natininja

That's what I was hoping they would do on the cables for the bridgedoggle. I still think it's not tall enough for the width.

I know this doesn't really need saying, but think about how this thread started. Now we are nonchalantly saying things like "The buildings in the last two pictures are all now rehabbed condos." What a change! And this thread was started in 2006. Listen to the pessimism: "My point of the post is the horrific nature of shooting someone in the head...as well as this corner's proximity to things like...the Gateway Condos (that are not selling)". And then we have this gem: "When this corner is safe to walk past at night, I will be an optimist on the future of Cincinnati again." It's hard to see the progress as it occurs, but, man, this thread is somewhere you can see the change occurring right before your eyes. Thanks for the bump, Scrabble. (You're good at that.)

Awesome shot, Sherman. Was that on the tour? I wish Cincy would get back its reputation as a brewer's hub. AFAIK Christian Moerlein is the only decent sized brewer in the city. Damn prohibition!

Brutus, that $400mil won't be going to other stuff in Ohio if we don't build 3C. It'll go to another state. I don't understand why people (mainly conservatives) are all up in arms about this; you'd think there was a plan to hand $400mil out to welfare recipients. Federal money used for state infrastructure is win-win. Remember, the track improvements help freight lines as well.

Naysaying...this is why we can't have nice things.

Anyone have an idea why Tucson would be chosen over Cincy? I'm pretty sure it's not population density. Probably not development potential, either. And I think Driehaus is in more danger than the Dems in the Tucson area. Only thing I can think of is that maybe their project will be fully funded by this money. Don't feel like looking that up now, though. Edit: Nope, not that, it's a $183mil project.

yeah good point Johio. I judge by two parameters: 1) Are there shootings? 2) Are there arsons? Shootings are what really matter to me even if they are between people that know each other. What about armed robbery? I see how you can say that, without a shooting, it isn't "dangerous", but if there are tons of armed robberies going on in an area, it certainly feels dangerous. And I think what the attempt to measure is something like "legitimate fear". Rape is another thing you should probably consider.

Does that gin you live in stay in the apartment? Or come with you to Cincy?

I spent time as a fulltime teacher in an inner-city public school. Several teachers there were extremely adept at reaching students, but many were not. From the viewpoint of the school, they had a shortage of teachers already, and it's better to have a stable face in front of the classroom than a constant rotation of substitutes. That is not to say that the unions do not keep sour apples on board, but that's not nearly the whole story. Some of the senior teachers lamented that they were more effective 20 or 30 years ago, as student culture has changed. I can't really speak to that, but they said overall students used to have more respect. The merits of kicking someone like that out of the profession are debatable, but there is something to be said also for job security. I suppose it varies by situation. You'd have to be an idiot, a glutton for punishment, if you start the job with the intention of having a cushy job. New teachers frequently quit and run back to corporate jobs, where the pay is better and their blood pressure is not as constant a threat. So, no, I do not think private schools perform better due to the dedication of the teachers and administrators. They have an easier job to start with, stemming from the fact that their parents are involved in their child's education enough to choose which school they go to. Does it require dedication on the part of private/charter school teachers and administrators? Yes. That's why you end up with failing charter schools. If, however, you remove the exclusively-choice component, and everyone must go to a charter school, you will see all the public school issues brought into the charter schools. You also must understand that uninvolved parents will want their children in school. The choice of schools to deny students would just concentrate all the "bad" students into schools which will take them (and there will be schools that will take them), effectively emulating the system we already have. Perhaps making it worse, though, as you give incentive to creating a larger and larger student body, as more vouchers = more $$$$ for the administrators. Your whole system is based on a premise that public school workers are primarily at fault for the failure of schools. A better argument would be to blame teachers unions. Either way, it's an oversimplification of a deeply entrenched problem. Waving a magic voucher wand will not change the underlying social problems which lead to public school deficiencies. Do you believe teachers and administrators in high-performing suburban public school districts are more dedicated to their jobs than those in underperforming, inner-city districts? Inner-city teachers watch, year after year, as their colleagues bail out of the inner-city districts for the suburbs. It's perceived to be, and is, an easier job. Same thing goes for private schools: easier job.

It's hard enough finding talented teachers, as is. Pay all teachers less, and you will get even less. That's a horrible solution. Complain about unions, if you'd like (although they provide other perks of the job, like great health insurance), for keeping bad teachers on the job. But if you take away pay and perks, you will find less people willing to teach. In an urban setting, where many parents are minimally involved in their children's lives, we NEED teachers who know how to reach the students, and that is a RARE but real breed of people. Making school optional is also ridiculous. Who makes that decision? Nearly all parents want their children in school. Even if it's just to get the kids out of their hair. Or do we let a 12 year old decide they don't want to go to school anymore? There's a reason kids are minors under the law -- their brain chemistry and life experience do not allow them to make reasonable decisions for the future. Private schools are, by and large, funded by churches and religious organizations that back them. Charter schools are really only partially private...if you introduce vouchers, you're not really talking private. Anyhow, there are many successful charter schools, but there are also many that are failures. Because of the way the voucher system works, there are plenty of parents sending their kids to the failing charter schools, just the same. If you flood the market, you're just going to put public school issues in the hands of "private" schools. The private schools perform better due to the dedication of parents. I honestly think you're talking about a very complicated subject, Gramarye, and you're looking at it through over-simplification glasses. There's no magic bullet. You do also have an inaccurate, patronizing view of professional educators. UrbanSurfer was right to take offense, but the truth is that a lot of people share this view. "Teachers have short work days, summers off, etc. It's such an easy job." Blah, blah...if it's so easy and overpaying, why don't you go ahead and do it for a while? Then come back here and reformulate your opinion.

Since where the grass medians are tends to be rural or suburban, the trains would have to come out of the medians near the cities. So the stations would basically go where they are planned to be right now. I really wish they'd integrate this into the new I-75 plan; the train could make an exit right at CUT, off of 75.

It wasn't prepped with 50 feet of right-of-way, though...nowhere near it. So what gives? Was that grandfathered in? Or is it possible to make exceptions? I mean, with the 36+ feet of space on the typical grass median, there is more than enough room to do an I-66 style setup. All you'd need is guardrails and train rails. Why can't that be done? Or is it just because I-66 has light rail and we want heavy rail?

On- and off-ramps would be screwed up this way. But to add to the fantasy: since only one lane would need to be dedicated to rails, any extra lanes (beyond one in each direction) could switch directions based on time of day/traffic patterns.

Actually there is a lot of pessimism from the Cincinnati camp because of the station situation. I think overall, Ohioans are skeptical and, to me, it is understandable. Spending money on anything right now is very hot button issue. Is the station issue resolved or not? I've heard from a few sources that CUT is all but confirmed, after the uproar that was caused.

Hmm, that makes going from 0 to 79 mph for 400 mil. sound pretty good, doesn't it? Edit: I just realized you said avg. 3C is to be more like 45 or so, right? Oops. Anyway, you're right about the need to emphasize development. Probably explains Indiana not getting anything, too. They're probably about as swing as MI, on the Red side. Cool story, but that discounts Columbus's relevance. 3C makes more sense, in the context of the proposed Chicago Hub network, but if Detroit were connected to Toledo (seems sensible), another case could be made...Indy is important, but so is Detroit. Though TBH I think a connection to Indy is the most obvious first step going east from Chicago. Detroit and Cleveland are much less connected to Chicago, culturally, economically, and geographically.

Am I wrong in the assessment that most of the negativity seems to be radiating from Cleveland? I wonder why that would be.

QFT Even though the change was anything but gradual, it's a bit difficult to remember just how different things were, just a few years ago. In 2006, there were no guarantees things would turn out as they did in 2009 (and beyond), but, boy, what progress there has been! This brings to mind the "most dangerous neighborhood in America" distinction. That just might have been true, a few years ago. It's a shame the publishers went ahead, without recognizing the dramatic change. This is encouraging stuff. Thanks for the bump.

moar liek a LOLninja...whoo'z huntin wabbits

If being implacable is wrong, I don't wanna be right! :lol:

And S is right on all counts. But I think it's important to note that going to court is not being uncivil.

shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Part of our plan should be to try to reach out nationally to the preservation scene. I think this was actually part of what Randy was saying, when he was talking about making some literature. (Randy, you're kid of silent...are you not interested in collaborating?) If we're right about the draw the local architecture can have, we should be able to convince some preservationists to come in and help. UR = UncleRando RC = RestorationConsultant D'oh. Scrabble's post makes more sense now, and I feel stupid.

ResCon, I like the idea of having students help out. (I also like your ideas about having local high school kids do some real preservation/restoration work, too...though that sounds much more complicated.) Is anyone who frequents this site in the UC Urban Planning program (or any other relevant local program)? Have you had any contact with local professors who might be interested in helping (by recommending this to students, giving them some independent study credits for it, or whatever)? Scrabble, what are UR and RC? I'm not very hip to the lingo.

herro. r u 1 of the nait's superheros? yah, but pweez keep my identity secwet. there r supervillians hoo'd lurv 2 have mai hedd. shhhhh. He's kind of a big deal in the Cincinnati threads. You must not go in them enough.