I'm not feeling the 5th floor addition at all. Really ruins the charm/scale and makes it feel quite bulky up top. Also the entrance needs to be much more special if it's going to be featured in such a prominent way on the park. Right now the entrance in the rendering looks less boutique and more Holiday Inn Express.

What is this abomination they have created?

What is this abomination they have created?

 

Is that a putting green at right?

What is this abomination they have created?

 

Is that a putting green at right?

 

yikes. wow. this all screams "private park." and that entrance really is a swing and a miss

Removing the roof and dormers is a terrible preservation treatment. I hope that is not permitted.

Wow, I was not expecting this at all. It makes me wonder if they actually wanted that building at all, or if they just wanted the real estate and would tear down and rebuild if they had the ability to do so.

On page 150, they describe the architecture of the new Concourse. I'm no architect, but this just sounds like a recipe for bland and boring, similar to the unsympathetic additions that were put on 311 Pike in the 1980's. The brick facade of the new Concourse will inevitably clash with the brick of 311 Pike and the Anna Louise Inn. It'd be much better to use a non-brick facade on the Concourse:

The Concourse between the two buildings will accommodate the kitchen, the bar, the lobby and the front desk areas of the new full service hotel. It has been designed in a Modern Eclecticism style and is designed with reverence for the integrity of the architectural styles of the Ann (sic) Louise Inn and the 311 Pike Street buildings. The Concourse is an understated, modest connector between the two adjacent structures. The muted materials of glass, masonry, glazed masonry and stone offer a compatible present-day appearance. The Concourse compliments each of the adjoining structures. The West Facade defines itself as the Main Entry to the new hotel and is on axis with the focal features of the new Lytle Park. A skylight in the port-cochere graces the entry. The public spaces of the Concourse are crowned with jewel like skylights that architecturally draws one through the building. The East Facade rhythmically blends itself into the residential feel of Pike Street.

The concourse connecting the two buildings was originally designed to be all glass, with historic wrought iron looking structure. This was VEed to what amounts to not much more than a skylight now.

I don't understand the negative reactions here, sorry!  I'm not bothered at all by this design!  The bird's-eye view may be what's making the new entrance look mediocre.  Besides, we really can't discern many details from this rendering -- we're mainly getting too good of a look at the entryway's roof.  The quality of The Phelps' transformation just across the park into a Residence Inn makes me have faith that this project is going to be very nice in the end.

I agree that the finished product should look nice and be a very nice hotel on the inside. But the removal of the roof for the added floor and the removal of the central light well make the building a lot bulkier and more massive than what was originally a donut-like design with a softer roof.

The historic board approved the roof addition to the property. They required changes to the connector between buildings to be more open and to have more glass though. And for the entrance to be "softer" whatever the hell that means. Such an ambiguous, subjective term. We need a historic board that doesn't use layman's terms when describing what's wrong with architecture. That's how you wind up with mediocre slop. They should be specific about why that entrance was bad. People on these boards who aren't architecturally trained had more finesse in their reactions to it. The historic board should be doing the same.

 

Regardless, whatever changes the design team have made per their suggestions have been approved.

W&S's vision for Lytle Park:

 

^I'd like that a lot better if they'd swap the location of the "condominiums/multi-family & garage" with the "new w&sfg office & garage".  The building they want to tear down to build their new office building is beautiful and would be great for lofts. 

Is Western and Southern still aiming to make the there new office tower the tallest skyscraper in Cincinnati?

^I'd like that a lot better if they'd swap the location of the "condominiums/multi-family & garage" with the "new w&sfg office & garage".  The building they want to tear down to build their new office building is beautiful and would be great for lofts.

 

I am assuming they want the W&S HQ in that location so that it can be connected to their offices at 400 Broadway. I agree that the building currently at that location looks like it would be great for lofts. I wonder if they also plan on tearing down the existing W&S building on that patch. It would be a shame if they are since that is another beautiful building.

Strange for them to display 400 Broadway as a green square...

Not much about that image that we didn't know.  Labeling it "400 Broadway" is ambiguous.  Hey W&S, hurry up and build a new tallest! Don't hold your breath.

^I'd like that a lot better if they'd swap the location of the "condominiums/multi-family & garage" with the "new w&sfg office & garage".  The building they want to tear down to build their new office building is beautiful and would be great for lofts.

 

I am assuming they want the W&S HQ in that location so that it can be connected to their offices at 400 Broadway. I agree that the building currently at that location looks like it would be great for lofts. I wonder if they also plan on tearing down the existing W&S building on that patch. It would be a shame if they are since that is another beautiful building.

 

Yeah.  It also has better access due to being bordered by 5th and Broadway, rather than just Broadway, and allows their HQ to have a park at it's doorstep, like P&G's.  However, I think that a creative structure could address these issues.  Access could be improved, but not to the level of their currently chosen site, so this is unlikely to occur.  The finished product would be likely MUCH better for downtown, but slightly worse for W&S.

I would question the wisdom of putting condos right next to an above-ground highway, but then who am I kidding: there will be about 10 floors of parking before the living space occurs.

 

I also can't wait to destroy the picturesque nature of Lytle park with an ugly parking garage where the Woodford building currently sits. However, our overlords John Barrett and Co surely know what's best.

 

And finally, assuming that current W&S employees park at Great American, does all this *new* parking mean that there will be a surplus? So for the next big project, we won't be wringing our hands over how there isn't enough parking to go around, and where will the city find the money to subsidize yet another garage?

Having a time machine must be awesome. You must have one since no information about its aesthetics, programatic relationships, or location of the parking within the block itself has currently been released.

 

I can think of plenty of ways in which the parking will not front any road in their new headquarters.

 

Placing a condo tower next to a highway or a block away makes absolutely no difference a handful of floors above ground. Sound reduction from external sources isn't a difficult task with modern construction either.

I would question the wisdom of putting condos right next to an above-ground highway, but then who am I kidding: there will be about 10 floors of parking before the living space occurs.

 

I also can't wait to destroy the picturesque nature of Lytle park with an ugly parking garage where the Woodford building currently sits. However, our overlords John Barrett and Co surely know what's best.

 

And finally, assuming that current W&S employees park at Great American, does all this *new* parking mean that there will be a surplus? So for the next big project, we won't be wringing our hands over how there isn't enough parking to go around, and where will the city find the money to subsidize yet another garage?

 

To be fair, that park wouldn't exist at all if not for W&S stepping up when I-71 went through.  No one else gave a crap about preservation until relatively recently.  I'm not wild about the current plan, but it's probably important to remember that Lytle Park could have easily been a highway trench.

The section set for the HQ is roughly the same size as what great american sits on. And it actually looks like it would be a cool place for a tall tower as well.

Curious why it's taking so long for plans to follow through? I feel like they have been talking for the past 10 years or so.

I would question the wisdom of putting condos right next to an above-ground highway, but then who am I kidding: there will be about 10 floors of parking before the living space occurs.

 

I also can't wait to destroy the picturesque nature of Lytle park with an ugly parking garage where the Woodford building currently sits. However, our overlords John Barrett and Co surely know what's best.

 

And finally, assuming that current W&S employees park at Great American, does all this *new* parking mean that there will be a surplus? So for the next big project, we won't be wringing our hands over how there isn't enough parking to go around, and where will the city find the money to subsidize yet another garage?

 

To be fair, that park wouldn't exist at all if not for W&S stepping up when I-71 went through.  No one else gave a crap about preservation until relatively recently.  I'm not wild about the current plan, but it's probably important to remember that Lytle Park could have easily been a highway trench.

 

That doesn't mean the WS of 2015 is owed anything because they stuck their neck out back in 1965.  The fact is John Barret wouldn't have a job with WS if his dad hadn't fronted the company before him.  It's like when some little frat guy inherits his dad's car dealership but on a much larger scale. 

 

 

It would be a very cool place for a tower. Just last night I rode my bike down 5th and thought about how visually arresting it would be to have a large building at the end on the southern side. The Park place condos don't quite make the picture. However, that being said, I think the Woodford building is structure that really contributes to the park. And, W&S already has a parking lot behind it on the 5th street side. Conceivably, a tall skinny tower could go there (besides the point, but Cincinnati doesn't have any really skinny buildings, so this one would really stick out (pun intended)). Or, they could spend the money to build on top of their existing HQ, as has been discussed here, and has been done in NYC.

 

Jake's comment is spot on. 

Chris Seelbach is reporting on Facebook that he was the only dissenting vote today on whether to grant W&S a 100% 12 year tax abatement for their new hotel in the Anna Louise Inn.

 

The. only. one.

 

Edit: "where" to "whether"

These tax abatements are a tricky issue.

 

Keep in mind that every year, city council reduces the city's property tax rate in order to keep the same number of dollars coming in. (This is a terrible policy because new growth in the city does not result in additional revenue coming in to the city.) But the side effect of this policy is that we could give away as many tax abatements as we wants, and it will not affect the amount of money coming in. The only negative is that some other people's property tax rate will not decrease as much as it otherwise would have.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that without these tax abatements, we would not have our main funding source for the streetcar's operations. Right now developers have two choices: (1.) Accept a tax abatement and donate a portion of that abatement back into the streetcar operations fund; or (2.) You don't get a tax abatement. If we stop giving out abatements, we lose the streetcar operating revenue.

 

Also, this particular example is getting people upset because it's Western & Southern and it's the Anna Louise Inn, but is there any real reason why we should give tax abatements to some project but not others? If you're investing in the city, whether it's a $10 million hotel or a $175,000 condo, one of the perks that encourages you to make that investment is the 12-year tax abatement. If a developer comes in and says, "I want to build a new 50-story condo tower at Fifth and Race, but I need a tax abatement from the city to make the financing work," I'm sure just about everyone on this forum would support that.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that without these tax abatements, we would not have our main funding source for the streetcar's operations. Right now developers have two choices: (1.) Accept a tax abatement and donate a portion of that abatement back into the streetcar operations fund; or (2.) You don't get a tax abatement. If we stop giving out abatements, we lose the streetcar operating revenue.

 

Also, this particular example is getting people upset because it's Western & Southern and it's the Anna Louise Inn, but is there any real reason why we should give tax abatements to some project but not others? If you're investing in the city, whether it's a $10 million hotel or a $175,000 condo, one of the perks that encourages you to make that investment is the 12-year tax abatement. If a developer comes in and says, "I want to build a new 50-story condo tower at Fifth and Race, but I need a tax abatement from the city to make the financing work," I'm sure just about everyone on this forum would support that.

 

Isn't the flip side of the no abatement = no operating revenue that the city would have more tax receipts coming in, which means more money coming in that can be used for everything, operating costs included? Obviously there's a line where projects would be unfeasible w/o an abatement, and I understand the logic that some money is better than none.

 

You're right that this case is particularly upsetting because of the back story and bad feelings surrounding the whole thing. I won't pretend to know the whole story, but I think that this particular case warrants special consideration. It's a feeling of being used that really rankles. If Developer X came to the city and proposed that 50 story tower and laid out why he needed an abatement, that's different in my mind than the dirty fight that has happened between W&S and the Anna Louise Inn. That W&S was willing to endure a lot of bad press in order to secure the property, only to turn around ask for a 100% tax abatement, strikes me as self-serving and dishonest.

Isn't the flip side of the no abatement = no operating revenue that the city would have more tax receipts coming in, which means more money coming in that can be used for everything, operating costs included? Obviously there's a line where projects would be unfeasible w/o an abatement, and I understand the logic that some money is better than none.

 

Yes, even though the developers get a property tax abatement, any project that results in new jobs or residents within the city will bring additional income tax revenue to the city's general fund. However, with the current administration, we can not even have a conversation about using the general fund to pay for streetcar operations; the mayor would certainly veto it.

The difference between an individual homebuyer and a "developer" getting a tax abatement is that a homebuyer might be buying their first home and attempting to climb out of the lower class whereas a developer, almost without exception, is from a middle class or higher background and is almost certainly leveraging the financing.  This means a tax abatement could in theory double or triple their profits if something goes wrong (i.e. they make $200,000 instead of $100,000 on a $10 million project that had unforeseen expenses, slow sales, etc.).  At the very least, an already wealthy person is pocketing a few hundred thousand more dollars on a project at the expense of everyone else paying 50 cents or $1 more annually in property taxes. 

^You're bringing emotion and a sense of fairness into play, but what really matters are results.  If an abatement makes the difference between a project moving forward or being abandoned, then the abatement has done its job.  Who benefits and what their stature happens to be are inconsequential. 

 

You could end the process of abatements altogether, but then the city loses the ability to encourage certain projects (a first condo project might be really important if there are no existing condos, or a first grocery store, etc.).

Page 19 of the February 5 Historic Conservation Board packet has some detail about the "Cincinnati Autograph Hotel" wanting to lease 62 parking spaces from the city-owned lot that's beneath the Columbia Parkway overpass where E 3rd St & Butler intersect: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/feb-5-2016-packet/

 

 

Not sure if this is the right thread (mods feel free to move), but the massive excavation in front of the Anna Louise Inn for the <a href="http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D08/Newsreleases/Pages/I-71Lytle-Tunnel-project-to-begin-May-26.aspx">I-71 Lytle tunnel work</a> is truly impressive in scale. Stop by if you're in the area. I know they're upgrading the mechanical and ventilation systems of the tunnel, but it's not clear to me why so much excavation was necessary. Seems like they're building a massive bunker. 

 

 

I thought that the hole they dug would just be filled back over with dirt...but it looks like there are supports/pillars for some sort of room and there are doorways. I wonder what that is going to be for?

The excavation of the mechanical/ventilation facility for the Lytle Tunnel is adjacent to (not on top of) the tunnel. You can see in this aerial image that that excavation is situated east of the east-most tunnel, which allows it to be as deep as the tunnels themselves. I really don't understand why such a short tunnel needs such a huge mechanical/ventilation facility. I had assumed that this project would involve digging some ventilation ports above the existing tunnels and installing some fans for moving the air... but that's clearly not the case. Why does ODOT need such a huge underground facility? It's frustrating how ODOT can throw $30 million at a project with so little oversight or public input, and meanwhile City Council is squabbling over a few hundred thousands dollars for the Central Parkway bike lane.  Is there any way to get more info on ODOT projects? The only info I have is from a press release which doesn't really say much at all: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts/D08/Newsreleases/Pages/I-71Lytle-Tunnel-project-to-begin-May-26.aspx

 

Lytle Tunnel work beginning May 26 will improve driver safety by bringing the tunnel and its systems in compliance with current fire codes and design standards. Construction is expected to be completed in late fall 2017.

 

The $30 million tunnel project will upgrade lighting, repair concrete and tiles, and modernize mechanical and ventilation systems. In addition cameras and a fire detection system will be installed to allow more efficient and safer response time to incidents within the tunnel.

It has nothing to do with ODOT though. It's a federally mandated update since the old systems were so dated and standards have changed dramatically since its construction for interstate tunnels that are a hazardous material route.

That makes sense... and most interstate highway construction is federally funded then administered by the state DOT... but where are the details on this? Shouldn't they be on ODOT's or FHWA's websites? Presumably they had to go through an RFP process to select contractors, so the construction plans must be made available somewhere. Maybe they aren't accessibly to the public?

 

 

 

 

They are somewhere. I've downloaded them in the past and looked at the drawings related to this project but I can't for the life of me remember where that was. I believe it was Kathy from Cincypolis who sent me the link so maybe you can contact her.

Cool. Thanks.

I have heard that there is no federal standard for tunnel ventilation, so it's up to the state DOTs to decide how much ventilation is actually needed. This may have changed at some point though.

Interesting. I always heard the opposite of that.

 

Is there anyone here who knows how the standards work for interstate tunnels? Someone has to have a clearer answer.

The $30 million isn't just to add fancy new vents or fans - it's to rehab the flooring system of the tunnel, add new lights (I am assuming LED at this point), upgrading the ventilation system, repair leaks and replace tiles, and install a fire suppression system. It's hardly a waste and the project has been in the works for nearly a decade.

 

As a correction, I-71 through Cincinnati is not a HAZMAT route. HAZMAT vehicles are directed to use the beltway.

 

taestell[/member] and jmicha[/member]: Are you thinking of http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/tunnel/pubs/nhi09010/tunnel_manual.pdf? See section 2-9. Federal standards have changed and this documentation is a collaboration between the FHWA and AASHTO to clarify just these types of questions. This document does not go into specifics, though.

 

--

 

This document goes over what's involved in just maintenance and inspections of tunnels. It's mind-boggling: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/inspection/tunnel/tomie/hif15005.pdf

 

--

 

Specs on ventilation for tunnels (p. 85): http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30800/30876/FHWA-IF-05-023.pdf

You can view the park plan Wednesday, September 7th between 6:30-7:30 PM on the second floor of the Guilford Building.

 

 

New Lytle Park master plan to be revealed

 

The Cincinnati Park Board will host a public meeting Wednesday to reveal yet another revised master plan for Lytle Park.

 

Parks leaders are seeking community input.

 

"The plan has been modified to meet the current reduced construction budget," according to a release from Cincinnati Parks.

 

Cont

New plans revealed yesterday: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/09/08/slimmed-down-lytle-park-plan-gets-mixed-review.html

 

The idea of having an "exercise path" in such a small, urban park is just a horribly misguided, suburban idea. This quote from San Marco shows how little he understands about what makes urban neighborhoods work:

“The people who would like to run would like to in a more secure area and not through the streets,” San Marco said

 

One word: sidewalks. Urban neighborhoods work when there is enough activity on the streets at all (or at least most) hours that people feel safe. I'd guess that corner of the CBD probably has some of the lowest crime rates in the city. The ONLY thing that makes it *feel* unsafe is the lack of streetlife in the evenings. The Skyline at 4th & Sycamore closes at 7pm and there's not much else going on after that. The only solution to that is adding residents and retail.

 

Furthermore, nobody who likes to jog outside is going to run laps around an awkwardly shaped quarter mile loop in an urban park. If this prospective jogger is so paranoid about venturing out into the great unknown, then they're going to jog on a treadmill inside an air-conditioned gym.

The Enquirer article includes a rendering of the new park plan. Very underwhelming. Doesn't seem like the kind of place which will draw people in. They've taken a small park and made it even smaller by adding an awkward setback for the exercise path from the street. This is a park design that will always feel empty.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/09/07/lytle-park-cincinnati-new-plan/89919488/

 

Whoever designed this seems to have not spent much time in urban areas. This just feels like the kind of thing that would go outside of an office park.

Of course, Western and Southern views this part of downtown as their corporate campus. Lytle Park is their "lawn" for their office building and hotel. Much like the P&G gardens downtown, except Lytle is actually open to the public.

The worst is that walled off "Park" on 5th. I think it's 5th/3rd's. What a horrible use of space.

The worst is that walled off "Park" on 5th. I think it's 5th/3rd's. What a horrible use of space.

 

You mean the Federal Reserve's space?