The more I think about the 200+ apartment tower over Macys, the less I like it.  I don't think the site is really fit for residential, and I don't really want to see a highrise built on Fountain Place.  I think that too dominating of a structure would really overwhelm the scale of Fountain Square and block a lot of sunlight that the square currently enjoys.  I do think that Fountain Place is a little underwhelming by itself, but I think it would be great if a midrise 5-8 story building added.  Ideally, Dunhumby could have built their ~5 story office building over Fountain Place, and the residential tower could have been built at 5th and Race. 

 

With Fountain Square always playing host to firework shows, concerts, big public events, etc. I think it would just be a loud and very public place to live.  You know how you can see people standing in the windows at the Westin from the square? Who would want to live in a place that they are essentially always visible to lots of people? 5th and Race is just a block removed from all of this, but it is considerably quiet over there, and I feel like it could have really added to the residential community on the west side of downtown. 

 

Really good points.  I wonder if a residential tower, which can have very small floor plates compared to offices, would work well on the western 1/3 of the base, with some rooftop amenities on top of the eastern end of the Macy’s.  A pool/deck would work well overlooking Fountain Square, and would be a pretty big selling point.

Hmmm, although these are some valid points, I think pushing the tower right up against the Fountain Square side of the site is best. Although potentially noisy at times, that's what many people are looking for when looking downtown. People bothered by noise probably wouldn't be looking at this site regardless of how the tower is oriented.

 

I don't think creating a larger wall on this side of the square is at all a problem. I think that's actually preferable. Feeling completely immersed within downtown's fabric when on the square is what's nice about it and removing this gap in that feeling will only better contribute to this feeling.

 

If the tower doesn't take up the full footprint and does indeed have some sort of roof amenities on the remaining portion of Macy's it would seem that having that on the western side would make more sense tso it can get sunlight in the afternoon and evening opposed to just the morning if it was on the eastern edge of the side.

^That's an excellent idea.  I do think that orienting the highrise on the western portion of FP, or at the very least having considerable setbacks from Vine will be key.

The more I think about the 200+ apartment tower over Macys, the less I like it.  I don't think the site is really fit for residential, and I don't really want to see a highrise built on Fountain Place.  I think that too dominating of a structure would really overwhelm the scale of Fountain Square and block a lot of sunlight that the square currently enjoys.  I do think that Fountain Place is a little underwhelming by itself, but I think it would be great if a midrise 5-8 story building added.  Ideally, Dunhumby could have built their ~5 story office building over Fountain Place, and the residential tower could have been built at 5th and Race. 

 

With Fountain Square always playing host to firework shows, concerts, big public events, etc. I think it would just be a loud and very public place to live.  You know how you can see people standing in the windows at the Westin from the square? Who would want to live in a place that they are essentially always visible to lots of people? 5th and Race is just a block removed from all of this, but it is considerably quiet over there, and I feel like it could have really added to the residential community on the west side of downtown.

 

Not sure if I agree with much of this.

 

In cities like new york, Chicago, etc. people live in major areas that have events, concerts, etc.  That's not a reason not to build apartments. If that was the case there would be no major residential developments in most of mid-town Manhattan.

 

I sort of agree on the sunlight thing, but my opinion seems to be, well, that's the price of progress.

 

Again, regarding people seeing into your apartment, something tells me this can be solved, as nearly all major US cities have high rises near major public squares.  When you build in an urban setting there are design elements to make all of this ok.

Bryant Park doesn't get any sunlight and it's one of the best small city parks in the world. 

Bryant Park is a great example of a small city park surrounded by pretty massive towers while still remaining extremely comfortable and useable at any time of the day. It was the unexpected highlight of my first trip to NYC this summer. Central Park and the High Line get all the park glory in New York (not that they don't deserve it) but I actually liked Bryant Park the most. I had lunch there and never wanted to leave. It was perfect. Striving for a similar feeling of being immersed in the city while still being in a more relaxed location is what Fountain Square should strive for and building a tower over Macy's will only help that feeling.

If the tower is set back from the street, I bet it will most likely be more set back from Race Street and Fifth Street than from Vine Street. It's really a guessing game at this point and matters of personal opinion.

 

I find CincyGuy and jmicha's arguments persuasive. Let's hope the new tower adds some variety since the buildings around FS are all kinda blah.

 

###

 

More on Bryant Park:

http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=26

 

Not sure if I agree with much of this.

 

In cities like new york, Chicago, etc. people live in major areas that have events, concerts, etc.  That's not a reason not to build apartments. If that was the case there would be no major residential developments in most of mid-town Manhattan.

 

I sort of agree on the sunlight thing, but my opinion seems to be, well, that's the price of progress.

 

Again, regarding people seeing into your apartment, something tells me this can be solved, as nearly all major US cities have high rises near major public squares.  When you build in an urban setting there are design elements to make all of this ok.

 

Rather than just saying Chicago or New York, can you actually identify a comparable precedent for Fountain Square in these cities? The most obvious comparison to Fountain Square (in my opinion) is Union Square in San Francisco.  It is 100% the symbolic heart of the CBD, lined by hotels, office buildings, and retail, and usually humming with activity day and night.  There are some buildings of considerable height surrounding Union Square, but it is not totally encased by skyscrapers.  The department stores are all midrise.  As a result, Union Square is sunny, and feels like an oasis in the heart of the bustling urban core.  Is that not what Fountain Square aspires to be? Don't we all want Downtown to be a bustling urban center that demands such a space?

 

Surely the real estate in San Francisco would demand higher density and than these massive midrise structures currently provide.  If highrise apartment towers were built overlooking Union Square I'm sure they would sell out at just about any price point.  It's not always about cramming as much density into the city regardless of the location.  If the tower built on Fountain Place creates a dark and cavernous feeling Fountain Square, that is a net loss, no matter what residential gains are made as a result of the project.  Downtown Cincinnati is not even close to being built out. Unlike San Francisco, we have plenty of surface parking lots in the CBD for which new development could be built on. There is no need to be cramming residential into the regional public square.  Near it or adjacent to it? Yes. Overlooking it? No.

I say put 54 stories there. Cincinnati has way too many mid height towers. I don't think people will stop going to FS because the sunlight is being blocked by a new tower. If that's the reason this tower doesn't get built. Smh

I say put 54 stories there. Cincinnati has way too many mid height towers. I don't think people will stop going to FS because the sunlight is being blocked by a new tower. If that's the reason this tower doesn't get built. Smh

 

This.

 

Times Square is completely engulfed by massive towers yet people still flock there.

This discussion about the sunlight is absolutely ridiculous.  The ONLY time a tower at this site could possibly block the sun is at sunset.  Does anyone remember the sun getting in people's eyes at the evening events during the summer?  No.  So the sun is already blocked. 

^fact.

 

A couple friends of mine from Charlotte made this very comment on the visit up last month.  "Kinda looks like a building is missing there."  as they pointed to the western section of FS.  I feel this will finally complete the entire block nicely.

I know someone who said that they wish FWW wouldn't get capped because they like to look at the skyscrapers as they drive through on the highway... She realizes the benefits of capping, but she still would be upset that she can't look at the buildings from that vantage point (and she likes the city and living in the city). This reminds me of the argument against putting a building over Macy's so we can still get the sun on FS. I think we should strive for the densest downtown core we can get (obviously I don't want Kowloon Walled City, but you get the idea). And I think property adjacent to FS would be the first obvious choice.

Reminds me of this ridiculous tiff in Brooklyn over losing a view of the Empire State Building because of the Atlantic Yards development.

If any part of downtown Cincinnati should be surrounded by a canyon of skyscrapers, it is Fountain Square. It is the very heart of Cincinnati's urban core.

 

Agreed, it is the heart of the city and should be impressive. 

^Because Paris, Barcelona, and DC are all so unimpressive :roll:. 

 

Cincinnati isn't Midtown Manhattan, nor will it ever be.  The charm of Cincinnati's core is that most of it is built at a really human scale.  Blocks are short, streets are (relatively) narrow, and there are enough low and mid-rise buildings scattered amongst the skyscrapers to keep the scale manageable for the pedestrian.  This is a selling point!

 

It's not just an issue of blocking the sun, it's more about the scale and preserving the feeling of Fountain Square.  Who knows what will happen- maybe a super tall building will get built there and it will enhance the feeling of the square.  All I am saying is that we need to think about the tradeoffs involved with drastically altering the height of the western border of Fountain Square. 

^Agreed.

I don't think that the height has to do with feeling pedestrian scale as much as the design of the base. A 1 story building can feel far less pedestrian than a 1000 foot tall skyscraper. It all has to do with how it interacts with passing pedestrians. The Macy's is decently pedestrian as it is so there's no reason adding 20 stories on top would change that.  This new tower will be far enough off the edge of the square being across the street and most likely stepped back slightly from the edge of the existing Macy's building (even if only a few feet) that it shouldn't feel like it's looming over the square. It's also not going to be overly tall. I'd imagine that, once built, this discussion will seem like a needless one as it will only help make Fountain Square a more 24 hour destination with that many new residents living right across the street from it.

This conversation is so effing ridiculous.  The Carew Tower is about 50 floors tall.  This new tower will be half as tall at the most.  If people are so worried about the sun and closterphobia, start a campaign to tear down the Carew Tower.

 

 

Yeah, I'm wondering what we're expecting here.  I certainly don't expect there to be anything built over Macy's that's as tall as either Carew or the Fifth Third Center. 

I think I have found the solution!

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's really funny reading some of the comments about the possibility of a new tower over Macy's to make people feel like it is closing them in, or closing Fountain Square in.  While I stand there on Fountain Square the 5/3 tower doesn't make me feel like it's looming over me and it's right on the square.  Then you have the Carew Tower across the street and as tall as it is, it doesn't feel like it's looming over me either.  Then you have to the South of the square the Westin hotel and that is by no means tall.  Now look to the North and you have a very low, actually suburban sized low rise building.  Then you have the views that spread out from the streets and it feels even more open.  Where is this closed-in feeling coming from? 

 

All I can say is WOW! Seriously, where is this coming from?  People actually like to go down to Fountain Square and take in all of the wonderful views and that has a lot to do with the buildings around them, not just the fountain alone.  There are many views to take in and a high-rise over Macy's isn't going to close in the square.   

 

 

I stopped to think: have I ever felt "closed-in" by buildings on a plaza?  Honestly the only plaza I can remember where the buildings were truly overwhelming was the World Trade Center, party because of how they were situated in that sort-of checkerboard fashion, and how there were two identical towers.  It kind of freaked you out on an instinctive level, like having two Siamese cats staring at you. 

 

Bortz: Fountain Place apartments moving forward

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

About nine months ago, the developers of the Fountain Place retail complex announced they were working to build up to 225 apartment units in a high-rise above Macy’s Inc.’s downtown department store.

 

Arn Bortz, a principal with Towne Properties LLC, said the project is keeping him busy and that there will be more to share in the next couple of months.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/13/bortz-fountain-place-apartments.html

These new details about the project today really excite me.  In particular the part about them focusing on making the architecture exciting.  I'm really looking forward to more varied and exciting architecture around the city.  I absolutely love the oldschool buildings downtown and in otr, but I feel alot of the newer ones from the 80s and 90s are pretty boring.  I was downtown this weekend at the Red's game, and was taking in the view of the city at night from the stadium.  I was overwhelmed by how many of the towers in the city are mostly just big boxes sticking up into the sky.  Also it makes sense for this project to have a more dramatic style, especially thinking about the planning of people on the square taking in the views and how much it will be seen since so many events happen there.  I'm pretty excited.

Graeter's on Fountain Square is probably hoping for the tallest building possible. If you go in there during the evening they have to bring the curtains down because of the sun shining directly into the windows above Macy's. Having a view of FS during the evening would be great for them.

There always needed to be height above Macy's.  This will be cool.

BUMP....Because I am curious if anyone has heard anything about this project and I am tired of the Ft. Washington Way cap thread!

Love this article, now does anyone have any history on the plastic tree conservatory they were going to build in that spot. Glad it did not get built, cant believe some of the fools on council at that time thought a conservatory was a good idea.

what plastic tree

http://acincinnatihistory.blogspot.com/2009/04/city-to-scale-unbuilt-cincinnati.html

 

I'm assuming he's talking about the third to last project, Crystal Forest.

That is the one. Would love to see any old articles on this if possible.

There are some great looking apartment development options forthcoming Downtown. More than likely headed to Mt. Adams after I sell my house,

at least for a year. Hope some of these developments have balconies, need some air and an outdoor grill is mandatory for for my diet, LOL.

I've heard this isn't going to happen anymore. Does anyone have any updates?

That's too bad. Who owns the building, Towne? I've been reading about how Macy's might try to monetize some of the real estate they own, is that a factor here? And what about the Downtown TIF that's supposedly built up to a good size now?

Towne said they  were doing a project a few years ago.  Fifth/Third originally bought the air rights from the original development group which included Towne Properties, Belvedere Group and Warm Bros. Construction (and maybe one other). 

I predict that Macy's will be torn down and something gigantic will take its place, on par with what was planned back there in 1989-1990. 

Still would like to see the condos, but when you think about it, there's already some significant structures in that block already, with the Huntington Bank Tower and the Terrace Plaza Hotel. 

 

http://acincinnatihistory.blogspot.com/2009/04/city-to-scale-unbuilt-cincinnati.html

 

I'm assuming he's talking about the third to last project, Crystal Forest.

 

That Millennium Monument concept art is only from 1997 but it looks like it's from the 1930's Soviet Union or something.

Oh! I should scan in this box I found about the original plans about Fountain Square West. I found it at an Oakley antique shop several years back

^Well, there's this...

 

http://www.enquirer.com/

 

...and this...

 

http://www.enquirer.com/

 

...or should we go all Cincinnatiuprise and bring back the canal!

http://www.enquirer.com/

*Sigh* that's depressing.

 

Like it or not, things like those ^ are what makes Cincinnati a more tourist friendly city.

 

We need more attractions in this city in general if we want to gain tourism besides the current nearby states (like TN, KY, IN, Cleveland, etc) that already do visit us.

 

OTR is great, and I think it's the biggest weapon Cincinnat has for tourism, but it needs more than just architecture porn. We need more museums, we need more music events, sporting events (why not attract some city racing event like they do on the streets of Baltimore, or Toronto?), and just in general create a more vibrant attractive city that's fun. OTR can't hold the fort on it's own.

Disagree. The above renderings and the renderings on the link-the Crystal Forest idea, the Olympics bid, the PRT system, the canal rendering- represent a city that doesn't get it, a city that was grasping at straws.  That Cincinnati couldn't comprehend a world where people would want to live downtown, and that tried to compete with its auto-oriented suburbs instead of building walkable neighborhoods for people. As a result it was constantly coming up with mere gimmicks to revive downtown.

 

Jane Jacobs wrote down the formula for vibrant cities back in the 1960s (based off her observations of still-functioning old time neighborhoods not scarred by urban renewal.) this included mixing the land uses to create vibrancy, putting pedestrian eyes on the street to deter crime, etc.- and it's taking 50 years for it to sink in. And a lot of folks around here, especially our leadership, still don't get it!

 

It's simple! Build walkable neighborhoods and people will move back to the city.

I think in 10 years when Cincinnati really gets connected a lot better in terms of filling in vacant buildings and storefronts, going from Smale Park, E. 4th Street Historic District, the area between 6th Street and Central Parkway, then eventually all the way up to Findlay Market, I think we will see a lot more tourist business, conventions, etc. 

 

Right now, there is a lot of "dead" spots, and downtown can be a bit dark and creepy in some areas, and this can turn people off a bit and not allow the type of tourist action we will eventually see. 

 

I agree completely, once we get downtown itself to around 10k people, OTR closer to it's max capacity, there will be a big draw for tourists and money coming in.  Walkable neighborhoods are the key and making the whole of downtown, OTR, over to Pendelton a complete walkable neighborhood will be the key to Cincinnati's future, no doubt.

 

Right now, there is a lot of "dead" spots, and downtown can be a bit dark and creepy in some areas, and this can turn people off a bit and not allow the type of tourist action we will eventually see. 

 

 

Far more than creepy or dead, too many intersections downtown are just plain ugly and inhospitable for pedestrians.

*Sigh* that's depressing.

 

Like it or not, things like those ^ are what makes Cincinnati a more tourist friendly city.

 

We need more attractions in this city in general if we want to gain tourism besides the current nearby states (like TN, KY, IN, Cleveland, etc) that already do visit us.

 

OTR is great, and I think it's the biggest weapon Cincinnat has for tourism, but it needs more than just architecture porn. We need more museums, we need more music events, sporting events (why not attract some city racing event like they do on the streets of Baltimore, or Toronto?), and just in general create a more vibrant attractive city that's fun. OTR can't hold the fort on it's own.

 

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I think we *have* added some really major tourist hotspots to the city in the past 10-20 years.  Off the top of my head, Cincinnati has added the following cultural and/or tourist attractions in the past ~15 years:

 

-The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

-A larger, significantly more prominent Contemporary Arts Center

-Numerous expansions to the Cincinnati Zoo. Unlike Columbus, who's zoo is on the periphery of the metro, Cincinnati's is in the heart of the city, thus making expansion much more difficult.  The zoo creatively and smartly decided to move parking across Vine St., and then convert the former parking lots to more zoo space.

-A modest expansion of the Cincinnati Art Museum through the conversion of the former Art Academy building to CAM offices, thus freeing up the former offices to become gallery space (~15,000 sq ft)

-An addition to the Taft Museum

-A much larger space for the American Sign Museum

-Smale Riverfront Park

-Washington Park

- 'Underground' tours of OTR and the beer tunnels that lay beneath the streets

- The Reds HOF and Museum

 

Additionally, I have heard that there is serious work underway on creating an Over the Rhine Museum.  A representative from the Tenement Museum in NYC was in town recently to meet with project leaders.  That would be a really cool addition to the scene.

I should know this but the Sign Museum moved to Camp Washington, right?  A move to OTR/CBD would have been better.

Yeah it's there. I think Camp Washington is the perfect fit for the Sign Museum.

I'd also consider Rhinegeist Brewery and Tafts Ale House to be tourist spots given the uniqueness of their spaces.  I post pics of both on Facebook and got pretty good responses from people not familiar with Cincinnati.

 

The 21 C Museum should also be added, its like a mini Contemporary Art museum.

A new HQ for 5/3 at Fountain Square West?

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2019/03/12/fifth-third-has-big-plans-fountain-square-hq/3141500002/

^ Probably just a new tenant for the old Servanti space. ?