Brutus_buckeye

Indy (if you consider Lucas Oil) in indrectly connected to the convention center and the old Hoosier Dome was part of their convention center project. I know Indy leverages both of these facilities for a lot of AAU sports activities (i.e. volleyball/bball tourneys where they convert both the convention center and Lucas Oil into multiple courts). I do not think you get the same leverage with an arena with a smaller court space than a full 100 yard dome stadium. St. Louis convention center connects to their dome stadium (whatever it is named now) Chicago has an arena connected to McCormick Place. Vegas has arenas at some of their casino meeting spaces but Vegas is a completely different animal and really does not provide a good comparison. Many cities have proximity to their arena/stadia from their convention center and you could argue that Nationwide in Columbus fits within this proximity for convention purposes. I think proximity within a few blocks is a good idea, not because you have a ton of conventions that need both facilities, but because you have the leverage of better utilizing the hotel space near the convention centers to also cater to arena space. Whether they build a new arena by the convention center or the West End, I think you will have the same impact since they are 2 -3 blocks away. It may help the Northern end of downtown if you put it near TQL. However, I wonder if an arena on the reclaimed site by the Convention center helps that area build up and develop quicker?

or Harbaugh

I think you see that in a lot of cities though. For example, Seattle has Amazon with a large campus downtown. Charlotte has a couple of corporate pockets, Columbus has Nationwide controlling a good swath of downtown too. The good thing about W&S's area is that it is not all concentrated as office, but it is pretty diverse. you have office, hotel, garage, apartment, even creative space. If W&S were to ever pull out of the office side of downtown, you at least have the other businesses that still provide stability to the area.

that is your go to statement to try and shut down debate when you do not have the answer. I am not acting like people "saying". There are legitimate medical organizations questioning this. Clearly, despite your wishing otherwise, the debate is not settled on the matter, as demonstrated by many doctors, scientists, and athletic councils. You always discount any expert that may disagree with your opinion. An MD, DO, PHD, etc that agrees with you is obviously the gold standard whereas an MD, PHD, DO, etc. who disagrees with your viewpoint is obviously a hack who does not know anything about anything. These are not random people coming to their opinions, there are many medical professionals aligning on both sides of the issue. This issue clearly has a long way to play out. The fact that you get so upset about this is curious to me since nobody who desires to transition is stopped from doing so in the United States. The only thing the law is urging is a little prudence on the issue, which in the grand scheme of things, prudence is not necessarily a bad thing. Really??? "From puberty blockers to cross-sex hormones to surgery, the rules across Europe tend to be either stricter than many jurisdictions in the U.S. or in the process of tightening. For example, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare states children should not receive puberty blockers outside clinical trials, and they must be at least 12." This is not the case in the US. You point to consensus to try and shut out dissent, when in reality there is no consensus and it is nowhere near consensus. If you were talking about taking the measles vaccine, then you can argue there is consensus amongst experts (even though there will always be a few outliers), but when you are talking about gender affirming care, there is no consensus and to assert as much you are just making things up. I have never argued that you should harm trans-people. You somehow have manufactured that idea or concept in your head. Also, nobody has argued that sex transitions and gender affirming care should be banned, the only argument is how it should be handled when it comes to minors. There is a big difference there. whoa boy. This one is waay out there. The World Athletics Council may not be medical professionals, but they certainly are advised by medical professionals when they make such decisions. Let's keep that in mind. Your point here is absurd and you want to have it both ways. On one hand, you argue that this should not be an issue because there are only like 7 trans kids and it really does not affect anyone or it is not happening. If that is the case, then such a ban is a waste of time and energy and nobody should be upset by it because it does not affect anyone. which I then ask you, why are you so upset about this if it does not affect anyone?? To your point, this is no different than the legislature passing a law banning Conestoga Wagons from driving at night. On the other hand you vigorously argue that people should be allowed to compete based on the gender they choose despite what their body is built like. People often cite Michael Phelps as the example of somoene with genetic characteristics that help him perform. This argument has been proven to be bunk. Without spending time delving into the details of Michael Phelps, the reason why he won so many gold medals had much more to do with his passion and work ethic than it ever did with his body composition. Whatever competitive advantage he was perceived to have cannot be compared to the competitive advantage that Leia Thomas had over the women swimmers that he competed against. Also, just because a female can beat a male in some cases is a false equivalency. An elite female track star will beat an average male track competitor. However, if you stack elite female vs elite male, the female will not be able to compete. That is the issue. Leia Thomas was an average at best male swimmer. He was always a good swimmer, otherwise he would never have made the men's team in Division 1 college athletics. It was not until he dropped down to the female division that he was able to dominate. Again, another strawman argument. Of course minors are not making this on their own. Their parents and some medical professionals who are enabling them to do so are influencing these decisions. The question that is up for debate and the question that you really refuse to directly engage on is solely about the transitioning of minors being a good idea or at least exercising a bit of prudence and pumping the breaks on this for a time until they are of legal majority and better informed to make such a life altering decision. We all know that sometimes teenagers make rash decisions and do not always have the wisdom in the heat of the moment to decide the best course for them. Many parents, while having the authority, may not exercise it with their children for various reasons. Pumping the brakes and slowing it down to allow the individual to make an informed decision is not the worst thing in the world. I am sure you can agree that making an informed decision about such a procedure is always a good thing. So, if I understand you correctly, what you are essentially saying is: until I or anyone agrees with your viewpoint 100%, that person is always wrong and is a bigot and racist? there is no use debating your position or even trying to find common ground because your position is 100% right and anything position that strays from your viewpoint is just wrong and God himself would cast such people who disagree with you into the deepest depths of hell. --- I am glad that you have cleared that up.

the most financially profitable function is to have high end concerts and special events like NCAA, World Gymnastics and Figure Skating, conference BBall championships, etc. Next would be to have a strong professional tenant like NBA or NHL (especially if arena is privately owned). Minor league events like Arena Football, WNBA or professional Volleyball certainly provide programming and events at the arena but they likely do not provide the revenues that would generate the income they are looking for and could detract from creating the availability for higher profitable events.

I think they will hold it empty for office in the future. It may be 5-10 years out but you have to figure that there will eventually be demand for new office space of some sort as other buildings age, All cities will need to have such space available and continually need to build, in 5-10 years the upheaval in remote work vs office will have settled and people will have more stability as to their needs, W&S may continue their growth trajectory where they have not choice but to build. So there are a number of reasons why they would keep that spot open for future office development even though it may not seem like it is on the horizon now. Also, I think they already have condos pegged for where the Broadway garage is currently located, so that area is probably going to be residential.

Unfortunately he does. Pretty much it is safe to assume the new tower is not going to happen anytime in the near future. "Western & Southern’s office space is full, Barrett said. It had looked several years ago at building another building between its headquarters and the Phelps. But now that likely won’t happen. “With the other downtown vacancies, that may not make sense,’” he said. Regardless, Western & Southern will keep its headquarters downtown. Barrett said the firm bought 300 acres near the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 20 years ago, but it has decided it won’t move there."

Right wrong or indifferent, when it comes to children and minors, the government has always exercised influence in their decisions. There are laws that prevent children from buying and drinking beer, there are rules that prohibit minors from buying cigarettes. If a 7 year old was smoking cigarettes with her parents, you better believe the government and child protective services would be involved. So as much as the parties like to scream 100% parental rights whenever convenient, that has never been the case nor never will be. So at least recognizing that paradigm and the fact that children will always be treated as a different class than adults you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that each side is relying on its own data and medical experts to do what they think is appropriate to protect children. A blanket statement about Republicans not trusting medical experts is a completely false premise. They may not be trusting the "medical experts" that you would want to rely on, but that does not mean there are not "medical experts" who are qualified to provide a different opinion on an issue. When it comes to the current debate, to claim that the "science is settled" on the matter is only just a method to close off legitimate discussion under a false and flawed pretense.

If such an opportunity for an NHL team were to materialize (not necessarily bringing it here but behind the scenes discussions get serious), then you will see quick movement on such an arena by Lindners. Until that happens, I bet it just continues being talked about for a few more years until the BSB corridor is complete. Also, I think FCC's highest priority is develping their "soccer village" concept next to TQL. Arena is a high priority to them but I think secondary to their other development right now.

I think the Convention Center area is the preferred area for the city to build it. However, that would mean city/county/public ownership. If Lindner's want to develop and own it privately, then they will fight for the site by TQL

I do not disagree with any of your points. I will always remain optimistic at such propositions could yield a successful franchise. I will say that despite the lack of a long term tenant for most of its history, the Coliseum project was successful and led to multiple concerts and other events to the city that would otherwise not be there. NCAA Sweet 16, first and second round games, womens final 4, frozen 4, World Skating Championships, etc. would never have come to Cincinnati if the Gardens were the primary venue in the 80s and 90s. so in that sense, the arena was a big benefit. A new arena will certainly open up Cincy's chance to compete for these events again in the future, along with other popular championship sports events like gymnastics, skating, etc. A NHL team in my opinion would just be the icing on the cake. Even if there hockey team though, an NHL team would be much different than the Stingers WHA team from the 70s. At least with an NHL team, you have a proven and stable league. The WHA was an upstart hoping to be acquired by the NHL so it never had the stability and financial footing of the NHL. This would put any NHL team in town on much stronger footing, however, to your point, it is still going to be a challenge because the sport is stagnant at this time. On a separate note, I did not know DeWitt was the person in charge of the Coliseum, I always thought it was the Heekin family?

False realities? This is legitimate debate and these are questions that are being discussed amongst all corners of society at this time. I suggest you take some time and explore the issue a little more detailed instead of reflexively falling back into your echo chamber. The thing is, there are certainly a lot of questions on the subject. You are trying to dismiss any alternative opinions and act as if the debate is settled because it suits your views when the reality of the situation is that it is far from settled (which is why you see legislatures taking up these issues. It is not because they want to hurt trans kids). This is not just some issue that has been manufactured on the right to "stick to the libs" or in your mind "kill trans kids" which is the reflexive demagoguery that you tend to go to when you do not have a strong argument. You have essentially argued that I have pulled facts out of thin air with zero basis when in fact it is the opposite. As I mentioned earlier, there is not a scientific consensus around gender affirming care worldwide. While the US is pushing the gender affirming care issue more forcefully, there has been strong pushback amongst the European medical community. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-07-12/why-european-countries-are-rethinking-gender-affirming-care-for-minors https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/ So to take a position that the facts are settled and those who arguing against such proposals have zero basis in fact and science, is purely false. To dismiss any contrary opinion as just pulling facts out of thin air either demonstrates your own ignorance on the matter or your refusal to entertain any idea that is contrary to your perceived worldview. As I mentioned in my prior post, you have numerous medical professionals and experts in their field take the position that we should at least pause such treatments until we study them further and get a better understanding of them. Just because this may "benefit" the Republican position that such gender affirming care may harm children does not mean it should be dismissed as false science, as you tend to do. At the very minimum, it should be considered and discussed in open debate and studied further. Regarding the sports issue, where there are bans of males not being able to participate in female sports (i.e. Leia Thomas). The international track community and other international sports organizations have recognized that trans athletes must participate in the division that conforms to their biological sex. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/24/1165795462/transgender-track-and-field-athletes-cant-compete-in-womens-international-events#:~:text=World Athletics Council%2C the governing,through puberty as a male. THere is truly a debate on the issue, as the International boxing community (for some odd reason) has taken the opposite position which has scared a number of female boxers fwiw. So again, there really is not yet a consensus around the sports issue (but I would contend that in this case, consensus is moving in favor of keeping biological males out of women's sports) so to dismiss the debate as settled is again a false premise. You apparently cannot defend your position if you can't answer a simple question to try and get me to understand where you are coming from and find even a shred of common ground. To address this, I have never advocated for bans on medical treatments. However, I do feel that reasonable restrictions on such treatments for minors are appropriate and does not affect the rights on privacy, liberty and happiness. For one, minors do not have the same rights under the Constitution that adults do. Even the most conservative Republicans do not argue that the procedure should be outlawed for a consenting adult. This is solely about minors who do not have the capacity under the law to make such decisions. There is a big difference. I have never asked you to change my mind, nor do I expect to change your mind, but I do want to better understand your position and maybe see where I may have misunderstood the argument along the way. Neither of us are going to change our positions, but that does not mean that discussion cant lead to some common ground that may help understand the other better.

But did Seattle have a billionaire wanting to bring a team back to the city? Did said billionaire want to navigate the complexities of dealing with Seattle to build such an arena? These are factors too. The majority of billionaires do not own teams because they have no desire to do so. Lindners at least have the political clout and know the process and can navigate easier in a mid-sized city of Cincinnati than it would be for a different billionaire to navigate the waters in Seattle. People forget about Whitman because she does not live here. She likes the city and is close with Lindners. She is well connected nationally too. I think the point is that you are not going to attract an out of state owner (like the former Crew owner or Irsay family with the Colts) to say I cant make it in my current city, I am going to go to Cincinnati. however, having the lindners own the team is a completely different scenario. They are spending the money to bring it here even if it is a riskier proposition. Remember, they will own the arena to mitigate the risk. Much different value prop than renting a new arena from the county. I agree it is a long shot, but if you go back to 2014 when FC was talking about starting (after numerous failed other soccer teams) and projecting them to be a successful MLS team, I think most people would have laughed at that proposition too.

You have a lot of hyperbolic anger without any real basis for your assertion. Educate me. What rights of minorities are actually being taken away? How do people lose any rights that they currently have? There is nothing in the law that bans a person from transitioning if that is who they think their true self is, there is nothing that prevents an adult from being their best self. I guess explain to me where such rights are taken away here?

Do we?? I think there is real debate out there on whether it is a good idea to transition minors at a young age or if it is better to wait until they are adults. While the narrative being pushed in the US may be more of the medicate and transition early, the European research and guidance is starting to state otherwise or at least urge caution in regards to this. I would hardly call the science settled and certainly should call for prudence in the matter. I think policy decisions that call for prudence are far from Republicans or conservatives arguing they want trans kids dead. Whatever echo chamber you are listening to regards to the matter, I suggest you probably expand your horizons some. I assume you are alluding to bans on males participating in female sports because the males identify as female? I think it is cruel to the female to have to compete against a biological male. I do not think anyone is denying a trans person the ability to particiapate in sports but they want to make sure the playing field is more level. An 20 year old male who participates as a female, no matter how many hormones that they are on will still have the biological body composition of a male and provide them with an inherent advantage over the biological females that they are attempting to compete against. There are female divisions and classifications for a reason, and that is to level the playing field. If a male identifying as a woman chooses to compete, in the matter of fairness, he should compete on the mens circuit. There is nothing cruel or unfair about that. People who may disagree with you on issues can be good people. Most of them are. I think that is an important fact to remember.

Well that of course is your opinion. Others would disagree and argue that such bans are saving children instead of harming them. Hence why you have a policy debate.

I get it, you take it more personally, but that still does not diminish the fact that it is a policy matter and not a personal attack on people. You argue that tax policy is matter of policy, but you can also apply the same personal arguments you are trying to apply to the transgender position. You can apply the same logic to transportation funding too. Tax policy and transportation funding also affect real people whose lives are upended for .... what exactly? The point is, that we need to remove the personal nature from the policy aspect. Disagreement is natural, but it is important to keep in mind that while policy decisions may have personal effects, they are not personal in nature and are part of a reasonable debate and discourse.

Schools like Hiram, Mt. Union, Ohio Northern, Wooster are what concern me. Oberlin and Wittenburg will have the endowment to sustain themselves but they will still come out hurting from this because they have such a large physical plant to maintain at their respective schools.

So the question on the appropriate level of care for minor transgender children, that would be a matter of policy. You and I may agree or disagree with what the legislature is doing but they are debating a policy matter. The legislature may be wrong in their policy decisions, and you can strongly feel that way, but again it is a policy matter. What the legislature is not, despite what some people may claim, is a group seeking to punish and kill transgender children because they see them as somehow "bad" or "unworthy". So I think conflating some type of moral argument into a policy matter is misplaced. It is fair to call out the legislature for being wrong on an issue, but acting as if they are somehow doing this to punish those they do not like would not be a fair assessment of things and not productive when you are actually looking to seek productive policy

Fixed it. Lets all keep in mind that just because we may disagree on a policy matter does not mean that the other side is evil or inherently bad.

Nationwide, we should see applications going down overall over the next decade due to fewer college aged kids. Gen Z is a smaller generation than Millennials so they regardless of the pushback against college education, there will just be far fewer kids to go around. I think the short term blip of applications to elite schools will subside some and these schools will have to increase their acceptance rates due to the smaller applicant pool of students. The one thing about Ivy league schools or other elite colleges is that they will always "eat" first when it comes to admitting students and meeting their numbers.

The interesting thing, if you look at what the Lindners have done with FCC vs what other potential sports that are out there, is that they seem to be looking for sports leagues that are undervalued or on the low end now. MLS is up and coming. The NHL today is at a low point compared to where it was 20-30 years ago. The NBA is at its peak. Traditionally, for those leagues, values have ebbed and flowed a bit. They have not been as linear as NFL and MLB values. I think the NHL will grow over the years especially with gambling and better camera technology. The biggest downside though about the NHL is that it is not a great TV sport. I did find it fascinating and this obviously has no empirical data behind it, but I was in Raleigh and Nashville in the past on random weekends (i am sure the same is true in Columbus too). Each time, there were a number of Canadian visitors in town on a quick hockey getaway to see their team (Leafs, Senators and Canucks in these cases). Air Canada offered some decent weekend travel options to the area for hockey travelers. Hockey fans do tend to travel it seems, and certainly an NHL team would create some additional international exposure for the area.

I do not think that is necessarily the case. I agree with you that Cincinnati is not a preferred city for the NBA or NHL nor is it one of the markets that the league would strongly desire for an expansion market, but part of that is that the city is underrated and the local growth and regional aspects are not quite highlighted as much. I think the thing with an NHL team in Cincy (or NBA) is that it probably would not be an expansion team but rather a relocation. The Lindner ownership group (assuming they would be the ones to purchase a team for an arena they would privately own) could purchase a struggling NHL team at a discount vs pay a much higher expansion fee. The NHL would then not have an issue if it can be shown that Cincinnati would be a more viable than say Winnepeg, Ottawa or Phoenix because Cincinnati could offer a new arena and potentially more engaged fan base and (not Phoenix) larger market size.

What were the key reasons why NHL came back much better for Cincinnati market?? I assume the cost was cheaper for an NHL team, salaries were lower and player salaries were lower than NBA? Depending on which team would relocate, an Eastern Conference team would probably involve less travel too? The one big concern is that local hockey is not very big in Cincinnati. Many of the top youth teams travel or the best players will play outside of the market. I know things are not much different with Cincy than Columbus so I guess that does not matter much. I doubt Nashville and Raleigh have much of a large youth hockey presence either. Obviously, the number of sponsorships would always be a concern, but with Hockey, it could be marketed regionally with Cincy/Dayton/Lex as a combined market for sponsors. Are you able to shed any light on some of the specifics of that report?

If an NHL Team ever came to Cincinnati, I think the Blue Jackets days in Columbus are numbered. Neither Cincy nor Columbus are big hockey towns and it just seems like even in Ohio, many people who go to Blue Jacket games are Blackhawk, Red Wing, Penguins, Sabres fans. I have not been following the Winnepeg saga lately. I thought they were doing pretty well there. Correct me if I am wrong but they moved there from Atlanta about 10 years ago, right? I agree with you about the economics of hockey but think an NHL team may work better here than NBA given the huge college basketball presence in the market.