I'm pretty sure it is because they stink

I think I'll have to second that. Having nice places nearby might help a little but if there was a quality product nearby and the reds still sucked, well, they'd just go to the quality product nearby and bypass the reds game. We always buy the 5 dollar seats and sit wherever we want b/c so many seats are available.

 

Documents shed light on Banks

Additional pitfalls still could snare progress

BY LUCY MAY & DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

May 18, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - Even if the Banks Working Group finally reaches a deal with Atlanta-based developers to build the long-delayed Banks project, critical issues must be resolved before the first shovel of dirt is turned. A series of master development agreement drafts obtained by the Business Courier show several additional conditions must be approved by the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County after the master development agreement is signed for the project to proceed.

I think the most we can hope for now is that garage construction will begin before the end of the year. Let hope the market stays strong enough for them to start construction on the buildings in Phase 1 soon than the 4 year deadline. I think those restaurant pads located infront of the Freedom Center may be the first buildings to go up.

 

How do others feel about the timelines and negotiations that still need to be done?

* An amended agreement between the county and the Cincinnati Bengals. The Bengals' Paul Brown Stadium sits on the western edge of the site, near parcels that would be developed in future phases of the project. The county's lease with the team includes requirements for parking and height restrictions on neighboring buildings.

 

 

  I guess we'll find out just how much of an Asshole Mike Brown is or isn't. Is he willing to re-negotiate a deal with the county, or will he tell them to go fuck themselves. Is it possible that Mike Brown could be that insensitive to the people of this city? It would be a crying shame if Mike Brown ended up being the primary reason this whole thing fell apart.

^ I agree with your thoughts and feel the same way.

^If there is going to be a sticking point, this will be it.  And don't expect any favors from the Brown family, unless you happen to be sitting in a luxury box with PB II and are just fiending for a hit of sweet chiba.  Reliable second hand info.

Community input sought for Banks design

May 22, 2007 | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

 

CINCINNATI - The folks planning the Banks riverfront development want to know what the public thinks they ought to put into the $600 million project. The Banks Working Group and master developer AIG/Carter on Tuesday launched a Web site, www.TheBanksCincinnati.net, which includes a 16-question survey for the general public. It solicits opinions on the residential portion of the development, asking about pricing, pools, green space, rooftop terraces and other amenities.

 

Feedback received by May 31 will be incorporated into the next draft of the proposed development plan, the two groups said in a news release.

I'd expect The Banks residential development to be extremely expensive, and that's probably what's best for ensuring the economic sustainability of The Banks. Obviously wealthier people have more disposable income.

There probably isn't a snowballs chance in hell of anything in the Banks being under 400k.

filled out the survey.  Even though I am not yet 24 (the minimum age on this survey), I acted like I was and emphasized affordable units for the YP in my Additional Comments section. 

I too filled out the survey and had to fudge my age a bit...I emphasized the point that balconies over-looking the street would be a very cool and unique feature for The Banks.

Location and desirability necesitate that nothing here should be under 450K

I told them to cover the huge surface lot in the middle of the north-east block with a courtyard. :-P

I am starting to wonder whether the banks project as is will ever be a success.

 

With high end (and even market rate) condos coming to market in many areas of the city, I worry that the market may not be able to bear this undertaking.  New condo developments are happening all over the city, including in many areas that will directly compete with the project.  Covington and Newport can offer riverfront living.  OTR and Downtown can offer city living, while Mr. Adams and other developments on Cincinnati's hills offer city views.  The market seems to be saturated.  I am not so sure that the proposal for the condo/retail area makes a whole lot of sense.

 

The dominating principal in real estate development is the concept of highest and best use.  This principal states that any development should maximize value to a community.  In my mind, the highest and best use at this site is an entertainment and tourist district.  This district would act as the premier nightlife/tourist attraction in the region.  There is plenty of room for creativity with this concept: Design a "riverboat row" with steam boats and touristy shoppes.  Build a roller coaster along the river.  Put a damn space needle (metaphorically speaking) there.  Just make this area a draw for tourists and residents alike. 

 

The constant delays to the project show me that developers have serious reservations about this project.  This could indicate that developers run the numbers on this project and decide that it does not make sense to proceed.  So why would be try to force a neighborhood between the two stadiums if there is a lack of demand?

 

Neighborhoods do different things well.  For instance, Over-the-Rhine is best used as a residential/mixed use neighborhood.  Why don't we continue with the thrust in this area?  Here is a radical idea:  Let people move to Newport/Covington.. It is too late to stop them, but let us implement a strategy in which they will want to spend their money IN CINCINNATI.

 

This approach would be greatly enhanced by streetcars/light rail in the area.  The streetcars would allow new residents of these border neighborhoods (Newport, Covington, OTR, Mt. Adams [bring back the incline!!], etc) to have easy access to the entertainment district...

 

I am not opposed to some condos  and office space in the area.  I am opposed to what they are doing now, which is to 'force' some development that does not make sense.  The condos under this revised model would be far less numerous and would start at 600,000+.

 

Any thoughts?

If you read this thread, thouroughly you would know its the developers (amongst others)that are pushing this forward, and its the legal/governmental redtape thats holding everything up.

The constant delays to the project show me that developers have serious reservations about this project.  This could indicate that developers run the numbers on this project and decide that it does not make sense to proceed.  So why would be try to force a neighborhood between the two stadiums if there is a lack of demand?

 

and

 

I am not opposed to some condos  and office space in the area.  I am opposed to what they are doing now, which is to 'force' some development that does not make sense.  The condos under this revised model would be far less numerous and would start at 600,000+.

 

I believe AIG/Carter is the one to propose more residential that what was in the original plans?

I disagree with a lot of your argument jesse, but only have time to touch on a few points.

 

- There is a market for living at the Banks.  AIG knows this and is proceeding thusly.

- A district that focuses solely on one use, entertainment or otherwise, runs a huge risk of failure down the road when tastes, markets, populations, etc change.  For example, let's say that 15 years from completion, this "theme park" type development is no longer of interest and loses money.  We'd then be left with either a decaying rollercoaster or an empty lot just as it sits today.  By including residential, there will always be demand for those units, whether it remains high-end condos or becomes affordable apartments.  Meanwhile, the ground floor spaces of these buildings (when done correctly) can adapt to changes in use over time.  Mixed use, particularly vertically, is by far the "highest and best use" of this land.

 

- A district that focuses solely on one use, entertainment or otherwise, runs a huge risk of failure down the road when tastes, markets, populations, etc change.  For example, let's say that 15 years from completion, this "theme park" type development is no longer of interest and loses money.  We'd then be left with either a decaying rollercoaster or an empty lot just as it sits today.  By including residential, there will always be demand for those units, whether it remains high-end condos or becomes affordable apartments.  Meanwhile, the ground floor spaces of these buildings (when done correctly) can adapt to changes in use over time.  Mixed use, particularly vertically, is by far the "highest and best use" of this land.

 

This is very similar to the point I am going to hit on.  If we were to have all residential in Nky, and then promote all retail, office, and entertainment on the Cincy side..both would feel the pains of that situation (especially Nky).  Residential property is well known to be a drain on a local government's resources.  Residential properties demand way more services than they pay for (schools, parks, police, fire, sewers, etc).  While businesses on the other hand only demand a fraction of those services and pay MUCH more in taxes.  This is where you would lose out economically if you consist of only residential (or primarily residential for that matter).

 

Adversely if a community consists of only or primarily commercial/industrial properties then that community makes out economically, but misses out on the positive social impacts of the residential component.  Cincinnati is trying very hard to get more people living in/around the CBD for this very reason.  It makes for a more dynamic and inviting place when there are people living there.  Not to mention it creates a sense of community that is priceless for any locale.

I disagree with a lot of your argument jesse, but only have time to touch on a few points.

 

- There is a market for living at the Banks.  AIG knows this and is proceeding thusly.

- A district that focuses solely on one use, entertainment or otherwise, runs a huge risk of failure down the road when tastes, markets, populations, etc change.  For example, let's say that 15 years from completion, this "theme park" type development is no longer of interest and loses money.  We'd then be left with either a decaying rollercoaster or an empty lot just as it sits today.  By including residential, there will always be demand for those units, whether it remains high-end condos or becomes affordable apartments.  Meanwhile, the ground floor spaces of these buildings (when done correctly) can adapt to changes in use over time.  Mixed use, particularly vertically, is by far the "highest and best use" of this land.

 

 

I was not proposing the construction of a theme park.  I did not intend for my post to be perceived that way.

 

I guess that my point is this: Just because condos are the flavor of the week, it does not mean that they have to be the focus of what is to be a tri-state landmark.  I know that the conventional thinking on this board is anti-sprawl, but people still drive to attractions.  Take the taste of Cincinnati.  If you could create a party-like atmosphere where people could drink on the streets, it would sell.  It doesn't have to be a utopian, hippie community.  It just has to be something uniquely Cincinnati.  Even people in the suburbs have Cincinnati pride. 

I guess that my point is this: Just because condos are the flavor of the week, it does not mean that they have to be the focus of what is to be a tri-state landmark.  I know that the conventional thinking on this board is anti-sprawl, but people still drive to attractions.  Take the taste of Cincinnati.  If you could create a party-like atmosphere where people could drink on the streets, it would sell.  It doesn't have to be a utopian, hippie community.  It just has to be something uniquely Cincinnati.  Even people in the suburbs have Cincinnati pride.

 

Well, what is the problem with striving towards a 'utopian' community??  It's not a bad thing that tons of suburbanites travel to downtown for certain things (jobs, pro-sports, arts, entertainment), but it would be an even better thing if downtown could attract those suburbanites AND have a population base that can sustain itself without relying on those that live 30+ minutes away.

 

^There is nothing wrong with it if you live in a bubble.  I just do not think that it is realistic.  The truth is the population of the condo units WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be enough to keep businesses open in the area without a great deal of help.

 

The natural progression is for the area to become a tourist attraction.  It is unlikely for it to become it's own neighborhood like Wrigleyville in Chicago.  I hear this comparison constantly.  It is UNREALISTIC!!!!!

No it is realistic, just because you don't agree doesn't make it unrealistic.  I agree with CINYC, the Banks should be a self sustainable neighborhood with street retail.  I am very concerned with anything that is branded an entertainment district on the Banks.  It will only dilute the current districts of Northside, Mt. Adams, Main Street, Mt. Lookout Square, Mainstrasse, Newport and now you have West 4th/5th & 7th morphing into more pseudo districts.  I wish Cincinnati had one well connected district but unfortunately there are several pockets of smaller niche districts. 

No it is realistic, just because you don't agree doesn't make it unrealistic.  I agree with CINYC, the Banks should be a self sustainable neighborhood with street retail.  I am very concerned with anything that is branded an entertainment district on the Banks.  It will only dilute the current districts of Northside, Mt. Adams, Main Street, Mt. Lookout Square, Mainstrasse, Newport and now you have West 4th/5th & 7th morphing into more pseudo districts.  I wish Cincinnati had one well connected district but unfortunately there are several pockets of smaller niche districts. 

 

I think you are again missing my point.  There is no way that shops could survive as a 'self sustainable community'.  Look at the ratio of retail to condo units.  It is not sustainable without a certain level of tourism.  why not focus on that, rather than this new 'neighborhood.' ?  Cincinnati has a huge metro population to draw from.  Take advantage of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

 

The shops could survive in a sustainable community. The new urbanism ideals include self-sustaining retail trade areas, supported by a mix of residential units and offices. This formula has been proven time and time again, from the 1800s to the present, that when you include a mix of densities, zones, and pass a certain threshold of urban population that is within a certain radius, it can work.

 

The Banks is central to this. It will not only support those who are in The Banks, but those who live and work in the Downtown and Over-the-Rhine/City West. Also, do not leave out Newport and Covington as they are only a short walk or bike across the river. The Banks is not far from any of these; walking and biking makes it easy and convenient, and its well served on the bus line. Automobiles take a small backseat to everyday trips (finding parking, etc.), but it is doable.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

 

The shops could survive in a sustainable community. The new urbanism ideals include self-sustaining retail trade areas, supported by a mix of residential units and offices. This formula has been proven time and time again, from the 1800s to the present, that when you include a mix of densities, zones, and pass a certain threshold of urban population that is within a certain radius, it can work.

 

The Banks is central to this. It will not only support those who are in The Banks, but those who live and work in the Downtown and Over-the-Rhine/City West. Also, do not leave out Newport and Covington as they are only a short walk or bike across the river. The Banks is not far from any of these; walking and biking makes it easy and convenient, and its well served on the bus line. Automobiles take a small backseat to everyday trips (finding parking, etc.), but it is doable.

 

well... they got it done with Atlantic station down here in Atlanta... tons of residential... shopping... a grocery... PLUS a draw for the region... the Banks SHOULD be the same...

I haven't read anything anyone has said, but newport and covington have lost more population 2000-2006 than cincinnati /insert my post supporting that here/

why must a "tourist attraction" be defined by something other than a true, working urban neighborhood?  You yourself brought up Wrigleyville, which is first and foremost a Chicago neighborhood.  What particular tourist attractions aside from Wrigley Field exist there?  The draw is that it is a vibrant neighborhood where people live, businesses of all types thrive, and others (ie tourists) visit and enjoy.  Granted, the majority of midwesterners that visit Chicago only experience the loop and its hard rock cafes and Michigan Ave, but is that what really makes the city as great as it is?

 

When I travel, I guess I'd be considered a tourist, but I'll take Lincoln Park over the Loop, the Lower East Side over Times Square, the Mission over Union Square, and Over-the-Rhine over Fountain Square every time. 

 

Plus, I'm not even arguing against the entertainment component.  I think it's the perfect opportunity, whereas the spaces available when Main St. was the entertainment district limited the possibilities.  It can be planned from the beginning at the Banks, along with the other uses.  This mix is exactly why it, in your words, could survive as a self sustainable community.

 

I've visited, worked, and lived in neighborhoods that have nothing to offer other than their shops and residential buildings.  They're wonderful places for residents and visitors, despite the glitz of suburbanite attractions, which explains why the rents are always so damn high.  I honestly don't believe the Banks will become this, at least at the start.  But I see no harm at all in thinking in terms of a utopian ideal.

 

The shops could survive in a sustainable community.

 

Sustainable community?  The residents of the condos in the Banks cannot support the large amount of retail space on by themselves.  Residents of other neighborhoods will be needed whether they are in Cincinnati (CBD, Newport, OTR),  the Suburbs, or abroad (tourism).

 

The new urbanism ideals include self-sustaining retail trade areas, supported by a mix of residential units and offices. This formula has been proven time and time again, from the 1800s to the present, that when you include a mix of densities, zones, and pass a certain threshold of urban population that is within a certain radius, it can work.

 

It is also been proven that it can fail.  Do you deny sprawl or what has happened to these "sustainable" communities in the inner cities across this nation?  I would prefer that people think about the issue more practically without inserting these "new urban ideals".

 

 

Plus, I'm not even arguing against the entertainment component.  I think it's the perfect opportunity, whereas the spaces available when Main St. was the entertainment district limited the possibilities.  It can be planned from the beginning at the Banks, along with the other uses. 

 

Bingo.  I think that we may be arguing semantics here.  The project should be designed to be the hub of the area, not simply another neighborhood.

 

 

This mix is exactly why it, in your words, could survive as a self sustainable community.

 

I guess that I don't understand the term 'self sustainable community'.  I am using the following definition: a community that can sustain itself.  I don't think that the proposed neighborhood can do this and frankly, Why should it?  It should be a hub, an attraction, a destination!

 

Jesse, I think what will end up happening with the Banks is that it will be a major attraction in conjunction with other events.  The Reds bring in 2+ million fans per year, and the Bengals add another 670,000.  Freedom Way will become a place for fans to gather before and after games, while the Central Riverfront Park will be a scenic area that visitors will enjoy.  We don't know the tenants for the Banks, but they will end up fitting into whatever niche that the market provides them. 

 

Big festivals like the Taste of Cincinnati, Oktoberfest, and Tall Stacks will bring in scores of visitors on selected weekends.  So I think what you'll see is a flexible neighborhood that will be quiet on some days and will accommodate huge crowds on others.  So the Banks will in effect have a symbiotic relationship with the city as a whole, rather than be a stand alone attraction by itself. 

Either way you feel on this issue, the place must be mixed use.  The residential portion offers the most sustainability.  While the entertainment would provide the most tourists and nightlife.  I agree with some people above that it should not be primarily geared to retail/tourism, precisely for the reasons stated above.  It should and will though have a large entertainment piece though. People's tastes toward entertainment change, especially in Cincinnati.  Let's follow the progression of the "in" entertainment spots over the last 20 years or so....2nd St. was huge, then riverboats in Newport and Covington, then it was spots further up in Covington, then it was O'bryonville, then Main St. had a great run, etc.  It just shows how quickly peoples tastes and parts of town get hot and then fade.  What is the one spot that has sustained great entertainment?  Mt. Adams. A mixed use neighborhood, primarily residential though, but offers a good blueprint for the Banks (albeit on a much smaller scale).

Big festivals like the Taste of Cincinnati, Oktoberfest, and Tall Stacks will bring in scores of visitors on selected weekends.  So I think what you'll see is a flexible neighborhood that will be quiet on some days and will accommodate huge crowds on others.

 

Well put! :clap:

 

Why shouldn't there be some sort of viable attraction in the area for those 'off' days?

 

2nd St. was huge, then riverboats in Newport and Covington, then it was spots further up in Covington, then it was O'bryonville, then Main St. had a great run, etc.

 

I understand the argument, but I would say that the banks is different situation.  You have a base of Millions (thats right) who will be in the area already to attend sporting events.  Why not leverage this?  I know that they are attempting to with Freedom Way, but I fear that a unique opportunity may be lost.

 

It is closer to the central business district than most of the comparables that you have cited. Based on location, Second St. is the closest match..  I recall that the district did very well until it was FORCED to close.

 

Ahh... The argument appears to be going nowhere.  Our trip through circular arguing reaches 360 degrees, as I restate my point: The development should be thought more of as creating a hub than creating a neighborhood. 

 

On this issue, I suppose we agree to disagree. :-D

>>brought up Wrigleyville, which is first and foremost a Chicago neighborhood.  What particular tourist attractions aside from Wrigley Field exist there? 

 

I haven't been inside Wrigely Field, but I remember chuckling at the site of the car wash, Taco Bell, KFC, etc., that surround the stadium.  I think the car wash was actually on the same odd-shaped block as the baseball stadium.  All these baseball people travel from around the world to see that place thinking there are all these magical bars and restaurants directly across from the stadium but it's simply not the case.  Most of the reason why Wrigely Field has survived is because it was built in a residential are that never suffered a significant decline.  Most of the old stadiums were in industrial areas or like Crosley Field were both surrounded by small industries AND on the flood plain.   

There are tons of bars right around Wrigley Field. What are you talking about?

jessehallum you are missing a couple of things here:

 

First, if you don't strive to be the greatest you can be...then you are simply settling for a mediocre product.  This does not mean that you live in a bubble, what it means is that you are expecting more.  With more and more demand, you can start to ask for better products.

 

Secondly, a sustainable neighborhood is one that is just that...SUSTAINABLE.  That means it can continue to be successful under any market climate.  If you simply make The Banks a destination then it becomes reliant on the disposable incomes of those that live 30 min. away, or the tourists to the area.  What happens when gas prices skyrocket and people travel less...what happens if the economy takes a turn for the worst and people don't have the disposable income necessary to keep the area afloat.  The whole idea behind 'new urbanism' is creating sustainable neighborhoods.  You need BOTH a neighborhood component and an outside draw.  Nothing in the suburbs is self-sustaining, nor is anything in the city for that matter.  You need to create the largest market appeal possible.

 

Michigan Ave in Chicago wouldn't be what it is without the tourism that supports it...but it also couldn't solely survive off of the tourists alone.  There are large amounts of residents that support those retailers as well.  The same can be said for Atlantic Station in Atlanta, Garment District in NYC, or anywhere else you want to mention.

 

Bottom line...if you don't think thousands of residential units have enough buying power to support neighborhood retail, then you must be out of touch with what those retailers look for.  You will literally have thousands of people living in this 6 block segment of downtown (thousands of more residents...connected by the eventual streetcar).  I don't care what you say, there are more enough residents to support these neighborhood retailers in the area.

I really dislike atlantic station.  It just seems so contrived.  And it is completely out of touch with the fabric of the rest of the city.  I hope they do better.

^If you think Atlantic Station is "completely out of touch with the fabric of the rest of the city" then you don't know Atlanta.  It's a little bit of Buckhead west of Midtown.  There are plenty of reasons not to like Atlantic Station (and I understand what you mean by saying that it is contrived, though I think using the word contrived to complain about a massive brownfield development is a bit silly.  What hell else is it supposed to be like?) but those reasons are the fabric of the city of Atlanta.  Atlantic Station is perfectly representative of the type of successful development that gets Atlanta such adjectives as as hip, happening or exemplary.  I don't think it is what we should build at the Banks, though.

When I travel, I guess I'd be considered a tourist, but I'll take Lincoln Park over the Loop, the Lower East Side over Times Square, the Mission over Union Square, and Over-the-Rhine over Fountain Square every time. 

 

Don't forget Adams Morgan over Georgetown ;)

Georgetown isn't really the tourist hub of DC.  I guess the mall might be a better example.

^If you think Atlantic Station is "completely out of touch with the fabric of the rest of the city" then you don't know Atlanta.  It's a little bit of Buckhead west of Midtown.  There are plenty of reasons not to like Atlantic Station (and I understand what you mean by saying that it is contrived, though I think using the word contrived to complain about a massive brownfield development is a bit silly.  What hell else is it supposed to be like?) but those reasons are the fabric of the city of Atlanta.  Atlantic Station is perfectly representative of the type of successful development that gets Atlanta such adjectives as as hip, happening or exemplary.  I don't think it is what we should build at the Banks, though.

 

Allow me to clarify.  When I said fabricc of the city I meant the street grid not the type of development.  Atlantic station seems to be an island unto itself, bounded by 75/85 and another multiple lane street.

^ That's not entirely their fault, however.

 

The Interstate 75/85 bridge was a compromise at best. GDOT stressed the need for a suburban-style interstate-span, hence why you have so many through traffic lanes, turn lanes, a bus lane, and wide sidewalks with no flora to provide some relief. On the tapers, it is even more suburban with the trees lining the outside edges of the sidewalk instead of along the roadway -- which does not provide a barrier relief.

 

Note that Atlantic Station was on an old steel mill, and that a good chunk of the complex is on top of a parking garage.

I'm thinking nearer the two stadiums, the tourist type stuff would go over best. Near the Freedom Center would be best for residential. However, a couple of tourist-y type venues by the stadiums, such as decent club for Bogart's style bands, plus the Maker's Mark restaurant or a Cincy Beer themed restaurant would would work well in very close proximity to the parks. The old towns in Germany would provide a good model to follow, Ulm, Munich, Stuttgart among others.

 

FWIW, the Banks is a horrible name especially since it will feel quite far away from the river due to flood concerns. Lower Downtown might be a better moniker. Just a though.

^ You might be the first person in the 52 pages of discussion that mentioned that you didn't like the name.  That might say something or maybe not...

Financier quits Banks

BY JON NEWBERRY | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

June 5, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - The Atlanta-based team that’s been negotiating for the past year to develop The Banks has lost a key member. AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corp. has pulled out of the project, leaving Carter Real Estate looking elsewhere for capital.

 

Trent Germano, executive vice president of Carter, said today he still expects to complete negotiations on a master development agreement with the Banks Working Group by its self-imposed June 14 deadline. “Absolutely … on or before,” he said. Asked if AIG’s withdrawal would delay the project, he said, “I don’t think so. We are hoping not.”

 

Full story text is available at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070605/BIZ01/306050058

This is Fountain Square West i tell ya.

To keep this Banks related... the AIG pick and the media coverage has placated the masses, but the project is still a non-starter unless AIG plans on losing money.

 

Ahem.

you called that one or just forged a previous post to make it look like you did, for example

 

^If you think Atlantic Station is "completely out of touch with the fabric of the rest of the city" then you don't know Atlanta.  It's a little bit of Buckhead west of Midtown.  There are plenty of reasons not to like Atlantic Station (and I understand what you mean by saying that it is contrived, though I think using the word contrived to complain about a massive brownfield development is a bit silly.  What hell else is it supposed to be like?) but those reasons are the fabric of the city of Atlanta.  Atlantic Station is perfectly representative of the type of successful development that gets Atlanta such adjectives as as hip, happening or exemplary.  I don't think it is what we should build at the Banks, though.

 

AIG will pull out on June 5, 2007

Financial partner leaves Banks

But project will remain on track, developer says

 

"The Atlanta-based team that has been negotiating for the past year to build The Banks has lost a key member.

 

AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corp. said Tuesday that it's pulling out of the project, leaving Carter Real Estate looking elsewhere for money and a new partner to build what it envisions as a billion-dollar mixed-use neighborhood and entertainment district on Cincinnati's central riverfront.

 

Full story text is available at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/NEWS01/706060337

 

"It is important now for the Banks Working Group to find out why AIG pulled out, so that any defects in the proposed plan can be corrected, he said. "What about the market conditions made AIG feel it wasn't a worthwhile investment?" Bortz asked.

 

Bortz speculated that AIG might have been swayed by the weak market for condominiums across the country, especially in the Midwest, and by the large numbers of new condos that are already coming on line. The pace at which new condos are being absorbed has already slowed in Cincinnati, he said."

 

No more honest words have been spoken.

I know I have had several people dislike my comments on this subject. But it is REALITY.

 

The condo and housing market has dropped significantly in the US, in the midwest and in downtown Cincy. These guys are not stupid. They can clearly see that consumption of condos in the downtown Cincy area has fallen off the cliff (look at the last 3 quarters of the State of Downtown). There are over 800 condo units under construction or in preconstruction right now in Downtown Cincy and Northern KY. At the current rate of consumption that probably a 3 to 4 year supply (and that doesn't include units done that have not sold).

 

On top of that the phase 1 plan wants to construct 300,000 sq. ft. of class A office space. Yet, downtown Cincy has around a 19% vacancy rate in office space. Those types of numbers general mean to a developer and financier that the market is overbuilt. The only way you would back this is if you could get a major tenant to sign on for about 50% or more of the space. Which would probably mean the tenant is vacanting other space in the downtown area.

 

They may very well get another financial partner, maybe somebody locally, but that partner is going to have to be willing to take a HUGE risk right now. A risk that many investment firms are becoming less willing to take across the US.

 

The Banks is a great project, the problem is simple, the market for more condos and office space in downtown Cincy is just not there at this time. Matter of fact its not there for a lot of markets in the US right now and that is why condo projects and even big office projects around the country (that are not currently under construction) are not getting off the ground.

 

I hope the Banks makes it, the area really needs this development, but its timing is really not good.

First On 5: Banks Project Developers To Change

 

Investment Partner AIG Appears To Be Out

 

POSTED: 5:27 pm EDT June 5, 2007

UPDATED: 7:39 am EDT June 6, 2007

Email This Story | Print This Story

Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts

CINCINNATI -- One half of the Atlanta-based team that has been negotiating with the Banks Working Group to develop Cincinnati's central riverfront may be pulling out as an equity partner.

Robert Castellini, chairman of the Working Group, released a statement Tuesday confirming that Carter is pursuing other investment partners to replace AIG Global Real Estate.

Castellini gave no explanation for why AIG might be pulling out as an equity partner, but he said that the Working Group does not anticipate any "insurmountable obstacles to making a master development agreement a reality."

 

Full story text is available at

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13448090/detail.html