Gordon, the ideal scenario for the city would be to put a new arena in Broadway Commons and a Casino/entertainment venue where the arena currently is.  An arena is much more likely to promote neighborhood growth/revitalization than a casino, which is why Broadway Commons would be perfect. A casino is much more of a destination and therefore a more isolated location is better.

 

I do think Cincy will benefit, as a whole, in that there will be folks that will say "hey lets make a weekend out of it w/ a casino one night and a ball the next", for example. But generally speaking, I don't think casino-goers really support the surrounding businesses while I believe game/concert goers do in fact support surrounding bars/restaurants etc etc.  Just my opinion. 

Uncommon Expectations

A Broadway Commons casino is raising hopes of an economic boon. Will that happen?

 

By Alexander Coolidge, Lisa Bernard-Kuhn, and Gregory Korte • [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] • December 17, 2009

 

Over the next three years, the vast sea of concrete parking lots at Broadway Commons will be transformed into a $346 million casino development with up to 5,000 slot machines and tables full of gamblers.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091217/EDIT03/912200307/1019/EDIT/Uncommon+Expectations

^I think much of this may be determined by where they decide to locate the structure on that site.  They could either design the site towards I-71 on the eastern edge, or on the western edge near Downtown and Over-the-Rhine.  I think it they put it over there, with parking facilities closer to the interstate, that there is a greater chance of a strong economic impact.

I was thinking that too.  I was also wondering what will happen to those crappy buildings when you drive down Reading off of 71 right next to BC.  They overlook the huge lot and would probably make really cool restaurants.

^Restaurants are probably the likely choice.

A nice summary of what the site was before parking lot and some previous proposals to redevelop

 

What Could Have Been ...

By Lisa Bernard-Kuhn • [email protected] • December 17, 2009

 

From a new ballpark for the Cincinnati Reds to a sprawling pad for suburban-type retailers, countless big ideas have been pitched - and ultimately rejected - for Broadway Commons.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091217/EDIT03/912200305

Cincinnati's Broadway casino climbing hills to get to gambling

Backers confident they can design, create success

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/01/04/story2.html?b=1262581200^2658381

 

It took casino backers two years and more than $100 million to get Ohio voters to change their constitution to allow casino gambling.

 

That might turn out to be the easy part.

 

Before the first shovel turns at Cincinnati’s Broadway Commons casino site, gaming operators will have to navigate through the Ohio General Assembly and a new regulatory structure for the gaming industry. They’ll have to beat back several different ballot initiatives that could alter or repeal the just-passed gambling amendment.

 

 

good to see the idea of a tram getting kicked around.

I was always a huge fan of the tram!

The rail tunnel is definitely not beneath the Broadway Commons site.  The portal was just south of Eden Park Drive near Staples:

 

 

The tram is a questionable idea because it will only really work as a link to nightlife if it is able to touch down very close to St. Gregory St.  The only way that works without demolishing historic buildings is if the station is built into the existing Towne Properties-owned office building on St. Gregorty that used to house 700WLW and WEBN. 

 

Otherwise there will be too far of a walk and/or a steep walk to the Mt. Adams action.  And casino people are out of shape and won't be able to handle even a short walk around Mt. Adams. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The tram was originally proposed to land around Rookwood Pottery, and yes it is still a hike up to St. Gregory St. 

 

Otherwise there will be too far of a walk and/or a steep walk to the Mt. Adams action. And casino people are out of shape and won't be able to handle even a short walk around Mt. Adams.

 

 

Those that would consider going up to Mt. Adams are in no worse shape then the rest of the general population.  What a ridiculous statement.

Otherwise there will be too far of a walk and/or a steep walk to the Mt. Adams action.  And casino people are out of shape and won't be able to handle even a short walk around Mt. Adams. 

 

 

Those that would consider going up to Mt. Adams are in no worse shape then the rest of the general population.  What a ridiculous statement.

 

 

Your comments made me wonder.  So I looked.  Not conclusive, but the data on page 12 makes it look like a wash to me.

 

:-D

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=5&ved=0CCAQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americangaming.org%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2Fharrahs_survey.pdf&ei=pSdGS7eXDMaWtgfAqrH8AQ&usg=AFQjCNExiNhOepE82Sfjd-nwOMHusr1XJA&sig2=0V3HRzQ5I8Dp1ODtBRxhOg

Location, Location, Location.  #1 you can't see St. Gregory St. from Rookwood Pottery's parking lot, #2 it's a steep walk up, then over, then down Monestary St.'s last block.  It won't work. 

 

I took some students to Mt. Adams one day.  Big Mistake.  They were huffing and puffing and cursing the Lord's name after just 10 minutes.  And they were all 20 years old and had apparently never walked up or down a hill in their life.  I am not exaggerating. 

I don't doubt that at all, just commenting on the singling out of the casino crowd.  Most people don't want to walk, period.  I know that the times we've driven up there, the walk was long and hard.

it is a short, flat walk to NEON'S.

it is a short, flat walk to NEON'S.

 

Amen.  Really looking forward Neons!

it is a short, flat walk to NEON'S.

 

On that note, are you expecting many casino goers to stay around and visit nearby places like Neon's?  I for one am a skeptic that such activity would occur, but I would love to be proven wrong.

it is a short, flat walk to NEON'S.

 

At the rate you promote NEON'S, you'll have a full house each night :D

If you had our advertising budget, you would resort to simply yelling from rooftops too.  The only good way to get someone's attention using only a nickle or dime is to hit them with it.  That is our advertising philosophy for the moment.

Ha, you'll get great word-of-mouth too.  The No On 9 party there was great, and had just what I look for in a bar.  I've been touting you guys to everyone I know. 

thats what we need, and to be honest, I think that is what will get the best results.  I and everyone else at NEONS appreciate the support.  The casino will be great, the streetcar will be great, but in the end it is people like you that will make NEONS.

Hmm, this casino location kinda makes the idea of a new and relocated Mt. Adams incline seem not so implausible after all. 

 

 

 

 

Bigger images can be found at http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/portfolio/otr.html

>I for one am a skeptic

 

I'm a total skeptic.  The streetcar will help, but most people who go to casinos are old and can barely get around.  I've been to casinos with old people who struggle just to physically get to the restaurant inside the casino. 

 

Somebody please show me an urban casino fueling a massive surrounding entertainment district.  New Orleans?  Nothing.  Niagra Falls?  Nothing.  Detroit's Greektown?  Like 8 storefronts at most.  The other two Detroit casinos?  Nothing. 

 

Are there casinos in any dt's that are remotely peers to Cincy? Niagara Falls and Detroit both looked to casinos when there was literally nothing else to try. New Orleans might be a similar situation though, but that is such a different kind of tourist town. Maybe we should just bring back some of the old Newport mob/casino crowd, they kept that town hopping. Most went to Vegas so probably a few of their descendants are still in the business.

Somebody please show me an urban casino fueling a massive surrounding entertainment district.

I am sure I have said it on here but I will say it again. The casino brings in much more than patrons, it brings employees...lots of employees and those employees will eat, drink and live somewhere that will not be at the place they work. Short of 5000 const workers and just shy of 2500 permanent employees makes one hell of an attractive neighbor to an entertainment dist. I was happy to get 500 employees down here from Dunnhumby, 700 from P&G and another hundred from Hamilton County and still that doesn't equal what the Casino will bring and none of those business convert a single patron of theirs to entertainment. Focus on the employees...I am.

 

Are there casinos in any dt's that are remotely peers to Cincy?

Potawatomi in Milwalkee. Great casino in downtown. I assume they still do it, but they used to have a full blown lightning and thunderstorm inside of the casino every hour or so. When I was there I spent a couple of hours in the casino (lost a bundle) and the rest of the weekend in other venues throughout downtown.

 

On that note, are you expecting many casino goers to stay around and visit nearby places like Neon's?

Will we get some? of course. And some is more than the none we would get if it had remained a parking lot. The other thing it changes is the interest in other venues. It certainly makes the Diner more attractive. The J-Hall space has already been signed after the casino vote. The Club Red building has also sold.  So if the casino can help move spaces on the front end, that will also help drive additional traffic on the back end, casino traffic or otherwise.

 

We were in Niagara Falls in August.  There were many people in the casino, and obviously around the falls.  I'm not sure what everyone considers the negatives about the casino in Niagara, as people were walking in and out and enjoying the entire experience of being at the falls.

 

I was at the Hollywood Saturday night and it was very crowded with many of the patrons having come from the Bengals game.  Imagine what the crowd will be like if they only had to go up the street to the casino instead of driving to Lawrenceburg.  Also, Saturdays have a very large younger crowd and none of them were struggling physically to get to the restaurants or bars.

It is important to note that many of the more "unsuccessful" casino projects where there is more limited pedestrian activity, in my opinion, are the ones with hotels.

 

Somebody please show me an urban casino fueling a massive surrounding entertainment district. Detroit's Greektown? Like 8 storefronts at most.

 

 

Keep in mind those 8 storefronts in Detroit's Greektown represents about 25% of all occupied storefronts in Detriot.

Aside from the whole "European" casino thing, hilariously, downtown Las Vegas benefited from a revamped casino "experience" named Fremont; so did downtown Reno; Milwaukee comes to mind, as mentioned earlier; Greektown in Detroit, without question (the other two are on the edge and surrounded by parking lots).  The other urban casinos I can think of off the top of my head are general boats (St. Louis; Kansas City; New Orleans;...Tunica...).

>I for one am a skeptic

 

I'm a total skeptic. The streetcar will help, but most people who go to casinos are old and can barely get around. I've been to casinos with old people who struggle just to physically get to the restaurant inside the casino.

 

Somebody please show me an urban casino fueling a massive surrounding entertainment district. New Orleans? Nothing. Niagra Falls? Nothing. Detroit's Greektown? Like 8 storefronts at most. The other two Detroit casinos? Nothing.

 

 

I don't know if the traditional casino stereotype will make up the entire clientele of Cincy's casino.  It'll be a short streetcar ride from UC and in proximity to a lot of places downtown that are currently frequented by a young professional and student age crowd.  I would expect to see a higher percentage of those groups as walk-ins than most casinos have.  I have a bit of optimism about this.  I had a talk about this with a few friends of mine and we all agreed we'd drop in every once in awhile.  Not based on anything in particular, just a hope.

 

As a business model, they will want people to come in and stay, I just think the younger crowd will be less likely to do this, as they have a lot less money to lose :)  After $50 I'd be drowning my sorrows at Neon's.

As a business model, they will want people to come in and stay, I just think the younger crowd will be less likely to do this, as they have a lot less money to lose :) After $50 I'd be drowning my sorrows at Neon's

I am going to have to name a drink after you. I am curious how anyone sees the casino, and their efforts to keep people locked into their four walls differs from any other large venue. The Bengals bring people in from the burbs, keeps you locked in your seat for several hours and the argument I have often heard is that they do not stick around-- not true. The Reds are the same way...come in, sit down, leave downtown. Once again, this simply isn't what happens. They come in early, visit bars and restaurants, leave the venue and visit bars and restaurants again. I have seen the numbers, they are mind blowing in their impact on entertainment revenue outside of the primary event. So how is the casino going to be different? People do not drive in and drive out with blinders on and not everyone is ready to end the night after a couple of hours at the tables. If they offer entertainment inside of the casino then the other venue owners will just have to step up and offer something different, and hopefully better in their own ways.

I am a skeptic to the argument that the casino will have any different of an impact than the other major venues.

I am a skeptic to the argument that the casino will have any different of an impact than the other major venues.

 

I agree with this, although I don't think big venues like stadiums have all that big of an economic impact on their immediate surroundings.

 

"The broad conclusion of this literature is that stadiums and franchises are ineffective means to creating local economic development, whether that is measured as income or job growth."

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118536165/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

"Programs based on plans to construct a new sports venue or lure a professional team to an area are often justified by touting the potential economic benefits of such a move.  However, research in this area indicates such benefits are often greatly exaggerated or even false."

http://www.blackbusinessincubator.com/261/narcowich/index.html

 

"There is little evidence of large increases in income or employment associated with the introduction of professional sports or the construction of new stadiums."

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/05/sports-stadiums-and-economic-development-a-summary-of-the-economics-literature/

I would add that stadiums host time limited events, whereas your time in a casino is limited by the size of your wallet (which if you play till you're broke doesn't leave much money for much else.

venues like stadiums have all that big of an economic impact on their immediate surroundings.

As I mentioned the other day, during the Bengals game, Cad. Ranch had done 30,000 in sales by half time and projected to do 70,000 for the day. That is an impact. The same is true for Head First, Lodge, Knock Back Nats and even Omaly's in the Alley (granted perhaps not to the extent of Cad. Ranch) J Hall also does its largest numbers on post games. Prior to an evening Reds game it is nearly impossible to get a seat at Palaminos or the bar at Mccormicks. Historically it has been part of the driving force behind clubs like Caddy's and Sleep Out Louies (and ironically also led to its demise). So I ask, is that " greatly exaggerated or even false."? Did any of the those sources you listed post any numbers of any outside venues that I just mentioned, game day vs non? And does anyone have an answer to the impact of the industry workers on the surrounding venues?

 

I would add that stadiums host time limited events

And are limited on their times of opening therefor effecting the draw times of patrons, the casino is not.

So I ask, is that " greatly exaggerated or even false."?

 

No, I think the studies were pretty clear about their reports discussing job creation and the like. The studies also have seen that these venues seem to just displace economic activity instead of generating much new economic activity. So while Neon's may potentially benefit from a new casino along with some other new establishments along Main Street, it might come at the expense of places further away from the casino in OTR.

 

Obviously we won't know for sure until it is built, and I'm not unhappy that the casino got approved, but I won't actually be convinced of its economic impact on the area until it is actually built. The design of the casino will play a major role in this.

So while Neon's may potentially benefit from a new casino along with some other new establishments along Main Street, it might come at the expense of places further away from the casino in OTR.

Which is the difference of my views of economic generators vs only seeing zero sum games. I do not believe so much in the latter. "Supporters tend to imply that redistribution of economic activity from the suburbs or outlying areas of a city to the downtown is desirable, while opponents generally oppose this sort of redistribution" I believe that came from the last study. I grant you that your statment may hold true in giving downtown an advantage over Mason or West Chester and firmly putting me in the supporter column but do they imply there is a big disparity between say Main Street and Vine Street? I don't believe so.

 

 

Fair enough.  You know that I want it to have a positive impact on the area and make an economic impact.  I'm just not certain it will happen.  And like I said, I really hope I'm wrong on this one.

Time will tell and I sure hope you are wrong as well.  These OTR rehabs don't just pay for themselves you know.

I am a skeptic to the argument that the casino will have any different of an impact than the other major venues.

 

I agree with this, although I don't think big venues like stadiums have all that big of an economic impact on their immediate surroundings.

 

I think that the primary benefit that the City hopes to receive is the promised annual payout from the Casino (I think it was something to the tune of $20 million), which can be used for any number of things.  Any other revenue that accrues is cake icing.  Not that crappy tasteless white icing but good, cream-based icing.

mmmmm cake.

The reason COAST didn't like the casino is because they know the city, instead of lowering taxes, will immediately find something to spend the casino revenue on or at the very least will keep its oversized staff intact. 

^COAST's program is largely incoherent.  I'm pretty sure Cincinnati's overall tax burden is less than that in Columbus or Cleveland.  So we should be seeing investment moving from those cities to Cincinnati, right?  Unfortunately things are not that simple.

 

It would be preferable for any Casino revenues to be tasked directly to economic development or the Streetcar (they should also move parking meter receipts from the police budget to the Streetcar Authority also, regardless of what they do with the Casino money).

It would be great to set up some kind of contingency fund for Metro so that it doesn't have to cut back during recessions and when fuel prices escalate, but I'm not sure how to go about that, and it's not a particularly sexy way to spend casino revenues. 

 

I don't know if there would be political support to permanently dedicate a percentage of casino revenue to back streetcar bonds and paying streetcar operations.  We also don't know how much money the casino is going to generate or how much it will fluctuate, so we can't have more than a very speculative conversation.     

 

 

 

 

 

It would be great to set up some kind of contingency fund for Metro so that it doesn't have to cut back during recessions and when fuel prices escalate, but I'm not sure how to go about that, and it's not a particularly sexy way to spend casino revenues.  

 

I don't know if there would be political support to permanently dedicate a percentage of casino revenue to back streetcar bonds and paying streetcar operations.

 

This is a better question for the Cincinnati Streetcar thread, but since funding has come up here... do we know yet if operational funds for the streetcar will be separate from Metro?  It seems odd that buses would have one funding source while streetcars utilize another, and (if we assume that light rail will eventually happen) light rail a third.  Our transit system is fragmented enough already between Metro and TANK without being split up by method of transit.  One transit governing body that determines where money is spent seems like a better solution to me.  Again, I don't want to spark a transit debate in the Broadway Commons Casino thread.  Just looking for clarification on whether we should be talking streetcar funding specifically or transit funding in general.

 

In the San Francisco area there is MUNI and there is BART, which are completely different systems.  MUNI runs city buses, the cable cars, the vintage streetcars, and the city's numerous light rail lines.  BART is a multi-county agency and runs the BART rapid transit subway of which only a fraction of the track is in San Francisco city. 

 

It gets a bit complicated though because both MUNI light rail and BART run in the same tunnel under Market St. beneath downtown San Francisco.  The tunnel is four tracks and the two types of equipment never operate on the same tracks and the stations have two separate levels.  But still somebody or something built and maintains that subway so obviously there is some overlap.  My guess is that MUNI pays BART to maintain and staff those stations and that security falls under BART's purview. 

 

I expect and would advocate for Metro and Tank to remain separate agencies and for a third to be formed when cross-river light rail or streetcar is built.  It is actually simpler to do it that way and has the very important benefit of limiting a transit agency's political power and ability to cripple a region during a strike. 

 

For example in New York City the MTA subway workers operate under completely different contracts than PATH, Metro North, or Long Island Railroad.  Chances are only one of those agencies will pull off a strike at any given time.   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

I think the reason behind the different funding sources ties back to the ownership.  The City does not own the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) which operates Metro, but the City will own the Cincinnati Streetcar once it is built.

^Both Jake and Rando make good points.  I hope to add one as well.  It seems to me that  the big problem with Metro is that the County refuses to fund it.  And the point of the Streetcar is to build up population in the City.  The casino money pays out to the City, and the City is competing in an honest manner for the federal funds.  I don't see any reason for the City to subsidize the County's unwillingness to pay for a necessary good that is essential to the economy of Hamilton County suburbs.  Granted, this probably hurts poorer folks in the City, but they are County residents too, after all.  Buses have a different purpose from the Streetcar, Metro is a wreck- therefore, they should be kept separate.

 

I am not a fan of the casino for a variety of reasons, but I do think that it will work to tilt the suburban public in favor of Cincinnati over NK.  If the streetcar happens and it becomes popular with local casino visitors I think it could swing the region in favor of being taxed in order to build and run a regional rail transit system. 

 

Right now the standard way to fund a regional transit system is with a sales tax.  I do think that it will be a hard sell to the Kentucky counties though, and an agency that includes Hamilton + the three Kentucky counties will be forced to devise track routes which incorporate all three NK counties in a way that they deem to be fair.  But that route arrangement, whatever it might be, probably won't be the best for actual operations.  Some might remember that the I-71 light rail route -- the plan that predated Metro Moves -- tinkered with using the Taylor-Southgate bridge and then somehow crossing from Newport into Covington before heading south to Florence and the airport.  That was freaking stupid from an operations standpoint but was designed to get Campbell County on board for a regional tax. 

 

 

 

Jake, you need to get over your conservative values and accept that you may not believe that gambling is right morally (and acceptable by Y'shua) but you cannot force other non-believers that it isn't right for them.