U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-02-2012, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,952,180 times
Reputation: 691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Hall View Post
I would simply have everyone pay their own way, which they haven't done for decades, and let the chips fall where they may. Of course, they would fall closer to the center without the massive subsidization of mortgage interest deductions, fannie mae, roads built with non-gas tax money. If you want more space, you should have to pay for it yourself. If you can't afford it, too bad. I shouldn't have to pay for your new roads, sewers, etc. while I never use them.
Why should all Cincinnatians pay for a streetcar that will only benefit a few? Why should I help pay for two sports behemoths on the riverfront if I'm not going to use/visit them? (You DO realize that ANYONE who shops in Hamilton County is helping to pay for them, don't you?) Why should the U.S. military protect you if you don't want to help pay for the interstate system that is used to transport military equipment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilworms2 View Post
No one has properly addressed the 1.9 million, (though Cincinnati's MSA is more like 2.1 million (City data's info is different than Wikipedias and doesn't have the 2010 census - Cincinnati)
Actually, I thought it was closer to 2.2 million in the metro area now...? Anyway, the 1.9 million I referenced was to the extra people who live outside the city limits. There are only about 297,000 (give or take a few hundred) within the Cincinnati city limits, so I was basically doing rough math in my head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2012, 10:08 PM
 
800 posts, read 697,224 times
Reputation: 552
>Why should all Cincinnatians pay for a streetcar that will only benefit a few?

First of all, only 1/4 of the capital expense is being paid by all Cincinnatians as ordinary municipal bonds repaid by the capital budget, and that sum will be spent on the downtown section of the streetcar. The OTR section is being paid for in large part by the OTR TIF district, which behaves much like a property tax assessment (the downtown and Banks TIF districts are already funding other projects).

As for the federal funds, if they weren't coming to Cincinnati, Cincinnatians would still be paying for that grant. It would just be getting spent on some other city to beat us, as has happened for public transportation projects since the UMTA was passed in 1970. In 2002 during Metro Moves, it was calculated that Cincinnatians were only getting 80 cents back for every dollar in transit grants. So WE paid for MARTA, BART, the Washington Metro, and dozens of other rail projects around the country and got nothing in return.


>Why should I help pay for two sports behemoths on the riverfront if I'm not going to use/visit them? (You DO realize that ANYONE who shops in Hamilton County is helping to pay for them, don't you?)

What is your point?


>Why should the U.S. military protect you if you don't want to help pay for the interstate system that is used to transport military equipment?

Hardly any military equipment is transported on the interstates. You probably believe every fifth mile is a runway, too. Or that Eisenhower got the idea from the Germans. That was all a put-on to sell what amounts to the most disastrous piece of domestic legislation of the postwar era -- the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The interstates destroyed our cities, made Americans fat, and forced us to go to Iraq twice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2012, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Oxford, Ohio
901 posts, read 1,952,180 times
Reputation: 691
I'll use the quote tags to make it easier for you to discern your comments from my responses. It would actually be nice if you could do the same thing in the future to save me the headache of weeding through your responses. If you don't KNOW how to use the quote tags, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to quote anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post

As for the federal funds, if they weren't coming to Cincinnati, Cincinnatians would still be paying for that grant. It would just be getting spent on some other city to beat us, as has happened for public transportation projects since the UMTA was passed in 1970. In 2002 during Metro Moves, it was calculated that Cincinnatians were only getting 80 cents back for every dollar in transit grants. So WE paid for MARTA, BART, the Washington Metro, and dozens of other rail projects around the country and got nothing in return.
You actually just contributed to my point. Where do you think all those federal funds came from? Hmmm...yeah, that's right. The U.S. taxpayer. Which means people who WON'T benefit from the streetcars still had their tax money used to PAY for it....just like we ALL had to pay for other rail projects across the country, and just like we all had to pay for the interstate system which benefits Matthew Hall, whether he chooses to believe that or not. And since the whole point he was trying to make is that he shouldn't have to pay for something he doesn't use, then it seems like he hasn't clearly thought out the argument he's trying to make. Clearly he has had to pay for things he doesn't use. Or else the next time he decides to use a public restroom outside the city limits, he should have to cough up a little money for maintenance to the sewer system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post

What is your point?
You mean you can't figure out what my point is?? It amazes me that I should have to explain it, but okay....

If we shouldn't have to pay for something that we don't use, then why do I have to cough up that extra .5% in sales tax to pay for the stadiums when I shop inside Hamilton County? I don't use them....in fact, I refuse to step one foot in them. And they certainly don't benefit ME up here in Oxford by being INSIDE the Cincinnati city limits 40 miles away on the Ohio River.

I'll once again point out that the subject at hand is about whether or not we should pay for something we don't use, and thus doesn't benefit us.

Hope I made the point clearer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Hardly any military equipment is transported on the interstates. You probably believe every fifth mile is a runway, too. Or that Eisenhower got the idea from the Germans. That was all a put-on to sell what amounts to the most disastrous piece of domestic legislation of the postwar era -- the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The interstates destroyed our cities, made Americans fat, and forced us to go to Iraq twice.
We haven't fought any modern wars on American soil, so there really hasn't been any need to transport troops. BUT, yes I have seen military equipment being transported on the interstates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 09:50 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,838,730 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilworms2 View Post
No one has properly addressed the 1.9 million, (though Cincinnati's MSA is more like 2.1 million (City data's info is different than Wikipedias and doesn't have the 2010 census - Cincinnati)

Cincinnati would look something like this:
Vancouver City - YouTube - though obviously without the beautiful Pac Northwest nature surrounding it. Here's a bit more intimate look at what Vancover looks like:
Vancouver - city life West End, Stanley Park, Coal Harbour - YouTube

Vancouver is a good comparison for an ultra dense version of Cincinnati as its MSA has 2.1 million as well - Vancouver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even then Vancouver as 600,000 people living in its city limits, so basically there would need to be even MORE highrises than are shown here. OTR would be completely refilled, and I'd say that Queensgate and anywhere where there is a surface lot in or around downtown would be a residential skyscraper ala the main area of Vancouver - and Queensgate would be a good place for this because, well it was kind of destroyed mid-centruy when neighborhoods like Kenyon-Barr and Liberty-Dalton were torn down for a cheap low rate industrial park.

I don't think all 2.1 million people of the Cincinnati MSA would move into Cincinnati if Cincy never experienced white flight en mass, but I could very well see Cincy looking a lot more like Vancouver with a population of 600-800 thousand people. To facilitate this kind of density though there would need to be an excellent transit system consisting of buses and trains, the unused subway would be actually used, and there would be lines going throughout the city. Also there is NO WAY if Cincinnati were that dense would everyone be living in tenement style housing, there has been quite a bit of technological advancement since the 1800s in terms of buildings to house high density population, and as much as I love the old architecture that wouldn't be an ideal way of housing that density.

I'm hoping OTR gets around the 15,000 ppl/sq mile, because while that's dense, it would be reasonably comfortable living without being too cramped in the buildings that were designed for 2x that density. The neighborhood I live in Chicago is about that dense, but with a lot more detached single family houses chopped up into apartments (including "Garden Units" which is a euphemism for basement apartments) - I wouldn't be surprised if my neighborhood was originally designed for lower destiny than it has now... so in Cincy's case it would be the opposite way around.
But no one is going to address it because no one ever said move everyone in from the suburbs to the city. Cincinnati never once reached 1.9 million people. It's infrastructure was built for what, 600,000? Similar to Vancouver's population today. But Cincinnati and Vancouver are two completely different cities. I also don't think Cincinnati could look like Vancouver because Cincinnati's topography (in the city limits) is much more distracting to development. Think, Pedelton (spelling) and OTR stretch all the way to the hills and when you are in the neighborhoods on the hills and look down on the city, it is very densely built. You have the CBD up by the river, and the neighborhoods back to the north. That's how the city originally looked well into its peak, so tearing all that down for the sake of shiny new glass towers would just be wrong. Cincinnati is is well known for its classic architecture is this very area I described. Good comparison though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,838,730 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinciFan View Post
Just out of curiosity, what is the current densest neighborhood in the city, and what is it's people per square mile? Downtown?

Neilworms, I completely agree that packing all of Cincinnati's metro population into the city limits is impractical. While Vancouver looks like a very nice city, I think I would rather have the building stock we have now (which has character), as opposed to having glass skyscrapers everywhere (and the level of density that comes with it).

By the way, I love seeing the pictures you post on Urban Ohio showing the infill in Chicago. There are a lot of empty lots in OTR, and although Mercer Commons may not be the best fit for the neighborhood (though still a very welcome improvement), I am holding out hope that the infill in Cincinnati will reach that level of quality sooner rather than later.
Chicago has great quality development in certain neighborhoods, but I would take Cincinnati's architecture over Chicago's any day of the year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 10:15 PM
 
800 posts, read 697,224 times
Reputation: 552
>You actually just contributed to my point. Where do you think all those federal funds came from? Hmmm...yeah, that's right. The U.S. taxpayer

No, you just contributed to my point -- which is this superstitious Reagan + post-Reagan fixation on taxes, and the notion that somehow the United States as we know it could function better with lower taxes, when there's no way it could, and in fact taxes should have been higher for the past 30 years. The country should have been preparing since the Oil Crisis for Peak Oil, and should be now, but instead we have the anti-tax clowns -- who unknowingly are shills for the auto and oil industries -- putting truth on the defensive. The money spent in Iraq and bailing out GM could have been built building subway systems in every city and TGV-style trains between them. Then we wouldn't need the huge military and deficit spending to get the oil. We wouldn't have to kill a bunch of people, either.

With the obvious exception of Detroit, Cincinnati is one of the last holdouts in the entire country -- once a midwestern city this side of Chicago has rail, Indy, Columbus, and Louisville will quickly follow suit. Then finally we will have a nation that demands the federal money that should have been accelerated under Reagan (instead of signing a new UMTA, he cut spending deeper than it was before 1970). Ohio is the tipping point with this -- Kasich's indefensible rejection of the 3c's funds was not just a loss for Ohio, but the entire nation.

This is why the streetcar is so important. It's the first step on getting regional rail in Cincinnati, which will be transformative for the city, and by swaying Ohio's voting, will have national ramifications.


>If we shouldn't have to pay for something that we don't use,

Why didn't you bring up astronaut food (oh, I guess you use it). There's absolutely no way you can assert that having the Reds and Bengals does not help the image of this region. Companies spend money to improve their image all the time. Don't you want government to behave like a business?

>We haven't fought any modern wars on American soil, so there really hasn't been any need to transport troops.

The sections of the Autobahn that existed during WWII weren't of any military use. Look it up.

>BUT, yes I have seen military equipment being transported on the interstates.

Yeah, like recruiters driving their Nissan Sentras to work. No heavy equipment is transported on the interstate highways with any regularity. I have photographs of trains of humvees coming through Cincinnati. All the uranium that went to Fernald was shipped by rail. In the event of a land invasion of the United States, all of the overpasses would be blown up by retreating forces, as would the railroad bridges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,838,730 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
>You actually just contributed to my point. Where do you think all those federal funds came from? Hmmm...yeah, that's right. The U.S. taxpayer

No, you just contributed to my point -- which is this superstitious Reagan + post-Reagan fixation on taxes, and the notion that somehow the United States as we know it could function better with lower taxes, when there's no way it could, and in fact taxes should have been higher for the past 30 years. The country should have been preparing since the Oil Crisis for Peak Oil, and should be now, but instead we have the anti-tax clowns -- who unknowingly are shills for the auto and oil industries -- putting truth on the defensive. The money spent in Iraq and bailing out GM could have been built building subway systems in every city and TGV-style trains between them. Then we wouldn't need the huge military and deficit spending to get the oil. We wouldn't have to kill a bunch of people, either.

With the obvious exception of Detroit, Cincinnati is one of the last holdouts in the entire country -- once a midwestern city this side of Chicago has rail, Indy, Columbus, and Louisville will quickly follow suit. Then finally we will have a nation that demands the federal money that should have been accelerated under Reagan (instead of signing a new UMTA, he cut spending deeper than it was before 1970). Ohio is the tipping point with this -- Kasich's indefensible rejection of the 3c's funds was not just a loss for Ohio, but the entire nation.

This is why the streetcar is so important. It's the first step on getting regional rail in Cincinnati, which will be transformative for the city, and by swaying Ohio's voting, will have national ramifications.


>If we shouldn't have to pay for something that we don't use,

Why didn't you bring up astronaut food (oh, I guess you use it). There's absolutely no way you can assert that having the Reds and Bengals does not help the image of this region. Companies spend money to improve their image all the time. Don't you want government to behave like a business?

>We haven't fought any modern wars on American soil, so there really hasn't been any need to transport troops.

The sections of the Autobahn that existed during WWII weren't of any military use. Look it up.

>BUT, yes I have seen military equipment being transported on the interstates.

Yeah, like recruiters driving their Nissan Sentras to work. No heavy equipment is transported on the interstate highways with any regularity. I have photographs of trains of humvees coming through Cincinnati. All the uranium that went to Fernald was shipped by rail. In the event of a land invasion of the United States, all of the overpasses would be blown up by retreating forces, as would the railroad bridges.
Being from Indianapolis, I think it is too backwards to bring in rail anytime soon. That city is in love with its freeway network and the talk of buses there is more annoying than Cincinnati.

I agree though, the loss of Ohio's 3C Corridor was a loss to the United States or at least the Northeast and Great Lakes region due to the fact that Ohio is the corridor linking the two.

I hope the streetcar down the road not only expands, but brings in heavy and light rail to Cincinnati and its suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
477 posts, read 530,092 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
But no one is going to address it because no one ever said move everyone in from the suburbs to the city. Cincinnati never once reached 1.9 million people. It's infrastructure was built for what, 600,000? Similar to Vancouver's population today. But Cincinnati and Vancouver are two completely different cities. I also don't think Cincinnati could look like Vancouver because Cincinnati's topography (in the city limits) is much more distracting to development. Think, Pedelton (spelling) and OTR stretch all the way to the hills and when you are in the neighborhoods on the hills and look down on the city, it is very densely built. You have the CBD up by the river, and the neighborhoods back to the north. That's how the city originally looked well into its peak, so tearing all that down for the sake of shiny new glass towers would just be wrong. Cincinnati is is well known for its classic architecture is this very area I described. Good comparison though.
According to Wikipeidia Cincinnati the city itself peaked at 503,998 as of 2006 Vancouver is 578,041 (though current estimates place it around 640,000 people, which IMO given Vancouver's growth probably is accurate). So Cincinnati if you were to rebuild all the neighborhoods lost to the mid-century anti-urban bs (the old West End, the Flats on the Ohio River, the Lower areas of Bucktown/Mt. Adams) it would be capable of holding about 500,000 people. I think if that were still the case there would be pressure due to growth for it to build upward slowly, and there would be a mix of high rises and dense tenements, like a mini New York City in a way. It wouldn't quite be the same as Vancouver. If there wouldn't be at least some highrises we'd get into the problem of San Francisco, where their really needs to be a part of town set aside for dense high rise construction to releave high property values - it would have to be away from the historic areas or in a derelict wherehouse district though (probably the 1950s rowhouse neighborhoods, yes San Fran actually has these! - San Francisco, CA - Google Maps - Or in SOMA where all the derelict warehouses are (which they are redevelpoing, but I think they should go up, but there is a fear in SF of Manhattanization killing the city - soma san francisco - Google Maps)

If the neighborhoods were destroyed post-war and we were to suddenly force everyone into Cicninnati in its current state, I could see Queensgate and the banks being a highrise district ala the downtown of Vancouver and OTR being more a dense lowrise district, with tons of old buildings rehabbed that was kind of the vision I was seeing in my head.


MODS: Feel free to break this off into a different topic with a title like Cincinnati and maximum density or something like that if you think its getting too off-topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2012, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
477 posts, read 530,092 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Chicago has great quality development in certain neighborhoods, but I would take Cincinnati's architecture over Chicago's any day of the year.
Its more complex than that. Cincinnati in terms of old neighborhood architecture, hands down beats Chicago. There is no neighborhood left in Chicago that is as charming and intimate as a restored OTR could be. On the flip side Chicago does monumental buildings much better, the entirety of the Loop Cincy could never in a million years compare, with buildings like the CBOT Building, the Hancock Tower, the Sears Tower etc.

Another area that Chicago does better in (though not all the time there are tons of horrible cinderblock boxes too) is infill, there is a lot of high quality urban infill, while not all of it is perfect, much of it fools people who don't have an eye for such things into thinking its old. They've really mastered balancing economy and elegant faux historic design. The post-modern/ultra mod stuff is very nice too on a pretty consistent basis.

So in short Cincinnati's historic neighborhood architecture is what really kills Chicago, its part of why we should work hard to preserve it. The Streetcar is a way to allow the kinds of investment to flow to these neighborhoods. Seriously guys there are only 3 other US cities I've been to that compare to Cincy on this metric, San Francisco (a different way though), Boston, and NYC/Northern New Jersey (particularly Hoboken or Brooklyn).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2012, 09:28 AM
 
465 posts, read 356,375 times
Reputation: 129
don't forget the wind. Chicago has lots of wind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top