thebillshark

The streetcar could really pay off if it encourages us to take off the training wheels of parking minimums for new development because then we could really pack a lot more economic activity in our finite downtown area. Transit is not optional for big cities with strong economies. Kind of like higher forms of life have evolved circulatory systems. If we want the same kind of opportunities here as exist in other places we need stronger transit.

Maybe you could put the morgue in the Terrace Plaza Hotel... I don't get this discussion because it seems to me you could wrap the windowless labs with offices with windows if an architect was trying to be cognizant of this sort of thing.

Playing Devil's advocate- if you ran the blue line through the tunnel you would only be adding the portion above MLK as new territory, since presumably any regional light rail would share the track as far as the stop at University. And, you would be losing half the existing OTR stops (for this line) plus any potential stop near the Vine St. Curve to do that. Is that really worth buying 3 streetcars at $3.5 million each and the operating cost of running them to do that? I suppose you use the tunnel time savings to run the blue line down Ludlow all the way to Northside...

I see this plan as a streetcar circulator plan, not as regional rail. Tunnel could serve both. We probably need to get more streetcar miles on the ground before we can fully engage the region. But even something like this could easily take fifty years to build. But you could have that Blue Line today without having to fight a Tunnel War. Also going up Vine means there would be an at grade intersection with the Green Line meaning those streetcars could use the existing MOF.

jmicha[/member] If you're only going as far as the Clifton Gaslight, you could probably save a lot of money just going up the Vine Street hill with the existing stub-outs. That's a short enough route to be tolerable at the speed of a local bus route, even with a Findaly Market double-back. The Mt. Auburn tunnel only makes sense to me as a way to travel a long distance.

Since this will be sandwiched in between the Sam Adams Brewery and the Elm and Liberty parking garage it might make a good Sam Adams taproom/restaurant. (They're going to at least retrofit with windows.)

Nothing too bizarre IMO. One of the owners went in at night and changed the locks.

This is a no good, very bad, HORRIBLE idea. 1. Bikes are the cleanest transport we have to cover greater than walking distances, any barrier to entry we put on them would discourage use and be bad for environment 2. Terrible idea from an equity/equality standpoint, bikes are also the cheapest transport other than walking. Would you really cite a poor person for an unlicensed bicycle? 3. Would create the insane dystopian situation of regulating bikes more than guns 4. From a libertarian standpoint why should the government regulate a low tech utilitarian device like a bicycle. Might as well force people to register a box of hand tools

1. How would they find a Fortune 500 stature company in such short notice? (they themselves set the bar that high) 2. What company would want to step into the middle of this PR s**t show?

I was a little surprised since it looked like the developers have already made clear concessions to to the community concerns, some of which will result in a decrease in revenue for them across the lifetime of the development. If this initial rejection results in a better project, so be it. I just hope everyone realizes the trade offs involved in insisting on different goals- for example, lowering the height results in a decrease in the number of units which through supply and demand makes each unit more expensive (when staying affordable is another goal of the neighborhood.)

I think lack of access was traditionally a big problem for this area with it literally earning the nickname the "Glencoe Hole"... A light rail station would definitely change things in that regard.

If electric bikes improve enough and get cheaper, we can do an electric bike share, and that will really change things. The big problem with electric bikes now is that they are expensive enough that they are an irresistible target for thieves. Losing a $2,000+ electric bike to theft as opposed to a $500 commuter bike is a pretty hard hit. Madrid has an electric bike share, seems to work pretty well. Maybe you could have electric Redbike stations next to the regular Redbike stations at the top and botom of the hills. That way if you were going from the Banks to UC you could take a regular Redbike to the base of the hill, check it in and check out an electric bike, and trade it again fur a regular Redbike at the top of the hill (maybe have additional electric stations at key points Uptown as well.) would make sense since it's no trouble to check a bike in and out (you have to do it for time purposes anyway.)

I wonder if our hillside neighborhoods came roaring back- such as Little Bethlehem in Mt. Auburn- if we would see a profusion of electric bikes. Is that happening in hilly neighborhoods in Seattle?

This is where I had an underground light rail station: https://cincinnatiideas.wordpress.com/uptown-light-rail/ This is a good project with a good mix of uses for Uptown however. (Even if it changes my plan :-) )

The rendering isn't going to happen though. They've been pushing this idea since they wrecked down a whole bunch of buildings on the block thirty years ago. Plus, we probably couldn't lure a Fortune 500 company out of the blue without giving away the farm in subsidies, and it would probably be a struggling company making a desperate move at that point. (Recall Chiquita moved to Charlotte but then pulled the Irish tax merger just a few years later, they're no longer HQ'ed there.) That and the fact they don't need to wreck down the Dennison to make this happen. There is no reason to cross an alley and cut into a row of historic buildings to add a pittance of square footage when they can build as tall as they like.

I'll say this- I don't know how anyone pays $1400 in rent AND saves up for a down payment on a home. Also comparisons to other real estate markets really don't mean much if our wages don't match other markets.

Or even something like this:

That would be the exact opposite of what should happen to maintain what is a already a great walkable neighborhood. The parking lot should be the thing that's "smooshed" up against the highway and the building should front Court Street where the factory is now. The southwest corner of the Hostess factory actually has some historical features to it. That part of the building looks older than the rest of it. Since the east side of the property abuts an alley of townhome garages, I think it would be neat if they built a new street through the site with townhomes facing west and their garages sharing the existing alley. Especially since City West homes are doing well as of late. Like so:

I think the author of that piece used the term "faux grained" to describe something like this. Its course grained because it's done by a single developer/owner/manager, but it's trying to visually emulate fine grained by being made to look like separate buildings. I'm ok for proceeding with something like this. Its important to get started. It adds density. Even if the architecture is criticized, once Liberty is narrowed there will probably be four or five more chances for new construction along Liberty. By the way are there more renderings of this project available somewhere?

This has huge implications for adding activity to the quiet City West neighborhood as well as for establishing an east-west link into Downtown along Court St. Here's hoping it's not designed like a suburban office park surrounded by parking on all four sides.

This is a good point about granularity. I found this really good article about it on Strong Towns: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/7/best-of-2015-granularity So if we did have the pro-urban policies in place (good transit instead of parking minimums for each new development,) perhaps smaller footprints could be maintained and more could be invested into each building by smaller players as happened historically.

Caveat: I do think U Square is pretty bad with the cinder block and the towering garages.

Jeesh, tough crowd! :) Just some thoughts from my trip out West last year: obviously the stuff going up in Portland's Pearl District is of higher quality than anything going up in Cincinnati right now. I don't know what has to happen before we start getting that kind of construction. Build a light rail system and wait twenty years I guess. When I was in Seattle we stayed in an Airb2b in the Atlantic neighborhood, not Seattle's most trendy neighborhood by any means, in an EIFS style building. It met the street well and was good from an urbanism/walkabilty standpoint. What was remarkable to me was how unremarkable it was. 100 units tucked away in a side street off a main arterial road. Whereas in Cincinnati construction of that kind of building would be a big deal and make the news, this building was kind of an afterthought. I guess that's what happens when Seattle is experiencing one of the biggest economic booms in the nation. I don't know what the answer is for Cincinnati. Put historic tax credits on steroids? Or just admit there is a long way to go between here and there, and accept these kinds of buildings if they meet the street well and add to the density of the neighborhood?

I mean, compared to what though? The old lumber yard that was there before the Gantry? The Wendy's and the Boston Market that was there before U Square? Just trying to provide some perspective here. I think the only design that everyone's been 100% completely happy with are the condos Greiwe is building at 8th and Main, and those are going to set some price per square foot high water marks for the region. If we want to add population in large numbers in the city there's going to be some EIFS buildings built, and they're fully capable of contributing to the urbanism/streetwalls/walkabilty of the neighborhoods they're in too.

It's not that bad. I think it's kind of neat looking. And our city neighborhoods need a ton of stuff like this to add raw numbers of people and the density that can sustain businesses. Also, if we hold out for high end buildings only upper class people will be able to afford living there.