JYP

Recall that the appeals court ruling was that since the City built the streetcar for economic development purposes and not with regards to health, safety and welfare, the city had to pay. Looking at it again, it's appalling how ridiculous this ruling was. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/05/04/ohio-supreme-court-makes-ruling-on-duke.html "At the appellate court level, the three justices unanimously affirmed then-Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Carl Stitch’s ruling. It said that the city’s construction of the streetcar “did not bear a substantial relation to the public’s health, safety, morals or general welfare” and instead was a proprietary function."

Its so terrible but there is so much open surface parking it will be a great candidate for retrofit in 20-40 years.

I think the first four are the 3CDC affordable infill projects announced earlier this year. https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/21066972/city-of-cincinnati-taps-overtherhine-for-30-million-in-federal-affordable-housing-funds

They have to work somewhere while their office is being torn down and reconstructed...

We have examples that prove that preserving historic buildings and integrating them with new infill works, right across Central Parkway from here. In an era where preserving buildings and leveraging historic assets has become the de facto development ethos, demolitions like this become more and more egregious. However look at what we have lost in the last few years: The Dennison, Hudepohl and a few others. Both of these could have been leveraged to contribute to the growing success of Cincinnati. Instead they are missed opportunities. In city development there is often a compulsion to trade the better options for the slightly better options. When we muddle our potential, we squander our success.

1118. Apologies on the incorrect address: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/09/17/exclusive-40-million-mixed-use-project-planned-in.html

It's about time! Now if 1113 Sycamore can get out of the ground, Sycamore may actually start becoming a more interesting street!

I have been riding the RedBike e-bikes to work for the past few days. It definitely levels the playing field on a street like Liberty Street where the standard bikes can feel slow alongside faster moving and often times more aggressive traffic.

“We can’t all and some of us don’t. That’s all there is to it.”

If you look at this Friday's Planning Commission packet, the city is asking to establish an air lot above the garage ramp for the adjoining garage (Item 8 ). There could either be an overbuild on just that parcel keeping or demolishing the existing building or it could be an expansion of the neighboring lot. I'm ambivalent as to whether Convention Place should continue to exist. It has a weird 1970's-esque vibe that the city does not have a lot of. On the other hand, its ugly and forgettable.

This was studied but discarded as part of the Revive 75 effort back in 2011. Would have been a game changer for downtown but the powers that be at ODOT were unmoved:

It does have apartment buildings. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8002956,-83.8985875,3a,75y,3.69h,88.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slqqLig_hirSk0TW75WpDng!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DlqqLig_hirSk0TW75WpDng%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D328.61435%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Business goes where the talent is and if the talent is white-collar then it is amenities and infrastructure. Big cities tend to attract talent because they have the infrastructure to support density and the amenities to keep things interesting for talent. After the "riots" in 2001, AG Laffley told the city to give them a city he can recruit to. This was after his predecessor threatened to move the HQ out of the city. If we want to be a vibrant place we have keep developing a city that can attract talent. Building a MLS stadium is a way to get there. IMO its not the best way, but whatever. Back to the original topic about being overly regulatory and anti-growth. That has been a complaint for decades in this city and I have heard numerous developers and businesses owners vent about it. Most of them cite Columbus as a city that does it much better. Some of the biggest reasons come down to zoning and policy specifics, or the lack thereof. There are a record number of PD's in the city because for the most part the existing zoning does a terrible job addressing mixed-use infill (outside of the UMX zoning and FBC). The city was working on a Land Development Code but that has been mostly shelved for the last 5 years. If it had been enacted it would have solved some of the anti-development stuff we have now. Second is policy. City political leadership (Council and Mayor) seems to only be interested in scoring points with each other, so every big thing is held up, debated and dramatized. It doesn't have to be this way and yes, every city suffers from some form of this but Cincinnati has had a bad case of it for the last 6 years. The lack of clear policy goals, metrics, standards, etc. makes it hard to see what is worth it and what is not outside of rhetoric and opaque closed-door deal making. If we want to be "business-friendly" it has less to do with tax breaks and more to do with building a city for the economy of the 21st century and creating a fair market environment, one that doesn't involve an entry fee to play in this city.

There are a couple of things the City needs to look at to make adequate findings for a zoning change. One is compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. In this case, that is Plan Cincinnati and every department has to give some justification for that anyway. Second is that the city has to make findings that conditions have changed and the current zoning no longer is a good fit for the area in question. Due to the fact that this is a stadium, the zoning would not fit. Third, the rezoning has to be in the interest of the city and not negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry. That is a bit of a grey area since it can be argued both ways. The other thing is that it is a value argument. Developers can argue about the positive economic impact, and residents will argue about the negative livability and displacement impacts. Both are right to a certain degree so it will take a skilled Planning Commission and City Council to thread the needle. We'll see what happens...

Here you go. One for NFL (via theatlantic) And the other for MLB (via the NYTimes)

One of the few and it took a lot of push from Nationwide, planning and tons and tons of red bricks!

If you look at most stadiums around the country they are typically surrounded by surface parking and isolated from other parts of the city. There are a few examples where redevelopment has occurred or the stadium has been more thoroughly integrated into the surrounding city's fabric. When it comes to the Banks though, it is expensive to develop because of the need to lift the development out of the floodplain. If and when the entire neighborhood is completed (and to the plan that was adopted in 2000) it can be a functioning and thriving neighborhood. Currently, it struggles from January to March due to the retail mix's reliance on game day activity. County leaders think that by doubling down on more entertainment via a concert venue it will stabilize the development. This may help but it shifts the whole neighborhood further towards entertainment and makes it less livable and less viable in the long-term. What will make the Banks successful is building more residential and more office, thus bringing more permanent day and night populations to the development. If we put all our eggs in the entertainment basket, then we will thrive or die based on ticket sales, venue programming, and macroeconomics.

The activity on and around Dayton Street was beginning to pick up about a year prior to the FC announcement. The problem with the stadium is that it will change the intensity and programming of the West End's revitalization. Where we may have seen a more organic emergence of business and activity, we will now see more "top-down" style master plan redevelopment and programming more oriented towards entertainment and FC. There was always going to be revitalization in the West End, especially with the urban core reviving over the past 15-20 years. But the where and the what of it will be dramatically different and may not be all that great for the neighborhood in the long-term.

I think the sound is a huge issue. When I worked for Bellevue there as a barge transfer terminal across the river that we could hear unloading pretty well even halfway up the hill. Point is that sound in the basin bounces around more than most realize. While everyone can handle some temporary disruption, if these outdoor venues are both going at full blast, it's going to reduce the desirability of downtown living.

They moved to 6th street and the old venue became Thomspon House. Not really since those places typically book bands with smaller draws than the size of a Promowest or PNC Pavillion crowd.

Hopefully, it is not the terrible gateway arch they proposed a few years ago.

I attended a ULI presentation a month or two ago and most of this was presented by North American. At the time they did not know what they were going to do with the IMAX site but that may have changed. Also, they plan on adding office on top of some of the single-story sections. Overall, it's an expensive but much-needed change to the complex.

A lot of haze, but all 4 downtown tower cranes in this shot: Here's a close up of 8th and Main, it's partially hiding behind the old URS building at 7th and Walnut:

Another "worse option" compromise from this administration. The only glimmer of hope is that one day a more bike-friendly leadership/DOTE paradigm can install protected bike lanes on it.