As some people have stated before, I think people who live at SkyHouse will be just as likely to walk to Newport on the Levee as to Downtown Cincinnati.

This is certainly an interesting area because there's huge amounts of pedestrian and cyclist traffic on the PPB and up and down Bulter Street, not to mention in the park, but once you get across Pete Rose Way it totally dies.  Even during the day it's pretty quiet on that stretch of 3rd Street and Culvert. 

Extreme is a harsh word. I'm sure people weren't complaining when railroads cut through the east side of downtown, separating it from Mt. Adams, or along the riverfront when there was actually industry.

 

Actually they did.  The state of Ohio controlled what is now Eggleston Ave. aver the canal was filled in, and allowed a railroad to operate there that the City of Cincinnati had no control over.  So the city's usual rules did not apply to this stretch of track, so the railroad got away with parking 1,000+ foot trains along this stretch that people had to crawl under to get to the other side of the street. 

 

As some people have stated before, I think people who live at SkyHouse will be just as likely to walk to Newport on the Levee as to Downtown Cincinnati.

 

I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

With a little development across Pete Rose Way the highway starts to become shielded from the street level a bit and this could turn into a decent residential area.  Bike in the park and eat downtown one day; catch a Reds game, walk the PPB, and grab lunch in Newport the next... not too bad.  Very connected but very quiet. $$

 

As for more southern developers, that maybe a good or bad thing.  Perhaps its mainly the contractors I have run into on jobs in the south but the quality does not seem as good, and part of that starts from the developer's expectations.

As announced in the March 22 City Bulletin, there's a public design review today at 1:30pm: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/council/references-resources/city-bulletin1/

 

UDRB - PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

The Urban Design Review Board will meet at 1:30 PM on Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at Frost Brown Todd LLC, 3300 Great American Tower, 301 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati for preliminary design review of an apartment tower on the riverfront.

 

This meeting will be open to the public.

If someone can, get info on how the garage will look and how it will interact with the street. We already know exactly what the tower will look like but the garage could make or break how this building fits into the street.

I went to the design review, and took photos of the presentation. I was using my phone to take pictures of a presentation on a tv, so sorry for the poor quality. A few things to note:

• Parking will be in a 4-level garage (1 level below grade of Pete Rose Way) to the west of the tower
  
• The lobby for the apartments faces the river
  
• The first floor facing Pete Rose Way will be retail
  
• The Butler St roundabout will be maintained and allow access to the lower level of the garage
  
• Pike St will be used as a service drive for the apartment building, but not for residents/visitors
  
• Floors 2 and 3 will be set up for 3-bedroom units with en suite bathrooms, designed specifically to allow for a lower price/person entry point for groups of young people who want to share an apartment
  

 

I had never been to one of these urban design reviews before, so I didn't know what to expect. But I was shocked that there were literally zero comments about the fact that so much of the site is taken up by a parking deck. I kept expecting one of the board members to ask how this is an appropriate urban design, but the only questions were purely about materials and colors. I was stunned.

 

Overall, I quite like the design of the tower. I just wish they were more thoughtful about the parking deck. With both Butler and Pike St providing access, they should have been able to eliminate the curb cut to the garage. There should be something on top of the garage or something wrapping it on the street... or something. It's like they didn't even try to make the garage fit into an urban format.

 

Here's the project overview:

 

Here's the site plan:

 

Ground level plan, with retail on the north side of building (on the right side of the layout):

 

Levels 2-3 plan:

 

 

Typical Residential floor plan:

 

Amenity level with pool overlooking the river:

 

East elevation:

 

South elevation:

 

West elevation:

 

North elevation:

 

 

Here's a link to all the photos I took during the presentation: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNuMI2kacpR8IcJiLAwT27zrEgLpdHQSEe5BCBIibl3ftWJbPFC9UlxaiqjJmeHtg?key=V3hHNjQyUWJBekg5eVM1VFB4SjZkeWw0RWlLVEpR

Woof.  That's a boring design.  I'm not about to stall this one though.  We need more river living.

Yeah that parking garage is really low and taking up a big footprint. Would have been neater if they went taller with the garage and left room for a second tower in some way or built something around/on top of the garage as jwulsin[/member] suggested.

Looks good enough to me!

Looks good enough to me!

 

Yeah all in all pretty awesome, it's a huge downtown development no one was really expecting. I hope I get to swim in that pool someday!

Woof.  That's a boring design.  I'm not about to stall this one though.  We need more river living.

 

^This.

Woof.  That's a boring design.  I'm not about to stall this one though.  We need more river living.

 

^This.

 

Yeah I realize its a stock design but... I think they could enlarge the balconies facing the river. Should only require 3 additional drawings maybe... (elevation, enlarged plan,    corresponding structural plan with extended beam)  Pretty easy to do, much better views than their location in Nashville so I would think this would only improve marketability. 

Who knows what sort of small additions they may be making to the base project design if the estimated cost is roughly 25M more than its Nashville counterpart.

 

It's not too bad considering what is there already.  It will work out well.

 

I am confused by the amount of parking involved, seems it is more than the number of residences?

 

I wonder if any TIF Money is involved and the public can put some money towards the ramp and help enlarge it to open it up for more development on the nearby surface lots?  Either way, hopefully this spurs some more residential in this immediate area.  This tower alone will inject some life into that area of the riverfront for certain, which is very good news.

I'm just mostly confused as to why you wouldn't place the garage in a manner that allows something else to be built along Pete Rose Way, even if that's way in the future. Centering the garage as it is so that there is a grass buffer zone between it and everything around it is so odd. Just from a developer's standpoint, if this is successful they've used up a potential site for another tower by placing the garage poorly. I don't get it.

Is the garage for the public too? And can it be expanded upon vertically? It could serve as a base for other developments across the street.

The garage is indeed a travesty. Perhaps there is some way we could voice our opinions on the matter to those involved?

I'm just mostly confused as to why you wouldn't place the garage in a manner that allows something else to be built along Pete Rose Way, even if that's way in the future. Centering the garage as it is so that there is a grass buffer zone between it and everything around it is so odd. Just from a developer's standpoint, if this is successful they've used up a potential site for another tower by placing the garage poorly. I don't get it.

 

Color me confused as well.

Woof.  That's a boring design.  I'm not about to stall this one though.  We need more river living.

 

^This.

 

I also agree. Bring it.

I was reading the Biz Courier's article about the "affordable" apt.'s being developed in E. Walnut Hills I believe and their marketing tactic was something like ... "this is for YP's who want urban living and cannot afford to live in Downtown or OTR," but the price range was something like $950 - $1,500/mo. Is that really what is considered "cheaper/affordable living?" I don't know, I haven't lived in DT in a while and if so, I'm getting a steal living in Oakley!

I was reading the Biz Courier's article about the "affordable" apt.'s being developed in E. Walnut Hills I believe and their marketing tactic was something like ... "this is for YP's who want urban living and cannot afford to live in Downtown or OTR," but the price range was something like $950 - $1,500/mo. Is that really what is considered "cheaper/affordable living?" I don't know, I haven't lived in DT in a while and if so, I'm getting a steal living in Oakley!

 

You can't compare prices unless you know the size of the apartment. Was the price range for those E Walnut Hills apartments for 1-bedroom or multi-bedrooms? The SkyHouse's approach is to have 3-bedroom apartments, which will be the cheapest option when the rent is split between 3 people. SkyHouse will also have some studio apartments for people who want to live on their own, but those will be more expensive on a per-person basis than the 3-bedroom apartments.

By definition, "affordable housing" is typically considered housing that someone pays for with less than 30% of their income. Using that measure, affordable rent for the average City of Cincinnati family is between $800 and $900 a month.

But "affordable" is different for a single person who has nobody else to support. Young, single people OUGHT to be saving as much as possible, but some want to live in a sexy new glass tower with river views. If they are working downtown, they're probably earning at least 50k, in which case they could spend up to $1200/month and still stay under that 30% guidance. If you had 3 of those people splitting a 3-bedroom, then the SkyHouse could charge $3600/month and still call it affordable! If I were their adviser, I would tell them to get a cheap place somewhere else and save more money. But that's just like my opinion, man.

Just came across this comment on another forum:

 

When it comes to Skyhouse, what I have seen personally with Skyhouse Channelside in Tampa and others, is that they do an amazing job with the tower but leave the creativity behind when it comes to the parking garage. Residents in Channelside complained about the parking garage and how big of a bare concrete wall it created that Novare's painted some birds on it, but it still looks atrocious up close. Another issue with the garage is that included zero retail. Tower included 3 that quickly filled. I can understand Novare if they had concerns with implementing any retail in the garage, considering it was along a street not as busy as others in the area and Channelside is still kind of an up and coming neighborhood being built. But I think Cincinnati offers a different environment where Skyhoise here will be in an area that is busier in foot traffic compared to Channelside.

 

I'll definitely attend the hearing for Skyhouse once it comes up to bring this issues up. I would hate to see a concrete slab hinder the beauty of the Riverfront.

 

Another thing, which popped in my brain while discussing the Skyhouse in Channelside, is that the city needs to look a dog park along the Riverfront. Skyhouse Channelside has one right in front of it that Tampa built before the tower was even improved, but that area is cool because Skyhouse has a big open space between the tower and the park for outdoor seating and everything compliments one another. But as for the dog park, I think it's needed with the amount of residential projects happening in downtown as well as the residential project in Newport across the river. And potential residents do look at dog parks before moving. It's a shame the park levy failed considering a dog park could had easily been funded by it.

 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=542750&page=33

^Sounds like someone should start talking to Artworks ASAP!

I agree with others in that I am glad something is getting built on the river.  I like the glass but think a more tiered look on top would help the overall design.  Also, I have been wondering if the word is getting out on Cincinnati.  We have seen a lot of interest from out of town developers downtown, but Novare has almost exclusively developed in high growth/sunbelt cities - maybe they are anticipating some good things.

Planning Commission approves the plans 4-1. John Schneider criticized the garage but I'm still amazed by how little criticism the garage has received.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/01/panel-oks-90m-riverfront-apartment-tower-concept/82477788/

And "...Novare Group was committed to contributing $166,000 per year for streetcar operations, he said..."

Planning Commission approves the plans 4-1. John Schneider criticized the garage but I'm still amazed by how little criticism the garage has received.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/04/01/panel-oks-90m-riverfront-apartment-tower-concept/82477788/

 

As the Mayor would say, "beggars can't be choosers." It's too bad we don't build like we used to in Cincinnati: http://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/cincinnati-curiosities-illustrated-cincinnati/

What an idiotic comment by Charlie Luken.

 

  “While cities are opening up their waterfront to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, Cincinnati would be building a glass wall at a significant access pour to the river,” said former Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken, a resident of Park Place at Lytle. “Taxpayers have spent well over a billion on development and parks on the river for the enjoyment of all. I suspect years ago people thought One Lytle Place was ‘state of the art,’ but it is generally recognized as a big mistake for our city. This building is One Lytle Place 2.”

 

Why is 1 Lytle Place bad? Because it provides housing for 100 taxpaying households of the City of Cincinnati? Much like this development will provide housing for hundreds more people? Does he realize he was mayor of a city that was losing population since 1951?

 

Yeah we've already spent a lot of money building out the park, so we shouldn't build the city up along the park border? It's somehow nicer to have a buffer zone of asphalt surface parking lots sitting there baking in the sun?

 

This kind of stuff is why I start to believe the talk that the Luken/Cranley team wants to keep Cincinnati as provincial as possible so they can run it as their own private fiefdom.

 

http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/gov-do-we-really-want-development.html

 

 

 

I can't wait until people with this mentality are flushed out of our city.

^Best quote from the Aaron Renn article:

 

Consider one simple thought experiment: If a struggling community starts booming, that would eliminate a big part of the rationale for subsidized real estate development, which constitutes the principal form of economic development in all too many places, and which benefits a clear interest group. It might also attract highly motivated, aggressive people from out of town, folks who are highly likely to agitate for better than the current inbred ways of doing business. This would inherently dilute the positions of the current powers that be.

That quote feels so relative to our current situation that it hurts.

Our downtown is moving in the right direction despite Cranley's epic stubbornness.  I'm excited about Skyhouse and always looked at the East side of downtown as having a lot of potential.  So much land there to continue building on.

Yep. Luken really looks mindless and uninformed.  I get his motivation but...

 

One Lytle Place 2? Ha. Maybe it would just be Two Lytle Place...that was the plan anyway, right?

Luken was a POS mayor, he can go to hell.

 

That quote from Aaron Renn is spot on too - same reason why I encourage tourism too Cincinnati as well, the inbred provincial types need to be overwhelmed with outside ideas and drowned out.

Yeah, there was supposed to be a Two Lytle Place, and there was supposed to be an Atrium III. 

 

Luken and Cranley exist to channel any and all development to a handful of big-fish-in-small-pond losers. 

Yeah, there was supposed to be a Two Lytle Place, and there was supposed to be an Atrium III. 

 

Luken and Cranley exist to channel any and all development to a handful of big-fish-in-small-pond losers.

 

You've done a good job of shedding light on this sort of thing over the years. 

 

Incidentally the Enquirer Building 312 Walnut was to have a twin as well. 

 

Eager for const. to start. This corner of CBD needs life.

There were originally three Lytle Place towers planned for the riverfront.

 

 

I'll be entirely honest. I absolutely hate how One Lytle meets the ground and has absolutely no street presence from an urbanistic standpoint, but I have a soft spot for that tower. If it got a good cleaning it could be an attractive example of that era of residential highrise design. Something we should embrace instead of shunning.

 

The whole site planning of East Pete Rose Way needs help though. That quarter round parking garage, One Lytle, SkyHouse's garage, etc. all form a really inhospitable environment for people to walk which is a shame since this area could easily become a super comfortable residential area if some urban planning tactics from, say Vancouver, were stolen and put in place here.

Somebody mentioned that John Schneider requested they make some changes to the garage at the last meeting. Does anyone know any more information?

The April 1 Planning Commission Packet has more info about the Skyhouse project, including renderings and a transcript from a public forum with a Q&A (page 42).

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/apr-1-2016-packet/

 

Here's a link in case Planning Commission removes the PDF from their site: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zbt9tpcumal39n4/CPC%20Packet%204-1-16.pdf?dl=0

 

A few interesting/sad bits:

• The parking garage would not be able to support a future structure being built on top of it.
  
• Of the 500 spaces in the garage, 50-60 would be available to the public.
  
• Matt Shad (from the City's Buildings & Inspection department) asked if the parking garage could be flanked by row houses that would add "eyes on the street". The answer was "no buildings will flank the garage".
  
• 
  

Although nothing will front the street and line the garage now, they have inexplicably left enough room for townhomes so if demand ever gets high enough then it could technically happen.

Although nothing will front the street and line the garage now, they have inexplicably left enough room for townhomes so if demand ever gets high enough then it could technically happen.

 

Possibly... but I'm afraid they're leaving not quite enough room to make that feasible, creating an unhappy medium of a space that is big enough to create a dead space and too small to be filled with anything. I can't find the exact distance, but I think they're setting the building and garage back about 20' from the property line. That's too shallow for most building types. The 3CDC townhouses on the north side of the Mercer Garage are on 30' deep lots. If the Skyhouse garage design allowed for 30' between the garage and Pete Rose Way, then I think it might one day get built on... but I just don't see that happening if they only leave 20' of space.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think any design/review board has any authority to actually influence these designs... so it's entirely up to the developer to decide if/how to incorporate the feedback they're receiving from the City and public.

 

 

SkyHouse goes from green to blue

 

 

Taking the advice of a panel charged with vetting whether major downtown development projects will fit in with Cincinnati’s distinctive skyline, the developers of a $90 million apartment tower are changing the building’s main color from green to blue.

 

Designers of the Atlanta-based Novare Group’s 25-story, 352-unit SkyHouse project along the riverfront unveiled the changes to the city’s Urban Design Review Board on Thursday. While the panel does not have the power to compel changes, it advises Cincinnati’s city manager on projects’ design.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/04/07/skyhouse-goes-from-green-to-blue.html

“In that picture, it’s too blue for the palette of our city,” said Buck Niehoff, a member of the board.

 

We have a palette?

I scratched my head at that one, too. I get being weirded out by a proposal for a pink toothpick building or something, but at the same time, why not? it would be totally different and generate some good press, not to mention push the architectural conversation envelope in the city.

Also, anyone else notice in that rendering that CUF/Mt. Auburn moved to Price Hill?

Also, anyone else notice in that rendering that CUF/Mt. Auburn moved to Price Hill?

 

Yup.