Brutus_buckeye

I share your concern that the convention center is not the economic driver that some claim it is. However, it does not underscore the fact that she is in over her head on this deal. Stating we need to wait to do a thorough property inspection on the building and determine the condition of the roof and systems shows she does not know anything about the deal, has no clue about this type of financing and development in general. It is a tear down, you don't need to do that.

Surprise, Surprise, Stephanie Dumass votes against it and calls it the worst deal she has ever seen. She is completely over her head on this.

Absolutely, but this is a chance to show true leadership. It is easy to say no. I think Portune obviously wants to move forward. I think his experience in these types of issues gives him the reason why Dreihaus is on the fence. She will likely side with Portune, but her West Side sensibilities probably give her pause, plus if it blows up it will not play well with voters. Dumas, wants to delay because she is in over her head on these matters.

I disagree on this. 2 key reasons. 1) You get control of the site. even if the deal to redevelop the center into the new convention center falls through, you can still buy the hotel and control that block. You would have control of it, you can keep it open under a management agreement, tear it down, sell it to a better operator, etc. Getting that control would be powerful given the current frustration the city has with the Millennium operator. 2) The Port Authority is going to be the owner so if the Smyjunas plan does not work, the Port still owns the property and can figure out a plan B at that point. Right now the goal is to get control. There may be debate about going over Elm Street with an expansion or doing something else. That wont change with the sale of this hotel. At the end of the day, the County will now have control of the property instead of the hotel company which will make it much easier for development down the line in whatever form it looks like. Control the asset, you have a lot of options with it at that point.

I think things like the train are minor and really not noticed much. How many airport trains resemble anything memorable anyway. What CVG did right was redesign the security after 9/11. The old system was terrible where you had to walk to the basement of the terminal and then wait in a queue for an hour. At least the new building in the rear of the terminal has much more space for security. Concourse A is a bit dated but that was built in the 80s. Concourse B still looks nice. Update some flooring but again that it minor. It has all the amenities that other airports of its size have, and more. I don't see it as a big thing.

Yes, but what is the cost of it? You probably increase the cost significantly just going over the bridge. YOu can probably get a lot of synergies using the existing grid. Plus, there is a huge benefit connecting it to outer parking lots and getting more vehicles off the street in the core. Also, for OTR residents or other apartment residents, if you can then park your car affordably at a garage that is accessible from the streetcar line, it makes it easier to construct units without on site parking (because they can get there with a short walk or street car ride.

State conventions are not going to Columbus, they go to Kallahari. In all seriousness, not many state organizations are going to draw enough people to fill a convention center the size of Cincy, Cleve or Columbus. Many of them go to the smaller centers in Dayton, Toledo, Sharonville. Some will go to Columbus because the state agency is there.

I still think the Kroger will be a huge boost for ridership at certain times and it will definitely be a benefit to the streetcar as it is another destination to use the streetcar. Would love to see a spur go E/W from Union Terminal FC Stadium to Casino. It would connect large parking lots with key destinations across the city and be an urban circulator. would be a boon to Pendleton who missed out on the Streetcar and the NW side of downtown. It would also be much more cost effective than going up a hill to Clifton.

If you are buying fill in lots that are vacant you must keep it mowed. If you are buying lots that have never been developed previously with woods on them, they do not need to be mowed, but do need to be kept clean so they don't interfere with the street. The character of your lot will determine this. There is a form you can fill out with city hall to let them know you are not an absentee landlord. Therefore, if someone dumps a couch on your property the city can call you or someone can call you and you can move it in a reasonable time frame so you don't get fined. IF they do not have this, and you act as an absentee landlord, they will just fine upon the site of that stuff. It is sort of like a good landlord program. Theory behind it is that someone dumps their trash on your yard and you don't find out about it for a week or so, and the trash does not come for another week, you don't get fined for this.

Look at Indy's and Columbus's convention space. They are on the edge of town. They create a defining point in downtown. Go to Chicago same thing, Dayton, etc. They are in a place where they create an defining line between downtown and what lies next to downtown.

6th street is a perfect example. You have the convention center on one side and parking garage on other and skywalks over top. There is never a need to walk down that street because you would only be there to go to a parking garage You would never have a walk up store that could make it because one side of the street is dead and the other is a parking garage. Go to the 5th street side and you have a similar thing. The business or buildings that are there struggle because there is no activity on the other side of the street because of the hulking convention center takes the whole block. Your hope is that you get traffic from one side of the street only. It would work on 5th street side some, because of more of a critical mass of residents and businesses, but not on the 6th street side. There you have a couple garages, going North you have the Pure Romance building which is essentially a fortress with no street presence, and you have the Cincinnati Bell Building which is also a Fortress with no street level presence. YOU have the Shillitoes garage which is a dump too and does not have much of a street presence. If I were a developer trying to develop housing, retail, etc to the blocks from 6th and Elm West to 9th and Elm and West, what is the draw? You have church at the end of Piatt park acting as a barrier for people from going further West as well. So you are left with City Hall and a bunch of parking on that quadrant. If you cut it off with the bigger convention center over Elm, it only exacerbates this problem. Then, how do you connect it to the rest of the city? there needs to be something to tie that area back to the city and downtown.

why not go big and just extend the top all the way across. Now you have 2 huge convention hall spaces. you can build an additional hotel on the 5th street lot. If you are going to close off Elm, may as well go all in on convention business. If they close off Elm, what could be done to the NW corner of downtown? City Hall location there is helpful and having city offices there is helpful for foot traffic. I think you would almost need to expand the streetcar to the FC stadium to help connect that area of town to the rest of downtown better by offering increased transportation offerings which could encourage more residents around there. I would think the people at Pure Romance would have to hate this idea of closing Elm

I think closing down Central would be an even better option and going west to the highway.

While something, It still creates a cavern that would keep pedestrians from using that area. Almost better just to keep it open to cars. It would probably create a nice wind tunnel and be fairly intimidating for pedestrians to cross under an expanded center. Closing off Elm is jus ta bad idea. Especially since you only gain 1/2 a block.

Personally, I would expand North over 6th street. Leave the millennium as a cheaper priced option to cater to visitors. Put a new Convention Hotel on the 5th street lot the city owns or over the new 6th street expansion, but that would be my wish list. The only way I would have considered closing Elm is if they built an arena over that area to connect to the convention center.

The current tower is a significant tower on the West side of town. If you are coming from 75 or River Road, it is significant. It is also significant from the North side of town. You can see it from the River too but it blends in more and is not as prominent because the main tower sits on 6th street. You cant see it from the East side of town which is understandable. I imagine the new tower will occupy the same position. Not be much taller and not really offer a huge addition when viewed from the river.

That is what the news is reporting. I believe the current hotel is about 35 stories. The new one will be about the same if you count the convention center floors and then probably higher with the new top will probably make it taller. Agreed, but from the financing standpoint, it may be the only realistic option.

It will essentially be a more modern version of what is there from a height perspective. 30 Stores on top of a convention hall. May be a bit taller, but it will not add a new building to the skyline, maybe some height, but it will make it look more modern, which is not a bad thing. Personally, I am not a fan of closing off Elm. You will kill any potential street life on 6th and North and you are dividing the CBD into 2 separate areas. If you are living on say 7th and Elm, it makes it does not make it appealing to live there and say walk to PBS or a business on West Fourth. It cuts off the CBD from city Hall. If you were staying at the Hyatt as a visitor and you wanted to walk to St. Peter in Chains, it makes it more difficult. It makes it harder to develop office/apartment/street retail in the NW quadrant of downtown with this expansion. I don't know a better option, (personally I would go over 6th, but probably much more expensive) but that is the main issue I have going that direction.

The annex is an ugly building, I would not miss it. that area of 5th street is a bit dead and could use some life too. No restaurants in that area to walk too for lunch and stuff. Could use a bit more life in that area.

Isnt there a height restriction on the Lytle Park part of downtown? I heard they wanted to do something with the annex area but not necessarily a tower given the fact it was in the historic district?

There was a time in the 90s when Delta was talking about buying Northwest who was even struggling back then. It never happened of course. However, at the time, the Detroit airport was a dilapidated hull and CVG was brand new. If the merger happened at that time, Detroit would have been gutted and the flights moved to CVG because it was a much better airport. Having to wait 12 years for the merger to actually happen, Detroit was able to build a state of the art terminal and get the bulk of the Midwest hub traffic.

They certainly would want to do this. Casinos like to keep everyone inside as much as possible. Now whether the city allows it is another question altogether. I hope that when this happens the hotel has some height to it. at least 20 stories, hopefully more. I was in the Times Star building recently and staring out the window and with the view there, it really made the Baldwin and Tri-Health buildings seem part of downtown from there. Add a few mid rises in the sea of parking and it starts to connect it better.

Agreed. I just remember years ago, if you city had a Hard Rock Café, you could claim you had arrived as a destination, because you had it emblazoned on the T-shirt. To their credit, the Hard Rock brand has lasted a lot longer than the other brands like Planet Hollywood, etc.

30 years after the cool factor wore off, Cincinnati finally gets its Hard Rock Café. I can only imagine the news story

The building was designed to support a tower on top of the store after the store was built. Whether there is a department store down there or offices,, I cant see why they still couldn't construct a 20-25 story tower on top of it.