Is there a link to this kessler plan?

Here is a sample that someone was kind enough to share with us.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10038.0.html

 

In particular, I was referring to the park plan in Corryville  (University Avenue Parkway) that never came to fruition.  It is included in the larger files provided later in the thread (posted by RiverViewer on the second page).  It shows similarity to the width of the cap area we're discussing. 

 

In the Kessler plan, however, the park was anchored by Burnet to the east and Burnet Woods to the west.  Downtown by Ft. Washington Way...we have Interstate ramps.

you are talking about areas where the demand for housing is extremely high.  Places where all of the ideal sites are already developed so people looking for a bargain live in less-than-ideal sites. 

 

That's not Cincinnati.

 

 

Well, there is that neighborhood that sits directly atop the current I-71 tunnel(s).  That area seems to do pretty well and whenever I walk around there, I don't even think about the fact that there is an expressway beneath me somewhere.  I think it all depends on how well the illusion is pulled off.  It's possible that you wouldn't notice much difference between these blocks and any others nearby.

 

If they go the park route, I think they should try to do something entirely different than the riverfront parks, since these will only be 2 or 3 blocks away and much smaller.  I'd like to see colorful & ornate gardens, preferably with symmetrical designs and with walking paths made of brick.  This would lend an "old world" feel to a part of town that will otherwise be brand new, and while these would require a staff to maintain, they would look tremendous in aerial photos and would enhance our already beautiful skyline.  It would also be interesting to walk through and see how these parks change throughout the year, providing an experience unlike our other parks that seem to be pretty static.  Fountains would work well in such a park.  The last thing I want to see is more grassy lawns.  Yawn...

Man, you guys are taking this idea and running with it, eh? You've got your whole thing going ... ;)

i just watched news 5's coverage on it.  same with every other story, it was pretty much lame and just flashed costs and dollar signs all over the screen.  They didn't entirely bash on it, but I wouldn't say they helped out the public's perception or enthusiasm about the project.

 

btw, hi guys. i've been reading for a while.  it's nice to be informed, just never really had anything to say before now.

i just watched news 5's coverage on it.  same with every other story, it was pretty much lame and just flashed costs and dollar signs all over the screen.  They didn't entirely bash on it, but I wouldn't say they helped out the public's perception or enthusiasm about the project.

 

btw, hi guys. i've been reading for a while.  it's nice to be informed, just never really had anything to say before now.

 

I'm embarrassed to admit I watched Channel 5 for more than 10 minutes so I could see the story.  All they kept saying was how it would cost $34 million over and over.

 

Channel 5 is what's wrong with this city.

$34 million for just the cap or all the pretty, useless grass on top of it?

I don't think its that far out of the question at all. There a lot of people who live above buried highways, subways, etc. in places like NY and especially Europe.

 

you are talking about areas where the demand for housing is extremely high.  Places where all of the ideal sites are already developed so people looking for a bargain live in less-than-ideal sites. 

 

That's not Cincinnati.

 

Yes - but it does seem like all the new construction is priced well out of the starter-condo range - it's mostly half a million and up.  I imagine some $180K - $200K condo's with reasonable amenities would get snapped up, highway cap or not.  Though maybe I'm out of date on the market of late?

 

Here is a sample that someone was kind enough to share with us.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10038.0.html

 

...also, high-res images available here.

 

According to the renderings it looks like there will be four caps total with the two inner caps being larger or about twice the size of the outer caps. I think row housing sounds good on at least one of the larger caps with park space on the smaller caps with a dog park where dogs can be unleashed to run around with supervision of their owner.

Looks like they are going to do it piecemeal.

 

City Looks To Finish Fort Washington Way Renovation

POSTED: 7:03 pm EDT June 16, 2008, UPDATED: 7:38 pm EDT June 16, 2008

 

CINCINNATI -- There are some big changes in story store for Fort Washington Way. It will cost more than $34 million just to put lids on the blocks east of Vine Street. That’s the area closest to the initial phase of the Banks Project and it’s also where Councilman Jeff Berding wants to continue to finish the expressway renovations.

 

“I mean, I'd love to do it all tomorrow. But I think that reasonably speaking, given the financing that we'll have available to us; starting on the east and moving west, again simultaneous to the banks development, is the smart way to go," Berding said. The covers over the road would provide a seamless connection from downtown to the river.

 

To read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/16624227/detail.html

We have all the dreams in the world, but no money.  None.

I pulled some pics from the video.  I didn't realize how big the caps would need to be. Maybe housing would work, but wouldn't access roads be needed too.

Those are nearly city blocks. Whatever goes there needs to flow seemless-ly from downtown to the Banks.

What about an east-west alley down the center leading to garages for the houses?

Those are nearly city blocks. Whatever goes there needs to flow seemless-ly from downtown to the Banks.

 

Good luck with that!  That's going to be a tall order.

I think that's the mistake though.  Downtown isn't seamless as it is.  It's a result of several generations of architecture, culture, and influence.

 

It definitely shines through when a large scale project is made to be "seamless".  It looks like a replica of something that never existed in real life but only as a rendering, not as something that reflects the city's culture as it evolves.

I think it should be as diverse and insane looking as possible.  That way we can attract progressive businesses and people.  This will wake up all of the turbo-powered conservatives that never allow cool things to happen;) haha.  Bring on the casino too! weeeeeeeee!

The more I look at that area the more I think some modest (in size) commercial and residential buildings would be the best thing.  Nothing taller than the freedom center (not that the caps sound like they can handle much more). American cities need to realize that they don't need to build huge skyscrapers all of the time.

 

We need to bring some more class to the city that Churchill called "the most beautiful of America's inland cities." Parisian-like buildings (they can be brick to look more 'American'), something with a mansard roof. True mixed-use. I'm getting carried away with myself here, but the worst thing that can happen is more green space. Downtown doesn't have the residents to justify the amount of greenspace on it's riverbanks currently (not that I mind, they're beautiful parks).

 

I'm all for getting them capped as quickly as possible and I realize that might not happen if we wait for private development money. So go ahead, cap them, put a park on them, but let it be known that they are open for development.

American cities need to realize that they don't need to build huge skyscrapers all of the time.

 

Blasphemy!!

^LOL what kind of statement is that hahaha.  American cities pale in comparison to other cities such as Taipei, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Shenzhen...I could go on.  Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having tall buildings.  It makes the skyline look cooler and shows the city attracts development, money, and big companies.  How could you not want that?

Well, all you guys will be relieved to know that I have just purchased development rights the Eastern Cap.

Here is what I plan on doing with it-----

 

It will consist of a Prefab double-wide trailer with aluminum shed and Prefab

barn shaped one car garage (my other cars, working or not, will be parked in the yard). The yard will be Astroturf (not the new stuff, the old stuff) with flowers made of the finest fabrics. It will be a lively place with me and all my rowdy friends drinking beer and playing cornhole with our shirts off and slapping our beer guts every 30 seconds and showing our buttcracks every time we pick up the bags. Feel free to stop by and say hello or take a leak on my fake bushes.

You can call it a park or an exibit, but I figure it won't be too tall or too short. It will have green space and entertainment and should flow seamlessly from downtown to the Banks.

^LOL what kind of statement is that hahaha.  American cities pale in comparison to other cities such as Taipei, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Shenzhen...I could go on.  Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having tall buildings.  It makes the skyline look cooler and shows the city attracts development, money, and big companies.  How could you not want that?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love super-talls as much as the next guy. But Cincinnati is not even remotely in the league of those cites you just listed.  How much sense does it make to build skyscrapers here when the vacancy rate is as high as it is (not high for the midwest, but we're not exactly busting at the seems for office space).

 

Besides, we have enough tall buildings, time to fill in the rest of the spaces.

 

Cincykidbc1.....you just described Pete Witte's dream for the Banks.

 

 

^or Cleves!

^LOL what kind of statement is that hahaha. American cities pale in comparison to other cities such as Taipei, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Shenzhen...I could go on. Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having tall buildings. It makes the skyline look cooler and shows the city attracts development, money, and big companies. How could you not want that?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love super-talls as much as the next guy. But Cincinnati is not even remotely in the league of those cites you just listed. How much sense does it make to build skyscrapers here when the vacancy rate is as high as it is (not high for the midwest, but we're not exactly busting at the seems for office space).

 

Besides, we have enough tall buildings, time to fill in the rest of the spaces.

 

Cincykidbc1.....you just described Pete Witte's dream for the Banks.

 

 

 

This is exactly the kind of thinking Cincinnati is putting behind them. If a company wanted to consolidate a corporate HQ in Cincinnati they would have to build another building because there isn't enough contiguous office space available. That's why American Financial decided to consolidate in QCS, it's the only structure with enough contiguous space available. Not thinking big would risk losing them to some other city who starts to 'woo' them when they are thinking big.

Absolutely.

There is plenty of vacant land in downtown, especially on the northern edge. A couple big towers would fit nice with the Kroger building.

^I always thought that too.  Broadway Commons has a ton of room and I always thought the corner of Broadway and Eggleston could have a really cool building because of the triangle shape.  BUT, back on topic...regardless of how tall the buildings will be on the cap, it should act as a catalyst for more and more buildings.  Small steps.  The caps and Banks should be the building blocks for what could be a building boom on the riverfront alone.

I guess what I'm trying to say is The Caps (can I call it that?) should be a continuation of what The Banks is going to be - 3 to 5 story, mixed use buildings that continue the flow of the city all of the way to the river.  Not sure how this became a referendum on skyscrapers, but what I don't want is more green space.

 

^LOL what kind of statement is that hahaha.  American cities pale in comparison to other cities such as Taipei, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Shenzhen...I could go on.  Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having tall buildings.  It makes the skyline look cooler and shows the city attracts development, money, and big companies.  How could you not want that?

 

Don't get me wrong, I love super-talls as much as the next guy. But Cincinnati is not even remotely in the league of those cites you just listed.  How much sense does it make to build skyscrapers here when the vacancy rate is as high as it is (not high for the midwest, but we're not exactly busting at the seems for office space).

 

Besides, we have enough tall buildings, time to fill in the rest of the spaces.

 

Cincykidbc1.....you just described Pete Witte's dream for the Banks.

 

 

 

This is exactly the kind of thinking Cincinnati is putting behind them. If a company wanted to consolidate a corporate HQ in Cincinnati they would have to build another building because there isn't enough contiguous office space available. That's why American Financial decided to consolidate in QCS, it's the only structure with enough contiguous space available. Not thinking big would risk losing them to some other city who starts to 'woo' them when they are thinking big.

 

Cincinnati should never put good 'thinking' behind them. Unplanned growth gives us places like LA and Houston, who undoubtedly have great economies, but are horribly planned, car dependent "cities." Besides, how many companies the size of American Financial are located downtown that don't already have their own buildings? Our "Big Three" of Macy's, Kroger and P&G are already set in their digs. What's left is a bunch of medium to small enterprises that don't need or can't afford gleaming new skyscrapers, but maybe they would like a nice 5 story right on 2nd street?

 

The reality is a city the size of Cincinnati (even w/ 2+ million in the region) is not going to be building more than a skyscraper or two every decade. Something needs to be done in the meantime. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are World Cities, we are a Regional City. Let's be honest with ourselves.

Cincinnati should never put good 'thinking' behind them. Unplanned growth gives us places like LA and Houston, who undoubtedly have great economies, but are horribly planned, car dependent "cities." Besides, how many companies the size of American Financial are located downtown that don't already have their own buildings? Our "Big Three" of Macy's, Kroger and P&G are already set in their digs. What's left is a bunch of medium to small enterprises that don't need or can't afford gleaming new skyscrapers, but maybe they would like a nice 5 story right on 2nd street?

 

The reality is a city the size of Cincinnati (even w/ 2+ million in the region) is not going to be building more than a skyscraper or two every decade. Something needs to be done in the meantime. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are World Cities, we are a Regional City. Let's be honest with ourselves.

 

Well, I'd say an enterprise looking for a new location isn't going to be looking at the Cap.  Each of those companies has massive parking accommodations.  Where would you suggest they put parking for their employees?  They most certainly couldn't put it on the Cap.

 

I do think we are getting a little carried away with the ideas revolving five-story buildings on the Cap.  We haven't even seen how that would even work.  As I said earlier:  utilities.  I'm assuming that the Banks will have utilities all underground.  How would that work on the Cap?  I think it's too early to really speculate with some of the questions answered.  We can continue SimCity talk though, I suppose.

 

I'll go back to the idea of a grand park that actually says something about the city--its history and its prowess--and perhaps a few structures on the ends to serve as buffer from the Interstate ramps.

 

 

 

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

 

They can actually put 30 story buildings on the Banks (check out the section of that thread dealing with the height restrictions).  Somewhere upthread here it says that the caps will be able to hold 5 story buildings. 

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

 

However they end up accommodating actual structures on the caps, I'm sure it'll be a puzzle to be solved.

All right.  Just a little research led me to find this article from the Plain Dealer:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2007/08/inner_belt.html

 

It looks like their proposed highway cap project would allow for buildings as high as 25 stories on 23 acres of surface area.

 

I'd still love to see how they do it from the ground up though.

Are you suggesting that customers and employees of these supposed companies on the caps use Banks parking? I suppose, but again, we don't know the numbers, and this is all pipe dreaming. That'd be the only way. Parking on the caps? Yeah...nah.

 

I believe he was suggesting that no company is going to want to locate their HQ on the caps above I-71 because their isn't immediate parking.

 

In my personal opinion (and I've come up with this after reading this thread for a while) is that it would best off being mostly parks with maybe 3-5 smaller boutique style buildings with small retail, restaurants, or bars, or maybe even some sort of historic display for Ft. Washington.

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

 

The "grand park" to which you are referring will be directly south of the Freedom Center, connecting/extending the most excellent parks already established. The FWW caps weren't originally designed to be "grand parks", their intent is to reconnect the CBD with the riverfront. I do hope their potential is maximized so they truly become grand, but Lets not lose focus and start bashing this project. (which seems to happen a lot here on this site)

 

 

I do think we are getting a little carried away with the ideas revolving five-story buildings on the Cap. We haven't even seen how that would even work. As I said earlier: utilities. I'm assuming that the Banks will have utilities all underground. How would that work on the Cap? I think it's too early to really speculate with some of the questions answered. We can continue SimCity talk though, I suppose.

 

I think utilities would be the least of their concerns, I couldn't see how that would even be an issue.

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

 

The "grand park" to which you are referring will be directly south of the Freedom Center, connecting/extending the most excellent parks already established. The FWW caps weren't originally designed to be "grand parks", their intent is to reconnect the CBD with the riverfront. I do hope their potential is maximized so they truly become grand, but Lets not lose focus and start bashing this project. (which seems to happen a lot here on this site)

 

 

 

Nobody is bashing, and I agree with you, the Riverfront Park is plenty of greenspace along with Bicentennial Commons, Sawyer Point and the Friendship Park. 

 

Too much greenspace has the same (if prettier) effect as surface parking lots - disjointed streets and wasted opportunity costs.

^-- I'm no engineer but I'd imagine if they can put 5 story buildings on The Banks they could do it on the caps. The Banks are, after all, going to be built on 2 stories of parking, which brings us back to your other concern.

 

I'd love nothing more than a grand park that really makes a statement and is enjoyed by all, but parks are rarely done right in this country, and even then it's a crapshoot on whether people will use them. Read Jane Jacobs critique on parks in our cities and you might change your mind.

 

The "grand park" to which you are referring will be directly south of the Freedom Center, connecting/extending the most excellent parks already established. The FWW caps weren't originally designed to be "grand parks", their intent is to reconnect the CBD with the riverfront. I do hope their potential is maximized so they truly become grand, but Lets not lose focus and start bashing this project. (which seems to happen a lot here on this site)

 

 

 

Nobody is bashing, and I agree with you, the Riverfront Park is plenty of greenspace along with Bicentennial Commons, Sawyer Point and the Friendship Park.

 

Too much greenspace has the same (if prettier) effect as surface parking lots - disjointed streets and wasted opportunity costs.

 

We can either have nothing over FWW, or have caps of green space. I'll take the green space regardless of the affect of having surface parking lots. Like I pointed out before, the main goal of the caps are to 'hide' FWW and reconnect the CBD to the riverfront. If the only negative from this project can be the ''too much greenspace" argument, well, we are really becoming desperate for negativity here in the 'Nati'. I actually find it refreshing to hear a conversation about too much green space. Most cities can only wish they had planned for more...

 

>They most certainly couldn't put it on the Cap.

 

Well there are most certainly many examples of parking garages built over existing urban highways.  There is a huge, maybe 10-floor garage built over I-90 in Boston and even an entrance ramp inside the actual garage.  This is part of the "Prudential Tunnel" which has been growing steadily over the years around Copley Square.  Obviously the costs of such structures are high because the typical garage building style built on a grid of piers spaced at 30ft. intervals doesn't work.  Instead they have to use elements that border on the scale of deck girder bridges, which obviously employs a lot more material and so is more expensive.   

 

The original proposals for Ft. Washington Way in the 1950's called for garages over the highway and one alternate was for an elevated highway with a single level of parking beneath.  There is space for an enormous amount of parking but obviously it is quite a bit more expensive per parking space than traditional garages.  The two larger areas where the piles have been driven measure about 350X160 so there is room for roughly 180-200 vehicles per deck.  Compare that to the footprint of Queen City Square Phase 2, which is about 200X120ft.  It doesn't seem like it but these two larger decks would be the combined footprint of both Queen City Square phase 2 and the tower section of Phase 1. 

 

^ I am glad someone tackled the parking issue, lol. I don't know why anyone would think they couldn't do that. It's not a matter of 'can they' it's a matter of 'will they'. I don't think the caps were designed to hold massive structures, not because they couldn't, but because they didn't.

>They most certainly couldn't put it on the Cap.

 

Sorry.  I didn't mean to say that they weren't capable.  It was just me hoping that they wouldn't.  Yeah, ambiguous.

I believe that the $11 million dollar investment that was made in like '98 gave us a structure that would only support 4 or 5 stories or some given amount of soil. I went to the 'Greening The Gap' design charrette last year and those were the numbers that they gave us.

 

 

 

We can either have nothing over FWW, or have caps of green space. I'll take the green space regardless of the affect of having surface parking lots. Like I pointed out before, the main goal of the caps are to 'hide' FWW and reconnect the CBD to the riverfront. If the only negative from this project can be the ''too much greenspace" argument, well, we are really becoming desperate for negativity here in the 'Nati'. I actually find it refreshing to hear a conversation about too much green space. Most cities can only wish they had planned for more...

 

 

Who says green space is the only thing we can have? Like I've said previously, if that's the only way to cap them then so be it. Let's get it done. But more green space isn't going to do any good, especially with the new riverfront park going in a mere 2 blocks away.

 

Nobody here is being negative, I'm just expressing my opinion that we don't need to settle for what most people will assume will happen. For the record I'm sure they'll do some sort of park if it happens at all, but I wish they wouldn't.

Why is more greenspace settling? There is so much vacant space in this city as well as surface lots that can be developed into buildings.

I like your style, j3shafer.  My sentiments exactly.

I guess I see it in a different way. Why add to the vacant space if so much already exists?

 

It also makes more sense economically to try to develop them. What's the incentive to pay so many millions of dollars to complete them if the city can't get any tax revenue out of the space?

 

In any case I'm excited this is back on the table again. Burying Ft Washington Way was a great start, covering it would be fantastic (even if they do put another park on it that I can't even walk my dog in  :wink2: )

^ I mentioned before that one of those caps could be a nice place for a dog park, where dogs can be unleashed with owners supervision. There is no reason a nice dog park can't be incorporated with what j3shafer mentioned above, nice plazas & public art. I would like to see at least one of the larger caps developed with a structure, preferably housing.

 

Cincinnati should never put good 'thinking' behind them. Unplanned growth gives us places like LA and Houston, who undoubtedly have great economies, but are horribly planned, car dependent "cities." Besides, how many companies the size of American Financial are located downtown that don't already have their own buildings? Our "Big Three" of Macy's, Kroger and P&G are already set in their digs. What's left is a bunch of medium to small enterprises that don't need or can't afford gleaming new skyscrapers, but maybe they would like a nice 5 story right on 2nd street?

 

 

That's an interesting question.  Western-Southern seems to fit your criteria--a Fortune 500 company without a skyscraper that's got (I believe) space in several different places downtown.  Of course, they're building QCS for AFG....

 

Maybe Cincinnati Financial or Cintas (just outside the F500) could be enticed to move to a downtown high-rise? 

 

By the way, if you think downtown Cincy is in need of infill, I hate to hear what you have to say about somewhere like Columbus....I think the density of downtown is actually one of its most impressive features. 

It's not vacant space that's the problem, its in what shape it comes.  Highest best use is not maximized by surface parking, specifically, if parking is needed structured would be better.  However, we all know that the per space cost of construction escalate as structured parking is placed on a site.  Placing greenspace in that area, could, in my opinion increase the market value of surrounding structures and would take the burden off of creating any other greenspace for developers of the Banks.  Greenspace there along with, perhaps, an elegantly designed transition space of some sort like a plaza, would create a powerful economic statement leading from the traditional CBD to the Riverfront Park.

maybe even some sort of historic display for Ft. Washington.

 

I like this idea.  Some statues and plaques would lend some character to the area.  In fact, if these caps are filled with condos or townhouses, I think Fort Washington would be a nice name for the new neighborhood.