My 2 cents is the outside is pretty sweet and otherwise who cares about the inside other than their workers.

Looks like they put down carpet in a parking garage.  I thought they were planning on expanding the office space into the parking garage, but it appears that they're set up to add more levels of parking by simply removing the carpet.  Very flexible use of space. 

 

LOL

I rarely like new construction, but I don't hate this.  It reminds me of my college years at NKU.

Dear Lord this is the dumbest name change of all time:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/04/27/breaking-kroger-buys-big-chunk-of-dunnhumbyusa.html

Dear Lord this is the dumbest name change of all time:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/04/27/breaking-kroger-buys-big-chunk-of-dunnhumbyusa.html

 

The dunnhumby name has so much brand equity in the analytics field. This one is a major head scratcher.

Not sure if everything was answered. DH is keeping the original location (headquarters), what about the sale of the rest of DH, is that still happening? Are they good with the outlook of continued growth?

This name change - what the hell?

 

"I work for eighty-four point fifty-one degrees"

This name change - what the hell?

 

"I work for eighty-four point fifty-one degrees"

 

It will be a fully owned division of Kroger, so I assume most people will just say, "I work for Kroger."

This name change - what the hell?

 

"I work for eighty-four point fifty-one degrees"

 

It will be a fully owned division of Kroger, so I assume most people will just say, "I work for Kroger."

 

They also said it is a temporary name. My guess is they would call it "eighty four fifty one" rather than how it looks. Sort of like saying "Fifth Third" instead of "Five divided by Three".

 

Though this acquisition makes sense for Kroger I'm kind of disappointed it happened because it takes a sizeable growth company off the list of notable Cincinnati companies. dunnhumby also has great benefits and though Kroger's aren't terrible, they aren't close to dunnhumby's.

The Business Courier says:

The building will change its name from Dunnhumby Centre to 84.51°, although Kroger plans to change the name to something else to be determined, Dailey told me.

That sentence is ambiguous as to whether Kroger plans to just change the name of the building or if they also plan to change the name of the subsidiary. Either way - it makes this baffling name even more baffling. Why even introduce a new name for the building/subsidiary if you know it's going to be temporary?

This is all ego driven.  It's stupid.  It's like why do we call 5/3 Bank "Fifth Third" when it's supposed to be Five Thirds?  Just dumb decisions by clueless people.

This is all ego driven.  It's stupid.  It's like why do we call 5/3 Bank "Fifth Third" when it's supposed to be Five Thirds?  Just dumb decisions by clueless people.

 

Except that it's not supposed to be Five Thirds. It was the merger of the Fifth National Bank and the Third National Bank, hence Fifth Third.

The Business Courier says:

The building will change its name from Dunnhumby Centre to 84.51°, although Kroger plans to change the name to something else to be determined, Dailey told me.

Why even introduce a new name for the building/subsidiary if you know it's going to be temporary?

 

Just spit balling, but maybe because now that dunnhumby USA is no longer part of dunhummby (subsidiary of Tesco) they needed to separate out the names. I'm not a lawyer and didn't think this was necessary but maybe it had something to do with it. Or maybe they just didn't want to cause any confusion. Either way, considering it's going to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger, it probably doesn't matter what it's name is.

This is all ego driven.  It's stupid.  It's like why do we call 5/3 Bank "Fifth Third" when it's supposed to be Five Thirds?  Just dumb decisions by clueless people.

 

What about that would be ego driven? I don't get how ego has anything to do with it.

^ And it's 5/3 instead of 3/5 because the Fifth National Bank was the bigger of the two at the merger, so they got their name first.  Seems pretty standard to me.  Plus having only 3/5 of a bank would be kind of bad marketing anyway.

The Enquirer comments are hilarious -- the new name is horrible.  Cue Jerry Seinfeld with his "who are the ad wizards that came up with this one?  Grape Nuts...no grapes -- no nuts.". 

The Business Courier says:

The building will change its name from Dunnhumby Centre to 84.51°, although Kroger plans to change the name to something else to be determined, Dailey told me.

That sentence is ambiguous as to whether Kroger plans to just change the name of the building or if they also plan to change the name of the subsidiary. Either way - it makes this baffling name even more baffling. Why even introduce a new name for the building/subsidiary if you know it's going to be temporary?

 

Because you legally need to have a name for the place, and the terms of the deal were that it happened very quickly and there was not enough time to assess what would make a good permanent brand

Why not just call it by its address? Lots of buildings do that.  An interim name makes no sense- especially one that has both a decimal point and a degree symbol.

I don't think they put too much thought into it at this time since the priority was closing the deal. Worry about the brand later.

My phone turns the degree symbol into a box.

My phone turns the degree symbol into a box.

 

My phone autocorrected "sure" into "Laure" this past weekend. 

Restaurant tenants sign on for 84.51°Centre

May 8, 2015, 2:50pm EDT Updated: May 8, 2015, 4:17pm EDT

Erin Caproni and Andy Brownfield Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Three restaurants have signed on to fill the retail space on the ground level at the new 84.51° Centre.

 

Steve Leeper, 3CDC’s CEO said a space for a new concept from popular Over-the-Rhine restaurateur Jose Salazar is already under construction and two other restaurateurs have signed agreements. He didn’t provide any more details about who they might be.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/05/08/restaurant-tenants-sign-on-for-84-51-centre.html

Name, opening date for new Salazar restaurant

Polly Campbell, [email protected]

 

Jose Salazar is honoring his Colombian grandmother with the name of his new restaurant, Mita's. It's on track to open in August.

 

This is the restaurant that we wrote about in October, in what was then to be the Dunnhumby Building at the corner of 5th and Race. It's now known as the 84.51° building.

 

Jose and Ann Salazar are the owners of Salazar in Over-the-Rhine, a tiny bistro with a contemporary American menu. The new, much larger restaurant will showcase the flavors and dishes of Spanish and Latin American cuisine. Spanish will predominate, with paella Valenciana, some traditional tapas, pan con tomate, Iberico ham and other cured meats. From Latin America, there will be arepas, empanadas and seviches.

 

Cont

EXCLUSIVE: Via Vite chef opening restaurant in new 84.51 HQ

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/06/26/exclusive-via-vite-chef-opening-restaurant-in-new.html?iana=ind_retail

The executive chef and owner of upscale downtown Italian eatery Via Vite is opening a new burger restaurant in the 84.51 building.

I was walking down the Race St. side of this building yesterday and I noticed the huge blank concrete slab just north of the 5th St corner. I remember seeing this when the building was under construction, but I always assumed it was going to be covered with something. Apparently there are no such plans. It seems to me this would be a perfect opportunity for a green wall, art installation, or water feature. It needs something, though.

I always thought that was going to be a space where the put the 84.51 logo on street level but yeah nothing so far.

Since the lights in the parking garage portion are more yellowish than the white lights used in the office portion, this building doesn't look as sharp at night as it could if they were all the white office color. Value engineering for the parking garage portion I'm sure, but it looks awful. A far cry from the building renderings:

 

http://cdn.urbancincy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/5thRace1.jpg

I can't imagine that there hasn't been some serious grumbling in that company after tens of millions were dropped to construct this colossal dud.  It's probably the ugliest building built in DT Cincinnati since the Cincinnati Bell expansion. 

Anybody have recent pics? The last exterior shots were from 2014 with it still under construction

 

Call me crazy, but I actually really like the building.

You're not crazy. It's an interesting building and is quite nice at street level. Once all the storefronts are full it's going to really make that stretch of Race feel far more alive than it has at any point in recent history. The openness of the glass walls is nice.

 

If architecture doesn't polarize people's opinions then it likely isn't doing enough. If it just falls into the background and brings out the "it's whatever" opinions then it has failed entirely. I'm glad some people don't like this building. That means it tried to advance what the office of 2015 should be. And in many ways succeeded. Someone disliking its aesthetics doesn't really mean jack when discussing the merits of a building. I'm quite happy it's here.

Just had dinner at Mita's the other night and the space (as well as the food) was very nice.

You're not crazy. It's an interesting building and is quite nice at street level. Once all the storefronts are full it's going to really make that stretch of Race feel far more alive than it has at any point in recent history. The openness of the glass walls is nice.

 

If architecture doesn't polarize people's opinions then it likely isn't doing enough. If it just falls into the background and brings out the "it's whatever" opinions then it has failed entirely. I'm glad some people don't like this building. That means it tried to advance what the office of 2015 should be. And in many ways succeeded. Someone disliking its aesthetics doesn't really mean jack when discussing the merits of a building. I'm quite happy it's here.

 

I pretty much disagree with this entire post. I will give you that the building is at least interesting, although I definitely would not say that it's "quite nice" at street level. There is a giant blank concrete slab just north of the 5th and Race corners, and the large garage entrance is right on 5th street, which is definitely less than ideal from a pedestrian perspective. And (lol) of course a fully leased ground floor will make the block of Race more alive than before- the block has been a surface parking lot. Literally anything built there would have achieved this. 

 

Additionally, one can clearly see which portion of the building is parking vs office space due to the different lighting referenced up thread and the cheap metal screening that doesn't do a great job at concealing what's behind it. My biggest gripe with it, though, is the size and program of the building. 5th and Race was basically a blank slate with so much development potential. A block from both Fountain Square and the Convention center, bordered by Macy's and Saks, and right on 5th St., which gives the site easy access to both 71 and 75. There had long been talk of residential development on the site, and a high rise was all but assumed for such a prominent corner. What do we get instead? A squat, single tenant building that's half parking garage. Oh, and the company that the building was built for relocated from within downtown! How is that a win? If dunnhumby (or whatever decimal it's going by today) chose to construct this building on a surface lot at say, 7th and Sycamore, I'd be much less against it. But given the location, and what could and should have gone there, I find it difficult to not agree with Jake in calling this development a colossal dud.

 

Also, who cares if the building advances what the office of 2015 should be? Not every new building should push the limits of architecture or seek to find new ground. There is something to be said for implementing an established concept well, and not trying to reinvent the wheel. If we were in a grad school design critique, sure that'd be a valid point. But this is a real building in a real downtown- not a theoretical project in which to explore what it means to be an office building in 2015.

Yes, and the people who work there love it. It wasn't "reinventing the wheel" it was progressing design of office space. In what world is stagnating and just implementing old ideas even remotely beneficial to the city? That's how you wind up turning away young potential employees. People do care about what their office environment is. You might not agree, but the culture of Millennials  does. Cities that have innovative offices are progressing further than we are.

 

And the building isn't just nice along Race because it was a parking lot before, it's nice because the spaces are incredibly open to the sidewalk. They are more or less an extension of the public space and have a very transparent visual connection to a passerby. That one spot you mention that's blank concrete is about 15 feet long. Out of, what, 200' of facade that is entirely glass otherwise?

 

The only reason you can distinguish between programmatic differences between floors is because of the difference in the color of the lights. That's not an architectural problem. And even if it was, why is a building representing what is on the inside on the exterior a bad thing? It's actually a very important aspect of architecture. Ambiguity isn't a good thing. The only thing to be said about "implementing an established concept" is that those in charge think nothing has changed in how people work. Which is archaic in nature. And wrong.

I've worked in a lot of different kinds of environments and there is absolutely no truth to notions that one type of office layout *automatically* leads to one type of employee behavior versus another.  Someone who is adaptable can work in just about any environment be it an open, social floor plan or one where they're in a windowless room with a phone and a computer terminal.  I've seen offices get overcrowded with workers to the point that they're putting desks in the hallways and closets.  When they got more office space, nothing improved. 

 

There is no great hurdle out there for architects to resolve.  We've been able to build buildings of any size, height, and shape for the past 50 years.  No material or need (steel, elevators, air conditioning, etc.) has emerged in the past 10-20 that has necessitated some seismic reworking of how things must be built.  Yet there are more people than ever busying themselves with solutions to academic problems, and somehow mediocre buildings keep getting built, especially in the second and third-tier cities.   

Yes, and the people who work there love it. It wasn't "reinventing the wheel" it was progressing design of office space. In what world is stagnating and just implementing old ideas even remotely beneficial to the city? That's how you wind up turning away young potential employees.

 

How did this building progress the design of office space? By having a skylight at the top and a design that, in theory, allows for light to filter down? The building has a more creative interior than a standard floor plate, but it's hardly groundbreaking.  I visited two of my friend's offices while in San Francisco last month, and I have to say, even at these booming, progressive companies, the physical office spaces are pretty standard.  Sure they are all open concept, with lots of spaces for collaboration, natural light, etc. But not one of my friends mentioned the layout of their office building as a perk of their job or life.  Other perks like free, catered lunch, social events, and casual dress code were mentioned, but not the actual office space. I think you're stretching big time with this claim.

 

And the building isn't just nice along Race because it was a parking lot before, it's nice because the spaces are incredibly open to the sidewalk. They are more or less an extension of the public space and have a very transparent visual connection to a passerby. That one spot you mention that's blank concrete is about 15 feet long. Out of, what, 200' of facade that is entirely glass otherwise?

 

So all it takes for a building to succeed at ground level is glass? How about the size of the retail spaces? What about the monotony of the super block design that is very much felt at ground level? Are we just ignoring the garage entrance on 5th because it doesn't fit your narrative of support for the building?

 

The only reason you can distinguish between programmatic differences between floors is because of the difference in the color of the lights. That's not an architectural problem. And even if it was, why is a building representing what is on the inside on the exterior a bad thing? It's actually a very important aspect of architecture. Ambiguity isn't a good thing. The only thing to be said about "implementing an established concept" is that those in charge think nothing has changed in how people work. Which is archaic in nature. And wrong.

 

LOL why is a building representing what is on the inside on the exterior a bad thing? Um, because what's inside is a parking garage.  By that notion, we should just design all parking garages like the one abutting 71 in the Rookwood Exchange building.  It clearly shows the cars inside the garage--totally removes that evil ambiguity. The whole question surrounding ability to differentiate between programmatic uses misses the point.  Maybe it's a lighting thing, maybe it's a design issue.  The underlying fact is that damn near half of this building is devoted to the storage of cars, and that is the problem.

 

This building is a mess.  Dunnhumby no longer exists as a stand alone company, as they were recently acquired by Kroger, correct? What happens if Kroger decides to move operations in-house, or to another location where labor is either cheaper or tax breaks are better? Then we're left with a really unorthodox building that was built for a single user.  It would be pretty hard to subdivide the building to house different companies in the future, what with it's top to bottom open floor plan.  All to move a company about a quarter of a mile.  :bang: 

At the end of the day this building is far better for the city than if a developer had plopped something like The Banks or U Square on this site, which in Cincinnati's case seems to be the only alternative. The facade is, at the very least, unique. At street level it's almost entirely transparent, which is probably the easiest and simplest way for a building to engage the street successfully, yet very few buildings in Cincinnati do this. Above that, aesthetic taste comes into play but personally I love the color. The parking garages entrances are probably the most unobtrusive in the city - I have walked by the 5th Street entrance 4 times already today and the entrances are one of the things I noticed - they're subtle enough that you know they're there, but they use the same material as the sidewalk, don't have any pavement striping, and don't have big ugly pay boxes and gates in your face (they are tucked back into the building).

 

The garage itself is a problem but not one of architecture. Cincinnati is not a city in which a company is going to spend millions on a building that doesn't have parking. If we want new construction we seemingly have to live with parking garages, and this is far from a bad garage.

Oh, and the company that the building was built for relocated from within downtown! How is that a win

 

All to move a company about a quarter of a mile.  :bang: 

 

You keep saying things like this, but it's misleading.  I'm sure it's unintentional, and is probably rooted in DunnhumbyUSA's confusing name and complicated history.  Just to clarify for any readers that don't follow these things closely, DunnhumbyUSA was a joint venture being Kroger and Dunnhumby Ltd. (itself a subsidiary of Tesco, a British grocery chain similar to Kroger).  Dunnhumby Ltd. and DunnhumbyUSA were both located in the office on 3rd street up until this year, when Dunnhumby Ltd. sold its half of DunnhumbyUSA to Kroger.  At this point DunnhumbyUSA was renamed as 84.51 (eighty-four fifty-one), a wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger, and moved into the new building on 5th.  Dunnhumby Ltd. is still present in its 3rd street office building (hence why they took USA off of the sign on their building, but left the Dunnhumby portion of the name).

 

So... stating "All to move a company about a quarter of a mile" isn't really accurate.  It's more like Cincinnati gained another occupied office building, and in an area of downtown where employees are more likely to frequent restaurants and stores.  I don't work for Kroger, Dunnhumby Ltd., or 84.51, so I can't speak to staffing levels, decision making, or the future, but this still seems like a net gain for the city to me.

Yes, and the people who work there love it. It wasn't "reinventing the wheel" it was progressing design of office space. In what world is stagnating and just implementing old ideas even remotely beneficial to the city? That's how you wind up turning away young potential employees.

 

How did this building progress the design of office space? By having a skylight at the top and a design that, in theory, allows for light to filter down? The building has a more creative interior than a standard floor plate, but it's hardly groundbreaking.  I visited two of my friend's offices while in San Francisco last month, and I have to say, even at these booming, progressive companies, the physical office spaces are pretty standard.  Sure they are all open concept, with lots of spaces for collaboration, natural light, etc. But not one of my friends mentioned the layout of their office building as a perk of their job or life.  Other perks like free, catered lunch, social events, and casual dress code were mentioned, but not the actual office space. I think you're stretching big time with this claim.

 

And the building isn't just nice along Race because it was a parking lot before, it's nice because the spaces are incredibly open to the sidewalk. They are more or less an extension of the public space and have a very transparent visual connection to a passerby. That one spot you mention that's blank concrete is about 15 feet long. Out of, what, 200' of facade that is entirely glass otherwise?

 

So all it takes for a building to succeed at ground level is glass? How about the size of the retail spaces? What about the monotony of the super block design that is very much felt at ground level? Are we just ignoring the garage entrance on 5th because it doesn't fit your narrative of support for the building?

 

The only reason you can distinguish between programmatic differences between floors is because of the difference in the color of the lights. That's not an architectural problem. And even if it was, why is a building representing what is on the inside on the exterior a bad thing? It's actually a very important aspect of architecture. Ambiguity isn't a good thing. The only thing to be said about "implementing an established concept" is that those in charge think nothing has changed in how people work. Which is archaic in nature. And wrong.

 

LOL why is a building representing what is on the inside on the exterior a bad thing? Um, because what's inside is a parking garage.  By that notion, we should just design all parking garages like the one abutting 71 in the Rookwood Exchange building.  It clearly shows the cars inside the garage--totally removes that evil ambiguity. The whole question surrounding ability to differentiate between programmatic uses misses the point.  Maybe it's a lighting thing, maybe it's a design issue.  The underlying fact is that damn near half of this building is devoted to the storage of cars, and that is the problem.

 

This building is a mess.  Dunnhumby no longer exists as a stand alone company, as they were recently acquired by Kroger, correct? What happens if Kroger decides to move operations in-house, or to another location where labor is either cheaper or tax breaks are better? Then we're left with a really unorthodox building that was built for a single user.  It would be pretty hard to subdivide the building to house different companies in the future, what with it's top to bottom open floor plan.  All to move a company about a quarter of a mile.  :bang: 

 

At what point did I ever say it was "groundbreaking." You're an adult, you should know better than to put words in people's mouths. I said it progressed office design. That doesn't mean, "radically changed" unless you have an agenda and are trying to force someone's words into a mold that they weren't written in.

 

And creative workspaces absolutely have the ability to attract more creative people. If you don't believe that that's your own deal. But this idea that any space works equally well is absolute BS and disregards decades of development of office space design.

 

I'm not ignoring the 5th Street garage entrance, but I'm failing to see why it's such a massive problem. Not only is it not that obtrusive, but it's next to one of the worst buildings in the region as far as pedestrianism goes. There isn't this load of foot traffic walking down Fifth that needed to be addressed in this ultra creative way. Sometimes the utilitarianism of something can be attractive.

 

The ground level of this building is great to walk by. Look how connected to the outside Mita's feels. You walk by and are immediately engaged. Watch people walk by this building. They are drawn into the interior visually and walk with their heads kinked. This isn't the sign of a bad ground floor design.

 

Also, putting the "at least in theory" portion of your statement about the light is silly at best. Having been in the building the natural light from the skylights absolutely finds its way into all levels and is actually a really great quality light. It's not common to feel natural light in the center of an office floor but this building does it and does it well.

I also want to add that this is a trend up here in Chicago, not one I'm fond of, but I've seen a lot of different new buildings with this staggered windows look, its completely a contemporary design that is forward thinking for Ohio (forward thinking doesn't always = good IMO).  The company formerly known as Dunnhumby USA's building is on the better looking side of this trend, but its still ugly.  I hope it ends soon as I'm not a fan and this will date poorly.

 

Examples:

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/51ee85fdf92ea16e4a010502/Tower%20of%20Pizza2COVER.jpg

http://wibiti.com/altthumbs/hpmain/425/295425.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/1345-Wabash-Rendering-1_c.jpg

I am fond of the facade of this building, but I do think it bears a slight resemblance to the original Kroger tower, where a similar random/staggered glazing effect was achieved by the use of blinds (and the color though the photo below is B&W and doesn't quite show this):

 

http://www.kentonlibrary.org/genphotos/viewimage.php?i=di29389

 

I also think that building, in original 60s form, looked far, far better than it does today. I feel the same way about 5/3 HQ.

 

I like it.  The Mita's space is great.  Had dinner there (it's terrific BTW) and you felt like you were really engaged with the outside. 

Oh, and the company that the building was built for relocated from within downtown! How is that a win

 

All to move a company about a quarter of a mile.  :bang: 

 

You keep saying things like this, but it's misleading.  I'm sure it's unintentional, and is probably rooted in DunnhumbyUSA's confusing name and complicated history.  Just to clarify for any readers that don't follow these things closely, DunnhumbyUSA was a joint venture being Kroger and Dunnhumby Ltd. (itself a subsidiary of Tesco, a British grocery chain similar to Kroger).  Dunnhumby Ltd. and DunnhumbyUSA were both located in the office on 3rd street up until this year, when Dunnhumby Ltd. sold its half of DunnhumbyUSA to Kroger.  At this point DunnhumbyUSA was renamed as 84.51 (eighty-four fifty-one), a wholly owned subsidiary of Kroger, and moved into the new building on 5th.  Dunnhumby Ltd. is still present in its 3rd street office building (hence why they took USA off of the sign on their building, but left the Dunnhumby portion of the name).

 

So... stating "All to move a company about a quarter of a mile" isn't really accurate.  It's more like Cincinnati gained another occupied office building, and in an area of downtown where employees are more likely to frequent restaurants and stores.  I don't work for Kroger, Dunnhumby Ltd., or 84.51, so I can't speak to staffing levels, decision making, or the future, but this still seems like a net gain for the city to me.

 

Welp. Now the original Dunnhumby is vacating the old space entirely, and shipping its 70 employees out to Norwood.

Dunnhumby to leave downtown

 

“Rookwood seems to be the exciting new place to move to,” said Andy Hill, managing director of Dunnhumby. “It’s convenient for both our people getting to work and to clients.”

That quote deserves an audible gag.

Dunnhumby to leave downtown

 

“Rookwood seems to be the exciting new place to move to,” said Andy Hill, managing director of Dunnhumby. “It’s convenient for both our people getting to work and to clients.”

 

Wowwww. The shell game continues.

Welp. Now the original Dunnhumby is vacating the old space entirely, and shipping its 70 employees out to Norwood.

 

I wonder what will happen to that building.

Just to be clear, the company now called 84.51° (originally called dunnhumbyUSA) which recently built a new building downtown is not leaving downtown. The formerly affiliated company called dunnhumby, which is located under the Brent Spence Bridge onramps, is leaving for Norwood. Both companies used to be located together in that building under the BSB onramps.

Welp. Now the original Dunnhumby is vacating the old space entirely, and shipping its 70 employees out to Norwood.

 

I wonder what will happen to that building.

 

Level it for a parking lot?  I don't know. Is it worth saving in that location?

The building is an excellent office building (large, open layout) and all of the Brent Spence proposals work around it... so there's no reason why it should be demolished.