March 29, 200916 yr >That office building has been there for quite awhile now. Er, center-right. The one with the crane still sticking out the top. The Batman building has been there since around 1995.
March 29, 200916 yr >That office building has been there for quite awhile now. Er, center-right. The one with the crane still sticking out the top. The Batman building has been there since around 1995. Gotcha. That's what I'm talking about, not something that is simply reflective paneling. There's some decent architectural value there.
March 30, 200916 yr Its the giant middle finger from bill butler to Cincinnati. I don't really believe this was his goal, he wanted a signature building to sell condos while at the same time building a landmark building for his hometown. I am sure there is some ill will between Butler and the Ohio side, but if he is so pissed off why did he just build a new hotel and office building for Humana in Cincinnati that will contribute far more to the tax base than 77 condos? The Humana complex is the Anti-Architecture. I dont think hes pissed off, but i dont understand why you raise the bar on a certain project, realize the success as related to high end design, then go back to doing the garbage that is the new humana building. I assume the Humana is where it is in Ohio because its land that was ready to build on, its close to downtown (but thank god NOT downtown because of all the crime), and its land that he owned. Anyway... i really need a more detailed rendering to make any educated judgments on the building. The intent of this image, which seemed to be implied by the developer, was to portray the "feel" of the district, not necessarily the detail of the building.
March 30, 200916 yr Keeping in mind that I know almost nothing about the process, I would assume that the client (Humana) has as much input on the final design as the developer does. Because at the end of the day, the client is the one who approves or disapproves and decides whether to move forward with that developer, right? Also, for what it is, I don't think that Humana's new development is that bad. Office buildings can be so much worse.
March 30, 200916 yr Not to get this thread too far off topic, but the original design for the northern portion of the Baldwin/Humana complex was originally supposed to have two more identical square towers matching the 200 Baldwin Building (the tall square one adjacent to the original Baldwin building). I know The Ascent was definitely a departure/bar raising for a Corporex project, but it was also the only residential-only building they have done, and I personally think the architecture of a building might sway buyers in that realm more than a multi-tenant office user with whom floorplates, layout, cost and efficiency is paramount (not saying you can't do both by any means though). Other Corporex projects/designs while not bad, are far from cutting edge. I am just happy The Ascent didn't match the rest of RiverCenter, I mean come on, enough is enough!
March 30, 200916 yr I am just happy The Ascent didn't match the rest of RiverCenter, I mean come on, enough is enough! Definitely.
March 31, 200916 yr The Humana complex is the Anti-Architecture. I dont think hes pissed off, but i dont understand why you raise the bar on a certain project, realize the success as related to high end design, then go back to doing the garbage that is the new humana building. I assume the Humana is where it is in Ohio because its land that was ready to build on, its close to downtown (but thank god NOT downtown because of all the crime), and its land that he owned. Anyway... i really need a more detailed rendering to make any educated judgments on the building. The intent of this image, which seemed to be implied by the developer, was to portray the "feel" of the district, not necessarily the detail of the building. Humana is where it is because it is adjacent to Humana's existing center, which it likes. The architecture, per Humana's request, was to be similar in style and hue to the Baldwin buildings, but more contemporary and cheaper. That is why you have what you have. Is it great, heck no. But there is always another side to the story that influences decisions. Corporex wanted to do more high end design, in Covington adjacent to Rivercenter and the Ascent, but the market dropped out. Note that it was not office though. Based on the success of QCS (new class A space), I wonder why no developer has tried to build a starchitect spec office building. My guess would be either to much to lose for an unknown, or ugly spec buildings are far too profitable to depart from. That being said, you have what Carter Dawson is trying to pass for the Banks.
March 31, 200916 yr What's the deal with the parking garages? Are they going to be owned by the County (or City) in perpetuity, or is the parking going to be split up between the various buildings? Also, how much behind the-buildings parking is going to be created here? I suspect its going to be more than I hope, which is zero. If we are serious about the Streetcar, we need to make sure parking for apartments in streetcar zones is being eliminated, otherwise we are not simply undercutting the potential power of the Streetcar but we are also insuring that only rich people will be able to afford to live in these areas and we won't really be creating a market that exists nowhere else in the Midwest outside of Chicago (and really a market that exists nowhere else in the country's interior).
March 31, 200916 yr ^I'd guess that the city/county will own the garages forever. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop one business owner from slowing acquiring all of the parking if they chose to do so, leaving nothing for the rest. As for parking behind buildings, I really have no idea. Hopefully someone else on here does. I don't mind apartments/condos along the streetcar route having an assigned space. Often the residents choose to pay extra for them, and as much as I love the idea of the streetcar, I don't want the city gov't interfering with private property in that fashion. If the streetcar really takes off the way that we all think that it will, demand could price that nearly out of existence eventually anyway.
March 31, 200916 yr If I recall correctly, the "towers" have 4 floors of above ground parking and all non-tower residential parking is below grade. I have a feeling, especially with conservative Cincinnati and on a project of this magnitude, any and all developers are taking a wait and see regarding whether the Streetcar happens, and the affect it has on people's demands and living habits. That being said, adding a few thousand parking spaces below deck would have a far greater effect than the few hundred added above. Also keep in mind that the devlopers will try to make as much money off this as possible, which probably means Chicago prices until enough people refuse to pay it.
April 8, 200916 yr Is anyone else having a problem with the banks webcame? It hasnt worked for me since yesterday morning!
April 8, 200916 yr ^^What's the address? "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
April 9, 200916 yr I am probably going to attend this. Anyone else going? Latest Schematic Designs for The Banks to be Unveiled Cincinnati, OH and Atlanta, GA (April 9, 2009) –The Master Development Team of Carter and The Dawson Company will present the final design for The Banks Phase 1 apartment and retail development today at a Cincinnati Urban Design Review Board (UDRB) meeting. The renderings incorporate additional suggestions from UDRB members given at a past meeting in late March. The refinements aim to better relate the development to its urban context and to improve its overall aesthetics. The UDRB serves as a citizen advisory board to the city that previews projects architecturally to help ensure designs are consistent with Cincinnati’s urban master plan. “Our final design addresses the different context of each facade of the project whether it faces out toward the city, the ballpark, or the park or faces inward onto Freedom Way,” said Bailey Pope, vice president of design of construction for The Dawson Company. “These drawings show the changing scale of the architecture on each front as it relates the buildings to the pedestrian-friendly environment we are striving to create." Architects from Cole + Russell and Moody-Nolan will present the renderings of Phase 1A apartments and retail. The renderings will be presented to the Cincinnati Planning Commission in May. IF YOU ATTEND Where: Hamilton County Commissioners’ Conference Room Hamilton County Administration Building 138 East Court Street When: Thursday, April 9 at 4 p.m. The Banks is a joint City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Carter, Dawson project. Once completed, The Banks will be Cincinnati’s largest single, mixed-use development and be composed of a dynamic blend of residential, office, hotel and retail components. Phase 1A of the riverfront development is under construction and will include a revised street system, parking facility, a minimum of 300 apartments and 70,000 square feet of retail.
April 9, 200916 yr Construction worker had some medical emergency today. Fire Truck & Ambulance called in. He was lying on his back but responding to medical personnel. "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
April 9, 200916 yr i know this is off topic but 3cdc no longer has any input on this project right? I remember this/have assumed this for some time but someone in one of my classes today swore up and down they are still involved.
April 9, 200916 yr I know one person from 3CDC was on the Banks Board. I don't know if that Board even exist anymore. It was created to get the initial financing in place.
April 9, 200916 yr What measures are being taken to connect the Cincinnati Riverfront Park to the Banks? Is that road between the two going to be a big divider? That could be a buzzkill if cars are zooming through. I'm probably wrong but I have no idea since I don't know the plan.
April 9, 200916 yr I feel like this is going to be a twin of UC's campus. Those buildings look dead on the new stuff on Calhoun.
April 9, 200916 yr I feel like this is going to be a twin of UC's campus. Those buildings look dead on the new stuff on Calhoun. I disagree. Brick is going to look like brick on all computer renderings. They could do the cement block sized brick like they did at University Park near UC, or they could use realistically sized bricks like those seen at 14/v in Over-the-Rhine. The difference is very noticeable and gives the building in OTR an appearance that the brick walls are indeed load bearing even though it's just a veneer...UP fails miserably at this. The other connection is the density/height. UP and these Banks models are similar, but it is the detail that will set the two apart. UP has no changes in height, setback, or massing along the entire stretch. The commercial retail spaces are all also the same with tenants moving into spaces that look just like one another regardless of the tenant or use. The Banks is going to allow the retail tenants to finish out their exteriors to fit their business, giving the site much needed facade variations at eye level. This will not only modify the facade visually, but it will also make it appear as though the business came in at different times and not all at once. At UP, even though the tenants are still trickling in, they look like they all came in at once as one massive development since there is no variation.
April 10, 200916 yr I will not pick nits... this looks very good and has come a long way from where it was. Kudos, Cole + Russell. Now lets hope the elevations do not lie, and with any luck the real thing looks even better.
April 10, 200916 yr Banks design needs 'excitement' http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090409/BIZ01/904100346 By Lisa Bernard-Kuhn • [email protected] • April 9, 2009 DOWNTOWN - Designers are going back to the drawings boards in hopes of spicing up portions of their plans for the first phase of The Banks riverfront development. Developers met Thursday night with members of Cincinnati's Urban Design Review Board, a group made up of local architects and business professionals. The board is charged with reviewing mostly private projects - particularly those that include city money - to ensure they conform to urban design practices... "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
April 10, 200916 yr What measures are being taken to connect the Cincinnati Riverfront Park to the Banks? Is that road between the two going to be a big divider? That could be a buzzkill if cars are zooming through. I'm probably wrong but I have no idea since I don't know the plan. for $110 million you can cap Fort Washington Way and connect 2nd and 3rd for $102 million you can run a streetcar from the Banks to McMicken and connect 2nd and 3rd, and 2nd and 20th, and 5th and 12th and Main and Elm.
April 10, 200916 yr I can't wait for 'Barnes & Others' to open. I bet John Cranley wants to know when he can have a beer at the "Earl of Sussex Pub and Bistro"
April 10, 200916 yr I hope they have a Borders IMO its selection and cafe are a step up from the Barnes and noble across the river....pardon me Barnes and others
April 10, 200916 yr So renderings will always be renderings, and I'm sure the real thing will look much better. But what is going on with that giant red angle!?! Am I missing some angles somewhere else that relate? It seams very Disneyland-esque to me.
April 10, 200916 yr After taking the time to look through these twice...i hate them a lot less than the first go around. I think they are beginning to address the 'lack of detail' issue for me but i still think they leave a lot to be desired. The developer must be pushing real hard on Cole + Russell to keep the designs ultra boring for cost reasons. I agree with the comment about the slanted brick area. A little foreign and most likely a last ditch effort for something 'contemporary'. What bugs me the most is that the street level storefronts seem to have absolutely zero relation to the buildings above. Its like the entire block is built on top of a mall. It would be significantly better if the fake massing above would register all the way to the street. Im glad the review board is not satisfied...but i agree that progress has been made.
April 10, 200916 yr The review board liked the corner with the angled brick roofline. Their biggest beef, and what they seemed to fixate upon, was the corner of 3rd and Main, across from the GABP entrance. They found this corner to be totally lacking in the type of presence that such a pivotal corner should command. To their credit, Germano and Co. listened to what they had to say, and invited everyone back to the architect's offices for a mini "charette" next week. They also didn't make any secret that there are cost concerns, but they are highlighting the fact that these will also be residences (apartments) and, essentially, some people don't want to live in a "work of art."
April 10, 200916 yr I would "like" the angled roof if it were repeated ANYWHERE else in the project. As it stands right now, it's just kind of isolated and weird.
April 10, 200916 yr What bugs me the most is that the street level storefronts seem to have absolutely zero relation to the buildings above. Its like the entire block is built on top of a mall. It would be significantly better if the fake massing above would register all the way to the street. This was one issue brought up by a member of the review board. As the article mentioned, they are inviting architects and alike to a meeting next week to attempt to get more ideas because no one knows or can agree on specific changes.
April 10, 200916 yr If I were them, I'd walk through OTR and really pay attention to the collumns and things on the street level storefronts. Put some pizazz into them. Great inspiration is right under their noses.
April 10, 200916 yr Did anyone cough Ascent when they said folks don't want to live in a work of art?
April 10, 200916 yr I think the renderings are much better than those in round 1. Did anyone bring up the fact that it was a lame first attempt to slap a glass box in the middle of the Banks? I'm all for making it look organic and varied, but please... I echo the concern for that corner at 2nd and Main. That's a corner that needs to be celebrated and complement the angle of the opening to the Ballpark.
April 10, 200916 yr If I were them, I'd walk through OTR and really pay attention to the collumns and things on the street level storefronts. Put some pizazz into them. Great inspiration is right under their noses. Exactly. They have articulated the storefronts at the retail module, not the architectural module. Obviously the retailers are going to take up spaces that extend beyond the footprint of a single "buliding". That doesnt mean they cant manipulate the storefronts to apear as though the retailer is actually leaking from one building to another. This happens all the time, especially in neighborhoods like OTR where a single building footprint just isnt large enough. Its as if they were designed by two different people who never communicated. And im glad it was brought up at the review. It just really strikes me as odd that some pretty fundamental architectural principals are ignored.
April 10, 200916 yr Did anyone cough Ascent when they said folks don't want to live in a work of art? Actually, yes. The argument in that respect was that a condo development such as the Ascent is geared toward a certain group of people and generally only need to sell once. The apts at the banks need to be geared toward a broader, much larger percentage of the population and also have to be rented over and over again. They did mention however that if/when the condo market improves, the possibility of creating a more striking building in respect to architecture would be possible. Further, it was mentioned that in this phase of the development, the officer tower and hotel sections were to be the "center pieces".
April 10, 200916 yr ^ link didn't work for me. I know ... everyone kept saying it didn't work and someone kept asking for it, so I posted it since no-one else did.
April 10, 200916 yr After taking the time to look through these twice...i hate them a lot less than the first go around. I think they are beginning to address the 'lack of detail' issue for me but i still think they leave a lot to be desired. The developer must be pushing real hard on Cole + Russell to keep the designs ultra boring for cost reasons. I agree with the comment about the slanted brick area. A little foreign and most likely a last ditch effort for something 'contemporary'. What bugs me the most is that the street level storefronts seem to have absolutely zero relation to the buildings above. Its like the entire block is built on top of a mall. It would be significantly better if the fake massing above would register all the way to the street. Im glad the review board is not satisfied...but i agree that progress has been made. I know I said I would not pick nits due to the massive improvement from the first go around. But the more I think about it, just because it is so much better than it was doesn't mean it can't be even better when it is built. So yes, materiality and mass of base leave a lot to be desired, the brick angle seems like a failed attempt at contemporary (unless you plan on varying roof heights/shapes elsewhere), it doesn't "relate" to the ballpark entrance (would love it to indent and create a public plaza for those entering the ball park to interact with), and true differentiation in surfaces (they are still too close in depth). Fenestration could vary within the building masses themselves, and some bay windows could add some nice depth and additive elements to the massing to counteract all the subtractive elements. It would be great to add some interesting brick details, and some sculptural elements even in the form of precast to add some visual interest. The angled contemporary cornice supports (mid block 26 south) do not work up I-71, and they don't work here either. That being said, it is still a marked improvement.
Create an account or sign in to comment