DEPACincy

Well, he's always been against trade agreements and even wrote a book decrying them, so actually I'd say it's the other way around.

You don't even have to look to Europe for solutions. Philadelphia is a living/working downtown and is extremely bike friendly. Not every street has bike facilities but a few key routes both north/south and east/west have been turned into bike routes and it has been a resounding success. Example of removing a car lane:

Yep, I try to stick to the no sidewalk policy as much as possible. When I lived in a more bike-friendly city I never biked on the sidewalk. But here I sometimes make exceptions because I'd rather not end up in the hospital or dead.

Tell people paying $3,000 per month for an apartment near Providence Park in Portland or people paying $5,000 (!) per month for rent near Camden Yards that stadiums are bad neighbors.

Redesign the streets to make people feel safer. You have to make it obvious to people that bikes belong in the street, and that includes motorists.

I'd be happy to read it because I think it's bullcrap. I'm sure there are some shut ins in cities, there are shut ins everywhere. But that's very different than what you're saying. I've lived in high rises my entire adult life and this is foreign to me. Go to any park in any urban neighborhood any day and you'll see tons of people out and about. I don't even know what to say to this, it's so silly.

What? Entire buildings where nobody leaves because of screens? You're describing a dystopian fantasy, not real life. I've lived in multiple large cities and I can assure you this is not reality. In my experience, suburbs and rural areas--both places I have also lived--are much more isolating than cities. Living in a big city forces you to get out and explore the world, rather than stay in your house and personal car. But when I've lived in very large cities I usually do multiple small grocery trips per week because it's difficult to carry lots of stuff. A delivery service solves that problem. That's why it's popular in big cities, not because people don't leave their buildings.

In a smart city, the public radio station might choose to anchor an up-and-coming neighborhood like Walnut Hills or Evanston. Surely those communities would benefit from their presence more than downtown, and they'd be closer to I-71 and have the ample parking they seem to be so concerned with.

It's mind-blowing, then, that other cities are able to house their public radio stations in mixed-use buildings. Also, what apartment building at 12th and Central Parkway? I'm pretty sure the building they are referring to was renovated for office use. And what does it's vacancy rate have to do with anything? It was, by their own account, just finished. Of course it hasn't been filled yet. I love NPR and I'm a huge supporter, but this is really disingenuous, crappy response.

I know CMC Properties has been working on renovating it for awhile and now it looks like the new tenant will be putting an additional $30,000 to $50,000 into it as well.

So demolish an historic school and replace it with a generic new apartment building called "The Academy"? We really are bring the suburban mindset to the urban core, aren't we? Eh, the old school was really ugly and not very urban. The orientation and density of this building will be a much better fit for the location.

Well there are actually three Skylines downtown but the hours suck on all of them. And places like Sports Page and The Squirrel serve Cincinnati chili too, but also have horrible hours.

And that's only if operators of parking lots pass on the entire tax, which literally never happens. The laws of supply and demand dictate the price and parking has very high margins so they usually just eat it.

Here's the thing. It's not some idealistic notion. There's lots of research that shows this policy works. And every time parking taxes are proposed people say the same thing you're saying and they are always proven wrong. Parking, especially surface parking, has extremely high margins. They instituted a 22% parking tax in Philly and people were all saying it would be the end of the world. Literally they said "we're not NYC or DC, this'll never work here!" Guess what? It spurred even more development downtown and parking rates were unchanged. At 22% the parking operators simply absorbed the tax or redeveloped their property! And even though there are less surface lots and garages in Philly now than there were before the tax went into effect, parking vacancies actually increased (again, with no change in average price). Many people simply switched modes because they could now live closer to work and amenities. They walked more. They biked more. They took Ubers and Lyfts. And the naysayers all said it would never happen. Now no one in Philly will admit to ever being against the idea.

You can thank Republicans in Columbus. They eliminated funding to municipalities to give their rich friends a tax break. Now those of us that work and make a middle class wage will pay for it.

No, no, no. You're so wrong on this. Subsidizing parking will never let us create a critical mass of residents downtown. It's bad for urban form, bad for the environment, bad for neighborhoods, and will only slow the progress we've been making downtown. Creating a parking tax is not adding a cost to development, it's leveling the playing field. Parking has tons of negative externalities that we all absorb. This is an extremely good policy from Seelbach. He obviously sees the big picture here.

Yessssss. I'm ecstatic about this. I just wish it was larger. Other cities do this and it has been a very effective tool to get parking lot operators to reevaluate the use of their property. There should be zero surface lots downtown.

There's no reason that advertising can't say come for a Reds game but take the streetcar to Findlay Market. It's not about the streetcar specifically as much as it is about visiting downtown Cincinnati. And luckily there's a streetcar to get around!

Yes, I find it very weird that there is virtually no local advertising for downtown attractions. Our tourism organization should be lining 75, 71, 74, and 32 with these.

Doesn't who "counts" entirely depend on what you're trying to measure? If you're trying to measure where Millennials are moving, you don't count those who are staying in place. They don't actually say how they got those numbers other than saying from the Census and using 1-year ACS estimates, but not specifically which ones. They don't answer if this only included domestic movers rather than also international, for example. Also, even using ACS 1-year data, it only includes previous residences of those who moved TO a particular city, not those moving away, so it doesn't explain where they got those net numbers. There is no acknowledgement that the 20-34 population may not actually represent the Millennial population. The start and end year for that generation is not agreed upon, and some of the older fringe has already aged out of that range but would still otherwise be Millennials. So all they're really doing is showing the growth of that specific age group presumably only for domestic migration. It's not really a Millennial comparison. It's net migration, so it includes both domestic and international. I'm not sure I understand your comment about destination-location? All you need is migration, who is leaving and who is staying, to compile this list. It doesn't matter if the people leaving Cincy are moving to LA or San Fran or Houston. They're still migrating away. 1980 to 1996 are the birth years most commonly used for millenials, so that would put them at 22 to 38 years old right now, give or take. 20 to 34 is the age bracket reported by the Census Bureau so it's the closest approximation available for the data.

I'm not a big fan of their methodology. People in that age bracket don't just move to a place, they also grow up there naturally, and that population counts the same, IMO. There isn't some reason to think that Millennials that are from a specific city are wholly different than those that move there, so it makes more sense to me to show the overall change in population of that age group. It's millenniasl moving there minus the millennials leaving so it captures people who grow up somewhere and stay there.

Cincinnati and Columbus both rank in top 25 for net millennial gain. https://smartasset.com/mortgage/where-are-millennials-moving-2018-edition

I really wish this was going to be more residential instead of a parking garage. We need more people downtown, not more places to store cars.

If it doesn't matter who programs the venue, then what exactly is PromoWest's advantage? Seems to be the property taxes PromoWest would pay that CSO would not, though CSO has offered to pay the ticket taxes. The tradeoff, then, is [x amount in property taxes] versus [CSO's reinvestment of revenues in cultural events benefiting the city] plus [guaranteed use and fair compensation of union workers] plus [the reclaimed opportunity cost of real estate at The Banks Promowest would have used] plus [the possibility of incorporating the CSO venue into an astounding weekend-long concert festival on the banks of the river that would be an incomparable showcase for the city, many times moreso than Bunbury]. There seems to be zero indication that this would happen. What precedent is there that CSO would run a festival bigger and better than Bunbury? Promowest has actually proven they are capable of organizing and running a successful festival.

That's not what's being proposed though. They're proposing Northern California centered around the Bay Area, California centered around LA, and Southern California centered around San Diego.