jim uber

This is true, and I would argue that people should move near these new job centers. The problem is that they aren't designed with density in mind, so hardly anyone can live near these new sprawling job centers. That is the advantage downtowns will have until new "centers" are built as dense, mixed-use areas. That is exactly correct. Near Cincinnati, for example, West Chester could have decided to build out it's "downtown" like an actual downtown that could support increased density (and all of the things that come with it), instead of like a fancy suburban strip mall geared completely toward auto traffic. That may yet come at some point. Downtown Cinci wasn't always like it is now. It was torn up and rebuilt. Thing is, it's hard to imagine that happening anytime soon, given the perceptions that increased density will only bring bad things. These same people that moved out to West Chester did so for the grass and isolation, so it's hard to imagine them voting to spend money to provide density supporting infrastructure. Frankly, that's good for the future of Cincinnati.

However people end up transporting themselves, and however much they must do it, I just hope that we end up with suburbs without gates and fences and self-contained backyards and basements, and with clotheslines, gardens, bikes, parks, public swimming pools, and kids running in the streets. That's the suburb I grew up in, and even though I am now a dedicated urbanist, that's one I think is much healthier than many of the suburbs we have today, which can be extremely isolationist. The suburbs are the same, but the people have changed. Sometimes I believe that the suburbs have steadily changed the people over the past 6 decades (to be more fearful and isolationist), but that's just my speculation. Could just as easily be technology as the format of suburban life. Or maybe it is our nature to want to be isolated and we're just getting what we want.

This list of Cinci urban-scale projects is pretty impressive, even though I (and you) knew about all of them already. "Cincinnati Sees Dramatic Increase in High Quality Urban Designs" http://urban-out.com/2010/07/01/cincinnati-sees-dramatic-increase-in-high-quality-urban-designs/

The best thing I could say about the underground garage is that it is another way to facilitate auto/streetcar interactions. Another location where people from out of downtown can park, visit local shops and entertainment, and hop on the streetcar to another location and then back to their car. It would seem, for example, that Findlay Mkt could benefit significantly from people parking in a nice-n-safe washington park, getting on the streetcar to Findlay and back, and not having to interact with the riff-raff. I don't know if $40K/space is worth that or not. I regard it as the price of fear, but fear is the reality.

I believe that all but about 20 million is for the garage in one form or another. That might not be exact but it's in the ballpark.

This is exactly correct. Soundproofing doesn't have much to do with framing, so framing materials should be a decision based on economics of material and installation costs. Just a couple of other things regarding sound. In a high end development, they will sometimes have double walls with an air space in between, and insulation + layers of wallboard on both sides of each wall. This is very effective, in my experience. Also, instead of double layers of wallboard, there is a special wallboard product that is intended for soundproofing and use in a single layer. Sound transmission is very interesting. I hear *every* heel click from high heels in the unit above me, in my $180/sq. ft. gateway quarter condo (with steel stud walls, by the way). It really pisses me off, and I'd suggest anyone buying a condo to make sure they take a woman with stiletto heels with them and send them upstairs, before they buy. It is usually a function mostly of transmission through rigid materials, and in my case the whole ceiling is sort of like a big stethoscope to the upstream sound energy being delivered to the floor. The only dependable solution is to break the continuous transmission of sound, either through an isolated air space, or being very careful with using rubber isolators and such.

what is the matter with wood framing. This is completely non-structural. There are no additional noise issues associated with wood framing compared to steel framing. It's better for hanging pictures.

UC and other schools have a significant graduate student population, and most of these are from over seas. It is one of the major ways that America is introduced to foreigners, especially foreigners that we actually (should) want to be here. So one problem I have with those emails is that it completely freaks out most every new student from foreign lands. When I take groups of grad students out for dinner and bring them downtown, it's like a big adventure, and a scary one. This whole thing reinforces their preexisting notion that in America there is someone around the corner with a gun waiting for them. It's no wonder to me why nearly every foreign student who stays, ends up in the suburbs.

I thought that this headline was interesting: Exemption sought for 3CDC headquarters project (http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/06/14/daily4.html?surround=lfn) Which goes on to say that 3CDC is asking for tax breaks on a $6.8M rehab of a 37,000 sq. ft. building in the 1400 block of Race street, to house their headquarters with about 100 employees and a ground floor retail/restaurant space. I thought it was interesting for this thread since it is on the proposed streetcar line, is a substantial development project, and 3CDC is obviously assuming that the blocks of Race between Washington park and Liberty will change a lot soon -- enough to support a restaurant. I guess that park renewal could be enough of a boost, but it seems more likely they are banking on the streetcar? Which I guess most people here are doing anyway...

OK, I have completely stopped taking you seriously at this point, based on your statement that the amount of oil consumed is, like gravitational acceleration, a constant. You are correct that this is drifting from Streetcar, though.

If: mass transit were available throughout every neighborhood in every city in this land, bicycle lanes replaced parking lanes on major roadways, retail/commercial use was forced to be commingled with residential, cars and any other individual transit mode were taxed at a high level, commercial and residential land was taxed at a high level based on square footage, Then: We would create prosperous high density cities; energy, oil, and water usage would plummet, and Americans would be thinner, happier, and more popular throughout the world. See "smart growth" on the world wide Internets. So there.

Jesus, is this line of argument driving anyone else nuts, or just me? Yes, we want mass transit, because it is by definition an efficient means of transport that makes possible a vibrant city. Yes, we also understand that a vibrant urban environment means lots of people on the sidewalks and on the various modes of transit. Call that "congestion," or whatever you want. Yes, we are more than ready to deal with that; we have been waiting for it a long time. Your struggle to find some sort of contradiction here is, frankly, tiresome. I only mention that because I have to assume it is not your intent.

How nice - you are only 10 years out of date. If I had to base my arguments on the state of things 10 years ago, then I'd have to change a lot of what I was saying. You, however, seem to have arguments that are rooted so deeply in history that current events don't matter. That must be convenient. I admire your tedious persistence. However if I had a kid graduating from college right now, I wouldn't advise them to buy "more home for the money" in the suburbs. Between likely changes in energy costs, and changes in what's considered to be a desirable lifestyle (including mass transit), I think they'd lose their shirt before their kids needed to go to college. That's just from sticking my finger in the air and sensing the winds. I think you might sense it, too, but are reluctant to admit it.

Natininja said it best for me, but... There can be trends that persist for long time periods, such as long term trending upwards or downwards in the stock market. There can be relatively instantaneous changes in direction that indicate the start of a trend. I guess that the time frame that something needs to have changed direction, before one calls that change a trend, is variable between individuals, and we have to live with that. I think that the number of employed people living in OTR has increased consistently enough to be called a trend. My point was that any reasonable person needs to be able to admit that, even though still much larger numbers of such people are living in suburbs. The repopulation of OTR will happen, and it will obviously be helped by the development of the streetcar. Hence, the resistance to and denigration of the streetcar concept.

Today again, on my walk to Findlay, I noticed the curious event of small hoards of 50-100 persons on guided walking tours of OTR, @ $15 a head. Cameras in hand, young and old. How times change. Someday relatively soon they will extend the tour using the streetcar and get to see changes that right now can't even be imagined.

Suffice it to say that there is a definite trend of more people moving to OTR at the moment. I suppose that every flock needs to start with a few birds.

I am quite happy with the IGA on Ludlow. They do a nice job of maintaining variety in a small format. Just wish they'd think about replacing the linoleum someday.

It's funny that you think if more young people are currently buying homes in suburbs, that constitutes a trend. A trend involves changes over time. If more people, young and old, were not currently buying more suburban houses, then suburbs would simply collapse cause thats where most of the homes are. Most of the people I know don't want to get along without a car, they want to get along using a car a lot less than they do now. They'd be happy to try not having one, if transit options were spectacular and all their friends lived within walking or transit distance. We all realize that will take time measured in decades.

^ If Danny does what he wants to do, it will be very well worth a consulting fee. There is a lot of work involved in identifying the properties, contacting the owners, and handling the legal issues of property transfer. We desperately need an industry that will make individual purchase and rehab of OTR structures more accessible. I think that Danny is trying to build that, and it will be worth it to many. I wish that all of the money I've given to real estate agents over the years could have been given to people like Danny Klingler instead.

I like my job; just wish the Metro folks would do theirs better. But attending SORTA meetings is a good idea. I've attended meetings where SORTA reps spoke, but not a SORTA board meeting. I'll look into it.

It is difficult I'll agree, but places do it. The fact that Metro can not figure out how to change routes, or to find needed funds to implement improvements that would ultimately improve their bottom line, indicates to me that they don't understand the political dimensions of their own problems. Frankly their livelihood depends on it, and still they can't put together a coherent *system wide* analysis and plan a way to negotiate with the public. I can not recall one progressive transit issue that Metro has pushed. They burn soybeans; easy. They build a new government square terminal; easy. This sort of planning is done routinely by competent organizations. You develop metrics with public input, you gather data and do analysis to develop potential options, and then vet these with the public. You iterate and rely on the power of being forthright and honest with the technical details. It's hard, but frankly Metro hasn't even tried, at least from the public's perspective.

Eighth and State, I truly am glad that you are happy about Metro possibly operating the streetcar system. I also tend to think it is a positive development. Not so much because Metro is the ideal operator, but because it just seems too strange to have Metro running the buses and then have nothing to do with the Streetcar. However, I personally use Metro, and have a negative opinion of them as a transit agency, from a rider perspective. This is based on my experience with other transit agencies in other cities. So I hope they don't screw this up. A few examples of what I mean, again, from a user's perspective. - They have one of the worst web sites I've seen for a major city transit agency. In 2010 this is NOT a small deal, and the fact that they haven't recognized the need to put resources into this area makes me think they are disconnected from reality. The fact that the board hasn't taken them to task for this makes me question their commitment and judgement. Go to sorta.com right now, and find the system map. When you get too frustrated and want the answer, let me know. Their trip planner is kludgy and finicky and slow. - Sorta thinks that this is 1940 and a bus station is a pole with a red stripe on it. Visitors always laugh when I tell them this, and think I am kidding. In well run places where working people rely on the bus system, bus stations should have signs saying which buses stop there, and they should list the scheduled times and show a map. They should use signage that is prominent and that can be noticed from 100m away. Again this is not a small deal. It would be better to have fewer bus stops that are more informative and well marked. - Metro requires coins or bills or a monthly fare pass. I need to request and pay additional for a "transfer" across "zones" that few people understand. I can not buy an unlimited day pass or 2 day pass or a week pass. All of this can and should be made easier and more transparent. I should have a card that I can put money on and fares should be automatically deducted, just as one example. Valid transfers should be free and automatically determined, based on end to end distance and not a fixed geographic zone. - They seem to reject potentially productive relationships with large employers, such as UC, Children's, P&G, etc. It took them forever just to come up with a fare card for UC students and staff. My understanding is that negotiating with them on these agreements is very difficult. Before the fare card you had to show your UC ID. The fact that they ultimately found out they were losing revenue shouldn't have been a surprise. - They do not embrace technology or its potential. Finding out via a text or web site where your bus is should be simple at this point. - As already mentioned, their routes are antiques. I wonder how their consultants analyze data to understand the potential demand for routes that they might design. They simply don't seem proactive in the least. In Seoul, for example, the mayor of that city declared that all of the routes would be optimized to be better coordinated, to reflect changing demographics, and to work with the extensive subway system. People complained but it was done. Metro seems to have no stomach for systemic review and change. Again, I think this is on balance a good thing; a necessary development. But my biggest hope is that by agreeing to be on the hook for a successfully operated streetcar line, they are forced to raise the bar on their entire operation.

Kaid Benfield at NRDC did a post on this interesting documentary about OTR restoration titled "The rebirth of Over The Rhine". I was only vaguely aware of it before. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/will_joe_melissa_steve_make_th.html

Well you can say that again. I've lived here for 20 years and it was clear for most of that time the prevailing attitude was to ignore OTR and hope it would go away. The complete reversal of that attitude in City government is the most significant and beneficial policy shift I've noticed. As someone mentioned before, it's paradoxically due to the "great unrest" of 2001.

I've met many homeless people who I have enjoyed talking to, who add to an interesting street scene, and who have a real sense of pride. Still, if I were the Drop Inn Center board, I'm not sure I would be welcoming the new park, the new school, the new Music Hall, and the new residents - and thinking that "we have it pretty good." The small percentage of DIC users who do and will cause trouble, even though its mostly nuisance calls, will cause grief for the DIC in proportion to the amount of new development. I think it will simply become untenable for them to stay, and if they are smart they will move to a better long term location before their reputation and support is seriously damaged.