Nooooo, no open green space!!!

 

Buildings would be ideal.

"Open space" is not the same as a lawn, open space is undefined, and if you don't define it you usually get crap.  Open space can just as easily be a parking lot, or a berm next to a highway, or a smelly water retention pond.  The only real criteria for open space is no buildings.  If you want a lawn, say you want a lawn, don't say open space. 

 

That said, what about Yeatmans Cove?  There's plenty of open lawn for playing there.  Also, to go to the effort to cap a highway and then not put buildings on that cap is a huge waste of resources.  The point of capping is to reclaim that land for productive (i.e. taxable) use.  To use it as a park makes it a drain on city coffers.  We also don't need park or plaza space there.  Fountain square (plaza) is just two blocks north, and Smale (park) is a block and a half south.  It really needs buildings to stitch the fabric of the city together there.  That doesn't mean there can't be some nice public space, like an arcade or something. 

 

If you want to see what a failure of highway capping looks like, from an urbanistic perspective anyway, just look at the Big Dig in Boston.  The whole problem was that the Central Artery sliced through the heart of the city, separating neighborhoods from each other and taking up valuable real estate.  Well, although there's no longer an ugly raised highway, it's still a scar sliced through the heart of the city, separating neighborhoods from each other and taking up valuable real estate.  There's so much "open space" left that even a busy vibrant place like Boston can't keep most of it filled with people, and that's a major problem for any park. 

There are multiple blocks down there, I would think that having both green space and buildings would be ideal. I always imagined having green space in the middle few, then buildings capping the ends. Another possibility would be to incorporate both on each block, which could be done in interesting ways. Imagine retail or small commercial buildings with public green roof space!

Green roofs or roof terraces don't really make effective public spaces unless there's some way to access it from ground level (say the building is on a very steep slope where the high end is at grade).  Otherwise, it's just too much of an inconvenience to go up some stairs or take an elevator just to go from outside to outside.  It's also a case of "out of sight, out of mind" which leads to underutilization and perceived lack of safety. 

But how much building weight will the caps be able to support, even in a best-case scenario.? It's not like we're gonna see a 25-story tower in that space, more like a one- or two-story building.

You'd have to look back through the thread, but I believe they can support 4-6 stories. 

Seething tells me while they were built to support 4-6 they will be 2-4 for safety reasons. The whole thing is already a decade into its lifecycle, and probably won't see any buildings until 15-18 years into its life.

 

I'd be willing to get that engineers

Come back & for safety reasons tone it down.

 

If say it should have buildings on a couple blocks & maybe have 1 that is a lawn/Pavillion. Also, it will be retail, not residential.

I'd like to see at least a block of it as another park, although more like Hauck Botanical garden with lots of trees and plantings along a defined trail. A forest-like oasis in the middle of the city where you can escape all the concrete. No grass, please--Smale Riverfront park has the grass covered.

Seething tells me while they were built to.....

cool - anger divination....

I was thinking it would be a good place for public executions (til we get some room at the county jail)

http://quimbob.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-idea-for-fort-washington-way.html

It would also be a nice place for a velodrome.

Polo grounds.

Part and parcel:  I would think active water features (if technically possible) would be a great idea for the "ends" of the caps. 

 

1.  They would provide visual interest.

2.  They would buffer some of the highway noise that will flow out of the end of the tunnels.

 

This would accomplish the goal - I suspect many will have - of incorporating some public space.

 

I would agree that making the rest suitable development (comm, res, retail) is best.

 

Thoughts?

'60s-style ranches and split levels!

Part and parcel:  I would think active water features (if technically possible) would be a great idea for the "ends" of the caps. 

 

1.  They would provide visual interest.

2.  They would buffer some of the highway noise that will flow out of the end of the tunnels.

 

This would accomplish the goal - I suspect many will have - of incorporating some public space.

 

I would agree that making the rest suitable development (comm, res, retail) is best.

 

Thoughts?

 

I like the idea of a sculpture garden/ water feature in the park elements of the caps.  As far as the buildings themselves, the inherent question to me is what use truly bridges the gap between the Banks and the rest of Downtown.  I am skeptical that a predominantly retail development is needed.  Something unique yet in synergy with the existing office/ residential mix of the city would be ideal.

I just think that park space at this location is a waste of space. No one is going to want to hang out at these long, narrow parks between 2nd and 3rd Street when they can walk to the Riverfront Park or Fountain Square nearby.  Even if we only cover it with 3- or 4-story buildings, it's going to make The Banks feel connected to the CBD and hopefully make 2nd and 3rd feel more like streets and like less like highways.

A park at this location makes little sense to me either.  Even one-story storefronts like High Street bridge in Columbus would make the path along the sidewalk much better.

And just to clarify, I mean water features at each END of the entire area - not each cap.

World's first urban roller-coaster? 

World's first urban roller-coaster?

Actually Las Vegas already did this.  They have one on top of a building and another at the hotel that looks like NYC and there might be more of them in downtown Vegas.

I just think that park space at this location is a waste of space. No one is going to want to hang out at these long, narrow parks between 2nd and 3rd Street when they can walk to the Riverfront Park or Fountain Square nearby.  Even if we only cover it with 3- or 4-story buildings, it's going to make The Banks feel connected to the CBD and hopefully make 2nd and 3rd feel more like streets and like less like highways.

Agree with all of this.  Fountain Square close by and parks to the south of the area, so there is no need to add more park area.  Even if they aren't large buildings, we still need the feeling of connecting to both areas.  It would bring the whole area together.

 

I remember a long time ago they envisioned a large green house at Fountain Square West called Crystal Forest.  I remember it being a really large and nice looking structure.  Either this is a really bad picture or it just wasn't what I thought it could've been.  This picture here looks nothing like I remember it looking like: http://acincinnatihistory.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html  Could be an idea for something above one of the caps if I could find a better rendering. 

 

In that same link, I know it has nothing to do with the caps, but I really liked that idea for the CMC office towers at Union Terminal. 

 

 

 

I would love to see these four blocks as buildings and for second and third to be reduced one lane in each direction allowing for large trees to be planted in the areas they aren't already to create a parklike sidewalk giving the best of both worlds along this stretch. These two streets could become very visually appealing while still allowing for the four blocks the caps are to be built on to be entirely built out.

Urban ferris wheel.

 

So is this a sure fire thing? I mean, if the City of Cincinnati is holding this contest, I'm guessing there's a sincere interest of actually filling the caps and connecting the city to the banks.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind some type of modern art pieces surrounded by a small pleasant garden. That's just me though..and personally, I'm betting if this does happen than it'll probably be more offices/retail stores.

Dallas is nearing completion on the same concept.

 

http://www.theparkdallas.org/

 

It's amazing how similar the two projects are. They are covering a congested highway through the heart of downtown Dallas and are using the incremental green space as a new park to spur development. So far is has paid huge dividends with a massive 42 story (yet controversial) condo skyscraper nearing completion, three museums, and new restaurants being completed.

I would love to see these four blocks as buildings and for second and third to be reduced one lane in each direction allowing for large trees to be planted in the areas they aren't already to create a parklike sidewalk giving the best of both worlds along this stretch. These two streets could become very visually appealing while still allowing for the four blocks the caps are to be built on to be entirely built out.

 

This makes so much sense to me, just a theory but I assume that reducing each street a lane will in turn reduce the amount of lane changing that occurs. It's often kind of hectic driving down there when people are zipping around each other and you have to cross 4 lanes of traffic to turn. But really I think that this is such a huge opportunity for the city that it has to be done right, and we as citizens need to demand that.

^That's part of the reason it's still a barrier to pedestrians. The traffic isn't fun to cross even at a proper crosswalk at the correct time. Reducing each road one lane and adding that extra 6' (or whatever the exact dimension is) to each sidewalk allowing for larger scale plantings, street furniture, public art, etc. would allow for a very comfortable pedestrian experience and greatly reduce the crossing length. I would also like to see bump outs at the crosswalks in addition to lane reductions in order to further reduce the crossing length. Making it feel like you are intended to cross as a pedestrian is key to the long term success of The Banks and eventually the caps and whatever is built on them. This spot could easily serve as an entrance to the city from the highways in certain directions and should show itself off in the best way possible.

Just do all of the sidewalk expansion on the FWW sides of 2nd and 3rd.  The sidewalks and pedestrian areas that abut FWW will have to be completely rebuilt anyway.  They are in deplorable condition and I'm surprised they don't create an exposure for the city.

I was told that those sidewalks for whatever reason were difficult to enginner which is why they have settled. 

^It would be a shame to lose the trees that are already there, but you make a good point. The sidewalks are some of the worst in the city. They aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, flat anymore, need many replacement pavers, and just lack any creative design whatsoever. I would certainly be happy if we just saw some trees planted on the non-FWW sides of 2nd and 3rd and saw uniquely designed expanded sidewalks along the FWW caps.

 

Regardless of what happens with sidewalks and potential lane reductions (wasn't there talk of reducing 2nd by a lane recently?) all I know is that I don't want parks on the caps. There's no reason to steal any of the limelight away from the Central Riverfront Park by over saturating that part of downtown with parks and The Banks will feel infinitely more connected to the rest of downtown than they do now if it was continuous buildings all the way down to the Central Riverfront Park.

I think people are forgetting where, exactly, the piles were driven.  They were driven so that there would be gaps between the existing bridges and the beginnings of the caps.  This was so that FWW would not technically become a tunnel, which brings all sorts of other requirements with it.  This means if they want to do 670-type things what has been built already is of little to no use.  If they want to do full caps and make it a tunnel they will still have to do quite a bit of prep work with more piles.  Also, remember that piles were driven for decks only between two full blocks -- Race to Walnut.  Piles were driven halfway from Race west to Elm and halfway east from Walnut to Main. 

 

Ignoring those issues for a moment, allow me to suggest this design feature -- keep 2nd and 3rd their existing widths close to the highway ramps, but narrow them for the two blocks between Race and Walnut, removing each lane closer to the trench.  Move the street wall of new buildings away from the trench, so that the Transit Center entrances could be rebuilt and embedded in the buildings.  Meanwhile, any buildings on the outer caps (w of Race, e of Walnut) would retain the existing assumed street facing.  So as you'd be coming off the interstate in either direction, buildings on the set-in corners would have more prominence and therefore more value.   

 

 

How much of a gap must there be between the caps and bridges? Can there be a bridge between the caps and bridges (say from the midpoints) for pedestrian access?

It's around 10-20 feet. 

 

Here is a photo of the piles being driven, but it doesn't show the gaps:

I forgot I had these as well:

 

 

 

Piles on left are between the FWW sloped trench wall and the Transit Center:

 

 

 

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityofcincinnati/connect-the-blocks/

I was told that those sidewalks for whatever reason were difficult to enginner which is why they have settled. 

 

They seemingly shouldn't have been, pavers are difficult to do right in general, but UC has pulled it off all over their campus.  I wonder why they haven't created a lawsuit, they are absolutely terrible and have settled a good 8 inches in some spots.  Someone goofed up either designing or building them. 

I was told that those sidewalks for whatever reason were difficult to enginner which is why they have settled. 

 

They seemingly shouldn't have been, pavers are difficult to do right in general, but UC has pulled it off all over their campus.  I wonder why they haven't created a lawsuit, they are absolutely terrible and have settled a good 8 inches in some spots.  Someone goofed up either designing or building them. 

 

Lawsuit waiting to happen.  I'd say the goof is in building.  Poor compaction of base.

Was the soil under the base of the sidewalk from the site or was it brought in off-site? I don't really know why I'm asking because I doubt anyone here knows the answer...

There have been drainage issues with the project. When the planters over Interstate 71 were excavated - which someone questioned if it was related to the streetcar, it was to install a new waterproofing membrane. It's a routine measure.

 

Pavers in high traffic areas should have an asphalt base. The new pavers at Xavier and along Dana Avenue feature a typical 5" asphalt base, and pavers are laid on top of a minor sand base and kept in alignment by guideways.

There have been drainage issues with the project. When the planters over Interstate 71 were excavated - which someone questioned if it was related to the streetcar, it was to install a new waterproofing membrane. It's a routine measure.

 

Pavers in high traffic areas should have an asphalt base. The new pavers at Xavier and along Dana Avenue feature a typical 5" asphalt base, and pavers are laid on top of a minor sand base and kept in alignment by guideways.

 

While I have no inside knowledge of this part of the FWW project - I did manage a project at the eastern end - the manner in which it is deteriorating has the hallmarks of improper or negligent soil compaction during backfill.  And Sherman is right that there should be some sort of significant top layer for the pavers.

 

Was the soil under the base of the sidewalk from the site or was it brought in off-site? I don't really know why I'm asking because I doubt anyone here knows the answer...

 

Jake may know but I would think it was a combination of both.  It really shouldn't matter as long as it is backfilled and compacted properly.

I'm kinda worried we'll end up with "The Caps" development like "The Banks" and they'll look just like it except shorter. Not the worst thing in the world but another missed opportunity in favor of a McDevelopment.

>Jake may know but I would think it was a combination of both.  It really shouldn't matter as long as it is backfilled and compacted properly.

 

The guy I talked to about it didn't want to talk about it so I don't know anything specific.  I just think they had to make a judgement call with some part of the design to save money and it didn't work out. 

I wasn't referring to the Columbus Caps. I'm just concerned the FWW caps will be a mini Banks. Like I said, could be worse but could be better.

^As much as I dislike the architecture at The Banks, if they could put apartments on those caps and fill them to capacity like they did at Current, I'd be happy.  Downtown could really use that number of new residents.

Actually "The Caps" is where I would expect to see low-quality architecture (UncleRando describes the Columbus caps as "Cheesecake Factory-style architecture"). It just doesn't seem that logical to put top dollar into buildings sitting on a cap over an Interstate that could potentially be demolished in a few decades. However I would prefer to see the higher-quality stuff at The Banks...

Ba-ba, this is the sound of settling...

 

 

For some reason, I have the feeling that the city doesn't want something like The Banks-lite over FWW even though I agree with Jimmy_James that it'd be great to have more residents downtown.

 

The Cap at Union Station in Columbus is more of a bridge addition like the Ponte Vecchio than a complete cap:

 

http://casestudies.uli.org/casestudies/C035010.htm

 

 

 

 

 

The sample rendering the city released showed a park and they mentioned Millennium Park (among others) as an example of a highway cap development.

 

It just doesn't seem that logical to put top dollar into buildings sitting on a cap over an Interstate that could potentially be demolished in a few decades.

 

1) I don't think top dollar was ever in the offing. Even our prime riverfront residential property gets cheap, student housing style architecture. Yet, in Kentucky they built the Ascent...

 

2) Potential demolition in a few decades should not be factored into the design process because, Lord knows, if it's crappy architecture it'll be around forever --- it'll only get a speedy demolition if it's beautiful.

^Yeah, I don't think they'll do residential either, but I'd like it if they did.  If you take the survey that was posted a few days ago, a residential component wasn't even one of the selectable options for what you'd like to see on the caps.

I don't mind the style of the Columbus building, but that picture makes it look like it's built out of legos or something.  Weird effect to it. 

I'm a bit skeptical that any sort of multi-story buildings would be built on top of Fort Washington way, for a variety of reasons:

 

1) There are enough vacant sites in/around downtown Cincinnati where developers can build new structures without having to pay for the structural gymnastics that would be required to span a freeway. There is ample precedent for air-rights development (typically over railroad yards) in places like Chicago and London, but those are cities where the cost of real estate makes it economically viable, but those conditions simply don't yet exist in Cincinnati. Any multistory structure would need a significant amount of taxpayer-funded incentives to happen.

 

2) Residential is less likely because of noise and air quality concerns from the freeway itself. New York City has a big public housing project built atop I-95 in Washington Heights, and I recall reading somewhere that cases of asthma and other health issues are off the charts in this place compared to other public housing projects, largely due to the exhaust from the freeway. Granted, I-95 through NYC gets several orders of magnitude more traffic than Fort Washington Way, but it's still a valid concern.

 

3) With office buildings, in addition to the air quality and noise concerns, there is increasing paranoia (whether it's totally justified or not is a separate issue -- a lot of it is driven by the insurance companies) about security. Ever since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing, builders aren't too keen on the idea of having John Q. Public able to drive a truck bomb under the building.

 

If Findlay Market didn't already exist, I'd suggest some sort of public market that could be a combination of outdoor and enclosed spaces. Maybe such an idea could still work, but I'd hate to see something like that suck customers and tenants away from Findlay Market if there isn't sufficient demand.

 

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a park, provided it offers something unique that the Riverfront Park doesn't already offer, and that it is well-executed and fully integrated with the Riverfront Park. Rather than a second park that competes with the Riverfront Park, it should be thought of as an extension of the Riverfront Park to the CBD's doorstep.

 

And I agree that Second Street and Third Street need to be drastically narrowed, by at least a lane (preferably two lanes), with curb bump-outs at crosswalks. The original proposal for the Riverfront Transit Center envisioned having light rail on one or both streets (with commuter rail in the RTC below), and this is something that should at least be planned for.

 

That building in Columbus might be the most hideous piece of architecture I've ever seen posted on UrbanOhio.

If you go and see it the style of the cap buildings in Columbus make sense.  It is further away from the downtown in an entertainment area.  Cap buildings in Cincinnati would have to be more in style with downtown. 

If you go and see it the style of the cap buildings in Columbus make sense.  It is further away from the downtown in an entertainment area.  Cap buildings in Cincinnati would have to be more in style with downtown.

 

Moreover, the cap's design is directly inspired from Columbus's old Union Station:

 

 

So people can complain about the architecture, but it's perfectly fine in context and actually refers to Columbus's own architectural history.

The Caesars Palace casino in Los Vegas was "inspired" by the ancient Greeks, but that doesn't make it good architecture. That thing in Columbus looks like it was built out of the same painted styrofoam that is now being scraped off the DAAP building.