hohum

Main Street isn't there yet, but with the spaces that are there, it could be that district (Many people have already tried). Some more bar/restaurant mixed types of places could certainly be what bridges the gap... Hard part is still that many of those spaces are huge. Restaurant wise, you'd have to draw an enormous day crowd to justify the use of the space. The day when I hear the doorman at the Westin (right outside my office) recommend that someone go down to Main will be a happy day for me (but thats not there yet).

Personally, I love what happens to my budget when the weather gets nice and I can ride my bike downtown. I go from $40 a month in gas (I only drive an average of 7 or so miles a day when I have to) and $200 in parking to 0 for both. Its free beer money every day of the week when its nice out :)

I am not sure its the type of establishment, club v. bar. There are plenty of areas in many many cities where its just all clubs. And they don't see the same concentration of problems. I can think of areas in Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami.... the list goes on, where there are entire streets where there are only clubs. And they don't seem to have the same problems. The one key differentiator that I can think of for those "club streets" is that they are not in the middle of largely vacant areas. They have neighbors, and they know that they have to keep their neighbors happy if they wish to keep their "license to print money"

Interesting way to think about dealing with it. I like it. One sticking point though is that malls/shopping spaces can dictate leases because there is one owner of the property. While there might be some consensus among the owners on main to a common lease with provisions like you mentioned, its hard to think of anything that would prevent an individual owner from giving up on the common lease.... Short of some sort of business entity arrangement between the owners... Definitely food for thought.

Taking clubs to "dead" areas is a recipe for trouble. I understand from an owners perspective that they don't want to deal with neighborhood noise complaints, etc, but its not like its impossible to have a club as a good neighbor. My supposition is that if you did a nationwide survey of where the clubs with the most problems are located you'd find that they were in relatively vacant, under utilized, urban/industrial areas. Then, you go to places where they aren't a problem (as above) and they are largely good neighbors, and in populated areas with lots of pedestrian eyes on the street.

Never mind loading. I would suggest a bookstore, but honestly, the spaces are too big for the type of venture I would like to see... At least initially.

Interesting, quite possible, but I have heard the "group think" meme from more than just that source. Regardless, I'd like to discuss it. This is one of the reasons I tend to sometimes rehash arguments in full rather than merely pointing back to "here's where you can find the info." There needs to be some of that, but to ONLY address the argument with hyperlink citations, I can understand how someone might think you are trivializing their "points" by doing so.

I was referring to the large vacancy rate in the entire surrounding area. There is little doubt in my mind that large scale vacancy draws a less than savory element to a neighborhood, and it seems to me that a large part of the trouble at OTR clubs is due at least in part not to patrons of the clubs in general but a certain group of patrons who would be frequenting vacant areas regardless of the presence of clubs. The solution is not to take down clubs, the solution is to repopulate OTR, a trend that is establishing and will hopefully continue.

Eh, I'd rather discuss it with him than paint with that broad of a stroke. He certainly isn't the worst that Cincinnati has to offer on the journalistic front.

I think that answers your question as to why the clubs in OTR have had so much trouble. This will change in time.

The connection of the streetcar to IKEA was a complete red herring... Just thrown out to try to bring together two supposed instances of "group think" I think that was really the only point of the article, the dangers of group think. This argument completely ignores the fact the streetcar proposal has come as far as it has due to an impressive groundswell of grass roots support born from the realization that we need to take proactive steps to make Cincinnati a competitor in the global market. Either you want to try to make changes or you don't. The real problem with that article is that it fails to consider the fact that there has been quite a lot of discussion, and consequently, the author sees the responses to criticism as knee jerk reactions (because they are seen outside of the context of the discussions that led to the contrary conclusions)

Does anyone know Joe? Such that they can invite him over here to check out the long ongoing discussion and thought process that led up to the current proposal? I mean, I really don't see the "group think" he is talking about, we disagree about alot of things, except for one - we need a city rail system.

Yes, I got mine from alibris, from a used bookstore in NY of all places, my copy is also signed by the author, a nice plus of the books available through alibris (you can find signed copies, etc) Check out the copies available here: http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/1105083/used/Cincinnati%20Scenes PS - alibris also has used copies of the Cincinnati Streetcar series for reasonable prices... Not sure you can get a better deal than through the Ohio Bookstore though...

They can all be found in a book called "Cincinnati Scenes" by the artist. I just picked up a copy for less than $10...

Personally I disagree with the "don't feed the trolls" way of dealing with this type of poster. Several valuable things came out of this back and forth. We learned who funds the Cato institute, and thereby who supports Randall O'Toole, a fairly loudspoken opponent of streetcars and rail transit systems together. This information is valuable ammunition to argue against his "points." Further, I find that I will personally address the comments of trolls, especially when there are outrageous assertions of fact. These assertions often become the "talking points" if not fairly and reasonably addressed. I find it is better to comment and negate those assertions. This shares a new line of "talking points" with the supporters to address these types of comments when they arise later. Who really thinks that these types of comments won't be repeated on, say, WLW, later? That said, when the same arguments are put forth by the "troll" and things get repetitive, well then, that is where I stop responding. These are just my personal thoughts on how to deal with these types of comments, but I think at least a few valuable thoughts came out of addressing these types of assertions head on. Again, just my 2c.

It will link to uptown. Uptown link cannot be financed at the same time as downtown, it would kill the project. Just because it can't be financed at the same time does not mean it isn't being planned for and worked towards. Recent approval of studies on the Uptown link indicate that its not just a nice to have but it WILL be part of the picture. To get uptown done we will need to get federal funding. That won't happen without actual dollars in the ground today. The plan is not too small precisely because Uptown is part of the plan. Qualls may have the academic credentials, but she hasn't shown me she can actually get anything done beyond studying it to death. Qualls is not a supporter -- she hasn't done anything tangible to support the project, just lip service, and further, she votes against what she says she wants. Her only proposal is supported by Cranley, and THAT should really tell you where she stands. If Cranley supports it, that is a darn good indication that it wasn't intended to actually build the line. That is the last I will say on that. *cough*

The final idea IS to connect bigger areas, but as a first step, an area that is in need of development was chosen. It was a considered decision about where to take the first steps (we can't tackle a giant system all at once). So, its baby steps, first we build this loop, then we connect this loop to uptown. Then we connect those loops to the east and the west, and eventually, over time, we build out this transportation infrastructure that will serve not only as transportation but incentives for private developers to invest dollars along the line. I won't address the racial nature of the comments here, but one of the driving (pun intended) forces is not just entertainment but but to allow the people who work downtown to live closer to their works. In other cities of similar size and density, there is a great desire to live close to the downtown urban cores. This is desirable housing in other areas because it is close to work and close to the amenities that a broad range of people desire to frequent. This is what the streetcar plan is hoping to bring to the CBD/OTR area. The discussion has focused on moving people, keeping people moving within a core area that allows them not only the transportation benefits but also the secondary benefits for the city of business and investment benefits that stem from more people shopping, walking, and investing in the neighborhoods. One of the parties that conducted the studies does indeed build such systems. The key party who did the study (HDR), does not. One thing to consider is that in order to really figure out the costs of building such a system they had to consult with companies that actually do this type of construction. In short, no. Largely the funds come from TIF (from the Banks TIF district) and private sources. Something to remember, TIF funds must be used in the district from which they come, so this money doesn't affect other ongoing projects. In fact, it will affect NO other already approved capital projects (this was one major goal when coming up with the new funding plan).

Quincy, MA Danvers, MA Brockton, MA Dover, NH Portsmouth, NH Portland, ME Burlington, VT East Bridgewater, MA Boston, MA Everett, MA Framingham, MA Wellesley, MA Cambridge, MA Philadelphia, PA Cincinnati, OH Damn, thats far too many... I guess I could add London, and Paris as well, but that wasn't really a move, just a 3 month slouch on a couch in college...

Risking moderator wrath, I will begin with the redevelopment issue. Firstly, the assumption that redevelopment necessarily replaces affordable housing is a faulty premise. Redevelopment comes in many forms, from the more expensive condos in gateway to simple building rehabs. Its a total picture. Will some affordable housing go away? Yes. Will more affordable housing be made available through repurposing and fixing currently vacant buildings? Yes. Its not an either/or proposition. Secondly, addressing the "statistics" from Cato you posted earlier... Other commentors have pointed to who funds Cato, and it is not a trivial amount of money they receive from interests who are very much opposed to any kind of public transportation. That has to be considered. Secondly, it is NOT true that Portland's ridership has declined over the years. In fact it has increased year over year. That study figures that ridership has declined based on a comparison to total vehicle miles traveled. That figure is a poor figure for comparison because total vehicle miles traveled includes many many many trips that would just never be made via public transportation (for example cargo trucking, or taking kids to a soccer game, etc.) Finally, considering that $25 million per mile figure, compare the cost of that to the cost to build highways and bridges. We are looking at a 3 BILLION dollar project to rebuild the Brent Spence bridge and all of a few miles of highway. Then take into consideration the continuing maintenance costs of such highways, lost opportunity costs from cutting apart neighborhoods, etc, etc. Devoting transportation dollars to one mode of transportation, a mode that is damaging to the environment, a mode that promotes sprawl rather than efficient concentrated development, well that is where the real failing is. We need to diversify our transportation, and streetcars/light rail are just one way to take the first few steps. We need to get away from an either/or mindset. We don't need to say only one mode of transportation is best, each has its benefits and its failings. Streetcars are slow, they take longer for travel from point A to point B than some other modes of transportation. But, they also provide some very large upsides, in terms of transportation and development. UncleRando addressed many of those transportation upsides in his post earlier. One that he did not address is the transportation upside for those living in the neighborhoods served by the line and that is the ability to possibly own fewer cars. It is much less expensive to build and repair housing and attract new residents when each unit need not provide 2 full parking spaces for every tenant.

*sigh* too true. I'll keep my business in the small local stores when I can, but sometimes, for example with books, its really hard to do...

That bookstore rules! But I think you have to be lucky enough to have something like that grow over time, whereas you could build a Borders or a BN anywhere tomorrow. Yeah, you couldn't build that overnight, its more of a tradition than just a store... but with the buildings that are available for use (CBD and OTR), it seems like you wouldn't have a really high overhead for rehab to do something like Powells (no need for shiny glitz and other shellac, just bookcases and space). I don't think Kenwood will have a problem supporting both in such close proximity really... I just wish they were more "original" and not "run of the mill"

Assuming that 2 of the 3CDC projects weren't part of that "first 39", the lesson to be learned from this is that it pays to have your ducks in a row and apply early. Are these credits awarded annually like KY's Historic Preservation Credit or was this a one time thing? If they're available next year, the 3CDC would be well advised to apply the morning of the first day of availibility. I think (from the poorly written story anyhow) that the 120 million that was allocated was supposed to provide for these projects through 2009. So, no money next year either... At least from my reading.

I'll post here what I had commented on a few blogs... Firstly, even though the Enquirer story makes it less than clear, the total that 3CDC did not get is 3.8 million (Roughly 10% of the money for the projects it was allocated for). My question is this, were these tax credits routinely granted, such that they were pretty much a sure thing? Or, was there some uncertainty in the application process such that it wouldn't be prudent to fully count on them coming to fruition? If these credits weren't a sure thing, I would think that prudent contingency planning would have accounted for the possiblity that the credit would not be granted. Edit - on a quick reread of the story 37/39 seems a pretty sure thing, but if there was knowledge of how much was allocated for the program, it seems like it shouldn't be all that hard to predict that there wouldn't be enough money to go around... especially on first come first serve. I wonder how much investigation will be done into the application process...

OH oh, gotcha. Yeah, different store all together. Rittenhouse has plenty of tourist activity (which also drives the concentration of panhandlers thereabouts). I still would have rather seen one of the two up at Kenwood downtown. Actually, what I would really love to see is something like Powells. Hopefully, increasing the population density in that area can bring something like that downtown.

Yeah, what drives that store in Philly though is that its right in the heart of the University... Not sure you'd see it in that location if it weren't for the University.