Brutus_buckeye

Personally, i think it is a bit overly dense for the rest of the neighborhood, especially the backside where the units there abut the street. I feel bad for the house next to the development because it is right on top of it.

Did they propose a parking garage? Would that have fit with the economics of the deal for the developer?

Certainly, they would prefer to put more units on the site if they knew the product would sell. Obviously the existing neighbors have a say in what goes in around them because, like it or not, people do not want a highrise going in next to their single family or they do not want a toxic dump going in next to their house. I am all for free market but the reality is that such freedom of development is not realistic and the neighborhood obviously has a say in the matter.

That may be an ideal thought, but developments dont happen based on idealism and they have to bend to the constraints of market realities. The fact of the matter is that specifically at that location, many people who live there work at jobs that are not in the urban core. Some certainly do of course but bus transit is not set up in a position to get people effectively to and from their workplace. Secondly, the demographic that lives in the area also has jobs that require them to be customer/client centric. They may work in an office or may work from home as their primary office, but their job requires them to be out and meeting client's face to face. That is impractical without efficient parking and access to their vehicles. Even if they work from home, the majority of their clients are not located in Oakley, which requires them to travel to their clients. Listen, I am all for increased density and changing zoning to allow it. For the particular parcel in question, it really is not feasible to increase the density there for numerous reasons set forth. If the project was along Delta Ave, it would work better. Different demographic, more street parking possibilities, less busy corner, and not located on a narrow subdivision street that is not already overcrowded with parking to begin with.

But the buildings fronting Madison Park pose a problem because that street is pretty parked up just by the homeowners on the street. Adding around 6-8 street level units (and their cars) would make parking on Madison Park much worse. It is unrealistic to assume or hope that people purchasing a townhome in Oakley or even paying Oakley level rent at that location would be without a car and solely rely on public transportation in that area. There are a lot of people in that area that are going to have 2 cars because they live together but work in different directions. Many people who live in that area work all over. It is pretty common that one member may work down near UC or downtown while the other working in Mason, Blue Ash or even NKY. Providing free Metro passes to them accomplishes almost nothing in those cases. At least with the Masonic lodge there, there were places where the neighbors could park their cars during the day so that the narrow neighborhood street is passable.

I do not think you could have put anymore on that intersection. This was the old Masonic lodge on the site and not much else of a footprint unless you started buying out the neighborhood and demolishing some of the existing houses. They pretty much maximized the footprint there and it certainly does not look great on the side facing Madison Park.

surprisingly the apartments have been received well by people. This is quite a change from the resistance in the past with apartment developments by Hills in the towne square and the Summit Park Apartments.

wonder what this means for Bass Pro.

I get what you are saying and would tend to agree with you on it except the for the fact that the Roebling seems to go down frequently enough and all that traffic needs to move to Clay Wade Bailey at that point If we know that Roebling can consistently handle the traffic I would feel more comfortable about it. But to your point, it is not the most heavily travelled bridge and does not line up well with downtown as it currently sits.

What is going to happen to the old apartment complex in front of Ovation? are they going to tear it down or does it still operate?

But let's face it. the moderate wing or the independents or "middle" do not vote in primaries, which is why candidates have to tack hard to their left of right. Not to pick on you but for example, you described yourself above as fiscally conservative but socially liberal. You sound a bit like a Tim Ryan type of guy. But hypothetically, lets assume you have a Senate race where you have Bernie Sanders running on the Dem noimination against say a Dennis Kucincich and you have Kasich (whom you said you liked) running against Mandel and Renacci. Would you, as a moderate Democrat, be inclined to vote in the Republican primary to help push Kasich or would you be more aloof to what is happening on the GOP side and only wait until the candidate is settled to then support Kasich over say Bernie Sanders in a Senate race? Because that is the problem running to the middle in the primary, you need to draw the independent support or the moderate side of the other party to make up for the base that feels alienated by the RINO or DINO.

I liked Kasich back in 2016 but from what I have heard personally he is a bit of a self serving jerk as a person. (but really so are most pols). I respect that he stuck to his guns back in 2016, but I do feel he should have faded away in teh background and preserved his voice. I think he should have backed down and not necessarily supported Trump, but backed off the rhetoric over his 4 years and saved a chance to emerge in the future with his ideas. Unfortunately, he ruined his chances. You have to cater to the base in the primary, after that you run to the middle and govern toward the middle. We hope. I think there are two types of candidates who are running on the MAGA platform. You have those like Gibbons who truly believe it and then the insincere ones like Timken who are just doing it because the focus group polling said she needed too. I used to feel ok about Vance until he decided to hold a rally with MTG.

I dont get the loyalty to Trump. I think someone needs to stand up and pretty much come out and say he is a loser, which he is. He is no longer in power and only commands control because people let him.

Not trying to rationalize. Portman was a great senator and served Ohio well. I wish we had him for another term. Timken and Dolan are reasonable figures too. But when each party has to cater to their lunatic fringes you see this. I am sure their are many dems that have to cater to their lunatic fringes given the social media reach of buffoons like aoc. It does not do rational dems any favors in those cases too

Because she her and Dolan are the most reasonable in the group. Just because she has to cut an ad pandering to the Trump base to win does not put her in the same vein as mandel or Gibbons.

I fully admit that Republicans bear more responsibility than the dems. That does not mean that the dems are without blame here, only that the bulk of it (not all) lies with Republicans

The fact that you can’t even conceive that a political party you support may not have pure intentions all the time is laughable

Read what i said. I said neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that fact. Too often people need to remove their blue tinted glasses from time to time and acknowledge that fact. to act like dems are the ultimate warriors of good and republicans are morally rotten or vice versa only contributes and makes the dialogue problem worse. So at least acknowledge that both sides possess their share of glass houses. In this particular case I acknowledged that Republicans certainly bear more blame and are less innocent. They are the majority and hold the power so certainly they are more responsible. If the tables were reversed it would certainly be the dems fault. Look no further than the redistributing battles that are playing out in other states to see that dems do not really have any moral high ground on the issue. If you are unwilling to at least acknowledge that, you are not serious in your argument

No matter what side your on, to act like either side is pure and acting solely in the common good is naïve. Both sides are going to seek to maximize their political advantage where they can. To say the Democrats are acting solely in the interest of democracy is comical on its face. Now I will admit, as someone who Liens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge thatLiens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that

I think that would be a tall ask of any court. While both parties are clearly acting with certain bias's to improve their standings, it is a difficult position for the court to be in to not treat both sides equally as far as intent (i.e. when the GOP says they are trying to comply then it is hard for a court not to give them the benefit of the doubt, just as it is hard for the court to not give the dems the benefit of the doubt if they say the maps are purposefully rigged). obviously, that is not the case in the court of public opinion, but I would think the SC would be loathe to hold anyone in contempt here because it would be akin to placing their hand on the scale one way or another. Which means we will likely continue to see the current stalemate unless the politicians can agree on some sort of compromise on their own.

So this presents an interesting connumdrum. The SC has stated they will not approve the maps preseneted to them, but they will also not draw the maps themselves and therefore leave it to the commission to draw maps that satisfy them.

So you are taking a property that could hold 30 apartment units and instead developing 60 or 70 on the same plot of land . It does not affect anyone. If anything, it will be beneficial to the current owners because it will remove random strips of land whose sole purpose is to create enough acreage to add density.

It seems based on the maps that it really does not change many areas where single family housing it, it primarily only allows areas where multi-family exists to be denser than would have been allowed previously. This really should not create neighborhood opposition but of course with any change, it will.

Definitely think these are the primary reasons. I would like to think human rights or pandemic play a difference too but when you boil it down it is 1) Harder on NBC to get the numbers when the Olympics are difficult to show live in Primetime, and you are right, especially this year, there are fewer stars with recognizeable names than in the past. No Lindsey Vonn, Bode Miller, etc. No NHL players in hockey and both mens and women's figure skaters are not as well known as in the past. I think the pandemic part to your point is important, not because people are not watching now, but more the fact that in 2021 and most of 2020 sporting events were all cancelled or much smatller if they happened and generated less buzz. I did not remember the national figure skating championship last year (it may have happened) or some other large showcase events that are used to highlight the upcoming stars.

Pretty spot on. I would also add that the US audience has largely tuned out too.