Haynesm007

^In regards to your question grasscat, I could be wrong. It's been known to happen before.

^ The Secretary of State's webpage has the 835 Main company listed as "DTK Ninth & Main, LLC" but the articles of incorporation do not state a purpose. I wonder what "DTK" stands for.

I love Mallory's response,"It almost makes me wish I hadn't gotten the money."

^What exactly is happening on that NE corner of Main and Liberty? If it's gonna be condos that a huge piece of the puzzle for that area. Replace that Quick Mart at Liberty and Sycamore and the unsightly building behind with housing and you'll have one big fluid neighborhood.

I'm holding out that when the letters are put up it will look much better.

Sounds like they've downsized their plans a bit for Phase II, only 35 stories. But, I'll happy with the first floor retail they're adding.

It's underhanded for a reason. Council would bitch, moan, and have "concerns" about any plan you put before them. At least this way they've already put developers in place before Council could scare them off. Does anyone really believe that Council represents them and their interests? (not that the county does either) I'm not that naive. Most of Council are out for themselves. Involving them would just provide another opportunity for grandstanding, which holds up development at everyone else's expense. I mean really. I want someone to give me an example where Council delayed or killed an important development thereby increasing everyone's quality of life and making our city a better place. Instead of being on the immediate defensive, how about trying to see if something can be worked out? We might save alot of unneccessary complaining. (BTW that's not directed at you SSSCincy, this whole bitch-fest over the Banks and Fountain Square has just really got me pissed.)

Thanks for the post. I had a friend interested in seeing it.

Anyone still have the picture of the 80+ ft. tower/sculpture they're putting in the park?

I agree that losing the college experience is bad for a school, but since when has a UC student had the experience? The college experience is cool bars, bands, and restaurant/hangout spots, at least in my opinion. Not saying a $500,000 condo puts us on the path to that, but tearing down Taco Bell doesn't exactly ruin it either. At the very least, making the area a hot spot will help reduce serious crime.

I don't think it's a lack of focus on the Banks that's holding back its development. It's the insane legal hurdles and immense cost 3CDC must put up with in order to develop it. Secondly, private dollars will not come until garages are in place. Fountain square, on the other hand, presents very few legal hurdles. It already has an established infrastructure, only requires a small request from the public coffers, and will take less time to finish. Personally, I think it's smart of 3CDC to tackle a project they know they can quickly turnover. It will build the goodwill necessary to get the public, developers, and banks to trust them in the future.

I only have one major issue with the design. I like the trees but I think too many might obscure retail fronts, one of the major points of emphasis for the new square. I hope whatever they do they make the retail visible and readily accessible.

Totally a guess, but maybe because businesses would rather deal with 3CDC than City Council. It presents less red tape.

Why don't these concepts ever include the Westin Atrium? Isn't it part of Fountain Square and a public space as well? It's just sitting there. Also, I love how the concept art depicts the 5/3 tower as off-white. A true depiction would change how all the colors interact.

^Yeah, the buffoonery on council tends to be interchangable and I had pegged the wrong guy.

^To be fair, Sam Malone was the moron who brought up the Honduran gang threat.

The fact that 3CDC's moving so quickly on this leads me to one of two conclusions: (1) They have all the details worked out and tenants ready to move in, as opposed to the normal wishful thinking; or (2) They need this thing done so they can reel in any potential tenants before they realize how long it takes us to get things done around here(or in the alternative, before any potential tenants realize what a bunch of fine, upstanding and competant individuals we have running our city government). Either way, I'm exciting because it really looks like this is going to happen. Of course I should probably reserve further comment until Knockout Reece and Slitherman get a chance to berate 3CDC for failing to compensate for the Honduran Gang threat or some other nutty, off-the-wall assertion.

^Oh, I left out that the punks sell drugs and prostitutes. Let me know if I forgot anything else.

^It's not loitering alone that is the problem. It's what these punks are doing while they loiter. They purposefully intimidate, utter racist insults, block public right of way without regret, deface property, and litter. You can loiter all the live long day, just don't make a nuisance of yourself. And, school or no school, parents or no parents, you know when you're being a nuisance. I agree that there are larger, underlying problems but that does not provide justification for them to behave like idiots. Also, I don't contradict that anyone has a right to loiter on a sidewalk but the state has a right to regulate those areas to make sure they're being used, first and foremost, for their primary purpose, namely clean, safe and efficient foot traffic.

^Eventually yes, but not for those two years when they're being built.

Cramer is right about the woman at the meeting. She claimed that 10 acres of riverfront land was not enough greenspace because she works in Chris Monzel's office and she had lived on 20 acres as a child. I don't know how those factors are all related but they formed the crux of her argument. But don't worry, I got the impression that she definitely was in the minority when it came to dismissing the plan. Here's a few things I took away from the meeting: 1) I'm glad they're not trying to erect any central signature piece that would take away from the Roebling. Instead, I think the current waterfall idea will nicely complement the approach into Cincinnati. 2) I found it a bit disappointing that the fountain to the east did not appear to evidence out-of-the-box thinking. At least from the renderings, it looked like your average square, ground-level fountain that shoots water. I would like to see something original, something people want to come down to just so they can take their picture in front of it. 3) The two northern sections which the Banks project proposes to consume reminded me of an idea thrown out earlier by Banks officials. They wanted to do something like Tavern on the Green where it's more of a park bistro. That would be a great draw and, in my opinion, a better use of the land than simply an extra acre of grass. Also, it would allow the area to retain its park-like qualities. 4) I spoke with one of the transportation officials working in conjunction with the parks department. He confirmed the project would most likely be done in phases to complement the Banks' development rather than in one fell swoop. So, the park would develop from east to west. The east sections will probably get done but the timeline for the western sections will be less certain for two major reasons. First, the Bengals contract with the County requires that they have 5,000 gameday parking spaces within a given radius and, for some reason, parking spaces east of the Freedom Center do not count towards that total. Thus, aside from the obvious funding issue, this is a major bone of contention. Developing the western section of both the Banks and riverfront park will immediately take a majority of the required spots offline for at least a couple years. Second, a concrete company sits on the western tip of the proposed park and, although they have agreed to eventually sell, they aren't going anywhere as long as there's the Banks to be built. The two issues have to be solved before this thing will ever be completed. 5) Finally, the presentation really glossed over the whole funding issue, although I got there a bit late and could have missed it. The presenters seemed to be operating on the assumption that Congress will vote for the funding, even though one of the presenters admitted Congress hasn't doled out that kind of money since 9-11. But, the presenters were optimistic about the funding, so I'm going to be optimistic about the funding.

I didn't know Tarbell was cabable of growing hair. I question the integrity of this book about OTR.

I didn't know creationists believe in dinosaurs but apparently this museum is gonna have some: http://www.answersingenesis.org/buddydavis/sculpture.aspx

To clarify on the vacant land issue, it seems like developing vacant land in lieu of a developed area is a better idea than taking through eminent domain, but consider these issues: 1) Vacant land is not free. You still have to pay for it. Normally, someone who has amassed such a great chunk of land in the middle of a large city is going to hold you hostage over the price. Thus, either you're paying an outrageous price or you still have to use eminent domain. 2) Vacant land, if not vacant because of a shrewd landlord's high asking price, is probably vacant for a reason. Some have suggested using vacant brownfields. Well, they call them brownfields for a reason. They're normally contaminated or have some other defect that makes them unattractive for development. Further, it's going to cost a pretty penny to clean up whatever defect is there. Probably more expense is involved with this than with acquiring the land. 3) Vacant land does not always have the infrastructure necessary and in place to support a large development. You have to have a way for large amounts of people to ingress and egress, provide sewer and water, electricity, and other necessities. These all cost money. 4) Developers are not idiots (most of the time) at least not if they're successful. They take into account many properties, areas, costs, and opportunity costs. They also do not go looking for bad PR. I suggest they probably looked into local vacant properties and found them not to be a viable option. So, while using vacant land seems the simple solution, I have my doubts.

^I have to back up jhansbau on this one. Although I agree that it stinks when the government forcefully takes possession of perfectly good homes, these so-called "crusaders" for the cause are often just trying to milk it for all it's worth. That doesn't make the situation right, but to make martyrs out of these people is a bit off as well. In my experience, people in those situations are all too happy to make mountains out of molehills. That's not to say that there are some out there who fight the good fight, but I'm a cynic when these people try to take the higher ground.