Cool concept and I hope this guy can pull it off.  But I have to agree with Tarbell, going by the rendering, the buildings as designed are way too big to be on the riverfront.

 

Hotel, condos could transform East End

By Gregory Korte | Enquirer staff writer

 

George Stewart envisions a hotel, condos, apartments and offices on 25 acres he owns along the Ohio River in the city's East End. Plans are still preliminary.  Plans for a 14-story luxury hotel on the Ohio River, flanked by five smaller high-rises with condominiums, apartments and offices, were laid out Friday for the Cincinnati Planning Commission.

 

George B. Stewart's vision includes public promenades and water taxis to ferry people downtown and to Kentucky. It would be built on 25 acres he owns along the river in the East End.  "I forget who gets the credit for saying, 'Make no small plans,'" said Councilman Jim Tarbell, a member of the planning commission. "But he's just been upstaged."

 

Read full article here:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060519/NEWS01/605190403/-1/rss

wow

Holy Shite!! That is cool :-o

I'm not so thrilled about this...

 

It goes back to the idea of not all development being good development.  It's fine for people to get excited about a massive infusion of investment like this, but unless it's DONE RIGHT, it could be a major eyesore/liability 20 years from now.  In this case, "done right" to me means designed well -- i.e. in a way that conforms to cincinnati's architectural heritage, enhances the aesthetic of the riverfront, and will not be a big ugly urban monstrosity down the road. (think of all the 60's-70's era projects that would've seemed "cool" then, but that you would love to have demolished now) Judging from the renderings, I'm just not sure the design of this project is won't end up the same way.

 

City planning is about mitigating and controlling private development in a way that maximizes the public benefit.  I hope the city doesn't screw up on this one.

agree, disagree?

i think the city should trade some developing rights and put this guy to work in the banks...with the proper controls of course

After the intial shock and awe I realized how close to columbia Tusculum this is... Hope something comes out of this even if it is 1/4 the original size. I would go for quality over quantity.

Like I said when I originally posted the article.  The buildings and massing are way too big.  I would like to see what the sight lines are behind it.  But it looks a lot like the Covington and Newport riverfronts with huge buildings right on the shoreline.  That is DEFINITELY not needed on the Cincinnati side, especially in a low rise residential area.  Plus, that is a hell of a lot of square footage on 25 acres.

I say, what the hell.  That part of town needs attention; this will surely grab it, no matter how tacky it is.

 

Forward, I say.

Cincy Kid, I totally agree with you...

 

why rush into this...if the land values continue to rise, as they have been, the city can put all sorts of exactions and controls in place and still have developers on their knees.  there is no reason to take the first thing that comes along, just because it's NOW and we don't feel like waiting

Well, it is that guy's land and it is his right to build on it, but I will check into the zoning and see what it is, but there is no way it is zoned for something that tall.

I don't think the rendering is anywhere near what it will look like, so I can't really make any judgements on that.  I'm not a big fan of the scale, either.

 

I'll just wait until the plans flesh out a bit.

 

P.S> This topic deserves to be split off, so I'll do so.

The renderings shown are really just massing and master plan studies.  The project is nowhere close to getting into architectural design, and would not look remotely like that.  Stewart was a big part of Adams Landing, which is a pretty good building.  What George is doing is just making sure he maintains his current allowable zoning rights to build on the property.

 

On a side note, it's not like the stuff that Towne Properties is doing down there is that great either :-)

I forgot to mention, the colors relate to the proposed uses and have nothing to do architecturally with the design.

Where is this in relation to the building that houses Bella Luca (Bella Luna?)?

It's about 1.5-2.0 miles west of Bella Luna, but on the same road.

The renderings shown are really just massing and master plan studies.  The project is nowhere close to getting into architectural design, and would not look remotely like that.

 

I agree. And, if you look closely, the Ohio river looks oddly similar to the Atlantic Ocean.

I agree. And, if you look closely, the Ohio river looks oddly similar to the Atlantic Ocean.

 

...except for the difference in salinity, they're pretty indistinguishable...

This is from the minutes of the City Planning Commission, 2/18/05:

 

 

ITEM # 3 An informal presentation by the Sawyer Place Company to solicit preliminary feedback

from the City Planning Commission on the Concept Plan for PD #17.

 

Mr. C. Francis Barrett, Attorney for the Sawyer Place Company, George Stewart, Jeff Stewart, Mary Stillpass and Robert Doran, appeared before the Commission to give an overview of the proposed Stewart Landing Project. Two handouts for the project, 1) Proposed Overview, and 2) Technical Compliance with the Planned Development District Regulations, were submitted to the Planning Commission. The project will consist of office, retail, residential and hotel space.

 

Comments and questions from the Commissioners including the following topics:

 

· The number of housing units

· Density issues

· Erosion issues

· Traffic impacts

· City costs for infrastructure and other items

· Viewsheds and the blocking of views

 

Ms. Lemmie was concerned about traffic impacts, erosion problems and the public assistance that would be needed. She asked that the developer contact her office to schedule a meeting, and she would ensure that the proper people were in attendance to discuss these issues. Mr. Tarbell was troubled by the mass of the project on the river’s edge and felt that the views should be preserved from both the Ohio side of the river as well as the Kentucky side. Mr. Tarbell was also concerned about public access to the waterfront. The Planning Commission decided to digest the information presented at this meeting and discuss their concerns at the next meeting before providing input on the proposed Conceptual Plan.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf4183.pdf

 

She should be concerned because that area along the river needs serious structural help before they begin seriously considering building this complex.  Check the Theodore Berry Park for example.

Some tidbits from the minutes of the City Planning Commission, 3/4/05.  Very interesting:

 

 

ITEM #6 Discussion on the Stewart Landing Conceptual Plan

 

Ms. McCray stated that the plan was visionary but that she had concerns regarding the massing as well as the views from the surrounding properties and from Columbia Parkway. She asked that Mr. George Stewart, project developer, explain how they intended to deal with the transparency issues.

 

Mr. Paddock requested that staff discuss this project in the context of any existing City plans and the zoning of the surrounding area. Ms. Wuerstle, Chief Planner, explained that staff would be prepared to make a presentation to the Commission at the next meeting regarding these issues.

 

Mr. Caleb Faux questioned whether the larger buildings could be placed at the eastern end of the project site to prevent blockage of views. Mr. Stewart explained that these informal discussions with the Commission were to obtain input and determine if he has the Commission’s backing on this concept before he puts a lot of money into developing the plans required for the formal submission. He would like the City to be clear about their support for this concept or lack of support before he goes forward with the plan. He stated that he was not looking for City money but that he did not want to get hung up on process or regulations if this project goes forward.

 

Mr. Tarbell asked Steve Briggs, staff planner, to give some background on this project. Steve Briggs explained that this site has always called for residential development. The reason that this site was zoned PD #17 was to allow the City and developer the flexibility to obtain the best possible design for the site. He recommended that the Planning Commission give Mr. Stewart general input such as too tall, too long, wrong mix, etc. before Mr. Stewart submits the formal concept plan for approval. He went on to explain that there are many issues that need to be addressed with this project and the developer will work through these issues as he goes through the process.

 

The Commission’s concerns included traffic impacts, viewsheds, massing, transparency issues, stabilization of the banks, the mix of uses and the potential for creating a canyon effect. Ms. Hankner felt that the mix of uses was one of the positive aspects of this proposal. She suggested that Mr. Stewart take this concept plan out to as many people in the neighborhood as possible in order to obtain input.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf4185.pdf

UPDATE

Bureaucratic B.S. from the minutes of the City Planning Commission, 3/18/05:

 

 

ITEM #5 The Stewart Landing Project.

 

Since there was not a quorum, Mr. Faux suggested that this presentation by Steve Briggs, Sr. City Planner, be held until the next meeting. Ms Wuerstle asked Mr. Faux if it was the intention of the Commission to provide the developer of this project with formal comments or if the minutes of the meeting of March 4, 2005 sufficiently covered the concerns of the Commission. Mr. Faux responded that the March 4th minutes covered some of the Commission’s concerns but may not be all of the Commission’s concerns and that the Commission would not be providing any formal comments until the developer submitted a formal application for Concept Plan approval to the Commission.

 

Mr. Tim Burke of the law firm of Manley Burke stated that the minutes of the March 4th meeting indicate that the developer wants the concept approval without the formal process and that the Planning Commission should withhold decision until a formal request is submitted. Mr. Faux agreed with Mr. Burke and stated that the Planning Commission wants Mr. Briggs to provide the presentation on the background information but that the Commission is not in a

position to say “yes” or “no” to the concept plan. The Planning Commission has already given informal input. Mr. Faux then advised the developer to meet with the neighbors Ms. Hankner suggested that we might want to consider having the neighborhood presentation at one of the Commission meetings with adequate notice to the neighborhood and Community Councils. This would prevent the developer from having to attend multiple meeting to inform the

neighborhoods.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf6223.pdf

These are excerpts from the minutes of the Planning Commission, 4/1/05.  For the full minutes, click here:

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf9451.pdf

 

 

ITEM #7 An informational report concerning the Stewart Landing project located at 1701-1735 Eastern Avenue in the East End Neighborhood.

...

The property currently contains two large buildings that house several businesses including a marketing company, a building product supplier and a river barge terminal operation. The property is approximately 30 acres in size...

...

In addition to the subject property, PD No. 17 includes

 

· The Adams Landing project. A 600 plus dwelling unit development in five villages. The first village is under construction and is named, “Twains Point” that

includes 26 attached single- family dwelling units).

 

· The Burn’s property is located north of Eastern Avenue, east of Lancaster Street. Previous zoning, prior to February 2004, was a multi- family medium density transitional zone, R-5 (T) district. The transitional zone guidelines state in part:

...

The (Environmental Quality Community Revitalization (EQ-CR) District No. 1 Guidelines) guidelines state in part:

 

· Design new housing development with residential buildings large enough to permit the integration of parking within the building footprint.

 

· Buildings should be planned and designed to relate well to existing buildings in order to complement them, not neglect them, using choices of building shapes, sizes and orientation, to be harmonious with existing buildings.

 

· New buildings may rise to a height equal to the elevation of Columbia Parkway if river views from properties adjacent to or above Columbia Parkway and points along Columbia Parkway are respected. This includes the industrial property and former Rookwood Oil Terminal property to the east of the Rookwood Underpass.

 

· Building heights on the industrial property and former Rookwood Oil Terminal sites to the west of the Rookwood Underpass may not exceed the elevation of Columbia parkway at a point drawn due north from the Ohio River through the center of proposed building to Columbia Parkway; provided that exceptions to the Columbia Parkway height limitation may be approved by the Hearing Examiner so long as:

 

1. The river views are respected from properties adjacent to or above Columbia Parkway, including the Eden Park overlooks, and from points along Columbia Parkway.

...

In addition the EQ-CR No.1 guidelines contained a section titled “COMMERCIAL CENTERS”. The guidelines state in part:

 

· Orient commercial development to Eastern Avenue with a secondary orientation to the riverfront.

 

· Design each commercial center to feature a pedestrian plaza, widened sidewalks and pedestrian pathways linking to the river.

 

· Locate residential dwellings units above the ground floor in mixed-use developments.

...

· Limit the height of new buildings to 45 feet.

 

Furthermore, the East End Riverfront Community Development Plan was adopted by City Council on May 28, 1992 and has continued to guide new development in the East End neighborhood. Guidelines from this plan relating to the Stewart Landing project include:

...

· The Plan states the site is better suited for residential use rather than its past industrial use.

 

· The scale of development should be mid-rise residential buildings (approximately 6 stories in height above 2 stories of parking – total 8 stories or about 80 feet above grade)

 

· Sub-Area Site A was also proposed to be one of two Commercial Centers, the other Commercial Center is proposed to be located at the Collins/Eastern Avenue intersection.

 

· Each neighborhood center should include a mix of residential and office or community meeting space.

 

· Retail and service uses are desirable including uses for consideration - convenience grocery store, restaurant, barber/beauty shop, post office, drug store, hardware, bookstore.

 

· Projects should provide River oriented open space to complement residential uses

 

· Projects should have Commercial Center oriented towards Eastern Avenue

 

· The minimum gross square footage listed in Plan for Commercial Center A is 20,000 sq. ft.

 

· The height of new development should not differ from the heights of adjacent buildings by more than one story (12 feet). Total height of commercial structures should not exceed 45 feet.

 

City Planning Commission action is not necessary at this time. This report is being made as an informational presentation concerning the current and past zoning along with any plans that may effect future discussions regarding The Sawyer Place Company and the proposed Stewart Landing project.

...

Ms. Hankner indicated that the Staff Report should be shared with the developer for consideration in designing his project.

....

Mr. Tarbell stated that he was troubled by the mass both horizontally and vertically. His office has received several comments from the public concerning the views and all comments have been negative.

...

Mr. Faux stated that the Planning Commission is not unfavorably disposed to development on the riverfront. The guidelines contained in the Staff Report will serve as a basis for reviewing the Stewart Landing project but the Commission is not in a position to make formal comments on the proposal as presented. The minutes of the previous meetings along with this Staff Report are to serve as informal comments for the developer.

Has anyone heard anything about this in a while?  Grasscat, how about some of your sources?

I haven't heard a thing.  I'll have to do some checking on it. 

 

Has anyone else heard anything?

This wasn't a project that was going to happen right away.  The main purpose of the master plan and meeting with the city were to maintain their zoning rights to build in the future.  George was concerned with all the development along the river, and wanted to ensure the maximum buildable footprint so later someone wouldn't object over any development blocking views.

The scale of the project doesn't bother me so much.  It is how it would be put together.....I hate it when there are gigantic building that try to appear as more than one, but is really just one giant monstrocity.  use multiple buildings and allow for people to travel back and forth outside along streets rather than through interior corridors.

It looks like this plan is dormant, and will be for quite a while.  So I'm going to move it to Abandoned Projects and then move it back if there's some action.

 

The future of the site came up at the meeting of the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2006.  The purpose of the discussion was the expiration of the PD-17 zoning designation in February 2007.

 

The properties, which include the Adams Landing development, land owned by the Stewart Place Company (George Stewart), Johnson Electric, Verdin Bell, and others needed to have new zoning put in place before that expiration.

 

Stewart's property currently consists of some office space, a marine terminal, railroad and distribution center.

 

He claims that a number of circumstances are preventing him from finalizing the Stewart Place development plan: the future use of the railroad, the location of a bike trail, the realignment of Eastern/Riverside, the view corridor study and market conditions.  They are going to take another hard look at the site in five years.  At that point Stewart may begin to hone the development plan and to close down his leases.

 

A major issue in this rezoning is building heights.  Stewart wants to build higher, leaving spaces between the buildings to provide for river views.  Many want him to emulate the low-rise quality of the other Eastern/Riverside developments.  Stewart has stated that if zoning is placed that will not allow him to build "up", then he will retain the current uses of his property and the development will not happen.

 

(As an aside, Stewart mentioned foreseeing a market for the "active elderly".)

 

The Planning Commission voted to approve a PD zoning designation for the site and accepted the concept plans as preliminary.  To move this project along, they are requiring a more detailed concept plan, and final development plan, within two years to avoid expiration of the PD.  If the PD expires, the zoning will change to RF-R, essentially killing the project as it is now planned.

 

I would also expect to hear quite a bit out of folks like the Hillside Trust and the Citizens for the Protection of Ohio River Views.  There will be much negotiating as far as building heights, and, at some point, Stewart could just walk away.

 

I liked this portion of the minutes:

"Mr. Tarbell stated that this is an extraordinary piece of property in Cincinnati. The developer should be put on notice of the outcome desired by the Planning Commission and anything remotely resembling the previous Concept Plan is not acceptable."

 

 

"We're not asking for any public financing," Stewart said.

 

 

Underground powerlines are expensive, publicly financed and..you're probably about to ask for them.