jdm00

I just don't get this. Unless the person actually does some interaction, how can they be expected to get "swept up" in a scene? If you are sitting at home, yep, you're not going to be included. This board is a good example. I have met multiple people from this board offline. If someone is not going to, say, go to the Urban Cincy meet-ups at the Lager House, or even post here, how is that the city not being "inclusive" that prevents them from getting involved in the "urbanite" scene as it exists in Cincy? I guess what I'm saying is that a person can't get "swept up" without making some modicum of effort on their part to get into the scene they want to be swept up in, and I don't know of anyone (in-town or out-of-towner) that's been denied some sort of "access" when they make that effort.

I'm not from Cincy but have been here since coming for college. I'd say my friends are about a 50-50 mix of locals and out-of-towners. I've never felt "unwelcome," and I honestly think that the whole "Cincinnati is insular and it is all about where you went to high school" is overblown. My experience is limited to living in the central and east sides of town, so it may be different on the west side. Just as a general matter, I hate stories like this because so much depends on the person that they talk to. If there's a real introvert who's expecting some kind of party to show them that they are welcome but doesn't want to do anything to get involved, I don't care what city you are talking about, you won't feel "welcome."

No, because transit isn't the number 1 issue for the majority of voters. He could get elected for any number of reasons. A vote for a candidate isn't an endorsement for 100% of their opinions/platform. Again, just to play Devil's Advocate: To John and Jane Q. Public, aren't the only real two issues in the race the streetcar and the parking plan? If so, it would seem difficult to argue a Cranley win isn't a rejection of the streetcar. If Cranley is elected and the pro-streetcar members of council are not, then you could probably say this. But just on the mayor's race? I don't see how you can say that at all.

This is dead on. The Pirates are +39 in run differential, and the Reds are +103. Based on those run differentials, the Pirates have an expected win-loss record of 76-66; in reality they are 81-61. The Reds have an expected win-loss of 85-59; in reality they are 82-62. So the Pirates have outperformed by 5 games and the Reds have underperformed by 3 games. The Pirates luck this year has been great. Glad to see the Reds finally winning a string of one-run games.

You can get residential monthly passes at the WP and Mercer garages, I believe.

I agree that there are "real utility issues." But that doesn't mean people haven't overhyped those issues into more than they are.

I laughed.

I think Mariemont is really a neat (and in many ways unexpected) place. I am much more familiar with the east-side neighborhoods, which all have some nice walkable neighborhood business districts (Hyde Park, Oakley, Mount Lookout, Pleasant Ridge). You really need a car (or the bus) to get to any of these places; not sure what your transportation situation will be like. I'd also second the big old houses in Kentucky, particularly Millionaires' Row in Covington and the historic parts of Newport.

I drove by tonight and it looks like the Booksellers that is going in where Brooks Brothers was has signage up.

And there are plenty of closer garages and lots to Fifth Street. I'm sure the 4th street Pogue's garage is a popular one, and I think I've parked in the Federated/Macy's garage (7th and Vine) for Oktoberfest before.

Depends on how much you are willing to pay, but you should have options within 3 blocks of Fifth Street. One obvious option is parking at the Banks. I don't know if the Reds/Bengals are in town that weekend, but you could certainly park there. Another option would be some of the surface lots up on the east side of downtown around 7th/8th/9th and Sycamore. There are some big lots up there. On a weekend day I think you'll see some availability there. Of course, if you go a couple blocks further there are even more options (the parking garages in OTR (Gateway, Washington Park, Mercer) or even the casino).

The only modern attempt at recreating small town USA that I enjoy is Main Street USA at Disney World.

Looks like we're going to be facing more local tax burden to pay for services as a result of the changes at the state level. I'd really be interested to see if there is a net lessening of the "tax burden," or if we are really just shifting who the taxes are going to.

I was there too. I was beside myself that they didn't double-switch, though I heard later you can't double-switch when replacing a pitcher due to injury, like they were doing. Serious lack of depth in the 'pen right now.

Being an Urban Ohio member means never having to wait until a project is done to register an opinion. :)

Yes, we have many fewer rooms that comparable sized metros. (I ran the numbers somewhere but it was lost in the great UO crash.)

I said it's in a good way! :)

Seems pretty close. I had to go straight instead of left to get on 71S when I left the Center of Cincinnati this weekend.

I think Wyoming's overall earnings tax is higher, because they have a separate income tax specifically earmarked for the schools.

The "inside" is a pretty significant part of what makes a building what it is. Perhaps so, but that's where practicality really needs to enter into the equation. In a historic district, the goal really is to preserve the outward character of the buildings. That in and of itself can be a fairly onerous requirement, so to apply that same rigor to the interior would doom many buildings to rot away unused. After all, maintaining the exterior envelope already restricts what can be done inside due to window placement and such anyway. Sure it would be nice to keep and restore historic fabric on the interior, and if something is going for a National Register listing then that's definitely part of the requirements. Union Terminal or Aglamesis' ice cream parlor would lose a lot if their interiors were updated and "modernized" over time, but in many buildings that damage has already been done, or worse. Besides, I think it's a good tradeoff to say that if a building owner is required to restore and maintain a historic exterior, they have the freedom to do what they want inside. It's not about freezing everything in amber, that's just counterproductive. Well it seems to me that you're more easily satisfied with generic sh!t than I am. That mindset is why some buildings may indeed remain unused, however I feel that it won't be the case. I think I'm not the only one who is opposed to mediocrity, and I'm willing to fight a corporatized watering down of the historic fabric of my city, and so are others. Sorry, but Subway just isn't good enough for me, now or in the future, regardless of it's short term economic benefits. I think you've been jaded by the development of the past half century. I'm sorry, this post just made me laugh. If there's one poster on here who I would say complains (in a good way) the most about settling for mediocre (or worse) architecture and buildings in Cincinnati, it's jjakucyk.

We actually have some Torrens-system properties in Hamilton County (we usually colloquially refer to them as Registered Land properties). It makes for some interesting times.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/08/12/new-owner-of-former-terrace-plaza.html?ana=e_cinci_bn&u=mdqxSjVwpbwLHTa+xb7xwQ0dc4b18a&t=1376329345 Looks like they are planning to make it a hotel again.

Okay you got me on that one, I missed the City Hall tab. My original point is that I am confused by the Charter Committee and its relationship with Qualls. In the article you posted, it mentions that she has concerns about who they are endorsing for council. Yet she is not a board member and "is running as a Democrat." As I have stated before, there is no doubt that Qualls is a true Democrat. I just find the Charter thing odd and have yet to hear a real explanation. I think when Qualls came back to politics, she was first endorsed by the Charterites. (I could be wrong on this.) I think the main thing is that once Tarbell and Bortz exited the stage, there haven't been any true Charter candidates with a chance of winning--so the party started "cross-endorsing" candidates from the Democrats (Simpson and Qualls). If I was a Charterite, I'd be concerned with the latest endorsement of numerous Dems and Repubs--at some point it would seem less like a third party and more like an interest group just endorsing candidates from the two main parties.

I don't see how any one person can cancel the streetcar--it would take a council vote doing so, I feel.

If Charter continues to allow Qualls to use their office for her campaign or if the campaign mentions the Charter office in some invitations, great. On the Qualls campaign website, it doesn't mention anything about Charter. On Charter's website, it doesn't mention anything about Qualls. This makes no sense. If Greg Hartmann was running for Mayor, do you think that the Republican Party wouldn't endorse him because there isn't another Republican running? The Charter Committee doesn't have to do anything. I was just pointing out that since they haven't endorsed anyone for Mayor so far, it stands to reason they won't be endorsing anyone at all. Just because a candidate has been endorsed by a party or group in the past, doesn't mean they automatically will get that endorsement in the future. Maybe Qualls asked not to be endorsed. I have no idea. The Charter committee's website has a biography of Qualls, and Yvette Simpson, under the "City Hall" webpage. Not sure where you are getting that it "doesn't mention Qualls." Based on this (very recent) news article, it doesn't sound like they will necessarily be endorsing anyone in the mayoral campaign--or that Qualls has sought for the endorsement (notice it mentions she is running as a Democrat): http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Charter-Committee-delays-endorsement-vote-for-Cincinnati-City-Council