If we keep at the same pace we're currently building at we'll have no troubles reaching 25,000 people by 2025. Honestly I think we should be striving for 25,000 by 2020. It's ambitious but it would only take a handful of high profile projects per year plus all the smaller projects to reach that goal. A full build-out of The Banks will bring several thousand people. The projects announced lining Liberty in OTR will bring about hundreds of new people. A handful of new skyscrapers Downtown can easily bring another couple thousand residents if done correctly. We're accelerating our rate of growth and it's starting to show. We're reaching a tipping point where development begets development. Once it starts snowballing at a certain pace it becomes difficult to slow or stop. And that's the point Cincinnati is quickly approaching.

I'm not so certain about reaching that goal by 2020. The downsized 4th and Race has 200 units, so that's maybe 500 people. Do we know how many units are going in the tower at 8th and sycamore? together they're probably 1000 people, on the high end. After that... like it or not big buildings take a while to plan and then build. I know that urbancincy has remarked often on the dearth of (visible) projects in the pipeline.

 

Plus, at some point, the towers will have to stop including huge parking garages. That point probably scares many developers, who think they need more money to finance the garages, thus slowing down the pace of construction.

It probably won't happen, but we're currently growing at around 1000/year without any of these much larger scale projects having come online in recent years. Maybe if we push it back to 2022 it'll be more realistic, but I honestly believe this next two years is going to bring with it several really high profile projects in the form of very large buildings Downtown. Larger than any of the recent projects we've seen.

^You must have some insider info.

Nothing specific, but being an architect leads to many rumblings passing through the mouths of coworkers, peers at other firms, contractors, etc. There are a handful of firms doing multi-family projects that are seeing a LOT of interest in larger and larger projects that have yet to be announced.

 

The perks of being in the business I guess haha.

^Actually when it was first developed in the 1980s, it WAS an apartment building.

Interesting! Any idea how long it was before it was converted into a hotel?

 

I think 2 Garfield became a hotel well within a decade of its opening.  Maybe as soon as 5 years later.  In those days there just wasn't the demand for downtown living that we see today, and it struggled.  It was too far ahead of its time.  A lot of the apartments were used by local big businesses such as Cincinnati Bell, P&G, etc., for trainees who came to town for extended stays. 

EXCLUSIVE: Fast-growing retailer moving its headquarters downtown

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/15/exclusive-fast-growing-retailer-moving-its.html

 

Tire Discounters, the nation's ninth-largest independent tire retailer, is moving its corporate headquarters to downtown Cincinnati.

The family-owned and operated company, currently headquartered in Sharonville, is expected to move to One East Fourth Street this summer. The company signed a long-term lease for about 10,000 square feet of space to occupy the entire fourth floor.

 

 

Company that sells tires relocates from suburban Sharonville to Downtown Cincinnati. If this isn't a sign that mainstream views of cities are changing (for the better), I don't know what is.

This is timely.  I can't see how Tire Discounters can keep up this growth locally.  I just saw they're building one at Center of Cincinnati across from the LA Fitness.  This in addition to one at Ridge/Highland (which I assume will close), Kenwood, Red Bank, Mariemont, and over 25 other stores in the region.  Add in Bob Sumerel, Sam's, etc. and you're barely more than five minutes from a tire store anywhere you go.  Can people really need that many tires?

 

/get off my lawn

This is timely.  I can't see how Tire Discounters can keep up this growth locally.  I just saw they're building one at Center of Cincinnati across from the LA Fitness.  This in addition to one at Ridge/Highland (which I assume will close), Kenwood, Red Bank, Mariemont, and over 25 other stores in the region.  Add in Bob Sumerel, Sam's, etc. and you're barely more than five minutes from a tire store anywhere you go.  Can people really need that many tires?

 

/get off my lawn

 

I'd bet the majority of what they do is routine maintenance like oil changes. Every single car on the road needs one or two of those a year, and most people just go to whichever place is closest or has the best coupon.

Yeah, most of these places do full-service mechanical work, so while a place like Jiffy-Lube or Valvoline does basic oil changes, A/C refrigerant, fluids and stuff, at Tire Discounters, Bob Sumerel, Midas, Car-X, etc., also do brakes, shocks, exhaust, spark plugs, belts, suspension, and I think they'll even pull transmissions though they might have to send them out for the actual work.  Basically they're competing with the dealers and local mechanics. 

EXCLUSIVE: P&G rival moving office to downtown Cincinnati

May 19, 2015, 3:00pm EDT Updated May 19, 2015, 3:04pm EDT

Tom Demeropolis

Cincinnati Business Courier

 

RB plc, the multinational consumer goods company based in England, is moving its local office to downtown Cincinnati.

 

RB currently has a sales office in West Chester Township at 9100 W. Chester Towne Centre Road. That office will move to the former Chiquita Center now known as 250 East Fifth Street. The company, which makes health, hygiene, home and food products such as Mucinex, Lysol and Woolite, wanted to be closer to Kroger Co.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/19/exclusive-p-g-rival-moving-office-to-downtown.html

 

Officials with RB were not immediately available to discuss the upcoming move.

I rode my bike down around where they were setting up for Taste of Cincinnati this year and it really hit home how impractical and stupid it is to be having these festivals on Fifth Street. First you completely shut down the region's largest transit hub (try getting away with that in any other city.) Second you are cramming all these people onto Fifth Street making the festival itself a really uncomfortable experience. Third downtown businesses actually report a drop in business festival weekends so your not helping anyone by doing that.

 

There is absolutely no reason not to move these festivals down to the Banks other than the tired old Cincinnati "But we've always done it this way." And Cranley has learned to play those sentiments like a stradivarius.

If it were his idea and it didn't create a negative perception for the streetcar, he'd totally be for it.

^ Agreed. It will be moved eventually cause it makes too much sense. Personally, I don't go to Taste or Octoberfest cause to me its just a crowded mess and I feel like cattle moving along with the crowd as it snakes down 5th street,... and back,...  If I could grab a beer and listen to music in a more two-dimensional environment, and go hang out on grass by the riverfront when I got tired of it, then that sounds like a fun day to me.

Yep.  I lost interest in Taste when it moved to 5th for the reasons you stated.  It's not family friendly either for the sole reason that it's too small.

One of Cincinnati's largest public companies renews, expands its downtown HQ

Jun 2, 2015, 11:33am EDT 

Tom Demeropolis 

Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Chemed Corp., which operates Vitas Healthcare and Roto-Rooter, has renewed its lease at First Financial Center and expanded its headquarters by about 10,000 square feet.

 

Chemed (NYSE: CHE) signed a more than 10-year lease extension for about 68,000 square feet of space at 255 E. Fifth St., which was formerly known as Chemed Center before First Financial moved into the building. Before this renewal and expansion, Chemed leased about 58,000 square feet of space in the 525,000-square-foot downtown office tower.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/06/02/one-of-cincinnatis-largest-public-companies-renews.html

Really interesting article from the Cincinnati Business Journal:  http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2015/06/05/the-wait-could-end-finally-for-downtown-condos.html?ana=sm_cinci_ucp97&b=1433443584%5E17413901

 

 

Notes from the article:

 

- Rob Sibcy, president of the city’s largest real estate company, Sibcy Cline convinced large downtown condo boom is on the way, “These things are coming,” he said.

 

-Sibcy has teamed with developer Rick Greiwe and Tom Williams, president of North American Properties, to build the successful Mariemont Village Square development. If the same team secure the land they want, they’ll have a downtown condo project to construct.

 

-What’s driving the urban living trend is a combination of changing demographics, the increasing importance of walkable neighborhoods, proximity to the core and maintenance-free living. And baby boomers, with their massive numbers and money, want to be in the middle of the action.

 

-Another developer that could break the condo dam is Towne Properties, known largely for its local residential developments. Munitz, who joined Towne earlier this year after nine years with 3CDC, said the Mount Adams-based company is exploring development opportunities for both apartments and condos downtown.

 

 

-Greiwe said a true, brand-new high-rise condo tower, all concrete and glass with higher end finishes, could cost upward of $500 or $600 per square foot.“That’s a different animal than three stories of wood construction,” Greiwe said.Baker questions how many buyers are out there who could pay $500 per square foot. In that scenario, a 2,000-square-foot condo would cost $1 million.“That’s a little high. Maybe when the GE people start coming into town – maybe,” Baker said, referring to the 1,800 General Electric employees who eventually will work at the multinational giant’s global operations center at the Banks.

 

 

-What downtown Cincinnati does have is surface parking lots. And their owners don’t want to sell.

 

 

-Greiwe has proposed making parking lot owners equity partners in projects, and replacing the parking lot revenue with money from garage parking.“We haven’t found an owner yet who wants to do that,” Greiwe said. “We’re in conversations. These are people that have owned these lots for generations. You’ve got to get their arms around it.”

I think the big thing that makes condos hard in Cincy is the lack of available land in the CBD. It is about as built out as can be with small surface lots. After the Casino went to Broadway commons, there really is not a huge surface lot for a condo development in the area. Not like Cbus had with the arena district and Grandview yard area. I don't know if it was a blessing or a curse that the downtown area was never that industrial.

I think the big thing that makes condos hard in Cincy is the lack of available land in the CBD. It is about as built out as can be with small surface lots. After the Casino went to Broadway commons, there really is not a huge surface lot for a condo development in the area. Not like Cbus had with the arena district and Grandview yard area. I don't know if it was a blessing or a curse that the downtown area was never that industrial.

 

There are tons of huge surface parking lots. Around City Hall for example and around Walnut and Central and east of P&G. Look for it next time you're walking around downtown.

Parking lot owners need to be shamed into backing down. Cities in this state need to crack the whip on eyesore property owners, especially those in our downtowns. There should be no surface parking in a healthy downtown.

Yep.  And they have been there for a looooong time.

My mom is a 17 year real estate veteran and she says she has no idea what the market is doing right now. She thinks "its still trying to figure itself out" and everyone is waiting to see what is going to happen. She has young clients right now who want to buy, for instance, in the established northeast suburbs but have been out-bid on every purchase offer. Like those areas are in a Las Vegas style housing bubble. Meanwhile, properties in slightly less desirable areas just sit. She has others - baby boomers - who would live downtown but feel there is nothing available. None of her clients are interested in buying new construction in far-flung areas.

Parking lot owners need to be shamed into backing down. Cities in this state need to crack the whip on eyesore property owners, especially those in our downtowns. There should be no surface parking in a healthy downtown.

 

I'm scratching my head about the lot owners not wanting to sell, because if the demand is so high, there's got to be a point where they are worth far more as condos than as parking lots, and no sane parking lot owner would refuse to sell. Maybe it hasn't been reached yet but eventually they'll tumble like dominoes.

Is there any way for the city to penalize the owners of surface parking lots? I totally get that it's a great annuity to have, if you don't mind it coming from something as lame as a surface lot. And to be honest, when the money is coming in, you don't ask why or how.

 

My response would be for the city to figure out a way that it could make surface lots the less desirable alternative, without being heavy handed about it. In my mind, the whole thing feeds into the larger reality that it is easier (cheaper) to live in Covington, Hyde Park, Price Hill, or Mason, and commute downtown, than it is to live in a tower on Central Parkway and walk 5 blocks to work. Until that changes, there really is no incentive for the surface lots to go away.

Some cities tax surface lots higher. Others tax them the same as property which is nicely built-out. Just don't have a taxing structure that penalizes development, because when something as minute as thousandth-percentile profit margins make or break people, taxes are a HUGE factor.

 

Parking lot owners need to be shamed into backing down. Cities in this state need to crack the whip on eyesore property owners, especially those in our downtowns. There should be no surface parking in a healthy downtown.

 

I'm scratching my head about the lot owners not wanting to sell, because if the demand is so high, there's got to be a point where they are worth far more as condos than as parking lots, and no sane parking lot owner would refuse to sell. Maybe it hasn't been reached yet but eventually they'll tumble like dominoes.

 

I've had to stop scratching my head at some things, or else I'll go prematurely bald. I understand fully though (sadly) how things stay the same everywhere despite the "rapid progress" we have convinced ourselves of. Land speculation is an incredibly powerful force.

 

They probably think the development boom either just makes their parking all the more valuable or that their land premium will be even higher in the future. What did surprise me is that Cincy's surface lots are "locally, family-owned," which is why I said you need to shame these people into selling. Stop treating them like downtown property owners and instead like the slumlords that they are.

 

Usually your problem (ESP in our other C's) is the surface lots are all out of state owned.

Parking lot owners need to be shamed into backing down. Cities in this state need to crack the whip on eyesore property owners, especially those in our downtowns. There should be no surface parking in a healthy downtown.

 

I'm scratching my head about the lot owners not wanting to sell, because if the demand is so high, there's got to be a point where they are worth far more as condos than as parking lots, and no sane parking lot owner would refuse to sell. Maybe it hasn't been reached yet but eventually they'll tumble like dominoes.

 

Everyone has their price that they will sell. We have a quote from 1 guy in that article. The developer needs to offer more or buy existing B/C office buildings and convert them to Condos. Most of the residential development is apartments, downtown / otr, so maybe bang on those developers about not offering condos.

I don't think you can fault developers for gravitating toward the rental market. It's not just the housing crash. Downtown rental is a uniquely strong market because it offers flexibility. Plus, those units can be condoized as affordable home ownership at a later date.

 

The story will begin, "Developers built a lot of downtown rental after the 2008 suburban home mortgage crash..." We don't yet know how it ends.

 

(3) Let's not forget that there were a couple of dumb things the Malllory administration did.  #1 is not building the Downtown-OTR loop as soon as possible.  Huge mistake that wasted tons of years and money.  It's so obvious that people aren't going to be able to appreciate a new project until they actually see how it works.  Also, being involved in the Queen City Square Building was a bonehead play.  It totally wrecked the downtown real estate market.  Ever wonder why, all of the sudden there are tons of hotels being built downtown when prior to 2005 not a single new hotel had been constructed in God knows how long? It's a combination of the increase in outsourced consulting work for major corporations like P&G (the Phelps Residence Inn exists because P&G is across the street) and Kroger and the massive increase in empty office space downtown.

 

Even that has a silver lining as ideally some of those buildings should be converted to Residential since demand is so high for it.

 

I'm kind of shocked so many are hotels and not residential.

Really interesting article from the Cincinnati Business Journal:  http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2015/06/05/the-wait-could-end-finally-for-downtown-condos.html?ana=sm_cinci_ucp97&b=1433443584%5E17413901

 

I read that article and it looks like we'll hear about some new condo towers going up.  According to the article we should hear something soon.   

Local?  Isn't it the Joseph family that owns the most obvious lots in Sycamore and Broadway?

I honestly think that what will ultimately do in the surface lots will simply be driverless cars. Unless you're going to regulate them out of town or tax them out of profitability, parking lots will always exist becuase the car itself and its influence on urban form is what makes it economical to own empty land in the center of a city. It is both the problem and the solution to its own problem. A never-ending circle.

 

(3) Let's not forget that there were a couple of dumb things the Malllory administration did.  #1 is not building the Downtown-OTR loop as soon as possible.  Huge mistake that wasted tons of years and money.  It's so obvious that people aren't going to be able to appreciate a new project until they actually see how it works.  Also, being involved in the Queen City Square Building was a bonehead play.  It totally wrecked the downtown real estate market.  Ever wonder why, all of the sudden there are tons of hotels being built downtown when prior to 2005 not a single new hotel had been constructed in God knows how long? It's a combination of the increase in outsourced consulting work for major corporations like P&G (the Phelps Residence Inn exists because P&G is across the street) and Kroger and the massive increase in empty office space downtown.

 

Even that has a silver lining as ideally some of those buildings should be converted to Residential since demand is so high for it.

 

I'm kind of shocked so many are hotels and not residential.

 

Yeah, the amount of new hotels that have sprung up the past four years has been wild.

Do you have any evidence that the number of new hotels is a direct result of local companies hiring more out of town consultants? I would guess that it has more to do with Cincinnati becoming more of a destination (after getting publicity in the New York Times and other publications) and due to a number of historic buildings becoming available for conversion to hotels.

Also, being involved in the Queen City Square Building was a bonehead play.  It totally wrecked the downtown real estate market.  Ever wonder why, all of the sudden there are tons of hotels being built downtown when prior to 2005 not a single new hotel had been constructed in God knows how long? It's a combination of the increase in outsourced consulting work for major corporations like P&G (the Phelps Residence Inn exists because P&G is across the street) and Kroger and the massive increase in empty office space downtown.

 

I get that these subsidized new skyscrapers totally throw off downtown office markets... the same thing happened in Cleveland in the early 90s with Key Tower and the BP Building... but, a bunch of new hotels and residences in both those cities isn't the worst thing in the world. Still though there are probably better uses of all that public money.

I'd compare it to how you need to have a forest fire sometimes to have new growth in the forest. A new tower like QCS opens, and then for the next couple of years, tenants shuffle around moving into better office space. Owner of old buildings then have to decide to upgrade their office space or do a conversion to apartments, condos, or a hotel.

 

From 2012: http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/downtown-cincinnati-poised-for-surge-of-residential-conversions/

Do you have any evidence that the number of new hotels is a direct result of local companies hiring more out of town consultants? I would guess that it has more to do with Cincinnati becoming more of a destination (after getting publicity in the New York Times and other publications) and due to a number of historic buildings becoming available for conversion to hotels.

 

Travelers felt that there were too few hotel rooms Downtown, that they were too expensive, not really all that nice and that the rooms were small. A friend of mine works for Riverbend (who also provides services for other shows) and says that a lot of the bands complained about it.

Do you have any evidence that the number of new hotels is a direct result of local companies hiring more out of town consultants? I would guess that it has more to do with Cincinnati becoming more of a destination (after getting publicity in the New York Times and other publications) and due to a number of historic buildings becoming available for conversion to hotels.

 

I don't.  I was talking to someone, who it was I honestly can't remember, who mentioned that as the reason why so many hotels had been built recently.  I think he was in development but I really can't recall.  The reason it stuck with me was because his statement reiterated something I had heard years before from a guy fairly high up at Western/Southern who described the soon to be Phelps Hotel rehab to me as, "a hotel for P&G".

 

While there may be increased tourism in Cincinnati (I actually heard people conversing in French outside 1215 Wine & Coffee this evening) I seriously doubt that is the reason any of the other downtown hotels have come up.  21c probably happened because the original one was in Louisville, but all those national chains that have put in hotels downtown in recent years are likely doing it for the same reason, and I doubt it is primarily increased tourism.

 

I'd compare it to how you need to have a forest fire sometimes to have new growth in the forest. A new tower like QCS opens, and then for the next couple of years, tenants shuffle around moving into better office space. Owner of old buildings then have to decide to upgrade their office space or do a conversion to apartments, condos, or a hotel.

 

From 2012: http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/downtown-cincinnati-poised-for-surge-of-residential-conversions/

 

Maybe.  I'm not sure if that is the best analogy, particularly when you're dealing with all the public funds spent on QCS.

 

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

Wow, that is harsh. I don't see it that way.

 

In recent years, we've seen several C-ish level office buildings--i.e. Enquirer Building (hotel), Bartlett Building (hotel), Federal Reserve Building (apartments)--converted to other uses using local tax abatements and state/federal tax credits.

 

We will soon see the Union Central Life Annex (residential), Merchants Building (residential), Baldwin Piano Building (residential), P&G Sycamore Building (hotel), and Ingalls Building (eventually something) get converted with the same funding formula. Even the 580 Building is partially converting to residential without significant subsidy.

 

Sure, Queen City Square had an impact on the market and I can understand why some building owners may not think that is a good thing as rents stay low, but overall I think it is a good thing for the city. The space is being back-filled slowly but steadily and downtown is all the better for it.

I personally feel that 5 ten-story buildings would be better for these cities than one 40 or 50 story building like Queen City Square. I think the mega skyscrapers tend to isolate people, kind of like a suburban office park that just happens to be downtown. Whereas smaller scale buildings might get their occupants to interact with the neighborhood a bit more.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for height at the proper time, if we were out of space and demand called for it, but when it's subsidized, I think we tend to jump the gun and build too high for the specific situation.

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

Wow, that is harsh. I don't see it that way.

 

In recent years, we've seen several C-ish level office buildings--i.e. Enquirer Building (hotel), Bartlett Building (hotel), Federal Reserve Building (apartments)--converted to other uses using local tax abatements and state/federal tax credits.

 

We will soon see the Union Central Life Annex (residential), Merchants Building (residential), Baldwin Piano Building (residential), P&G Sycamore Building (hotel), and Ingalls Building (eventually something) get converted with the same funding formula. Even the 580 Building is partially converting to residential without significant subsidy.

 

Sure, Queen City Square had an impact on the market and I can understand why some building owners may not think that is a good thing as rents stay low, but overall I think it is a good thing for the city. The space is being back-filled slowly but steadily and downtown is all the better for it.

 

I'm not saying I'm right.  I'm simply saying that, unlike the development that's been going on in OTR, whatever is happening downtown is relatively ad hoc, much more driven by corporate demands, and not really the best focus for public funds.  So the question is- what sort of time frame for that back-fill is worthwhile for the City?

 

Think about OTR.  3CDC was created in 2003, partly in response to the 2001 riots, and (I'd argue) had begun amassing significant properties starting 2005.  So you've got a 10-15 year time frame from beginning of the plan to the a clear return on ones investment.  It's largely controlled by a central authority, who rolls out different sections of new residential every so often in order to manage the growth and keep the values stable.  It's pretty clear that none of this would have happened as quickly and with such a conscious effort at historical preservation (as poorly executed as it sometimes is) without this central actor.

 

The back-fill from these 3CDC is two-fold in my opinion: 1) you have random individual building owners who are able to jump on the train, and 2) private developers are searching for "the next OTR".  This is what I believe you see happening in Walnut Hills.  Lots of individual action, some significant subsidies for specific historical buildings, a robust nonprofit development company.

 

As for the downtown stuff, it all seems rather random.  Our minds naturally want to seek patterns and order and cause & effect, but is it really there?  The Enquirer building had been sitting empty far before Queen City Square.  Were there still offices in the Bartlett Building?  Just because one project came before the other doesn't mean that the following projects wouldn't have happened without the first.  It seems far to similar to the arguments for the MLK interchange: "If we build it they'll add 4,000 new jobs!"  Those hospitals weren't going to move, and nobody adds a job just because you don't have to drive six extra blocks from Taft (and who knows, maybe folks will still drive those blocks from MLK just to find parking).

 

Finally, places like QCS and the Dunnhumby building are being pretty heavily subsidized and they are building on parking lots.  Also, the residential portion of the dunnhumby building got scrapped almost immediately after it gained approval.  And we're still adding parking, parking, parking everywhere when we are about to start the streetcar system.

 

My point is simply that I wish there was an easier way to find out if these downtown office subsidies are worth it.  They don't seem like it to me, and as much as I want to be optimistic about the future (and I am) when we have such limited funds for development the City needs to put them where they have the most impact, not vanity projects for developers and politicians.

I'd compare it to how you need to have a forest fire sometimes to have new growth in the forest. A new tower like QCS opens, and then for the next couple of years, tenants shuffle around moving into better office space. Owner of old buildings then have to decide to upgrade their office space or do a conversion to apartments, condos, or a hotel.

 

From 2012: http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/03/downtown-cincinnati-poised-for-surge-of-residential-conversions/

 

Maybe.  I'm not sure if that is the best analogy, particularly when you're dealing with all the public funds spent on QCS.

 

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

I'm not necessarily saying that it was wise to spend so much public money on QCS. I think it is an example of corporate welfare, which is something I don't like but I don't see ending any time soon. I am merely stating that QCS and this "trickle down" effect did have some good impacts on our city.

 

I don't think we are going to see another situation like this any time soon. Western and Southern will be building a much smaller tower, which will not shake up our city like QCS did.

Moved the hotel/residential discussion here since it has nothing to do with Mayor Cranley.

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

What public money was spent on QCS besides the $3.7M for streetscape improvements?  Out of the $322 million for the project, American Financial contributed $318.  There were TIF bonds that were issued by the port, but besides the $3.7M the city paid out for the streetscape improvements, the city has gotten that back in just 6 months after opening due to the $7.7M in annual tax revenue. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/05/26/daily31.html

http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/queen-city-square/ 

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

What public money was spent on QCS besides the $3.7M for streetscape improvements?  Out of the $322 million for the project, American Financial contributed $318.  There were TIF bonds that were issued by the port, but besides the $3.7M the city paid out for the streetscape improvements, the city has gotten that back in just 6 months after opening due to the $7.7M in annual tax revenue. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/05/26/daily31.html

http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/queen-city-square/

 

https://cincyopolis.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/wtf-hamilton-county-board-of-revision-the-real-cost-of-30-year-abatements/

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

What public money was spent on QCS besides the $3.7M for streetscape improvements?  Out of the $322 million for the project, American Financial contributed $318.  There were TIF bonds that were issued by the port, but besides the $3.7M the city paid out for the streetscape improvements, the city has gotten that back in just 6 months after opening due to the $7.7M in annual tax revenue. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/05/26/daily31.html

http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/queen-city-square/

 

https://cincyopolis.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/wtf-hamilton-county-board-of-revision-the-real-cost-of-30-year-abatements/

 

Ok PAlexander, I went to the web address supplied and it's a blog where somebody appears to be ranting.  There is the portion what I think the person in the blog referred to as subsidies or what is commonly known as a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) which is $54M.  The TIF bonds in the case of QCS are from the taxes that would've gone to the city coffers, but instead go towards repaying bonds.  No money is coming from the city and going to the QCS project.  It's just deferring city taxes on the tower for a period of time in the beginning.  So in the beginning when the city taxes are paid on the building it gets re-routed to repaying the TIF bonds.  The TIF bonds are essentially borrowing against future increases in real estate taxes.

 

You can see the financing details broken out here: http://www.eaglerealtygroup.com/pdf/052808QCSPortAuthorityApproval.pdf       

But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market.  It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it.  It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

 

What public money was spent on QCS besides the $3.7M for streetscape improvements?  Out of the $322 million for the project, American Financial contributed $318.  There were TIF bonds that were issued by the port, but besides the $3.7M the city paid out for the streetscape improvements, the city has gotten that back in just 6 months after opening due to the $7.7M in annual tax revenue. 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/05/26/daily31.html

http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/queen-city-square/

 

https://cincyopolis.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/wtf-hamilton-county-board-of-revision-the-real-cost-of-30-year-abatements/

 

Ok PAlexander, I went to the web address supplied and it's a blog where somebody appears to be ranting.  There is the portion what I think the person in the blog referred to as subsidies or what is commonly known as a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) which is $54M.  The TIF bonds in the case of QCS are from the taxes that would've gone to the city coffers, but instead go towards repaying bonds.  No money is coming from the city and going to the QCS project.  It's just deferring city taxes on the tower for a period of time in the beginning.  So in the beginning when the city taxes are paid on the building it gets re-routed to repaying the TIF bonds.  The TIF bonds are essentially borrowing against future increases in real estate taxes.

 

You can see the financing details broken out here: http://www.eaglerealtygroup.com/pdf/052808QCSPortAuthorityApproval.pdf       

 

Let me get this straight because I don't really understand how this works: The port authority actually owns QCS, which they paid for by issuing bonds, which W&S immediately bought. So W&S used "their own money" to pay for QCS. However, the bonds will someday come due, because bonds are just debt that someone holds. So the port will have to pay W&S back. They will have raised a lot of the money from the lease income that W&S pays to the port. But $54 million of it will be raised by the TIF, aka diverting the increase in property tax on the improvements (new building) into a fund, which will then be paid out to the bond holder...W&S.

Ok PAlexander, I went to the web address supplied and it's a blog where somebody appears to be ranting.

 

Ranting, discussuing issues... 6 of 1.

 

There is the portion what I think the person in the blog referred to as subsidies or what is commonly known as a TIF (Tax Increment Financing) which is $54M.  The TIF bonds in the case of QCS are from the taxes that would've gone to the city coffers, but instead go towards repaying bonds.  No money is coming from the city and going to the QCS project.  It's just deferring city taxes on the tower for a period of time in the beginning.  So in the beginning when the city taxes are paid on the building it gets re-routed to repaying the TIF bonds.  The TIF bonds are essentially borrowing against future increases in real estate taxes.

 

I believe I understand how the TIF works.  You seem to imply that because it is simply tax money that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the development then it doesn't count as public spending I disagree, because, the development wouldn't be there without the TIF money! The other part that I believe you're forgetting is this project, as far as I'm aware, just moved companies from other downtown office buildings.  That means those other property owners can (and do) get their tax liability reduced because their building are now worth less.  So are you accounting for those losses?

 

Let me get this straight because I don't really understand how this works: The port authority actually owns QCS, which they paid for by issuing bonds, which W&S immediately bought. So W&S used "their own money" to pay for QCS. However, the bonds will someday come due, because bonds are just debt that someone holds. So the port will have to pay W&S back. They will have raised a lot of the money from the lease income that W&S pays to the port. But $54 million of it will be raised by the TIF, aka diverting the increase in property tax on the improvements (new building) into a fund, which will then be paid out to the bond holder...W&S.

 

Yeah, it is super confusing.  Bottom line is that the Port Authority owns the building but W&S is the master lessor.  So the question remains for those who think this was a great deal for the City: why did the company that spearheaded the project to build Queen City Square decide to simply be the master lessor of the complex, rather than the outright owner?

Here's another way to look at it.

 

The most valuable building in downtown won't pay any net new property taxes to the city or county until it is a 30 year old building.

I think a better question is: Why did Cincinnati TIF a class-A skyscraper?

 

My guess is that the powers that be see it as spending money on the city's image. And they really, really wanted a new skyscraper after a 20 year drought.

 

I do struggle to see how this arrangement isn't just socialism with another name. It's not just W&S's project, it's the people's project!