LincolnKennedy

I suppose I didn't make my point as clearly as I should have. I was trying to say that the stereotypical suburbanite and the stereotypical urban dweller are not useful archetypes when contemplating future development. The point of bringing up the Hyde Park price changes was to show that the most desirable real estate still lies in the City of Cincinnati, not in the suburbs, and I think Cramer has given a nice example of what I was talking about. We're sort of straying from the subject matter, and I guess it's kind of my fault, but I think it's important to realize that the Banks development should be driven by long-term goals, and take into account the groups (young people, single parent families) that are generally not catered to by the market because they generate less revenue per development.

I think it's a mistake to focus on the City. This whole obsession with the Banks is County driven. The media's recent focus on the Banks development began when the County announced their surprise deal with Convergys and Vandercar last year. The City basically acquiesed in that deal, essentially because no one was thinking about the Banks at the time, but once that deal fell through the City essentially said that no more suprise deals or attempts by the County to go it alone would be tolerated. And since their is conflict their, particularly a suburban (County) v. City conflict, the Enquire keeps talking about it, even though all the interesting, insightful and relevant stories are in the Business Courier. I can't really agree with this statement. Although some people might talk about it in terms of encouraging suburbanites downtown, that is essentially an outdated notion where in fact the money isn't at. While suburbanites are certainly encouraged an expected to attend baseball and football games, this is obviously a requirement if you want to fill a 40K+ arena. As for other attractions in downtown Cincinnati, I don't think that idea holds. Classical music, gourmet dining and live theater isn't something that seems particularly appealing to suburbanities, and that's pretty much what downtown offers. The City is wealthier than the old urban/suburban divide assumes. My parents and my friends parents bought their houses in Mt. Lookout and Hyde Park 20+ years ago, soon after graduating college. My neighborhood friends and I, graduating from better colleges than our parents, could never afford to live where we grew up. The problem that confronts the County and the City regarding the Banks development is one of long-term vision versus short-term gain, and the fact that both governments have essentially the same problems facing them- (increased operating expenses, declining population, uncertain tax base, etc.) and no one anywhere is quite certain about how to properly develop large public assets nowadays as they were in the 50's and 60's.

I don't know why that damn smiley face with sunglasses came up when I where I wrote the number eight.

The fact is that you have to develop everything at once. It's not in the City or the County's power to develop what they want, when they want it, simply because there are other entities involved, mostly state and federal, but also private investors, the world economy, and, particularly in OTR, the passage of time. But if I had to prioritize, I would do it like this: 1) Build the below ground parking garages on the Banks 2) Cap Fort Washington Way according to plan 3) Put in Streetcar lines that connect Clifton/Zoo-UC-OTR-Downtown-Banks 4) Start rehabbing buildings in OTR around those lines 5) Build the section of the Banks between the Freedom Center and the Reds Ballpark 6) Fix up Short Vine 7) More OTR 8) The rest of the Banks 9) More Public Transit 10) More OTR Or something like that.

If it is a raw cost/benefit analysis we are concerned about, then I think we can all agree that building from scratch on bare land is less expensive than rehabbing a 100+ year old building. That's why when they did urban renewal in the 1940's and 50's, they tore down virtually the entire West End (which was filled with buildings like you find in Over-the-Rhine) and rebuilt anew, albeit for the same tenants. And then they recently tore down those old projects and built City West. People keep referring to the Banks as, "the most prime real estate in Cincinnati". Assuming this is true, what does it actually matter? The city/county government has owned this property for at least four years (according to the auditor's website), probably longer. So it's not inherently valuable enough for anything to have happened in the past four years. And what was there when the real estate was privately owned? A bunch of parking lots, produce warehouses, Caddy's, the Old Spaghetti Factory, a bar called O'Flanagan's (I think that was the name) and a Skyline Chili. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was all. Maybe a Coca-Cola bottling plant as well, but I'm pretty sure they moved that out to Madisonville way before the Banks/Stadiums project was even conceived. What does all this mean, economically speaking? Simply that the only reason this real estate has the potential to be "prime" is because of the value added that only the government can bring. Private capital alone is not capable, or simply unwilling to bring what we all consider the acreage's potential to be. That's why the Corporex/Vandecar deal fell through. Once again, I come back to this point. With the Madison/Marquette McAlpin's development on Fourth Street, and the Towne Properties Twain's Pointe etc. developments that are slowly snaking their way down Eastern Avenue, the potential "yuppie" or "millionaire" or whatever you want to call them purchaser has options for both Riverfront living and urban living. All this development is being done by private firms with private capital. So is it really that inevitable that Banks cater to this group? Is it really in the best interest of the County to market this public resource to this group? Is this group of potential buyers even large enough to sustain the purchases required for this massive new development when they have these other choices available? Is it in the interest of the County to cannibalize this existing private sector market with public funds? Why not provide an opportunity for low-income buyers, single parent families, or first time home buyers to live in this area?

OJ's guest house wasn't a trailer, it had a permanent foundation. If you went for a walk on Dexter Avenue in Walnut Hills and then walked a block on Wold and then walked up and down Fairfax you'd see some pretty tony 6 figure homes quickly dissolve into shit-brick apartments. Other areas where this occurs include Avondale & Clifton. Maybe you haven't seen this sort of thing because maybe it doesn't happen on the West Side. The new City West development also does a good job of providing a place for all income types, though their are probably few millionaires there, but perhaps you were being facetious about that. Certainly a millionaire could afford a place down there if he or she was interested. That's why it's the utopic Cincinnati community par excellance, because a space is provided for all. Well, I could write a pretty lengthy response to this, but one of the more obvious points is that hard-nosed realist thinking like yours is so self-evident that it doesn't really need to explain itself, or even address the topic. Let's just say that if the goal of a development project such as the Banks is to pay off debts, than the County should just present it as such. If the goal is to attract a different type of purchaser than those who are being marketed to by private firms at the essentially adjacent new condos on Eastern Avenue and 4th Street, then there needs to be a lot more planning and expenditure involved.

I'm not quite sure what the difference is between giving land to to the Freedom Center and giving land to the Stadiums. Granted, the stadiums are still owned by the county, but they are both large parcels of very valuable land devoted to very specific and limited functions, just like the museum. I feel like it comes down to this: If it's important to create an attractive, mixed-income neighborhood on the Banks, then the County might not make back everything it puts into this project, at least not immediately. If the Banks is simply a way to pay of County debt, if that's what it's function is, then perhaps the construction will pay for itself in the short term, and perhaps we'll be able to pay down some debt as well. Downtown is one of the few neighborhoods in Cincinnati where population is growing. Check out the Sibcy Cline or Huff websites to see all the projects underway. I think we can all agree that it is primarily wealthy folks who are moving downtown. I think the private sector is doing a decent job at providing new opportunities at downtown living, and because it is expensive to rehab these old office buildings for housing, they natually price them toward a certain clientele. If it's important to have different income types living and working downtown, if it's important to have families and not just empty-nesters and young professionals living there, if it's important for people to use the new Riverfront park (and who uses parkland more than kids?), then the Banks project is clearly the place to do it.

You just made the point you say that you say you can't understand, 1) You don't see what the difference might be, because you aren't a minority, and 2) Just because any competent designer can deliver a product doesn't mean that the product will be delivered competently, particularly with Heimlich's gang in charge of the County Administration. Look at how incompetently they've handled things so far, not to mention their desire to increase the price of housing up into the $4K range, despite the plans that call for mixed income development at the Banks. How many black folks do who live in the City are living in a $400,000 house? If it's important to make sure the business community is involved, then it's just as legitimate to make a gesture to such a large and important constituency, particularly when it seems like what they are asking for is mere tokenism, i.e. someone who is black. While to whites it appears as mere tokenism, it was only forty or so odd years ago at best that mere skin color would disqualify one from innumerable positions in society. So someone sympathetic can understand the desire. All politics aside, why don't we ask ourselves this question: which group is more important to have in on the building process when the County attempts to build a new neighborhood- local capitalists or local constituents? I argue that the County can certainly find the money it needs to build somewhere else (it certainly won't raise all the capital locally anyway) and it doesn't need a local developer to develop the entire sight anyway, it can do it itself (witness the Back Bay neighborhood in Boston; also, this is what public authorities were created for in the old days) but it most certainly needs the support of the local population to pay for the project and to populate it.

Well said.

Your website is sweet. Not a super-serious suggestion, but perhaps you could add a choice of Cincinnati-themed music selections to enhance our viewing pleasure?

I find that very hard to believe. I'll give you that Mallory thought that Riordan would do the best job representing the City, and that Heimlich thought that Gabelman would do the best job representing the County. Leeper probably (and unsurprisingly) thought that he would do the best job representing 3CDC's interests, althought there are competent minorities on his staff, and at least one black man on 3CDC's board. But I'll give Leeper the benefit of the doubt and say he's best to represent 3CDC's interests. So that leaves two spots: 1) Rhein's and 2) Castellini's. Now obviously Castellini is the chair. There are certainly plenty of competent minorities available in the City or County to chair this board, such as former Sixth Circuit Federal Judge Nathaniel R. Jones, or former P&G executive Ed Rigaud, who chaired the committee that brought the Freedom Center to Cincinnati. But once again, let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say that Castellini is essential and irreplacable. That leaves Rhein's spot. And who chose him? Castellini, with the approval of the County. Rhein is the only one on the board (aside from the chair, Castellini) who wasn't named as a representative of a specific entity; his spot had the fewest strictures. And who was chosen? A Republican fundraiser and lobbyist that represents an organization that has virtually nothing to do with urban infrastructure, and is arguably opposed to it (I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but you might check out their website to read their self-description and see the pictures of the residences they've selected to show http://www.cincybuilders.com/.) It doesn't seem that Castellini and Heimlich are casting the net very wide for their one free and unemcumbered pick. That's what I mean when I said they don't think about the process of inclusion, that it simply isn't present in their minds.

I think the complaints about the lack of minority representation are legitimate. I'm not sure I understand a complaint about the lack of female representation. I guess if these guys come back with a plan for a monestary we'll know we should have had some female input. But let's take a moment to see who was chosen for the board, and by whom: 1) Bob Castellini, Reds owner, chair (Hyde Park resident); 2) Tom Gabelman, county attorney, chosen by the County (Mt. Lookout resident); 3) Steve Leeper, head of 3CDC, chosen by 3CDC (I don't know where he lives); 4) Robert Rhein, former president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Cincinnati, chosen by Castellini with County approval (Indian Hill resident); 5) Tim Riordan, retired city administrator, chosen by the City (downtown resident). Now, of all the entities concerned, who had the most picks? Clearly it was Castellini and the County. The City only had one pick. The county chose Gabelman to look out for its interests, the City chose Riordan. Since a resident of the City must by definition be resident of the county, the County has just as much of a responsibility to minority inclusion as the City does. And seeing as they had more picks, they certainly could have made a greater effort. The choice of Robert Rhein, past president of the Home Builders Association and Indian Hill resident, is certainly a poorer choice for the task at hand than Tim Riordan, retired city admnistrator and downtown resident. I think the complaints are justified. But the complaints against Riordan are not. A man such as Rhein is going to have much better personal access to this board than the average prominent minority. If he has an issue he can just corner Castellini or Gabelman at a GOP fundraiser or talk to them about it on the green while their fourth is putting. It's a shame the County didn't step up on this issue, but it's not unexpected. Complaining about people complaining about lack of minority involvement helps the casual conspiracy of the Cincinnati squirearchy to keep doing business as usual. It's not so much that these people are malicious or intentionally disincluding people, it's that they just don't think about it. It doesn't occur to them. But that's the very problem with the whole Banks project, why it has been delayed for so long because of the bad stadium deal, and why Heimlich's fumbling attempts with Corporex and others fell through. We don't want business as usual down at the Banks, or else we will end up with a Newport-on-the-Levee in between two stadiums.

I hope strongly that all these people heed Jack Rouse's words that development is for the long term, not to combat short term financial issues. I also hope they remember that they are creating a neighborhood, not a themepark. Those things I expect are withing the grasp of any appointee. I don't dare to hope that they make a real attempt to market this development to middle to lower income persons and families instead of the wealthy empty-nesters and real estate speculators that these appointees hope to cater to.

Definitely cool. Thanks. I like the PDA in the last picture. You don't see that happening on the Purple People Bridge.

Great pictures. I am most impressed with your ability to make the Greyhound Bus Station look attractive.

That's quite pretty, but the site clearly has something to do with it. Any examples of good modern & urban bridge design?

To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing things slow down on the Banks. It's far more important to do this thing right rather than quickly. The reason this thing is so hot right now is because Heimlich & DeWine are trying their damndest to "reduce county expenditure" which is a euphemism for getting as many current expenses off of the county books as fast as possible, which is why they are trying to sell Drake Hospital for example. Have these guys (and one has to also ask, has City Council?) figured out who their market for the Banks is? I would say that the people they are trying to attract to live down there should have at least these characteristics: 1) People who are going to work in the City (preferably downtown or Clifton) 2) People who are going to use the stadiums (particularly the Reds ballpark) 3) People who are going to use the new Riverfront Park. You want the first group because if they live and work in the City, they are going to be more likely to shop (and play, which swings into #3) there. If you want downtown to be a vital retail center, you've got to have local shoppers. In addition, the more space you rent to commuters in the new parking garages who live outside of the city but work downtown, the better. As for the #'s 2 & 3, what's the point of building these new things if they aren't going to get used? Ault Park is one of the benefits of living in Mt. Lookout- likewise with the new Riverfront Park. I'm not sure how you can seriously plan a whole new urban neighborhood that is supposed to encourage people to live and work downtown without giving those people some legitimate public transit. I don't see how a serious Banks plan can be conceived without it. The guys who laid out all the old incline lines had an amusement center of sorts (Highland House, Bellevue House, etc.) at the end of all their streetcar lines for a reason. Here we are trying to build the amusement venue without a serious way to get to it.

Thanks to John Schneider for giving the source of that article, and thanks to metrocity for pointing out that those women were complaining about riding the Metra commuter rail, not the El. I have some sympathy for people who have to ride the El, it is a total piece of crap- slow (oftentimes slower than street traffic), hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and not as thorough a system as I would like (a lot of that has to do with Chicago's geography). The El is probably the least comfortable public transit system I've been on save the London Underground. However, I think that just shows that they need to refurbish and update the El system just like they constantly do with the Highway system, and are currently doing with the Dan Ryan. And those people who willfully accept those hour commutes are crazy. Driving can be fun, but sitting in traffic is infuriating.

Great pictures, mrnyc. I'm impressed with the design. I usually feel like starchitects tend to recycle the same idea over and over again, particularly Frank Gehry. Foster's design looks both classic and innovative.

While this particular project looks decent, I must say I am sick of Frank Gehry. I feel like his idea of architecure is to make someone look at one of his buildings and say, "Oh, is that a Gehry?" The worst of the current crop of starchitects, with Liebskind right behind him.

It's interesting how the Banks went from being on no one's mind to being the hot political development story. This project had been on the drawing board since the stadiums were mere glimmers in the owner's eyes. I think Heimlich and DeWine thought they pulled the coup de grace of public/private partnerships with the Corporex/Vandercar deal, but when that fell through everyone else who was supposed to be involved actually got involved. It's odd how the Port Authority was created to organize the construction of the Banks and some how got shoved down to third or fourth most important agency with regard to the project. Heimlich & DeWine are running scared in my opinion, and somehow figure that there's no reason to capitulate. There's a pretty good chance that Phil won't be on the Commission in November, and I think that's what's primarily influencing his decisions, though I can't see how he thinks his current actions are helping that situation for him. He is almost universally blamed for the impasse- even The Enquirer has gotten on the anti-Heimlich bandwagon.

That USA Today article was nice. I've recently been to both Atlanta & Washington DC, and I can't tell which one is more sprawling. But when it comes to affordable house prices, DC has to be one of the worst markets to live in, where you're getting the least amount of space for your dollar. Couple that with the incredibly dated public transit system they have there and you're looking at even less affordability. It's really incredible, the change that has occurred in Washington in the past six years since I left college there. Neighborhoods that were either thoroughly Hispanic/immigrant or black/ghetto have become overrun with young professionals. I can understand the reason for DC's growth (intense growth in the government contracting agencies) but why people move to Arizona and Nevada is beyond me. I suppose it must be spillover from California in the way that Jersey and Connecticut get spillover from NYC, but their inefficencies in terms of transportation, water use and conservation, and energy in general seem unsustainable and ripe for exploitation by a well-organized Midwestern State. Or maybe people like hiking in the mountains so much that a 5 hour commute is worth it.

Why don't Ohioans have pride in their cities? Another topic, I guess. C-Dawg Njaim brings up some good points: 1. Ohio has a shitty economy overall. 2. Ohio cities in general lack nightlife compared to other cities their size. 3. We are very suburban, and this makes a lot of people complain of the state being "boring". We have given up on the central cities for the most part and have left behind some pretty bad ghettos. 4. National media gives us no respect. 5. Ohio does an absolutely terrible job selling itself. My response to your 5 points: 1) Shitty Economy- This has always puzzled me. How could one of the leading economic powerhouses of the Union have fallen so far, so fast? My amateur opinion is this- during the great liberal, Keynesian period of the Union (1933-1980, or thereabouts) most of the investment went to States in the South and West. Then when the manufacturing economy of the Midwest fell apart in the early 80's, the attitude of the federal government went from helping out the American worker and farmer to bailing out the financial sector. Also, all those big corporations that were founded in Ohio in the 19th century and still exist today are a lot less local in their leadership and assets. 2) That may or may not be true. I'm only familiar with Cincinnati's nightlife. To me, nightlife in the United States is pretty much the same everywhere, just in some places you have more than others. It certainly isn't like nightlife in Europe, but that's probably because Americans work a lot more than other nationalities. 3) I can't agree with this. Ohio is far less suburban than other states of comparable population, mostly because we have eight major cities, all with rather long histories, while most states have one or two major cities of longterm historical significance. No way that Florida is less suburban than Ohio How old is Orlando, Tampa, or Miami? 4) Totally agree. The national media don't give us any respect, and that's largely because of reason C-Dawg Njaim's reason 5; 5) Ohio does a terrible job selling itself. Totally agree. Who speaks for Ohio. Bob Taft? George Voinovich or Mike DeWine? Taft is a joke here, whereas Voinovich and DeWine are respectable men, but they clearly have and feel a responsibility to the nation to consider as well. One of the virtues of Ohio, that it has eight major cities and many distinctive regions, is also one of its major drawbacks- each region tends to see itself as distinct from the rest of the state. No place is more guilty of that than Cincinnati. I've been a resident of Cincinnati my entire life, and I think I've spent one night in Toledo and one night in Cleveland. We need to catalogue our strengths and assets, and start re-investing in them and selling them.

Sorry, I miswrote. The population of Dubai is 1 million. Total population for the UAE is 4.5 million.

I can't say that I agree with bizbiz when he says that Dubai is on it's way to being one of the greatest cities in the world. The total population of the UAE is around 1 million, so it's less than the Cincinnati metro area. I've never been to Dubai, or the UAE, but I have spent time in the Middle East, including 4 days in Qatar, and some time in Kuwait. Qatar might not be as flashy as Dubai, but all those Gulf States are organized the same way- the orginial, Arab, pre-wealth population and their decendents are the citizens of an absolute monarchy vastly outnumbered by guest workers, many of them who have now lived there for generations. Each citizen of Qatar is allowed to "sponsor" so many of these guest workers who, in return for this sponsorship, pay their sponsor a percentage of their income. In addition, non-citizens are not allowed to own property there. I have a Indian-American friend, from Chicago, whose cousins live in Dubai. They own 49% of their business, the rest of which is held by a citizen of Dubai who does nothing but own 51% of the business ("on paper", as he says). Not the most stable situation for the investor, and not a good formula for attracting foreign investment and capital. Qatar was literally the ugliest place I had ever seen on earth. A rocky moonscape, it was also the hottest place I'd ever been. Of course, I was there in June. Then again, the coldest moment I'd ever spent was in Kuwait in January, standing in the desert in the wind and drizzling rain for nearly five hours waiting for a bus. This while wearing a raincoat. The Gulf is a god-forsaken environment, and while the emirate of Dubai might be successful in making their Vegas-on-the-Gulf, I don't see that place ever having the importance that Baghdad has and will have, with its five million residents. That being said, it is a good looking building. Check out Slate.com for their architectural slide shows, if you want to see more great skyscrapers being built around the world. Judging from what I can tell, I have to say that currently, large government sponsored building projects tend to embrace more interesting designs than their private equivalents do.