Mr Sparkle

I went there for a friend's wedding...they had the rehearsal dinner on a boat on the M'wkee river. I was pleasantly suprised with the scene. They also had the post wedding photos in a park overlooking the lake (Port Washington area?)...Had a small city feel. I think its midwestern humility that keeps Milwaukee a secret

I heard from a fly on the wall that a Target is proposed on the South side of Cross County/Ronnie Regan highway at Plainfield road, near where the Hartzell Church is (Interesting that there is a large parcel owned by the county back there - probably landlocked residue from the construction of cross county Parcel 612-0080-0643-00). Anybody know anything about this...wishful thinking from the Target fans? Found nada on the Blue Ash website

I agree with your points, and add that 2) is, IMHO by far the most common reason for the existance of vacant parcels in urban areas, but the three most important things in development are location, location, location. That assemblage of parcels for Rookwood is important for one reason, proximity to money (and the interstate), typically brownfields are in old rusty parts of the cities. The developer is in a race to get the bricks and mortar down to "beat" other high profile re developments in the area. I still stand by my opinion, if the developer can;t assemble all the parcels they need, tough shit

Your opinion. It was a rather nice residential area, given the location. Some well kept houses back there. There are plenty of underutilized areas (brownfields etc) that can be developed. Look at Cinti Mills and the Old Ford Plant in Fairfax. Yes Rookwood Exchange is a nice project, but its up to the developer to assemble the property, and when they can't scale back the development to fir the property they have in hand. I think its very shortsighted by the City to place such emphasis on "revenue" to be gained from a commercial development. I think the forecasts are overestimated and the City will be back in the same finacial boat a few years from now. Norwood should continue the good work they are doing getting jobs back into the city (Convergys), there is a VAST vacant parcel just to the north of Norwood Lateral by Montgomery Road...no ED required. Now, what if White Castle wanted to locate a store on a corner and needs two houses, one won't sell, would it be fair to use ED to obtain that house? What if it where a small office building to be developed? Does the sheer size of Rookwood mean its OK to use ED? Since when does a commercial development fit under "common good"?

your opinion was not uneducated. it was Eminent Domain abuse pure and simple Little know fact, ED was used to obtain property for the Rookwood Commons Development, just on the south side of Edmondson, about where J Alexander's and the Tower is right now (FKA as Altantic Ave)

Folks have a right to own land as long as they want. Property rights are one of the foundations of our Country. I have the right to own my house until I die. The need for this project had been demonstrated, it was time for the residents of this neighborhood to move on. There are people who sacrifice their lives at war for the good of their community. This principle is related, with a much less severe impact on the individual. Probably can demonstrate the need for any project, if you find the right consultants to perform the study. Does that mean in someone's opinion that a project is needed, your house is at risk? ED is for and only for public good, not for taking property by government from one individual to another private individual, even if

For the City http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/transeng/pages/-6807-/ maps n stuff

I think there was one homeowner in that group, IIRC. However, we don't know how many homeowners didn't really want to sell at all...but didn't want to fight. Where is the blame for the developer holding the homewoners hostage by only wanting to sign purchase agreements contingent on buying all the individual properties. (which it was their fault to go out and purchase another house when the deal wasn't sealed on the old house). Why didn't the developer offer the holdouts enough money, or <gasp> incorporate them into the developement? Why can the developer cry to the city to use eminent domain when some owners wanted more? The area was not unfrienndly to homes, merely a little noisy from I-71...in fact it was one of the nicest neighborhoods in Norwood.

Since the demo is well underway, looks like the fight will probably be over for good Its a sad day in America when private property is taken from citizens and given to private entities for their profit.

I believe, as one of my professors, stated, ODOT, as well as most Ohio organizations, is on a four year schedule. Once the four years is up, it is some other administration's problem. The Paddock Road Bridge is a good example of the "forget about the future planning" sometimes seen in ODOT. False. That would be your professor's opinion. ODOT is very concerened about what's beyond 4 years. For example, most projects are designed for 20 years service before the pavement needs to be rehabbed. Contracts are being let with major items being covered by a contractor's warranty, such as asphalt and bridge concrete. The "ACCESS Ohio" plan goes out to year 2030, and the District's work plans are for 5 year increments. In addition, the folks in ODOT have been or will be with ODOT thru many 4 year administrations. Thank the City of Cincinnati, who was responisble for the design and planning of the Paddock Road Bridge

I would start with the Delaware Planning Commission http://www.dcrpc.org/ (you'll have to contact them, there are no traffic counts on their website) and if they have nothing, contact MORPC (http://www.morpc.org). Maybe the ODOT district building, over on E. William would have local traffic counts (or else at their library in Columbus) Happy researching. :-) ODOT Counts are available at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/Traffic_Survey/TSR_Report/default.htm for routes on the state system

Not quite, ODOT has been steadily improving the "macro" corrdiors (US 35, 33 etc) to 4 lane expressways (not frewways). Take a read of the Access Ohio Plan on the ODOT web site http://www.dot.state.oh.us/planning/default.htm. Is there much of a traffic demand between Toldeo and Columbus to warrant a full freeway, or is the US 23/SR 15/ I-75 route sufficient (Conisdering that is already a macro corridor)?

It would be better if some of the office parks offered access to roads other than Reed Hartman, and the City timed the lights on Reed Hartman to actually progress traffic \

I have a copy of a variant of that plan. They assumed that aur travel would be more of a commuter/regional thing...and not the huge Hub based/superegional system it is now

The "Gansta Cats" will exercise their second round demons this year at the expense of UK

Gangsta Cats?

I certainly defer to your knowledge of the subject, but I've got to say, "cost prohibitive" is a pretty unsatisfying explanation when we're talking about $1.5MM in repairs, and the problem isn't even fixed yet. If you say this is just one of those things, I guess I can accept it, but man, it's a very tough pill to swallow when you see all the other park projects this money could be spent on... Agree...I have a sneaking suspision that the preliminary plan for the park was laid out for budgeting purposes and didn't include walls. Don't want to spend the money on final detailed design until the grants come in. The geotech came along during final design, said maybe the wall would be a good idea, but the money wasn't there....Its a tough site to build on

THEN TAKE BIGGER SAMPLES!!! An engineer complaining that the data he collected was insufficient is like a sys admin complaining that he lost his project log because backups weren't working. Crazy. Cost prohibitive. In order to get every lens of subsurface soil, probably would need to get samples every 10' on a grid covering the whole park Soil Borings are taken as "tubes" since that is a cost effective way to get a sample down to bedrock. "Eighteen months and $1.5 million in emergency repairs later, the city is pointing the finger at H.C. Nutting, the Linwood engineering company that told the city the riverbank was, in the words of a 1998 memo, "stable."" Knowing how Geotech reports are written, I'm sure that there was more than the word "stable" there (e.g. tons of qualifications)

Well, the Paddock Road project was begun long before that bill was passed. However, I still have to think it's pretty short-sighted not to allow for the possibility of future widening. The chances that it would eventually expand beyond its current six total lanes has got to be high enough to warrant accounting for the possibility. Anyone know how much more it would have cost to build it to accommodate the extra lanes? If the idea was considered and rejected, for instance for the reasons that Jake cites, I may disagree with the reasoning. But if the thought was never considered, which is how the newscast reads to me - that's inexcusable negligence. The typical design for a brand new overpass bridge would be to sink a pier in the median and use high abutments on the approaches, outside the clear zone, providing spans of 110' or so. I don't think the 2 span beams would be any deeper than the one span bridge built. I like the bridge when it was built, but wondered why they created a "choke" point with the abutments close in to the shoulders. I bet yout the engineers proposed the 2 span bridge, but the architects modified it without concern for the safety and future expansion

Crosstown Shootout = Always a bigger game for X

Clicky Clicky http://www.plan4swwarrenco.com/home.asp

Heh...goes right thru River's Bend (Along SR 48 just south of the Little Miami

Nope...quite a large document! seems like the paper was stressing the widening and paving of the channel. My point really is that they should stress on solutions up in the water shed, and not just on it's outlet (the Mill Creek)

And not one of our fine papers could track down the link where the plan (DEIS etal) can be downloaded http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/Mill%20Creek/ Click on "Draft General Reevaluation Report (GRR), Dec. 2004" to get the document downloads

From what I understand, the developing of the watershed in bulter county and other places is responsible for the flooding. A great deal of that development has generally happened after stormwater detention requirements were instituted. Does detention work? or is it really just increasing the baseflow in the stream after the storm? The Corps is still a beast set in their old ways...channel the water quickly through, with out solving the source problem, that is, too much runoff. They should be more interested using natural stream design etc, that actively recharges the aquifer...there should be a lot of porus glacial outwash in the valley BTW for that. I think the 600 million could be better spent on targeted efforts to reduce runoff...natural storage areas (wetlands)..."greening" of existing developments by reducing the hardscape drainage features. We have progressed alot in our understanding of low hydrologic impact developments. Several smaller solutions in the sub-watersheds (on existing vacant lands)...would be more cost effecice and environmentally friendly