Well... that was good news... my roommate must of thought he was in on the dunnhumby presentation and was actually sitting in on a mega-walgreens presentation.

I think the bit about trucks not being able to access the site is a diversion, but otherwise we're getting everything we wanted and more out of this project.  A 30 floor tower on that side of downtown will really make a difference but I'm hoping more that the whole thing meets the street in the solid way you see so many recent NYC buildings but QCS did not. 

Maybe Kroger should figure out that it doesn't need to send a 52' trailer to stock an urban store. 

 

Has anyone seen the huge Walgreens on state in Chicago, that would be sweet here.  Or, one of the new City Target's.  Target can show Kroger how to do urban areas.

I've been told that half the site will have about 8 stories on it (across from Saks)

And the other half the site has the 20 story tower (Across from Walgreens).

 

And that the apartments will be designed as a "slap in the face" to The Banks crappy architecture and mediocre quality. which is awesome haha.

 

I trust this source.

They're saying 30 floors in the article, which puts it at 450-500 feet, or about as tall as the 5/3 tower.

 

What's interesting to me is that a tower on the south part of the site could see Fountain Square whereas a tower on the north side probably can't. 

Great news, but sad that Kroger won't be a part of this -- I think it's a bad move on their part not only because there is an untapped market of downtown residents currently leaving their neighborhood to shop, but also this is their HQ city! I mean c'mon! (I won't beat a dead horse here)

 

That being said, TBH a small-format gorcery (a la Fresh & Easy (Tesco's US store), Taget City or Trader Joes) could be all we need.

 

Bring on the renderings!

 

 

I've been told that half the site will have about 8 stories on it (across from Saks)

And the other half the site has the 20 story tower (Across from Walgreens).

 

And that the apartments will be designed as a "slap in the face" to The Banks crappy architecture and mediocre quality. which is awesome haha.

 

I trust this source.

 

Maybe 20 stories above the original 8??

Wow.  Gotta love this news!  While I kind of liked those squatty examples, I'll take 20-30 stories that will add some wonderful heft to the skyline over the corporate version of CAC any day.

 

"3CDC still must ink a deal with a residential developer capable of funding, managing and owning an urban high-rise. That would add tens of millions of dollars more to the project cost but is crucial to delivering a complete project when dunnhumby is ready to move in."

 

Could this be a sticking point? 

 

"The developer also must still determine how dunnhumby could expand on the site beyond its initial 250,000 square feet; the company wants an option to grow into five additional floors. 3CDC also must create enough parking to meet the needs of residents and workers in 2014 and beyond."

 

This could be where the variance in floor count comes?

 

It's taken years and many fits and starts but this will be a huge trade-up from the old 5th and Race Tower.

 

Still aghast that Kroger w/couldn't get in there

 

Anybody been to the Target in Atlanta's Atlantic Station?  That would be sweet.

 

And I echo mcadrenaline...Bring on the renderings!

I sincerely hope the vast majority of any on-site parking is below ground. While having it above ground would add height, I personally feel it would be better below.

I sincerely hope the vast majority of any on-site parking is below ground. While having it above ground would add height, I personally feel it would be better below.

 

Meh, if they treat it something like 303 Broadway I don't see why it would be that bad.  The fact that the first, what...5 floors is garage is hardly noticeable.  Just wrap that first level on the street in storefronts/small offices.  Your thoughts?

my one beef with the Enquirer report is near the end where is claims...

 

"The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber likely will have to move its stage for late September’s Oktoberfest events. And there will no longer be cheap surface parking as close to Downtown’s center.

 

But city leaders promise the development will be worth it."

 

why even mention that? obviously it will be worth it but it wouldnt be the Enquirer without a negative spin...

 

Feast your eyes on Agenda item #1 of today's Planning Commission packet.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps45911.pdf

 

If the Enquirer's readership had their way, all of downtown and OTR would just be one huge parking lot for the stadium and ballpark.

Even more updated news.....

 

New DunnhumbyUSA HQ gets nod from city planning commission

Business Courier

Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 10:13am EDT

 

DunnhumbyUSA Follow this company got a thumbs up from the Cincinnati City Planning Commission this morning.

 

The commission recommended approval of a development agreement with Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. on the $100 million, four-parcel project at Fifth and Races streets.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2012/06/15/planning-commission-recommends.html

 

 

They're saying 30 floors in the article, which puts it at 450-500 feet, or about as tall as the 5/3 tower.

 

What's interesting to me is that a tower on the south part of the site could see Fountain Square whereas a tower on the north side probably can't.

 

Hopefully neither side of that Dunnhumby building will be able to see Fountain Square once Fifth-Third goes vertical above Macy's.  :wink2:

 

And count me in for a City Target. I was in Seattle last weekend and couldn't have been more impressed with City Target - with the city's whole downtown, really.

If you read the planning commission document, they are envisioning a 1,030 space parking garage -- 630 spaces below grade and 400 above. 

If you read the planning commission document, they are envisioning a 1,030 space parking garage -- 630 spaces below grade and 400 above. 

 

I can live with that. My beef with the above ground parking is that it limits the floor size for retail on the first couple floors... so if one day a grocer decided to come it, it would be smaller for this reason.

^^ And the above ground spaces are sandwiched between the retail level and the residential tower, with the office tower having only retail below it (above ground).

Ah, well that changes my opinion then....

^^ And the above ground spaces are sandwiched between the retail level and the residential tower, with the office tower having only retail below it (above ground).

 

Are you saying all the above grade parking is being crammed on only half the site?  That sounds horribly inefficient!  All the ramps would take up so much space it would be self-defeating.

That is what the drawings show on the planning commission pdf JYP linked to.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps45911.pdf

Did anyone else notice the date on those massing studies... January 24, 2012.  This has been in the works for quite some time.

I'd consider the massing studies to be preliminary with the above ground garage and residential section expandable based on the number of residential stories that will ultimately be built out.

Exciting!

 

Wanted to read the plan document, but the city's website is down.

Can someone please clarify  this for me. The massing structures the city approved shows 2 buildings the office building and the residential building with a max height of about 10 stories each. Yet the enquirer reports the building will be 30 stories. Anyone have any insight on this? When can we except to see renderings?

Also, are not the height of individual appartment floors less than the height of office floors?

Channel 12 had a nice report, complete with some examples of buildings from the architect chosen for Fifth & Race.

 

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/City-Approves-Plans-For-New-DunnHumby-USA/Z4ZnTPXze0ySPS2mKExROw.cspx

Typical floor-to-floor height for a residential building is 9-10 feet (assuming 8-foot ceilings in the apartments). Typical floor-to-floor height for an office building is about 12-13 feet (assuming 9-10 foot ceilings in the offices).

Plus Dunnhumby said they wanted really tall office floors.

 

The plenum space between the ceiling and the floor above will typically be about 3 feet (to accommodate structure, HVAC ducts, plumbing, etc) no matter what, so add that to whatever ceiling height Dunnhumby wants to get your floor-to-floor height. Each extra inch of floor-to-floor height adds lots of money to the construction cost without generating any additional revenue, though, so Dunnhumby's desire for really tall office floors may be tempered by the realities of the construction budget as the design progresses.

Here's the same massing model I posted a few months ago, with residential on top that makes it 30 stories:

 

 

No it's not the same arrangement of uses, but the original massing that I posted was very similar to what was submitted to the city in January.

Channel 12 had a nice report, complete with some examples of buildings from the architect chosen for Fifth & Race.

 

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/City-Approves-Plans-For-New-DunnHumby-USA/Z4ZnTPXze0ySPS2mKExROw.cspx

 

good report, but man, local media does seem like they need to throw in clueless people bemoaning the impending lack of a surface parking lot for "balance." At least they made sure to mention that the garage in the project will actually have more public parking than the current lot.  :-D

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

Cincinnati.

 

Cheap, plentiful parking. It's so cheap compared to other major cities, and with their riverfront garages coming up, parking is rarely full.

Fortunately, as downtown gets more and more busy, I can imagine some of the other surface lots getting bought out and built on, simply because the money's going to be too good to pass up for current surface lot companies.  I would *really* love to see the ones around Court & Walnut and Vine & Eighth built on.

 

And anyway, I did note with some amusement that the two ladies who they found to complain about the surface lot going away at 5th & Vine are, uh, of a certain age.  I really do wonder how widespread these complaints will actually be for people who actually go downtown on a regular basis.

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

Santa Monica?

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

There are plenty of vibrant cities with plentiful parking.  Seattle, Denver, Portland, to name just a few.  Parking in Chicago is not difficult or terribly expensive.  Come to think of it, the only American cities that I would consider to be a pain to park in are NY, San Fran and Boston.

 

This idea that having cheap parking is a bad thing is misguided.  There are great cities (NY, San Fran) where parking is terrible, but terrible parking isn't the reason that they are great cities. 

^And the cities where parking is either a pain or terribly expensive (I definitely think parking in Chicago fits both of these descriptions) have viable transit options. Right now, Cincinnati is definitely a driving oriented city so having available/visible parking downtown IS important.  The streetcar is a a step in the right direction, and will help reduce the need for parking in the basin, but the city still very much needs to focus on providing parking.  I actually think Cincinnati is doing a great job with the parking downtown, and is actually pretty progressive when it comes to structure design. We have underground garages (ideal, but expensive) at Washington Park, Fountain Square, and soon to be 5th and Race. The Gateway Garage is wrapped with condos and retail, and the 5/3 garage is masked by the Julian Stanczak art installation.  And of course there are the garages that serve as the foundation for The Banks...so essentially subterranean as well.  When parking is added in ways that are sensitive to urban design principles, it can be a very positive development for a city.

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

Santa Monica?

I take it you've never actually been to Santa Monica, nor tried to look for parking downtown on a weekend, or near SMC or SMHS on a weekday. (I work near downtown Santa Monica, so I know the parking situation quite well. Large above-ground parking garages have been nicely incorporated into the Santa Monica Place and Third Street Promenade retail destinations, but they aren't free, and traffic on downtown streets is often near gridlock. The Expo light rail line will be a huge help when it arrives in 2016.)

 

ETA: To many suburbanites, "cheap, plentiful" parking means free parking in a surface lot. If they have to park in a garage (scary!) and pay even a nominal fee to do so (gasp!), it's considered an impossible burden. Downtown Houston has more surface parking spaces per office worker than any other American city, and when polled about people's biggest complaints about downtown Houston, the supposed lack of parking topped the list.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this mentality -- quite the opposite -- but some people will never be satisfied unless they can park for free within 50' feet of the font door of wherever they're going. The Enquirer panders to such people because the bulk of their advertising revenue comes from suburban car dealerships and homebuilders.

Fortunately, as downtown gets more and more busy, I can imagine some of the other surface lots getting bought out and built on, simply because the money's going to be too good to pass up for current surface lot companies. I would *really* love to see the ones around Court & Walnut and Vine & Eighth built on.

 

And anyway, I did note with some amusement that the two ladies who they found to complain about the surface lot going away at 5th & Vine are, uh, of a certain age.  I really do wonder how widespread these complaints will actually be for people who actually go downtown on a regular basis.

 

I'll add the hideous surface lots on both sides of the Seventh at Sycamore, the Third & Race surface lot and my personal biggest annoyance: the tiny surface lot on the northwest corner of Ninth & Vine. It's tiny and will be a longshot to ever see anything there, but it bugs me every time I walk by seeing a handful of cars parked there on a weed-strewn lot. I'm certain that this is what the Bayhorse lot would look like if that building is ever removed.

The articles state things like "two towers" and the city planning commission had two different towers, one with residential above parking at 6th & race and office over retail at 5th, not all built as one tower.

I'll add the hideous surface lots on both sides of the Seventh at Sycamore, the Third & Race surface lot and my personal biggest annoyance: the tiny surface lot on the northwest corner of Ninth & Vine. It's tiny and will be a longshot to ever see anything there, but it bugs me every time I walk by seeing a handful of cars parked there on a weed-strewn lot. I'm certain that this is what the Bayhorse lot would look like if that building is ever removed.

 

YES. god, that lot is infuriating because it's just so... junky and you know that the building that was turn down to make it was undoubtedly beautiful.

 

Anyway, can't wait for some possible renderings!

The chain link fence at 9th and Vine has been mangled since 2004. 

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

Santa Monica?

I take it you've never actually been to Santa Monica, nor tried to look for parking downtown on a weekend, or near SMC or SMHS on a weekday. (I work near downtown Santa Monica, so I know the parking situation quite well. Large above-ground parking garages have been nicely incorporated into the Santa Monica Place and Third Street Promenade retail destinations, but they aren't free, and traffic on downtown streets is often near gridlock. The Expo light rail line will be a huge help when it arrives in 2016.)

 

 

I've lived in LA for 5 years...of course I have been to Santa Monica many, many times. The parking situation in Downtown Santa Monica is one of the things that has led to the revitalization and explosion of investment that SM has seen in the past 10 years.  The Promenade area was a total shit hole in the late 90's, and none of the stores, restaurants, hotels, and movie theatres were on 3rd St.  3rd St. promenade totally turned the area around, and a lot of the reason for its success was the ease of visiting.  The evenly spaced garages on 4th and 2nd Streets allow visitors easy, reliable parking options.  Those garages are free before 5, and on weekends and after 8 (I think), it's a flat, $5 fee.  Easy, cheap parking is definitely a large part of the appeal of Santa Monica. 

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

There are plenty of vibrant cities with plentiful parking.  Seattle, Denver, Portland, to name just a few.  Parking in Chicago is not difficult or terribly expensive.  Come to think of it, the only American cities that I would consider to be a pain to park in are NY, San Fran and Boston.

 

This idea that having cheap parking is a bad thing is misguided.  There are great cities (NY, San Fran) where parking is terrible, but terrible parking isn't the reason that they are great cities. 

 

Chicago WHAT? Have you ever lived there? I have. I paid $300 a month for my residential space, and my company paid $300 a month for my work space. Then I ditched my car. People would defend on-street residential spaces with their lives.

 

 

Show me a city with plentiful, cheap parking and I'll show you a dead city where nobody wants to be.

 

Santa Monica?

I take it you've never actually been to Santa Monica, nor tried to look for parking downtown on a weekend, or near SMC or SMHS on a weekday. (I work near downtown Santa Monica, so I know the parking situation quite well. Large above-ground parking garages have been nicely incorporated into the Santa Monica Place and Third Street Promenade retail destinations, but they aren't free, and traffic on downtown streets is often near gridlock. The Expo light rail line will be a huge help when it arrives in 2016.)

 

 

I've lived in LA for 5 years...of course I have been to Santa Monica many, many times. The parking situation in Downtown Santa Monica is one of the things that has led to the revitalization and explosion of investment that SM has seen in the past 10 years.  The Promenade area was a total sh!t hole in the late 90's, and none of the stores, restaurants, hotels, and movie theatres were on 3rd St.  3rd St. promenade totally turned the area around, and a lot of the reason for its success was the ease of visiting.  The evenly spaced garages on 4th and 2nd Streets allow visitors easy, reliable parking options.  Those garages are free before 5, and on weekends and after 8 (I think), it's a flat, $5 fee.  Easy, cheap parking is definitely a large part of the appeal of Santa Monica. 

 

Agree with Edale.  I live in LA as well and parking in Santa Monica has never, ever been a problem.  Nor is it expensive.  Santa Monica does it right.  Hopefully, Cincy continues to do move in the right direction with this project.

When do you think we will be privileged to see the actual design of the building?

Someone posted this massing over at the SSP forum, so I thought I'd repost it here. I think it looks a little tall, but it does a decent job showing how the new building will fit in the skyline.

 

 

Hopefully this project will put some pressure on Western & Southern to get their condo tower project underway.

 

Can't wait for renderings!

I thought it is going to be two towers? Nevermind, I am blind.

 

Anyway, thanks for the pic.

Fun Fact-  Originally, 3CDC & the Port Authority were to develop the Banks, then when the County pulled a fast one and declared Corporex the developer 3CDC & the Port lost most of their input and that has since faded to almost nothing.  A friend at 3CDC has said the Banks is the only project where they put money in and never got anything back.  I've also been told that the Apartments at the 5th & Race site (on the 6th street side of the block) will be designed in a way to blow away the Banks and set a new standard for development in Downtown.

 

I wonder the extent to which dunnhumby is playing in the design of the apartments. I assume the apartment part will be close in look (externally) to the dunnhumby side, being technically the same building and all. I think dunnhumby, being from London, probably has a more worldly perspective on architectural quality and urban design, and a less American-individualist temperament in terms of investment in the community (endurance and place-making vs. bang-for-the-buck). Combine that with 3CDC's devotion to Cincinnati, and we could really have a modern gem coming to life.

 

Really looking forward to renderings! :)