Since the transmission and distribution lines to and from that substation are all underground, I'd say that's quite a win to start with.  Not that it couldn't stay there but still be made into a rather attractive building.  Just look at all the gorgeous telephone exchange buildings scattered around the city for instance.  Did you know this beautiful little building at McMillan and Park used to be an electric substation?  That's what those funky little dormers/cupolas are for on the roof.  http://g.co/maps/ucwc6

The point of revitalizing OTR is not trying to create some magical land where all cars are hidden from view because they are 'ugly'.  Even the most urban well developed cities in the US (with great transit systems) make use of on street parking whenever it is possible.  Try to find blocks and blocks in NYC that are "no parking" or "loading" simply to improve aesthetic. Neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Queens,  make use of street parking whenever they can.  Urban neighborhoods greatly benefit from on street parking to lessen developers desire/need to add off street surface lots next to every renovated building (which could be infill). 

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2568.870.html#ixzz1lX6ahP8X

 

Its this and the "need" for a large event lawn in front of the casino that is really telling of the massive suburban oriented bias of Cincinnati.  Its incredible how people can be so unappreciative of the intense urbanity Cincinnati once had and are so willing to just toss it away.

The point of revitalizing OTR is not trying to create some magical land where all cars are hidden from view because they are 'ugly'.  Even the most urban well developed cities in the US (with great transit systems) make use of on street parking whenever it is possible.  Try to find blocks and blocks in NYC that are "no parking" or "loading" simply to improve aesthetic. Neighborhoods like Brooklyn, Queens,  make use of street parking whenever they can.  Urban neighborhoods greatly benefit from on street parking to lessen developers desire/need to add off street surface lots next to every renovated building (which could be infill). 

 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2568.870.html#ixzz1lX6ahP8X

 

Its this and the "need" for a large event lawn in front of the casino that is really telling of the massive suburban oriented bias of Cincinnati.  Its incredible how people can be so unappreciative of the intense urbanity Cincinnati once had and are so willing to just toss it away.

 

But you hit the nail on the head - Once Had. But it not does have now. What do you expect the Casino developers to do. Place an If-Come-Maybe on redevelopment of certain areas of Cincinnati which have not yet happened or put their money on a more sure bet? Apparently you have never been presented with a Win-It-Or-Lose-It financial proposition.

I'm more critical of design choices than the casino itself.  They plopped a suburban style building the middle of one of the most urban built neighborhoods in the US, I think that's poor judgement and hurts the appeal of the area around it for those of us who value urbanity.  A casino is developed by people with a lot of money and the goal was to be more inviting and respectful of the neighborhood.  Take a look at what they are doing with the casino in Cleveland and tell me that's not a better idea.  Btw, Cleveland is a slightly smaller metro area now, so its not a matter of market size.

 

While I think the front lawn is "whatever", the likely hood of that triangle lot ever being developed was virtually 0.  It was county owned land that was only sold because the casino promised spaces in their new giant garage and because the casino is the casino... Other than that, the County would have never sold to a private developer....

 

Although I think we're a little off topic :)

 

More importantly, 3CDC released a new OTR workgroup doc with some great photos of Washington Park

No, Cincinnati still has a very intact urban environment, especially compared to many similar cities.  Just look at downtown Columbus for instance, which is a mess of surface parking lots, or Indianapolis with few actual urban neighborhoods, or Louisville with its riverfront highway.  The problem here is an embarrassment of riches, whether it's urbanism, neighborhoods, historic architecture, geography, geology, institutions, etc.  There's so much good stuff, that nobody cares about it because it's nearly ubiquitous.  Crappy un-urban projects like the casino or the new SCPA or the cheap architecture of The Banks can fly here because there's so much apathy about the resources we have, as if there's so much good stuff that we don't need to worry.  Many cities don't really get serious about things like historic preservation, walkable urbanism, or their other assets until they're nearly gone.  It's also a case of "different is good", so we end up with cheap expressions of starchitecture, casinos with front lawns, and schools that turn their ass end towards the neighborhood's nicest park, just because they're breaking the mould. 

 

It's also a case of Cincinnati being 20 years behind the times, as usual.  The excavation of decades-forgotten planning techniques from all of recorded history by the New Urbanists is only slowly percolating through the region's planners and designers.  The mindset for much of the traffic engineering, building design, and urban planning is still very much stuck in the 1990s.  It's the "cars are ugly so they must be hidden" kind of thinking going on at Washington Park.  The solution to such problems end up being berms and landscaping and restrictions on street parking.  Those are just the kind of misguided thinking that encourages more sprawl and driving and makes places less walkable and pleasant to be in, even if they are superficially prettier.  It's well understood (now) that parked cars are an important part of a properly functioning street.  However if they're only applying aesthetic concerns to the problem, then it hurts functionality and perception.  It could very well be some cases of ignorance as opposed to malice.  Take the casino front lawn situation.  It's not a problem that it's an "open space" per se, just that it's a landscaped grassy lawn.  It should be a plaza instead, then it'll be fine.  As for Washington Park, the one saving grace for this "loading zone" nonsense is that it can be easily fixed by changing signage, since curbs and sidewalks aren't being changed.  I would like to see if they're using this as a way to better facilitate the integration of the streetcar into the streetscape along the park.  I don't have the preliminary engineering drawings handy at the moment, but that could be a part of it as well. 

^My understanding is that the streetcar runs on the west side of Elm and the east side of Race, so the streetcar has no effect whatsoever on the parking around the park, except on Twelfth Street

^ correct.

That's not entirely true, based on this:

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/projects/streetcar/environmental/docs/Cincinnati%20Streetcar%20EA%20App%20C%20-%20Conceptual%20Streetcar%20Engineering.pdf

 

I'm not really sure if it runs on either "side" of the street. It looks like both stops will be east-side bump-outs.

No, Cincinnati still has a very intact urban environment, especially compared to many similar cities.  Just look at downtown Columbus for instance, which is a mess of surface parking lots, or Indianapolis with few actual urban neighborhoods, or Louisville with its riverfront highway.  The problem here is an embarrassment of riches, whether it's urbanism, neighborhoods, historic architecture, geography, geology, institutions, etc.  There's so much good stuff, that nobody cares about it because it's nearly ubiquitous.  Crappy un-urban projects like the casino or the new SCPA or the cheap architecture of The Banks can fly here because there's so much apathy about the resources we have, as if there's so much good stuff that we don't need to worry.  Many cities don't really get serious about things like historic preservation, walkable urbanism, or their other assets until they're nearly gone.  It's also a case of "different is good", so we end up with cheap expressions of starchitecture, casinos with front lawns, and schools that turn their ass end towards the neighborhood's nicest park, just because they're breaking the mould. 

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2568.900.html#ixzz1ldVM20hz

 

There are two exceptions to your rule, San Francisco and Boston.  Both cities have an abundance of "riches" and both cities were early adopters Boston actually had the first adaptive reuse in the country with their old City Hall, and San Fran, has maybe too many regulations designed precisely to support its own urbanity.  Other places have that have just as many "riches" if not more get it and do what they can to protect it.  Cincinnati just is like the slow step-cousin of the two cities that hasn't caught on just yet.

 

It even amazed me how much both in the streets and on the City Data forum people in San Fran were quick to lament the destruction of Fremont, when in all actuality not much was lost, and what its been replaced by is incredibly urban for 1960s era renewal.

 

I think its probably more a result of Cincinnati being behind the curve, along with a general anti-urban attitude in the region - I don't know how complacency in having riches can develop in Cincy but not in those two other cities that have bounties of riches.

With regards to the substation discussion, and with reference to Music Hall and MH Park... It seems that Central Parkway from the substation up to Ezzard Charles should be prime residential territory.  It would have a ridiculous amount of amenities from parks to culture to a unique location between rowhouses style buildings and historic structures (along Central Ave), Music Hall, City Hall, easy access to Findlay Market, exclusivity along a broad parkway but just off the side from the streetcar line... 

 

I would love to see the city or citizen group re-imagine the area prior to the influx of tourism (read: foreign money) this summer.

If done properly this part of CPkwy could be a big winner as a result of Music Hall & MH Park investment.  If handled properly infrastructure would be reworked along this stretch of CPkwy as to provide residential street connections to the West Side (ideally connecting Clark Street across CPkwy to Grant Street).  This would really help tie OTR and Downtown to the West End.  Such a plan would provide mid-rise living for patrons (high-end) as well as connections to areas affordable to artists, while opening the WE up for people to appreciate if more.

 

Beyond street connections and streetscape improvements, this type of potential project is more about developing the idea of this area as destination which due to its amenities should not be heavy lifting for developers.

Haven't seen this image before. Rendering of Music Hall with all the windows open. Gorgeous. They can call it Taco Bell Hall for all I care. (not really)

Looks like it's on fire.

wow!  I hope they open up the central pkwy side like that too

wow!  I hope they open up the central pkwy side like that too

 

ITA....it would look so much better on that side especially from the streets adjacent to the parking & building (CET?) across the way

Rumor mill is late June for park opening. Late May/Early June for garage opening.

Cutting it close for the Choir Games.

There are two exceptions to your rule, San Francisco and Boston.

 

Both of these cities have populations much larger than Cincinnati, I think we have the unfortunate problem of being an area with less financial clout than these cities, and thus the development that we see is of less quality as well. I'm in no way defending poor architecture and city development, I'm just proposing this as a possibility as to why we may see less captivating planning going on here, we might just not be able to afford it.

^ Land values are much lower in Cincy than in Boston and SF, but construction costs are about the same. The building that gets constructed on a plot of land is in part a function of the value of the land. Thus you get lower quality buildings in Cincy.

Construction labor is as expensive in cincinnati as in boston and san fran?

Construction labor is as expensive in cincinnati as in boston and san fran?

 

I said "about the same". They are not a difference in magnitude like land values are, and material costs are also pretty much the same.

Matthew Hall's thinly veiled 'questions' are getting a bit annoying.  Let's drop the sarcasm.  It never translates well on a board.

 

 

The point is-- While the difference in land value can be tens of millions of dollars, the cost of cement is only going to vary 5-15%.  The cost of labor will vary 15-25% and the transportation costs will vary 10-20%.  A $3 million piece of land in downtown Cincinnati could be a $50 million piece of land in downtown San Fran.

 

So yes-  the cost of labor in San Francisco is "about" the same as it is in Cincinnati as compared to the dramatic difference in the value of the land the labor is working on.

Back on topic....

 

 

I looked on 3CDC's website.  July 1 is now the official opening for the Park while April 1 is listed for the garage.  I'm a bit surprised about the garage! Very exciting.

I don't now about "we", but my post was a serious question. At least I got a response, if I had to be insulted in order to get it. 

 

Lower transportation and labor costs should at least count for something in getting development and redevelopment done in cincinnati. How can urban developments be done more cheaply? Maybe more prefabricating construction or differential property tax arrangements to make them more financially appealing.

I think a huge part of it is demand, not costs.  It's incredibly cheap to do anything in Cincinnati, and the City has a massive property tax abatement program.  The new U Square people got something like $13 million in property tax abatements over 10 years for building a LEED certified building.

 

The more important factor is demand and worker skills.  Apple just decided to announce a massive 4000 job center in Austin.  Austin is seen as being filled with young, smart, creative people.  OR if the talent isn't already in Austin, the talent will say, oh I'll totally move to Austin. 

 

Cincinnati is a more difficult sell for these kind of companies (the ones that will lead us in the next 20-30 years).  Young creative class people from SF or NYC are less likely to up and move to Cincinnati than they are to Austin (obviously a total generalization based solely on my own conversations).

 

Culture is key to drawing needed talent to cities.  Many many many companies every day chose to be in a place with way more taxes, way more costs, way more difficulties than downtown Cincinnati.  But that's because there is status, culture, and attractiveness to progressive cities that lure creative class educated young professionals. 

 

And beyond just that one group, many businesses specifically look for diverse workforces.  Increasing our hispanic and asian populations in the Metro and in the City will be key to attracting jobs. 

 

 

Within the metro, however, you are right.  Things can be done to attract people downtown vs. west chester, but part of it depends on the work force.  Vantiv left Cincinnati because they wanted an all surface lot suburban style campus because a majority of their workers are middle class women.  We are likely to see the same thing with Paycor.  HOPEFULLY the City can lure them to Keystone or something, but workforces have their own specific interests even within a Metro. 

 

Today, downtowns are more likely to be high paying jobs (Vantiv & Paycor pay 30-50,000 to most of their staff, while P&G & Dunnhumby pay between 60-100,000). 

 

What the City needs to do, is retool underutilized land in outer neighborhoods to create suburban style campuses.  that is what GO Cincinnati recommended and what is happening at Red Bank & Madison and Keystone Park.  Hopefully these work out.  This can ensure that the suburban style jobs still can stay in the City and Downtown can continue to grow and attract higher paying jobs. 

 

Also-  Downtown business (even the bigger companies) will be helped dramatically by more residents. 

What the City needs to do, is retool underutilized land in outer neighborhoods to create suburban style campuses. 

 

Absolutely not. 

 

These suburban style campuses (whether offices, industrial parks, strip shopping, or even housing developments) do not even come close to repaying through taxes the investment to build and maintain the infrastructure that they require.  As an example, a typical suburban housing subdivision would need to have its property taxes increased by anything from 2x-4x just to cover the ongoing maintenance of its own roads, never mind the sewers, water lines, schools, police, fire department, libraries, and other services those taxes go to as well. 

 

Cincinnati's outer neighborhoods are on shaky ground from a return-on-investment point of view as it is, and encouraging more low-density development which requires widened roads, more traffic signals, extra sewer capacity, and other things is only going to dig the city into a deeper hole than it's already in.  It's simply not worth it to keep such jobs in the city if those are the conditions that they come with.  The city income tax makes the situation a little less lopsided, but it's still a very dangerous direction to go. 

 

The way such suburban development has managed to work OK in the past 60 years or so is because when those long-term maintenance liabilities come due, they're paid for by the taxes from new development that hasn't aged enough to need that maintenance yet.  The only way it works without significantly increasing taxes is to have more and more growth.  Any city or suburb that's already "built out" can't keep growing like that, so when the maintenance liabilities start piling up they get in trouble.  Older suburbs are getting hit hardest because they have no ability at all to densify and improve the utilization of their existing infrastructure.  The city itself is in a better position to densify and redevelop a number of areas, but the trend has to be increasing density and doing so with as much existing infrastructure as possible.  These suburban style projects are burdening the city with road and sewer expansion projects that the city can not only not afford to build in the first place, but has no hope of maintaining in the future.  So that's definitely not the answer to the problem. 

 

Washington Park on the other hand, as expensive as it is, is the type of project that projects its value into the surrounding neighborhood.  As values go up around it, that increases the tax base, and helps pay off the cost of the project.  That's called value capture.  The streetcar project is the same kind of thing.  Widening arterial roads, adding turn lanes, traffic signals, expanding sewers to handle excess runoff, and other such work that goes into these suburban projects costs a lot of money, but they don't improve nearby property values in any reasonable proportion to what they cost, and immediately nearby many of them even reduce values.  We need to stop such insanity. 

^ So just to be clear--- you're saying it's totally ok for the City to lose millions and millions of dollars in tax revenue by losing Vantiv, Paycor, etc. because they want suburban style office space and NOT downtown high rises? And that we should in no way leverage underutilized space in outer neighborhoods for development?  Or are you saying we should only build high rises, even on Paddock Road or Red Bank & Madison?

 

Are you familiar with the Medpace office campus?  They moved their 1000 employees (averaging $65,000 salaries) from outside the City to Madisonville and built a new campus. 

 

 

 

Yes, it's not a 15 story high rise in a completely mixed use neighborhood, but it's better to have that in Cincinnati than in Mason.  You can't convince every business they MUST be in downtown high-rises.  That's ridiculous.

 

The developer took an old long abandoned factory (nutone) and built a brand new office campus.  that site went from 0 tax money to hundreds of thousands of tax money generated each year.  All we did was give them a property tax abatement on the new development. 

 

How is that a bad thing?

Damn it!!! And I really try to stay on topic....

 

 

 

So about that park...  I wonder when they'll start announcing programming. 

Why is the choice always either downtown high rises or suburban office parks?  You realize there's lots of other options in between I hope.

 

But yes, the city SHOULD say goodbye to millions in property taxes if it costs the city more than those millions in infrastructure to support the development. 

 

Now like I said before, the city income tax helps a ton, but there's still a lot of externalized costs to these types of projects.  The Medpace development, along with the Fifth Third facility on Duck Creek, the Wal Mart in Fairfax, and other stuff in that particular area are significantly spiking the traffic in Madisonville, pushing the need for the hugely expensive Red Bank Expressway upgrade.  These are the kinds of projects that bring in single digit millions of dollars of taxes per year, but which require double or triple digit million dollar road projects (among other things) that need expensive rehabilitation every 15-20 years.

This is off-topic but repurposing from industrial space that once supported a large workforce for new uses that will again support a large workforce makes a ton of sense to me. I don't see the Red Bank expansion as related to that. However, greenfield growth is a whole other ball of wax.

Yes, really. Please stay on topic and limit the personal attacks. Thanks.

Washington Park Garage To Open Next Week

Another piece of the Washington Park project will open next week.

 

News 5's John London said the Washington Park underground garage will open next Friday.

What the City needs to do, is retool underutilized land in outer neighborhoods to create suburban style campuses. 

 

Absolutely not. 

 

These suburban style campuses (whether offices, industrial parks, strip shopping, or even housing developments) do not even come close to repaying through taxes the investment to build and maintain the infrastructure that they require.  As an example, a typical suburban housing subdivision would need to have its property taxes increased by anything from 2x-4x just to cover the ongoing maintenance of its own roads, never mind the sewers, water lines, schools, police, fire department, libraries, and other services those taxes go to as well. 

 

Cincinnati's outer neighborhoods are on shaky ground from a return-on-investment point of view as it is, and encouraging more low-density development which requires widened roads, more traffic signals, extra sewer capacity, and other things is only going to dig the city into a deeper hole than it's already in.  It's simply not worth it to keep such jobs in the city if those are the conditions that they come with.  The city income tax makes the situation a little less lopsided, but it's still a very dangerous direction to go. 

 

The way such suburban development has managed to work OK in the past 60 years or so is because when those long-term maintenance liabilities come due, they're paid for by the taxes from new development that hasn't aged enough to need that maintenance yet.  The only way it works without significantly increasing taxes is to have more and more growth.  Any city or suburb that's already "built out" can't keep growing like that, so when the maintenance liabilities start piling up they get in trouble.  Older suburbs are getting hit hardest because they have no ability at all to densify and improve the utilization of their existing infrastructure.  The city itself is in a better position to densify and redevelop a number of areas, but the trend has to be increasing density and doing so with as much existing infrastructure as possible.  These suburban style projects are burdening the city with road and sewer expansion projects that the city can not only not afford to build in the first place, but has no hope of maintaining in the future.  So that's definitely not the answer to the problem. 

 

Washington Park on the other hand, as expensive as it is, is the type of project that projects its value into the surrounding neighborhood.  As values go up around it, that increases the tax base, and helps pay off the cost of the project.  That's called value capture.  The streetcar project is the same kind of thing.  Widening arterial roads, adding turn lanes, traffic signals, expanding sewers to handle excess runoff, and other such work that goes into these suburban projects costs a lot of money, but they don't improve nearby property values in any reasonable proportion to what they cost, and immediately nearby many of them even reduce values.  We need to stop such insanity. 

 

We did some studies on the infrastructure needs of TND developments versus conventional suburban developments, and until you hit such a high density that you are no longer comparing comparable housing products, there was at best a 30-50%% efficiency advantage for the TND. This is still good of course, but was rather disappointing to us as, we thought it would be much higher. I can see a path to regulating development patterns, but I don't know how you regulate the types of housing that the market demands.

 

I know that's way off topic again but perhaps this whole conversation needs to go into a different thread.

New traffic signals are up at 13th and Race & 13th and Vine (bagged in plastic for the time being). Article mentions traffic will switch to two way Wednesday.

 

I wonder how long they'll shut it down to paint the new street lines- I'm guessing Tuesday afternoon?

I was hoping they would include a simple 1/2" mill of the street and repaving. But this is good news - it makes navigating the neighborhood easier. Now if 14th could become all two way...

13th St is going to be the main connector of the park to Vine St, it's too bad it is not getting streetscape enhancements ahead of the park opening either.

^someone earlier announced that was recently budgeted for later this summer. Pretty sure it wasn't even officially part of the plan until a few weeks ago.

 

Also, not sure how you would make 14th two way considering it's one lane of parking and one lane of driving. 15th on the other hand is twice as wide and could be easily two-way.

14th is wide enough (3 lanes) to make two way between Race and Elm like it is between Elm and Central Parkway.  East of Race though, no way. 

 

Even so, one way streets aren't really a bad thing if they're narrow, especially if there's dedicated parking lanes.  It's when you get to 3 or more travel lanes that it starts to become a problem. 

Lots of Pics!

 

Garage opening plays to Music Hall

6:14 PM, Apr. 19, 2012  | 

Written by Laura Baverman

 

 

OVER-THE-RHINE — The women in heels and men in suits attending this weekend’s Cincinnati Pops Orchestra concerts will be the first arts patrons to set foot in the sprawling new parking garage beneath the transforming Washington Park.

 

Arts leaders hope a finished garage at the doorsteps of historic Music Hall will encourage concert-goers deterred by a year of construction to come back, and often. Two underground decks of 450 spaces, priced $8 each for concerts, add nearly 20 percent more parking within the three blocks surrounding the hall.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120419/BIZ/304190164

^If the poltergeist activity doesn't scare everybody off.

An underground garage in an old cemetery? Setting off car alarms, falls, dresses caught in car doors, stuck keys...

we'll see

Sounds like the a new stop for the Queen City Underground tours!

14th is wide enough (3 lanes) to make two way between Race and Elm like it is between Elm and Central Parkway.  East of Race though, no way. 

 

Even so, one way streets aren't really a bad thing if they're narrow, especially if there's dedicated parking lanes.  It's when you get to 3 or more travel lanes that it starts to become a problem. 

 

This July W. 14th Street between Elm and Vine will become two-way, per notes one of my co-workers wrote down at a meeting he attended with 3CDC and the City on April 17th. Maybe the on-street parking on the south side of 14th east of Race will be removed and converted to a travel lane? W. 14th from Race to Republic and then Republic to Vine are very short blocks lengths, removing that parking lane would get rid of less than two dozen on street spots total.

^ Hmmmm. Very interesting.  Washington park renovation has already removed about 20-30 on street parkings spots.  This removes just under two dozen. conversion of 13th to two way removed about 6. 

 

In total about 50-60 on street spaces have been removed.  In all honesty, I think 3CDC wishes ALL on street spots would be removed so they would fill their lots with monthly parkers. 

^ Hmmmm. Very interesting.  Washington park renovation has already removed about 20-30 on street parkings spots.  This removes just under two dozen. conversion of 13th to two way removed about 6. 

 

In total about 50-60 on street spaces have been removed.  In all honesty, I think 3CDC wishes ALL on street spots would be removed so they would fill their lots with monthly parkers. 

 

This keeps needing to be explained: They aren't a for-profit company. They do not have any goal other than to continue to redevelop the city center. That's not to say every single thing they do is the best thing, they just don't profit from it. 3CDC could cure cancer. Or they could have your mother assassinated. Either way, it wouldn't be to line their own pockets. They are a non-profit.

3cdc is non-profit, but so are most airports, hospitals, and universities in the u.s. It can be hard to distinguish them from for-profit organizations today. Nonetheless, they do exist to develop  cincinnati and aren't free to do whatever they want with their resources as a company would be. Think of it as what was called a 'third type' of organization in the 90s, neither public nor private. If we had a true free-market in transportation and housing 3cdc wouldn't be necessary, but since we don't, it is one way to reestablish a functioning market in real estate in otr and other areas where it was destroyed by zoning and the many subsidies paid to those who moved to suburbia in the post war period, ie, free expressways, mortgage interest deductions, state and federal money for local roads, sewers, and schools, etc.

^ Hmmmm. Very interesting.  Washington park renovation has already removed about 20-30 on street parkings spots.  This removes just under two dozen. conversion of 13th to two way removed about 6. 

 

In total about 50-60 on street spaces have been removed.  In all honesty, I think 3CDC wishes ALL on street spots would be removed so they would fill their lots with monthly parkers. 

 

This keeps needing to be explained: They aren't a for-profit company. They do not have any goal other than to continue to redevelop the city center. That's not to say every single thing they do is the best thing, they just don't profit from it. 3CDC could cure cancer. Or they could have your mother assassinated. Either way, it wouldn't be to line their own pockets. They are a non-profit.

 

 

Non-profits don't just get to right off losses forever and everyone holds hands and skips around smiling.  The debt they hold because of many of these projects is quite large.  The Cincinnati Equity Fund isn't just a pool they get to take from forever.  They have to pay it back.

 

They have very specific dollar amounts per month the garage MUST meet or they default on their loans.  And unlike Fountain Square which charges $210 per month for monthly parkers and $5 on evenings, Washington Park is not in the middle of a vibrant downtown surrounded by office workers who can pay that huge monthly rate.  $85 a month is the highest they think they can charge.  It's not very high when you compare it to the debt they took on for that garage.  And $3 for evenings... also cheap because most people in OTR don't use garages- they just find some surface parking and walk to vine. 

 

Trust me, they will do anything to ensure as many people as possible park in that lot at all times so that they can cover their debt service. 

 

Again: A non-profit still has to cover its costs. And this garage was a huge cost.

And non-profits can absolutely profit as much as they want, and often do.  the difference, is that they can't pay out their profits as bonuses or to shareholders via dividends.  They, by law, must return their profits to the company through reinvestment, etc. 

 

They are still companies with motives, but the motives are usually a bit more altruistic.  But in the case of the garage, yes, they want everyone possible to fill that garage.

I walked in the garage and took photos this evening.  They really did an outstanding job on the whole thing.  The effect walking up the stairs out of the garage is akin to walking up subway steps in big cities and being met with a similarly dramatic cityscape.  Certainly, there is hardly an edifice in the United States that matches Music Hall, and for so many years that view could not be appreciated by the public. 

And non-profits can absolutely profit as much as they want, and often do.  the difference, is that they can't pay out their profits as bonuses or to shareholders via dividends.  They, by law, must return their profits to the company through reinvestment, etc. 

 

They are still companies with motives, but the motives are usually a bit more altruistic.  But in the case of the garage, yes, they want everyone possible to fill that garage.

 

Look, I'm hardly an eternal optimist. But do you really want to pick this bone in the midst of the most successful urban turnaround in Cincinnati's history?

Successful urban neighborhoods need on-street parking to buffer people on the sidewalk from the traffic in the street.  When it's just a two or three lane street with very little traffic, it's not such a big deal, but through streets like Race, Elm, and Vine, along with some of the bigger side streets like 12th, 13th, and 15th definitely need it. 

 

To not have a buffer of parked cars, especially around Washington Park which is supposed to be a more calm and leisurely place, will deaden the sidewalk.  Parked cars also help chew up some of the sound of vehicles driving by and it keeps some of the pollution just that much farther away from people in the park or on the sidewalk. 

 

Also, with the city on the verge of eliminating off-street parking requirements in the basin, combined with the increasing number of renovations and restorations in OTR, those on-street spaces are getting to be more valuable commodities.  That doesn't mean the city shouldn't price them accordingly, and they should almost certainly be priced higher than the garage, and/or have shorter hour time limits.  But to eliminate parking just to satisfy the goals of the parking garage owner/operator is a detriment to the neighborhood and is certainly worth criticizing.