‘It’s 1819 on steroids’: University of Cincinnati marks move to Digital Futures space

By Liz Engel  –  Staff reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier

Sep 22, 2022

 

 

University of Cincinnati is planting deeper roots within the Cincinnati Innovation District. Officials this week will formally celebrate their move to the Digital Futures complex, a $200 million, multiphase project taking shape Uptown.

 

UC signed a long-term lease in 2018 for building one at Digital Futures, a 189,000-square-foot, six-story structure, part of a 5.8-acre development located on the southeast corner of Martin Luther King Drive and Reading Road.

 

MORE

 

Kind of shocked at how suburban and uninspired these buildings are... Very disappointing. 

32 minutes ago, küshner said:

Kind of shocked at how suburban and uninspired these buildings are... Very disappointing. 

I do not know what more you could expect. The site is still being built out too so it will eventually evolve. If they were suburban, they would be surrounded by a sea of parking, that is not the case here. The site is designed to get much more dense. It just has not been built yet. 

16 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The site is designed to get much more dense. It just has not been built yet. 

For example, the spot the photo is taken from is the inner side of a future building wall along MLK.  

34 minutes ago, zsnyder said:

For example, the spot the photo is taken from is the inner side of a future building wall along MLK.  

Yes, I admit, they could be taller but they fit with the urban canvas that is UC and the hospitals in the area.

2 hours ago, küshner said:

Kind of shocked at how suburban and uninspired these buildings are... Very disappointing. 

Not sure what the right term for this style is, but you're right that it's quite car-centric, despite the fact that the parking is all structured and mostly out of sight. I sure hope they don't provide parking for free (drivers should be faced with the cost of that parking). Unlike a suburban office park, it is not surrounded by a sea of surface parking, but I think you're right that it will mostly function in a similar way. I'm curious what percentage of employees/visitors will arrive by means other than personal car. 1%? 10%? 50%? 

You would have to think it would be free parking. Most of the buildings in Rookwood and other inner rung are free parking. Given its location, you would figure many of the employees would expect to park for free, and visitors to the building should have that same expectation too. UC owns the building and its goal is to foster collaboration between departments, businesses, etc. It only makes sense that they provide ease of access to them. 

 

Think about the location of the building and who will be using it. At the present time, it is not a walkable area. It is on a bus route but most of the employees who use it are not going to ride the bus, the clients who visit there will not ride the bus either. There are no other amenities that are walkable in the area. While urban, it is not quite the urban core or university district. It does not make sense to charge parking in this case. The customers who use the building will eventually vote with their wallets and work elsewhere. 

 

Contrast it with the rest of UC or the hospitals. Those facilities are both self contained cities. Charging parking in those garages makes a lot more sense because they offer a walkable area already. Maybe at some point, it would make sense to charge parking at the garage but at present, the economics probably do not dictate that. 

Edited September 23, 20222 yr by Brutus_buckeye

On 9/23/2022 at 3:13 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Contrast it with the rest of UC or the hospitals. Those facilities are both self contained cities. Charging parking in those garages makes a lot more sense because they offer a walkable area already. Maybe at some point, it would make sense to charge parking at the garage but at present, the economics probably do not dictate that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

3 hours ago, jwulsin said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

Again, why charging for parking is a bad idea here. Uc did not create the path, they are reacting to it. This is a building not an entire city. The path has been created. You may not like the path, but there is no going back from it unless you want to create a lot of pain along the way. No need to cause unneeded suffering 

I hear what you're saying... but ultimately I think large institutions like UC have both the ability (and I'd argue responsibility) to not simply follow the path of the past, but actually show leadership and make decisions that aren't just about perpetuating the status quo. UC chose to invest in this building which is obviously not on their main campus. It's up to them to decide how people use it. I went to UC for grad school, and I think they have potential to help make the whole Uptown area better connected for pedestrians, bikes, and transit users. But that won't happen if UC doesn't show leadership on this front. 

UC made a bold decision ~2 decades ago to make its main campus more walkable and pedestrian friendly, removing all of the public thru streets and surface parking lots, replacing them with new buildings and new gathering spaces, and building new garages around the perimeter of campus that students, faculty, and staff have to pay to use. UC has decided in recent years to expand beyond the borders of its two Uptown campuses, effectively making Uptown itself into its campus. UC should exhibit the same leadership here that they did 2 decades ago and push to make all of Uptown more walkable and transit-friendly, and less auto-centric. If they don't, what other stakeholder will?

I don't believe UC owns the Digital Futures building, they just signed a lease to take up the entire building.  The second building is being built to spec.  There is also plans for a hotel on a third parcel of land in this planned development which is all owned by the developer.  

45 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I don't believe UC owns the Digital Futures building, they just signed a lease to take up the entire building.  The second building is being built to spec.  There is also plans for a hotel on a third parcel of land in this planned development which is all owned by the developer.  

I was going to say the same thing, from what I remember this is not a “UC project” they are technically just tenants.

40 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I don't believe UC owns the Digital Futures building, they just signed a lease to take up the entire building.  The second building is being built to spec.  There is also plans for a hotel on a third parcel of land in this planned development which is all owned by the developer.  

 

This appears to be correct. According to CAGIS, it's owned by "UPTOWN SEQ HOLDINGS LLC". The listed address is 3200 MADISON RD SUITE 2B CINCINNATI OH 45209, which is the same address as Terrex Development and Construction. Their website has the project details: https://www.terrexllc.com/what-we-have-done/digital-futures-complex/

Sure - though I think in this case the ownership is a distinction without much meaning. UC may technically be "tenants" in this building, but it doesn't change the fact that UC chose to make a big commitment (financially and otherwise) to that area, leasing the entire building and putting a HUGE logo on it facing I-71.

 

Related, UC owns the nearby 1819 Innovation Hub. The surface lots around the 1819 Center are a combination of paid visitor and permit spots. Visitors have to pay for parking. If an office wants to cover the visitor's parking fee, they (the office tenant) gets charged: https://www.uc.edu/about/parking/faculty-staff/1819.html

 

Charging for parking shouldn't be controversial, and I'm surprised that @Brutus_buckeye calls it "unneeded suffering."

 

At the risk of getting too far into the weeds, was the first building, which now hosts the Digital Futures facility, built on spec or did they work in conjunction with UC? The specifics of the building seem to indicate that they specifically built it for UC, which means yeah, UC is culpable in how the final layout is. It seems fairly reasonable that they could help shape it into something that is less auto oriented and more directly tied into the community, the future terminus of Wasson Way, Metro's network etc.

1 hour ago, jwulsin said:

Sure - though I think in this case the ownership is a distinction without much meaning. UC may technically be "tenants" in this building, but it doesn't change the fact that UC chose to make a big commitment (financially and otherwise) to that area, leasing the entire building and putting a HUGE logo on it facing I-71.

 

Related, UC owns the nearby 1819 Innovation Hub. The surface lots around the 1819 Center are a combination of paid visitor and permit spots. Visitors have to pay for parking. If an office wants to cover the visitor's parking fee, they (the office tenant) gets charged: https://www.uc.edu/about/parking/faculty-staff/1819.html

 

Charging for parking shouldn't be controversial, and I'm surprised that @Brutus_buckeye calls it "unneeded suffering."

 

They do charge for parking. It is in the rents that the companies pay to lease space in the building. Parking has never been free. The question is who should pay, the customers who visit the building or the tenants who rent at the building. In reality, someone is still paying for the parking. 

I take it you would prefer to subsidize the financially well heeled company who rents the space and charge the individual who visits there a "user fee" instead of putting the burden of the parking on the tenant? Under that theory, do you oppose companies that validate parking for their guests?

Unfortunate timing to our discussion, student killed right off the edge of campus walking across Jefferson Ave. 

 

Walk across this road quite a bit to grab lunch on Short Vine. Cars fly down this street all of the time granted, this was a stolen vehicle incident.

1 UC student killed, another injured following hit-and-run by suspected stolen vehicle near campus

 

9 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

Unfortunate timing to our discussion, student killed right off the edge of campus walking across Jefferson Ave. 

 

Walk across this road quite a bit to grab lunch on Short Vine. Cars fly down this street all of the time granted, this was a stolen vehicle incident.

1 UC student killed, another injured following hit-and-run by suspected stolen vehicle near campus

 

Jefferson is such a busy street. It is not the safest to cross if you are not at a cross walk. 
not sure you could do much about it. I think a pedestrian bridge may be a good option to get people safely over Jefferson. Or maybe a grassy median to break up the distance people need to cross in the heart of traffic.

I think it is a lot easier to cross MLK and Clifton around UC then it is to cross Jefferson. 

4 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Jefferson is such a busy street. It is not the safest to cross if you are not at a cross walk. 
not sure you could do much about it. I think a pedestrian bridge may be a good option to get people safely over Jefferson. Or maybe a grassy median to break up the distance people need to cross in the heart of traffic.

I think it is a lot easier to cross MLK and Clifton around UC then it is to cross Jefferson. 

 

I've seen people get hit on Jefferson several times in crosswalks. I think bumping the crosswalks up similar to how OTR has it would help. Though I worry that unless UCPD or CPD starts taking the reckless driving around campus seriously, this kind of stuff will continue.

 

Circling back onto what @taestell said, UC almost needs to be, or in my opinion, is responsible for, pushing for pedestrian improvements in the uptown area. They have the political capital to spend on pushing these smaller projects that would improve the surrounding area dramatically and really need to start spending it.

3 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

They have the political capital to spend on pushing these smaller projects that would improve the surrounding area dramatically and really need to start spending it.

 

Instead they push to remove bike lanes around campus. I fear the leadership of UC just doesn't get it. 

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Instead they push to remove bike lanes around campus. I fear the leadership of UC just doesn't get it. 

Or perhaps the firms they keep getting master plans from don't get it, apart from the George Hargreaves master plan that really set the campus in the right direction. The facilities/planning department rarely deviates from their master planning from my understanding as well.

 

It might be time to revisit the master plans for the surrounding neighborhoods too. I'd be surprised if they are as pedestrian focused as we need them to be.

That stretch of Jefferson is terrifying. I have to navigate it by bike and have been cussed out by drivers (with my kids in tow on the bike trailer) for trying to bike there. There's no good way for biking that stretch, especially when trying to cross MLK. It's horrific that a student was killed but it's not at all surprising based on the street design and how reckless drivers are. Jefferson needs dramatic improvements to slow cars down between Taft and MLK. 

Seriously so tragic. 18 years old. It feels like an epidemic of pedestrian violence.

I would not expect major changes to Jefferson until money from Issue 7 begins getting spent on either or both the Hamilton Avenue and Reading Road BRT corridors. I think it would be important for stakeholders to advocate for a protected bike lane along Jefferson and MLK in addition to dedicated BRT lanes. Has anyone (cough brad thomas cough) sketched what the Jefferson and MLK ROW could look like with BRT and protected bike lanes?

 

13 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Seriously so tragic. 18 years old. It feels like an epidemic of pedestrian violence.

I would not expect major changes to Jefferson until money from Issue 7 begins getting spent on either or both the Hamilton Avenue and Reading Road BRT corridors. I think it would be important for stakeholders to advocate for a protected bike lane along Jefferson and MLK in addition to dedicated BRT lanes. Has anyone (cough brad thomas cough) sketched what the Jefferson and MLK ROW could look like with BRT and protected bike lanes?

 

Did anyone else notice that There are two Madisonville's? I guess no more need for Hyde Park. 

2 hours ago, RealAdamP said:

 

Circling back onto what @taestell said, UC almost needs to be, or in my opinion, is responsible for, pushing for pedestrian improvements in the uptown area. They have the political capital to spend on pushing these smaller projects that would improve the surrounding area dramatically and really need to start spending it.

 

I wonder (as tragic as this is) if this incident might be a kickstart to start a discussion around this.

While the street design here certainly needs improvement, this death is manslaughter. Caused by a lawless individual, and maybe others based on reporting. The city needs to get a hold on this traffic mayhem. Each day it gets worse, and fewer people are following our most basic traffic laws.

2 minutes ago, TheCOV said:

While the street design here certainly needs improvement, this death is manslaughter. Caused by a lawless individual, and maybe others based on reporting. The city needs to get a hold on this traffic mayhem. Each day it gets worse, and fewer people are following our most basic traffic laws.

While true, good road design has the ability to reduce the ability to drive quickly. If you give someone large, straight lanes, they can easily speed excessively. If there were narrower lanes appropriate for a surface road, curb bumpouts, a planted median, parking lanes shifted away from the curb to create a protected bike lane, BRT lanes that have curb separations or bollards, etc. the ability to actually speed is greatly reduced.

 

Both things need to happen in Cincy. The city needs to be better about dealing with problems such as traffic violations, but it also needs to implement road designs that make these traffic violations harder to actually commit.

The sidewalk on the west side of Jefferson, the UC side, is classified as a shared use path. Clearly signage needs to be improved but in the end, having bike infrastructure on one side is certainly bad for a busy street like this.

In any case, Jefferson is 7 lanes for cars. Pre-pandemic it looks like it was 18k a day. Wildly unnecessary.

 

In addition, Daniels and Charlton need to have both east/west crossings restored. Those two intersections, plus Corry and University, should all be converted into raised intersections. Add in some mid-block speed cushions too.

25 minutes ago, tonyt3524 said:

 

I wonder (as tragic as this is) if this incident might be a kickstart to start a discussion around this.

When there was a death on calhoun, they added a controlled crosswalk a few months after. So it definitely brings the problem to attention. I worry that it'll end up being more of a "bandaid" solution, like adding HAWK crosswalk, rather than a more fleshed out on like @Devsuggested.

4 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

When there was a death on calhoun, they added a controlled crosswalk a few months after. So it definitely brings the problem to attention. I worry that it'll end up being more of a "bandaid" solution, like adding HAWK crosswalk, rather than a more fleshed out on like @Devsuggested.

From my understanding, DOTE is quickly becoming anti-signs and lights. They just took down a RRFB at Wasson Road and Hyde Park Ave. It is now an all-way stop. For a project in my neighborhood, we were steered away from beacons and toward physical improvements. Different situations obviously.

2 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

Seriously so tragic. 18 years old. It feels like an epidemic of pedestrian violence.

I would not expect major changes to Jefferson until money from Issue 7 begins getting spent on either or both the Hamilton Avenue and Reading Road BRT corridors. I think it would be important for stakeholders to advocate for a protected bike lane along Jefferson and MLK in addition to dedicated BRT lanes. Has anyone (cough brad thomas cough) sketched what the Jefferson and MLK ROW could look like with BRT and protected bike lanes?

Using a NACTO template as a guide, here's a quick option at the existing bus shelters on Jefferson south of University. The road is a combination of original ROW and parcels purchased by the city to widened the road. It appears to be 130 feet wide in total according to measurements on CAGIS.


 

Edited September 29, 20222 yr by Dev

11 minutes ago, Dev said:

Using a NACTO template as a guide, here's a quick option at the existing bus shelters on Jefferson south of University. The road is a combination of original ROW and parcels purchased by the city to widened the road. It appears to be 130 feet wide in total according to measurements on CAGIS.


 

I like my protected bike lines right next to each other, but this looks great. What happens on the road where the BRT stations aren't? Left turn lanes?

20 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

I like my protected bike lines right next to each other, but this looks great. What happens on the road where the BRT stations aren't? Left turn lanes?

Are you saying that you prefer a two-way cycle track on just one side of the street? For a road as wide as Jefferson, I wouldn't think that would be good long-term. People would just ride in the street or on the sidewalk on the side without the bike infrastructure. It feels like a hard ceiling on potential ridership.

The NACTO template has a tree lined median and left turn lanes outside of the stations, so yes. Add bump-outs at intersections for pedestrian crossings and safer, more useful on-street parking bays. They could even get rid of the on-street parking to create even more space for trees, plazas, etc.

3 minutes ago, Dev said:

Are you saying that you prefer a two-way cycle track on just one side of the street? For a road as wide as Jefferson, I wouldn't think that would be good long-term. People would just ride in the street or on the sidewalk on the side without the bike infrastructure. It feels like a hard ceiling on potential ridership.

When I was working in Seattle, the two-way cycle tracks were the majority of my route from my house to office. I loved it. Made me feel safer to be with the other cyclists. Just my opinion, I guess.

3 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said:

When I was working in Seattle, the two-way cycle tracks were the majority of my route from my house to office. I loved it. Made me feel safer to be with the other cyclists. Just my opinion, I guess.

Which is fine, everyone has their preferences. My bias is essentially, "What Would the Dutch Do?" and they only have two-way bike infrastructure for trails, not in built up urban areas, but that might as well be a different universe. We will have to build a lot of solo two-way cycle tracks, really shared use paths, because we just don't have the political will to take more space from cars. In any case, Jefferson is so damn wide, both sides of it could have two-way cycle tracks.

 

I pulled up a random street in Amsterdam and it happens to do the exact same thing in less space because they don't have lane widths as wide with their smaller cars and lower speed limits. They also remove the on-street parking for the stations, essentially creating a chicane for the cars.

The central tension with MLK is there are two competing, irreconcilable forces at play in the area:

1. MLK/Hopple is one of the key East-West connectors in the region

2. MLK cuts off a massive urban university from half of its campus and surrounding neighborhoods

 

Frankly, I think there too many entrenched interests defending a car-centric MLK - the hospitals, E-W commuters, and even UC to effect much change. Perhaps it's possible to convince the leaders of these institutions to support a better urban form, but I have trouble seeing that happen anytime soon.

 

So here's my crazy proposal to cut the Gordian Knot of competing interests - turn MLK into a literal car sewer. Submerge all or part of MLK from Clifton to Reading below ground and use the above-ground right of way for bike paths, a smaller neighborhood street, BRT, and park space. I'm imagining something like this:

 

Smaller streets like Highland and Vernon/Harvey would remain at grade. Below ground intersections would be built at Clifton, Jefferson, and Burnet, which are the the main N-S roads and coincidently are all on top of ridges. In addition to protecting pedestrians and cyclists at these intersections, N-S transit on these roads wouldn't have to wait for a light at MLK.

 

Of course, this would be expensive (but probably still cheaper than the MLK exit, new Western Hills Viaduct, or Brent Spence expansion), but Clifton to Reading is only 1.25 miles. In return we would get:

* a safer neighborhood for pedestrians and cyclists

* slightly faster transit on the N-S roads

* space for dedicated transit lanes on MLK

* UC reconnected to Burnet Woods and the Medical Campus

* a faster (and safer?) road for drivers

I love it, but it would never get funded. It would cost so much money. I can't even begin to estimate how much that would cost.

4 minutes ago, carnevalem said:

The central tension with MLK is there are two competing, irreconcilable forces at play in the area:

1. MLK/Hopple is one of the key East-West connectors in the region

2. MLK cuts off a massive urban university from half of its campus and surrounding neighborhoods

 

Frankly, I think there too many entrenched interests defending a car-centric MLK - the hospitals, E-W commuters, and even UC to effect much change. Perhaps it's possible to convince the leaders of these institutions to support a better urban form, but I have trouble seeing that happen anytime soon.

 

So here's my crazy proposal to cut the Gordian Knot of competing interests - turn MLK into a literal car sewer. Submerge all or part of MLK from Clifton to Reading below ground and use the above-ground right of way for bike paths, a smaller neighborhood street, BRT, and park space. I'm imagining something like this:

 

Smaller streets like Highland and Vernon/Harvey would remain at grade. Below ground intersections would be built at Clifton, Jefferson, and Burnet, which are the the main N-S roads and coincidently are all on top of ridges. In addition to protecting pedestrians and cyclists at these intersections, N-S transit on these roads wouldn't have to wait for a light at MLK.

 

Of course, this would be expensive (but probably still cheaper than the MLK exit, new Western Hills Viaduct, or Brent Spence expansion), but Clifton to Reading is only 1.25 miles. In return we would get:

* a safer neighborhood for pedestrians and cyclists

* slightly faster transit on the N-S roads

* space for dedicated transit lanes on MLK

* UC reconnected to Burnet Woods and the Medical Campus

* a faster (and safer?) road for drivers

What you are proposing is essentially a modified, slimmer project of what ODOT did on US-23 north of Columbus. I grew to the north of this and still go though here every few months when I visit my sister. I have to say this is a non-starter for me. I see where you are going with your thinking but this isn't a compromise, it's doubling down on auto infrastructure. You are sacrificing long-term gains for medium-term ones just because you want a mega project to fix all the problems. That's not how this works. It has to be iterative. We are not going to be able to skip straight to a perfect, or even really good, solution.

So we pressure UC to support a proper road diet for Clifton. They do not like on-street parking, since they do not make any revenue from it. That is why they opposed the specific design of the temporary Clifton Avenue bike lane. Something similar can be done to the Burnet Woods section of MLK. Those 7 lanes are only useful on gamedays, so we fight them to get it down to 5 lanes. Hell, MLK by the Interstate still does not have the traffic counts that were predicted, and probably never will. It's not out of possibility to trim one of two lanes from that section in the future.

And of course, we pressure them to support a proper road diet of Jefferson when SORTA builds out their BRT network. It probably won't look like what I proposed but that's where we push them and we make sure they are on their heels. At the neighborhood meeting for the Clifton Ave bike lanes, they were shocked to find out that they were the bad guys. We gotta keep that pressure up.

6 minutes ago, Dev said:

What you are proposing is essentially a modified, slimmer project of what ODOT did on US-23 north of Columbus. I grew to the north of this and still go though here every few months when I visit my sister. I have to say this is a non-starter for me. I see where you are going with your thinking but this isn't a compromise, it's doubling down on auto infrastructure.

 

Oh yea, that looks awful. I wouldn't support a project like that either. I was imagining something closer to miniature version of Fort Washington Way.

 

I love your plan of attack for improving Uptown. I especially think there's an opening for improvements on Clifton and Jefferson. But when it comes to MLK, I agree with the quote below from the Avondale thread - we're likely to be trapped with the consequences of this project for another 50 years. The powers that be in this area are too powerful, too unaccountable, and the development plan is too far along to make much of a difference. So I'm grasping at anything that could salvage the situation.

 

4 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

We had an opportunity to remake this corner of Avondale in a smart, safe, inviting way. That ship has largely sailed with so much of the new construction already parceled out and being built, and this will continue to be a highway for single occupancy vehicles for the next 50+ years. 

 

The institutions in the area have no real desire to pedestrianize the area. They obviously don't want people to be hit by cars, but they just don't have the vision to actually help steer this area in the right direction and the city is largely useless in this regard. It's a shame that the School of Planning is not utilized in a real way to impact the built environment around UC. From my experience, they do some good thought experiments and some cool designs, but there is not real integration with the city's planning department. 

2 hours ago, RealAdamP said:

When there was a death on calhoun, they added a controlled crosswalk a few months after. So it definitely brings the problem to attention. I worry that it'll end up being more of a "bandaid" solution, like adding HAWK crosswalk, rather than a more fleshed out on like @Devsuggested.

There is just too much traffic there now to narrow the street without creating a huge chokehold and problem accessing campus. For all the improvements UC has made, it is still always going to have a large commuter base to it. The Calhoun garage off Jefferson is a main access point for the university. Also, Jefferson offers the path to the hospitals from the South. 

 

Adding the MLK exit off 71 is beneficial because it can now direct hospital traffic away from Jefferson but, Jefferson is still a major thruway for the campus area without getting stuck in the short vine area or taking some of the other streets like Eden

 

4 hours ago, carnevalem said:

 

Oh yea, that looks awful. I wouldn't support a project like that either. I was imagining something closer to miniature version of Fort Washington Way.

 

I love your plan of attack for improving Uptown. I especially think there's an opening for improvements on Clifton and Jefferson. But when it comes to MLK, I agree with the quote below from the Avondale thread - we're likely to be trapped with the consequences of this project for another 50 years. The powers that be in this area are too powerful, too unaccountable, and the development plan is too far along to make much of a difference. So I'm grasping at anything that could salvage the situation.

 

I think your suggestion locks MLK into a massive, overbuilt car sewer for 100 years, so it's the worse choice. When we get close to a post-auto centric future, It would just be too expensive to undue a trench. Similarly, I'm not a real big fan of capping highways either. Detroit is converting a downtown Interstate into an at grade 'boulevard.' It's really still a massive highway, not a boulevard, but at least it's a step in the right direction, since the new street could be downsized later. A cap, like the Big Dig in Boston, would be extremely expensive to undue, and locks in demand for auto traffic for decades, at the expense of more effective solutions. I feel like FWW is an example of what not to do to MLK.

I do have some optimism. I feel like we are about to hit a tipping point, once more Baby Boomers fully retire and more Zoomers enter typical political participation age. Regional traffic counts have been dropping for almost two decades, as more and more boomers retires. So a mega project like a trench, or yes, a companion bridge for the BSB, is the same thing as when Cincinnati spent big on the canal, only for trains to immediately make it ineffective.

I am curious what the suggestion will be from SORTA for the mess that is the Jefferson and Vine intersection. If they can completely redesign it, by getting rid of the double set of lights, then a huge obstacle has been removed that can keep auto capacity at its current level, while allowing a future reduction in travel lanes. The Clifton intersection is similar. A great redesign for that can keep the auto capacity at a similar capacity, while giving people an alternative to driving. Most daily commuters are not like us, so they have to see it to believe it, so the city needs to start chipping away at people's biases. We need a push and pull strategy, where we push people away from driving and pull people to other options. A trench is neither of those things.

 

The driver who stole a car and killed the UC student was arrested:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/crime/2022/10/03/prosecutors-request-university-cincinnati-pedestrian-homicide-adult-court/69535766007/

 

30 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

I'm no traffic engineer, but has there been a prior attempt of adding chicanes to crosswalks? I know adding chicanes to race tracks (which seems to be what drivers believe this stretch of road is), is used to force drivers to slow down.

20 minutes ago, RealAdamP said:

I'm no traffic engineer, but has there been a prior attempt of adding chicanes to crosswalks? I know adding chicanes to race tracks (which seems to be what drivers believe this stretch of road is), is used to force drivers to slow down.

I cannot think of a time that DOTE has installed chicanes at all. I also can't find an example of a chicane used on an arterrial like this, I thought they are just put on low-volume residential streets.

Knowing DOTE's responses recently, they will probably just suggest adding speed cushions to Jefferson in the near term, especially since this might become a BRT route. However, it will be interesting if Devou Good does a rendering with other suggestions.

UC approves $78M for Siddall Hall renovation

By Liz Engel  –  Staff reporter, Cincinnati Business Courier

Oct 26, 2022

 

University of Cincinnati will start construction soon on a long-planned residential hall renovation after officials approved the latest multimillion-dollar funding request for the project.

 

UC’s board of trustees Tuesday earmarked $78.5 million for the construction phase of a planned renovation at Siddall Hall, a nearly 60-year-old residential tower that neighbors Calhoun Hall, located on Corbett Drive in the heart of Clifton Heights. 

 

Overall, the project is a $85 million undertaking with a targeted completion date in July 2024. UC’s board approved a $6.5 million expenditure for design and pre-construction last year. 

 

MORE

 

From bunker to jaw-dropper, take a look inside UC's $80 million renovation of Calhoun Hall

 

The University of Cincinnati this week reopened its flagship residential tower, Calhoun Hall, following an $80 million, 18-month-long renovation.

 

The project not only returns its largest residential hall, located in the heart of Clifton Heights, back to full use, it provides a brighter and more collaborative space, with slightly larger dorm rooms for nearly 800 students. It also updates many of the 1967-era building’s systems, which were nearing terminal failure.

 

Carl Dieso, assistant vice president of housing for UC, told me it was designed to meet the needs of students “for the next 40 to 50 years.” What was once a “dark and dingy” space, he said, is now more modern, with community, small group and individual study area.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/01/06/university-cincinnati-finishes-calhoun-hall.html

 

My jaw did not drop. Looks like a modern take on a 1970s Holiday Inn highrise.