May 31, 200520 yr Oh, and a <b>new</b> fountain? That could actually be cool, but my initial reaction was "wtf?"
May 31, 200520 yr Ah yes, one of the few drawbacks of democracy: design by committee. I hate this design. Its lopsided; there is no meaning or coordination to the tree placement, the tree groves now serve no purpose, that ridiculous second fountain seeps energy from the focal-point-power of the original and the big gaping hole it demands in the tree pattern will be stark and sun-blasted. It's cheezy and jumbled; the combination of double-glazed glass structures from the 80's, an oddly placed jumbotron a-la Times Square, the euro-kitsch colorful awnings on the drab 5/3rd tower monolith...come on. And I know they have a parking garage underneath...but who the hell honestly thinks that moving the change in grade back a few feet from the sidewalk is going to "level" the square with the streets? You're still going to hit a little mound of steps as soon as you try to engage the space. Great spaces are powerful, and commanding, with no question of what is running the show (Monument Circle, Indianapolis) or serene and inviting, evolving over time (Paris, anyone? or Central Park?). This feels like exactly what they did to Union Square in San Francisco. They took a dated, wierd square that needed to be redesigned and turned it into International Street at Kings Island.
May 31, 200520 yr I'll try to follow up my gripes with some constructive criticism: 1) They're burying the retail facades behind tightly packed groves of trees, hundreds of feet from the street, about 4 feet above street grade. That is a recipe for disaster in Cincinnati, which does not have the foot traffic or perceived safety to have hundreds of people curiously poking their way to the storefronts. Even mighty Chicago sees a great decrease in foot traffic to the stores that are behind Water Tower park, away from Michigan Avenue. They should have focused the retail activity as close to the streets as possible. 2) The tree groves is a silly way to pack greenspace in the square. They needed to listen to the experts and not the public on this issue, picking this battle instead of the "move the fountain" battle. They needed to evenly distribute the trees as not to create visual barriers to parts of the square or create a "Dark Forest" effect. Having an even distribution of trees on the street would help formalize the space as well. 3) They should focus as much as possible on getting the 5/3 property facade redone in lighter colors or glass. The 60's facade is like a stormcloud over the whole space. 4) There might not be much they can do about it, but a 4 or 5 step change in grade from the street really kills the flow to a space. Maybe one step, or two? I suppose the parking garage necessitates raising it up that much, but I almost think the square in its current configuration deals with this change in grade better than trying to create a more traditional square.
May 31, 200520 yr I'll try to follow up my gripes with some constructive criticism: 1) They're burying the retail facades behind tightly packed groves of trees, hundreds of feet from the street, about 4 feet above street grade. That is a recipe for disaster in Cincinnati, which does not have the foot traffic or perceived safety to have hundreds of people curiously poking their way to the storefronts. Even mighty Chicago sees a great decrease in foot traffic to the stores that are behind Water Tower park, away from Michigan Avenue. They should have focused the retail activity as close to the streets as possible. 2) The tree groves is a silly way to pack greenspace in the square. They needed to listen to the experts and not the public on this issue, picking this battle instead of the "move the fountain" battle. They needed to evenly distribute the trees as not to create visual barriers to parts of the square or create a "Dark Forest" effect. Having an even distribution of trees on the street would help formalize the space as well. 3) They should focus as much as possible on getting the 5/3 property facade redone in lighter colors or glass. The 60's facade is like a stormcloud over the whole space. 4) There might not be much they can do about it, but a 4 or 5 step change in grade from the street really kills the flow to a space. Maybe one step, or two? I suppose the parking garage necessitates raising it up that much, but I almost think the square in its current configuration deals with this change in grade better than trying to create a more traditional square. Agree on points 1 and 3. Agree on point 2 as long as an "even distribution of trees" is not something that's going to block the view from everywhere. On point 4, I'd agree that less of a change in grade would be good, but I'd prefer having some steps everywhere over the current insurmountable walls along the whole of the 5th Street side and half the Vine Street side.
May 31, 200520 yr I like the idea of a jumbotron but i think there could have been a better place to put it. Only the people heading north on Vine St. will be able to see it, since 5th St. runs the opposite direction. Maybe somehow putting it on the southwest corner of the 5/3 building. Or maybe those renderings are saying that 5th St. might be going to be a 2 way?
May 31, 200520 yr Author ^ I doubt Fifth would be changed to 2-way. It would screw up the circulation with the ramps.
May 31, 200520 yr Why don't these concepts ever include the Westin Atrium? Isn't it part of Fountain Square and a public space as well? It's just sitting there. Also, I love how the concept art depicts the 5/3 tower as off-white. A true depiction would change how all the colors interact.
May 31, 200520 yr I don't think the video screen is intended for people driving by. The top-of-Macy's location makes sense, because it you could see it from all points in the square and it's not too high.
May 31, 200520 yr Author Why don't these concepts ever include the Westin Atrium? Isn't it part of Fountain Square and a public space as well? It's just sitting there. That project (Westin) has supposedly been on the drawing board, and it's always been presented as a separate project. They already got BHDP to design it (nothing has been presented yet, of course). That is such a waste of space, and I totally agree with you. Same with 525 Vine. They are already beginning a redesign of the lobby there.
June 1, 200520 yr It's alright. Hopefully the video screen doesn't lead to those big advertisements that blitz Times Square. That's the last thing Cincinnati needs.
June 1, 200520 yr Author From the 5/31/05 Cincinnati Business Courier: Lafley pushes for Fountain Square plan approval Dan Monk Saying the business case for Fountain Square's redevelopment is a "no-brainer," Procter & Gamble Co. CEO A.G. Lafley Tuesday urged Cincinnati City Council to approve a package of ordinances needed to accommodate the $42 million renovation effort. "Revitalizing the square is absolutely essential," said Lafley, who not only runs the city's largest company but is co-chairman of the Center City Development Corp. (3CDC), the nonprofit group that is leading the rehab initiative. "Fountain Square is much more than a physical space. It's a place where Cincinnatians and visitors to the city can come together." http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2005/05/30/daily7.html
June 1, 200520 yr Author There are many, many stories about Fountain Square floating around, so instead of posting all of them I'll just post the links: ENQUIRER (6/1/05): Fountain Square proposal raises questions - and hopes Businesses air concerns over renovation plan Square project would cut some cheap parking for year Citizen reaction: Leave it alone
June 1, 200520 yr Author Since there are so many stories and some of this info is buried, I thought I'd go ahead and post the important dates all in one post: June 6, 2005 at 5:00 pm Public Hearing June 13, 2005 at 1:00 pm Final Committees Vote - Finance & Community Development June 15, 2005 at 2:00 pm Council Vote - Final Approval
June 1, 200520 yr I understand why 3CDC would want to lease the garage but why the square ? Maybe it's the anarchist in me, but do we really want this organization in charge of the square for 50 years ? Do other cities do this ? Mark
June 2, 200520 yr Totally a guess, but maybe because businesses would rather deal with 3CDC than City Council. It presents less red tape.
June 2, 200520 yr I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I must say I don't see how this plan improves upon the Square we've already got. Both strike me as a jumbled versions of other successful squares. Here are my questions: Why move the Fountain? Reasons to keep it where it is: 1) history, 2) the view down Fifth Street, 3) as a counterbalance to the short building on the northern side of the Square. If they are trying to get restaurants to be ground floor tenants in that north building, why would you move the noisy & wet fountain closer to an outdoor dining area? I perceive no benefits from placing the fountain in the center of the Square. Why an extra Fountain? Locating another fountain for children to play immediately next to the intersection of two streets is retarded. Also, people already play in and around the real Fountain. If the guys from 3CDC actually looked at it they'd see that play is one of the benefits of water depicted in the sculptures. Why all the trees? Do they realize that by removing the barrier on the southern (Fifth Street) side they are also removing the largest single area of bench space on the Square, as well as the bench space closest to the Fountain? As for the city giving away yet another of its resources to finance yet another "magic bullet" project, that I have no comment. Why not do this: Fix the parking garage and while doing so bring the entire square as close to street level as possible. Keep the square as level as possible. Rehab the north building and get together a group of pushcart vendors as part of a "Fountain Square Corporation" similar to the Findlay Market Corporation?
June 3, 200520 yr Author I don't know how many of you have caught the comments on Cincinnati.com, but I've been looking through them and I thought I'd take the time to "reply" to them. Feel free to add your two cents! Leave the current square alone, build in what was "Fountain Square West" with a new fountain and shops. The city needs to expand around fountain square. We need more eye-catching towers (Covington is way ahead) and need to either raze Over-the-Rhine or refurbish it to make it an international vacation destination. --Montgomery Maxton, Loveland, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 9:39:00 PM Raze Over-the-Rhine? Are you fucking kidding me? I also disagree that Covington's postmodern towers are more "eye-catching"...but I do agree with developing FSW. Changing the design will not solve the problem of why people are not coming downtown. Attitudes are what keeps people from downtown. Look at N.Ky. and see what attracts people to an area and WHY! --Ron Einhaus, Northern Ky., Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 8:58:00 PM What attracts people to NKY? Thanks for being so helpful, err...vague! The square design is very attractive,but I am concerned that the city intends to raise parking fees to pay for it. People don't go downtown now because of lack of parking and the perception of crime. I go downtown often for business and hate to look for a parking space or pay a fortune at some lot. No matter how attractive the square is, people won't come if parking is so expensive. I would prefer that we leave the square with its unique beauty and spend the money on adequate, inexpensive parking and adequate, inexpensive housing for the less privileged. --Cynthia Summers Lewis, University Heights, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 6:54:00 PM I call bullshit. I always find a cheap place to park. Try harder! This is my personal perspective on the issue and I'm sure that it is shared by many other people too: If the city wants to draw more people downtown, then they need to get rid of the crime. The beauty of Fountain Square and Cincinnati is nothing to me when I worry about being beaten, mugged, or shot when I go downtown. Respectfully submitted, Lisa M. Boland --Lisa Boland, Springfield Township, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 2:47:00 PM To be honest, Lisa, I feel more unsafe in most of Springfield Twp. than I do downtown. The City's imminent commitment to Fountain Square renovation may jumpstart development at Fifth and Race, Tower Place (possibly the home of the planned Beer Hall of Fame, which hasn't been referenced since last autumn) and along Fourth Street. Cincinnati is evolving, defining its marketplace niche. Downtown's momentum is on the upswing. Consumers vote with their dollars. With the development underway downtown, Cincinnati will win this election. --John Anderson, Downtown, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 2:25:00 PM Finally, someone with a positive attitude! (Notice he's a downtown resident.) I think that any attention spent on revitalizing downtown is much needed, although I am not convinced that spending this much money on this plan for Fountain Square is the appropriate focus. There are many places and neighborhoods in Cincinnati in need of assistance and revitalization and I’m not convinced that this plan is anything more than just a facelift on one public space. From a design standpoint the real problem with Fountain Square is the 5/3 building – which isn’t going anywhere anytime soon – unfortunately. From a funding standpoint, this is a lot of money – although people should understand that it probably can’t be used to fund schools (money spent on schools is restricted to certain forms of revenue). There are a lot of comments here about the need to improve safety and to focus on things that bring back suburban residents for an afternoon. I disagree. I think the city should focus on people who actually live in the city or want to live in the city and address their --Stephanie Ryberg - Urban Planner, Columbus, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 2:12:00 PM Oh, Stephanie...I really liked where you were going in that last sentence until the max. character limit cut you off.... IT WILL BE GREAT,HOWEVER TO MUCH MONEY. PLEASE HIRE SOME LOCAL YOUTH TO HELP WITH THIS PROJECT. THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO HAVE THE YOUTH TO CONTRI BUTE TO THEIR COMMUNITY.THE FAMILY WILL ALL BE VERY APPRECIATIVE. --THERESA, FOREST PARK, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:51:00 PM [glow=red,2,300]THANKS FOR YOUR INSIGHT THERESA!!!![/glow] :shoot: :yap: :clap: :clap: :shoot: :drunk: :banger: :weird: :finger: :strong: :bang: :box: :bang2: :bang2: :speech: :finger2: Wow. A lot of you really hate living here. All of this negativity is really sad. You all need to go on a field trip to other cities across the country. Once you do, you will realize what we have here (historic architecture, amazing arts programs and museums, distinct neighborhoods, affordable real estate) is something most other cities would kill to have. Negativity- the one thing that prevents Greater Cincinnati from moving forward. --Andy, Clifton, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:44:00 PM Andy, if I were gay I would kiss you. Move it again ? I've lived here in Cinn. all my life. I remember when the fountain was in a different location than it is now. There were several shop's under it. I saw President John F. Kennedy speaking while on my father shoulders , while he stood on the lip of the fountain. There were several ( 4 ) different movie theaters within 1-block surrounding the fountain , one that I'm sure we all regret, we let that monster " Progress " tell us we no longer needed it. ( RKO Albee ) We are really good at shooting ourselves in the foot so why not continue the pattern we've work so hard to maintain ? Go ahead , move it again , open new little shops and resturants that close early and don't have free parking , then when your kids are on concil , they can come up with their own crazy ideas on how to revitalize down town. Thank goodness Newport is just a bridge away ! At least they have a clue ! People first , buisness second ! --S.A. Jordan, Avondale, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:56:00 PM Well, S.A., from where I sit in Cinnnnnnnnnnnnnnn., your "people first, business second" comment referring to Newport makes absolutely no sense. Aren't the Levee and the Aquarium nothing more than gigantic cash generators (i.e. business)? I can’t understand why there is any opposition. Private investments are providing most of the funding! Any kind of improvement downtown would be a good thing. Right? There is a certain percentage of society who just LOVE to complain, the problem is, their opinion counts also. They have NO IDEAS, just COMPLAINT’S. Go ahead, criticize people taking that financial risk, sticking their neck out, and trying to improve this city. I would take a lot more of them in this world, and a lot less of you. --Jason, Fairfield, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:30:00 PM I can understand why there might be opposition on the specifics, but I see where you're coming from. Our civic leaders, 3CDC, and Uptown Consortium do not understand that we have to break the automobile habit if we want Downtown to flourish. A streetcar line, as envisioned in the defeated MetroMoves, would link the Banks, Downtown, OTR, UC, and Uptown. Otherwise we will be stuck with endless parking garages, traffic and congestion --- all of which assume an endless supply of cheap domestic oil to fuel our foolishness. MetroMoves was defeated because it was a high-priced huge system, with a never-ending tax. We could build a piece of it, then experience the results, and then want more. Downtown has to be the destination that doesn’t require a car. Development will follow, without extra help. The proposed Fountain Square renovation is more of the same short-sighted foolishness. Does 3CDC really believe that we will come downtown just to visit a refurbished Fountain Square? --David E. Puthoff, Greenhills, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:25:00 PM Are you sure you're not KJP? :D I do like the way you think. My only hope is that whomever is elected Mayor has a better vision than Luken. This lack of vision resulted in building the Freedom Center between two sports stadiums and Newport/Covington prospering while downtown declined. The riverbank, which is the BEST REAL ESTATE IN DOWNTOWN, is underdeveloped. When I moved here at few years ago, I used to think most Cincinnatians were too cynical. Now I know why. --Mike, Hyde Park, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:18:00 PM Sadly, you're right. But I still don't like the notion that somehow Newport and Covington are "prospering" and that DT is something like downtown Gary. I don't think the proposed plan will have the effect that is intended. Fountain square is the NOT a factor that effects whether people decide to use downtown or not. --Dan Phirman, Wilder, KY, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 12:10:00 PM A downtown is not to be "used" like some kind of product that can be casually thrown away, or ignored when a fickle populace moves on to the next cool thing. Spending millions on the Fountain Square project is great! It will make everyone feel safe and secure and all will flock to shop. Crime will go down as a result. Our air will be clean and pollution free. Parking and moving about the city during construction will be a breeze. People love downtown. There will be more to love about downtown, no more litter, no more crime, no more safety issues..........wake up people....only in a dream world. --William S. Buckley, Western Hills, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:51:00 AM You strike me as the kind of person who likes to hear himself talk. And he thinks everything he says is brilliant, but the real world finds what he has to say a real bore. I think that the City should take the CCCDC proposal as a proposal and build from it. My personal opinion is that we could do much better for a fraction of the cost. To explore the possibilities though would require a (1) national architecture competion with a few thousand dollars in prize money and (2) a competive bidding process for the work. CCCDC as an agent on the recieving end of public money has little incentive for fiscal prudence. While, John Cranley, Chair of City of Cincinnati City Council's Finance commitee has shown himself to be at the nexus of incompetence bordering on corruption. In continued service to our potentially great city, Howard M. Konicov The Synthesis Foundation --Howard Konicov, Clifton Gas Light, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:48:00 AM Interesting take! Fountain Square is just fine the way it is. 42 Million dollars can be spent on other more pressing matters. i.e. Findlay market area, Over the Rhine, downtown green space. the fountain should remain the same. --Michelle, Hyde Park/Oakley, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:45:00 AM Ah, this random "green space" everyone is always mentioning.... What the downtown area really needs to encourage people to live here is a place to purchase groceries that is full size, full selection and convenient, safe and fun. The idea of living in a metropolitan downtown setting shouild mean you don't have to have a car. In Cincinnati that is not the case. --Jeanne Ranker, Hyde park, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:42:00 AM Thank you! NO, WHY? the fountain was just over haul about 5 years ago. --geneva dezarn, cheviot, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:23:00 AM "Over haul"? You mean "cleaned" and "repaired"? For so many years Cincinnati has lacked the attractions necessary to maintain a vibrant city life. Finally, we are on the path to making Cincinnati more than a business town. With the improvements to the square and the possibility of the banks, I am more excited about Cincinnati than I have ever been. --Aaron Sceva, Mariemont, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:02:00 AM Positive attitude. This is one of maybe 5 people in the 50 or so posts I read who actually had a positive attitude. Will $42 million dollars to renivate fountain square make me feel wow I can't wait to go down town? NOOOOOOO what are we thinking here do you think any body cares about what down town looks like. They care about feeling safe. What does our city think about using $1 million of that money on programs to get rid of gangs drugs and viloence. Once they make us feel safe then they might get my attention of rehabing fountain square. Until I feel safe downtown they better keep teir money in the bank. --Ray Carson, Covedale, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:30:00 AM They just passed a plan last week for $1.2 million for additional police. How about we revitalize Main Street...oh wait that project failed. Maybe build the Banks on the River, no wait, that project stalled. Maybe tax the heck out of citizens and build a new stadium on the river for a bunch of cry baby millionaires to play a sport then put an 8 lane highway between it and downtown...DONE! Let's get rid of a bunch of teachers and watch the mass exodus from the city's population increase. Let's not get Hofbrahaus downtown, it can go to KY. Any more bright ideas? What? Spend millions on trees and move a fountain...BRILLIANT!!! Why can't you all be mayor? Sad only a few of you are running. --Steve, THE SUBURBS!!!, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:16:00 AM What have you fucking done to help downtown? Oh yeah...leave. As a downtown business owner and a person who did not grow up in Cincinnati I am suprised at all the negative attitudes towards downtown. If you want to see a downtown with no acitivty after 5pm go to Jacksonville FL. There is so much happening in downtown Cincinnati from the Arts to Restaurants etc. As to the proposed improvement to Fountain Square I do believe it will have a posetive impactby it self and from what I understand there are some structual renovation issues that need to be dealt with. I do question the priorities of Cincinnati Council. What is more important to the future of Cincinnati a renovated Fountain Square and new park on the river east of Cincinnati or the Banks project. In my mind the Banks project is critical to the future of Cincinnati. I do not know of a City in this great land that has a riverfront as a parking lot. Develop the Banks 4th street will become more attractive to develop and Fountain Square renovation will be a nice addition, but without developin --Anders Juel, Milford OH, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:15:00 AM It sounded like you were well on your way to writing a book, and it's a book I would've liked to read. I have lived here my whole life and the thought that people think this is a bad idea, most of whom have never been outside I-275 to see what other cities have done, is what's wrong with this city. Why is everyone so opposed to change in this city? This is the first step in bringing people back to the downtown area and is a welcome change to the current square, which is antiquated and sterile. BRING LIFE BACK TO DOWNTOWN......DON'T CHOKE IT TO DEATH. --Brian Hoffstedder, Westwood, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:06:00 AM Sad, but true.
June 3, 200520 yr Jeez, is this thing being marketed as the Ultimate Solution™ that will single-handedly spark a downtown renaissance? Because lots of people making those comments seem to act like it is. Of course there are other problems, but it seems like people are expecting everything to be fixed by a snap of the fingers, and that this is the wrong way to snap the fingers. Do they think that there is some magic solution that could be effected if $42 million were spent on something else? "I demand free parking available every 100 feet, and I don't want to walk more than half a block to anything, and this money should be spent on surgically inserting a spine in me so I won't be afraid to go downtown!" On the lighter side, here's a fun sarcastic comment from that page: WE NEED MORE, BETTER, BIGGER SPORTS STATIUMS FIRST! SCREW THE DOWNTOWNTOWNERS, THOSE INNER-CITY KIDS IN OVER-THE-RHINE AND PRICE HILL... WE NEED REALLY GOOD STATIUMS SO THE BUNGELS AND REDS CAN PLAY BETTER. WHILE WE ARE AT IT WE NEED TO CUT SOME COPS AND FIREMEN SO THAT WE CAN PUT THAT MONEY TOWARD SPECTATOR SPORTS TOO. WOO! WOO! GO REDS AND BUNGELS! SELL THE FOUNTAIN TO NEWPORT! --Monte Washburn, Reading, Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 9:01:00 AM By the way, I enjoyed your "replies," grasscat.
June 3, 200520 yr I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I must say I don't see how this plan improves upon the Square we've already got. Both strike me as a jumbled versions of other successful squares. Here are my questions: Why move the Fountain? Reasons to keep it where it is: 1) history, 2) the view down Fifth Street, 3) as a counterbalance to the short building on the northern side of the Square. If they are trying to get restaurants to be ground floor tenants in that north building, why would you move the noisy & wet fountain closer to an outdoor dining area? I perceive no benefits from placing the fountain in the center of the Square. Why an extra Fountain? Locating another fountain for children to play immediately next to the intersection of two streets is retarded. Also, people already play in and around the real Fountain. If the guys from 3CDC actually looked at it they'd see that play is one of the benefits of water depicted in the sculptures. Why all the trees? Do they realize that by removing the barrier on the southern (Fifth Street) side they are also removing the largest single area of bench space on the Square, as well as the bench space closest to the Fountain? As for the city giving away yet another of its resources to finance yet another "magic bullet" project, that I have no comment. Why not do this: Fix the parking garage and while doing so bring the entire square as close to street level as possible. Keep the square as level as possible. Rehab the north building and get together a group of pushcart vendors as part of a "Fountain Square Corporation" similar to the Findlay Market Corporation? Lincoln Kennedy, I hope to see you participate in more dialogue. You are right on point. I mostly agree and wish we were spending our resources on completing "The Banks" project. Shoot I wish they would start it.
June 3, 200520 yr I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I must say I don't see how this plan improves upon the Square we've already got. Both strike me as a jumbled versions of other successful squares. Here are my questions: Why move the Fountain? Reasons to keep it where it is: 1) history, 2) the view down Fifth Street, 3) as a counterbalance to the short building on the northern side of the Square. If they are trying to get restaurants to be ground floor tenants in that north building, why would you move the noisy & wet fountain closer to an outdoor dining area? I perceive no benefits from placing the fountain in the center of the Square. Why an extra Fountain? Locating another fountain for children to play immediately next to the intersection of two streets is retarded. Also, people already play in and around the real Fountain. If the guys from 3CDC actually looked at it they'd see that play is one of the benefits of water depicted in the sculptures. Why all the trees? Do they realize that by removing the barrier on the southern (Fifth Street) side they are also removing the largest single area of bench space on the Square, as well as the bench space closest to the Fountain? As for the city giving away yet another of its resources to finance yet another "magic bullet" project, that I have no comment. Why not do this: Fix the parking garage and while doing so bring the entire square as close to street level as possible. Keep the square as level as possible. Rehab the north building and get together a group of pushcart vendors as part of a "Fountain Square Corporation" similar to the Findlay Market Corporation? In response to Lincoln... Reasons TO move the fountain: 1) History -- if we want to talk history, there's no reason NOT to move the fountain. It's only been in its current location for 35 years, and prior to that it was on an entirely different block at the center of a beautiful boulevard. History would in fact warrant that we move the fountain in order to make it a centerpiece again. 2) The view down 5th street -- it's interesting how people hold so tightly to what they're used to. Yes, some of the aesthetic enjoyment of seeing the fountain from 5th will be lost under the current plan, but as Mr. Leeper has pointed out, the new location also opens up NEW views that we don't even realize we've been missing. Are we THAT beholden to this 5th street view?? 3) As a counterbalance to the short building on the northern side of the square -- I see what you mean here, but does the fountain really balance the 5th/3rd building, and perhaps more importantly, is that truly its function?? I don't think so. The fountain isn't there to "balance" or enhance the square....rather, the square is there to enhance the fountain. Moreover, having a "noisy and wet" fountain nearby will absolutely benefit the restaurants on the northern edge. In fact, it will automatically increase commercial property values because there will be increased demand for outdoor dining. Imagine having the option of dining next to a sea of concrete versus dining next to a peaceful, glowing fountain. I think most people would choose the latter, as it's simply an experience you can't get elsewhere. Why an extra fountain? First of all, the square as it is now suffers from areas of underutilization -- e.g. the southwestcorner at 5th and vine. Having a small satelite fountain there would create a subsidiary area of activity that would enliven that part of the square. Secondly, it's in keeping with the water theme that 3CDC now seems to be going for. And why not make water the focal point of the square? Why all the trees? Look at most any urban public space and an abundance of trees and landscaping seem to be key ingredients. They help soften the hard, cold feel of concrete -- and who wants to sit in a concrete jungle? I think the trees are absolutely key. Finally, I'd like to respond to the comments of so many people about how this money should be spent elsewhere -- e.g. on schools, infrastructure ect. The thing that people don't understand is that 90% of this money is PRIVATE DOLLARS that has been earmarked for fountain square. In other words, it CAN'T be used elsewhere, because the city doesn't control it. It's the money of various private companies and corporations, and they want to spend it to revitalize the square. It's not a matter of choosing between the square and our public schools. City council can't just say "well, we're gonna reject this plan because we think this money is better spent on an increased police presence in over-the-rhine. It's not theirs to spend!! True, the city is being asked to put in $4 million, and that money could be spent elsewhere. But paying $4 million to leverage $42 million is a pretty damn good deal, especially when you're talking about a project at the city's heart that could have a catalytic effect and help make downtown vital again. That's my two cents.
June 3, 200520 yr The plan doesn't have that many trees at least in the drawing there mostly perimeter accents. The major point of the development is enhancing life in that area. The fountain is that major draw that will help sustain a perimeter of shopping and restaurants on the square. It's the heart. Monte it does seem so progress is being made on the banks as Leeper has said that they are working to iron out the county's parking deal with the Bengals and the Reds.
June 3, 200520 yr dglenn you make good points about private money being used but to the point you made about many great squares having an abundance of trees i leave you with this: Milan, Italy.
June 3, 200520 yr Monte, Ok, very good point. But it does seem that trees are a good idea if you want people to sit and stay awhile, rather than just pass through. I'm no expert on urban landscape design, though.
June 3, 200520 yr Sorry I am pessimistic about Fountain Square. I personally like it and can see both sides. Just coming from Chicago and Milwaukee and seeing the life on the lake might be too fresh in my mind. It was always something I dwelled on in St. Louis after visiting Yeatman's Cove and Sawyer's point in Cincy and saw how much better Cincinnati used their riverfront. That impression hasn't changed and those great parks are still there, I guess it drives me crazy to see our gateway to our city in dirt clumps. A marina, central riverfront park surrounded by mixed use condo/retail development seems more important to me. Maybe compliment that with a Ferris wheel and an ESPN Zone surrounded by a bunch of local restaurant and retail shops. If we could get private money for Fountain Square why couldn't we convince the companies to donate money for our river banks? To me that is one of the most important pieces of land in the city. I hope that Fountain Square tunes out to be a great success but I already feel it is a great square. I love it now so it is hard for me to feel that the smoke n mirrors that we are seeing is going to provide a better square. During all of this I have yet to hear about the Beer Hall of Fame in Tower Place. Did this project die?
June 3, 200520 yr Regarding the trees... I don't think a treeless plaza like the one pictured in Milan is something that can work for a place like Cincinnati, or at least for Fountain Square. The one in the picture is nothing but an open space, but it looks all right, I think, because of the buildings surrounding it (based on that photo, anyway). Imagine that square with the 5/3 building in the background instead; I don't think that would be very attractive. I won't say that the particular use of trees in the proposal is necessarily the best, but in I say in general some trees are good as long as they're well-placed.
June 3, 200520 yr A Cincinnati Post Editorial.... Reworking Fountain Square Cincinnatians of a certain age remember when Fountain Square was a rectangle in the middle of Fifth Street. And historians remember that the site had for half a century been a butcher's market which the city - over the angry protests of the meat cutters - cleared in 1870 and built a lovely plaza to accommodate the majestic new Tyler Davidson Fountain.
June 3, 200520 yr I only have one major issue with the design. I like the trees but I think too many might obscure retail fronts, one of the major points of emphasis for the new square. I hope whatever they do they make the retail visible and readily accessible.
June 3, 200520 yr Author ^ Yep, I agree. Trees are great (and necessary) but a forest will kill everything.
June 3, 200520 yr Interesting discussion. The anglo-american tradition is to think of "squares" as parks surrounded by buildings, not so much like the pix Monte posted of Milan (you can find these in other European countries too). Yet maybe a compromise between a more formal "open' plaza and some trees? Personally i don't think Fountain Square is exceptionally bad...its actually fairly good for large events, like that keg-tapping at the Oktoberfest. I also think The Banks is Cincinnatis really great opportunity to do something grand and special with its riverfront and downtown.
June 4, 200520 yr I think people will not go to fountain square to see trees, they will go if there is good retail or good places to eat. If i want trees I can stay here in wyoming.
June 4, 200520 yr No one said trees would be the main attraction just like the stone/pavement isnt the main attraction to the square now. Surely there is stone and pavement in Wyoming too...why come to Fountain Square ever? The trees would simply soften the square a little and maybe provide some umbrage in the summer. No one is trying to sell the trees as a focal point of the square. No one is saying "Come to fountain square, we have trees!"...
June 4, 200520 yr Agreed but my main point is Fountain Square is people will come if there are cute little cafes and exciting places to shop after dinner. I don't think we should worry so much about trees or a second fountain as much as the attractions that will make people come: the shops and cafes.
June 6, 200520 yr Author I loved this letter in today's Enquirer editorials: Fountain issue is Cincinnati's In reading the responses to the fountain flap ("What you say," C11), I find it amusing that most of the respondents don't live in Cincinnati. They ran away from our city to live in the suburbs and then complain about how things are done. If it weren't for The Enquirer's broad range of distribution, they wouldn't know where our city is located. However, I can think of a lot of ways to better rejuvenate downtown than spending $42 million on renovating the square. John Lambert, Paddock Hills http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050605/EDIT0202/506050306/1022/EDIT
June 6, 200520 yr The 3CDC site has been updated from the email link only version that has been out there for some time. There is also a 98 slide power point presentation on the Fountain Square redesign. The presentation does a very good job of outlining a point that seems to be lost in the discussion: The city only needs to kick in $4 million to leverage a $42 million square renovation. Also, there's another $30 million in related enhancements to adjacent buildings. Additionally, the city has $3 million planned for garage rework in 1996. Under the proposed plan, the city will be alleviated of this burden. One could almost make the claim that $1 million gets the city a $72 million beneift (and that's not including any potential tax revenue increase from new businesses over the next several years). For the main site: http://www.3cdc.org To go directly to the presentation: http://www.3cdc.org/files/uploaded/Fountain%20Square%20Revitalization.pdf Especially interesting to me was slide 94, with a retail plan that showed a supermarket in the old Clossons location, and a Movie theater in the empty parking lot where Nordstroms was supposed to be. I'm sure it's all conceptual, but it does paint a picture of a downtown that I would like to see come to fruition.
June 7, 200520 yr Fountain Square fast-tracked Planners OK move minutes after hearing By Gregory Korte Enquirer staff writer PLAN TIMETABLE City Council's Finance Committee is expected to approve the Fountain Square plan June 13 and will take additional public comment then. With committee approval, the full council could vote on the various ordinances authorizing the makeover as soon as June 15. With City Council heading into summer recess in July and developers eager to begin construction, council leaders hope to have a vote no later than June 29. The Urban Design Review Board, which advises the city manager on matters of urban architecture, will review the plans June 16.
June 7, 200520 yr Author Here's the one from the 6/7/05 Post: Fountain Square redesign endorsed By Kevin Osborne Post staff reporter A proposal to redesign downtown's Fountain Square beginning this summer got its first round of approvals Monday from the city's planning commission, but the group chided developers for not including it in the process sooner. The planning commission unanimously recommended that City Council allow the proposed redesign unveiled last week by the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. and let the firm manage the plaza once completed. http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050607/NEWS01/506070354
June 7, 200520 yr Author Interestingly, this went through council with some provisions that weren't reported in any of the news articles (except for the "50 year" thing), which the city would like to work with 3CDC on: 1) Reducing the 50-year term of the agreement (I think it's been chopped down to 40, or whenever the parking garage can pay off $32M in loans) 2) Including living/prevailing wage language 3) Economic inclusion partnerships in development, restaurants, marketing, construction, design, professional services 4) Have a clause establishing an oversight board, and that the city (Mayor) can assign 1/3 of the board 5) Specifically identify the city's interest in and ownership in the to-be-established trust 6) Provide specific expectations regarding the insuring of the property, specifically with respect to a possible terrorist attack Also, a motion for the city administration to report to council on: 1) A breakdown, by year, of the contributions the city will make to the project 2) Will the city provide transitional assistance to those who currently use the Fountain Square garage 3) What happens if the garage is closed for more than the estimated 12 months? Who is responsible for providing civic garage parking rates if the garage improvements take more than 12 months to complete? http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/13221.pdf
June 9, 200520 yr Visually having some greenery in the heart of downtown would be nice. I don't think the trees are overly strong elements and don't overpower the square.
June 14, 200519 yr Square plan set for next step Council approval would get $42 million overhaul started By Gregory Korte Enquirer staff writer Cincinnati City Council appears ready Wednesday to approve a face-lift of the 35-year-old Fountain Square, just two weeks after developers unveiled their final plans to move the fountain, rehab the parking garage and tear down the skywalk. A special joint committee of City Council voted 6-1 Monday to approve the four ordinances necessary to begin construction, which could be in weeks. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050614/NEWS01/506140384/1056
June 14, 200519 yr Author In the interest of covering all angles, here's the 6/14/05 Post story: City set to OK square project By Kevin Osborne Post staff reporter Cincinnati officials are ready to approve a $42 million plan for redesigning downtown's Fountain Square. City Council's finance committee voted 6-1 Monday to recommend that the plan be implemented. http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050614/NEWS01/506140362
June 16, 200519 yr Well, I guess this makes it official... Fountain Square plan gets approval By Gregory Korte Enquirer staff writer It wasn't the unanimous vote Mayor Charlie Luken had hoped for, but Cincinnati City Council voted decisively Wednesday to turn management of Fountain Square over to a nonprofit developer for up to 40 years in exchange for a $42 million overhaul. Construction will begin the last week of August, said Stephen Leeper, the development corporation's president. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050616/NEWS01/506160341/1056/news01
June 17, 200519 yr whether any of you actually approve of the plan or not...its nice to see something happen without too many political bumps.
June 17, 200519 yr Author From the 6/17/05 Cincinnati Post: Board gets to review square plan By Kevin Osborne Post staff reporter A day after Cincinnati City Council approved a $42 million plan for redesigning downtown's Fountain Square, the city's Urban Design Review Board got its first in-depth look Thursday at the proposal. The board, a panel of local architects appointed by City Manager Valerie Lemmie to give her advice on major downtown projects, generally liked the plan but had a few misgivings. http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050617/NEWS01/506170342
June 17, 200519 yr "Fountain Square, to me, is more like Rockefeller Plaza, an intense urban space that is very active," Chatterjee said. "This is not a park." my thoughts exactly.
Create an account or sign in to comment