Civvik

Yes I read somewhere that that's exactly what that is.

Except that you can't, and history shows that it just doesn't work that way. Primate city theory was a good attempt at classifying this phenomenon. Even the vast, diverse United States basically has primate cities: NYC and LA. Washington is the artificially appointed center of federal power. In respect to livability for the average US worker, these three are pretty horrible places. You're materially much better off in smaller places. But these big prime cities attract because that's just human nature, apparently.

You should get this shot today. It's totes clear outside.

You're right obviously about flexibility, but I think in the long run office flanking the Freedom Center is better for the mix. The mid-day high intensity traffic in the middle of the area strikes me as better for the retail offerings than, say, having it over by Paul Brown, which is rapidly becoming the only parcels left to develop. Or how about mixed office and residential?

So weird to see it. It's real.

Have you noticed lately it's making stories so it can write stories about...itself? It's like the Kim Kardashian of print media.

Walnut Hills has great potential simply due to its proximity to uptown and downtown job centers, as well as dining/nightlife options in OTR, Hyde Park, Oakley, etc. Hopefully it will be developed in a way that is better looking than the USquare/Vine Street Flats garbage going up in CUF. However, I think some people have the impression that Walnut Hills is going to be "the next OTR", which I think is misguided. Definitely not the next OTR. The MLK/Walnut Hills corridor at 71 is going to be something though; I predict something completely new in Cincinnati. An area of true mid-level density the likes of which we don't really have here. Kind of like Rookwood, only more "Edge City" and less "I dropped my Legos."

A lot of people read UrbanOhio. Way, way more than post.

Isn't Sycamore kind of where bars go to die? I always thought it would be fun to open a gay club in this beauty: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.111268,-84.515517,3a,75y,85.53h,101.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sxbeVUt1at9BMrUL2Sj00NA!2e0

I have thought a lot about this as well and I think there are two things going on here: One, they aren't adding housing units as fast as they could to meet demand. (Some back-of-the-napkin math shows that if the center city absorbed just 5% of Greater Cincinnati growth every year, that's still 650 people a year, and 3CDC has only developed about 500 units TOTAL since 2004. This doesn't even consider existing Cincinnatians looking to move downtown.) Two: All of these new restaurants and businesses are small. Example: Senate has about 14 tables. A PF Changs has up to 75. This is a comparison of the extremes, but it still gives some perspective on the numbers.

You know what's even more shocking? Republic. That street was where the 2001 riots all began, and now the intersection at 14th is turning into one of the nicest little side streets in the city.

Oh, and:

Oh Cincinnati, I barely recognize ye anymore. Which is a good thing.

I'm probably going to get reamed for this, but I think the catenary poles look terrible. There's so many of them, far more than I imagined there would be. I feel we were a bit misled with the promise that "you will barely notice the overhead wires."

I heard from someone at Saks that one of the reasons they pulled out was that the developer could not find enough high-end tenants. If this is the case, then I would imagine that the answer to your question is "nothing."

Absolutely dismal.

I think OTR is not currently at risk of becoming a tourist trap. The Italianate building stock is handsome but not a tourist spectacle in the way that the French Quarter is. I rather see OTR evolving as a kind of Charleston or Boston or San Francisco. Historic and pretty, but not necessarily low class. Cincinnati is also a rather conservative place that doesn't natively produce a lot of "party central" culture, although cultural trends change and nobody can predict the future. This also isn't a top-tier convention or winter destination, which cuts back significantly on "mindless tourism."

Look at how dumb so many of those projects are -- widen Harvey Ave.? Really? Make the hospitals pay for it if they're planning a giant expansion. Widen Blue Rock from Hamilton to Blue Rock? WHY? You're seeing the pulsating underbelly of the zombie road widening machine at work. Nothing to see here. Move along please.

I've always been perplexed at the concept of having claim on a neighborhood. Being entitled to an unchanging neighborhood is not a right. Whites sure as hell weren't "entitled" to their neighborhoods in the 20th century when upwardly mobile minorities wanted to buy a house, and poor people aren't entitled to their ghettos in the 21st.

I agree with Amy Murray on this one. Besides, the streetcar still needs to pick its battles wisely. That whole "the perfect is the enemy of the good" thing.

Playing a really nasty Devils advocate. If median household income is about 52K, reasonable housing cost would be about 1300 monthly. So right there the median household is priced out of urban renovation and urban new construction. How then do you develop housing for median households that are not $100/sf greenfield new construction? I would argue that housing in the very center should be expensive because it reflects the true location value, but if it's $250/sf even in outlying city neighborhoods, the first realistic option for the median household is inner ring suburbs.

Well then, sir, you've just talked yourself into suburban housing for the median American household.

There is so little housing available down there right now that it's kind of turning me off to the area. It's like, come on guys, the huge demand has been pretty apparent for several years now, what are you doing. It feels like 3CDC is more interested in building parking garages than housing units.

I am not quite so optimistic. There is this huge physical disconnect between the basin and the rest of town, especially uptown, which should be as closely woven to downtown as possible. To me this is all set up to be a showdown. If you want rail with useful stop locations, a tunnel is the only way to go. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that all of this is really about, has always been about, the tunnel.

The new transpo guy in the referenced article reeks of someone who is fundamentally skeptical of their project. It illustrates the idea that if you want something to fail, it will. That can be applied to so many things in life.