I personally prefer the west end site. It’s an up and coming area and that could add some good critical mass to the district to tie it into the three neighborhoods. I also would be happy west of the convention center too and understand some good positives for that spot as well, but how long would it take to break ground? I would hope it can break ground in 3 years or so and if that can’t happen let’s go with West End site and have the FCC team lay some serious $ down. They have a track record so far of success IMO and may get the NWSL and maybe in the future NBA or NHL (I know people can laugh at that but I do think it’s a possibility). NBA would do really well in Cincinnati I believe and make Cincinnati an all seasons Major League City. 
 

It would also probably be one of the more unique areas for an NBA Stadium in the USA, and right next to the streetcar. 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by IAGuy39

An arena is going to be surrounded by events-centered development. I think that sort of thing makes more sense down near the convention center, which is already primed for that. If the West End is "up and coming" let it come up as the West End with the one venue it has, and not whatever makes sense to graft onto The Banks: but North/South.

14 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

 

It's a vastly superior venue that doesn't get passed up for major concerts, etc. Even the renovated 5/3 doesn't lend itself to being good for anything other than basketball or volleyball (which could be played in the fieldhouse tbh). UC could 100% support a 15,000-seat arena and would be able to pocket a lot of the $$ from all the other events that would go on. Look, I like UC, and I'm currently a grad student there, but they've made some huge mistakes with athletic venues over the years, and renovating 5/3 instead of building a new venue near the innovation hub is one of them. 

 

If you look at UVA, OSU, and Pitt, all three have been able to use their nice new arenas to attract concerts, WWE, etc. 

 

We'd all love to know which concert tours, specifically, skip Cincinnati because of the supposed shortcomings of The Riverfront Coliseum.  Name them.  Who are these singers?  Who are these bands?  Why do we let politicians, journalists, and people posting on internet forums repeat this claim without any statements by any touring acts? 

 

 

 

17 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

If you want to see a comparable arena to what we would have, your best bet is to look at Kansas City. They built a new arena in 2007 in the attempt to lure an NBA or NHL team and replace their 1970s arena. Unsurprisingly, they never got an NBA or NHL team. 

 

I'm sure it gets a lot of use for various events, and is a nice arena, but it's not like the arena brought in things they could never have dreamed of in their old arena.

 

I do think we need a new arena, but I don't really want the public to fund $600 Million to build it.

The biggest difference is that KC has no peer cities within a 100 mile radius. Omaha I guess is the closest and that's almost three hours away. 

 

We have Lexington, Lousiville, Dayton, Indianapolis, and Columbus, Ohio that are all vying for the same programming 

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

The biggest difference is that KC has no peer cities within a 100 mile radius. Omaha I guess is the closest and that's almost three hours away. 

 

We have Lexington, Lousiville, Dayton, Indianapolis, and Columbus, Ohio that are all vying for the same programming 

 

I agree with that and know I've pointed that out in the past when people complain we miss out on concert X, Y, or Z. Every touring musician will not stop here even after we build a new arena because they aren't going to play Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, and Cincinnati. Most will go to like 2 of those cities.

 

They also have no permanent minor league team there, and we have 40 Cyclones games every year. Nothing's a perfect analog, but I think KC is the closest.

6 hours ago, Lazarus said:

We'd all love to know which concert tours, specifically, skip Cincinnati because of the supposed shortcomings of The Riverfront Coliseum.  Name them.  Who are these singers?  Who are these bands?  Why do we let politicians, journalists, and people posting on internet forums repeat this claim without any statements by any touring acts? 

 

According to the report, the artists that skipped Cincinnati in 2022-23 are:

 

 

 

I forgot to include KC on the list for potential NBA and NHL expansion.

I'm I'm handicapping NBA/NHL expansion I'd rate KC higher than Cincy because they're so isolated. If the NBA expands, it will be to Seattle and maybe KC or Nashville. If the NHL expands, it'll be to Houston and maybe KC or ATL. Cincinnati would have to convince a team to move IMO. But money talks and I never thought we'd get an MLS team so what do I know.

36 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

If the NBA expands, it will be to Seattle and maybe KC or Nashville.

Doesn't Memphis have a NBA team? But who knows how big Nashville be in 10 years. 

1 minute ago, RJohnson said:

Doesn't Memphis have a NBA team? But who knows how big Nashville be in 10 years. 

 

Definitely way bigger than Memphis.   

 

If MLB expands into Nashville, that would factor into any said NBA expansion. 

The way Nashville keeps growing (which boggles my mind. Why would anyone choose to live there) I could see them getting an NBA team. They already have an arena but as Cleburger said, MLB would be a factor.

 

Nashville and Salt Lake are probably the two favorites for MLB expansion but with the Rays having a hiccup in their stadium replacement and the A's not being able to lock anything down in LV, I could see both the Rays and A's moving to Nashville and SLC respectively. Then the question becomes, can Nashville support NFL, NHL, MLS, MLB and NBA? 

11 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

Doesn't Memphis have a NBA team? But who knows how big Nashville be in 10 years. 

 

The fact that the Grizzlies are only a hundred or so miles away in Memphis would certainly play a part in any expansion to Nashville. I'm spitballing as Nashville seems to be the "it" city like Austin or how Charlotte was the "it" city in the 90s. I place with no discernable redeeming qualities yet attracting a ton of white people.

The nice thing about the convention center site is there's room for additional development. You could replicate what Boston did around TD Garden (with a better designed arena).

 

22 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

I'm spitballing as Nashville seems to be the "it" city like Austin or how Charlotte was the "it" city in the 90s. I place with no discernable redeeming qualities yet attracting a ton of white people.

Charlotte from the photos has huge buildings but overall it looks ugly. seems there was no city planning. but i haven't been there in years. Giant Monoliths with ugly caps. Many people built on the mountains to get off-grid. in both N.C. and Tennessee they were devastated by Helene. had a buddy who built on one of the nearby mountains. he may have even paid for part of his drive. 2 1/2 miles up the side of a mountain. a rough and ruddy road (?), logging trail. I know many were washed out. Can't imagine them moving to Nashville. 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by RJohnson
edit copy

2 hours ago, taestell said:

 

According to the report, the artists that skipped Cincinnati in 2022-23 are:

 

 

 

I’m for a new arena but this list is pretty silly, most of these names are not all that interesting and certainly don’t move the needle motivating a 700 million dollar investment. Then some of these examples Cincy has actually booked like Jack Harlow just recently played at the Brady Center on The Banks. Even worse is they listed P!NK well she just did a giant concert at Great American Ballpark with a massive crowd that outnumbered any arena capacity. My point facilities DO matter but as I have said before there is alot of layers to the concert tours/events etc.

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by 646empire

52 minutes ago, 646empire said:

I’m for a new arena but this list is pretty silly, most of these names are not all that interesting and certainly don’t move the needle motivating a 700 million dollar investment. 

 

Not interesting for you but the reality is that they sold 13,000+ tickets in multiple neighboring cities so the demand was there.

1 hour ago, tonyt3524 said:

 

Not interesting for you but the reality is that they sold 13,000+ tickets in multiple neighboring cities so the demand was there.

You clearly don’t get it lol. It’s about conflicts in the article and how many NEW* shows/artist a new arena would add to the market. 2 of those on that pretty short list are music artists that actually DID come to Cincinnati but at a different venue other than a arena. 

Edited November 19, 2024Nov 19 by 646empire

I think the list is interesting but it doesn't automatically mean that if we had a new arena, every one of those tours would have stopped in Cincinnati. Most tours are not going to stop in Indy, Columbus, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Lexington, Louisville, and Cincinnati. They're going to pick 2 or 3 or 4 of those cities based on multiple factors.

 

I wonder if there has been a study to find the impact of having the two new music venues in Cincinnati/Newport. Are there tours that previously skipped over Cincinnati that now come here? Have other cities lost out as a result?

17 minutes ago, 646empire said:

You clearly don’t get it lol. It’s about conflicts in the article and how many NEW* shows/artist a new arena would add to the market. 2 of those on that pretty short list are music artists that actually DID come to Cincinnati but at a different venue other than a arena. 

 

I did get that part but that's not what your first sentence said lol. 

 

Regardless, I do agree that it's always going to happen or be 1:1 in terms of demand and sales. That's also just a two-year snippet right? Other artists/bands that didn't tour during that time frame that would've done the same. 

16 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

 

The fact that the Grizzlies are only a hundred or so miles away in Memphis

 

Memphis and Nashville are about two hundred miles apart.  Two hundred very...boring...miles. 

 

It's similar to the distance between Cincinnati and...Knoxville.  Or Cincinnati and...Detroit.   Or Cincinnati and...Akron. 

17 hours ago, taestell said:

 

According to the report, the artists that skipped Cincinnati in 2022-23 are:

 

 

 

 

 

Um, some of those people have played Riverfront Coliseum in the past.  They skipped it this time because a workable date wasn't available or...ring the bell...they are already playing multiple nearby cities. 

 

I'm not sure what people don't understand about concert touring...there is no such thing as a tour that plays every single adjacent city within a short time frame.  What's more, an old arena is cheaper to rent than a new one, meaning it's likely cheaper for an act to play Cincinnati than Columbus or Louisville. 

 

3 hours ago, Lazarus said:

I'm not sure what people don't understand about concert touring...there is no such thing as a tour that plays every single adjacent city within a short time frame. 

 

100% this. This report, local "leaders," et. all still can't point to an act, show, tour, etc. that specifically didn't come here because of the arena's supposed inadequacies. We've been hearing this storyline repeated for years so much that if you casually browse Reddit the common user repeats the same fable that "we're continually passed up." 

 

Granted, no management company is going to come out and say "Yes, we skipped Cincinnati because the loading docks on Mehring Way are bad," but still... they perpetuate this storyline because it helps sell the idea that we're missing out by not having a new arena. 

 

And objectively, a new arena would be nice to have, but it doesn't need public money and it doesn't need to be rushed through on the WCET site with "limited concourses." Especially when the NBA and NHL are incredible long shots (at best, no matter how you spin it). As for other tenants (upgrading the Cyclones to AHL/WNBA/G-League, etc.), the Heritage Bank Center would be more than adequate if anyone actually desired to pursue those things as something more than an attempt to glean public money for a new arena. The "urgency" and continued mention of the Central Parkway site are quite clearly a maneuver to benefit a specific stakeholder (which, hey, can't blame 'em for trying). 

 

3 hours ago, Lazarus said:

What's more, an old arena is cheaper to rent than a new one, meaning it's likely cheaper for an act to play Cincinnati than Columbus or Louisville. 

 

This isn't necessarily true. The big thing these touring acts are looking for in a venue is luxury box revenue which is often baked into the contract that the tour makes a great deal of money off of those (or exclusively gleans the profits). Having an arena like Nationwide provides more revenue opportunities all around. Not saying that's a dealbreaker, but it does help. However, there are so many other logistical considerations for a touring act that comes with booking and arranging a tour and still no one here can say: "X didn't come here because of Y."

The only thing that I know of from reputable sources that Cincy missed out on due to how bad Heritage Bank Arena is is the GOP Convention and the NCAA Tournament. The only one of those I'm bummed about is the one involving basketballs. 

19 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

The only thing that I know of from reputable sources that Cincy missed out on due to how bad Heritage Bank Arena is is the GOP Convention and the NCAA Tournament. The only one of those I'm bummed about is the one involving basketballs. 

 

And UC has started playing Dayton down there and attendance has been terrible because both fanbases don't want to go there. So even though some events are "happening" it doesn't mean it's a success.

My opinion - a new arena seems like a solution looking for a problem.

The current arena is rough, no question, but it seems like Cincy does a decent job getting the music acts, etc. a city/metro its size should expect to get.

It would be great to demolish it / redevelop the site, and a cap on TQL or Paul Brown stadium would be pretty sweet.

 

Reason to have it - there's no viable 25000+ seat enclosed arena in the Cincy/Dayton area. Dayton does not even have an arena at all, aside from the Nutter Center at Wright State, and has not had any for ~20 years. Hara Arena was operating on its last leg right up until it closed, then the roof caved in a couple months after.

 

So there is a case for it, but does Hamilton County have the stomach to take it?

It might be smarter to let Kentucky or a suburban county like Butler or Warren field this one.

It's so easy for an arena to be built badly, destroy neighborhoods, and take up valuable urban real estate.

With how heavily Republican / anti-urban our government is nowadays, might be best to leave what will end up becoming a car-centric megaproject to the suburbs.

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

Um, some of those people have played Riverfront Coliseum in the past.  They skipped it this time because a workable date wasn't available or...ring the bell...they are already playing multiple nearby cities. 

 

I'm not sure what people don't understand about concert touring...there is no such thing as a tour that plays every single adjacent city within a short time frame.  What's more, an old arena is cheaper to rent than a new one, meaning it's likely cheaper for an act to play Cincinnati than Columbus or Louisville. 

 

 

Far more pervasive is the "Donut Tour" that only does the coasts, any combination of Detroit/Chicago/Minneapolis, Phoenix and Texas.

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by GCrites

8 minutes ago, SWOH said:

It would be great to demolish it / redevelop the site, and a cap on TQL or Paul Brown stadium would be pretty sweet.

 

Neither of those are going to happen though. I'm guessing the Bengals saga plays out like the Browns with them moving to the burbs or Hamilton County folding and building a new domed stadium. I'm no engineer but I guess you "could" put a lightweight fabric retractable roof over TQL like they've done with some European soccer stadiums but TQL is still an outdoor venue that wouldn't be viable for concerts and basketball in the winter. 

 

I agree, we don't "need" an arena but it would be nice to have. Going to a sold-out event at HBC is a terrible experience. They have to bring in port-o-potties to handle it and can't use all of the doors for entry. UC not building a viable arena or working to move into HBC when it was proposed years ago was a missed opportunity. I'll die on that hill. Even a 15,000-seat arena with lots of luxury boxes would lock Cincy in to host NCAA tournament games every other year, and that would be about 17,000 seats for concerts/wrestling/etc.  

24 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

UC not building a viable arena or working to move into HBC when it was proposed years ago was a missed opportunity. I'll die on that hill.

You keep saying it doesn’t make it true lol. 5/3rd is a great venue and UC did a wonderful job gutting it and rebuilding it. The place looks great and its certainly a top notch on campus basketball arena. UC owns and controls every inch of it and it’s located on main campus. UC made the right decision. It would have been foolish for UC to turn over that control and revenue for a shared off campus arena.

 

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by 646empire

And there's been even more upgrades done since then. Off-campus venues are killer for both student attendance and recruiting. 

UC took a terrible basketball and volleyball venue and made it into an adequate basketball and volleyball venue. That's precisely the problem. They didn't make an arena that can host multiple events in a city that needs a 15,000-seat arena. Yes, the new 5/3 is lightyears better than it was, but it's still only the third-best basketball arena in the city, and it's not used for anything other than UC sports. You can't really use it for concerts or anything else. 

 

UC should have razed it and put a better arena on the site, but they've made mistake after mistake with their athletics venues for years, which is nothing new.  

8 minutes ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

UC took a terrible basketball and volleyball venue and made it into an adequate basketball and volleyball venue. That's precisely the problem. They didn't make an arena that can host multiple events in a city that needs a 15,000-seat arena. Yes, the new 5/3 is lightyears better than it was, but it's still only the third-best basketball arena in the city, and it's not used for anything other than UC sports. You can't really use it for concerts or anything else. 

 

UC should have razed it and put a better arena on the site, but they've made mistake after mistake with their athletics venues for years, which is nothing new.  

It’s not UCs responsibility to lead the way and spearhead a new 500plus Million 15,000 seat arena that the University doesn’t need or want. And third best?? Xavier and NKU are better?!? They are NOT. Let’s move on please.

 

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by 646empire

Yeah I'm done responding because third best is simply just not true lol

I spend 10 years working in college sports, I've visited over 100 venues and I still work games at UC, X, Miami, as a side hustle and 5/3 when from a dog turd to a serviceable arena. All I'm saying is that when UC decided to redo the venue, they could have saved all of us a lot of trouble and actually built something better for the community and university as a whole by copying Pitt and UVA by building an actual arena instead of renovating their gym. They do that, and the conversation is "what do we build in place of the abandoned HBC" rather than "should we spend taxpayer $ on another sports venue?"

2 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

Yeah I'm done responding because third best is simply just not true lol

I've been to all three buildings this past month and yes, it's still third best. 

There is nothing wrong with the current location' | Heritage Bank Center operators respond to recent study

 

"Since the release of the Arena Site Location study, we have been asked what's wrong with the current riverfront Arena/Stadium district for a new arena," the response begins. "Not only do we believe there is nothing wrong with the current location, but that new arena should be built there, rather than far away."

 

“Our current design proposes building over Pete Rose Way and Mehring Way, which is not as complex as the study states," reads Nederlander's statement. "The entire Banks Development was built up to manage the flood risk. By building over these roadways, it essentially doubles the area available for the arena to approximately seven acres, which is more than adequate for an 18,000 to 19,000 seat arena."

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-current-location-heritage-bank-center-operators-respond-to-recent-study

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by 646empire

4 minutes ago, 646empire said:

There is nothing wrong with the current location' | Heritage Bank Center operators respond to recent study

 

"Since the release of the Arena Site Location study, we have been asked what's wrong with the current riverfront Arena/Stadium district for a new arena," the response begins. "Not only do we believe there is nothing wrong with the current location, but that new arena should be built there, rather than far away."

 

“Our current design proposes building over Pete Rose Way and Mehring Way, which is not as complex as the study states," reads Nederlander's statement. "The entire Banks Development was built up to manage the flood risk. By building over these roadways, it essentially doubles the area available for the arena to approximately seven acres, which is more than adequate for an 18,000 to 19,000 seat arena."

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-current-location-heritage-bank-center-operators-respond-to-recent-study

Very interesting. I like that they layed out everything so thoroughly. 

I'd like to see these mentioned renderings 

 

I assume it would be similar to these old MSA renderings from 8 or 9 years ago:

 

13 minutes ago, 646empire said:

There is nothing wrong with the current location' | Heritage Bank Center operators respond to recent study

 

"Since the release of the Arena Site Location study, we have been asked what's wrong with the current riverfront Arena/Stadium district for a new arena," the response begins. "Not only do we believe there is nothing wrong with the current location, but that new arena should be built there, rather than far away."

 

“Our current design proposes building over Pete Rose Way and Mehring Way, which is not as complex as the study states," reads Nederlander's statement. "The entire Banks Development was built up to manage the flood risk. By building over these roadways, it essentially doubles the area available for the arena to approximately seven acres, which is more than adequate for an 18,000 to 19,000 seat arena."

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-current-location-heritage-bank-center-operators-respond-to-recent-study

 

 

While I would prefer this closer to the convention center, to benefit that development, they make very valid points. 

TBH the best solution would be to tear down the HBC and rebuild on that site. 

5 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

I assume it would be similar to these old MSA renderings from 8 or 9 years ago:

 

I’ve always liked this plan. It’s really starting to seem like there are just well connected interests who simply want to move the arena to spur development in others areas of downtown/west end. On its face it’s not a negative but if that is the case just come out and say it.

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by 646empire

2 minutes ago, Broman said:

 

 

While I would prefer this closer to the convention center, to benefit that development, they make very valid points. 

They really do. It’s so well written I think public opinion would side with keeping it at the current site and not get tangled in land acquisition in West End or lord knows the Brent Spence Project.

Lol at calling an arena in a different part of downtown "far away."  The biggest downside of building a new arena on the current spot would be the 1 - 2 years where we would have no arena.  That and the obvious space limitations, though the CTE site has similar issues.  The new area next to the convention center probably makes the most sense location and size wise, but the huge question there is when will that land even become available.  

Just looking at the HBC site, you could probably fit an arena the size of TD Garden or Scotia Bank arena on the same plot of land. You could rearrange the streets a little to make some more room. Of course the guy spearheading the new arena works for FCC which has real estate interests in the West End so no one has pushed for the riverfront.

9 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

Lol at calling an arena in a different part of downtown "far away."  The biggest downside of building a new arena on the current spot would be the 1 - 2 years where we would have no arena.

At first I thought the same thing but if the West End site is chosen it kinda is a ways off from The Banks. Most people who go to FC Cincy games do not walk from the banks (Streetcar Yes but mostly stay in OTR) I’m assuming that was the context lol. I think with the Convention Business back humming in a few years and the new concert venues on both sides of river along with Reds and Bengals and big stadiums tours those couple years wouldn’t be too bad.

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by 646empire

10 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

The biggest downside of building a new arena on the current spot would be the 1 - 2 years where we would have no arena. 

 

I think it would be more like 3 years. Tearing down the existing arena, building out the new podium over Mehring Way, and constructing the arena itself would be a lot of work.

41 minutes ago, 646empire said:

There is nothing wrong with the current location' | Heritage Bank Center operators respond to recent study

 

"Since the release of the Arena Site Location study, we have been asked what's wrong with the current riverfront Arena/Stadium district for a new arena," the response begins. "Not only do we believe there is nothing wrong with the current location, but that new arena should be built there, rather than far away."

 

“Our current design proposes building over Pete Rose Way and Mehring Way, which is not as complex as the study states," reads Nederlander's statement. "The entire Banks Development was built up to manage the flood risk. By building over these roadways, it essentially doubles the area available for the arena to approximately seven acres, which is more than adequate for an 18,000 to 19,000 seat arena."

 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-the-current-location-heritage-bank-center-operators-respond-to-recent-study

 

That raises another important question: if we build a new arena at a different site and don't go with Nederlander's plan, what happens to HBC? I don't think Nederlander is going to say "oh well" and demolish it and take the loss. They're likely going to need to be involved in the new arena plan in some way — either they will operate the new arena, or they would need to agree to sell the land under the HBC to the city/county which would add a large amount to the cost of the new arena plan.

Honestly I can see all three spots working. Still my top spot is West End but space limitations are there.

 

If it gets built at the current spot I think that works fine because you aren't losing much in the way of the park there at all. That area isn't very nice anyways right there, plus all the parking is there, and next to the streetcar stop.

 

The other question that taestell pointed out is very valid. What would become of the current site? That would be a big area that would need to be torn down and then redeveloped. I don't know what you can get there redevelopment wise considering the Banks isn't even built out yet and lord knows how long that site would sit vacant. I don't see residential towers there but maybe some lower rises like the newer devleopment next to the Purple People Bridge. Got to be able to turn that around somehow and that does add a lot of cost.

every time these proposals come along there are always options and opinions. Location, how it affects the CBD, land availability, and interstate access. the list goes on. but one group wants it in the city, wants and is developing the city and they are a private group that may have the funds for 2/3rds of the money necessary. it is close to existing parking lots. it is close to the convention center and I hear available for a price.  it will help OTR become more of a success, (look what happens on the day of a soccer match. think what would happen for concerts, competitive sports, etc. it is near the existing streetcar route. if more street cars are in the city's future it would probably make the cut for a route from the Museum Center to the Casino. the city then would have an east-west route.

 

The three existing basketball arenas are in Kentucky, Norwood, and Corryville. all on college campuses for college kids. so the city needs an arena. almost 8 years ago the reconstruction of the HBC was proposed in a busy bustling part of town. It is beside a bridge, at the port of Cincinnati where there is a proposal to build more port for docking boats, mooring boats and launching boats. The harbor/port will attract big trucks towing vessels trying to get in and out of a highly congested, curvy, narrow mess of intersections. How does that sound for a lovely weekend cruise on the ohio.

 

when I grew up I was taught you can't have two/three/four things occupy the same spot and the same time. maybe that has changed.

The existing spot would be a tower with some combination of residential, hotel and office. Keeping the arena there is a terrible idea, as not only would a mixed-use tower at that site be better fiscally, but it will also allow that riverfront to be a contiguous whole. Rebuilding it on site would prevent that. The intersection coming off of Taylor Southgate is horrendous and this would be the reason to redo it as well. That whole area is like a black hole when there isn't an event or game going on.

Additionally, the demand for something at either the new land in downtown or the casino lot is going to be marginal and is likely to sit empty for a long time. An arena helps put one of those parcels back into productive use without having to wait for another round of spaghetti fixing. West End should not be considered at all. Not only would the narrow concourses be limiting long term but it's the best option for housing and hotel units, which is pretty important given the existing shortage of both. Ideally, the area wrapped with retail so it can have some useful function outside of events. I don't know if that's possible with all of the options, but it certainly isn't one for the West End.

 

Overall, it's just more prudent to wait. We definitely need a new arena but there's no need to rush it but more importantly, we don't know what the long term plan is for the Bengals. Figure that out first before potentially taking more developable land and public willpower off the table. That is also true of the convention center although that's not as urgent obviously. For all we know, the Bengals could leave the county and then we will have 3 very important lots to deal with no immediate options.

One final thing, it's disappointing nothing in Queensgate was considered in the analysis but I can't say I'm surprised at all. Assembling the land necessary to make it happen would probably be impossible or at least prohibitively expensive