Brutus_buckeye

Does Jake Mecklenborg have a VIP ticket today? I know his work was on the Subway history, but I would think he would be influential enough to get the first ride?

In honor of the opening, an oldie but goodie

^ The downtown loop could have been open 4 years ago if it were not for the squabbling over the uptown connector.

Would love to see it demo'd and then replaced with a tower like the Atlanta Westin or Detroit Renaissance that is twice as tall as the current taller tower.

Wow, I thought E Check was stopped years ago statewide, not just down in Cincy. I used to think it was the biggest pain in the butt and waste of money. I am so glad we no longer have to worry about this down in Southern Ohio. Why was it not discontinued in NE Ohio but it was in the rest of the state?

^ compared to 2008 they are lower, yes, but they are on the rise today. I have not looked to specifically into this but mostly have been taking the word from various contractors and developers I work with concerning potential project costs for us going forward. I was mainly referring to the rise in steel from last year to this year at this time. I heard a lot of it has to do with what is going on in China.

^ Steel prices are at 10 year highs right now because of the collapse of some of the producers in CHina and the crackdown on the dumping that was being done by the producers over there. I think this is where the big cost spike is coming from that was not there even last year at this time. This is different from FSW project from the 80's. That project was being built at a time of dubious financing models and a lot of high yield bonds and at a time where the demand was not there for spec office space. Look at all the other office towers that appeared at that time. FSW was going to compete with all of that and it would have been difficult. THis is a time where there is demand for residential places in the urban setting and that place had the location and there is continually growing demand unlike FSW With that location along the park, it will happen eventually, although I think it will be revived as a condo tower akin to what Miller Valentine was going to build in 2008 instead of apartments. The location can be much more valuable as condos when the market is right.

Better watch out with UC going to the Big 12, we will see who owns the bUCkeye state. :) just having a little fun

This is nothing with Cincy, this is development in general. So many projects are announced and when the reality of financing comes into play they quietly die off and very few actually make it. Look at other cities, I think Nashville had a huge tower project killed and Lexington has a big hole in the ground for a key city block because of an ambitious development that never came through. Louisville has the whole museum sq project tower. This is common in every city. It seems like for every 5 projects that are announced, 4 will die off because the numbers don't add up. Don't get discouraged. It may be the apartment market for high end apartments is getting saturated and demand may start moving toward condos again and we see this project reincarnated as a condo deal. I personally think condos would work better at this location should the market ever allow it.

If there are two tower cranes over DT Cincinnati, you know a recession is imminent. By the time the crane gets there, the financing is locked in and the numbers are pretty much finalized. Given that there is a challenge right now locking in feasible financing can be the indicator of a future slowdown or it could mean that the developer is overleveraged. I would find a project like this to be a great opportunity since it is a clean lot with river/park access and walkable to the rest of downtown. Hope something can be developed there. It is prime location for such a residential development.

This is kind of concerning for the overall state of the construction market. It could be a sign of a longer term slowdown.

Bring on the outlet mall. Hobby Lobby, Family Dollar, Applebee's and Halloween Express here we come.

^ I was not sure when he left as I lost touch for a while. I always thought is was before then, but time flies. I vaguely remember an invite but was unable to make it obviously.

UC was the same 10 years ago (not a massive complex but they here debating the new building back then). Back in law school I did research for a professor who wrote on the rankings game and ultimately determined the #1 most significant way to change your ranking was to get professors who had a high pedigree, so there became an arms race for them. THe schools that had the most upward movement were the ones with the profs who got published in the right journals. While infrastructure, LSAT and alumni had a say in the rankings, the biggest driver again was the professor pedigree. Unfortunately, UC did a good job at developing them but were not able to retain them long term which is why the reputation suffered. The market changed and law school was no longer the huge profit center for universities that it was 10-20 years ago and probably never will be. What UC does right is that it is a small size and purposely keeps itself smaller which helps its reputation.

Law students typically don't live in those places. There may be a few, but typically, the law students live in the Gaslight area, some live in Clifton Heights and Corryville. There are also a decent amount that live in Hyde Park, Oakley and Mt. Lookout, and a few that commute from parents houses, etc. The places you sight cater to undergrads, grad students tend to be a bit more price conscious in general and do not have the same tie to campus as undergrad does. Many do prefer to live in the area as long as they can find something on their budget and you can still do that in Clifton, especially in the gas light area. I can honestly say that in my 3 years at UC Law, I didn't know a single person who lived in the Gaslight area. Not that people don't, but generally folks lived everywhere--and I do mean everywhere. Northern Kentucky, Colerain, Anderson, Kenwood, Fairfield--it was all over the map. Partially this is because the Law School is essentially completely disconnected from the rest of the University. Someone mentioned "integrating" with the rest of campus earlier, but there's not much integration to happen. Unless you are getting some kind of combined degree (which was also extremely rare, in my experience) you would very rarely go on to the "main" campus, and you certainly never took a class there. I'd guess that in my 3 years there, I went somewhere else on UC's campus approximately 8 times in total. It's a pretty self-contained experience. That said, I don't necessarily have a strong opinion on where a new law school should be located--but I think a new facility is definitely needed. UC Law would like to compete with Top 50 law schools--it was in the Top 50 in the 90s and early 2000s before dropping in the rankings--and an up-to-date, modern facility will help do that. A new building will help some (Dayton has a new building and it has not really helped their rankings). The reason why the rankings have dropped is because they lost a number of well published professors to other schools. When they were in the top 50 in 2001-2003 time frame, they had a top Crim Law prof who left for AZ State. They had a very good Tax Prof who went to Pepperdine in the late 2000's as well as a highly regarded Securities Professor. When you lose them your ranking suffers.

Law students typically don't live in those places. There may be a few, but typically, the law students live in the Gaslight area, some live in Clifton Heights and Corryville. There are also a decent amount that live in Hyde Park, Oakley and Mt. Lookout, and a few that commute from parents houses, etc. The places you sight cater to undergrads, grad students tend to be a bit more price conscious in general and do not have the same tie to campus as undergrad does. Many do prefer to live in the area as long as they can find something on their budget and you can still do that in Clifton, especially in the gas light area.

Capital is in Downtown CBUS and I think that definitely adds to the draw of their school, however, would it really be better for the students? My intern is planning on going to law school and he admitted that if it were on the banks, he would fee pressured to live down there which would be a disservice to him since he would be paying for it with loans. The lower cost of living in Clifton is more beneficial to the students, many of whom will have loans well over $150k when they graduate. Saving a few thousand a year on living expenses would be a prudent thing.

The Banks was much better deal for the Banks than it would have been for UC.

I just think the law school at the Banks would not have been a big enough benefit to UC. Besides some of the points I mentioned earlier, also remember at main campus, UC owns the land, they own the parking, and they have a lot of influence over what goes in the immediate neighborhood around campus. Moving downtown, they now become a tenant, they will not get the parking revenue from students, and have less of a say regarding corresponding development in the area. I thought the idea of moving to the Banks was a good idea for the Banks, but less so for UC.

No, when it is a good Idea, I am all for it. It was better to keep it on campus to integrate with the undergrads better. It is better to keep it in Clifton to spur development there too. Bringing 300 law students to the banks will not do much for jobs etc. THe law firms are going to hire them anyway whether they are at Clifton or the Banks. It is not that far form downtown at main campus. Students do not have the disposable income to afford the apartments at the Banks and the ones who do have that will live there anyway. It is the best decision to keep it on campus. As an alum I felt this was the right decision

It was the best decision for UC keeping the law school on campus.

I was not making it about a football team colors. You seem to be implying that. I personally just don't like the color scheme regardless of which team wears it. I am looking forward to a softer shade of blue/green. It never was about sports with me. Yes, I pointed out that it was Pittsburgh colors, but personally, I just never liked that color. And you've made it crystal clear you don't like the color. It's annoying that you continue to bring it up. Shut up about it. Apparently, the masses agree too. Glad it is settled now. :-)

^ I saw the United flight press release from the Biz Courier. Great news for CVG

Where was this, I never saw a press release on this?

The bigger question you should be asking is not who is divided between the 2 candidates but rather who is divided between picking a candidate and picking none of the above. The vast majority of voters hate both candidates, unlike at any time in recent memory, but ultimately are afraid of the consequences of not picking what some describe as the "lesser of 2 evils." This is why Hillary may open up a 10 point lead without actually gaining anything in the polls. No one likes her or trusts her but they find her more palatable than Trump. The Trump ticket is rather interesting because he is someone who re-wrote the rules for the primary but as history will likely prove, you cannot do that in a 2 person race. My prediction is that whomever wins will be a one term candidate for a variety of reasons. First, they will enter with extremely high negatives making it very difficult for them to get a governing mandate. This will likely deteriorate even more as the first 100 days honeymoon period comes to an end. Chances are both candidates will face at least one hostile chamber in Congress, making it difficult to accomplish anything significant legislatively. Finally, given the nature of the business cycle, there is likely to be some sort of economic slowdown over the next presidential term, which will be blamed on the administration in many cases. Given this, along with a hostile Congress, it will be difficult to push any significant agenda. Ultimately, in my opinion, whomever wins the election is going to be the ultimate loser. In some sort of weird paradox, a Trump win is the best thing the democratic party should hope for and a Hillary win is the best long term solution for the GOP because ultimately, the long term perceived harm they will do to their parties is far worse than what either of them would do in the White House.