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?

 

 

Agreed that taking developable land for this concept would be a bad idea, but...

 

Can the land between the Freedom Center and the river be used for this venue, with a temporary stage continually set up/taken down on Freedom Way right in front of the center?

 

So the concert area would be in the lawn right next to Yard House. Spillover could go into the street and Robeling Bridge could be closed to vehicle traffic on those days with bikeway/walking path open during concert time.

^That's the best place I can think of, since apparently any permanent structure that would block the view is forbidden.

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.

 

Fair enough, but we already have several options for venues, some of which are underutilized. I'd rather see a different type of "option", something we don't have an abundance of already.

Also, we already have an outdoor venue like that at the casino. No need for another one IMO.

I am an optimist on most every level, but call me a cynic with any urban planning idea by John Cranley.

 

I don't think you build a small music venue in the most expensive real estate in the region.  I think you re-build the theatres mentioned above, and let the streetcar do it's job.  Bring in the residents, bring in the office users, bring in another high end hotel.  Any of those uses are much better than a small music venue, IMO.

 

Not only that, but they could simply do some work around the ampitheatre in Bicentennial Commons.  Upgrade that then create signage pointing back towards the Banks on the trails.  It isn't a far walk at all.  They could make some flood resistent stands or go with Will Carden's original idea.  Just because Cranley would rather have it at The Banks doesn't make it a good idea.

 

If they can get even more office users or another hotel at the Banks, that will greatly increase the foot traffic compared to what it is now, not to mention all the GE Office Users, the new Hotel already being built, and the new apartments going up next to GE and subsequently on the pad south of GE.  Once the streetcar is up and running, I think we will see even more users at Smale for exercise coming from elsewhere downtown.

 

Last thought on the Bicentennial Commons Ampitheatre re-boot: If they can build on all those empty lots due east of the CBD with new apartments, condos, etc., then Bicentennial will see a lot more use.  It's truly a beautiful park but hardly anyone uses it because there is not much in the form of residents closely nearby.  I also think you could fit a larger hotel in that area as well. 

 

--- One last thought: I am ready for the banks to fill in all the way so that we can concentrate on other areas of the CBD.  The Banks is very limited now in regards to the pads left, so once it gets filled in, we can start making proposals for larger apartment buildings and corporate office spaces in the many empty lots in the CBD.

 

 

This is another example of my biggest problem with his thinking: it seems like its always a beggars can't be choosers mentality vs sticking to the vision of the plan.

 

Can the Banks have a LC Pavilion style venue? Sure.

But on prime developable land that has entitlement rights for more office, residential and a second hotel? No.

 

Find somewhere else to put it like in the park, in the practice field, where the asphalt plant is. That's fine. Don't spend millions of dollars to raise land out of the floodplain for something that isn't worth it.

 

My sense is that it is too redundant to what is already out there or in the funnel.  The Banks needs more residents and daytime workers...bottom line.

 

Besides that is the issue of why the Mayor is proposing this. Could anyone shed light on this in a "follow the money" sort of way?

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.

 

Fair enough, but we already have several options for venues, some of which are underutilized. I'd rather see a different type of "option", something we don't have an abundance of already.

 

It's the same situation we have with arenas right now. Each owner wants their own and no one wants to collaborate. Instead of coming together and building an arena that can host UC basketball, hockey, roller derby, and concerts, we have a bunch of underutilized, mediocre arenas scattered across the city.

 

For the record, I would like to see a new arena built somewhere else in the city (perhaps attached to the casino) so that US Bank Arena could be torn down and developed as a future phase of The Banks, eventually stretching east along the river. The more we can add permanent residents down there, the more stable those retail establishments will be.

Curious as to if anything is happening with the former gregory center site.  I remember condo pre-sales and renderings pre-finanacial crisis.  Seems like if they were ready back then they should be ready to go now as well.

Unfortunately nothing has been reported in quite some time. Such a shame/waste...

 

Cincinnati: Downtown: One River Plaza

The area at the base of the Purple People Bridge, across the street, and leading up Eggleston has so much potential for modern highrise infill to not only enlarge the skyline but also modernize it quite a bit.

 

One River Plaza would have been an attractive set of buildings. Hopefully something will happen there soon.

 

And I second wanting US Bank torn down, a new arena built elsewhere, and for The Banks to continue east of GABP.

Unfortunately nothing has been reported in quite some time. Such a shame/waste...

 

Cincinnati: Downtown: One River Plaza

 

The Ascent is almost 10 years old and still has many condos that never sold.  Meanwhile, the new $300k rehab OTR-style condos on Scott St. are all presold. No doubt the vacancies at The Ascent have contributed to the absence of new condo high rises in and around Cincinnati. 

 

 

I don't know if that's necessarily an apt comparison. That state border you cross isn't arbitrary. People with that kind of money are all over Cincinnati, but very rarely in Kentucky. The Ascent suffers from location. People don't want to unload money into real estate across the river even though it has amazing views.

Unfortunately nothing has been reported in quite some time. Such a shame/waste...

 

Cincinnati: Downtown: One River Plaza

 

The Ascent is almost 10 years old and still has many condos that never sold.  Meanwhile, the new $300k rehab OTR-style condos on Scott St. are all presold. No doubt the vacancies at The Ascent have contributed to the absence of new condo high rises in and around Cincinnati.

 

I agree with you to an extent.  For one I think the Ascent pricing is much too high with a very high HOA Fee.  Bad planning by the builders of that.  Those Scott Street condos are nicely priced in comparison. 

 

If I had the money, I would much rather spend the dough in Cincinnati than in Covington.  Covington is bleak in regards to vibrancy and retail scene in comparison to Cincinnati.  Cincinnati seems to move at a pace of 5x compared to Covington and even though Cincy is a simple walk across the Roebling, it seems so far away for it to not be super walkable.

 

To compare, you can live in OTR or the heart of downtown and now ride the streetcar to all your destinations in the basin.  Plus you have the very large smale park and bicentennial commons for exercise.  I think that has as much to do about the low sale rate of the Ascent as does the pricing.

 

Then you look at the condo building going up in Hyde Park, and I bet all those will be sold out by the time it opens.  And those prices are touching $1 million or more.  So I think it's all about the location.

 

 

I assume that the high HOA fee is caused in part by poor occupancy -- it has never had full occupancy throughout its 8-9 year existence (it was completed in late 2007 or early 2008, if my memory is correct, so just shortly before the recession), so they've have fewer people contributing to the HOA than expected.  The penthouse and a few of the higher-priced units never sold and so a few of the owners who could have been paying the most have never paid in anything.  The building is also very unique so it will likely have higher ongoing repair bills for the roof and any exterior work.  I do like the building (I generally like Liebeskind's designs) but I think the shortcoming of the building are the balconies, which I don't sense are spaces that people really want to use.  You're too "exposed" on them.  The new condos on Scott St. look like they're going to be really nice, very practical spaces. 

 

There is going to be a feeding frenzy in Covington if the streetcar makes it across.  Most likely it will be in the Mainstrasse area or parallel to the C&O tracks right down the middle.  Buildings in the Mainstrasse and the historic area south from the suspension bridge to about 8th St. (southern edge of the legally protected historic area) are pretty fairly priced at the moment.  But south of that it's dirt cheap even though many of the buildings are in good condition and just as "historic" as those in the historic areas.  8th St. in Covington is about the same distance from Fountain Square as Klotter or Dorchester. 

 

 

 

Would that even make sense though? I was told that the developer of a building has to pay the HOA dues of the units never sold once the HOA is set up. They did in my building until all 33 units were sold which took about 9 months or so. I thought that was something that's federally regulated and is required by law so that people can still get loans for units in condo buildings.

There is going to be a feeding frenzy in Covington if the streetcar makes it across.  Most likely it will be in the Mainstrasse area or parallel to the C&O tracks right down the middle.  Buildings in the Mainstrasse and the historic area south from the suspension bridge to about 8th St. (southern edge of the legally protected historic area) are pretty fairly priced at the moment.  But south of that it's dirt cheap even though many of the buildings are in good condition and just as "historic" as those in the historic areas.  8th St. in Covington is about the same distance from Fountain Square as Klotter or Dorchester. 

There's a fair amount of rehab going on near my office at Pike and Madison in Covington. This stretch of Madison and even going south is pretty complete and has some very nice signature buildings. I don't know prices but I bet they are a steal compared to OTR.

 

But as has been discussed, the downside is that it just feels isolated, especially after 5. The long time retail establishments like Motch Jewelry have hung on by name recognition and customer loyalty, and are probably just hoping the repopulation wave comes in before their existing customer base is gone. Likewise for the new retail shops that have opened recently. Thank God for Braxton brewery and Gateway college -- the new Covington Hotel will be a great addition.

 

This whole area just feels like it would explode with a well designed streetcar transit option connecting to the Banks. But given what we went through on the Ohio side, and the strength of the NKY tea party, it makes me shudder to even contemplate. And I'm usually optimistic.

Would that even make sense though? I was told that the developer of a building has to pay the HOA dues of the units never sold once the HOA is set up. They did in my building until all 33 units were sold which took about 9 months or so. I thought that was something that's federally regulated and is required by law so that people can still get loans for units in condo buildings.

Yes. The developer must be paying those fees to the association. So they must be thinking its still worth it to wait rather than drop the prices significantly. They might also have pressure from existing tenants not to do so.

Would that even make sense though? I was told that the developer of a building has to pay the HOA dues of the units never sold once the HOA is set up. They did in my building until all 33 units were sold which took about 9 months or so. I thought that was something that's federally regulated and is required by law so that people can still get loans for units in condo buildings.

Yes. The developer must be paying those fees to the association. So they must be thinking its still worth it to wait rather than drop the prices significantly. They might also have pressure from existing tenants not to do so.

 

I don't know the details for certain but the situation with that building seems more complex than most.  The building was developed by Corporex which is making money (I assume) out in Denver these days but who lost The Baldwin Building in Walnut Hills to foreclosure several years ago.  Meanwhile Covington councilman Steven Frank claims (he talks too much!) that he was an "investor" in The Ascent, but he lives there also.  That makes me suspicious that he got his unit at a discount in exchange for his general investment in the building (assuming he wasn't just totally making that up, which he often does).  But Frank does a poor job hiding the fact that he seeks higher office and they he's depending on big donations from NKY developers to fund his campaigns.  So he gets on the radio and Facebook poo-pooing the streetcar even though it's the thing that would no doubt help improve his personal investment in The Ascent. 

 

Also, his association with Corporex means he's associated with a high-risk developer who gets ridiculous loans and assembles investment groups that require huge government subsidies and still sometimes fail.  For example, the Rivercenter towers were built on top of garages that the City of Covington funded, and which now collect little revenue due to the tenants moving across to Cincinnati a few years ago.  Everything Corporex and Frank do is worlds away from the meat-and-potatoes finance that they espouse as part of their public personas. 

 

 

I guess a good question then is who are the current owners of those units that never sold. Is it still Corporex? Or is it something else entirely? And if it's something else would that even matter since whoever owns them is still the owner meaning they'd have to pay the HOA dues just like any other owner would.

 

I'm just not sure there's a workaround that results in unsold units not contributing to the HOA.

Looking at Covington, that downtown area really does have a ton of potential.  I was looking at stats and in 1950 the peak population was 64,000, now it is around 41,000.  The interesting thing to me and maybe someone can tell me this, did Covington annex a lot of land to the south from it's original boundaries?  Reason I ask is because the building stock looks as though you could fit 20k more just in the immediate downtown area alone.  I don't know how empty a lot of those buildings are, but the streetcar system would definitely do wonders for this area especially along Pike Street and up Madison possibly.

 

Newport also has great building stock on Monmouth Street that would see a nice jolt with the streetcar.  I think Covington stands the most to gain, though.

The City of Covington is actually pretty big because it encompasses all of Latonia (which most people assume is a separate town or city) and then another 5+ miles due south into the undeveloped hills.  Where I-275 passes through Covington is only about halfway down -- the city limits extend for 3-4 miles south of I-275 into the hills.  There are some subdivisions down there but not many. 

 

Latonia has a real business district similar to Hamilton Ave. in Northside with almost no fast food or other chains and would really take off if it had a fast transit link that paralleled the C&O tracks into DT Cincinnati.  The big technical issue is that freight railroad tracks cross its main street at-grade meaning surface streetcar or light rail can't happen.  Also, the C&O mainline travels through a short bored tunnel between Latonia and the basin part of Covington so ideally there would be a continuous tunnel for transit that would take people right into the center of that business district.    Building a transit line parallel to the C&O north of the tunnel or on Madison is pretty straightforward, but a tunnel would allow trains to gain a big time advantage over current buses or surface rail while bypassing a pretty thinly-populated hilly interlude that separates to the two flat parts of the city. 

^I've never heard this discussed, but then I guess Latonia doesn't get a lot of love.  What you're describing would be very cool.

Newport also has great building stock on Monmouth Street that would see a nice jolt with the streetcar.  I think Covington stands the most to gain, though.

 

Covington does have the most to gain, just by virtue of how much bigger it is than Newport, Bellevue, Dayon, and Ludlow.  Newport, on the other hand, would turn around faster and easier.  The two possible bridge crossings into Newport are basically in the middle of a narrow city, and a single streetcar line that ran south to 10th and then bent west toward Covington would activate pretty much all of what you would normally think of as "Newport" (the rest is just shopping centers and hillside neighborhoods with great views but not really reachable via streetcar anyway).  The housing in Newport would take off, since it consists primarily of ~100-year-old well-built single-family units and duplexes.  These structures are very attainable by individuals and comparatively easy to rehab, as opposed to most of the enormous buildings in OTR (Covington is a mix between the two).  I think OTR would be developing even faster if the buildings weren't out of reach for individual rehabbers.

 

So while Covington has more potential, the first streetcar line through Covington won't have the same city-wide effect that it would through Newport.  Hopefully they can figure out a suitable crossing into Covington that doesn't require a new bridge, because the CWB, Roebling, and 4th street bridges all have issues.  The 11th street bridge is new, but it's really long and I have no idea if it was built to handle something like a streetcar.

Historically the streetcars to Latonia diverted via 34th to Caroline to use the underpass that was built there, abandoning the grade crossing on Decourcy.  It's not a big detour, but it's still kind of clumsy. 

Connecting Covington with Cincinnati is a pretty complicated riddle...inevitably there will be compromises, even if two crossings were built.  I'm worried about a straightforward connection between The Banks and Madison because an ugly new bridge so close to the suspension bridge could distract and destroy the charm of the old bridge.  Moving all TANK buses from the Clay Wade to a new bridge is compelling, since it would save 2 miles from each of their round trips, but again I'm not convinced that this will be pulled off in a way that improves the aesthetics of the riverfront.  The new cable-stayed bridge in Portland is ugly and a similar bridge here would take a lot of focus away from the old suspensions bridge.  To its credit, the simple design of the Taylor-Southgate was chosen in part to save money and in part to prevent a distraction in the skyline. 

 

 

 

I think, with many of the recent ideas floated about The Banks, we are losing sight of the master plan. In order for The Banks to succeed, we need a combination of office workers, residents, and retail establishments that will help balance out the neighborhood. Right now The Banks has an influx of people for Bengals and Reds games and is mostly dead otherwise. Residents and office workers will help support the retail on non-game days. One of the recent ideas included adding a music venue, but that would add yet another attraction that would only be active 2 or 3 days per week at most. Putting the UC Law School there would at least add some M-F activity and help support some of the restaurants, but I think it would be better to add some office space that could generate revenue and help increase the ROI of all The Banks' infrastructure, rather than a non-profit that would presumably not be paying property taxes on its building.

Connecting Covington with Cincinnati is a pretty complicated riddle...inevitably there will be compromises, even if two crossings were built.  I'm worried about a straightforward connection between The Banks and Madison because an ugly new bridge so close to the suspension bridge could distract and destroy the charm of the old bridge.  Moving all TANK buses from the Clay Wade to a new bridge is compelling, since it would save 2 miles from each of their round trips, but again I'm not convinced that this will be pulled off in a way that improves the aesthetics of the riverfront.  The new cable-stayed bridge in Portland is ugly and a similar bridge here would take a lot of focus away from the old suspensions bridge.  To its credit, the simple design of the Taylor-Southgate was chosen in part to save money and in part to prevent a distraction in the skyline.

 

I thought that at least one of the bridges was built with the idea that rail was to be used at a future date and could be added. Yes/No? 

No, none of the Ohio River bridges.  The Taylor-Southgate Bridge is the newest (1995 I think) and it predated OKI's I-71 light rail study.  Some features of that plan were incorporated into Ft. Washington Way when it was rebuilt 1998-2000.  The streetcar is taking advantage of the prepping done back in the 90s for the planned system that never came to fruition. 

This is a bit random, but wanted to get UO thoughts. Does anyone else think that Total Quality Logistics (TQL) would be a top candidate to relocate to a new HQ post at The Banks?  They are one of Cincinnati's largest private companies, are consistently expanding, they do a full court press to recruit young talent, they have an active presence in a lot of events downtown, and I think they would love to see their brand on the city's skyline.

 

I believe it was a few years ago that they were planning to build a new office next to their current location, but they decided to put that on hold. I can't help but think that every time I see their name pop up in an article, I hope to see some interest downtown.

 

Thoughts?

This is a bit random, but wanted to get UO thoughts. Does anyone else think that Total Quality Logistics (TQL) would be a top candidate to relocate to a new HQ post at The Banks?  They are one of Cincinnati's largest private companies, are consistently expanding, they do a full court press to recruit young talent, they have an active presence in a lot of events downtown, and I think they would love to see their brand on the city's skyline.

 

I believe it was a few years ago that they were planning to build a new office next to their current location, but they decided to put that on hold. I can't help but think that every time I see their name pop up in an article, I hope to see some interest downtown.

 

Thoughts?

 

Interesting you should bring that up.  My youngest brother works for TQL in Nashville and their office is in DT Nashville, above one of the tourist bars.  He told me that the salesmen there have the nasty habit of photocopying concert tickets and selling them to tourists on the street during their lunch break.  Also, they have had more than one punch thrown and objects thrown across that office. 

 

TQL's office over on the east side of town might be there simply because the company's owner lives over there and wants a short drive to work for himself. 

 

 

 

^ They have a relatively new building in that office park in Eastgate so I can't seem them making a move right now. Although you are correct that they sponsor a lot of events in Downtown and OTR, so they're clearly trying to present a "hip" image to their employees and potential employees.

Yeah they've gone full google out in union township with basketball courts, exercise equipment, food/snacks.

 

All they need is to start running a bus from Central Parkway out there every morning and night as a service for all that young talent that has chosen to live in civilization!  :laugh:

http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/02/02/uc-board-takes-another-look-at-law-school-move-to.html

 

Looks like the law school is closer to moving.

I'm geeked about that. I think it would be great for TB and it could set some other things in motion as well.

 

Edit: My guess is that we would get an architecturally significant building if UC decides that they should take the same approach as they have on their Uptown campuses.

I'm geeked about that. I think it would be great for TB and it could set some other things in motion as well.

 

Edit: My guess is that we would get an architecturally significant building if UC decides that they should take the same approach as they have on their Uptown campuses.

 

Have you met Beth McGrew (lead university architect)? Hell will freeze over before she lets some cookie cutter UC building go up in downtown.

My only concern is one of scale/building density. As long as this is just as tall as the buildings around it I'm fine. But based on their square footage needs it might wind up a bit shorter which wouldn't be ideal.

The Enquirer has a rendering with this caption:

Architectural designs of the proposed The Banks College of Law were unveiled at the February 2nd Board of Trustees meeting.

(Photo: Provided/University of Cincinnati)

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/02/02/uc-committee-votes-move-law-school-downtown/79690518/

Hm...that rendering is somewhat disconcerting. Are those multiple phases or are the white masses other aspects of that phase of The Banks that wouldn't be the Law School? Because if we're going to be looking at something phased here I'm not a fan. I don't want anymore blank pads waiting for "future" buildings to show up.

^I have no idea but based on the facade around the base of the building looking the same with the white masses, it could be for the whole building.  But how many law students are there at UC, could it fill that whole building? (sorry too lazy to look up)

 

Edit: I just looked up, it was easier than I thought  :laugh: 414 students in 2010

That's my concern. Their current plans call for only 120,000-140,000 square feet of space. If that's all we get out of this ENTIRE block that would be a massive disappointment and terrible use of The Banks. But that tower massing makes me believe there's more to it than that. Whether or not that's directly College of Law related or if it would be housing that was architecturally integrated into the College of Law, or something else would remain to be seen. But that massing shows far more than 120,000-140,000 square feet of building. Hence my concerns/confusion.

That's my concern. Their current plans call for only 120,000-140,000 square feet of space. If that's all we get out of this ENTIRE block that would be a massive disappointment and terrible use of The Banks. But that tower massing makes me believe there's more to it than that. Whether or not that's directly College of Law related or if it would be housing that was architecturally integrated into the College of Law, or something else would remain to be seen. But that massing shows far more than 120,000-140,000 square feet of building. Hence my concerns/confusion.

 

Adding in some student housing would be a good idea to fill the space.

The AC Hotel construction is up to the first level:

 

 

Given their smaller space needs and the rendering of unconventionally shaped building that doesn't take up the whole block would it be a better idea for the law school to move to the more oddly shaped lots between Paul Brown Stadium and Race St.? (Numbered lots 5 and 10?) There probably wouldn't be much activity at the school during game/event times at the stadium and vice versa. It just seems like Lot 24 is the "meat" of it where we could fit a lot of residents.

 

https://cincinnatiideas.wordpress.com/the-banks-phase-3/

I agree 100%. While the law school would be a great addition, that's only 400ish people being added and that rendering above shows zero street level activity or retail space. Building a parking garage on top of a parking garage is also crazy and I really like the idea of breaking up these super blocks into something more pedestrian scaled. Regardless of which block it ends up in I also think it should include student housing on the block as well.

The rendering provided is only conceptual, and the final design will probably look significantly different and would have to be agreeable to the planning commission and the banks developers as well. Also - they have mentioned that while the Law school would be the 'anchor' of UC at the Banks there could be various other academic components as well. But those details have been vague...but could add substantially to the daily amount of people who would be there.

 

Also - for academic / office space it does seem completely backwards to require more dedicated parking to be built when a 950+ space parking garage is being built underneath it currently.

When you consider that the GE building only takes up a third of the block, and will have space for over 1,000 employees, it's clear that UC doesn't need a full block for the Law School. But I think the rendering they provided makes it clear that they don't intend to use the full block, which is good news if they work with Carter to build out the rest of the block with high density use (a condo tower would be a nice complement).   

 

Outside of Lot 24, I'm not clear what the Parks plan is for Lot 23: the green space between this Lot 24 and Mehring way... My biggest concern is that we're going to end up with too much green space with too few people to fill it. I would hate for UC to design their Law School with lots of outdoor spaces and then have the Parks build a park right next door that nobody uses.

 

I agree that it would be a little ridiculous to build a facility that had its own park space and parking garage on top of the most amenitized urban land in the state. I think the city understands this and we'll see something different.

I definitely think that a UC law school would be better built somewhere closer to one of the many empty lots near the County Courthouse.  Nevertheless, I don't know why the law school couldn't use one of the the lots across from PBS (3 or 19, I can't clearly read the numbers).  That way they can have a low rise building, and entire lot with a private quad or lawn, and Lot 24 could be used for something better.  Or build on 19 and ask the City to keep Lot 21 clear.

This is what we need to do to break up the superblock and increase building density at the banks:

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4986766,-81.6900485,3a,75y,356.61h,88.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKyDmvlsMsIvlj9DzyIzARg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656