So they have 3 more years just to get a building permit?  How about 1 year for a permit, 3 years to completion!!

I think it is the right move for this project.  Should it try to start now, and compete with the multiple other projects going on...it would be difficult.  Not to mention there is about a 2.5 year surplus that will be on the market once One River Plaza and SouthShore come on line.  They are waiting for some of this to be absorbed, which I think is reasonable.  I am happy that they are still looking at the project; from previous conversations it didn't sound promising from their end...but I guess only time will tell.  It looks to be a great project, and I hope it comes to fruition.

That is 2.5 years of luxury condos (over 400k)..................they are looking for condo's around 200k-300k.  Just seems like they don't know what they are doing to me!!

Insert Quote

I think it is the right move for this project.  Should it try to start now, and compete with the multiple other projects going on...it would be difficult.  Not to mention there is about a 2.5 year surplus that will be on the market once One River Plaza and SouthShore come on line.  They are waiting for some of this to be absorbed, which I think is reasonable.  I am happy that they are still looking at the project; from previous conversations it didn't sound promising from their end...but I guess only time will tell.  It looks to be a great project, and I hope it comes to fruition.

 

True, but condo projects like One River Plaza cut out the "majority" of Americans, because the average American cannot afford a condo that cost $400,000 or higher.

 

Now, if you build a condo tower that prices units around the $150K range, you'll have a lot of signed contracts fast and they'll be from people that could care less if One River Plaza is down the street or not.

I like the new rendering, the more residential units we get over in the St. Xavier area, the more likely we can land a grocery store on the surface lot.

 

The problem with the surface lots is that they are owned by St. X high school and the proceeds from those lots help go to offset tuition for students at the school. They have a restriction on the land that any development has to be used for educational purposes that would assist the school in some way. Essentially, any new development on the surface lots there would have to guarantee the continued revenue stream for the school over a period of time.

There are two lots adjacent to one another right there.  It is my understanding the St. X only controls 1 of the 2 lots...that would be the one closest to St. Xavier Church.  I had heard that investors were eyeing out the second lot across the street from the Power Bldg.  Obviously this is all speculation, but this came from a credible source (about a year or so ago).

There are actually three parcels on that quarter block and St. Xavier High School Inc. owns them all.

>isnt that rendering really old?  i thought they had designs pending the demolition/preservation of the red brick building.  this rendering obviously indicates that the building is still there, but that building has been torn down.

 

The white building was torn down, the red row building at the corner is still there.  I think there was a brown brick building on the north side of the block as well.  This photo is from May or June of 2002:

 

A view of the lots and the Power building that same day:

 

Remember not only St. X high school but Xavier University as well were located in this area, the University moved around 1920 and the high school moved to Finneytown in 1960.  The high school originally bought about 65 acres (an entire farm) but it's now over 100 with the addition of the Girls Town property.  Don't think for a second the big wigs at St. X aren't nervous about their once pristine suburban setting devolving into a College Hill-like semi-ghetto.  They're actually trying to develop high price condos on their Finneytown property to form an affluent force field around the campus.  St. X was really hypocritical so far as running large can food drives and other programs that mix the students up with the area's poor residents but then seeking refuge in Finneytown. 

That is a great shot of the parking lots there.  I would imagine it being a struggle to get things to happen at the lot adjacent to St. X Church, but the other lots seem to be less attractive for St. X; and more attractive to developers.

There was a story in the Enquirer about 5 years ago detailing the entire St. Xavier Park area housing plan.  I remember it included the St. X lots, but it did state that it would be a long term air rights lease so St. X could keep their cash flow and own the land as called for in the deed.  I will try to dig up the article.

^Tons of potential for the area.  I remember how depressing it was when the Power and Krippendorf Buildings were empty.  Downtown effectively ended at Main St. 

 

I don't understand the sluggishness of the Broadway Tower's development...with the garage already in place they should be able to pounce when the market window opens considering the mediocrity of some of the sites being developed around town like whatever that thing is down on Culvert St. 

I was at the City Planning Commission meeting today and they approved a three year extension for the current developer. The devoper was VERY convincing that the market was not ready for the units. They want a quality product and would not settle for anything less. . . i am confident that they will be quickening the development of the site in the next 12-18 months.

While it is a good thing that the city is working with them and giving them an extension...it is a bad thing that they need an extension.  I know that this isn't unique to Cincy, but I don't take this as a sign of good faith from the developers.  They are just giving themselves the option to do something within the next 3 years...should they choose.  Is there any sort of penalty for them if they do nothing with the project.  I don't think there is...so this move seems rather mundane.

At the meeting, the company took great offense when Tarbell suggested exactly what you are saying. They have been losing money on this property for years and are very eager to develop. He explained how they came to the Planning Comission with a plan a few years ago that only had about 50 condos and was only 5 stories. They mutually agreed that they did not think that this was the best use of the land. This developer has worked well with the city on many projects, and explained that they are eager to develop, but are waiting for the possibility to become available to develop.

Tarbell suggested exactly what you are saying

 

Well great minds think alike!  :laugh:

 

Seriously though...I want to believe them and I hope this project comes to fruition.  But until I see construction equipment I'll remain cautious.

if they were to try and approach some semblance of affordability with this project the market is ripe...i guess thats just not the path anybody wants to take.

the problem (at least what they said) was that they would need to get a very high cost (don't remember the numbers) per square foot for condos, or almost $2 per square (a month) foot for apartments if they were to develop this site, the way that the city, and they, wanted to... There are no condo areas that are close to this value in the CBD today

yeah, i dont doubt that to be true.  its not like they have to build more parking though.

Apartments in that area are going for about $.80-$1.20 a square ft. per month.  I agree that $2 would be an outrageous amount, but I just don't see why their costs would be sooooooo high for that project.  If the costs are the problem now, what is going to improve those cost figures in the future?  Even when the housing market catches up the construction costs won't drop.

I'd really like to know what they estimated cost per  sq foot for condos was for the project to be viable. I wonder if they are aiming for the correct market for their project.  I think the high end for downtown condos is about to become saturated. 

I voted for the extension in the Planning Commission today.

 

The developers said they need to be able to sell the units for $260 psf or rent them for $1.60 psf/month, neither of which is attainable there right now. The only for-sale product that has come close are the Park Place condos on Lytle Park that started selling for $225 psf and ended up selling for just under $250 psf.

 

I think what Jim Tarbell was saying is that -- if you're a true city person -- living in the northeast quadrant of downtown is far better than living at Lytle Park, even though the market doesn't reflect that yet, far from it. When I first moved downtown, I lived at Lytle Park. It was pretty, but it felt like the suburbs. You had to get in your car to access any kind of service. So I moved closer to the center -- near the Broadway Towers in fact -- and I can tell you that it's much better, even though it looks rough to the casual observer. That's what Jim was trying to get across at the Planning Commission today. He's frustrated that the developers haven't been able to exploit what he sees as an obviously good location. And coincidentally I was talking with a resident of Park Place late today who has already concluded that a move closer-in is in the cards for her. After living downtown for a year or so, she wants a real city experience.

 

The problem is, the cat's out of the bag on this one. Our city already has $2 million embedded in the foundations to carry the apartment overbuild, which the developers have to pay back to the city once construction commences. So if you only build fifty units there, your starting point -- before laying the first brick of the first apartment -- is already $40,000 in cost for that apartment. The only saving grace is that the parking for the tower is already built, an avoided cost worth something, I suppose.

 

I'd say this is a problem, if it only were. It's a dilemma. Problems you can solve.

The developers said they need to be able to sell the units for $260 psf or rent them for $1.60 psf/month, neither of which is attainable there right now. The only for-sale product that has come close are the Park Place condos on Lytle Park that started selling for $225 psf and ended up selling for just under $250 psf.

 

I don't know your source, but that statistic for Park Place seems to be inflated.  We added major upgrades to our unit and still came in under $200 / sqf, including appliances, floorplans, electrical configuration, trimwork, master bath reconfiguration, and flooring upgrades.  Given what I've seen in many other units, I assume our price per sqf was higher than the average.

 

I think what Jim Tarbell was saying is that -- if you're a true city person -- living in the northeast quadrant of downtown is far better than living at Lytle Park, even though the market doesn't reflect that yet, far from it. When I first moved downtown, I lived at Lytle Park. It was pretty, but it felt like the suburbs. You had to get in your car to access any kind of service. So I moved closer to the center -- near the Broadway Towers in fact -- and I can tell you that it's much better, even though it looks rough to the casual observer. That's what Jim was trying to get across at the Planning Commission today. He's frustrated that the developers haven't been able to exploit what he sees as an obviously good location. And coincidentally I was talking with a resident of Park Place late today who has already concluded that a move closer-in is in the cards for her. After living downtown for a year or so, she wants a real city experience.

 

Huh?

 

If I understand it, the project we're taking about is at 7th and Broadway.  That's a six block walk to the corner of 5th and Vine.  The Taft museum, the furthest spot in the Lytle park area is 7 blocks.  I guess I don't see that as being a big  difference.

 

I guess I should be thrilled at the thought that downtown has become such a popular destination for residency that Lytle park is now considered suburban, signifying that a block closer to the city center is much more desireable.  If this really is the true preception, then I'm happy.  It means that the notion of downtown as a desirable residential area has turned the corner.

 

However, as much as I would like to believe it, I don't.

 

This wasn't mentioned in this thread, but I wanted to keep it up to date.  City council voted in favor of the agreement extension at their 3/28 meeting.  Tarbell was the only "no" vote.

 

As far as I'm concerned this project is dead.  In the mean time we can gawk at what could potentially be there if/when these developers do anything.

 

New Cincinnati garage space takes bite out of apartment plans

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

 

A parking expansion for Procter & Gamble Co. will cut in half a long-planned residential tower at Seventh and Broadway.

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney asked City Council this week to set aside $5 million to build a three-story parking deck atop a five-story garage already in place. The expansion was promised to P&G in June when it said it was moving 650 new jobs to downtown.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/10/26/story5.html

These developers don't seem able to pull off this project.  I bet nothing happens here past the expansion of the garage.  The only way something does happen is if the City takes away the air rights extension and gives it to someone else who is more capable.

P&G has surely had these plans in place for a long time, meaning they've been scouting for parking for a few years.  This garage appeared to have been built at the ideal time to take advantage of the mid-decade condo boom, and since it already had the garage built, it could have beaten several other area projects to the punch.  That makes me think P&G worked out this deal years ago, the developer was probably content to get a modest return on his investment rather than risking everything during the condo boom. 

Looks like work is being done on this now.

Yeah the scaffolding has been up for a few months. 

Since there is construction going on I'm moving this out of the Abandoned section.

Construction is progressing on the expanded parking garage project:

 

I guess that's not bad looking for a parking garage. 

A more comprehensive solution to parking for P&G would be something good for the City to work on, though I think it would have to wait until after the Streetcar is built (all the way to UC/Zoo).

we can thank AL NEYER development for misleading us all with his true intentions for this block. $lick bastard.

 

 

Here's my 2¢...

 

They branded it "St. Xavier Park". OK... but, where's the park?  there's nothing there but parking.

 

Take the entire block bounded by 7,8th, Sycamore, Main St. A huge lot...Replace it with an actual urban park. there's absolutely no greenspace in this quadrant of downtown as is. Build medium residential infill along 7th in the lot adjacent to the Church and the tiny lot next to Dennison whorehouse. (they filmed Traffic inside). Let the developers build their new hotel @Red cross site. Allow 3CDC to rehab the Denison into apts. Now, this bookends the power & krippendorf buildings, and makes for a nice tidy little plaza for the residents of the neighborhood.

 

the major obstacle will be convincing city council to accept a loss in tax revenue from replacing those lots with a public park.

 

^We don't need another park. The weak solution for any vacant is to make it a park in Cincy. We have plenty of parks.

I think the street level retail spaces are going to be a great addition to the block.  How many years had that lot been vacant?  Whew, finally.

The parking lot will not go away for a long long time. The city does not own the lot and it is owned by a series of convoluted trusts and other instruments. Therefore, multiple parties need to get together to sell it once a buyer would be found. THere are restrictions in the trust that require it to be a parking lot, so whatever everyone's ideas are for taht block, keep dreaming because it will be a parking lot for a long time.

Why would someone tear down a parking lot recently built anyway? I'd say stop dreaming for a while. It's better than the surface lot that was there. There's clearly investment going on on other blocks. Unfortunately, the downtown blocks are much more expensive than ones currently in redevelopment in OTR. That's why there have only been a handful of construction projects south of Central Parkway. Plenty of parking lots are left in Downtown, open for dreaming and visioning.

The parking lot will not go away for a long long time. The city does not own the lot and it is owned by a series of convoluted trusts and other instruments. Therefore, multiple parties need to get together to sell it once a buyer would be found. THere are restrictions in the trust that require it to be a parking lot, so whatever everyone's ideas are for taht block, keep dreaming because it will be a parking lot for a long time.

 

I'm pretty sure those surface parking lots are owned by St. Xavier High School (since they are the original site of the school) and they are used as revenue for the school in some way.  I believe the same thing exists with the Woodward Trust around those parking lots south of the old SCPA building bounded by Sycamore Street.

Once that casino goes up, look for a huge change with the surface lots in the immediate area.  St. Xavier Park will probably be long forgotten however, money talks and Dan Gilbert might have a huge say so if he decides to talk with P&G and owners of other lots.  All I know is there's plenty of room down in that area for craziness.  Residential, retail you name it.  That's a bigass lot behind what was supposed to be The Edge too.  I could be wrong but, wishful thinking neve hurts:)

I think St. Xavier High School only owns that lot on the St. Xavier Church block.  That much bigger lot to the north is, I believe, still owned by a GM dealership that used to have a location there. 

^ Jake is correct.  Xavier High School only owns the south lot.  (But don't be surprised if you see some changes on that in the next few years. I have it on very good authority . . .)

Alright this topic has been dead for awhile, but as the Casino progresses I wanted to bring a few things back up. 

 

I've been told the air rights expire late this year or early next year on the last 3-4 stories that are available for development.  That would allow someone else to come in, but I doubt anything will be added on top as P&G has a master lease that has about 85% of the spaces in this garage and there's only room for 3-4 more stories of development.  :( I guess at a minimum I'd hope they just add 3 more stories of parking and then perhaps remove some other surface parking in the area.

 

The giant surface lot just around the corner that had been discussed in previous posts is owned by Columbia Oldsmobile, the owners of the land underneath the Chiquita Building and of a couple other smaller surface lots downtown.  They are currently suing the City & the Chiquita building owners for the Nielson sign added to the top of the building.  They are generally anti-development and progress.  They probably net $300-400,000 a year on a surface lot downtown that they do almost no work on. That location is perfect for a large new construction ~20-30 story residential tower. Unfortunately, I've been told they have expressed 0 interest to anyone who has approached them to sell the land.

So there is actually a possibility of more construction on top of this parking garage, which has already had floors added to it? 

Correct. I've been told it is able to be ~10 stories and the developer is still considering what, of anything, to do on top.

Kind of related. The garage next door where the proposed hotel is going has a sign on it saying it would be closed soon. Not sure what the date is, i saw it from far away. Interesting through they had the same sign up a little over a year ago and then took it down. Now it is back up. Maybe the hotel has secured financing

^ I have heard that the hotel has secured financing.

a refresher from 2010

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/06/broadway-tower-at-st-xavier-park-reduced-to-nothing-more-than-parking/

Bump for update. Everybody keep your fingers crossed for this funding vote next week.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130729/BIZ/307290104/Broadway-apts-now-shooting-Jan-start

I was just thinking about this project. I'm hoping everything gets through without issue. Bringing life to that side of Downtown is important. The area around this project can feel pretty dead and this will go a long way towards helping change that.