Cincinnati riverfront park boosted by private fund drive

By Lisa Bernard-Kuhn, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 26, 2010

 

A new, private fundraising initiative is under way to pay for a range of amenities at the new Cincinnati Riverfront Park downtown.

 

On Wednesday, the Women's Committee of Cincinnati Riverfront Park announced the Twig Project, targeting organizations across Greater Cincinnati.

 

So far, the Women's Committee has raised nearly $1 million for water fountains, landscaped walkways, monuments and other park amenities. The first phase of the 45-acre park being built between Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ball Park is expected to open in spring 2011.

The only place they seem to need any fill is to the east of the suspension bridge, to get the new road up to the existing intersection with Main Street.  I suspect the area in the picture won't change much at all in elevation, since it has to pass under the bridge approach where I was standing.

 

Actually, they are lowering the road quite a bit at the bridge. Where you were standing they now have temporary steel beams supporting the load as they have dug about 4-5 feet down around the permanent supports. I'll try to get a better pic location at lunch.

 

Pic taken Monday

Pic from lunch

I was looking at those from my office....I recall the construction manager saying that is not a historical section of the bridge.  Not that they are going to alter it, other than reinforcing the foundation and digging down a bit. 

 

I realize that road is a state route and hazmat roadway and all, but there has to be a better way of re-routing all the heavy trucks so they don't trundle through the heart of the CRP.  Just looking out my window now the only two vehicles on the road are large semi-haulers....problem is they take it to Main, then up Main and onto 71, Columbia 471 etc.  They can't do that from Mehring Way and Central Avenue because there is no left turn onto 2d (they don't go up Elm for whatever reason).  Also, some of them continue on Mehring to head to Eastern/Riverside drive.

 

....just looked again...semi.....semi....another semi flatbed....etc.  That will blow.

Move them to US 50?  Of course, Columbia Parkway has a truck ban...

Please, there's really not that much traffic there, especially during the times when most people would be using the park.  The road is really not going through the park either, it's forming the northern boundary of it.  We still need a road through there as an alternative to 2nd/3rd, which is not an acceptable route for cyclists, or for traffic to/from the stadiums, Sawyer Point, Longworth Hall, etc.  The park areas north of the road are superfluous in my opinion, and just confuse the organization of everything.  Without the road, the north edges of the park just sort of jerk around with no order.  I'd rather see a nice wall of buildings define the edge of the park, but the road is the next best thing.

Please, there's really not that much traffic there, especially during the times when most people would be using the park. The road is really not going through the park either, it's forming the northern boundary of it. We still need a road through there as an alternative to 2nd/3rd, which is not an acceptable route for cyclists, or for traffic to/from the stadiums, Sawyer Point, Longworth Hall, etc. The park areas north of the road are superfluous in my opinion, and just confuse the organization of everything. Without the road, the north edges of the park just sort of jerk around with no order. I'd rather see a nice wall of buildings define the edge of the park, but the road is the next best thing.

 

It is a truck route. The road will bisect one of the main entrances to the lower park, i.e. the Walnut Street steps, mobility and visitor center et al.  To have these semis rumbling through there, at the base of the waterfall and adjacent steps, would kind of suck.  And that's what they are...big rambling gravel haulers and semi trucks.  I don't have a problem with a road through there....I think that can be quite pleasant if done correctly.  I have a problem with an industrial truck route. 

I've never noticed an inordinate number of trucks on Mehring Way.  In fact, on weekday evenings and on weekends it's practically deserted.  Also consider the number of trucks that are there just to service the construction of the Banks and the park itself.  I just think you're harping on something that's really a non-issue. 

You are correct that on most evenings and weekends there is very little truck traffic. But during the weekday, there definitely is a lot of truck traffic. And no, a majority of it is not Banks/Park related.

^What's the deal with Pete Rose Way?  Does it just disappear toward the eastern side of the Banks?  Because if you can get out to Eastern/Riverside than that would solve issue.

It ends at the (now closed) Central Riverfront Garage entrance at the Freedom Center.

On the east it funnels right into the Reds' stadium parking garage.  On the west it does go along the north side of Paul Brown Stadium, but it sort of peters out under the Freedom Center as an entrance to their parking garage. 

You are correct that on most evenings and weekends there is very little truck traffic. But during the weekday, there definitely is a lot of truck traffic. And no, a majority of it is not Banks/Park related.

 

I can't recall a time when I've seen a lot of truck traffic. Those roads are my usual biking routes in the mornings, afternoons and evenings, and I can't recall meeting more than 2 trucks in an hour out there. The industrial facilities to the west of the Brent Spence typically go west to the U.S. Route 50 expressway, as does the cement company near the Paul Brown Stadium. I've not seen any of their trucks turn towards downtown or the future park, unless they are heading east towards a project on that side.

Since Caseyc watches it all day long and it doesn't sound like anyone else here is in that position, maybe he could take a little tally?

 

Either way, nothing we can do about it now. I would assume that if there were significant truck traffic the patrons of the new park will notice and they'll re-route them.

cement mixer driving down now....

Oh nos! Not as if there was a cement company -- who has been there many years prior to the conception of some riverfront park, next door! :P If I can bike down US 52 in Ohio and Indiana, and have tractor-trailers behind me with no worry -- who pass me on the next available passing lane, I don't see any issue with a few trucks that drive on a perfectly fine road through a park.

 

This almost reeks of NIMBYism, only along the lines of a few complaining of businesses and industry that predate the planning of a park. The roadway was built to withstand the impact of industrial trucks, and given that it is a federal U.S. highway (truck route), the act of removing the trucks to say, Liberty (?), would be a feat that just could not be overcome. There are no good alternatives for trucks or for the industry that was there. A few trucks passing by is not going to harm the sunbathers and cyclists.

 

Remember when the DT&I and N&W rumbled down the former Cincinnati Street Connecting Railway along the riverfront?

 

http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/prrbelt/large-18.html

Park steps at Merhing/Joe Nuxhall Way were poured today.

 

 

Oh nos! Not as if there was a cement company -- who has been there many years prior to the conception of some riverfront park, next door! :P If I can bike down US 52 in Ohio and Indiana, and have tractor-trailers behind me with no worry -- who pass me on the next available passing lane, I don't see any issue with a few trucks that drive on a perfectly fine road through a park.

 

This almost reeks of NIMBYism, only along the lines of a few complaining of businesses and industry that predate the planning of a park. The roadway was built to withstand the impact of industrial trucks, and given that it is a federal U.S. highway (truck route), the act of removing the trucks to say, Liberty (?), would be a feat that just could not be overcome. There are no good alternatives for trucks or for the industry that was there. A few trucks passing by is not going to harm the sunbathers and cyclists.

 

Remember when the DT&I and N&W rumbled down the former Cincinnati Street Connecting Railway along the riverfront?

 

http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/prrbelt/large-18.html

Tanker truck and Semi trailer rumbling through your pastoral and serene park at the moment...opps, and there's a cement mixer busting through now.  And sure, Central Park in NYC has roads through it, but no...it's not a truck route.  There's a diff.

By the way, don't know if anyone has noticed, but they have been pouring cement fro teh curved roadway of Mehring west of the suspension bridge.  It's great to see it take shape.

From today.

Well the road is there already, and there's no good way to re-route whatever industrial traffic exists.  They can't get rid of the road, so they're doing what they can to accomodate it with minimal impact on the park.  Obviously it would be better for the park if that road just didn't exist, but that doesn't seem realistic.

It's also a Federal Truck Route, and the industries existed before the park was even conceptually designed. It's also no Central Park (NYC).

Also, the notion that this is going to be some sort of "serene and pastoral" park is pretty laughable.  Much of Sawyer Point is permeated by highway noise from the Big Mac Bridge, and this park will be characterized by the hum of cars crossing the Roebling Suspension Bridge.  There's also noisy barges going down the river, motorboats, and the various sirens and other noises you find in all highly urban areas.  That's just the way it is, and these sorts of things add to the interest and vibrancy of the area. 

By "serene and pastoral" I was being somewhat facetious. Regardless, if you look at my original post, I was wondering whether there would be a better way to route the traffic, that's all.  As currently planned, the road through the park will be a landscaped boulevard with trees.  In the section west of the bridge, the road will have park on both sides of it.  In teh East section it will be bordered to the North by the Walnut Street steps/fountain, and the wall of the parking structure/events lawn.  Maybe there's a way to work around it? 

 

The responses were that "it's not an issue."  That truck traffic is minimal at best.  Now the responses are, the trucks have always been there and that's the way it has to be.

 

This is reminiscent of the past Rust Belt mindset that said we need to use our scenic waterways and lakes as industrial zones.  Locate factories and industrial operations on the river in order to facilitate commerce, while the city turns its back on these natural resources.  The whole idea of developing waterfronts is to reverse the decades of neglect. 

 

Simply saying "it's always been there" seems a bit weak.  Besides, this road hasn't "always been there."  The route maybe, but it wasn't a park before.  The actual road will be all new. 

 

My question is whether there is a better way.  What I'm hearing is "no."   

Well as I've said before it's also an important east-west cycling route as well, and no, creating a bike path would not be a suitable replacement for that.  Still, as a city, region, or even society, we can't afford to devote all of our riverfronts, hillsides, forests, lakes, etc., to recreational purposes.  The central riverfront here in Cincinnati certainly should be a nice "front lawn" of sorts, but at some point there gets to be so much park land it's difficult to figure out what to do with it all.  That's a bad thing for parks, because when they're underutilized they can become dangerous. 

 

Also, there's nothing contradictory about the statements that the truck traffic is minimal, and that it's always been there.  The whole riverfront used to be teeming with people, trucks, carts, railroads, warehouses, and all sorts of activities that weren't parkland.  Yes, things have certainly changed, but to try to push away everything that may be deemed even the slightest bit undesirable is to sterilize the area to such an extent that it loses much of its value. 

 

In my view, the relocation of the road as it's being done is a good and pragmatic solution, it's simple and straightforward.  We don't need some big tunnel or viaduct or other needless infrastructure that will only cost us more to build and to maintain.  Even if what little truck traffic there is could be diverted, there's still all the other stuff going on in the area that'd still be there.  It's really a moot point as far as I'm concerned. 

The responses were that "it's not an issue."  That truck traffic is minimal at best.  Now the responses are, the trucks have always been there and that's the way it has to be.

 

No, it's both, and the responses have been made to the comments that have been put forth in sequence. There is minimal truck traffic, given the lack of industry and commerce that now resides there. But it is a Federal Truck Route, and there isn't much the city can do about that other than to build a strong roadway (noting that the new pavement is also continuously-reinforced concrete pavement) and to allow for free flowing east-west traffic.

 

But the truck traffic has always been there. And rail traffic. It wasn't all that long ago we were used to seeing N&W and DT&I trains rumble through the newly formed parks along the riverfront. And it was only up until fairly recently, prior to the Paul Brown Stadium, that there were locals switching freight out where the stadiums now reside at.

 

http://cagisonline.hamilton-co.org/CagisOnline/index.html?box=1395400.4749652545,404658.31649693585,1396900.4749652545,405376.0248302692

 

From 1996, note the N&S locomotive hauling a boxcar. It's kind of sad to see this replaced with a facility that is money-losing, open a handful of days a year, and has useless grass fields. So much activity and vibrancy even then.

 

This is reminiscent of the past Rust Belt mindset that said we need to use our scenic waterways and lakes as industrial zones.  Locate factories and industrial operations on the river in order to facilitate commerce, while the city turns its back on these natural resources.  The whole idea of developing waterfronts is to reverse the decades of neglect.

 

Even back as far as the early 1800s, Cincinnati's riverfront was one full of commerce and industry. The reason industry was located along a navigable waterway was that it was navigable. Goods could be easily shipped to and from cities and ports. That same reason is still true today, aided by railroads, airports and highways. Look down at other cities -- Ashland, Ky., for instance, and you'll see busy waterfront industries. Steel mills, refactories, items that create and harbor jobs. While Cincinnati has none of that on its riverfront, for good or bad, it did get repeatedly flooded, and much of the bottoms became predominately lower-incomed while the population moved further inland.

 

My question is whether there is a better way.  What I'm hearing is "no."

 

There simply isn't. Unless you plan on moving through truck traffic to Liberty and around downtown via Eggleston (or some other convoluted route), there isn't much that can be done.

From today.

 

That's pretty cool! So the street curve IS following the curve of the rent-a-fence? Unless they moved it to match the real curve since the last picture.

Sherman--your comment that there is "minimal truck traffic" belies your ignorance. Right now there is a tanker and a half-semi.  Biking it once in a while might give you a 3 minute glimpse but I am in an office many hours a day, many days a week, and I overlook the site.  There's more than "minimal" truck traffic. Plain and simple.  Simply saying it is so from a sporadic anecodtal perspective doesn't erase empirical, eyewitness evidence. 

 

And just saying that "the truck traffic has always been there" doesn't tell me whether any attempt has been made to study alternative routes.  Trucks will always take the easiest point between A and B...that doesn't mean we allow every road to be a truck route, particularly along the City's front lawn and one of its most recognizable landmarks.  There are actually ways around these things, and when we're investing over $120+ million in a riverbank park designed to be the "front lawn" of the City, maybe we should consider whether we want gravel haulers, cement mixers, tanker trucks, hazmats and semis rolling through the landscaped tree-lined boulevards on a regular basis.

 

after centuries of industrial use and environmental neglect, even Detroit has taken steps to move the industries (and their decades of contamination) from prime riverfront.  They recently spent millions relocating the Medusa Cement operations (sound familiar?) for the Riverwalk.

 

As far as this statement:

Even back as far as the early 1800s, Cincinnati's riverfront was one full of commerce and industry. The reason industry was located along a navigable waterway was that it was navigable. Goods could be easily shipped to and from cities and ports.

 

um, we don't live in the 1800's anymore.  Why have some wistful allegiance to the days of yesteryear?  While industry can be clustered in certain segments of riverfront, there's plenty of that already.  Yes, being on the river facilitates commerce and makes it easier to do business. We get that.  Just because a factory has always been on the waterfront, however, doesn't mean it has to remain there for anotehr 100 years.  Progress can be made.  And simply stated, industrial use in this type of development (i.e. Banks, CRP, Freedom Center and Stadia) is incongruous with the overall vision for this prime site. 

 

I'm interested in looking at whether there are any alternative possibilities.  I'm sympathetic to the notion that they have been in business there for many years, and am realistic that there may not be any alternatives.  But simply dismissing the notion out of the box as "not a problem" is short-sighted and naive.

 

as I finish this and look out I see a gravel hauler.

If you can find an alternative truck route, then I'd like to hear it.

If you can find an alternative truck route, then I'd like to hear it.

 

Airships?

Congratulations, you can see the road from your office! I look out my window and I see dump trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! I can go to Oakley Square and see trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! Your point being? They cannot co-exist? I think you bike -- having seen your bike at Neon's. Do you bike on the road? In heavy traffic? With trucks? Just curious (nothing implied, just wanting to see what kind of cyclist you are).

 

It's NIMBYism at its best. Let's build a park next to industry, kick out the industry because it generates noise, dust and traffic, and see, it's all good? Reminds me of the arguments for gentrification. Let's move in the yuppies with money, kick out the homeless and low-income, and see, it's all good? You are making the same arguments, only with cement trucks and serene nature.

 

As I finish this, I look out and see a tractor trailer on Herald negotiating a curve up Ledgewood surrounded by walking pedestrians and a cyclist.

 

BTW, you can leave the sass at home. Thanks.

Lets also not lose sight of the fact that whatever the truck volume appears to be today, its certainly at inflated levels right now due to the atypical amount of construction activity in the vicinity.

This is far from the gentrification argument.  Industry generates a tax revenue directly whereas parks are "quality of life."  Good parks enhance desirability of an area and help make it viable.  If the industry has no business being on the river then it doesn't have to be there.  But to compare relocating revenue generating business to homeless people which are a drain on the social service is fallacious.

Supposing that you could easily move the cement plant (or whatever that is over there), what are the odds that you could keep them within the city and/or county?  That could end up being taxes lost to another city/county.  Sure, this would free up real estate, but what do you put in a former industrial site between a rail and expressway bridge?  The price tag on something like this sounds like it would be quite large, and may not be worth the result.  There's already going to be some noise in the park, as jjakucyk pointed out.  If this does turn out to be a major issue, it doesn't seem like it would be substantially more difficult to deal with it a few years down the road after the park is a success and the city has regained some political capital (much of which was spent on the stadiums/Banks/streetcar issues that have jaded so many in the region). 

 

All I'm saying is that I think this is the best we're going to get for the time-being.  If there's an easy reroute that I am unaware of, fantastic. 

There are plenty of things that can go there but that is pure speculation.  Looking at this from a map, it seems the location of the concrete plant has little impact on the roads utilization as a hazardous materials route.  The bigger question is why was it designated that way in the first place?  The route is US 27/52 which runs along the riverfront from 275 to 75 downtown.  It is out of the way, along the river and avoids residential development (for the most part).. i.e. it's a convenient out of the way place to route the scary crap that nobody wants to deal with.  And it's unfortunate.  I think asking the Feds for an alternate route is worth pursuing because you'll never know and right now we have one of the most pro city administrations in a generation.  Always worth as shot!

I really don't see this being a huge deal.  I've driven on Mehring (sp?) Way tons of times, and have never noticed a glut of large trucks or industrial equipment.  The cement plant is west of Paul Brown (iirc), and it will probably be many, many years before development reaches that far.  I think the traffic will be fairly minimal through the park, and most people won't even realize it's a truck route.  Obviously traffic is going to be inflated now because of the construction of the park and the Banks, but once those are over, I suspect traffic will be slight enough on the road that this really won't be a huge issue.  One thing I would say the city should do if it is not planning to already is to make sure there is a good amount of trees bordering the road from the park so there is a buffer zone.

Also keep in mind that truck volume will be highest during weekday working hours, which is the time the park would normally see the least patronage.  On evenings and weekends, when the park would be most busy, is also when there's the least truck traffic, or any traffic really, save for sports events. 

Congratulations, you can see the road from your office! I look out my window and I see dump trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! I can go to Oakley Square and see trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! Your point being? They cannot co-exist? I think you bike -- having seen your bike at Neon's. Do you bike on the road? In heavy traffic? With trucks? Just curious (nothing implied, just wanting to see what kind of cyclist you are).

 

It's NIMBYism at its best. Let's build a park next to industry, kick out the industry because it generates noise, dust and traffic, and see, it's all good? Reminds me of the arguments for gentrification. Let's move in the yuppies with money, kick out the homeless and low-income, and see, it's all good? You are making the same arguments, only with cement trucks and serene nature.

 

As I finish this, I look out and see a tractor trailer on Herald negotiating a curve up Ledgewood surrounded by walking pedestrians and a cyclist.

 

BTW, you can leave the sass at home. Thanks.

All in the spirit of imformed discussion!  No sass intended, but that's just me.  Snark? Yes....sometimes unavoidable in my case, and for which I apologize.  I don't really agree with the NIMBYism/industrial-gentrification argument, however.  Industry can always be moved if feasible.  Newport's riverfront was a morass of industry for much of its early history.  If there is another suitable place it should be explored, that's all.  The only reason I dug in my heels here is because the concern was readily dismissed as a non-issue.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

As someone who would use the park during the day, perhaps taking a lunch down there, it's a concern. Same goes for empty nesters living down there on the Banks. 

 

All I'm saying is it is something that should be looked at.

 

My three speed antique Raleigh doesn't get me far out of the basin, so I am a near-in, amateur level cyclist-commuter at best.  And yes I bike in the road with trucks.  That doesn't mean I want them lumbering by dropping gravel and belching exhaust when I am enjoying my lunch break in a riverside park we just spent $127 million to build.  If it's unavoidable, okay--I accept that.  But I think it bears some level of additional scrutiny and study as to available options, if any.

I thought Hilltop sold their property for a barge teminal for around 3 million after the original location was opposed vehemently by Price Hill residents. Also, I know Hilltop depends on the river to bring a lot of product to the plant.

 

The only relocation option would be to go all the way up to Liberty, but I doubt the federal government will designate a truck route through a residential neighborhood. Trucks would have to come in on 52 from the east head north on Eggleston to Liberty then take Liberty to Central and back down to 50.

If they ever rebuild the Walvogel Viaduct like they plan on doing, it could free up some land... Or did they rebuild it already?

Once all the construction is done is at the Banks and elsewhere dt, I'd imagine that truck traffic will lessen anyway.

If they ever rebuild the Walvogel Viaduct like they plan on doing, it could free up some land... Or did they rebuild it already?

 

The railroad relocation is part of the first phase, and is ongoing right now. The Viaduct will be demolished in a later phase.

I think I know the resolution ... if pedestrians are constantly crossing the street throughout the new route, even jay-walking- maybe the trucks will "try" to avoid that stretch due to it simply being an annoyance? Thoughts?

Congratulations, you can see the road from your office! I look out my window and I see dump trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! I can go to Oakley Square and see trucks co-exist with pedestrians and cyclists! Your point being? They cannot co-exist? I think you bike -- having seen your bike at Neon's. Do you bike on the road? In heavy traffic? With trucks? Just curious (nothing implied, just wanting to see what kind of cyclist you are).

 

It's NIMBYism at its best. Let's build a park next to industry, kick out the industry because it generates noise, dust and traffic, and see, it's all good? Reminds me of the arguments for gentrification. Let's move in the yuppies with money, kick out the homeless and low-income, and see, it's all good? You are making the same arguments, only with cement trucks and serene nature.

 

As I finish this, I look out and see a tractor trailer on Herald negotiating a curve up Ledgewood surrounded by walking pedestrians and a cyclist.

 

BTW, you can leave the sass at home. Thanks.

All in the spirit of imformed discussion! No sass intended, but that's just me. Snark? Yes....sometimes unavoidable in my case, and for which I apologize. I don't really agree with the NIMBYism/industrial-gentrification argument, however. Industry can always be moved if feasible. Newport's riverfront was a morass of industry for much of its early history. If there is another suitable place it should be explored, that's all. The only reason I dug in my heels here is because the concern was readily dismissed as a non-issue.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

As someone who would use the park during the day, perhaps taking a lunch down there, it's a concern. Same goes for empty nesters living down there on the Banks.

 

All I'm saying is it is something that should be looked at.

 

My three speed antique Raleigh doesn't get me far out of the basin, so I am a near-in, amateur level cyclist-commuter at best. And yes I bike in the road with trucks. That doesn't mean I want them lumbering by dropping gravel and belching exhaust when I am enjoying my lunch break in a riverside park we just spent $127 million to build. If it's unavoidable, okay--I accept that. But I think it bears some level of additional scrutiny and study as to available options, if any.

 

I apologize for the rash reply as well. It's sometimes hard to tell emotions on here without some sort of indicator.

 

I wasn't trying to dismiss it as a non-issue. It is an issue, but I think it is being exaggerated right now because of the construction, and because we are all paying attention to it at this moment. But I'm not for certain if there is an alternative. One could say the 2nd/3rd pairs could work, but it is a bit convoluted on the western and eastern end. And I'm not sure that we want any more traffic on Liberty, especially trucks through a residential neighborhood.

 

The reason I asked what type of biking you do, is that I've noticed based on the skill of the cyclist (or their comfort level), it helps shape their opinion on certain issues (going beyond this thread). For some, it's a minor issue to be on the road or near the road with trucks; for others, it's downright terrifying. I think that at times, our opinions reflect these particular levels. I think it pertains more to biking in Cincinnati than with the park though.

 

I think in the end, I'll need to dig up the AADT for the roadway and see how much of it is truck traffic. I'll call ODOT tomorrow and see if I can get a copy for Hamilton County.

Monarch Construction awarded first work bid for CRP by Army Corps

By Randy A. Simes, UrbanCincy | June 16, 2010

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/06/monarch-construction-awarded-first-work-bid-for-crp-by-army-corps/

 

Cincinnati-based Monarch Construction Company has been awarded the first work bid by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Cincinnati Riverfront Park. The $8.5 million contract will cover the construction of the Walnut Street Fountain & Grand Staircase which will begin within the coming weeks.

 

Monarch was selected by the Corps for meeting their qualifications for quality, cost and time to perform the work that will include a concrete structure with sandstone cladding and granite paving; bathrooms; an elevator; mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; landscaping; waterproofing; interactive fountains; and associated equipment, fixtures, and furnishings.

 

Phase 1 of the 45-acre, $120 million Cincinnati Riverfront Park is currently on schedule for a spring 2011 opening. In addition to the Walnut Street Fountain & Grand Staircase, the first phase of the project will also include an event lawn, donor wall, promenade and the highly anticipated Bike & Mobility Center and Moerlein Lager House. This additional work is currently out for bid and is expected to be awarded in summer 2010.

 

In total, the Cincinnati Riverfront Park is projected to cost $2.5 million per acre which is on par, or less than, other comparable waterfront parks throughout the country. Park planners put the cost slightly higher than Cincinnati’s International Friendship Park and Yeatman’s Cove, but less than those found in Louisville, Charleston, Indianapolis and Chicago.

 

View a rendering of the new Walnut Street Fountain & Grand Staircase here:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/06/monarch-construction-awarded-first-work-bid-for-crp-by-army-corps/

Here's two shots of the road construction from this afternoon.

 

 

Wow.  It is so odd to have all these things happening downtown at one time.  It's terrific, but it's just odd...CRP, the Banks, QCS, the Streetcar....mind-boggling.

Wow. It is so odd to have all these things happening downtown at one time. It's terrific, but it's just odd...CRP, the Banks, QCS, the Streetcar....mind-boggling.

 

Don't forget the casino. Who'd have thought it'd be hard to keep up with all of the different major projects going on in downtown Cincy?

^ Good point.  I am excited about them all, but it's hard to believe it's all happening now, with this economy.  Hopefully when the economy turns, Cincinnati will be in a position to really take advantage based on the investments that are being made right now.

^ Good point. I am excited about them all, but it's hard to believe it's all happening now, with this economy. Hopefully when the economy turns, Cincinnati will be in a position to really take advantage based on the investments that are being made right now.

Seconded.  The thing naysayers aren't getting is the fact of us having these things in place so when the economy heals, the foundation for us to grow is that much stronger.  Out of all of these changes, not seeing the gigantic mud pit down there is my favorite part.  Building that casino and getting that bigass ugly parking lot out of there will be a close second;) There's not one single city in the midwest that can brag about development as much as we can right now.  The potential for Cincy is almost scary.

I would actually spread this positive vibe out beyond Cincinnati - it seems that the downtowns (Dayton is prob. the exception) of most of Ohio's big cities seemed poised to really recapture their pride of place in their regions when the economy picks up.