We all smoke.

Cities are like people, institutions, and ideologies...they either change and grow or they die.

 

^^^ Unsupported misconception.

Cities are like people, institutions, and ideologies...they either change and grow or they die.

 

^^^ Unsupported misconception.

 

I'm curious....how do people respond to you when you share such views with them?

Cities are like people, institutions, and ideologies...they either change and grow or they die.

 

^^^ Unsupported misconception.

 

I'm curious....how do people respond to you when you share such views with them?

 

Most people I know would just ignore your chlidish shibboleths and smirk. I give you the courtesy of honesty. People do fine without growth or change. So do cities.

 

I learned this driving through downtown Covington KY every evening for four years. A little enclave of German speaking folks waved and said hello to me now and then and I got to learn from them that sweeping their little sidewalks, letting Snarfy get the paper, and watching the evening traffic under I75 gave them happiness and contentment. Something you do not have nor ever will have at the rate you are going. Seek help.

Cities are like people, institutions, and ideologies...they either change and grow or they die.

 

^^^ Unsupported misconception.

 

I'm curious....how do people respond to you when you share such views with them?

 

Most people I know would just ignore your chlidish shibboleths and smirk. I give you the courtesy of honesty. People do fine without growth or change. So do cities.

 

I learned this driving through downtown Covington KY every evening for four years. A little enclave of German speaking folks waved and said hello to me now and then and I got to learn from them that sweeping their little sidewalks, letting Snarfy get the paper, and watching the evening traffic under I75 gave them happiness and contentment. Something you do not have nor ever will have at the rate you are going. Seek help.

 

Given your comments, you might find this interesting. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish-community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful.

 

There are people in Cincinnati even more opposed to change than even the Amish.  This is all fascinating.....Of course, being opposed to change and successfully preventing change are two very different things.

Honest question, what's your obsession with making sure every time you post that you point out Cincinnati's flaws, inability to change, inability to adapt, lack of draw, lack of desire for new people, etc.? I lived there a decade and didn't see anymore of those things than I do now living in Brooklyn. In fact I think I see more vocal opposition to change here than I did there.

 

It just seems like you made a profile with the sole intent of making sure we ALL know your opinion. And you bring up some useful talking points, but they get lost in the incessant need to pound us over the head with them.

The convention center would do a lot of good to activate its perimeter. Sleeving retail in key locations would help. I never understood why it is seen as a given that convention centers have to be big boxes with no street activation. A lot of CBD destination retailers still offer great window displays/art installations that are quite interactive. This would also help. 

Because I think the goal is to maximize floor space and if you carve out a retail space such as you would in a parking garage scenario, you lose precious exhibitor space.

Because I think the goal is to maximize floor space and if you carve out a retail space such as you would in a parking garage scenario, you lose precious exhibitor space.

 

Ok, but it doesn't take too much creativity to make a convention space work and have sleeved retail, just like Class A office buildings that get their big floorplates and still provide fine grain retail shops on the ground floor. Sydney's new convention center has ground floor cafes facing the park that it sits on. It isn't 'best practice' but it is at least moving towards activating what would otherwise be dull spaces.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/[/member]-33.8750228,151.2009625,3a,75y,209.57h,88.02t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipM1B6uGZQCZDZZVZR1hrtuf2q9aV9WInbJEs3gc!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipM1B6uGZQCZDZZVZR1hrtuf2q9aV9WInbJEs3gc%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya53.734867-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352

Because I think the goal is to maximize floor space and if you carve out a retail space such as you would in a parking garage scenario, you lose precious exhibitor space.

 

Ok, but it doesn't take too much creativity to make a convention space work and have sleeved retail, just like Class A office buildings that get their big floorplates and still provide fine grain retail shops on the ground floor. Sydney's new convention center has ground floor cafes facing the park that it sits on. It isn't 'best practice' but it is at least moving towards activating what would otherwise be dull spaces.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/[/member]-33.8750228,151.2009625,3a,75y,209.57h,88.02t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipM1B6uGZQCZDZZVZR1hrtuf2q9aV9WInbJEs3gc!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipM1B6uGZQCZDZZVZR1hrtuf2q9aV9WInbJEs3gc%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya53.734867-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352

 

Why won't the link work? When I 'preview' it works fine. Any insight?

 

Honest question, what's your obsession with making sure every time you post that you point out Cincinnati's flaws, inability to change, inability to adapt, lack of draw, lack of desire for new people, etc.? I lived there a decade and didn't see anymore of those things than I do now living in Brooklyn. In fact I think I see more vocal opposition to change here than I did there.

 

It just seems like you made a profile with the sole intent of making sure we ALL know your opinion. And you bring up some useful talking points, but they get lost in the incessant need to pound us over the head with them.

 

I’m just being honest about something Cincinnatians never talk about in my experience. Cincinnati isn't a hobby for me. I actually live in Cincinnati and have skin in the game. Brooklynites sounding off about the great change happening around them is like a rich woman complaining about how difficult it is to find household staff...it's just ‘status anxiety.’ Brooklynites aren't really complaining, they're just drawing attention to the vast array of choices that surround them in the guise of criticism. All the whaling and moaning about Brooklyn, and other expensive and/or rapidly growing places, doesn't stop billions pouring into them providing exciting new economic opportunities to the very same people who 'complain' about it all. Cincinnatians aren't talking about any of this because they don't have to. They've successfully kept out the kinds of people and activities that create the social tensions and complications that are evident in places like Brooklyn. Cincinnatians don't just talk about stopping change, they are actually able to stop it. Cincinnati's small convention and tourist trade is a clear example of this. Cincinnati has advantages with which it could grow that trade if it wanted. It’s all up to Cincinnatians.

 

An expansion of the convention center and more nearby hotel rooms are possible if enough people in Cincinnati want to make it happen. If it doesn't, it's because people in Cincinnati didn't want it.

 

What the hell does this mean? I wasn't aware that new hotels came about via public referendums. If you're going to keep making these claims, try to provide a shred of evidence or support. Did Cleveland's new convention center adjacent Hilton hotel get built because the people of Cleveland willed it into existence? Should Cincinnatians take to the streets to demand Marriott build a hotel downtown? Surely you know that's not how business decisions like that happen. If you don't, you have no business posting on a forum like this.

 

You make absolutely zero sense when you make these claims. Cincinnati is a region of 2+ million people. You're saying that this group is a monolith that all thinks the same, and has collectively decided to shun tourism? All you do is spout nonsense-- I'd take the out that Jake gave you and just admit this is some sort of trolling effort.

 

Many in Cincinnati don't want people visiting Cincinnati. They justify their views in a variety of ways. They cause traffic...they'll take my parking place!....they cost us more than they bring in...it brings in 'undesirable' people...they create garbage....if they don't know about Cincinnati, it's their loss..... but it all serves the same purpose. This isn't a failure in Cincinnati's efforts to promote itself, it's the intention of powerful politicians and local businesses owners who don't want Cincinnati to promote itself. In their view, Cincinnati is for 'them' and not anyone else. They feel that they can do whatever they want with Cincinnati because it is 'theirs.' It's not some cultural conspiracy against Cincinnati, it's Cincinnati itself doing this.

 

Oh, this again  ::) We all know how you feel. Do you have any basis for these statements? Why do we have a convention and visitors bureau if this is the case? I hesitate even engaging with you, because I know you'll just respond with more drivel about elites and other nonsense, but if you have a link, or really anything beyond your own opinions on this, perhaps you could share them.

 

 

I totally agree with Matthew on this point. Many long-time Cincinnati residents don't want growth. They don't want tourists. They don't want change. They don't want competition for cheap on-street parking spaces near the Reds stadium.

 

taestell[/member] since you validated Matthew and agree with what he posts, maybe you could clarify.

I'd take the out that Jake gave you and just admit this is some sort of trolling effort.

 

 

This Mathew character talks about "change" but he can't.  On other websites he spouts this same bizarre belief, like a broken record.  He never discusses any other topic.  He's all over this comment thread, weaving the same Mobius Strip: http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/05/08/its-not-just-the-weather/ 

 

Is "Mathew" a Russian bot? 

Did Cleveland's new convention center adjacent Hilton hotel get built because the people of Cleveland willed it into existence?

 

In a way actually, yes it did. Large convention hotels are often publicly owned and financed. That's how both the Cleveland and Columbus Hiltons and many others across the country have been conceived of and built. They exist because governments in those cities made them a priority. The leaders who push for and realize these projects are elected by the people, and (supposedly) represent their interests and/or will

 

If a city government or public body isn't interested, or doesn't find such a project to be among its priorities, it likely won't happen. That's just the reality of this particular type of development in most markets

 

https://hvs.com/article/8126-public-involvement-in-convention-center-hotel-financing

^ Yes, government is different than 'the people'. Cincinnati city government has been trying for years to get the Millennium Hotel to perform renovations and upgrades. As an 800+ room hotel adjacent and connected to the convention center, it is the convention center hotel. We don't NEED a new hotel, if the one we had would simply be better. But in spite of the efforts of the city to get the Millennium to cooperate, nothing has been done to make it a more attractive hotel. Now we see 3CDC partnering with the Port Authority or whatever they're called now to build a new hotel across from the convention center, essentially telling the Millennium to kick rocks. That's why Matthew's posts are so weird. If the city had been doing nothing on this front, perhaps he might have a shred of a point. The city has expanded the convention center, and is actively working on a new convention hotel, but according to his posts, 'Cincinnatians' don't want new hotels or tourism, and that is the sole reason the city isn't a convention and tourist magnet. It's ludicrous. The average citizen in Cleveland or Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with whatever new hotels were built in those cities.

Honest question, what's your obsession with making sure every time you post that you point out Cincinnati's flaws, inability to change, inability to adapt, lack of draw, lack of desire for new people, etc.? I lived there a decade and didn't see anymore of those things than I do now living in Brooklyn. In fact I think I see more vocal opposition to change here than I did there.

 

It just seems like you made a profile with the sole intent of making sure we ALL know your opinion. And you bring up some useful talking points, but they get lost in the incessant need to pound us over the head with them.

 

I’m just being honest about something Cincinnatians never talk about in my experience. Cincinnati isn't a hobby for me. I actually live in Cincinnati and have skin in the game. Brooklynites sounding off about the great change happening around them is like a rich woman complaining about how difficult it is to find household staff...it's just ‘status anxiety.’ Brooklynites aren't really complaining, they're just drawing attention to the vast array of choices that surround them in the guise of criticism. All the whaling and moaning about Brooklyn, and other expensive and/or rapidly growing places, doesn't stop billions pouring into them providing exciting new economic opportunities to the very same people who 'complain' about it all. Cincinnatians aren't talking about any of this because they don't have to. They've successfully kept out the kinds of people and activities that create the social tensions and complications that are evident in places like Brooklyn. Cincinnatians don't just talk about stopping change, they are actually able to stop it. Cincinnati's small convention and tourist trade is a clear example of this. Cincinnati has advantages with which it could grow that trade if it wanted. It’s all up to Cincinnatians.

 

Except, despite many, many people wanting to live there, Brooklyn lost population this year. There's a lot of discussion out there about why, but many believe it is because Brooklyn NIMBYs have successfully stymied new development. I don't think Cincinnati NIMBYs can hold a candle to Brooklyn ones.

I'd take the out that Jake gave you and just admit this is some sort of trolling effort.

 

 

This Mathew character talks about "change" but he can't.  On other websites he spouts this same bizarre belief, like a broken record.  He never discusses any other topic.  He's all over this comment thread, weaving the same Mobius Strip: http://www.urbanophile.com/2018/05/08/its-not-just-the-weather/ 

 

Is "Mathew" a Russian bot?

 

I though we supposed to refrain from personal mockery and insults here. Can you respond to the substance of my arguments? If not, why not?

Did Cleveland's new convention center adjacent Hilton hotel get built because the people of Cleveland willed it into existence?

 

In a way actually, yes it did. Large convention hotels are often publicly owned and financed. That's how both the Cleveland and Columbus Hiltons and many others across the country have been conceived of and built. They exist because governments in those cities made them a priority. The leaders who push for and realize these projects are elected by the people, and (supposedly) represent their interests and/or will

 

If a city government or public body isn't interested, or doesn't find such a project to be among its priorities, it likely won't happen. That's just the reality of this particular type of development in most markets

 

https://hvs.com/article/8126-public-involvement-in-convention-center-hotel-financing

 

Public and quasi-public agencies are key in the development of tourism, conventions, and the services that support them in almost all American cities. Hotel taxes support these efforts, even in Cincinnati. It's an industry in it's own right. https://destinationsinternational.org.

We can't have a discussion about these issues without acknowledging the basic facts on the ground.

 

Many in Cincinnati don't want people visiting Cincinnati. They justify their views in a variety of ways. They cause traffic...they'll take my parking place!....they cost us more than they bring in...it brings in 'undesirable' people...they create garbage....if they don't know about Cincinnati, it's their loss..... but it all serves the same purpose. This isn't a failure in Cincinnati's efforts to promote itself, it's the intention of powerful politicians and local businesses owners who don't want Cincinnati to promote itself. In their view, Cincinnati is for 'them' and not anyone else. They feel that they can do whatever they want with Cincinnati because it is 'theirs.' It's not some cultural conspiracy against Cincinnati, it's Cincinnati itself doing this.

 

Oh, this again  ::) We all know how you feel. Do you have any basis for these statements? Why do we have a convention and visitors bureau if this is the case? I hesitate even engaging with you, because I know you'll just respond with more drivel about elites and other nonsense, but if you have a link, or really anything beyond your own opinions on this, perhaps you could share them.

 

 

I totally agree with Matthew on this point. Many long-time Cincinnati residents don't want growth. They don't want tourists. They don't want change. They don't want competition for cheap on-street parking spaces near the Reds stadium.

 

taestell[/member] since you validated Matthew and agree with what he posts, maybe you could clarify.

 

No one here 'validates' anyone else. We are all equal and individually responsible for your own postings. Surely, we can agree on that.

Public and quasi-public agencies are key in the development of tourism, conventions, and the services that support them in almost all American cities. Hotel taxes support these efforts, even in Cincinnati.

 

 

But doesn't Cincinnati need to change because it's afraid to change?  If Cincinnati wants to get rid of conventions and add hotels and pay for change then they need to decide themselves but Cincinnati can't change hotels.  I'm just talking about facts about conventions and attitudes and change. 

No one here 'validates' anyone else. We are all equal and individually responsible for your own postings. Surely, we can agree on that.

 

That's what I've been trying to say!  Change validates hotels.  We can agree on tourism facts and the fact that Cincinnatians will never decide that they want to hotel. 

No one here 'validates' anyone else. We are all equal and individually responsible for your own postings. Surely, we can agree on that.

 

That's what I've been trying to say!  Change validates hotels.  We can agree on tourism facts and the fact that Cincinnatians will never decide that they want to hotel. 

This is too funny. Keep going. The bad no-change Cincy Turing machine is going to start smoking.

No one here 'validates' anyone else. We are all equal and individually responsible for your own postings. Surely, we can agree on that.

 

That's what I've been trying to say!  Change validates hotels.  We can agree on tourism facts and the fact that Cincinnatians will never decide that they want to hotel.

 

I'm all for new and improved hotels in Cincinnati. What have I written that would suggest otherwise? Cincinnati hasn't gotten those hotels because it's political and civic leaders don't support such an agenda. My point is that Cincinnati got what it wants...little tourism and conventions. No one in Cincinnati can blame other cities, the economics of travel, tourism, and conventions, the nature of the changing economy, Cincinnati's airport, the size and configuration of the current convention center and hotels, or even the ineptitude of those promoting Cincinnati. In the end, Cincinnati has little tourism and convention trade because it's political and civil leaders chose not to pursue it. It didn't just happen. It's on purpose. This was all decided in Cincinnati by Cincinnatians. They put local control and their own interests ahead of Cincinnati's economic growth. What politician or locally-connected business owner wants a hotel built by an out-of-town developer and branded by another out-of town hotel operator, neither of whom is beholden to Cincinnati's elite in any way? How does that help them? Discussing ideas for improving Cincinnati's offerings to visitors is beside the point because Cincinnati's political and civic power brokers oppose such plans because they threaten their power over Cincinnati. You'd have to take take them on if you want to actually change Cincinnati's position in the tourist/convention game.

Matthew,

 

I thought I made a post but it must not have gone through.

 

I think more than anything it wasn't a choice to not pursue tourism as more recently it's been a "we can't spend the necessary funds to make the convention center work properly because we've spent all our money on sports stadia, now also on FC Cincy, and not on convention business.

 

So in a way you are correct but it's because they chose to spend it on soports and not convention/tourism business that would draw more out of the region guests.

 

Also, I think in regards to this they are now trying to make a new convention hotel to take the place of the millennium and maybe that will also put pressure on the millennium to make massive upgrades, but we will see for certain on that.

Matthew,

 

I thought I made a post but it must not have gone through.

 

I think more than anything it wasn't a choice to not pursue tourism as more recently it's been a "we can't spend the necessary funds to make the convention center work properly because we've spent all our money on sports stadia, now also on FC Cincy, and not on convention business.

 

So in a way you are correct but it's because they chose to spend it on soports and not convention/tourism business that would draw more out of the region guests.

 

Also, I think in regards to this they are now trying to make a new convention hotel to take the place of the millennium and maybe that will also put pressure on the millennium to make massive upgrades, but we will see for certain on that.

 

I can’t see any evidence for that point of view. There's no either/or here. It's about power and control, not rational financial calculations. Sports stadiums ARE draws for conventions and tourists. They were sold as such originally. Cincinnati has had two huge sports stadiums and a large underused airport for years and STILL its leadership wouldn't capitalize on those assets and pursue an agenda of improving tourist and convention services for visitors. They didn't care that the stadiums created debts, they just wanted vanity projects meant to bolster their control of Cincinnati. They wanted those stadiums to impress Cincinnatians, much as the Pharaohs built the pyramids to impress their subjects. The costs didn’t matter. The subsequent lack of a tourist/convention agenda in Cincinnati shows that they never intended them to be part of economic development initiative despite all that Cincinnati has to offer visitors. Cincinnati's own elite played its residents, and the residents accepted this power play from their local elite...for reasons I have never truly been able to understand, being a non-native. If this dynamic is changing, you can be sure that its outsiders driving that change.

^ Yes, government is different than 'the people'. Cincinnati city government has been trying for years to get the Millennium Hotel to perform renovations and upgrades. As an 800+ room hotel adjacent and connected to the convention center, it is the convention center hotel. We don't NEED a new hotel, if the one we had would simply be better. But in spite of the efforts of the city to get the Millennium to cooperate, nothing has been done to make it a more attractive hotel. Now we see 3CDC partnering with the Port Authority or whatever they're called now to build a new hotel across from the convention center, essentially telling the Millennium to kick rocks. That's why Matthew's posts are so weird. If the city had been doing nothing on this front, perhaps he might have a shred of a point. The city has expanded the convention center, and is actively working on a new convention hotel, but according to his posts, 'Cincinnatians' don't want new hotels or tourism, and that is the sole reason the city isn't a convention and tourist magnet. It's ludicrous. The average citizen in Cleveland or Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with whatever new hotels were built in those cities.

 

If you believe in markets, Cincinnati needs all the hotel rooms it can get. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/05/10/cincinnati-named-most-expensive-destination-in.html. The demand is clearly there. If more supply isn't being created, we have to wonder why........

Matthew,

 

 

Maybe you are correct, and maybe that was the case at that point when they were made, but I do think in the last 5 years (since I've lived here) the leadership at the county level has been pushing harder for upgrades, but maybe you are right and the local elites are behind the scene pushing back, I don't know.

^ Yes, government is different than 'the people'. Cincinnati city government has been trying for years to get the Millennium Hotel to perform renovations and upgrades. As an 800+ room hotel adjacent and connected to the convention center, it is the convention center hotel. We don't NEED a new hotel, if the one we had would simply be better. But in spite of the efforts of the city to get the Millennium to cooperate, nothing has been done to make it a more attractive hotel. Now we see 3CDC partnering with the Port Authority or whatever they're called now to build a new hotel across from the convention center, essentially telling the Millennium to kick rocks. That's why Matthew's posts are so weird. If the city had been doing nothing on this front, perhaps he might have a shred of a point. The city has expanded the convention center, and is actively working on a new convention hotel, but according to his posts, 'Cincinnatians' don't want new hotels or tourism, and that is the sole reason the city isn't a convention and tourist magnet. It's ludicrous. The average citizen in Cleveland or Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with whatever new hotels were built in those cities.

 

If you believe in markets, Cincinnati needs all the hotel rooms it can get. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/05/10/cincinnati-named-most-expensive-destination-in.html. The demand is clearly there. If more supply isn't being created, we have to wonder why........

 

More supply IS being created. In the past couple years, there have been several new hotels built downtown. 21C, Residence Inn at Lytle Park, AC Hotel at the Banks, Hampton Inn on Vine, Holiday Inn on Broadway, Renaissance on 4th. Additionally, there is the Anna Louise Inn property that is in the process of becoming an upscale Marriott Autograph Collection hotel, and there are plans for a Kimpton at 5th and Walnut, and a Town Place Suites on 7th St.

 

6 new hotels, and 3 either in development or pre-development. There could be more, but this is just what came to mind. Of course Newport has also seen a couple new hotels open near the riverfront in recent years, and new hotels have been built in CUF, Evanston, Norwood (Rookwood Exchange), Corryville...

 

Ever think the real issue is that you're blinded by your personal biases?

 

Also, here are some facts to chew on:

2016 visitors to Cincinnati: 26.1 million -- 2% growth from previous year

(https://cincinnatiusa.com/tourism-counts-5-billion-industry)

 

2016 visitors to Cleveland: 18 million -- 2.8% growth from previous year

(https://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2017/10/greater_cleveland_attracted_18.html)

 

2016 visitors to Columbus: 39.3 million -- 1.5% growth from previous year

(https://www.experiencecolumbus.com/articles/post/columbus-visitors-spend-64-billion-in-local-economy/)

 

While Cincinnati receives less visitors than Columbus (and the central location and state capital making it a favorable location for in-state conventions has been covered upthread), it receives more than Cleveland. Is that because Clevelanders despise tourism and visitors even more than those sinister Cincinnatians?

Matthew,

 

 

Maybe you are correct, and maybe that was the case at that point when they were made, but I do think in the last 5 years (since I've lived here) the leadership at the county level has been pushing harder for upgrades, but maybe you are right and the local elites are behind the scene pushing back, I don't know.

 

Cranley is a local elite pushing back. He's not alone.

^ Yes, government is different than 'the people'. Cincinnati city government has been trying for years to get the Millennium Hotel to perform renovations and upgrades. As an 800+ room hotel adjacent and connected to the convention center, it is the convention center hotel. We don't NEED a new hotel, if the one we had would simply be better. But in spite of the efforts of the city to get the Millennium to cooperate, nothing has been done to make it a more attractive hotel. Now we see 3CDC partnering with the Port Authority or whatever they're called now to build a new hotel across from the convention center, essentially telling the Millennium to kick rocks. That's why Matthew's posts are so weird. If the city had been doing nothing on this front, perhaps he might have a shred of a point. The city has expanded the convention center, and is actively working on a new convention hotel, but according to his posts, 'Cincinnatians' don't want new hotels or tourism, and that is the sole reason the city isn't a convention and tourist magnet. It's ludicrous. The average citizen in Cleveland or Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with whatever new hotels were built in those cities.

 

If you believe in markets, Cincinnati needs all the hotel rooms it can get. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/05/10/cincinnati-named-most-expensive-destination-in.html. The demand is clearly there. If more supply isn't being created, we have to wonder why........

 

More supply IS being created. In the past couple years, there have been several new hotels built downtown. 21C, Residence Inn at Lytle Park, AC Hotel at the Banks, Hampton Inn on Vine, Holiday Inn on Broadway, Renaissance on 4th. Additionally, there is the Anna Louise Inn property that is in the process of becoming an upscale Marriott Autograph Collection hotel, and there are plans for a Kimpton at 5th and Walnut, and a Town Place Suites on 7th St.

 

6 new hotels, and 3 either in development or pre-development. There could be more, but this is just what came to mind. Of course Newport has also seen a couple new hotels open near the riverfront in recent years, and new hotels have been built in CUF, Evanston, Norwood (Rookwood Exchange), Corryville...

 

Ever think the real issue is that you're blinded by your personal biases?

 

Also, here are some facts to chew on:

2016 visitors to Cincinnati: 26.1 million -- 2% growth from previous year

(https://cincinnatiusa.com/tourism-counts-5-billion-industry)

 

2016 visitors to Cleveland: 18 million -- 2.8% growth from previous year

(https://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2017/10/greater_cleveland_attracted_18.html)

 

2016 visitors to Columbus: 39.3 million -- 1.5% growth from previous year

(https://www.experiencecolumbus.com/articles/post/columbus-visitors-spend-64-billion-in-local-economy/)

 

While Cincinnati receives less visitors than Columbus (and the central location and state capital making it a favorable location for in-state conventions has been covered upthread), it receives more than Cleveland. Is that because Clevelanders despise tourism and visitors even more than those sinister Cincinnatians?

He'll just ignore these facts and say you're wrong.  Rinse and repeat in every thread. 

How blind do you have to be to have missed all the hotel development that has happened in the core and immediately outside the core of Cincinnati in the last decade?

I was at the Spring Hill Suites on Eden Park Drive this past weekend.  That hotel opened around 2011.  It was filled with Cubs fans. 

 

So this idea that the Reds and Bengals stadiums got us nothing like the returns we would supposedly get from a convention center expansion is wrong. 

 

But at the same time, TOURISM AND CONVENTIONS ARE PEANUTS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY. 

 

 

^ Yes, government is different than 'the people'. Cincinnati city government has been trying for years to get the Millennium Hotel to perform renovations and upgrades. As an 800+ room hotel adjacent and connected to the convention center, it is the convention center hotel. We don't NEED a new hotel, if the one we had would simply be better. But in spite of the efforts of the city to get the Millennium to cooperate, nothing has been done to make it a more attractive hotel. Now we see 3CDC partnering with the Port Authority or whatever they're called now to build a new hotel across from the convention center, essentially telling the Millennium to kick rocks. That's why Matthew's posts are so weird. If the city had been doing nothing on this front, perhaps he might have a shred of a point. The city has expanded the convention center, and is actively working on a new convention hotel, but according to his posts, 'Cincinnatians' don't want new hotels or tourism, and that is the sole reason the city isn't a convention and tourist magnet. It's ludicrous. The average citizen in Cleveland or Columbus had absolutely nothing to do with whatever new hotels were built in those cities.

 

If you believe in markets, Cincinnati needs all the hotel rooms it can get. https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/05/10/cincinnati-named-most-expensive-destination-in.html. The demand is clearly there. If more supply isn't being created, we have to wonder why........

 

More supply IS being created. In the past couple years, there have been several new hotels built downtown. 21C, Residence Inn at Lytle Park, AC Hotel at the Banks, Hampton Inn on Vine, Holiday Inn on Broadway, Renaissance on 4th. Additionally, there is the Anna Louise Inn property that is in the process of becoming an upscale Marriott Autograph Collection hotel, and there are plans for a Kimpton at 5th and Walnut, and a Town Place Suites on 7th St.

 

6 new hotels, and 3 either in development or pre-development. There could be more, but this is just what came to mind. Of course Newport has also seen a couple new hotels open near the riverfront in recent years, and new hotels have been built in CUF, Evanston, Norwood (Rookwood Exchange), Corryville...

 

Ever think the real issue is that you're blinded by your personal biases?

 

Also, here are some facts to chew on:

2016 visitors to Cincinnati: 26.1 million -- 2% growth from previous year

(https://cincinnatiusa.com/tourism-counts-5-billion-industry)

 

2016 visitors to Cleveland: 18 million -- 2.8% growth from previous year

(https://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2017/10/greater_cleveland_attracted_18.html)

 

2016 visitors to Columbus: 39.3 million -- 1.5% growth from previous year

(https://www.experiencecolumbus.com/articles/post/columbus-visitors-spend-64-billion-in-local-economy/)

 

While Cincinnati receives less visitors than Columbus (and the central location and state capital making it a favorable location for in-state conventions has been covered upthread), it receives more than Cleveland. Is that because Clevelanders despise tourism and visitors even more than those sinister Cincinnatians?

 

I just can't join in on the 'group think' here when I see the evidence.... though I am glad that we are acknowledging that tourism is economically significant. Columbus had 2/3rds more visitors than Cincinnati! That’s even worse than I thought. But, I shouldn’t be surprised. It’s spending much more than Cincinnati on tourism.

 

According to this, https://searchwide.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cincinnati-USA-CVB-Postion-Overview-PDF.pdfs. Cincinnati’s convention and visitors Bureau has a budget of $6.5 million and a staff of 24. Cincinnati’s ‘bed tax’ brought in $13.7 million in 2015. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/02/17/hamilton-county-hotel-tax-tourism/23585955/. I can’t find a more recent reference, but I’m sure it’s increased. This document says that the Cincinnati Visitors Bureau spent $4.2 million in 2018. https://www.cincyusa.com/images/editor/file/2018-CVB-annual-report-FINAL.pdf

 

Columbus brought in $46.8 million through its bed tax. http://assets.experiencecolumbus.com/docs/2017-annual-report.pdf?_ga=2.258051786.1783504340.1526929264-411908131.1526929264 and I count 81 staff on this document from Experience Columbus http://assets.experiencecolumbus.com/docs/2017-annual-report.pdf?_ga=2.258051786.1783504340.1526929264-411908131.1526929264. It spent $13.6 million. http://assets.experiencecolumbus.com/docs/2017-annual-report.pdf

 

You can do the research on Cleveland and there is state wide pubic tourism promotion to consider as well. Though this isn’t exactly a comparison of like-to-like statistics, it undeniably shows how much less Cincinnati is doing for and getting from tourism. There’s a lot more data out there to be had for a price, I’m sure.

 

This is all occurring while the New York Times just named Cincinnati No. 8 on its list of "52 Places to Go in 2018," and Lonely Planet listed us on its "Best U.S. Destinations to Visit in 2018." https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2018/03/14/opinion-lincoln-helped-make-cincinnati-tourism-stop/405166002/  Cincinnati has far more to offer visitors than Columbus or Cleveland and yet it invests much less in tourism and travel, as I have been arguing here. Can you imagine what Cincinnati could do if it actually tried? Why hasn’t it? I think I know why and have been sharing that view here.

 

Um...39.3 million visitors is not "2/3 more visitors" it's almost exactly 1/2 more than Cincy. Not that that isn't significant, but it's important to be accurate if you're going to be using numbers to try to convince us that Cincinnati "hates" tourism (just ignore its growth rate and continued efforts to bring people and events to the city).

 

Not all tourism is about a convention center. In fact I'd say that in a lot of cases the types of events that are housed in convention centers are so insular that they don't do as much as, say, a festival, some sort of regular art show, things like Party in the Park, Second Sundays on Main, Final Fridays, etc. that actually bring people into the city and let them experience it. Those types of visitors go home and talk about the city. Visitors to some random event in a convention center generally get back in their car and talk about the convention and that's that.

Ever been to Nassau or anywhere in the Caribbean?  Boat after boat after boat shows up every day.  Thousands of fat American tourists get off the boat every morning.  They spend money.  The islands are still poor as hell.  Nobody up and moves to those places, even Puerto Rico, where U.S. citizens can move very easily. 

 

Tourism DOES NOT and CANNOT lift a place's economy.  As I mentioned way back, there are dozens, if not 100 companies HQ'd in the Cincinnati area that generate more economic activity than ALL LOCAL TOURISM COMBINED.

 

I was at the Spring Hill Suites on Eden Park Drive this past weekend.  That hotel opened around 2011.  It was filled with Cubs fans. 

 

So this idea that the Reds and Bengals stadiums got us nothing like the returns we would supposedly get from a convention center expansion is wrong. 

 

But at the same time, TOURISM AND CONVENTIONS ARE PEANUTS COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

 

Yeah, for all the discussion of tourism, it really is chump change compared to the rest of the economy. I’d much rather have Cincinnati’s economy with 9 F500 companies than New Orleans, which only has 1.

Here are some real statistics.  New Orleans estimates that it brings in $7 billion in gross revenue from tourism each year:

https://www.fqba.org/new-orleans-breaks-tourism-records-for-visitation-and-visitor-spending-in-2016/

 

Cincinnati...$5 billion:

https://cincinnatiusa.com/tourism-counts-5-billion-industry

 

Metro Cincinnati's economy is estimated to be $132 billion:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2017/09/26/cincinnati-leapfrogs-cleveland-columbus-no-1-economy-ohio-28th-nationwide/703487001/

 

So if Cincinnati dropped hundreds of millions in public dollars to build a bigger convention center and arena, total tourism *might* rise $1 billion annually.  So it would contribute to the local economy by less than 1%. 

 

I'm new to this but here goes. If 4th Street is to become a shopping district, and we need a convention center hotel, and we don't need a huge convention center, rather a way to attract new conventions. This could be a possible solution. Create a Hotel, convention center annex, and a shopping area that easily opens to 4th street. Inviting out of towners to shop 4th. By eliminating Plum Street between 4th and 5th and enclosing the entire mall under a glass cap that reflects or mirrors the architecture of the existing convention center. The Albee Façade stays as is and straight across the street is the entrance (one of four). The entrances are the basic lines of the Albee Façade and they are enhanced with LCD lighting to highlight the connection between the two structures. Shops on 4th will open on the 4th and into the mall itself. The northeast corner will have a 30 story hotel. The northwest corner could have a convention center annex. The southeast corner could have shops/retail for locals and visitors. the southwest corner could have retail and apartments/condos. The entire structure would have a one level below ground parking area.

That's a lot of buildings they'd have to purchase.  Right now all the own is the surface lot which is only about 25% of that entire space. 

oops wrong image … try this one

Where/when have you heard that Cincinnati doesn’t want tourists?

 

The mere fact that one of Americas most culturally unique cities with one of the largest collection of very beautiful historic homes and oddball attractions that are shunned and hidden away (the Emery, The Subway etc) instead of celebrated speaks volumes in itself.

 

I don't think Convention Center tourism is the most important for Cincinnati but I do feel that such a city should stop trying to hide how beautiful it is or how rich its history is and start sharing itself with the rest of the country.  Maybe it would help build pride in the things Cincinnatians should actually have pride for in their city - the things that make it unique.

 

IMO tourism for Cincy for me is more of a cultural than economic issue as Jake mentioned the economy isn't that big for tourism, but at least getting yourself out their in the national consciousness so that the next random hollywood film (last example being Isle of Dogs) doesn't assume that you are anywhere midwestern USA could do volumes to make the city stand out more against its many other midsized peers as a place for nationally touring cultural events that you guys miss out on all the freaken time.  Make those events want to go to you instead of Columbus which has a reputation for being surprisingly fun or Indianapolis which just is central and good at promoting itself.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

I’m sorry RJohnson[/member] but that plan has WAY too much “urban renewal” going on. It looks like you would tear down all

the historic buildings west of Plum.  It makes no sense to knock down a bunch of beautiful historic buildings to put up a speculative shopping mall in any era, let alone one where retail is dieing off and Macy’s left downtown. You’d be replacing productive private properties with something that would require massive government expenses. Closing in the streets would be terrible for walkability of the area. Finally, reproducing the Albee facade (a historic building that got torn down) on something that itself replaces historic buildings would be insult to injury.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

 

No one knows or cares about Blink outside of the region.  Its a pretty awesome thing you've got, but doubt anyone even from Indy would know about it ;).

 

Even when Cincy does stuff well it undersells itself.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

 

No one knows or cares about Blink outside of the region.  Its a pretty awesome thing you've got, but doubt anyone even from Indy would know about it ;).

 

Even when Cincy does stuff well it undersells itself.

 

To be fair, it has only happened once so far. I believe I saw it mentioned in one or two national publications. I'm not saying all is being done that could be to sell the city (far from it). But it seems like that is something that would have been easy for those championing the status quo to hold back -- something that is really world class, new, and requires public cooperation and approval.

 

It's one thing to say things could & should be done more competently, and another to charge a grand conspiracy to keep people away.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

 

No one knows or cares about Blink outside of the region.  Its a pretty awesome thing you've got, but doubt anyone even from Indy would know about it ;).

 

Even when Cincy does stuff well it undersells itself.

 

But they will care about an abandoned theatre and subway with a water main in it? Not sure what you expect to be done with these places to make them tourist attractions. Also if you do some research on the Emery you'll know that it has more to do with UC and ownership issues and a lot of people aware of its history want it to be saved. We also celebrate a lot of our history here, so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Plus it's awfully bold of you to act as if you understand every outsiders perspective of our city. On top of that you're almost always being a turd on here.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

 

No one knows or cares about Blink outside of the region.  Its a pretty awesome thing you've got, but doubt anyone even from Indy would know about it ;).

 

Even when Cincy does stuff well it undersells itself.

 

That's factually inaccurate. I have friends here in NYC who have never been to Cincy who were told about it and shared articles about it. It drew attention in the design world well beyond the city's boundaries.

If the powers that be were trying to thwart attempts to boost tourism, they never would have allowed the Blink festival to happen.

 

No one knows or cares about Blink outside of the region.  Its a pretty awesome thing you've got, but doubt anyone even from Indy would know about it ;).

 

Even when Cincy does stuff well it undersells itself.

 

But they will care about an abandoned theatre and subway with a water main in it? Not sure what you expect to be done with these places to make them tourist attractions. Also if you do some research on the Emery you'll know that it has more to do with UC and ownership issues and a lot of people aware of its history want it to be saved. We also celebrate a lot of our history here, so I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Plus it's awfully bold of you to act as if you understand every outsiders perspective of our city. On top of that you're almost always being a turd on here.

 

Think about other cities you've traveled to with the level of history that Cincinnati has note what they do to sell the fact that they are historic places of note - see Charleston, Savannah, Boston and San Francisco for good examples (though the later two are way larger and the former are way smaller).  I just feel that given what Cincinnati has - it severely sells itself short.  Even STL does a bit more to promote itself for its rich history (even if the city itself was far worse impacted by the post industrial age than Cincy was).

 

Even in a place that has less history, Seattle does a ton to promote the Seattle Underground as a unique attraction - something that the subway could be promoted as in a very similar way.  Everytime the Subway gets brought up on national level publications there is a lot of interest around it - people love these kinds of stories even if the subway itself isn't the most attractive thing - its a unique piece of hidden history and people eat that up unless they are John Q I've Lived in Cincinnati my whole life.

 

On threads on "New Urbanist Memes for Transit Oriented Teens" a popular urbanist discussion group on Facebook with an International Audience, I've shown pics of Cincinnati and got responces like "Wow I never knew it was like this, or so unique" etc.  You have way more than you guys give yourself credit for and IMO that's much to the detriment of your city's cultural well-being.

Um...39.3 million visitors is not "2/3 more visitors" it's almost exactly 1/2 more than Cincy. Not that that isn't significant, but it's important to be accurate if you're going to be using numbers to try to convince us that Cincinnati "hates" tourism (just ignore its growth rate and continued efforts to bring people and events to the city).

 

Not all tourism is about a convention center. In fact I'd say that in a lot of cases the types of events that are housed in convention centers are so insular that they don't do as much as, say, a festival, some sort of regular art show, things like Party in the Park, Second Sundays on Main, Final Fridays, etc. that actually bring people into the city and let them experience it. Those types of visitors go home and talk about the city. Visitors to some random event in a convention center generally get back in their car and talk about the convention and that's that.

 

I didn't express the difference between Cincinnati's and Columbus' convention and tourist trade correctly. 50 percent more is still shocking to me. Even I didn't realize how far Columbus' had pulled ahead in this game until I looked it up, though the seemingly endless wave of new hotels in Columbus should have tipped me off. If vastly exceeds the handful of modest new hotels in Cincinnati that some here seem to think is a major accomplishment for Cincinnati. I didn't say that individual Cincinnatians are necessarily afraid of tourists. I said that Cincinnati's political and civic elite is threatened by the political and economic effects of tourism. Few attending the local events you describe have come from beyond metropolitan Cincinnati. Visitors who do come from further away for conferences have different reasons for coming, as you say. They are here for reasons that involve more than a good time. They aren’t necessarily in Cincinnati because they ‘like’ it. They may have no opinion about Cincinnati at all. Many people go to Columbus, Nashville, Austin, or Portland NOT because they “like” (or dislike) those cities, but because they see professional, financial, or social opportunities for themselves as individuals to be had in those cities. Cincinnati’s problem is not that people don’t like it, its problem is that it’s elite won’t let people create things in Cincinnati that would specifically attract others to Cincinnati in order to experience those things. They do this because they don’t want people creating new things in Cincinnati that would specifically attract people to Cincinnati who aren’t useful to them and their economic and political agendas.