thebillshark

Semi related but I have this theory I will write out someday that "Field of Dreams" has it entirely wrong and baseball is a fundamentally urban sport. In contrast football is fundamentally suburban/rural. Think about it. Baseball has a team named after kids dodging streetcars and came of age at the same time as America's great cities. Football requires a whole garage full of stuff to tailgate before a game and a truck or RV to transport it, and came of age during the post WWII suburban expansion. In general in takes more kids to play sandlot baseball than it does to play backyard football etc.

A recent Enquirer article pointed out the ongoing taxpayer subsidies being spent to complete the Banks parking garages. It is completely necessary to build the garages to lift the development out of the flood plain. The investment is building "one of the nation’s largest contiguous parking facilities, with nearly 8,000 parking spaces available along the Riverfront" according to the Banks' own website. But, even with this record-setting parking structure, plans for future phases of the Banks still include additional above ground parking facilities. Taxpayers should be demanding a higher ROI on their investment. Cars don't have jobs and pay income taxes or purchase things and pay sales taxes. Devoting less space to automobile storage and more space to residential and commercial uses means the city and county would collect more revenue to use for services city and county wide. Thus, these additional above parking facilities should be removed from the plans to accommodate more residential and commercial space. One way to do this would be to split up the "superblock" with a commercial shared street. Such an arrangement would allow for additional residential units and commercial space in the interior of the block that would otherwise be parking garage and open air: The commercial shared street will have the further effect of increasing the walkability of the neighborhood and as a result its desirability and its ability to sustain businesses. Here is a diagram of a commercial shared street from the NACTO "Urban Street Design Guide" that would be entirely appropriate for the Banks: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/commercial-shared-street/

If you use the tunnels why not take them all the way down to Central Parkway and day light the streetcar on the parkway? Cost- My thinking was if you only resurrect the tunnels from Mohawk northward and only have one underground station at Brighton you could save a lot of money than going the whole way in the tunnel to the old Race and Central Parkway station. And these streetcars would be traveling the entirety of the current route so you wouldn't need an extra fleet of streetcars and drivers to run a whole other line. The other trade off I made is time/speed- a lot of people have been commenting that this route should go through the heart of Camp Washington on Colerain but I kept ithe right of way separate to make it time competitive to use it from Northside to downtown. Also, someone on a bus like the 17 could transfer in Northside to the streetcar to avoid going all the way through Uptown. This would only work if it was a fast ride into downtown.

Definitely need to complete the Central Parkway Bike Lanes then to connect to this. Off topic, but this MLK shared use path could enter the City Garage TOD that's part of my Northside light rail plan: https://cincinnatiideas.wordpress.com/northside-light-rail/

This is an ambitious plan worthy of support: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/12/how-soon-could-a-proposed-42-mile-city-bike-loop.html?ana=twt Also does anyone know if there is some kind of bike path being built as part of the western MLK (near Hopple interchange) realignment? I thought I saw something on Facebook but can't find it again, wondering what the plan would be.

These are true statements but you have to look at the intangibles as well. What may become possible because we have this GE operations center? Maybe an employee there will start a business that becomes the next big thing, or maybe another company will come to Cincinnati when they see how successful the GE operations center becomes. All things that never would have happened if we never took the first step; all too often in this world if you remain static you fall behind.

My fiancée used to work at Tavern on the Hill back in the 00's. We drove through the neighborhood down St. Gregory St. on a recent weekend night and she was surprised at how slow everything was. Some relevant links including a story from today: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/entertainment/nightlife/bars-and-clubs/2015/12/18/how-downtown-otr-bar-scene-turned-upscale/76732586/ https://cincinnatiideas.wordpress.com/mt-adams-gondola/

Wait 18k in each direction for 36k total? That's not what I understood from the OKI link above

My feedback to the city:

I view it like a bull stock market or momentum in a football game building up to a critical mass. Canceling the streetcar in 2013 would have completely and unnecessarily killed our momentum. Like throwing a pick six. Cranley has never acknowledged this. All sorts of negative messages would have been sent out- don't get too excited about the urban revival here because this city will fight against improving transit tooth and nail- putting a ceiling on how far the revival of urbanism can go. Etc.

I'm for three lanes with or without bike lanes. The five lane proposal would have two lanes of traffic in one direction with no shield for pedestrians on the sidewalk most of the day. It wouldn't slow traffic and would be unpleasant to walk beside. Hardly any better than Colerain Avenue. The main upside of this proposal is it could be converted to three lanes in the future (and developers can take advantage of the 20' of development space in the meantime.) Three lanes with bike lanes would send a message about what kind of neighborhood we are trying to build. It would also allow leisure-paced cycling across the neighborhood. You could build islands at intersection in the parking lane/ bike buffer to shrink the width for people trying to cross the street. Eight additional feet of development isn't a lot but it's not nothing. Three lanes without bike lanes might allow 24' feet of development (16 from the removed bike lanes plus the original 8.) With 24' of additional room for development it might be a true gamechanger with some really cool structures being built on the south side of Liberty. Liberty St. could be the centerpiece of a burgeoning neighborhood, a beautiful boulevard with sidewalk cafes etc. The fact that you've slowed and reduced traffic might result in some higher quality structures being built as well than in the other scenarios. Something need to be done. The street is totally trashed with litter and is the hangout of people drinking malt liquor early in the morning on the sidewalk. The fact that no notable development has occurred since the road widening in the 50's is utterly damning of the current layout which serves automobiles and not people. I walked Liberty again tonight and I've reached a decision. 3 Lanes without bike lanes. The only way to have this street find its full potential is to have new development facing it. IMO the existing Lots are so small and odd shaped that a normal looking development will require at least an extra 20'. So here's my preferences, which would all take up roughly the same footprint, which is critical for development space and is the controlling factor: 1. Three Lanes, no bike lanes, permanent parking 2. Three lanes with bike lanes instead of permanent parking ( taestell[/member] option) 3. Five lanes as presented with hope for further conversion in a more enlightened era I get your point now Jimmy_James[/member] ...

I'm for three lanes with or without bike lanes. The five lane proposal would have two lanes of traffic in one direction with no shield for pedestrians on the sidewalk most of the day. It wouldn't slow traffic and would be unpleasant to walk beside. Hardly any better than Colerain Avenue. The main upside of this proposal is it could be converted to three lanes in the future (and developers can take advantage of the 20' of development space in the meantime.) Three lanes with bike lanes would send a message about what kind of neighborhood we are trying to build. It would also allow leisure-paced cycling across the neighborhood. You could build islands at intersection in the parking lane/ bike buffer to shrink the width for people trying to cross the street. Eight additional feet of development isn't a lot but it's not nothing. Three lanes without bike lanes might allow 24' feet of development (16 from the removed bike lanes plus the original 8.) With 24' of additional room for development it might be a true gamechanger with some really cool structures being built on the south side of Liberty. Liberty St. could be the centerpiece of a burgeoning neighborhood, a beautiful boulevard with sidewalk cafes etc. The fact that you've slowed and reduced traffic might result in some higher quality structures being built as well than in the other scenarios. Something need to be done. The street is totally trashed with litter and is the hangout of people drinking malt liquor early in the morning on the sidewalk. The fact that no notable development has occurred since the road widening in the 50's is utterly damning of the current layout which serves automobiles and not people.

Disagree. The way to begin negotiations about this is for the neighborhood to be loud and vocal and state directly what we want. (That is the lesson learned from the streetcar after all.) Let's recognize that the best interest of the neighborhood is directly antithetical to the goal of traffic engineers who want to maintain capacity. The part of your statement that I agree with is that this conversion could be some kind of two stage process. But it needn't be if we just do what we know will be a runaway success the first time instead of taking nervous half measures. The more people push for 3 the less likely we are to end up with 7.

IMO two lanes of vehicle travel in one direction is going to lead to traffic weaving/race car behavior and will not be sufficiently pleasant/safe experience for pedestrians. So the 3 lane option is the only option really. A version of the three lane option should have been presented without bike lanes and more room for development. Then it would be getting more votes instead of splitting the vote for people who want 20' of development. I wonder if this was intentional on the city's part.

According to the Urban Street Design Guide from NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials,) (Island Press, 2013, pg 14): Up thread it said that Liberty had average traffic of 18,000 vehicles per day. Sounds doable. (three lanes= two travel lanes (one in each direction) and a turn lane)

I hope I don't sound snooty saying this, but I think the Banks is meant to appeal to the Bud/Bud Light crowd (maybe tourists from WV or Ohio farm country) while OTR has a more sophisticated appeal (for tourists from Chicago or the East Coast.) Of course the existence of the Pedal Wagon pretty much destroys this theory though. And the streetcar will allow easy travel between both.

1) We have another barcade beyond 16 Bit!? 2) Keep in mind, while the opening of phase 2 does bring ~1,500 office workers and ~300 apartments, it also will add a considerable amount of new ground floor commercial space. It's possible that a lot of this space could potentially be filled by a large single user (grocery store rumor), but IMO the more likely scenario will be fairly similar to phase 1. The hotel should really help give a steady stream of business to the restaurants down at the Banks, though. The offices and streetcar should also help. It does seem a little strange, though, that there are so many vacancies in phase 1- including the other stand alone site in front of the Freedom Center. 1- Yeah, Arcade Legacy in Northside 2- Re: vacancies, it makes sense that they're struggling since they're going after these flash-in-the-pan national chain companies like Toby Kieth's, in contrast to 3CDC's method of nurturing homegrown businesses that are now branching out into other cities and neighborhoods beyond OTR. (I kind of wish 3CDC was in charge of leasing out the Banks, but I also wonder if they were, if that would be spreading their "magic" a little too thin, between the Banks and OTR and Fountain Square/84.51 building area downtown. I think 3cdc addressing Ziegler Park next is a smart move because it builds on the strength and momentum they've already created in OTR.)

What's striking to me about the hillsides is in the old photos of them from Cincinnati's 1800s heyday they are totally devoid of trees and vegetation. That contributed to some big time erosion I'm sure.

Fairmount is a community that needs big changes, too bad the will isn't there to do what's necessary re: converting from one way to two way streets. Being conservative isn't a laudable trait when the status quo is broken.

I agree, but would caution against thinking the streetcar will do everything on its own. In Portland the Pearl District was built out on mostly cleared land from my understanding. In Cincinnati we have: -surface parking lots worth piles of cash money to their owners (so much so that NOT ONE has broken ranks and developed their lots so far.) (and the owners of Parking Company of America have made campaign contributions to the mayor) -high cost of renovating large historic buildings (like the building on seventh that was going to be converted to residential but then wasn't, I think after missing a tax credit) So we're going to need to enact policies to solve these issues. I think reducing or eliminating entirely parking requirements for new developments would be a good place to start. Once it's built out, I hope Hamilton County lowers their rates in the "largest in North America" Banks parking garage to $2 a day and people park there and take the streetcar to work to undermine the value of some of these lots so we get new development.

Since the lights in the parking garage portion are more yellowish than the white lights used in the office portion, this building doesn't look as sharp at night as it could if they were all the white office color. Value engineering for the parking garage portion I'm sure, but it looks awful. A far cry from the building renderings: http://cdn.urbancincy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/5thRace1.jpg

This probably comes from the fact that rehabbing a dozen 3-4 story buildings all in a line creates a much nicer neighborhood feel and gives the perception that there are a lot of people and a lot of stuff going on, even if in real terms one 30 story building would be denser and thus have more bodies in a given space. It's ironic that downtown feels liveliest precisely where the buildings are shortest: on Walnut at the Aronoff. This actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. In the CBD the size and shape of buildings are completely random, the way they meet and address the street is inconsistent and may or may not engage pedestrians, and there are surface parking lots scattered throughout including at key street intersections. So it's been a struggle to build up consistent corridors of activity. Serves as an excellent real life case study for the principles Jeff Speck puts forward in the book "Walkable City."

Yes, but it's interesting that when the streetcar was being planned and when Riverfront and OTR development first started, Downtown was the strong point. In a relatively quick period of time, the paradigm has shifted from spreading the energy/activity/stability of the CBD to the potential-filled periphery, to spreading activity to the CBD from nodes to the north and south. Interesting how that has happened. Yeah back in the 00's we would go downtown to the bars along 7th street and that little strip of Walnut. Not much was happening in OTR at the time.

I was just thinking this yesterday. This project has taken SO long, but at least it does appear that work continues to be done, even if it is moving at a glacial pace. Remember the ~5 story addition to the building on Main St. that was announced? Haven't heard a peep about it since, and there's definitely not any sign of activity. This seems to happen for about a third to half of all projects that are announced around here (and probably other places too--don't know, though). That's why I don't really get excited about projects until they're actually under construction these days. I know I might be the only one with this opinion, but I think the CBD has not kept pace with OTR and the riverfront's renaissance. Outside of Fountain Square and about a block radius of the Aronoff, the CBD is pretty sleepy on most nights and weekends. I walked the entire length of 4th st last Friday around 2pm, and I think I maybe saw 10 total people (not counting people in cars). I was also struck by how run down many of the historic buildings on 4th St. are. As nearly every street in OTR is seeing substantial investment and renovation, it seems that the CBD continues to improve at the slow pace it always has. It's disappointing. Off the top of my head, I can think of only 3 current residential projects underway: 580, 7th and Sycamore, and the building next to CVS on 6th. The NW side of downtown is a mess of parking lots and is eerily quiet at night. Court Street is pretty underperforming given its proximity to OTR. I guess I just find the slow pace of downtown development surprising, given the hot OTR market, developing riverfront, and low residential vacancy rate. I've been walking my dog down to Fountain Square each night this week and have been thinking the same things. Vacant storefronts, empty streets, not much activity. Nothing really comes close to Vine St. in OTR in terms of street activity except around the Aronoff and the Square itself just like you said. The renaissance narrative is not really fitting for the CBD itself right now unfortunately.

I really have no idea, but I could see it more in the "wedge" block between Elm and Race next to the football stadium. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a library in the Phase 1 tower when everyone was outside partying before a Reds game.