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.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

“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.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there are other projects worthy of funds and I'm not saying a soccer stadium is the top priority.

 

However, "what MLS wants" is the reality. It's not a cultish chant as some seem to imply.

 

If you want to get into MLS, you play by their requirements. If not, there's several other markets (Nashville, Sacramento, Phoenix, Raleigh, STL and SD 2.0) that are also vying. If you apply for a job meeting only some of the qualifications, you're not likely to get that job.

 

Ultimately, it's up to the county/city/etc. to decide if a soccer stadium is worth their investment/money and that's fine, they may not feel that it is, but Paul Brown Stadium isn't an option. If sharing a stadium was an option, they'd be better off going with Nippert anyways, which MLS has already declined an interest in. Trotting out PBS again and again (while it may seem like a "sane" option) is a nonstarter. It's typical Portune.

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.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

 

There's no time to do that between now and 11am. You'll just have to believe putting $75M to improve the infrastructure in Oakley that is supported by Oakley CC and Oakley business is a good deal. I can't imagine how not having better roads, sewer pipes, pedestrian access to Oakley square via ped bridge over railroad track (I'm just spitballing here) among probably others is a bad idea. But frankly, there's no time. It comes down to a county vote today and then a MLS vote in mid Dec.

^Which is why it was spit out yesterday all of this, after Cranley's election, etc.  Because when you get to the nitty gritty, it probably isn't a great deal for the taxpayers. 

 

I'm not saying it's a bad deal, but I would hate for all this money to be poured in like Travis has said, only for the benefit of the stadium.  Why can't they answer that question?  When I say "they", I mean FC Cincinnati.

 

I really loathe rich people yelling in our face saying this is such a good deal, but then they don't have details.  I get it all the time in business, it's a common tactic, but a lot of times when you see the results or end output, it isn't a good deal.

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.

 

Does anyone want to make a good guess at how moving to MLS will affect attendance?

 

Will higher pricing possibly mean less fans in the seats?

 

Or will the MLS spotlight mean a healthy increase?  The Manitoba Moose of the AHL had a loyal following - not unlike FCC - in Winnipeg, avg. almost 9k fans a game. Yet when the NHL Winnipeg Jets moved back into town the avg. attendance went up to around 15k.   

 

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.

 

Why do FCC fans act like they are being attacked when someone asks them straight-to-the-point questions? Show me that this is actually a good deal for taxpayers and I will be more supportive of it.

 

I'm just fed up with all of the people who point to deadspin articles about stadium financing and proclaim no city should ever spend money on any stadium ever anywhere. Sorry if I'm coming off agitated, but it's really frustrating to deal with so many people who's opinions I usually respect, and yet can't seem to come at this topic with a shred of critical thinking (not actually talking about you taestell)

 

People pretend sports bring no revenue to cities, and that just isn't true. There are numerous quantifiable benefits, but I think there are so many unquantifiable benefits to sports that people ignore because they don't care about sports personally.

 

The same people who often cry about sports funding are the same ones demanding arts programming. The inability to see that sports and arts are the same thing is incredibly frustrating. Both are assets to the community that cannot be entirely quantified. I support both, and I don't see how you can support one and not the other. For example: I probably go to Music Hall once a year on average, but I still value it and think tax money should support the programming there. Same with Union Terminal, Art Museum, etc. There are benefits to these expenditures that cannot be entirely calculated.

 

Even the 1996 stadium tax wasn't that bad of a deal. The deal the county signed with the Bengals was a monstrosity. But looking back, I don't think the 1/2 cent sales tax increase was inherently a bad idea. But there are now so many people who have been burned once before and think no spending on sports is the only solution.

 

There are real economic benefits. The most tangible benefits that I can quantify without an economic study are: ~$500,000 annually from admissions taxes (3% on avg $46 tickets over 17 games per year), $126,000 annually from income taxes from players alone ($7 million avg annual salary which has increased every year for a long time in MLS taxed at 1.8%, not counting bus tax). This doesn't count tax money raised from parking, sales of merchandise, front office staff salaries, hotel taxes, increased property taxes around the stadium, admissions for concerts/other events, etc. You would have a hard time convincing me this deal would not bring $75 million into the city/county coffers over the course of several decades. This barely seems debatable, honestly.

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.

 

You're possibly the biggest streetcar skeptic on this board, and you're just going to gloss over this $75m like that, for some vague yet-unnamed infrastructure improvements? You guys (anti-streetcar/pro-stadium) are really inconsistent; it's hair-pullingly frustrating to watch. Please reevaluate the proportionality with which you evaluate public investments. (Not trying to pick on you in particular.)

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.

 

1) it is common sense that an anchor development like this will spur additional development.

 

2) You can hire an economist to make any rosy projections you want which will no way be accurate. Look at the streetcar numbers for example of this.

 

Point is, you have something like this which is going to be privately funded outside of infrastructure, how is that any different than any other capital expenditure.

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.

 

1) it is common sense that an anchor development like this will spur additional development.

 

2) You can hire an economist to make any rosy projections you want which will no way be accurate. Look at the streetcar numbers for example of this.

 

Point is, you have something like this which is going to be privately funded outside of infrastructure, how is that any different than any other capital expenditure.

 

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

^The reason people can't answer that and why FC Cincinnati won't, is because they know they won't get the business they want in Newport, or they won't get the tax breaks they want there, and so they are pushing this on as a "WOO is ME, this is a slam dunk, etc......" yet they have no written reports detailing exactly what they want but now they need a vote.

 

This is a fleecing in the most classic way possible, and the orange and blue tinted glasses are killing ppl's logics.  The Lindner's and Berding are doing basically exactly what Trump did to America, "It's a great deal, great here, great that", but offer no details on it. 

 

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

 

I think these are all fair points and in my opinion, the club has not done the best job of making their case for why these funds should be used for a soccer stadium. Granted, this is all coming post-election and nearing an MLS deadline, but that hastily put together press conference yesterday seemed way too tense.

 

I would counter with this though: I think this project is more deserving than US Bank Arena receiving public assistance.

^ it is not that the streetcar gets a pass. It is the fact that when asked for the numbers on the stadium, many of those seem people championed the rosy numbers of the streetcar. The streetcar has numbers now which are not very rosy nor near the projections. That does not mean the streetcar is a failure. 

 

Some of these numbers are pointless because they are all puffed up anyway. You can get numbers on the stadium too but they will be beyond rosy projections that will fall short of expectations. That is how the game works. That is not to say that this is not a good investment, it is.

I think a lot of people have a problem with this, and I can see it: Why does this get a free pass yet the streetcar doesn't?  Why is regional transit a back burner question yet this is pushed to the front?  How will this affect US Bank Arena, etc.

 

My biggest gripe is this: The county has limited funds, Newport will take it.  Why spend $3 million a year and all this other infrastructure updates to an already HOT neighborhood for a stadium, when Newport can take it and we can spend that $3 million a year on other needs like the US Bank Arena?

 

 

I think these are all fair points and in my opinion, the club has not done the best job of making their case for why these funds should be used for a soccer stadium. Granted, this is all coming post-election and nearing an MLS deadline, but that hastily put together press conference yesterday seemed way too tense.

 

I would counter with this though: I think this project is more deserving than US Bank Arena receiving public assistance.

 

^Yeah, I don't disagree with you that people will have a different set of opinions on what is more important and I understand that, and that is opinion based.  That is why we vote in the leaders to make those decisions.

 

If you put Cincy only and said here are the options 1, 2, 3, and we choose 1 which is FC Cincy, I am fine.

 

If you put it 2,3 which one do you want, and you say 2 Convention Center, I am fine with it, where 1 was eliminated by going across the river, that's more my point.

 

My other point is I hate the tactic Berding pulled, I just absolutely loathe business people like that.  Seriously, these guys got more money than God, to come and say woooo is me is kind of pathetic.  They should just be straight up, hey, we can't make this work unless you guys help us out, we believe in the long term this is a great investment, and we will continue to champion Cincy and bring more jobs and more investment all along the way... that would rub me a lot better than shady business

 

US Bank Arena owners claim a renovated arena would increase the local impact from $21M to $39M.

 

If a new FCC stadium brings in even 1/10th of that $39M, it's easily paid for the infrastructure costs.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/10/02/u-s-bank-arena-owner-details-potential-impact-of.html

Findings from an economic impact study from May of this year. taestell[/member]

 

^ it is not that the streetcar gets a pass. It is the fact that when asked for the numbers on the stadium, many of those seem people championed the rosy numbers of the streetcar. The streetcar has numbers now which are not very rosy nor near the projections. That does not mean the streetcar is a failure. 

 

Some of these numbers are pointless because they are all puffed up anyway. You can get numbers on the stadium too but they will be beyond rosy projections that will fall short of expectations. That is how the game works. That is not to say that this is not a good investment, it is.

 

Are you talking about ridership projections or economic development projections? Because the amount of development that has occurred along the streetcar route since the streetcar opened has already exceeded projections, even if ridership hasn't yet met expectations.

^ Ridership and occupancy projections. those were what was being cited. Obviously the economic development along the line was significant.

Do we even have FCC attendance projections by which to judge the success of this stadium?

First, Ryan, let me address your previous point. There is absolutely a positive, intangible benefit that comes along with adding a new major league team to the city. Your comparison to the arts is spot on. While the average Cincinnatian may only visit an event a Music Hall two or three times during their entire life, the fact that we have a world class venue, a world class symphony and other arts institutions, has a positive impact on the city that can not be quantified in dollars. So I'm not saying that economics are the only factor that should be considered when deciding whether taxpayer money is used for infrastructure to support the new stadium.

 

Personally, I have a lot of questions about the site plan. Will the stadium be built in an urban way that Oakley residents can walk to it ... or will they be crossing a sea of parking lots? Will the area be designed so that new office buildings and retail could be added and utilize the same parking garage ... or will this parking garage literally only be used on game day and sit 99% empty on every other day of the year? If you can leverage these infrastructure investments to actually be a benefit to the overall community/city/county, you have a much stronger case. If the infrastructure is only used on game days ... then it's a waste.

 

Now, back to the economics...

 

Findings from an economic impact study from May of this year. taestell[/member]

 

 

So to sum it up, the report claims:

 

- 2200 to 2600 jobs created during construction

- $12 million per year in new salaries for players / staff / etc.

- $45 million per year in new tourism revenue (hotels, restaurants, etc.) and more than 500 new hospitality jobs

- $3.7 million per year in tax revenue during construction

 

Here's why I am very skeptical of the claim that adding an additional major league team will result in additional hospitality revenue. On the surface, it makes sense. People decide to go to an FCC game, hit up a bar or restaurant before, spend some of their disposable income in the city, everybody wins. The problem is, people have a limited amount of disposable income. Usually when they decide to go out a spend money on one thing (FCC game) they are just shifting money from something else they would have spent it on otherwise (night out at the movies, a Reds/Bengals game, going shopping).

For the Record I do think joining MLS has huge intangible, hard to quantify benefits (just like the streetcar.) I think soccer and MLS will only grow over time in cultural importance. It is pretty unusual luck that we have a shot at joining over some faster growing peer cities all things considered.

 

It may be crying over spilt milk, but I don’t see an Oakley site as building into the strengths and synergys our city has already created namely at the Banks. The reasons that led to this Oakley plan are real but to me they are a little frustrating. But an Oakley stadium would be functional and help us win the bid.

^ You seem to look at it as a zero sum gain. Yes, the majority of money spent will be by locals but there is always a contingent from out of town that will travel in for a game. You may not fill 3 new hotels every night but it will sell room nights. You will get people from Lex, Columbus and other areas outside Cincy that will come in to visit or it gives them another option to stay another night  (Go to a Reds game today and soccer tomorrow)

 

Even if the $45 million per year is closer to 20-25 million it is still pretty good

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.

Pretty sure they had a women's national team friendly there at some point.

^ You seem to look at it as a zero sum gain. Yes, the majority of money spent will be by locals but there is always a contingent from out of town that will travel in for a game. You may not fill 3 new hotels every night but it will sell room nights. You will get people from Lex, Columbus and other areas outside Cincy that will come in to visit or it gives them another option to stay another night  (Go to a Reds game today and soccer tomorrow)

 

Even if the $45 million per year is closer to 20-25 million it is still pretty good

Even people from other counties would count towards money the city is gaining.  They obviously won't be staying at hotels but people from Kentucky or Warren county or anywhere else besides Hamilton/city of Cincy spending money in the city is better then them spending money in their home areas. 

My biggest problem with Oakley in regards to this development is that there is way too much single-family residential in the vicinity. That pushes the bars and restaurants further away than is ideal. You can't count on one taproom that's right there to support everything especially if the taproom concept loses popularity by the time the stadium is built. What is ideal is pretty much only mixed-use for blocks in at least one or two directions like you see at the Banks or the casino parking lot discussed earlier.

The thing that most supporters here are glossing over in their discussion of the benefits associated with this stadium and MLS in general is that the alternative is not nothing, but rather the current set up we have now, which is USL at Nippert. If we don't build the stadium, that set up continues and Clifton/CUF continues to benefit. If we build the stadium, Oakley receives some benefits, but Clifton would be left with one less draw. Do you guys really think that many more people are going to come from out of town to watch FC just because they're in the MLS as opposed to the USL? Do people from Louisville, Lexington, Dayton etc. not come to FC games already?

 

The convention center hotel is a huge problem for Cincinnati. I have had friends who traveled to Cincinnati for a conference, and were unfortunately put up at the Millenium. That experience left a terrible impression of Cincinnati, and prior to my meeting up with them to show them around the city, they told me they thought Cincinnati was a real pit, as their only experience with the city was the hotel, convention center, and area immediately around the convention center. If the county has excess money to throw around, I'd much rather see them take a role in providing some gap financing to projects that have struggled to take off. Think a $3 million grant could get 4th and Race started? What about the Firehouse Row project in Walnut Hills?

 

In my opinion, MLS is not going to result in much more visibility for Cincinnati. If we could spend this money to renovate US Bank arena with the prospects of landing an NBA team, that would be a different discussion. But MLS simply does not have the star power or fan base that many people care about. The best players are still going to be in Europe, so we might get some better quality players, but no one who is going to put fans in seats on name recognition alone. Besides, quality of players doesn't seem to be a real driving factor for team popularity, anyways. Look at the attention that NCAA football and basketball gets. The players and quality of play is much less than that of the pros, but that doesn't seem to diminish their popularity.

 

Finally, I do worry about the leap to the MLS resulting in actually less interest and less fans in seats. Ticket prices will go up dramatically if FCC gets into the MLS. It's no secret that one of the reasons FCC is so popular, especially with families, is because the games are cheap. If tickets raise to an average price of $46, do you think those families will still go? How about the Millennials that everyone seems so inclined to cater to (I am a millennial for the record)? Is there enough corporate support here to support 3 sports teams plus a major tennis tournament? Companies are the biggest purchasers of luxury boxes, and those make the most money for the teams. What if FCC draws away enough of the corporate support of the Bengals that they start to get antsy and threaten to leave?

 

I just feel like this whole effort is misguided. It's a waste of money and attention from other real priorities in the city and county, and the whole deal wreaks of croneyism. Look at the donor lists to Cranley, and look at the power players surrounding this FCC deal. Helen Keller could connect the dots. I hope the commissioners kill this idea.

Well according to Jason Williams, Portune was apparently for the deal but yesterday backed out. That prompted the FCC presser. Looks like we'll have answer by 2pm

^^Soccer is the future. Millennials think football is going to die and baseball isn't on their radar. They don't care about NASCAR either. 

via radio/Redit: a Newport agreement would be 6-9 months away as no flood plain studies have been done.  ???

The thing that most supporters here are glossing over in their discussion of the benefits associated with this stadium and MLS in general is that the alternative is not nothing, but rather the current set up we have now, which is USL at Nippert. If we don't build the stadium, that set up continues and Clifton/CUF continues to benefit. If we build the stadium, Oakley receives some benefits, but Clifton would be left with one less draw. Do you guys really think that many more people are going to come from out of town to watch FC just because they're in the MLS as opposed to the USL? Do people from Louisville, Lexington, Dayton etc. not come to FC games already?

 

I come down from Dayton for FCC games, but honestly I have no interest in going to Oakley for a game. CUF, West End, or Newport, yes I would continue to go. I'm possibly way in the minority, but that's where I'm at with this. Keep it in the urban core, for crying out loud. USL at Nippert beats MLS in Oakley for attracting my money.

The thing that most supporters here are glossing over in their discussion of the benefits associated with this stadium and MLS in general is that the alternative is not nothing, but rather the current set up we have now, which is USL at Nippert. If we don't build the stadium, that set up continues and Clifton/CUF continues to benefit. If we build the stadium, Oakley receives some benefits, but Clifton would be left with one less draw. Do you guys really think that many more people are going to come from out of town to watch FC just because they're in the MLS as opposed to the USL? Do people from Louisville, Lexington, Dayton etc. not come to FC games already?

 

The convention center hotel is a huge problem for Cincinnati. I have had friends who traveled to Cincinnati for a conference, and were unfortunately put up at the Millenium. That experience left a terrible impression of Cincinnati, and prior to my meeting up with them to show them around the city, they told me they thought Cincinnati was a real pit, as their only experience with the city was the hotel, convention center, and area immediately around the convention center. If the county has excess money to throw around, I'd much rather see them take a role in providing some gap financing to projects that have struggled to take off. Think a $3 million grant could get 4th and Race started? What about the Firehouse Row project in Walnut Hills?

 

In my opinion, MLS is not going to result in much more visibility for Cincinnati. If we could spend this money to renovate US Bank arena with the prospects of landing an NBA team, that would be a different discussion. But MLS simply does not have the star power or fan base that many people care about. The best players are still going to be in Europe, so we might get some better quality players, but no one who is going to put fans in seats on name recognition alone. Besides, quality of players doesn't seem to be a real driving factor for team popularity, anyways. Look at the attention that NCAA football and basketball gets. The players and quality of play is much less than that of the pros, but that doesn't seem to diminish their popularity.

 

Finally, I do worry about the leap to the MLS resulting in actually less interest and less fans in seats. Ticket prices will go up dramatically if FCC gets into the MLS. It's no secret that one of the reasons FCC is so popular, especially with families, is because the games are cheap. If tickets raise to an average price of $46, do you think those families will still go? How about the Millennials that everyone seems so inclined to cater to (I am a millennial for the record)? Is there enough corporate support here to support 3 sports teams plus a major tennis tournament? Companies are the biggest purchasers of luxury boxes, and those make the most money for the teams. What if FCC draws away enough of the corporate support of the Bengals that they start to get antsy and threaten to leave?

 

I just feel like this whole effort is misguided. It's a waste of money and attention from other real priorities in the city and county, and the whole deal wreaks of croneyism. Look at the donor lists to Cranley, and look at the power players surrounding this FCC deal. Helen Keller could connect the dots. I hope the commissioners kill this idea.

 

The money has to be used for tourism expenses. It can't go to buying buses, or capping FWW, or injecting money into a development, or anything like that. It has to go to tourism related expenses (outlined mostly as convention center improvements, sports facilities, etc).

 

Also, Nippert is not a permanent solution to FCC. Their current league (USL) wants all teams to be in soccer specific stadiums. Even if USL allows it, how long will UC keep cooperating with FCC? Will they demand more money when the time comes to renegotiate?

 

We're never getting an NBA or NHL team. It won't happen.

 

EDIT: The corporate community seems all in on FCC. They announced a shirt sponsor (after a jump to MLS) that is valued at $5 million/year by insiders. One of the highest in MLS. Also, $46 is the average ticket price, not the low. There will still be cheap tickets, just not as many. Some people will go to fewer games with an increase in price, but many others will spend more money to keep tickets. The only reason FCC is getting attention is because we are out of the ordinary. That won't last forever. MLS will lead to continued relevance IMO.

via radio/Redit: a Newport agreement would be 6-9 months away as no flood plain studies have been done.  ???

 

How can this be if they’ve been wanting to develop Ovation for years?

Every team that has jumped from the USL/NASL to the MLS has seen a huge increase in attendance.  Yet people still try to argue that FC attendance is going to go down.... ::)

via radio/Redit: a Newport agreement would be 6-9 months away as no flood plain studies have been done.  ???

 

How can this be if they’ve been wanting to develop Ovation for years?

 

It's a very good question. Most likely it is WLW (Cunningham) misrepresenting the facts to spread FUD.

I'm curious about how to improve access (pedestrian, transit, auto) to the Oakley site.

 

I don't see how you could significantly (and cost-effectively) improve/reconfigure the existing interchanges on 71 or the Norwood Lateral, so I'm mostly taking those as "given". Or does somebody think it'd be possible to add/reconfigure an interchange somewhere?

 

jmecklenborg[/member] mentioned connecting Edwards to Robertson. Would that connector be 2-way, or just 1-way northbound? I'm not sure this helps a ton of people, except those coming from Hyde Park. Other people coming from further south will presumably use 71NB to the Ridge exit.

 

Is there a reason why at-grade crossings of the railroad tracks aren't an option? It would be much cheaper to cross at grade as opposed to building under/over-passes. If we can do cheap at-grade crossings, then I'd like to see Enyart rebuilt and add three railroad crossings, roughly around Millsbrae, 34th Ave, and Appleton (possibly pedestrian only).

 

The large Oakley Yard parcel (directly south of the railroad tracks) could targeted for redevelopment as mixed use.

 

Does anybody have any ideas of how other new/improved roads could improve access?

via radio/Redit: a Newport agreement would be 6-9 months away as no flood plain studies have been done.  ???

 

How can this be if they’ve been wanting to develop Ovation for years?

 

It's a very good question. Most likely it is WLW (Cunningham) misrepresenting the facts to spread FUD.

 

Is it not on the DRY SIDE of a rather large flood wall?!? Me thinks that is a made up thing someone is parroting.

I'm curious about how to improve access (pedestrian, transit, auto) to the Oakley site.

 

I don't see how you could significantly (and cost-effectively) improve/reconfigure the existing interchanges on 71 or the Norwood Lateral, so I'm mostly taking those as "given". Or does somebody think it'd be possible to add/reconfigure an interchange somewhere?

 

jmecklenborg[/member] mentioned connecting Edwards to Robertson. Would that connector be 2-way, or just 1-way northbound? I'm not sure this helps a ton of people, except those coming from Hyde Park. Other people coming from further south will presumably use 71NB to the Ridge exit.

 

Is there a reason why at-grade crossings of the railroad tracks aren't an option? It would be much cheaper to cross at grade as opposed to building under/over-passes. If we can do cheap at-grade crossings, then I'd like to see Enyart rebuilt and add three railroad crossings, roughly around Millsbrae, 34th Ave, and Appleton (possibly pedestrian only).

 

The large Oakley Yard parcel (directly south of the railroad tracks) could targeted for redevelopment as mixed use.

 

Does anybody have any ideas of how other new/improved roads could improve access?

 

New ramp off the lateral behind SAMs.

Portune still trying to pitch Paul Brown, what a dumbass. 

So portune states plan A is PBS (which is a non-starter). Plan B is Oakley with Parking money? Not sure if that's enough.

Hamilton County Commissioners have made their announcement. Hotel tax revenue will not be used to fund a new garage at Oakley. The county is willing to use revenue from The Banks parking garage to fund a new parking garage at Oakley if FCC moves forward with the Oakley stadium option.

Using money from a garage to fund another garage. Hooray!

 

At least the hotel tax revenue can still be applied to another project-- hopefully the replacement of the Millennium.

Commissioners reject FC Cincinnati stadium plan, offer other options

 

Hamilton County commissioners have decided against providing FC Cincinnati with money from the hotel tax to fund infrastructure for a proposed soccer-specific stadium site in Oakley but did propose other ways for the two parties to partner.

 

Commissioner Todd Portune said that the county will work with FC Cincinnati on its use of Paul Brown Stadium, which the commissioners agreed was "the first and best and most appropriate option" for the county and the team. If that option isn't acceptable to the team, Portune said the commissioners will agree to use parking funds garnered by the county via riverfront properties to construct a 1,000-space parking garage in Oakley to complement a team-funded stadium.

Portune is such an idiot it's unbelievable.

You can trash Portune all you want but I think it's a pretty smart move by the county. Obviously the county is still going to say "go to PBS" which isn't going to happen. But then they said, "If you build a stadium in Oakley, we'll build the parking garage and keep the parking revenue." That's a good deal for taxpayers. Now, does the city step up and agree to fund the cost of the remaining road infrastructure?

 

 

New ramp off the lateral behind SAMs.

 

The Marburg off-ramp is pretty good.  Hard to improve on that.  Most of the access to and from the Lateral and 71S is okay.  The access to and from 71 north of the Lateral is a total mess.  The city just dropped $25 million on the Kennedy Connector, which significantly improved access to this site. 

 

The whole issue with this area of the city is that the railroads were there first and they are all built well above the flash flood reach of Duck Creek.  The interstate came second, and the money-saving decision was made to build beneath the various railroad mainlines and spurs.  That's why access to Ridge and everything nearby has always been a disaster. 

 

The ideal solution lifts Ridge and all of the highway mainlines and infrastructure above the railroads.  That would cost in excess of $1 billion. 

 

The bottom line is that Oakley Station/Center of Cincinnati could never be a great site for the sort of commercial stuff that is there now or what is now envisioned.  The city should have rezoned the whole damn area residential and we could have avoided the money pit that now confronts us -- a zero sum game.  Because the "infrastructure" for the stadium is just the beginning. 

 

via radio/Redit: a Newport agreement would be 6-9 months away as no flood plain studies have been done.  ???

 

 

How can this be if they’ve been wanting to develop Ovation for years?

 

It's a very good question. Most likely it is WLW (Cunningham) misrepresenting the facts to spread FUD.

 

Is it not on the DRY SIDE of a rather large flood wall?!? Me thinks that is a made up thing someone is parroting.

 

I doubt there are flood issues at ovation. The area was high and dry during the 1997 flood when all of the public housing units were still there.

One way to look at this is that the FCC owners are the ones bargaining from a bad place. They REALLLLLLLY want to have an MLS team, and they have the money to pay for it with no government assistance whatsoever. They're lucky the city and county aren't asking them for money to alleviate the strain on public infrastructure.

Portune is getting frustrated because the reporters are calling him out that PBS is not an option.

 

 

New ramp off the lateral behind SAMs.

 

The Marburg off-ramp is pretty good.  Hard to improve on that.  Most of the access to and from the Lateral and 71S is okay.  The access to and from 71 north of the Lateral is a total mess.  The city just dropped $25 million on the Kennedy Connector, which significantly improved access to this site. 

 

The whole issue with this area of the city is that the railroads were there first and they are all built well above the flash flood reach of Duck Creek.  The interstate came second, and the money-saving decision was made to build beneath the various railroad mainlines and spurs.  That's why access to Ridge and everything nearby has always been a disaster. 

 

The ideal solution lifts Ridge and all of the highway mainlines and infrastructure above the railroads.  That would cost in excess of $1 billion. 

 

The bottom line is that Oakley Station/Center of Cincinnati could never be a great site for the sort of commercial stuff that is there now or what is now envisioned.  The city should have rezoned the whole damn area residential and we could have avoided the money pit that now confronts us -- a zero sum game.  Because the "infrastructure" for the stadium is just the beginning. 

 

 

I was thinking that $75M in road work actually wouldn't do much at this site. Many Cincinnati road projects are very expensive due to the terrain and this area is no exception.

Portune is getting frustrated because the reporters are calling him out that PBS is not an option.

 

Because deep down, most people realize that this is a pretty good deal compared to most stadium deals around the country. This is a much better deal for the tax payers than Nashville has and Portune is too stupid for his own good sometimes.

Portune is getting frustrated because the reporters are calling him out that PBS is not an option.

 

Because deep down, most people realize that this is a pretty good deal compared to most stadium deals around the country. This is a much better deal for the tax payers than Nashville has and Portune is too stupid for his own good sometimes.

 

My bet is he is playing dumb while trying to bargain.

Portune is getting frustrated because the reporters are calling him out that PBS is not an option.

 

Because deep down, most people realize that this is a pretty good deal compared to most stadium deals around the country. This is a much better deal for the tax payers than Nashville has and Portune is too stupid for his own good sometimes.

 

My bet is he is playing dumb while trying to bargain.

 

I hope so, he can't really be that freaking clueless, can he? How many times from how many places does he need to be told PBS will not work.

 

It'll be interesting to see how FCC reacts. If they play along with a hilariously idiotic plan a to get to plan b or move to Newport.