Looks like some of the public money would go toward lifting the music venue above the river.  I kind of wish it could go in lot 23 below but maybe they can't put it there for potential noise issues.  Even in the location by Paul Brown it would still help get more people to the banks year round and add a nice new concert venue for the city.

 

My only concern is that will it compete directly with Riverbend for the same acts and people. This would have an out of town owner whereas Riverbend is owned by the CSO so there is a much bigger tangible benefit to having acts at that venue as opposed to the Banks since the money from Riverbend directly supports local arts.

As I've ranted before in this thread, I'm not a big fan of the idea of adding a music venue at The Banks. What will make The Banks succeed is adding more residents and office space that will be occupied at least 5 days a week. However, I feel a little bit better about this proposal since it's not actually taking up space at The Banks, it's replacing an industrial site on our riverfront.

 

It should be obvious at this point that Reds and Bengals crowds are not enough to make retail at The Banks succeed. PromoWest is claiming that the new venue would host 180 events per year. Most likely, some of those would overlap with Reds/Bengals games, but it should drastically reduce the number of days that there's "nothing going on" at The Banks.

 

I am not too concerned with MEMI getting some competition. I have never heard anybody say good things about the way MEMI runs Riverbend/PNC Pavilion (or Midpoint Music Festival for that matter). If the bands that currently go the PNC Pavilion start coming to the urban core, I think that will have a bigger economic impact on our city. But more importantly, I think that PromoWest will be able to attract more bands that currently skip over Cincinnati. I have driven up to Columbus to see bands at PromoWest's venue many times, and it would be great to see some of those bands adding Cincinnati to their tours.

 

The one major concern that I still have about adding a new music venue is that it will reduce the likelihood of The Emery ever being renovated.

Not good news: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/01/22/hamilton-county-week-ask-developers-build-music-venue-banks/1054032001/

Whether it’s an indoor or outdoor venue and where at the Banks it would locate depends on who the developer is and what’s proposed. The most likely location pointed out at the board of commissioners meeting would be where the parking lots are located just east of Paul Brown Stadium.

 

Parking Lot E along the river might also be used, but would require the venue being raised out of the floodplain, Gabelman said.

Emphasis added.

County commissioners move toward putting new entertainment venue at the Banks

 

 

Hamilton County commissioners are moving toward putting a music and entertainment venue at the Banks, but they emphasized that no deal is in place.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/01/22/county-commissioners-move-toward-putting-new.html

Not good news: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/01/22/hamilton-county-week-ask-developers-build-music-venue-banks/1054032001/

Whether it’s an indoor or outdoor venue and where at the Banks it would locate depends on who the developer is and what’s proposed. The most likely location pointed out at the board of commissioners meeting would be where the parking lots are located just east of Paul Brown Stadium.

 

Parking Lot E along the river might also be used, but would require the venue being raised out of the floodplain, Gabelman said.

Emphasis added.

 

That sounds like the portion of the park that is still to be built on a pedestal just south of the block they recently finished. Was never slated to be a building, so I'd be fine with that.

 

Any location where there were previously buildings proposed should be met with extreme opposition. There is no reason the Banks shouldn't be built out as anticipated from the get go in order to create a proper neighborhood, not a destination that is empty at all other times.

Not good news: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/01/22/hamilton-county-week-ask-developers-build-music-venue-banks/1054032001/

Whether it’s an indoor or outdoor venue and where at the Banks it would locate depends on who the developer is and what’s proposed. The most likely location pointed out at the board of commissioners meeting would be where the parking lots are located just east of Paul Brown Stadium.

 

Parking Lot E along the river might also be used, but would require the venue being raised out of the floodplain, Gabelman said.

Emphasis added.

 

That sounds like the portion of the park that is still to be built on a pedestal just south of the block they recently finished. Was never slated to be a building, so I'd be fine with that.

 

Any location where there were previously buildings proposed should be met with extreme opposition. There is no reason the Banks shouldn't be built out as anticipated from the get go in order to create a proper neighborhood, not a destination that is empty at all other times.

 

I hope you're right, but I'm afraid they want to build ON TOP of the new garage. The parcel south of the new parking garage is not very large, it's an odd shape, and it's in the flood plain... so presumably it would have to be raised up out of the flood plane, too. The PromoWest facility in Columbus is roughly 300'x300'... which would take up almost an entire block at The Banks (the new garage is ~400'x300'). I'm afraid the County thinks the best use of that whole block would be putting in this concert venue.

Is it not going on the lot E and Hilltop Property to the SW of PBS? That is what the B&W render in the Courier (i think it was them) had.

 

Seems like only the structure housing the stage would have to be above high tide. 

Seems like only the structure housing the stage would have to be above high tide. 

And then have outdoor seating below the flood plain, looking up to the stage? Seems like an ergonomic nightmare.

That's how Riverbend works.  The Riverbend seating area under the roof has been underwater in the springtime many times.  The riverfront near Paul Brown is probably 5-10 feet higher, so expect 30-year gaps between flood events. 

If they are going forward with this, I would imagine it would be a venue like Stage AE in Pittsburgh (or Express Live in Columbus). An act that's too big for places like Woodward Theater or Taft Theater, and too small for Riverbend or US Bank.

 

EDIT: Lot E looks too small/awkward for this development, but I could be wrong. Stage AE in Pittsburgh measures 330'x250' approx.

Not good news: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2018/01/22/hamilton-county-week-ask-developers-build-music-venue-banks/1054032001/

Whether it’s an indoor or outdoor venue and where at the Banks it would locate depends on who the developer is and what’s proposed. The most likely location pointed out at the board of commissioners meeting would be where the parking lots are located just east of Paul Brown Stadium.

 

Parking Lot E along the river might also be used, but would require the venue being raised out of the floodplain, Gabelman said.

Emphasis added.

 

That sounds like the portion of the park that is still to be built on a pedestal just south of the block they recently finished. Was never slated to be a building, so I'd be fine with that.

 

Any location where there were previously buildings proposed should be met with extreme opposition. There is no reason the Banks shouldn't be built out as anticipated from the get go in order to create a proper neighborhood, not a destination that is empty at all other times.

 

I hope you're right, but I'm afraid they want to build ON TOP of the new garage. The parcel south of the new parking garage is not very large, it's an odd shape, and it's in the flood plain... so presumably it would have to be raised up out of the flood plane, too. The PromoWest facility in Columbus is roughly 300'x300'... which would take up almost an entire block at The Banks (the new garage is ~400'x300'). I'm afraid the County thinks the best use of that whole block would be putting in this concert venue.

 

It is cheaper and easier to build on the existing parking deck. No one cares about people living, working, or whatever there. Bring on the endless entertainment district!!

I don't have a problem with The Banks adding a music venue, as I do think something along those lines would help consistently make the area more active. For these entertainment driven districts, the key is to really have them activated as much as possible throughout the year. The Reds do a pretty good job of this in the spring and summer, but the Bengals only have 8 home games a year, and the events at US Bank Arena are pretty spread out, and many don't attract very large crowds anyways (Cyclones).

 

However, this line in the article causes me some concern: “We think it’s something that master developers across the country will see as a real plus,” Gabelman said." This tells me that the County or Banks steering committee or whatever is having a hard time finding a master developer to take over after Carter quit. While many of us here saw the departure of Carter as a good thing, given how slow the Banks has been built out and how lackluster much of the architecture has been, I personally was not aware that they walked away from the project, but rather was under the impression that the County essentially fired them. A developer just walking away from a project such as this is very troubling, IMO. What's even more troubling is that the County/steering committee is apparently having a hard time selling The Banks as a development site for master developers. 

 

The general riverfront area has: a major league baseball stadium, a major league football stadium, a major museum (two if you count the Reds HOF and Museum, too), a world class park, an arena, a streetcar connection to Downtown and OTR, and massive parking facilities already built. That we are having trouble attracting developers to a site with all those assets (not to mention adjacency to Downtown and all its employees) is a real head scratcher for me. What gives? How do areas with MUCH less to see and do (Columbus arena district, for example) seem to be thriving, but Cincinnati's prime development site struggles?

I think the problems at The Banks are simply a symptom of low population gains. We simply aren't growing the local population enough to justify the development we want to see. 

I think the Banks would benefit from more finely grained development. It’s a big ask for someone to come in build a huge block sized building on top of a County owned garage platform with additional parking above.

 

Speaking of which, it doesn’t seem like the stadiums are sharing the County owned parking with the development that’s going in at the Banks. How can Over the Rhine and the West End get anything (anything that satisfies the parking minimums when new development is proposed that is) out of a possible soccer stadium garage if the city and county can’t work anything out with a planned 8,000 spaces at the Banks?

 

The general riverfront area has: a major league baseball stadium, a major league football stadium, a major museum (two if you count the Reds HOF and Museum, too), a world class park, an arena, a streetcar connection to Downtown and OTR, and massive parking facilities already built. That we are having trouble attracting developers to a site with all those assets (not to mention adjacency to Downtown and all its employees) is a real head scratcher for me. What gives? How do areas with MUCH less to see and do (Columbus arena district, for example) seem to be thriving, but Cincinnati's prime development site struggles?

 

Columbusites are more adventurous. For many, the city is new to them. They don't have that old been there, done that feeling even though they actually haven't been there, done that like Old Cincinnati does. Instead, somebody else told them about it. Meanwhile, Stryker doesn't have anything on Columbus so it's like an intern exploring D.C.

I think the Banks would benefit from more finely grained development. It’s a big ask for someone to come in build a huge block sized building on top of a County owned garage platform with additional parking above.

 

I've said that already.  Subdivide these blocks into lots and zone it so that developers can do smaller multi-families. 

Unfortunately with the way they are supported by the garage underneath, smaller fine grained urbanism is essentially impossible.

 

What could happen though is that instead of one or two buildings per block, it could be 6. Four corner buildings and two mid-block buildings. They'd still be large buildings and could still work with the structure below, but would offer much more variety. Building a common courtyard type space in the middle they would all have access to and let the developers (all different) do the rest. It's a decent compromise between the realities of development in the 21st century and a goal of finer grained urban environments.

Cost to complete the Banks, Fort Washington Way decks could hit $200 million

By Chris Wetterich  –  Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

It could cost between $180 million and $200 million to build out the parking garages and other infrastructure needed to raise the rest of the Banks riverfront development out of the Ohio River’s flood plain and to construct decks over Fort Washington Way.

 

Those were the figures given to Hamilton County commissioners by Phil Beck, the Banks’ project executive, on Monday. The buildout of 15 acres – 11 on the riverfront and another four over Fort Washington Way – would happen over the next decade. The project currently has about $21 million in place now. Beck oversees the public infrastructure at the site.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/01/23/cost-to-complete-public-portion-of-the-banks-fort.html

There was some talk of maybe the concert venue could use the Hilltop Concrete site, so I was interested to learn that Hilltop Concrete is building a new site near CVG, to service the growing needs around the airport (especially because of the Amazon air hub): https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/01/23/exclusive-concrete-maker-to-add-plant-near-cvg-to.html

 

From the article, though, there's no mention of closing their riverfront facility next to Paul Brown Stadium. They say they're growing so much that they need multiple facilities. So, it doesn't seem like they're ready to move away from their riverfront site any time soon.

I think the problems at The Banks are simply a symptom of low population gains. We simply aren't growing the local population enough to justify the development we want to see.

 

Eh, I don't know if that explanation really holds up. With all of the regional draws on the riverfront, The Banks should not have to rely on local residents for the bulk of their support. You have millions of people attending events and going to attractions on the riverfront every year- an advantage that no where else in the region has. That alone should give The Banks a leg up.

 

Also, other cities with similar populations and growth rates (or even worse) are developing their prime real estate at faster rates than Cincinnati. Pittsburgh is a relative boomtown compared to Cincy, and their city (I think) and regional (definitely) populations are declining. Baltimore, though a bigger city and region, has way more problems than Cincinnati, but their waterfront is also booming, even while the Inner Harbor continues to be pretty healthy. Columbus is growing faster than Cincinnati, but the metro population is still a bit smaller (especially if you account for Dayton in the unofficial CSA of Cincy) and the Arena District has been a tremendous success and continues to grow in a major way. It can't all be about population and growth. Not with all of the other assets that exist in the immediate area around The Banks.

 

I think one major problem is the freeway trench, and the psychological barrier that creates for the riverfront. Yes, it's just a quick 2 block walk from the CBD to The Banks, but the freeway trench is loud and barren, and you have to go down a hill to get to the riverfront from the heart of the CBD. The streetcar SHOULD help enhance the connection of these districts, but it's currently a mess and not doing it's job in any meaningful way. Quiet the noise of FWW and make that area an attractive or at least unoffensive space, and I think The Banks would benefit immensely. The area, as it stands now, is a bit of an island. The architecture and urban design of the development is....lacking (to be nice), and you have much better options for entertainment either Downtown, OTR, or even Newport or Mainstrasse in Covington. If we can just make The Banks a more enjoyable place to hangout, that would help, but more than that, enhancing connections to the rest of the core would really benefit it too. Make it seem like just another integrated district downtown, and less of a destination. Once the streetcar becomes better, perhaps the riverfront garages can be used as a parking location for the whole basin, thus funneling more visitors through the Banks.

 

I know this was kind of a long winded post, but I think the general point I'm trying to make is that simply citing slow regional and city growth for the struggles at The Banks is simplistic and ultimately unproductive. There ARE things that can be done to improve the situation there beyond simply hoping for more housing or a sudden growth spurt for Cincinnati.

Finishing the Banks: A master developer, multiple developers or case-by-case?

 

The Joint Banks Steering Committee, a panel that makes recommendations to the city of Cincinnati and Hamilton County on how to develop the mixed-use project along the Ohio River, approved Tuesday a request for proposals for a new concert and entertainment venue and a request for qualifications for developers of the remaining 11 acres of the project.

 

But the committee members debated whether to change course from the approach of the first third of the project, which was to grant control to a master developer, give it deadlines to build and let it line up tenants and individual projects.

 

Steve Leeper, CEO of Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. and a member of the committee, suggested it would be better to open up the remaining lots to individual proposals on an ad hoc basis. Leeper said he believes that would produce competition that would spur creativity amongst developers and for them to bring their best relationships with potential tenants to the table.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/01/23/finishing-the-banks-a-master-developer-multiple.html

*crosses fingers they go the multiple developer or case-by-case route so there's more variety*

Completely agree. I also think going with multiple developers moving forward would open it up to more local developers who might care more about the long term success of the project. Some of the local, and even Indy  or Columbus based developers might not want to (or be able to) be in charge of the whole thing but might take one block under consideration.

Subdivide the blocks into lots. 

As I stated above, 6 buildings per block would do wonders in varying the feel of each portion of the development. The bonus is that it also opens up significantly more developers to be able to take that project on. Full block development isn't something everyone is capable of so they were limiting themselves by developing via that method.

I understand wanting to get different architectural styles, but I still think a master developer is critical if we want to get a nice mix of uses at The Banks. If we let politicians run the show, they're just going to allow each lot to be developed for whatever is the quickest/easiest win at the moment (like, potentially, this music venue) instead of demanding that it be a mix of uses.

taestell[/member] - I agree that there needs to be a coherent plan and master vision, even if (especially if!) multiple developers are engaged for smaller parcels. At this point, I’m not sure who would set that vision. I don’t trust the County Commissioners to plan appropriately. Maybe the new master developer could simply set the plan/vision for the parcels and then other developers could bid on each parcel? Not sure if that arrangement has been done in other circumstances like this (large parcels of high value publicly owned land).

 

Is this not the master plan for The Banks? I believe this was created before Carter, so I don't think it's their work. Are you all suggesting a rethinking of this plan?

It is, but I am worried that without a master developer pushing everything along, Hamilton County will just fill in all of those "future development" blocks with whatever is easiest at the moment, instead of what would be more effective in making The Banks into a more sustainable neighborhood.

A zoning overlay with certain requirements like street wall height, unit density, street level retail requirements, etc. can help solve any concerns about making sure the best and highest use is what's built and not just what's easiest.

10~ years ago, either on this thread or somewhere else, I stated that The Banks will never be a real neighborhood because it won't have churches, it won't have a post office, it won't have a barber shop in the back of a lawnmower repair shop.  Nothing organic can possibly happen with corporate mega-ownership.  There has to be varied ownership of varied buildings. 

The latest request for funding to the state includes $2.5 million for The Banks, including an “alternative location” for the concert venue... not sure if that means it would be south of Mehring Way (I hope!) or in the little sliver of park space planned north of Mehring and south of the latest garage: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/22/lawmakers-ax-money-proposed-film-campus-wasson-way-list-gop-leaders/1054908001/

“Add 730 parking spaces to The Banks parking garage, complete next phase of Smale Riverfront Park and accomodate an alternative location for a potential $20 million performance pavilion and event center.”

That certainly sounds like at the very least it isn't the block south of GE. At least I'm hoping.

 

I get frustrated by the county's choices often, but I do think they're smart enough to realize that replacing 24/7 activity (apartments, retail, offices, etc.) with an event stage isn't a wise choice in the long run and that they should accommodate the event venue in a location that wasn't intended to be buildings.

Obviously you can always add more apartments but I think they really need to get more office space and another hotel at the banks.  They need to just find someone to build the 180 Walnut building and then try to find tenants after.  Clearly waiting for one big tenant is not working.  Another hotel would also help getting more people in that area 24/7.  I'm also surprised they haven't put any condos there and only gone with apartments.  You'd have to pick specific locations for the condos like having them face the park so they're not in the middle of all the bar noise.  I think the concert venue will be a great addition though I agree it shouldn't go in the block just south GE. 

^Yeah, we're almost 20 years into this and not a single condo has been built. 

Thought they dropped the condo component of the project. Plus until the last 3-4 years the market was not right for condo development around here.

We keep hearing that developers are afraid to build condos downtown because no other developers are building condos downtown. It's so bizarre. They can look at what condos are selling for in OTR and expect to get similar prices for similarly-sized, similarly-finished condos in the CBD, but apparently each side of Central Parkway is its own unique world with a different set of rules.

None of the condo developments in OTR are particularly big.  By comparison, the big condo towers going up in places like Toronto have 100~ units.

Honestly I think the method should to fully build out with the residential components being rentals with the intention of transitioning to condos further down the line. Owning something is a much bigger investment and people have options in Cincy. Buying into an unfinished development of this scale is a big commitment to something you have no control over. Rentals aren't. But when it's built out and you transition a building, or part of a building to an ownership model, people might have a lot less hesitations.

^ you are proposing 2 completely different operating models that are not necessarily in line with each other and to do something like this on a high end build would be next to impossible because no bank would finance such a thing. You can do one or the other but not build your model around the condo conversion years down the line. Now where you see this taking place is when you have investors buying the already constructed property and then changing it to condo or apartment. You would essentially have to wait for a new owner to do this.

Which is exactly the current model The Banks has been built with. The buildings are built, then sold to another investor. The original apartments aren't owned by Carter. Are the second phase even still owned by them?

 

Condo conversions happen all over all the time. It's not a small task, but it normally coincides with the timing of a major remodeling effort since apartments are going to be vacated anyway in order to upgrade them to current standards.

 

3CDC has done this on many of their buildings as a local example.

Perhaps some of the trouble with building this thing out is that developers are making more money in the hotter real estate environments like Denver and Nashville.  So not that there isn't demand in Cincinnati but rather that there is much more in about a dozen spots around the country.  It doesn't cost much more to build there but they can charge much higher rents or command much higher sale prices for condos.  That makes the financing a perfunctory matter. 

 

Cincinnati has a wide variety of housing and neighborhood types that dilute the demand for this metro's downtown.  All of the river and hillside views have motivated construction of thousands of high-end condos, homes, and apartments that might have otherwise been built in or near downtown over the past 30-40 years.  Places like Charlotte and Denver have no views or water.  Nashville has a river but it is not scenic. 

 

 

^I will have to run that one by my buddy in Denver the next time he brags for the 100th time about his view of the Rocky Mountains from his third floor deck. ;)

Which is exactly the current model The Banks has been built with. The buildings are built, then sold to another investor. The original apartments aren't owned by Carter. Are the second phase even still owned by them?

 

Condo conversions happen all over all the time. It's not a small task, but it normally coincides with the timing of a major remodeling effort since apartments are going to be vacated anyway in order to upgrade them to current standards.

 

3CDC has done this on many of their buildings as a local example.

 

3CDC often did the apartment-to-condo conversion to coincide with the end of the historic tax credit waiting period, because as mandated by the IRS no major ownership changes can happen during the first 5 years after claiming the tax credits.

^I will have to run that one by my buddy in Denver the next time he brags for the 100th time about his view of the Rocky Mountains from his third floor deck. ;)

Haha. As long as you have west-facing windows in Denver, you can advertise "mountain views"! If your windows only face east... then you can advertise "lovely view of flat, endless plains".

^I will have to run that one by my buddy in Denver the next time he brags for the 100th time about his view of the Rocky Mountains from his third floor deck. ;)

 

There aren't many homes on the slopes of the mountains.  It's not like people in Pasadena or the flat part of Hollywood brag about being able to see a mountain range.  People *do* pay huge money to buy or rent homes in the Hollywood Hills. 

 

 

Denver is the Kansas half of Colorado. The mountains are there, and they're beautiful but always in the background. Not really a part of your life unless you road-trip out to them.

^I will have to run that one by my buddy in Denver the next time he brags for the 100th time about his view of the Rocky Mountains from his third floor deck. ;)

 

There aren't many homes on the slopes of the mountains.  It's not like people in Pasadena or the flat part of Hollywood brag about being able to see a mountain range.  People *do* pay huge money to buy or rent homes in the Hollywood Hills.

 

That's true. The mountains are visible just about anywhere in the LA area, and they're never listed as a selling point for real estate, though I do find them very nice to look at. South LA has some of the best views of the San Gabriel Mountains, and portions of the Inland Empire also have pretty cool mountain views, but those areas are where the cheapest real estate can be found in Southern California. Views of the ocean or FROM the mountains are another story.

 

I agree with your point about the expensive urban condo market being spread out in Cincinnati given the topography and various vistas that exist. Lots of cities don't really have a Mt. Adams or Eden Park high rise condo area, with the notable exception being lakefront cities, I think. Cleveland has the Gold Coast out in Lakewood/Edgewater, Chicago has the North Shore, I haven't been to Milwaukee, but I know they have several high rise residential buildings along the lake outside of their downtown. But a flat city without a major body of water, like Columbus, wouldn't have this type of scenario as much.