JoeL

Yeah, they mean the "city" segment of the MLS, not city limits as a whole.

And nevermind the increased property taxes from a revived OTR. If the streetcar eventually generated 10,000 middle-class residents (which I think is conservative given current and past populations) you're probably looking at close to $20 million in property taxes.

Here's a small rendering: An article provides some more details. The summary: - $84 million. Money is NOT raised - Design is not final - 160-170 feet tall - i.e. very visible and amazing views - Rooftop viewing deck and/or restaurant - Only a few floors tall - massive spaces for modern art http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-15907-the-flowering-of-the-cincinnati-art-museum.html

Yeah, the art museum is planning a relatively tall "tulip" shaped tower as part of massive expansion. I have no idea if the economy has stalled their plans, but they talk about it like they are ready to proceed. Personally, I think it looks butt-ugly. However, given the height and location, it should be quite a landmark. It will have insane river and city views, if nothing else.

They called it a "metropolis" because it's a stupid play on words with Manhattan Harbour. It's just a lame journalism pun. They all do it, and there's no value judgment about the project being made. (Also, the headline rarely written by the author. It's usually done by an editor with minimal grasp of the story.) Do you guys think that Manhattan Harbour will have a significant positive impact on property values in Dayton? Or will the project be too segregated to have a gentrifying effect on the neighboring property? My general impression of Dayton is that it's extremely cheap and rundown. However it seems to lack elements of hardcore blight - in other words, simple cosmetic improvements could yield massive increases in value.

So the "stimulus watch" website lists $132 million for the streetcar... Does this mean that Cincinnati has actually requested $132 million (in federal grants? loans? bonds?) for the streetcar project? I had been under the impression that less than 70 million was still needed.

So what's the deal with all the city owned property near Findlay market? Obviously some of it is the market and associated parking itself, but that doesn't explain all the "green" labels over there. What do they own, and what do they plan to do with it? For a potential investor's perspective, few things would scare me more than vacant buildings owned by the government. It creates the reasonable fear that 1) the buildings/land might remain vacant indefinitely or 2) future administrations will return it to destructive social services or public housing uses.

You're probably thinking of Donatos, which is the Columbus based pizza chain. Regardless, I would agree that a fast food type restaurant makes perfect sense at the Banks. Plenty of baseball games right across the street.

Gross ... isn't the Skyline 3 blocks away enough?

Sadly Rando, I think the change in business model is eliminating bowling and doing something else with the space. When I was younger I worked at a bowling alley back in Florida. Times were already brutal, even though there was a huge economic boom back then. They could barely afford to keep the machines running properly. As mentioned, the decline in league bowlers was a huge problem and all anyone in management ever talked about. Also, Florida issued a smoking ban earlier than Ohio and it also destroyed business. American smokers might be down to 20% of the population, but it's those 20% who bowl. Smoking bans help kill bowling alleys. Regardless, it's the decline of league bowling that's caused the biggest pain. In recent years, bowling alleys had stopped the bleeding with "Cosmic Bowling" and other similar gimmicks. The place I worked ONLY turned a profit on Friday and Saturday nights after 9pm. It lost money every other second it was open. But as fads fade, so does the money from Cosmic Bowling. I'm sure smaller alleys or mixed-use facilities can keep bowling profitable. But I'm shocked and impressed that they kept a 68 lane facility open for this long. They must be very dedicated and resourceful owners. I'm sad to hear that some jerks are angry at them for closing. It's easy to complain when you aren't the one losing your money.

The Banks primarily being a "tourist destination" is absurd on a variety of levels, however he was right about one thing ... The Banks isn't a 53rd neighborhood and shouldn't be treated as such. The whole point is for a development with seamless integration with the CBD. It's part of an existing neighborhood, not a new one. So, it probably isn't hugely important whether the Banks specfically has a grocery store or not. Even at full build-out, the Banks isn't large enough to support a supermarket by itself. You'll need the combined CBD population for that. As long as the residents of the Banks help justify the need for more grocery options - somewhere - within the CBD, it will be a great thing.

And just to clarify, the reason I'm asking about the single-tracking is because of the huge potential cost savings. It's only a little over 2.5 lane-miles from the Banks through OTR and to the edge of UC. While not ideal, that still represents a system that goes to basically the same places for well under $100 million (under $63 million based on the $25mil per lane mile, which I still think seems oddly high).

Quick question: Has anyone seriously addressed the possibility of running a single-tracked bi-directional streetcar? In other words, you would have one single track running from downtown all the way to uptown. You'd need double-tracked spots for passing and it would need to take up a parking lane so it can be divided from traffic. Obviously, that's not the ideal system, but that's basically what Tampa did. Considering that people are trying to kill the proposal with cost complaints, it would seem like a viable option. Here are photos of what Tampa did. You can see the single track bi-direction line, along with a double-tracked segement for passing. Wouldn't this work for Cincy if cutting the budget really is necessary?

The controversy over the Stadtschloss seems a bit fake. I think it's trumped up by a very vocal minority. As someone who has been to Berlin and seen the old "People's Palace" it's hard to fully describe what a horrible blighted monstrosity it was. It was non-functional, dehumanizing, and just plain ugly. The average "man on the street" really seemed to hate it. Given the otherwise "imperial" nature of the surrounding buildings, a Stadtschloss reconstruction makes a ton of contextual sense. Opponents of the Stadtschloss reconstruction itself seem to fall into two camps. - Those who strongly prefer modernist architecture and revile neo-traditionalism (usually themselves architects) - Those who sympathized with the Soviet puppet regime, and therefore viewed the Peoples Palace as a symbol worth saving. Beyond that, it's fair to have complaints about the specific details of the reconstruction project. However, those matters of taste can get very nebulous very fast. Notice that Chadoh21 makes the valid point that it's not a 100% reconstruction. Whereas the architect in the video seems furious for the opposite reason. The project is TOO MUCH of a reconstruction, with not enough modern components. You certainly can't please everyone. However, I think the ultimate point is that the Peoples Palace deserved to die, and the City Palace (or a version thereof) will be a massive improvement.

After reading up on my history, I can admit that if I lived in Cincy back in 2001, I probably would have emotionally disconnected from downtown too. I can see how it easily becomes an "us versus them" mentality, whether separated by race, politics, or just lifestyle. So it's easy to (falsely) blame stalled projects like the Banks on some overall failure of the urban core. It's emotionally convenient. And certainly, I've NEVER lived in a city where the bureaucrasy seems to move as slowly as Cincinnati. That's a legit problem that somehow needs to be addressed. All this is why it's so vital that the Banks project becomes a smashing success! Obviously, the Fountain Square renovation has been a big hit with the YP crowd. (As I've mentioned before, thanks to negative stereotypes, my wife and I were kind of depressed at the prospect of relocating to Cincy. However, spending the weekend at the Fountain Square Westin really helped change our perspective.) But not everyone has the income or inclination to spend time at Palomino or JeanRo. Hopefully the Banks can fill a niche for those "meat and potatoes" people who just want to easily park their car and go to a chain restaurant. I truly think that the Banks will change the minds of many suburbanites. It will appeal to them in the same way that NKY does - but the Banks will be truly walkable and interconnected. Judging by Atlanta's reaction to Atlantic station, the Banks is going to do wonders for suburbanites' impression of the core. So anyway, sorry for the rant. But as frustrating as it is, I think all the negativity will fade away one the Banks actually opens.

So whatever happened with the downtown dog park idea? I noticed the domain name expired. Was it one of those issues where the government red tape killed the idea? Or was there lack of interest for a park with a $50 fee? (I't probably a moot point for me, b/c I'll keep taking my dog to the free dog park near Lunkin as opposed to a membership park)

FYI: Jacksonville Florida just completed a preliminary feasibility study for a downtown streetcar. They proposed an initial system very similar to Cincinnati's plan. It would be a single lane loop about 4.3-4.8 lane-miles long. However, estimated cost is only between $65-$85 million Obviously, this is only a study, not a concrete project. However, you would think that Cincinnati leaders should take the hint when even the sprawliest and most suburban city in the country is planning a streetcar.

I can confirm everything you said about Tampa. It's a tourist line and from the stats I've seen, ridership reflects that. While decent, it's mostly entertainment based. It should only be compared to Cincinnati's proposal in the sense that Cincy has MORE built-in advantages to generate real ridership. (And incidentally, you are also right about Tampa's lack of historic buildings. Jacksonville is the only city in Florida with much historic building stock, and even that is nothing compared to any couple of blocks in OTR)

This being my first full winter in Ohio, I would also be very interested in any answers to the above question! If anyone is able, could anyone compare and contrast local ski resorts with the big resorts in the Rockies? I understand that these local resorts are much much much smaller, but I would love to have a more detailed frame of reference (i.e. length of the runs, feel of the snow, crowds, ease of rental equipment, speed and type of chair lifts, is the skill level equivalent for blue and black, etc?)

^ You're absolutely right. Simply being opposed to streetcars doesn't make any sense. And yet they are. (Unless we are seriously entertaining the notion that it's really about speedbumps.) Since this is a streetcar thread, I don't want to get into a larger gentrification debate, but protected affordable housing isn't really on the table, and in fact the political will seems to be to reduce OTRs overall complement of subsidized housing. Perhaps that's one of the shadow issues that has the NAACP so upset to begin with? But at the end of the day, the NAACP is now strongly opposed to the streetcar, to the detriment of Cincinnati. So I'm all ears if anyone can tell me what the real issue is, if not gentrification.

Honestly, I think it's completely fair to accuse the NAACP of racism in this matter. Everyone involved knows that the proposed streetcar is going through heavily black neighborhoods. Everyone involved also knows about the massive potential reinvestment in OTR. The NAACP leadership isn't simply ignorant of these benefits - in fact, I'd wager that rail's "benefits" are precisely what they don't like. They've obviously looked at the situation and made the conclusion that a streetcar actively harms their interests. The spending angle doesn't even make logical sense, as others have rightly pointed out. If Cincy loses streetcar funding, for the most part the money just dissapears. The NAACP is behaving as if the death of the streetcar is per se a benefit to them. Clearly, there are much stronger forces at work here, and I think it's only logical to assume that this is an anti-gentrification issue at its core.

^ Because local NAACP leadership is fundamentally racist themselves. If the streetcar happens, lots more white people will move into OTR, which is something they can't tolerate. It's the whole anti-gentrification crusade. And rail-based transit will almost certainly bring gentrification (which is kind of the point).

Just for comparison's sake, here are some of these schools ranked academically (By USnews. It's not the perfect ranking by any means, but it's still one of the best total measures we can use) Top Tier Northwestern - #12 Boston College - #34 Georgia Tech - #35 Penn State - #47 Florida - #49 tie Texas - #49 tie Tier 2 Ohio State - #56 Pittsburgh - #58 tie Georgia - #58 tie Mich State - #71 tie Virginia Tech - #71 tie Alabama - #83 Missouri - #96 Oklahoma - #103 BYU - #113 Utah - #127 Tier 3 - not numerically ranked Cincinnati - Tier 3 Ball State - Tier 3 Mississippi - Tier 3 OK State - Tier 3 Texas Tech - Tier 3 I'm sure I left out a few, but you get the idea. Point being, I find it really hard to believe that Georgia Tech has a dumber team than Ball State. It's just that GT's team looks at lot worse in comparison to the smarter GT student body. Conversely, UF, GT, and Texas do have dumber teams than similarly ranked BC, Northwestern, and Penn State. It's just pointless to compare them to Tier 3 schools.

The above criteria does have the potential to create bad statistics, though. If two similar teams are being compared against their overall school performance, then the academically superior school will get the worse score. For example, if both teams "A" and "B" have 45% graduation rates, but "A" has 90% student grad rate, while "B" only has a 75% student grad rate, then school "A" will ironically come out of the rankings looking worse. This didn't impact the top of the list, as BC and Northwestern are arguably the best schools on the list regardless. However, things get a little muddled after that. For example, Florida and Georgia Tech are both "top tier" universities. Without any disrespect, they are simply better schools than, say, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma St, or even UC. Consequently, is it really that UF and GT's players are dumber than 'Bama or Ole Miss? Or is it that the former's higher overall academic standards just make the team look worse by comparison?

Great photos. That's an Irish flag in #9 though. Not Italian.