Street Level in this area will flood once every 30 years or so.  

On 6/21/2019 at 2:35 PM, savadams13 said:

Nah not dumb at all, alot of people always assumed that with the park. Charles Sawyer, was the Secretary of Commerce under the Truman Administration, when he passed in 79 his kids leased the land to Cincinnati for the Bicentennial Park construction in the 80s. The Sawyer family owns alot of land around the tri-state still. 

 

And a former residence hall at UC was named for Charles.

Construction Fencing is going up and they are starting to clear the site of the old parking attendant hut and other items. Looks like the ugly Artistry building is a go or moving forward. To think of all the great proposals for this site over the years, and the project that looks like anywhere suburban USA will be the one built on this prime piece of real estate...

38 minutes ago, savadams13 said:

Construction Fencing is going up and they are starting to clear the site of the old parking attendant hut and other items. Looks like the ugly Artistry building is a go or moving forward. To think of all the great proposals for this site over the years, and the project that looks like anywhere suburban USA will be the one built on this prime piece of real estate...

 

It doesn't look that bad and it's better than an empty parking lot. At the very least it will bring new residents and Businesses to an otherwise dead part of downtown...

 

Regarding the prime real estate bit...yes it's prime real estate but when your not a major city you sort of have to cross your fingers, hope for the best and be happy with any new construction development that comes your way. 

8 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

It doesn't look that bad and it's better than an empty parking lot. At the very least it will bring new residents and Businesses to an otherwise dead part of downtown...

 

Regarding the prime real estate bit...yes it's prime real estate but when your not a major city you sort of have to cross your fingers, hope for the best and be happy with any new construction development that comes your way. 

 Disagree. Columbus tends to get significantly better design outcomes from infill in their prime central city locations. It is all about how sophisticated local design culture is. The city could use an apartment design guide of some sorts to at least ensure some elements of better design are achieved. 

 

As for this project, have we seen a site plan or any renderings from the river side? Is it integrating with the trail? How is the parking being done? From the one render, it appears parking will be underground or built within the building, which is better than Skyhouse’s stand along garage, but it’s tough to tell without more detail. Scouring the internet doesn’t provide lots of information, which is never a good sign...

9 minutes ago, atlas said:

 Disagree. Columbus tends to get significantly better design outcomes from infill in their prime central city locations. It is all about how sophisticated local design culture is. The city could use an apartment design guide of some sorts to at least ensure some elements of better design are achieved. 

 

Eh, based on the rendering it looks VERY similar to lots of the stuff being built along North High Street. 

13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Eh, based on the rendering it looks VERY similar to lots of the stuff being built along North High Street. 

Isn’t that the problem? Cincinnati’s getting the same stuff in downtown that it’s getting in Clifton in Cincy / University District in Columbus. From what I can tell (I’m not in Ohio so I’m just a voyeur), aside from some infill in OTR, Columbus is getting better outcomes in Short North and Arena District than anywhere in Cincinnati. The newly designed soccer stadiums if each city are a good example -  in my view, the urban design/street level design of the Crew stadium is far superior to that of FC. 

7 minutes ago, atlas said:

Isn’t that the problem? Cincinnati’s getting the same stuff in downtown that it’s getting in Clifton in Cincy / University District in Columbus. From what I can tell (I’m not in Ohio so I’m just a voyeur), aside from some infill in OTR, Columbus is getting better outcomes in Short North and Arena District than anywhere in Cincinnati. The newly designed soccer stadiums if each city are a good example -  in my view, the urban design/street level design of the Crew stadium is far superior to that of FC. 

 

It's hard to measure that statement because most of the infill, by and large has mainly occurred in otr in the past 5 years........and otr, combined with Pendelton, Mohawk, prospect hill are a much larger area than the Nationwide arena/parts of short north. 

 

I think if we look at current towers being built, 4th and Race, Court Street Tower, 8th and Main, than it doesn't paint that bad of a picture for Cincinnati downtown infill. 

 

 

How exactly are these Columbus developments in Short North and Arena District "better" then anything in Cincy?  The Artistry development would fit right in with the below cookie cutter developments that are being done across the country. 

 

 

 

 

From an environmental perspective, this is way better than what skyhouse proposed.  Tall skinny towers mean lots of steel, which mean lots of CO2 emissions.  The skyhouse proposal didn't use the site very well. lots of wasted space.  If this give us the same number of apartments with better use of space, I am all for it. 

I don't recall exactly but I think Columbus has a materials requirement for using brick as a percentage of the building frontage. 

 

Also they have a very early form-based code that requires buildings be built to the street, have front entrances, percent of glazing, rear parking, etc. It definitely forces development to interact better at the street level. 

 

Columbus does a better job for sure at filtering out crap design, but some of it still makes it through.

24 minutes ago, atlas said:

Isn’t that the problem? Cincinnati’s getting the same stuff in downtown that it’s getting in Clifton in Cincy / University District in Columbus. From what I can tell (I’m not in Ohio so I’m just a voyeur), aside from some infill in OTR, Columbus is getting better outcomes in Short North and Arena District than anywhere in Cincinnati. The newly designed soccer stadiums if each city are a good example -  in my view, the urban design/street level design of the Crew stadium is far superior to that of FC. 

 

I completely disagree. This project looks very similar to what’s been/being built in Short North and the Arena district which is why I’m not a fan. Also in regards to the MLS stadiums comparison in my opinion the FC Cincinnati stadium is much better than that of the Columbus crew. The crew stadium is very basic looking and very similar to what’s about to go up in Nashville. (Keep in mind we haven’t seen the final design of the crew stadium yet)

12 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

How exactly are these Columbus developments in Short North and Arena District "better" then anything in Cincy?  The Artistry development would fit right in with the below cookie cutter developments that are being done across the country. 

 

 

 

 

 

100%. Thank you.

1 hour ago, atlas said:

aside from some infill in OTR, Columbus is getting better outcomes in Short North and Arena District than anywhere in Cincinnati. 

 

I think this is where our opinions differ. The Artistry looks just like what you find in the Short North and Arena District. When I saw it I actually thought it must be a Columbus developer. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the design myself, but I do like that it meets the street and provides some nice density in an overlooked part of downtown. This SHOULD be a prime location, but in reality it is not. Maybe this will help other developers discover the area and we can fill in more surface lots around it with some brand-spanking new towers. 

1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I think this is where our opinions differ. The Artistry looks just like what you find in the Short North and Arena District. When I saw it I actually thought it must be a Columbus developer. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the design myself, but I do like that it meets the street and provides some nice density in an overlooked part of downtown. This SHOULD be a prime location, but in reality it is not. Maybe this will help other developers discover the area and we can fill in more surface lots around it with some brand-spanking new towers. 

 

Yeah, I never really realized how many empty lots that side of downtown has. From Sawyer point to the casino there is  just so much opportunity with empty lots and transform them to new mixed use development. 

 

That side of downtown is so desolate, but with investment could be al great extension of our downtown with a few modestly sized towers and skyscrapers.

 

 

30 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I think this is where our opinions differ. The Artistry looks just like what you find in the Short North and Arena District. When I saw it I actually thought it must be a Columbus developer. 

 

I'm not a big fan of the design myself, but I do like that it meets the street and provides some nice density in an overlooked part of downtown. This SHOULD be a prime location, but in reality it is not. Maybe this will help other developers discover the area and we can fill in more surface lots around it with some brand-spanking new towers. 

The big differences between what’s happening at the Gantry in Northside (which the Artistry is a slightly improved version of) or other similar projects and many of the Short North / Arena District projects is ground floor treatment and urban cadence. In C-Bus they seem to represent the ‘city at eye level’ principles more than what projects like The Artistry do. They tend to articulate vertically, have good masonry/window opening ratios on the ground floor, have a lot of brick, avoid long horizontal lines and don’t feature as many dead walls. This is a general sense and of course C-Bus has some lame projects like the rest of the world. 

 

With The Artistry, i care less about the ‘what it looks like’ than how it works in an urban sense. Is it contributing to a walkable city? Does the ground floor contribute to eyes on the street? The Artistry needs a lot of work at the ground floor. And for the love of god can we get some height difference? This is a massive lot and they can afford to punch up another few floors at one of the corners before having to go podium/tower. 

That pocket of downtown is not going to be "prime real estate" without a bold vision and some serious investment to reconfigure that area. The configuration of all the highway ramps, parking garages, surface streets, elevated plazas and walkways in that area makes it unpleasant and difficult to get around as a pedestrian. The tangle of highway ramps really separates the riverfront, the CBD, and Mt. Adams from each other even though they are so close geographically. If we ever have the opportunity to redo the I-471/I-71/US-50 interchange, we could do a Fort Washington Way-style project where we bury, sink, or eliminate some of those ramps and really stitch that area back together.

of the , 71, 471, 50 triangle, seems like you could really just rip out the 71 parts and make it so 71S follows the path of 471 until it gets to 50.  Then 71 turns and follows 50.  Have a full set of ramps at this new 71, 471, 50 interchange.  Then you can eliminate the tunnels under Lytle park, the elevated parts of 71 and recover that triangle of surface lots.  I realize a bunch of money was just spent on rehabbing the tunnels, and the elevated parts of 71, so this will never happen.  But if you wanted a less complicated/expensive design than what we currently have, it seems possible.

I actually think what hurt it the worst was the I-471 connection since it runs right next to Eggleston.  That's a very wide boulevard which used to be flanked by sizable multi-story warehouses, resulting in a street wall not unlike Central Parkway.  With the highway on one side it's not possible to create that boulevard feel again.  If we could, then Eggleston itself would be the spine/anchor encouraging redevelopment of the blocks in between. 

2 hours ago, taestell said:

That pocket of downtown is not going to be "prime real estate" without a bold vision and some serious investment to reconfigure that area. The configuration of all the highway ramps, parking garages, surface streets, elevated plazas and walkways in that area makes it unpleasant and difficult to get around as a pedestrian. The tangle of highway ramps really separates the riverfront, the CBD, and Mt. Adams from each other even though they are so close geographically. If we ever have the opportunity to redo the I-471/I-71/US-50 interchange, we could do a Fort Washington Way-style project where we bury, sink, or eliminate some of those ramps and really stitch that area back together.

 

With good sound barriers and proper design the whole area could take on a similar feel to DUMBO in Brooklyn, where having the bridge overpass as a part of the neighborhood aesthetic makes it feel cool instead of uninviting. 

https://goo.gl/maps/koLkoH34hJRW595y7

Brooklyn has the advantage of people willing to literally live anywhere there is space, I doubt living practically underneath a highway would be as appealing here 

1 hour ago, jjakucyk said:

Eggleston itself would be the spine/anchor encouraging redevelopment of the blocks in between.

 

That's true, and unfortunately the shared use path that the city built on the north side of Eggleston has been a bit of a failure. I see bikes and e-scooters using it sometimes, but I see them using the street itself (or illegally using the pedesrian-only sidewalk on the other side of the street) just as often. At the south end of the path, the city did not even bother to install a crosswalk on Pete Rose Way, so you have to cross to the other side of Eggleston before you can cross over to Sawyer Point. At the north end of the path, it just dead ends at the Eggleston/Broadway/Court intersection where crossing the street legally takes so long and requires that you walk so far out of the way, most people (including a lot of sheriff deputies) just jaywalk. These might sound like dumb nitpicks, but these little inconveniences all add up and result in that part of the city feeling way less pedestrian-friendly, which results in...fewer pedestrians and less street life.

14 minutes ago, seaswan said:

Brooklyn has the advantage of people willing to literally live anywhere there is space, I doubt living practically underneath a highway would be as appealing here 

 

I mean people live next to elevated subway train tracks in downtown chicago and those things are probably more annoying than hearing cars swoosh by. 

 

I don't think it would be neccessary unappealing to live next to a highway ramp if there was some beautification involved...(appropriate lighting, scattered mural art/art sculptures, paved side walks, maybe some attractions like a hidden hong kong style food hall alley full of neon lights. 

 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, troeros said:

 

I mean people live next to elevated subway train tracks in downtown chicago and those things are probably more annoying than hearing cars swoosh by. 

 

I don't think it would be neccessary unappealing to live next to a highway ramp if there was some beautification involved...(appropriate lighting, scattered mural art/art sculptures, paved side walks, maybe some attractions like a hidden hong kong style food hall alley full of neon lights. 

 

Exactly. Here are some examples in Philly of both a car/train bridge and elevated train tracks. The highrise is literally called "The Bridge" and the other two are from Fishtown, a neighborhood that has become the hipster mecca of Philly. 

Yeah but thats my point...we arent a major city, like be realistic. Those cities are WAY bigger than cincinnati. 

 

Show me an example of that happening in Cbus, Milwaukee, KCMO, etc and I'll be convinced it will happen here. Not trying to be rude I just genuinley dont belive it will happen here 

15 hours ago, seaswan said:

Yeah but thats my point...we arent a major city, like be realistic. Those cities are WAY bigger than cincinnati. 

 

Show me an example of that happening in Cbus, Milwaukee, KCMO, etc and I'll be convinced it will happen here. Not trying to be rude I just genuinley dont belive it will happen here 

 

I mean this is a fair point, BUT I'd also point out that there are acres and acres of desolate neighborhoods throughout North Philly that have not seen any kind of development in years (though this is changing as development creeps north). So why did Fishtown redevelop first? The answer is location. In addition to the subway elevated line, there is good highway access. The area along Eggleston doesn't have a subway line, obviously, but it is literally right next to downtown and OTR and has some of the best highway access in the entire region. It's also right next to Sawyer Point and all the amenities of the riverfront. I don't think we're going to see any new residential development right next to an overpass in Elmwood Place (for example) any time soon, but if it is going to happen then this location downtown is the most likely place. 

15 hours ago, seaswan said:

Yeah but thats my point...we arent a major city, like be realistic. Those cities are WAY bigger than cincinnati. 

 

Show me an example of that happening in Cbus, Milwaukee, KCMO, etc and I'll be convinced it will happen here. Not trying to be rude I just genuinley dont belive it will happen here 

 

I think it's supply versus demand ultimately. 

 

We still have so many more historic buildings that need to be rehabbed, so many vacant office buildings that could be potentially converted to residential, not to mention many empty lots that are in the CBD/west end and otr that can be redeveloped.

 

Ultimately we will get to a point where those empty lots by the ramps will have to be developed because of pure lack of urban land and the economic push to continue developement and new residential. 

What about Cleveland?

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5005917,-81.7058332,3a,75y,177.45h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn9XRMngNjas1_Qi4GqXhKQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Eggleston development. I always loved the idea of eggleston being developed. Some architect could development a variety of angular buildings keeping the jail theme going. P&G could add the third tower ( don't know what Dolly would do with another peak). Plus additional P&G expansion. A few parks. I think many urban types would like the idea of living next to the interstate old bridges, etc. And if they're lucky get a view of Mt. Adams or downtown or both. A friendly industrial feel.  

Why is there even a bridge still there for Gilbert? I know it was for railways, but is there any possibility of tearing it down/replacing it with a road? It would help that area a lot

The Gilbert Avenue Viaduct should absolutely be torn down and meet Eggleston at-grade. But the city will never do it, because commuters would complain that it would add 47 seconds to their average daily commute.

It's an awfully large and elaborate structure that really only eliminates one intersection, and then only for Gilbert itself.  If it was demolished, Gilbert would intersect Eggleston at Reedy where there's already a light, so it wouldn't really affect Eggleston much.  What's left of Reedy and Culvert would need to be reconfigured or just dead-ended, but that looks pretty trivial.  Of course get the traffic engineers involved and it would require triple left turn lanes and double right turns and crazy signal phasing and slip turns and who knows what else.  

 

I will say this for the current overpass, it allows the bus lines that use Gilbert, which is a lot of them, to fly in and out of downtown.  They can go nearly a mile without stopping, giving them a leg up on travel times.  Of course this just illustrates how there's "no there there" along that stretch of road.  

Does anyone know if this will have any sort of crane? 

13 hours ago, taestell said:

The Gilbert Avenue Viaduct should absolutely be torn down and meet Eggleston at-grade. But the city will never do it, because commuters would complain that it would add 47 seconds to their average daily commute.

I stare at the redundant Gilbert Ave overpass every single day (or did, at least, until we started renovating our office a couple weeks ago) and haven't been able to stop myself from dreaming about the attached trace paper sketches. Who's got millions of dollars and political connections? I have another sketch that incorporates a new Greyhound bus terminal, but I can't find it...

It would really open up that area of downtown, its a shame to see it all wasting away as it currently is

Wow, I never realized how wasteful it is. Very interesting. Let's do that and get the county jail moved while we're at it. 

Edited September 6, 20195 yr by cincydave8

3 hours ago, cincydave8 said:

Wow, I never realized how wasteful it is. Very interesting. Let's do that and get the county jail moved while we're at it. 

YES. And re-purpose the building as Cincinnati's first micro-tel with one hotel room per jail cell haha.

Turn the bridge into a dog park.  The bitch line.  

 

 

 

6 hours ago, cincydave8 said:

Let's do that and get the county jail moved while we're at it. 

 

Have other cities/counties done this before? The courthouse and justice center have a monopoly on their business, so it doesn't really matter where they are located. What would be the drawback of moving them from their current location to a low land value area? Put them where they could kickstart the revitalization of a neighborhood.

9/16/2019

 

 

As much as I don't like the design of this development (mainly because of its comparison to how great Skyhouse would have looked) it's still great to see more residential units added in the urban core.  1010 on the Rhine is finishing up so it's great we have another pretty big development coming online now.  

Edited September 16, 20195 yr by Cincy513

I like a signature skyscraper as much as the next guy, but Skyhouse would not have been signature... in fact, it would be an exact copy of Skyhouse's in other cities. Having practically the exact same number of units (344 in artistry vs 352 in skyhouse) closer to the street and park will contribute more positively to vitality on the ground for people. 

16 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

9/16/2019

 

 

 

Dang! Never truly realized how large that lot was! Great to see parking filled 

45 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

I like a signature skyscraper as much as the next guy, but Skyhouse would not have been signature... in fact, it would be an exact copy of Skyhouse's in other cities. Having practically the exact same number of units (344 in artistry vs 352 in skyhouse) closer to the street and park will contribute more positively to vitality on the ground for people. 

 

So, a chain of skyscrapers then.

17 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

So, a chain of skyscrapers then.

1 hour ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

I like a signature skyscraper as much as the next guy, but Skyhouse would not have been signature... in fact, it would be an exact copy of Skyhouse's in other cities. Having practically the exact same number of units (344 in artistry vs 352 in skyhouse) closer to the street and park will contribute more positively to vitality on the ground for people. 

woah. I looked it up and youre right, they are all literally the exact same building. Don't look nearly as nice as the renderings, either. 

Perhaps a Skyhouse could be built in another location. Maybe the lots north of the casino parking garage would be good for it? That might mess with some views to and from Mt. Adams though.

22 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Perhaps a Skyhouse could be built in another location. Maybe the lots north of the casino parking garage would be good for it? That might mess with some views to and from Mt. Adams though.

 

There is plenty of room to put these scale of buildings in the lots between Eggleston and Culvert/Broadway. 

 

I think blocking someone's view of the P&G HQ or 5/3rd's HQ stands less of a chance than blocking the view of the Ohio River (what the NIMBY's were upset about with SkyHouse) but you never know!

38 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Perhaps a Skyhouse could be built in another location. Maybe the lots north of the casino parking garage would be good for it? That might mess with some views to and from Mt. Adams though.

 

IIRC, former mayor Charlie Luken spoke in opposition to the SkyHouse proposal (at the now-Artistry site) because he said it would block the view for people living in Mt. Adams.

Why does anyone think their view should be guaranteed for life?  Such simple minded small town thinking.