Oh man... that would be awesome. Talk about motivation to win on May 31st against Louisville.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/23/exclusive-fc-cincinnati-owners-bringing-in-new.html?ana=twt

 

Lindner is quoted as saying that the new (un-named) investor "will help with the private part of a public-private partnership to build a new stadium.”

 

That's the first anybody has mentioned the idea of having public involvement in building a new stadium. A lot of people (myself included) will not be thrilled by the idea of any public funds going towards a new stadium, since Nippert has already proven to be a great venue.

 

This is a pipe dream, but I'd love to see the University of Cincinnati brought on as a part owner of FC Cincinnati. It would make sense and ensure that they remain a good partner as long as FC Cincinnati stays at Nippert. It would be similar to how Atlanta United's ownership group overlaps with the Atlanta Falcons, and together they manage the facility. I'm not sure that there is any precedent for this in the US/MLS... but in Mexico, a few of the top teams are affiliated with large, public universities. I have no idea if there are legal reasons that either UC or the MLS wouldn't allow this... so, as I said, it's a pipe dream and I haven't seen any indication that the owners are creative enough to make it to happen. But I think it would be the best way to ensure long term success: great facility, great location, no need to build new stadium, ability to capture parking revenue, shared maintenance expenses, constant inflow of students as new fans.

I love that idea, but I am very certain that they will build a new stadium if brought into MLS.

 

I am curious how much public involvement they will be asking for. They know that a stadium tax will never pass voters. But they also know they can get money out of the county and/or city. I have no idea where the breaking point is, or where that money comes from. I seem to remember someone saying there was still money in the old stadium deal to put towards this, but I'm not sure that's legal or true.

I can't find the ballot language from 1996, but my understanding is that the Reds/Bengals stadium tax doesn't ever expire or have a cap on how much money it can raise. So theoretically Hamilton County could keep the tax going longer in order to raise money for additional renovations to the stadiums, a renovation of US Bank Arena, or an FC Cincinnati stadium without the citizens ever having to go back to the polls. But if that actually happened, I predict that the newly formed COAST spinoff group No More Stadium Taxes would sue them to try and stop it.

^Yeah, I don't recall who I was talking to, but someone said something along those lines. And yeah, I'm sure a lawsuit would be brought on if that were the case. Not sure if it's true that the money could be transferred or used for a third/fourth stadium. I just want to know what they're doing so we can stop speculating about possibilities, and evaluate the option(s) they select.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/23/exclusive-fc-cincinnati-owners-bringing-in-new.html?ana=twt

 

Lindner is quoted as saying that the new (un-named) investor "will help with the private part of a public-private partnership to build a new stadium.

 

That's the first anybody has mentioned the idea of having public involvement in building a new stadium. A lot of people (myself included) will not be thrilled by the idea of any public funds going towards a new stadium, since Nippert has already proven to be a great venue.

 

This is a pipe dream, but I'd love to see the University of Cincinnati brought on as a part owner of FC Cincinnati. It would make sense and ensure that they remain a good partner as long as FC Cincinnati stays at Nippert. It would be similar to how Atlanta United's ownership group overlaps with the Atlanta Falcons, and together they manage the facility. I'm not sure that there is any precedent for this in the US/MLS... but in Mexico, a few of the top teams are affiliated with large, public universities. I have no idea if there are legal reasons that either UC or the MLS wouldn't allow this... so, as I said, it's a pipe dream and I haven't seen any indication that the owners are creative enough to make it to happen. But I think it would be the best way to ensure long term success: great facility, great location, no need to build new stadium, ability to capture parking revenue, shared maintenance expenses, constant inflow of students as new fans.

 

 

In that theory, what about if the Bengals were brought on as partners and then they could use PBS, which is already soccer ready.

The worst of both worlds. A sterile environment and terrible owners.

^Yeah, I don't recall who I was talking to, but someone said something along those lines. And yeah, I'm sure a lawsuit would be brought on if that were the case. Not sure if it's true that the money could be transferred or used for a third/fourth stadium. I just want to know what they're doing so we can stop speculating about possibilities, and evaluate the option(s) they select.

 

Regardless of whether the existing tax could be used to build additional stadiums, I do predict that before the current bonds are fully paid off, the Bengals and Reds will claim that their stadiums are getting old by league standards and they need more money for renovations. So the tax might be carried on for an additional couple of years just to add whatever features the Bengals and Reds ask for.

The tax does not automatically sunset .  The bonds for the two stadiums were sold between 1998 and 2003 so the first ones will be paid off in 2028. 

 

The reason the stadium fund ran into trouble was because PBS went over by about $50 million but more importantly the county tax receipts stopped growing at 3%, after having grown at that rate for several decades.  It briefly flat lined around 2001 and has been growing since at about 2%.  The fact that the flat line happened so early in the repayment period instead of 10 years in had a profound effect on the county's situation.  It really isn't anyone's fault, it's just reality.

 

 

Wetterich on the type of public support that may be palatable:

Port Authority involvement and tax abatement is almost a no-brainer. Hotel tax would be a harder sell.

A renovated or new arena would have much better ROI than a new soccer stadium. Honestly, I get that FC Cincinnati games are fun, and Nippert is a great atmosphere, but it's a little strange how enthusiastic the city is about a minor league team. I get that there are ambitions to get to the MLS, but what if that doesn't happen? Think the level of support will remain as high as it is? Large numbers of fans don't travel to support minor league soccer teams at road games, so they wouldn't be contributing too much to the stadium tax that they'd be benefitting from. The f**king Forbes 500 List Lindners certainly don't NEED any public assistance- they could build 3 stadiums with their own money and still be billionaires.

 

If I'm the city I say to the FCC a) privately fund a stadium and hope to get to the MLS or b) continue playing at Nippert and live with keeping the team minor league.

The stadium won't happen if they don't get into MLS. They aren't going to build a stadium in hopes of getting into MLS. The stadium will be contingent on it, and they may continue playing a Nippert for 1 or 2 years as they build a stadium (what Orlando, Atlanta, and Minnesota have done).

Port Authority involvement and tax abatement is almost a no-brainer. Hotel tax would be a harder sell.

 

Yup, I think you're going to see the first 2 things. I think they'll also look for help in removing streets/structures depending on which site they choose. I still can't imagine they'll ask for a tax increase, that would make no sense. Public tax increases for stadiums is toxic here and nationally for that matter. Plus, I'm a Bailey season ticket holder and I would vote against any tax for FCC.

News breaking that theee sites are under consideration:

 

Taft HS Football Stadium in OTR

Milacron Site in Oakley

Ovation in Newport

 

Thoughts?

OTR...fingers crossed.

 

 

Oakley is my least preferred site. Not near anything, terrible traffic, etc.

 

West End is my top choice. Newport would be pretty good, too, but not as good as West End.

Here's a quick and dirty copy paste of Crew's stadium laid overtop the location - the theater and adjacent buildings would have to go, you might be able to squeeze it in without removing the buildings on Wade but they would likely have to come down as well:

 

 

Could the stadium be built into City West instead?  What sort of land restriction binds those crappy 15 year-old City West houses?  I know it was all former public housing, but who actually owns the land under those homes now? 

 

Here's a quick and dirty copy paste of Crew's stadium laid overtop the location - the theater and adjacent buildings would have to go, you might be able to squeeze it in without removing the buildings on Wade but they would likely have to come down as well:

 

 

Could the stadium be built into City West instead?  What sort of land restriction binds those crappy 15 year-old City West houses?  I know it was all former public housing, but who actually owns the land under those homes now?

 

Totally disagree Jake. I don't think those houses are crappy and I think they are still performing their function as affordable housing quite well.

Here's a quick and dirty copy paste of Crew's stadium laid overtop the location - the theater and adjacent buildings would have to go, you might be able to squeeze it in without removing the buildings on Wade but they would likely have to come down as well:

 

 

I have huge problems with this. It breaks up the street grid further in an area that used to have a way more intact street grid. It wrecks down 3 historic buildings that are quite nice. Also hate to bring up parking but I think the garages in the area should be geared towards businesses and residents as opposed to a huge game day type structure.

 

I think at a minimum this design would have to be really creative incorporating those historic buildings into the stadium for me to even consider liking it.

Didn't know this was a thing: FCC 2 NKY

 

Although by NKY they mean Covington:

FCC is missing a big opportunity at the soon to be shuttered IRS facility in Covington. Imagine walking from the pubs at Mainstrasse to the stadium. It could be the most authenic place for soccer to be played. It would feel like Europe.

 

 

Who has their email addresses? If it's in Oakley I will also cancel my subscription. Newport there may be a 50% chance I keep it. This needs to be in the Cincinnati urban core. This should not cater to the suburbs. Placing it in Oakley would be to make people driving in from West Chester feel safe with a suburban style set up. This would be best used to help the West End

I'd like to see the West End too.

 

 

The Enquirer quotes Berding, "...Our prospective stadium finance plan is being developed," Berding said. "Our effort to land an MLS franchise for Cincinnati starts with $250 million in private investment and would not include a new tax increase as speculated today at the Hamilton County commission meeting."

Totally disagree Jake. I don't think those houses are crappy and I think they are still performing their function as affordable housing quite well.

 

I looked it up and everything in the 500 block of David, Derrick Turnbow, Betton, etc., is owned by CMHA and dates to 2005.  There is still a ton of land in that area that has not been developed since the original public housing was torn down.  If anyone has the pull to get CMHA to do a land swap and get their housing rebuilt on that extra land or nearby, it's the Lindners.  There very well might be a 50-year federal contract backing that affordable housing

 

The way I look at it is if the stadium is built with Central Ave. as its eastern boundary, then everything between Central and Central becomes very valuable.  That includes the big lot owned by Cincinnati Police District 1, the Cincinnati Ballet, the big vacant lot owned by Tri-State Wholesaling just south of their warehouse.  If the stadium overlaps Central Ave. and makes Providence its eastern boundary, it reduces the amount of land that it helps improve.

 

Also, it's noteworthy to mention that a West End stadium would be very accessible to I-75 from Ezzard Charles and the Winchell ramps.  Also, keeping Central Ave. intact does help vehicular access since it does continue south into Downtown and has access to the 8th St. Viaduct and other highway ramps. 

 

 

^ I think in that scenario people would be outraged that the only way to get new affordable housing built is in a one for one swap because the richest man in town wanted to build a stadium. And they would be right. That's a functioning neighborhood that doesn't need to be disrupted, and given the history of Kenyon Barr I think it's appropriate to be skeptical of big sweeping plans. Until we know more details it's all hypothetical anyway, especially the scenario you describe which is probably not what they're thinking anyway. 

 

But in general, I'm not convinced a major league stadium in that location would be automatically good for the neighborhood- it's a cliche, but the devil would be in the details for this one (which we haven't seen yet.)

 

Well, with American sized stadiums, you have to make a trade off. I think most of the people on this forum would agree that superblocks aren't great for cities. But American sized stadiums are enormous and don't fit easily into urban street grids. So if you want a stadium in an urban location, you have to accept that we're going to have a superblock that's somewhat disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood.

 

Of course if you want something less disruptive you can do a smaller European sized stadium. And we already have that... Nippert.

The new stadium will probably only hold 20 to 25K. So it will not take up too much space. Each site has its positive and negatives.

 

West End - Urban location, walking distance from tons of bars, basically on the streetcar route. Parking could be interesting, I wonder if they'd want a new garage or anything. Not sure they would need it.

 

Oakley - Plenty of space to build the stadium, plenty of parking, walk to Mad Tree and the other Oakley bars. Traffic would be a nightmare. There would have to be another way back there.

 

Newport - Plenty of space to build the stadium, would have a great views of downtown, somewhat walkable to bars, traffic could be an issue with 60 to 70% of fans coming from Ohio. A lot of fans feel like it's FC Cincinnati not FC Newport or whatever.

West End and OTR Community Council would lose. their. minds. if FCC proposed a West End Stadium with no parking garage nearby.

 

I'm pretty certain that the West End site will be the first to be eliminated, though. Newport and Oakley are big wide open sites and West End is a complicated, smaller site with many more limitations. I can't see them picking the site that's the hardest to work with.

^The West End site has the Music Hall/WCET Parking Garage which has severe deferred maintenance and could be rebuilt much bigger.  This site is good for handling large crowds, super easy access to the freeway and is IMO hands down the best location. 

 

100 years ago Central Avenue was a business artery with tons of businesses and streetcar tracks.  Now it is a barely travelled side street.

100 years ago Central Avenue was a business artery with tons of businesses and streetcar tracks.  Now it is a barely travelled side street.

 

I think part of this is due to how it goofily and unnecessarily changes from a two way street into a one way and then back into a two way in the span of a few blocks. If it didn't do that, it would be a navigable, direct route from West End/OTR all the way to Covington.

West End is the no brainer choice to me. It fits with the urban redevelopment plan. It would integrate into the neighborhood. There is some parking infrastructure in place already and more can be built. More importantly, it offers the availability for the most uses. 

The garages can be used for multiple purposes. Music Hall events, Washington Park events, Police events, etc.

It offers easy highway access with the exit ramps nearby.

It offers the ability to add more critical access to the streetcar and other events to draw additional streetcar riders. Also, it would help with parking because people can park farther away and take the streetcar to the game.

 

It provides a nice urban setting with bars and other places nearby to walk to after and before the games (unlike Columbus which is just a sea of grassy parking nearby.)

It can be used for other events easily such as HS games, concerts etc.

 

 

 

I think the ownership of FC understands that the popularity of the team is almost completely based on where it is playing -- Nippert.  They risk losing the fans they never thought they were going to get if a new stadium has poor atmosphere.  The Lindners and the team could earn a lot of goodwill if they broker a deal to replace the not-historic CMHA housing with more and better affordable housing nearby in order to preserve the theater and handful of historic buildings on Central Ave (which could become bars, a spirit shop, etc.). 

 

The odd party that looks to make out huge from all of this is the Jehova's Witnesses, who own over an acre of land just north of the Taft stadium that they got from the city back in 1992 or thereabouts for $1. 

FC Cincinnati shares new details on stadium planning

 

FC Cincinnati could be eying three sites for a possible soccer-only stadium to be built in Greater Cincinnati, the Enquirer reports.

 

Team president Jeff Berding confirmed that the franchise has looked at sites in the West End, Oakley and Newport as it reviews possible plans to build a stadium to satisfy requirements to join Major League Soccer.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/25/fc-cincinnati-shares-new-details-on-stadium.html

Oakley & Newport are just distractions to keep West End costs down...

 

FC Cincinnati pins down two stadium sites, hires architect, report says

“Berding said FCC has zeroed in on two potential stadium sites, both of which are in the city’s urban core that stretches (between) the river, downtown, Over-the-Rhine and UC,” Brian Straus, who covers soccer, wrote on SI.com.

I think the ownership of FC understands that the popularity of the team is almost completely based on where it is playing -- Nippert.  They risk losing the fans they never thought they were going to get if a new stadium has poor atmosphere.  The Lindners and the team could earn a lot of goodwill if they broker a deal to replace the not-historic CMHA housing with more and better affordable housing nearby in order to preserve the theater and handful of historic buildings on Central Ave (which could become bars, a spirit shop, etc.). 

 

The odd party that looks to make out huge from all of this is the Jehova's Witnesses, who own over an acre of land just north of the Taft stadium that they got from the city back in 1992 or thereabouts for $1.

 

I think we're arguing just to argue now since it has not been proposed anywhere but demolition of any of the City West public housing is a complete non starter. This housing is relatively new and creates some great urban streets unlike some of the stuff built in a previous era. There's other public housing not far from there that is truly ancient so the idea of tearing down the newer stuff even it were replaced one for one is truly unpalatable.  In any case we need every last unit of public housing we have right now because there's absolutely no money to build more of it and it's preventing a large number of people from becoming homeless.

Another thing to consider is the news is suggesting the Taft HS football stadium site for some reason, but I think it would fit straight up with no modifications to the street grid in the large open lot on the SW corner of Ezzard Charles and John St. I wonder how educated a guess these news reports are.

Just an aside. Don't use Mapfre Stadium as a stand-in. Its so outdated.

Use Orlando or Sporting KC's stadium.

Sorry, just a pet peeve.

^CMHA owns that, too.  John St. was always the line of demarcation between ordinary property and public housing.  Also, that lot is probably not quit large enough to accommodate a stadium without taking some adjacent property. 

 

Although FC might actually be looking at a different site in the West End in order to fool speculators around Taft.  A vacant lot at 411 Wade St. just sold for $10,000 to an agent the first day it was listed.  The transfer hasn't been recorded yet but should appear by the end of the week. 

That lot at Ezzard Charles and John is almost certainly too small.

 

The stadium I like to use for comparison is Avaya Stadium in San Jose. Very compact, and likely the smallest footprint we can expect.

MAPFRE stadium is 500x600 feet. The big empty lot at EC & John that was used as streetcar contruction staging area is just under that. They could do it, if they built up instead of out. (Nippert is 460x500)

That lot at Ezzard Charles and John is almost certainly too small.

 

The stadium I like to use for comparison is Avaya Stadium in San Jose. Very compact, and likely the smallest footprint we can expect.

 

talk about a terrible location. Any way that looks doable in, what is the footprint of that? and what is the capacity of that stadium?

Avaya is ~500x600 as well. I don't think you'll be able to get a full stadium in a smaller footprint, assuming you want stands on all 4 sides.

Avaya only has a capacity of 18,000, one of the smallest in MLS. The building is very compact, though, opposed to the sprawling Mapfre Stadium. I think it's a realistic expectation for the dimensions of a stadium in Cincinnati. Unfortunately Google Maps doesn't have the new Orlando City Stadium yet on Earth view, so I can't measure the stadium.

 

Avaya is about 500x550. You aren't going to get anything much narrower than 500ft wide. That lot on Ezzard/John is only about 450 feet, and Stargel Stadium's site is only 400 ft. You probably need some more width to make a stadium fit unless there's an extremely creative solution (which is probably more expensive).

It's actually possible that these buildings could be preserved under the slope of bleachers.  It would be a pretty amazing design element if they are converted into a part of the stadium complex -- i.e. an on-site restaurant/bar/spirit shop: 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1113435,-84.5221217,3a,75y,141.51h,105.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se-L7UdvrMHccGIVtaGW0yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Providence Park in Portland is crammed into a small area. Not counting the Multnomah Athletic Club (which sits on the same block, Providence has a footprint of about 500 wide by 600 long. They're even adding 4,000 seats to bring capacity to 25,000 without expanding the footprint. You could maybe squeeze something similar into the West End. The issue of course is parking. Providence doesn't have much in the way of parking, relying on the light rail stop adjacent to the stadium.

 

My photoshop skills suck so I'm not making a "rendering". Avaya stadium is certainly expandable as well with the open end.

From Paul Daugherty:

 

One advantage the Reds and Bengals had that FCC does not: They could claim that central riverfront development and the redone Ft. Washington Way depended on new stadia attracting critical mass. And they were right. Without the draw of sports, the central riverfront would be a lesser spot.

 

What area is FCC going to improve with its presence? The Oakley area is already booming. The Newport suggestion is OK, but Newport already has the Levee and the aquarium. Taft HS football stadium? What?

 

 

This is so typical of how the typical suburban Cincinnatian just doesn't get the city.  They didn't get it when OTR came back from the dead and even though that just happened they can't see similar redevelopment spilling over into the West End. 

 

Avaya only has a capacity of 18,000, one of the smallest in MLS. The building is very compact, though, opposed to the sprawling Mapfre Stadium. I think it's a realistic expectation for the dimensions of a stadium in Cincinnati. Unfortunately Google Maps doesn't have the new Orlando City Stadium yet on Earth view, so I can't measure the stadium.

 

Avaya is about 500x550. You aren't going to get anything much narrower than 500ft wide. That lot on Ezzard/John is only about 450 feet, and Stargel Stadium's site is only 400 ft. You probably need some more width to make a stadium fit unless there's an extremely creative solution (which is probably more expensive).

 

You're right about there only being 450ft. There's a big difference measuring street to street in Google map view which is what I did initially and measuring sidewalk to sidewalk in Google satellite view. Would be extremely tight.

 

It's actually possible that these buildings could be preserved under the slope of bleachers.  It would be a pretty amazing design element if they are converted into a part of the stadium complex -- i.e. an on-site restaurant/bar/spirit shop: 

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1113435,-84.5221217,3a,75y,141.51h,105.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se-L7UdvrMHccGIVtaGW0yA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

Would be cool if the tall one poked through the stands and there was a rooftop deck on it you could watch the game from. Or just have a cutaway in the seats forming a plaza in front of the buildings.  That may work if the field was a few feet lower than street level.

 

Re: Daugherty, he recently said he's never coming downtown again because of a parking ticket he got on a Sunday, so we can see the grumpy suburbanite mindset there. (Incidentally I had wlw on this morning to hear traffic and McConnell made like 3 unsolicited anti city comments in 15 seconds talking about business news.)

I know there is "pressure" on them from MLS to have a soccer specific stadium but I really don't get it. At nippert we can have 35000 or 10000 at a game and the atmosphere is amazing. Why build something new? Why fix something that isn't broken? I feel we should have some leverage with this because we regularly are having higher attendance than other MLS teams. MLS would be fools to not move us up and take advantage of the already existing market for one that is not already proven just because of a stadium.

I know there is "pressure" on them from MLS to have a soccer specific stadium but I really don't get it. At nippert we can have 35000 or 10000 at a game and the atmosphere is amazing. Why build something new? Why fix something that isn't broken? I feel we should have some leverage with this because we regularly are having higher attendance than other MLS teams. MLS would be fools to not move us up and take advantage of the already existing market for one that is not already proven just because of a stadium.

MLS wants the teams to own their stadiums, or at the very least control revenue in the stadiums they play in. FC does neither at Nippert. They're not getting into MLS without building a stadium.

It's official: FC Cincinnati moves forward on stadium plan

 

Berding said the form of public money hasn’t been determined yet but club officials have had a lot of conversations with public officials. He sees an opportunity in using existing economic development tools. Public financing could be used for infrastructure or parking-related costs, he said.

 

The club wants to finalize financing and site selection by summer, Berding said.

 

“However, we have an MLS expansion bid with 12 cities. Of those 12 cities, we’re the smallest market. The feeling is we will not win a bid to get one of those expansion franchises without our own stadium. Would we win a bid to bring MLS to Cincinnati? No, we would not.”

 

"...And MLS wants teams to own their stadium and control all of its revenue streams. That wouldn’t be the case at Paul Brown Stadium. “We’d be looking for something that’s not there,” Berding said.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/25/its-official-fc-cincinnati-moves-forward-on.html

The City West housing owned by CMHA west of John St. was a HUD Hope VI project:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_VI

 

According to this document, the replacement of Lincoln Court and Laurel Homes by City West received a total of $66,093,590 from HUD:

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_10014.pdf

 

It appears to me -- and again appears -- that cuts to HUD under George Bush explain why City West has never been completed.  Aside form the giant grassy lot south of Ezzard Charles, there are many undeveloped parcels within the old Lincoln Court property.  And some of the original 1930s Lincoln Court housing was merely rehabbed, not bulldozed and replaced, and still stands at the corner of Liberty and Linn.  It looks like the whole Hope VI thing in Cincinnati was underfunded from the very beginning. 

 

I was not able to find information indicating a process for doing a land swap with HUD/CMHA or when, if ever, public housing stops being public housing and can be auctioned off.  In other situations I have heard of 50-year contracts, which puts City West at 2055 before it can be bulldozed by a developer. 

 

It's also important to note that a fundamental tenant of Hope VI was the move away from multi-floor apartment buildings and toward side-by-side attached row houses.  So if it is possible to do a swap, the replacement housing presumably would have to be low-rise housing similar to what exists west of John St.