Jump to content
Guest Cygnus

Cincinnati: Downtown: Fourth & Race (Pogue Garage) Redevelopment

Recommended Posts

This is really troubling.  Why would Cranley want to kill this project?  It makes no sense.

 

Much like the streetcar, Cranley knows he won't be able to take credit for its eventual success. Many of his actions have illustrated his arrogance and this one continues to build upon that. He does not want the previous administration to get credit for any more successes, even if it is in the best interest of the city. Cranley may have the cities best interest in mind when he makes his decisions, but first and foremost he has his own self-image in mind. With this project in particular, he can hold it up and risk stopping it altogether (should investors get fed up waiting on it and invest in something else) while making the Salon owner look like the cause (how the Enquirer seems to be painting the picture so far).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also someone who donated to his campaign might be planning a similar apartment project.  If Cranley can keep this one held up until the friend's project gets off the ground, or even until the end of his reign, then he gets a pat on the back from one of his scumbag buddies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you guys look at FYI memos to council, but on the council's website you can go to council online. If you click the FYI Memos and then leave the search criteria blank, you can get a list in reverse chronological order. The most recent one lays out the city's strategy. It's not something I've seen reported anywhere, and therefore can't have been Cranley's idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also someone who donated to his campaign might be planning a similar apartment project.  If Cranley can keep this one held up until the friend's project gets off the ground, or even until the end of his reign, then he gets a pat on the back from one of his scumbag buddies. 

So let's just connect some dots and suspect that one of Cranley's "buddies" just might be John Barrett himself.  (Makes sense, doesn't it?  After all, in Barrett's powerful grasp, Cranley's nothing more than just another perfect tool.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you guys look at FYI memos to council, but on the council's website you can go to council online. If you click the FYI Memos and then leave the search criteria blank, you can get a list in reverse chronological order. The most recent one lays out the city's strategy. It's not something I've seen reported anywhere, and therefore can't have been Cranley's idea.

 

Here is a link:

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/fyi/public/fyi_docs/Blob/3215.pdf?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D%272717%27

 

This is a really weird strategy:

 

1) the City is taking the position that Paragon has no right to occupy the space and does not consider them a tenant.  (Doesn't Paragon have a lease through 2017?  Doesn't that give them a right to occupy the space?)

 

2) Since the City doesn't consider Paragon a tenant they have refused to accept any rent from Paragon.  So far the have foregone $100,000.  (If the City feels like they would be conceding a point if they collected rent, why not put the rent into an escrow account until the matter is settled?  It seems really irresponsible to turn down money that could be used to offset City expenses just to make a legal point.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard from a pretty reliable source that Cranley refused to meet with the owners. Apparently they requested to meet with him he flat out ignored them. That doesn't sound good.

 

Having read the memo posted above, considering the pending legal matters, it makes sense that Cranley wouldn't meet with them.

 

Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy. 

 

My gut tells me occam's razor applies here. My guess is Paragon just doesn't want to move unless they get a sweet deal. Based on that memo, it is worth it for them to sit tight and hold out because they don't have to pay rent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy. 

Perhaps so...but, then again, why is anyone still fighting over a hair salon-vs-a thirty-story high rise w/an urban grocery?!  Geezus, relocate that friggin' hair salon somewhere else and build this thirty-story resident high-rise now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please get a permanent city manager? I'm not comfortable with Cranley having so much influence over the "interim" manager who decides these strategies. "Cranley will have to rein in his dictatorial tendencies," as the Enquirer put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly think that there will be a different permanent manager besides Stiles. The Mayor chooses the manager and council approves. Council has said nothing but good things about Stiles and Cranley has 5 votes, easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then upgrade his status. If what you're saying is true, the only reason I can see for keeping him as an interim manager is for Cranley to hold the possibility of selecting someone else over his head to keep him under Cranley's finger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect that it will change after he's made permanent after a paper search for a new manager costing a few hundred thousand dollars.

 

The Mayor/Manager roles are so screwed up that it lets the Mayor sort of decide how involved he'll be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong - but if the hair salon has paid rent, but it has been returned - technically wouldn't that amount eventually add up to the cost of a buildout and/or relocation?  It'd be best if they can just agree after being there that they relocate, with some assistance on a new location from the developer and saving rent so this can move forward...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fourth & Race deal reflects complex questions

Bowdeya Tweh, btweh@enquirer.com 11:05 p.m. EDT May 23, 2014

 

 

One of downtown Cincinnati’s most high-profile real estate developments has become entangled in myriad questions that threaten to further stall the project’s progress.

 

Officially, Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins Properties has an agreement with the city to raze the Pogue’s Garage at Fourth and Race streets and build a $97 million high-rise with luxury apartments, a grocery store and 1,000 parking spaces.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/05/23/fourth-race-deal-reflects-complex-questions/9526105/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the March 4 story by Chris Wetterich, the developer was trying to get New Market Tax Credits for this project. 

 

The Courier is reporting that Cincinnati didn't get any New Market Tax Credits this go around.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/06/cincinnati-shut-out-of-federal-tax-credits.html?ed=2014-06-06&s=newsletter&ana=e_cinci_rdup

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to see things are moving forward, but not at all happy to see a potential downsizing by a third and it appears the grocery store might be in jeopardy. That's a huge downgrade. Hopefully in the end the sizing doesn't change that much from the original intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'd go that far. A 20ish story residential tower replacing the worst garage downtown is still a big deal. It would be a great project and a huge asset, but would be a massive lost opportunity if we lost the grocery store and the extra height 100 units would allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, other than the fact it was announced as part of this project, this doesn't seem like an ideal spot for an urban grocery store.  Somewhere more central would provide access to downtown residents and attract more OTR residents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed?  If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed?  If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.

 

Yea, it does seem a little bit like this whole thing was orchestrated to keep a grocery store OUT of this development. Kroger does seem to be interested, at least somewhat, in a downtown Cincinnati grocery store. Could this whole debacle be on Kroger's behalf?

 

http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-co-kr-harris-teeter-acquisition-could-lead-to-new-downtown-cincinnati-store

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed?  If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.

 

All politics are corrupt, but the developer is free to lease space to a grocery operator at this development if they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed?  If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.

 

Yea, it does seem a little bit like this whole thing was orchestrated to keep a grocery store OUT of this development. Kroger does seem to be interested, at least somewhat, in a downtown Cincinnati grocery store. Could this whole debacle be on Kroger's behalf?

 

http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-co-kr-harris-teeter-acquisition-could-lead-to-new-downtown-cincinnati-store

 

No, the developer is the party that would want the grocery store requirement lifted. (not the city or Kroger).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed?  If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.

 

Yea, it does seem a little bit like this whole thing was orchestrated to keep a grocery store OUT of this development. Kroger does seem to be interested, at least somewhat, in a downtown Cincinnati grocery store. Could this whole debacle be on Kroger's behalf?

 

http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-co-kr-harris-teeter-acquisition-could-lead-to-new-downtown-cincinnati-store

 

No, the developer is the party that would want the grocery store requirement lifted. (not the city or Kroger).

 

While I don't doubt that the developer would prefer the low margin grocery store requirement be lifted, I think that the fact that the deal was reworked to remove that requirement raises an eyebrow or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grocery store would have been good for residents of downtown, not ideal for the developer, and bad for any other grocers who aren't quite ready to risk opening up downtown. I think the question of who Cranley is supposed to be representing is a good one to ask in this case.

 

I think the location was actually ideal. The southwest corner of downtown has lots of residential, and this is about as close to Fountain Square/the center of downtown as a grocer could probably afford to locate and break even. There's already a Kroger in OTR so building another grocery store somewhere between downtown and OTR wouldn't make much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think they should build a big urban format two-story grocery as part of a residential mid-rise at Walnut and Central Parkway.

 

I can dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grocery store would have been good for residents of downtown, not ideal for the developer, and bad for any other grocers who aren't quite ready to risk opening up downtown. I think the question of who Cranley is supposed to be representing is a good one to ask in this case.

 

I think the location was actually ideal. The southwest corner of downtown has lots of residential, and this is about as close to Fountain Square/the center of downtown as a grocer could probably afford to locate and break even. There's already a Kroger in OTR so building another grocery store somewhere between downtown and OTR wouldn't make much sense.

 

It depends on what you want out of the grocery.  If you want something very small for downtown residents only, then I would say this is an ideal location.  If you want something that's going to attract both downtown and OTR residents, then I don't think this is close to ideal.  As someone who lives at 13th and Vine, I can tell you my chances of going to this location for a grocery--even if it is a very nice grocery--are slim to none.  It's quite a haul for anyone in OTR; and it's exacerbated by not being on the streetcar line, which would make it easier when it comes to lugging groceries back as a pedestrian.  I think that as redevelopment continues, we will end up with more residents in OTR than in Downtown.  It may be the case that we end up with a larger store right near Central Parkway, as Civvik suggests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^It seems like having multiple smaller grocery stores would be more conducive to city living than one big one serving the whole basin.  The one proposed at 4th and Race should really be viewed as "for downtown", not OTR.  OTR has Kroger (for good or bad) to fill that void.  A huge grocery store implies using a car to haul 2 weeks worth of groceries anyway, and the Newport Kroger already exists for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^True.  If that is what we end up with, I will be fine with it.  But you can see why there has been such difficulty getting a grocery store in place--if the focus is on a small store primarily for downtown residents, then you have to deal with very high real estate costs for not a lot of people.  Add in that it is a very low margin business anyway, and it's no wonder it has taken this long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grocery store would have been good for residents of downtown, not ideal for the developer, and bad for any other grocers who aren't quite ready to risk opening up downtown. I think the question of who Cranley is supposed to be representing is a good one to ask in this case.

 

I think the location was actually ideal. The southwest corner of downtown has lots of residential, and this is about as close to Fountain Square/the center of downtown as a grocer could probably afford to locate and break even. There's already a Kroger in OTR so building another grocery store somewhere between downtown and OTR wouldn't make much sense.

 

It depends on what you want out of the grocery.  If you want something very small for downtown residents only, then I would say this is an ideal location.  If you want something that's going to attract both downtown and OTR residents, then I don't think this is close to ideal.  As someone who lives at 13th and Vine, I can tell you my chances of going to this location for a grocery--even if it is a very nice grocery--are slim to none.  It's quite a haul for anyone in OTR; and it's exacerbated by not being on the streetcar line, which would make it easier when it comes to lugging groceries back as a pedestrian.  I think that as redevelopment continues, we will end up with more residents in OTR than in Downtown.  It may be the case that we end up with a larger store right near Central Parkway, as Civvik suggests. 

 

You, sir, need a bicycle (perhaps with a basket and panniers) and a large messenger bag! ;-)

 

Also, the grocery is (was) to have a large parking garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bike, but not quite like that.

 

Driving to the grocery sort of defeats the purpose of it...I walk all the time to Findlay Market and Vine Street Kroger.  If I am going to drive, I will just suck it up and go to the mega-store types and do a big run (Newport Kroger, Costco/Sam's). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...