Not opposed, just of all the options, the one whose name recalls the desert and wild west hardly seems the most appropriate for Cincinnati.

The renderings are, meh, but workable. Did anyone notice the mammoth parking structure in the rear? I wonder if it allows for any development at all along Gilbert?

I tend to think Gilbert Avenue is kind of a lost cause.  It's a very wide road, and on the east side of it is a blank concrete wall with I-71 on top.  I can't really imagine much of anything going on along there.  Court Street on the other hand could be pretty cool if it was built out nicely on both sides. 

haha actually Cincinnati once was the wild west. I say awesome.

Where is the best place to see new renderings? anyone have any suggestions?

Where is the best place to see new renderings? anyone have any suggestions?

 

Go here:  http://www.horseshoe.com/info/cincinnati/image-gallery.html

haha actually Cincinnati once was the wild west. I say awesome.

 

It should be called Annie Oakley's. :-)

We have nothing to do with New Orleans, the west, or ancient Rome so who cares

haha actually Cincinnati once was the wild west. I say awesome.

 

It should be called Annie Oakley's. :-)

 

OMG!!! Genius-- That needs to be a bar at the new casino

With 81 home Reds games every year, Cincy is going to see more out of town people staying longer.

They will make it more of an extended weekend and Reds games and the Casino. When I went to the

Sugar Bowl to watch the Bearcats we stayed next door to the Casino. It was a great time.

Will be neat to follow the construction of this.

The Hammond Horseshoe Casino website has virtual tours of the inside.  Is beautiful, this should be nice.

whats up with the giant open space in the front of the casino?  they planning on using it for events or something?  Seems like a bad idea and a poor design. 

^ Just so you know-- that open space is designed by assuming the closing of Broadway, widening of Eggeleston (to allow for two way traffic on that street) and the triangle plot of parking currently there to be turned into a green space. 

^ Just so you know-- that open space is designed by assuming the closing of Broadway, widening of Eggeleston (to allow for two way traffic on that street) and the triangle plot of parking currently there to be turned into a green space. 

 

yes, judging by the renderings i can tell that the current triangle parking lot will be turned into a green space.  That is a bad use of land.  We already have an over abundance of open space in DT.  We don't need more.  It seems to me that it was left over space they didn't know what to do with.  Im hoping Broadway isn't closed off.  That also seems like a misguided idea. 

Green space and open space are terms that really need to die.  If it's actually defined as something useful, something specific, then it can be ok.  Is it a plaza, a flower garden, a little park, sculpture garden, playground, etc.?  Just saying green space usually means it ends up being useless grass. 

I agree about the giant green space being a bad idea.  From looking at the renderings, I'd say they were probably done pretty quickly and the design team didn't spend any time figuring out what to put on that empty space just yet, or just didn't get it into the renderings yet. 

I recall the casino made an offer on the triangular lot between Broadway and Central Parkway with the purpose of using it as green space and an event lawn.  It's a waste of space as a park unless you put some kind of central features (i.e. monument) in the center.  Something cool like this:

 

 

But maybe not so big.

It has a stage built into it, so it's more of an event lawn--

 

Just to be clear-- you guys aren't saying that you propose keeping the triangle parking lot as a parking lot instead of a flexible event space, are you??

 

With it's location- and since it seems to be owned by the county, I doubt anyone will be building a beautiful flat iron there in the next two years (just like the last 20 years where it was a parking lot).  I'd much rather see that space turned into pedestrian friendly plaza where events can happen throughout the summer, etc. then be used as a 100 space parking lot.

It has a stage built into it, so it's more of an event lawn--

 

Just to be clear-- you guys aren't saying that you propose keeping the triangle parking lot as a parking lot instead of a flexible event space, are you??

 

With it's location- and since it seems to be owned by the county, I doubt anyone will be building a beautiful flat iron there in the next two years (just like the last 20 years where it was a parking lot). I'd much rather see that space turned into pedestrian friendly plaza where events can happen throughout the summer, etc. then be used as a 100 space parking lot.

I am sure they will use it as an appropriate magnet to the front entrance, via green space and other landscaping elements.  <y plan is to rebuild the canals around it's perimeter (the triangle represents the turnaround route for the canal boats), and re-build a recreational canal to Plum Street. We will segregate the water main in the subway so it has maintenance access points (and no longer needs to be moved, and this will alleviate the annual maintenance required on subway construction (corroded rebar, etc.).  Fill the rest of the subway up with water and get out the gondolas. 

I tend to think Gilbert Avenue is kind of a lost cause. It's a very wide road, and on the east side of it is a blank concrete wall with I-71 on top. I can't really imagine much of anything going on along there. Court Street on the other hand could be pretty cool if it was built out nicely on both sides.

 

I think the garages are in the best place. 71 prevents much development going up there and they are in the empty space by 71. This allows for space along Reading for development and also OTR area, and to infill some of the area toward P&G that is now parking. Maybe in the next 10 years there may be a hotel highrise around there. (I know there is no plans for a hotel within  the first 5 years, but maybe down the line)

^ there are plans for a hotel between 7th and 8th at Broadway and construction is expected to start this year-- It's only about .2 miles from the casino site (across from the KZF design building) so while it's not related, it will definitely draw on the casino crowd. 

It has a stage built into it, so it's more of an event lawn--

 

Just to be clear-- you guys aren't saying that you propose keeping the triangle parking lot as a parking lot instead of a flexible event space, are you??

 

With it's location- and since it seems to be owned by the county, I doubt anyone will be building a beautiful flat iron there in the next two years (just like the last 20 years where it was a parking lot). I'd much rather see that space turned into pedestrian friendly plaza where events can happen throughout the summer, etc. then be used as a 100 space parking lot.

 

I'm not totally opposed to it being green space, but I think a building would be better.  If it is green space, I hope that, eventually, the medians in Central Parkway are made into some sort of usable space, as well, and the little triangle lot at the casino became a cap to a promenade of sorts.  The way it looks in the rendering, it seems like it'd be just another grassy empty space along the Parkway.

I pray to god we don't have another sh*tty country music venue in Cincinnati.  It is nauseating to already see a Toby Keith bar opening at the Banks. 

 

This virtual tour shoes a Wiskey Roadhouse at the Council Bluffs Horseshoe:

http://www.harrahs.com/VirtualTours/virtual-tour.html?id=16754&template=219&width=980&height=550

I pray to god we don't have another sh*tty country music venue in Cincinnati. It is nauseating to already see a Toby Keith bar opening at the Banks.

 

This virtual tour shoes a Wiskey Roadhouse at the Council Bluffs Horseshoe:

http://www.harrahs.com/VirtualTours/virtual-tour.html?id=16754&template=219&width=980&height=550

 

The Banks is going have multiple eating dining options, pretty diverse.

The Harrahs casino in Omaha/Council Bluffs is much different than Downtown Cincy.

I pray to god we don't have another sh*tty country music venue in Cincinnati. It is nauseating to already see a Toby Keith bar opening at the Banks.

 

While I agree the Toby Keith concept is pretty lame, I'm willing to bet that the place will be pretty popular and The Banks needs that. I personally don't intend to frequent it, but I'm sure it will cater to a large group of people. I mean, have you seen the amount of suburbanites who automatically become cowboy hat and boot wearing good ol boy wannabees when Rascal Flatts comes to Riverbend?

 

They can go there, I'll take the Moerlin Lager House. Point is, The Banks will have people visiting.

 

It has a stage built into it, so it's more of an event lawn--

 

Just to be clear-- you guys aren't saying that you propose keeping the triangle parking lot as a parking lot instead of a flexible event space, are you??

 

With it's location- and since it seems to be owned by the county, I doubt anyone will be building a beautiful flat iron there in the next two years (just like the last 20 years where it was a parking lot).  I'd much rather see that space turned into pedestrian friendly plaza where events can happen throughout the summer, etc. then be used as a 100 space parking lot.

 

Agree 100%.  UO posters are so unrealistic at times (well most of the time).  I would also prefer that this tiny, odd-shaped lot located on the outskirts of the CBD become a 40 story luxury condo complex or the new HQ for a Fortune 500 company, but that isnt very realistic is it? Green/public space that is coordinated with the entrance to the casino is a huge improvement over the current surface parking.

^ I'd love for it to be a tower too... but I know that there is a tower planned for 5th and Race, and one 20+ story residential tower at a time is all this city can handle.  Additionally-- There are much larger lots just to the southeast of the site that could grow...  I just don't see any modern developer building a flat iron on that small of a triangle.  They would have to put a garage underneath it, it would be way too complicated. 

 

good quote from Matt Cullen of Rock Gaming re Casino and streetcar.  He also admitted they have to hedge it a bit, as "we have friends on both sides."  Smitherman has had his nose all up in the minority contracting aspect of casino construction.  Interestingly enough, he was the only dignitary not in attendance whose name was called by Cullen.

 

http://www.soapboxmedia.com/features/0208soapdishbridgingbroadway.aspx

good quote from Matt Cullen of Rock Gaming re Casino and streetcar.  He also admitted they have to hedge it a bit, as "we have friends on both sides."  Smitherman has had his nose all up in the minority contracting aspect of casino construction.  Interestingly enough, he was the only dignitary not in attendance whose name was called by Cullen.

 

The City and Hamilton County are well-versed in exclusion.  You may not like Smitherman concerning the streetcar, but as far as the Banks and the Shoe, I don't see what is wrong about wanting to know who will be getting paid from these projects, where they are from and what color they happen to be.

Really? You think it is relevant to construction, in terms of quality and cost, to know where they are from and what color they are? I'd rather pay less to have firms come in to design and build the casino than to pay much higher for someone who is local. I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm. Most would tend to agree, unless you are doing this for some political gain (e.g. Smitherman, NAACP).

"Architects Wary of Casino Design"

Cincinnati Enquirer

By Lisa Bernard-Kuhn • [email protected]

 

DOWNTOWN - A board of top local architects says early designs for the $200 million Horseshoe Casino Cincinnati downtown lack the architectural appeal they had hoped to see.

 

Full Article:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110208/BIZ01/102090353/Architects-wary-of-casino-design

 

Pictures of Harrahs, downtown New Orleans.

 

 

 

 

 

Having been to the Harrah's in NOLA, I thought it to be well done and pedestrian friendly.  I wonder how it compares in size to HS@BC?

Really? You think it is relevant to construction, in terms of quality and cost, to know where they are from and what color they are? I'd rather pay less to have firms come in to design and build the casino than to pay much higher for someone who is local. I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm. Most would tend to agree, unless you are doing this for some political gain (e.g. Smitherman, NAACP).

 

minority= less qualified or experienced. wow

Really? You think it is relevant to construction, in terms of quality and cost, to know where they are from and what color they are? I'd rather pay less to have firms come in to design and build the casino than to pay much higher for someone who is local. I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm. Most would tend to agree, unless you are doing this for some political gain (e.g. Smitherman, NAACP).

 

minority= less qualified or experienced. wow

 

That's not what  got out of that post at all.  :roll:

 

What Sherman said below is what I got out of it.

Really? You think it is relevant to construction, in terms of quality and cost, to know where they are from and what color they are? I'd rather pay less to have firms come in to design and build the casino than to pay much higher for someone who is local. I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm. Most would tend to agree, unless you are doing this for some political gain (e.g. Smitherman, NAACP).

 

minority= less qualified or experienced. wow

 

No, take off your rose colored glasses City Blights.

 

Under your rosy scenario, you would say:

1. We need 50% minority construction contractors.

2. We have three choices: a minority-owned firm with 0 references; a minority-owned firm with no experience in large-scale construction; a firm from Columbus, Ohio that has 30 years of experience in large-scale commercial construction.

3. Let's choose the minority-owned firm with no experience so we can meet our quota!

 

Or,

1. We choose based on the cost of the project. In fact, that's how a free market tends to operate. In an open market, entities are free to choose the firms they desire, based on qualifications, experience and et. al. Not based on "color" or minority-status. They tend to choose the firm with the lowest cost that can meet the outlined requirements.

 

Why not let the firm decide who they want to construct their casino? Must we get the government involved to mandate to private firms who they should choose to design and construct the casino? (And this can be applied to any private entity. Unfortunately, the casino has too much government red-tape involved to begin with.)

Its just weird that Sherman would be interested in having the financially cheaper versus local firm do the job.  This is a clear problem with basing the monetary value system directly on a single form of capital. I am using capital to refer to the multiple value systems which are invested in human, manufactured, financial, and natural.

 

That said.  My main point is that the contract should definitely come with restrictions, whether those be on a mere % of ethnicity, or locality would have to be brokered based upon regional economic performance.  But they have to exist and they do so in order to better benefit the Cincinnati region.  Sherman, especially the locality issue which just seems obvious for purposes of seeing a regional financial return on your investment, and a regional quality of life (human) return on investment.

 

On a side note the "free market" which is claimed in the above post does not exist.  It arguably never has.  And due to the extensive economic mechanisms in place globally and locally it cannot/should not exist without check.

^ I may be mistaken but how does the NAACP really have any ability to dictate the % of minority contractors or the city have the authority to dictate the number of union/non union jobs on this site? After all, isnt this being financed by private money on private property?

@nati streets: No, in fact, you would find that most Americans would rather have the job done on or under budget and completed with qualified and experienced contractors. I don't think there is a person with some reasonable conscious that would say that I would rather hire someone with little to no experience, at a much elevated cost.

 

Do you wander why some projects can be grossly exaggerated? Why local governments can some times pay much more than a projected cost? Let's use an example at a university that I am familiar with:

 

They constructed a new campus addition. Because it is a private university, they were not required nor were pushed to include a % of minorities in the construction or design phase of the project. Nor were they pushed to include a local contractor. The bids were let and they had several choices:

 

1. Messer, a Cincinnati firm who brought in the cheapest contract. They are local but they are not a minority firm. They have many years of educational/campus construction experience.

2. A minority owned firm, with little to no educational/campus construction/design experience. Their bid was about 20% over projections.

3. Another minority owned firm, but their bid was about 40% over projections. Some educational/campus construction experience, but mainly additions and other small work.

 

Now, which firm did this university choose? Option 1. But had it been a government entity, or one that had used some taxpayer money? You bet the NAACP would be harping about minority inclusion! They did this for Queen City Square. They did this for The Banks. They did this for Washington Park. And why?

 

Because they have an agenda. Or shall I say, Chris Smitherman has an agenda. And a political one at that. What reasonable rationale would there be to using a contractor that can't achieve even the most basic of qualifications? Why would anyone choose a contractor that can't meet the bidding deadlines? Or make a reasonable bid offer? Or be at least qualified, with experience, in the genre of construction? Why must we be forced - by the hand of being "politically correct", use contractors that can't fulfill the job requirements?

 

And I disagree with the locality issue. We know that Messer goes to other cities for contracts. They aren't considered locals at Indiana University, or at the Aisin facility in Tennessee. Those companies and universities sought out what anyone would - the cheapest bid, by the most qualified and experienced contractors, so they can return a positive return-on-investment and show commitment to fiscal responsibility to their shareholders, taxpayers, et. al. It is irresponsible to spend wrecklessly.

 

Read what the San Francisco Gate had to say about their protectionist local-contractor-only bit (which may be ruled unconstitutional): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/06/EDEI1H56I6.DTL

I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm.

 

Because all minority firms are unqualified or lack experience. 

 

Please don't speak for me.  nati streets is right.  The "free market" never existed for one second.

 

Cincinnati has never fulfilled their responsibility to minority taxpayers/investors of the fine city.  Maybe you slept through the riots and the economic boycott.

 

Then again, you may be saying minority firms are inexperienced because minority firms rarely get work.  Maybe?

No, you are doing nothing more than trying to race bait. Congratulations. All I stated was, why would anyone choose a firm with less experience/qualifications because they are a minority firm? They ran into it at the university I gave as an example above; what would you have chosen?

 

Here is how companies grow, in this example: They start small and grow ever bigger by taking on projects that match the size and scope of their past experience and work, their number of employees and their willingness to take on risks (based on a large part to their financials). That's how legitimate companies work, ones that don't receive hand-outs from the government because they are of a particular "color" (your words) or ethnicity. Why should we give them special preference because of that? You haven't listed a decent example except that the city hasn't somehow fulfilled their responsibility to the minority taxpayers...

 

So we are now "owing" a particular subset of ethnicity, that makes up 12% of Ohio, so that they can receive preferred contracts on projects, because they acted badly to a police shooting that was found justified, and then went on a "riot" through a neighborhood? That sure was justified (sarcasm). And what "economic boycott"?

 

Gee, I'm a minority. I wish the city would bend over backwards for Asians!

I agree. I'm still baffled by how reverse discrimination is so accepted in our society. And let's be honest, Smitherman doesn't care about other minorities.  He cares about one minority, and one minority only.

 

Because all minority firms are unqualified or lack experience.

 

Please don't speak for me. nati streets is right. The "free market" never existed for one second.

 

Cincinnati has never fulfilled their responsibility to minority taxpayers/investors of the fine city. Maybe you slept through the riots and the economic boycott.

 

Then again, you may be saying minority firms are inexperienced because minority firms rarely get work. Maybe?

 

Your take on his post seems rather narrow minded.

 

Never once did he say anything about all minority firms being unqualified or lacking of experience. What he said is that we should hire the best group for the job, not being concerned about fulfilling some kind of quota based on ethnicity or location. If a particular "minority" firm brings the most to the table for the job, then great - if not, it would be unwise to seek the services of that particular firm.

 

I'd also rather have quality over someone who is less qualified or experienced but chosen because they were a minority firm.

 

Because all minority firms are unqualified or lack experience.

 

Please don't speak for me. nati streets is right. The "free market" never existed for one second.

 

Cincinnati has never fulfilled their responsibility to minority taxpayers/investors of the fine city. Maybe you slept through the riots and the economic boycott.

 

Then again, you may be saying minority firms are inexperienced because minority firms rarely get work. Maybe?

 

I'm a little confused.  I've always found the discussion here to be quite thoughtful.  This seems like it is from out of left field.  Eeesh.

First off- 

 

I think we can all agree local firms are better than out of state firms for reasons that go beyond "qualifications" (a term that means everything and nothing at the same time).  A local firm is more likely to ensure that it's profits are reinvested in the community. A local firm is more likely to use local employees, who then reinvest their profits at their local Kroger, IGA, etc.  A local firm will have to see the product they worked on all the time, will be criticized if it's bad, and praised if it's good.  An out of town firm can just leave when they build a hideous ugly project and have no one to answer to (as long as it's not also structurally unsound, etc.).

 

Regarding minority firms, This is very very common practice in the construction industry now- The Banks has a MBE (Minority-owned Business Enterprise) goal of 20 something percent.  They've used minority owned firms as sub-contractors throughout the entire process and....

 

drumroll please...

 

The Banks are under-budget, and have had 0 work-stoppage accidents in two years.  Amazing!!!

The idea that there is only one qualified option for any one job is silly.  I can find 10 great white-owned firms to do a job.  I can find as equally easily 5 white firms and 5 minority owned firms to do just as good of a job.  The point is, there are times when a community wants it's workforce to be representative of the community.  There are dozens and dozens of small local subcontractors used in every major construction project.  Setting a 20% minority-owned business goal does not in anyway harm productivity or costs.

 

If the casino decides to set a goal, of a certain percentage of subcontracts etc. going to MBE's that's fine with me- It happens in nearly ever major development now-a-days. 

BUT If they say-- 20% of our employees will be (insert race here), that's absolutely ridiculous-  At the same time, the government is doing nothing to force this one them, so really, if they make that decision.... It was the FREE MARKET. A private business owner agreeing with a private citizen to include 20% of one race in construction.  That is still a free market decision...

^ Right, the casino is a privately owned business.  They can hire whoever the want to, for whatever reasons they want to.  They've been extremely generous to the city so far, because they want to, not because they have to. 

 

As was said in the post above me, public projects undertaken by the city that require locally owned or at least locally operating firms to fulfill some percentage of the contracts makes sense, as taxpayer dollars might as well be put back into the hands of taxpaying workers.

 

And as a side note, the Banks is under budget because labor and construction costs have dropped or stagnated, not inflated like the budget was accounting for.  It really has nothing to do with the MBE, one way or the other.  I've worked on numerous projects that had some of the most liberal people I know complaining about state mandated minority owned business requirements when we had to (as Sherman mentioned hypothetically) pass up a cheaper, better bid because we were below quota. 

^ Right, the casino is a privately owned business.

 

I'll stop you right there and let you know that every casino in a state that was approved by voters is the farthest thing from a private business possible when it comes to design and construction.  Without wasting my time listing facts, I would argue they have stricter inclusion guidelines than any other public project.  The best example is not only the use of a local general contractor and requiring a percentage of minority business, but also sourcing the building materials through local distributors.  The casinos in Indiana have had the strictest inclusion guidelines I have seen on any project, and so far the Ohio casinos seem to be the same.

^ Right, the casino is a privately owned business. 

 

I'll stop you right there and let you know that every casino in a state that was approved by voters is the farthest thing from a private business possible when it comes to design and construction.  Without wasting my time listing facts, I would argue they have stricter inclusion guidelines than any other public project.  The best example is not only the use of a local general contractor and requiring a percentage of minority business, but also sourcing the building materials through local distributors.  The casinos in Indiana have had the strictest inclusion guidelines I have seen on any project, and so far the Ohio casinos seem to be the same.

 

They have miles of red tape that the government has wrapped around them, but the statement "the casino is a privately owned business" is 100% true. 

 

If you know the inclusion guidelines the state has forced upon them, post the numbers.  I really don't care about the local numbers, because I think that's a good idea, more interested in the minority numbers.  If there is already a percentage requirement, why would Smitherman be whining?

I really hope they nail the architecture. Paul Wilham (preservationconsultant on UO) had a blog entry pointing out how the city really can and should be picky about this project. While I think he is wrong about some things he says, he has some valid points (as he usually does).

 

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/02/downtown-cincinnati-needs-to-raise-its.html

 

I wonder what his picture of an ideal new-construction casino might be, though. He seems to think "new = crap", across the board. I do dislike most contemporary architecture, but I do not think the answer is to only go to past styles!

If there is already a percentage requirement, why would Smitherman be whining?

 

Smitherman's main issue with the minority participation isn't the percentage, but how contractors achieve that percentage.  Most of the time the minority firms are just used as a pass-through and collect something off the top of whatever they  offer to the project.  He initially raised his (justified) concerns during the CPS construction.  I'm not 100% certain but I thought he said he would actually be in favor of lowering the minority participation requirement if it meant more genuine participation and eliminating pass-through contractors. 

 

To clarify a "pass-through," an easy example is a non-minority contractor buys $100 worth of material for a project; however, he orders it under a minority contractor's account and pays the minority contractor $5 for this right.  Therefore the $100 worth of material is considered minority participation.  Although the minority contractor is paid, Smitherman's argument is that this is not really helping advance minority construction firms.  I don't agree with him on many things, but I feel he is right in this regard.