jjakucyk

I do find the traffic argument funny. What other shopping area of any remotely equivalent size doesn't have similar traffic problems?

^ Are they walking on your lawn too?

^ It's pretty tiny though. If you look at the "zone of influence" of the streetcar study and overlaid that over South Fairmount, you'd see much of it covering unbuildable or at least rough hillsides. Plus the Lick Run MSD project seems to want to ream out the core of the neighborhood rather than build it up. I think the more important thing would be the development potential on the east side of the viaduct, specifically whatever route is used through the West End, Brighton, etc., whether that's subway or surface.

Elberon has some funky elevation data but as best as I can tell it's about a 6% grade at the worst. That's doable, the trick is how to navigate the new Waldvogel Viaduct interchanges to actually get from State to Elberon in the first place. Still, other than hitting Lower Price Hill on the way, that's an awful lot of track that would need to be laid through nothingness with little development potential just to get there. Sunset, Quebec, and Grand would probably be doable technically, but like I said that's very circuitous from downtown and OTR. It'd be like taking Ludlow or MLK to get to uptown from downtown.

I'm certainly curious what a preferred alignment to Price Hill would be. 6th Street was deprecated as a streetcar route back in the early 20th century in favor of 8th Street. Since the 8th Street Viaduct was only recently rebuilt however, I don't see that being a particularly palatable option, though it would be the most direct. The only option left then is Gest Street, short of taking a VERY circuitous route across the Western Hills Viaduct through South Fairmount. Anything going through the lower part of the Mill Creek Valley though has to traverse a good mile and a half of depopulated industrial brownfields full of viaducts, railroads, massive surface streets, and flood barriers, while barely skirting the West End without taking another zig-zagging detour. Even after managing all that, THEN you get to the slogging climb up the hill, which on either Glenway or Warsaw is an 8 1/2% grade, higher than what these modern streetcars are apparently able to handle (if I recall, the cutoff is somewhere around 7%), let alone light rail vehicles.

At least you stated that it's your observation. That doesn't make it a fact though. Even if you are 10x more likely to be involved in some sort of accident with another cyclist, those are rarely serious or fatal injuries, nor are other cyclists intentionally trying to harass or assault you. As I said before, even if statistics say that you're safest riding on a road in front of a semi tractor trailer, would you actually WANT to do that? When you're on a bike all motor vehicles are big scary noisy fast dangerous machines whose occupants are invincible compared to you. That's why so few people ride in the streets. I know a lot of people support the notion of "shared space" as a street layout concept. There's certainly advantages to it, but in places where it's been tried the statistics have shown that "vulnerable users" i.e. non-fearless "regular people" cyclists, pedestrians, the handicapped, children, etc. will only use the whole street if vehicle traffic is less than 100 vehicles per hour. That sort of volume is only achievable on the quietest of residential side streets. Otherwise the cars and trucks dominate the center and push everyone else to the sides. It shows that people prefer to walk with other pedestrians, bike with other cyclists, and drive with other motor vehicles. http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-delusion-of-shared-space-as-an-urban-transport-panacea/ http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-from-exhibition-road/

I think you're confusing correlation with causation. Where there's ample cycling infrastructure there's more cycling, so more chances for bike/bike conflicts. Places like Denmark or The Netherlands that have huge cycling mode share would also appear to be very chaotic, but injuries are still pretty rare and serious injuries even more rare. The trouble is that a lot of people want to ride bikes to get places, but they simply will not ride in the streets with traffic because it's too frightening. Even if vehicular cycling is statistically safer than on separate facilities, it may be because only the most fearless and/or experienced riders will do it. That unfortunately is only 1-2% of the population at best. In a similar vein, the reason many European countries with high cycling mode share do not require helmets is because it would make people less likely to ride bikes. For the same reason, even if one-way cycle tracks (which is the best-practice setup) lead to more crashes or other incidents, they get more people riding, whereas "just ride in the street" does not.

I guess it would help to know what the boutique clientele is doing in general. My gut feeling is that the highest of the high-end shoppers (maybe not the 1% but close to it) still represent a more suburban demographic, probably due to being a bit older than anything else. Granted it's difficult to compare since I'm not familiar enough with the high-end shopping patterns of similar sized cities, or even big cities aside from Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, which is most definitely not downtown, but Los Angeles is weird like that. Even Chicago, which has the North Michigan Avenue corridor still has tons of boutique shops in the downtowns of suburban Winnetka, Highland Park, and Lake Forest.

The building is amazing, but I've always been wary of the desirability for loft living in such an isolated location with zero amenities (aside from the bike trail), and nothing but exurban fringe crap development in every direction. If they can make it self-contained enough with some shared services that play into the bike trail and through car traffic (which there's a fair bit of) then maybe there will be a critical mass of activity. I'm surprised and pleased that the township is being accommodating with the zoning, I just hope that the environmental remediation doesn't strip away the surrounding vegetation leaving a barren moonscape. Either way, if they can make this work then it would be a huge win.

Tiffany has quite a few mall stores though. There's a lot of jewelry stores in malls anyway, so I think they lose some of their cachet by joining the herd, so to speak, even if it's not really in "the mall" itself. If they want out of downtown I think they'd maintain some respectability by going to Hyde Park Square or even old Montgomery.

Bank Street is very low-hanging fruit. It's enormously wide with virtually no traffic, so they could make all the car-appeasing moves like 24/7 parking on both sides and a full center turn lane. I'm glad they got rid of the 1950s-esque slip ramps and islands at the intersection with Linn to make it a simple T-intersection, but they still made no attempt to integrate the bike lanes with that intersection. They just funnel bikes into the traffic lanes, which is exactly where those who are wary of riding in the streets need them the most.

That'd be nice, but not something to count on necessarily. I can see the west side acting like many of the suburbs of Atlanta that have fought transit extensions because it would bring "those people" to their neighborhood. Of course it's basically already happening, but I dunno, people can make very irrational decisions when it comes to such situations.

^ That's basically Metro Moves.

If flooding was a legitimate excuse for demolishing a whole neighborhood then most of the East End and Northside and Camp Washington and California would have been leveled too, but they weren't. It was just an excuse.

^ Nevertheless, it would need to be a joint Cincinnati/Norwood venture, which I don't see being an easy situation to reconcile.

^ And don't discount the value of being within quick walking distance of the square. Apartment rents go up precipitously on the square itself, and there's still a premium within a few blocks as well. Yes you can find some cheap apartments or even a few houses pretty close buy, but they're old and cruddy in a number of ways. To bring them up to the equivalent level of finish and amenities, you're going to spend bank.

^ Not for new construction in Hyde Park, or even old construction. Hyde Park is supply constrained (more people want to live there than there are units available) ergo price goes up.

^ It's not impossible. 10 South LaSalle in Chicago was gutted and only the exterior was used for the base of the new building. The result on the outside is basically the same, but either approach is questionable from an architectural and preservation standpoint.

$1 per square foot per month (or even $1.15) is low for a newly remodeled apartment. That's generally a good ballpark figure for a nice apartment in the city, regardless of size. Think a well-kept old building, a freshly updated box from the 1960s or 70s, or even a really cheap newer apartment. The devil is in the details of course, like what utilities are included, parking, etc. but for that kind of money I'd expect to see no utilities included, old windows simply repainted, and pretty cheap and bare-bones kitchen and bathrooms.

Tom McNamara who was quoted in the article is an authority on the historic streetcar and bus systems. In fact I think he was around for the final days of streetcar operations (those guys at the Cincinnati Transit Historical Association are classic old-timers). I bet the Enquirer just latched onto something he said and dumbed it down.

^ Maybe they finally ran out?

It says something about the market differences between OTR and the West End that Heberle and Lafayette Bloom sold for only $60,000 each while the former SCPA went for $1.3 million.

That Enquirer article is a bit off-base. Yes they had lights at streetcar stops, in some cases, but they weren't like the modern island lights. Since then, they've been used to indicate islands and medians wherever they may occur, so they have virtually no bearing on where streetcar stops used to be. Those lenses are glass though, so I can see that being an expensive part to replace. Plus being at the head-on end of islands and such, they're sitting ducks for errant vehicles.

There's a special national historic district specifically for the gas lights. It's kind of an odd thing since it's not really a "district" per se, but it covers all the lights in it, something like 1,100 of them in 13 different neighborhoods. Duke Energy maintains them all as far as I know, and in conjunction with much of the gas main replacement that's been going on they've also been replacing the regulators and mantles. I'd say they're kept in decent condition, though they keep the gas turned down pretty low to save money, so they're not very bright. I only rarely see ones that aren't lit, and I've never seen one where the glass was broken. I think the people who have them on their streets are probably pretty possessive about them and are quick to report any problems. I believe the city even has a special category for gas lights in its customer service system. Now if they'd just extend the love to the yellow island lights, which are almost if not entirely unique to Cincinnati...

Very encouraging indeed, and with some other residential redevelopment nearby at least it won't be completely isolated. Ideally I'd love to see rail transit through that area, which would really help build up the neighborhoods. With Colerain Avenue being severed on both ends there's virtually no through automobile traffic and as a commercial corridor it's almost completely dead. That would be a perfect place for a sort of transit mall since Spring Grove Avenue and Central Parkway easily handle all the through car and truck traffic. With more residential development like Crosley it would be a good fit, and it's a good anchor for the end of Colerain Avenue.