I read about this in the passed ordinances from the 5/11/05 city council meeting.

 

The specifics:

* The developer is the 255 Fifth Limited Partnership, which is also the owner of the Chemed Center.  The Hines Company is a major partner.

* The project will be built on the empty lot on the NE corner of Fourth and Main.

* Retail - 7500 SF of street-level and 3500 SF of basement space.

* Parking garage - 156 stalls on 5 levels.  It will be tied into the adjacent parking structure, which they also own.

* The project cost is $4.6M-$5.5M, and will be paid for with private dollars.  The developer will receive a 10-year tax abatement to compensate for disadvantages with the size of the site.

* Construction will start in June or July 2005 and end in July 2006 (possibly January...the documents make it unclear).

 

Interdepartmental Correspondence to City Council (PDF)

 

Project Summary (PDF)

 

Community Reinvestment Area Tax Exemption Agreement (PDF)

Rendering?   This dud of a green space has always annoyed me and I didn't realize they actually had long-term plans for it.  I'm curious as to what shape a building could take here considering the loading dock driveway and the alledged 5-deck garage.

I'm curious to see a rendering too. I can't quite picture it in my head yet.

Well...no rendering because it hasn't really been formally announced yet.  I guess I scooped the newspapers.

nice one grasscat.  to tell you the truth, i come here first for the day's development news.  used to be cincinnati.com, but i got sick of sifting through fluff to get to the stuff i care about. 

 

^sounds like a corny endorsement of sorts, but it's the truth. :)

That would be an ackward addition to the existing parking garage. I always thought that greenspace was too small to build anything there anyway. INteresting

Thanks, CiNYC!

 

For reference (because I know how hard it is to picture how the empty lot relates to the block as a whole), here's a map and a pic of the parking garage.

 

To put it in perspective, it appears that this lot actually has more street frontage than the Central Pkwy end of the Gateway condos.

The tax exemption agreement was signed into law last Wednesday (the 18th), so it's a go.

I drove by and saw barriers being setup around the northeast corner of 4th and main tonight where the vacant lot is.  :-)

Does anyone know if there could possibly be condos involved?

Not according to the project summary.

I don't know how excited I can get about another parking garage.  Is that there much need for parking?

Is that there much need for parking?

 

Yes.

When I worked at the Chemed Building, I was paying over $200 per month for an assigned spot.  The waiting list for unassigned parking was excruciatingly long. The garage often reached capacity.

From the 3/17/06 Enquirer:

 

 

Walgreens moves to 4th, Main

BY MARLA MATZER ROSE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Two years after one Walgreens drugstore moved into a new building at Sixth and Race streets, the other downtown Walgreens has signed a deal to move to new digs.

 

The nation's top drugstore chain, with sales of $42.2 billion for its most recent fiscal year, will become the ground-floor tenant in a structure being built by the Hines real estate firm next to its Chemed building at Fourth and Main streets.

 

The building will include an additional 156 parking spaces above the Walgreens, which will attach to the 1,066-space parking garage serving the Chemed and PNC Center buildings.

 

The location is fenced off and being excavated. Dan Eifert, Cincinnati-based group manager for Hines - which owns both the Chemed and PNC Center high-rises - said construction is expected to be complete by September.

 

Walgreen spokeswoman Carol Hively said the chain expects to be moved into its new location by May 2007.

 

That roughly coincides with the expiration of Walgreens' lease at the Mercantile Center building a block away. Walgreens has been a tenant in that building since 1970.

 

The drugstore's Fifth Street space is divided into two parts in the Mercantile Center, which features a walkway/courtyard down the middle of the building.

 

Shoppers who want to purchase cosmetics as well as food items, for example, have to check out twice, in each portion of the store. Hively said the new 11,000-square-foot location will be more efficient for both the retailer and customers.

 

Hines developed both the PNC Center and the Chemed Center between the late 1970s and the early 1990s.

 

The corner where construction is under way was formerly a landscaped area without any structures.

 

Eifert said Hines had been planning an expansion on the site for some time, and that signing Walgreens allowed it to move forward. The project is receiving a partial tax abatement from the city tied to job creation and retention.

 

E-mail [email protected]

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060317/BIZ01/603170374/1076/rss01

 

Alright! Another Walgreens! ;)

Not a new Walgreens - just one moving.

 

It will be nice to have the Walgreens in one place.  It is kind of strange to have the current store divided into two seperate pieces.  However, the current location is only 1/2 a block from where I work.  However, it won't kill me to walk another 1.5 blocks to pick up my prescriptions.  :)

shame it doesn't include office and/or residential space above.

Here are a couple shots of the new parking/retail at the corner of 4th and Main...

 

 

^Is this only going to be 5 stories?  I had hoped that we could get something in the 10 - 15 range.

I think it was built to match the Chemed Center garage, also any higher and it would kill all the window views in the adjacent buildings.

That makes sense.  I don't have a car anyway but I was thinking that a larger parking lot would do well to satisfy the whiners who say there isn't enough parking downtown.

Beautiful structure.  Very earth shattering design.  Wow.  Going to win lots of awards for creativity.  Large, gray, box.  Gorgeous. 

^ it will fit right in then wont it.  as far as parking garages go i think it looks nice...then again its not finished yet so who knows it might be pink.

I hope they trim the corners, right now it looks raw and unfinished, which it probably is.

 

Hopefully Walgreens will draw your attention down once its finished.

>to pick up my prescriptions

 

This garage is giving me suicidal thoughts. 

Whether you like parking garages or not (I do not)....this surely is a better/higher use of the land than what previously existed.  Thats a win in my book!

^

I would have to disagree with you 100%.

 

The previous use of land was as greenspace, with a lawn and several trees.  I'll take nature over parking garages and asphalt lots any day.

 

But it was a green lawn completely surrounded by bushes so all you could do was look at the grass. It wasn't usable.  If it was a usable park with paths, benches, etc. then ok.  But I agree with UncleRando, a building beats that particular "leftover" greenspace anyday.

So any building is better than "leftover" greenspace?

 

I'm not convinced that it wasn't usable.  Many people keep lawns around their homes for aesthetic purposes, rather than to utilize for an active purpose.  Didn't the greenspace add to the beauty of that block?  Did it not provide a spatial counterpoint to the tower at 5th and Main?

 

I would go a step further and say that we should build more unusable greenspaces downtown!  I say get rid of all of the surface parking lots, and lets create more greenspace.

Greenspace is certainly better than surface parking, but density is important too. There must be a balanced mix, utilizing space to its maximum capacity.

 

One place I'd love to see usuable greenspace is the corner lot on 5th notched into the Masonic Temple, just to spite P&G who chased me out of their little pocket park things across the street.

Greenspace is certainly better than surface parking, but density is important too. There must be a balanced mix, utilizing space to its maximum capacity.

 

One place I'd love to see usuable greenspace is the corner lot on 5th notched into the Masonic Temple, just to spite P&G who chased me out of their little pocket park things across the street.

 

FIrst time poster here.  To give some background on myself, I live in NY and love cities and city planning and have  traveled extensively in Europe and the US.  I may be moving to Cincy w/in the next year so I have kept an eye on this site for a while (which is great by the way).

 

Back to this topic:  I agree with the Last Don but I also see the need for garages and maximizing space. Certainly  lawns don't necessarily have to be "usable" and can be only for aesthetic purposes. In fact I think Cincy needs more lawns and greenery in the downtown.   But I also think that the more 4 and 5 story parking garages that go up, the better. Cincy has way too many parking "lots" and not enough garages and underground facilities. If you look at the satellite view from google, it seems there is a parking lot on every other block....not very attractive.  I bet we can eliminate 70% of these "lots" by creating a few multi-story garages and underground facilities.  I'm surprised this isn't discussed more.

Excellent points, gentlemen. 

 

Longterm, the city could eliminate its surface parking lots downtown by building more underground garages topped by greenspace, in addition to some above ground facilities.  Miami Beach has found some innovative ways of integrating above-ground garages into the cityscape.

 

Another great alleviator of surface parking would be the development of an extensive mass transit system.

^

I would have to disagree with you 100%.

 

The previous use of land was as greenspace, with a lawn and several trees.  I'll take nature over parking garages and asphalt lots any day.

 

 

Calling that lot greenspace is a bit of a stretch. The previous use was access to a below grade parking lot with a few trees around it.

Parking garages are better than parking lots in my opinion. 

My dog didn't even like shitting in that old greenspace.  It was a tangle of roots, cigarette butts and crusted vomit. 

^So then he liked sniffing it?

Yea, I guess he did like sniffing.....There were also good size sticks for him to pickup and chew since there was never any maintenance done.  I love city greenspace but that lot was the the worst one in the CBD. 

P&G has all the unusable green space the city could ever need. though i certainly agree trees are more attractive than asphalt.  what drives me nuts are all of the surface lots along 3rd street. it just looks like a war zone down there.  i would say that if and when the banks ever gets off the ground things will definately start poping up in those spaces but it would go a long way to turn some of them green...and tear down than copy place. 

 

speaking of parking garages on fourth street.  i pray everynight that i come in to work and that pink moster next to tower place has fallen to the ground...hasnt happened yet.

pink moster next to tower place has fallen to the ground...hasnt happened yet.

 

Yea that garage is actually my least fave downtown. I always cross the street rather than walk thru that dark corridor.  I have heard some ghost stories about that woman who was stabbed to death by her X in there.  She is said  to swirl "Downtowner" and "citybeat" papers in the air when someone approaches. I don't believe in that nonsense but it is kinda creepy.  anyway...death to all surface lots and ugly parking garages!!! 

^

I would have to disagree with you 100%.

 

The previous use of land was as greenspace, with a lawn and several trees.  I'll take nature over parking garages and asphalt lots any day.

 

Often times open spaces are just the left-over areas from where bldgs were constructed.  If it is just there because no one else thought of what could be done with the area, then it is underutilized.  What I am saying is that a parking garage, while unappealing, is more thought out/productive than a patch of grass that facilitates crime and is often left unused.

 

Now an underground parking garage with a open space on top would be better than the regular garage; however, it is unreasonable to demand that out of developers with the extremely high costs for parking structures.  If you are going to build an underground garage, then you almost always have to build atop it.  Thus eliminating the greenspace that was desired.

 

In summary, the city has more to gain from this piece of land being a parking garage, than it being the left over unthoughtout space that was currently there.  This would classify as a potential pareto improvement for the city!

During workdays nearly every surface lot in downtown Cincinnati is jammed.  Any lot converted to public use would require a nearby parking garage or a garage beneath any new square.  The other big problem is that the lots all occupy spaces which formerly had buildings, therefore blank brick walls typically face the lots.  The hideous "park" where Queen City Square is planned is the best example of this. 

 

What's so frustrating is that some of the recent downtown development has torn down existing buildings when parking lots lurk nearby.  The CAC is the most recent example, it could have been built at 7th & Vine or 7th & Sycamore instead of tearing down Batsake's and The Hustler Store.  I can't really remember what was there before the Aronoff, but it too could have been built at 7th & Sycamore or where the new SCPA will be built.  Ironically I think developments today take over locations with buildings instead of parking lots is just so they won't be responsible for replacing the parking. 

 

There are complicated ownership situations surrounding many of the lots, for example St. Xavier High School owns the lot at 7th & Sycamore and subsidizes its general fund with revenue off that lot.  Any new construction on that lot would have to somehow guarantee the school as much or more revenue than it is currently collecting, however, the lot would lose its non-profit tax exemption with any for-profit activities on the property, like apartments or commercial space.

Now an underground parking garage with a open space on top would be better than the regular garage; however, it is unreasonable to demand that out of developers with the extremely high costs for parking structures.  If you are going to build an underground garage, then you almost always have to build atop it.  Thus eliminating the greenspace that was desired.

 

I think what he might have been saying is this should be an act of the city. Like Fountain Square, garages could be built in a couple areas that currently have surface parking, and then greenspace could be developed above, albeit much less developed than Fountain Square. $$$$$ is the big issue.

^

I am still unconvinced that any "improvement" has been made, if one considers more than the utilitarian aspects of the space.  Quality of life, aesthetics, environmental concerns, and spatial patterns should also be factored into the equation, in my opinion.

 

If developers cannot handle the costs of providing greenspace, then I think the government should purchase some of the parking lots downtown, and convert them to public squares and parks.

 

(With underground parking provided beneath, and increased mass transit systems).

 

 

 

I think what he might have been saying is this should be an act of the city. Like Fountain Square, garages could be built in a couple areas that currently have surface parking, and then greenspace could be developed above, albeit much less developed than Fountain Square. $$$$$ is the big issue.

 

Yes, Ink...as for $$$$ being the big issue....we are the wealthiest country in the world-- in the history of the world.  If we had the right people in government I think that the $$$$ would be there for public improvement projects, in my opinion.

speaking of parking garages on fourth street.  i pray everynight that i come in to work and that pink moster next to tower place has fallen to the ground...hasnt happened yet.

 

Speaking of the above garage, it was supposed to be re-worked, with the ramp on 4th St. getting removed.  Anyone know whatever became of this?

^Are we discussing this?:

 

That thing is godawful.  It's a real shame because the other side of that block of Fourth Street is great, full of neat little retail spots.

I typically thought Cinci did a good job of building on vacant lots as opposed to constructing on lots where a building had to be removed. Yes, there is the CAC but Aronoff had partially vacant lots, in addition, 303 Broadway, Parker Flats, and the new condos at Vine and Central were all constructed on empty surface lot parking.

^Not to mention: SCPA, 5th & Race (cross fingers)

^But wasn't 5th and Race a demolishion?