One River Plaza, let me introduce you to Nordstrom.  You both disgust me.  Thank you for another unneeded pile of dirt/surface lot in the CBD.

 

You don't understand how condo construction works do you?

One River Plaza, let me introduce you to Nordstrom.  You both disgust me.  Thank you for another unneeded pile of dirt/surface lot in the CBD.

 

I don't think there is much in common with these two scenarios.  I could be wrong.

^I think he's just referring to the fact that there was a perfectly good and operational Montgomery Inn Conference Center that brought a lot of people downtown and to the riverfront.  Then One River Plaza came in and demolished it before it even was a for sure thing (as it obviously is not now...), and now we're left with even less on the Cincinnati side of the Purple People Bridge then we had before. I agree, it is frustrating.

^ It was a cheap building on an underutilized site, while they didn't have to tear it down I think it added to the excitement about the project which according to all accounts for very close to having the presales required in the old market. Complaining about projects that stalled because of the complete collapse of the American market is like being angry that your dad couldn't take you to a baseball game because he had a heart attack.

No one is complaining that this project didn't happen because of the collapse of the market.  Rather, what I, and Cincy Images, are complaining about (I think...) is that a prefectly viable business, however underutilized it was, was demolished to make way for what is now nothing.

^It was bound to be torn down at somepoint.  I have faith that something spectacular will get built there in time.  The fact that the lot is prime property and requires no demolition or clean-up makes it an outstanding candidate for immediate development when the market rebounds.

 

If it had been on less desirable land, I might be more inclined to join the rage.

^I think he's just referring to the fact that there was a perfectly good and operational Montgomery Inn Conference Center that brought a lot of people downtown and to the riverfront. Then One River Plaza came in and demolished it before it even was a for sure thing (as it obviously is not now...), and now we're left with even less on the Cincinnati side of the Purple People Bridge then we had before. I agree, it is frustrating.

 

You summed it up nicely.

^I think he's just referring to the fact that there was a perfectly good and operational Montgomery Inn Conference Center that brought a lot of people downtown and to the riverfront. Then One River Plaza came in and demolished it before it even was a for sure thing (as it obviously is not now...), and now we're left with even less on the Cincinnati side of the Purple People Bridge then we had before. I agree, it is frustrating.

 

You summed it up nicely.

 

The reality of the situation is, who is going to want to run a business in a space that will be demolished as soon it becomes "a sure thing" which generally turns on lender approval.  The business owner probably won't even know what the threshold for approval is, and the lender won't approve if there is a long term lease on the site, so essentially you would have to run your business on a short term lease, probably month to month and have to vacate once a certain number of pre sales, which you may or may not know, is hit.  Who would want to do that?

Are these people not asking for their deposits to be returned guaranteed the prices from when they signed on in 2007~?  Otherwise I can't imagine why anyone would let the money sit in an escrow account, or however it is that they do it.  It could easily be 5 if not 10 years before something happens here.  After all 2009 will be the 10-year anniversary of the 5th & Race Tower demolition. 

Are these people not asking for their deposits to be returned guaranteed the prices from when they signed on in 2007~? Otherwise I can't imagine why anyone would let the money sit in an escrow account, or however it is that they do it. It could easily be 5 if not 10 years before something happens here. After all 2009 will be the 10-year anniversary of the 5th & Race Tower demolition.

 

I think the difference is riverviews and a clear development plan

It is worth pointing out that the Gregory's who owned the conference center are one of the primary investors in the project. It was their decision to tear down the building before things were truly ready to go.

Unfortunately they may have been trying to make the most money possible instead of just getting something up and walking away with a solid profit.  It's interesting when looking at the stalled foundation pit dug for the Chicago Spire that the new condos next to it are only 3 or 4 floors high.  No doubt they could have thrown up something like the 4-floor stuff along Eastern Ave. and been counting their millions by now. 

 

 

As long as they don't put up some Waters Edge crap, I'd be fine seeing it sit for something like what is planned after the market comes back.

As long as they don't put up some Waters Edge crap, I'd be fine seeing it sit for something like what is planned after the market comes back.

 

Agreed.  They might have indeed been a bit greedy, but at the same time it was a pretty quality project for a very unique site.  I would rather it sit as it is in order to get a high quality product.  The site isn't very visible for the vast majority of visitors to Downtown so it's not all that big of a deal in that regard.

The empty lot isn't, but a finished project would add a lot of depth to the skyline.  It would be visible from Bellevue and Newport obviously, but less obviously while driving on I-71 N right off the bridge and into the Fort Washington Way trench. 

Unfortunately they may have been trying to make the most money possible instead of just getting something up and walking away with a solid profit.  It's interesting when looking at the stalled foundation pit dug for the Chicago Spire that the new condos next to it are only 3 or 4 floors high.  No doubt they could have thrown up something like the 4-floor stuff along Eastern Ave. and been counting their millions by now. 

 

Yeah but with developers of that calibur, they make so many millions of dollars that they can hold off until the project is complete (when they'll make tens of millions more). I guess when you're that big, it's worth it. I thought it was funny too, seeing those 4 story condos next to the Spire.

highest best use

 

 

Are these people not asking for their deposits to be returned guaranteed the prices from when they signed on in 2007~? Otherwise I can't imagine why anyone would let the money sit in an escrow account, or however it is that they do it.

 

While we were waiting for our unit to be built at Park Place at Lytle (also by Miller-Valentine), they were paying us an interest rate on our escrow funds of around 7% (which seemed high to me).

If they're paying them 7% right now that's one of the better investments going.  I'm assuming that the interest is being paid out of the company's revenues and savings, not out of the balance of the deposits.  Otherwise the deposits would be depleted in about 10 years or if people start pulling their money out there wouldn't be any left for the last few people, similar to a ponzi scheme. 

Well, everyone got there 7% added in at closing, so if obviously was coming from somewhere else.

So you did not earn the interest if you have the deposit returned without closing?  That makes a lot more sense for both parties.  Otherwise people could just make deposits and earn interest better than a bond or CD. 

So you did not earn the interest if you have the deposit returned without closing?

 

In a normal situation, if the buyer backs out, they may not even get their deposit back. That's kind of the point of having a deposit.

 

In special cases such as a major delay or cancellation of development, I suspect there's a case to be made for the developer having to pay the interest out along with the deposit.  But I'm no expert.

 

I'm sure every contingency spelled out in that tiny little print that's been run through the copier enough times that you can't read it when you sign. :-)

So is this dead or what?

^Pretty much yes.

It's not over until its....well it's pretty much over.

 

One River Plaza gets extension

 

By Lisa Bernard-Kuhn • [email protected]  • August 23, 2010

 

DOWNTOWN  – The long-stalled One River Plaza – a proposed 140-unit condominium project on Cincinnati’s riverfront – may not be completely sidelined.

 

The project’s ownership group landed a one-year extension for the development’s zoning to “permit time for recovery from the economic crisis,” according to a report to Cincinnati’s Planning Commission.

 

 

Rest of the story here:  http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100823/BIZ01/308230034/One-River-Plaza-gets-extension

I forgot about this project. 

So did the rest of the world.

Looks like they're headed back to the City's Planning Commission tomorrow for yet another extension. Good grief!

there needs to be rentals in this development or it won't get off the ground for quite some time. 

According to the documents they submitted to the PC last Friday they seem to be pursuing apartments, office and retail.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps44772.pdf

 

Relevant information starts on page 2.

^Not sure about the retail, but apartments and offices seem to be a better choice than the condos they've been waiting on for years.

I think it could support something small and low key (like a coffee shop, small eatery etc.). With Lytle Tower near by, the increased residential population with office workers can sustain a few small businesses and add some vitality to that area.

The "City property across the street" is nearly complete in it's transition to an actual parking lot. The laying of asphalt, stripping, and installation of light poles appears all that is left. Not sure how many spaces it'll have.

 

I really hate the idea of a parking garage eventually going in at this location. It's only saving grace would be 1st floor retail.

 

Either way, crossing Pete Rose Way in this area can be very dangerous. The businesses in the old Midland building hire off-duty police in the morning and evening to control traffic as to allow pedestrians to safely cross.

perhaps they'll institute some (desperately needed) traffic calming measures in the area.

A little disappointing, but better than nothing. Since we're about to have 300 apartments come online in the next 18 months just a few blocks down the river it would be great to have these be for a mix of for rent and for sale units to continue to increase ownership along the river.

 

Also, not sure we need anymore office space downtown right now. The Edge building about a block away is newly renovated and still pretty vacant, Atrium, Baldwin Center, Chiquita Center, etc all have high vacancy rates and there's a large plot at the Banks waiting for a tenant.

 

But!! Good to see they're still trying. Hope they don't replace the original design with some boring different tower.

I just read over on SSP that a piece of land next to the Purple People Bridge is under contract with Atlanta based Novare Group. That's the group that has been building the Skyhouse apartment towers all over the place (Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver, Austin, etc.). Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

I just read over on SSP that a piece of land next to the Purple People Bridge is under contract with Atlanta based Novare Group. That's the group that has been building the Skyhouse apartment towers all over the place (Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver, Austin, etc.). Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

 

I heard last night that someone had recently bought the land, too. Don't know who though. What is SSP?

Skyscraperpage.com

 

That's really interesting that there's movement on that land. The base of the Purple People Bridge has enough land for probably 4-5 towers around it on all those lots. It could be a really great new highrise neighborhood that would extend our skyline upriver.

 

Hopefully these rumors turn out to be true.

Yes, development of that piece of property at the foot of the purple people bridge does appear to moving forward.  I'm hesitant to share too much information at this time, but I imagine there will be some sort of public announcement on this project within the next couple months.

 

There have been several recent attempts at moving forward with development of that site, but all efforts have fallen through for financial reasons (developer was unable to get their financials to work with how much the Gregorys wanted for the land).  It will be nice to finally see something constructed on this property (after sitting vacant for the last 8+ years).

 

 

 

Well if it's Novare Group then it's no leap to assume that there will be highrise development, no? They look like they pretty much go big or go home. Those Skyhouse buildings that are currently under development look like they are spec and all are ~25 stories. That would look great in that are of the CBD/Riverfront.

 

Edit: Those buildings are all ~285ft. Parking? Maybe that's used to get it out of the FP. I may be getting way ahead of myself here but could this be +300' or will we get another scaled down "Cincinnati" version of things. Also, what happens with that corner of DT if this comes to bear. There's a relative lack of services over there.

^ I think they have about 3 different stock designs that they choose from when building these towers. They keep their costs low by not having to do a new design for each building, which bodes well for us to get something over 20 stories.

Which is totally fine honestly. None of those buildings are offensive. They're nothing special, but would still be good additions to our skyline.

 

That corner of town could very easily become Banks-esque but more naturally grown. Throw 4 of these towers together on all those lots and you wind up with 1,500-2,000 people suddenly in a very small area that already has great access to parks and can then easily support come businesses.

Which is totally fine honestly. None of those buildings are offensive. They're nothing special, but would still be good additions to our skyline.

 

That corner of town could very easily become Banks-esque but more naturally grown. Throw 4 of these towers together on all those lots and you wind up with 1,500-2,000 people suddenly in a very small area that already has great access to parks and can then easily support come businesses.

 

I'd totally settle for two. It looks like if we are just talking about the old Montgomery Inn lot there would be room. Agree on the designs. I think they would add a touch of modern and def refresh the look when juxtaposed with the architectural version of a Members Only jacket, 1LP.

 

The Montgomery Inn insanely gets the revenue from the city-owned valet lot next to the Boathouse without having to pay the city any kind of cut.  That has been the arrangement since 1988.  Also, they got the damn building built for almost free through some sort of grant that paid for the boathouse section of the boathouse which is under the restaurant.  This family has gotten insanely wealthy off of this arrangement, all at the expense of the public.  I last talked to a public figure about this situation two years ago, and he said changing this arrangement for whatever reason can't be done. 

There was activity onsite again this week. Looked like they were taking soil samples...

The Montgomery Inn insanely gets the revenue from the city-owned valet lot next to the Boathouse without having to pay the city any kind of cut.  That has been the arrangement since 1988.  Also, they got the damn building built for almost free through some sort of grant that paid for the boathouse section of the boathouse which is under the restaurant.  This family has gotten insanely wealthy off of this arrangement, all at the expense of the public.  I last talked to a public figure about this situation two years ago, and he said changing this arrangement for whatever reason can't be done.

 

The Montgomery Inn was (maybe still is) a tenant of the building.  It was built and owned by a developer, Charles Kubicki (his name is on the front of the building), who also leases the land for the parking lot, and the building is leased to Montgomery Inn.  They may have since purchased it some time in the past, but the land that the building and parking lot sits on is owned by the City of Cincinnati.  It is free to park in that lot, but the parking folks tell you that you must pay, which is incorrect.  He did get a sweetheart land lease though, but if anyone remembers what Bicentennial Commons and the eastern riverfront looked like in the mid 80s, it was pretty sketchy. Just to the west of where the Boathouse is now located was a factory that coated metal bumpers, and it was nasty and heavily toxic.

This would be amazing.

Chroming is a vile process.

The Business Courier is teasing an article that will be published tomorrow: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/03/10/new-apartment-tower-planned-for-cincinnatis.html

 

They include a rendering with the filename "skyhousenashville.jpg", which presumably is the still under construction tower in Nashville. But if SkyHouse repurposes their designs, perhaps Cincinnati's tower will look similar/identical.

They appear to only have one design under the Skyhouse label so that's what we'll be getting with slight material variation.