17 minutes ago, Dev said:

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.

allotted space, traffic, and ease of access is why you hire architects. who knows the arena could be set on top of all the access and egress points. maybe terraces could be worked into the building where patrons could enjoy the both outdoor and indoor mingling. or all the annoying stuff could be like the Centre Pompidou.

This is just my own personal doodle... nothing that has been shared with anyone with decision making power, yet at the same time, heavily influenced by the work I did with Bridge Forward. I am definitely in favor of placing an arena in the space gained from the BSB realignment. This location would catalyze development of the additional sites gained from the BSB realignment. I am most excited about a 5th Street Bridge connecting Downtown and Queensgate and how that will reconnect a quadrant of the city so close yet so far from everything else downtown. 

 

25 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

allotted space, traffic, and ease of access is why you hire architects. who knows the arena could be set on top of all the access and egress points. maybe terraces could be worked into the building where patrons could enjoy the both outdoor and indoor mingling. or all the annoying stuff could be like the Centre Pompidou.

They already did all that and it sucks. The physical size for a modern arena necessitates that it would have to overshadow that block of the river, instead of integrating with it in any meaningful way. And again, there isn't enough space there for any ancillary uses, like externally facing retail. Capital One Arena in DC is an example of what I am talking about.

4 hours ago, Dev said:

They already did all that and it sucks. The physical size for a modern arena necessitates that it would have to overshadow that block of the river, instead of integrating with it in any meaningful way. And again, there isn't enough space there for any ancillary uses, like externally facing retail. Capital One Arena in DC is an example of what I am talking about.

did all of what? Is Central Parkway on the river? "The physical size for a modern arena necessitates that it would have to overshadow that block of the river". maybe I just misread what you said. maybe I wrote something strange.  I did write a comment about not reconstructing the new arena on the lot it sits on now. because of location next to the bridge, the planned harbor, the horrible intersections and bustle of that area. Centre Pompidou was an example of putting the internal organs of the proposed FCC arena on the outside at CET. and someone else suggested tearing down the HBC and building highrises. that which sounds good to me. 

Edited November 20, 2024Nov 20 by RJohnson
edit copy

21 minutes ago, RJohnson said:

did all of what? Is Central Parkway on the river? "The physical size for a modern arena necessitates that it would have to overshadow that block of the river". maybe I just misread what you said. maybe I wrote something strange.  I did write a comment about not reconstructing the new arena on the lot it sits on now. because of location next to the bridge, the planned harbor, the horrible intersections and bustle of that area. Centre Pompidou was an example of putting the internal organs of the proposed FCC arena on the outside at CET. and someone else suggested tearing down the HBC and building highrises there which sounds good to me. 

Oh sorry I misread what you had. I thought you were talking about the existing site, although I do have you muted because your typical posts are hard to follow. In any case, the West End site is too narrow. Sure they could build up, if they chose to, but I still think it's pretty clear that the concourses on the east and west side would be too narrow for proper traffic flow during a full event, regardless of how clever the design is.

IIRC the casino plot only needs $5 million in work to make it ready for an arena whereas anything on the west side of downtown would take $20 million.

I share the frustration that Queensgate wasn't looked at. 

37 minutes ago, Dev said:

Oh sorry I misread what you had. I thought you were talking about the existing site, although I do have you muted because your typical posts are hard to follow. In any case, the West End site is too narrow. Sure they could build up, if they chose to, but I still think it's pretty clear that the concourses on the east and west side would be too narrow for proper traffic flow during a full event, regardless of how clever the design is.

well i'm glad you decided to write what you did and a little surprised. so take me off mute. I'm a pretty nice guy given the situation. I am pro-development, DEV. i want Berding Group, a group that has an interest in developing Cincy, to continue developing the FCC area. I am against keeping an old horse barn on Central Parkway just to convert it into a boutique hotel. Any site that's open to development on Central Parkway should be impressive and functional at the same time. 

 

It seems you have already decided what and how the FCC arena will look and function. that is why you hire architects. they have ideas. if you pay someone close to a billion dollars to put an arena on a dime, they should come up with a billion-dollar idea. i am not attacking you. i don't even know who you are. I'm stating my opinions. And, I make mistakes. and quite frankly there are a lot of bad ideas on this website. 

 

Grammarly continually corrects me. that just proves I'm not a bot. I have great ideas and my history proves it. i have bad ideas, too. have a good day.

4 hours ago, 646empire said:

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.

I think this is the elephant in the room; Linders/FCC want CET site, city/county wants it to connect to the convention center, and the Nederlander group wants it on their existing site. Money talks, and the Linders have proven with FCC's stadium that they are willing to put a lot up-front but that came with a team they owned. Nederlander own's the Cyclones, who would be the primary tenant of the new arena, so who is going to offer up the private money? They city/county can't afford to build it themselves, especially the county with the looming Paycor renovations, so ultimately I think it goes the way of Linder's and the West End unless Nederlander Entertainment has way more money, and way more civic interest in Cincinnati as a Detroit based company, than I'm aware of. 

Quote

“While we will support the development of any site, we believe the most efficient, cost effective, and functional site is the current Heritage Bank Center location.”

 

I think the reality is that they will move (the Cyclones) if the arena gets built on a different site. I can't imagine the CET site would move along that much fast than the convention center location right? Their current focus is the northeast corner site development. 

19 hours ago, Dev said:

They already did all that and it sucks. 

Agree! Plunging the riverfront into darkness and disconnecting Sawyer Point from Smale is the opposite direction riverfront redevelopment needs to go. MSA did the best they could with a bad site.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Plunging the riverfront into darkness and disconnecting Sawyer Point from Smale

……. Wow. The things people say. 

Mock if you must, but I don't think this (effectively what the redesigned HBC would be like along the river) being the gateway between Sawyer Point and Smale is aspirational: 

52 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

 

I think the reality is that they will move (the Cyclones) if the arena gets built on a different site. I can't imagine the CET site would move along that much fast than the convention center location right? Their current focus is the northeast corner site development. 

I presume the bigger concern is the uncertainty of when they would have access to the west downtown site. The BSB corridor project has not started major construction and it's almost certainly going to go way past its schedule while there are concrete planning steps that could be taken today if the CET site was selected.

The Casino site and the current HBC site are the top 2 IMO. The casino site has the lowest cost and wouldn't need a huge amount of changes to infrastructure. Also, adding an arena on the West End would make traffic in and out of the area even worse especially if there's a soccer game and a sold-out event on the same night. That's nearly 40,000 people going in and out of an area of town that wasn't built for that many cars and there isn't a good transit option.

 

The riverfront can already handle huge influxes of people and the casino would spread crowds out. 

I'm not sure why the casino site is being treated as a distant 3rd option. That site is a parking lot now and construction could start immediately. (Without the arena being built here, it will most likely remain a parking lot for the foreseeable future, which is not true of the other sites.) It would share the casino's existing parking garage which already has connections to Reading and Gilbert with easy access to I-71 and I-471. The casino could build an expansion along Reading Road linking the casino floor with the new arena, and have bars/restaurants with entrances from both Reading Road and the internal corridor. It would also motivate the construction of the much teased hotel tower. In the long term, it could even motivate redevelopment of the Staples and check cashing place on the NE and NW corners of Liberty & Reading.

7 minutes ago, taestell said:

I'm not sure why the casino site is being treated as a distant 3rd option. That site is a parking lot now and construction could start immediately. (Without the arena being built here, it will most likely remain a parking lot for the foreseeable future, which is not true of the other sites.) It would share the casino's existing parking garage which already has connections to Reading and Gilbert with easy access to I-71 and I-471. The casino could build an expansion along Reading Road linking the casino floor with the new arena, and have bars/restaurants with entrances from both Reading Road and the internal corridor. It would also motivate the construction of the much teased hotel tower. In the long term, it could even motivate redevelopment of the Staples and check cashing place on the NE and NW corners of Liberty & Reading.

 

And maybe it'll spur the phantom "Fort Washington Way-East" capping of I-71 to reconnect the basin to Mt. Adams and Eden Park/Walnut Hills.

10 minutes ago, taestell said:

I'm not sure why the casino site is being treated as a distant 3rd option.

Probably because it’s not the site that benefits the goals of Jeff Berding who’s been the most vocal (recently) advocate of a new arena. 
 

Objectively, though, if you can make a site work in partnership with the casino, it’s easily one of the better options (or using any of the massive surface lots west of the P&G towers). 
 

Just to be clear: I think the West End site has some merit and I get it—but the flaws of parking, “limited concourses” and whether or not a mostly dormant building is good for a neighborhood that needs residents makes it one of the lower options. 
 

Especially when you could use a new arena to boost the renovated convention center, jumpstart development on reclaimed land, or bolster another corner of the downtown core (NE Casino corner). And I understand that the WE site is the “quickest,” but it’s also clear that such speed benefits specific stakeholders more so than the public. 
 

We’re not missing out on any major events, the current arena sucks but is more than serviceable, and there’s no need to rush this through. 
 

Work with the casino or wait till the bridge plans are finalized. For once, Cincinnati should proceed with strategy and the cost to the public needs to be minimal. I know the “study” just made an estimate, but without a major tenant any amount is a hard sell.

 

In my humble opinion: the west downtown/bridge site is best or some kind of synergy with the convention center. The Banks has still not been fully developed (or even remotely well developed) and it’s already becoming an issue that threatens its long-term viability. Especially with the Bengals future uncertain, this could be a nice shot in the arm to The Banks. 

If the best site is the convention center site, I don't think there's any reason we can't wait 5-10 years to start construction. HBC isn't going to fall into the river in that timespan with modest updates/maintenance. I'm a firm believer that we need a new arena in the short-medium term, but I also don't think we need to rush this through.

 

I am also of the opinion that with some creativity, the HBC site could be redeveloped in a way that provides new opportunities for a reimagined pedestrian/cycling connection between Smale and Sawyer Point. The condition shown below doesn't have to be the final condition. I could see some additional funding coming (maybe even at a later date) from sources outside of the arena funding to provide a better connection that isn't immediately below the new arena site's podium. I'm thinking a pier type development jutting out another 12 feet or so. 

7 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

If the best site is the convention center site, I don't think there's any reason we can't wait 5-10 years to start construction. HBC isn't going to fall into the river in that timespan with modest updates/maintenance. I'm a firm believer that we need a new arena in the short-medium term, but I also don't think we need to rush this through.

 

Couldn't agree with this more and I think it's the best, measured take. I also don't get the sense that there's a huge push to get this done. A study is one thing, mustering the political and financial will is another. 

Did we ever get extensive renderings from the FCC design at the West End site or was it just the couple that were headlines?

On 11/20/2024 at 12:10 PM, taestell said:

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.

yes - I think the deal only makes sense financially/practically if somebody is willing to buy the current arena site and redevelop it. 

4 hours ago, taestell said:

I'm not sure why the casino site is being treated as a distant 3rd option. That site is a parking lot now and construction could start immediately. (Without the arena being built here, it will most likely remain a parking lot for the foreseeable future, which is not true of the other sites.) It would share the casino's existing parking garage which already has connections to Reading and Gilbert with easy access to I-71 and I-471. The casino could build an expansion along Reading Road linking the casino floor with the new arena, and have bars/restaurants with entrances from both Reading Road and the internal corridor. It would also motivate the construction of the much teased hotel tower. In the long term, it could even motivate redevelopment of the Staples and check cashing place on the NE and NW corners of Liberty & Reading.

Hey! I like that Staples 😆

 

That said, really good points here.

6 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Mock if you must, but I don't think this (effectively what the redesigned HBC would be like along the river) being the gateway between Sawyer Point and Smale is aspirational: 

Im not mocking anything I think it’s absurd to say the proposal would “plunge the riverfront into darkness”. The parks already feel disconnected when you get to the GABP portion of mehring way. That section is also the least used because it is the intersection of the arena, a baseball stadium and a bridge, so if anything it’s already “darkness” right there lol. Anyway im almost certain something would be done/worked in to the plans to keep a bit of connection if that proposal happened.

Edited November 21, 2024Nov 21 by 646empire

6 hours ago, Dev said:

I presume the bigger concern is the uncertainty of when they would have access to the west downtown site. The BSB corridor project has not started major construction and it's almost certainly going to go way past its schedule while there are concrete planning steps that could be taken today if the CET site was selected.

The current arena owner also owns the Cyclones (Nederlander), so I think any new arena would have to involve them...

2 minutes ago, jag said:

The current arena owner also owns the Cyclones (Nederlander), so I think any new arena would have to involve them...

Or they just buy another team and the Cyclones branding. Minor league hockey teams/franchises are tossed around pretty frequently. Even the “Cyclones” franchise of today are not the Cyclones of yester-year. 

3 minutes ago, Gordon Bombay said:

Or they just buy another team and the Cyclones branding. Minor league hockey teams/franchises are tossed around pretty frequently. Even the “Cyclones” franchise of today are not the Cyclones of yester-year. 

They also own the rink complex that is/was (?) called SportsPlus, and the youth hockey association.

Edited November 21, 2024Nov 21 by jag

1 minute ago, jag said:

They also own the rink complex that is/was (?) called SportsPlus, and the youth hockey association.

You’re right! That’s a very good point. 

if the HBC arena is replaced and the BSB happens the Southgate Bridge will get more traffic for the next 6 years. the short block intersections plus the exit from second to Pete Rose Way will all be a mess. the intersection of Broadway and Third doesn't help traffic either. Good reasons not to replace but remove the HBC. What if WS decides to put a building at Broadway and Third? 

 

here is a link to the map.

 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/nwQ8Wi3cLpgx6b4y8

The Missing Piece

Leaders pushing for a new venue say it could enhance the region’s ability to host major events

 

A new arena to replace the 50-year-old Heritage Bank Center will cost $675 million to $800 million and could be built at several locations in Cincinnati’s urban core, with sites west of Duke Energy Convention Center and WCET/Town Center Garage south of TQL Stadium viewed as the most desirable, according to a new study.

 

But constructing a new arena could require new taxes, a major obstacle in a region where a sizable portion of the public still feels burned by the 1996 Hamilton County stadium sales tax. 

 

The Cincinnati Regional Chamber spearheaded a comprehensive study put together by MSA Sport, Populous, the Machete Group and Turner Construction – released for the first time publicly Monday, Nov. 18.

...

Reaction from two of the region’s leading elected officials – Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval and Hamilton County Commissioner Denise Driehaus – was cautious, but they embraced continuing the conversation, in particular, gauging public support and digging deeper into funding options.

 

“The study shows a strong case for the importance of a new arena. Our future economic strength, and our ability to compete for major events and dollars, will depend on having the right facilities in place,” Pureval said, a shift from January when he said he was not sure the region needed a new arena or could afford it.

 

Driehaus added she wanted to ensure that any new facility uses the assets already built, particularly the parking garages at the Banks.

 

“I am going to favor sites that utilize those assets,” Driehaus said, noting the site west of the convention center is equidistant from the Banks parking garages as Heritage Bank Arena is today.

 

Way more below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/11/21/study-new-arena-downtown-mayor-aftab-heritage-bank.html

 

someone told me years ago that "studies" are used to support whatever the client wants. I'm a dummy but glad to see that the current location is not on the list.

While the public subsidy for the arena and operations remains the primary challenge, I believe the development site west of Central between 3rd and 5th will be available for construction to be at least be underway by 2029.    It is my understanding that ODOT and the City are working to remove the ramps to and from 2nd and 3rd from the site and routing the access to the riverfront from I-75 to intersections at the Clay Wade Bailey opening up even more property than shown in the MSA study.   The other plus is the land is essentially available at no cost.   I think it would be at least 3-4 years for design and financing before shovels are in the ground for most sites so I would not discount the Convention Center location.   Work on the BSB will be underway in 2025. 

Two major point missing from the above graphic is functionality, which would take into account that the site west of the convention center could be tied in to convention use, and proximity to hotels (unless that is under amenities?). This is what pushes that site ahead for me.

 

Even without that point it is clear that site is the best with their metrics. 

Edited November 22, 2024Nov 22 by CincyIntheKnow

How would removing the HBC affect flood control? I know the Banks garages serve as flood control barriers as do the stadiums to some extent. Wouldn't knocking down the existing arena affect the city's ability to block foods?

54 minutes ago, CincyIntheKnow said:

Two major point missing from the above graphic is functionality, which would take into account that the site west of the convention center could be tied in to convention use, and proximity to hotels (unless that is under amenities?). This is what pushes that site ahead for me.

 

Even without that point it is clear that site is the best with their metrics. 

 

Here's how I'm interpreting things. The convention center site is best for land and functionality but would require more public support and buy-in. The west end site is less appealing and a tighter site to build on, but more likely to happen due to FCC backing and more private funding. The study shows those two sites as best and now it'll come down to how the funding will play out. Just my two cents.

Edited November 22, 2024Nov 22 by tonyt3524

It's a pipe dream, but if the Lindners are going to be pulling the strings on this, I hope they'd see the Casino as a great #2 option.  I understand wanting a stadium village for development purposes, but you could also enhance that area if you push for the Casino option and simultaneously push Council to study a CUT-to-Casino streetcar route that passes right next door to TQL.

That Casino site feels like an impending traffic nightmare. That part of downtown/Pendleton is a bottleneck. 

8 minutes ago, zsnyder said:

That Casino site feels like an impending traffic nightmare. That part of downtown/Pendleton is a bottleneck. 

East-West streetcar circulator down Central Pkwy, Liberty, and out to Union Terminal would solve it

 

5 minutes ago, zsnyder said:

That Casino site feels like an impending traffic nightmare. That part of downtown/Pendleton is a bottleneck. 

The casino site is a horrible one in my opinion. You have single-family Prospect Hill (and the hillside) to the north of the site, a highway to the north and east of the site, county buildings to the southwest, and the casino itself. There is Reading and Liberty which separates it from any walkable neighborhood. Not only would the traffic be bad, there is nothing to walk to but the east side of Pendleton and no opportunities for spurring good development.

18 minutes ago, zsnyder said:

That Casino site feels like an impending traffic nightmare. That part of downtown/Pendleton is a bottleneck. 

 

You run into a similar situation on the West End too. Imagine an FCC game and a sold out arena event on the same night. That's roughly 40,000 people trying to get in and out of that side of downtown.

I don't like the West End for this project, either.  

The more I think about it, if indeed it's going to be 3-5 years before the arena breaks ground, and if the land is available within that time frame, I do think the Arena next to the convention center makes a lot of sense.

 

I am not too familiar with the Convention Center area but that would allow a really nice area to be connected and perhaps even a stadium type village in the surrounding area tied into the convention center.

 

That would also open up the convention center more possibly for retail opportunities within the center during arena events, etc.

 

Not sure about the parking in that area too but according to the study it does pretty well, and would probably be the easier to get in and out of traffic wise.

 

Someone posted a map with the 5th street connecting to Queensgate and that is another opportunity then there to spur development into Queensgate while kickstarting the new land opportunities with the BSB rework.

Also, an arena at the convention center would likely have a good chance of instigating a cap over that section of 75. 

 

After reading all of this, I like the convention center site best. But I think the WE is the one that will happen - IF one gets built.

'The missing piece': Potential sites, cost for a new Cincinnati arena unveiled

 

A new arena to replace the 50-year-old Heritage Bank Center will cost $675 million to $800 million and could be built at several sites in Cincinnati's urban core, with sites west of Duke Energy Convention Center and Town Center Garage south of TQL Stadium viewed as the most desirable, according to a new study.

 

But constructing a new arena could require new taxes, a major obstacle in a region where a sizable portion of the public still feels burned by the 1996 Hamilton County stadium sales tax.

 

The Cincinnati Regional Chamber spearheaded a comprehensive study put together by MSA Sport, Populous, the Machete Group and Turner Construction – and released for the first time publicly Monday, Nov. 18.

 

A new arena would allow the region to compete for events such as NCAA basketball and other college sports events, national political conventions and major concerts that it will not land with Heritage Bank Center or the other, small arenas that serve the University of Cincinnati, Xavier University and Northern Kentucky University.

 

“A modern arena is the missing piece in Cincinnati’s events facilities landscape and will help drive economic impact and quality of life for its residents,” the study concludes.

 

Heritage Bank Center is an obsolete facility that cannot be renovated in a way to meet the region’s desire for more major events and concerts, nor is its footprint – as it exists today – large enough to fit a new facility if the current one is demolished, the study concludes. In theory, the platform on which it sits could be enlarged and heightened but at considerable additional expense and logistical difficulty.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/11/22/study-new-arena-sites-duke-convention-otr-heritage.html

first of all, there isn't a bridge or a final design. let's say 1/1/25 the final design drops. the bridge itself won't start for another year. then there are 3 or 4 years of construction just for the bridge. How long did it take to rework Hopple overpass? Then there are all the lanes from the Harrison viaduct to somewhere south of Covington that will need to be demolished and replaced. Including connections to FWW, the west side of town, Harrison viaduct, and the space-saving section that connects 75 to CBD. All that work will take 10 years. 

 

I propose that the 9 acres of saved space for the rework of 75 will be occupied by equipment, supplies, and dirt. it is going to be a staging area that will last until the final years of the overall project. Ohio DOT will not free up that land for 8 or 10 years. And, when it does it will sit vacant until the convention center expansion is planned. 

 

No one seems to like the idea of blocking streets. the convention center expansion will block Central Ave. Plum is blocked. Central Ave may be blocked, and if Paycor gets some of its expansion, it may affect the proposed Bridge and its connections. and, the lower bridge will need to be integrated, too. 

 

If for some reason Berding/Lindner doesn't get the state subsidy they will not build their WE project. If Central Parkway reduces the car lanes it will only stop others from investing in the area. the exit from 75 to 5th will be blocked north to TLC and the exit to 7th will be blocked south.  Like it or not Central Parkway is a major downtown road. And, for some reason, people want it smaller. 

 

by keeping CP as is, as well as Liberty, Linn, and Ezzard Charles as is, it will be the cheapest most conservative way for CBD to expand into Queensgate. Bridge Forward is grand. but, there is money involved. Right now the easiest way to get to Queensgate is via the existing routes. and, of course, all three could be upgraded. If the proposed arena were built on Liberty, west of 75 maybe Berding/Lindner could be convinced to build there. same street just a few blocks away.

 

sometimes you have to pull your big boy pants up. Maybe the answer is the New Convention Center and New Arena off of Liberty near the Museum Center and Post office. Two major centers could make it viable for others to invest in the Queensgate area.

 

 

On 11/22/2024 at 10:22 AM, zsnyder said:

I don't like the West End for this project, either.  

 

Does anyone know what Hard Rock wants? Are they willing to invest money into this if it’s near their complex? 

On 11/23/2024 at 11:27 AM, RJohnson said:

sometimes you have to pull your big boy pants up. Maybe the answer is the New Convention Center and New Arena off of Liberty near the Museum Center and Post office.

lol what? The convention center is currently undergoing a massive renovation so why would they immediately build a new one in an area with no hotel rooms outside of the central core? 

3 hours ago, Gordon Bombay said:

ol what? The convention center is currently undergoing a massive renovation so why would they immediately build a new one in an area with no hotel rooms outside of the central core? 

did i say, immediately? i tried to write as clearly as I could. Berning wants a new arena near TLC. Queensqate seems to be part of Bridge Forward.  Bridge Forward and the Banks/capped FWW are a grand dream much like the subway. the new bridge and its related rework of off and on ramps seem to be an area the CBD wants to annex. the Convention Center is not getting any larger. the city/county tore down a huge hotel and hasn't replaced it. so, as it stands there is no convention center hotel. 

 

Berning will build a hotel. He has already mentioned a second hotel with the second phase of TLC Village. my proposed location is 5 blocks away on Liberty. it's not a stone's throw but pretty damn close. The existing Museum Center and a new convention center next to my proposed new arena are three major attractions that will bring people to the area and will spur development in the Queensgate area. for some reason, Urban Ohio thinks having an arena beside the convention center is a plus. The streets under 75 already exist. why pay money to cap them? And, the rework of Central Parkway doesn't solve any traffic problems. it makes traffic worse. that

dog-leg to the left on Central Parkway will not be corrected, Plum Street doesn't help the situation. but if you tear down the old convention center you get Plum back. Liberty doesn't get blocked if and when the old CC expands.  Plus all that terra firma to build on again. 

 

open the bombay doors, Hal. it's cold out here.

👆 try not being so rude.

14 minutes ago, anusthemenace said:

try not being so rude.

i could never win that race anus you already won.