Vine and third is not empty it is the Olympic Auto Park. This is owned by AFG who owns that entire block. It will not be developed into a high rise because they own the Provident Tower on 4th and Vine which would then have its view blocked.

 

I think the reference to 3rd and Vine was for 309 Vine, the low rise building in front of the 4th and Vine Tower.

 

Class B office space, even with a view, is irrelevant to the class A office market. Especially with a view.

 

Also, two levels of car park = empty use in a CBD.

 

1 - That is why 309 Vine is not really an option but was just floated out there as large enough to accommodate them.

 

2 - 2 levels of park is not empty use. It may be in your opinion, but you do not own the property and to the owner, it is not empty use. Given that the owner owns the tower behind it, they do not have incentive to develop something that would block the view of their other tower, especially since the parking revenues they generate from that place are pretty strong.

 

Maybe if it were more than 2 levels, but it isn't. It's like 180 spaces on that corner, and that's paying a valet to double-park them. Queen City Square sits on 2,250 parking spaces. So parking revenue couldn't really be it.

 

Also, your assertion that they would be blocking their older tower kind of treats it like a liability, don't you think? I don't think that developers think that way. I think they would readily block 20 stories of Class B to get 50 stories of new Class A.

 

 

First I do not disagree with you that it is not the highest and best use of the place, but I do not own the property so my opinion about it (like yours) is pretty irrelevant in the matter.

 

As far as developing the property into a tower, who knows what their priorities are and risk threshold. They have owned the block for a long time and are content with the cash flows it throws off. If they developed it, it could do much better but they would have to take on additional risk to do so, second, they may have other higher better projects elsewhere where they choose to devote that capital.

 

I like everyone would love to see a 50 story high rise there but until AFG decides they want one there or they want to sell the property, their opinion is the only one that matters.

 

That's kind of the crux of the whole question, though. I just wonder what is their opinion. I think there is more to it than just blocking the other building and getting revenue from a little parking lot.

I suspect that we will see surface parking lots developed before we start to see existing low-rise parking structures and buildings demolished and redeveloped into larger ones. And that's how it should be.

 

There are lots of exceptions, of course. The two-story garage by the Red Cross and the old Pogue's Garage are both coming down for redevelopment, but those are city-owned. A privately-owned parking deck that's still profitable probably won't be redeveloped until it's reached the end of its life and needs major repairs anyway.

^ I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but the owners of such a garage/lot SHOULD have an incentive to develop that property more fully, but since our property tax code rewards land banking, depreciation, and marginal uses through vastly lower assessments, they can sit on such property and not be penalized for it.  That's a bad thing from not only an urbanistic standpoint, but also from a city financial perspective.  These underutilized downtown properties have, quite literally, millions of dollars of public infrastructure serving them, yet they're paying a pittance in taxes and essentially getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else. 

 

Agreed.  The way that property taxes have been reduced over the past 50 years in favor of income taxes and sales taxes has led to this situation.

Trust me, if there were an actual garage there it wouldn't be such a mystery. But it's not. It's 2 levels, and really small. It's basically a fancy parking lot. I just can't believe people look at it and think "well, it's the highest and best use right now." Adjusting for everything I can think of, including property tax policy, revenue on the existing use, the freeway, blocking the view of the 50 year old mid-rise behind it, etc, etc, my spidey sense is still left wondering about that property. Oh well. I guess nobody outside of AFG really knows, which is fine. I mean, I don't know either.

^ I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but the owners of such a garage/lot SHOULD have an incentive to develop that property more fully, but since our property tax code rewards land banking, depreciation, and marginal uses through vastly lower assessments, they can sit on such property and not be penalized for it.  That's a bad thing from not only an urbanistic standpoint, but also from a city financial perspective.  These underutilized downtown properties have, quite literally, millions of dollars of public infrastructure serving them, yet they're paying a pittance in taxes and essentially getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else. 

 

Agreed.  The way that property taxes have been reduced over the past 50 years in favor of income taxes and sales taxes has led to this situation.

 

So, is that at the state or local level?  And how do we go about fixing it?

Speculation on new office tower at The Banks:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/08/cincinnati-s-largest-law-firm-hunting-for-new.html?ana=e_cinci_bn_breakingnews&u=rBKE+NOdDo%2FOyZEQt5nc3JP0aD2&t=1409156629&page=2

 

That article mentioned that a number of firms already located downtown are looking to expand, which could result in a new tower. However they also mentioned that some companies are looking to move downtown, so that might keep demand high for the existing buildings as well.

 

I have heard over the years of towers consisting of not strictly just office use, but instead mixed use.  So instead of building one residential tower in one section and an office tower in another, it could be beneficial to spread the use.  Therefore you could have not just one office tower and this way the dominating tenant can have their name on the building.  So each building could have 25-30 floors of residential and the other 25-30 floors would be class A office space.  This would also make it easier for other tenants to come downtown and make their mark on the skyline.

 

^ I know I've mentioned this in other threads, but the owners of such a garage/lot SHOULD have an incentive to develop that property more fully, but since our property tax code rewards land banking, depreciation, and marginal uses through vastly lower assessments, they can sit on such property and not be penalized for it.  That's a bad thing from not only an urbanistic standpoint, but also from a city financial perspective.  These underutilized downtown properties have, quite literally, millions of dollars of public infrastructure serving them, yet they're paying a pittance in taxes and essentially getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else. 

 

Agreed.  The way that property taxes have been reduced over the past 50 years in favor of income taxes and sales taxes has led to this situation.

 

So, is that at the state or local level?  And how do we go about fixing it?

 

I might be wrong on this but I believe that Ohio eliminated its state property tax when it started a state income tax which would have been right before or after WWII.  Meanwhile the local property taxes have tended to go down because Ohio's cities have lost value relative to where they would have been if so much wealth hadn't been diverted to new suburbs.  For example very wealthy cities like Beverly Hills, CA often have a low property tax rate but because there is no such thing as a home valued below $1 million in that city the total tax collected for the same population is much higher. 

 

 

^ this is what takes place in Indian Hill

^ this is what takes place in Indian Hill

 

Not exactly.  Indian Hill is all residential, no commercial, unlike Beverly Hills, and despite being a city (The City of the Village of Indian Hill) it purposefully has a low payroll tax rate.  I'm almost positive that property taxes are the largest source of revenue for the Corporation of Indian Hill, though other things we associate with the Village, such as the school system and their water system, encompass larger areas than the Village and consequently get more and different revenue streams.

yes, but they have some of the lowest property taxes in the Cincinnati area.

In the Cincinnati Planning Commission packet for sept. 5th there is a revision for the GE building. I tried to post a pic on here but an error kept occurring.

 

Anyway, it looks very similar except the tan is now a blueish color.

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/2CE837F9-98D0-498B-97AC8C14FD6F83C3/showMeta/0/

Page 48

 

I say go for it. Not every building needs to be special or architecturally significant. It's a fine office structure - and that's it.

It looks better then it did before.

That should satisfy the review board.

That is a MUCH MUCH  better building.  I'm fine with a simple building as long as it's tastefully designed.  That first one was just plain offensive. 

 

^ this is what takes place in Indian Hill

 

Not exactly.  Indian Hill is all residential, no commercial, unlike Beverly Hills, and despite being a city (The City of the Village of Indian Hill) it purposefully has a low payroll tax rate.  I'm almost positive that property taxes are the largest source of revenue for the Corporation of Indian Hill, though other things we associate with the Village, such as the school system and their water system, encompass larger areas than the Village and consequently get more and different revenue streams.

 

Incorrect. The Village of Indian Hill does not set its own property tax, rather it receives property tax revenue from the County. The Village of Indian Hill currently receives a little less than $800,000 in revenue from property tax (with a total assessed property valuation in the village of $813M). On the other hand, they recently increased their income tax rate from 0.4% to 0.6% and they are projecting $10.3M in revenues from income taxes. Their next highest source of revenue is "other charges and fees for service" (think inspection fees, etc) which is $433K.

 

The Village of Indian Hill currently receives a little less than $800,000 in revenue from property tax (with a total assessed property valuation in the village of $813M).

 

Don't you mean a little less than $8 million?  Their property tax rate is 1.7%, so it should actually be more like $14 million in revenue.  Detroit by comparison has a property tax rate around 4% which is the highest in the whole country, because that's the only way they can fund anything with so many empty and depreciated properties.  Unfortunately it also punishes redevelopment efforts, which then calls for tax abatements, but that just squeezes the people and businesses who've stuck it out with the city through the years. 

^ this is what takes place in Indian Hill

 

Not exactly.  Indian Hill is all residential, no commercial, unlike Beverly Hills, and despite being a city (The City of the Village of Indian Hill) it purposefully has a low payroll tax rate.  I'm almost positive that property taxes are the largest source of revenue for the Corporation of Indian Hill, though other things we associate with the Village, such as the school system and their water system, encompass larger areas than the Village and consequently get more and different revenue streams.

 

Incorrect. The Village of Indian Hill does not set its own property tax, rather it receives property tax revenue from the County. The Village of Indian Hill currently receives a little less than $800,000 in revenue from property tax (with a total assessed property valuation in the village of $813M). On the other hand, they recently increased their income tax rate from 0.4% to 0.6% and they are projecting $10.3M in revenues from income taxes. Their next highest source of revenue is "other charges and fees for service" (think inspection fees, etc) which is $433K.

 

California does not have municipal earnings tax but municipalities can levy sales taxes unlike Ohio.  Also there is a statewide 1% sales tax which is automatically redirected back to localities. 

 

What am I missing?  What page is the new design on?  I'm trying to look through the document but the pictures I see look exactly the same to me.

The new GE facade looks much nicer. I like the image of the building at night, with the illuminated top suggesting a GE "lightbulb".

Here are the rest of the renderings from the proposal:

And here is the old rendering:

 

It doesn't look like the design is much different... just done better with additional detailing and better lighting...

It's definitely an improvement. Not an "iconic" building, but not a sore thumb either. Looks better than Phase 1 of The Banks...

There are now buildings in the reflections on the glass in the rendering, instead of just sky. And the corner with the "lightbulb" breaks up the monotony of the rest of the building in a very Banks-y way. Look how hideous the second phase of the Banks looks from across the river. :(

I must not have a good eye for this because the before and after renderings look almost identical to me. They just appear to have a slightly different light to them.  Personally, and it's just my opinion, but I think both still look terrible.

Color me still unimpressed.  They go through a tiny bit of effort to differentiate the corners, but it mostly amounts to a white cap and bland spandrel glass.  If they were to make more of the inset corner out of the glowing white paneling then it would be a decent compromise.  The corners would set off the building nicely with greater color contrast than what is currently proposed, and  it would have a nice effect at night, but still maintain the horizontal banding they seem to want.  The being said, the devil is in the details.  A blah building can be detailed nicely and really improve the aesthetic. (To be honest, I don't have much hope for this considering the "watercolor" rendering effect and short building timeline)

It was never going to be iconic, but at least now it looks more urban. Before it looked like it belonged in a suburban office park in Itasca IL or Gwinnett County GA

Seeing just the new renderings I couldn't tell what was different, but with the original rendering I can see there's some improvement.  There's a bit more "urban storefront" at the base, and the addition of several more window mullions helps to make the facade more vertical than horizontal, which is important. 

The fact is yes The Banks design so far has not at all been special but the way it is being constantly attacked on here is crazy. I personally wish more thought was put in it but its not that bad it's a perfect case of you get what you pay for. I have been blessed to travel a lot and have seen some impressive new developments around the country but most are similar to The Banks. Everyone needs to keep in mind that Texas, California, New York State and many others would love to build GE a boring glass box. We on this forum including myself are kind of " The Crazies" at times and we forget that the general public doesn't have the same vision or eye that we do so 90% of area residents feel The Banks look just fine.

Truth be told, from a pedestrian point of view, as long as the retail/restaurant mix is good and promotes street activities with proper use of windows, doorways, and patios, these buildings will be pleasant. People aren't really going to spend much time looking up at the office and apartment floors. So long as there are not long stretches of blank wall and there are lots of activated windows and useable doors, the pedestrian experience will be rich enough to overcome the less-than-desirable architectural aspects.

 

That said, I still think we can discuss how much we wish things were better and continue to push for better in future projects.

I Absolutely Agree.

Color me still unimpressed.  They go through a tiny bit of effort to differentiate the corners, but it mostly amounts to a white cap and bland spandrel glass.  If they were to make more of the inset corner out of the glowing white paneling then it would be a decent compromise.  The corners would set off the building nicely with greater color contrast than what is currently proposed, and  it would have a nice effect at night, but still maintain the horizontal banding they seem to want.  The being said, the devil is in the details.  A blah building can be detailed nicely and really improve the aesthetic. (To be honest, I don't have much hope for this considering the "watercolor" rendering effect and short building timeline)

 

I don't see why people expected an iconic building. Based on the original rendering the review board typically does not ask for significant changes. Since GE is footing the bill to build it, the city has limited input into how it will look. After all, they don't GE to say that we are just going to take these jobs to Mason if you are too difficult to work with.

I don't know who was expecting an iconic building but that doesn't mean people can't be disappointed with the design.  As for footing the bill, GE got a HUGE incentive, it wouldn't hurt to have stipulations on the building that you are going to put there. 

It's definitely better, just the change from what appeared to be beige EIFs bands to spandrel glass helps me not hate it. And as others have said, the new lighting scheme on the corner piece helps too.

 

Also I think the second phase of the banks is leagues better than phase 1. It has form and looks like it was designed in three dimensions, where phase one just has material and shape and looks like a (bad) elevation study in two dimensions only. And I think the view from Covington isn't bad, because at least the facade there creates verticality and cohesiveness; Not just a hodgepodge of brick, EIFs, CMU and whatever other cheap material they could stick on it like in phase 1.

 

Impressed? not really, but at least its better than before, and that's progress.

 

ETA: Judging by that blurry section am I reading that this will be roughly 187 feet tall? That's some decent height for the banks side of FWW.

The fact is yes The Banks design so far has not at all been special but the way it is being constantly attacked on here is crazy. I personally wish more thought was put in it but its not that bad it's a perfect case of you get what you pay for. I have been blessed to travel a lot and have seen some impressive new developments around the country but most are similar to The Banks. Everyone needs to keep in mind that Texas, California, New York State and many others would love to build GE a boring glass box. We on this forum including myself are kind of " The Crazies" at times and we forget that the general public doesn't have the same vision or eye that we do so 90% of area residents feel The Banks look just fine.

 

I think the big problem here is we were all sold on a rendering that was ridiculously well designed, made the banks look like an actual historic urban neighborhood. Unfortunately said rendering was just a basic concept and had no bearing on reality (probably was used in part to sell the stadium on the riverfront instead of at Broadway Commons)  As a result people are hyper critical and really disappointed.

The fact is yes The Banks design so far has not at all been special but the way it is being constantly attacked on here is crazy. I personally wish more thought was put in it but its not that bad it's a perfect case of you get what you pay for. I have been blessed to travel a lot and have seen some impressive new developments around the country but most are similar to The Banks. Everyone needs to keep in mind that Texas, California, New York State and many others would love to build GE a boring glass box. We on this forum including myself are kind of " The Crazies" at times and we forget that the general public doesn't have the same vision or eye that we do so 90% of area residents feel The Banks look just fine.

 

I think the big problem here is we were all sold on a rendering that was ridiculously well designed, made the banks look like an actual historic urban neighborhood. Unfortunately said rendering was just a basic concept and had no bearing on reality (probably was used in part to sell the stadium on the riverfront instead of at Broadway Commons)  As a result people are hyper critical and really disappointed.

 

I disagree. The Banks phase 1 is some of the worst urban architecture in the country.

The fact is yes The Banks design so far has not at all been special but the way it is being constantly attacked on here is crazy. I personally wish more thought was put in it but its not that bad it's a perfect case of you get what you pay for. I have been blessed to travel a lot and have seen some impressive new developments around the country but most are similar to The Banks. Everyone needs to keep in mind that Texas, California, New York State and many others would love to build GE a boring glass box. We on this forum including myself are kind of " The Crazies" at times and we forget that the general public doesn't have the same vision or eye that we do so 90% of area residents feel The Banks look just fine.

 

I think the big problem here is we were all sold on a rendering that was ridiculously well designed, made the banks look like an actual historic urban neighborhood. Unfortunately said rendering was just a basic concept and had no bearing on reality (probably was used in part to sell the stadium on the riverfront instead of at Broadway Commons)  As a result people are hyper critical and really disappointed.

 

I disagree. The Banks phase 1 is some of the worst urban architecture in the country.

 

The Banks is less attractive than virtually any of these similar buildings that are all over suburban neighborhoods in places like Charlotte, NC. I would say the Banks is on par with these types of buildings, but the finishes on the Banks just looks cheap in comparison.

^-I was talking about the 1990s renderings not anything related to what was built.  See: http://www.hamilton-co.org/hc/banksrfq/images/banks5.jpg

Phase one of the Banks is pretty disappointing, especially after recently visiting the Pearl District in Portland.

Its disappointing after visiting just about anywhere.

 

Even mediocre midrises like these in Chicago look somewhat better: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.886816,-87.642724,3a,49.5y,47.73h,106.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4j2l_9fs7fhe8ioEQ3-D1g!2e0

The Banks is fine, and that Chicago development certainly doesn't look better than The Banks.

Phase one of the Banks is pretty disappointing, especially after recently visiting the Pearl District in Portland.

 

OMG ... He's alive! ;)

Even mediocre midrises like these in Chicago look somewhat better: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.886816,-87.642724,3a,49.5y,47.73h,106.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4j2l_9fs7fhe8ioEQ3-D1g!2e0

 

I can't co-sign that one.  That Chicago mid-rise is God-awful.  It's a shame I'd prefer Toby Keith's, but...

Not saying its good by a long shot.

I actually like the new GE design at the Banks a lot.

 

Reminds me of the Caresource building in Dayton, which did wonders for our skyline and downtown vibe.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/05/developers-make-changes-to-design-of-criticized-ge.html

 

Decently nicer. Groundbreaking? No, but nicer.

Channel 5 reporting some streets are closing for a few days due to crane install for GE building

Developers outline schedule for third phase of the Banks

Chris Wetterich Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Leaders on the Banks project are trying to cobble together the funds to build the garage that the project’s third phase will sit on top of, with the hope of completing construction by September 2016 when General Electric opens its global operations center at the riverfront development.

 

The project needs to find about $15 million to complete the funding picture for the garage at phase 3a of the Banks. Phase 3a sits south of Freedom Way, north of Mehring Way, east of Race Street and west of Vine street. It currently has $22.5 million of funding from the Banks tax-increment financing district, the state and the park district in place.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/15/devlopers-outline-schedule-for-third-phase-of-the.html

 

Here's the latest on plans for the Banks hotel

Chris Wetterich  Staff reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

A financial plan to finally bring a hotel to the Banks is coming this fall, a key adviser to Hamilton County on the joint city-county riverfront development said Monday.

 

Leaders of the project and Carter and the Dawson Co., the Banks’ master developers, hope that the hotel will be under construction by the middle of 2015, said Tom Gabelman, an attorney who advises Hamilton County commissioners on the project.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/09/15/banks-hotel-financing-plan-coming-this-fall.html