Some cry foul over 3CDC’s Washington Park remake

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

 

 

Local preservationists worry that a $47 million plan to renovate Over-the-Rhine’s Washington Park might skirt the systems put in place to protect Cincinnati’s historic neighborhoods.

 

 

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/06/28/story9.html

^These types of people whine about everything.

While I don't know the details about the HCB concerns on this project, to dismiss preservationists as "whining about everything" is short sighted and ignorant about the role they have played in preserving and redeveloping Over-the-Rhine. 

 

If preservationists didn't "whine" about every demolition or unsympathetic alteration, there would be no Over-the-Rhine to appreciate.  A death by a thousand small cuts is still a death.

What about the Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless complaining about the Park being closed for 14 months. They state that the residents of the neighborhood need an escape from the concrete jungle. What they are saying without saying it is that the homeless need a place to congregate and sleep at night.

 

The Press Release from the Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless was posted on the Cincinnati Beacon website (http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/3cdc_is_attempting_to_take_over_over-the-rhine_washington_park_plan/).

^I was only addressing the preservationists that were identified in the article, not the poverty pimps of the DIC, et al.

Sorry, I wasn't asking you specifically... I was more asking the board what everyone though.

So no Swimming pool in the park designs right?

Isn't there a swimming pool like three blocks away on Sycamore?

The current thinking is that the Ziegler pool on Sycamore would be upgraded to a full-sized pool like the current Washington Park pool.  Most people are on board with this, except the head of the CRC who basically wants to remove all the pools.  The current Ziegler pool is small and shallow and cannot be used for swim team or swim lessons.  It is one of the oldest pools in the city and was originally built as an un-filtered pool that was emptied every week and refilled. 

The CRC is probably aiming for 8-10 pools for the entire city. I know that was the scuttle-butt ten years ago when I last worked there and it was basically the acknowledged plan when they started downsizing the system 16+ years.

Whatever happened to the good ol' days of swimming in the river? it's so close! haha.

The pools are money-losing ventures. For a city of this size, there are simply just too many and many of these swimming pools are underutilized. Splash parks provide more bang for the buck, are cheaper to operate and maintain, and attract just as many. The Enquirer did a great piece on this last year, and it basically came down to economics.

Pools were part of the extreme neighborhood-centric nature of the city. It was also seen as a way to keep tensions down in the summer - keep folks cool in the heat and they are less likely to cause problems (also less likely to open a fire hydrant to get cooled off). Before the current legal and environmental environment it was much cheaper to operate pools (only a couple trained lifeguards, no need for recirculation, just fill and drain, less worries about proper chlorination and on and on). Spray fountains are essentially the modern descendant of the shallow water fill and drain pools.

Dave, I'm sure you remember those back-to-back drought years, I think 87 and 88.  In 1988 I believe we had more than five 100F+ days in a row.  There was a ton of hydrant popping getting covered by local TV.  There might have been an issue with the pools being closed one or both of those years and the weird situation where Cincinnati was awarded $8 million in the Norfolk-Southern lease of the Southern Railroad that couldn't be spent on pool operations. 

Oh the summer of '88 - I referenced that constantly as the worst of the worst summers. You could be right. My knowledge is centered in the mid-60s and the picks up again in the mid-90s.

big news supposed to be coming this week for Main Street....also the Lucky Step space. See what happens Friday.

 

Was this in reference to the one night art show at Lucky Step...?

The City and 3CDC have come to a 47 million dollar financing agreement for the rehab and expansion of Washington Park.

 

Read more: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/06/21/daily40.html

How much of that $47 million is the garage?  I believe that this is the first city-built public underground garage since the Fountain Square garage.  The Banks garages are neither truly underground or built primarily with city funds. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. 

I believe that all but about 20 million is for the garage in one form or another.  That might not be exact but it's in the ballpark.

If so that comes out to $40,000~ per parking space.  The coincidence about surface parking lots is that a 400x400 city block has space for almost exactly 400 cars, and that's the approximate number of cars that parked on the SPCA block before it was built.  If not for a preservationist battle, I'd bet an equivalent area could be purchased and demolished in Over-the-Rhine for under $2 million.  Add to that that this garage will produce no property tax and the only tax income whatsoever will be the earnings tax from attendants and occasional cleaning work, probably amounting to less than $10,000 per year. 

 

Sometimes in casual conversations I'll bring up the state that underground garages often cost $30,000 or more per space and people never believe it.  I think they're willing to believe up to about $7,000 but beyond that you're a quack. 

The best thing I could say about the underground garage is that it is another way to facilitate auto/streetcar interactions.  Another location where people from out of downtown can park, visit local shops and entertainment, and hop on the streetcar to another location and then back to their car.  It would seem, for example, that Findlay Mkt could benefit significantly from people parking in a nice-n-safe washington park, getting on the streetcar to Findlay and back, and not having to interact with the riff-raff.

 

I don't know if $40K/space is worth that or not.  I regard it as the price of fear, but fear is the reality.

Actually 3CDC says that the garage is $27 million and the park is $20 million.  And they are ending up with closer to 450 parking spaces instead of the 500 originally intended, thus it is really $60,000 per parking space.

^The spots are worth it if we also have a policy to reduce the amount of land dedicated to surface parking lots.  Unfortunately we don't, and Qualls is suggesting selling City assets, including parking facilities to pay for shortfalls.  That will deconcentrate responsibility even more.

 

I'm not sure if they've considered the possibility of selling all the City owned lots to 3CDC as a package, or (better yet) giving them some sort of long-term lease to generate the funds.

At $60k per space,  $120 million will buy you 2,000 underground parking spaces or a modern streetcar system going from the river to UC.

At that outrageous price, I think an above-ground parking deck (somewhere other than inside the park) would be preferable and cheaper.

That was the original plan. A nice garage between Music Hall and Memorial Hall. The preservationist threw a hissy fit. Plans were floating on UO somewhere. A nice transparent glass-like structure that would connect directly to Music Hall.

 

I agree the underground garage seems like overkill. The ironic thing is the space between the halls is a surface lot and probably nothing will ever be built there.

^the preservationists did not kill that design at all.  3CDC killed it because they said the configuration did not work (kinda "L" shaped), and they would have to negotiate purchase of several properties from people who would have been raised their asking prices.  Here, they got free land from the school board.

That was the original plan. A nice garage between Music Hall and Memorial Hall. The preservationist threw a hissy fit. Plans were floating on UO somewhere. A nice transparent glass-like structure that would connect directly to Music Hall.

 

I agree the underground garage seems like overkill. The ironic thing is the space between the halls is a surface lot and probably nothing will ever be built there.

 

Sounds like a perfect place for an urban garden.

What about the WGUC/WCET garage that is connected to Music Hall via the skywalk over Central Parkway?  I heard a rumor that they want to demolish it because operating expenses are high.  Shouldn't we save that to provide parking for southwestern OTR/Gateway Quarter?

^hmm. I hear they are planning on removing the top deck only because it has deteriorated and would be too expensive to repair, but that the lower levels would remain. 

 

These parking garages are a money pit!

big news supposed to be coming this week for Main Street....also the Lucky Step space.  See what happens Friday.

 

Was this in reference to the one night art show at Lucky Step...?

 

no, but the announcement was delayed.  Let's just say the rumor on the street is that Park+Vine is moving to the old kaldi's space.  And a pizza place will possibly be taking over a portion of Lucky Step.  Further....Moose on  Main/Coopers, which will be "MOTR," is in process on getting liquor license transfer (based on what I read in the Courier) and plans to be booking bands for MPMF.  Finally...not OTR...but I heard Tiffany's downtown was rumored to be pulling out.  Anyone hear that one?

Let's just say the rumor on the street is that Park+Vine is moving to the old kaldi's space.

 

Park+Vine will no longer be at Park and Vine?

 

And a pizza place will possibly be taking over a portion of Lucky Step.

 

I would get pizza from Venice on Vine more often if they were open more often.  They seem to be closed any time I go by there in the evening or weekends.

Isn't Kaldi's a smaller space? I always joked around with Dan that he should expand next door, since it is vacant...

I wonder if the parking footprint around Music Hall could be shrunk if this is built. A nice formal garden would be a great addition to Music Hall.

The per space price for the garage will be $60,090.56.

 

Cost- $27,040,755

Spaces- 450

 

Per- http://www.3cdc.org/images/editor/Washington%20Park%20Renovation%20%20Expansion%20Basic%20Fact%20Sheet%281%29.pdf

 

 

>3CDC killed it because

 

I'd bet they wanted the underground garage all along and staged the hideous surface garage debate/outrage to justify the high cost of the underground garage. 

 

Also, I think the way that WCET garage enters into the back of Music Hall is bad.  When I was a kid I thought that was the front of music hall until one day we took a field trip and the buses parked on Elm and I saw the real front. 

At that outrageous price, I think an above-ground parking deck (somewhere other than inside the park) would be preferable and cheaper.

 

I think there's something to paying extra for something that is 1) considerably more aesthetically pleasing and 2) something that gives you direct access.  Costs shouldn't be evaluated simply on purchase price.  We should be looking at that + the revenue being generated + other qualitative value adds.  450 parking spots located in a conspicuous site (WashPark, or Fountain Square for that matter) with immediate public transit access (the new streetcar in this case) that don't detract from the views are absolutely worth the upfront cost so long as the fees are priced right and other, random surface lots gradually disappear.

For the amount of money being spent, though, you could build a much larger garage that could make, theoretically, more surface lots disappear and be just as convenient on a transit line than this underground garage. Or you could save the taxpayers money in this deal. Not that I am opposed to the underground structure...

Also, 3CDC liked the underground solution because they are putting all the fountain pumps down there, as well as storage for event equipment, and stage support infrastructure.  All that stuff will now be hidden.  The only negatives to this solution are:

1.  The entry driveways cut into the park

2.  The trees in the north end of the park will never be as big as those in the south end of the park.

For the amount of money being spent, though, you could build a much larger garage that could make, theoretically, more surface lots disappear and be just as convenient on a transit line than this underground garage.  Or you could save the taxpayers money in this deal.

 

You're missing my main point, in that far too often people conflate price with value.  The underground garage provides value that a surface lot simply can't- aesthetic value & extreme proximity to transit & entertainment nodes (you can't have an above ground garage on Washington Park without destroying the park).  These benefits are reflected in the price.

 

In addition, simply asserting that something is expensive because it is priced in the millions strikes me as being either naive or simply a rhetorical device.  Most of the Banks project is costing less presently than it would have three or four years ago.  So it is cheaper to be building it now, despite the fact that both prices were in the millions.

 

You also missed my secondary point, which is that we want better parking lots not bigger lots, and that building a more expensive underground garage (or a tastefully designed and unintrusive above ground garage) should go had in hand with limiting the other parking options.

I never missed those points, but I have differing opinions. For instance, the project is expensive, especially when considering how much a singular parking space is, and while it is cheaper to build now than before because of construction costs and labor wages being lower, it is still expensive no matter how you cut it. It's vastly more expensive than an above-ground parking garage. You can't twist that.

 

A well designed parking garage, concealed amongst development, can provide value that an underground garage can also provide. The parking structure proposed near 14th and Vine is one such example, whereas the cost is contained because it is above-ground, and it's aesthetics is not a large factor because of how it is designed to be integrated into the urban fabric much more so than the Gateway Garage. I would say that the Gateway Garage is closer to existing transit nodes than Washington Park, not counting the proposed streetcar. It functions as well as a proposed underground garage would, and absent the aesthetics of the Gateway Garage, it blends more so than say... the Tower Place Mall parking garage.

 

"We want..." better parking lots? I think that to some, "we want" more cost efficient parking lots, especially if city money is going to be involved. For others, "we want" more aesthetic parking garages. For some, "we want" underground decks. Given our fiscal crisis, and the pension problem that isn't going away, the city cannot necessarily afford to be spending money on fabulously expensive projects.

 

I don't oppose the underground garage, but we cannot dismiss it as being outrageously expensive, per parking space, than other options that can exist.

I never missed those points, but I have differing opinions. For instance, the project is expensive, especially when considering how much a singular parking space is, and while it is cheaper to build now than before because of construction costs and labor wages being lower, it is still expensive no matter how you cut it. It's vastly more expensive than an above-ground parking garage. You can't twist that.

 

Once again, the implication is that the only cost worth thinking about is the price to build the spot.  I'm not sure what the price to build each spot for a surface lot is, but simply pointing out that $60,000 is more money than whatever that number is dismisses the other costs imposed by the surface lot or above ground garage.  You can certainly dismiss that, if you want, but occasionally folks will continue to speak out about it.

 

Perhaps I didn't make the following point clear, but the cost of can't seriously be debated without bringing into account what money it will bring in.

 

A well designed parking garage, concealed amongst development, can provide value that an underground garage can also provide. The parking structure proposed near 14th and Vine is one such example, whereas the cost is contained because it is above-ground, and it's aesthetics is not a large factor because of how it is designed to be integrated into the urban fabric much more so than the Gateway Garage.

 

Except of course that the above ground lot contains the opportunity cost of not using that space for other activities that would bring in sales and property taxes over the long run.  Which is essential to deciding true cost.

 

I suppose you could design a building that would put the parking above ground and the offices below ground, but my guess is that most people wouldn't enjoy that.  Ask somebody who works at HP on Sixth if they do.

 

Also, the single least obtrusive looking garage is the Olympic Garage on 7th between Main & Walnut.

 

I would say that the Gateway Garage is closer to existing transit nodes than Washington Park, not counting the proposed streetcar. It functions as well as a proposed underground garage would, and absent the aesthetics of the Gateway Garage, it blends more so than say... the Tower Place Mall parking garage.

 

I must petulantly disagree, and emphasize once again that the proposed garage should be built with the proposed streetcar in mind, and that mutually-supportive infrastructure inputs is at the heart of my proposal that we focus on value when we think about public investments.

 

"We want..." better parking lots? I think that to some, "we want" more cost efficient parking lots, especially if city money is going to be involved. For others, "we want" more aesthetic parking garages. For some, "we want" underground decks. Given our fiscal crisis, and the pension problem that isn't going away, the city cannot necessarily afford to be spending money on fabulously expensive projects.

 

The pension problem is a long-term fiscal problem that must be met with either increases in revenues or cuts in benefits to retirees or both.  Nevertheless you're going to have to increase revenues.  It strikes me that doing your best job to revitalize and repopulate a specific historically unique section of the city is a much more sustainable way to increase revenue than paying $15 million rather than $30 million for a garage, particularly when you can recoup your building expenses by simply charging an appropriate price for the parking you've provided.

 

There are any number of policies that can theoretically be implemented to help resolve our budget issues, but I don't want to get housed by the mods for drifting off topic.

 

Also, I don't know how much the City is putting in, but isn't this a 3CDC project?

 

I don't oppose the underground garage, but we cannot dismiss it as being outrageously expensive, per parking space, than other options that can exist.

 

I think we can absolutely dismiss the use of the word 'outrageous', particularly when we realize that the other options that exist don't fill the need as well or even in the same way.  The fact is that good shit costs money, and this is good shit.

Good discussion, LK. To address one point, here is from the Business Courier from a few days ago --

 

"The construction and funding agreement calls for the city to issue $11.5 million in bonds, provide a $2 million capital grant and help the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC) obtain a Green Demonstration Program grant from the city-owned Metropolitan Sewer District."

I think parking garage cost is all in people's heads.  Its expensive no matter the city or project.  People complain about Cincy parking daily and when a garage is actually being built, they didn't expect reality to hit them in the face.

Cemeteries under Washington Park may delay project

By Mark Curnutte • [email protected] • June 29, 2010

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20100629/NEWS01/6300349/

I think parking garage cost is all in people's heads.  Its expensive no matter the city or project.  People complain about Cincy parking daily and when a garage is actually being built, they didn't expect reality to hit them in the face.

 

Which is funny (and sad), because downtown Cincinnati actually has quite a lot of parking at very low prices.  The people who complain expect suburban-level parking convenience, which a central city can't ever hope to provide.  Trying to supply such convenient parking only ruins the environment, and it's never good enough anyway.  I think it was in a recent Urbanophile article where it was said "you can have a vibrant downtown where everyone complains about parking, or you can have a dead downtown where everyone complains about parking." 

 

While the Washington Park garage is an expensive proposition, it has the least impact on the neighborhood while providing the same benefits.  Surface lots in a place like downtown or OTR are, quite frankly, unacceptable.  I would argue that above ground garages are not acceptable in OTR either, because their scale is incompatible with that of the surrounding buildings, and every last bit of street frontage needs to be dedicated to residences or businesses that watch said streets.  Even if you could tuck a garage away on the interior of a block, it's a loss of potential other uses for that space, as LincolnKennedy pointed out.  If that space was going to be left empty, that empty space could be an asset to the surrounding development, like a private courtyard.  The Drexel at Oakley (the newish apartment complex right next to Hyde Park Plaza) is a great example of how a garage ruins what could've been a wonderful space.  Whatever your feelings of the architecture of the apartment buildings themselves, the majority of the complex surrounds a grotesque multi-story garage.  So instead of a nice courtyard or garden or tennis courts, there's a hulking concrete box.  The pool is pushed way to the edge by the leasing office, and there's no other outdoor common area for residents.  Not only that, the buildings turn their backs (or sides) to the garage, with no windows looking towards it, since obviously there's nothing to look at.  It's a very sad and depressing place because of that. 

That particular apartment complex, from what I remember while canvassing, is on total lock-down.  It's a fortress, and I wouldn't doubt most of its residents drive to that Kroger directly across the street.  The huge difference between politics today and 100 years ago is that the papers could write whatever malicious stuff they wanted, but the electorate saw these people around town all the time.  Now everyone watches politicians on TV and never see them doing regular stuff.  Then people move to these gated complexes and can't even be canvassed by campaigns. 

 

~

 

As for this park plan, people have to remember that 3CDC was formed to help attract top talent to Cincinnati.  Top talent knows second-tier junk when they see it, and a half-ass job on Washington Park isn't going to fool any of those people.

 

Any theory that a bigger above ground garage will eliminate surface lots is silly. In the 1920's they thought a "great municipal garage", somewhere close to fountain square, would be enough parking for the whole downtown area.  Fact is people want to park right next to wherever they're going, which is why tearing down buildings for small surface lots is big business. 

 

In the 20's getting your car to a garage in the center of downtown was a huge hassle because of the bumper-to-bumper streetcars on all city streets.  There were proposals to ban automobiles from the central business district and dig "subway garages" under 4th and 6th streets from one side of downtown to another.  It was a horrendously expensive proposition, much more expensive than finishing the subway. 

 

I think parking garage cost is all in people's heads. Its expensive no matter the city or project. People complain about Cincy parking daily and when a garage is actually being built, they didn't expect reality to hit them in the face.

 

Which is funny (and sad), because downtown Cincinnati actually has quite a lot of parking at very low prices. The people who complain expect suburban-level parking convenience, which a central city can't ever hope to provide. Trying to supply such convenient parking only ruins the environment, and it's never good enough anyway. I think it was in a recent Urbanophile article where it was said "you can have a vibrant downtown where everyone complains about parking, or you can have a dead downtown where everyone complains about parking."

 

I agree with the above.  The convenience of suburban parking is a myth in my opinion, in two ways 1) I feel like the limited routes you have to get to places in the suburbs often keeps you in the car longer; and 2) When I have to go to places like Kenwood, I feel like I'm typically walking the equivalent of at least three or four city blocks from spot to store (of course, I'm a park first and ask questions later kind of guy, not the type that hunts for the best spot.  Nevertheless, the parking lot tends to be really crowded).  I think people have this conceit in their head that once they get to the mall parking lot, they've arrived at their destination, and the walk to the store counts as browsing.  Obviously this is all my impression and of course I'm comparing downtown to dense work/retail areas in the suburbs.

 

Good discussion, LK. To address one point, here is from the Business Courier from a few days ago --

 

"The construction and funding agreement calls for the city to issue $11.5 million in bonds, provide a $2 million capital grant and help the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC) obtain a Green Demonstration Program grant from the city-owned Metropolitan Sewer District."

 

Nice pull.  What's funny is that if you add in all the tax abatements that go into downtown development (and I suspect most other types of development as well) we're spending considerably more than sticker prices.  But you got to do what you got to do.  So long as we are netting revenue and providing value.

>I feel like I'm typically walking the equivalent of at least three or four city blocks from spot to stor

 

I did a conceptual art piece in college on this very phenomenon.  In 1999 I observed on Microsoft Terraserver, a black & white non-scrolling predecessor to Google Earth, that Knoxville's West Town Mall's parking lot was bigger than all of downtown Knoxville, which was completely dead at the time.  I bought a Monopoly board game at the toy store in the mall and glued the entire game's worth of fake money to every parking meter around the downtown's perimeter.  The class was totally baffled.