big implications for Cincinnati-area projects

 

 

20 Projects that will shape the region from Cincinnati Business Courier. I can think of at least 2 other projects that could have been added to this list.
Anthem site redevelopment and 180 at the Banks tower. Anyone have any others that they think should have been added?  https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/12/31/20-projects-that-will-shape-the-region.html

On 12/29/2020 at 4:01 PM, KJP said:

Has big implications for Cincinnati-area projects

 

 

I hope this will help someone redevelop Terrace Plaza. 

Whatever ends up happening to the Convention Center/Millennium/Convention Place and the surrounding parking lots and garages will reshape a major chunk of downtown. Combined with the other projects along 4th Street, there is to potential to rejuvenate the entire SW quadrant of the CBD.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

Whatever ends up happening to the Convention Center/Millennium/Convention Place and the surrounding parking lots and garages will reshape a major chunk of downtown. Combined with the other projects along 4th Street, there is to potential to rejuvenate the entire SW quadrant of the CBD.

If they block off Elm Street or sink it into a trench for the convention center expansion they will create hard, people-and-activity blocking borders for those quadrants right through the center of town. A generational mistake in the making 

Edited December 31, 20204 yr by thebillshark

Right, I hope the pandemic has caused them to pump the brakes on the expansion of the convention center itself. Sure, put some additional meeting rooms inside the new Convention Center hotel and keep the skywalk over Elm in place. But sinking Elm into a trench to get more continuous convention floor space should not be considered. Or maybe if the new BSB starts moving forward again under a Biden administration, they can expand west like they've wanted to do all along.

1 minute ago, taestell said:

Right, I hope the pandemic has caused them to pump the brakes on the expansion of the convention center itself. Sure, put some additional meeting rooms inside the new Convention Center hotel and keep the skywalk over Elm in place. But sinking Elm into a trench to get more continuous convention floor space should not be considered. Or maybe if the new BSB start moving forward again under a Biden administration, they can expand west like they've wanted to do all along.

I’m concerned blocking off Elm will be considered as a “preliminary” or “conceptual” option until all the sudden one day it’s the only way for a hundred million dollar plan to work and oh by the way we need a council vote by Wednesday. 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butler-county/liberty-township/700-undeveloped-acres-key-to-future-plans-in-liberty-twp

Just what we need, another interchange on I-75.  So stupid