March 30, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, jwulsin said: I think it'd be too large of a park to turn all of that parking into greenspace. if you wanted to build the park today, yes, which is why I suggested it was something that makes sense in the future if the area is developed. Again, though, that entire lot is a part of Union Terminal's design. I'd wager that you won't have any success suggesting that it gets built upon for anything but its original intended purpose...green space.
March 30, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, DEPACincy said: Grandiose buildings are better when they are framed by other buildings. A new mixed-use district with 10 story buildings lining Ezzard Charles would be amazing. Plenty of grand buildings like the Pantheon framed by street walls. Plenty not. It's a strange claim that this is always the winning answer. That being said, the framing can be accomplished by building on ezzard charles, and it would likely be much more interesting, given how the space in front of Union Terminal would open up as you approach it. The front lawn of Union Terminal shouldn't be altered spatially. Edited March 30, 20223 yr by zsnyder
March 30, 20223 yr Moved the discussion about CUT into the appropriate topic from the Potential New Arena topic. As far as developing the former park in front, I could support something like this, with green being park space and orange being new buildings. You would still see the main rotunda from the other side of Ezzard Charles, but you would get a more interesting surrounding when you get close and preserve the full view of UT from Wester Avenue and west. Alternatively, building over Hopkins and Kenner Street and developing the lots opposite them, you could activate the space without building on top of the original park.
March 30, 20223 yr 46 minutes ago, zsnyder said: Plenty of grand buildings like the Pantheon framed by street walls. Plenty not. It's a strange claim that this is always the winning answer. That being said, the framing can be accomplished by building on ezzard charles, and it would likely be much more interesting, given how the space in front of Union Terminal would open up as you approach it. The front lawn of Union Terminal shouldn't be altered spatially. I didn't say that it is "always" the winning answer. But it seems like a no-brainer here. What do we gain from having a huge open space around CUT? The green space in front of the building between the lanes of Ezzard Charles is absolutely wide enough to frame the building and provide an unobstructed view. A huge open space here is just going to sit unused 99% of the time.
March 30, 20223 yr Framing a really pretty art deco building and art deco fountain is going to be pretty damn difficult. The example you give has beautiful 19th century buildings framing an iconic 19th century building. We will have 21st century buildings framing a 1920s iconic Art Deco building. No easy task unless it's nicer than the typical developer quality 4+1 projects around the region.
March 31, 20223 yr 18 hours ago, ryanlammi said: As far as developing the former park in front, I could support something like this, with green being park space and orange being new buildings. You would still see the main rotunda from the other side of Ezzard Charles, but you would get a more interesting surrounding when you get close and preserve the full view of UT from Wester Avenue and west. This also seems like it could be a good way to shield the park and CUT from the noise and austere environment from I-75, assuming it won't be buried anytime soon.
March 31, 20223 yr 18 hours ago, ucgrady said: Framing a really pretty art deco building and art deco fountain is going to be pretty damn difficult. The example you give has beautiful 19th century buildings framing an iconic 19th century building. We will have 21st century buildings framing a 1920s iconic Art Deco building. No easy task unless it's nicer than the typical developer quality 4+1 projects around the region. Agreed. It would take a special vision and plan. Can't just plop down a run-of-the-mill project.
March 31, 20223 yr 18 hours ago, ucgrady said: Framing a really pretty art deco building and art deco fountain is going to be pretty damn difficult. The example you give has beautiful 19th century buildings framing an iconic 19th century building. We will have 21st century buildings framing a 1920s iconic Art Deco building. No easy task unless it's nicer than the typical developer quality 4+1 projects around the region. Absolutely, you'd want to push for the highest quality materials and architecture. But 21st Century buildings framing a 1920s building could be awesome. Especially in 100 years. When they built the buildings in Paris it wasn't to create the amazing streetscape you have today. They were just building stuff. The mansard roofs were utilitarian. Now we cherish them. By the way, those are 19th Century buildings framing an 18th Century building. So actually a similar time difference. Edited March 31, 20223 yr by DEPACincy
October 31, 20222 yr Exciting news for ferroequinologist-philatelists: Quote The U.S. Postal Service announced today many of the stamps it will issue in 2023. [...] Railroad Stations Noteworthy railroad stations began brightening the American landscape by the 1870s and, although many were torn down once they had outlived their original purpose, hundreds survived. This issuance of 20 stamps features five architectural gems that continue to play important roles in their communities: Tamaqua Station in Pennsylvania; Point of Rocks Station in Maryland; Main Street Station in Richmond, VA; Santa Fe Station in San Bernardino, CA; and Union Terminal in Cincinnati, OH. Passenger trains stop at all of them except Tamaqua. Derry Noyes served as art director. Down the Street Designs created the digital illustrations and typography.
November 7, 20222 yr Does anyone know if if the Hudepohl area in Queensgate has been ever been studied as a site for a new passenger rail station? It could avoid some of the problems with using CUT - fighting with the museums for terminal space and with Norfolk Southern for railyard space.
November 7, 20222 yr Here's how I would do HSR. Have the Cincy-Chicago and 3C lines take over the CSX line to Hamilton and divert CSX freight to parallel NS lines (with added capacity). Then build a passenger-only line around the west side of Queensgate Yard, a portion of which would be on the old B&O freight line and the rest on new ROW or next to existing freight lines. The alignment curvatures would allow passenger trains to get up to 79 mph or higher as soon they were north of West 8th Street (except for the S curve at Winton Place but as long as we're dreaming, that curve could be eased as long you don't mind bridging over a few streets and taking out several insignificant buildings). "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 7, 20222 yr 3 hours ago, KJP said: Have the Cincy-Chicago and 3C lines take over the CSX line to Hamilton and divert CSX freight to parallel NS lines (with added capacity). How do you divert CSX to parallel NS? 3 hours ago, KJP said: Then build a passenger-only line around the west side of Queensgate Yard, a portion of which would be on the old B&O freight line and the rest on new ROW or next to existing freight lines. The alignment curvatures would allow passenger trains to get up to 79 mph or higher as soon they were north of West 8th Street. The idea to jump back and forth over the Mill Creek is interesting, I haven't seen that before. I took a look at the CAGIS parcel ownership data, and it looks like almost all of the ROW is owned by the City of Cincinnati (red), State of Ohio (blue), or the railroads (grey). This parcel, which you use to cross back over the Mill Creek is owned by a private estate based in Fort Mitchel, and would need to be purchased. The CAGIS data in the Hudepohl area is a little messy, but it appears the ROWs are still intact. A lot of the land is owned by institutions like the Port, Duke Energy, and a couple LLCs ("Mehring Investors LLC", "Longworth Hall LLC"). 3 hours ago, KJP said: So if I'm reading this correctly, would the station be somewhere in this area then?
November 7, 20222 yr CUT is the better decision if passenger trains will continue to Kentucky. That's why it is used by Amtrak - the Cardinal follows the south side of the Ohio River to West Virginia. A Class 6 upgrade of existing tracks to allow 125~mph passenger service to Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland and/or dedicated Class 9 HSR tracks won't need to cross the river. It's unlikely that a higher-speed service to Tennessee or Atlanta will ever exist. The Transit Center is so large that there would be enough space under roof for 1,200~ foot double-length HSR train tail tracks east of the platform. The Transit Center to/from Chicago could also use the line that parallels the Ohio River to Indiana.
November 7, 20222 yr 34 minutes ago, carnevalem said: How do you divert CSX to parallel NS? Getting over institutional issues, status quo, intransigence, etc. is probably the most difficult part. Operationally, it may not be hard at all. Most CSX & NS northbound traffic takes the CSX Cincinnati Terminal subdivision anyway between Winton Place and Hamilton. Most southbound traffic uses the NS Newcastle District from Hamilton to NA Tower just north of Winton Place. The track from NA Tower to CP 248 used to be part of the Conrail Columbus line. North of CP 248 (railroad east) is now the west end of the NS Dayton District. So keep all CSX's through freights to Indianapolis (they aren't many, maybe 5-6 per day) on the NS New Castle District to Hamilton where they were revert to the old routing west of Hamilton by adding two new track connections. All of CSXs trains north to Dayton share the same right of way through downtown Dayton as NS's Dayton District. Double track each as separate railroads through downtown Dayton. The NS Dayton District is double tracked south of downtown Dayton all the way to Cincinnati. It might need some additional passing sidings and crossovers here and there, but it's a good railroad that handle a lot more traffic. Quote So if I'm reading this correctly, would the station be somewhere in this area then? It could be. I tend to envision Cincinnati as a potential operation as New Haven where the main station is just outside of downtown but there is a commuter station right in the heart of the central business district. Cincinnati's main station could be located in the area you've shown with an additional commuter station in the Riverfront Transit Center. As long as we're dreaming.... "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 7, 20222 yr 4 minutes ago, KJP said: It could be. I tend to envision Cincinnati as a potential operation as New Haven where the main station is just outside of downtown but there is a commuter station right in the heart of the central business district. Cincinnati's main station could be located in the area you've shown with an additional commuter station in the Riverfront Transit Center. As long as we're dreaming.... Splitting operations with Amtrak at CUT and commuter rail at Riverfront Transit Center makes sense to me. Combining everything into one station would be even better. It would be especially explosive if paired with the Bridge-Forward plan. 6 minutes ago, KJP said: Getting over institution issues, status quo, intransigence, etc. is probably the most difficult part. Operationally, it may not be hard at all. Most CSX & NS northbound traffic takes the CSX Cincinnati Terminal subdivision between Winton Place and Hamilton. Most southbound traffic uses the NS Newcastle District from Hamilton to NA Tower just north of Winton Place. The track from NA Tower to CP 248 used to be part of the Conrail Columbus line. North of CP 248 (railroad east) is now the west end of the NS Dayton District. So keep all CSX's through freights to Indianapolis (they aren't many, maybe 5-6 per day) on the NS New Castle District to Hamilton where they were revert to the old routing west of Hamilton by adding two new track connections. All of CSXs trains north to Dayton share the same right of way through downtown Dayton as NS's Dayton District. Double track each as separate railroads through downtown Dayton. The NS Dayton District is double tracked south of downtown Dayton all the way to Cincinnati. It might need some additional passing sidings and crossovers here and there, but it's a good railroad that handle a lot more traffic. I'm glad to hear what you're proposing isn't as crazy as I thought. Relatedly, I've been wondering if there's a way to move Queensgate Yard to somewhere else in the region, which would free a lot of land downtown and in Camp Washington. I identified two areas that might make sense: near Evendale and near the Butler County Regional Airport east of Hamilton. 14 minutes ago, KJP said: So keep all CSX's through freights to Indianapolis (they aren't many, maybe 5-6 per day) on the NS New Castle District to Hamilton ... All of CSXs trains north to Dayton share the same right of way through downtown Dayton as NS's Dayton District. Is there a good resource for finding data on train traffic and routing decisions? Or do you know this from being in the industry? I'd like to learn more about this stuff, but I'm unsure how to start.
November 8, 20222 yr 4 hours ago, carnevalem said: Is there a good resource for finding data on train traffic and routing decisions? Or do you know this from being in the industry? I'd like to learn more about this stuff, but I'm unsure how to start. @carnevalem Check out http://www.cincyrails.com/ as well as the forum at https://www.trainorders.com/ "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 17, 20232 yr A few cities around the country have started redeveloping their old main train stations in recent years. LA is renovating their and creating a mixed-use development around their Union Station. Denver has had a very successful redevelopment of theirs and there's a group in Salt Lake City pushing for a redevelopment of the Rio Grande Station. That got me thinking about Cincinnati Union Terminal and the potential for it to become the centerpiece of a new neighborhood. I'm calling this Terminal City and while I'm by no means a graphic artist, I made a layout of what I think this space could look like. The current CUT parking lots could be moved undergound similar to the Banks or Washington Park. A streetcar extension (red line) would be built and the station located within one of the mixed use developments (Blue boxes) that would be built on top of the new parking garages. a new park and green space will fill the approach to CUT. The current museums remain at CUT. The surrounding neighborhood could also be redeveloped with stores, restaurants, etc. If the Amtrak 3C plan happens and Cincinnati builds a good commuter rail system in the future, this would be a major transit hub.
February 17, 20232 yr This is exactly how this should be developed. 3C+D on its own won't be enough to initiate any of it, but if our council and mayor look at a streetcar extension, I think the prospect of 3C+D (plus lower cost compared to UC or Covington) may give this extension the advantage. IF that happens and we get an extension, you'll see development happen pretty quickly along Ezzard Charles and Linn St. , including the parking garages + mixed use at CUT.
February 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said: A few cities around the country have started redeveloping their old main train stations in recent years. LA is renovating their and creating a mixed-use development around their Union Station. Denver has had a very successful redevelopment of theirs and there's a group in Salt Lake City pushing for a redevelopment of the Rio Grande Station. That got me thinking about Cincinnati Union Terminal and the potential for it to become the centerpiece of a new neighborhood. I'm calling this Terminal City and while I'm by no means a graphic artist, I made a layout of what I think this space could look like. The current CUT parking lots could be moved undergound similar to the Banks or Washington Park. A streetcar extension (red line) would be built and the station located within one of the mixed use developments (Blue boxes) that would be built on top of the new parking garages. a new park and green space will fill the approach to CUT. The current museums remain at CUT. The surrounding neighborhood could also be redeveloped with stores, restaurants, etc. If the Amtrak 3C plan happens and Cincinnati builds a good commuter rail system in the future, this would be a major transit hub. This may be an unpopular opinion but I wouldn’t want to see those 2 inner blocks on your graph developed. I really like the dramatic approach you get when driving up to Union Terminal and if you put buildings in front of it/on the approach like that even short ones it will take away from it a lot. The other purple blocks on the graph would be fine tho. Edited February 17, 20232 yr by 646empire
February 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JaceTheAce41 said: A few cities around the country have started redeveloping their old main train stations in recent years. LA is renovating their and creating a mixed-use development around their Union Station. Denver has had a very successful redevelopment of theirs and there's a group in Salt Lake City pushing for a redevelopment of the Rio Grande Station. That got me thinking about Cincinnati Union Terminal and the potential for it to become the centerpiece of a new neighborhood. I'm calling this Terminal City and while I'm by no means a graphic artist, I made a layout of what I think this space could look like. The current CUT parking lots could be moved undergound similar to the Banks or Washington Park. A streetcar extension (red line) would be built and the station located within one of the mixed use developments (Blue boxes) that would be built on top of the new parking garages. a new park and green space will fill the approach to CUT. The current museums remain at CUT. The surrounding neighborhood could also be redeveloped with stores, restaurants, etc. If the Amtrak 3C plan happens and Cincinnati builds a good commuter rail system in the future, this would be a major transit hub. Seems like a good time to revive the 2007/2008 plans mentioned here: A vision for Union Terminal Plan revitalizes, expands facility By Joe Wessels Post contributor Operators of Union Terminal, home of the Cincinnati Museum Center, are working on a multimillion-dollar plan to renovate and revitalize the historic building, expand the museums inside and create a multi-use retail, housing and greenspace development in what is now the center's parking lots. Museum Center leaders - who lease the 74-year-old building from the city of Cincinnati - have commissioned a highly detailed report, compiled by Philadelphia-based Hillier Architecture and Cincinnati-based Glaserworks, that outlines the plan. In it, the proposed "district master site plan" calls several new and improved features for the approximately 130-acre campus. I don't have the full plan but this was one of the illustrations from then: https://architizer.com/projects/cincinnati-museum-center-at-union-terminal/ “All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
February 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, 646empire said: This may be an unpopular opinion but I wouldn’t want to see those 2 inner blocks on your graph developed. I really like the dramatic approach you get when driving up to Union Terminal and if you put buildings in front of it/on the approach like that even short ones it will take away from it a lot. I think low (2-3 stories) buildings that are carefully designed could actually enhance that approach. I agree that I wouldn't want to detract from the view of Union Terminal... but the status quo is a sea of surface parking! That's no way to frame a landmark! The entrance to Union Terminal (~530' above sea level) is about 30' above the elevation of the parking lots (~500' above sea level). So you could conceivably have 2-3 story buildings on the parking lots that wouldn't even rise to the level of the front door of Union Terminal. Edited February 17, 20232 yr by jwulsin
February 17, 20232 yr #bringbacklincolnpark Think about this redevelopment almost daily when I drive past this area lol. The large format blocks lend themselves well to the type of large-scale infill that developers need to build in order to make returns in mid-to-low rent area. Some of the smaller warehouses shouldn't be too hard to redevelop, but with industrial space being such a hot commodity at the moment, the larger buildings might be less inclined to move. They've got pretty much everything they want, ample surface parking, wide roads, easy connection to highways and the trainyards. The land basis for those sites is likely too high to make them attractive multifamily or mixed-use redevelopments. Other issue is I-75, of course. I posted an image recently that roughly dropped retail caps over the Ezz. Charles bridge, which would go a ways toward reconnecting Queensgate and the West End, but even if you figure out the 75 issue, you've got half the cities low income housing with no retail for about 3/4 mile before getting to Central Parkway. Then there's the marshalling yards separating this area from the Price Hills. I'm optimistic, though. Been really hoping this administration announces bold plans for either this area, the West End, or the Eggleston mess east of downtown. They ought to release a future land use plan or go about rezoning all this land to make it more attractive to developers, the city should really be figuring out as quick as they can how to open up more of the urban core for development lest living in the basin become reserved for the rich and those in income restricted units.
February 17, 20232 yr Just now, dnymck said: #bringbacklincolnpark Think about this redevelopment almost daily when I drive past this area lol. The large format blocks lend themselves well to the type of large-scale infill that developers need to build in order to make returns in mid-to-low rent area. Some of the smaller warehouses shouldn't be too hard to redevelop, but with industrial space being such a hot commodity at the moment, the larger buildings might be less inclined to move. They've got pretty much everything they want, ample surface parking, wide roads, easy connection to highways and the trainyards. The land basis for those sites is likely too high to make them attractive multifamily or mixed-use redevelopments. Other issue is I-75, of course. I posted an image recently that roughly dropped retail caps over the Ezz. Charles bridge, which would go a ways toward reconnecting Queensgate and the West End, but even if you figure out the 75 issue, you've got half the cities low income housing with no retail for about 3/4 mile before getting to Central Parkway. Then there's the marshalling yards separating this area from the Price Hills. I'm optimistic, though. Been really hoping this administration announces bold plans for either this area, the West End, or the Eggleston mess east of downtown. They ought to release a future land use plan or go about rezoning all this land to make it more attractive to developers, the city should really be figuring out as quick as they can how to open up more of the urban core for development lest living in the basin become reserved for the rich and those in income restricted units.
February 17, 20232 yr I think the deciding factor on whether or not to bring back the full park depends on how dramatically the noise and air pollution from 75 can be remediated. It's looking like a cap is not going to happen unless the county and city start pushing hard. I'm curious how effective sound walls would be but again, ODOT doesn't want to do those in Cincinnati. If they can't get either of those then the eastern edge needs to be tall buildings.
February 18, 20232 yr 18 hours ago, Dev said: I think the deciding factor on whether or not to bring back the full park depends on how dramatically the noise and air pollution from 75 can be remediated. It's looking like a cap is not going to happen unless the county and city start pushing hard. I'm curious how effective sound walls would be but again, ODOT doesn't want to do those in Cincinnati. If they can't get either of those then the eastern edge needs to be tall buildings. That's a good point. You could even keep it civic minded and build two art deco temples on either side to house facilities or a stage.
April 21, 20232 yr Ugh. Luckily, the sloped approach + fountain and light pylons ought to quickly end any impulse to visit a similar blasphemy upon our Union Terminal:
June 11, 20232 yr With the possibility of daily service on the Cardinal in the future I wonder if the east and westbound trains would meet in Cincinnati requiring any modifications to CUT to accommodate two trains simultaneously since the existing CSX mainline track only has space for a single train for boarding. I believe the City had looked at a new boarding track under the concourse a few years ago but not sure that anything came of it.
June 11, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, GHOST TRACKS said: With the possibility of daily service on the Cardinal in the future I wonder if the east and westbound trains would meet in Cincinnati requiring any modifications to CUT to accommodate two trains simultaneously since the existing CSX mainline track only has space for a single train for boarding. I believe the City had looked at a new boarding track under the concourse a few years ago but not sure that anything came of it. Yes they can add a second platform without much difficulty. The current side platform would be made into an island platform with either an eastward extension to the existing bypass track or the laying of a new track in the space next to the bypass track. If you have spent any time in the Cincinnati Historical Society Library, you know that the bypass track gets quite a bit of use. The black rectangles at center are the roof sections of the passenger ramp that leads down to the existing platform.
Create an account or sign in to comment