Found this on the Banks site, it's a .pdf brochure for the office tower (called 180 Walnut) for potential tenants: http://thebankscincy.com/files/files/TheBanks_Brochure_FINAL_FINAL.pdf

 

Carter's the developer and it looks like they have a pretty finalized look for the building - just no word on when they actually plan to start building the sucker!

^ Certainly a handsome and imaginative brochure, northsider--thanks for bringing this eye candy to the forefront!

They need an anchor tenant. That could have been Dunhumby if they didn't move to 5th & Race instead.

Looks like they got a local firm to design that brochure too... Strata-G Communications. Not really relavant, but thought it was interesting.

any word on when they are starting the section of phase 1B residential/hotel area that runs parallel to the Reds HOF?  I would think they would want to build the residential asap because of the demand..

Found this on the Banks site, it's a .pdf brochure for the office tower (called 180 Walnut) for potential tenants: http://thebankscincy.com/files/files/TheBanks_Brochure_FINAL_FINAL.pdf

 

Carter's the developer and it looks like they have a pretty finalized look for the building - just no word on when they actually plan to start building the sucker!

 

Thanks for sharing with us.

 

I have not seen an up-close rendering of the finished Banks project, so that was very interesting.

Well hopefully they don't continue that same beige style throughout the whole thing.  I mean, The Gateway up in Columbus looks 10X better. 

I called Mark Falon, and he said they would again contact the organization that sponsers the RainForest Cafe, and bring them up to speed in regard to the remarkable progress of the Banks in hopes that they will recosider building  a cafe on the riverfront.

 

Rainforest Cafe is so 1990's. I thought many of them closed because they were making people sick because of bacteria building up in the misting system. If you want to reach out to the Banks developer on a family themed restaurant similar to Rainforest Cafe but much better IMO, I would suggest T-Rex Cafe found in Downtown Di$ney and Kansas City.

 

http://world..go.com/dining/t-rex/

 

http://www.trexcafe.com

 

 

Wow ... I'm sold. How do we get one of those? Kids would be dragging their parents downtown for that.

you're not serious....

you're not serious....

 

Why not? There has to be somewhere that's kid-friendly. Otherwise downtown is going to be waving lots of dollars goodbye as they get back in their cars and go home after games (or don't come down early). Not everyone wants to stand in a crowd of drunk 20-somethings listening to dance music at Holy Grail or Toby Keith's.

 

The new riverfront park has all these enticing, kid-friendly fountains to run through and play in but there's really nowhere for their parents to take them for lunch or dinner, unless you count the thoroughly underwhelming Johnny Rocket's.

 

 

you're not serious....

 

Why not? There has to be somewhere that's kid-friendly. Otherwise downtown is going to be waving lots of dollars goodbye as they get back in their cars and go home after games (or don't come down early). Not everyone wants to stand in a crowd of drunk 20-somethings listening to dance music at Holy Grail or Toby Keith's.

 

The new riverfront park has all these enticing, kid-friendly fountains to run through and play in but there's really nowhere for their parents to take them for lunch or dinner, unless you count the thoroughly underwhelming Johnny Rocket's.

 

I agree.

I do too.  There should be a "family option" at the Banks.  Between the Lager House, Holy Grail, Crave, Ruth's Chris, and Toby Keith's, there are plenty of options for adults.  No reason not to have something with a broader appeal. 

I would agree that there needs to be more family friendly options, however places like these often look very dated very fast, but it would be awesome to see something more unique here. I really love the idea of the T-Rex restaurant, but I just hope there aren't any animatronics, they just feel so mid-century Disney World to me.

I would agree that there needs to be more family friendly options, however places like these often look very dated very fast, but it would be awesome to see something more unique here. I really love the idea of the T-Rex restaurant, but I just hope there aren't any animatronics, they just feel so mid-century  World to me.

 

Yes they have animatronics:

 

 

The problem with kiddie restaurants like this is that 1) they don't sell a lot of alcohol, which is a huge money-maker for restaurants; 2) when kids are in school, which is a lot, they are dead; and 3) at night when all of the other restuarants are packed with people eating and drinking they are dead.

 

The fact that the build-out is 3-4 times as expensive as other same-sized restuarants and it probably requires about double the staff to maintain the robots, and ice caves and fish tanks, etc. makes these problems even more difficult to overcome.

 

There is no way that this concept would be successful at the Banks.  I doubt this concept is profitable anywhere. 

 

And to rant a little; I am a parent of two young kids and I would never take them to a place like this.  Its over-indulgent.  There is no reason a family can't have a great time at a "normal" restaurant like the Lager House.  They don't need robot dinosaurs screaming at them while they eat their grilled cheese.

With the addition of 165 TB of new aerials to Bing, we have a fairly updated look at The Banks from the air: http://binged.it/OrUfIw

With the addition of 165 TB of new aerials to Bing, we have a fairly updated look at The Banks from the air: http://binged.it/OrUfIw

 

Too bad Pictometry can't update their images. Would be nice to see the bird's eye view get updated.

Anyone got an idea on the dating for those Bing Maps? Based on construction progress and the condition of the vegetation, it looks to be about March-April 2012.

 

How about the satellite photos above Cincinnati for Google Maps? Maybe September 2010?

So I've been doing a lot of walking down to the Banks and the park trail at lunch during the week, and I have to say, the fact that you can only cross on the west side of Walnut over 2nd is really, really dumb from a pedestrian standpoint.  We currently have two streets that feed into the Banks and you can't cross over one of them both ways?

With the addition of 165 TB of new aerials to Bing, we have a fairly updated look at The Banks from the air: http://binged.it/OrUfIw

 

awesome - i was just using bing and didn't notice b/c i was too far zoomed in. you could date these aerials by the progress at washington park in otr.

 

So I've been doing a lot of walking down to the Banks and the park trail at lunch during the week, and I have to say, the fact that you can only cross on the west side of Walnut over 2nd is really, really dumb from a pedestrian standpoint.  We currently have two streets that feed into the Banks and you can't cross over one of them both ways?

 

wait, what? im sorry im not familiar but this sounds stupid. what is the reason you can't cross both ways?

 

So I've been doing a lot of walking down to the Banks and the park trail at lunch during the week, and I have to say, the fact that you can only cross on the west side of Walnut over 2nd is really, really dumb from a pedestrian standpoint.  We currently have two streets that feed into the Banks and you can't cross over one of them both ways?

 

wait, what? im sorry im not familiar but this sounds stupid. what is the reason you can't cross both ways?

 

He doesn't mean you can't walk both ways, but there's no crosswalk on the east side of Walnut at 2nd in preference to turning traffic.  http://goo.gl/maps/Juzq  So if you were walking south along the east side of Walnut towards The Banks and wanted to cross 2nd and stay on the same side of the street, you'd need to navigate the intersection through three signal phases (go west, then south, then east) to get where you want to go. 

^There are always green arrows directing traffic onto Second during every phase of the signaling, so they eliminated the crosswalk there.  It makes sense after Reds games or maybe during rush hour when hundreds of cars are exiting The Banks garage onto Walnut, and other garages downtown and making the turn onto second, but otherwise it just seems odd.  They could stripe if as a crosswalk and use signage to say no crossing during certain hours, but that would probably confuse people. 

^There are always green arrows directing traffic onto Second during every phase of the signaling, so they eliminated the crosswalk there.  It makes sense after Reds games or maybe during rush hour when hundreds of cars are exiting The Banks garage onto Walnut, and other garages downtown and making the turn onto second, but otherwise it just seems odd.  They could stripe if as a crosswalk and use signage to say no crossing during certain hours, but that would probably confuse people.

 

And of course, after Reds games is when you'd have the most pedestrian traffic!  I haven't been down in the area after a game lets out - I wonder if they use police to allow people to cross?

 

I'm sympathetic to the safety issues involved, but it's a bit frustrating that the new pedestrian-friendly development in downtown isn't always pedestrian-friendly.

even to get from the one side of the riverfront park to the other you have to cross four lanes of traffic.  typically traffic isn't bad but it is before and after Reds games....and the traffic coming off the suspension bridge into the Banks sucks as well.  those cars come flying off from the bridge right into a pedestrian area.  i'm sure there is a reason for it but i wish they didn't build the street that connects the suspension bridge to Walnut.

I wonder if there's been any studies on the total impacts of such 3-legged pedestrian crossings.  Yes they may benefit that turning traffic, but could it be that they adversely impact the rest of the intersection not only for pedestrians but by motorists too?  I can see that being the case at intersections where the pedestrian signals need to be manually actuated, in which case that pedestrian who has to cross the intersection three times is further delaying every other direction of traffic.  It's a situation where saving 10 seconds for 20 cars making one particular movement causes an additional 10 second delay for 10 cars at each of the other three legs of the intersection, making the total problem worse.  How this works with the non-actuated signals downtown and with heavy pedestrian flows I'm not sure.

 

Of course this gets extremely complicated when you have left and right turn signals, no turn on red, one-way versus two-way traffic, manual versus automatic pedestrian signals, double turn lanes, etc.  Still, I wonder if it might be similar to the situation with one-way street grids, which provide only a very minimal improvement in traffic throughput (something like 10-20%) over a two-way grid.  Performance isn't better than that because it necessitates a lot more multi-block long circulation and backtracking for motorists to get where they want to go.  This crosswalk situation may cause a similar kind of feedback loop. 

There was an incident at that intersection which involved a collision between an automobile and a pedestrian.

There was an incident at that intersection which involved a collision between an automobile and a pedestrian.

 

the intersections of 2nd and walnut and 3rd and walnut have a close call on cars hitting pedestrians at least once a week during rush hour.  everybody trying to drive out of there while talking on their cell phones or texting results in so many cars running red lights well after pedestrians begin crossing the street.  eventually something really bad is going to happen at either one of those intersections.

Pedestrians at this intersection (also Race & 2nd) generally ignore the no cross walk sign as many drivers also ignore the no turn on red and left on arrow only signs.

 

Rush hour on game days is particularly awful. Several vendors set-up on the four corners and they (illegally) park their vans/trucks on Walnut just south of 2nd, eliminating a lane for traffic headed to the Suspension Bridge. Drivers regularly block this intersection which in turn snarls traffic at all N/S streets that cross 2nd.

 

The closest officers are at Main & 2nd.

 

 

There was an incident at that intersection which involved a collision between an automobile and a pedestrian.

 

Just walking to The Banks yesterday for lunch, I was nearly hit on 2nd Street on the way to Holy Grail.  We did cross the street against the walk light, but no car was even on 2nd Street when we started crossing.  Some jerk turning from Walnut must have been either attempting a high speed getaway, or was flexing his balls to make a point.  On the way back a couple of people not in our group nearly got hit by a car, but they didn't even bother to look if anyone was coming down 2nd Street.  I anticipate many pedestrian accidents as The Banks gets more and more popular.

Narrow Second Street by at least one lane (or create an isolated streetcar lane that cars can't drive on). The street is far too wide for the traffic it sees 95 percent of the time. Narrowing would serve to slow cars down and also give pedestrians a shorter span to cross.

 

Pedestrians crossing Second Street are likely to be excited fans heading to/from games or after having had a few beers at the game/bars will have delayed reactions. That's a dangerous recipe on a street that really serves as a vehicle runway of sorts onto a pair of highways. There's already been a Second Street fatality a few years ago when a fan walking to a Bengals game was hit at the Elm intersection by a car just getting off the highway.

2nd and 3rd are so wide in part because they were designed to each have a light rail line on them.  Each street was paved so that it can be ripped up easily for track installation. 

^ Maybe the streetcar turnaround being on 2nd will help to slow traffic a bit.  I can't really see narrowing it, because all the lanes split up and feed three different expressways heading out of downtown.  Allowing parking on both sides of 2nd off hour would be a good start to calming traffic, though, and have the same effect as narrowing it.  Parked cars along the sidewalk also provide a safety buffer between it and fast moving traffic.

Yeah I think the streetcar will have some effect because as-is 2nd is not a very "natural" feeling street.  It is not itself a destination so there is an impulse to want to speed and beat the lights and then the street itself has that annoying lumpy pavement.  So when you come off the highway in the near future, you will see the streetcar tracks in the distance and since it's something unusual, it will cause people to slow down. 

^ Maybe the streetcar turnaround being on 2nd will help to slow traffic a bit.  I can't really see narrowing it, because all the lanes split up and feed three different expressways heading out of downtown.  Allowing parking on both sides of 2nd off hour would be a good start to calming traffic, though, and have the same effect as narrowing it.  Parked cars along the sidewalk also provide a safety buffer between it and fast moving traffic.

 

I really like the off hour parking idea, although i suppose that could be a headache during Reds or Bengals games.

 

It's curious that Third Street has just as many lanes and yet it feels way safer to cross.

the T-rex cafe does look great.

^For me to poop on.

^ Maybe the streetcar turnaround being on 2nd will help to slow traffic a bit.  I can't really see narrowing it, because all the lanes split up and feed three different expressways heading out of downtown.  Allowing parking on both sides of 2nd off hour would be a good start to calming traffic, though, and have the same effect as narrowing it.  Parked cars along the sidewalk also provide a safety buffer between it and fast moving traffic.

 

I really like the off hour parking idea, although i suppose that could be a headache during Reds or Bengals games.

 

It's curious that Third Street has just as many lanes and yet it feels way safer to cross.

 

Third Street has parking on both sides.  Aside from that, I think it has a stronger street wall because the buildings along it are varied and interesting.  Second Street has a monotonous facade and sterile feel, and it isn't helped by the fact that it is the north face so it's almost always dark and shaded. 

 

Parking on Second during Reds games might be a headache, but those spots would fill up way before game time, and they'd probably be some of the first to leave.  It would definitely slow traffic just enough after the game.

Reds games might be a headache, but those spots would fill up way before game time, and they'd probably be some of the first to leave.  It would definitely slow traffic just enough after the game.

 

I disagree. I think the first people there might be the ones who stay and visit the restaurants at the Banks after the game. Either way I think it would only help those businesses to add on-street parking to Second.

To the "poop on" reply to my earlier post: Is  this your best and intelligent response?

To the "poop on" reply to my earlier post: Is  this your best and intelligent response?

It is a Conan O'Brien reference. There was a dog that would say x is so great... "for me to poop on"

Speaking of family dining, I walked into an ordinary-looking restaurant in Madrid, Spain with my mom in 2005.  This came on the radio:

 

^The Spanish couldn't care less what children are potentially exposed to.  Parents routinely take their kids inside bars with them through dinnertime.

I've voiced a little concern over the family options in the past. Since then I've taken my 6 and 3yo boys twice to MLH and they have been very accommodating and welcoming.  The kids have plenty of choices for their own menus too.  They even let us pick our own section to sit both times and it wasn't like the place was deserted - they were weekend afternoons. Outside, upstairs overlooking Schmidlapp was the best.  Throw in a Bourbon Barrel Ale and both were wonderful visits. 

 

I consider the "no family options" argument null and void.  ;)

I consider the "no family options" argument null and void.  ;)

 

I agree that any place can be accommodating to families with kids, but there is still a large group of people who are looking for "family restaurants" where that is the focus. And we want them to come visit and spend their money at the Banks  :-D

I agree that any place can be accommodating to families with kids, but there is still a large group of people who are looking for "family restaurants" lower circles of hell where that is the focus. And we want them to come visit and spend their money at the Banks  :-D

 

Fix'd.  :-P

 

I question the economics of a kid-focused restaurant in the area - isn't part of the draw of the Banks supposed to be that it's a late-night kinda place?  But I do hope that more restaurants open up that are like the Lager House and kid-friendly.

 

Also this is where I could rant on and on about the ridiculousness of American parents who want to continually (and ONLY) give their children kid-centric experiences and how it's bad training for life, and it's a valuable experience for kids to realize they can have a good time in spaces for adults.  but that's a mite OT.

 

ETA: I should have read back farther. BlackBengal made all of my points, but better.

I'm not suggesting kid-focused restaurants, but kid-friendly would be nice.  And the reason that I want things to be kid-friendly is jus twhat you say, Northsider--I like to take my kid to eat at places other than Chuck E. Cheese's so she realizes what restaurants are actually right.  She's been to Lavomatic, Senate, and any other number of other places downtown.  It's good, but sometimes it's nice to have an option where bringing the kid doesn't earn you the scowls of the "cool kids."  :)

Well, it does seem that fast food chains and child-accommodating restaurants with liquor licenses such as Applebee's and O'Charley's have really waylaid the family restaurants of old such as Howard Johnson's, Elby's, Shoney's Denny's etc. and their non-chain counterparts.

Well, it does seem that fast food chains and child-accommodating restaurants with liquor licenses such as Applebee's and O'Charley's have really waylaid the family restaurants of old such as Howard Johnson's, Elby's, Shoney's Denny's etc. and their non-chain counterparts.

 

Hmm, this is a good point.  and I imagine that the rent for a restaurant at the Banks ain't cheap at all - in order to be profitable, you'd really need to be able to sell booze and stay open late.  I can't even imagine an Applebee's making it in the space.

 

anyway, it would be interesting to know who all is making the calls on which tenants get put into the retail/restaurant spaces at the Banks and what their goals are.  Personally, if we're going to put in national chains into the Banks, I'd rather that they be real destination retailers/restaurants that aren't already currently in the Cincy burbs.  The Mall-ification strategy for downtown failed miserably back in the day - in order to attract people from the suburbs, you can't just offer a rehashed version of what's already out there in the 'burbs.  you have to offer something unique.