I would think FCC getting CPS to selling their football stadium would be a bigger obstacle. In the Business Courier story, FCC supposedly will allow high schools to used the new stadium for events. Considering it would be a grass field that would be suprising.

I would think FCC getting CPS to selling their football stadium would be a bigger obstacle. In the Business Courier story, FCC supposedly will allow high schools to used the new stadium for events. Considering it would be a grass field that would be suprising.

 

If CPS selling their football stadium is the answer. Why cant UC sell Nippert to FCC? Heck FCC could use equity to buy it, and it the equity could go into UC investment portfolio. UC is already putting money into hedge funds why would this be any different.

I wonder if MLS itself collects revenue from non-MLS events held at soccer-specific stadiums.  That alone would cause a problem in a stadium with a state university as a tenant, aside from the fact that UC's land was deeded to the city, all of the athletic booster money that has gone into Nippert, etc. 

^^That's along the lines of what I was suggesting about bringing UC on as a part owner. If UC has an equity stake in FCC, then the ownership group could say to the MLS that collectively they "own" the facility... and I don't see how it would be any different than the situation in Atlanta (aside from being new versus old stadium). Would be a great way to save the owners from having to pony up the cash to build a new stadium. The savings from not building (and maintaining!) a new stadium could allow for a) more money spent on personnel, b) more money spent on marketing, and c) more revenue sharing back to the MLS. That strikes me as a win for all stakeholders: fans, UC, current ownership group, the players, the coaching staff, and the MLS.

The reality is MLS has plenty of suitors for expansion teams in bigger markets. Also Cincinnati isnt a huge market and the Crew kind of got the state covered as one territory with their central location (similar to the Blue Jackets). Theres absolutely room for another MLS team in Ohio, but its definitely not a pressing need or desire for the league office and board.

 

Not saying FCC doesnt deserve a team because they do, but they absolutely arent a priority for MLS and MLS can demand anything of them and string them along. FCC is the eastern version of Sacramento Republic. Theyre in the same boat and are even more prepared for MLS then Cincy. Solid financial backing, solid fanbase with consistent sold out games (about 11,000 capacity). They already have their stadium plans drawn up, land owned and prepped for construction. Theyre literally just waiting for the go ahead from the league. MLS uses them as a pawn to get other expansion bids to be more proactive. Im afraid Cincy might fall into this category.

Bigger markets mean nothing. It's about fan support and right now the mls is suffering with that. From Philadelphia, Chicago and New England to Columbus all the way down to Houston and Dallas the attendance is abysmal. Constant low figures, mainly because of horrible stadium location decisions.

 

Larger markets mean absolutely nothing if you don't have a fan support system in full stride, and right now FCC attendance figures are beating half of the mls teams which is absolutely embarrassing for the mls.

Which is exactly why I argue that it would be stupid for them to not let us in. More tickets sold means more jerseys and gear sold, more food sold, more beer sold. So overall if they're getting revenue from all of that there is more money to be made from us than other teams.

You guys are all correct but dont underestimate Garbers focus on media market size.

Are we really that small of a market when Dayton/NKY/IND are a factor in the FCC audience as well?

^^That's along the lines of what I was suggesting about bringing UC on as a part owner. If UC has an equity stake in FCC, then the ownership group could say to the MLS that collectively they "own" the facility... and I don't see how it would be any different than the situation in Atlanta (aside from being new versus old stadium). Would be a great way to save the owners from having to pony up the cash to build a new stadium. The savings from not building (and maintaining!) a new stadium could allow for a) more money spent on personnel, b) more money spent on marketing, and c) more revenue sharing back to the MLS. That strikes me as a win for all stakeholders: fans, UC, current ownership group, the players, the coaching staff, and the MLS.

 

That’s creative. I've never heard of a college owning a professional sports team.

 

Oh wait, how could I forget that just north of here, a college owns a semi-pro football team, tOSU.

 

And it gets better, even further north a city built a stadium for a complete rank amateur football club.

 

What a crazy state we live in.

 

**double rim-shot**

Colleges having professional teams is actually a thing in some other countries I believe. Teams in Mexico and Chile come to mind. No idea its ever happened in any American sport.

It's a bit different in Mexico since the professional teams use the university's name/mascot/logo, usually through a licensing agreement. That only works because "university athletics" in Mexico are nothing like college sports in the US. I'm not suggesting that FCC use UC's logo/mascot/name (that'd be super confusing)... rather, I just want the ownership group to put together an agreement that allows for shared use of facilities and shared revenue from parking. That is a bit complicated, but it seems A LOT simpler and cheaper than setting up a new public/private partnership to construct a new stadium. From the MLS's perspective, they want a) committed owners b) good fan experience and c) maximum revenue from concessions/parking/etc. All of these can be addressed by bringing UC on as a part owner.

 

But even if FCC could easily build a new stadium, here's what it comes down to for me: nobody has made an argument of why a new facility would be superior to Nippert for the MLS, the owners, or the fans.

 

The only arguments I've heard against Nippert is that its surface (FieldTurf) and size (too big) aren't ideal. Other MLS stadiums use FieldTurf, and I think it makes sense for a shared facility to use FieldTurf since it is so much more durable and versatile. A smaller stadium would sell out more frequently and possibly be a better fan experience... but I view Nippert's size as both a pro and con. Even with just 18,000 fans, Nippert feels full of energy, and having the extra capacity allows for special games to accommodate much larger attendance. I haven't heard any complaints from fans about Nippert! I don't hear people say, "Oh Nippert feels too big and cavernous". Rather, I hear constantly that people love the atmosphere, even on days with low attendance. The design of Nippert makes it feel compact and intimate, even when it isn't full (which is very different from Paul Brown). Looking at all of the other MLS stadiums, I think Nippert would be in the top 5 of best designs/locations (Seattle, Portland, DC's under construction Audi Field are my favorites for the location/design).

 

By contrast, there are numerous ways in which a new stadium would be inferior to Nippert:

• Worse location - Nippert is a great location by virtue of being near so much in Uptown. Short Vine and McMillan are great for pre/post game. The bars/restaurants benefit greatly from having a source of revenue that isn't tied to students and the academic schedule. Uptown can grow as it attracts more residents/users in addition to the student base. UC already has invested in parking infrastructure so no new garages need to be built. An Uptown streetcar extension would make even more sense if FCC stays at Nippert. I see all upside to FCC staying at Nippert, and by contrast, I see big downsides to each of the proposed alternatives:
  
  • The West End site has real geometry challenges (both for the stadium and for new parking infrastructure). A large stadium won't fit in to the street grid, and the streets/parking infrastructure of OTR and the West End aren't set up for 20,000 people to arrive/depart all at the same time. The streetcar will be nice, but won't make a huge difference in terms of traffic/parking.
    
  • Ovation is an exciting opportunity for Newport and the region (riverfront, beautiful views of Cincinnati, near downtown), but Newport would benefit more from adding high density residential/office rather than a stadium that sits empty most days. It could be a nice spot for a stadium helping drive surrounding development, but I don't think a stadium is the BEST use for the space.
    
  • The Oakley site is uninteresting since pretty much everybody will drive to it and the surrounding "Center of Cincinnati" development (mega Kroger, large movie theater, single story out lots) wasn't designed to accommodate high density.
    

  [*]Worse utilization rate. All stadiums sit empty most days, so from a neighborhood/public perspective, this is a HUGE cost to a new stadium. Aside from FCC games, I don't know of any events that a new stadium would attract that can't be accommodated by existing venues (PBS, Nippert, Gettler, Stargel, etc). The rest of the time, the stadium sits empty. Adding an additional stadium to our urban core is not the best use of space, when we really need to be adding more residents.

  [*]Worse quality construction. Nippert is built extremely well. I worry that a new stadium will be much more "flimsy" and cheaply constructed.

  [*]Ongoing maintenance upgrades: the long term success of a facility depends on continuously upgrading the facilities. By virtue of being shared with UC, Nippert has more revenue to justify ongoing upgrades, which will help improve the fan experience for both UC Football and FCC. By contrast, an underutilized facility that neglects maintenance because they can't justify the ROI will languish (see US Bank Arena).

  [*]Student fan base: being on campus is a huge opportunity for FCC and the MLS to get a steady stream of new fans, who can be converted to lifelong fans. Over the long term, this is a HUGE opportunity that the team/league would be foolish to waste.

I'm genuinely curious to hear if anybody thinks a new stadium would be superior to Nippert, and if so, in what ways. Until I hear a compelling argument, I'm going keep hoping that the MLS, FCC, and UC show some creativity and find a way to make Nippert work long term.

 

^^^^^ I agree, but if a new location HAS to be built.....

 

 

The locations all mentioned are a let down as i see it. They seem more like concessions to investors who own the property or nearby property than they are to being chosen for being a good place to grow or even maintain the enthusiasm of the fan base. You would think that with all the work going on at the MLK exit the could find some corner in that vast swath of real estate to tuck in a stadium so that UC students could easily walk to the games and pregame near campus. What about the site of the walnut hills Kroger store? Incorporate the theater lobby on the corner into a new/old stadium and bring life back to Prout's Corner!!!! Use it for off game day programming too of course like concerts if possible. FCCincinnati central with shuttles to the casino parking lot to bring people up the hill and back for pregame in OTR. Everything else will need infrastructure/parking/construction from scratch or require demo of what is left of west end history (maybe) and look to make already difficult traffic MUCH worse on game days. Gilbert ave is way overbuilt for what walnut hills is currently and it even has a direct connection to the new MLK exit on one end and downtown on the other. The current plans have all the excitement in my opinion of the Crewe stadium, a new bland histortless structure on empty land. https://goo.gl/maps/mBaG39tFoGo

 

 

Moderator Note: Edited Google Maps link to be a short url

 

 

jwulsin[/member] that's an excellent summary and you should share it with the team & other involved parties.

 

It seems to me that MLS's marketing mission is to recreate the tradition and fan following of European leagues here in the USA.  Wouldn't a historic stadium like Nippert only help in that regard? (It's historic but it still has all the modern bells and whistles like luxury boxes that UC just built)

It will be the West End.

 

The land speculation prices for both the Ovation site and the Oakley site will be massive. The west end is by far the cheapest land value option, and doesn't carry the controversy that a FC Kentucky will bring, or a suburban Oakley site will bring.

 

The West end will be great for pre game drinking, and accessibility via the street car. The life blood of this team are urbanites who want to walk to the game, and are very supportive of urban progress in cincinnati in general.

 

Parking might be a massive concern, but maybe Jack Casino can work some type of deal with FCC? Or maybe a parking garage can be built? I don't know, but what I do know is that an urban stadium in the west end will be great for the progress that OTR is encountering, and maybe even be a catalyst for saving the old west end quicker than forseen.

But even if FCC could easily build a new stadium, here's what it comes down to for me: nobody has made an argument of why a new facility would be superior to Nippert for the MLS, the owners, or the fans.

 

The only arguments I've heard against Nippert is that its surface (FieldTurf) and size (too big) aren't ideal. Other MLS stadiums use FieldTurf, and I think it makes sense for a shared facility to use FieldTurf since it is so much more durable and versatile.

 

While FieldTurf is more durable, it seems to me that the preferred surface for most players seems to be grass. For example, the US Men's National Team will play only on grass and not on turf. In Seattle, when they (USMNT, CONCACAF, International Friendlies, etc) play at Century Link, a grass surface is brought in over the turf even though the MLS franchise typically plays on turf.

 

I haven't heard any complaints from fans about Nippert! I don't hear people say, "Oh Nippert feels too big and cavernous". Rather, I hear constantly that people love the atmosphere, even on days with low attendance. The design of Nippert makes it feel compact and intimate, even when it isn't full (which is very different from Paul Brown). Looking at all of the other MLS stadiums, I think Nippert would be in the top 5 of best designs/locations (Seattle, Portland, DC's under construction Audi Field are my favorites for the location/design).

 

I've been to nearly every FCC match and Nippert and here's my take: the stadium has far exceeded my expectations. When this club was announced, I couldn't believe Nippert was chosen over Paul Brown. The first match really won me over. I didn't attend UC for school, have not attachment to the venue outside of FCC, and have only been to a handful of UC Football games, but Nippert is a really good venue. That being said, it does have some downsides:

 

- No dedicated booths for merchandise and no room to put them in. March is sold in tents that have often have lines backing up into the concourse.

- Limited concession areas where the lines often compete with concourse traffic. Also, beer sold from tents has this issue. In particular: the Madtree tent line always moves quickly (with wonderful beer flowing), but it's always very crowded as the line from it meets the line from food, bathrooms, and general traffic.

- Restroom facilities that exist are fairly clean, but crowded and the club brings in a ton of "port-a-john's" to accommodate.

- Outside of the club, you're left with just bleachers. While The Bailey stands and doesn't seem to care, the red bleachers in the lower bowl (metal in the upper deck) feel cheap and aren't the most comfortable.

 

By contrast, there are numerous ways in which a new stadium would be inferior to Nippert:

• Worse location - Nippert is a great location by virtue of being near so much in Uptown. Short Vine and McMillan are great for pre/post game. The bars/restaurants benefit greatly from having a source of revenue that isn't tied to students and the academic schedule. Uptown can grow as it attracts more residents/users in addition to the student base.

 
Couldn't agree more with this, the location is great and while the downtown/OTR renaissance has been wonderful, it's great seeing so many people in Uptown that aren't just UC students. If FCC moves to its own venue elsewhere, the thing I will miss most is Mecklenburg Gardens. It's the absolute perfect pre and post match hangout spot. Great local business, great food, great beer, and you can always find a spot to to sit and relax with friends.
 

• The West End site has real geometry challenges (both for the stadium and for new parking infrastructure). A large stadium won't fit in to the street grid, and the streets/parking infrastructure of OTR and the West End aren't set up for 20,000 people to arrive/depart all at the same time. The streetcar will be nice, but won't make a huge difference in terms of traffic/parking.
  
• Ovation is an exciting opportunity for Newport and the region (riverfront, beautiful views of Cincinnati, near downtown), but Newport would benefit more from adding high density residential/office rather than a stadium that sits empty most days. It could be a nice spot for a stadium helping drive surrounding development, but I don't think a stadium is the BEST use for the space.
  
• The Oakley site is uninteresting since pretty much everybody will drive to it and the surrounding "Center of Cincinnati" development (mega Kroger, large movie theater, single story out lots) wasn't designed to accommodate high density.
  

[*]Worse utilization rate. All stadiums sit empty most days, so from a neighborhood/public perspective, this is a HUGE cost to a new stadium. Aside from FCC games, I don't know of any events that a new stadium would attract that can't be accommodated by existing venues (PBS, Nippert, Gettler, Stargel, etc). The rest of the time, the stadium sits empty. Adding an additional stadium to our urban core is not the best use of space, when we really need to be adding more residents.

[*]Worse quality construction. Nippert is built extremely well. I worry that a new stadium will be much more "flimsy" and cheaply constructed.

[*]Ongoing maintenance upgrades: the long term success of a facility depends on continuously upgrading the facilities. By virtue of being shared with UC, Nippert has more revenue to justify ongoing upgrades, which will help improve the fan experience for both UC Football and FCC. By contrast, an underutilized facility that neglects maintenance because they can't justify the ROI will languish (see US Bank Arena).

[*]Student fan base: being on campus is a huge opportunity for FCC and the MLS to get a steady stream of new fans, who can be converted to lifelong fans. Over the long term, this is a HUGE opportunity that the team/league would be foolish to waste.

 

I currently live in Oakley and the idea of being able to wake up and walk to the stadium/bar and then home is incredibly appealing. As someone who spent 5 years in NKY (Ft. Thomas (nice, but not great walkability and nothing going on after 4 PM with poor transit connections) and the one year in the suburbs (West Chester hell), I've loved living somewhere where I hardly ever touch my car and can utilize my bike or walk. However, that Kroger/Center of Cincinnati development is complete garbage with more garbage going in. I don't think it would provide a decent environment at all for the stadium. Not to mention, the stadium would be surrounded by residential housing and while there's great bars around here, most of them are small.

 

Totally agree that the Newport Ovation site should be geared towards density and residential. Loved Newport when I lived in NKY and would love to see its nightlife on par with Covington/downtown/OTR.

 

West End would be my preferred option: help move the development of OTR in that direction. Hopefully reasonable proximity to the streetcar (or a SC extension to Union Terminal where a daily Cardinal would bring in tons of rival fans from Chicago).

 

I'm genuinely curious to hear if anybody thinks a new stadium would be superior to Nippert, and if so, in what ways. Until I hear a compelling argument, I'm going keep hoping that the MLS, FCC, and UC show some creativity and find a way to make Nippert work long term.

 

I believe FCC's own venue would be superior to Nippert. No matter if UC is a partner or not, FCC will always be the second hand tenant. I'm not saying this is negative, but the building is clearly there to serve primarily for UC's football program. You can put up all the FCC logos you want, but you're still renting a room in UC's house. While it's been a great temporary home (and could be an excellent long term USL home should MLS not happen), it's not soccer specific. I'd love to see a venue with a safe standing section, where we could maybe have a capo stand, where all seats line up with the pitch, where a true grass surface can be maintained. Where I don't have to wait in line at a port-a-john. Something top class and on par with others in the league.

 

Ultimately, this is what it comes down to for right or wrong: MLS is no longer sticking their hand out hoping someone wants to invest/join. They don't need to rush and add teams to keep the league afloat. They're no longer the beggars, they're the choosers. While Seattle was a market with a fanbase that they needed for revenue and they could overlook playing in a cavernous facility, times have changed. If FCC wants to be in MLS, they'll need their own facility where they control almost everything. If they don't/can't go that route, MLS isn't going to wait. There's plenty of other markets out there. It comes down to who can make it work and deliver what they want. FCC could take a strong stance and stand by Nippert, but there's 9 other markets who MLS could turn to and those are just the other applicants. There's still even more who are up and coming or could jump on the radar eventually. Not saying that it's right, but it's just reality.

 

I'm waiting to hear all these details about public/private partnership, I think that is what makes or break this. However, in the meantime: You want in to MLS? Build a stadium. You want to stay at Nippert? Get used to USL. I'm content to support this club in either venture. While I'd love to see them jump to the highest level, I'm enjoying Nippert and league/US Open Cup play.

Gordon Bombay[/member] - I also live in Oakley and feel the same way about the Oakley site. While I technically could walk there... I would never *want* to walk across the sea of surface parking lots. That whole development area is a such a missed opportunity since it *could* have been a great extension of walkable Oakley.

 

I also agree with your comments about the areas where Nippert could be improved (need for more restrooms, dedicated store for merchandise) but I view those as solvable issues that both UC and FCC would benefit from. But maybe I'm wrong and there simply isn't room to add any more facilities. As for the surface, grass is - undeniably - the preferred surface for soccer, so no arguing with you there. I just think FieldTurf is an acceptable compromise in situations like this. In terms of seating, I've wondered if the bleacher seats in the lower bowl could be replaced with actual seats. That would a) make the seats more comfortable and b) reduce total capacity (which would make it easier to fill the lower bowl). Anybody know if the bleachers could be replaced with fold-up seats?  The <a href="http://www.theboxseat.co/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TBS-901-BROCHURE.pdf">Box Seat company makes a seat called the 901</a> that has a very slim profile when collapsed (only 7.5" when collapsed). <a href="http://www.theboxseat.co/new-bordeaux-stadium/">The new Bordeaux stadium</a> uses these seats, and I think they'd look great in Nippert. Fold up seats would make it easier to walk past people to get to your seat. Currently, the bleacher width plus your legs doesn't leave much room for somebody to walk by. With fold-up seats, it would allow for more space for people to walk by each other (would still require people to stand up).

Looking at satellite imagery, I think the logistics of the Oakley site are much more complicated than they first appear.  Doing absolutely nothing will cause a lot of trouble for the existing Oakley Station tenants.  Adding access to the site from local streets in Norwood across I-71 will require a $50+ million bridge (that will be a big boost for Oakley Station tenants, but Norwood might oppose it if they think it will poach Norwood business).  Putting an underpass under the B&O mainline tracks to Robertson and connecting to Edwards would help, but the traffic situation will still be pretty bad, and that improvement will cost upwards of $50 million as well. 

It will be the West End.

 

The land speculation prices for both the Ovation site and the Oakley site will be massive. The west end is by far the cheapest land value option, and doesn't carry the controversy that a FC Kentucky will bring, or a suburban Oakley site will bring.

 

The Taft site is of course already publicly owned.  Sounds like FC has already done some back room negotiations with CPS, but there is a risk that our public school system will get hosed out of what will soon become very valuable land. 

 

Do people think that FCC could fit a stadium of the capacity they need between John St and Central Ave? Upon first consideration, it seems like they may have to close Central Ave and expand east to Providence Street to get everything in. Although I like to think that all seating needs could be accommodated within the existing block and auxiliary services (parking, vending, team shop, offices) could be built on the east side of Central Ave.

 

David Beckham’s Miami soccer stadium won’t include parking

https://archpaper.com/2017/05/david-beckham-miami-soccer-stadium/

 

It also might be interesting to see FC Cincinnati not build structured parking, instead, relying on the streetcar stops that are within 5 blocks of the stadium (two at Washington Park, two at Liberty on Elm and Race). Would FC Cincinnati contribute to an extension of the streetcar to Uptown or Northern Kentucky?

Hugggggggggggggge risk ^

 

So many of the current fans are suburban mason moms and dads, bringing there 8 year old pee wee soccer kids.

 

Many of them are still afraid to enter OTR, let alone the West End. Parking will be crucial simply because we have so many suburbanites who just detest walking/any forms of urban life.

Do people think that FCC could fit a stadium of the capacity they need between John St and Central Ave? Upon first consideration, it seems like they may have to close Central Ave and expand east to Providence Street to get everything in. Although I like to think that all seating needs could be accommodated within the existing block and auxiliary services (parking, vending, team shop, offices) could be built on the east side of Central Ave.

 

The stadium almost certainly cannot fit between John and Central Ave. The smallest MLS stadium I've seen is Avaya Stadium in San Jose, which measures ~ 500'x550'. The distance from John to Central is only 410' wide. I suppose it might be physically possible, but that would cut down significantly on the capacity of the stadium, and likely remove an entire sideline from having substantial stands. I think to make it work, the stadium itself would need to cross Central. Perhaps they could find a way to build over Central and just close it on game days, but I find that highly unlikely.

 

It also might be interesting to see FC Cincinnati not build structured parking, instead, relying on the streetcar stops that are within 5 blocks of the stadium (two at Washington Park, two at Liberty on Elm and Race). Would FC Cincinnati contribute to an extension of the streetcar to Uptown or Northern Kentucky?

 

If the stadium is built on that site, I believe they will be paying some property taxes for the streetcar via the VTICA. If the Skyhouse development is within the range, this stadium would have to be as well. And at the ~$150 Million price tag, I think it would provide a lot of funding for the streetcar. I doubt they would provide additional funding unless they located in Uptown or Newport/Covington and wanted an extension.

 

I would like to see the team rely on existing garages as much as possible. If they do build a new garage, I hope it is easily accessible to other areas of OTR so it doesn't sit unused for most days.

...Upon first consideration, it seems like they may have to close Central Ave and expand east to Providence Street to get everything in...

 

Here's what I wrote in February:

 

Did we already rule out the Stargel Stadium site?  The area bounded by John St., Wade, Providence, and Taft HS has a similar footprint to MAPFRE.  Nothing immediately east along Central Pkwy is very high-value, so you could even have a "front lawn" facing the parkway.

 

Central Ave. could be curved east around the site a la the way Mehring curves around the Reds and Bengals stadiums.  You'd have highway access via Ezzard Charles and Liberty, and a short gameday loop of the streetcar could be built to connect to the core.  Some parking already exists at the Music Hall garage, lowering the amount that would need to be built.

 

If Stargel is still used for high school games, I can't see why it couldn't still on FC off-days - they're clearly used to sharing.  And the sale of the site could be seen as a nice boost for CPS.

 

I can imagine the fan groups congregating at Taft's and Taste of Belgium or wherever, marching around/through Washington Park, and then over to the stadium.

 

To me, it just fits.

 

The city will be doing something similar by curving Erkenbrecher around the new Children's expansion.  Central Ave would need to be curved to lay in the footprint of Providence, which only exists between 14th and Wade, so you wouldn't be disrupting the grid.

 

As for the streetcar, my pie-in-the-sky dream would be for a gameday-only loop to be constructed branching off Elm via 14th and Wade with a stop right in front of the stadium, and then for two hours before and after games, the northern section of the streetcar route (north of Central Parkway) would be a fare-free circulator.

Just heard from a credible source that FC Cincinnati is under contract to purchase the "lower bowl" of the Hartwell Golf Course:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2053097,-84.4824974,829m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

The guy didn't know if it was for a stadium or for a practice facility.  They are worried that they might have to back out of the purchase because of the rec center building on the property which has asbestos and lead issues. 

hope its a practice facility. Cant see it as a great site for a stadium. Not very walkable area. pretty industrial, not easy transportation access, not sufficient parking.

 

 

If you are going to build a stadium out that direction, just build it where the Gardens sits. There is already the parking infrastructure in place there and the roads are more capable of handling the traffic. Caldwell and North Bend are only 2 lane streets in that area.

The Crew practice facility is in a very similar area.

What economic benefits have the Crew provided to the area around their stadium? I think this stadium is going to be way more trouble than it's worth. Who even cares about the MLS like that? It's not like having an MLS team is suddenly going to make Cincy seem more big league. The media rarely discusses MLS soccer, there are very few true stars in the league, and all the real die hard soccer fans follow European teams and leagues. All this talk of rerouting roads, building massive garages in the West End, and even creating streetcar spurs to serve the stadium seems ludicrous for the very small benefit we'd be getting in return.

 

If fans truly like the team as is, why not just continue to play in the league they're in and use Nippert and UC's parking facilities. We have already heard that FCC is a great driver of business in Uptown in the summer months when business slows due to the students being gone. Why mess with a good thing? Create a bunch of traffic and an unsightly stadium in a neighborhood that has already been the ugly recipient of generations of top-down planning decisions? Yeah, I'll pass.

 

If a new stadium must be built, I'd say to go for Newport. Let the residents of NKY finally pay for something themselves rather than reaping the benefits of the goods Ohio taxpayers fund. The views from the stadium would be cool, lots of parking could be provided, and it could finally jump start a modified version of the Ovation project. The bars and restaurants at the Banks might even benefit from a stadium there. Also could serve as a rallying point for expanding the streetcar to NKY.

^ Do they have an impact like the Reds, Bengals, Browns, Indians, or Cavs? No they don't. However, they do provide a noticeable impact to the community as an amenity for companies like Nationwide to attract talent to the area. It also provides visibility to the city and allows them to better hold themselves out to peer cities. People in Chicago and NY will notice Columbus more because of the exposure the Crew provide. It is what allows Columbus to separate itself from say places like Des Moines Iowa

 

No, it is not one of the Big 3 sports but soccer is also growing now and it is a good value for getting a team now. Imagine in 30 years if MLS becomes as big as the NBA, people would not be having this discussion. That is part of

So the Crew will play FCC at Nippert on Wednesday June 14 @ 7pm

Tickets go on sale to the general public Tuesday, June 6 at 9am. Season Ticket Holders have until then to purchase their seats before they are released to the public.

^ Do they have an impact like the Reds, Bengals, Browns, Indians, or Cavs? No they don't. However, they do provide a noticeable impact to the community as an amenity for companies like Nationwide to attract talent to the area. It also provides visibility to the city and allows them to better hold themselves out to peer cities. People in Chicago and NY will notice Columbus more because of the exposure the Crew provide. It is what allows Columbus to separate itself from say places like Des Moines Iowa

 

No, it is not one of the Big 3 sports but soccer is also growing now and it is a good value for getting a team now. Imagine in 30 years if MLS becomes as big as the NBA, people would not be having this discussion. That is part of

 

The soccer crowds are a windfall for all of the restaurants and bars on Short Vine and Calhoun during the months when UC is dead.  That said, if the team stays there for 5+ years, the landlords will raise their rents accordingly. 

 

Stadium design will be revealed June 12. The event is open only to season ticket holders. There are a few those here, right?

A statement from Lindner:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/06/02/fc-cincinnati-were-not-asking-voters-build-stadium/367161001/

 

What stuck out to me:

 

"Downtown, Over-the-Rhine and neighboring areas are all experiencing tremendous growth. Companies are choosing to locate operations in the Queen City, bringing talented people from around the world to work, live and play here. I am proud that our new professional soccer team, FC Cincinnati, is a part of the renaissance that is occurring here."

 

Along with:

 

"Moreover, we will leverage our private dollars to ensure the new soccer stadium is a community asset that can host high school and college games, international and national matches and concerts. Our vision also includes helping to create a dramatic transformation in one of our community’s neighborhoods."

 

This sounds like the West End to me. I don't see Oakley needing a "dramatic transformation" and he didn't really seem to be championing NKY either.

 

 

^I sensed that too but I'm not sure that this meeting is going to declare a location as much as possibly 3 different preliminary designs for 3 different locations. 

 

If FC can keep this stadium speculation in the press through the fall, it will really take the heat off of the streetcar in the mayoral campaign.  That's bad for Cranley, because it's his only issue. 

The team was all set to announce their international friendly opponent today...

 

 

They had a press conference and were live on Facebook and then this:

 

"An unexpected delay means we can't announce who we'll be facing in our international friendly on 7/24, but we will do so soon! #RiseTogether"

 

 

Basically, the team they are playing is sending a representative from Spain to help announce (was on a flight to Miami at the time of the scheduled announcement). The team was not made aware of this, and Berding (GM of FCC) was made aware of this on his way to the presser. Contracts have been signed, but they will wait to announce until later today when the club's representative arrives in Cincinnati.

A team from Spain's La Liga. Pretty cool.

A team from Spain's La Liga. Pretty cool.

 

Darn. I was hoping FCC was playing The Riddler.

Today I had the thought that considering the ownership of the soccer team, there is some chance that a new soccer facility could be built as part of a larger complex that could see the W&S Tennis tournament moved into the city. 

 

Guessing by the financial figures shared re: the Lindner Family Tennis Center's 2010 renovation, it seems like the whole thing (11 tennis courts - four with bleachers or grandstands) could be bulldozed and rebuilt for less than $50 million.  I think there would have to be a new center court tennis-only stadium, but there is probably a way to put 10~ tennis courts temporarily onto a field turf soccer stadium. 

 

The Lindners could make a pretty strong case for public money if they promise to bring MLS soccer *and* move the tennis tournament into the city. 

 

 

I've been wondering if PromoWest would be a suitable partner for the stadium and then use it as a concert venue. I've seen multiple news articles mentioning that the stadium could also be used for concerts. After the rumors that they wanted to open a venue at the Banks, this might be there way to break into the Cincinnati market. Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra could be interested as well if for no other reason than keeping PromoWest out of the Cincinnati. Not sure what kind of capital either of these could contribute but I'm sure they could help get FCC closer to $200 million.

FC Cincinnati names international friendly opponent

 

FC Cincinnati will play its much-awaited international friendly exhibition match this year against Spanish first-division team Valencia.

 

Second-year soccer club FC Cincinnati will host the match, which is expected to draw a huge crowd, at 7 p.m. July 24 at Nippert Stadium on the University of Cincinnati campus.

 

The league in which Valencia competes, La Liga, is Spain’s top league and often considered the best league in the world. It’s highlighted by world soccer powers Barcelona and Real Madrid. Valencia finished in 12th place in the 20-team league this season.

 

“To bring a team from first-division Spain, you’re bringing one of the top clubs in the world,” said Jeff Berding, FC Cincinnati’s president and general manager. "To attract a club of Valencia’s magnitude speaks to the passion our fans and our city have demonstrated for the game of soccer.”

 

The match follows last year’s wildly successful first international friendly match hosted by FC Cincinnati in its first year of existence. The match against the English Premier League’s Crystal Palace became the first soccer sellout at Nippert Stadium, drawing 35,061 fans and marking the largest soccer crowd in Ohio.

So the assumption is that FC Cincinnati is going to try to get at least some public funding (up to $100 million based on previous comments) – be it for infrastructure, parking, land, etc. – without a tax increase. What are the chances someone comes forward with a streetcar type ballot initiative that prevents the city (and/or county) from spending any money on a soccer stadium? Would it pass?

So the assumption is that FC Cincinnati is going to try to get at least some public funding (up to $100 million based on previous comments) be it for infrastructure, parking, land, etc. without a tax increase. What are the chances someone comes forward with a streetcar type ballot initiative that prevents the city (and/or county) from spending any money on a soccer stadium? Would it pass?

 

That could explain why FC ownership is delaying a specific financing plan until much later in the year.  I remember correctly, ballot issues need signatures by late August. 

 

Also, people don't remember what happened back in 1996.  Early that year, the Hamilton County Commissioners enacted a 1/2 cent sales tax.  A citizens group led by Tim Mara and Tom Luken had just 30 days to get a huge number of signatures -- like 50,000 -- to challenge the tax on the May 1996 ballot.  They got it on the ballot but the tax passed anyway about 55/45.

 

This isn't the same situation at all.  The dollar amounts are much, much lower. 

 

My understanding is that any city ordinance that allocated money is considered an "emergency ordinance" and is not subject to the city's rule that allows petitioners to collect signatures to challenge it. Unless the anti-tax get out in front of this issue with an Issue 9 style charter amendment saying that "the city of Cincinnati shall not spend any money on professional sports facilities without an affirmative public vote to approve those funds" or similar.

I am hearing chatter elsewhere that the design of the West End stadium will not require demolition of any buildings.  Mapfre in Columbus is the closest soccer-only stadium so it is our go-to reference point but I looked at a variety of stadiums around the country and globe and it's a pretty anomalous setup and so not useful to our conversation. 

 

A few pages back someone mentioned Avaya Stadium in San Jose and looking at it again it's pretty obvious that a similar design could work on the Taft High School site.  Avaya has "decorative" structural elements that create a 500-foot width but the top rows of the grandstands are just 450 feet apart.  They would only have to shave off a few rows AND complete the fourth side to reach 20,000 seats.  So watch this video and imagine the top 5 or 6 rows shaved off each side but a completed stadium bowl:

 

From the looks of it, all of the soccer stadiums where the stands surround all four sides of the field have much better atmosphere than the various 3-sided stadiums like Avaya.  In fact, various crude online tours of MLS stadiums show that most of them kind of suck, including some of the recent soccer-only stadiums.  Some of them have bad designs and others are in dumb out-of-the-way locations.  An MLS stadium at the Taft HS site could be the best of the new stadiums in both respects -- a field surrounded on all sides by stands and a site within the city proper instead of cheap land out by the airport. 

 

 

WCPO Insider:

 

Oakley is packed with entertainment. Will FC Cincinnati join the crowd?

 

Options for having fun in Cincinnati's Oakley neighborhood have mushroomed in the last five years.

 

Mad Tree Brewery, a movie theater complex with leather loungers and a host of restaurants and bars clustered in and around Oakley Station barely scratch the surface of the entertainment boom in the east-side neighborhood.

 

Would an FC Cincinnati soccer stadium be a good addition to the mix? The soccer club aims to find out.

 

Cont

From what I hear, Crossroads already creates gridlock in the area. A stadium of 20,000+ would be chaos without some serious investments (new bridges over the interstate kind of investments).

^IMHO, Oakley is the WORST of the three options. Personally, I'd love being able to walk to and from matches, but the surrounding area just isn't great. Several of the bars in Oakley near the square are small and would be unbearably packed on match day. MadTree is already packed without 20,000 fans in the area and Bar Louie just sucks. That's great there's a movie theatre nearby, but for tomorrow's match I have absolutely no plans to catch a movie before or after the game. There's a Kroger and Target, so I guess if I need off brand Doritos that's a plus.

 

West End helps jumpstart development in that area. Newport has the view and close connection to downtown.

 

Oakley has an Olive Garden.

I think the public money going into the stadium is going to be mostly street improvements, sewer and lighting improvements in the area as opposed to the actual build. Also, I sense it will be Stargell site which would probably mean the school district would give the land to the team in exchange for another property somewhere else in the city and covenants by the team to allow HS time to play and use  the field.

 

All and all that could add up to the $100 million gap they are talking about

I think the public money going into the stadium is going to be mostly street improvements, sewer and lighting improvements in the area as opposed to the actual build. Also, I sense it will be Stargell site which would probably mean the school district would give the land to the team in exchange for another property somewhere else in the city and covenants by the team to allow HS time to play and use  the field.

 

All and all that could add up to the $100 million gap they are talking about

 

It is curious that CPS hasn't been vocal since they have to have had conversations with them about this.  Obviously, there is potentially zero land acquisition cost for the ownership...probably the only spot near downtown where they could pull this off.