Matthew67

That's what I've been trying to say! Change validates hotels. We can agree on tourism facts and the fact that Cincinnatians will never decide that they want to hotel. I'm all for new and improved hotels in Cincinnati. What have I written that would suggest otherwise? Cincinnati hasn't gotten those hotels because it's political and civic leaders don't support such an agenda. My point is that Cincinnati got what it wants...little tourism and conventions. No one in Cincinnati can blame other cities, the economics of travel, tourism, and conventions, the nature of the changing economy, Cincinnati's airport, the size and configuration of the current convention center and hotels, or even the ineptitude of those promoting Cincinnati. In the end, Cincinnati has little tourism and convention trade because it's political and civil leaders chose not to pursue it. It didn't just happen. It's on purpose. This was all decided in Cincinnati by Cincinnatians. They put local control and their own interests ahead of Cincinnati's economic growth. What politician or locally-connected business owner wants a hotel built by an out-of-town developer and branded by another out-of town hotel operator, neither of whom is beholden to Cincinnati's elite in any way? How does that help them? Discussing ideas for improving Cincinnati's offerings to visitors is beside the point because Cincinnati's political and civic power brokers oppose such plans because they threaten their power over Cincinnati. You'd have to take take them on if you want to actually change Cincinnati's position in the tourist/convention game.

Oh, this again ::) We all know how you feel. Do you have any basis for these statements? Why do we have a convention and visitors bureau if this is the case? I hesitate even engaging with you, because I know you'll just respond with more drivel about elites and other nonsense, but if you have a link, or really anything beyond your own opinions on this, perhaps you could share them. I totally agree with Matthew on this point. Many long-time Cincinnati residents don't want growth. They don't want tourists. They don't want change. They don't want competition for cheap on-street parking spaces near the Reds stadium. taestell[/member] since you validated Matthew and agree with what he posts, maybe you could clarify. No one here 'validates' anyone else. We are all equal and individually responsible for your own postings. Surely, we can agree on that.

In a way actually, yes it did. Large convention hotels are often publicly owned and financed. That's how both the Cleveland and Columbus Hiltons and many others across the country have been conceived of and built. They exist because governments in those cities made them a priority. The leaders who push for and realize these projects are elected by the people, and (supposedly) represent their interests and/or will If a city government or public body isn't interested, or doesn't find such a project to be among its priorities, it likely won't happen. That's just the reality of this particular type of development in most markets https://hvs.com/article/8126-public-involvement-in-convention-center-hotel-financing Public and quasi-public agencies are key in the development of tourism, conventions, and the services that support them in almost all American cities. Hotel taxes support these efforts, even in Cincinnati. It's an industry in it's own right. https://destinationsinternational.org. We can't have a discussion about these issues without acknowledging the basic facts on the ground.

This Mathew character talks about "change" but he can't. On other websites he spouts this same bizarre belief, like a broken record. He never discusses any other topic. He's all over this comment thread, weaving the same Mobius Strip: http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/05/08/its-not-just-the-weather/ Is "Mathew" a Russian bot? I though we supposed to refrain from personal mockery and insults here. Can you respond to the substance of my arguments? If not, why not?

It's actually in Torrance, CA. Toyota is now in Dallas after moving from near the Cincinnati airport. Nissan's North American headquarters is near Nashville. The car industry is slowly but surely shifting south and west away from Ohio.

The merger was only completed in January so that might explain why it's not included here. It's going to be tough for Mason to hold onto this operation. The appeal of Atlanta or Chicago for a business of this size will be hard to resist, though back office operations could certainly remain in Mason. They had their eyes on Atlanta just a few years ago. http://www.worldpay.com/sites/default/files/Worldpay_to_Relocate_US_Headquarters_FINAL.pdf

I’m just being honest about something Cincinnatians never talk about in my experience. Cincinnati isn't a hobby for me. I actually live in Cincinnati and have skin in the game. Brooklynites sounding off about the great change happening around them is like a rich woman complaining about how difficult it is to find household staff...it's just ‘status anxiety.’ Brooklynites aren't really complaining, they're just drawing attention to the vast array of choices that surround them in the guise of criticism. All the whaling and moaning about Brooklyn, and other expensive and/or rapidly growing places, doesn't stop billions pouring into them providing exciting new economic opportunities to the very same people who 'complain' about it all. Cincinnatians aren't talking about any of this because they don't have to. They've successfully kept out the kinds of people and activities that create the social tensions and complications that are evident in places like Brooklyn. Cincinnatians don't just talk about stopping change, they are actually able to stop it. Cincinnati's small convention and tourist trade is a clear example of this. Cincinnati has advantages with which it could grow that trade if it wanted. It’s all up to Cincinnatians.

^^^ Unsupported misconception. I'm curious....how do people respond to you when you share such views with them? Most people I know would just ignore your chlidish shibboleths and smirk. I give you the courtesy of honesty. People do fine without growth or change. So do cities. I learned this driving through downtown Covington KY every evening for four years. A little enclave of German speaking folks waved and said hello to me now and then and I got to learn from them that sweeping their little sidewalks, letting Snarfy get the paper, and watching the evening traffic under I75 gave them happiness and contentment. Something you do not have nor ever will have at the rate you are going. Seek help. Given your comments, you might find this interesting. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish-community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful. There are people in Cincinnati even more opposed to change than even the Amish. This is all fascinating.....Of course, being opposed to change and successfully preventing change are two very different things.

^^^ Unsupported misconception. I'm curious....how do people respond to you when you share such views with them?

This is the whole problem with convention centers. They are paradoxically giant dead spots. They kill traditional street life around them. So a huge sacrifice of historic buildings and traditional urban structure must be made to position them anywhere close to a city center. This is what Cincinnati lost to build our current convention center: I very much doubt that building would be there if Cincinnati hadn't built a convention center there. Economic growth doesn't come without a price. You should see the buildings that were demolished in NYC to make way for skyscrapers! Cities are like people, institutions, and ideologies...they either change and grow or they die.

We can't use the airport excuse anymore. http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2018/04/23/cvg-airport-shows-passenger-growth-lower-fares-first-quarter. So perceptions of Cincinnati as racist and anti-gay, unfair in your view, hurt Cincinnati's tourism and convention business. If Cincinnati isn't really like that, it will be easy to fix this since we don't have to overcome real racism and homophobia but just the unfortunate and mistaken impression of racism and homophobia, that have for some strange reason become associated with Cincinnati. How could we improve that image for visitors of various kinds? Some here have said that we should give up on attracting visitors to Cincinnati..that it's a fools game.... How do others see this issue of Cincinnati's image as a tourist/convention destination?

Here's Columbus' convention center schedule https://columbusconventions.com/calendar/. There are some Columbus and Ohio specific events there to be sure but some national ones also. For comparison here's Cincinnati's. http://www.duke-energycenter.com/events/month/May/2018. Cincinnati was a "central hub for the region" long before Columbus. How did that change? Is it just the 'capital city' effect? Maybe so, but I don't think that is just a functional issue. Columbus is a planned city in a sense and that makes it a more 'neutral ground' in which a wider variety of people can feel comfortable socially as well as geographically. That's why, for example, it's become the center of GLBT life in this region. This isn't just a financial or infrastructure issue. It's a social/cultural one, too. If Cincinnatians could accept that, they could open the door to a lot of new possibilities for their city, including a larger and revitalizing tourist and convention trade.

Columbus is a mid-sized city with other mid-sized cities within a two hour drive. That doesn't prevent IT from attracting conventions and concerts.

I didn't say no value, just less value than people want to think. People think that if people see Cincinnati one time that they're going to fall in love. I drove for Uber right when it started in Cincinnati in 2014 and drove a lot of tourists around. Some remarked that it seemed like a nice place. Most just asked me where something was. I never drove around telling people that this is so great and this is so great and this is so great. Nobody really wants to hear that. People don't have to have any feelings about Cincinnati at all to find it a useful place to be for various reasons. Millions go to various cities to conduct business or find entertainment without having giving a thought to the city itself. Cities that have cultivated much larger conference trades like Columbus or Nashville are not 'suckers' who are tricked into footing the bill for out of towners to have have a good time. They are promoting their cities and fostering economically valuable relationships. Emotion has nothing to do with it. The issue here is Cincinnatians resenting the presence of people who don't share their identification with Cincinnati as a place. On every visit I have ever made to Chicago, someone has offered to give me directions, recommended things I should visit, and asked about the reason for my visit. These were complete strangers sharing their enthusiasm for Chicago with me. Cincinnnatians' indifference, and sometime hostility, to non-locals is the real reason Cincinnati hasn't cultivated a tourist/conference trade.

I implied that a huge outlay of public funds for a convention center expansion isn't a sound use of public funds. I said that tourism and convention business, even if it doubled, would continue to be an irrelevant fraction of the region's economy. Exactly. Your view that outsiders have no value to Cincinnati, even if they're just coming for the weekend or a conference, is widespread among Cincinnatians. Those attitudes are why Cincinnati has little tourism and convention trade. Cincinnati doesn't have a good convention hotel because Cincinnatians don't want one. They ask, 'why would I care? I live in Cincinnati, I don't care about a hotel I'll never stay in." They put pressure on government and local developers to create what they want...yet ANOTHER SPORTS STADIUM!, parking, and 'green space' that prevents anyone from developing parts of town they don't want developed. You're being honest and expressing views that are widespread in Cincinnati. Those views are the issue, not financial or infrastructure issues. There's no mystery here. Cincinnati is the way it is because a large block of Cincinnatians want it that way.

Jake strongly implied that he doesn't want tourists on this very thread..... and he actually lives in Cincinnati. When have you heard that Cincinnati does want tourists? Maybe it's just hard to hear from 2,000 miles away. Cincinnati has few tourists and most in Cincinnati are glad about that. If Cincinnatians ever change their minds, they can get tourists and conventioners to come. They aren't in Cincinnati because Cincinnatians don't want them. This is all up to Cincinnatians. The opportunities are there. If Cincinnatians don't get them, it's because they didn't try, not because the rest of the world was against Cincinnati, as some have suggested here.

Oh, this again ::) We all know how you feel. Do you have any basis for these statements? Why do we have a convention and visitors bureau if this is the case? I hesitate even engaging with you, because I know you'll just respond with more drivel about elites and other nonsense, but if you have a link, or really anything beyond your own opinions on this, perhaps you could share them. This forum is filled with opinions of all kinds. Why target mine? Do you have any opinions of your own on Cincinnati's lack of convention trade?

The average person just sees what they want to see when they go places for work or pleasure, unfortunately. There are heroin needles and piles of garbage all over San Francisco, but it hasn't put a huge dent in tourism there. But if someone bumped into an aggressive panhandler in Cleveland, it would probably confirm their bias about Cleveland being a terrible place. I'd agree that things could eventually change in the long, long term, but I don't know if playing that long of a game is the most effective use of public funds. How else do you suggest getting people to these cities? Most people won't be going to Cleveland or Cincinnati for vacation. Maybe some people would come for sports or concerts, but those are mostly local or regional draws. Conventions offer a chance to bring people to these cities that they would otherwise have to reason or inclination to visit. If the concern is that people will have a bad experience here, the solution should not be to simply keep visitors away, it's to make the city better. I think more people are likely to have the reverse experience of the one you cited. The average person in the country seemingly has no perception or knowledge of Cincinnati. People I talk to in California generally know that it exists, and maybe that we have a couple pro sports teams, but that's about it. Bring that person to Cincinnati and let them dine at a nice restaurant, and take in the architecture and picturesque streets of OTR, and I think most people would leave pleasantly surprised. When I show coworkers (planners, who theoretically should not be clueless about urban stuff) pictures of OTR, most are blown away and say they had no clue something like that exists off the East Coast. That surprise would almost certainly weigh more heavily in the mind of a visitor than an encounter with a homeless person, unless the visitor is from a small town, and has no exposure to the homeless. Many in Cincinnati don't want people visiting Cincinnati. They justify their views in a variety of ways. They cause traffic...they'll take my parking place!....they cost us more than they bring in...it brings in 'undesirable' people...they create garbage....if they don't know about Cincinnati, it's their loss..... but it all serves the same purpose. This isn't a failure in Cincinnati's efforts to promote itself, it's the intention of powerful politicians and local businesses owners who don't want Cincinnati to promote itself. In their view, Cincinnati is for 'them' and not anyone else. They feel that they can do whatever they want with Cincinnati because it is 'theirs.' It's not some cultural conspiracy against Cincinnati, it's Cincinnati itself doing this.

I'm not sure who "us" is. I think many resent Columbus rather than hating it.

Wouldn't it be great if the "Infrastructure President" came up with something like this? Americans are never going to give up "sprawl" on a large scale basis. You might be able to come up with a politically palatable way to quit subsidizing it and that might reduce the scale. Especially as the population ages. You guys should probably focus on that. But it's compatable with our national character to a degree that any attempt to "reverse" it on a significant scale would result in a massive political backlash. Especially with a President who is a follower not a leader. They will if they can't afford it. The lower the density, the higher the per unit cost of public services and transportation.

I cherry picked the stats for each of these cities (minus Raleigh-Durham) this morning. I took the recession lows, and the post-recession highs. The only thing that happens is Cleveland passes Pittsburgh and Charlotte is on the fence if not over into the "explosive" group. City: Low Date - High Date: Jobs Added (%) Pittsburgh: February 2010 - November 2017: 108,200 (9.9%) Cleveland: January 2010 - June 2017: 103,200 (10.6%) Cincinnati: January 2010 - June 2017: 144,700 (15.1%) Kansas City: January 2010 - December 2017: 158,500 (16.8%) Indianapolis: January 2010 - November 2017: 187,300 (21.1%) Columbus: January 2010 - December 2017: 196,900 (21.9%) Charlotte: July 2009 - December 2017: 270,300 (29.0%) Nashville: July 2009 - November 2017: 258,100 (34.8%) Austin: July 2009 - March 2018: 296,800 (38.9%) What is the percentage? Is it the percentage increase in the total number of jobs in the metro? Do you mean to say that Cleveland had 10.6% more total jobs in June 2017 than in February 2010?

There are only a few economically functional urban enclaves in Cincinnati that have streetlife. Much of Cincy's public life is 'non-legitimate' to put it delicately. The city was built for a far larger population than it has today. It's genteel decay is very photogenic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-by-metro-area-ranked-san-francisco-seattle-austin-2018-4#32-philadelphia-camden-wilmington-pa-nj-de-md-9 Yes. Any article with a gaffe this big loses all credibility: "Cincinnati had the fourth-lowest rate of job growth among the 40 largest metro areas, with non-farm payroll employment increasing just 0.5% between September 2017 and September 2018." See for yourself at www.bls.gov/eag. It has all metro job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is all widely available to investors and businesses. It's no secret that Cincinnati simply isn't creating jobs like it's peer metros.

4th and Race was Cranleyfied. More proof that this town is hostile to outsiders. You've got to be one of the good old boys to get anything done in this city. It shuts out so much talent. This is THE issue for Cincinnati. The way that natives circle the wagons against outsiders is still shocking to me after 6 years here. It crosses all social divisions, liberal to conservative, rich to poor, and all racial and ethnic identities. All are unified by a loyalty to Cincinnati that trumps competence, experience, effort...and often even financial interests.

"Cincinnati had the fourth-lowest rate of job growth among the 40 largest metro areas, with non-farm payroll employment increasing just 0.5% between September 2017 and September 2018." http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-by-metro-area-ranked-san-francisco-seattle-austin-2018-4#32-philadelphia-camden-wilmington-pa-nj-de-md-9 THIS is why property values aren't rising in Cincinnati, not because too many houses were built on purpose.