Yea they can be obnoxious but they are out celebrating a once (hopefully) in a lifetime moment with their friends and family. Now if they are being flat out rude that is one thing, but otherwise, good for them, have some fun. Now, about The Banks....

I think you've just hinted at what we're talking about. It's when they ARE rude and yell at random people, are inappropriate, command everyone's attention while people are trying to enjoy dinner or a drink, etc.

 

And this does relate to The Banks since it very much attracts that crowd. Part of why a lot of us don't generally go to The Banks. It's not a place where you can really relax or just have a good night since it's rowdy and loud and often incredibly obnoxious. I rarely want to go down there other than to go to Smale. The establishments in The Banks very much cater to the "we're still stuck in the frat party mentality" crowd of adults which is fine since I think we should try to cater to many different crowds, but that's going to deter a lot of people.

Interesting. I generally consider The Banks as an entertainment district, especially since it's wedged between two professional sports stadiums. And I don't think of entertainment districts as a place to go to to relax. Nor do I think it ever would/should be considered as that type of place, but if you really wanted to there is Ruths Chris, Lager House, Yard House and the soon to be Southern restaurant. None of those places are the "we're still stuck in the frat party mentality" that you describe. Perhaps Holy Grail, Tin Roof, and formerly TKILTBAG were but there are options down there if you don't like the bar scene.

Strangely, I like seeing things like this.  I know they can be rude and obnoxious, and I should hate it, but I genuinely find it entertaining.  My favorite bar nights are NYE, St. Patrick's, and the night before Thanksgiving for the same reason.  It's amateur hour, when all of the people who never go anywhere finally come to the bars.  Yeah, they can be annoying, but it's a revenue injection for bars and restaurants from people that otherwise would not be there. 

 

Also, for those of you that haven't tried it, start going to bars Sunday-Wednesday and spend your weekends with friends.  You end up getting to know the bartenders, they appreciate the business on a slower night, and you feel like you own the place because it isn't packed.

I don't drink and have no desire to ever be drunk and cannot empathize one bit with the drunken state.

 

I feel like this disqualifies you from evaluating or giving input on bars. Why would a non-drinker even go to a crowded, loud, bro-fest like Tin Roof or whatever Banks establishment you're talking about? Would someone who "cannot empathize one bit with the drunken state" enjoy going to any bar, regardless of clientele?

Yeah, because as we all know the only reason to ever go to a bar is to get absolutely hammered.

Bickering does not further the conversation and is not on topic. Knock it off.

^ If you don't like seeing drunk people, I don't think bars would be a good place to hang out. Of course getting drunk is not the only point of going to a bar, but it certainly happens quite often there! If I truly did not enjoy being around drunk people, I think I would stay away from bars. I'd go to restaurants, coffee shops, movies.

 

I never said I don't like being around drunk people, I said I don't enjoy being around a certain type of extreme drunkenness that several of the establishments at The Banks cater to. But I sent you a PM so we can continue there instead of in here.

 

Does anyone have an update on the AC Hotel? Someone said it started last week.

Taste of Belgium To Open Sixth Location At Phase II of The Banks

 

Once complete in spring 2016, phase two will be home to an estimated 2,000 employees at General Electric’s 338,000-square-foot Global Operations Center and 300 new apartments. There will also be approximately 20,000 square feet of street-level retail, of which Taste of Belgium will occupy 4,800 square feet.

Good to hear.

 

I'm actually happy this phase has a little less ground floor retail than the blocks in phase 1. The ratio of apartments/office workers : retail space will be much more conducive to long-term success.

Anyone else think that's way to many locations for Taste of Belgium? Literally there's one in OTR, And one near UC, and now you have one at the banks. There's also the rookwood location...I mean, I feel this is only going to saturate the market, and hurt sales.

Doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. They all cater to different crowds which is why it works. UC students who are going to walk to the Clifton location probably wouldn't go down to the OTR one as often. It has a more casual environment and is obviously close to campus. The Rookwood location caters to the Hyde Parkers who don't necessarily want to go down to the basin as well as the office workers above. The OTR location obviously caters to the people who live/work/play in OTR. This location will likely cater to suburbanites coming in from out of town to try out something urban but maybe aren't ready for a full on adventure into OTR.

 

The Banks is very much starter-urbanism. Which is good. It gets people interested in venturing further into the core, away from their car/garage.

It only seems like a lot because we're still used to thinking of Taste of Belgium as an OTR restaurant that opened a few new locations.  But how many Larosa's are there?  Graeter's?  Frisch's?  Dewey's?  Cincinnati thrives on locally-grown chains.

The Banks is very much starter-urbanism. Which is good. It gets people interested in venturing further into the core, away from their car/garage.

 

Which really capsulizes some of the earlier discussion on neighborhood branding.

I know it's enticing to want every new development (especially one this prominent and large) to cater to the most urbanist crowd, but having transitional neighborhoods is a really good thing. Branding it as such will only help draw more people in from the suburbs.

I know it's enticing to want every new development (especially one this prominent and large) to cater to the most urbanist crowd, but having transitional neighborhoods is a really good thing. Branding it as such will only help draw more people in from the suburbs.

 

Agreed.  I just really like what you wrote there: "starter-urbanism".

I consider "starter urbanism" to be more like the old west Main Street single-story storefronts.  Many of our more outer neighborhood business districts like Pleasant Ridge, College Hill, or Mt. Washington are a similar kind of first-generation urban.  The Banks is more "sanitized urbanism" or maybe "intermediate urbanism" but the scale of the buildings is already something of a climax condition. 

I didn't mean "starter" as a way to describe the buildings themselves, but rather to describe the experience of using those buildings. The types of establishments that are down there, the types of people they attract, etc. are generally people who are maybe not quite as adventurous yet and will go there before they go to places like 14th and Republic or somewhere along those lines.

Alot of those people who are going to the Banks (at least from what I've encountered), and are not going to more "urban" destinations like OTR is because they still believe OTR is dangerous. I have a friend, who remembers how OTR was like back in the early 2000's, and still holds the belief that its still like that to this day.

 

The banks is for people who aren't willing to go past there comfort zones when it comes to "inner city" urbanism.

^ Yes, and that's why the streetcar connecting the two is really important. So many people don't realize the power of that connection between these two very different areas, when they spout derogatory statements akin to "Oh yeah that $140M trolly that goes what, a few blocks?"

I didn't mean "starter" as a way to describe the buildings themselves, but rather to describe the experience of using those buildings. The types of establishments that are down there, the types of people they attract, etc. are generally people who are maybe not quite as adventurous yet and will go there before they go to places like 14th and Republic or somewhere along those lines.

 

Maybe "Remedial Urbanism." :) For a culture that is several generations removed from understanding what it might really look like.

A recent Enquirer article pointed out the ongoing taxpayer subsidies being spent to complete the Banks parking garages.  It is completely necessary to build the garages to lift the development out of the flood plain. The investment is building "one of the nation’s largest contiguous parking facilities, with nearly 8,000 parking spaces available along the Riverfront" according to the Banks' own website.  But, even with this record-setting parking structure, plans for future phases of the Banks still include additional above ground parking facilities.   

 

 

Taxpayers should be demanding a higher ROI on their investment.  Cars don't have jobs and pay income taxes or purchase things and pay sales taxes.  Devoting less space to automobile storage and more space to residential and commercial uses means the city and county would collect more revenue to use for services city and county wide.  Thus, these additional above parking facilities should be removed from the plans to accommodate more residential and commercial space.

 

One way to do this would be to split up the "superblock" with a commercial shared street. Such an arrangement would allow for additional residential units and commercial space in the interior of the block that would otherwise be parking garage and open air:

 

 

The commercial shared street will have the further effect of increasing the walkability of the neighborhood and as a result its desirability and its ability to sustain businesses.  Here is a diagram of a commercial shared street from the NACTO "Urban Street Design Guide" that would be entirely appropriate for the Banks: 

 

 

http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/commercial-shared-street/

Jesus talk about lack of faith from these developers. There's already so much parking already for the banks. What's going to happen if cincinnati residents start becoming less dependent on cars and more dependent on bikes, and street cars,  and hopefully light rail.

 

We are going to build this massive amount of parking that would lay vacant. 

This has nothing to do with the developers. It's all the county. The developers can't use the garage below for residents so therefore are forced to build their own parking. The county is the source of the above-ground parking needing to be included. We should be pushing them to allow for future phases to use the underground garages for residents so the developers don't need to build their own above the podium.

 

This is also why I hated that article. It failed to really make this clear. And people keep saying things like "oh more subsidies for developers" when in reality it's really not helping them much other than creating a building air lot for them to use. They don't benefit from taxpayer money going towards more spaces because they can't use them for the people who will live in the developer's buildings in the end.

SI and Wired had an article about football stadiums of the future and one idea that I thought was perfect for the Banks is integrating an office tower (and parking garages) into the stadium.

 

"...This goes beyond what we now think of as multiuse. Imagine a downtown office tower that on most days holds, say, a law firm. On one side that office faces a busy downtown street. But on the opposite side is a football field. Now you have office spaces that can be turned into suites on NFL Sundays.

 

How will fans access this inner-city, multipurpose Colosseum? Populous envisions large mass-transit centers connected directly to stadiums, with train rides replacing the old soccer-style marches that fans make into arenas. And like the office tower that looms large over one end zone, perhaps another section of the stadium has a massive parking garage attached to it—only instead of walling off the garage from the action, as we see today, that garage serves the city’s commuters during the week and becomes a massive tailgating venue ­on weekends, with fanatics driving right up to their vantage point..."

 

 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/11/18/super-bowl-100-stadium

I've often wondered why the NFL or MLB don't push for their stadiums to be far more integrated with mixed use buildings ringing them. Creating typical city buildings around, say, three sides and still having a prominent entrance on the fourth could offset the costs of building and running the stadium and produce a steady income for whoever owns the stadium during the off season. I could easily see Paul Brown Stadium being hidden behind 10-20 story buildings but still featuring a major entrance on a corner and it would be so much better integrated into The Banks.

Semi related but I have this theory I will write out someday that "Field of Dreams" has it entirely wrong and baseball is a fundamentally urban sport. In contrast football is fundamentally suburban/rural. Think about it. Baseball has a team named after kids dodging streetcars and came of age at the same time as America's great cities. Football requires a whole garage full of stuff to tailgate before a game and a truck or RV to transport it, and came of age during the post WWII suburban expansion. In general in takes more kids to play sandlot baseball than it does to play backyard football etc.

A recent Enquirer article pointed out the ongoing taxpayer subsidies being spent to complete the Banks parking garages.  It is completely necessary to build the garages to lift the development out of the flood plain. The investment is building "one of the nation’s largest contiguous parking facilities, with nearly 8,000 parking spaces available along the Riverfront" according to the Banks' own website.  But, even with this record-setting parking structure, plans for future phases of the Banks still include additional above ground parking facilities.   

 

 

Taxpayers should be demanding a higher ROI on their investment.  Cars don't have jobs and pay income taxes or purchase things and pay sales taxes.  Devoting less space to automobile storage and more space to residential and commercial uses means the city and county would collect more revenue to use for services city and county wide.  Thus, these additional above parking facilities should be removed from the plans to accommodate more residential and commercial space.

 

One way to do this would be to split up the "superblock" with a commercial shared street. Such an arrangement would allow for additional residential units and commercial space in the interior of the block that would otherwise be parking garage and open air:

 

 

The commercial shared street will have the further effect of increasing the walkability of the neighborhood and as a result its desirability and its ability to sustain businesses.  Here is a diagram of a commercial shared street from the NACTO "Urban Street Design Guide" that would be entirely appropriate for the Banks: 

 

 

http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/commercial-shared-street/

 

Great idea. The perimeter block is very 1990s urbanism. It'd be cool to see some innovative new street types and small bar/retail venue for Cincy in the Banks.

What I don't like about the "Dallas Block" or "Houston Block" or whatever people want to call these apartment developments that surround parking garages is that the units don't have windows that face what could be an inner courtyard.  They are arranged with a long hallway and a bank of elevators rather than stairwells and single elevators that enable units to stretch between the inner and outer parts of the doughnut.  Units that only have windows on one side suck to live in.  You feel like you're in a cave even though you're living 20-30-40 feet off the ground. 

 

Look at the inside of the early 1900s city blocks in Barcelona on Google Earth satellite view to contrast what goes on in the United States versus a much more livable arrangement in Europe. 

Am I the only one who thinks that the open green space between The Yard House, and the restaurant adjacent (whatever it will end up becoming) should be utilized better?

 

I was thinking how it would it be cool to have it be a public square, with many a few trees, and a fountain in the middle with some benches circling the fountain.

 

There's not many type of squares like that in Cincinnati, besides fountain square..

What I don't like about the "Dallas Block" or "Houston Block" or whatever people want to call these apartment developments that surround parking garages is that the units don't have windows that face what could be an inner courtyard.  They are arranged with a long hallway and a bank of elevators rather than stairwells and single elevators that enable units to stretch between the inner and outer parts of the doughnut.  Units that only have windows on one side suck to live in.  You feel like you're in a cave even though you're living 20-30-40 feet off the ground. 

 

Look at the inside of the early 1900s city blocks in Barcelona on Google Earth satellite view to contrast what goes on in the United States versus a much more livable arrangement in Europe. 

 

Yea, it's a result of lazy developers and perhaps not enough standards on percent of units south facing, etc that allows for it. There are heaps of apartment types, though, that can achieve dual loaded and still get a mix of units/aspects, but it's going to be up to the design community to enforce higher standards.

 

Is there an 'apartment design guideline' for Cincinnati?

That's a great idea for a center walkway through the development.  Almost akin to a pedestrian walkway, would be nice with coffee shops and the like.

 

Another option could be a couple of courtyard type apartment buildings, side by side, that I don't see a whole lot in Cincinnati.  I don't know how it would look in Cincinnati and as a more modern development, or if it's appropriate for the Banks, but I really like these types of apartments and think that they could blend in well in certain spots of OTR, etc. 

Am I the only one who thinks that the open green space between The Yard House, and the restaurant adjacent (whatever it will end up becoming) should be utilized better?

 

I was thinking how it would it be cool to have it be a public square, with many a few trees, and a fountain in the middle with some benches circling the fountain.

 

There's not many type of squares like that in Cincinnati, besides fountain square..

 

You're not alone, but I'd rather see it filled with something vertical like townhouses or a smallish apartment tower.  It currently just feels like dead space because there's nothing there and the area immediately in front of the Freedom Center isn't programmed.  A public square isn't a bad idea, but there's already so much open park space down there.  I'd rather squeeze in more residents.

Am I the only one who thinks that the open green space between The Yard House, and the restaurant adjacent (whatever it will end up becoming) should be utilized better?

 

I was thinking how it would it be cool to have it be a public square, with many a few trees, and a fountain in the middle with some benches circling the fountain.

 

There's not many type of squares like that in Cincinnati, besides fountain square..

 

That's a really good idea, I could see a plaza with a lot of "flex space" that could become the centerpiece of festivals, markets, etc.

Am I the only one who thinks that the open green space between The Yard House, and the restaurant adjacent (whatever it will end up becoming) should be utilized better?

 

I was thinking how it would it be cool to have it be a public square, with many a few trees, and a fountain in the middle with some benches circling the fountain.

 

There's not many type of squares like that in Cincinnati, besides fountain square..

 

You're not alone, but I'd rather see it filled with something vertical like townhouses or a smallish apartment tower.  It currently just feels like dead space because there's nothing there and the area immediately in front of the Freedom Center isn't programmed.  A public square isn't a bad idea, but there's already so much open park space down there.  I'd rather squeeze in more residents.

 

There won't ever be a structure of any size on that spot though. The Freedom Center needs a view across the river otherwise its message of "peering into the land where slavery was legal" wouldn't work as well from the balcony.

 

A properly designed public space makes sense. I personally was imagining a tiered tree grove. Make a strict grid of trees with crushed gravel tiers below and simple cafe tables and maybe a small coffee/snack kiosk. Simple but effective and different than any of the spaces in Smale.

There won't ever be a structure of any size on that spot though. The Freedom Center needs a view across the river otherwise its message of "peering into the land where slavery was legal" wouldn't work as well from the balcony.

 

Well that's a huge waste of space then.  Too bad.

A properly designed public space makes sense. I personally was imagining a tiered tree grove. Make a strict grid of trees with crushed gravel tiers below and simple cafe tables and maybe a small coffee/snack kiosk. Simple but effective and different than any of the spaces in Smale.

 

A fully landscaped "park" was included in the original project renderings but they didn't have enough money.

At one point DAAP professors were involved in rethinking that space but nothing came of it. It definitely needs to be something more structured than just trees in the grass like I'm worried it may become.

Two Bits barcade at The Banks closes before it opens

 

People can stop asking when Two Bits, the planned arcade and bar at The Banks will open. The answer: It won’t.

 

William Hodges, with the Nashville-based company who also owns Tin Roof at The Banks, confirmed the status of the “barcade” via Twitter on Tuesday.

 

“We are no longer pursuing the 2 Bits (sic) project,” Hodges told WCPO reporter Evan Millward. “And I cannot comment further on it."

 

http://www.wcpo.com/entertainment/local-a-e/two-bits-barcade-at-the-banks-closes-before-it-opens

Seems weird they could not come to terms on a lease, considering that they own Tin Roof right across the street with the same ownership.

It was probably just a cash grab for the all star weekend, and the owners realized how saturated the barcade market is with Northside & OTR each having there own respective barcades.

I think a metro the size of Cincinnati could easily support a Barcade type bar/restaurant tat the Banks. OTR and The Banks usually draws different type crowds anyway.

 

Could be a lot of different reasons it didnt open, maybe management decided the concept is not going be expanded to other markets.

Are free games part of their business model?  Seems to be that way with the barcades in Columbus and Cleveland.

Cranley: Proposed Banks music venue has opponents

 

PromoWest Productions – the operator of the Bunbury and Buckle Up music festivals – has interest in building an indoor and outdoor concert pavilion on The Banks.

 

The problem: There's mounting opposition from prominent arts supporters fearing the competition will siphon away money from existing venues and institutions, such as Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley said on Tuesday. The CSO owns Riverbend Music Center in Anderson Township and manages concerts and events there through a subsidiary.

 

[...]

 

The idea for a near-riverfront music venue came from Willie Carden, director of Cincinnati Parks, more than a year ago, Cranley said. With that plan, the venue would have been at Sawyer Point.

 

Cranley said he liked the concept, but preferred it be built at The Banks. He said the venue would lure crowds to the mixed-use riverfront destination on days when the Cincinnati Bengals and Cincinnati Reds aren't playing.

So many mixed feeling about this.

 

- The CSO is incredibly shortsighted to view a new music venue as competing with Riverbend. Riverbend han't been able to bring in many of the type of bands that skip over Cincinnati. If we had something more like Columbus' LC Pavilion, closer to Downtown than Riverbend, we might actually compete for these bands. Jimmy Buffet and DMB will still pack Riverbend with people every year.

 

- This goes against the fundamental idea of making The Bank a mixed-used 24/7 neighborhood. Do you know a better way to get more people to The Bank on non-game days? Add more residents and M-F office workers. Don't add yet another attraction that will only be used 1 or 2 days a week at most.

 

- Woodward Theater is a new music venue. When Memorial Hall re-opens, 3CDC will operate it as a music venue. People are trying to the Emery Theater back up and running as a music venue. Taft seems to be doing fairly well. Why open yet another music venue to take business away from Woodward, Memorial Hall, and Taft, and make it less likely that the Emery could be reopened?

Cranley: Proposed Banks music venue has opponents

 

PromoWest Productions – the operator of the Bunbury and Buckle Up music festivals – has interest in building an indoor and outdoor concert pavilion on The Banks.

 

The problem: There's mounting opposition from prominent arts supporters fearing the competition will siphon away money from existing venues and institutions, such as Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley said on Tuesday. The CSO owns Riverbend Music Center in Anderson Township and manages concerts and events there through a subsidiary.

 

[...]

 

The idea for a near-riverfront music venue came from Willie Carden, director of Cincinnati Parks, more than a year ago, Cranley said. With that plan, the venue would have been at Sawyer Point.

 

Cranley said he liked the concept, but preferred it be built at The Banks. He said the venue would lure crowds to the mixed-use riverfront destination on days when the Cincinnati Bengals and Cincinnati Reds aren't playing.

 

It's not clear to me exactly which parcel they're proposing putting the music venue on. In the little graphic on the Enquirer's article, they highlight the two parcels next to Paul Brown that are both North and South of Freedom way. Anybody know what the thinking is? The two other venues which are similar (Stage AE in Pittsburgh and Lifestyle Communities Pavilion in Columbus) are not well-suited the kind of high density form factor that The Banks needs. Architecturally, they're uninspiring. They're low-lying, surrounded by fenced-off open space that's closed to the public. Most of the time, outside of concerts, they will be dead zones of activity. If they could be integrated into a larger building, and if the open space could be used by the public during non-concert times, then I might feel differently. But if they're going to take the form of the LC Pavilion, I feel like The Banks should be able to find a better use for the space.

The venue that will be harmed is the P&G stage at Bicentennial Commons. 

So many mixed feeling about this.

 

- The CSO is incredibly shortsighted to view a new music venue as competing with Riverbend. Riverbend han't been able to bring in many of the type of bands that skip over Cincinnati. If we had something more like Columbus' LC Pavilion, closer to Downtown than Riverbend, we might actually compete for these bands. Jimmy Buffet and DMB will still pack Riverbend with people every year.

 

- This goes against the fundamental idea of making The Bank a mixed-used 24/7 neighborhood. Do you know a better way to get more people to The Bank on non-game days? Add more residents and M-F office workers. Don't add yet another attraction that will only be used 1 or 2 days a week at most.

 

- Woodward Theater is a new music venue. When Memorial Hall re-opens, 3CDC will operate it as a music venue. People are trying to the Emery Theater back up and running as a music venue. Taft seems to be doing fairly well. Why open yet another music venue to take business away from Woodward, Memorial Hall, and Taft, and make it less likely that the Emery could be reopened?

 

Don't forget about Southgate House revival too. Sounds like publicly subsidized competition for private enterprise to me.

 

The only place it would make sense is "Lot 23" and I don't know if it would fit there. http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/05/project-officials-ready-to-move-forward-with-next-phase-of-the-banks/

 

Another idea straight from Cranley... He sure does shoot from the hip huh?

 

If this city is projected to grow in population, and witness a revitalization, I don't see why 1 more music venue on the banks would kill chances of a revival of The Emery, or make competition with the Woodward theater.

 

That's what make big cities great is, "options". I don't see how a new music venue option is a bad thing.

 

Hell, if I told you this stadium was going to open on the empty lot on Sycamore Street in OTR I bet people would be supportive and extremely excited. But because it's a "Cranley" concept it's a bad thing and all of a sudden creates unfair competition.

 

The only thing that would piss me off is if this takes place on land that could've been better utilized at the banks. Especially the fore-mentioned potential dead zone that would be created.