1 hour ago, savadams13 said:

 

This smells and screams shady. When Mrs. Castellini speaks out like that to say she cant vote for this project ever. She wants nothing to do with whatever muck Bob and Phil have gotten into...

Maybe I am missing it but isn't she on the park board and therefore in a conflict of interest?

Just now, Rabbit Hash said:

Maybe I am missing it but isn't she on the park board and therefore in a conflict of interest?

She is on the park board, but you have to know her to know she never speaks up or says anything like was quoted in the article. Its out of character for her. 

I mean, she simply said she would be unable to vote because of her conflict of interest. That doesn't seem controversial. I wouldn't read too much into it.

I don't care if it's at Smale or in this location, or even it's a shady deal, I just really want the Ohio side to have a public dock.

Ok... I watched the whole 2+ hr meeting for the dock proposals.

 

One weird (and frankly inexcusable) point of confusion arose at the end of the Hafner presentation where somebody from the Park Board spoke up saying that due to rules from City Procurement, the Park Commissioners would not receive a copy of the applicants' proposals, meaning the Commissioners would have to rely entirely on the presentation for any information and questions. This was a big problem since lots of details (like the budgets!) were included in the proposals, but not shared with Commissioners. I can't think of any good reason why City Procurement should not let the Commissioners view the written proposals.

 

Another issue that left me confused: both presentations mentioned that the Park Board asked them to move their location up river, closer to the paddle wheel and public landing. I'm not sure when/why the location changed, but the Queen City Riverboats' presentation had all of their renderings showing the old location, closer to the Roebling. This caused confusion, and they had to wait for a new rendering to get loaded on the presenter's computer. Not sure who to blame for the confusion, but it sure seems like something was miscommunicated. 

 

I'm sorry if this sounds too harsh, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with the Hafner proposal. It was about what I'd expect from a landscape supply company (which Hafner is) trying to launch their first restaurant and marina. Their first slide was all text about how concrete docks are durable and low maintance. There wasn't much (at least for me) to get excited about or convince me that they have the expertise to pull off the project successfully.

 

The presentation from Queen City Riverboats was, by contrast, much more compelling and demonstrated expertise in management of on-river facilities (in addition to riverboats, they also manage Rivertowne Marina and Manhattan Harbour). To me, there's no doubt about which applicant is better qualified. The Queen City Riverboats team is undoubtedly the better equipped to build and manage this facility. They have a team from several companies and together seem well-prepared for success. But adding further confusion to the process, their presentation focused almost entirely on "Option 2" which includes the big riverboat with restaurant, bar, hotel, and rooftop deck. The problem is that none of "Option 2" was included in their written proposal to the City. Instead, their written proposal was for a much smaller "head house" boat on the upriver side of the dock. 

 

The issue of partnering with the Reds comes up around 1:23:50, and it's strange. The guy presenting almost seemed to second-guess himself before announcing the proposed partnership. He says, "We have local sponsorship, and not to be ... <heavy sigh> ... Redlegs Landing is the proposed name of the boat. We have been in contact with The Reds... <nervous laughter>. Sorry for any conflicts." At this point Susan Castellini said something that I couldn't hear clearly. Everybody laughed awkwardly. 

 

It makes sense that The Reds would want to partner with a project immediately adjacent to the stadium, and I don't have any issue with it as long as Susan Castellini recuses herself from the vote. It seems like she was genuinely caught unaware, and I don't think I'm just being naive here. I think having The Reds as a partner helps ensure the long term success, so I'm all for it. At 1:27:20, somebody (presumably a City lawyer) speaks up and says that Susan Castellini needs to recuse herself from the vote and not participate in the presentation.  The developers seemed genuinely pleased and said that "allows them even more latitude" to talk about their Redlegs Landing proposal. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on, rather it just seems like people weren't communicating well. At one point, the presenter from Queen City said something to the effect of "we were careful to only communicate with Bobbi," presumably referring to Bobbi Hagemen who runs Procurement for the City of Cincinnati and a rule/guidance that all communication be routed through Procurement. 

 

There has been too much confusion and miscommunication around this process, and I don't know who to blame (City Procurement, Park Board, or somebody else). But this process has screwed up too many basics: providing documents to the Commissioners, clarifying the location, disclosing conflicts of interest. This process has been in the works for years, and it doesn't inspire public confidence. 

 

The meeting ended with a general consensus from the Commissioners that the objectives for this project haven't been clearly identified yet. Molly North asked rhetorically (in a dismissive tone) whether creating a "tourist destination" is within the objectives of the dock project. The lack of clear objectives is inexcusable at this stage of such a high-profile, multi-year project.

 

Sorry, end of rant. 

 

The only bright spot is that all the Commissioners seemed to agree that it's important that they move quickly towards getting the dock built. 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, that's a mess.

Were the commissioners at least given the scoring rubrics for the 2 proposals?

22 minutes ago, Dev said:

Wow, that's a mess.

Were the commissioners at least given the scoring rubrics for the 2 proposals?

Not sure... the Queen City Riverboat's presenter mentioned the scoring rubric, but none of the Commissioners made comments or asked questions about the scores. Just from watching the presentation, I'm not sure which of the two proposals scored higher. 

3 hours ago, jwulsin said:

Not sure... the Queen City Riverboat's presenter mentioned the scoring rubric, but none of the Commissioners made comments or asked questions about the scores. Just from watching the presentation, I'm not sure which of the two proposals scored higher. 

The agenda hasn't been updated on the website either, so we currently can't be sure one way or another.

maybe a less busy area would be a better choice. A hotel and condos both with private docking.

12 hours ago, RJohnson said:

maybe a less busy area would be a better choice. A hotel and condos both with private docking.

I say do both! I want to see more of the riverfront activated and it would be great to have something like your rendering downriver of Smale!

Speaking of changes downriver from Smale... does anybody know the latest updates regarding the Hilltop Concrete site? It looks like the property between Brent Spence and Clade Wade Bailey and south  of Mehring was sold to Hamilton County in 2020. But the property to the east of Clade Wade Bailey as well as the property north of Mehring is still all owned by Hilltop. Is Hilltop still planning to completely move their operations away from that site? Are the Bengals still planning on building a new tailgating parking lot?

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/covington/2020/06/17/hilltop-concrete-moves-hq-covington-after-deal-bengals-county/3208707001/

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/09/30/cincinnati-bengals-would-get-green-parking-lot-hilltop-site/3819133002/

 

I know the City and County got into a disagreement, but I thought the County found a way to make a deal despite Cranley's opposition: "Either way, the deal is done and it’s now all happening very quickly. The area between the Brent Spence and Clay Wade Bailey Bridges will be turned into grass and trees by the summer of 2020.'

https://local12.com/news/local/hamilton-county-reaches-deal-on-hilltop-relocation-without-city

Edited November 15, 20213 yr by jwulsin

14 hours ago, RJohnson said:

maybe a less busy area would be a better choice. A hotel and condos both with private docking.

The problem with something like this is the river floods so often now.  Not only do they have to spend extra money to build this high enough to be out of the flood plain but the insurance would probably also be a huge expense.  

I'm all for a boat, but it really doesn't have to be a casino barge dressed up as a steamboat. Let the stuff that's extant from our history tell our history, and make new history with new stuff.

 

Novel idea?
 

I really think Cincinnati and NKY both need marinas at the Banks and Newport/Covington but I hate the idea of the riverboat themed hotel. It sounds tacky.

 

1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

I really think Cincinnati and NKY both need marinas at the Banks and Newport/Covington but I hate the idea of the riverboat themed hotel. It sounds tacky.

 

The perfect spot for it would be along the Licking where Ovation is going up. It is not on the main river and offers a good spot for a Marina and some high rise apartment/condos. 

even further down river...  just a matter of moving some infrastructure

little tough to disembark and go from that spot, though.

Point well made. I thought about that but didn't put it in. if the city saw it as an advantage by adding shops etc. they could build a dyke wall and dry parking. I am just showing the wall in the image.

this one with boardwalk parking under and a flood wall. 

Presentation for "Freedom Park" at The Banks [SIAP]

 

Looks to continue the Freedom Way pedestrian plaza across Marian Spencer Way (Walnut). As someone noted previously, the restaurant across from Yard House is under construction. 

 

Worth looking through the whole PDF. As far as renderings porn goes, these are pretty great. 

 

https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5348865&GUID=807BC5C7-719E-41F7-AE4A-8F184FDBD123&Options=ID|Text|&Search=

Edited December 3, 20213 yr by Pdrome513

That's light years better looking than the road that runs through there now.  Looking forward to this.

As cool as it was to see the city from a different vantage point, I'm so happy the ferris wheel isn't a permanent fixture on the banks.

3 hours ago, zsnyder said:

As cool as it was to see the city from a different vantage point, I'm so happy the ferris wheel isn't a permanent fixture on the banks.

 

Perhaps, or do you want a REAL Ferris wheel!

 

On 12/3/2021 at 6:53 PM, zsnyder said:

As cool as it was to see the city from a different vantage point, I'm so happy the ferris wheel isn't a permanent fixture on the banks.

Have they scrapped those plans completely now?

1 hour ago, Miami-Erie said:

Have they scrapped those plans completely now?

the rendering above is on the site.  

On 12/3/2021 at 5:57 PM, Pdrome513 said:

Presentation for "Freedom Park" at The Banks [SIAP]

 

Looks to continue the Freedom Way pedestrian plaza across Marian Spencer Way (Walnut). As someone noted previously, the restaurant across from Yard House is under construction. 

 

Worth looking through the whole PDF. As far as renderings porn goes, these are pretty great. 

 

https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5348865&GUID=807BC5C7-719E-41F7-AE4A-8F184FDBD123&Options=ID|Text|&Search=

Wow, very nice.

This is amazing and I love nearly all of it, I still feel like it's missing a something to act as a gravitational pull/photo spot/placemaking thing; but with the inspiration images and the circular plaza I think they expect something to go there as well. I am curious how the canopy option would work and I'm inclined to prefer that option due to the fact that it's raining right now and quite often throughout the year but I also worry it would lessen the monumental or sculptural impact of whatever is placed in the plaza in the future. 

On 12/3/2021 at 10:09 PM, ColDayMan said:

 

Perhaps, or do you want a REAL Ferris wheel!

 

 

I still have a headache from that ride 20+ years ago

How about keeping the street straight from Paul Brown to the Great American stadiums. Add the rest. that is being built. Then borrow the fountain design from Union Terminal. Doesn't need to be the same but retro-deco style. In the summer it runs. In the winter it becomes an ice rink. with a little imagination the sculpture could become a freedom design. Great for photography and a center peace. Rockefeller Center West.

If you want to hear Phil Castellini's presentation to the Budget & Finance Committee on Dec 6, here's the video... it's the first ~20 minutes:  https://archive.org/details/11211206-bfc

 

I'm excited about this, and I think it'll help activate the space in front of the Freedom Center. I was pleased to hear how Castellini wants to expand the pedestrian zone west to the Bengals stadium and increase the number of events that activate the space. He mentioned Kroger's "Wellness Experience" that used to be held indoors at the convention center, and this year was moved outdoors to the Banks. I like the idea of more events like that being programmed throughout the year. 

On 11/12/2021 at 1:19 PM, jwulsin said:

Ok... I watched the whole 2+ hr meeting for the dock proposals.

 

One weird (and frankly inexcusable) point of confusion arose at the end of the Hafner presentation where somebody from the Park Board spoke up saying that due to rules from City Procurement, the Park Commissioners would not receive a copy of the applicants' proposals, meaning the Commissioners would have to rely entirely on the presentation for any information and questions. This was a big problem since lots of details (like the budgets!) were included in the proposals, but not shared with Commissioners. I can't think of any good reason why City Procurement should not let the Commissioners view the written proposals.

 

Another issue that left me confused: both presentations mentioned that the Park Board asked them to move their location up river, closer to the paddle wheel and public landing. I'm not sure when/why the location changed, but the Queen City Riverboats' presentation had all of their renderings showing the old location, closer to the Roebling. This caused confusion, and they had to wait for a new rendering to get loaded on the presenter's computer. Not sure who to blame for the confusion, but it sure seems like something was miscommunicated. 

 

I'm sorry if this sounds too harsh, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with the Hafner proposal. It was about what I'd expect from a landscape supply company (which Hafner is) trying to launch their first restaurant and marina. Their first slide was all text about how concrete docks are durable and low maintance. There wasn't much (at least for me) to get excited about or convince me that they have the expertise to pull off the project successfully.

 

The presentation from Queen City Riverboats was, by contrast, much more compelling and demonstrated expertise in management of on-river facilities (in addition to riverboats, they also manage Rivertowne Marina and Manhattan Harbour). To me, there's no doubt about which applicant is better qualified. The Queen City Riverboats team is undoubtedly the better equipped to build and manage this facility. They have a team from several companies and together seem well-prepared for success. But adding further confusion to the process, their presentation focused almost entirely on "Option 2" which includes the big riverboat with restaurant, bar, hotel, and rooftop deck. The problem is that none of "Option 2" was included in their written proposal to the City. Instead, their written proposal was for a much smaller "head house" boat on the upriver side of the dock. 

 

The issue of partnering with the Reds comes up around 1:23:50, and it's strange. The guy presenting almost seemed to second-guess himself before announcing the proposed partnership. He says, "We have local sponsorship, and not to be ... <heavy sigh> ... Redlegs Landing is the proposed name of the boat. We have been in contact with The Reds... <nervous laughter>. Sorry for any conflicts." At this point Susan Castellini said something that I couldn't hear clearly. Everybody laughed awkwardly. 

 

It makes sense that The Reds would want to partner with a project immediately adjacent to the stadium, and I don't have any issue with it as long as Susan Castellini recuses herself from the vote. It seems like she was genuinely caught unaware, and I don't think I'm just being naive here. I think having The Reds as a partner helps ensure the long term success, so I'm all for it. At 1:27:20, somebody (presumably a City lawyer) speaks up and says that Susan Castellini needs to recuse herself from the vote and not participate in the presentation.  The developers seemed genuinely pleased and said that "allows them even more latitude" to talk about their Redlegs Landing proposal. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on, rather it just seems like people weren't communicating well. At one point, the presenter from Queen City said something to the effect of "we were careful to only communicate with Bobbi," presumably referring to Bobbi Hagemen who runs Procurement for the City of Cincinnati and a rule/guidance that all communication be routed through Procurement. 

 

There has been too much confusion and miscommunication around this process, and I don't know who to blame (City Procurement, Park Board, or somebody else). But this process has screwed up too many basics: providing documents to the Commissioners, clarifying the location, disclosing conflicts of interest. This process has been in the works for years, and it doesn't inspire public confidence. 

 

The meeting ended with a general consensus from the Commissioners that the objectives for this project haven't been clearly identified yet. Molly North asked rhetorically (in a dismissive tone) whether creating a "tourist destination" is within the objectives of the dock project. The lack of clear objectives is inexcusable at this stage of such a high-profile, multi-year project.

 

Sorry, end of rant. 

 

The only bright spot is that all the Commissioners seemed to agree that it's important that they move quickly towards getting the dock built. 

 

Follow up on the proposed riverfront marina. 

 

The Park Board met on December 8th (YouTube video). The City's Procurement department provided the Park Board with the full original proposals and guidance on how to proceed. The procurement guidelines stipulate that if the Park Board wants to consider the "amended" version of the Queen City Riverboats proposal with the hotel (which is what was presented in-person on Nov 11th), they would have to re-open the RFP process and give Hafner & Sons the opportunity to revise/update their application, which would set the timeline out at least 2 months. Alternatively, the Park Board could choose to pursue one of the two "original" written proposals.

 

The Board voted unanimously (Susan Castellini was recused from the vote) to move forward only considering the first two original proposals. Molly North indicated that she hoped the marina could be built in time for summer 2022, while admitting that timeline might be ambitious. At their next meeting (scheduled for December 15th), they will vote to select one of the two original proposals.

Edited December 10, 20213 yr by jwulsin
typos

On 12/6/2021 at 9:14 PM, RJohnson said:

How about keeping the street straight from Paul Brown to the Great American stadiums. Add the rest. that is being built. Then borrow the fountain design from Union Terminal. Doesn't need to be the same but retro-deco style. In the summer it runs. In the winter it becomes an ice rink. with a little imagination the sculpture could become a freedom design. Great for photography and a center peace. Rockefeller Center West.

Why not put the park on the other side of the Freedom Center (2nd Street side) and use it as the impetus to get caps along I-71?

 

I like th park concept, but if people are looking to build the caps, and there is infastructure and park money available, could this create the will to actually install the caps over the highway?

I 100% think the FWW caps would be a great improvement, but using it to add more park space I don't think is a great use of real estate. There is already so much green space between FWW and the river, and it would just keep spreading people out. 

https://www.citybeat.com/music/cincinnatis-andrew-j-brady-icon-music-center-gets-a-new-name-12343154

 

The Andrew J. Brady ICON Music Center is dropping the name "ICON" from its name because no one is calling it the Andrew J. Brady ICON Music Center, and just calling it the ICON Music Center.

 

Quote

According to local Music and Event Management, Inc. (MEMI) — the music promotion arm of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra that oversees the venue — the change was to further honor the venue's namesake.

 

“The modification of the name stems from a desire to elevate and ensure the lasting legacy of Andrew J. Brady, who cared deeply about making music accessible to all,” said Jonathan Martin, President and CEO of the CSO, in a release. “The values that Andrew Brady embodied align with our organization, and this pays tribute to the impact he had on the community."

 

So now it's just going to be the Andrew J. Brady Music Center, and it's going to be colloquially known as the Brady Music Center...

https://www.citybeat.com/music/cincinnatis-andrew-j-brady-icon-music-center-gets-a-new-name-12343154

 

Kind of embarassing to change the name so quickly, but I'm glad they're doing it now (better rip the band-aid off quickly rather than let the old name establish itself). "ICON" was a generic, annoyingly all-caps name... so I'm supportive of the change. Unfortunately, it appears MEMI is keeping the name for the outdoor stage as the "ICON Festival Stage at Smale Park." I wish they'd retire "ICON" entirely. Why not just call it the "Brady Festival Stage?"

13 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

https://www.citybeat.com/music/cincinnatis-andrew-j-brady-icon-music-center-gets-a-new-name-12343154

 

Kind of embarassing to change the name so quickly, but I'm glad they're doing it now (better rip the band-aid off quickly rather than let the old name establish itself). "ICON" was a generic, annoyingly all-caps name... so I'm supportive of the change. Unfortunately, it appears MEMI is keeping the name for the outdoor stage as the "ICON Festival Stage at Smale Park." I wish they'd retire "ICON" entirely. Why not just call it the "Brady Festival Stage?"

I actually liked ICON alot and think it’s silly to change the name because most people aren’t paying more attention to the “Andrew Brady” portion. The public naturally grasps on to simple nicknames more easily which is why ICON took off and became the primary in many minds. 

Edited December 14, 20213 yr by 646empire

Nothing against Mr. Brady — it's pretty cool that they named the venue after a music educator — but his name is not one that the average Cincinnati has heard before, so it's not really shocking that the full name wasn't embraced.

 

Quote

Brady was a 1938 University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music graduate who went on to become the music director at Western Hills High School. He was also a Jazz musician who worked with various youth programs over the years.

 

 

1 minute ago, taestell said:

Nothing against Mr. Brady — it's pretty cool that they named the venue after a music educator — but his name is not one that the average Cincinnati has heard before, so it's not really shocking that the full name wasn't embraced.

Sure - but I don't know who "Aronoff" was but l know where "The Aronoff" is. 

7 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

Sure - but I don't know who "Aronoff" was but l know where "The Aronoff" is. 

This would be him

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Aronoff

On 11/12/2021 at 1:19 PM, jwulsin said:

I'm sorry if this sounds too harsh, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with the Hafner proposal. It was about what I'd expect from a landscape supply company (which Hafner is) trying to launch their first restaurant and marina.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/12/16/park-board-acts-on-riverfront-boat-dock-proposal.html

 

And yet they chose the Hafner proposal unanimously... I guess they were just much cheaper? 

3 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/12/16/park-board-acts-on-riverfront-boat-dock-proposal.html

 

And yet they chose the Hafner proposal unanimously... I guess they were just much cheaper? 

 

From the article:

Park board member Molly North, the CEO of real estate developer Al Neyer, said she hoped the board would have continued input on the design and operation of the marina. 

“We want this boat dock to reflect a world-class destination,” North said.

 

 

How can anyone approve those renderings and then utter the words "world class"? How embarrassing. 

Edited December 16, 20213 yr by Miami-Erie

I don’t understand. Especially since Molly North was quite disparaging of the Hafner design at the November meeting. There must be something other than design driving the Board’s decision. 

Aside from the renderings of these two specific proposals, I like the idea of a floating restaurant a lot more than the idea of a floating hotel.

World Class? It doesn't even look East Fork Lake Class.

Jan 21 Planning Commission will review the proposal for the "Cincinnati Black Music Walk of Fame" that will be built at the empty lot at the corner of Elm/Mehring. Details start on page 182: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/jan-21-2022-packet/

 

Edited January 14, 20223 yr by jwulsin

It looks pretty great! Makes going up the ramp competitively convenient to walking up the steps. Nice spaces for live music or music installations. I think it will be well used as a pre-function space for shows at the Brady Music Center/Icon.

Seems impressively green! It seems that once those trees get mature, it will do a good job making up for the lack of height that should have been at the corner.

Looks great, Cincinnati’s riverfront is really starting to come together.

Should one of these go at the Banks or in the newly designated “Convention Center District”? https://nypost.com/2019/12/05/airbnb-to-open-natiivo-condo-tower-in-miami/?fbclid=IwAR3eitchdZanFO3xyreOA-XyA-ZkpHyxlIXMOEZQshrZDYdtRrxQVccFQt8

44 minutes ago, thebillshark said:

Should one of these go at the Banks or in the newly designated “Convention Center District”? https://nypost.com/2019/12/05/airbnb-to-open-natiivo-condo-tower-in-miami/?fbclid=IwAR3eitchdZanFO3xyreOA-XyA-ZkpHyxlIXMOEZQshrZDYdtRrxQVccFQt8

Is there a reason to prefer an Airbnb owned/managed tower versus a tower (or multiple towers) with a mixture of hotels, condos, apartments... some of which might be rented out as short term rentals? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm genuinely curious about the potential pros/cons.