LincolnKennedy

^I'm curious what exactly Pollyana means by socialized medicine? Because the words "managed care" which is the term for the current insurance & pharmaceutical company directed system that we have in the United States, and that sounds incredibly socialistic to me. But I doubt you thought much about the economic content of the terms you were using anyway. Is CincyCare going to set prices, or prevent people from traveling to other states to pay cash for their health care if they want? No. Having worked both private business and the government, I've felt that large corporations tend to act in the same ways, regardless of whether they are public or private. They are all run by people, some competent, some less so. But I suppose that is beside the point. So if you are terribly concerned with using capitalistic language, imagine this as a mutual fund where you can buy shares in medicines and medical expertise that will accrue more and more value in the future. And you're buying in a group because it makes it cheaper for everyone in the group rather than acting individually, so you can buy more possible future care (that's clunky phrase... let's call it insurance) as well as better possible future care than you could on your own. And this is all being sponsored by the city government, a corporation you trust to provide clean water, take away waste, and other valuable health-related services. I'm tired of writing. You can find this all online anyway. Just google "Stalin's Five Year Plan". The part of health care starts on page 27.

On the outside that library would pass for a Water Works pumping station in Cincinnati, but the inside is really nice, with a lot more light and color than the exterior would suggest.

I've always wondered how you end up getting a good looking neighborhood of buildings. Design protocols laid down by the city? Aesthetic subsidies? Commissions based on competitive designs? I have no idea, though there are examples of neighborhoods created anew that ended up really nicely put together (unlike that sentence). The Back Bay in Boston in particular comes to mind. It's not often when a joke about modern architecture makes me laugh out loud. Kudos.

^The Enquirer never ceases to lower the bar. While these endorsements for council aren't nearly as bad as previous Enquirer slates have been, two things bother me about this tepid editorial: 1) "The savvy, behind-the-scenes leadership style of Mayor/Chief Cat-Herder Mark Mallory gets some credit for that, too." While I agree with the gist of this statement, and I feel the reference is pretty disrespectful to the current members of council. The Enquirer editorial board should know better and act more professional. 2) The non-endorsement endorsement of Laketa Cole. Whatever your opinion of Laketa may be, I found the fact that they brought up the physical altercation she was involved in to be tasteless. I don't understand why being assaulted should have anything to do with one's competency to serve on city council. Pepper was robbed at gunpoint once while serving in public office- did The Enquirer mention this when they endorsed him?

There's nothing particularly German about Cincinnati architecture, even the churches, in my opinion. When I think of a distinctively German church, I imagine something done in the Baroque style, a style which as far as I'm aware was never a revival style that caught on in the U.S., which isn't surprising given the political overtones of the style. However, certain churches on the inside have a very German look to me, best exemplified by St. Rose on Eastern Avenue. Any sort of German style theme strikes me as incredibly hokey. If you want throwback, jmeck's suggestion of copying styles and themes from the buildings that were once there seems the safest bet. I think that dmerkow's suggestion of building on our fantastic Art Deco heritage is a great idea as well, though perhaps not exactly for the Banks site. I'd like to see some sort of transition between the Reds Stadium and the Freedom Center that is respectful of both as well as tasteful. My biggest concern is that the stuff on street-level be built for human beings, not cars or trucks or architects, and that you feel the density down there, so you know you are in the City, not The Homes at River Pointe or some crap like that. Most of the architecture of the French Quarter dates from the time when the Spanish ruled Louisiana. It doesn't look terribly Spanish or French to me. I suspect the available local building materials of the time make the the Quarter look like it does. Interestingly, when I was living back home and giving the eastern OTR tour with Architreks, we were told that most of the famous cast-iron balconies that we know from the French Quarter were actually cast in Cincinnati and shipped downriver.

When you're growing up in the city, most of the time that's all you've got.

The Banks only because it has been so drawn out. Failure to get it done now will most likely kill the chances of anything happening there for years to come because it would have that stigma attached to it. ^The above argument is contrary to basic economics. The sunk costs involved in the years of planning for the Banks project are not relevant to Cramer's question, since they exist regardless of whatever options are chosen 1) do both, 2) do the Banks at the cost of the streetcar, 3) do the streetcar at the cost of the Banks, 4) do neither. With all of these choices, the former planning and deal-making that has been going on for the past ten years is already a spent cost that cannot be retrieved. The only relevant question is, if a choice must be made between the two, which of the two would have the greatest economic impact. In my opinion, the streetcar is far more important than the Banks (and a pre-existing streetcar would, I believe, strengthen a future Banks construction). Imagine it this way- it's 1985 and you've been doing 3 months of planning on whether you should invest $5,000 in AT&T or GE. Right before you decide, this buddy of yours tells you about this new company called Microsoft that his numbers show will be a killer investment. Should you dismiss his suggestion for the simple reason that you've already spent 3 months doing all this research on the other two companies? It's admittedly a crude example, but do you get it?

I love lamp.

^Why not just vote for eight rather than all nine?

I think the correct construction should be, "Sublime isn't very popular outside the Midwest." I would also like to add that that opinion, however it may be formed grammatically, does not jibe with my experience. This is the best statistic ever cited on UO. The best.

Is anyone else concerned that in a recent article in The Enquirer it was made clear that the City wants private businesses to help finance the building of the streetcar, the capital costs? Isn't this what municipal bond issues are for? If it is bad capitalism to have the government doing the work of private interests, isn't it equally bad to have private interests funding government works (outside of the interest they would receive as purchasers of the aforementioned bonds)? I really think allowing any private corporation any sort of equity partnership in this project is a huge mistake.

If you include downtown Cincinnati from the river to the Clifton hospital district bounded on the north by Erkenbrecher and the east by Reading Rd. you would probably get an area comparable to whatever Portland's central business district is. You keep making unsubstantiated claims as to Portland's economic environment- you claim it is more "stable" and more "viable" than Cincinnati's, but you offer absolutely no evidence to back this up. Finally, Portland may be more densely populated than Cincinnati now but I would suspect that Cincinnati was more densely populated than Portland when Portland built its streetcar or first light rail line. Since you listed no comparable data, you aren't talking economics at all. Your arguments have been wholly rhetorical. You keep speaking about numbers and economic statistics yet we have seen none over your past two posts. I would be very interested to know what exactly Portland did, what specific, concrete actions they took, as a city, to improve their economy to the point that it is today, as you claim, a much more stable and viable economy than Cincinnati's. Because there are few concrete things a municipality can actually do to effect the economy in which the city finds itself. (One of those few things a municipality can do is build infrastructure in order to attract residents and businesses). So when you are done posting your comparative economic data, such as average household income, population statistics, a list of the top ten employers in each municipality and how many people they employ, things of this nature, than please give a brief overview of the measures taken by the Portland city government to stabilize and enliven their economy since, say, the 1970s, so we can know how and what to market here in Southwestern Ohio.

Apology accepted. I'm not trying to fight with you but, if you think I'm a douchebag then by all means let me have it. It wouldn't be hard to make a pretty decent case that I am a douche; I'd be inclined to agree with you in some respects. However douchebag or not, I think my points are still relevant. I will respond to your latest post and then, on my end, leave it at that: I don't believe you wrote your post with the intent that "someone like [me] would respond" (and I hope that by someone like me you mean cramer, dmerkow, jmecklenborg, noozer or KJP. If you I remind you of other posters, let me know and I will try to alter my posts accordingly). It still strikes me as though you wrote it because you believed it, and that you weren't trying to draw out a contrary opinion. I will take your word that you didn't change your position, though to me it still sounds like you are admitting the impracticality of your ideal. It was your statement, "This is all just abstract thinking," that led me to that understanding. But we aren't really talking about that, are we? We were talking about the presence of a florist in a prime location in an "entertainment district". My argument was 1) that the presence of said florist in said location does not adversely effect said entertainment district; 2) that the idea of an entertainment district is essentially absurd. The fact that law firms cluster around the courthouse is because quick and easy access to the court makes their job far more efficient. But where would the "law district" begin and end, geographically? And once again, the word district has a prescriptive connotation, as if some authority chose a particular geographical area in which a given activity should take place (for example, TIF districts. In these limited geographical areas, tax increment financing may occur). You may be using the word district in an non-prescriptive way, like the example you gave of the law firms, but I found the complaint that a florist would locate his or herself in the district to imply that the district was or should be prescriptive. And it is the idea of a prescriptive entertainment district- the idea that some authority says, in effect, "Go here to have fun", that I find to be ludicrous. Now I am extremely confused as to what you mean by the word district. I reread what I wrote and I think it seems clear enough that I didn't expect anyone to get the quotation that came to my mind (I didn't even expect the people on this blog that I know who have seen "Barcelona" to get the reference if I put it in quotation marks), and that is why I didn't put it in quotation marks. And I used the word "obviously" there because everyone can see that I didn't use quotation marks. All you have to do is scroll up and look at the post. I wrote the anecdote of the my mental state when writing that line because the line offended you. The purpose of the anecdote was to show how I wasn't attempting to attack you personally with the line, but that I was amusing myself. That sort of self-centeredness could legitimately be considered rude, though I don't think using the word pathetic to refer to an idea or an action is. It's not a slur. I've had plenty of pathetic ideas and actions. If someone else referred to them as such it doesn't make them any more pathetic. This I can not agree with. You were offended by my use of a particular word and implied that I used it in a certain way. I do not find said word to be offensive. As a result of this impasse, as well as to make sure that I hadn't misused the word, I decided that it would be useful to bring in a third party (in this case merriam-webster's online dictionary) in order so that both of us would have equal access to the point in question. That's also why I referenced where I got the definition from, so that you could go to the source and see where I had gotten it from and verify for yourself its independence (i.e. that I did not re-type the definitions to better reflect my opinion). It seems to me that it would have been arrogant to simply tell you what I perceived the definition to be without the reference, for that would have shown that I didn't care about anyone else's opinion on the matter. To the crowd, I will ask, as this seems to be more and more of a generally held opinion (I've been noticing it in other places than just blogs) when did it become insulting to let someone know that they are misusing a word (I'm not saying David had the wrong definition of pathetic)? If I am misusing or mispronouncing a word, I'd want the first person who notices to tell me, so that I quit doing it. It's like having a boog hanging out of your nose- it's better to be slightly embarrassed when someone points it out than have nobody tell you so it keeps hanging out there all day.

Maybe I just don't get it. How do you quantitatively determine the vibrancy of a give geographical location's night life? Hook-ups per available couples? Drinks consumed? Time spent dancing versus time spent standing? Maybe I sound dismissive or rude but seriously I don't see the point in this. Perhaps it is because I'm coming at it from the perspective of prescriptive policy, but what other perspective is there? Aren't we talking about policy, about the success or failure of government inputs (public money, zoning regulations, etc.)? When people discuss mixed-use they are basically making the argument that the most successful (and perhaps efficient) urban areas are those that allow for multiple activities. But the key is that they allow them, they don't provide them. Building an office park or a gated subdivision is an act that disallows certain activities. Allowing buildings that range from 10-30 stories allows for the possibility of office or residential usages (perhaps even artisan style manufacturing). But it doesn't prescribe them. The market is supposed to take care of that.

After reading your post my mind immediately went to a conversation from the movie "Barcelona", in which one character, Ted, describes how he wants to go out with only plain or homely women, as what he perceives to be society's obsession with female beauty leads to relationships without a spiritual connection, which by his definition are not serious. His cousin, Fred, asks him a few questions that lead Ted to further explain his position, until Ted basically talks himself out of his new position and admits that it was merely an idea. To which Fred replies, "Good, because it sounded really pathetic." The fact that you made the assertion you did but by the end of your post admitted it was unworkable reminded me of this piece of dialogue, so I responded by quoting Fred (obviously I didn't bother to put in quotation marks. I didn't think anyone else would understand that). Merriam-Webster's definition of the word pathetic: Main Entry: pa·thet·ic Pronunciation: p&-'the-tik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French pathetique, from Late Latin patheticus, from Greek pathEtikos capable of feeling, pathetic, from paschein (aorist pathein) to experience, suffer -- more at PATHOS 1 : having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity 2 : marked by sorrow or melancholy : SAD 3 : pitifully inferior or inadequate <the restaurant's pathetic service> 4 : ABSURD, LAUGHABLE <a pathetic costume> synonym see MOVING I was using the word (like the character Fred) in the manner of the fourth definition. I found the manner in which you made a bold assertion at the beginning of your post and slowly backed away from it until you essentially admitted it's unworkability to be funny, or laughable. I apologize if it came across as rude, but I think your post perfectly described the absurdity of planning in terms of entertainment or retail districts.

^The only that is obvious is that you didn't cramer's post that is directly above yours

Good, because it sounded really pathetic. I hope you're in planning school right now, and your mind is simply a little warped. When I go out to have "fun" I couldn't care less if the bar I'm going to is next to a florist, a dry cleaner, or whatever. Be honest, has anyone on this site actually said to themselves, "I'd be having a much better time at this place if I didn't have to walk past that irritating pet groomers to get in the door," or "The drinks in this place are overpriced and watered down and the girls are uptight and hugging the wall, but at least I can walk to seven other places exactly like it without leaving the block. I'm having fun." To give a serious and concrete example: has anyone here refused to go to The Comet simply because it is in the least convenient location in the City? I think the idea of an entertainment district is lame and misguided. This redeems my opinion of your judgment. You certainly made the right call there. I remember a few years back when I was out to dinner with this girl and she got annoyed with me for ordering the same dessert as her. It seems I was supposed to order something different so that we could share. You'd think she could have simply changed her order after she realized that I had "screwed up" and ordered the same thing as her, but I suppose explaining my mistake to me immediately after I had made it was the most important thing to do at the time. I wonder what she's up to right now. She and I had a lot in common.

You don't seem to be trying to have a conversation about anything. Why don't you go back through the previous posts? Take the time to notice how dmerkow and Jeffrey make the effort to cite specific people or facts to 1) explain the objective foundation on which their opinion is based, as well as 2) give the discerning reader points from which to continue his or her interest in the topic, off site. Referencing things like the white burley variety of tobacco or Ibold cigars makes the posts of these people worth reading, because it is something other than simply a gut reaction. It's a shame that so many of the good posters get drowned out by the rantings of those people who don't understand how to have an interesting, mutually beneficial argumentative conversation in an adult manner. I suppose that since I know dmerkow is a professor of history specializing in 19th century urban history and was educated entirely in the city of Cincinnati, excepting the four years he spent at college, I am inclined to find his posts worth reading, but frankly I think the quality of them speaks for themselves. I can only assume that school districts other than Cincinnati Public or the Archdiocese of Cincinnati have long given up teaching their students basic reasoning and communication skills. It's not surprising that ohio1221 doesn't, "find it ironic that almost all my friends here in Cincinnati aren't from here," he seems incapable of having a conversation with anyone who understands how one has a conversation. I suspect when he and his friends get together in Mt. Adams it sounds like a cocktail party with all the adults from Peanuts. What is equally unsurprising is that ohio1221 confuses the definition of "ironic" with that of "coincidental". Shine on.

^Yeah, it was Jones the Florist on the 6th Street side of the Square, next to Servati's.

Though uninvited, I'll respond to these points: 1) If by "single out Cincinnati" you mean discuss its economy, then of course dmerkow is singling out Cincinnati. That's the topic of this thread. But it's pretty obvious that he's said he thinks Cincinnati is in a better economic position than nearly every other Midwestern city, and that it does not, like those other cities, have a "rust-belt, the best days are behind us" mentality. 2) I am curious about how you feeling like you'll have a vested interest in Cincinnati will make any difference to the city's economy. I feel a strong vested interest in the success or failure of the city's sports teams, but obviously my ability to effect that outcome, even to the extent of buying season tickets, is essentially nil. How will this feeling of yours manifest itself to the city's economic benefit? Also, I know of a few people people who have left the suburbs for the city or at least paid the extra cash it takes in order to send their children to Walnut Hills High School, a Cincinnati Public School. While this evidence is merely anecdotal, it does happen. To Merkowitz I'll ask, what sort of economically dynamic industries do you believe can arise in Cincinnati given it's current state? I've heard Columbus, Ohio has a large insurance industry there, Dallas has the largest back office financial industry west of the Mississippi (if not west of New Jersey) and for some odd reason Charlotte has the headquarters of quite a few large banks. But once again these are the type of Fortune 500 companies that you said don't really bring dynamism to a region. I'm skeptical that anyone can self-consciously bring economic dynamism to a locality; historically speaking boomtowns such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, L.A. and Houston boomed and continue to boom largely as a result of geography. I view the current boom of the West Coast and Sun Belt to be a direct result of two factors- 1) their easy access to the majority of new immigrants (not unlike the Midwest in the 19th century) and 2) the furious economic growth of Asia since the 70s. Both of these factors imply a logic of geography. I don't think it's a coincidence that New York improved during the 90s when immigration to the U.S. began to pick up. Anyway, what do you think the City, Region and State can do to encourage and incubate the small businesses you argue are the seedbeds of economic dynamism and growth?

^Last time I checked, a florist on the Square is a good thing, since it implies that enough people are living and working downtown to enable a specialty shop to exist in a prime retail location. This signifies a healthy and living downtown, not some soulless dead zone whose streets resemble something out of The Omega Man and whose buildings are filled only by worker bees who never venture outside their offices or parking garages. But if that reasoning isn't sexy enough for you, maybe you can see if Jones will patch into Cadillac Ranch's sound system so you can listen to "Sweet Caroline" while you are picking up a dozen carnations for Secretary's Day. Now that's sarcasm.

^These maps are so much fun. A couple questions for jmeck: 1)How heavy is the freight rail traffic going into the city? You've mentioned the growth of warehousing in northern suburbs and we can all see that. I can't say I've seen much traffic on the Oasis Line, the Wasson Line, nor on that line that goes through Madeira and down Camargo road into Madisonville, all of which seem to disappear right before getting downtown. Are these rights-of-ways really being used to transport goods into the City? 2)Do you think the efficiency of the rail line to Portsmouth, as shown on the above map, would be compromised if it instead followed a more northernly alignment from its western end point along the Lateral up 71, then over to 275 somewhere near Cross-County (I realize the two don't connect and that Indian Hill sort of in the way)?

I'm reading this book about the Civil War, Battle Cry for Freedom, by James McPherson. In the chapter on the Dred Scott ruling, he cites favorable public to the ruling, one of which is from a "Cincinnati paper". I check out the footnote and lo and behold, the paper in question was none other than our very own Cincinnati Enquirer. The paper's motto should be something like, "Now in our third century of endorsing the wrong side of history."

Also, these tribes were semi-nomadic (some more than others). The Shawnee in particular, ranged throughout the eastern woodlands. River names in the south such as Suwanee, Swaneee and Shawanoe all indicate a Shawnee presence. (the Algonkian language group that extended throughout the eastern woodlands was often mutually intelligible between tribal varients, similar to the various languages of of Polynesia). I'm not quite sure how the city of Miami got it's name, though I believe the river from whence its name arose was originally called the Miama.

^Great article in the recent issue of The New Republic by Sarah Williams Goldhagen saying similar things.