Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest montecarloss

Cincinnati: Downtown: Seven at Broadway

Recommended Posts

Yeah it seems as though the market is right for residential development downtown...NOW!  However, developers are being hesitant and reluctant to go through with plans.  This opportunity will most likely not last forever, so I would hope that these developers would get their act together and start building now...and quit bullshitting around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just wish these developers would try to tap into the "somewhat reasonably affordable" market.  people would absoultely be eating these things up if they were.  and it would be younger people too. 

AMEN!!!  I understand that developers want to get the most return on their investment, but is marketing every new condo development to weathly empty nesters really the only way to breath new life into the city?  I think most of these projects are focused too much on the high end units and not enough on pricepoints that will lure young people to buy downtown.  If you truely want to make the core city a 24 hour urban neighborhood, you need young people.  I guarantee that the bars, coffee shops, and restaurants that are and will open downtown as the population increase will not be packed with people my parent's age at 10:30 on a Tuesday night.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also do not understand the developer's hesitance to move forward with this project.  The demand for downtown living is there.  Downtown apartments are 95% leased, sales at condos developments in the CBD have been solid. Interest in the surrounding city neighborhoods is on the rise - Mt. Auburn hillside, Mt. Adams, Walnut Hills/Eden Park, East End, Betts-Longworth.  If there was any way to get bring the units to market between $150 and $250k they would sell quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadway condo tower design to be re-examined

DAN MONK | DMONK@BIZJOURNALS.COM

February 23, 2007

 

***IMAGE: New Rendering***

 

CINCINNATI - Developers planning a 12-story condo tower at Seventh and Broadway downtown will try to redesign their project to create "sexier units" that can sell at lower price points.

 

Click on link for article.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2007/02/26/story8.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt that rendering really old?  i thought they had designs pending the demolition/preservation of the red brick building.  this rendering obviously indicates that the building is still there, but that building has been torn down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i havent seen that particular rendering before...but its the first computer rendering i have seen for the project too.  also...the white building behind is sycamore place right?  and that is now red.  the image is obviously out of date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...and the blackish looking bldg is the Power Building.  So I think the colors may be off...the other rendering I had seen is on Emporis, but it was much more simple (just a plain old box design).  Me likey this one much more!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is the right move for this project.  Should it try to start now, and compete with the multiple other projects going on...it would be difficult.  Not to mention there is about a 2.5 year surplus that will be on the market once One River Plaza and SouthShore come on line.  They are waiting for some of this to be absorbed, which I think is reasonable.  I am happy that they are still looking at the project; from previous conversations it didn't sound promising from their end...but I guess only time will tell.  It looks to be a great project, and I hope it comes to fruition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is 2.5 years of luxury condos (over 400k)..................they are looking for condo's around 200k-300k.  Just seems like they don't know what they are doing to me!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insert Quote

I think it is the right move for this project.  Should it try to start now, and compete with the multiple other projects going on...it would be difficult.  Not to mention there is about a 2.5 year surplus that will be on the market once One River Plaza and SouthShore come on line.  They are waiting for some of this to be absorbed, which I think is reasonable.  I am happy that they are still looking at the project; from previous conversations it didn't sound promising from their end...but I guess only time will tell.  It looks to be a great project, and I hope it comes to fruition.

 

True, but condo projects like One River Plaza cut out the "majority" of Americans, because the average American cannot afford a condo that cost $400,000 or higher.

 

Now, if you build a condo tower that prices units around the $150K range, you'll have a lot of signed contracts fast and they'll be from people that could care less if One River Plaza is down the street or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the new rendering, the more residential units we get over in the St. Xavier area, the more likely we can land a grocery store on the surface lot.

 

The problem with the surface lots is that they are owned by St. X high school and the proceeds from those lots help go to offset tuition for students at the school. They have a restriction on the land that any development has to be used for educational purposes that would assist the school in some way. Essentially, any new development on the surface lots there would have to guarantee the continued revenue stream for the school over a period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two lots adjacent to one another right there.  It is my understanding the St. X only controls 1 of the 2 lots...that would be the one closest to St. Xavier Church.  I had heard that investors were eyeing out the second lot across the street from the Power Bldg.  Obviously this is all speculation, but this came from a credible source (about a year or so ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>isnt that rendering really old?  i thought they had designs pending the demolition/preservation of the red brick building.  this rendering obviously indicates that the building is still there, but that building has been torn down.

 

The white building was torn down, the red row building at the corner is still there.  I think there was a brown brick building on the north side of the block as well.  This photo is from May or June of 2002:

zcity109.jpg

 

A view of the lots and the Power building that same day:

zcity107.jpg

 

Remember not only St. X high school but Xavier University as well were located in this area, the University moved around 1920 and the high school moved to Finneytown in 1960.  The high school originally bought about 65 acres (an entire farm) but it's now over 100 with the addition of the Girls Town property.  Don't think for a second the big wigs at St. X aren't nervous about their once pristine suburban setting devolving into a College Hill-like semi-ghetto.  They're actually trying to develop high price condos on their Finneytown property to form an affluent force field around the campus.  St. X was really hypocritical so far as running large can food drives and other programs that mix the students up with the area's poor residents but then seeking refuge in Finneytown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a great shot of the parking lots there.  I would imagine it being a struggle to get things to happen at the lot adjacent to St. X Church, but the other lots seem to be less attractive for St. X; and more attractive to developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a story in the Enquirer about 5 years ago detailing the entire St. Xavier Park area housing plan.  I remember it included the St. X lots, but it did state that it would be a long term air rights lease so St. X could keep their cash flow and own the land as called for in the deed.  I will try to dig up the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Tons of potential for the area.  I remember how depressing it was when the Power and Krippendorf Buildings were empty.  Downtown effectively ended at Main St. 

 

I don't understand the sluggishness of the Broadway Tower's development...with the garage already in place they should be able to pounce when the market window opens considering the mediocrity of some of the sites being developed around town like whatever that thing is down on Culvert St. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the City Planning Commission meeting today and they approved a three year extension for the current developer. The devoper was VERY convincing that the market was not ready for the units. They want a quality product and would not settle for anything less. . . i am confident that they will be quickening the development of the site in the next 12-18 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is a good thing that the city is working with them and giving them an extension...it is a bad thing that they need an extension.  I know that this isn't unique to Cincy, but I don't take this as a sign of good faith from the developers.  They are just giving themselves the option to do something within the next 3 years...should they choose.  Is there any sort of penalty for them if they do nothing with the project.  I don't think there is...so this move seems rather mundane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the meeting, the company took great offense when Tarbell suggested exactly what you are saying. They have been losing money on this property for years and are very eager to develop. He explained how they came to the Planning Comission with a plan a few years ago that only had about 50 condos and was only 5 stories. They mutually agreed that they did not think that this was the best use of the land. This developer has worked well with the city on many projects, and explained that they are eager to develop, but are waiting for the possibility to become available to develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tarbell suggested exactly what you are saying

 

Well great minds think alike!  :laugh:

 

Seriously though...I want to believe them and I hope this project comes to fruition.  But until I see construction equipment I'll remain cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem (at least what they said) was that they would need to get a very high cost (don't remember the numbers) per square foot for condos, or almost $2 per square (a month) foot for apartments if they were to develop this site, the way that the city, and they, wanted to... There are no condo areas that are close to this value in the CBD today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apartments in that area are going for about $.80-$1.20 a square ft. per month.  I agree that $2 would be an outrageous amount, but I just don't see why their costs would be sooooooo high for that project.  If the costs are the problem now, what is going to improve those cost figures in the future?  Even when the housing market catches up the construction costs won't drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know what they estimated cost per  sq foot for condos was for the project to be viable. I wonder if they are aiming for the correct market for their project.  I think the high end for downtown condos is about to become saturated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for the extension in the Planning Commission today.

 

The developers said they need to be able to sell the units for $260 psf or rent them for $1.60 psf/month, neither of which is attainable there right now. The only for-sale product that has come close are the Park Place condos on Lytle Park that started selling for $225 psf and ended up selling for just under $250 psf.

 

I think what Jim Tarbell was saying is that -- if you're a true city person -- living in the northeast quadrant of downtown is far better than living at Lytle Park, even though the market doesn't reflect that yet, far from it. When I first moved downtown, I lived at Lytle Park. It was pretty, but it felt like the suburbs. You had to get in your car to access any kind of service. So I moved closer to the center -- near the Broadway Towers in fact -- and I can tell you that it's much better, even though it looks rough to the casual observer. That's what Jim was trying to get across at the Planning Commission today. He's frustrated that the developers haven't been able to exploit what he sees as an obviously good location. And coincidentally I was talking with a resident of Park Place late today who has already concluded that a move closer-in is in the cards for her. After living downtown for a year or so, she wants a real city experience.

 

The problem is, the cat's out of the bag on this one. Our city already has $2 million embedded in the foundations to carry the apartment overbuild, which the developers have to pay back to the city once construction commences. So if you only build fifty units there, your starting point -- before laying the first brick of the first apartment -- is already $40,000 in cost for that apartment. The only saving grace is that the parking for the tower is already built, an avoided cost worth something, I suppose.

 

I'd say this is a problem, if it only were. It's a dilemma. Problems you can solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers said they need to be able to sell the units for $260 psf or rent them for $1.60 psf/month, neither of which is attainable there right now. The only for-sale product that has come close are the Park Place condos on Lytle Park that started selling for $225 psf and ended up selling for just under $250 psf.

 

I don't know your source, but that statistic for Park Place seems to be inflated.  We added major upgrades to our unit and still came in under $200 / sqf, including appliances, floorplans, electrical configuration, trimwork, master bath reconfiguration, and flooring upgrades.  Given what I've seen in many other units, I assume our price per sqf was higher than the average.

 

I think what Jim Tarbell was saying is that -- if you're a true city person -- living in the northeast quadrant of downtown is far better than living at Lytle Park, even though the market doesn't reflect that yet, far from it. When I first moved downtown, I lived at Lytle Park. It was pretty, but it felt like the suburbs. You had to get in your car to access any kind of service. So I moved closer to the center -- near the Broadway Towers in fact -- and I can tell you that it's much better, even though it looks rough to the casual observer. That's what Jim was trying to get across at the Planning Commission today. He's frustrated that the developers haven't been able to exploit what he sees as an obviously good location. And coincidentally I was talking with a resident of Park Place late today who has already concluded that a move closer-in is in the cards for her. After living downtown for a year or so, she wants a real city experience.

 

Huh?

 

If I understand it, the project we're taking about is at 7th and Broadway.  That's a six block walk to the corner of 5th and Vine.  The Taft museum, the furthest spot in the Lytle park area is 7 blocks.  I guess I don't see that as being a big  difference.

 

I guess I should be thrilled at the thought that downtown has become such a popular destination for residency that Lytle park is now considered suburban, signifying that a block closer to the city center is much more desireable.  If this really is the true preception, then I'm happy.  It means that the notion of downtown as a desirable residential area has turned the corner.

 

However, as much as I would like to believe it, I don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Cincinnati garage space takes bite out of apartment plans

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

 

A parking expansion for Procter & Gamble Co. will cut in half a long-planned residential tower at Seventh and Broadway.

 

Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney asked City Council this week to set aside $5 million to build a three-story parking deck atop a five-story garage already in place. The expansion was promised to P&G in June when it said it was moving 650 new jobs to downtown.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/10/26/story5.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These developers don't seem able to pull off this project.  I bet nothing happens here past the expansion of the garage.  The only way something does happen is if the City takes away the air rights extension and gives it to someone else who is more capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P&G has surely had these plans in place for a long time, meaning they've been scouting for parking for a few years.  This garage appeared to have been built at the ideal time to take advantage of the mid-decade condo boom, and since it already had the garage built, it could have beaten several other area projects to the punch.  That makes me think P&G worked out this deal years ago, the developer was probably content to get a modest return on his investment rather than risking everything during the condo boom. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...