But you wouldn't be able to wrap a Cincinnati streetcar without covering the windows because the windows are huge.  The Seattle streetcar has pretty small and distinct windows by comparison. 

I think you just admitted wrapping streetcars doesn't equal less ridership/worse service.  The above streetcar is entirely wrapped showing a major advertisement and yet the windows aren't covered.  Everyone wins.

 

I don't think anyone who said "wrap a streetcar" said it had to cover the windows.  Clearly City University is paying for that ad.  That is ad revenue.  The idea that it's only a wrapped Streetcar if it blocks the windows is a bit strange... Yes, the #1 bus does that, and actually dozens of the Toronto Streetcars do (I think people still use them even though they're wrapped) but that doesn't mean that's the ONLY way to make revenue by wrapping a streetcar.

 

The photo above shows how a streetcar can be wrapped, gaining a decent amount of revenue, and yet people can still see.

 

 

Ehhhh I'm pretty sure a full wrapping, in their conversation, meant meshing the windows. I mean, it's their conversation. So, like, you can't exactly tell them what they are and aren't admitting...  If it means wrapping the windows, that's one conversation, and if it doesn't, like in your example, then that's another conversation. It's like...you're in your own conversation.

 

Or am I missing something?

So ad wraps discourage ridership? First I've ever heard of it. Safety has never even crossed my mind. Passersby outside the transit vehicle are going to call the police but the driver is not? I suspect the likelihood is the other way around. How many passersby are actually looking into a transit vehicle or can even get a good look into one? The driver has a panic button and can get the transit police there in less time than a passerby who happens to be looking into a streetcar, can get a good look at what's happening in a streetcar and can summon the city police to a streetcar in less time than the streetcar driver? Sorry, not buying it.

 

Some people actually are big fans of ad wraps of which there are many kinds.  ...

 

http://www.advertisingvehicles.com/

http://transitadvertisinginc.com/adtypes.html

 

 

 

 

That is a Seattle light rail train, not a streetcar.  They have completely different designs. 

 

I think wraps and exterior advertising are a bad, bad, bad idea.  There can be no doubt that the low-class nature of buses and their bench ads hurt the image of riding the bus.  When a bus bench says "DIVORCE: $350" or "BED BUG-B-GONE" it's no good. 

That is a Seattle light rail train, not a streetcar.  They have completely different designs. 

 

I think wraps and exterior advertising are a bad, bad, bad idea.  There can be no doubt that the low-class nature of buses and their bench ads hurt the image of riding the bus.  When a bus bench says "DIVORCE: $350" or "BED BUG-B-GONE" it's no good.

 

I'm with you.  However, once the streetcar is built out to the Zoo, if it, the Reds/Bengals, Findlay Market, or anything else along the route advertised and gave the streetcar additional "branding," then I have no problems.

I agree that if there is any advertising, it should be for other city (although not necessarily city-owned) assets.  Also, get an outside designer in to reinterpret things, and don't just rehash the bridge/fountain/skyline ala the World Choir Games poster. 

 

Step back for a second and consider how much NASCAR has suffered due to the cars and drivers being saturated with corporate logos.  Imagine instead a sport where there had been decades of creative car paint schemes and driver suits & helmets. 

here's what portland does- http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/node/69

I've seen municipal train companies in different cities advertise on cabs before, but it's always short-lived, say an ad for chewing gum may be on a certain line for a few days and then back to the car's color scheme.  I don't think wrapping it is a good idea because Cincinnati is in need of visual exposure and its romance needs to be capitalized upon.  There are ways of advertising on cabs without covering windows.

The market should ultimately drive decisions regarding advertising, not some arbitrary regulations created by a few bureaucrats at SORTA.

All this chatter about ads on streetcars. Aren't we getting just a little ahead of ourselves? Let's worry about getting the streetcar up and running---COAST is still out there, folks---and then concern ourselves with the details. My .02 cents.

Dumbest conversation ever concerning the streetcar IMHO.  Let's WRAP it up and move on to other things....

All this chatter about ads on streetcars. Aren't we getting just a little ahead of ourselves? Let's worry about getting the streetcar up and running---COAST is still out there, folks---and then concern ourselves with the details. My .02 cents.

 

Well said! The COAST is not clear!

Dumbest puns ever concerning the streetcar IMHO. ;)

Dumbest conversation ever concerning the streetcar IMHO.  Let's WRAP it up and move on to other things....

 

Would you like to suggest a topic of discussion, or are you just chastising?

City picks OTR as site for streetcar maintenance

Written by Barry M. Horstman

...

The property – an abandoned building and lot two blocks north of Findlay Market on Henry Street between Elm and Race streets – is situated at what will be the northernmost point on the $110 million streetcar’s initial route, stretching from Downtown’s central riverfront to Over-the-Rhine.

...

On Monday afternoon, the only sign of commerce on the quiet block was an apparent prostitute trying to flag down passing drivers.

...

If the two sides cannot agree on a price, the city would pursue the property through an eminent domain proceeding, City Manager Milton Dohoney Jr. told City Council in an eight-page report.

...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120416/NEWS/304160110/City-picks-OTR-site-streetcar-maintenance

On Monday afternoon, the only sign of commerce on the quiet block was an apparent prostitute trying to flag down passing drivers.

 

Horstman is such an A-hole, he couldn't bring himself to write a wholely positive article and had to slip in this little dig!

 

 

If the two sides cannot agree on a price, the city would pursue the property through an eminent domain proceeding.

 

Just as a point of reference, eminent domain proceedings can take up to a year. This is a project schedule constraint.

I didn't see it as a dig. More of a quite vivid description of the abandonment and lack of investment in that area.

I suspect there is a real story here -- not that any reporter in this city is likely to go after it, times being what they are. What, exactly, is the condition of the utilities under our streets? I hear stories of 100 year-old wood water mains, 100 year-old brick sewers and then see news reports of electric and gas manholes exploding almost in front of Duke Energy's headquarters. It has to make you wonder.

 

Utilities are out of sight and out of mind, until there is a problem.

 

I've heard the stories of wood water mains, but I have yet to come across one. I think that is a myth. We do have some wood sewers. For that matter, the Roebling Bridge piers are built on wooden piles. Many of the 100-year old brick sewers are in excellent condition. We have some steel gas mains, and those have a reputation for accidents. I have to wonder if Duke really wants 8 feet of clearance because they are worried more about steel gas mains exploding than worker safety.

 

Every city in American has problems with aging infrastructure. What's unique about Cincinnati is that so much of it is so old, because Cincinnati itself is so old. You wouln't expect a building to last a century without any rehabilitation or maintenance. How are the utilities any different? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

 

For comparison, Cincinnati was founded in 1788. In 1850, Cincinnati had a population of 100,000.

Portland, Oregon was founded in 1843. In 1850, Portland had a population of about 800.

Although Cincinnati and Portland are about the same size today, have about the same density, etc., it stands to reason that the utilities in Cincinnati are much older.

On Monday afternoon, the only sign of commerce on the quiet block was an apparent prostitute trying to flag down passing drivers.

 

Horstman is such an A-hole, he couldn't bring himself to write a wholely positive article and had to slip in this little dig!

 

 

 

I have to admit -- I laughed. But mostly because it's so par for the course from this guy and is starting to come off as desperate.

"Hit Man Horstman"

 

As Capell calls him hahaha.

 

He's so angry about the project

 

 

The property – an abandoned building and lot two blocks north of Findlay Market on Henry Street between Elm and Race streets – is situated at what will be the northernmost point on the $110 million streetcar’s initial route, stretching from Downtown’s central riverfront to Over-the-Rhine.

 

Another slip of the tongue: the building is vacant, not abandoned. Orten has sunk quite a bit of money into it (at least the west portion of the building) trying to get tenants.

The property – an abandoned building and lot two blocks north of Findlay Market on Henry Street between Elm and Race streets – is situated at what will be the northernmost point on the $110 million streetcar’s initial route, stretching from Downtown’s central riverfront to Over-the-Rhine.

 

Another slip of the tongue: the building is vacant, not abandoned. Orten has sunk quite a bit of money into it (at least the west portion of the building) trying to get tenants.

 

Cut Horstman some slack.  Do you realize how hard it is to be a biased journalist with an agenda these days with internet fact checkers all around?

On Monday afternoon, the only sign of commerce on the quiet block was an apparent prostitute trying to flag down passing drivers.

 

Horstman is such an A-hole, he couldn't bring himself to write a wholely positive article and had to slip in this little dig!

 

 

 

I actually think it was good that he pointed that out. It backs up the point that the streetcar will bring development to this area.

 

My only concern with it is whether or not Horstman really went and saw that. The dude did claim he could walk faster than any human being alive.

 

Edit: Someone just pointed it out to me that he used the word "apparent." I forgot about that, he was assuming the girl on the corner was a prostitute. I've seen them on McMicken before and had one approach me while waiting to photograph one of the breweries - one of the most awkward experiences of my life. Horstman didn't really know what she was doing. So yeah - he's an ass.

 

As an aside, did anyone see the comment from recently retired Enquirer photographer Michael Keating? Sums up how I bet most of his former coworkers feel about the city/project. That being said, while Horstman is a questionable journalist - Keating is an outstanding photographer.

As an aside, did anyone see the comment from recently retired Enquirer photographer Michael Keating? Sums up how I bet most of his former coworkers feel about the city/project. That being said, while Horstman is a questionable journalist - Keating is an outstanding photographer.

 

So what did he say?

On Monday afternoon, the only sign of commerce on the quiet block was an apparent prostitute trying to flag down passing drivers.

 

Horstman is such an A-hole, he couldn't bring himself to write a wholely positive article and had to slip in this little dig!

 

 

John Schneider-  I've heard you say Barry is a stand up guy- But I will never believe it.  He is pathetic.  Unless one literally knows she was a prostitute (which by the way, that is a horrible corner for a prostitute since there is NO traffic) she was probably some poor homeless lady with mental illness.  Way to stereo type Barry!

Anybody have the exact address of the building the city wants for the maintenance depot?

I used to walk down Henry every day. It is a hotbed of hookerism. It actually IS a good place to work. The cops certainly ignore it.

The building owner wanting more money is the biggest problem I see in revitalizing OTR - worthless absentee slumlords waiting to collect big on what is, apparently, trash to them.

Dumbest conversation ever concerning the streetcar IMHO.  Let's WRAP it up and move on to other things....

 

Would you like to suggest a topic of discussion, or are you just chastising?

Maybe this fellow has never ridden one of the Queen City Metro buses and experienced the entrapment that wraps often inflict upon the riders.  Thus, "whether to wrap"or "how to wrap" one of the new streetcars will remain similar vital concerns.

Anybody have the exact address of the building the city wants for the maintenance depot?

 

I believe the building(s) in question are south of Henry Street. They match the article's description of "four connected buildings, the easternmost of which would be acquired and demolished to construct a maintenance and operations facility for the overnight storage and servicing of the streetcars."

 

google aerial map: http://g.co/maps/w3xyc

 

Some background of these buildings via Digging Cincinnati History

(http://www.facebook.com/diggingcincinnatihistory / http://diggingcincinnati.blogspot.com/):

 

"FYI - if this is on the south side of Henry Street, the building in this block that borders Elm Street is the former Christian Moerlein Barrel House and the lone building on Race Street is a former stable and undertakers dating from 1874."

 

streetview of race st. building: http://g.co/maps/3crgv

 

 

UPDATE- a quick search on hamiltoncountryauditor.org looks likes these are the parcels in question:

 

1915 and 1917 race street:

sale date: 11/21/08 for $85000

 

 

1910 and 1913 ELM ST

sale date:10/8/08 for $500,000

 

1910 Elm:

 

1913 Elm is a parking lot:

 

All of the above are owned by:

NINETEEN TEN ELM STREET LLC

4040 MACARTHUR BLVD

#315 C/O ORTON DEV

NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 USA

 

here is a Orton Development in Newport Beach: http://www.ortondevelopment.com/about.htm

If the two sides cannot agree on a price, the city would pursue the property through an eminent domain proceeding.

 

Just as a point of reference, eminent domain proceedings can take up to a year. This is a project schedule constraint.

 

I'm sure they'd like to have the maintenance/car barn facility all ready to go ASAP, but that is not to say they couldn't find a temporary solution. The potential for a project delay with everything in place except for this facility seems incredibly remote to me.

 

Operations are well over a year away, anyway, so it's encouraging that they're working on acquiring the space already. There's time.

 

I am also familiar with a few cases of eminent domain, albeit not in Ohio, and it is very possible for the land to be taken and used prior to most of the court proceedings. The question is generally "how much should be paid for the property?", which can be figured out in retrospect.

Eminent domain sucks and is bs in this situation.  I really hope it doesn't come to that and if it does, as much as I will love having a streetcar, I hope the city loses.

The building owner wanting more money is the biggest problem I see in revitalizing OTR - worthless absentee slumlords waiting to collect big on what is, apparently, trash to them.

 

Orten is not a absentee slumlord.  They have sunk over a million dollars into the building, including new electrical service through, new roofing throughout, reopening all the old skylights on the Moerlein Bottling Building, new skylights throughout the rest of the building, and repairing the fire damage to the Moerlein Barrel House.

 

Frankly, $1.4 million is a low ball offer, based on their purchase prices and investment over the past couple of years (assuming they are talking about the whole complex and not just the Race Street building and lot).  This is actually one of the biggest problems with OTR, in that direct investment in a building does not translate to an equal property value.

 

Orten has been in discussions with the city for a while.  They even developed their own proposal to the city last year utilizing the non-contributing Race Street building and parking lot as the streetcar barn.

Eminent domain sucks and is bs in this situation.  I really hope it doesn't come to that and if it does, as much as I will love having a streetcar, I hope the city loses.

 

I'm usually against eminent domain, but the property in question is vacant, has been for awhile, and the owner has no plans to change that.  Plus, the tax info on the property lists the owner has being in California.  I think this is the type of situation eminent domain was made for.

Auditor values it as $500,000. City's independent audit put it at $1.4 million. They bought it 5 years ago for jus about $500,000. Can anyone tell me anywhere in the country where an empty warehouse that got new skylights & replaced decades old electrical has suddenly more than doubled in value during the recession??

Seems like the square footage of all 4 parcels is way larger than what would be required for a simple maintenance building.

Eminent domain sucks and is bs in this situation.  I really hope it doesn't come to that and if it does, as much as I will love having a streetcar, I hope the city loses.

It sucks when it is used for private gain. I know someone who lost two parcels for an arena project, one which had a cool historic building which was subsequently demolished, the lot given to a private company in the parking lot business either for nothing or a song. What was once a historic building is now a pay parking lot. The other parcel just sits vacant, a small portion of it was paved over for street widening. That is a poor use of eminent domain.

 

Using eminent domain for a public transportation facility in a dense urban environment is appropriate use of eminent domain.

 

Still, I hope an agreement is reached.

Seems like the square footage of all 4 parcels is way larger than what would be required for a simple maintenance building.

 

City is going after two of the four parcels

If the two sides cannot agree on a price, the city would pursue the property through an eminent domain proceeding.

 

Just as a point of reference, eminent domain proceedings can take up to a year. This is a project schedule constraint.

 

On transportation projects, the city can do a "quick take" -- take control of the land and buildings and have a court to decide the compensation to the property owner later. This won't hold up the project.

I'm usually against eminent domain, but the property in question is vacant, has been for awhile, and the owner has no plans to change that.  Plus, the tax info on the property lists the owner has being in California.  I think this is the type of situation eminent domain was made for.

 

But from my understanding the building isn't dilapidated, so if it is vacant, that is the property owners choice. If it was in bad condition I could see a case being made.  Also, there isn't anything wrong with someone from California owning property in Ohio.

 

It sucks when it is used for private gain. I know someone who lost two parcels for an arena project, one which had a cool historic building which was subsequently demolished, the lot given to a private company in the parking lot business either for nothing or a song. What was once a historic building is now a pay parking lot. The other parcel just sits vacant, a small portion of it was paved over for street widening. That is a poor use of eminent domain.

 

Using eminent domain for a public transportation facility in a dense urban environment is appropriate use of eminent domain.

 

Still, I hope an agreement is reached.

 

Are you telling me there are no other choices to house this facility?  So a select group of people essentially made the decision that they can take this property away from someone because they'd rather have a maintenance facility there.  I'm sorry, I know there may be a few good uses for eminent domain, but IMO it needs to be a last result and all options should be explored first before people can take property away from someone else.  Was that the case here?

Just to put things in perspective, the Brent Spence Bridge is going to result in 50-100+ properties being taken by eminent domain (depending on the alternative selected)

Just to put things in perspective, the Brent Spence Bridge is going to result in 50-100+ properties being taken by eminent domain (depending on the alternative selected)

 

Thanks for the perspective. Please keep providing more. The ability to put things in context seems to be an attribute missing in many streetcar opponents.

^^ For some reason, they picked this spot. I'm sure they looked at many alternatives. I doubt they're picking the spot just for the fun of experiencing negotiation and/or litigation.

 

On the bright side, it seems with the CAF renderings released, the Enquirer is no longer running pictures of 100+-year-old streetcars. Could help significantly in changing people's perspectives of the project.

The ability to put things in context seems to be an attribute missing in many streetcar opponents.

 

And some proponents, unfortunately.

I'm usually against eminent domain, but the property in question is vacant, has been for awhile, and the owner has no plans to change that.  Plus, the tax info on the property lists the owner has being in California.  I think this is the type of situation eminent domain was made for.

 

But from my understanding the building isn't dilapidated, so if it is vacant, that is the property owners choice. If it was in bad condition I could see a case being made.  Also, there isn't anything wrong with someone from California owning property in Ohio.

 

It sucks when it is used for private gain. I know someone who lost two parcels for an arena project, one which had a cool historic building which was subsequently demolished, the lot given to a private company in the parking lot business either for nothing or a song. What was once a historic building is now a pay parking lot. The other parcel just sits vacant, a small portion of it was paved over for street widening. That is a poor use of eminent domain.

 

Using eminent domain for a public transportation facility in a dense urban environment is appropriate use of eminent domain.

 

Still, I hope an agreement is reached.

 

Are you telling me there are no other choices to house this facility?  So a select group of people essentially made the decision that they can take this property away from someone because they'd rather have a maintenance facility there.  I'm sorry, I know there may be a few good uses for eminent domain, but IMO it needs to be a last result and all options should be explored first before people can take property away from someone else.  Was that the case here?

 

They don't just "take" the property from someone.  The property owner will be compensated.  The constitution does not give the people an unlimited right to have property and hold it forever even if that property is needed for a public use--it gives them the right to be fairly compensated for the property. 

 

The alternative would be simply unworkable.  Imagine a highway that zig-zags like a piece of spaghetti instead of going reasonably straight, because some of the property owners didn't want to sell out, and there were "other options" before the last resort of ED--such as creating a zig zag highway....

Moreover, this entire discussion may well be academic.  It sounds like they are still negotiating.  Hopefully they can agree on a price. 

The power of eminent domain is not limited to governments.  Railroads were granted the power of eminent domain in the 19th century by state governments in order to promote their construction.  We do not have many new rail lines built anymore, which is why everyone has forgotten about it. 

 

Unfortunately the power of eminent domain has been abused by governments in recent years, most notably Norwood declaring a section of the city "blighted" in order to clear it for a shopping center.  This situation was a real mess because the area cleared borders the City of Cincinnati, and has decreased residential property value directly across Edwards Rd. by introducing an incredible amount of traffic and commotion to a once typical neighborhood. 

 

 

I am truly baffled by the comments here that are critical or suspicious of the city's proceedings on the maintenance facility. Not only has the general location been in the plan for years now, it's not a lot of property, it's not beautiful nor a priceless historic treasure, and the city is totally within its right to take it by eminent domain if needed.

 

This is totally a non-issue. I think some of you are just bored.

I'm more concerned that they are going to demolish the nice facades and put up something hideous. 

Just to put things in perspective, the Brent Spence Bridge is going to result in 50-100+ properties being taken by eminent domain (depending on the alternative selected)

 

And I don't necessarily agree with that either so unfortunately it doesn't provide prospective.  One is just a lesser evil (hyperbole used there).

 

Thanks for the perspective. Please keep providing more. The ability to put things in context seems to be an attribute missing in many streetcar opponents.

 

I'm not an opponent, I'm a strong proponent who just happens to dislike eminent domain.

 

They don't just "take" the property from someone.  The property owner will be compensated.  The constitution does not give the people an unlimited right to have property and hold it forever even if that property is needed for a public use--it gives them the right to be fairly compensated for the property. 

 

The alternative would be simply unworkable.  Imagine a highway that zig-zags like a piece of spaghetti instead of going reasonably straight, because some of the property owners didn't want to sell out, and there were "other options" before the last resort of ED--such as creating a zig zag highway....

 

They are taking it if the owner doesn't want to get rid of it.  Just because they aren't compensated doesn't mean it isn't taken from them.  If I walk up to a kid and take their toy but throw some money at them I think people would still consider it stealing.

 

As to your second paragraph, like I said, I know there are times when eminent domain is the only option.  But a zig zag highway reference doesn't really apply here.  I don't know the circumstances here so maybe someone can fill me in: what other options were explored and what made them choose this location?  Were there other locations but the city didn't like the price tag,or didn't like the location as well as this location?  Or was this the only legitimate option?

Were there other locations but the city didn't like the price tag,or didn't like the location as well as this location?  Or was this the only legitimate option?

 

I would imagine that the city is left with very few options for this type of facility. They want a space big enough to house all of the streetcars, and possibly a spot that will house additional streetcars once the line is extended uptown and a couple of cars are added. If the city just gets enough space to store and maintain 5 streetcars, we are going to have to go through the whole process again for a second facility when the system is expanded.

 

Also, the facility has to be very close to, if not, on the current route. Any deviation would mean more tracks are laid and it would increase the cost.

 

On top of all of that, they are trying to do this in the middle of Downtown and in a historic neighborhood. Any demolitions within OTR will be fought by preservationists and neighborhood activists. They definitely don't want to pick that fight too. I bet this is the best location for the route, but if anyone has any particulars that would be nice to know.