LincolnKennedy

As long as the job is done right and well, who gives a damn who builds the project? I think there is a legitimate claim to be made on behalf of having local contractors benefit from a massive local investment project. Black folks make up nearly 50% of the city's population so it isn't crazy to expect that they might wish to benefit from it. It's called democracy people, and despite everything that has been said of late, it's not on the internet. Why don't you take a lot at who else is on the Banks Working Group? Local rich white dudes. And who did they add? Steve Love a wealthy black dude. I don't know who this Richardson guy is but whatever. The fact is, the people on the WG are all local elites. I love Cincinnati, I was born and raised here, but it doesn't take a genius to know that when Josh Hamilton, who hasn't done a single thing at all for the Reds yet, is given a standing ovation at Openiing Day, and Chris Henry is essentially reviled on sports talk radio, that something else is afoot.

Uh, Oakley has a Square too, pretty much just like Hyde Park (it's not 3 steps up though), called "Geier Esplanade". So does Mout Lookout, albeit they use theirs as a parking lot. Hyde Park Square is nice mostly because they managed to keep out all fast-food chains. Think how much nicer Oakley would look without that Arby's and Subway there, or even that Skyline. I'm curious when and who built those apartment builings on the south side of HP2. They are truly what gives the place its charm. Hyde Park was planned to be a wealthy community, as far as I'm aware. I'm pretty sure the developers consisted of a few guys named Zumstein, Mooney, Burch and Stettinius (sp?) as well. Cincinnati Observed should tell you more.

Reading those comments from skysckrapercity.com made me thinking I was living in some parallel universe where all of Europe was inhabited by guys from UrbanOhio. I don't have any specific quarrels with any any of the comments (except for European1978 who said that "DC is quite flat" and DonQui who said claimed that DC was one of the cities built "before the car". These guys have clearly never lived in Washington DC and have only been there as tourists.) but the gestalt of the comments were bizarre to me. It all struck me as pretty superficial. Boston has "great history". New York is "dirty". San Francisco is "liberal". Chicago is unmentioned. American cities are going seem "the same" if all you pay attention to is the fact that everyone speaks English and there is usually a grid pattern somewhere. But clearly the grandeur of New York was almost pre-ordained with its magnificient physical location, while every inch of Chicago seems built with effect, to make a swampy plain into the greatest city on earth. When I think about Boston I think of a city that has managed, for good or bad to hold on to most of its original conceit while accomodating masses of people that, by their very weight, change that conceit. Whereas Philadelphia has not. And in each of these cities there is a classic or representative style of townhome that I immediately think of as being of the town. But you can have fun in any of these towns. All that usually takes is some cocktails and a couple of chatty girls. And let's face it, when you stay out late in any of those European cities you have to take a cab or walk home anyway.

I hope this comes to pass (and that we get one of the presidential debates, not the vice-presidential one). I always felt that for a strong as the Republican party is in this area they would throw us a convention once in a while. But this would be nice.

I still don't understand why the city/county doesn't just go ahead and build the stupid parking garages by themselves (although built with the intention of being able to hold future development on top). Look how much time has been wasted that could have been used at least to gain revenue via parking receipts. And I still don't get why the whole thing needs to be built all at once by one developer. Plus there's the issue of the Bengals veto over the two westernmost blocks still looming.

Well that's good news. I see longer streetcars for commutes in the Basin, shorter but more frequent streetcars going between the River and Ludlow, perhaps. I've never seen the Pearl District, and I'll never call Eastern Avenue R-v-rs-de Drive (nothing personal to anyone involved, but I simply refuse) but from what I can tell from the type of development that's going on in the East End it seems to me that they need to zone it for more density or something soon because it's fast getting tapped out.

^What are the capacities of the Skoda cars to climb hills? I think it's important to address how to connect the system from the River to Clifton, even though it obviously won't all be built in one shot.

What sort of safety issues arise with these shifts from on-street ROW to tunnels, as you have suggested for the line in yellow?

I guess my feeling is that it is important to strenghthen the current business districts. While the old Streetcar ROW still exists in Mariemont, I can't think of anything that's going to get the NIMBY's more riled up than turning that ROW back to light rail, except perhaps putting a major avenue for transit at the end of their cul-de-sacs on the south edge of town. My feeling is that by tunnelizing a portion of it, you avoid the areas of strongest resistance while at the same time strenghthening Wooster Pike as an economic corridor. Certainly the eyesore that is Wooster Pike through Fairfax could be induced to become a more pedestrian friendly place with transit.

This has been a great thread. Question: Since the Mt. Auburn tunnel is currently a moot point, what would be the costs of running the light rail line in a cut and cover subway up Gilbert via Montgomery to the Xavier node? I realize that you end up bypassing the UC area. It seems to me that the streetcar and the light rail can be complementary: streetcars for the more compact central city (Clifton/Mt. Auburn/Mt. Adams/Dowtown) resident and light rail for the commuter. I also feel that using traditional transit routes (i.e. subways under traditional streets or closely paralleling them, like Montgomery or Reading Roads) is preferable. John, one issue with this is that the route you descibe is down a very steep incline from Mariemont, not terribly accessible to the average commuter. Wouldn't it make more sense to bite the bullet and try and put that portion of the route under Wooster Pike through Fairfax and Mariemont, bringing it back above ground when you get to Plainville/Columbia Township?

Neyer was appointed to replace Guy Gukenberger, who was elected as a Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge, and remains one today. And now he works for the Bengals as Director of Development for Paul Brown Stadium. http://www.bengals.com/team/FrontOffice.asp

I was curious if someone was going to bring this up. I made a cursory inspection of the old incline ROW's years ago and it seemed to me that both the Bellevue line (which took one from Elm St. to Ohio Ave and thence to Calhoun down to Clifton) and the Mt Auburn incline (parallel to the Main St. Steps that lead to Jackson Park, kind of behiind Christ Hospital) are both empty, and therefore still in existence. Why can't these former ROW's be used, bypassing Clifton Rd. down the hill entirely? Also, I'd just like to add that having the nothbound Streetcar line from the river up Elm and the southbound from Clifton down Race seems perfect- only one block, and ready access to countless important Cincinnati Institutions, including Findlay Market, Music Hall, City Hall, the Convention Center, and the Bengals Stadium. The east side of downtown could be serviced the same way, on a line running down Walnut and up Main. Is Longworth Hall a viable spot for the (rolling) stock yards?

Well, you could also call San Francisco the "Boston of the West." Either or. Both are tech-heavy, have 7 million + people, white collar mostly, and heavily multi-nodial.

Bustown? I've never heard that used before. Ever. I'm not sure if it is all that informative of a nickname. Also, I've never heard anyone describe Columbus, Ohio as "the San Francisco of the Midwest". Ever.

While I think the interior of the Eisenmann building is confusing and basically stupid, I've always liked the exterior, particularly the way the building buries itself into the hillside, connects with the other, older buildings, and yes, the pastels. I think the pastels are a nice change of pace from the greys ranging from light stone to dark gunmetal or brick ranging from buff to burnt red that one sees in most every building. Of course, I'm also a wuss who orders Chip Wheelies when I go to Graeter's. Question: does anyone have any idea what on earth that concrete cut in the hillside next to DAAP on MLK near the intersection with Clifton is for? It's got a chain-link fence around it but no entry/exit points through the concrete as far as I can tell, so what is the fence keeping people out of? It's baffling. Sorry I don't have a picture.

In my opinion, the problem with Burnet Woods has always been accessibility. The entrances don't lead to anywhere, a la Ault Park or Alms Park. There's no center to the place. I think the layout needs to be redesigned. Also, That area has gone from being largely residential to largely office/commercial. They need to get more people living near the park, and the only real way to do that would be to encourage UC to build future housing on MLK.

And I thought it was just the Enquirer that hated Cincinnati. Cleveland's major daily bites the hand that feeds it as well?

I'm late to this discussion, but I just want to say that this is the sort of info that makes UrbanOhio a great site. I knew Cincinnati had a great system, but I never realized that other library systems throughout the state, even in smaller towns and counties, were considered to be as good. Nor did I have any idea that Mr. Republican, Robert A. Taft, was behind a successful program of state funding for libraries. So I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. I actually really like the look of the Cincinnati Main Library (the original old building, not the new North addition as much). It's one of my favorite modern buildings downtown. I like the indoor space, as well as the odd concrete columns mixed with the exposed brick exterior. My only real complaint with the building is the amount of wasted space on the Vine Street side of the South building and the Walnut Street side of the north building. One other complaint with the Cincinnati Public Library- I dislike their use of the Dewey System. I find the Library of Congress classification system much easier to use and peruse. When I was at UC for a year I was really impressed with their collection. Can't one request a book at UC through Cincinnati Public via interlibrary loan? It's a shame if UC won't even let the general public in their library. I worked at the Georgetown University Library (Lauinger) and we let anyone in, you just had to show some idea and register at the security desk. When visiting friends at Harvard and Columbia I became righteously indignant when I discovered that I wasn't even allowed to enter their hallowed bookholes (a term I use in lieu of the overly Latin and sissy "library"). Anyway, I found that by merely flashing an ID to the desk attendant I could get inside. Maybe that would work at Langsam (interestingly, I'm pretty sure langsam is the German word for boring, or tired). This is great. This is what bothers me most about politicians, particularly those who claim that they "believe in the market" or that they "want to run government like a business". Those guys are always the first to try and shut down services like libraries that provide a ridiculously good return on their investment. Why don't we shut down all the libraries in the state and turn all the buildings into mini-convention halls? Then we can raise the hotel tax by 20% Baby, that'll get a stew on!

I'm convinced someone on the Simpson's writing staff must have Cincinnati connections. I can think of at least one Bengals reference, the fact that Springfield was revealed to be in N KY... LincolnKennedy can no doubt provide more. I suspect that as well, though their may have been a serious of writers from the Tri-State area over the course of the show. There's the scene from Homer touring with Lolapolooza where the tour bus comes from a highway to a fork in the road, one which has a sign pointing toward Cincinnati, the other pointing toward Cleveland. The bus heads down the Cincinnati road, stops, then backs out and turns onto the road pointing to Cleveland, and then stops and goes back the way it originally came. As for Bengals references in the Simpsons I can think of two: when Homer is betting on football he watches pre-game shows that describe the Bengals as either the "Lock of the Week" or the "Shoe in of the Week", and he calls a 900 number betting tip hotline, where the pre-recorded voice drags out the length of the call by slowly enunciating each syllable of Cincinnati, between syllable each Homer says, "Cincinnati". Also Krusty is at a USO tour during the first Gulf War in Kuwait where he introduces the Cincinnati Bengals cheerleaders to a crowd of soldiers who proceed to boo, saying, "This is offensive to our Muslims hosts." That's all I can recall off-hand, and it's pretty much limited to pre-2000 Simpson's episodes. As to other instances of Hollywood name dropping Cincinnati, there is of course the movie The Cincinnati Kid, starring Steve McQueen, Ann-Margaret, Edward G. Robinson, and a virtually unrecognizeable Rip Torn. In recent memory (though I am afraid to mention it as it may exite the wrath of jmeck) Cincinnati was mentioned three different times in Good Night and Good Luck, which I found excessive but enjoyable. And of course there's Traffic. And Airborne. And Rain Man. Anyone else think it's funny that jmecklenborg's trying to pick up women in cafeterias?

I heard there was a Mexican standoff between Keith Fangman, the Grand Wizard of the KKK, and Nikki Giovanni. Unfortunately, all three survived.

Interesting. I assume that "seat of justice" means where the Supreme Court met when it was in session. Combine that with the governor's residence and we can safely say that Cincinnati was the capital of the Northwest Territory. More info: I haven't been able to find out where the territorial legislature met, but since Harrison was its secretary and a resident of Hamilton County, I assume it was here. Also, there was a big dispute between the local Federalists, led by St. Clair, and Republicans, led by the first governor of the State of Ohio, Edward Tiffin. After 1800, when the NW Territory was divided into the Ohio & Indiana Territories, Chillicothe (the residence of Tiffin) became the territorial capital, though St. Clair remained territorial governor. Not surprising that such a change would occur af the Republican Party took control of the Presidency and Congress in 1800. I don't know. I still feel like he had an understanding of the dynamics of the state, which is why I view it as a compliment. Just like when the Lolapalooza tour bus turns down the exit toward Cincinnati, then backs up to go down the exit toward Cleveland, only the finally turn back the way it came, avoiding both towns, on that Simpsons episode. What do you mean by "closer to home"? Do you mean the cities are more similar? Because obviously, Bloomington is 20+ miles further away than Columbus, and at least an hour longer of a drive because of all that time spent on 46. And really, Columbus is only another 10-15 miles further away than Lexington...so I'm guessing you mean the cities have a similar feel? To be frank, I was guessing at how far the drive to Bloomington was. The drive to Lexington always seems a lot shorter than that to Columbus, but I could be wrong about that too. I'm commuting between Cincinnati and the South much more often than I'm heading North. Either way, with IU offering its first classes in 1824, the presence of the much closer and more established Miami and UC, OSU starting it's first class in 1873, and UK being a similar institution to OSU on the other side of the river (many local families have relatives on either side of the Ohio), I feel like the difference in college horizons and loyalties is divided more widely in Cincinnati than in most of the other major cities in the State.

Okay, once again, LK's got to step in and set the historical record straight: Cramer is correct about this. While there may not have been an officially designated capital, Arthur St. Clair was the Territory's only governor. Therefore where he resided becomes, in effect, the capital. Also, all military operations against the Indians originated from Cincinnati, proceeding further and further up the I-75 corridor, signifying the strategic importance of the town. The original supreme court was made up of John Cleves Symmes (of Cincinnati), James Mitchell Varnum (of Marietta), and Samuel Holden Parsons (of Marietta), which implies that the administration of the territory was effectively split between the two major settlemets, Marietta and Cincinnati, though Cincinnati/Fort Washington was the primary logistics center and residence of the governor. I think that the ESPN quote is a compliment, since it's making a joke that only Ohioans would really get. Toledo would have been just as effective, but Cincinnati is much more subtle and clever. I've heard that story before. Whether it is true or not, it perfectly encapsulates the mindset of Cincinnatians vis-a-vis the rest of the state, which is that they aren't really thinking about it. That's why both the story and the ESPN joke are funny. It's not like people are thinking about Kentucky or Indiana either, but the fact that Cincinnati is so close to both of those states tend to make it beholden to none. Attending the Universities of Kentucky or Indiana is a perfectly normal and typical thing for the average Cincinnatian- those schools are actually closer to home than Ohio State is. Cincinnati is also a much older town than the other major cities in Ohio. The population base is primarily of pre-Civil War immigrant stock, German, Irish, & Scotch-Irish, whereas most of the other major cities in Ohio, particularly the ones in the northeast, have a more eastern European and Italian flavor. The economies and voting patterns of Cincinnati are unique compared to the other cities of the State. At the risk of sounding incredibly snotty, the arrivistes and nouveau Cincinnatiens should take the time to understand the appreciate the kultur der Heimat before exploding with their ideologies personelle. Can I get an Amen?

I don't get the people down here. A guy I know from Chattanooga is a rabid Tennesse fan. When he mentioned that he was planning on going to college, I asked where. He said, "probably UTC (University of Tennesse-Chattanooga)." When I suggested that if he tried to simply apply for admission to the Knoxville campus he would probably get in, he said how he didn't want to leave home. I can't imagine a UC student loving OSU unless they grew up as a big fan in Columbus (which would lend credence to my theory that OSU is to a large extent a local Columbus team). The way people in the South take one program as the "state team" also baffles me. They love the University of Georgia Football team, despite never having attended the school, and despite the fact that Georgia Tech is more convenient to get to and has won more NCAA Championships. But for some reason the Bulldogs ARE Georgia, just like the Crimson Tide is 'Bama (which is why I secretly pull for Auburn, just so the total number of disappointed SEC fans is as high as possible).

Great piece from Slate.com about this very topic: http://www.slate.com/id/2153915/?nav=tap3 I'm inclined to agree with the Michigan fan as to why Ohio State fans care so much about this game: "My second theory is that OSU, unlike most campuses, is located in a major city, one lacking in professional sports teams. Therefore, the whole city is wrapped up in Ohio State football, and you get a working-class fan base that's absent in most college towns. Professional sports fans tend to be angrier and drunker than college ones. (In my youth, I took many trips to watch the Detroit Tigers, and for a $4 bleacher seat you could watch not only the game but shirtless, mullet-wearing ruffians hurling racial insults at the other team's outfielders and, occasionally, beating the crap out of each other.)" As a proud Ohioan, who, despite not currently living in the state has never changed his home of record (and therefore pays state income tax for reason only of loyalty), I don't feel that I need to apologize for the fact that I can't view Ohio State as "Ohio's team". As I lifelong Cincinnatian, I see them as essentially a local Columbus team, and view their aggrandizing of the allegiance of the entire state as presumptuous. As a Cincinnatian, I am indifferent (my self-worth is influenced by what the Reds and Bengals do, not the Buckeyes). On top of that, my own experience leads me to lean more toward Michigan than Ohio State. As a descendant on my mother's side from the gentry of Toledo, UM exerts a far greater pull; fond memories of childhood vacations in the Grand Traverse region (the pinkie on the mitten, as it were. The state of Michigan is Ohio's playground, and is beautiful as such.); and time spent on the Ann Arbor campus with friends as opposed to zero time spent at Ohio State all add up to a greater affinity for Grande Azul. Ohio State just simply doesn't exist in my Ohio experience (though the "OH, IO", call and response, which I've heard about, is awesome.) In addition, I simply don't really care much about college football. I will close with this: I've only started paying attention to college football because it is the primary obsession of my current co-workers. And my current location has brought one passion in me to the fore- I HATE THE SEC. These pricks down here think that they created and play the greatest football in the country, ignoring innumerable facts which I will not bother to list here that prove that the heart of American football is in the Midwest. So I as much fun as our personal rivalries are, let's lay them aside when time comes to fight the real barbarians of the South.

I agree with Cramer on this point in general. It's really still more offensive that Bush brought up in a press conference that Saddam tried to "kill my dad". Perhaps Kerry was referring to Bush with his statement, though I doubt it. It's hard not to read that as insulting to the common soldier. As a college graduate currently serving as a regular enlisted infantry soldier in the U.S. Army, though, I can't say I really give a damn about either the current Kerry or previous Bush statements. There seems to be a lot of speculation in this thread about the current state of the soldiers and officers who comprise the thin green line, and I feel my vantage point allows me to make some observations: 1) Given that the Army relentlessly pushes the personal benefits (particularly with regard to paying for college) of what essentially is a self-denying act (enlistment) the thesis of Kerry's argument, study hard now or realize later that you should have while you're in the shit, holds some validity. I suspect, however, that Kerry was trying harder to be cute than he was to press that point; 2) The idea that the Army dredges the poor and indigent of society to fill its ranks is a myth; most of my fellow soldiers seem to be middle class, some in fact have parents who are quite wealthy. Certainly all view themselves as middle class. The Army's main base of recruitment isn't the neglected poor of society, it's the fuck-ups- people who have a tought time dealing with the adult outside world. Most people joining up who are younger than 21 either always wanted to join the Army, or just couldn't get it together on their own in the outside world and weren't interested in school. Those older than 21 who join are all basically looking to make some sort of drastic change to improve their lives. Of course there is an element of patriotism and responsiblity to every enlistment, but if the military could fill its ranks simply through an appeal to patriotic sentiment, it would have a much smaller advertising budget. 3) When comes down to it, most of these guys (including officers at the Company level) miss the structure and intimacy of high school, they've been socialized to it, and seem to have a real tough time away from it. There are strong contingent of guys who seem to miss the competitive world of varsity sports. The social dynamics are very similar to those in high school themed movies: seniors (NCO's) on top harrassing freshmen pukes (privates) with the occasional wealthy golden boy (officiers) prancing in, but generally keeping to themselves. And just like high school, you tend to advance just be being there long enough. I don't like John McCain. In my opinion, the above just canned political pieties. To paraphrase Henry Clay speaking of Andrew Jackson, I don't see how being tortured in a Vietnamese prison qualifies one for the supreme office of the land. We might as well elect any number of ex-Saigonese businessmen President. A soldier is the tool of his government by which it conducts "politics by other means". There's a member of Congress (also a former officer who attained the same rank as McCain) who's actually talking candidly to the American people about our current use of politics by other means, and whether it is working or not. His name is John Murtha. In closing, unless you're a registered voter in the Commonwealth of Massachussetts (and really, not even then) who gives a damn about John Kerry making a bad joke. The people who already disliked him are just going to try and point to it as how it makes their political opinions objective, while those who are inclined to side with Kerry aren't good to be swayed by it. Remember when Bush made that awful joke about open-heart surgery to Letterman back in 2000? Who cares about that? I realize people think this is fun to talk about, but why is this important?