natininja

^^ Ha, I didn't realize that's what they meant by "bike shelter". Looks like rain could easily blow through there. Might help a bit with snow. But really, is there a justification for building such a thing?

On the real, though...UrbanOhio is my cultural blasphemy. I do not go around telling people I post on here! LOL

That's a personal favorite of mine. It shows up in the comments frequently. Another variation is the "Mark Mallory Trolley Folly Communist Marxist Crime Train CHOO CHOO!! Boondoggle to Nowhere" My favorite anti-streetcar phrase was "Anarchist socialist marxist trolley folly to nowhere sacreligious crime train boondoggle" 'Best' worst argument I've heard for voting yes is "God does not like rail and He will punish us all if we don't obey His Will" You guys do realize some people on there are joking, right? If religion comes into the picture, I think it's a safe bet someone is playing around.

'trolly folly crime train choo choo boondoggle' I LOL'd.

MTS is my cultural blasphemy.

One fish, two fish, Redfish, blue...wisp?

I wonder why the Reds/Castellini haven't expressed interest in building a hotel there. They could bundle tickets with rooms, determine what sort of view people might get of the field from their rooms, etc.

If they had watered it down with contingency on Phase 1's occupation, both parties might have agreed to it. And we'd be seeing construction starting!

95%...that's great! Why wouldn't they continue to build the residential part of Phase 2? Stupid! Putting more people down there would help out the business portion of Phase 1, and it would give Smale Park a boost. Not to mention the best reason, being it is a good idea on its own merits. They'd be guaranteed to fill the housing up instantly.

Needs moar subs.

The Harrah's in New Orleans fits in well No way. This plan is much, much better than the NOLA casino! Where are the street-fronting bars and restaurants?

Yes. I have been suffering crazy crackhead-like withdrawal symptoms.

I agree that economics are the biggest barrier. I think a lot has to do with building costs vs. land value. Building an expensive building on cheap land is not cost-effective. The package of land+building will not be worth the price of building materials+labor. Cincinnati has two things going against it here. First is the overall cheap value of land versus other markets. Second is the distribution of the highest valued land, which is not highly concentrated in the urban core but spread across the metro region. The first problem is the biggest barrier to quality developments, IMO. Other cities simply don't have this problem, because their land is way more valuable. The cost of building materials is basically fixed, wherever you are, so cities with lower land values are likely to get cheaper developments. (Labor costs do fluctuate with cost of living, which is related to land values, so that evens the playing field a little bit.) We're damn lucky to have 3CDC doing what it's doing, because they're offering higher quality buildings and renovations than one might expect. Underground parking is another thing which usually only appears where land values are high. Enjoy the Washington Park and Banks garages.

I like the way "better" "public" and "transportation" sit together. :)

Typically, I'd say it only applies to lower-class people being pushed out of an area, but by "hyper-gentrification", I meant pushing out nearly everyone. (And, yes, not too long ago Midtown was accessible to and occupied by people of a variety of income levels.) But it doesn't matter if you want to call it gentrification or not. The exclusiveness of the core of NYC that makes even the "poor" parts of the city quite expensive gives the city major negative points, in my book. Snobby trustafarians and yuppies are present in such large numbers, and in such key locations, that they suffocate the soul of the city. Tell me, where are the neighborhood dive bars with cheap drinks and a friendly, down-to-earth crowd just there to spend some time with pleasant company, rather than to engage in a subtly choreographed game of one-upmanship and ego stroking?

I am not thrilled about this in a "Yeah! Get those @$$holes!" sort of way. But I am hopeful something will be done to stop people from lying through their teeth and deliberately misleading the public. It's just an awful, awful tactic which has no place in our democratic process. And it has been absolutely pervasive in the Issue 48 campaign. And only on one side of it. That's an objective fact, so let's see what the courts have to say.

Slightly edited for spelling.

What cities overseas are you referencing? Let's go with Prague and Amsterdam. I'm sure some things slip by, but I think these cities have pretty high standards. I can't speak too much for the outer neighborhoods of Prague, but I think we are mostly talking about the urban core (considering the thread we're in).

As cool as some parts of NYC are, the city is rotten at the (urban) core. And yuppies and hipsters certainly have a presence in Harlem, LES, and Park Slope. Truth is, even the ghettos have a sky high cost of living. The effects of hyper-gentrification in Manhattan and Brooklyn pervade the whole city. You can't spend your time in Harlem and Park Slope and pretend Midtown, SoHo, etc., don't detract from your environs. I also happen to like a yuppie/hipster scene to a degree, but not its snobby, pretentious manifestation in NYC.

I think my biggest beef with Philly was that I went expecting to connect with U.S. history, but the city does not project the same sort of historic connection that DC and Boston evoke for me. I left feeling like the city has a major case of NYC envy, or some other sort of identity issues. It feels like a jack of all trades, master of none: big city, historic city, ethnically diverse city, progressive city, etc. This sounds good on paper, but to me it adds up to nothing standing out and making the city shine. I respect that it is a blue collar town, but I feel like Baltimore or many Midwestern cities pull that off better (including that other city in PA).

If you want to look at cities that you really can say won't accept sh!t for infill, you have to look on the other side of the Atlantic. No matter how many form-based codes or whatever we have in America, sh!t inevitably seeps through the cracks. I'm not saying we should accept the fact, or accept individual POS's that sprout up. But to say Cincy is small potatoes because it allows sh!tty developments is disingenuous. The big guys do, too. Gotta say, I'm really more disturbed about the demolitions for Mercer Commons than the architecture. Not really sold on that glass building, but I always find it hard to picture real buildings, in context, via renderings. It might be okay, or awful, I just can't really say. 3CDC has earned a few "benefit of the doubt" points, however. Even concerning the demolitions, though I think the purple building's facade could easily make a quality garage entrance. Rejecting the townhouses is a danger. We could very easily get something much worse.

Unreal. These people are so cynical that they will risk all credibility propagating blatant falsehoods. Are they right to be cynical? I guess we will find out on election night. Apart from their anti-"trolly" club, I think voters have more sense than they give them credit. Where is the media on this? Shouldn't they be calling the liars out?

The parts that have a religious fanbase and constant migration of yuppies...mostly Manhattan and parts of (rapidly becoming the bulk of) Brooklyn.

I like Chicago, but I also feel it is sort of lacking in depth or cutting-edge factor. I can't really put my finger on it, but there is something about it which feels "also-ran". I actually get the same vibe from Philly, in an East Coast sort of way. Other, smaller cities in both regions have significantly more soul, IMO. While we're bashing cities, I will add that NYC has a lot of soul, but that soul has been sold out. LA never really had a soul, but it plays one in the movies.