Brutus_buckeye

^ Yes, but I will not let my 6 year old ride his bike down Prospect Hill but I don't have a problem letting him ride in my cul-de-sac. There are more risks on a heavily travelled street than a small cul-de-sac to have issues.

Not saying you can't make it work, but the allure of space in the burbs can be appealing. Not going to lie, I like the convenience of being able to run to Kroger without a hassle and not have to worry as much about my kid being hit by a car when he rides his bike. Having the extra space to throw the kids toys is nice too so the house is not so cluttered. The downside, we cant walk to cool parks like Smale and Washington too easily. Not near the new restaurants and events that take place downtown. It is a tradeoff wherever you go. At this point in my life I prefer the burbs. As I become an empty nester again, I can see myself returning to the city in some capacity.

We had the same thing. We had a place in Clifton on the 3rd floor with no elevator. Cool place, but not ideal for kids and their toys. Having a yard where they can run around and street where they can learn to ride their bikes is a nice feature to have. Now, obviously raising kids in the city is a different experience. One of our best friends grew up in Wrigleyville in the 80s and had a different experience than any of us had growing up in the burbs at that time. There were a lot of things they were able to experience that a kid in the burbs could not, so it is a tradeoff.

^ I think there is still a pull to having a yard and swing set and such. I think the perspective is changing and you can raise a family in the city a lot easier now than 20 years ago however, there is also an economic tradeoff too. It is a bit more expensive to get many of the same amenities in homes in the city than in the burbs (size, parking, private outdoor space, etc).

^ its a matter of perspective. If you live in NKY, working out in Mason is a pain in the ass and vice versa. If you live in Mason, then working at Luxottica has advantages and you would not want to work downtown. Jake, you are in the minority for your age group. The majority of people in your age group live in the burbs now and have young families which makes going downtown more inconvenient for them. I love downtown, and going downtown is always enjoyable, but with young children, we spend less and less time in the city because their activities are also suburban centric. As much as I love downtown, I much prefer working in the burbs at this time in my life.

I think 180 building is going to be built based on other downtown companies like law firms etc looking to upgrade their space to A+ rents or a new company like GE coming in from out of town. There may be a few small wins like Coca Cola moving from Blue Ash to downtown, but that is a pretty small amount of space on the whole. Also, there is something to say that a lot of people in their mid 30s-40's do prefer the suburban office out of convenience. Most of them live in the burbs, and given that there are often children considerations, etc, the suburban location is preferable. I have spoken to a number of people recently who moved their office from Downtown to Oakley because of the convenience, and people who do not like the fact their company moved downtown from Blue Ash because of family considerations. He told me if he were 10 years younger, he would have loved it but now it is more of a pain. When his kids get out of the house, he would like it again.

^ not necessarily, many of those offices are catering to customers In the burbs and would be at other suburban locations. Most of the companies there like UBS or Morgan Stanley also have downtown offices but keep the suburban offices to be closer to their customers.

Exactly. The pressure to build a new store isn't going to come from Kroger wanting to build one or the city pushing them. It's going to come from 3CDC wanting to replace the current store with new development and saying, come on, build a new store already so we can have your old one. Disagree with this. Politically 3cdc will face a huge amount of gentrification backlash trying to replace OTR Kroger with condos. I'm sure any number of projects would be easier for them to do before taking that on. outside of a few concerned community members and Josh Spring and his ilk, I highly doubt moving the store less than a 1/2 mile to a more modern, bigger location with many more bells and whistles would be a detriment to the community. If it creates a true downtown Kroger, I think most people would be 100% for this.

I say it is about 2 or within 2 years away before there will be a downtown store announced. I predict is will be on the lot adjacent to the Auditor's office. Once complete they will raze the OTR store and develop that parcel into condos.

Don't see this rendering as anything but a ploy by Vandercar to keep their name in the news and try and get more involved in downtown development. End of the day, Milllenium is not selling because it is a cash cow for their chain. They bought it at the low end of the market and it is a very profitable hotel for them and will always be a cash cow.

Personally, I would love for them to tear down both towers and build something akin to Atlanta's Peachetree Westin or the Ren Center Hotel in Detroit. Something 6-700 ft tall that can be an icon on the Skyline. It may not fit on the edge of town like that but I still think it could be a neat thing.

Considering hotel demand is at a high, and an expanded center would only help increase demand; I am not sure why a revamped hotel should have less rooms. That takes 170 rooms out of inventory which is equivalent to another downtown hotel like the residence inn.

^ Because I think it would have come out via leak at this point. People would rather throw around Spinney or IRS site, and there has been rather mellow reception to the idea from this board as a whole. Personally, I think it is the best location for everything you mention, plus traffic wise, it provides easy access to the highway and ample parking in the area too without a sea of surface lots.

Stargell is my favorite location for all the reasons you cite however, I don't think it is really going to be given serious consideration by the people in charge

^ It is also important to note who was working for the Bengals in the early 2000s when the soccer discussion began. It is probably not a coincidence that Jeff Berding was playing a prominent role with the Bengals at that time. As for the practice field. Part of the benefit of having the practice field where it is, is that it saves on infrastructure. You only need one locker room, you only need one weight room, one player parking lot. It is very efficient having the practice fields where they are.

^ Jake - I hear they prefer to be called American Juniors instead of Canadian

^ Personally I like the Casino site better. It integrates better with downtown and is more walkable. PBS acts as a boundary to downtown and would not encourage as much other development on that location.

^ even so, MLS will allow them to play in Nippert for a couple years as long as the other stadium issues (financing and location) are already in place

"If I wanted parking lots, I’d move to Columbus.”

It is more first impressions are everything. Yes, it changes nothing substantive and developers can get the data when they dig into the numbers but it creates that first impression of a top 20 market instead of a top 40 market, even if it is the same market. For example, a developer gives a site selector a project to find suitable locations within top 20 markets in the Eastern time zone. Now Cincinnati/Dayton show up, where before they may have been initially overlooked.

I like the Casino site the best just for its proximity to OTR and continued development there. It would make it such a powerhouse of the neighborhood. Although having the jail right there detracts a bit from the spot. However, this spot would not lead to a sea of surface parking and many of the existing lots could be used. Also, it could be the most financially feasible option as I am sure the Casino would look to partner on the financing of it because it could use the stadium for concerts or other casino events in the area and it may allow them to develop a hotel there too. Glencoe is an interesting option. It could really help develop Mt. Auburn so long as it does not lead to a sea of surface parking, and does offer a close walk to UC. It would not lead to as many concerts and such as the casino site would and the roads in the area would have to be expanded to better handle gameday traffic. I think traffic on Auburn is a nightmare most of the day anyway and I would hate to go there on game day. At least Nippert has more options and better traffic patterns to get there. The IRS site is a good option too. Like the casino, it is good developable land and would be a coup to Covington. It offers great views and walkable to main Strauss which would be good. The infrastructure and traffic patterns are already in place there, and there is already ample parking. Personally I like the Casino the best, but this appears to be a decent option. It could also be incorporated with the Convention Center (heck maybe they build a retractable roof to get larger events and connect it to the convention center.

I don't know if it means much from a federal funds standpoint but it will better allow Cincinnati and to a lesser extent Dayton to compete for larger projects and get more national recognition because it is now the 18th largest region in the country instead of 32nd and 56th?? respectively. A combined region will allow Cincy to better compete against peer cities like Charlotte who are growing faster but also boast a much larger MSA area than Cincinnati.

If CVG gets a London flight it may open it up to additional Transatlantic flights to Germany or Belguim too. Domestic service will have to rise naturally then because they will want to feed a new international gateway

^But the private sector is allowed to take those chances. It is their money to blow. Elected officials have a fiduciary duty, it is not their job to take such risks.

^ I think that is a pretty simple minded statement about looking at government from a business perspective. Depending on your perspective, you can see the benefits or lack there of from the Streetcar. If I were a property owner in OTR or area within a 2 block walk from the Streetcar, it is a huge benefit to my business, even without the ridership. However, if I look at it from someone in Bridgetown who works in BLue Ash, it does not do anything for me personally, and I don't want to spend tax dollars on it. From a business perspective, neither party is right or wrong, it is just perspective. With something like the Streetcar, I don't think that answer will be determined for a period of years or decades. It is not as easy of an answer as say Council's mistake to give money to Mohaganey's. However, I think mistakes like that continually add ammunition to Streetcar foes because it provides tangible proof that Council is not a responsible steward of their tax money. I think a lot of this goes back to many of the previous mistakes made by Council with clearly bone headed ideas.