thebillshark

I think their charter confines them to a specific geographic area (I seem to remember ~80 blocks for some reason,) Im not sure if that extends a even a block over Central Parkway into the West End or not.

I think this is a little overly cynical. More likely there was political triangulation going on so their organization wasn't retaliated against by the usual suspects. Also in my recollection they were neutral.

Jinx! Buy me a beer EDIT: this is different from what I was saying. I thought the gap had to be in the middle of the block

These are sweet ideas and would really create a unique place for people to visit. But unfortunately one limitation of the setup is that a true highway cap is not possible. If I recall correctly Unfortunately it's set up so that a north-south opening to the highway below must remain in the middle of the two middle blocks, and the two blocks on each end can only accomodate a half deck.

I would say the jury's still out. All the current issues we are still experiencing with the streetcar would be easily fixable with suppportive leadership. But the needs of the bus system are taking center stage now. The ball is in the court of Cincy progressive rail and transit advocates, because you know the powers that be are feeling: "We gave them their little trolley, what more do they want?" Only in the sense that it's time to get people elected who unequivocally support transit to public office. Did you know the streetcar was shut down yesterday for a race, the route of which did not even cross the tracks? When leaders with a desk and an office getting paid full time are making decisions like this, what chance does an "advocate" even have?

I would say the jury's still out. All the current issues we are still experiencing with the streetcar would be easily fixable with suppportive leadership. But the needs of the bus system are taking center stage now.

I agree with that. Jobs closer in are more efficiently served by transit. To serve the farther out jobs with transit takes a lot more resources.

^I just don't think you could do that in a practical way, without real citizens getting burned. Even if this was a planned economy like the USSR or something. The city is an organic thing that can't be messed with on a large scale like that without huge, unforeseen, and mostly negative consequences, like when they did urban renewal in the 50's and 60's.

^What I meant was, there are plenty of lower income working people residing in both the City and the suburbs that would lose thier jobs because they wouldn't be able to get to them if you were to cut off all bus service at the city limits. It would create chaos in their lives that they might not be able to recover from.

This is where the rubber meets the road. This sounds like a good proposal and maybe justified from the point of view of one government dealing with another, but the actual effect it would have on people's lives would be devastating, and that's why in reality it's a non-starter.

^Sounds great. There's a nice symmetry to it. However, we can't even get Hamilton County outside of the city limits to pay for the bus service it's receiving, so it's definitely a thought experiment.

I think people need to recognize the path dependency of investments like this. The Cincinnati of today is too resistant to change to embrace a plan like this. A Cincinnati with 10,000 more downtown/OTR residents would be a fundamentally different city. The west side of that city would be a completely different west side that may demand a light rail line to the Core. It's not a matter of getting here to there, it's a matter of what we become along the way, which would be quite different than today's Cincinnati. This other city may view light rail to be self evident. We need to keep hitting singles for urbanism and begin growing our population to transform.

We need to shore up funding for the bus system before any of this happens. No subway, no light rail, no air gondolas, no nothin'. They're really not practical to propose if we don't have a transit agency that has enough money to run a bus system. And, there is something to be said about the enormous amount that a "big picture" transit system would cost compared to purchasing and operating new buses, even if it does come from a different pot of money. Also, I would totally be satisfied with a single light rail line to Xavier (via UC) if we could do that in the next 15 years. Maybe one to Northside if we're lucky. I think voters get really freaked out when they are asked for a few billion dollars to build lines all over the map. I would be in favor of an incremental approach. Transit does better in dense areas anyway.

I agree these would be nice but they would be incredibly expensive and I think it would be better now to take a step back and analyze what we can do to kick start more organic growth. Once again I have no doubt in my mind that Cincy can gather up TIF and city funding and work with 3cdc to pull off a big project like 84.51, 8th and Sycamore, or 4th and Race at about the rate of one every two years. But we need to know why not one surface lot has broken ranks and been developed yet even after the launch of the streetcar. We need to know why a project like the Mchahn's building did not work out even after landing tax credits.

Yeah there are some absolutely huge dollar figure proposals for a couple of those buildings near Fourth, but I'm starting to get skeptical of announcements until construction actually begins these days.

Of course. I'd like someone to do a study that shows how much more tax revenue nearby condos/apts /mixed use buildings are producing than these surface lots per square foot, and make it official city policy to try to get rid of these lots. But with lot owners donating big to Cranley we need a new mayor too.

This is kind of my point. Historic preservation is awesome. It does a lot of good things, right off the bat you're getting good architecture, walkability and granularity. But it is slow and expensive in terms of adding raw numbers of people. That's why i wish we had a few generic new urbanism boxes going up. Downtown needs residents and more active sidewalks. Some weeknights it's like every other person I pass on my evening walk asks for money. I think Cranley killed momentum in this regard. A mayor that put the city first instead of his political career could have marketed the hell out of the streetcar and perhaps we'd have more going on now. And a bunch of new residents to help relieve the upcoming budget deficit. But of course he doesn't consider DT and OTR residents his constituents as voters so why would he.

Awesome. A huge "win" if they can build that many units without parking. Something I would like to see replicated across the CBD.

Low rise buildings are much cheaper to build which is a factor in financing. And banks continue to feel that lending for these types of developments are a "safer" investment (and likely cheaper) than a 250 unit building downtown. There may be something to banks being conservative. But why is low rise residential possible in downtowns of "boom" cities and not here? Well there aren't many sites for this sort of large apartment complex without structured parking within city limits in an area where people would actually want to live (i.e. not the Kahn's site). I think there's plenty room for low rise residential in DT and its surroundings. Maybe not 250 units but definitely over 100. Re: parking, are we ever going to build anything new without parking here in this town, like forevermore? Even something right next to an existing parking garage? We're kind of held back until someone can at least do that.

250 more apartments in the 'burbs. I maintain something is amiss in DT Cincy holding back widespread growth.

I'd love it, but it's going to be a challenge for my wife and I to start a family in OTR. First off we live on the fourth floor (stairs only) so we'd have to move. Then it would be difficult to find a place big enough at a reasonable price. Then start thinking about the schools...

question: Could western and southern expand into the empty office pad at the Banks, 180 Walnut? That would fill up Phase 1 at the Banks (finally,) and perhaps they could convert the Woodford building into residential. The Banks would still be a prominent, if less stuffy, location for them, near their existing buildings. Otherwise who is going to be filling all this office space? Potentially 180 Walnut, a new W&S building, and whatever fantasy land building they put on the Joseph's lot could all be competing for tenants.

The Mother of Mercy building is pretty, so I hope it gets re-purposed creatively... but it isn't in/near a business district, so there isn't much spillover benefit to adding density to this area. I'd rather see density added in/near the business districts to help support the burgeoning retail scene. True, but I still think it would make a good residential conversion. What would be interesting is if that conversion happened and if there was some walkable development proposed at the old Mercy hospital site and if Boudinot Ave could be redone into some kind of pedestrian bike friendly corridor from Westwood town square/Harrison Ave to Glenway Ave.

Sure there are. Hardly anything is getting through the community council these days which impacts all the rest of the steps in the development process.

Exactly. The pressure to build a new store isn't going to come from Kroger wanting to build one or the city pushing them. It's going to come from 3CDC wanting to replace the current store with new development and saying, come on, build a new store already so we can have your old one. Disagree with this. Politically 3cdc will face a huge amount of gentrification backlash trying to replace OTR Kroger with condos. I'm sure any number of projects would be easier for them to do before taking that on.