^ I think it was a Cheeseburger in Paradise in Eastgate. Never been to either.

I run by the casino a lot. I'm trying to count how many windows the entire structure will have. I think it's like 15 including transoms

There's your family restaurant people have been asking for. Margaritaville and Casinos seems to go hand in hand. I had a good time in the one in Vegas. It's not a bad choice for a theme restaurant.

Margaritaville Cafe is not at all Cheeseburger in Paradise that used to be in Eastgate. It's easily a destination restaurant that will bring people to downtown, including many who have no intention of gambling at the casino. I've been to the one in Orlando and it's well done - island drinks, live music ... definitely an attraction. And, without a doubt, Jimmy Buffett has strong ties to Cincinnati, making this restaurant a natural fit and something that Indy, Columbus, Louisville, etc. probably have no shot to ever get. This isn't Hard Rock Cafe that essentially locates in any city with a pulse. Check out MC's locations:

 

Key West

Orlando

Las Vegas

Myrtle Beach

Panama City Beach

Waikiki

Glendale (Phoenix)

New Orleans

Mohegan Sun

Cancun

Niagara Falls

Nashville

Chicago

Grand Cayman

Turks & Caicos

Montego Bay

 

Not exactly a bad list to add Cincinnati to.

Good choice for the casino location. 

>I'm trying to count how many windows the entire structure will have.

 

Aside from your white legs shuffling past, honestly what is there to look at?  I'm just wondering if any will be in line with the jail, allowing for some variety when women come by to flash their boyfriends in for the weekend up on the 4th or 5th floor. 

It's less about looking out the windows and more about being dead to the street.

What casino has windows? They're purposely devoid of windows and clocks so their customers don't pay attention to the time. The gaming floors are also designed in ways to draw you further away from the doors and to make it a little harder to get out.

What casino has windows? They're purposely devoid of windows and clocks so their customers don't pay attention to the time. The gaming floors are also designed in ways to draw you further away from the doors and to make it a little harder to get out.

 

We know, but Rock Gaming promised this one would be urban-friendly. Remember the charettes and all that?

What casino has windows? They're purposely devoid of windows and clocks so their customers don't pay attention to the time. The gaming floors are also designed in ways to draw you further away from the doors and to make it a little harder to get out.

 

We know, but Rock Gaming promised this one would be urban-friendly. Remember the charettes and all that?

 

Well it's a heck of a lot more urban friendly than a surface parking lot. The wall fronting Reading is a concern, but hopefully the streetscape improvements and the buildings across the street will be redeveloped in a way to steal the spotlight from the Horseshoe's side.

^ just to be clear, nearly all the buildings along reading facing the casino are already redeveloped into condos/event space.

 

Video update:

 

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/Media-sees-Horseshoe-Casino-s-progress/-/13549970/16502942/-/lxoejv/-/index.html

 

 

 

Pretty hideous exterior. How do these things get approved?! Seriously. Did the planning commission approve this crap?

^The casinos are exempt from local zoning.

^ Could be worse.

 

At any roundabout, there's going to be plenty of stoplights

 

Maybe I'm not following you here, but a stoplight at a roundabout would be redundant. The purpose of a roundabout is to keep traffic moving.

 

My opinion on roundabouts is that I LOVE them, if used properly. When it comes to keeping traffic moving in complicated intersections they absolutely excel. But, as City Blights pointed out, they aren't very good for pedestrians. At the current configuration by the casino I don't see a reason to use a roundabout. I think one place one could work well is at the intersection of Liberty St and Reading Rd, where 5 different directional roads meet, and there's always a mess of cars trying to get onto the I-471 onramp at rush hour.

 

I'd like to learn more about the roadwork on Reading by the casino. It looks like there's going to be some big changes, possibly expanding that incredibly narrow sidewalk on the north side of Reading in Pendleton?

They have some of the new storm drains set on the north side of Reading, and it looks like they're adding MAYBE two whole feet to the sidewalk.  It's pretty sad.  I don't know what they're doing to the weird triangle of land where Reading and Central Parkway split at Broadway.  Either way, they're turning Reading into a 7-laner (3 lanes each way with a median in some parts and left turn lanes at others).  There's also a right turn lane into the casino garage about halfway along.  The lanes don't look too wide, 10 or 11 feet I think, and I pray there's going to be on-street parking, but I doubt it.  Along with the driveway entrances at 12th Street, the aforementioned direct entry to the garage, and blank wall after blank wall after blank wall, with lots of fragments of useless "green space" between the building and the sidewalk, this is turning into a complete nightmare of anti-urbanism.  Look at East Liberty between Sycamore and Reading, that's what they're building. 

If you have to cross 7 lanes of traffic to go from one side of Central Parkway to the other (i.e. into OTR or Pendleton), I don't see how that's going to make the casino feel like it's part of the neighborhood.

 

Yes, I noticed the terrible use of space. I thought we were promised restaurants on the south side of Central Parkway? Hopefully they'll put some trees or something there to hide the sub-mediocre looking walls. Looks like the architects they hired only had experience building in the suburbs.

^ Agree with both jjakucyk (#902) and wholtone (#903).  Every few days, aboard a Metro bus, I venture past this "work in progress" and stare, aghast, not only at the bunker-like casino, itself, but the nightmarishly-wide Reading Road that is emerging in front of the entire mess--gawd, is this what everyone envisioned at the start?  :wtf:

Went past yesterday and while I don't have the analytic architectural chops you guys do, I can also rate it an 8 on WTF were they thinking scale. 

All we can hope for is that Horseshoe is a big hit and the cash boys finally wake up to the wisdom of putting as much square footage on a parcel as is reasonable for the location.

 

Yes, I noticed the terrible use of space. I thought we were promised restaurants on the south side of Central Parkway? Hopefully they'll put some trees or something there to hide the sub-mediocre looking walls. Looks like the architects they hired only had experience building in the suburbs.

 

I've said that from the beginning.  It looks like something that belongs out in the suburbs and not in an urban area.  I don't know why more people couldn't see this, either that or people just wanted a suburban look.  From the look of the design, it looks like something that would've been build in Tri-County or Eastgate.  They even took this design from the one they had built in the Chicago suburbs.

They have some of the new storm drains set on the north side of Reading, and it looks like they're adding MAYBE two whole feet to the sidewalk.  It's pretty sad.

Pic from yesterday:

That's a bit better than I thought, but it's still less than impressive.  A few extra feet of sidewalk (though I'm betting it's going to be a planting strip) isn't going to help much when you're walking next to a highway.  And look at all that blank wall across the street.  It's like a stack of cardboard boxes.  The jail has more character than this thing. 

how many times did people on this site have to beat the drum about how horrible this structure was going to be?  And now we have fat jenga blocks stacked on top of each other.  This is an absolute travesty.  From what I am seeing in these pictures, people in Cincinnati should be embarrassed. 

how many times did people on this site have to beat the drum about how horrible this structure was going to be?  And now we have fat jenga blocks stacked on top of each other.  This is an absolute travesty.  From what I am seeing in these pictures, people in Cincinnati should be embarrassed. 

 

It's an atrocity. Apparently PR statements including the words "urban" and "street life" were good enough. Nevermind the fact that it looks like the West Bank barrier. What a crock.

What boggles my mind are developer's/architect's/city official's/the general public's inability to deliver a building that addresses ALL sides of the public realm.  It's like, anymore, there has to be a front of a building and the rest is forgotten about.  Quality, well-rounded buildings are being built all across this country.  It can be done.  But the public has to demand high quality.  With this, the Banks, and all of the infill in Uptown, there is a clear disconnect to what other parts of the country are achieving.  Thankfully OTR has some shining examples of quality infill, and I'm hopeful of the new Dunnhumby site.  I guess all I can say is - thank goodness this is on the outskirts of the CBD.   

Ouch! That picture from Reading is uglier than I envisioned.

That's a bit better than I thought, but it's still less than impressive.  A few extra feet of sidewalk (though I'm betting it's going to be a planting strip) isn't going to help much when you're walking next to a highway.

 

I'm guessing it will be a planting strip as well. The south side is, albeit only 5-6 spots from what I can tell. Funny that you mention highway as the posted speed limit along this stretch is 25 MPH. They had a SMART (Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer) on that stretch a couple weeks ago. Not that it did any good.

 

I've noticed several crosswalk cutouts on the south side. Besides the two at the stop lights at Eggleston & Reading and 12th & Reading, there are two at Pendleton St. and another near Leapfrog Interactive. Unless there is a new stop light installed or in-pavement flashers installed, I can't see anyone trying to cross at these three.

Atlas, the old SCPA school is a good example of what you're talking about, as well as the Hamilton County Courthouse.  Meanwhile, the new SCPA obviously faces Central Parkway, but its face toward Washington Park is a disaster, as I predicted it would be when the rendering first appeared.  The south edge of Washington Park is practically dead thanks to that horrible design. 

I think John Schneider is on planning commission who approved this. John was the city duped?

^The casinos are exempt from local zoning.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ohio_Casino_Initiative,_Issue_3_(2009)

"Authorize the casinos to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the discretion of the casino operator and require that the casino facilities shall be subject to all state and local laws and provisions related to health and building codes, but that no local zoning, land use laws, subdivision regulations or similar provisions shall prohibit the development or operation of the casinos at the designated sites."

I really don't think the casino is that bad, especially considering it is replacing a huge surface parking lot.  Who is really going to be walking on the part of Reading past the casino? Where would they be walking to? Yes, the walls are blank, but what were people expecting, windows into the high limit poker room (I'm also betting signage will be adorning some of these walls)?  The majority of pedestrians will be coming from the CBD and OTR, where the front entrance is located.  IMO the entrance looks pretty inviting and is designed in a way that is definitely welcoming and inviting for those on foot.  Margaritaville will be here, and from all renderings I've seen, it will have an open air component (or at least considerable window coverage) that will give real street presence to this part of the casino.  Also, this stretch of Reading road was already characterized by fast traffic and multiple lanes in each direction, so it's not like the reconfiguration of the street is causing it to be much worse than before.  It's definitely not groundbreaking urban design, but for a casino, I don't think it's terrible.

If we are to hold hope that the casino will bring development, it would be helpful to have the area immediately around the casino be development-friendly. This design negates from that.

 

Rather than having windows into the high stakes poker room, food businesses could be along the Reading street wall.

I think any development the casino will bring will be due to the increased number of people (both employees and visitors) in the area on a day to day basis.  Broadway Commons as a site isn't integrated with the rest of downtown or OTR, so it's kind of naive to assume that this project - a casino at that- is going to bridge that gap and activate all surrounding sides.  I think the corner of Broadway and Central Parkway will be the pedestrian node associated with this project, while the rest will have minimal impact.  However, when developers and retailers are considering a downtown or OTR location, seeing an additional 4-6 million people downtown every year could help make these areas more desirable.  I also ask what kind of development would having restaurants on Reading bring to the surrounding neighborhood which is almost entirely residential.  Again, a developer might be more inclined to restore a block of housing in Pendleton to try to capture some of the 1,700 employees who will be working at the casino, but I don't think the selling point will be "look at the retail facing Reading!". It will be "look how close you are to work/the amenities of the casino".  If this design was used on say, the 5th and Race site, I would absolutely agree with you.  However, given the nature of casinos and the lack of existing context at Broadway Commons, I think the casino design isn't all that bad.

Who is really going to be walking on the part of Reading past the casino?

 

Well certainly nobody now.  This mentality that "it was already pretty bad, so it's ok to make it worse" really needs to die.  There was an opportunity here to make this stretch of Reading Road better, to help stitch that corner of OTR in with the casino development.  Why is it ok to take a marginal street and make it worse, but not ok to try to make it better?  We could have a little retail, loft housing, small offices, or even something a bit more industrial like live-work lofts or who knows. what else  The point is that it could be done a lot better and be an asset to the community, but instead it's just a car sewer that will do nothing to help with any redevelopment on the north side of Reading on top of everything else. 

I think any development the casino will bring will be due to the increased number of people (both employees and visitors) in the area on a day to day basis.  Broadway Commons as a site isn't integrated with the rest of downtown or OTR, so it's kind of naive to assume that this project - a casino at that- is going to bridge that gap and activate all surrounding sides.  I think the corner of Broadway and Central Parkway will be the pedestrian node associated with this project, while the rest will have minimal impact.  However, when developers and retailers are considering a downtown or OTR location, seeing an additional 4-6 million people downtown every year could help make these areas more desirable.  I also ask what kind of development would having restaurants on Reading bring to the surrounding neighborhood which is almost entirely residential.  Again, a developer might be more inclined to restore a block of housing in Pendleton to try to capture some of the 1,700 employees who will be working at the casino, but I don't think the selling point will be "look at the retail facing Reading!". It will be "look how close you are to work/the amenities of the casino".  If this design was used on say, the 5th and Race site, I would absolutely agree with you.  However, given the nature of casinos and the lack of existing context at Broadway Commons, I think the casino design isn't all that bad.

 

I'm not entirely sure I follow your logic.  It seems you're saying: "well, it's bad now, so why try to make it better?  That's naive."

 

Broadway Commons could be integrated into the rest of downtown - this isn't impossible.  The goal of the casino, as with any urban development projects, should be to integrate itself into its environment.  And when that environment is a blank slate, the goal should be to create a foundation for urban development to take root.  This casino does neither.  Why can't Cincinnati have an urban casino like Cleveland now has?  Why can't we have a more mixed-use casino with retail along Reading?  I think that would make residential rehab. in Pendleton even more inviting.  It is so important to design for people and create great spaces and places - this will attract spin-off investment.  Cincinnati had a chance to create a great place that captures 4-6 million visitors a year, but it failed.  It is looking like it might as well become an island development - a drive in, drive out casino.  How unfortunate and what a missed opportunity.

 

In my opinion, Cincinnati needs to get rid of the mindset of "hey, atleast it isn't a surface parking lot anymore" and stop comparing down.  Compare up, to things that have been done better in other places.  Just mtc tho. 

The goal of any casino is to keep people inside the building for as long as possible and separate them from their money. The whole idea of an "urban-friendly" casino is contradictory to its entire reason for being, and I think people were fooling themselves if they thought Cincinnati's Horseshoe would be any different.

 

I'm just glad this thing didn't end up on the riverfront.

The goal of any casino is to keep people inside the building for as long as possible and separate them from their money. The whole idea of an "urban-friendly" casino is contradictory to its entire reason for being, and I think people were fooling themselves if they thought Cincinnati's Horseshoe would be any different.

 

What we got is what I was expecting, but I was certainly hoping for better. They paid a lot of lip-service to urban friendliness, which turned out to be exactly as I expected it would.

The whole idea of an "urban-friendly" casino is contradictory to its entire reason for being...

 

But that doesn't mean the building itself, or even the land parcel, has to be all casino, basically single use.  With all the wasted space between the building and sidewalks you could still "skin" it with some narrow shops and other buildings that would have a more symbiotic relationship with the street. 

Did you guys expect al fresco gaming tables along the sidewalk?

They paid a lot of lip-service to urban friendliness...

 

If you can't trust a casino owner to keep his word, who can you trust?

The casino will spur hardly any direct development other than cash for gold.  Have people not seen Atlantic City?  The fortress casinos in Detroit?

The whole idea of an "urban-friendly" casino is contradictory to its entire reason for being...

 

But that doesn't mean the building itself, or even the land parcel, has to be all casino, basically single use.  With all the wasted space between the building and sidewalks you could still "skin" it with some narrow shops and other buildings that would have a more symbiotic relationship with the street. 

 

Exactly.  Just like the convention center - since when did all convention centers have to be monoliths to their environment?  Why can't they include retail on the ground floor?  Similarly, casinos can be urban if they are thought of as just one piece of the puzzle.  When you plan with single uses, you're going to get an anti-urban environment.  It doesn't matter if it is an institutional use, industrial, or a casino, single use zones tend to be anti-urban.

 

The casino, in conjunction with other uses, would have been a lot more appropriate.  I'm not sure if this message was ever properly conveyed from the beginning.  Anyone know?   

Would you now prefer that the casino be built in the suburbs, given what it will look like? Serious question. If this was there attempt to build an urban casino, I wonder how much different their suburban casino design would be. Giant parking lot instead of a garage, and no restaurants with street access?

 

All that said, I'm glad Broadway Commons is being utilized.

Would you now prefer that the casino be built in the suburbs, given what it will look like? Serious question. If this was there attempt to build an urban casino, I wonder how much different their suburban casino design would be. Giant parking lot instead of a garage, and no restaurants with street access?

 

All that said, I'm glad Broadway Commons is being utilized.

 

No way would I prefer this to be in the suburbs. While I have some concerns about the design, there are also some aspects I'm liking. I'll reserve final judgement until it opens.

So bizarre how an exemption to zoning laws was built into the constitutional amendment allowing casinos. I didn't realize that was a part of it. Yet another example of why I was against the amendment when it was on the ballot: it was way too specific for codifying in the state constitution. Even though I thought support bringing casinos to the state, this avenue for doing it is critically flawed.

The casino will spur hardly any direct development other than cash for gold.  Have people not seen Atlantic City?  The fortress casinos in Detroit?

 

Exactly.  There's a reason there isn't much precedent for an "urban friendly" casino.  The goals of urbanism are not congruent with large, single use structures- especially not casinos.

 

The goal of any casino is to keep people inside the building for as long as possible and separate them from their money. The whole idea of an "urban-friendly" casino is contradictory to its entire reason for being, and I think people were fooling themselves if they thought Cincinnati's Horseshoe would be any different.

 

I'm just glad this thing didn't end up on the riverfront.

 

Agreed.  This wasn't a mixed use project or a project designed by planners based on what would be best for Cincinnati.    The entire site was given to the casino developers to build two things: a casino and a parking garage. Given these circumstances, I don't think the project is terrible.

 

My point about who would walk that stretch of Reading is more to the point of there is nothing to walk to.  Going northbound on that side of Reading takes you to highway entrances and a Staples, not another community or destination.  I think a lot of times planners get in this mentality that everything has to be mixed use, sidewalks have to be wide, and everything has to be walkable.  What I believe (as a planner myself) is that developments have to respond to their context only if the context is worth responding to.  Great developments allow for changes to be made to respond to future contexts, but the notion that there is one size fits all for urban development, or that every project has to fulfill those planning ideals we all love is a bit misguided. 

So are you suggesting that the neighborhood just north of the site, Pendleton, is not worth responding to?  Certainly, this structure in no way responds to what is directly across the street from it.   

 

All I am saying is that a more urban product could have and should have been delivered.  It is easy to lump Broadway Commons into one giant site and say: "the entire area has no urban context."  But when you start splitting it up into urban blocks (which was my preference from the beginning), suddenly you have blocks right in the middle of an urban area.  What is wrong with developing the casino on the grid, integrating it that way?  Did the parking HAVE to be attached?  The site is massive, and to develop it the way they did does not allow for much flexibility in the future. 

 

This could have been a lot better.  And to not call it out for its glaring problems would do a great dis-service to potential new projects or new investments that will either look at the casino as a good case study, or a bad one. 

What I believe (as a planner myself) is that developments have to respond to their context only if the context is worth responding to.

 

Then we'll never build any great new context.  Just because there's not much to walk to up Reading doesn't mean it can't still be a pleasant place and extend the walkable core to its fullest.  Again, the answer to bad development is not to write it off and just allow even worse crap, but to look at it as an opportunity to improve.  If we only improve the stuff that's already good, then we end up with a tiny fraction of very nice places and unfathomably large swathes of garbage that have no hope of ever being redeemed.  It's this mentality that leads to exactly what I saw a little earlier today, some poor schlub in a wheelchair plodding along the shoulder of Beechmont Avenue.  But it's just a crappy suburban shopping strip you say, nobody will want or need to go through there on foot, bike, wheelchair, or any other mode, so why bother making it nice?  Except there's always people who have to trudge through there at some point for one reason or another.  Look at all the roads with no sidewalks that nonetheless have paths worn down in the grass. 

 

Atlas brings up a good point.  There's lots of context for the casino to respond to.  What's most important to respond to are those buildings directly across the street.  This is a notion that seems to be lost on planners and designers these days.  The major roads form the boundaries of the project rather than the organizing spine and nothing outside that boundary seems to exist anymore.  This is a mostly suburban pod-based typology.  That's where you see an office park on one corner of an intersection, a strip shopping center on another, garden apartments on the third, and single family houses with their backs to the through streets on the fourth.  That's a totally disjointed and anti-urban paradigm.