Freedom Way is terribly lame.

 

was karl rove in town to name the street?

I find it utterly comical that folks that are anti-Cincy on just about everything (in this case the Banks) refer to Northern Kentucky as if it is the second coming of Paris France. I'm not really referring to people on this forum but more theneral poulous in general. I actually do like the Ascent and Covington has a few nice blocks...other than that, Kentucky just ain't doing it for me.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I find it utterly comical that folks that are anti-Cincy on just about everything (in this case the Banks) refer to Northern Kentucky as if it is the second coming of Paris France. I'm not really referring to people on this forum but more theneral poulous in general.  I actually do like the Ascent and Covington has a few nice blocks...other than that, Kentucky just ain't doing it for me.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

This whole region has a serious problem when it comes to that river.  It isn't just one sided, after all.  You'd think the ohio river was 100 miles wide the way people face off against each other.  Strangely, there is a similar, but smaller divide between Cambell and Kenton Counties in KY, which are separated by the Licking.  This could make a good psychological case study...

I can't comprehend how they don't have the final plans already done for this thing.  I mean, at this stage of the game, shouldn't they be showing us what it will actually LOOK like, instead of just conceptual drawings?  I mean, how many sets of "conceptual drawings" do they have to show the public in order to give us "an idea" about how it will look.  Just show us the final plans, for crying out loud.  THAT'S what the public wants to see.  Besides, haven't they done the groundbreaking already?  How could they do that without already having the blueprints in place.

 

It seems you simply are not that familiar with the development industry.  You cant show the final plans unless your plans are...final.  The project design is still being developed and probably will be for some time now.

 

Groundbreaking ceremonies are more often than not a marketing ploy to bring attention to a project.  Developers trying to lease a project will often experience a spike in interest from potential tenants as its an indication a proposed building is closer to reality.  This was the case with One River Plaza off the top of my head.  That project broke ground, what, almost a year ago?  No action since then.

>I KNEW we weren't going to end up with anything special to look at, and I was right. 

 

I've been worried as well this whole time and here's why.  The only building down there that knows what it is is Paul Brown Stadium...GAP was a compromise -- it's a baseball stadium allright but they couldn't settle on a style.  Same thing with the Freedom Center, nobody knew what exactly it was going to be and so they didn't know how to design for it.  Its "pavillion" scheme was actually a way to use up space -- I suppose the alleys between the pavillions are public space and maybe you can walk through them without having security yell at you but nobody knows because nobody's tried it.  As a building and as an institution the Freedom Center is still unresolved. 

 

The whole problem with the rest of the Banks is what, specifically, is going to be on these blocks?  They still don't really know the mix and that's why they're throwing out these generic renderings.  And "mixed-use" seems to be even more of an excuse to throw down these generic "infill" buildings.  Seemingly everything everywhere built since 1999 looks just like this be it a suburban hospital, a college dorm, or a Panera Bread.  I really wish they would have different architects work on various parts of the blocks blind to each other, then try to see what combination of ideas could really work.  Any time you have one guy or one small group making big decisions, it doesn't work.   

 

 

Aww, now come on - don't tongue lash me too hard.  I'm all for the Banks.  Perhaps no I don't know anything about project development.  I didn't realize this was an ongoing design thing.  I thought the designs WERE already finished for this.  I was under the assumption that once ground breaking took place, it meant the plans were finalized for that specific parcel.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  It may not logically make sense to me, but whatever.

 

As for thinking Northern Kentucky is Paris, I'm not sure where anyone got those words to insert into my mouth.  I'm not anti-Cincinnati.  I'm anti-"lack of imagination".  What I meant regarding the Ascent is that it is unique architecture that has been nationally acclaimed.  It gets a bunch of praise in the news.  What kind of praise are a bunch of low-rise red brick buildings going to receive?  None, if you ask me.  Yes, they are short and squatty.....meaning, they remind me of a bunch of legos stacked on top on one another.  That's all I meant.

liloleme, Lester never said that you thought NKY was/is Paris.  He was making a general statement.  If you read the Enquirer Comments section of the article you would understand. 

 

Now that everyone made their points, any further discussion about NKY or the Ascent will be deleted.  Keep this discussion about "The Banks".

 

Thanks

They will have 50 revisions on these buildings before it is all said and done!  If these projects are like all other projects in regards to construction and revising the plans,    well they will probably be adding revision while they are forming and pouring the columns and slab decks.  I'm sure they will change the exterior features multiple times too!  The final product should be different from the renderings, but the lack of vertical height difference probably won't change unless they are pressured by the investors or public outcry.

I was under the assumption that once ground breaking took place, it meant the plans were finalized for that specific parcel.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  It may not logically make sense to me, but whatever.

 

I think you're mixing up terminology.  The site plan is most likely set in stone (for the most part)...but details of the buildings are subject to change based on tenant demands/requirements and market forces.  They will have to go back to the City many times to get approvals for various portions of the project as they go along.  This is standard procedure...no municipality likes to wholesale approve things before they have seen them.  At this point there are probably many details that will still need to be worked out and approved by the City.

 

Renderings like these are not always required as part of the permitting/approval process, but are typically done for PR purposes to help sell the project to government officials and/or the public as a whole.  These are not what they'll be basing the construction from.  Those drawings, most of the time, are not sexy enough for the public to care about.

I'm getting a kick out of these complaints. If the renderings offered up an ultra-modern dutch inspired design there would be howls of protest. What about our heritage, what about fitting in with existing buildings DT, and <drum roll, please> is it too much to ask for a nice brick building or two. ;-)

It should also be pointed out that the design and architecture of these projects are at the pleasure and discretion of the owner/developer and his architect.  The governing body has very little to do with any design standards as long as it meets the zoning criteria, and perhaps a little review as in Cincinnati's Urban Design Review Board.  The Ascent is striking because that is the way Bill Butler wanted it and the way the starchitect designed it.  To enforce my point further, Harbor Greene is in NKY and it is three plain brown boxes; Bill Butler's new Humana project on the Cincinnati side, while great to have and a much bigger economic boon, is fairly plain, yet the design was chosen by the same developer.

It's my understanding that the river is (and always will be) "First Street." 

 

Really?  I've never heard that.  If that's true, that's pretty cool, and I respectfully recind my statement about being annoyed that First Street doesn't exist.

 

 

We might be 10 years into the process but were not 10 years into building design.

 

True, but what I was trying to get at is that this is one project that a lot of people thought would never get off the ground.  Now that it is finally making progress, no one wants to be the guy that accidentally derailed it because they were too picky, particularly when your job depends on your reelection in the near future.  Yeah, the developer would more than likely retool the design if asked, but the question is, will they be asked to?

 

I think I heard that in an Urban History class I took in college.  I always thought it was pretty cool, and it does make sense. 

Does anybody have an idea who the architect is?  Im sure it has been mentioned somewhere.

Would I have liked something else better?  Probably, but I'm not upset.  I'm more interested in the value of the product than the look of the buildings.  I agree with moonloop.  Anything that wasn't a cc of the original renderings from more than 10 years ago when the current developers were not involved was bound to get folks upset.

 

What is a little more frustrating to me is that each set of drawings we see are different.  The last batch showed a little more modern architecture, while this shows red brick with a hint of art deco.  Nevertheless, I'm excited.

Okay, so if it's all up to the developer and city to finalize what the project will look like, why bother getting input from the public?

 

Rando:  When I talk about plans for a specific parcel, I thought the blueprints and design of the building were crucial to the shape and size of the foundation and where footings will be placed.  When ground was broken for GAI, they already had the blueprints drawn up.  We know what the building will look like.  I thought groundbreaking was the start of the digging process so that the foundation and footers could be constructed.  THAT'S all I'm talking about.  Is groundbreaking a different term that relates to something else?

 

 

A first groundbreaking is mostly a ceremonial and media event, rich guys, politicians, etc. with silver shovels sticking them in potting soil for the photographers to get some shots.  The only crucial part to a building's foundation and footings are the buildings footprint, mass and envelope; other than that, architectural details can be changed with little to no effect on the foundation of the building.

^ FWW Caps are a good example. There's nothing there, no plans, just big holes with nothing but ideas ... but we know what we can and cannot put there. We know how much weight and what kind of structure they can support.

I seriously have to think that at some point in the 1930's a bunch of people discussed how the architecture of their day was so hideous and they should make a development look more like something from 1880. and someday people will be saying. "oh my god this carbon molecule sided titanium  tower is so uncool, why cant buildings look more like they did in the 00's when the banks was built?!" personally I like them. they are what they are...something besides a mudhole. also to the comment about wide streets being too suburban I'm not so sure that is true. columbus's downtown doesnt feel suburban and they have streets like twice as wide as ours.

The buildings aren't hideous.  What really matters is who occupies them and what do they bring to downtown.  If it's a viable, vibrant, urban neighborhood then it doesn't matter if they look like shoeboxes, you'll get a great city.  I'd take that over a flying wing that will be forgotten by the superficial media 10 years from now.

Getting off the subject of the building designs....I saw something really cool on the news this evening.  In New York, they have created a waterfall coming out of a building and pouring into the harbor right next to it.  They also have a sheet of water coming from below the deck of the Brooklyn Bridge, right next to the support.  How cool would it be to do something similar in the park portion of the Banks?

i was about to post a very cynical comment, but i'd rather just agree with you in that yes, that would be very cool.

Cynical...?  How so?  I hope I haven't gone and made yet another fool of myself by posting a stupid comment.

I remember my architect cousin upset with the design of the WEBN offices in Mt. Adams.  "How ridiculous it was to have a glass office building on top of traditional store fronts".  Turns out it works.  I have been to the developers Atlantic Station complex several times.  It has a nice mix of urban and suburban appeal.  I am not a fan of the "The Banks" recent design preview. But at this point I really do not care what they put there.  As long as it is not black top parking lots.  No matter how amazing or cheap the design.  It will never live up to standards of Cincinnatians that live in drywall boxes.

^SNAP!

If I may add something. I'm not an architect or anything of the sort (I should have been one though). I don't have a big problem with the brick banks renderings. Sure, I'd like glass and modern buildings but the Banks is supposed to be a neighborhood. Someone said earlier that it's already surrounded by great architecture and I agree. Making the Banks a showplace of modernity might detract from PBS, GABP, and the Freedom Center. I think once businesses and people get into the place it will be a lot better than what's shown. 

Getting off the subject of the building designs....I saw something really cool on the news this evening.  In New York, they have created a waterfall coming out of a building and pouring into the harbor right next to it.  They also have a sheet of water coming from below the deck of the Brooklyn Bridge, right next to the support.  How cool would it be to do something similar in the park portion of the Banks?

 

None of the waterfalls come out of a building, they're all built on scaffolding, and while this was a cool concept and might even look good in some pictures, it's completely underwhelming to actually see. (I'm interning in Brooklyn this summer) Though I do remember early concepts for the park that had water flowing down into the river, though I don't think anything like that exists in the current plans. Now off to see Cold War Kids for free in Prospect Park!

They need some sort of fountain or water structures near the bridge.  It could actually be quite stunning if done right...maybe cool water paths or something.  We have such a cool looking bridge so there's no reason not to have something equally cool at the base and underneath it.

The buildings aren't hideous.  What really matters is who occupies them and what do they bring to downtown.  If it's a viable, vibrant, urban neighborhood then it doesn't matter if they look like shoeboxes, you'll get a great city.  I'd take that over a flying wing that will be forgotten by the superficial media 10 years from now.

 

Finally someone said it...buildings are lifeless without the people that occupy them.  What makes great places great isn't the architecture and design, it is the people and activities that fill those spaces and compliment those designs.  OTR has great historic buildings and is absolutely beautiful from an aesthetic standpoint, but it isn't a great place because it lacks the activities and people that make places great.

 

Atlantic Station fails miserably at creating interesting street activities and mixtures of people.  It seems very contrived and most visitors walk around, I would think, feeling somewhat awkward as they think about what to do and where to do it.  Part of this problem is its location which is pretty isolated and completely cut off from genuine activity nodes (i.e. Midtown, Georgia Tech).

 

The Banks may very well have the same level of design quality as Atlantic Station, but it will be immensely better with the people/activity aspect.  Even without the FWW caps The Banks is quite connected to the rest of Downtown.  Heck The Banks is almost better connected to Covington than Atlantic Station is to Midtown Atlanta.  Add in the fact that The Banks will have huge amounts of activity from all of the events at GABP, PBS, Freedom Center, and the potential relocation of festivals like Taste of Cincinnati and Oktoberfest Zinzinnati.

 

People and activities trump bricks/mortar any day of the week.  Just ask Detroit.

^snap!

^^True True!!!!!!

...still, we shouldnt settle for "its better than nothing".  This is our chance to truly do something special.  Something that generations of Cincinnatians can recall as a time that we "did it right".  I agree with everything you are saying about that special sense of place, rando, but i dont think thats a reason to settle for less.  We should demand more.

 

There is already a heirarchy of sorts set up down at the banks.  You have the three primary architectural nodes in place with PBS, GABP, and The Freedom Center.  I think the architecture of those buildings should speak louder than the architecture of everything else.  So while i agree that its appropriate that some of the secondary housing buildings take a back seat, if you will, they should still be done well.

 

I dont put much weight on this round of illustrations. 

I dont put much weight on this round of illustrations. 

 

I know what your getting at and I agree, but I don't put much weight in ANY illustrations.  I feel the developers will hear our objections albeit blogs or opinion sections in the media and will make some alterations by the time they are constructing the exterior of these structures.  The overall scope of the interior of these building will probably not change much at all, but I will still stand next to the fact that it will be the STREETLIFE that defines the Banks, and not the buildings themselves.    And that IS coming from an Architectural point of view.

I think one thing throwing everyone off a bit is the brown.  It is a color that, in my opnion, will not age very well and isn't really welcoming at all.  That being said, I can understand why it is being used (the current color scheme of the Freedom Center).  If it was up to me, i would focus thebuildings more on the off white color of the Fredom Center and not the browns.  It would still belnd in nicely and be much more welcoming IMI.

^ The drab colors at this point are most certainly the result of a poorly executed digital rendering.

Does anyone know when actual construction will begin?  All I can see at the live webcam is a large flat surface.

There are bulldozers and other equipment there everyday. It's raining like crazy today, so there probably won't be anything going on there today. They are working on preparing the site; i.e. removing old cement, planing, etc.

There were a number of pink flagged stakes down there when i went to the ballgame on sunday...maybe the sign of some initial surveying.

looking out my window, there is no activity whatsoever. The 6 remaining pieces of heavy machinery are sitting alongside each other. No people either.  It looks like there are a couple of small trenches remaining, but I don't see much in the way of foundation/concrete left to extract. 

 

That's a change, as there usually is a constant buzz of activity. I suspect the preliminary site work is pretty close to completion.

scratch that....2 backhoes digging up concrete chunks again. Nothing to see here...move on.

Does anyone  know the schedule for actual construction..I am so bored looking at the Banks webcam!

^Let them finish the site prep...after that you'll start seeing the garages come out of the ground (probably end of Summer).  Following the completion of the garages the buildings can then start rising...maybe next year this time.

They're also moving quickly for the size of that area.  Evan's doesn't mess around;)

curiously enough, looking at this today I would say they are done digging up old Riverfront.  They look to be just smoothing everything out now with bulldozers.

It seems to me like they keep going back and fourth which is odd to me.  They'll level off...then dig something out from the area they just leveled...then do it all over again.

I'm telling you...(and I see this every day from my office), this is it for the dig.  No more archeological ruins.  They have also started to roll out a strip of what appears to be some sort of black membrane/tarp, and have gravel covering a portion of that. 

 

who knows. Just call 'em as I see 'em.

What is the purpose of the gravel(?) trenches?

 

 

 

 

utility lines?

I have not talked to any engineers on this project, but generally gravel trenches promote water drainage. As has been noted before, water will stand at that particular site when it rains. I would think the area was graded to encourage water to drain toward the gravel trenches. The 'black membrane/tarp' noted above was probably used to line the trenches to keep out as much dirt as possible. Then again, it could be for a totally different purpose.

I sort of thought they'd dig more.  It looks like they'll only have 2 layers of parking, and I expected 3 or 4.  I'm sure it will be enough, though.

I think they don't want to go below grade just incase a flood happens.