Jump to content

thebillshark

Key Tower 947'
  • Content Count

    1,514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

Converted

  • Website
    www.cincinnatiideas.com

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The city or park board (whoever is in charge of it) should develop the Sawyer Point parking lot next door to this on the east side of the purple people bridge. They could dedicate one or two floors to public parking for the park but then have parking for apartments and apartments above that.
  2. Right! How many millions are we spending on this design just to keep that part of the project. Could we avoid moving the substation (maybe ~$10 million) or avoid building a double decker Viaduct (maybe ~$100 million?) And how much would it actually slow a few people down to make a few turns to proceed on to McMillan? 1 or 2 minutes? It’s a cost that if it was actually transferred onto the drivers benefitting they could never pay it. Would “Uptown stakeholders” throw a fit?
  3. True, I used it all the time when I lived in OTR. But in my plan Winchell still exists but the on-ramp is simply moved one block north. I think that’s a good compromise in exchange for having a full highway interchange accessible for the West End there.
  4. Why is the current plan the way it is? Well, engineers start off with requirements. I believe one of the requirements of this project was to maintain a connection to McMillan Street. Once you do away with that requirement, possibilities open up. But the engineers aren't supposed to question the requirements. How much more expensive will this project be because of that requirement?
  5. Current Plan: Plan I created this morning that would be significantly cheaper (using a single deck bridge vs. double deck), minimize demolition including the electric substation, make the interstate interchange usable for the West End as well as the West Side, and free up over 10 acres of urban core land along Central Parkway for development:
  6. Alternatively since the highway exit spits people out over the Viaduct that part of the West End/Brighton doesn’t get any benefit from the highway exit, even though the ramps eat up a lot of land in the neighborhood. I think you could design it so that the exit is local to West End (at Harrison Ave.,) free up the current on-ramp area along Central Parkway, and have a new Viaduct at Harrison Avenue as @jwulsinsuggested on the previous page. All without slowing West Siders down considerably. But I think transportation thinking in our area is lazy and the only metrics of a project like this are increasing throughput and speed of cars. The little spreadsheet that looked at alternatives with the green-yellow-red auto-formatted cells that will drive a hundred million dollar project has already been created and has been sitting in a forgotten network folder for a few years now, with no thought given about the good trade offs that might be able to happen if someone’s existing trip is slowed by 45 seconds.
  7. Have to wonder if the Roebling, which has been closed to motor vehicles for two months, would be able to handle that amount of increased traffic
  8. Also there was talk about future expandability that we haven’t heard anything further on that since the Music Hall noise issue came out. Is this still being designed into the plans? For example the employee lot to the west between the stadium and John Street looks like it could possibly accommodate expansion? That means they would have to break up the circular canopy though.
  9. Well put and I’ll add the following: for a variety of reasons we have forgotten how and do not build buildings that are human scale, have granular footprints, drive and support pedestrian activity, and incorporate elements that add up to “character” anymore. So if these historical buildings are razed wholesale whatever replaces them is likely to feel corporate, generic, and incapable of reinventing itself or providing sustained demand once the newness wears off.
  10. I think the idea of tearing down 100+ year old historic buildings for a temporary parking lot drives me and a lot of other people in this forum insane. The historic buildings should be saved and used as a guide to shape the rest of the infill development.
  11. Toll the existing Brent Spence and use the funds to build a new, cheaper, bridge by the airport that some of the traffic could divert to.
  12. Well, we’ll see which places can execute the vision into reality. A lot of it depends on being willing and having the courage to change the roads and stroads into real streets as I allude to above. Another model out there that I think misses the mark is to have mixed use all confined to a designated area, hemmed in by high speed arterials or vast parking lots, that is not walkable from or to any other locations outside the development (for example Liberty Center)
  13. If there were a west side bridge to the airport and I-275, it would bring Delhi out of its isolation and provide the demand for mixed use development. (Side Note: that bottom rending looks like having your cake and eating it too, with lots of pedestrians walking down a wide open road with fast moving cars)
  14. The Convention Place building is actually good urbanism. Mixed use, street facing retail with sidewalk awnings. It’s definitely not the worst thing in the western half of downtown (the worst thing would be the old gym structure on the NE corner of Sixth and Elm that has an oversized skywalk across Sixth to the Millenial. And because sixth street doglegs there it feels like a tunnel and a barrier to pedestrians on Sixth.) I think Convention Place could fit well into a revitalized area if they wanted to save some millions reusing it instead of demoing.
×
×
  • Create New...