At least when Michele Dillingham spoke, she said way more about school property taxes being assessed in full on the stadium. She said "if" they build in the West End, they need to invest in the schools via property taxes (unlike the Bengals and Reds stadiums).

Stanley Rowe towers are nowhere close to Stargell. 

 

The West End is a very large area and Stargell Stadium is virtually on its edge.  If the site were 800 feet west, none of this conversation would be happening. 

Everyone is aware of how the WE and countless neighborhoods around this country most of them black and poor were absolutely destroyed because of the interstate highway system but you can't use that argument to be against a stadium that as far as we know isn't planning to tear down a single house. You can be against the stadium because of game day noise or game day traffic but to be against it because decades ago the neighborhood was bulldozed for a highway is absurd and holds no water. If this stadium was attempting to tear down houses in the WE I would absolutely be against it. Heres what we know: FCC sent a "lets talk" letter to CPS, entered a deal with CMHA and asked to speak the WECC meeting. Other than the CMHA deal, I just don't see an argument for some sort of secret deal that doesn't engage the community. They're literally asking to and will engage the community next week. And Jake is right, if the boundary line between the WE and OTR was John St instead of Central Pkwy this wouldn't be an issue.

 

I used to live in an apartment on Stettinius in HP, I would have loved to have the FCC stadium at Withrow. It's where the semi-pro Cincinnati Saints played.

A stadium wont do this alone, but it will help spur neighborhood housing to the area.

 

 

Why do you think that? What is the appeal of living next to a stadium?

 

 

I'm thinking they could take some cues from Wrigleyville. The stadium is obviously an asset. How does the structure and the visiting crowds positively interact with the neighborhood?

I still believe that the good that fcc will bring for cps will far outweigh the bad. Especially if Linder can offer sponsorships and scholarship programs and internship partnerships...also add a New Stargell stadium that’s state of the art.

 

It will be hard for cps to say no.

 

Let’s not forget that fcc wants a stadium and mixed use development, maybe they can spur some neighborhood essentials as part of the project to sweeten the deal.

It is a very large investment that can spur other development in the area to improve lives and outcomes for those who live in the area.

 

Yeah, because stadiums have such a great track record of spurring other development. How many studies need to be prepared that show that stadiums do little to actually spur development for you to believe it? Look at the hotbed of activity around Paul Brown Stadium! Such a thriving part of the city, huh?

 

The whole area rises with this. There were many decisions made decades earlier that have led to this point and finally people are willing to start to invest in the neighborhood again, for the betterment of the community. 

 

LOL! Yeah, FC is choosing to put their stadium in the West End to better the community. That's totally it. You and I both know the reason they're looking at a West End stadium is because MLS told them they want stadiums in urban areas, and there's some vacant land in the WE that's proximate to OTR. If it were at all feasible, I'm sure Lindner and Berding would love to demo a couple blocks in OTR and put the stadium there. This has nothing at all to do with investing in the West End, and everything to do with putting a stadium in a core location to satisfy MLS, and in a neighborhood that doesn't have much power to fight it. And you know it. 

 

 

Look what Columbus has done with the arena district, look what 3CDC has done with OTR,  they needed a catalyst to draw people there to give it a shot.

 

Columbus built the arena district from scratch. There was no existing community to be had. 3CDC has developed housing and retail and office space in OTR, not a frickin stadium. How are these situations comparable at all? If Lindner and co want to invest in the West End to bring housing and mixed use development, have at it! They could have done so long before FCC was even dreamed up, but of course they did not. This isn't an altruistic move for them.

 

I was like the only person on this board who was defending the Cityrama proposal, because it would bring 50 new market rate, single family homes to the West End. It does need to 'gentrify' a bit, and there does need to be more economic diversity in the neighborhood for it to improve. Now we can debate whether that proposal was the highest and best use for that site, and we did on here. But don't confuse me with an anti-development, anti-gentrification activist. Funny how seemingly everyone was against that proposal, but is seemingly fine with a stadium and associated parking facilities that will get used a handful of times a year taking up a large amount of space in the West End.

 

 

Appears to me that so far most if not all of the "No" people speaking out against this are people who are NOT West End residents. 

 

Dwight Tillery

Wendell Young

Cecil Thomas

Josh Spring

Brian Garry

Michele Dillingham

etc.

 

Does Joe Mallory even still live in the WE?

 

If I didn't know any better I'd assume they lived in Newport, KY.

It is a very large investment that can spur other development in the area to improve lives and outcomes for those who live in the area.

 

Yeah, because stadiums have such a great track record of spurring other development. How many studies need to be prepared that show that stadiums do little to actually spur development for you to believe it? Look at the hotbed of activity around Paul Brown Stadium! Such a thriving part of the city, huh?

 

The whole area rises with this. There were many decisions made decades earlier that have led to this point and finally people are willing to start to invest in the neighborhood again, for the betterment of the community. 

 

LOL! Yeah, FC is choosing to put their stadium in the West End to better the community. That's totally it. You and I both know the reason they're looking at a West End stadium is because MLS told them they want stadiums in urban areas, and there's some vacant land in the WE that's proximate to OTR. If it were at all

feasible, I'm sure Lindner and Berding would love to demo a couple blocks in OTR and put the stadium there. This has nothing at all to do with investing in the West End, and everything to do with putting a stadium in a core location to satisfy MLS, and in a neighborhood that doesn't have much power to fight it. And you know it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look what Columbus has done with the arena district, look what 3CDC has done with OTR,  they needed a catalyst to draw people there to give it a shot.

 

Columbus built the arena district from scratch. There was no existing community to be had. 3CDC has developed housing and retail and office space in OTR, not a frickin stadium. How are these situations comparable at all? If Lindner and co want to invest in the West End to bring housing and mixed use development, have at it! They could have done so long before FCC was even dreamed up, but of course they did not. This isn't an altruistic move for them.

 

I was like the only person on this board who was defending the Cityrama proposal, because it would bring 50 new market rate, single family homes to the West End. It does need to 'gentrify' a bit, and there does need to be more economic diversity in the neighborhood for it to improve. Now we can debate whether that proposal was the highest and best use for that site, and we did on here. But don't confuse me with an anti-development, anti-gentrification activist. Funny how seemingly everyone was against that proposal, but is seemingly fine with a stadium and associated parking facilities that will get used a handful of times a year taking up a large amount of space in the West End.

 

 

Regarding your first point this is not a hope to spur development.

 

Jeff Berding has gone on record saying they are NOT building just a stadium. They will be building mixed use development around the stadium as well.

 

The same plan is set for Oakley as well. It will not simply be a stadium and parking garage constructed but many amenities as well.

 

This is very much a new requirement from the mls.

It is a very large investment that can spur other development in the area to improve lives and outcomes for those who live in the area.

 

Yeah, because stadiums have such a great track record of spurring other development. How many studies need to be prepared that show that stadiums do little to actually spur development for you to believe it? Look at the hotbed of activity around Paul Brown Stadium! Such a thriving part of the city, huh?

 

 

Uh- look at the area before GABP and PBS. Now look at the Banks. Overall, even though it is underperforming it is still a success from the old warehouses in that area before then. I would say it has spurned economic development.

 

 

 

The whole area rises with this. There were many decisions made decades earlier that have led to this point and finally people are willing to start to invest in the neighborhood again, for the betterment of the community. 

 

LOL! Yeah, FC is choosing to put their stadium in the West End to better the community. That's totally it. You and I both know the reason they're looking at a West End stadium is because MLS told them they want stadiums in urban areas, and there's some vacant land in the WE that's proximate to OTR. If it were at all feasible, I'm sure Lindner and Berding would love to demo a couple blocks in OTR and put the stadium there. This has nothing at all to do with investing in the West End, and everything to do with putting a stadium in a core location to satisfy MLS, and in a neighborhood that doesn't have much power to fight it. And you know it. 

 

 

 

It has everything to do with investing in the West End. I am sure if they had their choice they would put it on the Riverfront or on 4th street, but the land is not available in those areas. In the West End there are some larger land parcels that can be put together for a stadium much easier than other parts of downtown. And by doing so, the entire area will benefit from it. Yes, it is a stadium, but it will benefit the whole area immensely.  It will give people another reason to use the Streetcar, it will improve the critical mass of residents who live or want to live in the area and lead to additional amenities such as a drug store and restaurants. The stadium is not the end all and the sole key to development, it is a catalyst. You cant just build it, you need to develop the entire neighborhood around it by using that as an anchor to leverage investment. It is why shopping malls have anchor stores, it is why cities spend on convention centers that draw visitors short term but nor residents.

 

 

 

Yeah, because stadiums have such a great track record of spurring other development. How many studies need to be prepared that show that stadiums do little to actually spur development for you to believe it? Look at the hotbed of activity around Paul Brown Stadium! Such a thriving part of the city, huh?

 

 

The Banks has moved way slower then we'd all like but its still been a huge benefit to the city.  There are apartments, restaurants, bars, office workers and parkland there that weren't in the past.  That is exactly what people in the West End want, but they think it's just going to magically show up?  No, it needs something to spur development and the stadium would do just that.

 

 

 

LOL! Yeah, FC is choosing to put their stadium in the West End to better the community. That's totally it. You and I both know the reason they're looking at a West End stadium is because MLS told them they want stadiums in urban areas, and there's some vacant land in the WE that's proximate to OTR. If it were at all feasible, I'm sure Lindner and Berding would love to demo a couple blocks in OTR and put the stadium there. This has nothing at all to do with investing in the West End, and everything to do with putting a stadium in a core location to satisfy MLS, and in a neighborhood that doesn't have much power to fight it. And you know it. 

 

 

I think it's pretty clear West End has been their top choice from the beginning.  They just couldn't put a stadium plan together for West End last December.  They still don't have one now but they're working on it.  Putting the stadium there would be the best business for them which is what they want but it would also be the best for the city of Cincinnati.

 

 

 

Columbus built the arena district from scratch. There was no existing community to be had. 3CDC has developed housing and retail and office space in OTR, not a frickin stadium. How are these situations comparable at all? If Lindner and co want to invest in the West End to bring housing and mixed use development, have at it! They could have done so long before FCC was even dreamed up, but of course they did not. This isn't an altruistic move for them.

 

 

Arena district isn't an apples to apples comparison but it has shown, as has the banks, that a stadium/arena can be a catalyst for development.  The arena district was built up and has grown around the anchor of Nationwide Arena.  The Clippers then built a new stadium there as well, so it's basically their version of the banks.  It just shows that you can get a bunch of development built around a stadium/arena.  There's certainly no guarantee but if you think nothing else will be developed around this FC stadium if it gets built in the West End then you have your head in the sand. 

 

 

 

 

I was like the only person on this board who was defending the Cityrama proposal, because it would bring 50 new market rate, single family homes to the West End. It does need to 'gentrify' a bit, and there does need to be more economic diversity in the neighborhood for it to improve. Now we can debate whether that proposal was the highest and best use for that site, and we did on here. But don't confuse me with an anti-development, anti-gentrification activist. Funny how seemingly everyone was against that proposal, but is seemingly fine with a stadium and associated parking facilities that will get used a handful of times a year taking up a large amount of space in the West End.

 

The plan everyone thinks FC is going to do is switch the cityrama land with the land they have the option on.  That way cityrama can still happen while they get the land adjacent to Taft to build a new stargell.  I believe it would actually lead to a few more houses then what was planned for the original cityrama.  So they can get their stadium built, build a new stargel and still have cityrama happen.  I don't see a downside to that plan if they can make it happen.  And when it comes to added parking that area is in desperate need of it.  It would get used by people going out in OTR, people going to Music Hall, people going to Washington Park and people going to whatever other concerts/events FC would do at their stadium.  To think a parking garage in that area would only get used "a handful of times a year" is just idiotic. 

 

If Carl Lindner just wanted to maximize his profits, he wouldn't be starting an MLS team. He would be throwing $300 million in the stock market. The dude's not stupid.

 

That said, he still has to make some money doing this, so he's not going to just throw his money away.

The thing about the West End is that it already has a highway entrance and exit ramp there, there are parking garages near by because of music hall in the area, there is the streetcar in the area that can move people to and from the games, and you have a bar ecosystem and neighborhood that is already in place. It is what makes it ideal because it would require the least amount of infrastructure build out.

 

Oakley has the neighborhood, but needs the rest of the infrastructure built out to best handle the stadium. NKY has nothing and it is pretty much building on a blank slate. That is the appeal of the West End. It has everything in place already.

I don't buy the notion that GABP and PBS are the drivers of The Banks, especially not PBS.  The Banks is, IMO, its own independent thing that could be much better in fact without the stadiums, allowing the neighborhood to be many many blocks larger and thus more self-sustaining.  Even so, it seems to be something of a smokescreen to help disguise just how bad a deal these projects are. 

 

For reference, the city and county spent $1.3 billion on The Banks just up to 2004 (on the stadiums, Ft. Washington Way, the Freedom Center, and the Reds Hall of Fame).  Additional expenses on Smale Park, the street grid, and the parking garages are supposedly around $400 million, for an estimated total of $1.7 billion in city/county funding.  The total value of the entire project, including private development, is expected to be $2.5 billion.  So we spend $1.7 billion to get $800 million in private development.  Hmm, that sounds a bit fishy. 

 

But wait, they project $275 million in additional economic activity to be generated per year, above and beyond the one-time $600 million in economic activity precipitated by the construction.  Let's be super generous and assume all the garages, road infrastructure, stadiums, and everything will last for 50 years with little to no maintenance or operational expenses.  So ($275 million x 50 years) + $600 million = $14.35 billion.  Subtract out the $1.7 billion in public outlay and wow what a big win! 

 

Except wait, how much of that $14.35 billion in economic activity over the next 50 years will the city and county recoup through taxes?  You know, to actually pay back the construction?  Assuming the city and county can get 10% of the economic activity via municipal income, property, sales, and other taxes, that means only $1.4 billion will be earned back to pay for its construction, and that's assuming 100% of the taxes go to paying it back, instead of schools, police/fire protection, libraries, and all manner of other things.  Then there's all the tax breaks given to companies to encourage them to build there in the first place.  I bet the local recovery rate is below 5% too. 

 

I say all that just to illustrate why the whole "if you build it they will come" or "we just need to prime the pump" mentality is so fraudulent.  If the FC stadium was going to be 100% privately funded and they weren't asking for any public accommodation, then it would be something of a different story.  Nevertheless, I agree with those who say there's no inherent benefit (quite the opposite) to living next to a stadium like this.  The mixed-use component of the stadium is perhaps an attempt to mitigate the vacuum that is the stadium itself.  The thing is, it's likely not to be big enough to really counteract that or to help provide the critical mass the neighborhood needs for those neighborhood-serving businesses to open either.  And with public assistance, it's looking like yet another example of private profit public debt. 

PBS has about 15 events a year, it is not a huge draw by most standards. BUT, you don't get The Banks without PBS or GABP. You need both of them as the catalyst to get people to see what the Banks could be. It brings people to the area to say, yes, I can see myself living down there or hanging out down there, or at least can see the vision of what would otherwise be an empty parking lot.

 

You need the stadiums to act as a catalyst. It is similar to the Streetcar for real estate in OTR. From a transportation perspective, the Streetcar is fairly worthless, but it gets people to see OTR as a much more viable neighborhood, it is another catalyst.

I don't buy the notion that GABP and PBS are the drivers of The Banks, especially not PBS.  The Banks is, IMO, its own independent thing that could be much better in fact without the stadiums, allowing the neighborhood to be many many blocks larger and thus more self-sustaining.  Even so, it seems to be something of a smokescreen to help disguise just how bad a deal these projects are. 

 

For reference, the city and county spent $1.3 billion on The Banks just up to 2004 (on the stadiums, Ft. Washington Way, the Freedom Center, and the Reds Hall of Fame).  Additional expenses on Smale Park, the street grid, and the parking garages are supposedly around $400 million, for an estimated total of $1.7 billion in city/county funding.  The total value of the entire project, including private development, is expected to be $2.5 billion.  So we spend $1.7 billion to get $800 million in private development.  Hmm, that sounds a bit fishy. 

 

Here's an interesting John Schneider post giving some detail on the inside baseball of the GABP & PBS development. If I understand John correctly, The Banks wouldn't exist if it weren't for the stadiums.

 

I conceived the Second and Main location for the Great American Ball Park and chaired the 1998 campaign that resulted in Hamilton County voters choosing that site over Broadway Commons, a difficult thing for me because Jim Tarbell was and is one of my best friends.

 

One day in the summer of 1997, I met Marge Schott and Carl Lindner on the 28th Floor of Atrium II to show them how a new riverfront ball park could be built by removing the left-center field seats of Cinergy Field and dropping the new structure in-between the Coliseum and Cinergy. Lindner did much of the selling, having been briefed earlier on how it could be done. Mrs. Schott and John Allen, the Reds' CEO at the time, were not really opposed to Broadway Commons, but they did think the Reds had a significant history on the central riverfront and that a known location was better than an unknown. The never-told story is that the Reds, feeling that no riverfront location for them was possible, had earlier been prepared to go to Broadway Commons and probably would have but for a chance meeting.

 

A year or so before my meeting with Mrs. Schott and Mr. Lindner, I was invited to make the pitch to the Cincinnati Business Committee for narrowing Fort Washington Way. As the meeting was getting underway, I found myself in a small holding room with then-County Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus who was there to brief the CBC on the stadium negotiations. Before he went into the meeting to make his presentation, I told Bedinghaus that there was a way to accomodate the Reds on the river, something that planners had by then given up on. The location I proposed had never been considered -- the "wedge" between Cinergy and the Coliseum. He was totally taken aback, but Bedinghaus has a really good grasp of the built world, and he quickly glommed onto the possibilities. The only problem was, we had to move FWW to free-up the site.

 

Soon after my presentation to the CBC and probably with Bedinghaus' prodding, local CEO's made calls to Governor Taft and soon the State of Ohio found most of $100 million for its share of the cost of relocating the highway. And a year later, the highway reconstruction began.

 

Those of us who favored the GABP site viewed is as the keystone building block for realizing a flood-proof riverfront for the first time in Cincinnati's 225-year history. Our thinking was, combining the roadway and parking budgets for both the Reds and the Bengals stadia in one place would allow Cincinnati to achieve the critical mass of infrastructure to lift the riverfront out of the flood plain, establish a new level of life south of FWW, and open the riverfront for development. We also felt that creating a close-in, 5,000-car parking bank available to downtown office workers 98% of the weekday working hours of the year would cure downtown's chronic parking problems, and it has. We said, and our TV commercials during the ball park campaign showed, that we would have a whole new neighborhood where before there had been nothing. One unintended consequence was that the new riverfront parking assets drew parkers away from the Broadway Commons parking lots in large numbers and probably motivated the owners to sell Broadway Commons for the casino site.

 

The best move I made in all of this was bringing Cincinnati architect Michael Schuster into the project to show Cincinnatians how this could be done. His first rendering showing Great American Ball Park on the new riverfront hangs in my office today. Mike's a genius. He carried the day visually, and Cincinatians came to understand that this crazy idea was possible and certainly desirable.

 

It's been a two-fer for the city. The Reds are where they really wanted to be, attracting two million or so visitors a year, while the casino site is expected to attract, what?, four million people a year.

 

And the Cincinnati Streetcar is the final piece of the puzzle, linking both of these assets together with the rest of the downtown basin and eventually to Uptown and beyond.

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/west-end/west-end-mls-stadium-would-be-absolutely-unconscionable-wendell-young-said

 

Not a great sign, when a negative press conference is held before even meeting on 2/13 with Berding and Mallory at West End  Community council to discuss possible plan.  Back to Oakley we go.

What hypocritical grandstanding by some of those pepole.  "The West End needs a grocery store; the West End needs a drug store; the West End needs businesses," Thomas added. "It does not need a structure that changes the dynamics of the neighborhood." Well Thomas the current dynamic of the West End does not support those things. The only way to change that dynamic is to get more people to move there. You can't sit there and say you want development to come here but then turn your backs on the biggest and best opportunity the neighborhood has ever had. If you want the West End to stay as it is then it will continue to be a run down neighborhood with few amenities and businesses.

 

One of two things are going on here. I do not trust these people at all. They are either being obstructionists because they see progress in the neighborhood as making them eventually obsolete. Or they are posturing ahead of time in order to increase the “pay off” they will get to label this as good and walk away.

Or, you know, they care about their neighborhood and are inherently distrustful of mega projects being foisted upon them. You know that NIMBYs in rich neighborhoods complain about EVERYTHING and they usually get what they want, or at least some sort of compromise. 4 story developments are proclaimed to be skyscrapers that will forever ruin the ambiance of the neighborhood. But here is a development that actually will have big impacts on noise, traffic, light, etc. and the community is just supposed to shut up and be thankful that anyone is wanting to invest in their neighborhood? Why is that?

On my morning walk I saw Jeff Berding out in City West today talking to residents. (He tweeted about it too so I guess it wasn’t a secret mission:

)

Or, you know, they care about their neighborhood and are inherently distrustful of mega projects being foisted upon them. You know that NIMBYs in rich neighborhoods complain about EVERYTHING and they usually get what they want, or at least some sort of compromise. 4 story developments are proclaimed to be skyscrapers that will forever ruin the ambiance of the neighborhood. But here is a development that actually will have big impacts on noise, traffic, light, etc. and the community is just supposed to shut up and be thankful that anyone is wanting to invest in their neighborhood? Why is that?

 

Who are “they”? The only opinions I’ve heard are of Tillery et al who apparently don’t even live in the neighborhood.

I saw this pamphlet being shared on Facebook.  I don't know if it was a mailer or if it was passed out in-person by Jeff Berding:

^ Did they actually print it with the little spell check squiggly lines visible? I don't think I've ever seen that before - I didn't even know you could print those.

Lol that's what I thought too.

If you take a screenshot of of a document then cut and paste it as an image you can.

Someone forgot to right click and "Add to Dictionary"

On the other side I saw this one asking people to voice THERE opinion. Ugh, too much rushing to spin going on. https://scontent.fluk1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/27858544_154660975331781_4249778259199502229_n.jpg?oh=e2e0af99aad9b63cfdac5e1922ebdd2c&oe=5B15928D

 

That fear-mongering poster is pretty unfortunate. The typos and Random capitalization Of words just Makes it even worse. Jeff Berding tweeted about it:

 

Learned opponents of @fccincinnati stadium are falsely scaring residents w claims FCC plans to take their home. PATENTLY UNTRUE - & opponents admitted during our walk they know these fear tactics are false. When confronted, said “fear works”. They also took our flyers off doors.

I took a bike ride around the West End today, probably the 20th time I've done so.  Nothing has changed -- aside from the CMHA housing and City West, there is no such thing as a West End city block that is even half occupied.  It is pockmarked by hundreds, if not over 1,000 vacant lots, and at least half of the buildings are completely empty.  I don't think it's exaggerating to claim that the physically surviving historic areas of the West End are at-best 1/4 occupied, and occupied almost entirely by renters. 

 

Today I walked around this building, immediately north of the Stanley Rowe towers:

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1565341/824-Poplar-St-Cincinnati-OH-45214

 

The building looks to be in fair condition and looks like it was occupied as recently as five years ago, but there is a reason why nobody has bought this thing up.  Even if you get it for $5,000, you need at least $250k to get it rentable, and you'll struggle to find renters who want to live directly across the street from public housing in a neighborhood with no stores of any kind.  You've got to ride a bike or the bus to downtown to get any food or any anything. 

 

 

 

This is the time to buy West End property. 

I seen in the Business Courier that FC Cincinnati is now looking into making Nippert their permanent home . They want to buy Nippert stadium and then lease it back to the University with the conditions UC will still have access to it all times for Football and student activities.

I seen in the Business Courier that FC Cincinnati is now looking into making Nippert their permanent home . They want to buy Nippert stadium and then lease it back to the University with the conditions UC will still have access to it all times for Football and student activities.

 

Not sure if you read the article beyond the headline (and it's pay-walled so I get it), but essentially that article said they looked at the idea, it was faced with hurdles, and they haven't resisted it since. "Obstacles" was a word consistently used and the option of using Nippert is no longer being pursued. It was a meaningful article with interviews and content, but the headline is a bit click-baity.

 

They're not going to use Nippert, wouldn't get the University or State to agree to that anyways, and MLS isn't interested in the stadium.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/02/02/could-nippert-stadium-still-be-a-permanent-option.html

Berding is jumping around like a junkie in a holding cell. I've never seen a serious person with so many changes of plans on the fly. Hard to know what to make of it. If he didn't have the Linders on the other end of this fire drill I would think he had no plan at all.

This is a good sign that the real residents are at very least open to listening to the proposals.  The neighbors around me have felt more jaded by the politicians from other neighborhoods coming out saying "No" without any real input from real residents than they have by FC or Berding.  We will find a lot more out between tonight and tomorrows meetings

 

West End Community Council to outsiders on FC Cincinnati stadium issue: Back off

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/11/west-end-community-council-outsiders-fc-cincinnati-stadium-issue-back-off/326401002/

Here are this weekends press releases

I seen in the Business Courier that FC Cincinnati is now looking into making Nippert their permanent home . They want to buy Nippert stadium and then lease it back to the University with the conditions UC will still have access to it all times for Football and student activities.

 

Not sure if you read the article beyond the headline (and it's pay-walled so I get it), but essentially that article said they looked at the idea, it was faced with hurdles, and they haven't resisted it since. "Obstacles" was a word consistently used and the option of using Nippert is no longer being pursued. It was a meaningful article with interviews and content, but the headline is a bit click-baity.

 

They're not going to use Nippert, wouldn't get the University or State to agree to that anyways, and MLS isn't interested in the stadium.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/02/02/could-nippert-stadium-still-be-a-permanent-option.html

I read the print addition. In the updated online addition it says talks have been on ice which I take it to mean the UC Board are not really interested in entertaining this proposal from FC Cincinnati. If they just put a stadium without any other investments in the West End then you can expect something  similar to what happened in the Lower Hill District neighborhood in Pittsburgh despite having the Pittsburgh Civic arena in the midst of it.  Even with a arena where NHL games and concerts were played for over 50 years the neighborhood remained in a state of economic erosion and impoverishment.

I seen in the Business Courier that FC Cincinnati is now looking into making Nippert their permanent home . They want to buy Nippert stadium and then lease it back to the University with the conditions UC will still have access to it all times for Football and student activities.

 

Not sure if you read the article beyond the headline (and it's pay-walled so I get it), but essentially that article said they looked at the idea, it was faced with hurdles, and they haven't resisted it since. "Obstacles" was a word consistently used and the option of using Nippert is no longer being pursued. It was a meaningful article with interviews and content, but the headline is a bit click-baity.

 

They're not going to use Nippert, wouldn't get the University or State to agree to that anyways, and MLS isn't interested in the stadium.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/02/02/could-nippert-stadium-still-be-a-permanent-option.html

 

As much as I'd love to see FCC, UC, and MLS strike up a creative deal that makes Nippert work... this article headline is a good example of Betteridge's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

Here are this weekends press releases

Those images are tiny thumbnails... try re-uploading at higher resolution if you want them to be legible.

Here are this weekends press releases

Those images are tiny thumbnails... try re-uploading at higher resolution if you want them to be legible.

 

Standby, working on it

As much as I'd love to see FCC, UC, and MLS strike up a creative deal that makes Nippert work... this article headline is a good example of Betteridge's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines

 

Hahaha, this is so true.

 

I'll admit that my expectations of Nippert have been blown out of the water (it helps with the attendance this club has seen). I thought playing at UC was going to be cavernous even with 10,000 in the stands (if we were lucky), but it's turned out pretty great. I love being able to hang out in Uptown. However, Nippert has some glaring issues with crowds and at the end of the day, it's a college football stadium on a college campus. Maybe I don't get that excited about it since I didn't go there/am indifferent about UC athletics.

 

I would hope that even if MLS doesn't happen, the club would seek out its own, smaller soccer specific stadium ala Louisville City FC when the lease at Nippert is up.

 

If they just put a stadium without any other investments in the West End then you can expect something  similar to what happened in the Lower Hill District neighborhood in Pittsburgh despite having the Pittsburgh Civic arena in the midst of it.  Even with a arena where NHL games and concerts were played for over 50 years the neighborhood remained in a state of economic erosion and impoverishment.

 

That seems to be corrected with the newer arena built across the street, no? And if not, were those businesses along 5th Ave. around for the Civic Arena? In previous articles posted here, it seems the club is interested in development opportunities other than just a stadium. It also helps that you're located nearby another developing area and a permanent transit line. Developers have been speculating on the West End well before any talks of a stadium.

 

For me, I'm interested to see what FCC's plans are and how they engage CPS/residents. I still think Newport was objectively the best location (if you can look past the fact that it's *gasp* not in Cincinnati), but compared to Oakley, I think the West End is a much better site. I'm curious too about the concerns of residents. Right now, the concerns seem to mainly be stemming from those concerned about CPS.

 

thebillshark[/member], I've enjoyed a lot of your thoughts and ideas on The West End over the years, curious to see how exactly you feel about the proposed stadium.

 

 

A lot goes on behind the scenes on any project before the public is made aware. This is no different. The school board can hold up the sale of land until they are satisfied with the plan FCC presents. People are acting like kids won't be able to walk to school any more. It's ridiculous.

 

The part that makes it toxic is the timing crunch. Which is a 100% unnecessary component of this, and a product of FCC putting all discussion off until after the election. There's no time to go through a proper public input process now. People aren't acting like babies; they're acting like people who were unfairly shut out of the process.

There hasn't been a process yet. CPS still has the ability to stop a stadium in the West End. City Council still has the ability to stop it. Assuming they need about 2 or 2.5 years from ground breaking to opening a stadium, they can negotiate a benefits agreement with the community in the next 6-12 months, then get approvals from council and begin construction to be able to play in the stadium by Spring 2021.

 

And if you're FCC, and you want to discuss this before the election, but the mayor and several council members who are necessary for approving any plan tell you to wait until after the election, do you wait until after the election? Of course you do.

 

I don't think FCC is even asking CPS to approve an agreement today. They are just presenting information about their plans. What timing crunch are you talking about? The only one I can think of is the Oakley financing in November/December which was needed to get the plan ready for the MLS bid. No one has proposed a timeline for the West End yet.

It seems like FCC is speedily shuffling around trying to check some boxes to get asked to the prom by MLS, and it seems like that is related to the West End stuff. Maybe they will take it more slowly than I expect; I hope they do.

 

If you all-in stadium fans are confident a full public input process is going to be carried out with the West End community and CPS, then I think you guys shouldn't be so worried about Josh Spring, et. al.

I don't know who Keith A. Blake is by that letter is terribly written.  Jeff Berding's letter is better, but gets off to a clumsy start.  That "you" in the first sentence is completely wrong. 

 

I don't know who Keith A. Blake is by that letter is terribly written.  Jeff Berding's letter is better, but gets off to a clumsy start.  That "you" in the first sentence is completely wrong. 

What do you mean by "completely wrong"? I think it's a letter that FCC sent to season ticket holders (who live in CPS area). What's wrong about that use of "you" in the first sentence?

YOU can't write "Friends," and then "you" singular.  He could have written "Friends, I want to make all of you...", but "I would like to make you aware..." is poor writing to begin with. 

 

I would have instead cut out that first sentence entirely and did something like...

 

Friends,

 

FC Cincinnati will present our West End Stadium concept to Cincinnati Public Schools on Monday, February 12 at 6pm at ____location____. 

Was this article supposed to be posted, or did somebody goof up?  Makes it sound like this meeting already has taken place.

 

FC Cincinnati President and General Manager Jeff Berding unveiled the plan at Monday night's Cincinnati Public Schools board meeting, asking it to approve the deal. Hundreds turned out to voice their opinion and learn details of what the soccer club is planning. 

A vote could come XXX.

 

 

New details on West End stadium today as FC Cincinnati woos schools, community groups

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/02/12/new-details-west-end-stadium-today-fc-cincinnati-woos-schools-community-groups/328621002/

It's already updated to the correct story. ICYMI the leaked story basically said:

 

-New Stargel stadium with locker rooms, synthetic field, Olympic sized track with pole vaulting area and covered home stands with Stargel's name to be built at Citirama site.

-FCC wants to build affordable housing in the lots they have from CMHS option.

-The CET garage would be rebuilt by 3CDC.

YOU can't write "Friends," and then "you" singular.  He could have written "Friends, I want to make all of you...", but "I would like to make you aware..." is poor writing to begin with. 

 

"You" is both singular and plural in English. Words/phrases like "y'all", "youse", "you guys", etc. have developed to compensate for the ambiguity the language has. Berding's usage is fine.

It's already updated to the correct story. ICYMI the leaked story basically said:

 

-New Stargel stadium with locker rooms, synthetic field, Olympic sized track with pole vaulting area and covered home stands with Stargel's name to be built at Citirama site.

-FCC wants to build affordable housing in the lots they have from CMHS option.

-The CET garage would be rebuilt by 3CDC.

 

I would also imagine the team making the FCC stadium available for CPS teams on certain occasions too, or granting CPS a continued revenue stream on events at the stadium.

^ If FCC did a land swap with CPS, and built CPS a new Stargel Stadium at the former Citirama site, why would FCC also agree to give an ongoing revenue stream from the new FCC stadium?

It's already updated to the correct story. ICYMI the leaked story basically said:

 

-New Stargel stadium with locker rooms, synthetic field, Olympic sized track with pole vaulting area and covered home stands with Stargel's name to be built at Citirama site.

-FCC wants to build affordable housing in the lots they have from CMHS option.

-The CET garage would be rebuilt by 3CDC.

 

I would also imagine the team making the FCC stadium available for CPS teams on certain occasions too, or granting CPS a continued revenue stream on events at the stadium.

Yeah I definitely don't see them giving CPS or anyone a continued revenue stream.  They may let teams occasionally use the stadium but I imagine it would be more for bigger playoff games.  That way high school football or soccer playoff games would be toward the end of FC's season.  CPS would have a new Stargel stadium right across the street and FC will want to limit the amount of wear and tear on their grass field over the hot summers.