I feel old because i watched this 1/2 block get torn down in 93 or 94 when i was working in the Kroger Building. Now the replacement for them is coming down, didn't expect that so soon. I guess the bridge between them is going too?

 

Hmm, I thought there was a parking lot, at least at the NW corner of 9th and Walnut Streets, before the library was expanded to the north.  I've lived in the CBD for a long time and I don't remember all of those bldgs. along 9th Street.  If they were all there until the early 1990s then I guess I'm losing it.

 

It's hard to believe the library expansion is already obsolete.  Planning for it obviously occurred before it was understood how the internet would impact library use.  The south bldg. used to be absolutely bustling when I first moved downtown.

 

Also, the bldg. at the SW corner of Court and Walnut Streets was shortened by a floor after a fire caused serious damage.  I think there were artists' studios in it before the fire.

 

 

True, im not sure they were all there either. Im positive the garage was one still standing then along with the small unique building with the circle porch but i cant remember if the block was corner to corner like it is shown here. The regular buildings came down quickly but the garage was reinforced concrete and it tooks weeks of pounding demo. I was in the 9th floor of the Kroger building at the time so i watched  it from behind and above when i had a chance.

 

 

I remember going on a hard-hat tour of the north building while it was under construction with a bunch of architects, and several people were commenting even before it was completed that the expanding across the street was an extravagant move when they already had lots of vacant space along Walnut Street.  It took them 20 years to fully realize their mistake.  What a waste of taxpayer money.

 

We probably should have a separate thread for the downtown library.

Other than Fountain News on the corner, access to the Tri State Building has been fenced off and there is a dumpster out front. Anyone know what is going on?

Going to be remade into a boutique hotel from what I hear.

^Good news, I just looked it up and saw they had listed before that they were looking at apartments and office space. 

 

Is it just me or does that corner really need a refresher?  It just seems run down and the concrete sidewalk and entrances are dark and uninviting.  This will be nice if they get this beautiful corner building re-made.

I believe they applied for, but did not receive historic tax credits from Ohio. Not sure if that is holding up their project or not.

 

Here's an old article about it:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/05/12/downtown-cincinnati-office-building-sold-to-become.html

*Brainstorm* would the north building of the Library (plus some potential addition) make a good UC College of Law?

Makes sense to me.  just a block from the courthouse..

*Brainstorm* would the north building of the Library (plus some potential addition) make a good UC College of Law?

 

Didn't they already agree to make that on UC's campus?  Not saying it wouldn't be a very good idea to have it there, I had just thought they voted to build on campus but maybe they simply voted to not have it at the Banks?

*Brainstorm* would the north building of the Library (plus some potential addition) make a good UC College of Law?

 

Didn't they already agree to make that on UC's campus?  Not saying it wouldn't be a very good idea to have it there, I had just thought they voted to build on campus but maybe they simply voted to not have it at the Banks?

 

They're spending a million bucks to study where it could fit on the Uptown campus.  Now that this this opportunity has arose maybe they should reconsider? This would probably be a lot cheaper than a Banks option as well as be closer to the courthouse/law offices/corporations downtown, be on the streetcar route and accessible to main campus by relatively frequent busses. Would also give 3cdc's efforts to revitalize Court Street a boost.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/08/24/uc-trustees-vote-on-where-to-locate-newlaw-school.html

I agree that the North Building would be a great location for the UC College of Law, but the parking situation would likely prevent UC from choosing that site.

I agree that the North Building would be a great location for the UC College of Law, but the parking situation would likely prevent UC from choosing that site.

 

I don't disagree about how hung up people are about parking, but the enormous Garfield Garage is less than a full city block away, AND the new Kroger project right around the corner will include a 500 space garage.

Sure, but UC isn't going to go for it unless they have a "safe" and "exclusive" parking garage just for their students, faculty, and staff. I can't imagine them telling students "just park in one of the many nearby parking garages". UC likes to pretend that campus is its own little city. I mean, main campus has its own power plant, police department, and bus network.

Sure, but UC isn't going to go for it unless they have a "safe" and "exclusive" parking garage just for their students, faculty, and staff. I can't imagine them telling students "just park in one of the many nearby parking garages". UC likes to pretend that campus is its own little city. I mean, main campus has its own power plant, police department, and bus network.

 

If they acted in concert with 3cdc who is consulting on the library redevelopment they could reserve parking spots in the new Kroger garage. They could design an addition so that the entrance to the law school would be a half a block from said garage. It would be a ridiculous reason to disqualify this as an option. But I'm not saying your wrong- people are ridiculous and irrational over parking and it has caused paralysis and decay in our cities for decades.

These people are going to be friggin' LAWYERS. If they need to be coddled about parking what's going to happen when they go in front of a judge? Many of them will be around felons all day every day.

The courthouse was built in 1919 with no on-site parking, in part because a goddamn subway was under construction right outside. 

 

Fun Fact: the 1919 county courthouse (the third built on the site) cost $3 million to build, or exactly half of the city's portion of the Rapid Transit Loop as authorized by the public in 1916.  Sure, the total capital cost of the system was much higher (the street railway was going to spend a similar amount on track and subway trains and Central Parkway itself cost as much to build as the tunnel beneath it), but swish it around a little and then let it sink in.     

^Also, another FUN FACT: in 1917 or 1918 the Hamilton County Commissioners wrote to the Rapid Transit Commission asking what the name of the new road would be called above the subway.  At the time the canal still physically existed.  The rapid transit commissioners wrote back "it shall be called Central Parkway", and that name was physically engraved into the courthouse.  The roadway itself wasn't built for another ten years. 

Another point- both the Enquirer and Business Courier has reported the north Library building closure as "opening a block of prime real estate for development" -as if there aren't acres and acres of surface parking lots downtown (some in the immediate vicinity of this site) that are open for development.

^Exactly.  The CAC and Aronoff were built on blocks packed by buildings, as was this library expansion.  Meanwhile, none -- ZERO -- long-living surface parking lots have been built on in decades with the exception of the condos at Central & 4th in 2008.  We have 50+ surface parking lots downtown that have existed for 50+ years.  Literally. 

If we started taxing the crap out of surface parking, and not allowing non-profits to operate tax-exempt parking lots (Archdiocese of Cincinnati, St. Xavier High School, etc.), they would all disappear in 10 years. 

^Exactly.  The CAC and Aronoff were built on blocks packed by buildings, as was this library expansion.  Meanwhile, none -- ZERO -- long-living surface parking lots have been built on in decades with the exception of the condos at Central & 4th in 2008.  We have 50+ surface parking lots downtown that have existed for 50+ years.  Literally.

 

It's really twisted and bass ackwards to think of the only developable land as land that already has buildings on it, and these empty asphalt expanses as being untouchable, but that's the exact situation were in as long as these surface lots are so profitable (and probably why the owners are political donors.) It has the potential to limit the ROI of the streetcar as well.

 

If you think about the new proposals around town that's exactly how it's panning out. 12th and Race apts. would replace two garage like buildings, Ndukwe's office development proposed replacing an old abandoned CMHA building, Greiwe Condo Tower proposed to replace Donato's building. Nothing proposed for a surface lot - except the Kroger project which is getting massive city help.

^Yeah, we must still be a ways out from buying out those surface lots.  That said, I would say this is more of a developable block because of it's location right on next to Court Street and in between Vine and Walnut.  It will probably need city money to get apartments or office off the ground there but will be interesting to see what they do with it.

In the hierarchy of needs, I would rank the priority as:

 

1. Preserving historic buildings that are currently vacant

2. Demolishing old, crumbling parking garages and replacing them with new mixed use development with retail on ground floor

3. Converting old office buildings with lots of vacancy to other uses (apartments, condos, hotels)

4. Constructing new buildings to replace downtown parking lots

5. Reconfiguring existing productive spaces (i.e., library consolidating into south building so north building can be redeveloped, reworking the convention center, etc.)

St. Xavier High School has owned property at the corner or 8th & Sycamore since 1831.  The school was torn down in 1960 and they have not paid any property tax since.  Revenue from the lot has subsidized the school -- which is a great blue chip diversification of its investments unlike the hedge fund debacles perpetrated by UC and many other universities --  but that investment should not be tax-free and should not be to the detriment of the public good. 

 

In the 1990s there was some chatter regarding an apartment development for that lot.  Obviously, the apartment needs to make more money than the lot for the project to be worth the school missing 2+ years of parking revenue.  But the school should not be able to collect revenue on an apartment development without paying property tax for the next 100 years. 

^Exactly.  The CAC and Aronoff were built on blocks packed by buildings, as was this library expansion.  Meanwhile, none -- ZERO -- long-living surface parking lots have been built on in decades with the exception of the condos at Central & 4th in 2008.  We have 50+ surface parking lots downtown that have existed for 50+ years.  Literally. 

 

Actually, the northern-most part of the Aronoff Center was built on a surface lot that used to run along the south side of 7th Street between Main and Walnut.  And part of the library expansion was built on a surface lot at the NW corner of 9th and Walnut. 

 

BUT, it just goes to show there's effectively a domino effect when permission is granted to demolish old buildings to create surface lots.

If we started taxing the crap out of surface parking, and not allowing non-profits to operate tax-exempt parking lots (Archdiocese of Cincinnati, St. Xavier High School, etc.), they would all disappear in 10 years. 

 

I just looked on the auditor's website and it looks like St X pays $30,000 a year in property taxes for the parking lot

If we started taxing the crap out of surface parking, and not allowing non-profits to operate tax-exempt parking lots (Archdiocese of Cincinnati, St. Xavier High School, etc.), they would all disappear in 10 years. 

 

I just looked on the auditor's website and it looks like St X pays $30,000 a year in property taxes for the parking lot

 

How does that compare to other parking lots that are owned by for-profit companies?

The parking lot that the new Kroger's is going on pays $33,000

I am amazed.  They might have revoked their tax-exempt status in order to report the lot's operations as a loss and therefore actually pay less overall tax (pay local tax but pay much less state/federal).  Of course we see a perfunctory visit to the Board of Revision who gladly trimmed the value of the lot from $4 million to $3 million.  Also, the lot changed hands in 1985 from one non-profit entity to another, so that might be the root of the current tax strategy. 

 

Look up "Columbia Oldsmobile" and you see that they didn't consolidate the various properties on which the Columbia Tower sits into just one county parcel.  Again, I suspect some Hollywood accounting strategy.  One piece of land under the 30-story tower pays $1.5 million in annual property tax, another pays $7,000 or something like that. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of downtown... we just used public dollars to tear down a perfectly good building (the old dunnhumby) to create more surface parking, under the pretext of a Brent Spence Bridge replacement which remains unfunded and without final designs:

 

I heard from a resident on McMicken that the City's DOTE is considering demolishing the Brighton Approach bridge over Central Parkway: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.122713,-84.5326711,3a,75y,323.13h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scEHyTsyOMikmav8tvJAZAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Apparently the bridge needs significant repair work, and one option would be to simply demolish it. Residents on McMicken are gathering signatures to make sure it isn't torn down. I don't know how much (if any) of this is true. Anybody know details of what DOTE is considering?

I heard from a resident on McMicken that the City's DOTE is considering demolishing the Brighton Approach bridge over Central Parkway: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.122713,-84.5326711,3a,75y,323.13h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scEHyTsyOMikmav8tvJAZAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Apparently the bridge needs significant repair work, and one option would be to simply demolish it. Residents on McMicken are gathering signatures to make sure it isn't torn down. I don't know how much (if any) of this is true. Anybody know details of what DOTE is considering?

 

It's mentioned in the Mohawk neighborhood plan: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/planning-projects-studies/mohawk-area-plan/

I heard from a resident on McMicken that the City's DOTE is considering demolishing the Brighton Approach bridge over Central Parkway: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.122713,-84.5326711,3a,75y,323.13h,94.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scEHyTsyOMikmav8tvJAZAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Apparently the bridge needs significant repair work, and one option would be to simply demolish it. Residents on McMicken are gathering signatures to make sure it isn't torn down. I don't know how much (if any) of this is true. Anybody know details of what DOTE is considering?

 

No actual details yet, but it is not just Cincinnati DOTE's call as it spans over a state route so ODOT has much of the say. Some of the Mohawk Plan steering committee will be meeting with Michael Moore soon to discuss in more detail and get a better idea of the situation.

Losing both the pedestrian bridge and this road bridge would be quite unfortunate.  If it needs to come down that's ok, because frankly it's a mess in all sorts of ways.  Now that Colerain no longer connects through, there's an opportunity to put something back in a much better configuration, but to just get rid of it completely would be a big mistake IMO.

Losing both the pedestrian bridge and this road bridge would be quite unfortunate.  If it needs to come down that's ok, because frankly it's a mess in all sorts of ways.  Now that Colerain no longer connects through, there's an opportunity to put something back in a much better configuration, but to just get rid of it completely would be a big mistake IMO.

 

Agreed. With the loss of the Baymiller pedestrian bridge Central Parkway is a huge divider between OTR/Mohawk and the West End.

I'd be interested to see an estimate for repairing it.  It's such an unusual structure that it would be a shame to lose it. 

I'd be interested to see an estimate for repairing it.  It's such an unusual structure that it would be a shame to lose it.

 

It's the interesting geometry that makes it cool to me, and a reason I'd like to see it stay. It's unique.

Well if the cost to repair for vehicular use is huge (like $25+ million), they could could probably just patch it up and let it be used by bicycles and pedestrians. 

Being a concrete structure probably means they're worried about rusting rebar and chunks of concrete falling off (several pieces have already fallen), along with continued water and salt intrusion.  Reducing the weight limit doesn't fix that.  Aside from that, it really messes with Central Parkway below, squeezing the sidewalks through piers or blocking the sidewalk completely, and blowing away the geometry of the bike lanes too.  The fork-in-the-road intersections it creates are also pretty rough.  I just don't think they could ever dress it up enough to make it not look like a blobby turd. 

Meet Ag47, the largest development in Silvertons history

 

 

The largest development in Silvertons history continues to move forward. And now it has a name.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/02/16/meet-ag47-the-largest-development-in-silverton-s.html

 

In July they tore down a large number of homes and multifamilies for this project.  It's happening. 

 

Yes there's only a couple buildings left to take down, one being my old dentists office. Otherwise it looks like the land is pretty clear and greenery is all gone too.

Great...

Yeah I'd be fine with this project if half of it wasn't parking.

Or they could simply flip the design and have the back buildings facing the street with parking in the back.  But alas...

Create street facing retail set back a decent amount to make it feel comfortable enough to sit along such an awful road, then place your large buildings, then parking lot, then townhomes more private in the rear. They literally did the exact opposite of what makes sense for the site.

Cincinnati area forumers:

 

OKI (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments) is doing a survey about transportation priorities in the region. Please take a few moments to leave your feedback and upvote the other comments you agree with.

 

https://poll.cityzenapp.us/1921

Does anyone know what 5/3 Bank is doing with the signage band at the top of the tower? I know the been working on it but the black band background they seem to be removing. Anyone have any information?

I think they are replacing the old Fifth Third Bank text with their "new" green swoosh logo (which was actually introduced ten years ago, but whatever, I guess rolling it out wasn't a top priority).

i think they are leaving the letters, because those were installed probably 3 or 4 years ago when they made the change to the new logo but never changed the background. I assume they are changing the background to the new color scheme.

Hopefully they add some more neon lights.  Before they had a red light that wrapped the top of the building but when they switched logo/colors they got rid of it.  If they do I hope they go with green as there already is a lot of blue neon used downtown.