I still have a gut feeling this will end up in Queensgate

Of course, if they win the expansion spot, they'll build the stadium in one of the 3 places. For months it's been about emailing the county commissioners, who seem to have ignored it all.  I guess the city will have plans with the port? It'll be interesting how the $100M comes around. I mean, it must be basically a done deal since Cranley is going to announce something this week.

 

Just to be clear, FCC would absolutely need to build a stadium to get the bid. Detroit just killed their bid by saying they can play at Ford Field. MLS cancelled a visit after that announcement. It's down to us and Nashville. Nashville has a stadium finance plan in place.

 

I thought there were 4 expansion teams that were going to get bids, no? Are two already locked up?

Two are announced this winter. Another two will be announced at a later date (maybe in 2020, but no definitive timeline)

^Correct. I say it's between us and Nashville because the other is believe to be taken up by Sacramento. So around December 10, MLS will most likely announce Sacramento and someone else for 2019.

From what I've heard the date is anticipated December 19-20. I'm not sure if there is a firm date yet.

 

I think FCC is everything Sacramento is, but bigger and better. Sacramento did it first, so it would be a shame if they didn't make it, but it would be hard to give them a franchise and not give one to Cincinnati.

So around December 10, MLS will most likely announce Sacramento and...

 

LeBron's going to the Heat.

I still have a gut feeling this will end up in Queensgate

 

No chance of that. It will get built in Oakley so that the city can leverage the stadium as an excuse to build more "infrastructure" in the area. Unfortunately 98% of the "infrastructure" spending will be on roads and only about 2% will be on meaningful transit, pedestrian, and bike improvements.

 

Newport would be a far better location but it seems like team ownership is only going to go with that option if they absolutely can not make a deal within the City of Cincinnati. And Cranley is not going to miss this opportunity to throw taxpayer money at this project.

Newport would be a far better location but it seems like team ownership is only going to go with that option if they absolutely can not make a deal within the City of Cincinnati. And Cranley is not going to miss this opportunity to throw taxpayer money at this project.

 

Ok then, how is the low info AM radio crowd going to react to taxpayer dollars going toward a weak, un-American sport like soccer? Does this hurt Cranley?

^Doesn't matter... there is a reason this started coming out a day or so after the election. Plus, he'll put it forward as an Emergency Ordinance so that groups like COAST (via No More Stadium Taxes) can't start a petition drive.

Berding again on WLW today and said FCC would now use all private money for the Oakley* stadium and are simply asking the city & county to provide the infrastructure much like they would for a new shopping center.

 

*Oakley will be the site as West End has too many land owners to deal with.  :-(

Just a warning from your possible rivals up north... if you don't put your stadium in the inner core you'll have your team for a few years then someone will try to take it away and put it in a city that is willing to build their stadium in the core.

^ Like Newport?

Just a warning from your possible rivals up north... if you don't put your stadium in the inner core you'll have your team for a few years then someone will try to take it away and put it in a city that is willing to build their stadium in the core.

 

No it just gives them the excuse to replay the whole game in 25 years. 

Either way it ends up costing the local economy money to keep it going.

Just a warning from your possible rivals up north... if you don't put your stadium in the inner core you'll have your team for a few years then someone will try to take it away and put it in a city that is willing to build their stadium in the core.

 

No it just gives them the excuse to replay the whole game in 25 years. 

 

Except if this stadium is privately owned it will have a longer shelf life. The big difference is if the sport takes off and becomes as big as the NFL, they will then want a bigger stadium. By then the Bengals will be gone and they can take over PBS I guess.

FC Cincinnati to pay for stadium, puts pressure on county

By Steve Watkins  –  Staff Reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier

Nov 14, 2017, 4:41pm EST Updated 11 minutes ago

 

 

FC Cincinnati’s owners will pay the entire $200 million cost of a new soccer-specific stadium if the city and county pay for the roughly $75 million in infrastructure costs that would be needed to build the facility in Oakley.

 

Hamilton County commissioners are the stumbling block to the plan to appease Major League Soccer's requirements for new franchises at this point, FC Cincinnati president and general manager Jeff Berding said at a hastily called news conference on Tuesday.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/14/fc-cincinnati-to-pay-for-stadium-puts-pressure-on.html

How much could infrastructure upgrades cost to upgrade the Oakley location? 

Building or rebuilding typical interstate exits can range from 40 to 100 million depending on logistics of the area these days.  I would think this location being near the Norwood Lateral/I-71 interchange could complicate this matter and push the taxpayer portion towards the higher end of things.  Thats not counting road upgrades in and around Oakley.

 

I kinda feel all the Newport/Oakley talk is meant to throw off the property owners of the West End or possible Queensgate sites.  Infrastructure upgrades to either one of these sites would be minimal since you already have I-75 exits at Liberty, Ezzard Charles, and 7th from Southbound 75.  Mehring and Freeman from eastbound 6th St Expressway.  Northound has 5th, Linn, and Freeman off the 6th ST expressway.  Winchell is largely the hardest to get to right now while Northbound but with I-75 revamp coming soon to this area I would think it wouldn't be to costly to add another offshoot somewhere around Ezzard Charles.  (I haven't looked to see what ODOT has planned for this area in the near future)

 

This could be the perfect catalyst to reconnect the original street grid and correct the 1960's crap that was built in Queensgate to make it more of a Banks type atmosphere west of 75.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/14/fc-cincinnati-to-pay-for-stadium-puts-pressure-on.html

 

According to that article, they're looking at $70-$75 million in infrastructure, but I'm not clear what that infrastructure would be specifically.

The Edwards Rd. connector to Robertson and then to the Oakley Station site could cost upwards of $40 million.  A single railroad underpass under something like the B&O often costs $20-25 million by itself, so it's not to much of a stretch to imagine that a half mile of grading and retaining walls could add $10-15 million. 

 

The other big "infrastructure" cost would be parking garages which could be paired up with Kenwood Collection-type office towers overlooking I-71. 

It's amazing how much surface parking is available right now in the west end...not only all of the thinly-parked residential side streets, but the totally unused CMHA grass:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cincinnati,+OH/@39.1110766,-84.5250478,795m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x884051b1de3821f9:0x69fb7e8be4c09317!8m2!3d39.1031182!4d-84.5120196

 

The use of public money in Oakley won't get anything like the return we could get in the West End/Queensgate. 

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like you’re in a cult.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

Right ... I keep going back and forth over this point in my head. Trying to justify it, I think, "Building the stadium in Oakley might be worth it if it causes the surround area to be built up in a Banks-style mixed use development." But... we are still not even finished building The Banks after 20 years. So maybe 10 years from now we could have two half-finished stadium-adjacent mixed use developments.

 

What FCC fans have failed to do is explain why this is a good investment for Hamilton County taxpayers who don't care about soccer. I keep hearing them say "It's $300 million in private investment!" Okay, but... the Port Authority will likely build/own the stadium, so construction materials will be tax exempt and the county/state will make no money off of that. Usually when you say "private investment" what you are actually talking about is the tax revenue that is generated as a result of that investment... but in this case, that will be $0. Yes, there will be some construction jobs created in the short term and those workers will pay income tax. But will there be a drastic enough increase in tax revenue over the life of the stadium to justify the $75-100 million that the city and county will invest in new streets and parking garages to support the stadium?

 

Also keep in mind that Hamilton County still owes $732 million to pay off the last two stadiums we built.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like you’re in a cult.

 

Explain?

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like you’re in a cult.

 

Explain?

 

1. That’s at least the 10,000th time I’ve read the “MLS wants it period” on the internet somewhere, possibly 100th time today

2. Please at least acknowledge the Groundhog Day like absurdity of the situation that we’re in, after sparing no expense on the stadiums the last time, while letting many other things go to rot

3. If you read what I wrote I am actually arguing for Newport as the least insane insane option. It could at least leverage some investments we’ve made in the Banks parking garages and perhaps drive some bar/restaurant business at the Banks by proximity. Using PBS would be the sane option but MLS may not let sanity prevail as you pointed out

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and it’s only half complete, and we’re looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sam’s Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like you’re in a cult.

 

Explain?

 

1. That’s at least the 10,000th time I’ve read the “MLS wants it period” on the internet somewhere, possibly 100th time today

2. Please at least acknowledge the Groundhog Day like absurdity of the situation that we’re in, after sparing no expense on the stadiums the last time, while letting many other things go to rot

3. If you read what I wrote I am actually arguing for Newport as the least insane insane option. It could at least leverage some investments we’ve made in the Banks parking garages and perhaps drive some bar/restaurant business at the Banks by proximity. Using PBS would be the sane option but MLS may not let sanity prevail as you pointed out

It isn't a cult. The MLS wants soccer only stadiums.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. 

 

You forgot to add that Paul Brown's lower deck design was modified after site prep had begun to accommodate professional soccer.  To date, the 17 year-old stadium has never hosted a soccer match. 

 

A new soccer-only stadium built in place of the Bengals practice fields would require basically zero new "infrastructure", other than finding a new site for the Bengals to practice.  Unfortunately, Mike Brown's insistence that the county pay for new practice fields immediately adjacent the new stadium was a way for land to be preserved for a replacement stadium for Paul Brown.  If you measure the space with google maps, you will see that it is just wide enough to accommodate construction of another big-time stadium without repeating the ignominious "wedge" period for Riverfront Cinergy Field. 

 

“What MLS wants” is irrelevant to me until someone makes a good case of why the investing $75-100 of taxpayer money into this project will result in a positive ROI. I have not even seen anyone try to make that case.

 

And additionally...why that would be a better investment than other projects we could do with that money instead.

“What MLS wants” is irrelevant to me until someone makes a good case of why the investing $75-100 of taxpayer money into this project will result in a positive ROI. I have not even seen anyone try to make that case.

 

And additionally...why that would be a better investment than other projects we could do with that money instead.

 

Eh, your probably right.

 

The only thing it really does is brings Cincinnati more towards the global spotlight. Cities are judged by the amount of professional sports teams they have. The less sports teams you have, the smaller of a city you are considered. (Like Louisville/Dayton, etc)

 

Other than that, signing big name players that have played in Bundesaliga/Premier League/La Liga only creates more international spotlight for Cincinnati, and creates a ripple effect in the neighboring players country. Thus, in the process Cincinnati becomes more, "visible" so to speak. You can go to alot of countries in europe who will have no idea who or what cincinnati even is.

 

Staying in the USL will never allow us to sign big players. Again, USL is equivalent to a AA or AAA minor league baseball team.

 

Also, winning an MLS bid does create more legitimacy and more of a chance to host the 2026 World Cup, and having a Cincinnati MLS team means our players could theoretically be on the World Cup Men's Roster. 

 

So yeah, your probably right about ROI. But there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that it would allow Cincinnati to be more visible on the global stage. 

 

 

Oakley Community council supports the plan, WLWT ran an article show Oakley businesses sport the idea. So today we'll learn if the 2 of 3 commissioners want to walk away from the support of Oakley CC, Oakley Businesses and $200M in private investment because they don't want to use money they already have. It will be truly disappointing vote if that happens.

I think this stadium situation is a little nuts actually. 20 years ago we started building the Banks which was to be our place to accommodate large stadium crowds. An 8,000 car garage was planned along with a transit center and highway access. (Although non-stadium development at the Banks is still forced to build additional parking!) An entertainment district would complement the stadiums. Fast forward present day and its only half complete, and were looking to replicate the whole thing behind the Sams Club in Oakley.

 

 

If it was in Newport, Hamilton County would probably make money during FCC games from people parking at the Banks and spending money there, without the additional infrastructure tab.

 

MLS wants soccer only stadiums. MLS decides who gets in.

 

You guys sound like youre in a cult.

 

Explain?

 

1. Thats at least the 10,000th time Ive read the MLS wants it period on the internet somewhere, possibly 100th time today

2. Please at least acknowledge the Groundhog Day like absurdity of the situation that were in, after sparing no expense on the stadiums the last time, while letting many other things go to rot

3. If you read what I wrote I am actually arguing for Newport as the least insane insane option. It could at least leverage some investments weve made in the Banks parking garages and perhaps drive some bar/restaurant business at the Banks by proximity. Using PBS would be the sane option but MLS may not let sanity prevail as you pointed out

It isn't a cult. The MLS wants soccer only stadiums.

 

Also, PBS would be awful for soccer. It would be 60% empty. It doesn't have safe standing zones, something that is required for MLS stadiums. It wasn't designed for soccer like Atlanta's was. FCC wouldn't own it, they wouldn't control the sales or the scheduling. These are simple reason why PBS would not work. New England is looking for sites in Boston because playing at the Patriots stadium does not work. DC United is finally moving out of their football stadium to a soccer stadium, NYFC is apparently close to finding a site for a soccer specific stadium. It only works in Atlanta and Seattle because they have the same ownership and Atlanta's stadium was built with soccer in mind. PBS was built for soccer in 1998 or whatever but it's completely out dated for soccer. Detroit was an expansion possibility but the ownership group wanted to use Ford Field, the NFL stadium there. MLS has cancelled their visit there. That alone shows why PBS would not work. Playing soccer at PBS is such an awful idea for so many reasons beyond what I listed above.

Could a 21k stadium fit on the Paul Brown practice fields? What leverage (if any) does Hamilton County have to change the use of those fields.

^ Probably, but I'm not sure. I imagine Mike Brown had quickly shot that idea down, but I'm just guessing.

So basically from what I read, they came out and said "No public money!" and are basically trying to strong arm the public, looks like they already got Cranley and maybe some other members of council.

 

However, when you look at the details, they still need at least $75 million from the public.  They would get around $3 million per year from the county which is obviously public money, but since it is being saved right now for US Bank Arena or a revamped convention center or hotel, it isn't being used so we should spend it on the stadium.

 

We also are giving up which is probably one of the most prime properties in the city, putting a TIF on it, and using that TIF to spend back into the stadium.

 

Lastly, they would need infrastructure improvements for parking ramps, interchange fixes, etc.

 

All the same while, the infrastructure and all of this is basically already in place in the West End.  Also, it is already there in Newport, and like Bill pointed out, they can USE the parking infrastructure, etc. already in place downtown to get to Newport and the only infrastructure they may need help on could be a private venture with getting water taxis to scuttle people over. 

 

My thoughts: They are strong arming the city hard on this because Kentucky won't give them as much as the city would.  I truly hope the commissioners do not drop this money to the Lindners, let Kentucky take it, and use that $3 million per year to upgrade US Bank Arena or the Convention Center Hotel.  We can spread it out more.  Otherwise, the US Bank or the Convention Center may never get done

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

Based on this statement from the Newport mayor it sounds like the Ovation site for the stadium is dead. 

 

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

THis is a good deal. The county would be stupid to pass on this. What are we paying $75 million for. Better roads in Oakley and Pleasant Ridge (which need upgrades anyway) some parking structures in an area that is redeveloping and would allow it to become an even denser neighborhood and spur additional development in the area down the line. It will go to help bus service (think bus hub in the area) it will go toward neighborhood development which is ultimately what the county's job is.  How many other developments of this size (which often would cost more taxpayer money) would generate the amount of people to develop additional businesses, residential and hotels in the area? I cant think of any.

 

Yes it is not the west end, but it is also not Mapre which is an old brownfield in an the fairgrounds area with little residential or commercial development around and not really a very conducive area to create that feel. 

 

Oakley already has that.

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It won’t be a good urban development. From what I’ve heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our region’s best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. It’s going into its second decade now, it’s only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It won’t break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldn’t be anything I’ll get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

Maybe I am all wrong on this, I just feel with all the development we have made downtown, picking Newport would be the best option to continue that for the sports stadia, then you can go and get this Oakley development off with offices and residential, etc. 

 

Isn't anyone concerned that splitting these two areas up now between the Banks and Oakley is a concern?

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

If you think about it, this size (maybe 35k) is a reasonable crowd for games  all over. In Europe, their stadiums sit around 45-50k for most of their leagues (yes some are more). If you look at the sporting marketplace, the Reds in good years average about 25-30k per game. While soccer plays less frequently than the Reds, they play a lot more frequent than the Bengals where 8 home games are more events.

 

Even if you could draw more fans a game in many cases, you still want to tap it at 25k for a while until demand grows so much that expansion is not an option. It is a lot easier to grow revenue by raising ticket prices than putting more seats in the stands.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

Maybe I am all wrong on this, I just feel with all the development we have made downtown, picking Newport would be the best option to continue that for the sports stadia, then you can go and get this Oakley development off with offices and residential, etc. 

 

Isn't anyone concerned that splitting these two areas up now between the Banks and Oakley is a concern?

 

I see both sides. I would prefer Newport over Oakley, but Oakley has the infrastructure that Newport does not have. People can walk from Madtree to the stadium and some of the other bars in the area. Newport does not have this yet. You would essentially have a stadium with nothing walkable in the area. However the boat brigade would be a cool thing.

 

 

 

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

It will be 21,000 with the ability to expand it to 30,000 in the future. FCC originally had it at 25,000 but reduced the size to be able to privately fund the stadium completely. It appears you only asked 1 question.

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

It is not $75 million for a new stadium. It is $0 for the stadium. THe county is investing the money for better roads for residents in the community, the county is investing the money to build parking garages that will generate revenue for the city. The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley. The money is not going to a stadium. THe stadium is the result of the money.

Paul Brown is a nonstarter. It's a terrible stadium, too. If they were going to use someone else's stadium they would just stay at Nippert which they have already been using for USL games and fits the size requirements better. But that's not realistic. Any suggestion that we use an existing stadium is ignoring what MLS has explicitly said. So I say we stop even entertaining those ideas.

 

MLS meets on December 14 to choose two expansion candidates. This is likely Cincinnati's shot at making it. In a couple of years when they announce the remaining two teams, other larger markets (Detroit, San Diego, Phoenix, Charlotte, etc) will likely have gotten their act together and have full plans that beat ours. Throwing out new ideas for stadium locations is also a waste of time. The deadline is 30 days away. The West End has dozens of property owners. I don't see that happening in 30 days.

 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

Right? The money for infrastructure could make Oakley Station a good urban development. Think big like Wrigleyville. It's supported by the Oakley CC and Oakley businesses. It's money that is just sitting there not used for anything. US Bank and Millenium Hotel are non-starts owned by a foreign company who have no interest in doing anything to help. I doubt $75M is enough for a convention center expansion. The commissioners have one shot to put Cincinnati on an international map with the global sport loved by young millennial Cincinnatians (who are the future) with a infrastructure plan that will help more than just FCC. It's a no brainer. Unfortunately, I don't think it will pass. The fact the commissioners and others are still talking about PBS shows how uniformed people seem to be. It should be a slam dunk yes.

 

It wont be a good urban development. From what Ive heard a 1,000 car garage is planned for a 21,000 seat stadium. My guess is the difference will most likely be made up in surface parking.

 

The Banks is our regions best attempt at marrying stadiums and urbanism, two things with needs that are fundamentally at odds. Its going into its second decade now, its only half complete and the parking garage platform infrastructure is incredibly costly to build out. Bars and restaurants struggle for business during slow days of the week.

 

It wont break my heart if they build it in Oakley, but it wouldnt be anything Ill get excited about.

 

Two further questions

 

Why is MLS not anticipating huge growth in stadium crowds? It seems like a 21,000 seat stadium could be obsolete the minute they build it.

 

The infrastructure money their asking for is half the cost of the streetcar, Yet a decision will be made in two days as aoppposed to seven years and two ballot measures.

 

If you think about it, this size (maybe 35k) is a reasonable crowd for games  all over. In Europe, their stadiums sit around 45-50k for most of their leagues (yes some are more). If you look at the sporting marketplace, the Reds in good years average about 25-30k per game. While soccer plays less frequently than the Reds, they play a lot more frequent than the Bengals where 8 home games are more events.

 

Even if you could draw more fans a game in many cases, you still want to tap it at 25k for a while until demand grows so much that expansion is not an option. It is a lot easier to grow revenue by raising ticket prices than putting more seats in the stands.

 

You're overstating how big stadiums are in Europe.  Yeah the big clubs have large stadiums but there are just as many small clubs that have stadiums closer to or under 20,000.  Average attendance in England is 35,822.  Germany 41,511.  Spain 27,700.  Italy 22,164.  France 21,029.  And every other county is obviously less then that. 

I'm shocked so many people here are balking at $75 million over a few decades. We can argue about what site is better, but this isn't a lot of money. I think I would personally rather have Newport than Oakley, but it doesn't seem like a hard decision for the commissioners to make.

 

I'm shocked that so many FCC fans keep saying "but we get a new stadium for only $75 million of public money!" without making an economic case for how this investment will result in a positive ROI for the city and county.

 

Let me just perform a cost-benefit analysis that you will immediately ignore and claim isn't accurate.

Cincy513[/member]  I am not an expert on European soccer so I wanted to err on the high side. Ultimately, my point is that smaller is more appropriate from a revenue generation perspective and efficiency. 100k stadiums play to one time or short term events. Think concerts, football, Bowl games, political or religious revivals. ---

 

If the Reds or Tribe played 3-4 times a year, they would fill 100k stadium too. Over 81 games they obviously cant draw those numbers. Same principle with soccer.

It is not $75 million for a new stadium. It is $0 for the stadium. [...] The money is not going to a stadium. THe stadium is the result of the money.

 

I am aware of how it works. The point is, the city/county must invest $75 million of public money into infrastructure and then the team owners will invest $300 million into a new stadium. Got it. So now FCC fans must justify why that $75 million will result in a positive ROI.

 

The county is investing the money for better roads for residents in the community

 

It depends on which roads are "improved". If we build out a bunch of new streets leading to/from the parking garage and stadium, it doesn't benefit the community, it only benefits the people specifically going to/from the game. If we invest in meaningfully improving the I-71/Norwood Lateral interchange or other public streets nearby, then you will have a point.

 

the county is investing the money to build parking garages that will generate revenue for the city

 

Again, it depends on the details. Most likely the city will pay for the garage and lease it to the Port Authority for $1 so they can operate it and make a huge profit. Which would be a nice funding stream for the Port Authority.

 

The money is going to encourage additional development and payroll taxes in the area from hotels and restaurants and potentially other office development that chooses to go to Oakley.

 

This is where I'm going to say, show me the economic study. When the city gave tax breaks to GE, they had to justify it with actual detailed math. "GE will create (a) new jobs, resulting in $(b) additional salary within the city. Therefore the city will give $© work of tax breaks to GE, resulting in $(b-c) worth of additional tax revenue coming into the city." Let's stop glossing over the details. How many additional hotel room nights will be generated as a result of the new stadium? How much additional spending will be created at area bars and restaurants. Hire some economists and do a study.