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

 

I think I would like to see it as tall as possible without obstucting the view of buildings behind it. Not sure what the local economy deems appropriate though.

UGH. Swimming in the Ohio? The last time I did that, I was sick for a week. No thanks. It may be vastly improved, but when you have an aluminum company in West Virginia dumping high amounts of mercury into the river (illegally, of course), and straight-pipe sewage coming from the local tributaries, you are only asking for disaster :P

 

As for the Paddock Road overpass, the Interstate 75 widening project will feature four lanes with no shoulder.

Yeah, as much as I love Cincinnati's bordering river, that's just nasty.

 

Seicer,  Are you positive about the Paddock bridge?       You probably know more than I, because the last I read about it was last year and they made it sound as if it were going to have to come down.   I will complain about the lack of planning but would love for them to keep the bridge even if they have to pull some no shoulder (Brent Spence style) ideas.   It just seems to me that the outside lanes are going to be too close for comfort to the headwalls and I can just see it being a problem spot.

^ Yes, from the planning documents, it shows four-lanes of interstate traffic squeezing under the bridge. The current setup has three twelve-foot through lanes, a ~six foot left shoulder (my estimate), and a ~ten foot right shoulder, with some right clear zone. The proposal calls for four twelve-foot lanes and minimal right and left shoulders under the bridge, but full right and left shoulders elsewhere.

Makes me feel a little better.

Well we can see how almost all of the architecture has changed since that plan.  Just look at how different the QCS project is...both The Banks and QCS took a turn for the faceless modern (unfortunately).

 

Banks vote is delayed

BY JESSICA BROWN | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

September 6, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - Concept plans for the Banks development likely won’t get the necessary city and county approval by next week, as was expected.

 

But the 18-acre proposed mini-city on Cincinnati’s riverfront is still on schedule, project leaders said Thursday. Developers still expect to break ground by the end of the year. They say a recent controversy about taller buildings won’t slow things down.

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

http://www.emporis.com/images/6/2001/12/136491.jpg

 

That's a 19 story building. So that's less than 20 stories, and still too high to defer to the existing skyline.

 

I had always imagined something along the lines of 10 stories, like this:

 

I tend to think that 10-20 stories would be most appropriate for that locale.  Not too big, thus maintaining a good pedestrian scale and unique feel/vibe...but also offering the density that should be there for that prime location and relationship to the CBD.

I feel that 10 stories would be an ideal medium for the development. It would provide a stepped entrance to the city from the Ohio River and from Kentucky, and would allow visitors to be able to see the vertical facade of downtown Cincinnati.

Do or die for embattled Banks?

It can survive, says Portune, but not if we apply brakes now

BY LUCY MAY & DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

September 7, 2007

 

PHOTO: Some Banks critics have been showing a riverfront model that developer Trent Germano called misrepresentative of what the project will actually look like.

Mark Bowen | Courier

 

DOWNTOWN - It's now or never for the Banks. At least that's the way Todd Portune sees it.

 

As president of the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, Portune sits poised to approve a series of agreements that could have developers breaking ground on the $600 million riverfront project before the end of the year.

 

That is, if the project survives.

 

Powerful downtown property owners, including American Financial Group Inc., Western-Southern Financial Group and the Mayerson Co., are raising questions about whether the higher office and retail density planned for the Banks will cannibalize the central business district's shops, restaurants and fragile Class A office market.

 

Full story text is available by selecting the headline

hoeey!  (shaking head in disbelief!)

that model is WAY too tall.

there is no way the market could possibly support those buildings, that model is irrelevant

Haha Nevermind

Get ready: Banks really happening

Editorials

 

After a decade of delay, dispute and disappointment, you can hardly blame Greater Cincinnati residents for being skeptical when their leaders say the Banks is finally, again, just around the corner.

 

But this week's update by project team members shows that, despite a delay in this month's approval schedule and a recent building-height controversy, this mega-project of retail, residential and commercial development on Cincinnati's downtown riverfront is nearing reality.

 

Full story text is available at

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070908/EDIT01/709080344/1090/EDIT

^Could you include the link/source with that please?

 

The focus is not on creating an "artificial" village or a suburban-type mall, but on extending the downtown. "I want to continue to build the city," Germano said. "It's about place. It's about how you feel when you're on the street and what your opportunities are - and do you want to come back and live there?"

 

I find this to be the most important part to the project.  It needs to feel like an extension of downtown, and not some isolated district.

They sent emails to all of the SOP and SAID students, with the following attached file:

http://download.yousendit.com/6E71430E3500E130

 

It's a flyer, encouraging students, AIA members, as well as the general public to attend a presentation on The Banks plan.

 

Sept. 20th, 2007

TIME: 5:30–8:00 p.m.

CES: 2.0 hrs

COST: $15.00 AIA Members; $20 Public; Faculty/Students Free-(rsvp req’d:[email protected])

RSVP: AIA Cincinnati web site at www.aiacincinnati.org or fax: 513-421-4665 by Tuesday, Sept.18.

LOCATION: The UC Niehoff Urban Studio/Community Design Center, Turner Center, 2728 Vine        

(NEW LOCATION - SEC Short Vine and Daniels)

 

$20.??  that's as dumb as having to pay to climb a bridge or go in an abandonded never finished subway!

Yes, who wants to pay $20 when you can read all about it here, at UrbanOhio :)

They sent emails to all of the SOP and SAID students, with the following attached file:

http://download.yousendit.com/6E71430E3500E130

 

It's a flyer, encouraging students, AIA members, as well as the general public to attend a presentation on The Banks plan.

 

Sept. 20th, 2007

TIME: 5:30–8:00 p.m.

CES: 2.0 hrs

COST: $15.00 AIA Members; $20 Public; Faculty/Students Free-(rsvp req’d:[email protected])

RSVP: AIA Cincinnati web site at www.aiacincinnati.org or fax: 513-421-4665 by Tuesday, Sept.18.

LOCATION: The UC Niehoff Urban Studio/Community Design Center, Turner Center, 2728 Vine       

(NEW LOCATION - SEC Short Vine and Daniels)

 

I sent an email to Dr. Edelman asking who was responsible for the flyer design.  They used the propaganda model that was created for those opposed to the increased densities.  I don't think it is right for them to be marketing a supposed legit event with an incorrect representation.

^ You're right, Rando.  That model is ridiculous.

I sent an email to Dr. Edelman asking who was responsible for the flyer design.  They used the propaganda model that was created for those opposed to the increased densities.  I don't think it is right for them to be marketing a supposed legit event with an incorrect representation.

 

Thank you.  It pissed me off enough seeing that model the first time, and I hate to see credence lent to it in any way.  Substituting hotels from a Monopoly board would have been every bit as realistic as those huge blocks they dropped in randomly between the stadiums.

If you look at the image credit, it's to the architect that they have invited to the discussion. That lends legitimacy to using the image in the flyer.

If you look at the image credit, it's to the architect that they have invited to the discussion. That lends legitimacy to using the image in the flyer.

 

I saw that, but they are still using an misrepresentative model for their event that is using The Banks development as its draw.  If the project is going to be your main draw, then you sure as hell better use accurate/appropriate information.  It seems like a conflict of interests to me.  This is supposed to be an informational/brainstorming event...and it seems like it may end up being an event meant to stir up opposition to the new density increases.

Does anyone around here know how accurate or honest that model really is? Aside from armchair speculation?

Does anyone around here know how accurate or honest that model really is? Aside from armchair speculation?

 

Well, I am definitely just speculating, but I think that it is a totally slanted and dishonest model.  Why do I think this?  For two reasons: 

 

1) The people who paid for the model are openly trying to convince the public that several enormous skyscrapers are going to ruin the beautiful Cincinnati skyline.  Now they unveil an ugly model depicting exactly that, because it is much more powerful than any press release they could issue. 

 

2) Look at the detail that every currently existing building in downtown is represented with.  They didn't just have Carew Tower and the PNC Bank building surrounded by a bunch of generic skyscrapers; even lesser known buildings are easily recognizable.  Now take a look at the buildings they added between the stadiums.  Every single one of them is totally rectangular and lifeless, and most of them appear to be as tall as Carew Tower, and with a MUCH wider footprint than anything else downtown (except for the stadiums).  Clearly no effort went into presenting realistic looking buildings that might still be a concern for those opposed to the current plan, and in fact it appears that a lot of effort went into generating something hideous that no one could approve of. 

Council support low for high-rise-heavy Banks

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

September 14, 2007

 

DOWNTOWN - City Council has little appetite for the new supersized version of the Banks riverfront development project.

 

In response to a Business Courier survey, seven members of council said they oppose the higher densities and/or the lifting of height restrictions that an Atlanta developer has touted for the Banks. Cincinnati's planning commission endorsed the changes in August, but the new zoning guidelines won't take effect unless five members of council agree.

 

"The current plan to include 30-story buildings along the riverfront would harm downtown and violate the riverfront plans adopted by the community many years ago," said Councilman Jeff Berding, in an e-mail response. "We need to remember that the plan adopted several years ago was not simply pulled out of the air, but was the result of intense public input and driven by professional urban planners."..

 

Can someone post the pic of the model? I'm not seeing it in that invite for some reason.

What's not to like? A giant thimble would totally trump Chicago's bean.

 

And those buildings look better than anything Corporex builds.

Can someone post the pic of the model? I'm not seeing it in that invite for some reason.

 

Here you go...the problem with this is that it's presenting this as what was approved by PC.  This design would constitute a major variation in the plan and would therefore have to go back through the approval process.  Not to mention, the scale of their buidings makes these structures appear taller than anything downtown (including Carew...hell look how small the P&G towers are represented).  PC did not approve anything of that magnitude, nor did they approve it as a blanket for the entire site (to my understanding at least).

 

The entire model is a joke and is clearly meant to oppose the new height modifications...modifications that they clearly don't even understand if they are going to make a model like this.

Ouch. They should have put a gigantic wall in front of Fort Washington Way and called it The Banks. The model is awful!

Randy what the hell is that model you just posted? It looks like someone randomly scattered painted 2x4s throughout the banks (it even looks like one block is in the road).

I'm still psyched over the thimble! lol. actualy I had a more shoots and ladders dream for the banks where you get through the neigborhood by giants slides and steep mayanesque staircases but I'll settle for monopoly. hey that would be the perfect excuse the put a new hamilton county jail on one of the corners with a pass go for federal inmates.

I love that model, it reminds me of the excuses the anti rail group used several years ago before the vote.  They were totally absurd but highly effective.

What's not to like? A giant thimble would totally trump Chicago's bean.

 

And those buildings look better than anything Corporex builds.

 

That is great!  :laugh:

County, City Differ On Banks Project Timetable

 

POSTED: 8:24 pm EDT September 19, 2007

UPDATED: 8:26 pm EDT September 19, 2007

 

CINCINNATI -- Supporters of the long-delayed Banks riverfront development have made a push to move the project to its next phase before the end of the month.

Those efforts have been met with a plan to derail any agreement, county commissioner Todd Portune said.

“There are too many signs that are emerging that suggest a movement may be growing to kill the development,” Portune said...

 

source: www.wlwt.com

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2007:

 

Qualls: Break Up The Banks

 

She warns of boring mall atmosphere

 

By Kevin Osborne

 

With the latest plans for The Banks riverfront project calling for much larger buildings and more public subsidies to make the long-stalled project financially feasible, some prominent people are having second thoughts.

 

Cincinnati City Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls says The Banks shouldn't be given to a single master developer if the city wants a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along the Ohio River...

 

 

URL for this story: http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A141600

 

Qualls needs to get back out of Politics. She didn't know what she was talking about concerning the redev. of the riverfront from the stadia... she's off her rocker now. ugh

I don't think she's off her rocker in the least. I agree that breaking the site into smaller pieces would undoubtedly result in a more interesting and varied urban neighborhood. It seems like that has been wholly off the table from the beginning, I'm sure due to the funding complexities.

 

What is your specific beef?

Maybe my Cincinnati geographic definitions need some refreshing but wouldn't most people consider the banks as part of the CBD?

 

I would have thought that, but since it's currently just a nasty looking parking lot, maybe not.

 

I'd like to see this project get done but I think there is a valid fear of the development being all done by one developer and looking too generic.

 

I'm inclined to agree, but this is one of those ideas that would have been helpful 10 years ago!  Right now, it's threatening to derail the whole project.  It's possible that they want to stick with one developer, due to the complexities introduced by building and sharing the parking garage(s).  Or maybe they just never considered this alternative.  In any case, if this thing goes under this time, I'm afraid it will be gone for good and I really don't want to gaze upon the void between those two stadiums for the rest of my life.  Can we please put something there?  I wish they could commit to building the riverfront park and the garages while they sort the rest out.  Then at least the land would be ready to go when they finally decide to agree on something.  It's unbelievable to me that it is THIS difficult to get vacant space filled in such a prime location.

I don't think she's off her rocker in the least. I agree that breaking the site into smaller pieces would undoubtedly result in a more interesting and varied urban neighborhood. It seems like that has been wholly off the table from the beginning, I'm sure due to the funding complexities.

 

What is your specific beef?

 

Like Jimmy_James said, It wouldn't have been so bad 10 years ago, but right now her negative statements are threatening to derail the entire project. Part of me wants to say "Where does she get off coming in here and after a short time making criticism and comments like this?" She hasn't been involved AT ALL with the project development as of late.

I'm going to tell you a story: Cincinnati has some land in a nice location, but it's in a hole and nobody can afford to raise it up.

 

Next time you are wondering aloud why "they don't just build something already!" please read the above story. It's a quick read.

I'm going to tell you a story: Cincinnati has some land in a nice location, but it's in a hole and nobody can afford to raise it up.

 

Next time you are wondering aloud why "they don't just build something already!" please read the above story. It's a quick read.

 

 

LOL.  I'll take that under advisement next time.  I basically just want it to be anything other than what it is now, which is an eyesore.  I wouldn't care if they turned the whole thing into one enormous mega-park, so long as it looked nice and was functional.  Actually, that's not a bad idea.  We could call it Oktoberfest Park, put up a tent and extend the festival to a full two weeks to coincide with the real Oktoberfest, then bill ourselves as "The Munich of the Mid-West".  This could be bigger than Mardi Gras!   :-D  I'm being facetious, of course, but at least it would encourage tourism and I wouldn't have to keep explaining to out-of-towners what that "big hole" between the stadiums is all about.

I think that Qualls is right on the money with her criticism, however it seems to be coming too late in the process.  Any major change would likely set the whole project back for months or years.  I agree that they need to just build the damn thing even if it turns out to be "boring" or "monolithic."

>t's unbelievable to me that it is THIS difficult to get vacant space filled in such a prime location.

 

If you've been following the developments from the early 1990's then it's not.  The primary reasons why nothing with the exception of the Freedom Center have been built are a)any city/county public/private development situation is always a nightmare  b)the Bengals were complete dicks at every step of the process.  They built a good-looking stadium in a good location, didn't sell the naming rights, and didn't move out of town.  If the Bengals hadn't demanded the practice fields, if stadium construction had begun 3 or 4 months earlier, if the 1/2 cent sales tax had been a .06 cent sales tax, and if the Bengals had been cool and allowed opening day to be pushed back a year there would be stuff there right now.  Instead the money that could have been spent building the garages has been spent on overtime and debt. 

 

>t's unbelievable to me that it is THIS difficult to get vacant space filled in such a prime location.

 

If you've been following the developments from the early 1990's then it's not.  The primary reasons why nothing with the exception of the Freedom Center have been built are a)any city/county public/private development situation is always a nightmare  b)the Bengals were complete dicks at every step of the process.  They built a good-looking stadium in a good location, didn't sell the naming rights, and didn't move out of town.  If the Bengals hadn't demanded the practice fields, if stadium construction had begun 3 or 4 months earlier, if the 1/2 cent sales tax had been a .06 cent sales tax, and if the Bengals had been cool and allowed opening day to be pushed back a year there would be stuff there right now.  Instead the money that could have been spent building the garages has been spent on overtime and debt. 

 

 

Yeah, I didn't start paying attention to these things until the last few years, so I'm familiar with what has been going on, but am by no means an expert.  You're right, there have been several contributing factors that have delayed this.  It just seems like there is a LOT of money to be made with the development of that land due to it's location, which would attract new businesses and increase the population and perception of downtown, so I'm surprised that after ten years, it's still vacant. 

 

Speaking of which, I went to Oktoberfest last night with a friend from LA.  While we were walking home, past the Freedom Center and towards Great American Ballpark, she commented on how impressed she was with downtown, then she looked towards the river, paused and said "Wow, now that's just depressing."  I sometimes forget how terrible that hole between those two buildings looks, because I'm sort of used to it now.  It's nothing but rocks, three foot tall weeds, and the occassional tree-like shrub.  It wouldn't be so bad if it were a parking lot or a well cared for grassy area, but right now it's an enormous area that basically looks vacant and abandoned.  This is NOT the impression of Cincinnati that we want visitors to walk away with.  I'm really hoping that the local governments can work this out and get something started there soon.

They should at least grass it for now. So it doesn't look so appalling.