Vague Banks rules restrict nudity, noise, noxious odors

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

August 24, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - The Cincinnati Planning Commission loosened limits on building heights and development density on the Banks riverfront project, but when it comes to behavior, the group is clamping down.

 

Among the new zoning rules approved Aug. 16 by city planners is a list of 18 "prohibited uses" for the Banks. Shooting galleries, gambling establishments and nude entertainment are banned. So are funeral parlors, massage parlors, junk yards, flea markets and "any nightclub, discotheque or barroom whose sales of food do not contribute at least 30 percent of its gross sales."

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, seriously, correct me if I'm wrong), but I recall the county's conservative commissioners insisting that The Banks be "family friendly." Perhaps this was in some way worked into their acceptance of more county subsidy for the project.

These stipulations are actually quite typical of any overlay district or planned development (PD).  I actually have seen MANY others go much farther with what they restrict.  This isn't anything special.

maybe so, but the whole 'no bar can operate unless 30% of their revenue is from food' seems dumb if you ask me. 

maybe so, but the whole 'no bar can operate unless 30% of their revenue is from food' seems dumb if you ask me.

 

I don't know...that seems like a good way to protect the emerging nightlife scene in the CBD.  There has always been questions as to whether The Banks would hurt efforts in the CBD and in particular around FS.  By essentially prohibiting bars, you'll encourage them to maybe cluster around the emerging bar/club scene that I mentioned.  I think it's smart.

You do realize that CityBeat is a weekly publication...right?

 

Yea, apologies on my part.       Open mouth, insert foot!   

maybe so, but the whole 'no bar can operate unless 30% of their revenue is from food' seems dumb if you ask me.

 

I don't know...that seems like a good way to protect the emerging nightlife scene in the CBD.  There has always been questions as to whether The Banks would hurt efforts in the CBD and in particular around FS.  By essentially prohibiting bars, you'll encourage them to maybe cluster around the emerging bar/club scene that I mentioned.  I think it's smart.

 

well I dont know about you, but by the time i am in the market for a place(ill be 24 yrs old and single), I am not going to want to necessarily live in a place where families hoard.  I dunno, maybe its just me.

maybe so, but the whole 'no bar can operate unless 30% of their revenue is from food' seems dumb if you ask me.

 

I don't know...that seems like a good way to protect the emerging nightlife scene in the CBD.  There has always been questions as to whether The Banks would hurt efforts in the CBD and in particular around FS.  By essentially prohibiting bars, you'll encourage them to maybe cluster around the emerging bar/club scene that I mentioned.  I think it's smart.

 

I thought that half of the people on this message board wanted the Banks built so they could go have a drink and hang out after a ballgame without having to cross more than one street.

This is definetely not going to affect the ability to get a drink… what they don't want is a night club, or a purely live music venue… what they want bar/restaraunts like cadilac ranch / rock bottom …these places serve food … remember 30% of the revenue has to come from something other than alcohol... that means that 70% of the revenue can be from people boozing up before and after the reds games... this only limits a danceclub, Bogart's style venue,  or a strip joint from locating there...

that means that 70% of the revenue can be from people boozing up before and after the reds games... this only limits a danceclub, Bogart's style venue,  or a strip joint from locating there...

 

Agreed.  Think of places like the Goose Island bar in Wrigleyville.  Clearly, it's there primarily to take advantage of the crowds drawn to Cubs games, but when MLB is out of season, you still have a nice restaurant available.  Actually, Cincy could rip that concept off entirely by building a Christian Moerlein bar. 

 

Also, an ESPNzone wouldn't violate the new rules and would fit in perfectly between the two stadiums.  I'm usually not one for chain restaurants, but whenever I see an ESPN show being broadcast from inside one of those venues, I always think about how cool it would be to have that in Cincinnati.

maybe so, but the whole 'no bar can operate unless 30% of their revenue is from food' seems dumb if you ask me.

 

I don't know...that seems like a good way to protect the emerging nightlife scene in the CBD.  There has always been questions as to whether The Banks would hurt efforts in the CBD and in particular around FS.  By essentially prohibiting bars, you'll encourage them to maybe cluster around the emerging bar/club scene that I mentioned.  I think it's smart.

 

well I dont know about you, but by the time i am in the market for a place(ill be 24 yrs old and single), I am not going to want to necessarily live in a place where families hoard.  I dunno, maybe its just me.

 

All that this will do (as UCPlanner stated) will eliminate the potential of a bar-only establishment.  To be honest...we don't have the liquor licenses (or demand) to go around for a continuous stream of bars/clubs from 7th Street to The Banks.  Allow for the bars/clubs to concentrate around one another in a primarily commercial area of the center city.  As it has been stated, it's not always great to have a bar/club directly beneath your $300,00+ condo or $750 a month apartment.

 

You'll have things like UCPlanner mentioned and other establishments like ESPN Zone and what not.  You must realize that the anchors for this project (PBS, GABP, and the FC) are all tourist based destinations...it would be silly not to capitalize on that potential business.  It's just a few blocks up to FS and the surrounding areas...and you have what is going to be the region's nightlife hotspot very soon.  You don't want to damage that success for the means of something else.

Also, an ESPNzone wouldn't violate the new rules and would fit in perfectly between the two stadiums.  I'm usually not one for chain restaurants, but whenever I see an ESPN show being broadcast from inside one of those venues, I always think about how cool it would be to have that in Cincinnati.

 

Lets be honest...why the heck wouldn't you want an ESPN Zone in between NFL and MLB venues.  It just makes sense.

No flea markets?? Montgomery Flea market it's just like , it's just like a mini MAUL  :mrgreen:

If you think about it, many of the bars and attractions downtown also serve food (Rock Bottom, McFadden's, Rockin' Robin's, Arnold's, etc.), so I don't think these rules will keep anyone from enjoying a drink.  Plus, many people would like to stop somewhere for food after a game, especially after looking at the outrageous prices at the stadium.

My only concern is how strict the enforcement of this will be.  Theoretically a bar could get into trouble if they have good drink specials that encourage late night business and/or inexpensive food that doesn't add up to 30% of the revenue.  As long as this is a general rule, and the city works with each establishment on a case by case basis, I'm okay with it.  I'd just hate to see an otherwise successful business get closed because they don't quite fit anymore.

^I would HIGHLY doubt that the city will be collecting revenue numbers and actually breaking down the figures.  They will more than likely not issue permits to someone who is proposing a business that doesn't meet those standards.  Only if it is an obnoxious infringement would you see the City step in and shut a place down.

No flea markets?? Montgomery Flea market it's just like , it's just like a mini MAUL  :mrgreen:

 

Hilarious!  Flea Market! Montogomery!  Now that will be in my head the rest of the day. 

I would HIGHLY doubt that the city will be collecting revenue numbers and actually breaking down the figures.  They will more than likely not issue permits to someone who is proposing a business that doesn't meet those standards.  Only if it is an obnoxious infringement would you see the City step in and shut a place down.

 

Agreed.  I don't think that the city would monitor such things.  But an annoyed neighbor might use these restrictions to make trouble (see R. P. McMurphy's woes in Hyde Park).  Unlikely, but possible.  I would expect that what you describe, where the city uses these as guidelines for issuing permits, is the true intent of this.  I just hope The Banks doesn't find itself bound to an agreement that some nut can use as ammo in a lawsuit against an establishment that they dislike for one reason or another.

Downtown forces line up in opposition to Banks plan

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

August 30, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - Downtown's biggest office developers are gearing up to fight the proposed Banks riverfront development project, arguing a massive increase in densities and building heights could harm the downtown office market.

 

"This type of subsidized development for 30-story buildings would be a great detriment to the Central Business District from a competitive standpoint and would be unfair to all of the local developers who have developed the Central Business District over the years with their own dollars and hard work," said an Aug. 29 letter to Cincinnati's City Council from attorney Joe Trauth, representing the Mayerson family and American Financial Group.

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

This really ticks me off...so just to be square on this.  These institutions are going to oppose this because it will offer a more competitive market that might hurt their properties.  I'm sorry, but what about the views QCS II will block when it's built...how about the views 312 Walnut blocked out!?!?  I mean give me a damn break here.

 

Sometimes I wish crazy Carl would get the heck out of town.  This guy is really starting to piss on everything in Cincinnati.

They know damn well 30-story buildings are not going to be built on the Banks.  They're just mad because while they snoozed, someone stepped up to the plate to take on this development.

 

The passage about the use of taxpayer money is laughable.  How many of these developers never recieved a subsidy to build a project or to retain jobs?  NONE.

I have yet to see any plans for any 30 story buildings.  I don't know why they are so worried about it

 

There certainly could be a taxpayer suit if council passes it. You're taking taxpayers money, throwing it at the Banks then giving the Banks carte blanche to put in 30-story buildings that are the antithesis of every city planning document dating back to the 1990s," Trauth said.

 

Just because they don't want it to happen doesn't mean ALL of the tax payers in Hamilton county have the same viewpoint as them.  I personally don't think anything above 15-20 stories should be built on the banks.  People complain way too much these day's.  Maybe I should write a letter to city council because if they don't build 30 stories or higher my feelings will be hurt... boo hoo.

 

This comes out now!!   Where the hell have they been the last 10 years?   As if they didn't know what was going to eventually be built.     

Taxpayer money!            Who is this %$#hole think he is?

 

"The Mayersons, owners of the 312 Walnut Building", well they can go get a bucket and wash my balls.

Downtown's are reshaped all the time; I wouldn't mind a few 30 story buildings in my neighborhood of Avondale.

Boycott UDF!!  :-D The 312 building sucks, I hope they build another QCS II right in front of them.

well they can go get a bucket and wash my balls.

 

My thoughts exactly.  I was going to add more, but I'm speechless.  I'll elaborate some other time.

 

views... competition... downtown... unheard of.

It seems like the Pandoras Box has been opened with this...

 

'Desperate' Banks plan worries Qualls

BY LUCY MAY | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

August 31, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - Roxanne Qualls is worried about the Banks.

 

The former three-term mayor of Cincinnati said the current plan for the $600 million riverfront development "reflects desperation" and risks cannibalizing the office and commercial space downtown.

 

"Nothing good ever comes out of desperation," she said.

 

The riverfront development project wasn't even one of the issues Qualls highlighted when the Charter Committee announced she would finish out Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell's term on council effective Sept. 3 and run for a seat in November. Qualls said she'll focus on good government, environmentally friendly development and enhancing the city's quality of life.

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

30-story Banks protested

'Wall of buildings' violates public trust, other owners contend

BY JESSICA BROWN | [email protected]

 

"Some influential downtown property owners are trying to block plans that would allow 30-story buildings to be constructed in the Banks riverfront development.

 

Allowing such tall buildings "changes the entire character" of the development, "violating the public trust that went into approving the development at taxpayer expense," the property owners claim.

 

Full story text is available at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070831/NEWS01/708310377

 

"The developer also will contribute $4 million to the first phase of the project and another $6 million later, said Eric Stuckey, Hamilton County's assistant county administrator for administrative services."

 

Questions: So who is paying for the private sectors part of phase one? Because $4 million is not even close to what they need. Are they still looking for a financial backer?

I can't believe these issues are still being discussed.  The handling of this project has been absolute joke!!!!

"The developer also will contribute $4 million to the first phase of the project and another $6 million later, said Eric Stuckey, Hamilton County's assistant county administrator for administrative services."

 

Questions: So who is paying for the private sectors part of phase one? Because $4 million is not even close to what they need. Are they still looking for a financial backer?

 

You should email that question to [email protected] who wrote the story.  This is a logical question and the Enquirer seems to be unable to ask the questions that need to be answered.  You should also ask why they never include that type of information in their stories.  Is it because they don’t know to ask, don’t care, they don’t get answers, or they simply don’t want to include that seemingly ‘dry’ information.

Sent the email. I have emailed the enquirer once or twice and not really got much of a response to anything but, thanks for your email. If I hear anything I will post it.

This really ticks me off...so just to be square on this.  These institutions are going to oppose this because it will offer a more competitive market that might hurt their properties.  I'm sorry, but what about the views QCS II will block when it's built...how about the views 312 Walnut blocked out!?!?  I mean give me a damn break here.

 

Sometimes I wish crazy Carl would get the heck out of town.  This guy is really starting to piss on everything in Cincinnati.

well they can go get a bucket and wash my balls.

 

My thoughts exactly.  I was going to add more, but I'm speechless.  I'll elaborate some other time.

 

views... competition... downtown... unheard of.

 

I think the issue deals with public subsidy and competition. Its not a true market when the government subsidizes half of the project. . . You are no longer financially accountable for your project. You can charge half the rent and still make a profit. With the retail and residential space, some government funding is needed, but think the worries are waranted when talking about office space. If the banks project builds all of the office space, they will be at an enormous advantage over the CBD office buildings (Carl Lidner)… Market forces should be the primary think that dictates office space… and all built space for that matter…I don't think we are just talking about views here… we are talking about the viability of the CBD office market, if the "expanded" office buildings are built at The Banks... just a thought

Most of the time when developers come in for these types of modifications they are just covering their bases so to speak.  They want to be able to accomodate for a corporate HQ if that opportunity so presents itself.  With most of the HQ downtown owning their respective buildings...it would be very unlikely that any of them would relocate from the CBD to The Banks.  So this wouldn't really create a that kind of a problem.  What it does do is create a more competitive market for something like QCS II, FSW, Ovation, South Shore, etc.

 

The 30 story buildings are a variation from the developer's own plan in addition to The Banks original plan.  They have engineered and designed the plan for what they currently have on the board...to differ from that would take some significant financial incentive.  Office space offers a potential cash cow for developers and it often times makes their projects financial winners.  It makes good business sense for Carter/Dawson to pursue that, but I highly doubt that you'll see them stealing major tenants away from other CBD towers.

 

Also keep in mind that they are not replacing residential with office space...but rather they are just adding more office space to the mix.  All developers would love to do that.  So if an opportunity presents itself you can sure bet that Carter/Dawson will jump on it (and I don't blame them).

 

If this is really about economics and the larger market then I would say that if you're going to gripe about this...then these same people better be showing up to complain about the other large projects going on and how that might hurt their operations.  QCS II, Ovation, South Shore, FSW all present a potential for a lot more office space in the center city.  I just don't understand the logic to pick at this one developer for this one project.

Well, I am generally opposed to a 30 story tower at The Banks, but what pisses me off more is this whole "The Banks is separate from downtown"  argument.  A new tower at The Banks is probably closer (or as close) to Fountain Square than QCS.  So, aside from urban design issues, what is the difference?  It is new office space downtown!  What does it matter where the new space is built?

If this is really about economics and the larger market then I would say that if you're going to gripe about this...then these same people better be showing up to complain about the other large projects going on and how that might hurt their operations.  QCS II, Ovation, South Shore, FSW all present a potential for a lot more office space in the center city.  I just don't understand the logic to pick at this one developer for this one project.

 

The problem is not about the developer... i completely understand their position and you're right, it does make perfect financial sense to increase the possibility for office space.

 

the list of developments that you mention is very interesting.

 

QCSII - little to no government subsidies (as of yet, and i don't think there will be any)

South shore - no government aid (now isn't even in the plan anymore)

Ovation - trying to get funding

FSW - NO FUNDING

 

funding is the important thing, but what needs to be realized is that the "build it and they will come" works inversely with the office market. Build it and see decreased returns... by building SO MUCH office space, and being able to undercut rates of other class A office space in the CBD (because of the government subsidies) rents around the CBD office market will have to drop in order to remain competitive... if the rates drop do you think that QCSII will still built their signature tower... i bet not...

 

interesting conversation none the less...  :argue:

As I understand it, most of the subsidy will go towards the podiums and garages needed to support the development.  This land is not otherwise developable, at least not in the current market.  Otherwise, the same people who are whining now would've taken at crack at it long ago. 

 

I am not aware of any direct subsidies that will go towards Banks structures built above the platforms.  While subsidizing the parking and underlying supports will certainly reduce the developer's costs, I do not see how it will be so great an amount as to significantly affect the office rents. 

 

And, as far as the additional competition goes, cry me a freaking river.  That's part of business with or without public subsidies.  It happens.  You have to step up to the plate or someone else will.  These Fourth Street property owners had just as many opportunties, if not more given their insider status, to take a crack and that development and seek the same subsidies.  The competition stepped up and entered serious talks.  End of story. 

I'm not too concerned just yet.  I think it's to be expected that those in power will try to protect their investment when a massive development is happening on their doorstep.  I totally disagree with them, but I don't blame them for being concerned and using whatever influence they have to maintain the status quo that is so profitable for them. 

 

Right now, it's just a press release.  I'd guess that they are watching closely to see where public opinion will fall on this issue before going forward with a lawsuit, and that they really expect their collective power to be strong enough to alter/cancel the plan without actually moving forward with legal action.  Hopefully, this will gin up so much bad press in the coming weeks that all support for it will just evaporate. 

 

I will be dismayed, however, if the city council buckles in front of this.  Call their bluff and let them file a suit if they really want to.  Welcome to the free market.  We can't afford to have another developer walk on this project.  There are only so many with the capability to build what amounts to a mini-city, and word travels fast so we can't keep alienating developers and expect to be taken seriously.

Hopefully they are just sending the signal that they will be watching!     I, personally can't see more than one 30 story building, if that.    Low 20's, high teens is more of the reality of the project, but they have to break ground within the next 6 mths or Jimmy James is right.

 

"We can't afford to have another developer walk on this project.  There are only so many with the capability to build what amounts to a mini-city, and word travels fast so we can't keep alienating developers and expect to be taken seriously."

 

Word!!

Where in the heck did they get the number 30 from anyway? I know they weren't anything official but the old renderings showed buildings no more than about 10 stories tall. The new renderings from my estimation illustrate nothing taller than about 15 stories.

 

The developers asked for an increase in density at the last Planning Commission meeting.  It was approved and now goes on to City Council for final approval.  There are no renderings illustrating this because it is just a legal text change of the previous plan that was on the board.  Like I said...I doubt that Carter/Dawson actually plan on building 30 story tall towers on the site.  They just want to be prepared to accommodate a HQ if one presents itself.

 

funding is the important thing, but what needs to be realized is that the "build it and they will come" works inversely with the office market. Build it and see decreased returns... by building SO MUCH office space, and being able to undercut rates of other class A office space in the CBD (because of the government subsidies) rents around the CBD office market will have to drop in order to remain competitive... if the rates drop do you think that QCSII will still built their signature tower... i bet not...

 

Office space in the CBD is going through a cycle right now.  Older space is being converted and removed off the market as we speak...that space needs to be replaced and is being replaced by newer more equip spaces for modern technologies.  It is allowing long-term businesses to upgrade at about the same cost as they are currently paying.  That may not be a great thing for investors, but I don't see it as a negative to the overall business climate's health.

 

Secondly, if The Banks lands what appears to be a new HQ for downtown...then no I don't think QCS II will happen.  FSW maybe, because it is not going after that same clientele.  But would I really care if a new corporate HQ located at The Banks as opposed to 3rd/Sycamore...not at all.  It actually would be a better location in my opinion, but that is another whole issue.

 

Bottom line is that I think Eagle Realty and The Banks are fighting over a potential HQ that has expressed interest in the downtown Cincinnati market.  Eagle Realty has been dragging their feet with the project and are probably scared to death that The Banks developers might be able to snag it away from them just like that.  It is natural for them to try to block their potential competition...but that's not how it works in a supposedly free-market society.

 

I will be dismayed, however, if the city council buckles in front of this.  Call their bluff and let them file a suit if they really want to.  Welcome to the free market.

 

I completely agree...I don't think that City Council will budge on this issue.  The project has to move forward at all costs.  I too would call their bluff, because I personally don't think they have any grounds for legal action here.  I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that this wouldn't even make it to court.  It seems like a weak threat.

Banks Working Group vows to address downtown owners concerns

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

August 31, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - The advisory panel in charge of the Banks riverfront project said it hopes to "work through" the concerns of downtown property owners, who asked Cincinnati City Council this week to scale back the project.

 

"The Banks Working Group agrees with the recommendations of the City of Cincinnati Planning Commission and the Banks Concept Plan they approved two weeks ago," the group said in a statement this morning.

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

The developers asked for an increase in density at the last Planning Commission meeting.  It was approved and now goes on to City Council for final approval.

 

Correct, but first it will have to have a public hearing in front of the Economic Development Committee.  That hearing may be intense.

 

I've been playing with some Sketchup massing of the proposed new program...trying to extrapolate the heights block by block.

 

It's toooo daaamn biiiig guys. Seriously.I'm starting to think Carter only took the plunge because they ran their pro formas on this new density, not on the one envisioned by the Banks plan.

Lets take a look at two old renderings, I would love to see the former proposed Provident Bank Tower be built somewhere else in the CBD.  I think it is a great looking building (at least from the top 1/3rd)

 

 

That tower in the middle (I guess the Provident Tower) looks awesome.   I would love to see a resurgence of MODERN Art Deco in this town(Like the bottom pic).  I love the bridge at Paddock and I-75.  They did a great job but it tears me apart that they didn't anticipate any future expansion of the interstate.   U Planning really is the most important aspect of any 21st century infill program.

Amen brother, every time I pass that beauty of a bridge on I-75, I just shake my head in disbelief that they didn't anticipate expansion.

 

Also when I see that aerial angle of the Banks, it reminds me of an Olympic Village.  (Hey maybe that is a way we could fund The Banks)

 

Wanna go for a swim?

 

^I love that.  Never seen it before.  Looks like that paddle boat might get 'em though.

That's wild looking!

30 stories is too limiting should've asked for a 100 just in case.

Man, I don't know if I would make Olympic swimmers swin in the river. You might get out of the water with a three-headed fish in your shorts. Or you might start growing a third arm out of your forehead or something. :-o