Some of the interior renders show staggered floor-to-ceiling windows, but all of the exterior renders show them maintaining the current ribbon window layout. As far as I know/remember, the current Lindner Hall doesn't have any window layouts similar to what's shown in the interior renders. From the exterior renders and the UC article, it seems like they're keeping the brick facade and window layout mostly in tact. Not sure if the interior renders are just mistakes, or if there's some facade where they intend to change the window layout. "Plans call to retain the building’s brick façade, but replace its tinted windows with clear glass to allow for more natural light."

 

 

They forgot to put a laptop in front of every single student in that rendering.

UC President Neville Pinto released this "State of Uptown" a few weeks ago: http://www.uptowncincinnati.com/news/2018/3/23/the-state-of-the-uptown-consortium-by-neville-g-pinto-phd

 

I like that he specifically calls out the intention to build "pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use developments", but we haven't really seen anything truly "pedestrian friend" yet, and until Uptown Consortium implements some zoning changes, it's hard to imagine how they're going to address the currently pedestrian-hostile nature of Uptown (especially the wide roads of MLK and Taft).

UC Health tops out $68M neuroscience headquarters

 

The final steel beam was hoisted into place Tuesday for the University of Cincinnati Gardner Neuroscience Institute, a $68 million building that’s expected to be notable for both its architecture and medical services.

 

The 38-foot beam was signed by Dr. Rick Lofgren, CEO of the UC Health hospital system, and other doctors as well as prominent representatives of Cincinnati’s business community before being swung into place during a topping out ceremony to celebrate completion of the skeleton of the building.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/04/11/uc-tops-out-68m-neuroscience-headquarters-photos.html

UC seeks builder for $54 million construction project

 

 

The University of Cincinnati is searching for a builder for a $54 million project.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/06/07/exclusive-uc-seeks-builder-for-54-million.html

That's amazingly expensive.  $79,000 per resident. 

That's amazingly expensive.  $79,000 per resident. 

 

That might seem expensive to you, but each student will pay ~$9,000/year to live in the renovated building (assuming prices are similar to Morgens/Scioto), which means they can pay it back in less than a decade. Not a bad ROI at all for a "non-profit" like UC.

https://www.uc.edu/housing/rates.html

Hopefully they are planning to give it an all-new glass facade matching Morgens and Scioto, and reopen the Calhoun Street entrance to reconnect it to the street.

 

Get an early look at the $5M in tech coming to UC’s Fifth Third Arena

 

The newly renovated Fifth Third Arena on the University of Cincinnati’s campus will feature $5 million in new technology.

 

Installation of 36 new state-of-the-art LED Daktronics video boards stretching more than 5,700 square feet began in May inside the home of UC’s men’s and women’s basketball and volleyball teams that’s undergoing an $87 million renovation.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/06/18/get-an-early-look-at-the-5m-in-tech-coming-to-uc-s.html

 

The Neuroscience building is getting its PTFE wrapping. Question for the architects: what will the view be like looking out through the PTFE? Does the PTFE serve a practical purpose (limiting solar gain, reducing glare, etc) or is it just for the exterior aesthetics?

Here’s a photo showing the wrap in progress. I’m not sure if the north facade will remain as is (without the wrap).

It's actually pretty striking from a few spots in Coryville, sort of like how the Guggenheim in Bilbao.  Yes, that was a knock at the Vontz Center. 

It's actually pretty striking from a few spots in Coryville, sort of like how the Guggenheim in Bilbao.  Yes, that was a knock at the Vontz Center. 

Agreed. This is looking MUCH nicer than the Vontz.

The UC Health Sciences Building

 

UC Health Sciences 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

 

UC Health Sciences (2) 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

 

And the Neuroscience Institute Building

 

UC Neuroscience Institute 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

 

UC Neuroscience Institute (2) 8-5-18 by Chad McCann, on Flickr

Did you happen to get any of the apartments by deaconess?

Kind of sad that UC had to remove that cool old Tudor house that was on campus. Was it the Alumni building or something for the Engineering Dept?

I think you're referring to the old Alumni Center that was removed to make room for the new College of Business.

Ah yes, that's it.

I think you're referring to the old Alumni Center that was removed to make room for the new College of Business.

The *old* Alumni Center which was torn down for the new College of Business was definitely NOT tudor.

 

The *future* alumni center will be in the old *tudor* YMCA building on Calhoun: https://media.bizj.us/view/img/10189955/rfq-ucn-16094b-ae.pdf

 

Yves Behar[/member] - I'm not sure which tudor building you're talking about... was it in the center of campus somewhere?

I think Yves was just crossing the streams between the new and old alumni centers. The are no remaining old homes on campus as far as I'm aware, and the only other thing that's been demolished in the past couple of years was Wilson Auditorium which was neither a house nor tudor.

i think it was a Frank L Wright design.... they kept it quiet

Yes I was confused, though as it turns out the original Alumni House was in fact a Tudor.

https://magazine.uc.edu/issues/0908/alumni1/jcr%3acontent/MainContent/textimage_0/image.img.jpg/1294859194106.jpg

Did you happen to get any of the apartments by deaconess?

 

I did but I posted them in the CUF thread since it's not a UC funded development.

The new dorm has a Tim Horton's in it:

https://locations.timhortons.com/us/oh/cincinnati/2911-scioto-lane.html

The new dorm has a Tim Horton's in it:

https://locations.timhortons.com/us/oh/cincinnati/2911-scioto-lane.html

 

Opened back in April I believe. Very small space overall. I'm a little surprised as there is no signage whatsoever unless you go inside the building, maybe campus policy? But you would have no idea it's there unless you go inside. None the less, this place will do a killing especially come football season and those early morning tailgates.

Lots of buildings on campus have little cafes inside of them that do not have any outdoor signage as they mostly serve the students/faculty/staff in that building, i.e. the Starbucks inside CCM. I assume that's the same logic that was used to justify not putting outdoor signage for this new Tim Hortons.

RIP Mr. Jim's 

That alumni center was of prairie School construction - which included but was not exclusive to Frank Lloyd Wright.  One would think if Frank Lloyd Wright would have designed it it would have been known he had a building on campus, but I don't put anything past Cincinnati not caring about such stuff...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_School

The Prairie-style former Alumni Center, just like the Usonian-style outlook at Bellevue Hill Park are just that: FLW-style. Not FLW.

Lots of buildings on campus have little cafes inside of them that do not have any outdoor signage as they mostly serve the students/faculty/staff in that building, i.e. the Starbucks inside CCM. I assume that's the same logic that was used to justify not putting outdoor signage for this new Tim Hortons.

 

Makes sense. Working in athletics for a few years, Planning + Design + Construction was terrible to try and worth with on anything signage related across our facilities.

Also, crews are in the process of rebuilding the wide sidewalk on the Turner Hall side of Jefferson Ave., all the way from Corry St. north to University Ave.  That sidewalk didn't appear to be in bad shape so I'm not sure what motivated the project. 

 

BTW the double row of trees on Jefferson that I assume were planted in the 1970s are starting to get impressively large. 

The new dorm has a Tim Horton's in it:

https://locations.timhortons.com/us/oh/cincinnati/2911-scioto-lane.html

 

Opened back in April I believe. Very small space overall. I'm a little surprised as there is no signage whatsoever unless you go inside the building, maybe campus policy? But you would have no idea it's there unless you go inside. None the less, this place will do a killing especially come football season and those early morning tailgates.

 

I've seen a lot of chain food vendors not make it within UC's campus so I can't make a prediction either way.

Lots of buildings on campus have little cafes inside of them that do not have any outdoor signage as they mostly serve the students/faculty/staff in that building, i.e. the Starbucks inside CCM. I assume that's the same logic that was used to justify not putting outdoor signage for this new Tim Hortons.

 

Makes sense. Working in athletics for a few years, Planning + Design + Construction was terrible to try and worth with on anything signage related across our facilities.

 

Maybe PDC is still upset about Aaron Renn making fun of the changeable letter on Jefferson.

Also, crews are in the process of rebuilding the wide sidewalk on the Turner Hall side of Jefferson Ave., all the way from Corry St. north to University Ave.  That sidewalk didn't appear to be in bad shape so I'm not sure what motivated the project. 

 

BTW the double row of trees on Jefferson that I assume were planted in the 1970s are starting to get impressively large. 

 

I think they're turning it into one of those damned "shared use paths" like on Eggleston. 

 

Maybe PDC is still upset about Aaron Renn making fun of the changeable letter on Jefferson.

 

Sadly, those things are still everywhere. Don't understand it.

Few photos of the LCOB.

 

I really like the way this building fits into campus. Many of the previous generation starchitecture stood back on an island away from its context, but you can really tell in the aerial shot that this building responds to the site in a meaningful way.

Also, crews are in the process of rebuilding the wide sidewalk on the Turner Hall side of Jefferson Ave., all the way from Corry St. north to University Ave.  That sidewalk didn't appear to be in bad shape so I'm not sure what motivated the project. 

 

BTW the double row of trees on Jefferson that I assume were planted in the 1970s are starting to get impressively large. 

 

Yeah - I don't know who funded it, but the City's bike program tweeted about it, so I assume they had some role. It's a real shame that this is what the City thinks about when it comes to deciding how to spend its limited budget on bike infrastructure. The existing sidewalk was already quite wide. It just seems like this rebuilding of the sidewalk was a very expensive project that'll have no significant impact on how many people feel safe biking around Uptown.

 

Also, crews are in the process of rebuilding the wide sidewalk on the Turner Hall side of Jefferson Ave., all the way from Corry St. north to University Ave.  That sidewalk didn't appear to be in bad shape so I'm not sure what motivated the project. 

 

BTW the double row of trees on Jefferson that I assume were planted in the 1970s are starting to get impressively large. 

 

Yeah - I don't know who funded it, but the City's bike program tweeted about it, so I assume they had some role. It's a real shame that this is what the City thinks about when it comes to deciding how to spend its limited budget on bike infrastructure. The existing sidewalk was already quite wide. It just seems like this rebuilding of the sidewalk was a very expensive project that'll have no significant impact on how many people feel safe biking around Uptown.

 

 

One big issue with these is that it is very unclear that it is a shared path. There's usually a small sign but there's not markings on the path on Eggleston. I was walking there with my girlfriend and someone flew by us on a bike. She made a comment about how they should be in the street and I let her know that we were actually on a shared path. She had no idea.

I don't know about Toledo, as I haven't been there recently (or ever, actually). But Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Akron are all eating Cincinnati's lunch when it comes to bike infrastructure. Dayton residents passed a levy in, I think, 2016 to repave roads, and as they're being repaved many are getting bike lanes. The number of bike lanes has grown dramatically since that ballot measure passed.

That Eggleston path irks me for the same reasons. I have to assume these "improvements" are driven by Cranley's (misguided) belief that all bike infrastructure should be off-street. Even if they put up "multi-use" signage, it's going to still feel like a sidewalk. And as jmecklenborg[/member] frequently points out, even in places like the Little Miami bike trail, pedestrians and fast bikes do not play well together. Pedestrians on sidewalks do not think about how quickly a 15 MPH biker might appear behind them, and they aren't thinking about keeping a steady, straight path to avoid any sudden movements. And since these multi-use paths have to accommodate two-way bike traffic, there's the real chance of a head-on bike collision. I just wish we could get somebody in City Hall to make on-street bike lanes a possibility.

Even if they put up "multi-use" signage, it's going to still feel like a sidewalk. And as jmecklenborg[/member] frequently points out, even in places like the Little Miami bike trail, pedestrians and fast bikes do not play well together. Pedestrians on sidewalks do not think about how quickly a 15 MPH biker might appear behind them, and they aren't thinking about keeping a steady, straight path to avoid any sudden movements.

 

It's kind of weird that, with separate pavement and markings already in the city's design lexicon, they spend all the money on these new paths but don't use that tool.

If the city insists on two-way paths (which really should only be used in rural settings, urban streets should have one-way cycle tracks on each side of the street) then it really wouldn't be hard to do it properly, rather than as these merely-wide sidewalks. 

 

If you want to do this all American-like, use black asphalt on the cycle track instead of red, use regular poured concrete on the sidewalk instead of pavers, and the curb next to the grass could probably be eliminated, and add a few stencils for "bike only" and "ped only" and you're done.  It might not even be as expensive as the full-width concrete.  But no, the wide sidewalk design is the laziest/easiest to design and least useful. 

In many of the implementations I've seen, the curb ramps aren't changed to accommodate bicycles, so they're too narrow for multiple bikes and peds to use at once, and bikes must be maneuvered at awkward angles to go straight through the intersection. On one of these paths I use in Dayton, a beg button must be pushed to get a signal -- often leading to sitting through almost two whole light cycles. And really there is no signal; it's a walk signal. I'm not sure if it is the law that a cyclist on a mixed-use path should obey the walk signal or if, being a vehicle, is governed by the green light. But for safety's sake you'd better obey the walk signal.

 

This has to be one of the worst offenses I've seen, right here.

That Eggleston path irks me for the same reasons. I have to assume these "improvements" are driven by Cranley's (misguided) belief that all bike infrastructure should be off-street. Even if they put up "multi-use" signage, it's going to still feel like a sidewalk. And as jmecklenborg[/member] frequently points out, even in places like the Little Miami bike trail, pedestrians and fast bikes do not play well together. Pedestrians on sidewalks do not think about how quickly a 15 MPH biker might appear behind them, and they aren't thinking about keeping a steady, straight path to avoid any sudden movements. And since these multi-use paths have to accommodate two-way bike traffic, there's the real chance of a head-on bike collision. I just wish we could get somebody in City Hall to make on-street bike lanes a possibility.

 

You hit the nail on the head here. The reason we are building lots of these bike+ped paths instead of painting bike lanes is because our current administration views bikes as something for recreation and not for transportation. The problem starts with our Mayor, of course, but is also not helped by a DOTE that still has an extremely car-centric approach to everything they do and only considers pedestrians, cyclists, or transit riders as an afterthought.

 

However, my understanding is that the Eggleston path was built with casino TIF money that had to be spent in the immediately adjacent area. So it didn't take money away from the DOTE budget or other bike infrastructure in the city.

If the city insists on two-way paths (which really should only be used in rural settings, urban streets should have one-way cycle tracks on each side of the street) then it really wouldn't be hard to do it properly, rather than as these merely-wide sidewalks. 

 

If you want to do this all American-like, use black asphalt on the cycle track instead of red, use regular poured concrete on the sidewalk instead of pavers, and the curb next to the grass could probably be eliminated, and add a few stencils for "bike only" and "ped only" and you're done.  It might not even be as expensive as the full-width concrete.  But no, the wide sidewalk design is the laziest/easiest to design and least useful.

 

Here is an American example, from Philly.

Here is an American example, from Philly.

 

Nice, that could even be a bio-swale between the cycle track and the roadway (sort of like what was done on Spring Grove between Mitchell and Clifton). 

UC is going to lease an entire 180,000 sq ft building at the SE corner of MLK and Reading, which is being developed by Terrex. This will be one block north of the "1819 Innovation Hub" (in the old Sears building). While I have zero hope of MLK becoming more bike-friendly, it'd be great to see UC push to make University Ave a bike-friendly corridor to connect to main campus.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/08/22/uc-to-kickstart-innovation-corridor-with-digital.html

UC to kickstart Innovation Corridor with digital futures building

 

 

The University of Cincinnati has signed a letter of intent to lease an entire 180,000-square-foot office building in Cincinnati’s Innovation Corridor.

 

UC would anchor Uptown Gateway, a mixed-use development by Terrex Development & Construction and Messer Construction Co. at the southeast corner of Martin Luther King Drive and Reading Road. In the building, which UC is referring to as its digital futures building, the university would bring together UC faculty and students to work with companies and the community to address real-world problems in a digital future.

 

UC president Neville Pinto said the new space will be interdisciplinary, bringing together researchers across areas of expertise to collaborate.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/08/22/uc-to-kickstart-innovation-corridor-with-digital.html

UC gets ball rolling with Uptown move

 

 

In a move that should kick-start development of the city’s nascent Innovation Corridor, University of Cincinnati president Neville Pinto announced this week that he’ll open the school’s digital futures building at Uptown Gateway in Avondale.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/08/24/uc-gets-ball-rolling-with-uptown-move.html