Share on Facebook     Email This     Tweet This      

72 Comments
Topics: Architecture and Design, Public Policy, Transportation
Cities: Cincinnati

72 Responses to “Randy Simes: Cincinnati’s Dramatic, Multi-Billion Dollar Riverfront Revitalization Nearly Complete”

1. BeyondDC says:

   July 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm

   Nice work. For the next step, they ought to cap a few blocks of the highway and build over it. If Columbus can do it, so can Cincinnati.
2. visualingual says:

   July 13, 2010 at 1:26 pm

   Great writeup, Randy. Thanks for pulling all these pieces together into one coherent timeline.
3. Randy A. Simes says:

   July 13, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   BeyondDC:

   Yes, that would be fantastic and is actually the plan. City leaders decided to invest in supports that could one day carry the load of caps over that stretch of interstate. At this point it is just a matter of securing the funds to build them. At some point though, the highway will be capped.
4. Davis says:

   July 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm

   I’m skeptical of just how valuable this “transformation” will be. Two sports stadiums and a museum seem to be the main attraction. It’s good to see residential, but 300 units isn’t going to create a neighborhood. The Interstate is still an enormous barrier to the riverfront really being active as anything other than a small office park or event destination. It’s not that it’s awful. It’s better than what was there before, but seems to be a missed opportunity.
5. Joel says:

   July 13, 2010 at 2:13 pm

   The design for Cincinnati Riverfront Park seems similar remind me of Millennium Park in Chicago. A more or less passive park built over a concrete foundation. The drawings look beautiful.
6. Randy A. Simes says:

   July 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm

   Davis:

   The 300 residential units mentioned are only the units included in the first phase of development. Once complete, The Banks will house thousands of new residents.

   Joel:

   Good eye, Cincinnati Park officials actually did a lot of study of Millennium Park in Chicago when coming up with a plan for the Cincinnati Riverfront Park. The CRP will be an absolute gem once complete.
7. John Morris says:

   July 13, 2010 at 4:56 pm

   Three billion with a B. Color me unimpressed. I suppose, for the time period some of this was concieved in when Ball parks were thought to be the only reason cities existed in the first place.

   My guess is it will be very hard to sustain a goodmixed use neighborhood with the problems, peak parking and peak load issues these stadiums will cause. Of corse it may happen anyway but if it does it’s likely in spite of not because of these stadiums.

   Tell us more about OTR and less about this junk.
8. John Morris says:

   July 13, 2010 at 5:04 pm

   I guess the big question is what other reasonable steps could have been taken to lower the flood risk while making the area attractive.

   Good luck getting rid of the highway as long as the stadiums are there–especially the Football stadium. Even if Cincinnati developed a great inner city transit system, it would still be a problem cause these crowds come from a wide area.
9. John Morris says:

   July 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm

   Please, comparing anything to that 1980 picture makes it look good.

   What if the 3 billion had been spent on a transit system?
10. Loki says:

    July 13, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    To go on a small tangent:

    I’m a relative newcomer to the Queen City. My wife and I moved here a little over a year ago. In my time here Randy’s work has been invaluable to me in getting to know my new home. Always informed and passionate, always great stuff.

    Loki, CincyVoices Team Leader
11. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    I think a huge problem here is that people always want to see instant “tangible results” and instant development and attractions.

    I know not everything was built at once and much of this is still undone but Ilooks like a long term plan was put in place a long time agowhich basically revolves around the standard city fix-sports stadiums.

    Wouldn’t it likely have been wiser to set in motion a plan to control the flood risk, simplify and eliminate much of the highway interchanges and then just leave the area for smaller scale things like a sculpture park, perhaps little league ball fields and the like.

    Then over time, gradualy changing over the area as demand for residential,retail and other development emerges.

    I know NYC is very different but this is the kind of thing that happened with Battery Park City. Areas were clearly markeded off for development as demand emerged. In the end this was good for everyone. The people got the use of park spaces and ball fields, and the final construction actually fit actual demand. For instance, the early plans greatly underestimated the number of families and several schools were built.

    Instead, now Cincinnati is frozen into a very particular box with a need to support the parking footprint of things the area might never have needed.
12. Alon Levy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Randy: I’ll join John and Davis’s chorus, and say that stadiums don’t equal development. Most evidence about it says they are actually a net financial drain on the city, when you include lost revenue from other retail that could be in the same footprint. The pictures you show of downtown Cincinnati today are uninviting; they show unwalkable streets flanked by urban renewal projects.

    John: well, the answer to your question greatly depends on the local planners’ competence. At Portland costs, $3 billion would get 150,000 weekday rail riders, creating the same ridership as Portland. At Calgary costs, it would get more than a million rail riders, placing Cincinnati first in the nation in per-capita rail ridership, a little about New York.
13. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    I think I’ve read about lots of problems with Stadium bonds in Cincinnati which will likely be a big reason not to move into the area or start a business there.

    I’m not sure what could have been done.Likely, the mentality at work 20 years ago wouldn’t have allowed much other than waterfront stadiums.

    I think in many cases, doing very little is the best plan. You don’t have to leap to an exact “solution”, just a general idea. In this case–A waterfront park of some kind; a walkable connections to the downtown and some combination of office, residential and retail.

    It’s not the same case, but here in Pittsburgh we have a nearby community called Homestead. If you know baseball, you know this was the home of the Negro league’s Grays, and you also might know it once had one of the world’s biggest steel mills along the waterfront. Above the town is a wonderfull library and concert hall built by Carnegie.

    Then one day, the mill closed along with most in the Mon Valley and people were desperate for development. Prince Charles visited not long after and pointed out the great location on the river and said something about having flower shows or some kind of conventions there. He almost had a steel beam thrown at him.

    So, when about 10 yaers later when a developer came with plans for a huge standard waterfront mall and big box retail complex, on the site people were very happy.

    Now, I think more of them see the full opportunity that was lost, since the town was actually very close to some of the wealthiest parts of Pittsburgh, had some remains of a nice retail street, a some good housing (not all) and historic treasures like the Carnegie Library and was right along a nice river. (Also close to the Classic, Kennywood Amusement Park.

    If just a bit more time had passed, a mixed use waterfront development more like Pittsburgh’s South Side Works would have been builtor perhaps something even better.
14. The Urbanophile says:

    July 13, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Everybody knows stadiums are a bad investment. But you know what? I can’t name a city that didn’t go build them. Given that this is a mistake everyone made, why not judge Cincinnati on how they executed in comparison to others?
15. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    A few things have been left out, the stuff that is underground or out of sight, and the things Mr. Morris needs to remember in his fanciful wish for small playing fields and un-sponsored development.

    First, the riverfront is a floodplain. You can’t build much in a floodplain….railroad tracks, warehouses that could be flooded and replaced, boat landings.

    The entire concept of the riverfront redevelopment was to accommodate floods, anticipate them, and build anyway. And that requires large scale public infrastructure that you don’t see, and that private developers would never pay for.

    Fort Washington Way wasn’t just rebuilt to make it less obtrusive, it was built below the floodplain, behind a new floodwall to protect downtown and a new city sewer main to serve the future. That was not “riverfront” redevelopment; that was redevelopment that served the entire city.

    Beneath a new Second St — elevated above the floodplain — is a new Intermodal Transportation Center that was build as a floodable hub to whatever future use the City might need — light rail, expanded bus services, subways, whatever. Again, an investment in floodplain management to serve the entire city, not just the riverfront.

    The rest of the floodplain, then, is what? Two large flood-tolerant stadiums….about the only kind of building you can put on the ground and expect to survive a flood. Also, a park, which again can flood without being destroyed. Finally, about 20 acres of two-story floodable parking garages to provide a platform elevated above the floodplain to facilitate conventional mixed-use urban development: commercial, residential, office, entertainment.

    To properly understand the riverfront redevelopment you have to appreciate that it’s a floodplain and, one, floods have to be anticipated and managed and, two, flood tolerant structures like stadiums, parks and parking garages provide the framework for conventional non-floodable development.

    Finally, no one should talk about the riverfront without acknowledging the huge amount of underground infrastructure — the floodwall, the sewers, the Intermodal Transportation Center — that are out of sight but should not be out of mind.
16. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    I did mention that this was a flood plain and asked what else might have been done about that. As has been said here, stadiums are just not development. When we use that term, normally one is talking about a positive tax impact not a negative one.

    I mean here, one has the massive cost of this flood control measure which you say is an investment in the entire city Which it likely is. Instead of stopping at that, and perhaps using the argument that some substantial public money was required, one then leaps to the stadiums.

    Couldn’t one have raised the entire area in some way, and perhaps included a big amount of parking that might have been usefull for developers and then just stopped and allowed private mixed use development? Would this have cost three billion? I can see perhaps, one.

    I don’t understand, the leap to piling on another big cash flow negative expense that causes all these classic anti urban problems. As I said, good luck getting rid of the highway now, so you then have to ad in costs for mitigating it’s damage.

    @Urbanophile

    Yes, everybody has done it and lot’s have done the double stadium by the river thing. However this doesn’t make it right. Call, me in ten years if and when the thousands of predicted residents show up which they may.

    Also, as you know Cincinnati, like Pittsburgh is a city with a very limiting geography and it just doesn’t need to waste opportunities like this.
17. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Anyway Mike, thanks for putting the flood issue in a better spotlight. It does pretty much negate the possibility of normal organic investment without a big investment.

    The comment about “flood proof stadiums”, sounds off.I mean, if this is typical, the teams want and require prime facilities in great condition. Would they really not suffer hugely in a flood? Who would pay for that?
18. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Yes, you mentioned it was a floodplain, but you failed to mention what an amazing job has been done to engineer that floodplain in ways that allow development and STILL retain a natural waterfront. Compare that the KY with their simple (and ugly) levees.

    Stadiums are a natural “leap” because they are inherently flood tolerant. They can take a large footprint of what otherwise would be very difficult/expensive land to develop. (The alternative is to build stadiums out in the suburbs by airports or level large swatches of city land to build them in city limits as, say, the Yankees did with their $1.5 billion Yankee stadium, more than twice the cost of both the Reds and the Bengals stadiums combined).

    You asked could the entire are been raised? IT WAS.
    The basic design of the riverfront –

    n two flood tolerant stadiums
    n a large floodable park
    n an elevated Second Street (below it a transportation center, also floodable)
    n six city blocks – about twenty acres – safely elevated over two-story floodable parking garages.

    True, those six block could have been left empty waiting private development, I suppose, but if we are going to build ALL that infrastructure it seems reasonable to build the neighborhood, too, and start attracting tenants. Landlords make money, too; they cover their expenses. A hodge-podge of private development on top of the parking garages might have been OK, too, I don’t disagree. But I think “The Banks” will make sense, too.

    Why do you keep talking about “getting rid of the highway”? You mean FWW? Why would anyone get rid of it? Have you seen before (1960s) and after (now) pictures. It is so much better now there is no comparison. I hope it is capped and turned into a tunnel and the “landscape” of the riverfront thereby extends over FWW and into the City. (The piles to support such caps have already been driven and are in place – as in the ventilation system FWW would require if capped, both yet another example of forward thinking where an investment in underground infrastructure has already been made.)
19. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    I don’t know all the details of who would pay for flood damage, but I doubt it would be the teams. The stadiums are owned by the county. Here, from 1996.

    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1997/03/05/05downtown_600×380.jpg

    Now THAT’s a floodplain.

    The idea that we would spend $2-3 billion trying to develop anything that could tolerate THAT is pretty mind boggling.

    And, then the economy crashes? And still the project is NOT derailed? Rather, it falls 5 years behind schedule?

    I know I sound like a cheerleader but you gotta be impressed this is even happening at all.
20. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    Yes John good to talk about this. I find the “out of sight out of mind” aspects to this project especially interesting. Developing a floodplain, anticipating future transportation needs, upgrading sewers, trying to reconect the city to the river….a lot of that stuff gets lost in the debate about “the stadiums.”

    I lived in San Francisco for many years and they had “The Embarcadero Freeway” between The City and the The Bay. It was an elevated monstrosity not too different than the old FWW, but worse (much taller).

    In 1989 the Loma Prieta earthquake knocked it down, leaving it damaged beyond repair. It was removed. People in The City woke up and said “Wow, we can see the Bay!! This is great. Let’s NOT rebuild it.” And they didn’t. The Embarcadero Freeway is now gone, permanently.

    Cincinnati had a BETTER idea. They BURIED their freeway, behind a new floodwall, below the floodplain, and now it is out of site. It carries more traffic than before, uses less land, and takes up a MUCH smaller visual footprint. We did a much better job than SF (we did a better job than Boston with their “Big Dig” project that did the same thing — bury a large freeway — but theirs was a bigger project with a MUCH bigger price tag). We should be proud of what we’ve done with FWW.
21. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Right, so you are on the hook again for stadium repairs if there’s a flood.

    What exactly is wrong with having stadiums in the suburbs or further from town.It’s pure logic since they just hog land and do cause lots of peak load problems that don’t exactly enhance the lives of nearby residents. Some argument could be made for a Baseball Stadium since it’s smaller and they play more games.

    Yankee Stadium is in NYC and costs there are always off the charts and King George was first class looter. Even so few things in the entire city have been of as little value to their immediate area. Might as well be a garbage dump. At least it is not hogging prime Manhattan real estate.

    It’s amazing that Manhattan can get by with West Street and you need a highway. The stadiums fix that in stone.
22. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    The point about the stadium in a floodplain is that it makes it POSSIBLE to develop the floodplain, or at least make that part of a compelling mix: stadiums, parking garages, parks, practice fields (all of which are floodable).

    The alternatives are to elevate ALL of it so conventional development can happen (VERY expensive) or build levees (cheaper, but uglier, imo) or do nothing (and leave the land to railroad tracks and warehouses).

    A mix of stadiums, parks and garages seems to me like a pretty good way to attack the challenge of developing a floodplain. It’s not the only way, true. But it’s the hand the voters opted to play and, all things considered, it makes sens to me.
23. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    (BTW, the new Giants/Jets stadium in suburban New Jersey costs almost as much as the new urban Yankee stadium so it ain’t just the urban setting that explains the math. And the new suburban Cowboys stadium costs even more. New stadiums cost a LOT….is it worth it? Maybe not. The alternative? Let the Bengals and/or Reds leave. That’s always the choice.)
24. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    The stadiums do NOT fix FWW “in stone.”

    FWW would exist if there were no stadiums at all, if there were no “The Banks” at all, if there were no riverfront development.

    FWW was there before sports were on the riverfront and will be there regardless. Look at the relationship between I71, I75, I471….FWW is a key link in that array.
25. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    I just don’t know Cincinnati well, but honestly your arguments make it look like a pretty tragic backward place.

    I know you have limited space there. Is it really good to have a bunch of highway interchanges almost in the center of town?

    This is better than what San Francisco has? Really? I mean being proud about carrying more cars isn’t exactly what is wise. With transit, or walking or bikes for the most part, the infrastructure is the end of your cost. With cars it’s just the start. The proof seems to be in the pudding here, since your downtown seems to be cut off and surrounded by parking lots.Just look past the stadiums and what’s there?

    I would imagine you had some shot at just having a street level Blvd.If the stadiums were not there.

    The whole town only has 79 square miles of real estate and faces the same hill issues Pittsburgh ha so this kind of situation seems very unsustainable.
26. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    No, it’s not “tragic backwards” at all. What Cincinnati has is what most cities have: major transportation infrastructure along its waterfront.

    Of course that’s what any city would have: the waterfront is the seat of commerce and with commerce comes transportation. A seaside port, a riverfront, a confluence of two waterways…..whatever it is, historically, commerce starts at the water.

    What Cincinnati — and many cities — is trying to do is re-purpose that riverfront into something other than railroads and warehouses, into something more modern, more multi-purpose, while STILL retaining the basic riverfront character: a natural bank, a floodplain, nothing engineered with levees and artificial channels.

    It’s ambitious, it’s expensive, it’s controversial. But it’s not “surrounded by parking lots.” Far from it. Parking is out of sight, in below-the-floodplain garages. Development is on top, connected to the traditional downtown with a re-aligned street grid expressly configured to reconnect the City to the riverfront.

    There are not “a bunch of highway interchanges downtown.” One of the accomplishments of the new FWW was to eliminate interchanges and make the road have LESS of a footprint — much less — on the city and the riverfront than it had before.

    You really should visit and inform your opinion with some up close observations.
27. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Idon’t even drive. someday, I may come by since it is pretty close.

    If you look at the top part of the second picture what you see is a knot of interchanges and onramps, then some parking and low warehouse or factory buildings.

    It’s kind of funny, NYC is a top tier global trading city and it’s waterfront doesn’t look like that anymore. What excuse does Cincinnati have?

    I mean, you get what you design for which in your case seems to be a quick zip in and out of town. Seems you are a sucker to live in town.
28. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    It’s absurd to make serious comparisons with 1980. The question is how this compares with best practices now and how well it’s working out.
29. The Urbanophile says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    John Morris, been to NYC and taken a drive down FDR lately?
30. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    I actually think the FDR drive is smaller than what’s shown here. Also, there are no interchanges and ramps of the type being shown here. Not until you get to the Bronx (and we know how well that has worked)

    Also, the west side, now has a big street and that’s about it, at least in the main central and lower part of Manhattan.
31. John Morris says:

    July 13, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    For comparison, NYC has over 8 million people in a metro area of over 20 million and Cincinnati less than 350,000 in a metroof a bit more than 2 million.

    Even with congestion pricing and an improved transit system, some highway is likey required. How Cincinnati needs all this, I don’t know.
32. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 5:47 am

    It’s not about comparing to “1980″ it’s about comparing the historic footprint of FWW to the re-designed footprint. It’s about re-developing the city’s front porch not from a blank piece of paper but by dealing with what is there and can’t be moved (eg, the I-71/75 corridor to the west and I-471 to the east).

    First, you seem to think FWW is unnecessary. Maybe so — maybe it could have been elimminated entirely — but that was not the decision. Rather, the decision was made to retain that major east-west artery, relocate it below grade (and perhaps eventually cover as many as four blocks of it).

    Second, at the same time it was being buried below grade, it would also have greater capacity while taking a much smaller footprint. Here, see how much smaller:

    http://webpages.charter.net/mgmccarthy/2000.html

    Third, again, the riverfront IS A FLOODPLAIN. The city itself was built many blocks inland (north) of the floodplain, and a FWW was subsequently built between the city and the floodplain. That’s historical fact.

    Riverfront re-development — in the 90s, when this plan was developed — was about reconfiguring FWW to have a much smaller footprint below grade, engineering flood tolerant structures in the floodplain itself, extending the downtown street grid to the river (by going over the now-below-grade FWW) and preserving the natural riverbank (and the natural flood plain).

    Here, a plan from 1939 –

    http://www.cincinnati-transit.net/fww-map-1.jpg

    Here, FWW from 1961, looking west –

    http://www.ci.cincinnati.oh.us/transeng/images/transeng_img7188.jpg

    FWW now takes a 40% smaller footprint, handles more traffic, is safer, is quieter, and is no longer cuts off the city from the riverbank.
33. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 6:03 am

    The comparisons to NYC aren’t particularly relevant.

    Cincinnati, unlike NYC, is along a major east-west river and is intersected by a major north-south freeway (I-75 is one of the busiest freeways of the entire interstate system). The city is a transportation crossroad with huge traffic volumes passing through it. That’s not really NYC’s situation.

    FDR is 8 miles long. FDR doesn’t even allow commercial traffic….no trucks and only a couple sections allows buses. FWW is only about a mile — an intense coming together of roads and river along a short stretch on the city’s front porch.

    And, the City’s front porch is a flood plain.
34. Randy A. Simes says:

    July 14, 2010 at 6:50 am

    I must have done a terrible job communicating what has actually taken place, because the discussion here in the comments has gone all over the place and is no longer in the realms of reality of what I discussed in the article, or what has taken in real place. Lets clear up a few things:

    1) The reconstruction of FWW dramatically REDUCED its footprint and the interchanges from what was there before.

    2) The billions of investment do include stadiums, but it also represents the major flood controls now in place, a major combined sewer overflow fix, underground transit center, underground parking decks.

    3) The Banks will include 3 million square-feet of Class A office space, up to 1,800 residential units, a hotel, and thousands of square feet of street-level retail space. If you wish to deny the fact that this will happen so that you can support your own argument then fine, but do realize the development is rising out of the ground as you speak.

    4) While stadiums do not bring much spin off development, they do bring business. Ask a restaurant or bar owner in the downtown area their opinion on it and you’ll get a definitive response. It is also no coincidence that the first phase of The Banks is starting next to Great American Ball Park where 81 home games are held each year that attract millions of fans.

    5) The interchanges seen at the top of the daytime rendering will be addressed as I-75 and the Brent Spence Bridge are rebuilt over the next decade. Those projects are currently underway and were not a part of this central riverfront redevelopment. Had the reconfiguration of those ramps been included you would have opened a can of worms and been forced to deal with a litany of issues facing the reconstruction of I-75…thus adding enormous costs to the already major endeavor.

    6) The reason this was compared to 1980 (instead of “best practices” of today) is because the effort to transform Cincinnati’s central riverfront began at that time. So the point is to show what it looked like at the beginning, and what it looks like now. Not sure why that’s complicated to understand. But with that said, the incorporation of a modern streetcar line, bicycle commuter station, underground parking, mixed-use development built to the street in an urban location, and the incorporation of high quality park space all constitute “best practices” of large-scale urban development to me. Is it just the stadiums that give you heartburn Mr. Morris?
35. Randy A. Simes says:

    July 14, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Think of the flood plain issue in this way…

    Prior to the reconstruction of FWW, the Ohio River would flood all the way to the Central Business District. Now the river is held back from that point. Prior to the construction of The Banks, the Ohio River would flood all the way to the walls of FWW. Now the river will only flood to Mehring Way and only impact the new Cincinnati Riverfront Park.

    So the net result has been a gradual extension of Cincinnati’s downtown by several blocks towards the river. This area used to be developed but would habitually flood. The area is once again developed, but is safely out of the flood plain in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.
36. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 7:20 am

    One quibble. The river can still flood all the way to FWW, including flooding the Transportation Center under 2nd St. The floodwall is still on the south side of FWW.

    The parking garages can flood, in a worst case situation. In most floods, only the park and Mehring Way will flood. In a severe flood, the waters will go farther north stopping at FWW (but!, everything on top of the garages — all the new development, the Freedom Center, the elevated street grid — will be up and above even a severe flood).

    I don’t think you’ve done a “terrible job.” What I think needs to be emphasized is the tremendous engineering that took place to, one, preserve the natural shoreline, two, enhance FWW’s traffic-handling capacity while making it far less obtrusive to the City’s front porch and, three, invest in hidden infrastructure for possible future use (the Transportation Center, the piles already driven and ready to support decks over FWW one day).

    Too many people complain that KY has developed faster than “The Banks” and condemn Cincinnati accordingly. Well, sure, build an ugly levee, cut off the city from the river and, yes, you can develop on top of those levees in a hurry. Cincinnati tried something much more difficult, expensive and time-consuming. The result will be much more satisfying.

    (Lastly, I hope my comment from 5:47AM this morning gets released by the moderator soon. I included some before/after photos of FWW which show what a huge improvement has been made since FWW was reconfigured.)
37. Randy A. Simes says:

    July 14, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Thanks for all of those images Mike. The 1997/2000 before and after illustration is quite profound.

    In case you missed it:
    http://webpages.charter.net/mgmccarthy/1997.html
38. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Randy, you should notice the red circle I added to the pictures. That’s the tight radius turn where the new FWW connects to the old I-71 at the Lytle tunnel. That’s where a lot of accidents occurred until finally everyone realized that big signs and flashing lights are not as effective as rumble strips on the pavement which gives drivers a visceral cue to slow down.

    As you also know, the reason that radius is so tight is that the voters decided to “wedge” the Great American Ball Park on the riverfront (rather than locating it at Broadway Commons) and the tight squeeze thereby required a less-than-ideal radius at the turn. Before the rumble strips there would be accidents every few months, if not more frequently, typically involving 18-wheelers tipping over.

    Anyway, if you click back and forth on “1997′ and “2000″ links, and watch the red circle I added, you can see the radius to that turn tighten dramatically.

    http://webpages.charter.net/mgmccarthy/1997.html
39. John Morris says:

    July 14, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Um, So the Kentucky side has developed faster. That is interesting since the whole design and cost (THE Cost has a lot to do with my thoughts)creates a situation that makes it more rational to live and develop in Kentucky.

    Look, I really don’t know what to say.Likely, it is very, very, very bad for Cincinnati that these interstates run through town. There really is a disconnect between the type of old urbanist type city it had the bones to be and the traffic flow cutting and dumping into town.

    Perhaps, I am very spaced out and unrealistic, but 3 billion dollars were spent here and the car oriented impact has not been toned down.

    Yes, it is less visible at the current loads, but if you really have made it easier to drive in and out or pass through town, these loads are likely to increase. The impact of these cars will continue to undermine urban life.You will have more peak traffic loads, and a higher need for parking.

    As I said, perhaps this is just too unrealistic and these highways can never be moved. However, this development has just reinforced something bad and something that’s just not in line with an urban future for Cincinnati.
40. Randy A. Simes says:

    July 14, 2010 at 9:49 am

    John:

    Your comments just don’t make sense. Have you been to Cincinnati recently? Have you seen the transformation first-hand from what it was like 20-30 years ago to what it is today? The reason I ask is because you are making a lot of authoritative comments that don’t seem to have this support.

    To say that the developments outlined here are “not in line with an urban future for Cincinnati” is outrageous. A highway was dramatically reduced in size and buried, a mixed-use urban neighborhood is being built, a multi-modal transit facility was built, a modern streetcar will soon pass through the site, flood problems were mitigated, combined sewer overflow problems were solved, a downtown was extended to its riverfront, a massive riverfront park was developed, and all this was done without negatively affecting the natural shoreline of the Ohio River through one of the most difficult stretches to navigate for barges.

    You are right that I-75 and I-71 have not been removed, but those are different issues for another day. I also do not see I-75, arguably the most important transportation corridors in the nation, being removed anytime soon. Also, while the stadiums were built, at least they were built in an urban context that will allow for mixed-use development to shoulder up right next to their front doors.
41. Quimbob says:

    July 14, 2010 at 9:57 am

    This is generally in response to Mr Morris’ comments.
    As this was one of the earliest developed areas of Cincinnati, any article starting in 1980 isn’t going to answer all the questions. The fact is, planners & leaders had to deal with what they had & also deal with technology & political realities as they moved forward.
    The football stadium replaced an existing football/baseball stadium.
    There is a park to the east of the developing area that is a lot like what Mr Morris would seem to like.
    A council-person did suggest that the platforms be built in stages which would have resulted in more organic evolution of The Banks area but politics got in the way.
    As far as stadium parking, I do not know, is there a net gain, loss or no change with the changes going on? Express bus routes can carry people to the Transit Center from outlying areas for sports & entertainment events.
42. John Morris says:

    July 14, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I think a good topic for a post might actually be a comparison between cites with major interstates passing through the heart of town (Like Cleveland) and cities without them.

    It’s not about liking or not liking cars. This has to do with the impact on urban life and urban development.
43. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 10:34 am

    John, you seem to be imagining a Utopian city built from fresh sheet of paper. Cincinnati is a crossroads city, literally in existence because of an east-west running river and north-south trade routes dating back to tribal hunters.

    Yes, a purely pedestrian city, friendly to bikes and mothers pushing baby carriages, would be nice. But Cincinnati has a history, a history of riverfront commerce and transportation in all directions. Any reconfiguration of the City is not going to — nor should it — erase that past. City developers stand on the shoulders of those that came before them.

    Interstates run through the city, and the effects of that can be mitigated (FWW being a stellar example of freeway mitigation).

    Rivers will flood, and throwing up a bunch of dirt mound levees — as KY did — is one way to mitigate flooding, but Cincinnati is doing it better (at more cost, and taking a lot longer, but it will be worth it).

    You keep referencing “urban life” but it sounds like you are really describing something more akin to “campus life” — pedestrians and bicycles, dogs chasing frisbees, folks stopping to have lunch with friends at a sidewalk cafe, everything within walking distance.

    That’s all very nice, but it’s not likely to emerge from a 300-year-old city with a history of river-based commerce that was — and still is — among the most active crossroads of the Midwest.
44. John Morris says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Well, yes, I guess it’s “campus life”, although if you can’t do these things easiliy, why exactly would you live in town? What exactly is the function of a downtown area if it doesn’t do that well?

    That is the question. If you are a person or family actually living in or near the downtown, how would the stadiums impact your life? the same for a business.

    The big question here is going to ultimately be the effect on what you have done on people’s decisions to live, and operate businesses in the city. In the city–that is your tax base and this is also why the cost can’t be shoved aside either.

    “Stop the we stand on the shoulders of giants junk.” In reality, I’m sure the a real return to the city’s history would involve a return to river and rail as the primary factors in the city along with pedestrians and streetcars.

    As I have said before, the jury is still out on this. Let’s see the Banks not just built but filled up. Let’s see actual people living in the downtown–lots of people.

    So far, my guess is good things will happen across the river in Kentucky.

    Lot’s of details are missing here.Who paid for what and what impact has this had on the city’s finances? What further subsidies if any will be required in the future? Is this new parking supply replacing or adding to the downtown’s existing supply?

    Anyway, I seem snarky, but I think this post fills in a lot of the questions I have about Cincinnati, that were raised in Aaron’s post.
45. The Urbanophile says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:14 am

    John, you have some incredibly specific idea in mind of what a good urban place is, and you expect everywhere to conform to it. Not everyplace is a Brooklyn neighborhood. Real cities have regional gathering spots that are special functions. Dittos for central business districts, airports, etc. Also, cities are different from each other in many ways. Cincinnati’s riverfront is never going to be your idealized version of the perfect Pittsburgh neighborhood, just like Chicago’s lakefront is not, New York’s east river frontage, etc.
46. Randy A. Simes says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:17 am

    John said, “Lot’s of details are missing here. Who paid for what and what impact has this had on the city’s finances? What further subsidies if any will be required in the future? Is this new parking supply replacing or adding to the downtown’s existing supply?”

    A combination of city, state and federal money paid for the public infrastructure – underground parking decks, streets, FWW and some of the new park. The stadiums are being paid for by a county-wide sales tax. So the problems being faced with stadium debt are county-wide problems. FWW was built on-time and on-budget. The public infrastructure at The Banks has been built on-time and UNDER-budget thus far. The park is on-time and on-budget.

    No more subsidies will be needed, as the rest of the development from here on out will come from private investment which will be aided by a TIF district. The park is progressing on a pay-as-you-go basis and will only move forwarded once public (federal) and private money is in place.

    The new parking decks are both replacing and adding to the supply. The parking lots that were once there are being replaced, but additional parking is being created for the 3 million square-feet of Class A office space, 1,800 residential units, hotel, and thousands of square feet of street-level retail space being created.

    If you want all of this information and more, simply visit the links included in the article that bring you to the project websites. The information is readily available for you to review.
47. John Morris says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:31 am

    So if you live across the river in Kentucky, you don’t have to pay for the stadiums? Youalso have a shot at having an area develop without these peak traffic issues.

    What are the prospects in Kentucky? They sound better than in Cincy.
48. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

    I’ll second Urbanophile and Randy’s remarks…Cincinnati is a unique place, and not every urban renewal project is going to look the same (and I didn’t say “shoulders of giants” I just said shoulders).

    As far as the timeline and budget are concerned, appreciate that this stuff has been in the news for 15 years, the mid-90s, and has been mentioned before the current “rehab of the riverfront” dates back to the 80s. (And, there have been riverfront rehab plans in the 1920s and 1940s, too…..the current plan is not the first and won’t be the last.)

    Here’s a timeline for the current process:

    TIMELINE (these things were done on time as planned):

    First riverfront development studies done 1996
    Voters choose Reds riverfront location 1998
    Paul Brown Stadium done 2000
    Floodwall and new city sewer main done 2001
    Fort Washington Way realigned below floodplain 2002
    2nd Street elevated above the flood plain 2002
    Intermodal Transportation Center mass transit hub done 2002
    Great American Ball Park done 2003
    Freedom Center done 2004

    These things fell behind original schedule:

    Phase 1 of “The Banks” was to be done 2005
    45 acre Riverfront Park was to be done 2005

    TIF financing for the parking garages required to provide an elevated platform for commercial development on “The Banks” stalled. Now, with funding finally available, construction of Phase 1 is well underway.

    These final phases — ie, “The Banks” and the riverfront park — are about 6 years behind schedule, but they are still proceeding and are just about to be finished.

    That these final phases are finishing at all is rather amazing given that the economy crashed and other TIF-based projects came to virtually a complete halt (see Clifton Heights and the north boundary of UC).

    In any case, riverfront redevelopment has been in the news for over 15 years now, and much of the “news” has been, one, griping about the stadiums (and that happens no matter where stadiums are build) and, two, that the project is taking “so long, and nothing is happening.”

    I originally chimed in with a recount of the INFRASTRUCTURE items that — being the area is a floodplain — had been underway for a decade and were not behind schedule or over budget. The public is not excited by sewer mains and floodwalls and street grid realignment but those things are REQUIERED before anything can happen, and those things were built, and very successfully.

    Now, can “The Banks” succeed? A new neighborhood, on top of a new flood-tolerant infrastructure that retains the natural river? We’ll see.

    John, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say “KY did it faster” and then in the same breath advocate a more natural re-imagining of the urban experience. KY slapped up dirt mounds and terra-engineered their entire riverfront. That’s pretty old-school, wouldn’t you say?

    Cincinnati, otoh, is preserving the traditional riverfront shoreline, hiding cars in underground parking, burying a major freeway below grade, extending a the street grid from downtown, and designing a neighborhood not based on the car alone but also on other transportation including pedestrian, given the neighborhood is going to be mixed use. Isn’t that in sync with the :”new urbana” you are advocating?
49. Mike McCarthy says:

    July 14, 2010 at 11:41 am

    sorry — meant to say the SOUTH boundary of UC is a stalled TIF-financed project.
50. Brad Thomas says:

    July 14, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    I wrote this post on how the streetcar and the Banks will benefit one another- http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/the-streetcar-will-be-great-for-the-banks/