Also, even if a store wants to prioritize free parking as an amenity, ignoring any government subsidies for the moment, it still means non-drivers are subsidizing drivers.  That may not be illegal or anything, but that doesn't mean it's right, and it's emphatically not fair. 

^its very right and very fair. The question comes down to one simple thing which is how bad do you want a downtown supermarket?

 

 

That has been the big complaint from downtown residents much of the last 20 years. It has been cited by numerous people that without a grocery store, we cannot sustain downtown development. Without a grocery store, the streetcar cannot thrive, without a grocery store xyz cannot occur.  So if it is that important of a catalyst to the city, then you do everything you can to get it, including subsidizing free parking, because in the end, it leads to more downtown residents and more people who will use the store, which leads to more people who ride the streetcar and take advantage of other amenities.

 

 

^ I reluctantly agree. Rightly or wrongly (and it really doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong) a downtown grocery has sort of become part of the enabling infrastructure. Kroger is obviously sensitive to this perception and is exploiting it.

 

I'd like to think that there could be some intelligent language in the agreement about monitoring of the usage of those 140 spaces and returning them to the paying pool under certain conditions, but I don't expect it.

 

^ By paying pool, my thoughts is that they would then be re-allocated to Kroger employees working at corporate who need additional spaces. This may not be that bad of a thing if it creates more jobs downtown

^ I reluctantly agree. Rightly or wrongly (and it really doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong) a downtown grocery has sort of become part of the enabling infrastructure. Kroger is obviously sensitive to this perception and is exploiting it.

 

I'd like to think that there could be some intelligent language in the agreement about monitoring of the usage of those 140 spaces and returning them to the paying pool under certain conditions, but I don't expect it.

 

 

Which is why, if this were anything other than a grocery store, it should be a non starter, nope, no way, get the **** out of town. You either pay your VTICA funding towards the streetcar or you do. not. get. your. tax. abatement.

^its very right and very fair.

 

Just because something's done all the time doesn't make it fair.  It's NOT fair to have the poor subsidize the rich, or to have the working class subsidize the middle class.  It's not fair to give only fuel points as customer rewards when many customers can't use/redeem them because they don't drive.  It's not fair that a city resident on a small lot pays the same rates for gas/water/electric/sewer/telephone/cable/internet as someone in the suburbs with 500 feet of frontage.  It's not fair for a parking lot owner downtown to pay next to nothing in taxes because their property is next to worthless without buildings, while there's half a million dollars of infrastructure under the street that still needs to be paid for through everyone else's taxes.  But these things are done all the time and nobody bats an eye, that still doesn't make it right.

^ O how sweet, you actually think life is supposed to be fair, that's cute.

 

This is a pure economics matter. Fact is, people downtown want a grocery store. It is important for there to be a grocery store downtown for continued development and to get more people to move into the urban area. The market without subsidies does not allow an apartment tower to be built in Cincy right now. In New York or San Fran, that is not the case, they can do that. So the question becomes how bad do we want something and what can we do to make it happen. If you look at things through the lens of what is fair and equal to the little guy, then nothing will ever get done. 

 

The better way to look at it is, is this project going to make the city a better more livable place and will the quality of life be increased for people of all ages, races, and socio economic levels. Through that lens, there is no arguing the answer is a resounding yes!!

I tend to agree more with Brutus here - this project is a really important inflection point for the basin, and it's worth doing, even if there are details to the deal that we don't like.

 

However, I think pointing out the bad things about the deal is important too because I certainly don't want to see these things repeated in future deals! This is a unique situation and needs to be treated as such.

^^It's not like suburbanites suck it up and accept that life and taxes are unfair - hell, that's why COAST complains about any project that doesn't directly benefit themselves. If it doesn't benefit me, then I'm not paying for it!

 

There really isn't a cut-and-paste answer when it comes to things like taxes, but I would hesitate in setting a precedent.

Life should be fair, but I know it's not.  Why is pointing out how it isn't grounds for ridicule and dismissive condescension on your part?  You stated before that you think non-drivers subsidizing drivers is somehow "very right and very fair" when it's demonstrably not.  Even if the ends justify the means, the means can still be unfair. 

If WCPO is trying to describe how the VTICA works, they're doing a really bad job: http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/downtown-cincinnati-kroger-twin-tifs-and-a-streetcar-kicker-how-taxpayers-will-finance-the-store

 

It’s a complicated deal that makes the Kroger store itself the first downtown development to be exempted from a two-year-old policy requiring tax-break recipients to share 15 percent of their proceeds with the Cincinnati Bell Connector.

 

Saying "15 percent of their proceeds" sounds to me like "15 percent of profits" which is - of course - NOT how the VTICA works, but I worry that WCPO's readers will be confused. The VTICA means that properties in the streetcar developer area are only are able to get up to 60% property tax abatement, as opposed to up to 75% in other neighborhoods.

 

Here's how the City's website describes the program: http://choosecincy.com/Economic-Development/Programs-Services/Incentives-Financing/Commercial-Reinvestment-Area.aspx

For development in most neighborhoods, the maximum tax exemption is up to 75% for up to 15 years.

 

For developments within the VTICA boundary area, which includes portions of downtown, Over-the-Rhine and Pendleton, the maximum tax exemption is up to net 60% for up to 15 years.

 

 

 

^ That's the kind of thing people remember forever, but never the corrections that come later.  Like the subway tunnels are too small, or Obama is from Kenya.

Just because something's done all the time doesn't make it fair.  It's NOT fair to have the poor subsidize the rich, or to have the working class subsidize the middle class.  It's not fair to give only fuel points as customer rewards when many customers can't use/redeem them because they don't drive.  It's not fair that a city resident on a small lot pays the same rates for gas/water/electric/sewer/telephone/cable/internet as someone in the suburbs with 500 feet of frontage.  It's not fair for a parking lot owner downtown to pay next to nothing in taxes because their property is next to worthless without buildings, while there's half a million dollars of infrastructure under the street that still needs to be paid for through everyone else's taxes.  But these things are done all the time and nobody bats an eye, that still doesn't make it right.

 

^ O how sweet, you actually think life is supposed to be fair, that's cute.

 

Virtually every other developed country in the world has policies that prevent the unfair practices jjakucyk[/member] is talking about. These policies are not "cute", they are real things that exist in most of the world. A few US cities have some of these policies (urban growth boundaries or urban service boundaries), but for the most part, if a developer wants to build a new subdivision or big box shopping plaza in the US, they get "free" roads (subsidized by everyone else, even urban residents who don't drive), "free" utilities (subsidized by all the other Cincinnati Bell, Spectrum, and Duke Energy customers), etc., etc., etc. And yet, when it comes time to invest money in things that help the cities, suburbanites who have benefited from all of these subsidizes kick and scream and insist that their taxpayer dollars shouldn't subsidize urban areas. And that's not even counting all of the other indirect costs that urban residents bear, which others have mentioned in this thread.

 

Anyway, I guess I should feel #blessed that Kroger is willing to build a new store and make a profit selling me (and other OTR residents) groceries while taxpayers spend a half million dollars per year to pay for "free" parking for their suburban customers.

Here is the full 43 page presentation for the design of the new Tower:

 

 

I would like to know more about the east side of Bowen Alley. The site is ripe for a higher density development as well but it looks like this proposal is only suggesting low density loading use. I would pressure the developers to design the structure so that additional mixed use could be built above some day, a la FWW or those Senhauser condos on 8th Street. How is the HCB accepting comments for this?

Life should be fair, but I know it's not.  Why is pointing out how it isn't grounds for ridicule and dismissive condescension on your part?  You stated before that you think non-drivers subsidizing drivers is somehow "very right and very fair" when it's demonstrably not.  Even if the ends justify the means, the means can still be unfair. 

 

Life can never be fair because fairness is all about perspective. To complain about things being fair or unfair is a matter of your point of view.

 

Regarding your question about subsidizing drivers as being fair, I find it very fair, as do many other members on the board because the stakeholders get good value for this subsidy, and it is a subsidy that was bargained for at arms length. If you want a nice, new, upscale downtown grocery store with 150 apartment units attached, it is going to cost the taxpayers a parking subsidy. If that subsidy is too much to stomach for the majority of people, then they can have a parking lot instead. It is all about bargaining and in this case, most people will agree that the price of parking is small relative to the benefits of receiving the store. That is why it is very fair.

Thanks Matt. I think it looks good. the most important thing is the grocery store entrance is facing the SW corner (Court and Walnut) where foot traffic can help revive the adjacent storefronts. I like the trees on the setback on the Court St. side that cover up the garage. I'm a little surprised that it goes all the way over to the little building at Central Parkway and Main with a one story loading dock, but if that's what they need, that's what they need. I'd  like to see a rendering from that angle. It may be nice to get a little more hieght on that corner someday- perhaps they could add on more stories to the 1 story really neat historic building there. EDIT: just saw Chas's comment above & agree with his suggestion

I would like to know more about the east side of Bowen Alley. The site is ripe for a higher density development as well but it looks like this proposal is only suggesting low density loading use. I would pressure the developers to design the structure so that additional mixed use could be built above some day, a la FWW or those Senhauser condos on 8th Street. How is the HCB accepting comments for this?

 

Letters can be emailed to Beth Johnson, Urban Conservator: [email protected]

 

Beth Johnson | Urban Conservator 

City of Cincinnati | Buildings & Inspections

Permit Center | 805 Central Avenue, Suite 500 | Cincinnati, OH 45202

Thanks Matt. I think it looks good. the most important thing is the grocery store entrance is facing the SW corner (Court and Walnut) where foot traffic can help revive the adjacent storefronts. I like the trees on the setback on the Court St. side that cover up the garage. I'm a little surprised that it goes all the way over to the little building at Central Parkway and Main with a one story loading dock, but if that's what they need, that's what they need. I'd  like to see a rendering from that angle. It may be nice to get a little more hieght on that corner someday- perhaps they could add on more stories to the 1 story really neat historic building there. EDIT: just saw Chas's comment above & agree with his suggestion

 

I am torn as to whether the apartments and garage should enter along Court as well, directing all foot traffic to Court, or if it makes sense directing it over to Central and creating foot traffic on that block.

This looks good.  It's about time Central Parkway got some love.

wow, this is going to be almost two-thirds as high as the existing Kroger building. It's going to have even more of an impact than I initially realized.

 

Hopefully this spurs someone else to buy the big-ass parking lot on Walnut between Court and 9th and build something there. "Live next door to a nice grocery store *and* a streetcar stop while being only a few blocks away from OTR *and* Fountain Square" is a helluva selling point.

Yeah I have a feeling that spot will be filled quickly. I'd actually prefer that lot to be two separate developments. Something along Court and something along 9th. Both with height. Preferably the one on 9th would be taller than this development to help spread the skyline out.

 

It would only take a handful of buildings to eliminate the feeling of the Kroger building being all by itself in the skyline which I think would be a good thing.

I like many aspects of the building and I live an work very close by.  But I am not so excited about the Kroger.  This layout seems similar to the Corryville store and that is blah IMO.  I will continue to get all my produce at Findlay Market.

 

I don't see why they don't just take the plunge and buy that one-story building at the SW corner of Main & Central Parkway.  Kinda weird leftover bank building I guess.

I like many aspects of the building and I live an work very close by.  But I am not so excited about the Kroger.  This layout seems similar to the Corryville store and that is blah IMO.  I will continue to get all my produce at Findlay Market.

 

I don't see why they don't just take the plunge and buy that one-story building at the SW corner of Main & Central Parkway.  Kinda weird leftover bank building I guess.

 

I'd think that this will be even more influenced by the layouts of Chicago's Marianos stores, which Kroger now owns. The layout of Corryville was determined when they put the plans together like 2-3 years ago, so Kroger hadn't yet absorbed lessons from Marianos.  This is being designed in a post-Marianos ownership landscape.

 

As for why they don't get that building at Main and Central, that building is historic and charming and lots of people (including me) would raise a hue and cry if it were demolished.

Yeah I have a feeling that spot will be filled quickly. I'd actually prefer that lot to be two separate developments. Something along Court and something along 9th. Both with height. Preferably the one on 9th would be taller than this development to help spread the skyline out.

 

It would only take a handful of buildings to eliminate the feeling of the Kroger building being all by itself in the skyline which I think would be a good thing.

 

I think it will be a condo development similar to what is proposed on 8th and Main area.  I used to walk there and always envisioned a boutique movie theatre there, but I really cant set that happening anymore at that site. Some combination of housing/garage/ and destination level retail would be a great fit there, maybe a furniture store or something

Yeah I have a feeling that spot will be filled quickly. I'd actually prefer that lot to be two separate developments. Something along Court and something along 9th. Both with height. Preferably the one on 9th would be taller than this development to help spread the skyline out.

 

It would only take a handful of buildings to eliminate the feeling of the Kroger building being all by itself in the skyline which I think would be a good thing.

 

I think it will be a condo development similar to what is proposed on 8th and Main area.  I used to walk there and always envisioned a boutique movie theatre there, but I really cant set that happening anymore at that site. Some combination of housing/garage/ and destination level retail would be a great fit there, maybe a furniture store or something

 

That would be one place to try a residential building without the parking, across the street from this 500 space proposed garage.  Interestingly the latest design for 8th and Main is a ~120 unit apartment building with no parking.  So yeah, build one of those to the south of this proposed Kroger development. 

^ It would be hard to try it without parking because there are a lot of people at the Courthouse and County Admin building who use that lot. A garage would not necessarily be for the building but to replace the lost parking for the workers in the area.

I'd think that this will be even more influenced by the layouts of Chicago's Marianos stores, which Kroger now owns. The layout of Corryville was determined when they put the plans together like 2-3 years ago, so Kroger hadn't yet absorbed lessons from Marianos.  This is being designed in a post-Marianos ownership landscape.

Wishful thinking IMO

 

As for why they don't get that building at Main and Central, that building is historic and charming and lots of people (including me) would raise a hue and cry if it were demolished.

A 1,500 SF one-story corner building, built in 1941?  It was a mistake when it was built and is not worth saving IMO.

I'd say it's worth saving through integration. That's a super prominent corner to have a tiny one story building but it's a handsome one of an era that should be preserved. That can mean building on top of, around, over, etc. while preserving it which could be the impetus for interesting architecture on that corner.

Its the perfect candidate for a rooftop garden/deck for a larger building behind and around it -OR- a complete façade-ectomy (which I am normally opposed to). Build another 5 to 10 above and around. I plan on sending my comments on the matter to the conservator today.

Could it be the site of Cincinnati's first cantilevered building?

FYI it was much more built at that corner at one point in time. ESPECIALLY where the Main Street Parking lot is across the street.

So do any of the expert photoshoppers on this forum want to take a shot at adding the Central Parkway & Walnut tower to this skyline shot?

 

 

(Full giant panorama here.)

Could they also add the 8th and main towers as well?

 

EDIT: Warmed it up a bit considering the lighting and that they are using a precast to mimic the limestone on surrounding buildings.

 

I don't think the other developments along Main Street are visible from this vantage, so I didn't include them. However, I did include the Kingsley + Co./Anchor Properties proposal from the existing CMHA site. Had way less to go off of for that one, so it isn't as precise or clear. I can remove it for anyone's personal use for a small fee. ;)

Looks great! Would 4th and Race be able to be noticed from this advantage point?

^ does the Kingsley development still happen? I thought it was supposed to have a grocery store component and with Kroger going where it was going, I don't see a grocery store component feasible anymore. Does that change the economics of the deal.

^ does the Kingsley development still happen? I thought it was supposed to have a grocery store component and with Kroger going where it was going, I don't see a grocery store component feasible anymore. Does that change the economics of the deal.

 

That seemed like they just wanted to say *grocery* to get headlines. The much bigger component of that project is office space, and that is what would determine the financial feasibility of it moving forward. From what I recall they actually purchased the land.

They may own the land but to get financing to build you need to have commitments from tenants. I do feel the office in that location should do well with all the people wanting to get into OTR. They should build it higher personally, but office is definitely going to work.

I'm sure the Kingsley development will happen still with the offices.  They will obviously need to re-think the commercial space they are planning for it, maybe they can go with a type of Book Store, wouldn't it be sweet if they got an Apple Store at some point?  Anyways, I think this will go through still, but it just may be some time before it does.

I'm sure the Kingsley development will happen still with the offices.  They will obviously need to re-think the commercial space they are planning for it, maybe they can go with a type of Book Store, wouldn't it be sweet if they got an Apple Store at some point?  Anyways, I think this will go through still, but it just may be some time before it does.

 

What's the thread for this Kingsley development called?

 

That project has mostly been discussed in the Cincinnati: Over-the-Rhine: Development and News (non-3CDC) thread. When it starts getting more serious we can create a thread for that specific project.

^ does the Kingsley development still happen? I thought it was supposed to have a grocery store component and with Kroger going where it was going, I don't see a grocery store component feasible anymore. Does that change the economics of the deal.

 

That seemed like they just wanted to say *grocery* to get headlines. The much bigger component of that project is office space, and that is what would determine the financial feasibility of it moving forward. From what I recall they actually purchased the land.

 

I've heard rumors they want to put a Walgreens there. They're partnering with Anchor Development who exclusively builds Walgreens stores.

Downtown Kroger clears first hurdle

 

The first piece of legislation needed to clear the way for a downtown Kroger Store and Central Parkway and Walnut streets was approved by the Cincinnati Planning Commission on Friday, vacating a city-owned alley on the project site.

 

The alley, Bowen Street, was worth about $60,000, according to documents filed with the city and commissioners approved the sale unanimously. The measure now goes to the Cincinnati City Council for approval.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/06/23/downtown-kroger-clears-first-hurdle.html

​Downtown Kroger heads toward City Council approval, but not before a hiccup over the streetcar

 

Two Cincinnati City Council members said Monday they have concerns over the deal to bring a Kroger grocery store to downtown centered on how the project contributes to the Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar’s operations, but three ordinances needed to make it a reality appear headed toward passage.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/06/26/downtown-kroger-heads-toward-city-council.html

I see Cranley using the argument that Simpson is putting the streetcar ahead of Kroger and a downtown grocery to further his one-topic-only campaign...

Meh, I don't think Cranley's base is too supportive of the Downtown Kroger anyway. Cranley's entire campaign in 2013 was based on the idea that "the city is too focused on downtown and not focused enough on neighborhoods." So I don't think Cranley can really brag about the new Downtown Kroger without upsetting his base.

Downtown Kroger moves ahead in day of deals at Cincinnati City Hall

 

The Cincinnati City Council approved a flurry of economic development-related ordinances Wednesday, including four ordinances related to the $90.6 million mixed-use development at Central Parkway and Walnut Street that will include a Kroger store.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/06/29/downtown-kroger-moves-ahead-in-day-of-deals-at.html

Did they approve the bad precedent of allowing the Kroger to not contribute to VITCA?

Yes. That's why Chris Seelbach voted no.

 

Cranley called us a "big boy city":

 

“Part of being a big boy city that’s on the rise is having a big, great grocer in the biggest part of your city,” Cranley said. “The benefits we get from having Kroger are unparalleled.”